Juan Williams Fired from NPR

Of course I know Reagan's history with GE. And it was as a spokesman, not a corporate decision maker. That's my point. You overrate his role in their company. They sponsored his show and he took an interest in his sponsor, especially in his role as their "ambassador." He never ran GE. He never made corporate decisions outside of his role as their "ambassador." To translate that to having business acumen is the equivalent of saying Nick Saban's SID is now qualified to be a head coach (Jeff Purinton and Michael Bonnette might appreciate that).

I mean, let's compare that with, say, Commerce Dept. Secretary Locke. He was the director of Key Technology Inc. He was a law firm partner. Who has more practical business experience, the Commerce Dept. secretary of a White House you define as lacking practical experience or the president celebrated for his business sense?

 

NPR is more of a lifestyle choice than it is a radio station.

The fact that you are admitting that NPR has a bias is interesting.

Really for anyone who followed the NY Times did a better job than most in predicting and chronicling the financial crisis. Anyone who follow Gretchen Morgansen's work for the past 4-5 years was not surprised by what has happened.

Left leaning capitalists are greedy also.

 

Fox News says that 16 of NPR's 17 commentators lean to the liberal side, with one moderate- David Brooks.

Now in saying this, many folks will respond by shooting the messenger, blasting Fox News blah, blah, blah. Just like Hillary---husband Bill screws around with an intern, and it is Ken Starr's fault.

I just want to know why NPR is so heavily tilted toward the left in terms of its on-air commentators. Why is this so? And please don't waste anyone's time by denying this.

I find it hilarious that a left-leaning commentator who is a minority---Juan Williams----gives an honest, personal opinion that is politically incorrect and his liberal NPR bosses's heads just explode because they can't compute---just like the fembots when Austin Powers works his mojo on them.

 

Oh, Brian. Won't you please put down your shovel and climb out of the ditch you're in before it gets too deep? Continuing to dig will only make it deeper.

You still don't understand Reagan's role at GE. For one thing, they didn't sponsor his show. He hosted their show.

But, lets look at your choice of Gary Locke as an example of business experience in the Obama Cabinet.

Now, putting aside the fact that Commerce Secretary is one of the least prestigious cabinet posts, and ignoting the fact that there's no evidence that our President has ever picked his nimble "business mind," there is one fact that we can't ignore.

Gary Lock is a politician. He held his first private sector job when he was 55 years old. He was in succession, a deputy prosecutor in Kings County, then a member of the State House, then then King County Executive, and then Governor.

And, do you think he was made a partner of a law firm and given a seat on a couple of boards because of his business acumen or because of his political connections?

If this is the best you've got, you prove my point, not yours.

Keep trying if you must, but I warned you earlier that it would only get worse.

 

Clear from his diary that Reagan had a deep love and devotion to Nancy.

Reagan pretty much stuck to 3 big picture themes and it served us all well;

- Limited big goverment
- Lower personal taxes
- End Communism

He never wavered from his core beliefs

 

Oh, and Locke was President Obama's third choice for the job after New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson & New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg, so I don't think he was much interested in the business experience of his Commerce Secretary.

 

You're just so defensive you miss the point. I'll try not to be too heavy handed with it, but apparently, with someone so politically dense, one must be.

When you agree with someone, you overlook the same flaws you see in others. It's ok. Most are like that. I simply pointed it out. You pick up on the GOP talking points line on lack of corporate experience from these damn tax-and-spend, don't-understand-us democrats. Yet, many of your GOP heroes fit that description, but for them, well, being a spokesman made one an expert, you claim.

I'm sorry, but that's an extremely shallow point of view.

 

Ugh. Won't any of your friends take away your shovel?

Reagan took his first public sector job at roughly the same age Gary Locke took his first private sector job. (Not including Reagan's military service.)

I never said that Reagan ran GE, but I'll bet even Nick Saban's SID understands football a little bit. He surely understands the challenges that a football coach faces.

And, the fact remains that business people are going to resent being told how they should run their businesses, and having additional taxes and regulations heaped on them, by a bunch of "elites" who think they know better but have no private sector experience.

And President Obama, his Cabinet, and his top aides are severely lacking in private sector experience.

 

Yankee fan, quit being so defensive. My point is you pick up on talking points and ignore the same traits in your heroes. You spend countless posts defending Reagan's corporate experience pre-presidency, to the point where your last post compares his experience to a current cabinet member.

That proves the point. You blast those you don't agree with and defend those you do agree with, period, end of story.

Now, if I wanted to argue your whole point about the lack of experience on the current cabinet, I'd post this -- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/ -- and then wait for your retort that the St. Petersburg Times is a liberal mouthpiece. Bit that wasn't the point at all, so I haven't bothered with that yet.

Interesting quote from the author of the survey you rely on: "What I was really trying to get at was some kind of completely, 100 percent subjective assessment of whether or not a person had had enough control of payroll, dealing with shareholders, hiring, firing and risk-taking that they'd be in a position to have had a meaningful seat at the table when the issue being discussed is job creation," Cembalest said.

By that set of parameters, Reagan doesn't cut it. So either you change the parameters so your boy will fit -- and, in turn, including many cabinet members, or you have to admit the hero of the modern conservative movement is guilty of the same lack of experience you criticize the current administration for having. You can't have it both ways, unless you are simply a political hack.

 

Brian, Brian, Brian.

Law firms & consulting firms. We both know that's not the same as running a business or managing a business unit.

I'm not the one who brought up Reagan. I just pointed out that unlike folks like our current President -- or even our current Commerce Secretary -- Reagan was no "elite." He wasn't an academician or a public sector lifer.

President Obama lacks private sector experience. That's a fact. And, in choosing his top advisors, he did not make up for that deficiency by surrounding himself with folks who did. That's a fact.

You can argue that it doesn't matter. Tell me that they're the smartest, most qualified people for their jobs. That's a fair argument.

But, then don't be surprised when actual business leaders/owners get frustrated by what they consider "elites."

It's really as simple as that.

People drop into these threads and say, "I want to be governed by elites." "I want an elite doctor." "I want an elite...."

Terrific. Some of us value experience. Some of us respect people who don't think they know everything and seek the advice of experts in their respective field -- you know folks who've actually worked in that field.

 

So you WILL go down the path of trying to have it both ways.

OK, that speaks volumes...