<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Unfired</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dumpendebat.net/2007/02/08/unfired/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dumpendebat.net/2007/02/08/unfired/</link>
	<description>A sniff in the kortevar, that what you cry for, yeled?  A prert up the cull, a prang on the dumpendebat?</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:11:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: dumpendebat</title>
		<link>http://dumpendebat.net/2007/02/08/unfired/comment-page-1/#comment-6516</link>
		<dc:creator>dumpendebat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:50:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dumpendebat.net/2007/02/08/unfired/#comment-6516</guid>
		<description>There was apparently nothing Edwards could have done that wouldn't have made him look weak, &lt;a href="http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/d14c6852-325a-4ce8-9a0d-62526cbd96a6" title="Link to Townhall.com blog entry" rel="nofollow"&gt;according to this guy&lt;/a&gt;, who is the subject of an approving link from Malkin:

&lt;blockquote&gt;As for Edwards, he looks irredeemably pathetic. There's a simple reason for this - he is irredeemably pathetic. He hired someone who had no business being legitimated by a mainstream political campaign. He then bowed to pressure and fired her. He then bowed to pressure again and unfired her. And then he left the stage to let her resign. In the wake of all these stumbles and pratfalls, he looks like a careless fool. He also may have alienated the Fightin' Nutroots to boot. Well played!&lt;/blockquote&gt;

No matter what Edwards did, he was "bowing to pressure," it seems.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There was apparently nothing Edwards could have done that wouldn&#8217;t have made him look weak, <a href="http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/d14c6852-325a-4ce8-9a0d-62526cbd96a6" title="Link to Townhall.com blog entry" rel="nofollow">according to this guy</a>, who is the subject of an approving link from Malkin:</p>
<blockquote><p>As for Edwards, he looks irredeemably pathetic. There&#8217;s a simple reason for this - he is irredeemably pathetic. He hired someone who had no business being legitimated by a mainstream political campaign. He then bowed to pressure and fired her. He then bowed to pressure again and unfired her. And then he left the stage to let her resign. In the wake of all these stumbles and pratfalls, he looks like a careless fool. He also may have alienated the Fightin&#8217; Nutroots to boot. Well played!</p></blockquote>
<p>No matter what Edwards did, he was &#8220;bowing to pressure,&#8221; it seems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hanque</title>
		<link>http://dumpendebat.net/2007/02/08/unfired/comment-page-1/#comment-6491</link>
		<dc:creator>Hanque</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:36:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dumpendebat.net/2007/02/08/unfired/#comment-6491</guid>
		<description>The lesson I take from this is that Edwards showed poor executive leadership, management and decision making.  His senior campaign appointees failed to adequately review their hires.  When a problem emerged, he (or his executives) made a decision to terminate two employees that had caused long term, strategic harm to his campaign, but then they immediately waivered on this very decision.  So at least two bad decisions were made -  the hiring, and the firing.  

This speaks of an enterprise that is having difficulty making good decisions in staffing, and an inability to make difficult decisions when required.  It's not a good omen for his camp.  It's early on in the campaign, so he could learn a lesson and move on, but there's no doubt that he's lost some Catholic voters on this one. This will die down in the early primaries, but in the general election if he gets the nomination Edwards could get hammered on it.  I think he's taking a long term strategic risk by keeping these employees on the payroll.

For democratic primary voters, they should ask themselves this:  Would Clinton, Obama, Biden or the others have allowed this staffing issue into their campaigns?  Would they have waivered or backtracked on the decision to terminate?  Is this a sign of a weak executive? Difficult questions for them to consider.  

On another hand, if you're a foreign leader in an any manner of relationship with the U.S. (especially Korea, Iran, etc.) how do you read this one?  How would you prepare to deal with this executive if he comes to power?  You can bet these issues are being monitored by states the U.S. will negotiate with on issues from trade to weapons &#38; warfare.  

Lastly, I'm digging that our society puts these issues on the voters' plates.  They're important for the electorate to consider as they decide on the next president.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The lesson I take from this is that Edwards showed poor executive leadership, management and decision making.  His senior campaign appointees failed to adequately review their hires.  When a problem emerged, he (or his executives) made a decision to terminate two employees that had caused long term, strategic harm to his campaign, but then they immediately waivered on this very decision.  So at least two bad decisions were made -  the hiring, and the firing.  </p>
<p>This speaks of an enterprise that is having difficulty making good decisions in staffing, and an inability to make difficult decisions when required.  It&#8217;s not a good omen for his camp.  It&#8217;s early on in the campaign, so he could learn a lesson and move on, but there&#8217;s no doubt that he&#8217;s lost some Catholic voters on this one. This will die down in the early primaries, but in the general election if he gets the nomination Edwards could get hammered on it.  I think he&#8217;s taking a long term strategic risk by keeping these employees on the payroll.</p>
<p>For democratic primary voters, they should ask themselves this:  Would Clinton, Obama, Biden or the others have allowed this staffing issue into their campaigns?  Would they have waivered or backtracked on the decision to terminate?  Is this a sign of a weak executive? Difficult questions for them to consider.  </p>
<p>On another hand, if you&#8217;re a foreign leader in an any manner of relationship with the U.S. (especially Korea, Iran, etc.) how do you read this one?  How would you prepare to deal with this executive if he comes to power?  You can bet these issues are being monitored by states the U.S. will negotiate with on issues from trade to weapons &amp; warfare.  </p>
<p>Lastly, I&#8217;m digging that our society puts these issues on the voters&#8217; plates.  They&#8217;re important for the electorate to consider as they decide on the next president.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dumpendebat</title>
		<link>http://dumpendebat.net/2007/02/08/unfired/comment-page-1/#comment-6489</link>
		<dc:creator>dumpendebat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:16:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dumpendebat.net/2007/02/08/unfired/#comment-6489</guid>
		<description>I, too, think Edwards showed some spine in standing up to that display of manufactured outrage from the kooky-con right wing.  (That looney-tune Donohue from the Catholic League really needs to get over himself.)

But they got to talk some more trash about Edwards no matter what:

-Had he fired his bloggers, it would have showed he was an &lt;strong&gt;idiot&lt;/strong&gt; who didn't do his homework before hiring them in the first place, and that he was a &lt;strong&gt;weak sister&lt;/strong&gt; who could be pushed around.

-But, having stood his ground against the kooky-cons, they're now trying to spin it as &lt;strong&gt;weak Edwards caving in&lt;/strong&gt; to the moonbat Libs.  "He wants to stand up to North Korea and The Terrorists, and he can't even stand up to Daily Kos and MyDD.com!!??!?"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I, too, think Edwards showed some spine in standing up to that display of manufactured outrage from the kooky-con right wing.  (That looney-tune Donohue from the Catholic League really needs to get over himself.)</p>
<p>But they got to talk some more trash about Edwards no matter what:</p>
<p>-Had he fired his bloggers, it would have showed he was an <strong>idiot</strong> who didn&#8217;t do his homework before hiring them in the first place, and that he was a <strong>weak sister</strong> who could be pushed around.</p>
<p>-But, having stood his ground against the kooky-cons, they&#8217;re now trying to spin it as <strong>weak Edwards caving in</strong> to the moonbat Libs.  &#8220;He wants to stand up to North Korea and The Terrorists, and he can&#8217;t even stand up to Daily Kos and MyDD.com!!??!?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stram</title>
		<link>http://dumpendebat.net/2007/02/08/unfired/comment-page-1/#comment-6488</link>
		<dc:creator>Stram</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:24:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dumpendebat.net/2007/02/08/unfired/#comment-6488</guid>
		<description>I'll go with 'stand-up guy'.  I've already given you my opinion on Amanda, but I like the fact that Edwards didn't fold from the pressure from the right.   He can fire her after all this dies down.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll go with &#8217;stand-up guy&#8217;.  I&#8217;ve already given you my opinion on Amanda, but I like the fact that Edwards didn&#8217;t fold from the pressure from the right.   He can fire her after all this dies down.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
