Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 396)

So the beltway media has been abuzz this week about Senator Marco Rubio’s increasing national profile. Reporters have been experiencing a case of “starbursts” through their keyboards. They wrote up a slobbering profile of the freshman GOP Senator . Then just days ago Rubio gave a speech at the Ronald Reagan library. What is happening here is pretty obvious to anyone who wants to cut through the BS. Helpfully Dave Weigel tells us the obvious : 1) Buttered-up profile pieces . Easily done. The Reagan speech got Rubio a McClatchy storyabout how Nancy Reagan personally beckoned him to Simi Valley. “You’ve been identified as someone to watch on the national political scene,” she said, giving future Rubio-profile-writers an insta-quote for the beginning of the what-people-are-saying section. From McClatchy, we also learn that John Boehner quoted Rubio, and that this is significant. 2) Scene pieces. See the Frank story for that. Most of the early coverage of Rubio’s speech informed us that 1) he gave a speech, 2) the crowd was huge, and 3) he helped up Nancy Reagan when she stumbled. 3) Micro policy news. In the debt speech, Rubio, who had not taken a lead role in the debt limit debate, staked his position: There could be no putting off the “day of reckoning.” In Simi Valley, he came out for a gradual Social Security phase-out. Barack Obama did the same thing — the exact same thing! — in 2005 and 2006, when he was a freshman senator who was constantly asked whether he’d run for president. He didn’t take the lead in the “There Is No Crisis” fight to beat Social Security privatization, but he gave setpiece speeches about it, most notably at Knox College. But Obama was more subtle; his media team (led by Robert Gibbs at the time) kept most of his setpieces in Illinois. Rubio has no shortage of places in Florida to do this stuff. And yet he goes to California, and North Carolina. Of course reporters have to waste their time asking Rubio if he’s gunning for national office, and writing down his humble “no,” but this is a friendly exchange of total bullshit. There is another point here that is worth making. One may think that Rubio is making some kind of strategic mistake by positioning himself for the number 2 slot in the GOP ticket. Face it the record of elected Vice Presidents becoming President is not all that great. The ones who have succeeded have been marred with resignations and humiliating losses. The last two who angled for nomination also did not make it into the White House. Yet if you think about it, Rubio is actually making a very calculated move. In my honest opinion, whether or not Rubio becomes the next VP is moot because the Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, there is I said it. Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, I get that President Barack Obama has had a terrible summer and his numbers are low. But I do not see the President losing to chumps like Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann (LOL). I am pretty sure Rubio’s strategic advisers know that as well. Yet Rubio has nothing to lose from running for the VP spot. Running for VP spot is extremely beneficial to Rubio because he will get the automatic national spotlight (look what it did for a joke like Sarah Palin). Even if the Republican ticket loses in 2012 – which it will – a VP nomination will essentially make Rubio an automatic favorite to get the GOP nomination in 2016. It will essentially ensure that 2015-16 run to nomination is more of a coronation for Rubio than a contest in the next GOP primary. So, what progressive and Democratic observers should do is start labeling Rubio is nothing more than yet another selfish politician, who is more consumed with his political self-interest than the interest of his party. I am guessing there are other Republican politicians who would be interested in that VP slot would be interested in threading that narrative. If Rubio becomes the VP nominee in 2012, it will be all about Rubio, just like in 2008 it became all about Palin. The question also becomes whether someone like a Perry or Romney would be interested in bringing in a guy like Rubio, who will most likely be looking ahead to 2016, rather than worrying about what will be an inevitable losing effort in 2012? Will someone ask these questions loudly during the nauseating Rubio tour or on the GOP campaign trail?

Continue reading …

So the beltway media has been abuzz this week about Senator Marco Rubio’s increasing national profile. Reporters have been experiencing a case of “starbursts” through their keyboards. They wrote up a slobbering profile of the freshman GOP Senator . Then just days ago Rubio gave a speech at the Ronald Reagan library. What is happening here is pretty obvious to anyone who wants to cut through the BS. Helpfully Dave Weigel tells us the obvious : 1) Buttered-up profile pieces . Easily done. The Reagan speech got Rubio a McClatchy storyabout how Nancy Reagan personally beckoned him to Simi Valley. “You’ve been identified as someone to watch on the national political scene,” she said, giving future Rubio-profile-writers an insta-quote for the beginning of the what-people-are-saying section. From McClatchy, we also learn that John Boehner quoted Rubio, and that this is significant. 2) Scene pieces. See the Frank story for that. Most of the early coverage of Rubio’s speech informed us that 1) he gave a speech, 2) the crowd was huge, and 3) he helped up Nancy Reagan when she stumbled. 3) Micro policy news. In the debt speech, Rubio, who had not taken a lead role in the debt limit debate, staked his position: There could be no putting off the “day of reckoning.” In Simi Valley, he came out for a gradual Social Security phase-out. Barack Obama did the same thing — the exact same thing! — in 2005 and 2006, when he was a freshman senator who was constantly asked whether he’d run for president. He didn’t take the lead in the “There Is No Crisis” fight to beat Social Security privatization, but he gave setpiece speeches about it, most notably at Knox College. But Obama was more subtle; his media team (led by Robert Gibbs at the time) kept most of his setpieces in Illinois. Rubio has no shortage of places in Florida to do this stuff. And yet he goes to California, and North Carolina. Of course reporters have to waste their time asking Rubio if he’s gunning for national office, and writing down his humble “no,” but this is a friendly exchange of total bullshit. There is another point here that is worth making. One may think that Rubio is making some kind of strategic mistake by positioning himself for the number 2 slot in the GOP ticket. Face it the record of elected Vice Presidents becoming President is not all that great. The ones who have succeeded have been marred with resignations and humiliating losses. The last two who angled for nomination also did not make it into the White House. Yet if you think about it, Rubio is actually making a very calculated move. In my honest opinion, whether or not Rubio becomes the next VP is moot because the Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, there is I said it. Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, I get that President Barack Obama has had a terrible summer and his numbers are low. But I do not see the President losing to chumps like Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann (LOL). I am pretty sure Rubio’s strategic advisers know that as well. Yet Rubio has nothing to lose from running for the VP spot. Running for VP spot is extremely beneficial to Rubio because he will get the automatic national spotlight (look what it did for a joke like Sarah Palin). Even if the Republican ticket loses in 2012 – which it will – a VP nomination will essentially make Rubio an automatic favorite to get the GOP nomination in 2016. It will essentially ensure that 2015-16 run to nomination is more of a coronation for Rubio than a contest in the next GOP primary. So, what progressive and Democratic observers should do is start labeling Rubio is nothing more than yet another selfish politician, who is more consumed with his political self-interest than the interest of his party. I am guessing there are other Republican politicians who would be interested in that VP slot would be interested in threading that narrative. If Rubio becomes the VP nominee in 2012, it will be all about Rubio, just like in 2008 it became all about Palin. The question also becomes whether someone like a Perry or Romney would be interested in bringing in a guy like Rubio, who will most likely be looking ahead to 2016, rather than worrying about what will be an inevitable losing effort in 2012? Will someone ask these questions loudly during the nauseating Rubio tour or on the GOP campaign trail?

Continue reading …
Ron Reagan: Dick Cheney Is a ‘War Criminal’

According to Hardball guest host Ron Reagan Jr., former Vice President Dick Cheney is a “war criminal” for endorsing waterboarding. On Thursday, the son of the former President attacked, “But the fact of the matter is…[Cheney's] a war criminal. Torture is a crime and this is a guy who can't travel to Europe anymore for fear of being- ending up in the Hague .” Reagan was commenting on a new interview Cheney has given to NBC in which he reiterates support for waterboarding. The liberal anchor discussed the subject with Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune. Reagan reiterated, “…Any neutral reading of, say, the U.N. Convention Against Torture makes it pretty clear that if you support waterboarding and you enact that sort of a policy, you're guilty of a war crime.” [See video below. MP3 audio here .] Page seemed to agree: “I think in real life [Cheney] probably is avoiding trips to Europe, I imagine, like Henry Kissinger and others on the lam from that branch of international justice, if you will.” Page added that the ex-VP “probably” hasn't got much to fear, in terms of criminal prosecution. Reagan also called Cheney a war criminal on CNN in January of 2011. Reagan has guest-hosted for the very liberal Chris Matthews three times this week. On Wednesday, he derided presidential candidate Rick Santorum as a “lonely, homophobic voice shrieking in the wilderness.” [Thanks to MRC intern Alex Fitzsimmons for the video.] A transcript of the August 25 exchange can be found below: 5:21 JAMIE GANGEL: Should we still be waterboarding terror suspects? DICK CHENEY: I would strongly support using it again if circumstances arose where we had a high-value detainee and that was the only way we could get him to talk. GANGEL: Even though so many people condemned it. People call it torture. You think it should still be a tool? CHENEY: Yes. RON REAGAN JR. You see, Clarence, he never backs off of that sort of thing. I guess, we don't expect him to. But the fact of the matter is, and people know my feelings about this pretty surely, he's a war criminal. Torture is a crime and this is a guy who can't travel to Europe anymore for fear of being- ending up in the Hague. Does he deal with that, do you suppose, in the book? PAGE: Well, I can't say how he deals with it in the book in detail, just from reports that have come out. I think in real life he probably is avoiding trips to Europe, I imagine, like Henry Kissinger and others on the lam from that branch of international justice, if you will. But, as far as back here in the states, he probably hasn't got much to fear. The Obama administration made it clear they want to move on. They don't want to go back to the Justice Department and go after the Bush administration on legal areas like this. But with a campaign coming along, again, you've got a polarized the electorate. Nothing he set apparently would offend Republicans. It will offend a lot of Democrats. Will it fire them up to wanted to come out and support Obama more? That's the kind of question we're asking now. REAGAN JR: Y eah. Not to hammer the point at all, but any neutral reading of say, the U.N. Convention Against Torture makes it pretty clear that if you support waterboarding and you enact that sort of a policy, you're guilty of a war crime.

Continue reading …
Ron Reagan: Dick Cheney Is a ‘War Criminal’

According to Hardball guest host Ron Reagan Jr., former Vice President Dick Cheney is a “war criminal” for endorsing waterboarding. On Thursday, the son of the former President attacked, “But the fact of the matter is…[Cheney's] a war criminal. Torture is a crime and this is a guy who can't travel to Europe anymore for fear of being- ending up in the Hague .” Reagan was commenting on a new interview Cheney has given to NBC in which he reiterates support for waterboarding. The liberal anchor discussed the subject with Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune. Reagan reiterated, “…Any neutral reading of, say, the U.N. Convention Against Torture makes it pretty clear that if you support waterboarding and you enact that sort of a policy, you're guilty of a war crime.” [See video below. MP3 audio here .] Page seemed to agree: “I think in real life [Cheney] probably is avoiding trips to Europe, I imagine, like Henry Kissinger and others on the lam from that branch of international justice, if you will.” Page added that the ex-VP “probably” hasn't got much to fear, in terms of criminal prosecution. Reagan also called Cheney a war criminal on CNN in January of 2011. Reagan has guest-hosted for the very liberal Chris Matthews three times this week. On Wednesday, he derided presidential candidate Rick Santorum as a “lonely, homophobic voice shrieking in the wilderness.” [Thanks to MRC intern Alex Fitzsimmons for the video.] A transcript of the August 25 exchange can be found below: 5:21 JAMIE GANGEL: Should we still be waterboarding terror suspects? DICK CHENEY: I would strongly support using it again if circumstances arose where we had a high-value detainee and that was the only way we could get him to talk. GANGEL: Even though so many people condemned it. People call it torture. You think it should still be a tool? CHENEY: Yes. RON REAGAN JR. You see, Clarence, he never backs off of that sort of thing. I guess, we don't expect him to. But the fact of the matter is, and people know my feelings about this pretty surely, he's a war criminal. Torture is a crime and this is a guy who can't travel to Europe anymore for fear of being- ending up in the Hague. Does he deal with that, do you suppose, in the book? PAGE: Well, I can't say how he deals with it in the book in detail, just from reports that have come out. I think in real life he probably is avoiding trips to Europe, I imagine, like Henry Kissinger and others on the lam from that branch of international justice, if you will. But, as far as back here in the states, he probably hasn't got much to fear. The Obama administration made it clear they want to move on. They don't want to go back to the Justice Department and go after the Bush administration on legal areas like this. But with a campaign coming along, again, you've got a polarized the electorate. Nothing he set apparently would offend Republicans. It will offend a lot of Democrats. Will it fire them up to wanted to come out and support Obama more? That's the kind of question we're asking now. REAGAN JR: Y eah. Not to hammer the point at all, but any neutral reading of say, the U.N. Convention Against Torture makes it pretty clear that if you support waterboarding and you enact that sort of a policy, you're guilty of a war crime.

Continue reading …
Ron Reagan: Dick Cheney Is a ‘War Criminal’

According to Hardball guest host Ron Reagan Jr., former Vice President Dick Cheney is a “war criminal” for endorsing waterboarding. On Thursday, the son of the former President attacked, “But the fact of the matter is…[Cheney's] a war criminal. Torture is a crime and this is a guy who can't travel to Europe anymore for fear of being- ending up in the Hague .” Reagan was commenting on a new interview Cheney has given to NBC in which he reiterates support for waterboarding. The liberal anchor discussed the subject with Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune. Reagan reiterated, “…Any neutral reading of, say, the U.N. Convention Against Torture makes it pretty clear that if you support waterboarding and you enact that sort of a policy, you're guilty of a war crime.” [See video below. MP3 audio here .] Page seemed to agree: “I think in real life [Cheney] probably is avoiding trips to Europe, I imagine, like Henry Kissinger and others on the lam from that branch of international justice, if you will.” Page added that the ex-VP “probably” hasn't got much to fear, in terms of criminal prosecution. Reagan also called Cheney a war criminal on CNN in January of 2011. Reagan has guest-hosted for the very liberal Chris Matthews three times this week. On Wednesday, he derided presidential candidate Rick Santorum as a “lonely, homophobic voice shrieking in the wilderness.” [Thanks to MRC intern Alex Fitzsimmons for the video.] A transcript of the August 25 exchange can be found below: 5:21 JAMIE GANGEL: Should we still be waterboarding terror suspects? DICK CHENEY: I would strongly support using it again if circumstances arose where we had a high-value detainee and that was the only way we could get him to talk. GANGEL: Even though so many people condemned it. People call it torture. You think it should still be a tool? CHENEY: Yes. RON REAGAN JR. You see, Clarence, he never backs off of that sort of thing. I guess, we don't expect him to. But the fact of the matter is, and people know my feelings about this pretty surely, he's a war criminal. Torture is a crime and this is a guy who can't travel to Europe anymore for fear of being- ending up in the Hague. Does he deal with that, do you suppose, in the book? PAGE: Well, I can't say how he deals with it in the book in detail, just from reports that have come out. I think in real life he probably is avoiding trips to Europe, I imagine, like Henry Kissinger and others on the lam from that branch of international justice, if you will. But, as far as back here in the states, he probably hasn't got much to fear. The Obama administration made it clear they want to move on. They don't want to go back to the Justice Department and go after the Bush administration on legal areas like this. But with a campaign coming along, again, you've got a polarized the electorate. Nothing he set apparently would offend Republicans. It will offend a lot of Democrats. Will it fire them up to wanted to come out and support Obama more? That's the kind of question we're asking now. REAGAN JR: Y eah. Not to hammer the point at all, but any neutral reading of say, the U.N. Convention Against Torture makes it pretty clear that if you support waterboarding and you enact that sort of a policy, you're guilty of a war crime.

Continue reading …
Tim Cook has tough job to keep Apple sweet

Steve Jobs’s successor as chief executive faces one of the toughest challenges in corporate history Apple’s new chief executive Tim Cook vowed to stick to Apple’s “unique principles and values” as investors marked his first day as successor to founder Steve Jobs by selling shares and marking the company’s value down by more than 5%, or about £10bn. In taking over from Jobs, widely regarded as a genius for giving the world such groundbreaking products as the iPod and iPhone, Cook faces one of the toughest challenges in corporate history as he strives to maintain Apple’s position as the world’s foremost technology firm. Earlier this month Apple briefly passed the oil behemoth Exxon to become the world’s most valuable company just 14 years after flirting with bankruptcy. In a company-wide email on Thursday, Cook, who has been at Apple for 13 years, told staff: “I want you to be confident that Apple is not going to change. I cherish and celebrate Apple’s unique principles and values. Steve built a company and culture that is unlike any other in the world and we are going to stay true to that – it is in our DNA. We are going to continue to make the best products in the world that delight our customers and make our employees incredibly proud of what they do.” The first challenge for Cook’s reign will be the expected unveiling of the next versions of the iPhone, widely anticipated within the next six weeks as Apple aims to capitalise on its leadership of the mobile phone industry, where it has risen from nothing to having the largest revenue and profits in just under five years. In the computer market, its small sales have still grown faster than the rest of the Windows-based market for 20 successive quarters. And its iPad tablet still dominates the fast-growing market, despite competition from dozens of rivals using Google’s free Android operating system. Reports said that Jobs spent his final day as chief executive at the Apple campus in Cupertino, California, where he worked a full day, and that he intended to be an “active” chairman of the company. Although he gave no reason for his departure, announced late on Wednesday, medical observers believe it is linked to the rare neuroendocrine cancer for which he was treated in 2004, and the liver transplant he received in April 2009. Cook, 50, was until Wednesday the company’s chief operating officer, and had been acting CEO since January. He has long been seen as the natural successor. But even as investors were selling the stock – it later recovered to be down only 1.1% – business analysts were insisting that Cook would have at least two years in which to rely on products that Apple will already have under development. The departure of Jobs, the visionary who has set out Apple’s philosophy for decades – first between 1975 and 1985, and then from 1997 to this year – had been seen by some investors as cause for alarm at the company, which is now more valuable than rivals such as Microsoft, Dell and Intel. But Gartner Research analyst Michael Gartenberg suggested that customers would continue to be loyal to the brand. Without Jobs, he believes the company’s challenge will be the same as it was with him: continuing to find ways to raise the bar with its consumer electronics. “Yes, this is quite some transition… but it doesn’t mean Apple itself will fundamentally change,” he said. “Certainly Apple’s competition would be foolish to think this is a situation they could somehow capitalise on.” Richard Windsor at Nomura said: “By its own admission, Apple’s pipeline is several years long, so if innovation were to stop dead overnight it would still be some time before the effect was felt. That said, the launch of the next iPhone already delayed from the anticipated July launch will be even more important now than it already was. If the hardware is not impressive … then the company may be seen to be losing momentum.” Richard Gardner at Citigroup advised investors to buy the stock if it drops, saying Jobs had laid a strong foundation, and that he expected it to gain market share for years. “In our view, [Cook] is a tough but well-regarded leader who will continue to hold Apple employees to an extremely high standard of performance,” he wrote.” The quiet man with similar goals Steve Jobs is famous for his temper, while Tim Cook is described as soft-spoken. Jobs is a Californian known for his new age interest in vegetarianism and spirituality, but Cook, who is from Alabama, loves American football. And while Jobs enjoyed rockstar-like fame, the intensely private Cook toiled for years in obscurity, an operations wonk who made the proverbial trains run on time. But now it may be the things that Cook shares with Jobs that will matter most as he takes over as boss of one of the world’s coolest companies. One of those characteristics is said to be sheer competitiveness. “He’s not in it for the fame or the ego or the money. He’s in it to win,” said Greg Petsch, his boss at Compaq Computer during the late 90s. “The guy is just a phenomenal operating executive,” said Mark Briggs, who was Cook’s boss at Intelligent Electronics from 1994 to 1997. Briggs remembers a highly analytical executive, focused on metrics, who overhauled the company’s supply chain. “He just works all the time, that’s his life.” Cook has a strong record as a stand-in. When Jobs was first ill in 2004 Cook took charge and things went so well he was made chief operating officer. In his second stint, Apple’s stock rose 62%. Charles Arthur and agencies Tim Cook Apple Computing United States Charles Arthur guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Tim Cook has tough job to keep Apple sweet

Steve Jobs’s successor as chief executive faces one of the toughest challenges in corporate history Apple’s new chief executive Tim Cook vowed to stick to Apple’s “unique principles and values” as investors marked his first day as successor to founder Steve Jobs by selling shares and marking the company’s value down by more than 5%, or about £10bn. In taking over from Jobs, widely regarded as a genius for giving the world such groundbreaking products as the iPod and iPhone, Cook faces one of the toughest challenges in corporate history as he strives to maintain Apple’s position as the world’s foremost technology firm. Earlier this month Apple briefly passed the oil behemoth Exxon to become the world’s most valuable company just 14 years after flirting with bankruptcy. In a company-wide email on Thursday, Cook, who has been at Apple for 13 years, told staff: “I want you to be confident that Apple is not going to change. I cherish and celebrate Apple’s unique principles and values. Steve built a company and culture that is unlike any other in the world and we are going to stay true to that – it is in our DNA. We are going to continue to make the best products in the world that delight our customers and make our employees incredibly proud of what they do.” The first challenge for Cook’s reign will be the expected unveiling of the next versions of the iPhone, widely anticipated within the next six weeks as Apple aims to capitalise on its leadership of the mobile phone industry, where it has risen from nothing to having the largest revenue and profits in just under five years. In the computer market, its small sales have still grown faster than the rest of the Windows-based market for 20 successive quarters. And its iPad tablet still dominates the fast-growing market, despite competition from dozens of rivals using Google’s free Android operating system. Reports said that Jobs spent his final day as chief executive at the Apple campus in Cupertino, California, where he worked a full day, and that he intended to be an “active” chairman of the company. Although he gave no reason for his departure, announced late on Wednesday, medical observers believe it is linked to the rare neuroendocrine cancer for which he was treated in 2004, and the liver transplant he received in April 2009. Cook, 50, was until Wednesday the company’s chief operating officer, and had been acting CEO since January. He has long been seen as the natural successor. But even as investors were selling the stock – it later recovered to be down only 1.1% – business analysts were insisting that Cook would have at least two years in which to rely on products that Apple will already have under development. The departure of Jobs, the visionary who has set out Apple’s philosophy for decades – first between 1975 and 1985, and then from 1997 to this year – had been seen by some investors as cause for alarm at the company, which is now more valuable than rivals such as Microsoft, Dell and Intel. But Gartner Research analyst Michael Gartenberg suggested that customers would continue to be loyal to the brand. Without Jobs, he believes the company’s challenge will be the same as it was with him: continuing to find ways to raise the bar with its consumer electronics. “Yes, this is quite some transition… but it doesn’t mean Apple itself will fundamentally change,” he said. “Certainly Apple’s competition would be foolish to think this is a situation they could somehow capitalise on.” Richard Windsor at Nomura said: “By its own admission, Apple’s pipeline is several years long, so if innovation were to stop dead overnight it would still be some time before the effect was felt. That said, the launch of the next iPhone already delayed from the anticipated July launch will be even more important now than it already was. If the hardware is not impressive … then the company may be seen to be losing momentum.” Richard Gardner at Citigroup advised investors to buy the stock if it drops, saying Jobs had laid a strong foundation, and that he expected it to gain market share for years. “In our view, [Cook] is a tough but well-regarded leader who will continue to hold Apple employees to an extremely high standard of performance,” he wrote.” The quiet man with similar goals Steve Jobs is famous for his temper, while Tim Cook is described as soft-spoken. Jobs is a Californian known for his new age interest in vegetarianism and spirituality, but Cook, who is from Alabama, loves American football. And while Jobs enjoyed rockstar-like fame, the intensely private Cook toiled for years in obscurity, an operations wonk who made the proverbial trains run on time. But now it may be the things that Cook shares with Jobs that will matter most as he takes over as boss of one of the world’s coolest companies. One of those characteristics is said to be sheer competitiveness. “He’s not in it for the fame or the ego or the money. He’s in it to win,” said Greg Petsch, his boss at Compaq Computer during the late 90s. “The guy is just a phenomenal operating executive,” said Mark Briggs, who was Cook’s boss at Intelligent Electronics from 1994 to 1997. Briggs remembers a highly analytical executive, focused on metrics, who overhauled the company’s supply chain. “He just works all the time, that’s his life.” Cook has a strong record as a stand-in. When Jobs was first ill in 2004 Cook took charge and things went so well he was made chief operating officer. In his second stint, Apple’s stock rose 62%. Charles Arthur and agencies Tim Cook Apple Computing United States Charles Arthur guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Tim Cook has tough job to keep Apple sweet

Steve Jobs’s successor as chief executive faces one of the toughest challenges in corporate history Apple’s new chief executive Tim Cook vowed to stick to Apple’s “unique principles and values” as investors marked his first day as successor to founder Steve Jobs by selling shares and marking the company’s value down by more than 5%, or about £10bn. In taking over from Jobs, widely regarded as a genius for giving the world such groundbreaking products as the iPod and iPhone, Cook faces one of the toughest challenges in corporate history as he strives to maintain Apple’s position as the world’s foremost technology firm. Earlier this month Apple briefly passed the oil behemoth Exxon to become the world’s most valuable company just 14 years after flirting with bankruptcy. In a company-wide email on Thursday, Cook, who has been at Apple for 13 years, told staff: “I want you to be confident that Apple is not going to change. I cherish and celebrate Apple’s unique principles and values. Steve built a company and culture that is unlike any other in the world and we are going to stay true to that – it is in our DNA. We are going to continue to make the best products in the world that delight our customers and make our employees incredibly proud of what they do.” The first challenge for Cook’s reign will be the expected unveiling of the next versions of the iPhone, widely anticipated within the next six weeks as Apple aims to capitalise on its leadership of the mobile phone industry, where it has risen from nothing to having the largest revenue and profits in just under five years. In the computer market, its small sales have still grown faster than the rest of the Windows-based market for 20 successive quarters. And its iPad tablet still dominates the fast-growing market, despite competition from dozens of rivals using Google’s free Android operating system. Reports said that Jobs spent his final day as chief executive at the Apple campus in Cupertino, California, where he worked a full day, and that he intended to be an “active” chairman of the company. Although he gave no reason for his departure, announced late on Wednesday, medical observers believe it is linked to the rare neuroendocrine cancer for which he was treated in 2004, and the liver transplant he received in April 2009. Cook, 50, was until Wednesday the company’s chief operating officer, and had been acting CEO since January. He has long been seen as the natural successor. But even as investors were selling the stock – it later recovered to be down only 1.1% – business analysts were insisting that Cook would have at least two years in which to rely on products that Apple will already have under development. The departure of Jobs, the visionary who has set out Apple’s philosophy for decades – first between 1975 and 1985, and then from 1997 to this year – had been seen by some investors as cause for alarm at the company, which is now more valuable than rivals such as Microsoft, Dell and Intel. But Gartner Research analyst Michael Gartenberg suggested that customers would continue to be loyal to the brand. Without Jobs, he believes the company’s challenge will be the same as it was with him: continuing to find ways to raise the bar with its consumer electronics. “Yes, this is quite some transition… but it doesn’t mean Apple itself will fundamentally change,” he said. “Certainly Apple’s competition would be foolish to think this is a situation they could somehow capitalise on.” Richard Windsor at Nomura said: “By its own admission, Apple’s pipeline is several years long, so if innovation were to stop dead overnight it would still be some time before the effect was felt. That said, the launch of the next iPhone already delayed from the anticipated July launch will be even more important now than it already was. If the hardware is not impressive … then the company may be seen to be losing momentum.” Richard Gardner at Citigroup advised investors to buy the stock if it drops, saying Jobs had laid a strong foundation, and that he expected it to gain market share for years. “In our view, [Cook] is a tough but well-regarded leader who will continue to hold Apple employees to an extremely high standard of performance,” he wrote.” The quiet man with similar goals Steve Jobs is famous for his temper, while Tim Cook is described as soft-spoken. Jobs is a Californian known for his new age interest in vegetarianism and spirituality, but Cook, who is from Alabama, loves American football. And while Jobs enjoyed rockstar-like fame, the intensely private Cook toiled for years in obscurity, an operations wonk who made the proverbial trains run on time. But now it may be the things that Cook shares with Jobs that will matter most as he takes over as boss of one of the world’s coolest companies. One of those characteristics is said to be sheer competitiveness. “He’s not in it for the fame or the ego or the money. He’s in it to win,” said Greg Petsch, his boss at Compaq Computer during the late 90s. “The guy is just a phenomenal operating executive,” said Mark Briggs, who was Cook’s boss at Intelligent Electronics from 1994 to 1997. Briggs remembers a highly analytical executive, focused on metrics, who overhauled the company’s supply chain. “He just works all the time, that’s his life.” Cook has a strong record as a stand-in. When Jobs was first ill in 2004 Cook took charge and things went so well he was made chief operating officer. In his second stint, Apple’s stock rose 62%. Charles Arthur and agencies Tim Cook Apple Computing United States Charles Arthur guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Fox News Cuts Off Rove After He Calls Palin Thin-Skinned

Click here to view this media A Fox News interview with Karl Rove ended abruptly Wednesday after the conservative analyst repeatedly suggested potential Republican presidential candidate Sarah Palin had a “thin skin.” Earlier this week, Palin had lashed out at Rove and other pundits for speculating that she may or may not run in 2012. “What is it about Governor Palin that if anyone says her name, someone like you, that it just explodes?” Fox News host Greta Van Susteren asked Rove. “Is that the media or is that Governor Palin or is that Karl Rove?” “No, no, that’s Governor Palin,” Rove asserted. “I’m mystified. Look, she is all upset about this saying I’m trying to sabotage her in some way. And how dare I speculate on her future. If she doesn’t want to be speculated about as a potential candidate, there’s an easy way to end the speculation. Say, ‘I’m not running.’” “It is a sign of enormous thin skin if we speculate about her, she gets upset. And I suspect, if we didn’t speculate about her she would be upset and try to find a way to get us to speculate about her.” Van Susteren tried to steer Rove’s rage back toward the subject of the media but he continued to talk about Palin. “End the speculation by saying, ‘I’m not going to be a candidate.’ Until then, I would recommend she might get a slightly thicker skin. If she has this thin a skin now when people are saying, ‘I think she might be a candidate,’ how is she going to react if she does get into the campaign and gets the scrutiny that every candidate does get?” Rove asked. “I mean, that’s not going to be a pretty sight if she’s as thin-skinned in the fray as she is on the edges of it.” After that comment, Rove was quickly interrupted by a “Fox News Alert” about Steve Jobs’ resignation from Apple, news that had been first reported hours earlier.

Continue reading …
Fox News Cuts Off Rove After He Calls Palin Thin-Skinned

Click here to view this media A Fox News interview with Karl Rove ended abruptly Wednesday after the conservative analyst repeatedly suggested potential Republican presidential candidate Sarah Palin had a “thin skin.” Earlier this week, Palin had lashed out at Rove and other pundits for speculating that she may or may not run in 2012. “What is it about Governor Palin that if anyone says her name, someone like you, that it just explodes?” Fox News host Greta Van Susteren asked Rove. “Is that the media or is that Governor Palin or is that Karl Rove?” “No, no, that’s Governor Palin,” Rove asserted. “I’m mystified. Look, she is all upset about this saying I’m trying to sabotage her in some way. And how dare I speculate on her future. If she doesn’t want to be speculated about as a potential candidate, there’s an easy way to end the speculation. Say, ‘I’m not running.’” “It is a sign of enormous thin skin if we speculate about her, she gets upset. And I suspect, if we didn’t speculate about her she would be upset and try to find a way to get us to speculate about her.” Van Susteren tried to steer Rove’s rage back toward the subject of the media but he continued to talk about Palin. “End the speculation by saying, ‘I’m not going to be a candidate.’ Until then, I would recommend she might get a slightly thicker skin. If she has this thin a skin now when people are saying, ‘I think she might be a candidate,’ how is she going to react if she does get into the campaign and gets the scrutiny that every candidate does get?” Rove asked. “I mean, that’s not going to be a pretty sight if she’s as thin-skinned in the fray as she is on the edges of it.” After that comment, Rove was quickly interrupted by a “Fox News Alert” about Steve Jobs’ resignation from Apple, news that had been first reported hours earlier.

Continue reading …