Regardless of what her politics are, I liked what Carly Fiorina said here about Climategate.
This week, diplomats from around the world are gathering in Copenhagen for the global climate change summit--an event that has been marked by controversy in the wake of the "climate-gate" scandal that has recently and rightly gained significant international media attention.
This scandal has provoked many questions that I believe deserve answers. Among other things, it would seem that information relating to climate change research may have been held back from the public-- and key decision-makers, too. This could of course impact the appropriateness and effectiveness of policy that the US, and indeed world leaders, might pursue. Before moving forward, given the potentially significant economic consequences associated with some of the steps under consideration, I personally think it is important to get a handle on all the facts, whether they be good, bad or ugly.
Naturally, she is taking flak, but if you think it's coming from the left, you're wrong. She is being excoriated in the comments by angry conservatives, who accuse her of being a RINO, a liberal, or like McCain.
I'm sorry, but whether this woman is in fact a RINO or a liberal or like McCain simply has no bearing on whether her thoughts on Climategate are accurate.
I notice that the angry commenters are supporters of Chuck DeVore, who is running against Fiorina in the California Republican primary.
They're so rude that they almost make me feel like sending Fiorina money.
Moreover, the claim that Fiorina is a RINO seems a bit overwrought. DeVore has certainly positioned himself to the right of her, but unless RINO has come to mean being anything less than far right, that does not make her a RINO. Clearly DeVore is more to the liking of the right wing of the California GOP, but as this is politics, what ought to count the most is who has a better chance of beating Barbara Boxer.
GayPatriot thinks Boxer would make mincemeat out of DeVore:
The race for the GOP nomination to take on the spendthrift Mrs. Boxer is not a contest between a mainstream conservative and a liberal Republican, but between two conervatives with different backgrounds and different appeals.
If elected, neither would vote to increase the size of government and limit our freedoms. Each candidate would better serve our state than has Barbara Boxer. The real issue is which one is better suited to defeating her.
Should DeVore win the GOP nomination and misrepresent Boxer's record as he has misrepresented Carly's, the better-funded Boxer attack machine would make mincemeat of him. And that machine would have the support not just of the Democratic Party, but of the California media.
The issue would not be Boxer's record, but DeVore's competence.
My worry is that some of DeVore's supporters don't see the issue as whether he can beat Barbara Boxer. They'd rather see him lose to her than see Carly Fiorina win.
Unless the idea is a Long March, I don't see much strategic value in losing.
As to a Long March, what if it loses too?
posted by Eric on 12.11.09 at 01:22 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/9141
Comments
I think we established in the last post that what's really important is not winning OR being right, but corect spellling.
I think some in CA might be a little touchy about RINOs after voting for the awesomeness that is the Governator.
guy · December 11, 2009 08:52 PM
Balance, grasshopper.
Politics is the art of getting as much you can while giving up as little as possible to get it. Anything else is not republican democracy; it's authoritarianism. You have to compromise some, but you don't want to compromise so much that you win without achieving your real goals. It shouldn't be all about the winning, but neither should it be about ideological purity that never gets to influence public policy.
The George W Bush/Karl Rove model was based on the idea that only 50.1 percent was needed. They could push hard as long as they kept their 50.1 percent. The problem with that model is the coalition is fragile. Any one part peeling off results in the destruction of the coalition and minority status. The Bush/Rove/deLay model emphasized buying off the unrest of the potential defectors to keep 50.1 percent on board. That didn't work for long (as would have failed sooner but for 9/11). The R's need a different approach to coalition-building -- to politics -- to return to power. Ideological purity ain't gonna cut it.
Rhodium Heart · December 12, 2009 03:29 PM
The California Republican Party has been dysfunctional for a very long time.
Funny "almost make me feel like sending her money." Real committed there aren't you. That's the problem. We have representatives like that too who act like they are committed to the constituent when in fact they are committed to themselves and special interests.
I've read statements by her and looked at her failed business record, and questionable business practices. They are there to find if you take the time to look.
BELIEVE me, as a "Decline to State" registered voter, she will NOT be getting my vote. DeVore will, even if I have to re-register for the primary.
Ann · December 14, 2009 01:19 PM
It is just not Fiorina's political positions that have alienated her from many people in the state.
Her tenure as CEO of HP was a disaster - a classic case of an MBA screwing the pooch. People here in Silicon Valley still spit on the ground at the mention of her name.
As to a Boxer/DeVore matchup, I'm betting on DeVore. He'll do fine. I trust him to be a reasonable conservative.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
I think we established in the last post that what's really important is not winning OR being right, but corect spellling.