Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim H who wrote (459694)	2/27/2009 9:48:10 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1576159

>>> He is making excuses in case of failure even before he begins. I feel the same way about it. Excuses about in case he fails, and trying to insure that every person believes this problem was here when he got here.

To: Jim H who wrote (459694)	2/27/2009 10:12:41 AM
From: Taro	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576159

The guy just doesn't have the guts to commit to anything - and then making it happen...or fade away. To walk the high wire always was and remains risky. Those with a desire to do that better have some guts and put their great reputation on the block. Taro

To: Jim H who wrote (459694)	2/27/2009 12:38:47 PM
From: tejek	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576159

THE LONG-AWAITED INTRA-PARTY FRICTION?.... After the 2008 elections, there were some expectations, here and elsewhere, that Republican infighting would be relatively intense. When a party fails that spectacularly, at so many levels, finger-pointing and a fierce fight to fill a leadership vacuum is almost inevitable. That never came to pass, at least not in earnest. GOP lawmakers kept most of their leadership in place in both chambers; there was very little blame directed at John McCain; and while there was some squabbling in the race to be the next RNC chairman, all of the candidates were effectively offering the same thing. Just over the last week or so, the fissures have been slightly more evident. Matt Yglesias flagged these comments from Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, a conservative Republican from a conservative Republican state. Q: In December you talked about people 40 and under having a very different view on the environment. Is there a similar generational gap on gay rights? A: You hit on the two issues that I think carry more of a generational component than anything else. And I would liken it a bit to the transformation of the Tory Party in the UK.... They went two or three election cycles without recognizing the issues that the younger citizens in the UK really felt strongly about. They were a very narrow party of angry people. And they started branching out through, maybe, taking a second look at the issues of the day, much like we're going to have to do for the Republican Party, to reconnect with the youth, to reconnect with people of color, to reconnect with different geographies that we have lost. [emphasis added] Huntsman made similar comments to the Washington Times this week. Now, I've seen quite a few descriptions of the Republican Party of late, but "a very narrow party of angry people" is one of the more apt. Matt also noted that Huntsman's contingent also probably includes Charlie Crist and David Brooks, making up a reformist branch looking for a bigger, more inclusive party. What's striking, though, is just how small the contingent is. Just a couple of weeks ago, 95% of the Republicans in Congress voted for a stimulus package that didn't include any stimulus. Rush Limbaugh said no one should criticize far-right Republican Bobby Jindal's national address, not because it was good, but because he's a far-right Republican. RNC Chairman Michael Steele is openly discussing the possibility of withholding support from Republican lawmakers who stray from the conservative line. A GOP leader in the House is openly discussing emulating the Taliban, and no one in the party denounced the comments. It's the Palin-Pence-Plumber Party. Huntsman's perspective stands out in large part because most of the party isn't even willing to consider the possibility of veering from its current course. If there's a Republican "civil war" for the party's future, Huntsman/Crist/Brooks doesn't stand a chance.