So, Mr. D posted about Target giving money to MN Forward, a group that supports Tom Emmer (R-Delano) in his gubernatorial bid the other day. As that post indicated, some weren't very happy about that (and that was just in the comments).
Well, in the past couple of days, the apology for the donation came from CEO Gregg Steinhafel. But, was it an apology?
So, what do you think? While MoveOn is not appeased, should others be? Is this enough? Should they have even apologized? Did they kow-tow, or did they do the right thing? Honestly, I don't think there is an easy answer to this from a business standpoint, which is what should ultimately matter to Target, Inc. Discuss!!
4 comments:
After hearing reports that Target had knuckled under I read the NPR story which included some selection of the CEO's apology. It sounded like a non-apology apology to me: more discussion, sensitivity training, etc... I would have preferred a straightforward explanation of basic economics, but some people aren't ready for that.
The only outrage being expressed is coming from lefty dimwits, but Target taking it seriously.
And that makes sense since Target's “target” market is low income people that don’t know they’re low income.....yup, the dimwits are tearing the fingers off the hand that feeds them.
Go figure.
Anyone remember the fleeting brouhaha lefties tried to get started over Scott Johnson's employment with TCF bank?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/26/224638/609
Dried up faster than spittle on a moonbat's chin after CEO Bill Cooper told the "scary smart, reality based community" to move their pointy little heads so he could stick it where the sun don't shine.
Guess welfare checks don't constitute a desirable demographic in banking circles.
I also didn't think that the apology sounded particularly apologetic, but I was encouraged that Target felt that the conflict between the social issues they support, and their business interests, is problematic, and deserves to be acknowledged.
A better business environment allows Target to provide more jobs to people of all backgrounds and to distribute their corporate largesse in ways that they see fit.
Note: a better business environment doesn't simply mean that Target pays less in taxes; it also means that its customers have jobs, more financial security and keep more of their money so they can buy stuff. If customers don't have disposable income in the first place then Target needn't worry about its taxes.
Sure, the government can take Target's earnings and redistribute to "the people", but I'd rather see a company - even if it's a liberal one - get to decide where its earnings go instead of a government - even if it's a conservative one.
Post a Comment