Meg Whitman = Ronald Reagan?

Meg Whitman’s “slight computing background doesn’t matter, H-P Chairman Ray Lane has been saying since Whitman was tapped yesterday as H-P CEO,” Shira Ovide blogs for The Wall Street Journal. “Yesterday, Ray Lane said Whitman has plenty of experience because she bought tons of IT when she was eBay CEO. Ok, that’s pretty thin. Anything else, Ray?”

Ovide reports, “Today, on CNBC, Lane has another take on Whitman coming into a very different field: ‘Ronald Reagan was an actor. He was a pretty good president,’ Lane told David Faber. ‘Leaders are leaders. Meg is a leader.'”

Read more in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]

43 Comments

    1. Dye ANYONE’s hair green and paint their face orange and they’ll look like an Oompa Loompa too. (Dude, you didn’t even spell the insult correctly! Kinda lame…)

      Besides, insults based on how you look are usually boring by the time you hit high school.

  1. To be fair to Reagan (and believe me, I’m no fan of his), it’s not like they walked him off the set one day into the Oval Office.

    Reagan’s background included running a major labor union (where he was very likely a shill for organized crime and Lew Wasserman’s Universal Pictures) and served as the governor of California — both roles that require a skill set somewhat elevated from most actors.

    By the way, Reagan’s skill-set contrasts sharply with that of CEO’s like Meg (or Donald Trump). It’s one thing to bark orders as a CEO, but another trying to win consensus and negotiate to get what you want.

    1. Actually he was accused of doing just that in a pres debate, so he showed up and tossed his notes away and answered every question from memory. Without any notes at all.

      Go look it up. Wait.. Must be too hard for you to do so.

  2. Whitman is no Reagan. Actors are trained to stand where they told and say their lines. (These aren’t necessarily bad things, depending on the writers and directors). I doubt Whitman does either.

  3. “Liberalism is hideous. It is the antithesis of being pro-human. It looks at life as a burden in and of itself to be managed, rather than as a blessing to be explored and lived to the fullest.” – Rush Limbaugh

      1. You lie.

        And now for the full quote, typical Lib liar, from a 1993 Limbaugh monologue that poked fun at the arguments against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA):

        “If you are unskilled and uneducated, your job is going south. Skilled workers, educated people are going to do fine because those are the kinds of jobs NAFTA is going to create. If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, I’m serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do — let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.” – Rush Limbaugh

        Obviously, Limbaugh’s point was that the people who were criticizing NAFTA were demeaning workers, particularly low-skilled workers.

        http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178554189155003.html

        I guess you need to lie since the only thing your Lib ideas and theories produce is misery:

        Number Of Americans Living In Poverty Hits 52-Year High, 27.4 Percent Of Blacks Under The Poverty Line – U.S. Census Bureau, 9/13/11

        Facts are stupid things (when you’re a liberal).

        1. I see, it’s a lie to take the words he spoke.

          You’re going to get really amusing if you try to portray all of Limbaugh’s racism as irony.

          I saw that same census report. And also the economic analysis of it that show the utter failure of the oligarchic platform you espouse. I almost wish one of your favoured candidates would win in 2012 to show once again that the theory, while enticing to you, is unworkable. But then so many people will end up destitute that the price isn’t worth it. Either you have no understanding of the term ‘liberal’ or you really are just willful ditto-head living at the center of the universe. Either way, you get my pity.

          1. It’s a lie to take words out of context, especially to deceive, but that’s what you Libs do. You’re so used to it, you don’t even understand why it’s a lie.

            Democrats clearly ran the country into the ground. They had the House and Senate for the last two years of Bush and they had all three branches from January 2009 until Republicans took back 1/3rd (the House) in January 2011.

            Don’t worry, we’ll fix your statist mess yet again soon enough.

            1. Name anything that the Democrat Congress did to hinder a major Bush policy?

              Recognize the Senate had a record number of filibusters and secret holds that effectively meant the doing business in the Senate required a 67 vote super majority, which the Democrats did not have. The House passed lots of bills that never made through the Senate. The Republican behavior has been unprecedented.

  4. The Enduring Lies of Ronald Reagan:

    Though the GOP continues to canonize the fortieth president, we can’t forget his legacy as a liar and a foreign policy flop.

    And let’s not forget the wages of “trickle down” economics and “Reaganomics,” from which we have still not recovered. In 1982, the Congressional Budget Office found that taxpayers earning under $10,000 lost an average of $240 from Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts, while those earning more than $80,000 gained an average of $15,130. By that fall, the jobless rate hit 10.1 percent—the worst in 42 years, and a year later 11.9 million were out of work. In 1983, the country’s poverty rate rose to 15 percent, the highest level since the mid-’60s. In 1984, a congressional study reported that cuts in welfare had pushed more than 500,000 people—the majority of them children—into poverty. Then-Attorney General Ed Meese’s response? “I don’t know of any authoritative figures that there are hungry children … people go to soup kitchens because the food is free and that’s easier than paying for it.”

    http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3242/

    Another major myth: Reagan cut taxes on all Americans, and that led to a great expansion.

    Here’s the truth: the total federal tax burden increased during the Reagan years, and most Americans paid more in taxes after Reagan than before. The “Reagan Recovery” was unremarkable. It looks great only contrasted against the dismal Reagan Recession — but it had nothing to do with Supply Side voodoo.

    With a red ink explosion — $300 BILLION deficits looming as far as the eye could see — GOP Senators, notably including Bob Dole, led the way on tax hikes. The economy enjoyed its recovery only after total tax increases larger than the total tax cuts were implemented. Most importantly, average annual GDP growth during the Reagan 80s was lower than during the Clinton 90s or the JFK-LBJ 60s!

    http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020319Hersh.html

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.