First Presidential Debate – Go Carly!

OK, I had more but it got eaten by the horrid “Beep Bop Boop” wordpress editor that is becoming ever harder to avoid (and works even worse in the R.Pi).

The short form is that all of the folks on the stage were decent. Any of them is better than Obama or Madam Hillary. But with that said:

Go Carly!

Generally, I’d rank them more or less as Carly, Jindal, Santorum, everyone else. But any of them would be an OK president. Even Lindsey Graham that’s I’d put toward the end.

Fox seems to want you to “log in to your cable provider” to see the debate on the internet. I think they need to learn that ever fewer folks HAVE cable…

I missed the start of the debate due to some rising bread that wanted attention Right Now! (but it will be worth it later ;-) Hopefully it will be rerun later on some local west coast channel or on the internet.

What I saw, though, was enough. If this is the bottom half of the line-up, the Republicans are in good shape.

Carly was not bashful about picking a cat-fight with Hillary. IMHO, if she doesn’t get the nod and one of “the boys” does, they need to pick her as V.P., just so she can attack Hillary without it being one of “the mean old boys” doing it.

More after the second debate. But at this point my opinion is that a couple of these folks could move up to the first tier with no problems.


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to First Presidential Debate – Go Carly!

  1. Larry Ledwick says:

    I agree I would have no problem (based on what I know now ) of her being on the final ticket. Even if she misses the final nomination she could do a lot of damage to Hillary during campaigning for the nomination. Being a bright articulate woman gives her latitude to say things about Hillary that would be troll bait for the men.

    Looking forward to see how things shake out. It would be good if they culled about 1/3 of the candidates so as not to dilute the coverage too much on the better candidates, but that should wait a bit until after a bit more exposure shows who has what it takes.

  2. JS Howard says:

    Carly is coming on strong…she has to be a tough broad to be CEO…but she also has finese and decorum. Class act unlike Obama.

    Being from TX, Perry has done an excellent job for us. He just lacks the polish.

  3. Larry Ledwick says:

    Yeah I found a clean feed of the debate on skynews but it got preempted near the end when fox forced them to pull it for copyright claim. I will be sending an email to Fox about their cable log in stunt, That is just plain stupid to lock out probably half the country.

    Per wikipedia
    traditional cable television subscriptions in the US peaked around the year 2000, at 68.5 million total subscriptions. Since then, cable subscriptions have been in slow decline, dropping to 54.4 million subscribers by December of 2013. It appears there are about 115,227,000 house holds in the country so literally they locked out about 1/2 the countries citizens from watching the debate.

  4. E.M.Smith says:

    Well, IMHO, the 2nd debate has Rubio in the lead with Carson close behind. Huckabee and Walker doing almost as well with Cruz up their too.

    At the other end, Trump showed himself to be relatively classless and weak on actual answers. Not really a surprise, though I’d hoped he would “rise to the occasion”. Still, he’s done his job which (again, IMHO) was to show the rest of the field how to have some spine. I expect his numbers to drop a lot in the next polls.

    Rand Paul got in a couple of good licks, but wore his grumpy outsider face to the insiders club. Not his best showing (but still better than trump)

    Kasich and Christie gave workman like performances, with decent presence and records; but left me with a tired feeling about them.

    All of which leaves Jeb! at a solid middle of the pack. Running on a good record, but saying things that are worrying (like trying to find a half-way house for Common Core in a sort of “I was for it before I was against it” kind of way and like immigration where he wants to stop illegal immigration yet use immigration to strengthen our economy – which implies keeping a few tens of millions here and bringing in more as businesses request…)

    I find myself pondering a Rubio / Carly or perhaps a Carly / Carson ticket…

    But I’d be just as happy with a Huckabee / Walker or maybe even a Cruz / Huckabee…

    The debate was fun, with a reasonable number of belly laughs and snorts. Unfortunately, Trump didn’t take the opportunity to show a more fun and engaging side; missing the point that people like a Grumpy Gus tossing rocks at the idiots some of the time to get the fires lit, but then want a kind Uncle Bob they can trust to be nice and watch things when they aren’t watching or headed out on vacation. They want the range from justified rage in a soldier under attack, to kind and gentle “Dad” when at home. Trump just showed more grump.

    Of all the candidates, I found Carson to have the most thoughtful answers. It will be interesting to see if a thoughtful and very smart person can win.

    But Rubio was the one got the emotional nod. Something about the guy just feels right. Sort of a Kennedy esque kind of thing.

    Maybe a Carly / Rubio combo… or a Carson / Rubio… so many good choices.

  5. p.g.sharrow says:

    Well I did not get to see the debates as we were having Issues with Direct during that time period.
    But a strange thing, A week or so ago I was looking at pictures of the candidates and it struck me that Cruz would be a most important leader in the future.

    I would guess a Cruz / Huckabee ticket.

    Trump is just a stalking Horse to draw the fire of the Liberal Progressives and away from the Republican politicians that are still trying to get their messages on target….pg

  6. M Simon says:

    If Ted is a follower of his Father’s line of thought

    He is in trouble.

  7. M Simon says:

    Trump used to support Democrats.

  8. Kent Gatewood says:

    Carly leads the Instapundit reader poll with 35 percent.

  9. Glenn999 says:

    any of the republicans would be better than a democrat for this next election

  10. Gail Combs says:

    I have this problem with Carly

    Carly Fiorina believes in man-made global warming, she tells Seth Meyers, but…

    ….she acknowledged that she believes climate change is caused by humans. “I’m prepared to take the scientists at their word,” she said, “but the problem is we never finish the scientists’ sentence…. A single nation acting alone can make no difference at all.”

    If I recall correctly I ran into her or another woman CEO (but I think it was her because of the HP connection) and I was completely turned off. Sorry I can not remember why just now and my computer ate my notes on the candidates. (And yes I saved the file….Grumble)

  11. p.g.sharrow says:

    Carly started out as a high up due to the pull of her father and then worked her way to the top. Carly’s father is part of the California Republican good old boy’s club that have locked conservatives out of the process. She couldn’t even beat “Moonbeam Brown” in the election for governor. Sorry, but she is too entitled to win . Her efforts as the CEO at HP demonstrated no talent at leadership to me. pg

  12. Another Ian says:


    Some odds on the field from a distant observer

  13. E.M.Smith says:

    @Gail Combs:

    Hmmm…. Had not heard that. But it does sound like she is not 100% True Believer, just more of a “what the experts said” position; so could be swayed with the right presentation.

    FWIW, I was “in the Valley” when she was running HP. IIRC the folks there had a bifurcated response. Some (few, mostly women’s advocates) like her, most didn’t, and the company didn’t do all that well. I vaguely remember some silly ideas being pushed, but not hard enough to break things. Again, IIRC, the end game required some layoffs as sales and new products waned.

    Ah, the wiki remembers ;-)

    Hewlett-Packard company events have included the spin-off of its electronic and bio-analytical measurement instruments part of its business as Agilent Technologies in 1999, its merger with Compaq in 2002, the sponsor of Mission: Space in 2003, and the acquisition of EDS in 2008, which led to combined revenues of $118.4 billion in 2008 and a Fortune 500 ranking of 9 in 2009. In November 2009, HP announced the acquisition of 3Com,[5] with the deal closing on April 12, 2010.[6] On April 28, 2010, HP announced the buyout of Palm, Inc. for $1.2 billion.[7] On September 2, 2010, HP won its bidding war for 3PAR with a $33 a share offer ($2.07 billion), which Dell declined to match.[8]

    The spun-out HP got Carly, and the mergers began. Then she got tossed out in 2005 and for reasons I can’t possibly imagine, HP then bought in the dogs: 3Com, Palm, and 3PAR and the tired old business of EDS. So it’s not like her replacement did much good gluing those low perf companies onto HP.

    In 2002, Fiorina undertook the biggest high-tech merger in history, with rival computer company Compaq, which made HP the world’s largest personal computer manufacturer. Following HP’s gain in market share as a result of the merger, Fiorina laid off 30,000 employees. By the end of 2005, the merged company had more employees worldwide than they had separately before the merger. As of February 9, 2005, HP stock had lost more than half its value, while the overall NASDAQ index had fallen 26 percent owing to turbulence in the tech sector. On that date, Fiorina resigned as chief executive officer and chairman.

    So takes over one of THE best computer companies out there at the time, nukes 30K people, and ends up adding more staff in the end (while not particularly helping combined sales), cut the stock in half, and quits. Not bad for a days work ;-)

    Fiorina proposed the acquisition of the technology services arm of PricewaterhouseCoopers for almost $14 billion, but withdrew the bid after a lackluster reception from Wall Street. Following the collapse of the dot-com bubble, the PwC consulting arm was acquired by IBM for less than $4 billion. Fiorina instituted three major changes to HP’s culture shortly after her arrival: a shift from nurturing employees to demanding financial performance, replacing profit sharing with bonuses awarded if the company met financial expectations, and a reduction in operating units from 83 to 4.

    Also tried to do a Grand Deal that would have blown $10 Billion, and doesn’t make the buy when the time was right for $4 Billion.

    Puts frosting on the cake by spanking all the employees and telling them to not expect career advancement in house, dumped profit sharing in favor of bonuses (the majority of which always seem to go to suck up managers so I can’t see HP having been different), and merges a whole bunch of unrealated units into 4 conglomerates. Um, not seeing the benefit of that.

    Fiorina presented herself as a realist regarding the effects of globalization. She was a strong proponent, along with other technology executives, of the expansion of the H-1B visa program. Fiorina responded against protectionism in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, writing that while “America is the most innovative country,” it would not remain so if the country were to “run away from the reality of the global economy.” Fiorina said to Congress in 2004: “There is no job that is America’s God-given right anymore. We have to compete for jobs as a nation.” While Fiorina argued that the only way to “protect U.S. high-tech jobs over the long haul was to become more competitive [in the United States],” her comments prompted “strong reactions” from some technology workers who argued that lower wages outside the United States encouraged the offshoring of American jobs. In the US, 30,000 HP employees were laid off during Fiorina’s tenure. In 2004, HP fell dramatically short of its predicted third-quarter earnings, and Fiorina fired three executives during a 5 AM telephone call.

    Oh Yeah… she was one of the drivers for a huge expansion of the H1b visa program (and the complete lack of any real enforcement of the ‘not displacing American workers’ part of it). She is a part of why when you call tech support it helps to speak Hindi or Indian English…

    And the idea that you protect US jobs and workers by trashing the paycheck is, er, wrong.

    In the end, she used the old “beating will continue until morale improves” followed by “fire the direct reports so it can’t be me” dodges… Remember, she had cut it down to 4 operating units, then fires 3 execs…

    Fiorina frequently clashed with HP’s board of directors, and she faced backlash among HP employees and the tech community for her leading role in the demise of HP’s egalitarian “The HP Way” work culture and guiding philosophy, which she felt hindered innovation. Because of changes to HP’s culture, and requests for voluntary pay cuts to prevent layoffs (subsequently followed by the largest layoffs in HP’s history), employee satisfaction surveys at HP—previously among the highest in America—revealed “widespread unhappiness” and distrust, and Fiorina was sometimes booed at company meetings and attacked on HP’s electronic bulletin board.

    OMG! I’d never heard that line before… that “The HP Way”…”hindered innovation”? This about one of THE most innovative tech companies of the age? Wow!

    Also looks like she pissed off everyone from the Board Of Directors to stockholders to employees and even the founders son.


    Interesting. I’d not known of the Dad connection to the Republican Insiders Club.

    I have a hypothesis that since about JFK, TPTB try to assure that it is a race between “their guy” in both the R and D parties. Then, when a populist wins the primary, despite their efforts, they ‘stick’ him with an inside man as VP so that if they need to “do a Kennedy” on the guy, they have a ‘spare’ ready to move in.

    When you look at the pattern of P and VP is sure looks that way. Most recent being Obama as popular choice displacing Hillary who was assigned to win, so they stuck Biden on with him as insurance (remember that Biden had made caustic comments about Obama prior…) Similarly, AlGore was a long time party insider and had been raised from birth to be President (and expected to be). “Baby Bush” was run with the intent he would lose (but had Cheney assigned as baby sitter in case he won). In the “upset”, Algore was awarded a Nobel as a consolation prize and told to go collect a few $Billions on the Global Warming scam operation. Daddy Bush had chosen Dan Quayle to assure that NOBODY would want to make a ‘swap’… and Reagan had been given the ex-CIA lead Bush as his “2nd” just in case…

    While that all could just be paranoid fringe speculation, the pattern holds…

    Now fast forward to the present. The Republicans have a problem. The populists are ahead in the poles. I’d thought about things like a Rubio / Carly ticket but dismissed it as she was not an inside politician… But….

    IFF she is actually an insider running as outsider, that would explain a lot of the “buzz” around her as “A good VP candidate”…

    While over on the Democrat side we have Hillary The Anointed looking a bit weak and they are scrambling to figure out how to swap in someone stronger without her getting pissed enough to hire Guido and the JFK-Special squad (Mafia having been implicated in his demise). At least, that’s my opinion of what fits the known facts and best speculation.

    Or I could be all wrong. It IS just massive speculation.

    But do keep an eye on who gets the VP slot. Any time it is a populist with a load of new ideas, somehow they end up with an old school insider as “minder and spare”… And now I see that could be Carly’s intended role…

  14. Larry Ledwick says:

    I have mixed feelings about Carly. I really like her current political persona and how well she communicates.
    The above taken in a vacuum sounds really bad until you look at other IT companies over the last couple decades. I don’t think there is a single one out there that could not have essentially the same story told. Slightly different timing, but same scramble to adapt to very rapidly changing technology scene.
    Sun Micro Systems (huge layoffs around 2001) — In the first round they sent out an email asking for employees to suggest cost cutting measures (like no morning donuts etc.) then they started layoffs or hiring freezes with the contract employees like me and worked their way up to full time employees. Bought out by Storage Tech — same dance different tune. Big layoffs to avoid duplications and cut costs, ended up getting bought out by Oracle.

    EDS (I worked there too prior to going to Sun) worst pay in the industry Their top wage scale was industry median for the same job. Open joke best way to get a pay raise at EDS was to leave for 6 months to a year and then come back. Also major layoffs as they tried to save the company, ended up being bought by HP.

    IBM huge layoffs and out sourcing near 2005-2008 (yeah got me there again), laid off thousands of US employees and replaced them with off shore employees at about a 2:1 ratio and claimed they were not doing layoffs because total head count went up, but their labor costs dropped significantly because they were replacing $80k / year employees with 2 15k/year employees in India, Brazil,Vietnam, Singapore, and China ( I used to talk to all those on the phone as I trained them to take over my job before I got laid off.)

    I know that there were a few thousand IBM’rs who would have gladly marched with torches and pitch forks on IBM headquarters during that time period.

    Spring of 2009 Apple had big layoffs also in 1997. I can’t think of a single major IT player that did not have major disruptions in staffing and layoffs over the decade and a half from late 1990’s to about 2010. People forget the industry was in major turmoil, and lots of boardroom brawls took place during that period.

    Then you have Dell:

    So the question becomes if all the IT giants went through major cost cutting and layoffs, and scrambled for profitability (every one of the outsourced HP was not unique in that), is that a fair indictment of Carly Fiorina, if all the other CEO’s were doing much the same thing trying to save their companies. For all practical purposes you were having a world wide corporate war in IT as they scrambled for market share and cost cutting after the huge build out in the late 1990’s prior to Y2K. When the IT bubble burst it dumped a few billion dollars of nearly new computer hardware on the used market. You could buy top quality state of the art servers, switches and routers at fire sale prices. Any company that depended on hardware sales as a major share of revenue, (Sun, Compaq, HP, IBM, Dell etc.) was suddenly in a seriously glutted market which was rapidly contracting due to businesses going out of business.

    As a result I give her the benefit of the doubt on those stories of mismanagment at HP, I don’t think there is a single IT management team out there during that period that does not share some or most of the same dirty laundry in some former employees eyes.

  15. Larry Ledwick says:

    It appears that the IT culling is still a work in progress.

    Just like when IBM spun off and outsourced their PC production to Lenovo in China in 2005 this is a multi decade long shake out and culling in IT. It ain’t over yet.

  16. LG says:

    The Defenders of the Donald are Stumping for the Trump…..

Comments are closed.