Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Would you hire John Kerry?
Now say someone comes to you looking for a job. Right off the bat, you
notice something strange about his résumé: It goes on for page after page about
a job he held for four months, more than 35 years ago, but makes only the barest
mention of anything he's done since. You have him in for an interview, and he
can't give you a straight answer to any question about what he plans to do in
the job if you hire him. Instead (to borrow a description from Joe Conason), he
sounds like a bar-stool bore, with a bad habit of repeating the same lame boasts
about that long-ago four-month stint again and again.
Still, you decide to check out his references. (John Edwards: "If
you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend three minutes
with the men who served with him.") Some sing his praises quite extravagantly,
but a greater number describe him harshly as a man of dubious character, and
some accuse him of lying on his résumé. He acknowledges a few embellishments but
refuses to provide you with documents that would shed light on the other
accusations.
Would you hire this man? And would you fire an employee of four years'
standing in order to create an opening for him?
3 Comments:
By 
Daniel R, at
Tue Sep 07, 05:49:00 PM:
If the employee of 4 years standing had ohh say, exaggerated certain facts about details (weapons of mass destruction) and caused my company into a defecit to work on the non-exsistent threat. Perhaps I would have fired that emplyee long before 4 years was up. But then again, in the bussiness world grammer is important, so perhaps He wouldn't have gotten hired in the first place. I'd say more often people as such get hired because their dad's work in the company. You know, wouldn't want to break tradition.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Sep 07, 06:06:00 PM:
Hey, Charlottesvillain, you have to admit that Daniel R. has a good point...
By Charlottesvillain, at
Tue Sep 07, 10:40:00 PM:
Excellent point, but not an answer to the question. I disagree with the premise of the WMD thing, but the family connection cannot be denied.
Even so, the context of the original (if you read the whole thing) was the suggestion that Bush should be voted out because he was once an alcoholic and because Cheney had a DUI back in the 70's.
