I am offended. Let's see how this works, by doing a graph-by-graph rundown of what Dana said:
Normally I'd respond with a shrug and say "Oh heavens, you're offended? Who cares," but this was too delicious to pass. You can read the whole thing here or join me in a graph-by-graph mocking below:Normally, if a Christian said this, I would yawn and turn the page. Christians are a lot nicer, but also boring. I mean, isn't it a sin to mock?
Marcus acts as though she's being a real rebel by demonstrating opposition to a conservative candidate based on her gender. Lock up the liquor and cigs! Unfortunately that shtick was beaten to death in 2008 with Sarah Palin. Palin was perfectly qualified as a governor -- compared to a community organizer who'd never worked in the private sector -- but her dastardly Republican affiliation magically invalidated all of her accomplishments. No conservative woman will ever truly meet the left's qualifications.Marcus? Is a girl? I'm confused. Maybe it's because when you introduce the writer of an article you should actually use a full name. Any journalism school dropout knows th... Oh, wait, never mind.
Why is it people forget Obama was a Senator, and worked at a law firm? Isn't working at a law firm the public sector?
Please list the Liberal women that will meet the qualifications of conservatives. Yeah, crickets, just as I thought.
Elected office is the only job category for which everyone actually has a right to apply (in keeping with Constitutional requirements). Elected office wasn't designed to be an industry. Seats aren't to be willed to offspring. Positions of service don't exist to create a political class -- they are service positions held by everyday American folk. It should be a sacrifice, like jury duty, not a recreation of the British monarchy. Voters will weigh candidates against each other during the primary process and decide for themselves if her, or any candidate's, past experience is relevant.Everyone? My son can throw his hat in the ring for president? Okay, so not everyone.
Marcus stated that Fiorina's background doesn't qualify her for President. The leap of faith is? Hillary is not qualified because her husband was president? You are right, though. Candidates will be judged on their merits. Just like Obama, who got two terms, was judged and found worthy.
No one cares that you're offended, Ruth.I care. Care with a Christian love some Christians could learn to emulate.
Yes, the Benghazi disaster, the selling of policy through the State Department for donations to the money laundering scheme they call the Clinton Foundation, it's all so very romantic and résumé-worthy.Just a short list. State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Adoption and Safe Families Act, the Foster Care Independence Act, increased research funding for prostate cancer, spearheaded investigations into Gulf War Syndrome, created the office on Violence Against Women; oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea; and was the most traveled Secretary of State.
All of those are true. The two you have stated have either been debunked (by Darryll Issa no less) or not been proven true.
I'm surprised that anyone can make this argument with a straight face considering the thin resume of the current President (archives failed to turn up a Marcus column excoriating the ascension of a community organizer). I disagree: politics is business. You're dealing with the business of the nation. In fact, living outside of the beltway in the real world and operating in the dynamic environment of business is very much like governance. The worst leaders are those who spend their one-percenter existences far removed from the reality of those whose contributions make the country work.It is not her face writing that story, by the way. That would just be silly.
By the way, your Google-fu must be terrible, or you just didn't try too hard. Try the search term, "Ruth Marcus Obama Inex-" and Google will actually finish that word for you, and the second page holds a link for you:
The Audacity of Nope
Now if you wish to revive your Google-fu cred, tell me how well presidents who had a business background have done in this country. Nah, do not bother. It is a fruitless search.
Personally, I loathe HP with the burning passion of a thousand suns. They bought Palm, which made the Palm Pre -- the iPhone before the iPhone -- and its beautiful WebOS, which Apple completely copied in later updates to iOS. I was a Palm acolyte. They were ahead of their time. HP bought them around the same time they unveiled their tablets, and then announced that they would no longer support the products. It was a disaster. I was infuriated. I took my day-old tablet back to the store, dumped my Palm Pre, and was forced into the iOS world (I love Apple products, but it wasn't the same). Fiorina's replacement, Mark Hurd, orchestrated and ruined the acquisition of that product. All of this said, Fiorina presided over HP during the dot-com bust (which naturally saw layoffs) and took the reigns of HP right at the start. I realize Marcus's generation may not be so web-inclined, but the timeline is important if you're going to use it to disqualify a candidate. HP could have folded -- but didn't -- and Fiorina doubled its revenue while tripling innovation.The Palm Pre was released in 2009. The iPhone was released in 2007. I fail to see how the Pre was the iPhone before the iPhone.
While people loved the palm prē, it was plagued by quality issues. webOS, while a good operating system was not up to snuff. It was built on a browser basically (Webkit, Safari is based on it, Chrome is based on a fork of it). Hardware was not good enough at the time to run it smoothly.. HP developed the HP Palm Pre3 and never released it in the US because webOS failed HP.
With the purchase of Compaq, HP grew under Fiorina's tenure for sure. She also lost stock owners a boatload of cash because of stupid mergers, and buying failed products. She was polarizing and disenfranchising. Tripling innovation? You get that from an article from 1999? The year she took over HP?
What would be sexist is to not do your due diligence on Fiorina's time at HP and examining what HP was up against before Fiorina even assumed control. Waxing gender grievance based on party lines is insufficient analysis to justify disqualification.And what would be racist is to not do your due diligence on Obama's time as President and examining what he was up against before he even assumed control of the White House. Waxing grievance based on party lines is insufficient analysis to justify disqualification. Wait, is that plagiarism? Any journalism school dropout should know th... oh wait, never mind.
One question though. There are six missing paragraphs from the Marcus article that you didn't give a graph-by-graph on. I'll post them below in fairness. Incomplete work? Sounds like something... oh, never mind.
Fiorina smartly doesn’t flinch from discussing her ouster; she trumpets her firing “in a boardroom brawl.” On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Fiorina crowed that “we doubled the size of the company” and lectured that, in business, “facts and numbers and results actually count. It’s not just about words as it is in politics.”
Okay, those numbers. Hewlett-Packard did grow under Fiorina’s tenure from 1999 to 2005 — but that was due to an ill-advised merger with Compaq that cost HP shareholders $24 billion and bought them a computer business that diluted the value of HP’s high-margin printer business.
“This was a big bet that didn’t pay off, that didn’t even come close to attaining what Fiorina and HP’s board said was in store,” Carol Loomis concluded in a devastating Fortune magazine piece.
As Yahoo News detailed, HP stock fell by more than half during Fiorina’s tenure, while its technology cohorts performed “not as badly or much better.”
Fiorina stumbled as a campaign surrogate for John McCain in 2008, famously saying that vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and then the GOP presidential nominee himself weren’t fit to run a company. (She was right.)
She failed in her previous bid for elective office in the 2010 California Senate race, losing to incumbent Barbara Boxer by 10 points in a Republican year.