No Takebacks for the ‘Christians’
41 minutes ago
Sunday, September 12, 2010
California is not a Business
Trying to get a better sense of who Meg Whitman really was, I found this video on youtube. Whitman certainly has an illustrious history: Princeton, then Harvard Business, and onto other successful enterprises, culminating with her tenure at Ebay, which got her a place as one of the best CEO's around. But watching the video, it's not clear that Whitman really understands what being a politician is like. Sure she's got a great "character" and she knows how to run a business, but...does she know how to run a government? I don't think so. Her plan for recovery is focused on taking power from the State and putting it into the hands of businesses--albeit small businesses. Jerry Brown, on the other hand, has lived in this state for most of his life, and has been in politics for as long as Whitman has lived here. He wants to take power from the State and put it in the districts--into schools and other organizations. Maybe it's because she's a republican and I'm more partisan than I thought, but it seems to me that Whitman assumes that a good CEO is a good public servant. I find it awfully hard to trust Meg Whitman, the businessman. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Her ties to Goldman Sachs prove that Whitman is completely untrustworthy.
Definetely. Sorry, everyone, I forgot she worked there. No need to comment, it's obcious that she's a terrible, evil woman.
Yea, considering that there was a law suit against her when she worked at eBay for inappropriate behavior; I would not trust her with the best state in the U.S.A.
Meg Whitman as a gubernatorial candidate quite honestly scares me. Like you said I question her credentials as a politician. Does someone who was a CEO for a successful company think that means they will be a great governor? I don't think so. Throw in the fact that she has such a spotty past voting as a citizen their is so much of this campaign that seems to signal to me that she is only running for her own interests. But has lack of qualifications ever stopped Californians from voting before? Well for that answer we need only look at our present governor.
Some of you have said being a great businesswoman doesn't mean one will be a great politician. Well that's obviously true, but I find it unfair to stand against Whitman just for that piece of reasoning.
It is possible a businesswoman (as opposed to a Hollywood superstar) may be what we need for the benefit of our state. The world of business and state politics is not so different as it seems. Whitman as CEO needed to maintain a balanced budget, find creative ways to curb costs and appeal to customers, negotiate deals, etc. It is definitely not the same responsibilities of Governor of California, but it is similar. And especially in the times of financial disarray, our state may need a more business-minded leader.
To add to Jesvin’s excellent points, Meg Whitman’s abilities as a CEO are what the state of California needs, especially in these economically down times. Let me remind y’all that while a CEO at Ebay, Whitman helped the company grow by 49,900 percent in terms employees and a whopping 200,000 percent in terms of revenue. Imagine what would happen if she replicated these results on a state level.
Whitman already has good plans as to how to cut spending on policies and acts which focus on long term benefits instead of the problems we have now.
Also, just to clear something up, Meg Whitman does in fact have experience in politics. Not only was she a co-chair in one of Mitt Romney’s committees during his presidential race, but she also acted as the national co-chair of McCain’s race.
On the topic of Jerry Brown, while yes, Jerry Brown has had experience in our government, his experience has shown that he is not the best suited to run the state. Recall, for example, his failure to provide a solution for the Mediterranean fruit flies which posed a problem for the agriculture industry. Also, during his governance, he failed to spend any of a $5 billion surplus, which led to passing of proposition 13, which froze property taxes and cut off a huge source of revenue for schools. This faulty planning on Brown’s behalf lead to the surplus being turned into a $1 billion dollar deficit after the schools were compensated.
We need a governor who has a plan and can act out on it, we need Meg Whitman.
@ libhom:
Whitman's connections to Goldman Sachs and her practice of "spinning" where executives could get deals on IPOs before they were made available to the public, was done for the benefit of the company (for executive partners of Goldman Sachs.) Now while her practice was technically unethical, it was not expressively prohibited when she engaged in it. And by the way, isn't all of this "spinning" what the world of politics is defined by?
In other words, would you prefer a governor that works for your interests with actual consideration for the reality of political "ethics" (or the lack thereof), or a governor that does not work for the public's interests because he/she is afraid to get their feet wet ethically? I know I would prefer the former.
@Cris Madrigal:
The "inappropriate" behavior you're referring to is Whitman "shoving" an associate during a meeting when things got heated in an argument. Whitman stated later that "In any high-pressure working environment, tensions can surface." This sounds perfectly reasonable to me; no one can honestly say their tensions haven't flared before.
Furthermore, a lawsuit being brought upon someone doesn't mean that person shouldn't be trusted with great responsibility or a large business. After all, Mark Hurd had a lawsuit brought against him, and he can be trusted with both.
Funny! I definitely agree with you Rosslee. Although Whitman may run on a platform of economic recovery and "A New California", I don't believe her plans will exactly get us there. Whitman's plans not only hurt California by lowering taxes, but these tax cuts will then go on to hurt lower income families, minorities, unemployed, and eventually children by cutting social welfare programs that they depend and live on. Whitman is only working for a very particular group: the elitists in society. If anything, I think Whitman's credentials as a CEO and businesswoman hurt my image of her as a person who is truly working towards "A New California".
In our current economically down times, we need to keep money in the consumer’s pockets in order for them to be willing to spend more and stimulate the economy. Having acts that require large amounts of public funding and increasing taxes is not a way to get to any sort of ideal situation.
Social welfare is a sticky issue. The percent of the nation’s welfare cases that California deals with has grown from 21 percent in 1996 to 32 percent in our current times. This is true despite us having only 12 percent of the country’s population.
We need Meg Whitman.
I would like to applaud Dan’s amazingly thorough response to previous comments. His points hit the bull’s-eye directly. Not only is California far over-represented in terms of the proportion of the population dependent on welfare, but we also currently have no effective method for moving people from welfare dependency to being decent wage-earning individuals. We are the only state to not have a 5 year limit for getting people off of welfare. Meg Whitman’s plan is not only to redirect funds from welfare to other areas, but to also make it more efficient—to transform people dependent on welfare to people who no longer need it by imposing 2 year limits on welfare and making sure that all able-bodied individuals are able to find work by instituting programs to help them get GEDs.
@Ryan Yu
1) The Governors position is a high stress environment. If she wasn't able to keep her cool in a business, position then what makes you think she can keep her "emotions" in check in office. Her entire argument revolves around how great she was at eBay; But you can't possibly say that a person can run the most populous state when she can't keep her cool in times of difficulty.
http://blog.ebosswatch.com/2010/06/employee-accused-former-ebay-ceo-meg-whitman-of-workplace-bullying/
"...eBay employees said that Whitman, the current Republican candidate for Governor of California, “was demanding and would often express sharp bursts of anger toward employees whose work or preparation she found lacking.'" A governor will have to be able to deal with failure and if she does it with anger then what direction will the state head into?
The two situations that you are comparing are far from similar. In an office spat, usually there is an immediate and irrational response from the flash emotions that boil to the surface. I highly doubt that upon hearing news that puts her in a high stress situation, she will immediately rush outside and announce her new decision. A more feasible scenario is Meg Whitman taking the time to think it out and taking counsel from her multiple advisors. She also has practice in making big decisions from her tenure at eBay.
As for her showing discontent with detrimental parts of a system, isn't that what politics is all about?
While I agree with most of the thoughts already articulated, there are some things that really don't add up. Whitman cannot possibly reproduce the results she achieved with Ebay, a fledgling company at the time. California is subject to a host of financial problems already, something that Whitman would have to work against simultaneously. That being said, her financial prowess might be exactly what this state needs right now, to echo Jesvin's point.
Still, I'm on Team Jerry. Jerry Brown is running for governor because "I love California". Whitman is running for governor because...she hardly ever votes? and...likes money? The fact that Whitman has spend SO much money already just to get tied with Brown is enough to suggest that Whitman will continue to face an uphill battle, and frankly, I'm not surprised.
While I agree with most of the thoughts already articulated, there are some things that really don't add up. Whitman cannot possibly reproduce the results she achieved with Ebay, a fledgling company at the time. California is subject to a host of financial problems already, something that Whitman would have to work against simultaneously. That being said, her financial prowess might be exactly what this state needs right now, to echo Jesvin's point.
Still, I'm on Team Jerry. Jerry Brown is running for governor because "I love California". Whitman is running for governor because...she hardly ever votes? and...likes money? The fact that Whitman has spend SO much money already just to get tied with Brown is enough to suggest that Whitman will continue to face an uphill battle, and frankly, I'm not surprised.
@Bobby John
- Its how you approach the situation that matters. We wouldn't want a politician that abuses his/ her staff. (Imagine Obama getting sued for violent behavior, think of the uproar this would cause). Her case shouldn't be different, one incident is enough to show her character. Regarding her council of advisers, she had these people to lean on at eBay, its impossible to believe that she was the only person that helped in the growth a company. I doubt she was the only one calling the shots but because she was the CEO she is getting all the credit.
@Ryan: The fact that her unethical behavior was for the interest of her company does not make it okay in any way. I personally, would not prefer a governor who is willing to break ethical rules just to get ahead. I also do not believe that she has a good plan to get California back on its feet in these tough economic times. For example, she plans to create jobs by cutting taxes and regulations, but at the same time, she wants to reduce government spending by firing thousands of state workers. I highly doubt that she will create more jobs than she will remove with these plans. Also, her plan to lower college costs by cutting welfare doesn't seem very practical. In my opinion, Meg Whitman doesn't really have a viable plan for California. She seems to just be saying things that sound nice, but when the time comes, it is unlikely that she will actually be able to make the extremely effective changes that we need.
@Rashmi--It's certainly true that California has an overwhelming number of financial problems that will be difficult for EITHER candidate to tackle. Perhaps Whitman isn't cut out to be California's CEO. I just hope and pray that she understands the oxymoron and realizes that the two are very separate things. Despite all her finiancial know-how, I think Brown will be able to coordinate and respond to the will of the people, something Whitman is less experienced in.
Post a Comment