Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Considering US Presidential Run 433
McGruber writes: Fired HP CEO and failed Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina is "actively exploring a 2016 presidential run." Fiorina has been "talking privately with potential donors, recruiting campaign staffers, courting grass-roots activists in early caucus and primary states, and planning trips to Iowa and New Hampshire starting next week."
Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mitt Romney
Jeb Bush
Scott Walker
Chris Christie
Sarah Palin
Bobby Jindal
And now Carly Fiorina wants in, too? That will be quite a crowd.
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its all about Rand Paul in 2016
Rand Paul would break the GOP; possibly the greatest gift the the democrats could ever receive. He is running for the nomination for sure, but he will be one of the first pushed out.
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:5, Insightful)
The democrats are only slightly worse than the GOP as a whole these days
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What? The Democrats are pretty bad, but much better than the degenerate remains of the Republican party, which is nothing but wingnuts now that they've driven all the smart people out of the party with their superstition, reality-denial, and bigotry.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
We haven't seen any actual progress out of the Obama regime, just further backsliding with more of a smile. The repub and dem parties these days are 2 sides of the same coin with different corporate sponsors. Both of them view you as the enemy, and both of them are out to actively screw you over to make their sponsors money in the name of "stamping out drugs and terrorism".
If you aren't voting Libertarian or Green you are part of the problem and are actively supporting tyranny. Those two parties are the
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:5, Insightful)
You must have missed the last election. Low turnout, which always favors Republicans, but every minimum wage increase passed, pot legaization passed, person hood amendments failed etc. In other words the liberal agenda made lots of progress. Here's a nice analysis by a GOPer:
http://blog.chron.com/goplifer... [chron.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I would totally go for a Penelope Cruz/Sarah Palin ticket.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony is that, were a candidate to arise that held Ronald Reagan's values, he (or she) would be kicked out of the GOP for not being conservative enough.
My fondest hope is that the GOP splits in two. One half can be made up of the actual conservatives and the other half can be made up of the nut jobs. This way, the crazy-GOP can fade away to the side-lines and the serious-GOP can actually get stuff done without needing to worry about appeasing the crazy elements of their party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be happy if we could get a GOP w/o the religion, that along with getting rid of the Citizen's United decision, and the money out of the political mess that is both parties.
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:4, Informative)
Overturning Citizens United will require a constitutional amendment. Have you done your part to move that process forward yet? Here are a couple of things you can do:
1. Visit MoveToAmend.org [movetoamend.org] and sign the petition.
2. Visit Wolf-PAC.com [wolf-pac.com] and volunteer.
3. Contact all of your elected representatives at every level of government and make sure they know where you stand on the issue of corporate personhood, and why.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be happy if we could get a pony.
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with you about " a GOP w/o the religion", do you have the first clue what the Citizen's United case was actually about? It was about a group of people who pooled their money to show a film critical of Hillary. The ruling was that you do not lose your freedom of political speech simply because you form a partnership or corporation to manage the funds needed for that speech. There have since been many similar ruling that a closely held corporation is no different from a partnership in not res
Re: (Score:3)
You missed the part about money. And don't even begin to pretend the democrats aren't all about money.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Reagan eventually realized his support for amnesty was a mistake, a mistake based in part on fraudulent information given to him about the quantity of illegal aliens already in the country.
The claims for Reagan being senile while in office are a hoax manufactured by his enemies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For all you Republicans out there, there will NEVER be another Ronald Reagan.
If there were, they'd denounce him as a liberal for not conforming to their redefined image of him.
Substitute Jesus for Reagan -- same deal.
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:4, Interesting)
Forget about it. Just move on and go back to core basics in freedom and liberty. The Libertarian platform is your best hope, just drop the identity politics as authoritative tyranny needs to be stopped.
Sigh... if only. Unfortunately, the libertarian brand of freedom is in effect more about shifting federal power to wealthy corporations, religious institutions, and state-level control than it is about empowering individuals to have control over their own lives. There's no emphasis on education, healthcare reform, consumer protection, or intellectual property reform; there's very inconsistent support for the broad field of civil rights (including digital rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, worker's rights, immigration policy, police accountability, civil asset forfeiture reform, etc.).
They've got some good points: supporting gun rights, legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana, limiting federal power, challenging the DOD budget, and opposing pointless wars in the middle east. I give them points for wanting to confront reality on social security/medicare, even if their solution is to tear down most of the safety nets. When it comes to taxes or the environment, they seem to live in some far off fantasyland that wants to entrust our air/water/infrastructure/dignity to profit-focused institutions.
Unfortunately it's tainted by a bunch of anarchist nut balls, but I believe it's worth cleaning up and reorganizing to make it a viable serious party.
It's tainted even more by plutocrat backers that want power over others (without the pesky need to get elected) and zero taxes. But yeah, there is a core to their message that might be worth redeeming. It seems to me like they should seek out moderate democrats and try to establish a new liberalism. Maybe some progressives could acknowledge that life is just going to have some unhappy stories sometimes, and you don't need to pass a law or start a new government program everytime something on the news make you sad. Ultimately, we need both individual liberty and social responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And by today's standards he would be a RINO, a carpetbagger, and probably a few other choice words. Let's not forget he raised taxes, let illegals stay, and a whole bunch of other things that are anathema to the current rightwing nutjob movement.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You can bet that someone from Ohio will be in - either Gov. John Kasich who just soundly won reelection, or Senator Rob Portman. Both of which would be better than most of the other names being bandied about, and could deliver the Midwest.
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not even the theocratic bullshit that's the major problem. It's their insane dogma of coddling the rich and skullfucking anybody who works for a living. How can I support a party that uses big government to funnel my tax money into the pockets of dunces and takers in corporate boardrooms that hate 99% of America? I can't and nobody else who's thinking should either. Would anybody who's really concerned about communism crawl into bed with China? Would anybody who's really serious about small government howl for globe-spanning wars at every opportunity? Would anybody who's really grasped Jesus' teaching keep trying to cheat, enslave, disenfranchise, and murder the less fortunate? No, but Republican oligarchs and their useful idiots sure as hell do.
Re: (Score:3)
The GOP has been broken for decades now. Their last good President was Eisenhower. They just keep drifting into more extreme white christianist views, and have doubled-down on religion at a time when smart people understand that the supernatural is imaginary.
ITT: Democrats sore about last election claim Republicans are done, starting....now.
How about a Republican sore about the last election and claiming the Republicans are done [chron.com]?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
GOP nominee [insert name here] is the stupidest person who has ever represented the party.
Even Maureen Dowd's Republican brother won't vote for him.
9 out of 10 psychologists think [insert name here] has mental health issues -just by looking at his grammar!
And these same psychologists made this determination before they even finished their breakfasts!
Consequential publications (such as Rolling Stone magazine) have taken the unprecedented step of endorsing
Re: (Score:3)
I once did a bible study with a middle-aged man while in the college ministry. He believed in angels. His living room had thousands of angel statues of all shapes and sizes. With a half-dozen candles lit, his living room looked like a medieval monastery shrine. Forget about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They're no match for angels.
A few years later, I would have a roommate who believes that angels were from outer space. That's a UFO niche unto itself.
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
none of those will be taken seriously. Its all about Rand Paul in 2016
And one peccadillo coming to light about Rand (or any of them for that matter) will sink his ship in an instant.
Re: (Score:3)
none of those will be taken seriously. Its all about Rand Paul in 2016
No. It's Sarah Palin 2015 - on the road to 1400 Pennsylvania Ave [go.com] ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Might be an interesting year.
On the other side we have (listed alphabetically)
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Howard Dean
Luis Gutiérrez
Joe Manchin
Martin O'Malley
Ed Rendell
Bernie Sanders
Brian Schweitzer
Jim Webb
And don't forget Vermin Supreme [wikipedia.org]
I'm pretty sure any of the above could beat Carly
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure any of the above could beat Carly
It is worth pointing out that the list you just gave is pretty much completely speculative, as none of the names on that list have actually made concrete motions towards running. On the other hand every GOP'er on the list I provided has done something that is clearly designed to build up their presidential campaign.
That of course doesn't mean that none of the people on your list will run, just that none of them are running at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All of them on both lists have "expressed interest"
I disagree. There are several on your list of democrats who have yet to express any interest. This of course does not mean that they won't run but they have not done anything to express interest in pursuing the nomination so far.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. There are several on your list of democrats who have yet to express any interest. This of course does not mean that they won't run but they have not done anything to express interest in pursuing the nomination so far.
They probably know they have no chance, if the Republicans can offer an electable candidate this time.
Oh, hang on... yeah, I'm surprised they haven't thrown their hat in the ring already.
Re: (Score:2)
Joe Biden? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reasons for anyone but Hillary being on this list are in the unlikely event that she decides not to run, or to hope for a spot as her VP.
Re: (Score:2)
So two people that couldn't even win a senate seat during favorable election conditions, a retread candidate, a guy with a toxic last name, a complete idiot who is known for being a punch line to everyone except the extreme right wing, a governor who barely dodges scandals erupting from typical New Jersey politics, and Bobby Jindal.
Anyone else want in, because I'm not seeing a lot to get fired up about here...
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:5, Insightful)
So two people that couldn't even win a senate seat during favorable election conditions, a retread candidate, a guy with a toxic last name, a complete idiot who is known for being a punch line to everyone except the extreme right wing, a governor who barely dodges scandals erupting from typical New Jersey politics, and Bobby Jindal.
Anyone else want in, because I'm not seeing a lot to get fired up about here...
Yeah, all that vs. Hillary Clinton. We so desperately need a third party or Ross Perot type candidate.
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:4, Insightful)
haha, you think Clinton is extreme left wing? You need to recalibrate, she's moderate right wing if anything!
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your measure of left and right does not match up with American political norms. Now if your basing it on outside U.S., that's fine, but it doesn't play here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:4, Insightful)
Toxic to whom? Bill Clinton left office in 2000 with astonishingly good approval ratings, despite Gingrich's and Co's endless attempts to destroy him.
Now Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton, but I don't think the Clinton name in general is nearly as toxic as, say, the Bush name (although, in Jeb's defense, I don't think he's the mumbling bumbling alcohol-fried moron his brother is).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score:5, Interesting)
Among conservatives who where not going to vote for a Democrat anyway. They hate her so much, they consider it a win if she gets nominated, because surely everyone else hates her as much as they do. Therefore, if she is nominated, it will be an easy victory. See also, liberals and GWB's 2nd term.
They're gonna need a bigger clown car. (Score:2)
There is nobody, in any party, who I see on the horizon that I'm excited to vote for.
Can't give the electorate something to run from - got to give 'em something to run to. And I haven't seen it yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Carly will be the seventh dwarf.
A millionaire who won't pay back her loans (Score:5, Insightful)
The organization, Carly for California, still owed vendors nearly $500,000 as of the end of September, according to Federal Election Commission filings. The committee’s outstanding debts included more than $80,000 to strategist Martin Wilson and his former firm; $43,000 owed to D.C. law firm Patton Boggs, where campaign counsel Benjamin Ginsberg worked at the time; $36,000 to fundraiser Renee Croce; $5,000 to press aide Jennifer Kerns; and $7,500 to political director Jeff Corless.
The Fiorina campaign also owed $30,000 to Joe Shumate, a storied political strategist in California who served as Fiorina’s senior adviser and died one month before Election Day in 2010.
Fiorina “hasn’t really communicated with anybody in 18 months about how she intends to deal with the campaign debt,” said Wilson, now a vice president at the California Chamber of Commerce. “Hopefully, if she gets more serious about running for another office, she’ll revisit the issue and get some of those bills paid off.”
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect Reason for Another Campaign (Score:2)
Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
She was a largely incompetent CEO.
WTF skills does she thinks she brings to the table as a fscking President?
Pretty much her entire time at HP was marked with terrible decisions, bad planning, and disastrous outcomes.
Well, I guess that's no different from Presidents, really.
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
From her perspective, this move makes perfect sense. Megalomaniac fuck-ups never realize that they are the problem. They are not equipped for it.
Re:Um, what? (Score:4, Insightful)
She was a largely incompetent CEO. WTF skills does she thinks she brings to the table as a fscking President?
Ask George W Bush.
Pretty much her entire time at HP was marked with terrible decisions, bad planning, and disastrous outcomes.
See previous answer.
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Informative)
How's that Hopey-Changey guy working out?
Mediocre mostly. That said it's unclear what Obama has to do with the profound incompetence of George W Bush. Obama has his own set of defects that are unique to him. GWB is without question the least competent president we've had since probably Herbert Hoover.
I bet he's going to make the Middle East stable, stop warrantless wiretapping, get the US out of Afghanistan.
Nobody is going to make the Middle East stable particularly after Bush the Lesser started two wars over there that we are still dealing with over a decade later. And anyone who expected any president to voluntarily give up their expanded surveillance powers is a naive fool.
Oh, yeah, and reset relations with Russia.
Kinda hard to do that when you are dealing with a megalomaniac like Putin. You go ahead and tell everyone how to play nice with Russia because nobody else seems to have a good idea.
And I bet he comes up with healthcare reform that will allow people to keep their insurance plans and doctors, too.
Most people did. And now millions more have insurance that previously could not afford any. (including myself btw) But way to miss the big picture over rhetorical nitpicking. Yes there are significant problems with the law but the basics of what it accomplishes are a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people just want to run things.
Whether it's run into the ground or the sky doesn't matter, since they won't be the test dummy. That honor goes to us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot Fundraising.
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
The ultimate horror for me, as a voter, is realizing that I may have to choose between Carly Fiorina and Hillary Clinton—between someone who nearly bankrupted one of the most profitable companies in the Bay Area and someone who seems to be hopelessly authoritarian in her positions on most issues—in effect, a choice between an incompetent Republican and an ultra-competent one.
Re:Um, what? (Score:4, Informative)
Communism, really? So which candidate supports workers owning the means of production, getting rid of money, and, ultimately, the government?
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Marxism on a local, voluntary basis can work pretty well. There are communes and kibbutzes all over. What doesn't work is applying that to a nation state.
she almost crashed both Lucent and HP (Score:5, Informative)
so let's not talk any further about Carly ruining the US, OK?
Re: (Score:3)
Bush was horrible at business as well.
Re: (Score:3)
And just look how well he did as PUSA! XD
I might seriously vote for Jeb before I'd vote for Carly - And I say that as someone who would vote for a Satan/Hitler ticket before I'd vote for Jeb.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:she almost crashed both Lucent and HP (Score:5, Informative)
By the time Bush Sr. got into office, the decline and fall of the USSR was already well under way. I read a fascinating article (can't find it, sorry) recently detailing how Reagan convinced the Saudis to flood the oil market; with USSR oil production taking up enough of its GDP to put it into an economic death spiral. Interestingly enough, the Saudis are once again flooding the market (according to Iran, which has been raising a small stink about it), and the Russians are still oil-dependent.
George HW Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd probably consider him the best President we have had in the past 40 years, especially considering the fact that the Iron Curtain fell during his administration and the US had no significant enemies to worry about for almost a decade.
I think calling the elder Bush the best President we've had in 40 years is more opinion than fact but he certainly was among the most qualified guys we've had in the job. Reagan gets the love from Republicans but I think Bush Sr. was a better president overall. Congressman, Ambassador to the UN, Envoy to China, Director of CIA, and Vice President. Unlike his son he was actually genuinely qualified for the job - at least as much as anyone can be. He was quite good at foreign policy which is about 2/3 of the job description for a president. Unfortunately he was not especially talented at domestic policy and even said publicly that he didn't enjoy it much. He did nothing to combat deficit spending and basically continued policies started under Reagan. When the economy tanked (not really his fault) near the election he was pretty much screwed regarding getting re-elected.
Re:George HW Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
He also knew how to stand up to the hawks in his party. After Kuwait was freed, people in his party/administration called for the US to keep marching past the Kuwait border and all the way to Baghdad. Bush Sr refused to do so, rightly seeing that this would be a disaster. Too bad Bush Jr listened to those exact same people and made the mistake his father avoided.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What's left to ruin?
For once, Carly's education will come in handy. She can teach medieval torture techniques to the NSA. She used them well at Lucent and HP.
She does have experience destroying companies... (Score:5, Informative)
... that were once great. I bet she can do the same with a whole nation-state. From statements by some former HP executives, her specialty is "shoot-the-messenger", which means that she has one of the worst possible management mistakes down pat and uses it as standard operating procedure. It really does not get much worse than this.
Sure, vote for Carly (Score:3)
But be warned that if she wins the election, you'll have keep buying the control of your local representatives over and over.
Genuine HP(tm) Bribe (Score:3)
Your contribution does not appear to be a Genuine HP(tm) Bribe. This may void your warranty with your local representative.
HAHAHAHAHA ,,,, (Score:4, Funny)
,,,, breathe .... HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Glutton for punishment? Didn't the stomping in the 2010 Senate race teach her anything?
Once upon a time. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
LOL ... well, the modern definition of "successful businesspersons and leaders of industry" is measured as "hasn't been indicted yet".
Not my first choice (Score:5, Informative)
I know a few people who worked at HP in the 2000s, and even with the sour grapes filters on, every one of them describes how she let HP rot away, killing divisions and outsourcing any function she could for quick balance sheet cash hits. There's still some soul left there though -- the non consumer PC and laptop division is doing OK, as is their server line with the exception of the Itanium mess. Their software and the former EDS is a disaster, and let's not even mention the Autonomy acquisition. (OK, Autonomy was done after she was kicked out.) Still, HP is a long way from its engineering-driven roots and I don't know if it can ever get back there.
Politics aside, I can't see what she could offer as President.
WHOOSH every single one of you! (Score:5, Funny)
The OP was obviously joking!
So much whoosh!
Right?
right?
Oh dear god.
America is dying of political trolling.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
She's a second rate, female Mitt Romney with the business acumen of George W. Bush. She'll get into the primaries, get ripped to shreds and probably run off crying about sexism because her track record will make the Republican base convulse at even thought of her winning the nomination.
That's an insult to second rate female Mitt Romneys and GW Bushes.
I would love to see her in a debate with Hillary Clinton. I can't stand Hillary but I would be sitting with a bowl of popcorn enjoying ever minute watching her rip Carly to shreds. She would probably still complain about sexism though.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not really fair, to Mitt Romney I mean. He ran a business junkyard; that's what that investment company was/is. Companies were already broken and failing by the time his group touched them. The closest he came to taking over a company and running it, was the Salt Lake Olympics, which turned out to be a decent entry on his resume.
I'm not saying Romney would have done a better job running HP, although it's hard to imagine him doing any worse. But to his credit, he never tried. He seems to stick to his
Why settle for second rate failure? (Score:4, Funny)
Unlike the other candidates, Carly has a proven track record of spectacular failure.
Don't settle for less, vote for first rate failure in 2016!
Baa Political Ad, Very Baa (Score:3)
I'd really love to see a woman in the White House (Score:3)
Unfortunately, Ms Fiorina isn't among the women I'd like to see hold any political office at all. Besides, what is it with businesspeople thinking their experience automatically makes them fit to govern? Sure, some 'sound business principles' are appropriate to the role. But it's the job of government to serve all of its consituents' best interests, not to make a profit come hell or high water.
Corporotocracy be damned - the people are the country's shareholders, not its employees.
Doesn't matter who runs... (Score:2)
No matter who the Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) nominate that person will become poisoned by Washington. It is a cesspool of lobbyists, special interests and wedge issues.
Policy has become a bidding war between rich corporations.
What is her platform? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Doing for America (Score:4, Insightful)
What she did for HP.
Be afraid, very afraid!
Where's Elizondo M.D.H. Camacho? (Score:3)
He knows all about wrestling and boning on camera, and has never run even one successful megacorporation into the ground. Clearly a superior candidate.
Re:Against Clinton? Good luck. (Score:5, Funny)
The Republicans could put a Ham Sandwhich against Hillary and win. That's what is so frustrating about the Democrats. They think that just because they want Hillary's cock that she can win the White House. I'm a registered Republican swing voter who has voted almost entirely for Democrats for the past 3 elections.
If the Democrats chose Elizabeth Warren: I'll vote Democrat. If they chose Hillary I'm voting 3rd Party unless the Republican Party nominates Rand Paul. He's 75% the man his father was, but after the last 14 years of Republicrats consider it a protest vote for some REAL change. A vote for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush is a vote for the Plutocracy(DUH).
Back to Carly Fiorina, if the Republicans think Mitt Romney was bad: I would vote for Hillary Clinton before I voted for a Margaret Thatcher 2.0.
That bitch is crazy incompetent on wheels. She's "Gordon Gecko greedy" mixed with "Newt Gingrich level retarded". The only reason to even have her in the race is as a spoiler candidate to pull votes away from the most attractive male candidate during the Republican primary. Her first move as President would probably be to sell the US Navy to China and expect the US Air Force to get their air superiority fighters off the coast of hostile nations by asking them to work smarter and offering them vouchers for 10% off Amtrack tickets. Bonus points if she suggests getting them in the air by "pulling on their bootstraps". That bitch thinks just because shoving her head up her own ass has turned her in to a gravity defying perpetual motion machine, that the rest of us can be so effective at demonstrating the colossal heights of the Dunning Kruger effect which can be achieved if you work hard at it.
I would ACTUALLY vote for an Adolf Hitler/Stalin ticket before I voted for Carly and it wouldn't even be a hard decision. Gas chambers vs 99% unemployment? That bitch makes Gas Chambers and concentration camps seem appealing by comparison. Gulags vs Carly? Gulags every time. FUCK CARLY.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally underrated post.
Re: (Score:3)
The Republicans could put a Ham Sandwhich against Hillary and win.
Not real sure where you are getting this. Any data I can find shows it exactly wrong. Right now, polling is showing Hillary beating any Republican [bloomberg.com] put up against her. The one that does best is Romney, and the one they tried that does worst in Rand Paul. Its been this way for months, if not years.