#CruzFiorina : It looks like Carly is helping!

I found this in my e-mail this morning:

Dana —

A few days ago we let you know about our brand new Cruz – Fiorina campaign gear, and we wanted to give you a chance to buy the most popular item so far: our incredible new bumper sticker!


Orders for this new sticker are flying off the shelves, and there’s little time left to order if you want to get your gear with our first shipment! Make a donation of at least $5 to get your sticker today!

Thank you!

Cruz Store

P.S.: The sticker is available in blue, too! Along with the rest of the brand new Cruz-Fiorina gear!

The move to place Carly Fiorina on Ted Cruz’s ticket might, might! draw some of the votes which would have gone to John Kasich in Indiana and California, but that remains to be seen. I still worry that the move will turn out to be too little, too late.

Oh, well, at least we don’t have to worry that, if he does win the nomination, Donald Trump will pick Mrs Fiorina as his running mate!

#CarlyFiorina: still the class of the GOP

Her campaign wasn’t good enough, but Carly Fiorina continues to prove why she’d have made the best President!

Carly Fiorina: Bashes Establishment for Expressing ‘Horror over the Choices of Millions of Voters’

By Alex Swoyer | March 5, 2016

2016 GOP presidential candidate and former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina bashed the establishment from both political parties during her keynote address at the Ronald Reagan dinner Friday night.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) near Washington D.C. hosted by the American Conservative Union, Fiorina lit into the establishment for expressing “horror” at the choice of the voters.

“The Democrat establishment, aided and abetted by the media establishment, decided that it is now Hillary’s turn,” Fiorina said of the Democrats. “At last year’s CPAC, many in the media called me “mean” because I said, ‘Flying is an activity, not an accomplishment. Mrs. Clinton, please name an accomplishment.’”

She then turned to her own party.

Thef debates. In fact, let’s condense the whole primary calendar so our presumptive nominee can roll up delegates faster. Let’s make sure that the primary voters know who the establishment thinks should be the nominee. Let’s have all the pundits and the money make the case right from the start about who’s up at bat next.

Republican voters said: no, we need to secure the border. No, citizenship in this country must mean something. No, our religious liberty is at stake. No, we don’t want who you want, we want to choose for ourselves and the more choices we have, the better we like it. Many pundits and not a few current and former politicians, now decry the wisdom of these same voters. They don’t like how they happen to be voting right now. But, these voters look at what the Republican Party has produced and think they can do better deciding for themselves.

Fiorina said as the establishment is expressing “horror” over the choice of the voters, “these same voters are asking, ‘What have you done for me?’”

Do not misunderstand me. I am no Donald Trump fan. I did not vote for him in the Virginia primary. Nevertheless, I understand and respect the people who did vote for him. I know many of them. They are not racists, or crazies, or stupid. While many people call the Donald a fraud, a con-man, there are a lot of voters out there who think they have been conned election after election. They know what it is to be promised something and delivered nothing.

There’s more at the link. International Business Times had the same story:

Carly Fiorina CPAC Keynote Speech Hits Republican Establishment’s Trump Attacks, Hillary Clinton

By Tim Marcin | @TimMarcin | On 03/04/16 AT 10:39 PM

Former Republican U.S. presidential candidate Carly Fiorina railed against Democratic White House hopeful Hillary Clinton and the GOP establishment in a keynote speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday. And while she is no fan of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Fiorina said, the GOP’s efforts to slow its leading candidate have left voters feeling “betrayed.”

“Over half of the Republican electorate feel ‘betrayed’ by their party. That is a big number and a strong word,” Fiorina said in her speech at the Ronald Reagan dinner at CPAC in Maryland.

Fiorina made sure to point out that she was not a supporter of Trump and did not vote for him in the primary in her home state of Virginia, which the billionaire New York businessman won. But the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard critiqued the GOP establishment for leading efforts to stop Trump.

“If we want to defeat Donald Trump, we cannot turn to the establishment once again and ask them to guide the citizenry to the right answer,” Fiorina said. “If we want defeat Donald Trump, we must defeat him at the ballot box, by offering citizens conservative solutions to the problems in their lives.”

What Mrs Fiorina said was simple: the only way to defeat Donald Trump in a manner which does not guarantee a victory by Hillary Clinton in November is to defeat him at the ballot box, in the remaining primaries. She made it clear that she doesn’t support Mr Trump’s candidacy — and I would hope that, if offered, she does not accept the nomination to run for Vice President under Mr Trump — but she did not say anything about not supporting the Republican Party’s nominee, even if Mr Trump is the nominee.

What she did note is that the Republican Party leadership has become divorced from the rank-and-file Republican voters. That is Donald Trump’s message as well; the ‘leadership’ might not like that message, but it’s certainly true.

Carly Fiorina drops out

John Hitchcock once asked me not to endorse Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX):

That was because my endorsements always seem to go bad, and yet another one has failed: Carly Fiorina has withdrawn from the Republican presidential nomination campaign after her 4% showing in the New Hampshire Primary.

I’ll save Mr Hitchcock any worries, and won’t endorse Mr Cruz! :)

Pennsylvania’s presidential primary isn’t until April 26th, by which time the Republican nomination will almost certainly have been decided; Yorkshire and I will have no vote in the selection of our nominee. But I will repeat what I have said before: the only way in which I will vote for Donald Trump next November, if he is the Republican nominee, is if Pennsylvania is actually in play, it is a really close contest, and voting for Mr Trump is the only way I can help stop Hillary Clinton from winning the presidency. Otherwise, if Mr Trump is the Republican nominee, I will vote for a third party candidate.

#CarlyFiorina and the President’s executive orders on gun control

From The Hill:

Fiorina: Obama ‘lawless’ with executive order on guns

By Bradford Richardson | January 03, 2016, 10:43 am

According to Carly Fiorina, not only is President Obama’s planned executive action on guns misguided and reckless, it is also blatantly unconstitutional.

“President Obama has been a lawless president in his use of executive orders, whether those executive orders are around immigration or whether those executive orders are around gun control,” the GOP presidential hopeful said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“And it is delusional, dangerous, not to mention unconstitutional for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to continue to talk about climate change and gun control in the wake of a Paris terrorist attack, a San Bernardino terrorist attack, instead of talking about a plan to defeat [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria],” she added.

The former business executive encouraged Obama to enforce the laws already on the books rather than issue new regulations.

“The thing the president should be doing on gun control… is enforcing the laws that we have,” she said. “We have long lists of criminals who own guns, who routinely purchase guns. We know who these people are, and we are not prosecuting any of them.”

“I think we need to enforce the laws we have, and we are not doing so.”

There’s a bit more at the link, and I suppose that I could have picked any of the Republican presidential candidates to make this point, but Mrs Fiorina happens to be my personal favorite, and it gives me yet another excuse to link to her campaign website and encourage campaign donations to her.

One thing that the President and the Democrats and the left are trying to do is push the meme that the President simply has to take action, because the Congress has not. Well, that’s bovine feces! As the late Dr Vincent Davis, then Director of the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce pointed out in one of the few lessons which has stayed with me since my ancient days in college, if someone has the power to do something, and chooses not to do it, then he has taken an action just as surely as if he had done whatever action it was. If the Congress has not passed any new gun control legislation, it is because a majority of the Members are satisfied with the laws as they currently stand! By not passing any new legislation to restrict our natural rights as recognized by the Second Amendment, the Congress has taken the action of not agreeing with the President, something perfectly within Congress’ rights.

Robert Stacey Stacy McCain has been only one of the latest to point out that gun control legislation is not doing what the left have claimed it would do, noting that Chicago, which has some of the most restrictive gun control ordinances in the country, and was was the plaintiff in Chicago v McDonald, the 2010 Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized that the Second Amendment recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms,1 is still “Murder City, USA,” having recorded 468 murders in 2015. If gun control laws actually worked, actually did what the proponents claim they will do, then our big cities ought to be the safest places around, not the most dangerous.

But, make no mistake about it: gun control laws could work, but only if they were mandatory gun confiscation laws, if they took away our Second Amendment rights. Gun control could work if and only if all firearms were confiscated, and the left know this, and, despite what they say, that is their goal!

Oh, it wouldn’t apply to them: Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama and the rest of the left elite would still retain their armed bodyguards, but us commoners, nope, not for us!

And while it would, technically, apply to the criminals, the criminals wouldn’t surrender their guns, which would mean that those weapons would be confiscated only as they were used, and found by the police. So, gun control laws would work, but only after a good, long time of the law-abiding folks being disarmed and only the predators having weapons, but the left don’t care about that, not in the slightest.

  1. The Court held that the Second Amendment recognized an individual right two years previously, in District of Columbia v Heller, but the city of Chicago claimed that Heller restricted only the federal government, and that state and local governments could restrict the individual’s rights based on local conditions. The Supreme Court slapped down that nonsense, applying the Second Amendment to state and local action as well.

The feminists who ought to applaud Carly Fiorina for her successes hate her guts

From, believe it or not, Time magazine!

Feminists Are Total Hypocrites When It Comes to Carly Fiorina

They look at her and see a chauvinist in heels. They don’t welcome her to the debate, and they give her no respect

By Marjorie Dannenfelser and Penny Nance | Dec. 2, 2015

The double standard now on display with regard to Carly Fiorina has driven hypocrisy to new depths, as many of the same political and media personalities who’ve warned conservatives and Republicans to make a stronger appeal to women have gone ballistic with invective and hyperbole in attacking the GOP’s only female presidential candidate.

This goes further than the current blame game over the horrific murders in Colorado Springs. The furor being directed at Fiorina is just the latest example. Why do so many who strongly advocate for more women in office, and more women running for office, turn so despicably against conservative women who are willing to put themselves forward?

New Yorker liberal satirist Andy Borowitz mocked Fiorina’s correct assertion that liberals are consistently wrong in tying tragic events – such as this latest shooting – to rhetoric. The critics did the same to former GOP vice presidential nominee and Gov. Sarah Palin, literally blaming her for Jared Loughner’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona that left six people dead and several others wounded, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

The left has learned nothing over the past five years; in fact it’s worse. Palin was wrongly blamed for the Tucson shooting, but today liberal commentators such as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews have gone so far as to sneer and offer that Fiorina is “enjoying” this tragic event.

It’s worse for Fiorina because, even though both she and Palin are strongly pro-life, it was Fiorina who took it upon herself to put the controversy caused by the Planned Parenthood videos front and center in the presidential campaign. Her display of courage and compassion at the Reagan Library Republican debate went into unchartered territory for a presidential race because, finally, it was a woman candidate who was willing to take the issue head-on when given a national stage.

And Planned Parenthood eventually did announce it would no longer accept reimbursement for organs from aborted babies

Abortion, sadly, is the difference maker when it comes to who gets the feminist seal of approval. Republican women who support abortion get a pass, they represent no threat to liberal feminist orthodoxy.

But to today’s so-called feminists and advocates for equality, who constantly demand more women in the process, more outreach to women and attention to certain issues, Carly Fiorina really isn’t a woman at all. They look at her and see a chauvinist in a pantsuit and heels. They don’t welcome her to the debate, they give her no credit for getting into the game, they don’t even give her the smallest modicum of respect.

There’s more at the original, but it simply goes to show you what we have already said: while Hillary Clinton is running to become the first woman President, Carly Fiorina is a candidate running to become President who just happens to be a woman.

Just as importantly, it exposes the tremendous sexist — and racist — bias of the left. For liberals, only white men are allowed the intellectual freedom to hold different opinions. The left might not like Ted Cruz’s or Marco Rubio’s opinions, but they don’t say that their opinions somehow mean that they aren’t real men; they do say that those fine men simply aren’t really Latino! Ben Carson is being denigrated by the left as an Uncle Tom.

And with Mrs Fiorina’s candidacy, we are now learning from Our Betters on the left that she isn’t really a woman, that she can’t really be a woman, because she doesn’t toe the feminist line. Her accomplishments in life, accomplishments achieved not because she is a woman, and not because she was some Affirmative Action hire, but because she is intelligent, diligent and hard-working, those things don’t count.

Because, you see, for the left only white men can succeed on their own. If a black man succeeds, why he must have had special help, and he must acknowledge that special help. If a woman succeeds in politics or business, it wasn’t because she was a strong, tough competitor, taking on men as an equal, but because Her Feminist Sisters secured the benefits of Affirmative Action for her.

This is the result of the nuttiness of modern feminism. The feminism with which some of us who are older grew up is the feminism which says that if woman are allowed equal access, they can and will compete with men as equals. That’s what Carly Fiorina did! And that’s what other women are doing today: women make up a substantial majority of students matriculating in college, and women today earn the majority of college degrees of all types: associates, bachelors, masters and doctoral. Mrs Fiorina was initially hired for an entry level position — one which was seen as a typical female job at the time — and she worked her way up the way everyone should: when given additional assignments, with a chance to succeed or fail, or say, “this isn’t my job,”1 she worked hard and succeeded.

That was what we old fogies thought feminism was supposed to be about, and that is the kind of feminism I can wholeheartedly support. But, for the feminists of today, equality isn’t enough, because that job has already been done! If feminism means only equality, then today’s Professional Feminists are out of a job!

I absolutely support the old-line feminism, the feminism which says just give women the opportunity to succeed and women will succeed. I even support Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s decision to open all jobs in the military to women, as long as the standards are maintained and no quotas are placed,2 because I believe that people should all have an equal opportunity to employ their skills and talents and ambition, but that no one should be somehow given special help; I believe in equal competition.

Would the old-line feminists be appalled at the treatment a very successful businesswoman like Mrs Fiorina is receiving at the hands of modern feminists? I’d like to think that they would, though, given liberal politics these days, the answer is: probably not. But if they were intellectually honest and consistent, they’d be celebrating Mrs Fiorina’s achievements, and not trashing her.

Will Carly Fiorina succeed in winning the Republican presidential nomination? I support her candidacy, and hope that she wins, but if she does not, she has still been given an equal opportunity to make her case to the voters, and it is the voters who will decide.
Cross-posted on RedState.

  1. The phrase “that ain’t my job” is the number one killer of careers and advancement.
  2. I am certain that I am in the minority among conservatives on this issue.

The case for Carly Fiorina

From Paul Mirengoff on Powerline:

A case for Carly Fiorina

Our friend Dave Begley has been running the rule over the Republican presidential field as it passes through Council Bluffs, Iowa and other venues not far from Omaha, Nebraska where Dave resides. We are proud to have featured his excellent reports on Power Line.

Now, Dave has settled on a favorite candidate — Carly Fiorina. He explains why here.

Dave argues that we need an “outsider” president. I agree that of the three GOP candidates who have never held elective office, Fiorina is the best choice.

Dave skillfully compares the kinds of duties Fiorina had to perform as CEO of Hewlett-Packard with some of those that would be required of her as president. He also defends her record at HP, which I too believe holds up to scrutiny, though perhaps just barely.

Personally, I’m less comfortable than Dave with nominating a total outsider. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and some of the remaining governors seem sufficiently “outside” to me. However, I agree that Fiorina is an impressive figure, and she is on my short list of favorite candidates.

To quote from Mr Begley’s endorsement article:

Grant me dear reader a slight indulgence. On November 15th of this year, my teacher, mentor and friend Fr. John P. Schlegel, S.J. passed away. He was assigned to Creighton University three times and last served as its President for over a decade. During his time as Creighton’s President, he raised nearly $500 million. Most people probably know Creighton for having a pretty good basketball team but it is way more. Through his enormous talent he transformed my alma mater and Omaha. He was a friend to students and millionaires alike. He said Mass regularly and feed the homeless. He was an athlete and scholar. He focused all of his ability to become a man for others and Carly has that “others” focus. She doesn’t use “I” or “me” constantly like the current President. She appears to me to be sincerely interested in making America a better place for average persons. How novel.

Some people are simply exceptional, and Carly Fiorina is one of them. If she is elected President, there will be a few — probably not many! — times I would disagree with her policies, but one thing I can guarantee will never occur: I would never think that Mrs Fiorina brought together a policy because she didn’t have the country’s best interests at heart.

Image by CARLY for America (Click to enlarge)

Will she make mistakes as President? Of course she will: every President makes mistakes. But she is diligent, hard-working, detail oriented and a very intelligent woman who will be neither intimidated nor buffaloed by lobbyists, opponents or staffers, and this will reduce the probability of poor decisions. All Presidents have all of the information they can ever need available to them to take their decisions, but some Presidents, including our current one, don’t pay attention to the information they have, and listen only to the sycophants;1 Mrs Fiorina doesn’t do that, and aides who come to the table without having done their homework will soon be seeking other employment. All Presidents come into office with some preconceived ideas, and Mrs Fiorina would be no exception to that, but wise Presidents study the information and listen to other smart people who have done their homework before actually taking their decisions, and that is the kind of President Mrs Fiorina would be.2

Most Presidents are faced with tough decisions that they never expected: the elder President Bush with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the younger President Bush with the September 11th attacks, and President Obama with the rise of Da’ish and other Islamist groups.3 Those were not situations those men had anticipated when running for President, but they were the situations with which they had to deal. This was the idea behind the famous “3:00 AM phone call” advertisement Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign advertisement used; too bad that she proved that, as Secretary of State, she was completely incapable of handling the 3:00 PM phone call as far as Benghazi was concerned. If she is elected President, I have no doubt that Mrs Fiorina will be able to take that call, and handle whatever situation is presented to her intelligently and efficiently.

Finally, Mrs Fiorina understands the American economy in ways that, quite frankly, most Americans, and most elected officials, do not. Leading AT&T’s spin-off of Lucent Technologies as well as being CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Mrs Fiorina had the hard, first hand lessons in how business works in our economy, lessons only hinted at in business school, but learned in the real world. One of our greatest, but most unappreciated Presidents, Calvin Coolidge, once said, “the chief business of the American people is business.” The left and the silly “99%ers” seem to think that prosperity is simply a a given, and that if they don’t have it individually, then someone, somewhere, is robbing them. Politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, seem to think that the government can somehow control the economy; businessmen know that the most that the government can do is to get out of the way, or get in the way, and that, far too often, the politicians think that it is their function to choose who will win, and who will lose, in the economy.4 Mrs Fiorina understands that the role of government in business is to make and enforce only those regulations necessary for public and individual safety, and to otherwise allow businesses to succeed and grow, or fail and fall, on their own; Mrs Fiorina understands that the vast majority of Americans who have jobs work for private businesses, and any government interference in business beyond what is absolutely necessary is a government interference which will cost businesses money, and people their jobs. That is what grows the economy, and that is what creates more jobs.

Is Mrs Fiorina the perfect candidate? Will she make the perfect President? No, of course not; no one on earth is perfect, and only people on earth who will never make another mistake are already dead. But Mrs Fiorina is the best combination of conservative beliefs and leadership ability who is running for President. She is perhaps less forceful than Ted Cruz in enunciating conservative statements, but she is no less a conservative in policy; she might be a bit less erudite than Marco Rubio in her statements on foreign policy leadership, but she has the demonstrated record of actually getting things done. She doesn’t throw out the “red meat” statements which get Donald Trump so much attention, but she understands policy far, far better, and she is someone we can actually trust.

Right now, Mrs Fiorina is lagging in the polls, having slipped since her performances in the first two debates gave her a surge; she needs to win in the debate on CNN on December 15th to regain momentum. But while I cannot be certain that she is the best presidential candidate, I do know that of all the people running, she would make the best President.

  1. I find it difficult to believe that a man as brilliant as Larry Summers would have pushed for President Obama’s 2009 stimulus plan in anything like it’s final form for any reason other than kowtowing to what his boss, and Valerie Jarrett, demanded.
  2. For all of the urgency that the Cuban Missile Crisis made, President Kennedy still waited until the sixth day of the situation to take his decision on how to respond; he listened to smart and well-informed advisers,chose between options, and took a decision that worked.
  3. As nearly as I can tell, President Obama has been virtually paralyzed in his decision-taking by Da’ish, and simply will not deal seriously with the issue because he doesn’t want to deal with it. Your Editor is not particularly fond of the initials ISIS, and the reduction to just IS, for Islamic State, seems even worse. Da’ish is an acronym for the Arabic al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa al-Sham. According to the BBC, the group “objects to the term and has advised against its usage,” and therefore, I shall use it. The Editor shall not edit comments using other commonly-used terms, but the use of Da’ish is now the accepted form in The First Street Journal’s stylebook.
  4. See Kate Pirone’s article, “‘The Business of America is Business’ vs ‘You Didn’t Build That,’” in First Things.

The New York Times subtle hit piece on Carly Fiorina

After having noted recently that Carly Fiorina had been getting very little “free” press, I found this story in The New York Times:

For Carly Fiorina, Peripatetic Childhood Helped Build Worldview

By Jason Horowitz | November 26, 2015

Carly Fiorina with her father, Joseph Tyree Sneed III, an esteemed conservative law professor, in 2006. Credit Justin Sullivan/Getty Images (Click to enlarge)

The 1969 Stanford Law School yearbook notified readers that Joseph Tyree Sneed III, a top professor with Harvard, Yale and Cornell on his résumé, would be taking leave from the California university to teach for a year in London and Ghana.

Joining him would be his wife, Madelon, who “paints and plays tennis,” and his three children, including his middle daughter, Cara, a burgeoning pianist who went by her middle name, Carleton. Today, Carleton is better known as Carly Fiorina, the presidential candidate who courts Republican voters with the story of her against-all-odds rise from the secretarial pool to chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, or, as she was introduced in Beaufort, S.C., one Friday last month, from the “reception desk to the boardroom.”

But Mrs. Fiorina’s father was not just any Republican. He was one of the country’s most esteemed conservative law professors, a Duke Law School dean whom President Richard M. Nixon appointed as a deputy attorney general and then a federal judge. His opinions on issues like California’s so-called three strikes law for repeat offenders influenced the Supreme Court, and his advocacy for a brilliant student named Kenneth Starr influenced American history.

And in those “fast-forward” years, she got to perform Shakespeare at a school in London with the future head of the English department at King’s College, Cambridge, and woke to the sounds of Muslims praying in Ghana as she followed her father on his teaching appointments.

Carly Fiorina’s high school yearbook picture from 1972, when she went by her middle name, Carleton. Credit via Durham County Library

There’s more at the link.

Neither the Fiorina campaign directly nor her SuperPAC site publicized this article through Twitter, something that they are both usually good at doing, and I can see why: it’s a subtle hit piece, trying to push the notion that, as a student, the then-Cara Carleton Sneed1 was privileged — which is true enough — and a snob, which is probably not the case.

The reader is meant to question Mrs Fiorina’s campaign biography, that she started out as a secretary, and worked her way up to being Chief Executive Officer of Hewlett-Packard, without the reporter ever saying that her story is false. Because she grew up in a fairly affluent family, well, we’re just supposed to assume she’d never really have started out as a secretary, but even The Washington Post confirmed that Mrs Fiorina “worked as a receptionist at a hair salon to pay for college room and board,” worked as a secretary through the temp agency Kelly Services, and was “a receptionist at Marcus & Millichap, a commercial property brokerage firm with nine or ten employees at the time.” She was given more and more responsibilities at Marcus & Millichap, and gained more and more experience. In just fifteen years she went from an entry-level employee to leading AT&T’s spin-off of Lucent Technologies and, later, Lucent’s North American operations. Hewlett-Packard later selected her to become CEO. While the latter parts of her biography are beyond question — and the Times is perfectly happy to not question that she was later fired by Hewlett-Packard, something Mrs Fiorina freely admits — the reporter wants you to think that the earlier parts might be not quite accurate.

It has been said that all publicity is good publicity, and thus, even though Mrs Fiorina’s campaign has not (yet) chosen to publicize this article, I have.2 It needs to be publicized, and the subtle bias in it pointed out.
Cross-posted on RedState.

  1. The Times story noted that she told Jay Pittard, an old high school friend, that she was going by Carly because she had grown tired of explaining to the draft board that Carleton, a traditional Sneed family name, was a girl’s name. As a man named Dana, I can completely sympathize with her problems!
  2. I support Mrs Fiorina’s candidacy, but I am not affiliated with the campaign in any way, nor have I been paid anything to write and publish this article.

Some good news for Carly Fiorina But it is dramatically outweighed by the bad

From USAToday:

Survey finds conservative Millennials favor Carly Fiorina


Despite her falling poll numbers, businesswomen Carly Fiorina has one group of GOP voters in her corner.

G2 Analytics, an analytics platform that allows users to give real-time feedback during live or recorded events, and the College Republican National Committee conducted a web-based focus group to measure 328 Millennial Republican primary voters’ reactions during the Nov. 10 debate hosted by Fox Business Network.

Using a buzzer, participants indicate whether a candidate’s answer made them “more likely” or “less likely” to vote for that particular candidate. What’s more, participants answered “flash poll” questions during commercial breaks.

The results indicated conservative Millennials are 80.8% “more likely” to support after Fiorina after the fourth debate — the highest of any Republican candidate.

There’s more at the link, but the real problem is that Mrs Fiorina, the candidate favored by the Editor of The First Street Journal, is simply not generating news. The Atlantic noted, on October 20th:

Fiorina has practically disappeared from the headlines in the last few weeks. She doesn’t seem to be as good at collecting “earned media”—attention in the press, more or less. Donald Trump and Ben Carson, in contrast, are great at creating controversies that get them on TV. John Sides at The Monkey Cage has been on a crusade to convince readers that Trump’s high polling, and any dips, are caused almost entirely by the level of media attention he receives. Carson’s statements about the Holocaust and gun control, or about the Umpqua massacre, may be derided by some, but they keep his name in the news—and they rile up supporters who see criticism of his remarks as persecution. (Fiorina pulled something similar off when she insisted she’d seen a video taken at a Planned Parenthood that did not exist, but that moment passed, and she hasn’t created another.)

Just how bad that is is reflected in the results of my Google search: the article, dated over a month ago, appeared on the very first page of a Google search for Carly Fiorina made at 8:29 AM this morning. A site search of The New York Times did not return a single article about Mrs Fiorina dated in November, save a single one which was an article about Hillary Clinton not defending Mrs Fiorina when a man at one of Mrs Clinton’s events said that he’d like to strangle the Republican candidate.

I have to ask: what the Hell is Mrs Fiorina’s campaign staff doing? Her staff is responsible for generating attention for the candidate, and they are not getting it done. Oh, I still get plenty of e-mails — mostly asking for campaign contributions — and see plenty of Facebook and Twitter notices from the staff, but that is stuff that could all be done by one 19 year old college sophomore working on his first campaign.1 But, in the end, if Mrs Fiorina’s staff is not doing good work, the candidate herself is responsible for it.

And Mrs Fiorina has failed, directly, in a couple of ways:

  1. The leading candidates have all thrown out plenty of red meat on which the media promptly jumped. Some of the press was good, and some unfavorable — and I’d argue that most of Donald Trump’s and Ben Carson’s media coverage has been unfavorable — but it is an old, old saying that all publicity is good publicity, and Mrs Fiorina, pretty much the polar opposite of a red meat candidate, has not been generating any. She is, in my opinion, the best potential president out there, but she isn’t showing herself to be the best presidential candidate, at least at the moment.
  2. As I have noted previously, Mrs Fiorina got her initial surge due to her performances in the first two debates,2 but that she needed to continue to win the debates to sustain her candidacy, and that she has not done. Her performances in the third and fourth debates were solid, but they were still not the winning ones.

This diary on RedState suggests that some of the lower tier candidates are about to run out of money, and it does not list Mrs Fiorina among the five running out of money.3 Mrs Fiorina has been a bit more cautious with her campaign spending, which would allow her to continue longer, but eventually she is going to have to generate more interest, and spend more money, or she will fall by the wayside. Perhaps her campaign and she hope to pick up most of the support of the candidates who drop out before her — most of the candidates who are running out of money are, like her, not the red meat candidates — but I have to wonder if that could ever be enough.
Published in a slightly different form on RedState.

  1. Most of it seems to originate with Mrs Fiorina’s SuperPAC, Carly for America, which has been doing most of the campaign work, while less comes from the official campaign site, Carly for President.
  2. In the initial debate on Fox, she was relegated to the undercard debate.
  3. Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, and Jeb Bush

Bad news for Carly Fiorina The best person currently running to become President might not be the best candidate for President

I had noted previously that when I endorse a candidate, that candidate seems to tank. From The New York Times:

Carly Fiorina’s Numbers Plunge in Latest CNN Poll

By Allen Rappaport | October 20, 2015 | 8:43 AM EDT

Carly Fiorina‘s swell of support after her strong debate performance last month has collapsed, according to a new CNN/ORC poll that showed rivals Donald J. Trump and Ben Carson benefiting from her waning popularity.

The survey found Mr. Trump and Mr. Carson leading the crowded field with support of 27 percent and 22 percent of registered Republicans. The poll, released on Tuesday, had a margin of error of 5 percentage points.

The numbers were bad news for Mrs. Fiorina, the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, who stood up to Mr. Trump during the last Republican debate and won accolades for her crisp, forceful performance. However, her bounce in the polls appears to have been ephemeral and her support has dropped from 15 percent in September to just 4 percent, the poll showed.

Mr. Trump’s support seems to have stabilized after showing signs of leveling off in recent weeks and Mr. Carson continues to see his prospects improve after provocative remarks he made about Muslims and gun control.

There’s more at the link, but I had expected this, as soon as I saw the rather disappointing numbers on how much money she had raised in he third quarter.1

What Messrs Trump and Carson do that Mrs Fiorina does not is throw out the red meat remarks; that simply isn’t her style, but it’s clearly what is energizing the potential Republican voters these days. Trouble is, you cannot govern with red meat; you have to actually do something, and I am unconvinced that either of those fine gentlemen could come anywhere close to achieving what they are promising to achieve even if they are elected. There is no way on God’s earth that Donald Trump, short of being crowned Tsar and Autocrat2 of America, could detain and deport all of the illegal immigrants in our country.

Mrs Fiorina is the best person running right now to actually be President of the United States, and I still support her, but there is some question as to whether she can be the best candidate for President. Were she to win the nomination, she would beat anyone the Democrats chose to nominate — and much of her recent campaign has been running against Hillary Clinton rather than against her Republican rivals — but unless she picks up the pace, she won’t get that nomination.

The next Republican debate is October 28th in Boulder, Colorado. It was Mrs Fiorina’s performances in the two previous debates3 which dramatically increased her name recognition and approval ratings; she’ll need to do at least that well eight days from now to have any hope of staying alive in the campaign.

  1. $50.00 of which came from me.
  2. A verbal formulation deriving from the official titles of the Russian Emperors from 1721 to 1917.
  3. In the first debate, she was relegated to the junior varsity debate.

Go away, Kathleen, just go away!

The Democrats’ one time “It Girl” has now acquired two letters before the “it.”

Chief justice: Kane’s suspended license no bar to staying in office

By Angela Couloumbis, Philadelphia Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau | Posted: September 30, 2015

HARRISBURG – Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane can remain the state’s highest law enforcement official even with a suspended law license, Pennsylvania’s top jurist said Monday.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor said the high court’s decision to suspend Kane’s license “is in no way constitutionally disabling.” He said Kane remains a member of the bar in Pennsylvania – a requirement, under the state constitution, for anyone to be attorney general.

“An attorney who is the attorney general, and is suspended, is still a member of the bar of the Supreme Court, because the suspension is just temporary,” Saylor said during a speech at the monthly press club luncheon in Harrisburg. “That could be dealt with very quickly. . . . There could be a reinstatement, and a member could be again able to practice law.”

Saylor would not say whether he believed Kane should remain in office.

“I have absolutely no view on that,” he said. “I think that’s a purely personal matter.”

Saylor noted that the state constitution contains provisions for removing a public official from office. They include a never-used process in which an official may be removed by the governor “for reasonable cause,” after a hearing and a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Senate Republican leaders have said they are researching the option in Kane’s case.

Last week, the Supreme Court suspended Kane’s license as a result of the criminal charges she faces, reviving debate over whether she should resign.

Kane, 49, the state’s first woman and first Democrat elected attorney general, was charged last month with conspiracy, perjury, and other crimes, accused of leaking confidential grand jury information to the Philadelphia Daily News. She did so, prosecutors say, in an attempt to embarrass a former top prosecutor in her office with whom she was feuding.

She has pleaded not guilty and is fighting the charges. Kane has vowed to remain in office, although last week, she signaled for the first time that she might not be able to run for reelection next year with a suspended license.

There’s more at the original, which continues to note that there are some duties of her office she cannot perform without a valid law license, and thus must delegate to subordinates.

The First Street Journal has run several stories about the silliness of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, (D-PA), who squashed a sting and an investigation into bribery by some members of the Pennsylvania state legislature because, surprise! everyone caught has been a Democrat, an action so egregious that even the editors of The Philadelphia Inquirer complained. Then the lovely Mrs Kane started doing something really radical: she started breaking the law, and she was so stupid about it that she was quickly caught.

Mrs Kane, whom the Democrats initially wanted to challenge Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) in the 2016 election, decided instead that she would run for a second term that year. Pennsylvania law requires an Attorney General candidate to be a sitting member of the bar, something which she no longer is. We will be rid of this clown Attorney General in January of 2017, at the latest, but that is very much too late.
Related Articles from The Philadelphia Inquirer:

Cross-posted on RedState.