PunditGuy

The New York Times doesn’t like Wal-Mart, and over the years, the Old Gray Lady has taken shots at America’s Store in hopes of crippling its leadership and slowing its success. Goaded by the labor unions, the NYT goes to great lengths to splatter mud on Wal-Mart’s corporate practices. They demonize Wal-Mart and characterize its management as dictators controlling an evil empire from the bridge of the death star in Bentonville, Arkansas. Why? It’s simple really. The New York Times is run by liberals living in a bubble who oppose good old fashioned capitalism. They don’t believe in an American Dream that enables a family owned business to build itself up to become the worlds largest retailer, employing 1.6 MILLION people in 3,800 stores in the US alone. The liberals at the NYT and their ACLU brethren truly believe that Wal-Mart’s goal is to victimize and enslave their workforce. In a nutshell, they believe a Wal-Mart store is no different than a sweatshop in a third world country, and they must be stopped.

So it is that we have this today, the next salvo in the NYT war against Wal-Mart.

On Private Web Site, Wal-Mart Chief Talks Tough

In a confidential, internal Web site for Wal-Mart’s managers, the company’s chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., seemed to have a rare, unscripted moment when one manager asked him why “the largest company on the planet cannot offer some type of medical retirement benefits?”

Mr. Scott first argues that the cost of such benefits would leave Wal-Mart at a competitive disadvantage but then, clearly annoyed, he suggests that the store manager is disloyal and should consider quitting.

The Web site, which Mr. Scott uses to communicate his tough standards to thousands of far-flung managers, gives a rare glimpse into the concerns that are roiling Wal-Mart’s retailing empire, from the company’s sagging stock price to how it treats its workers. Judging by the managers’ questions, Mr. Scott has an internal public relations challenge that in some ways mirrors the challenge he faces from outside critics.

And while Mr. Scott’s postings are usually written in a careful, even guarded manner, they can often be revealing — for example, showing a defensiveness and testiness with critics — that Mr. Scott normally keeps under wraps.

So, there’s your premise. Due to the fact that Wal-Mart has been forced to fight two battles, an external one in the press, and an internal one amongst it’s workforce, its leader, Lee Scott Jr., is a stressed out CEO who is one step away from entering a private padded room wearing a self-made straight jacket. At least, that’s the way the New York Times sees it.

But once again, the liberal socialists at the New York Times have it wrong. While they attempt to characterize the internal conversations between Mr. Scott and Wal-Mart employees as equal to a one sided dialog between a slave and his owner, they have failed to see the business logic which provides the foundation for Scott’s answers to a few ignorant questions posed by some Wal-Mart employees.

In his response to the store manager who asked about retiree health benefits, Mr. Scott wrote: “Quite honestly, this environment isn’t for everyone. There are people who would say, ‘I’m sorry, but you should take the risk and take billions of dollars out of earnings and put this in retiree health benefits and let’s see what happens to the company.’ If you feel that way, then you as a manager should look for a company where you can do those kinds of things.”

Mona Williams, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said Mr. Scott responded so sharply because of the manager’s sarcastic tone. The question, she said, indicated the manager failed to understand how competitive retailing is and would not be able to convey that to his subordinates.

“At Wal-Mart, we communicate very candidly with one another,” she said. She added that Mr. Scott’s tone did not deter employees from asking questions, noting that 2,147 questions have been asked since last April.

Oh, but that kind of open communication can’t possibly be healthy, that is, if you’re the type to believe the leadership at the Times.

Here are some of the other ‘unpardonable sins’ committed by CEO Scott, according to the NYT:

• He denounces managers who complain about the company or their subordinates.
• He frets about the success of his competitors.
• He exhorts employees to act with integrity.
• He mocks other large corporations for problems caused by its generous benefits.
• He rejects the suggestion that Wal-Mart has created “a culture of fear”.
• He hails Wal-Mart’s performance in responding to Hurricane Katrina.

Sounds like a great manager to me.

The NYT then throws in this attempt to discredit Scott.

Mr. Scott, 56, joined Wal-Mart in 1979 as its assistant trucking manager. Helped by his affable manner and his command of the company’s vast distribution system, he was named chief executive in 2000.

This is nothing more than a shameful slight of hand attempt to beat Scott with the old silver spoon, claiming his rise to power within Wal-Mart was accomplished through the hard work of others, and not his own efforts.

Throughout the dozens of postings, Mr. Scott shows deep concern about the many attacks and allegations that Wal-Mart skirts environmental and labor laws. He acknowledges that Wal-Mart used to have a greater tolerance for managers who cut corners, but his postings insist that Wal-Mart’s new focus is on total compliance with the law. In a posting last June, he quoted the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., saying, “The time is always right to do what is right.”

Responding to a manager’s question about attacks on Wal-Mart’s image, Mr. Scott wrote in an April 2004 posting: “Your value to Wal-Mart is outweighed by the damage you could do to our company when you do the wrong thing.”

“If you choose to do the wrong thing: if you choose to dispose of oil the wrong way, if you choose to take a shortcut on payroll, if you choose to take a shortcut on a raise for someone — you hurt this company,” he added. “And it’s not unlikely in today’s environment that your shortcut is going to end up on the front page of the newspaper. It’s not fair to the rest of us when you do that.”

This guy is a company man with a business sense that doesn’t crumble when employees misunderstand the corporate goal. And hey, when you’ve got 1.6 million people working for you, it’s naive to think everyone is going to ‘get it’. At the same time, Scott’s responses clearly show an attempt to help the Wal-Mart workforce understand the rationale behind the decisions made from corporate headquarters. These sound business decisions have made Wal-Mart what it is today, a retail success three times larger than its closest competitor.

But, success always comes at a price, and Scott understands this. Following the release of the NYT piece today, he sent an internal memo to Wal-Mart associates.

“Well, we had been looking for ways to promote Lee’s Garage, and it looks like the New York Times has done that for us. The reporters take issue with my tone in some cases, but as you all know, with me, what you see is what you get. I will respectfully tell it like it is. I think the story ends on an important point, quoting my advice to an up-and-coming leader: “The first thing you can do is make sure you treat your people well, and understand that your associates are what will make you a success.” I truly believe that and think you can’t go wrong in this business if you live by that.”

The New York Times effort to describe Lee Scott as a disconnected, elitist, Attila the Hun, mercenary CEO who’s out for himself fails at every turn. And so it goes. The Old Gray Lady tries and tries again to beat the prize fighter, but once more the decision goes to her opponent, and she ends up face down on the mat.  

Nice try.

UPDATE: Bloggers scoop NYT.

Actor Richard Dreyfuss of “Jaws” fame, calls for the impeachment of George W. Bush (video) and characterizes the uphill battle as a “Cause worth fighting for”. Big deal, right? Heard this before, right? Yes, it’s true – liberals calling for the impeachment of the president isn’t news. So why do I give mention to this instance of the same ‘ol song and dance? I do because Dreyfuss’ call for removal includes a few tidbits of interest.

Dreyfuss said impeachment “is a statement that we refuse to endorse bad behavior.”

“If we refuse to debate the appropriateness of the process of impeachment, we endorse that behavior, and we approve the enlargement of executive power,” regardless of whoever may occupy the White House in the future, he said.

“And don’t kid yourselves: No one ever gives up power, ever,” Dreyfuss added.

I’d like to direct your attention to exhibit ‘A’ – Bill Clinton.

“Now, it is not your job as the press to impeach George Bush,” the actor stated. However, people in the media should “maintain the integrity of that debate” by not dismissing the topic out of hand as partisan or unpatriotic.

But Richard, that would mean that the press would have to insert political bias into their reporting!

During his address on the subject of Hollywood’s view of contemporary news media, Dreyfuss said he is not a cynic or a liberal, but is instead a “‘libo-conservo-middle-of-the-roado,’ and I have been for many years.”

Don’t kid yourself, Richard. We know who you are.

Dreyfuss blamed part of that reaction on television newscasters, who “fill the air with the same terrible clips, the same blaring intro music, the same screaming fonts, and then the same clips again and the same screaming fonts again and again to fill up these news cycles.”

“Television did this. Television created the sound bite and then shrunk it,” the actor said. “Television replaced words with images so that people make extraordinary decisions based not on prose or any attempt at analysis,” but on pictures instead.

Yes, yes…if only there were more real journalists left in the world, like Dan Rather, Keith Olbermann, and Bill Moyer. Their news analysis is unimpeachable.

To restore true American values, the actor called for children to be taught “the tools of debate and dissent,” as well as a return to the principle of civility, which he called “the oxygen that democracies require else they become poisoned and die, as this democracy will.”

Democracy is not dying Mr. Dreyfuss. Democracy is winning. Democrats and liberals are losing. Their stranglehold on the media and governmental power are dying and they can’t stand it. The truth of being wrong, so consistently wrong for so long, is killing liberals and killing the Democratic party.

The 78-year-old man who was accidently shot by Vice President Dick Cheney spoke to the media today [source unavailable] as he was released from the hospital. (Video)

The hunter shot by Dick Cheney said Friday that “accidents do and will happen” and said he is sorry for all the hullabaloo and scrutiny the incident has brought upon the vice president and his family.

“This past weekend encompassed all of us in a cloud of misfortune and a sadness that is not easy to explain, especially to those who are not familiar with the great sport of quail hunting,” said Austin attorney Harry Whittington. “We all assume certain risks in whatever we do … accidents do and will happen and that’s what happened.”

He added: “My family and I are deeply sorry for all Vice President Cheney and his family had to go through this week.”

Nothing but humility from Mr. Whittington. That’s class, pure and simple.

Let the truth be told.

What coverup? The Left side of the blogosphere and various ‘Democratic Strategists’ on cable news television keep eluding to various conspiracy theories involving VP Dick Cheney and the hunting accident, which are now being intentionally covered up by the Bush administration. Funny thing is, the moonbats can’t provide any proof of what is actually being covered up, yet they continue to toss unfounded allegations. For example, James Carville, in an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America, requested the release of blood alcohol results for Harry Whittington, Dick Cheney and other members of the hunting party. Obviously, the Democrats are pushing a ‘Cheney was drunk’ angle. 

The Texas sheriff today released his department report on the incident, which now joins the report which was released on Monday from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. In both accounts the facts behind the accident are identical. From a law enforcement standpoint, the case is closed.

So, again I ask, what is being covered up and who is the evil puppet master? So far, the theories I’ve heard are laughable.

According to Peggy Noonan, Vice President Dick Cheney attracts too much hate, consistently enough, that administration officials are privately talking about a replacement. Not because Mr. Cheney is incompetent, but because an election is on the horizon, and George W. Bush will want a successor who will continue his policies, on Iraq and the wider war on terror.

I believe Cheney would be the type to leave without a fight if it came down to Bush asking that question.  But, that’s not George W. Bush. The president rarely, if ever, ‘starts over’, so the only way Noonan’s scenario becomes reality is if Dick Cheney takes the lead and pushes Bush to make the change. The hunting accident alone won’t prompt this, and all indications are that Cheney is moving on with his job, not thinking about an exit strategy. It all comes down to the people around the president and the vice president. Are they strong enough to suggest a veep change to these two individuals who’s opinions aren’t the most flexible? Would they be able to convince Bush and Cheney, who together are the very definition of ‘stay the course’, that for political reasons alone, a shake up is necessary?

It’s doubtful.  

“It was one of the worst days of my life.”

Fox News won’t broadcast their exclusive interview with Vice President Dick Cheney [source unavailable] until 6 PM Eastern Standard Time, but they have already filed a report highlighting some of Cheney’s remarks. So far, it sounds like a favorable and more importantly, credible interview involving a guy (who just happens to be the Vice President of the United States), who mistakenly shot his friend, and that the mistake was an horrible experience that will never leave him.

I’ll post a link to the video as soon as it is available.

UPDATE: Video

UPDATE II: I’ve watched the interview, and in my opinion, the story today from the Vice President is the same as it was when Katharine Armstrong, owner of the ranch where the shooting occurred, released the news on Sunday. I buy Cheney’s reasoning for the news delay. No one wanted any inaccuracies, and given the fact that competition among the news media often results in the transmission of breaking news which is less than accurate, the Vice President weighed the risks and chose to wait until doctors were confident about Harry Whittington’s condition. He was right to do this.

Cheney understands the media, and he knows that no matter how the report goes out, he’s going to be vilified. This is why his reason for the delayed news release is credible. There was no benefit to him to have the story out sooner or later, the final judgement was going to be the same either way.

One thing is completely clear. Cheney brought humanness to the whole thing. Contrary to the cold-blooded Darth Vader-like caricature built by the media, this interview shows that the man is clearly upset over what happened. Who wouldn’t be? But will Cheney’s remorse be the subject of the next cycle of headlines concerning the matter?

Don’t bet on it.

From a story filed by ABC News on the Cheney hunting accident, I noticed this status report on Harry Whittington’s condition.

Whittington, 78, suffered a mild heart attack Tuesday after a birdshot in his chest traveled to his heart, Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial officials said. He is still in the hospital’s intensive care unit. A hospital spokesman said that was “strictly due to personal privacy issues,” and that he was sitting up, eating regular food, and planning on doing some of his legal work today.

Now, let me say up front that getting shot is a serious matter, especially if you’re a 78-year-old man. I’m not trivializing this. What concerns me is the disparate information coming from Mr. Whittington’s doctors and the media. The doctors, who know better than anyone involved in this matter, are painting as accurate a picture as they possibly can concerning the health status of Whittington. Yet, the media reports create the impression that Whittington is still in the path of death. As a result, the pot stirring continues, and speculation and what-if scenarios continue to grow hour-by-hour.

Just this morning I heard a sound bite from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who characterized Harry Whittington as a “very sick man”. How does this square with what Whittington’s doctors are saying about Whittington? I don’t want to get into a “what is the meaning of sick” debate here. I’m simply illustrating a serious gap in tone. What if Whittington was to appear today on video, “sitting up, eating regular food, and doing legal work”? Would anyone really think they’re looking at a “very sick man”?

I predict that we’ll see something exactly like this within the next 48 hours. Some brief video clip or sound-bite from Whittington will be released, probably with him smiling, laughing, and shrugging his shoulders over this whole thing. And then what can we expect, a story about Harry Whittington’s miraculous recovery? News about how a 78-year-old man beat back a visit from Mr. Death? An honest account of Whittington’s real condition as opposed to the hyped drama?

Nope, we won’t hear, see or read anything of the sort. The New York Times will probably file a story which floats yet another conspiracy theory – like, this:

“Was the man identified as Harry Whittington in video released today really Harry Whittington, or a stand-in hired by the White House?”

Michelle Malkin made a prediction yesterday that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t dare offer her opinion on the matter involving Vice President Dick Cheney and the weekend hunting accident because of the parallels between that story and one from 1996. Apparently, Hillary’s handlers forgot to read Malkin’s blog yesterday, or scour news archives to see if a Cheney comment could potentially backfire on the former first lady.

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Aug. 27, 1996) — The same day Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak at the Democratic National Convention, newly released documents suggest she was behind the 30-hour delay in releasing late White House counsel Vincent Foster’s suicide note to authorities.

How the White House handled Foster’s 1993 death, and the possibility that administration officials improperly removed documents from his office or impeded an official search of it, has been the subject of intense scrutiny by congressional Republicans and the media.

The newly released memo, written by White House lawyer Miriam Nemetz, quotes then-White House chief of staff Mack McLarty as saying Mrs. Clinton “was very upset and believed the matter required further thought and the president should not yet be told” about Foster’s note.

According to the document, Mrs. Clinton “said they should have a coherent position and should have decided what to do before they told the president.”

That contradicts sworn testimony to the Senate Whitewater Committee from Clinton staffers that the first lady had no role whatsoever in the handling of Foster’s note.

A few points stand out here. First, the 30–hour delay before the release of Foster’s suicide note. Second, Hillary’s excuse for not informing the president, or the media, because she was upset and needed more time to think, and finally, Hillary’s claim that they should have a coherent position and a decision on what to do before they told the president (and again, the media).

Fast forward to yesterday. Hillary offered up this comment regarding Cheney’s accident.

Asked at a press conference for her reaction about how the White House has handled the incident, US Senator Hillary Clinton called the Bush administration’s failure to be more forthcoming “troubling.”

“A tendency of this administration — from the top all the way to the bottom — is to withhold information … to refuse to be forthcoming about information that is of significance and relevance to the jobs that all of you do, and the interests of the American people,” Clinton said.

“Putting it all together, going back years now, there’s a pattern and it’s a pattern that should be troubling,” she said at a press conference calling for a more robust federal response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

The former first lady continued: “The refusal of this administration to level with the American people on matters large and small is very disturbing, because it goes counter to the way our constitutional democracy … is supposed to work.”

Funny how this is such a disturbing and troubling story today, one which counters our constitutional democracy! Yet, if Hillary were to be reminded about her own decision to withhold for more than 24 hours information about a suicide which might just prompt other questions about Foster’s motives, involvements, and interconnectedness with the former first lady, would it be characterized the same way? Would anyone in the MSM claim that our constitutional democracy was in peril when Hillary’s husband was in the White House?

Heh, I wish.

Hillary is notorious for her selective memory, and I have no doubt that she would react with a throw back of the head and a chortle if any comparison between her and Cheney were to arise. Meanwhile, the MSM, whose selective memory is just as chronic, has already proven that they see no conflict between the Hillary of today and the Hillary of 1996.

For those keeping score, this is MSM double standard number 2,053,100.

Others: Gateway Pundit | Kevin Sites |

National Review Online has a suggestion for the Vice President.

Cheney himself should make a public appearance on the matter, and the sooner the better. He should get himself with a respected national anchor — perhaps Brit Hume of Fox News — as soon as this evening to express his regret and explain in his own words what happened. He should stop relying on press aides who were not present at the accident to tell his side of the story. Not talking only feeds speculation, and aids the cause of those who want to lampoon and smear him. Let’s hear from the vice president.

I agree, only because it appears that with each passing moment, the MSM and the lefties add another hour to the delay of the initial report (first it was 12 hours, then 14 and now suddenly it’s 24 hours), they hypothesize, they dream up conspiracy theories, and they propagate unnecessary speculation.

It’s time to end this, and the Veep is the only one who can.

MORE: This is exactly the kind of crap I’m talking about.

STILL MORE: And here’s another example.

STILL STILL MORE: Cheney must read NRO. He’s scheduled to talk with Brit Hume today.