Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses HP Republicans Politics Technology

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Considering US Presidential Run

Comments Filter:
  • by damn_registrars ( 1103043 ) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @10:26AM (#48466877) Homepage Journal
    The republican candidate list now includes (at least)

    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.
    • by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @10:27AM (#48466881) Homepage
      none of those will be taken seriously. Its all about Rand Paul in 2016
      • 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.

        • by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @10:34AM (#48466945) Homepage
          the GOP needs to be broken because they are a sick joke right now.

          The democrats are only slightly worse than the GOP as a whole these days
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            >The democrats are only slightly worse than the GOP as a whole these days

            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.
            • Maybe so, but they more closely represent the American voter.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              Ah, the state of American politics. It's like being a starving man who is only presented with moldy leftovers. If you choose well, maybe you'll only be disgusted by your choice... choose poorly and you're left with an uncontrollable shit.
          • by DigiShaman ( 671371 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @11:32AM (#48467405) Homepage

            Which is why I haven't donated to the GOP since after GWB 2nd term. The Republican Party is dead to me. Fuck both parties.

            For all you Republicans out there, there will NEVER be another Ronald Reagan. 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. It's urgent!. 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.

            • by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @11:39AM (#48467465) Homepage

              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.

              • In fact it did, Tea Party sits between Libertarian and Republican. But it won't officially split into two seperate parties as that would "split the vote". In fact, that's how the Republicans lost a few elections because votes splintered off to Libertarian or Independent. That gave the Democrats the majority vote. So when push comes to shove, the Tea Party voters will still vote Republican. Blame the process.

              • by dcw3 ( 649211 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @11:54AM (#48467581) Journal

                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.

                • by taiwanjohn ( 103839 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @01:11PM (#48468421)

                  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.

                • I'd be happy if we could get a pony.

                • by lgw ( 121541 )

                  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

              • The Republican nut jobs are a very small portion. Of Republican politicians, a narrow majority is somewhere in the big government, semiprogessive, power hungry RINO morass. Most of the remainder is conservative or libertarian. Among the Republican non-politicians, the majority is conservative-libertarian; those more leftist tend to leave the party.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Deadstick ( 535032 )

              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.

            • by firewrought ( 36952 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @12:31PM (#48467981)

              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.

        • 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.

        • by Jeff Flanagan ( 2981883 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @11:27AM (#48467363)
          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.
          • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @12:12PM (#48467755)

            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, Insightful)

          Does anyone else see the template here?

          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
      • by OzPeter ( 195038 )

        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.

      • 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] ... :-)

    • by tomhath ( 637240 )

      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

      • While I agree with the statement of

        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.

        • by tomhath ( 637240 )
          All of them on both lists have "expressed interest", not much else going on this early besides putting out feelers to potential donors.
          • 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.

            • by 0123456 ( 636235 )

              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.

            • by tomhath ( 637240 )
              I pulled that list from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], for what it's worth.
      • Joe Biden is a lunatic living in his own world (fun though his world appears to be). Please, do nominate him. Thank you!
      • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        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.

    • 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...

    • 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.

    • Seven drawves are only a crowd if they're all trying to bang you at the same time.
    • Carly will be the seventh dwarf.

  • by McGruber ( 1417641 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @10:27AM (#48466885)
    Carly Fiorina still has not paid off the loans her 2010 campaign took out, despite having a net worth of $30 million to $120 million according to campaign paperwork she filed in 2009. From the WP article:

    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.”

    • So she won't appeal to the millions of Americans who just used the last of their paychecks to finally pay off their overdue medical bills instead of getting nice Christmas presents for their grandmas. But those people vote Democrat anyway. She'll be just fine with the advertising demographic on far right talk shows. You know, the people targeted with advertisements on how to get the IRS off their backs.
    • Assuming there's no legal barrier -- and there aren't many nowadays -- a new, even quixotic campaign allows the very same (mostly) donors/suckers/bribers to kick in more money to pay off the previous campaign's debts. It's a terrific racket.
  • Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @10:27AM (#48466887) Homepage

    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)

      by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @10:36AM (#48466957)

      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)

      by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @10:42AM (#48467025)

      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.

    • 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.

    • Leaderships skills are, apparently, no longer a qualification for President... Charisma and good talking points suffice.
  • by swschrad ( 312009 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @10:28AM (#48466895) Homepage Journal

    so let's not talk any further about Carly ruining the US, OK?

    • by geekoid ( 135745 )

      Bush was horrible at business as well.

      • by pla ( 258480 )
        Bush was horrible at business as well.

        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.
      • I'd rather have someone who has some business experience (ideally as a success, but I'd take failure as well) as President than someone with zero business management experience.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

  • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @10:34AM (#48466941)

    ... 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.

  • by OzPeter ( 195038 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @10:35AM (#48466951)

    But be warned that if she wins the election, you'll have keep buying the control of your local representatives over and over.

  • by Mansing ( 42708 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @10:37AM (#48466971)

    ,,,, breathe .... HAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Glutton for punishment? Didn't the stomping in the 2010 Senate race teach her anything?

  • I can remember a time when the claim of the republican party was that its members were successful businesspersons and leaders of industry. (Whether or not this is or was factually correct in-practice is up for debate, I am just sayin').
    • 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)

    by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @10:42AM (#48467017)

    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.

  • by Thanshin ( 1188877 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @10:44AM (#48467031)

    The OP was obviously joking!

    So much whoosh!

    Right?

    right?

    Oh dear god.

    America is dying of political trolling.

  • by MikeRT ( 947531 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @10:52AM (#48467075)

    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.

    • by jd2112 ( 1535857 )

      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.

    • 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

  • by Tridus ( 79566 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @11:01AM (#48467151) Homepage

    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!

  • by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @11:23AM (#48467331)
    Let's not forget the infamous "Demon Sheep" [youtube.com] political ad.
  • by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @11:26AM (#48467355)

    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.

  • 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.

  • by pulse2600 ( 625694 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @12:07PM (#48467689)
    What is she going to do? Orchestrate a merger between US and Canada, then rebrand everything from the US as Canada, and everything from Canada as US? Then sell off Canada again when she finally realizes it is a disaster?
  • Doing for America (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stox ( 131684 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @12:45PM (#48468161) Homepage

    What she did for HP.

    Be afraid, very afraid!

  • by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh.gmail@com> on Wednesday November 26, 2014 @12:50PM (#48468223) Journal

    He knows all about wrestling and boning on camera, and has never run even one successful megacorporation into the ground. Clearly a superior candidate.

Everything that can be invented has been invented. -- Charles Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899

Working...