Playing the *__* Card
[Guest post by DRJ]
Is Carly Fiorina playing the gender card when she says she has a better chance to beat California Senator Barbara Boxer than her GOP primary opponent Chuck DeVore because she’s a woman?
“Asked why she is a better candidate than her Republican primary opponent Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Calif.), Fiorina said that a woman stands a better chance of defeating Boxer.
“With all due respect and deep affection for white men, I am married to one,” Fiorina said at a breakfast at Americans for Tax Reform. “But [Barbara Boxer] knows how to beat them in California, she has done it over and over and over again.”
Of DeVore, the former economic adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign said “he’s the opponent Barbara Boxer hopes she faces.”
Michelle Malkin says Fiorina is trashing her white male opponent and playing the gender card, but Ace thinks it’s fine to take gender into account when evaluating who is most electable.
Frankly, this Fiorina quote bothers me more than the gender issue:
“Asked if she would support President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees as a senator and if she would have voted for now-Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Fiorina said she was not very familiar with her record because she was being for [sic] breast cancer, but added that she would have supported her nomination.
“Honestly I did not study in great detail Sotomayor’s record because I was battling breast cancer at the time,” she said. “But based upon what I know, I think my conclusion is I would have voted for her. She seemed qualified from everything I could read. As I said, I think elections have consequences. That’s why elections matter.”
What say you?
— DRJ
I hadn’t seen this, for some reason. Thanks for bringing it up.
Carly is right that being a woman is a helpful thing. But the way she articulated her point was terrible. White men are not all the same, and we don’t really like that kind of claim. Just because Boxer won an election against a white man does not mean she has the magic code to beating us.
I really like Fiornia, and I think someone of her stripe is the right balance of skill and political views for California. But she’s said something stupid, and now she’s got to own that mistake as the GOP does the dirty chore of fighting for a nomination. I can’t go easy on her because the democrats won’t.
About Sotomayor, what Carly is trying to say is that presidents should have the right to appoint judges, and we should have this argument before they are elected, not after. I personally think Justice Sotomayor has a poor record and looked like a buffoon in hearings, so I would say she’s that very rare nominee who doesn’t meet basic competence requirements (an informal requirement, of course), but if Carly didn’t carefully watch, and was just trying to say that any ethical intelligent person should be voted for, even if they don’t meet political ideas of both sides, then I agree with her.
I was so sick of the democrats not recognizing Bush’s basic RIGHT to appoint all federal judges.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/23/2009 @ 10:23 pmLessee if I can channel footsie, prolly not.
The hoochie mommas gotta go. One hoochie momma’s a dirty socialist and the other hoochie momma’s a dirty socialist enabler.
Nah, not quite up to footsie caliber.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/23/2009 @ 10:28 pmIs Fiorina playing the victim card by talking about having breast cancer during the pendency of the Sotomayor hearings, and does this particular illness also help her with women? In addition, is a past illness that Fiorina has presumably recovered from an excuse for not educating herself about the issues presented by the Sotomayor nomination?
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/23/2009 @ 10:31 pmWell, who knew that Matt Fong was a “White Man”?
And, by nominating Carly, the GOP will lock up the HP vote (not).
AD - RtR/OS! (e1051f) — 11/23/2009 @ 10:34 pmLance Armstrong won how many Tours de France? And after what he went through (nearly died)? Yeah, she’s playing a whole handful of victim cards. Hopefully to no avail.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/23/2009 @ 10:34 pmIn a more pleasant world, I think that Senators should give the President a great deal of deference.
However, in the world that Patrick Leahy has built, screw that.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 11/23/2009 @ 10:34 pmI note polling that suggests that both candidates trail by the same amount.
Given Fiorina’s Achilles’ Heel — namely her indefensible behavior bugging dissident directors at HP — I don’t see how she could win. The smear writes itself and it isn’t old news to most voters.
Running an ethically challenged failed CEO doesn’t quite seem the thing for the Republicans this time.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 11/23/2009 @ 10:39 pmNow, Whitman, OTOH, could make the same argument with more success. At the very least she succeeded in business and, if she can stop squabbling with Poizner and make the campaign about fixing California, she’ll do well.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 11/23/2009 @ 10:43 pmFiorina is not the future. There’s no incentive I can see to ever ever ever lift a finger on behalf of a former McCain advisor. We’ve got to put that nonsense behind us as quickly and as completely as possible.
In Barbara Boxer California has found the congresshoochie it deserves I think. When I think of who should be the face for this dirty socialist train wreck of a dysfunctional and deeply useless state, it’s definitely you, Babs.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/23/2009 @ 10:45 pmoh. Hey Mr. Hitchcock. I really think that after what happened to Miss Arnold we really shouldn’t wish Teh Change on any for real good Republicans what we admire. Seemingly innocuous political offices in California become radically debilitating toxins when they come in contact with right-thinking stalwart America-loving commonsense individuals what hold an appreciation for economic freedom and personal liberty.
It’s the darndest thing.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/23/2009 @ 10:53 pm“Is Fiorina playing the victim card by talking about having breast cancer during the pendency of the Sotomayor hearings, and does this particular illness also help her with women? In addition, is a past illness that Fiorina has presumably recovered from an excuse for not educating herself about the issues presented by the Sotomayor nomination?
Comment by DRJ ”
I won’t lie, I rolled my eyes at the breast cancer excuse. But I gave her a pass because I know it’s really hard to deal with the treatments. If she had time to recover, and still acted like she was uninformed, then she was weaseling. I guess I was wrong and DRJ was right, but I still like Carly’s general argument (as I interpreted it, anyway).
Carly helped save HP. It’s a shame she doesn’t get credit for it, but the great ideas that have helped HP so much were ideas that came about under her, not after.
I disagree with Happyfeet about that approach to Mccain staffers. Most of them are conservatives, trustworthy, and were there to fight Obama and preserve the war effort. Let’s not be too general in our anger. Steve Schmidt, and many others in Mccain’s camp, gave him idiotic advice and acted like scumbags. For all I know, Carly did too, but I haven’t heard about that. I just think too many have bashed Mccain’s campaign staff generally.
Yeah, they screwed up plenty, but they also did a pretty good job in many ways. Before the economic collapse, they were even winning despite tremendous problems the people had with Bush, and the media’s love for The One. They had a hard job, and they failed. We need fighters who will play to win, while not betraying eachother. I think most of Mccain staff are those people, and many of them learned some valuable lessons in 2008.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/23/2009 @ 10:57 pmThis is troubling on a few levels but right off the bat, my thought is why did she feel it necessary to mention breast cancer specifically?
Perhaps because we’ve just ended National Breast Cancer month and Race for the Cure in Cali, and this speech came right on the heels of that. It’s fresh in women’s minds and now here is a survivor to admire and sympathize with.
I think she slyly played a two-fer: gender and victim card, and she did it very deftly, which speaks to me about a savvy knowledge of her target.
On the matter of Sotomayor, if she hadn’t read up on her because she was fighting breast cancer, is she telling us that she read up on her *after* the fact and so then says she would have voted for her based on that? Why would she read up on her *after* she was already confirmed?
Anyway, Carly just inspired me to give DeVore’s campaign another $25. My vote is with the white guy.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/23/2009 @ 10:58 pmOkay, I am definitely not channeling footsie. I should’ve made that left turn at Albuquerque. Can someone who is channeling footsie tell me what he just told me? 😛
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/23/2009 @ 10:59 pmVersace girl, wanna give some in my name, too? I’m sure it’s legal. The Obama contributors did that stuff. 😉 (I have his link in my “worthwhile links” for any maxxed who want to contribute in my name.) 😉
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/23/2009 @ 11:03 pmThey all knew what McCain was I think and if they didn’t then that’s even worse. These clingers-on simply knew that of the tribe of R it was only Meghan’s daddy what had the blessing of the dirty socialist media. And so they clung, like the clinging clingy clingers they are.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/23/2009 @ 11:07 pmif Carly is the other major candidate running against Boxer Shorts, i will simply not vote on that race.
a RINO is not a choice, and i refuse to buy into believing otherwise. Chuck may have issues, but at least he will put in writing what his stances are on his web site. with Carly you have to listen to various videos that are a buss word bingo players dream, but which say nothing.
i’ll pass.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 11/23/2009 @ 11:09 pmI’m too lazy to link all of these but if you go to Devore’s site, you can link to the details of each individual claim below,
— Carly Fiorina supported the ruinous Wall Street bailouts. Chuck DeVore opposed them.
— Carly Fiorina supported the Obama stimulus. Chuck DeVore opposed it.
— Carly Fiorina didn’t have an opinion on Obamacare till this month, but now says she agrees with its “goals.” Chuck DeVore opposed it from the start.
— Carly Fiorina can’t decide whether she opposes cap-and-tax. Chuck DeVore is resolutely against it.
— Carly Fiorina won’t say where she stands on amnesty for illegal immigrants. Chuck DeVore opposes it.
— Carly Fiorina admires California’s liberal Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein. Chuck DeVore thinks Feinstein is part of the problem.
— Carly Fiorina has no record of pro-life activism. Chuck DeVore has a 100% pro-life rating from the Capitol Resource Institute.
— Carly Fiorina says she would have voted for Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation. Chuck DeVore opposed it.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/23/2009 @ 11:14 pmI think I’ll fly in to San Diego and register as a Democrat at the ACORN place, then switch my registration to Republican once ACORN gets me all squared-away and vote absentee in the primary for DeVore. That’s how out-of-staters do it, isn’t it?
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/23/2009 @ 11:22 pmred, it’s not my state, it’s yours, so it’s your call.
But did you say that kind of thing about Mccain vs Obama? I think a lot of people did, and as a result, the nation will be damaged severely. I hope Chuck can win both primary and general in a place that elects a jackass like Boxer. I don’t think he can, but that is the best case scenario and I hope you fight hard for it. The GOP has tough primaries sometimes. What sucks is how those who don’t win decide that they won’t support their 80% friend.
Happyfeet, most Mccain staffers I met were there to stop Obama, not to help Mccain. Mccain is a very flawed person, but that’s what the GOP gave us to work with, and the stakes were too high for many of us to just let Obama slide through without a fight. It’s a valid position to take by anyone who saw what was coming.
I personally think anyone who didn’t do everything they could to help Mccain win either didn’t see what Obama was all about (and aren’t all that bright) or didn’t care about the future very much. But I realize that Mccain is pretty repellent to a lot of good folks, and that my dichotomy is false.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/23/2009 @ 11:27 pmDustin, I voted for Sarah Palin; it just so happened McCain was on the overcard. Had McCain chosen another McCain, I would have voted third-party. McCain is left-of-center and I will NOT vote for someone who is left-of-center. EOL.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/23/2009 @ 11:33 pmI was as supportive of McCain as a little pikachu could be. I never once understated the vileness of the depredations which would be visited on our little country in the aftermath of a McCain defeat, and I held my tongue, after promising Maybee I would, and said nothing of the vileness of the depredations which would be visited on our little country in the aftermath of a McCain victory. But now I just feel dirty. Compromised.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/23/2009 @ 11:35 pmok I might have slipped a couple times
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/23/2009 @ 11:37 pm“Do you want to die a slow, agonizing death or a fast death?”
My answer: NO
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/23/2009 @ 11:37 pmI so want a ‘Don’t blame me, I voted for Sarah’ bumper sticker.
I don’t think Mccain is left of center, but I get your drift. you still voted for his ticket, despite your distaste for Mccain’s policies. I was dismayed to find myself trying to elect this enemy of free speech, gang of 14, shamnesty jerk who told Texas’s Senator to stay out of the immigration debate. But Rev Wright fan, Bill Ayers Friend, ACORN lawyer?
I think Mccain is just a peculiar person. He is pretty great on foreign policy, but as president, there’s no doubt he would have helped the dems do a lot of dumb stuff. Still, compared to this?
There was a chance Mccain would have been a decent president. like W. Not perfect or even that conservative, but dignified and patriotic. There’s no chance he’d have been anywhere near as bad as what we have. I guess this is a threadjack to some extent, and I think the California Senator election is really important to discuss and think about.
The GOP needs to start making headway in places like California.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/23/2009 @ 11:40 pm#24: then the GOP needs to put forth candidates, not the RINOP.
i voted for Sarah. had they nominated some predictable party hack, i would have skipped that race in November ’08, mostly because the outcome in the PRC was preordained.
yes, there is/was some difference between Ear Leader & McLame, and, had it been close, i would have held my nose, but the reason it wasn’t close, besides the MFM, is that there isn’t that much difference between the two to begin with: Senator “Bipartisan” made sure of that, and lost my support in the process.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 11/23/2009 @ 11:51 pmIf anyone can help Team R make headway in California it’s our little president man I think, and if he can’t do it, I’m not sure it can be done.
happyfeet (b919e7) — 11/23/2009 @ 11:52 pmThe California electorate is so full of knuckleheaded “I’m liberal, therefore I am” people, that only a liberal will be acceptable to them as a serious contender to an ultra-liberal like Barbara Boxer. That is symbolic of why California — whose motto is laughingly the “Golden State” — is headed into a slow but continuous decline.
Interestingly and ironically, a recent poll indicated a high percentage of Californians agree with the idea that their state in headed in a downward trajectory. But so many of them are too foolish to realize their voting patterns — their I’m-liberal-therefore-I-am mentality — is a major contributor to the nosedive of the “Golden State.”
Mark (411533) — 11/24/2009 @ 12:06 am“What say you?”
She’s a total joke. Probably the first Republican I’ve ever seen that had NO positives.
Her chief claim to fame is that she schmoozed her way to the top of the corporate ladder, ran HP into the ground, got forced out by the Board of Directors, and then took a huge severance package.
She then went on to sit on the board of directors of several other corporations…God knows how that happened. During the last presidential election, she worked on the McCain campaign, and helped out by publically stating that Sarah Palin wasn’t qualified to run a corporation (good work, Carly, that’ll really help out the old home team).
She can’t be bothered with voting, appears to know nothing about politics, and has a bigger ego than Barack Obama. As far as I can tell, her talents are limited to mouthing platitudes, and conning people into giving her money, so she’s probably in the wrong party to boot.
She polls just a bit better than DeVore (last time I checked), but I doubt if either one of them has a snowball’s chance in hell of beating Babs, so I guess it’s no big deal if she runs.
That’s my take, anyway.
Dave Surls (7fe123) — 11/24/2009 @ 12:09 amFor a lot of people, that place is actually freezing over right now. And with the seriously tanked economy, the totally screwed up Afghan (not that crocheting I do/did) situation, the unpopular trillion-dollar-bills, obvious higher terrorist risk, the higher taxes, the tanked dollar, etc, ad infinitum that will only get worse in ’10, previously sound D seats will suddenly be in serious jeopardy (or that’s my optimistic take on it).
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/24/2009 @ 12:16 amDid you mean playing the :)<3-< card? Or the :)<8-< card?
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/24/2009 @ 12:36 ambleh, : )<3-< or : )<8-<
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 11/24/2009 @ 12:37 am“I think elections have consequences. That’s why elections matter.”
If elections matter in this regard, why vote for Fiorina rather than Boxer?
Frankly, Fiorina strikes me a stupid politician. First she alienates half the GOP voting base. Then she explains why she’s not different than the Democratic incumbent.
NCC (4e0dda) — 11/24/2009 @ 2:50 am“Elections have consequences” = Acquiesce to Democrats???
Her lack of principles and ideology along with her blatant use of the victim card gives one pause.
Another high-profile RINO.
Let’s get behind her ‘CAUSE SHE CAN BEAT BOXER!!!???
I know how this one ends, thank you. . .
sam.i.am (6a694e) — 11/24/2009 @ 2:55 amFollow-up on comment #4:
Did any of you ever MEET Matt Fong?
I did. He’s clearly not “white”. And it’s highly questionable whether he is “male”. If you look up “Mama’s boy” in the dictionary, you might find his picture.
Fong edged out the then-unknown Darrell Issa for the GOP nomination in 1998, one of the (many) mistakes made by CA GOP primary voters in the past 20 years.
I had the opportunity to meet both candidates at a donor event a couple of months before the primary. During that evening, I approached both men, stuck out my hand, and introduced myself.
Issa shook my hand firmly, looked me straight in the eye, thanked me for attending, and asked what I did for a living.
Fong did none of those things. He just put a contribution envelope in my open hand and walked away. I knew right then and there that he would never, ever win statewide.
That primary was a low point. Boxer was vulnerable then, having defended Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal when a lot of voters still remembered the disgraceful smear job she did on Bob Packwood.
Furthermore, Issa — who had amassed a net worth of about $75 million by then via his successful audio-equipment business — was willing to commit a lot of personal assets in the general election.
On primary night, I threw up, because I knew that we were faced with at least 6 more years of the US Senate’s stupidest, and most intellectually and ethically bankrupt member. And now she’s very tough to beat, even with a good candidate.
Maybe Arnold should run. As much as I admire Chuck Devore, he probably has the best shot.
Steve Levy (922f7f) — 11/24/2009 @ 3:19 amBabs is pretty tough.
Last time she lost an election I was a tennager…and dinosaurs roamed the earth.
Dave Surls (7fe123) — 11/24/2009 @ 4:41 amMake that “teenager”.
Dave Surls (7fe123) — 11/24/2009 @ 4:42 amWhat say I? I say she’s pandering to the Hispanic vote. So, she’s trying to be Olympia Snowe and John McVain.
V the K (07425b) — 11/24/2009 @ 4:54 amMy guess is that Sotomayor will be relying
jack (e383ed) — 11/24/2009 @ 5:24 amheavily on her clerks. And my guess is that any clerks that she hires will be a lot smarter, and better students than she ever was.
On a pragmatic ground, support for Carly is really based on how much you believe the voters of California are finally fed up with the Democrats’ policies, to the point that Boxer’s words and votes and not her gender will matter next November.
If you think the election is going to be based on Boxer’s record and not on the attacks she’s going to make on what the Republican nominee will do if elected, then Devore is a better choice. If you think there’s still a large enough group of swing voters out there who either haven’t or still don’t want to connect Boxer with the state and nation’s porblems simply because they want to believe that women are a differen breed of politician, then, yes, Carly has a better chance to defeat Barbara in 2010 than Chuck does.
John (d4490d) — 11/24/2009 @ 5:41 amThe gender thing is a ridiculous claim in this case. It would have some cache if the Dems were running someone like the SC governor Sanford with notable problems that would turn off women. However, California is a state that has had two female U.S. senators for a long time. One has just been liberal the other (Babs) is liberal and very publicly stupid and is now vulnerable. If Californians are looking for change then offering them another slightly liberal woman whose main claim to fame is being a business failure. HP didn’t turn around until a man, Mark Hurd, took over for her.
Chuck DeVore can offer a legitimate alternative. Fiorina offers more of the same. 2010 is a rare opportunity to potentially unseat someone like Boxer, but it will only happen with someone who can really differentiate themselves.
Largebill (1d1579) — 11/24/2009 @ 6:08 amFor the record, I’m currently leaning towards DeVore.
That said, I really don’t think the comment is objectionable. She isn’t saying a female candidate would make a better Senator, she is merely stating a female candidate would make a better opponent against a specific sitting US Senator. We do this all the time in politics, when Rudy wan in ’08 a number of supporters (such as myself) argued that an Italian American candidate from the Eastern seaboard would be able to swing voters other GOP nominees could not. In the Florida Senate race, many of Mark Rubio’s suppporters point to his Cuban-American heritage as an argument that he would be a stronger general election candidate than Crist. Romney’s Mormon background was cited by both his supporters and opponents as an example of how he would help or hurt the GOP ticket.
Where it is a problem is where a candidate’s religious, ethnic, racial background and/or gender are used to argue one candidate is more qualified than the other, which is bigotry pure and simple.
Sean P (141ece) — 11/24/2009 @ 6:10 amAnyone heard from Juan ?! Have not seen his name in a long long long time.
That comment was not objectionable to me. But, my dislike of Boxer colors my vision. Very few people have the capability, or the malevolent desire, to be as bad bad bad as Boxer.
JD (42a8c3) — 11/24/2009 @ 6:27 amnamely her indefensible behavior bugging dissident directors at HP
That was truly contemptible – but let’s be honest about this; do you want to win, or lose on your principles alone? We have a similar conundrum here regarding the upcoming election where Kirk is the GOP candidate best postioned to win, but he’s pretty much a RHINO in most instances. I’m fine with voting for him, just to get rid of the insidious Dem operatives and sleazbags. The only worry is that Kirk will be co – opted into becoming another sleaze himself in the process.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/24/2009 @ 6:56 amDmac – By virtue of simply running, desn’t that make Kirk dirty? He is pretty distasteful, to be sure, but miles better than the alternative.
JD (0ac8d6) — 11/24/2009 @ 7:17 amI’m in total agreement with this article:
George (d57b1d) — 11/24/2009 @ 7:20 amWhat do Carly Fiorina and Barack Obama have in common?
I would like to see some principles on display. The old liberal classification system is long since worn out.
bill-tb (365bd9) — 11/24/2009 @ 7:26 amIf you can tell me how anyone listens to Barbara Boxer and thinks she should be a senator, then I could tell you what it would take to beat her. ‘Tis a mystery to me.
Fiorina and DeVore are both endlessly more qualified, and I don’t even know where they stand on anything. I don’t care.
(happs- xoxox)
MayBee (d2b954) — 11/24/2009 @ 7:47 amBoth Fiorina and Meg Whitman (the moderates’ choice for Governor of California), are just rich “country-club” Republicans. Whitman has an MBA and Fiorina has an MBA and an MS in management. (In other words, two MBAs.)
Fiorina’s real name is Cara Carleton Sneed. Meg Whitman is married to man named Griffith Rutherford Harsh IV. Republicans might as well nominate Chatsworth Osborne, Jr.
Official Internet Data Office (5b0163) — 11/24/2009 @ 7:50 amElection prediction: Babs wins by +65% of the vote.
California voters will never reject her at the ballot box.
steve miller (81db43) — 11/24/2009 @ 8:04 amShe mentioned cancer and the being a woman because it is almost impossible for an opponent to counter.
davod (bce08f) — 11/24/2009 @ 8:06 amAbortion is a big issue.
Abortion is always front and center in every statewide race. There are just too many voters who have outright hostility against anyone who might get in the way of their precious abortions.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 11/24/2009 @ 8:20 amCancer or gender cuts no ice with this Californian. I have had cancer, I presently have gender, ask me if anybody cares. To me it sounds like excuses for not doing her homework. OK, while sick nobody expects her to keep on top of stuff, but now she’s running, and being informed is part of running.
Look away from the cities, and you will see lots of conservatives, bludgeoned into almost a coma, but we’re here. I like Devore taking positions. If the moderates are awake, I think a conservative can win. And I think our financial woes and water wars have awakened a lot of moderates.
jodetoad (059c35) — 11/24/2009 @ 8:33 amIf you thought Dede Scozzafava was a good choice for the GOP ticket in NY, you’re likely to be taken in again by Carly Fiorina. This is not good.
The GOP leadership (?) hasn’t learned a thing from NY-23, they’re still convinced it was a smart move to run John McCain in ’08, things only went sour when he screwed up second spot on the ticket with “that woman,” Sarah Palin.
That’s how bad it is, these zombies have been brain dead for over 40 years, since Nixon corrupted the Republican establishment. They fought against the nomination of Ronald Reagan, and only agreed to the Contract with America because they couldn’t stop it, thought slogans like “Compassionate Conservatism” was a slick way to cover up massive spending and wide-spread corruption. Enough already!
It’s time for a New Right Coalition to take control of the GOP and put the tired old hacks out to pasture where they can’t stab the majority of American voters in the back any longer. Truly, the greatest obstacle Conservatives face is the GOP establishment. We can whip the Democrats and their leech constituencies.
The old tired failed GOP leaders must be swept aside so the citizen voters of America can take their rightful place in a government of, for, and by the people. First things first, we have to clean up our own backyard before we set to work putting America back on the right track.
ropelight (3203bf) — 11/24/2009 @ 8:36 amWhat a ditz. I’ll go with Chuckles DeVore
Homdo (eb6164) — 11/24/2009 @ 8:41 amBy virtue of simply running, desn’t that make Kirk dirty?
Sadly, yes.
OK, while sick nobody expects her to keep on top of stuff, but now she’s running, and being informed is part of running.
Her excuse has no weight IMHO – that’s almost akin to “the dog ate my homework,” unless she had a really bad time with “chemo brain.” I didn’t care for Lance Armstrong’s constant harping on it either, FWIW (notwithstanding his charitable activities).
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/24/2009 @ 9:08 am“If you thought Dede Scozzafava was a good choice for the GOP ticket in NY, you’re likely to be taken in again by Carly Fiorina”
They just aren’t the same. Carly is an honest to goodness republican moderate, and Dede was a democrat union thug pretending to be a republican.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/24/2009 @ 9:21 amI’d like Fiorina’s comments much better if she also had said, “Now, I don’t think gender SHOULD matter. But my sense is that, to some voters in the middle, the ones who’ll swing the election, it subconsciously DOES. And primary voters need to remember that.”
Meh. Maybe I’m trying to have it both ways. But I thought Ace made an excellent point about how GOP voters get an extra thrill at being able to vote for an otherwise great candidate who ALSO happens to be black. If nothing else, that candidate is “inoculated” against many charges of racism. Just so with women candidates and sexism. Or so goes the theory.
Perhaps more troubling was her “victim card”: I couldn’t pay attention to Sotomayor because I was fighting breast cancer. Was she unconscious for 4 weeks? (Not making fun of the cancer battle. Just, can you watch the news shows a little?)
It also troubles me that Fiorina doesn’t rush, today — even if she didn’t follow Soto’s confirmation hearings, etc. — to point out that Sotomayor’s comments about “wise Latina judges” was way off base, and otherwise to indicate that Fiorina would have opposed Soto’s confirmation.
Mitch (890cbf) — 11/24/2009 @ 9:26 am““Elections have consequences” = Acquiesce to Democrats???
Her lack of principles and ideology along with her blatant use of the victim card gives one pause.
Another high-profile RINO.
Let’s get behind her ‘CAUSE SHE CAN BEAT BOXER!!!???
I know how this one ends, thank you. . .
Comment by sam.i.am
The victim card doesn’t make her a RINO, it makes her a whiner politician. Hard right wingers whine too.
Of course we have to aquiece to the democrat president in judicial nominations. That’s what the constitution says. The presidential election determines who picks the judges. the Senate should give the president a wide latitude on this, only voting down for reasons of ethics or basic requirements. That was Carly’s point… and it simply doesn’t make her a RINO.
Also if you pay attention to the republicans who actually win statewide california elections, the kind that repeatedly elect Boxer, you know that a republican winning is a challenge that has to be thought through strategically.
Is California fed up enough with democrats to elect a red blooded 100% conservative? It should be, but I seriously doubt it. That’s what the nomination is all about, though. Each candidate will do their best to win the nomination, and then the GOP will fracture into two parts and lose the general election. GREAT.
What’s annoying is that Dede Scozzafava, a ridiculous extreme, is simply unrelated to this normal moderate vs conservative argument. Dede was not a moderate republican, she was a hard left democrat. If Carly can’t win the nomination, then she’s too weak a candidate to win the general, so I have no problem with her being fought mercilessly, but I am sick of republicans saying they will sit out the election. It’s not my place to tell you what to think, but damn… Joseph Stalin would be a better senator than Barbara Boxer. The GOP needs to go ahead and unite on this one.
Have your hard arguments in the primary, and if you lose, have then again in the next primary, but we urgently need to work hard to take a few senators away.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/24/2009 @ 9:35 am“Now, I don’t think gender SHOULD matter. But my sense is that, to some voters in the middle, the ones who’ll swing the election, it subconsciously DOES. And primary voters need to remember that.”
Mitch, you’re right. She has a solid point, but made it in a dumb way. She should be getting bashed for her comments, but her point is correct. She is more electable because she’s a woman. Personally, I think politicians should shut up about this kind of unfortunate crap. They are only making men less electable by repeating this claim. That’s wrong.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/24/2009 @ 9:38 am“During the last presidential election, she worked on the McCain campaign, and helped out by publically stating that Sarah Palin wasn’t qualified to run a corporation (good work, Carly, that’ll really help out the old home team).”
Is this true?
What a dumbass Carly is. I take back everything favorable I said about her. She’s part of the problem. I think HP was much better off for having Carly around, but if she was part of the wing that bashed Sarah when it was super fashionable, but we have an election on, then she is part of the sickness that really does need to be purged.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/24/2009 @ 9:41 amCarly Fiorina has done more damage to America’s high technology R&D programs than perhaps any other single individual. She was deeply involved in the downsizing of Bell Labs while at AT&T/Lucent. She then was instrumental in the dismantling of Hewlett Packard when they spun off Agilent.
Despite 25 years in technology, she learned nothing. She was also a lousy businessperson.
I compared her to Obama in my blog last night.
matt (2bb21a) — 11/24/2009 @ 10:08 amHey, there’s a positive for Carly….
AD - RtR/OS! (8bd229) — 11/24/2009 @ 10:45 amWe know she’ll be supportive of the NSA monitoring program!
Well I certainly hope we can elect a Republican governor to lead this Democratic Party controlled state – then when the s*hit inevitably hits the fan, the politicos can blame the relatively powerless governor.
californio (628bff) — 11/24/2009 @ 10:47 amLOL, AD. touche
Carly saved HP, and ATT isn’t a huge failure either. She’s very smart, very good at business, and though I understand why, in a primary, her opponents will trash her, I hope they only talk about things they understand.
It’s good that the GOP has tough primaries, and we should duke it out. But let’s remember that we need to not destroy eachother. What’s amusing is that a lot of people came in here to complain about Carly making a pretty mild attack, and then are freaking vicious towards Carly. No, she’s not Dede Scozzafava, she did not destroy technology more than any other person in the last generation. Silly goofballs!
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/24/2009 @ 10:51 amSorry, Dustin, but I think that Carly is too damaged to be the nominee.
AD - RtR/OS! (8bd229) — 11/24/2009 @ 11:05 amShe brings too many negatives to the conflict that Babs the Bouncer will destroy her with
(under the dutiful direction of the weasels at the CA Dem Party HQ, who have honed this activity to a fine art).
I would rather have a straight-up battle of a principled conservative against her,
and let the Chris Lahanes and Bob Mulhollands throw all of the mud they can in an atmosphere not particularly ameniable to Dem incumbents that will exist next year.
With the ever-growing disillusionment of the voters to the Leftist agenda marqueed by Babs and her version of Cap&Tax,
dirty politics will not be as much of a winning agenda as it has been in the past –
The voters have a lot more on their plates that they are concerned with.
AD, I was responding more to Matt than you, but I forgot what I said about Carly when Dave pointed out she bashed Palin.
While I like Palin, that’s not why I have a problem with that. All those who turned on her, for their little bit of fame, really screwed us, and need to go.
Carly’s nowhere near as horrible as some are pointing out, when it comes to her business acumen, etc, but she’s part of the GOP’s disease, and I don’t really support her.
My real point is that, if you can’t get your principled conservative to oppose Babs in the general, vote for anything that has a chance to beat her. A bag of rocks, Carly, John Mccain, etc.
But some have gone beyond the truth in attacking Carly. If Dave Surls is right, and I’m pretty sure he is, then the truth is enough.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/24/2009 @ 11:13 amI was working for HP when we got spun off to Agilent (just in time for the dot-com-bomb) but between the time spent working for Carly as HP and seeing her activities with the Compaq acquisition, I’d support DeVore in a heartbeat.
Not sure if Carly has any principles beyond “win at any cost”. OTOH, I live in Oregon now, and we get to see if the locals can find any opposition to Ron Wyden. For that matter, who might run for Gov. Ah, the joys of living in a red county in a blue state.
RCPete
Red County Pete (2eecac) — 11/24/2009 @ 11:40 amComment by Red County Pete — 11/24/2009 @ 11:40 am
I’m always amused by the farmer’s barn along I-5 just north of the CA line espousing the breakup of OR into two states:
AD - RtR/OS! (8bd229) — 11/24/2009 @ 11:49 amThe Willamette Valley, and the Red-County rest (or, at least that is how I read it).
He might be right, and it is one way to keep his barn painted!
“Elections have consequences, but not mine. If I’m elected, I will defer on judicial nominations to the President, instead of thinking independently about what’s best for the people who actually elected me.”
PatHMV (103ba0) — 11/24/2009 @ 11:57 am“It was a great thing when the democrats blocked all of Bush’s appointments.”
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/24/2009 @ 11:59 amAD:
Not familiar with the barn (we take US 97 off I-5 at Weed when heading home), but occasionally someone will dust off the meme about the state of Jefferson. Last iteration was something about taking the red portion of Oregon and the NE corner of Cal. I doubt there’d be enough people to make a state (last I remembered, you needed 500K people to get statehood), but it’s a nice fantasy.
My takeaway is that it’s best to try to get some sanity in the state party before trying to do the same for the entire state government. We try.
Red County Pete (2eecac) — 11/24/2009 @ 12:06 pmI felt much better about voting for McCain because he really is conservative on most questions. I think he would have been better than Bush on spending and foreign policy. I thought he was too old the last time and voted for him anyway, a lot because of Sarah.
Carly is a RINO but may be the best we could do in California. I may be registered in Arizona by next election anyway as I think California is a lost cause. Claremont Review of Books has a piece about California this month that should be good.
Mike K (addb13) — 11/24/2009 @ 12:12 pmSpeaking from the other side of the aisle:
(a) it seems to me that Mrs. Fiorina’s view of the role of elections and judicial appointments is the view that conservatives wish Democrats had taken during the period of 2007-2008: that the President is entitled to have qualified nominees confirmed regardless of whether Senators disagree with the views of the nominee. As a matter of consistency, then, I think conservatives should support that view from conservative Senators every bit as much as they desire that view from liberal Senators … unless the idea is that nominees from conservative-leaning presidents deserve deference and nominees from liberal-leaning presidents do not.
(For what it’s worth, I disagree with the premise; I think the Senate is entitled to enquire into the views of nominees and Senators are entitled to make their own determination).
(2) I’m probably reregistering as a Republican so that I can vote against Mrs. Fiorina — because, contrary to Dustin, I think she destroyed HP, and don’t want her doing for the state or the country what she did for that company.
That view is pretty common in the valley; I think that Mrs. Fiorina is highly unlikely to win a general election because of it … but I’d rather not run the risk.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 11/24/2009 @ 12:23 pmFiorna may very well have mismanaged HB but let’s get real here: she could have set fire to the main office and sniped the employees as they ran from the burning building and she STILL would be a better Senator than Boxer. I don’t have a lot of confidence she would be a good or even a fair Senator but she would be an upgrade and I’ll have no trouble whatsoever voting for her if she’s the nominee.
Sean P (4fde41) — 11/24/2009 @ 12:35 pm“…the view that conservatives wish Democrats had taken during the period of 2007-2008…”
Comment by aphrael — 11/24/2009 @ 12:23 pm
I think a better explanation of that view is that conservatives (and most of the GOP in the Senate) wanted those names brought to the floor for an up-or-down vote, and not side-tracked by “holds” or “extended debate” – that that is what the nominees deserved, and would have been a proper consideration, and deference to, Presidential Prerogitive.
AD - RtR/OS! (8bd229) — 11/24/2009 @ 12:53 pmWhat should the state GOP do about the abortion issue. The Democrats always hammer the statewide Republican nominees with their opposition to abortion rights?
Should the state Republican Party drop the pro-life plank?
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 11/24/2009 @ 3:28 pmWhat pro-life plank? republicans in California know no such uniform plank. I think each candidate should be for limited government primarily, and honest about social issues, however they happen to feel. This is california, which a lot of very conservative people and a lot of moderate republicans too. Room for both.
Aphrael, HP improved markedly, just after Carly’s debacle at HP, based on her initiatives. You can say you think she destroyed it, but you’re wrong, since it wasn’t destroyed at all. You might be able to point to many of Carly’s mistakes (no one said she didn’t make several), but who cares? She took a really lackluster company and made it viable and even dominant. That takes hard decisions with downsides, but it also invites tons of criticism from people who really don’t know what they are talking about. I have actual… ya know… reality to back me up on HP. Carly left it ready to surge ahead, which it did. She ain’t much of a saint, and Dave’s pointer about her Palin comments make her a piece of garbage in my book, but I think the HP record is obvious, though inconvenient to a lot of people.
Carly isn’t worth my defense, though, as I explained above. I just want the party to have its nomination fight without exiling tons of its most crucial members. And yeah, our business leaders, even those who are closer to John Mccain than Ronald Reagan in politics, are crucial.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/24/2009 @ 3:35 pmQuite the contrary: she took a dominant company, split it out into several not-so-powerful companies, forced through a tremendously unsuccessful merger with a dying dinosaur, destroyed a vibrant corporate culture, alienated the employees, and caused the value of the stock to collapse, before the board of directors got angry and fired her.
This isn’t really a record to stand on.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 11/24/2009 @ 3:55 pmThat’s fiction. It’s not worth my time to go into it, but HP post Carly was simply much better than pre Carly. HP is the leader in their field now, and you said she destroyed it. Move the goalposts again, if you wish, but HP was not destroyed. It was saved.
Granted, she alienated all the people she was laying off and selling.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/24/2009 @ 4:33 pmHP was saved, that much is clear to everyone. Can someone please explain the specific business moves that got that company on its feet?
If you can’t, then…
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/24/2009 @ 4:40 pmIf memory serves, it was Mark Hurd who was the key player in the company’s turnaround. I could be mistaken, of course.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/24/2009 @ 6:49 pmMy wife told me to say that Carly’s right…
EricPWJohnson (b8637a) — 11/24/2009 @ 10:53 pmI really don’t want to defend Carly again. I already did more than I should have. She’s one of the jerks who bashed our presidential ticket’s VP last year… that was unacceptable.
But Charles’s staff has put out a lot of Carly’s positions that don’t appear to be accurate. Tough primaries are great, but rely on Carly for her positions, not Charles’s staff. they aren’t exactly careful with the facts. Not that Carly hasn’t left the door open for this, if she hasn’t made her views clear enough.
But let her state her own case. If she hasn’t stated a policy position on something, and you think she should, then hold that against her. BUT don’t let her opponents define her. That’s a sucker’s game. I saw someone in this thread list Carly’s positions on several issues, by linking Devore’s site repeatedly. That’s just lame.
On the other hand, Carly’s the problem with the GOP, and I really don’t want her to be nominated. It’s just the principle of the matter. It’s like Mccain. He gets bashed, and I think some of that’s just not terribly accurate. He’s a straight shooter, and he’s wrong on a lot of things… but that’s not the same thing as betrayal.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/24/2009 @ 11:00 pmdmac, you made my point with Hurd. Hurd did not change Carly’s policies, and that was the right move, since Carly’s ideas saved HP. He did the right thing, of course.
But what I asked was what policies saved HP, not who was at the helm. There are great reasons why HP turned itself around, and Carly’s bashers don’t want to list any of them (since they were explicitly devised before Carly left). Or they don’t know, and want to bash someone they have a reason not to like (which is pretty understandable, since Carly’s kinda terrible at being liked).
I started this, so I don’t want to be a hit and run type who doesn’t answer these kinds of arguments. But if you come up with a policy that saved HP, look into what Hurd did. He continued the aggressive layoff policies people are bashing Carly for in this very thread. He made hard decisions, and is a total badass. It takes a smart leader to stay the course after its unpopular inventor is disgraced.
Dustin (cf255c) — 11/24/2009 @ 11:06 pm