I have to tell you, I don’t see in reading the Post op-ed, “a long, snarky op-ed.” It does take on Bernie’s criticism of GE’s mission of zero taxes (clear from hidden and revealed features seen elsewhere). But it stops short of being an endorsement, even an default, indirect or clandestine one, for Hillary.
It is mano a mano. It mentions labor features and competition Bernie ignores. But it ignores the political features for which Bernie is the best known harbinger, esp. now that his campaign gives him a national platform.
Then, three questions to Jeff Immelt, GE CEO: why not in the spirit of cooperative pave the third way? Invite Bernie to visit (throw out the old scornful absent sheet!); suggest five/ten/twenty-five ways Bernie or any president can help big and small American businesses increase market share while helping markets grow.
Also, why not propose a way, by sharing best practices, that workers income can increase? Third, why not declare GE will waste no more money on lobbying for specific advantages or in seeking special interests that go beyond keeping Congress and other agencies informed and updated?
A fourth question, to the Times: why is the Times and much of the media looking inward and scoring emotional connotations–and missing the mission of reporting broader facts, even in opinion pieces? ONn both sides, Bernie and GM, the story here is there is so little there there. The details and specifics of the nuts and bolts of innovation and change, of increasing prosperity through wage growth are sadly missing from the corporation and the politician.