“The Crimson was one of the only publications to explicitly point out that he had never actually uttered the infamous phrase about ‘innate differences. ‘ ” Unfortunately, Summers’ habitual reaction to being (perhaps deliberately) misrepresented is like Gore’s on the ‘invented the internet’ misquote: Faced with a “media frenzy”, Summers’ “familiar script “ is “first declaring the whole thing a misunderstanding, then apologizing for unintentionally hurting any feelings, and finally taking institutional measures to rectify the problems some saw as the heart of the conflict.” [refhttp://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=506127 How Larry Got His Rep Published On Thursday, March 03, 2005 ]
[ These are all notes to add to previous entries. ]
re 1991 memo re
Summers apologized, telling his critics that the memo was supposed to be a “sardonic counterpoint, an effort to sharpen the analysis” and that he had not been advancing a serious policy option. The week after the story broke, the Economist came to Summers’ defense, editorializing in eerily familiar terms that if Summers “was merely trying to provoke debate,” “it is to be hoped that he succeeds—and that the Bank does not, instead, go silent on the subject.”
[ref ‘got his rep’] Unfortunately, Summers’ reaction to being (perhaps deliberately) misrepresented is like Gore’s on the ‘invented the internet’ misquote: //// quote ‘got rep’ re misunderstand/apologize/
RE MANNER OF SPEAKING Accusations of ‘abrasive/wonky personality’ were heard as early as ///, //howlong// before Bill and Hillary Clinton appointed Summers as Under Secretary to the Treasury at the beginning of their administration in 1993, putting him among the Clinton Wonks like Gore and Reno (and, at that time, Hillary). During his progress upwards through the Clinton Treasury, “Summers underwent a dramatic transformation, coating his famously bold personality with a keen sense of tact and thoughtfulness.
1 comment:
This is quite interesting. You know the PUMAs are going to go nuclear if Summers is picked, in the main. Here you are, arguing as best you can for this man because Bill Clinton picked him, yet will you give Obama any credit for making good decisions, or go along with the rest of PUMAdom in excoriating him for every move for the next four or eight years?
One of the things that turns me off most about PUMA world is the unrelenting negativity and deafness to nuance. Do you really believe any person to have the energy to be as consumately evil as the PUMA version of Obama? I'll be interested in how far you can advance your support of Summers in the face of most PUMAs' determination to shut off any information that clashes with what they want to believe.
Post a Comment