Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

McCain Wants Ballmer For His Cabinet

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the throwing-chairs-at-the-chinese dept.

Slashback 431

While many people jumped all over presidential hopeful John McCain's wrong-headed view on network neutrality, few noticed his infuriating love for Microsoft. "[T]he 70 year old presidential hopeful also said that he would ask Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to serve on his cabinet to deal with technology issues if elected. He did not however say what position Ballmer might be hired in, but did joke that he might consider him for a diplomatic position, such as ambassador to China."

cancel ×

431 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh God (5, Funny)

Ethelred Unraed (32954) | more than 7 years ago | (#19372757)

But the comedy almost writes itself.

Imagine Ballmer jumping around and screaming at cabinet meetings.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:Oh God (2, Funny)

artemis67 (93453) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373749)

I hear the Monkey Boy dance is big in China...

Re:Oh God (5, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373845)

No wonder Dick Cheney kept Ballmer out of the current Administration. A shotgun weilding Vice President versus a chair throwing Ambassador would make for an interesting Sunday morning talk show routine.

Re:Oh God (4, Funny)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373865)

During the meetings, would he be continuously screaming "Politicians" three times in a row, or "Lobbyists"?

Re:Oh God (2, Funny)

random0xff (1062770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373985)

"Politicians, politicians, politicians..."

or maybe

"Lobyists, lobyists, lobyists"

Re:Oh God (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374007)

Yeah, Ballmer throws a few chairs in the direction of the chinese delegate and they response with warheads.

Re:Oh God (2, Funny)

sokoban (142301) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374065)

Imagine Ballmer jumping around and screaming at cabinet meetings.
As a chairman, he has excelled at throwing chairs, so I guess as a cabinet member he will excel at throwing dishes.

Lies, not Truth, Appeal to the American Voter (4, Insightful)

reporter (666905) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374337)

That John McCain would consider picking Steve Ballmer to serve in the cabinet just affirms the stupidity of the American voter. Flash, not substance, appeals to the typical voter. Ballmer has plenty of flash; he is the high-profile leader of one of the most well-known companies in America. To the dumb American voter, Ballmer is good, and the chairman of the electrical enginering department at MIT is bad. The likelihood that McCain would pick a good choice -- like the EE department chairman at MIT -- is zero.

Among the Republican candidates, both John McCain and Ron Paul are the least dishonest candidates -- even if you disagree with their political positions. McCain is honest in saying that a substantial increase in troops in Iraq can transform the country. He is correct. Increasing the number of Western occupying soldiers to 400,000, pushing aside the Iraqi government, and running Iraq as a colony on the basis of Western values (e.g., equality for women) will transform Iraq into a prosperous, liberal Western nation. At the end of 20 years of occupation, we can relinquish control to democratically elected Iraqi politicians who spent most of their youth in a Western-value-dominated colony.

At the same time, Ron Paul is correct when he says that American foreign policy (like deposing the democratically elected government of Iran in the 1950s) is, at least partially, responsible for Arab attacks (like the 9/11 incident) against American citizens.

Note that neither men can win this election. American voters do not want to hear truth. Neoconservative voters especially do not want to hear the truth. They wanted war on the cheap and cheered using a pathetic force of 160,000 soldiers to occupy Iraq. Of course, these voters refuse to support making sacrifices for the war; their attitude is, "You make all the sacrifies for the war. You die for the war. As for me, I make no sacrifices. I will not support even a tax increase to pay for this war. Excuse me! I must hop in my SUV and head off to the baseball game!"

When Ron Paul told the truth during the recent debate, the Republican voters booed and condemned him. They do not want to hear about American responsibility for the 9/11 incident. In the debate, Ruddy Giuliani viciously attacked Paul and his utterance of the truth. Few politicians are as dishonest as Giuliani, so he has the best chance of being nominated as the Republican candidate. The American voter prefers hearing lies.

On the Democratic side, the least dishonest politicians are Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, and Barack Obama.

Okay. Clinton has a good chance of being president. However, she keeps saying the truth. She refuses to apologize for her vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Although we now know that the CIA intelligence data was wrong, supporting the use of force was appropriate since, in 2003, we believed that the intelligence data was correct. If a nation with a leader making violent threats does have weapons of mass destruction, authorizing the use of military force against this nation is appropriate -- maybe, even, desirable. Clinton voted correctly. She correctly refuses to apologize for the vote.

However, if she keeps sticking to the truth, she will ruin her chances to win in the election. The dumb American voter does not want to hear the truth. So, henceforth, Clinton should avoid talking about her vote on the use of force -- if she wants to win. She must focus on flashy superficialities -- just like Giuliani.

Of course, Fred Thompson has an excellent chance to win. Nothing is more superficial and flashy than an actor.

Anti-script: 'Qualify' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19374611)

I'd like to know how you became chairman at MIT.

Re:Lies, not Truth, Appeal to the American Voter (-1, Flamebait)

DrDitto (962751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374665)

Elitist attitude.

Ambassador to Vietnam (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19373727)

Revenge is sweet.

"Infuriating love" (4, Insightful)

Admodieus (918728) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373739)

So a presidential hopeful wants somebody who at least knows how technology works to be a technology adviser? Say it ain't so! However, I do hope this happens so he is able to re-use the "Developers, developers, developers" presentation.

clueless infatuation, convicted monopolist (5, Insightful)

Erris (531066) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373837)

So a presidential hopeful wants somebody who at least knows how technology works to be a technology adviser? Say it ain't so!

If "knifing the baby", "cutting off oxygen" and "fucking killing" is how technology works, McCain has his man. Ballmer knows NOTHING about technology and needs the kind of business ethics class that comes with steel bars on the door.

I hope the whole thing was a bad joke, but there is no mistaking McCain's stance on network neutrality. Love of M$ goes hand in hand with approval of ATT's tactics.

Will the "M$" ever die?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19374107)

Jesus Christ, how old are you people? As if spelling Microsoft as "M$" somehow makes you more leet or insightful.

Here's a hint. It makes you look retarded. It's like a 5 year old calling somebody poopyhead or something.

Please grow up and call them by their correct names, unless you want to look like an idiot, which you did.

Re:Will the "M$" ever die?? (2, Informative)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374213)

Jesus Christ, how old are you people? As if spelling Microsoft as "M$" somehow makes you more leet or insightful.

Here's a hint. It makes you look retarded. It's like a 5 year old calling somebody poopyhead or something.

Please grow up and call them by their correct names, unless you want to look like an idiot, which you did.

No, it has nothing to do with wanting to sound "leet" or insightful. It's a slightly amusing way to express hatred for a company. It does not make the user look retarded, unless they use it in a formal setting, which this isn't. Getting your panties in a wad when someone makes fun of a corporation on a "News for Nerds" website by altering its name makes YOU look like an idiot.

And if you're waiting for it to go away, give up. "Radio$hack" hasn't, and it's been around longer.

Re:Will the "M$" ever die?? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19374687)

THANK YOU.
  No, really, thank you! I get sick of hearing these humorless fuckwits who get all pissed off and act like somebody using "M$" just violated Godwin's Law. I haven't used that particular abbreviation in years, but there's nothing wrong with doing it once in a while. Some people just need the stick removed from their asses.

Re:clueless infatuation, convicted monopolist (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19374135)

and needs the kind of business ethics class that comes with steel bars on the door.

Ballmer needs to be in a Zoo? But won't he scare the (other) monkeys?

I think you missed it... (5, Insightful)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373849)

A presidential hopeful wants someone who actively opposes fair competition/cooperation in the industry to advise him on tech policy.

This is not trollish conjecture, the anti-trust lawsuits didn't come out of thin air, and the anti-cooperation charge should require no explanation.

Allow me to also note the increasing movement among U.S. State governments to pursue open standards technology. You want to talk friction? What sort of leverage would MS have on this issue? They already threatened contract-infringement legal action against the state of California just because the state considered having an official conversation about open standards.

Regards.

AND McCain's cluelessness on software patents (4, Informative)

EccentricAnomaly (451326) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374137)

Watch the beginning of the video on this link. [allthingsd.com] Mossberg asks him if the debate on frivolous software patents is anywhere on his radar and McCain says "No" in a manner that is very dissmissive of Mossberg's nerd question. I was a McCain supporter before, but after watching this interview he comes off as totally clueless about technology. You'd think he'd get someone to at least brief him before going to this event.

Bad Brief - Public Perception on the Move. (1)

Erris (531066) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374225)

You'd think he'd get someone to at least brief him before going to this event.

He knew enough to think Ballmer's chair throwing antics were funny, but this is M$ only joke and all of the things he said fit well within the talking points of M$. Threatening an employee and talk about "killing Google" was serious anti-competitive stuff which should have been followed up by anti-trust investigation. If all you had was broadcast news, it might have made sense to you - shiver your thoughts. The person who briefed him was well briefed by M$/ATT/MAFIAA/DisneyElectric and the Federal government is in their pocket but there is a growing disconnect with public opinion.

Re:"Infuriating love" (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373883)

However, I do hope this happens so he is able to re-use the "Developers, developers, developers" presentation.

How about:
Congress Critters, Congress Critters, Congress Critters...
or
Ambassadors, Ambassadors, Ambassadors...

Re:"Infuriating love" (2, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374199)

So a presidential hopeful wants somebody who at least knows how technology works to be a technology adviser?

We're talking about Steve Ballmer. He understands how technology works the same way a chef understands bovine psychology.

For the last six years we've had the problem dictating the solution. John McCain has just gone on record promising to continue that tradition. It's obvious who he's trying to appeal to and it's not you and I.

Ballmer (2, Funny)

MoeDrippins (769977) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374517)

> So a presidential hopeful wants somebody who at least knows how technology works to be a technology adviser?

No, TFA says he wants Steve Ballmer.

Not Bad (5, Insightful)

Raindance (680694) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373751)

Well. Better the devil you know than the usual political hack that doesn't know anything about tech. :)

Seriously, it's got to be mostly a symbolic move to lure some business/tech folks. I think McCain is probably just throwing a name out there, and that Ballmer would be a poor choice due to his personality and the small fact that he already has, you know, a pretty full-time job. But if McCain's announcement gets voters and candidates thinking that yes, tech policy actually does matter, that's a very good thing.

Re:Not Bad (4, Insightful)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373853)

Oh, yeah, very good thing. But for them, not for interoperability. It would be the death for access to Open Source and Open Formats all across the board of the federal government. If Microsoft can kill legislatures pro Open Formats using "only" lobbies, imagine how aggressively they would defend their own interests by having someone with capacity to directly influence TPTB.

Think about Cheney and Halliburton, but this time for I.T. instead of good ol' military contracts.

Re:Not Bad (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19373863)

I'd rather an idiot who might do the right thing by accident than someone who will maliciously undermine their competition (McCain said that he would bring the successful people into Washington, who we all know would make themselves more successful with their newfound influence).

BTW, Mod the article down, McCain [allthingsd.com] didn't say anything like that. He laughed at the suggestion of Secretary of State!

His position would be obvious (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19373755)

He did not however say what position Ballmer might be hired in...
Obviously, they would want him to be the chair

It's an accident waiting to happen. Literally. (4, Funny)

Rahga (13479) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373785)

Bill Gates may be chairman of Microsoft, but CEO Balmer is certainly a capable chair-man in his own right.... Please don't let Balmer anywhere near the Chief of Staff position.

This just in.. (1)

Coucho (1039182) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373787)

Representative Ballmer has been seen throwing chairs in the House!

I can just see the official state banquet (3, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373791)

with Hu Jintao now:

throws chopsticks

SOY SAUCE! SOY SAUCE! SOY SAUCE!

But a sad Joke (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19373797)

McCain was once a Republican I could vote for: His own man. But a few years ago he became little more than a lapdog for the RNC. Makes you wonder what kind of dirt they have on him. He's not White House material. Once maybe, but not anymore. Not because I think he's become crooked, but because I think he's become weak.

Re:But a sad Joke (5, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373817)

Not because I think he's become crooked,

Oh, he was crooked a long time ago. Google the "Keating Five" to see the sorts of people McCain has chosen to associate with over the years.

I do not understand the appeal of this simpering asstard to voters with otherwise-enlightened sensibilities.

Re:But a sad Joke (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373929)

I do not understand the appeal of this simpering asstard to voters with otherwise-enlightened sensibilities.

Because all of our choices seem to be worse than usual this time around?

Re:But a sad Joke (3, Insightful)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373939)

I do not understand the appeal of this simpering asstard to voters with otherwise-enlightened sensibilities.

Simple: many people have decided that he can't be as bad as Bush (generally ignoring his voting record) solely because he lacks any obvious mental defects, and at least has some personal knowledge of why torture's a stupid method of intelligence gathering.

When you lower the bar enough, anyone can reach it.

Indeed, a bought man (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373973)

I was for McCain in 2000, no longer. The straight talk express has been derailed. I still respect him greatly as a war veteran, and that he was 1 of 2 republics to denounce torture along with Ron Paul, in the debates - but otherwise he has become a political hack like the rest.

Mike Gravel or Ron Paul. They might be older, but Washington needs adult supervision.

Re:Indeed, a bought man (1)

WaZiX (766733) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374167)

Oh please not Ron Paul...

I mean, he has a point with Iraq, but have you seen the rest of his agenda? He wants to go back to a gold standard for gods sake! Having it right on one issue doesn't make you a good president...

His comments on the "inflation tax" and abolition of income taxes are just plain ridiculous.

Re:Indeed, a bought man (2, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374217)

You're not really explaining why that would be a bad thing...

Re:Indeed, a bought man (1)

qbwiz (87077) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374451)

Tying inflation or deflation to the amount of a specific metal that we happen to dig out of the ground is a pretty bad way to do things. See what happened during the price revolution [wikipedia.org] , where nations rapidly increased their silver production, in part causing a lot of inflation.
Even worse, if the population increases faster than we mine gold, then we get bad deflation.

Re:Indeed, a bought man (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374293)

Yes, Ron Paul has a lot of oddball ideas -- but if he's President, as opposed to Congress, that doesn't matter so much. As President, Ron Paul won't be responsible for making good laws; rather, he'll be responsible for vetoing bad ones. As such, I think he is magnificently equipt for the job.

Re:Indeed, a bought man (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374599)

And the policies his admin. would pursue? His presidential directives? Foreign policy? Law-enforcement priorities?

If you're that ignorant of how things work, you shouldn't vote.

Re:Indeed, a bought man (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374685)

Foreign policy?
Isolationist, mostly -- which is a lot better than what we've been doing lately.

Presidential directives? Law-enforcement priorities?
Based on a set of heavily Libertarian principals -- meaning that the federal government will keep its nose out of the business of the states and the people.

If you're that ignorant of how things work, you shouldn't vote.
If you're going to be that much of an ass about attacking someone every time they simplify a statement to make it easier for third parties to digest, you shouldn't be here.

Re:Indeed, a bought man (3, Insightful)

clifyt (11768) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374317)

"Oh please not Ron Paul..."

I've heard what the man has to say, and yeah, a lot of it is typical Libertarian wacko BS.

As the same time, he hasn't been bought off by the usual suspects. Like the poster above, I would have voted for McCain in a HEARTBEAT in 2000, even knowing what I do now about Gore (Gore 2000 is a different man than Gore 2007 regardless of what he'd like to say...I still think he has been one of the most consistently smartest people in politics for 20 years, just not a great politician).

But I'll take a president that offers wacko ideas just to break the monotony. No party is going to get lockstepped behind him the way the Republicans did Bush, or partly the way the Dems did behind Clinton before the Republican uprising. Which brings up another thing -- one of the greatest things of the Clinton era was that EVERYONE had to compromise. No one got what they wanted. And because of it, there was discussion and debate and things had to happen because everyone found a common platform that they could agree on and the country had some of the largest gains because of it.

With Ron Paul, I could see the same thing happening again. I'd LOVE to see a president that actually understood how to veto. And knew when it was appropriate. Clinton understood how to do this and even tried to get a line-item veto in that would allow his to use his pen even more (unfortunately, it was passed in an unconstitutional manner...I bet if they did something like this with Riders it might actually pass the supreme's muster...errr...then again, maybe thats what it was...it was a long time ago that I read up on this stuff).

I'd love to see a real maverick running the country. I could care less if his politics match mine or not. I just don't want some jingoistic motherfucking corporate whore that seems to be able to convince the lower half of the bell curve that something is right and thus you shouldn't question nor educate yourself about such matters (you only need 51% in the US of A).

bright side. (1)

crAckZ (1098479) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373803)

no country would want our classified technology. All M$ all the time. i would hate to be in a nuclear sub and get a blue screen of death. http://www.langston.com/Fun_People/1998/1998APK.ht ml [langston.com]

chairs all the way down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19373805)

I wonder how much the chair industry gave him for the privilage of stocking Ballmer's chair arsenal

Screw McCain... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373813)

One more reason why I'm voting for Hillary. I guess I'm going to have to switch from being a moderate Republican to a conservative Democrat, and a paint a broader yellow stripe down the middle of my back.

I hate them both (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19373991)

People say I am a bad American because I don't vote for president.

But...

There are NO candidates that I like. I also see no value in voting for the lesser of two evils since I hate them both equally (there is no lesser) and such a vote is pointless anyway (who you vote for is still evil).
With options like these, voting is not an effective means of bringing about positive change.

Once we get rid of this completely wrong-headed "one-person-one-vote" nonsense and also start allowing a wider range of options (two parties are a horrible oversimplification of the range of political agendas at work in a nation of our size), maybe then I will see some value in voting. Until then, nothing good can come of it, so I won't participate.

Re:I hate them both (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374105)

I also see no value in voting for the lesser of two evils since I hate them both equally (there is no lesser) and such a vote is pointless anyway (who you vote for is still evil).

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Re:I hate them both (2, Funny)

chromatic (9471) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374187)

There were more than two presidential candidates on the 2004 ballot. I had a wide range of evil from which to choose!

Re:I hate them both (5, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374223)

I also see no value in voting for the lesser of two evils

Why vote for the lesser of two evils. Write-in Cthulhu in 2008!

Re:I hate them both (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374319)

So support Ron Paul. He may be more than a bit loony, but you'd be hard pressed to say it would be business as usual with him in the White House.

Re:I hate them both (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374349)

Once we get rid of this completely wrong-headed "one-person-one-vote" nonsense and also start allowing a wider range of options (two parties are a horrible oversimplification of the range of political agendas at work in a nation of our size), maybe then I will see some value in voting. Until then, nothing good can come of it, so I won't participate.

The only way to change the system into what you describe would be for enough candidates who support the change to get elected. Of course, no major party candidate (or very, very few) is going to push for that. It's a self-perpetuating system, and it won't stop until people start refusing to play by its rules in large numbers.

Simply not voting is still playing by its rules, of course, since it doesn't interfere.

Re:I hate them both (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19374437)

Maybe there's some third party candidate who's palatable to you. Vote for them. Or write in yourself. Sure, it doesn't actually make any difference in who gets elected, but I figure it shows analysts that there's people willing to vote, just not for the two bought-off clowns that they assume everyone'll vote for, so maybe they'll run someone a little less evil the next time (unlikely, I know). In my opinion, not voting at all just tells them that fewer people care about politics, but the ones that still do don't mind the poor selection of candidates.

Personally, I'll probably be voting for Stewart/Colbert in 2008. They and their writers seem to have a better grasp on reality than most politicians.

Re:I hate them both (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19374577)

No quorum, no mandate!

Ballmer = autocrat (2, Insightful)

rdean400 (322321) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373829)

The appointment of Ballmer would make more sense coming from a dogmatic president like Bush. Ballmer's all about preaching the Windows dogma. The cabinet should be populated with pragmatists.

Well I guess that means... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19373847)

that Ballmer finally gets his chair ...?

Well, that just shows... (3, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373859)

... how far out of touch McCain is with respect to technology and those in the technology industry.

On the other hand, if McCain is looking for someone to help build monopolies illegally and then illegally leverage those monopolies, then Ballmer's the dude.

Of course, this is all a moot point... (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373869)

McCain won't win the Republican primary. He's too soft on the vital topics of torture [youtube.com] and deporting Mexicans [ontheissues.org] to rally the ever-important base, so I'm sorry to say that I don't think we'll ever have the joy of seeing Ballmer throwing a chair at Wan Gang. [wikipedia.org]

Unless, of course, somebody gets busy in GIMP.

Ballmer was overheard saying... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19373877)

"Fucking Hu Jintau is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill China."

Re:Ballmer was overheard saying... (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374551)

"[International] Development, development, development, development..."

- RG>

Conflict of Interest (4, Insightful)

ragingmime (636249) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373887)

Wouldn't there be a conflict of interest if the CEO of one of the country's biggest tech companies was helping determine tech policy? Certainly even someone who isn't tech-savvy can see that. It'd be a little bit like asking the CEO of an oil company to determine environmental policy. Even if Ballmer were to step down from his position (and I'm not holding my breath on that one), he probably still owns tons of MS stock. On a side note, McCain's opinion on net neutrality seems to be founded on a general small-government policy, not on a technical understanding of the situation. You can't just use a blanket "small government" argument for all things... some things work better when they're private companies, and others work better as public institutions. There's a reason why water is a public utility, power is often regulated, and software is produced mostly by private companies. Politicians should think that through before they parrot the party line on small/big government again.

Re:Conflict of Interest (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373941)

Why do you think it took Bush so long to get with it on climate change? his family has made a lot of money from oil.

You can imagine the sort of things Ballmer would do for the government. Mandate Windows in education and local government.

Re:Conflict of Interest (2, Insightful)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373953)

As to the conflict of interest point: It would be nice if the world worked like that.

Cheney/Halliburton... Monsanto Brass/FDA (revolving door)... Energy lobbyists/DIO appointments(the forced resignatin of Bush's first appointee didn't stop him doing the same thing a second time, currently under investigation for misconduct a second time)... the list goes on.

Regards.

Re:Conflict of Interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19374119)

am pleased the irony wasn't lost on that one

Re:Conflict of Interest (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19373955)

If you don't know what Cmd-Shift-1 and Cmd-Shift-2 are for, GTFO.
If you think Firefox is a decent Mac application, GTFO.
If you're still looking for the "maximize" button, GTFO.
If the name "Clarus" means nothing to you, GTFO.

Bandwagon jumpers are not welcome among real [imageshack.us] Mac [imageshack.us] users [imageshack.us] . Keep your filthy, beige [imageshack.us] PC fingers to yourself.

Re:Conflict of Interest (3, Insightful)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374055)

Certainly even someone who isn't tech-savvy can see that. It'd be a little bit like asking the CEO of an oil company to determine environmental policy.

Don't they do that already?

Re:Conflict of Interest (2, Interesting)

darkwhite (139802) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374091)

It'd be a little bit like asking the CEO of an oil company to determine environmental policy.
Wait. I'm confused. Isn't that what we have now? If it works for energy policy, it would work just as well for IT, right?

Seriously, how is this a surprise? McCain, Clinton, Guliani, any number of other bodies up on those debate stages - none of them have their own views, none of them are competent to lead a country, all obey special interests without understanding the repercussions, all are thoroughly opportunist, and all have little if any understanding of the real intricacies and problems to be addressed in foreign and domestic policy of the US. Obama might be the only one who shows any amount of promise, but I'm not sure at all.

And if any of them gets elected, it will just be replacing one criminally negligent and malicious president with another.

Re:Conflict of Interest (1)

cybermage (112274) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374315)

It'd be a little bit like asking the CEO of an oil company to determine environmental policy.

That's what we have now, and look what it has done for the oil industry.

There's a name for this: Regulatory Capture (1)

Charles Dodgeson (248492) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374557)

Wouldn't there be a conflict of interest if the CEO of one of the country's biggest tech companies was helping determine tech policy?

This sort the conflict of interest is how government ends up working after a while. The FAA has become an in-government institution for the protection of the commercial airline industry, the FDA and the whole Department of Agriculture does the same for farming.

Economists call this Regulatory Capture which Wikipedia defines as

a phenomenon in which a government regulatory agency which is supposed to be acting in the public interest becomes dominated by the vested interests of the existing incumbents in the industry that it oversees.
And for another great example, you say:
It'd be a little bit like asking the CEO of an oil company to determine environmental policy.
I take it that you haven't been following Dick Cheney's energy policy proposals over the past six years. It's not a coincidence that they look like they were written by the energy industry from day one.

Hey (1)

KKlaus (1012919) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374583)

we already have a VP that owns a ton of stock in a particular oil company decide who gets reconstruction contracts in Iraq...

His Position (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19373895)

Would be Minister of Temper Tantrums.

McCain doesn't have a chance anyway (3, Interesting)

The Analog Kid (565327) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373911)

He is old, and he would be the oldest President if he won and he also supports the unpopular Iraq War. If Fred Thompson enters the race which is just a formality now, there will be no chance McCain will grab the Republican nomination.

Re:McCain doesn't have a chance anyway (1)

cybermage (112274) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374401)

If Fred Thompson enters the race which is just a formality now, there will be no chance McCain will grab the Republican nomination.

That is so, so true. Anyone who wants four more years of Bush [apathy.net] will run for Thompson's camp. McCain is just a pale imitation; Thompson's the real thing.

Pro-gun: check. Anti-abortion: check. Pro-tax-cut: check. Paranoid, fatalistic world view: check.

Given a choice between the two, I'm actually hoping that McCain, the maverick, is just saying what the right wants to hear, but I think he's rudderless and just going whereever the RNC blows him.

Supporting the unpopular Iraq War (4, Insightful)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374617)

he also supports the unpopular Iraq War
Somewhat of an oversimplification - though that's pretty much how the political process if conveyed to the public so, hey, in electoral terms, you're probably right.

McCain is a veteran and a P.O.W. who experienced torture first hand.

From his perspective: If you're going to commit to a war, commit to it.

He's admittedly avoiding questions about whether we should have gone in the first place (realities being what they are, there's absolutely no way he could get the republican nomination if he went that far against the republican president.

Still, accepting that it has happened, there are basically three choices: get the hell out and deal with the fallout (becoming the more popular view), stay with your head burried in the sand (the administration policy for the last 4 years), stay and do what needs doing to do it right (McCain's choice). That's pretty common amongst Vietnam vets who are largely convinced Vietnam was winnable had the politicians not hamstrung them at every turn.

The interesting thing about McCain is his ethics on how you go about winning that war. Month on month, the war in Iraq has become more of a failure and more insurgents are turning up. Surely if you kill or capture the numbers the U.S. do, that number should go down? No, you piss away all credibility by torturing people, you piss off far more people who would never otherwise have been insurgents - torturing and abandonning ethics recruits for the other guy far better than anything he could do. As a P.O.W. who was tortured, McCain's been vocal that it's never justified (sure, you might prevent an attack that kills 5,000 now but you radicalize enough people to kill 50,000 over time).

Personally, I think the war in Iraq was an horrific lie fed to the American people - Bin Laden never had real ties, Saddam never had real ties to 911, they never tried to buy yellowcake uranium and the chemical weapons that we sold to them were destroyed after the first gulf war. I think the current method of occupation is a great way to make the situation in the middle east worse and kill a lot of young Americans along with thousands of Iraqi civilians. I also think that getting out [sensibly] is the right thing to do... ...Still, while I don't agree with McCain that it should be continued, if it is to be, I have vastly more respect for his notion about how to do it than the current administration's system that seems to be based largely on denial or any of the other republicans that seem to hope more of the same may work differently for them.

So, I'd prefer a democrat that gets us out of the war entirely. Still, if I have to have a republican that keeps us there, let's get one with an actual clue about how to do something positive.

Quote R.E.M. (1)

milatchi (694575) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373943)

" It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine) "

What cabinet position?? (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373965)

said that he would ask Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to serve on his cabinet to deal with technology issues
 
Exactly which cabinet position is that, anyway? There is the general pool of advisors of this and that but the president's cabinet is a specific set of high level advisors and I can't think of which one might be in charge of tech issues. Is he thinking of making some new cabinet position for technology issues?

Translation (2, Interesting)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373967)

I'm not making much headway against Rudy, Romney. (and Thompson), so I need some REALLY big campaign donations.

He's a good choice. (4, Insightful)

kahei (466208) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373975)


Ballmer has a track record of taking a large, powerful empire and gradually frittering away its goodwill, resources, and internal cohesion by his aggressive posturing, constant confrontation, and wilful ignorance of what made it great in the first place.

The question is, how has he *avoided* becoming a member of the Republican administration for so long?

Disclaimer: I couldn't care less about US party politics, but the parallel is actually striking enough to mention.

Meta-Disclaimer: I am aware of the locution 'could care less' and I consider it WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! *throws chair*

Re:He's a good choice. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19374231)

Meta-Disclaimer: I am aware of the locution 'could care less' and I consider it WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

Why would anyone care what you think?

Re:He's a good choice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19374585)

Most of the policies of the past six years, and not coincidentally the people, were continuations of the Reagan/Bush era. So Mr Cheney was the secretary of defense, Colin Powell Reagan's National Security Advisor. The economic policy is also disastrous. While Kennedy to Nixon did a good job of managing the debt, that is insuring the public dole was not excessive and maintaining conservative values of not giving money away, even to our friends, Reagan/Bush increased our debt as a percent of GDP from under 40% to around 70%, while W started with a debt ratio of around 60% and will likely end with a debt ratio of 75%. I wonder how many families can survive with 75% of their income tied up in debt. I know when I was in that situation, I was in trouble. The debt is increasing held by powers we consider not friendly. No one really cares about the debt though, and the key thing is the war.

So, that is why the likes of Ballmer, who rose in the past 30 years or so, are have not been tapped. They simply weren't part of the old boys club at that time. But why are they being tapped now? clearly because the old old boys network is inadequate, and despite the republican rambling of morality [wikipedia.org] ,the primary qualification to whether a man is successful is how much money he made. So, while the choice is not unreasonable, it would be nice if he would choose a man who had some public works experience, and had not simply dedicated his life to the worship of money.

Would Ballmer even be interested? (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373979)

I doubt Ballmer would be interested in any such a position, and think McCain is merely speaking metaphorically that the type of guy he would seek, would be someone competent in technology and bussiness like Steve Ballmer, but not him literally.

Re:Would Ballmer even be interested? (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374131)

I guess his strength is more like in killing the competition and throwing chairs. On the other hand, he will be on spot noticing the chinese stealing technology, M$ has the expertise in it as well. And why would Ballmer be uninterested? He already damaged Microsoft enough, time to look for some other playground.

Politicians, politicians, politicians, politicians (2, Funny)

wal9001 (1041058) | more than 7 years ago | (#19373997)

Wooooooooooooo!!!! I have four words for you: Politicians, politicians, politicians, politicians, Politicians, politicians, politicians, politicians, Politicians, politicians, politicians, politicians, Politicians, politicians, politicians, politicians! Wooooooooooo!!! Maybe not the best choice for an important position...

McCain's Bad Taste (1, Informative)

kabz (770151) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374041)

John McCain's wretched bad taste in singing 'Bomb! Bomb! Bomb! Bomb bomb Iran...' [youtube.com] to the tune of the the old Beach Boys hit shows he is completely unsuitable for high office. It was disrespectful to those who have given their lives in these misguided wars.

Very few Americans seem to realize that the terrorists in Northern Ireland were not bombed out of existence by the RUC and British Government, but that an American called George Mitchell brought the different parties together [mit.edu] and negotiated a power-sharing settlement that was satisfactory to all.

Re:McCain's Bad Taste (4, Interesting)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374143)

You act like John McCain made it up. It's actually an old parody cover that came out of the Iran hostage crisis of 1979.

By the way, I thought it was kinda funny.

Re:McCain's Bad Taste (0)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374497)

Very few Americans seem to realize that the terrorists in Northern Ireland were not bombed out of existence by the RUC and British Government, but that an American called George Mitchell brought the different parties together and negotiated a power-sharing settlement that was satisfactory to all.
Okay, Al-Qaeda, what do you want out of this power sharing? Death to all Westerners? That might be doable. United States of America, what would you like? You want to continue living? Oh my. I'm afraid we already promised Al-Qaeda. Maybe something else?

Yeah, send Ballmer to China (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374079)

Maybe Microsoft would get a CEO who has a fucking clue.

Naaah...what am I thinking? Not while Bill still runs the show. He'd find some other nitwit he can control.

Like McCain has a snowball's chance in hell of being President anyway. First of all, he's lost it and is totally out of touch with reality, as his "Baghdad stroll" comments proved to everyone (of course, Bush is totally lost in a dream world as well and he IS President). Second, he's got all the charisma of a thug (well, actually, so does Bush). Third, George Bush is likely to declare martial law and suspend the elections after the next Mossad-orchestrated "terrorist incident" or after the upcoming Iran war starts widespread terrorism in the US. Fourth, even Hillary Clinton, the most hated woman in America after Paris Hilton (and maybe Rosie), could beat that idiot, even if she campaigned in the nude.

Criminals? (3, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374237)

Err... Balmer is the CEO of a convicted criminal corporation.

In a country where convicted criminals can lose the right to vote, you can also go to the White House for being one? That's not really something that can be explained in english without getting into some kind of semantic Moebius loop, can it?

Re:Criminals? (2, Interesting)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374421)

convicted criminal corporation vs you can also go to the White House for being one

Is Ballmer a convict or is it Microsoft? He is the CEO of a company that is constantly involved in lawsuits, but can you name one large company that isn't? And does that make the CEO a criminal? Regardless of what you may think of him, he is one of the world's most powerful voices in the world of technology, so I am sure his word counts.

And while we're at it, don't forget to criticize George W Bush for using the constitution as toilet paper.

Two big supporters of H-1B (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19374303)

With all the Indian firms using H-1B as an outsourcing tool, if McCain gets elected we can see further job losses in high tech.

cabinet position? (1)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374321)

In another move that was sure to infuriate many geeks, the 70 year old presidential hopeful also said that he would ask Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to serve on his cabinet to deal with technology issues if elected. He did not however say what position Ballmer might be hired in, but did joke that he might consider him for a diplomatic position, such as ambassador to China.

I really expected someone like McCain to know better, but someone really ought to tell him that the position of Ambassador to China is not a Cabinet-level position. It would fall under the Secretary of State, and the President still appoints all ambassadors, but ambassadors are still several rungs on the ladder down from the cabinet,...

Still, I thought I liked McCain, and thought he'd make a better President than Bush back in 2000 when I voted for him in the primary. Then again, anybody would make a better president than Bush, but that's another story. But his recent actions, namely his recent leanings towards the religious right (see speech at Liberty University), his views on net neutrality, and also his age, make me question whether he's the ideal candidate for the republican nomination.

Of course, I could always just ditch the republicans and go for somebody like Barack Obama, but even he's not perfect,... After all, it was recently exposed [slashdot.org] that he (and Senator Clinton) accepted funds from the RI^H^H^H^H MAFIAA.

He'd make a good ambassador... (1)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374329)

... to the Klingon empire...

Well, yet another reason not to vote for McCain. (1)

Dobeln (853794) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374331)

If I had a vote in the US primaries, that is. ;)

How many strikes are that by now?

- Iraq
- Immigration
- CFR
- Plain batshit crazy mood.
- Ballmer
- Erm, why bother?

Impressed by MS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19374333)

Obviously, McCain is easily impressed if Microsoft does it. A few hours with Vista and he'll understand why MS shouldn't be considered impressive.

The Deal (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374373)

Yeah, you'll have to take a pay cut, but you get all the chairs you can throw.

And you can call your airplane Air Force Vista 3.0.

Ballmer not for Net Neutrality (1)

Aeron65432 (805385) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374375)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Microsoft very pro-Net Neutrality? I can't stand Ballmer but I wonder how having him as a tech advisor would affect McCain's anti-netneutrality stance.

Both sides of the fence (2, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374593)

I see little mention here about Gore's close ties to Microsoft, who is on the board I believe and has made numerous visits to the campus...

Microsoft doesn't care who is in power. They just like power.

The new McCain cabinet: (5, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374607)

Department of Health & Human Services: Josef Mengele
Department of Defense: André Maginot
Department of Energy: Kenneth Lay
Department of Homeland Security: Osama bin Laden
Department of Education: Terri Schiavo
Department of Labor: Beevis
Department of State: Butthead
Department of Commerce: Karl Marx
Department of State: Groucho Marx
Department of the Treasury: Jesse James
Department of Agriculture: William R. Simonson
Department of the Interior: George Custer
Office of National Drug Control Policy: Timothy Leary
Environmental Protection Agency: Joseph Hazelwood
Department of Transportation: Joseph Hazelwood
Office of Management and Budget: Paris Hilton
Department of Housing & Urban Development: John Spartan
United States Trade Representative: John Rambo

Oh yeah, and...
Department of Justice: Alberto Gonzales

-

Ron Paul (1)

AnyThingButWindows (939158) | more than 7 years ago | (#19374613)

Just one of many reasons that I will be voting for Ron Paul. McCain is not a Republican. He is a Neo-Con.

EWWWWW (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19374699)

The scary thing about Mc Cain is that he make George bush look SMART... Ewwwwww

Vote Bull Moose in 08
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>