Yesterday, Carly Fiorina was in the business of praising Sen. Feinstein. Then only hours later, she got all up into the business of trashing one of her main policy prerogatives, the assault weapons ban. Oh, and she went further, pretty much pretending that she was still in the Republican primary.
Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina said Tuesday that she opposes a ban on assault weapons and supports a U.S. Supreme Court decision this week affirming a constitutional right to bear arms.
In a 45-minute question-and-answer session with reporters here, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO also repeated her backing of Arizona's controversial immigration law and said she would support efforts to repeal the federal health care reform measure. But the fundamental issue in the race against three-term Sen. Barbara Boxer, Fiorina contended, will be whom voters trust more on the economy, and she said the contrast between the two could not be more stark. (SJ Merc)
Wow, I certainly hope for her sake that getting a bunch of Latino votes wasn't a part of her electoral strategy, because this repeated outpouring of support for Arizona's law won't win her that support. While Carly might criticize Whitman for appearing on Hannity the day after the primary, at least eMeg has the smarts to quit it with the anti-immigrant talk. Perhaps Carly thinks it will bring in some money from the anti-immigrant crowd, but will it really be enough money to make up for the loss of the votes she's going to get from that part of the interview?
At any rate, back to the assault weapons ban, Carly might want to take a look at who wrote that legislation. And who has been its strongest supporter throughout the last 20 years. Yup, that would be Dianne Feinstein. The very same senator that she was so effusive about yesterday.
Have you ever wondered about those intense sessions with Carly Fiorina and her team right before she goes on TV? Do you think she's brushing up on the issues of the day? Mulling over tax proposals or possible changes to the health care system?
Well, you would be wrong.
Caught on an open mic, we learn that Carly likes to discuss the close relationship between Sean Hannity and Meg Whitman, Cheeseburgers, and, most importantly, Barbara Boxer's hair.
God, what was that hair? Soooo yesterday.
That was her actual quote. "Soooo" yesterday. Check out the clip to the right, and watch five minutes up close and personal with the failed HP CEO.
With the California primaries only days away, I decided to make a list of races worth watching this coming Super Tuesday. Cross-posted at Swing State Project and Democracy for California.
U.S. Senate (R) - Fiorina seems to have consolidated the "outsider" vote, seeing as she is the only one of the three that has not held elected office and it seems that being an outsider will get one far in the Republican primary (though not so much in a California general election).
Governor (R) - Exactly as I predicted, this race has unfolded to be 2006 in reverse. Whoever wins the GOP primary here will be so radioactive that many Republican voters likely will cross over to vote for Jerry Brown, like many Democratic voters did for Arnold last time. If Jerry Brown pulls similar numbers among Republicans that Arnold did among Democrats, then Brown is likely gonna win big. And I'm unsure about how indies will go, so I just went with an estimate similar to the 2006 numbers.
Lt. Governor (D) - This race will be very interesting: a classic NorCal/SoCal matchup, between Gavin Newsom and Janice Hahn.
Lt. Governor (R) - Newly-appointed incumbent Abel Maldonado will face a tough primary with more conservative State Senator Sam Aanestad. Given that moderates have fared pretty poorly in California elections of late, I give Aanestad the edge.
Sec. of State (R) - Any race with the Birther Queen just has to be a race to watch, more so for the comedy value, though I think most Republicans don't buy her BS, so I see Dunn getting the nomination. No matter who wins, Debra Bowen is likely a cinch for a second term.
Attorney General (D) - Very crowded primary here, with 3 term-limited Assemblymen, Torrico, Nava, and Lieu; S.F. District Attorney Kamala Harris; Facebook attorney Chris Kelly; and disgraced ex-L.A. city attorney Delgadillo, though the race seems to have narrowed to just Harris and Kelly. From what I have heard of Kelly, I am rooting for Harris.
Controller (R) - Not much drama here, but I am hoping for Tony Strickland to win so he can lose to John Chiang even worse than in 2006. Unfortunately, he is not up for reelection to the State Senate until 2012, so if he wins the nomination but loses the general, he will still be in the senate (hopefully until 2012).
Insurance Commissioner (D) - Here we have two strong candidates in term-limited assemblymen Hector De La Torre and Dave Jones. I have no preference in this race, but since Jones has more money and establishment backing, I think he'll win the nod.
CA-11 (R) - Will David Harmer, who lost by only 10% in the more Democratic CA-10 in the special election (albeit with lower turnout) be able to make it past the primary against Tony Amador and be more competitive in the general?
CA-19 (D) - I am pulling for Loraine Goodwin here. Any campaign based on health care reform is a big winner in Democratic primaries and in general elections in most parts of the state. Not sure what the HCR numbers are in this neck of the woods.
CA-19 (R) - I think I will root for Denham here, as he has won in more Democratic turf, so he is relatively saner. (And Denham is term-limited, so CA-19 run or no CA-19 run, we have a great shot at winning SD-12.) Pombo shouldn't really be of much concern, as he has placed a distant third in the recent primary poll.
CA-26 (R) - My hometown district, where Dreier faces a primary challenge from businessman Mark Butler. While I consider Dreier to be the heavy favorite, this primary challenge could further drain his campaign coffers. If he wins the primary, Dreier has the advantage of incumbency and a year more favorable to his party (though anti-Obama sentiment is much weaker in California than elsewhere). A disadvantage Dreier has is depleted campaign coffers, from spending like crazy to win only 52% against Warner in 2008 and possibly from this primary challenge.
CA-33 (D) - Former Assembly speaker Karen Bass is likely the heavy favorite, and I hope she wins.
CA-36 (D) - Harman/Winograd redux, only with more fireworks this time around.
CA-42 (R) - Even though Gary Miller's voting record is unabashedly conservative, he is still getting teabagged by three other Republicans. Count on yet another incumbent scoring a subpar primary performance.
CA-45 (R) - Mary Bono Mack has drawn teabag primary opposition from Clayton Thibodeau for her vote for cap-and-trade. She also voted against repealing DADT in spite of her district having the highest concentration of gays of any Republican-held district, possibly out of fear of getting teabagged. If Thibodeau upsets Bono Mack, this Obama-voting R+3 district could be put into play.
CA-47 (R) - Will Tan and Van split the Vietnamese vote, allowing Kathy Smith to sneak through?
CA-50 (D) - I like Busby, but I think her time has passed, if she couldn't beat Bilbray in the far more Democratic-favored 2006. Attorney Tracy Emblem seems to have most of the grassroots support.
AD-05 (R) - In this open, evenly-divided suburban Sacramento seat, the Tea Party has gotten into another Republican primary, backing Craig DeLuz against party-backed Prop 8 backer Andy Pugno. I am rooting for DeLuz to win the primary so in one election we defeat a Prop H8er and increase our chances of winning this district too.
AD-30 (D) - The Parra/Florez feud continues, with Nicole's dad Pete Parra facing off against Dean's mom Fran Florez, who lost to Danny Gilmore, who didn't like being an Assemblyman and that's why he's not running, which I at first found surprising.
AD-36 (D) - Linda Jones, who ran here in 2008, faces primary opposition from real estate broker Maggie Campbell and police officer Shawntrice Watkins. This time I am rooting for Watkins, because this Antelope Valley-centric district is very law-and-order, being the home of the Runners (Sharon and George, of "Jessica's Law" fame), and incumbent Steve Knight also having been a police officer before being elected to the Assembly. Watkins could cut into Knight's law-and-order advantage. Plus Watkins' endorsement from Equality California can't hurt either.
AD-68 (D) and (R) - I am really looking forward to an all-Vietnamese matchup here. Will be interesting to gauge the Vietnamese vote if it's Phu Nguyen (D) vs. Long Pham (R).
And what is a California election without some ballot measures? Five are on the ballot this time.
Prop 13: Tax break to property owners for making seismic retrofits. I like seeing tax breaks used as incentives for good causes. Vote YES!
Prop 14: Top two votegetters in the primary would go on to the general election, limiting voter choices. Vote NO!
Prop 15: Repeals ban on public financing and raises fees on lobbyists to fund a public financing system for SecState election beginning in 2014. Vote YES!
Prop 16: PG&E power grab that requires a 2/3 vote to create public power districts or allow local governments to purchase their own renewable power. Vote NO!
Prop 17: Weakens consumer protections and allow car insurance companies to charge much more for late payments. Vote NO!
Well, it looks like all the polling showing Carly Failorina pulling ahead in the Senate primary has put a beating on Campbell's fundraising efforts. He's now pretty much conceding the race:
Capitulating to his dwindling campaign treasury, Republican Senate candidate Tom Campbell pulled his television advertising Tuesday and in the closing days of the primary race will rely on Internet appeals and telephone calls to make his case to GOP voters. (LAT)
You just can't win on phonecalls and internet appeals alone. That might be enough in Rhode Island, but in a state where millions of votes are required, you simply need more than just the internet. I know, you might not expect to hear that from an internet-type, but there it is.
To be frank, Campbell kind of scared me. He does this faux-moderate thing really well, and then yanks the rug out from under Californians who really need help. If Fiorina can continue to loan her campaign a few million of seed money, her campaign won't be completely hapless. However, she has an Achilles heal, her tenure at HP, that is her qualification for running.
I'm not calling anything yet, but this is the surest sign of any yet.
While Democrats have freaked out about Jerry Brown's chances against Meg Whitman, there hasn't been such concern about Senator Barbara Boxer's re-election. And while she should prevail in November, who wins the GOP primary in June could make a difference. Perception in politics can become reality - and if Tom Campbell wins the nomination, there will be "news analysis" in papers across the state that Republicans "learned their lesson" by picking a "moderate." Some will remind readers that what "saved" Boxer in 1992 was Campbell losing the GOP primary, so she faced a right-wing conservative in November. Campbell's "maverick" stance on gay marriage, Israel and marijuana (the latter will be on the November ballot) may confuse voters into thinking he is to the left of Boxer. But on the vast majority of issues, Campbell is as conservative as the Party of No in Washington - progressives cannot let the media define the race in terms favorable to him.
Remember 2008? Those halcyon days where there was discussion of a McCain-Fiorina ticket. Well, McCain ended up being quite thankful for that. Let's start with the clip to the right, where Fiorina says that McCain wouldn't be qualified to run HP. She says that
It is a fallacy to suggest that the country is like a company.
Of course, while this would also suggest that perhaps Fiorina doesn't have the necessary experience to be Senator for such a large state as California, she's not talking about that now. But, of course, there's more. When the campaign turned to executive compensation, McCain came out swinging, saying that some of the golden parachutes were absurd and way too high.
Well, yesterday the duo were back at it. Oh, and the subject of that Fiorina comment came up:
She was permanently sidelined two months before the election when she told a radio host that Sarah Palin, McCain's vice presidential pick, lacked the experience to lead a major corporation. She made the situation worse when she sought to clarify her remarks by adding that McCain and then-Sens. Obama and Joe Biden also were unqualified.
When asked about those remarks on Tuesday, McCain joked, "Did she say that?" Fiorina added, "I was making a general comment about all politicians, by the way, not John McCain specifically."
Ahh, such fun times. Two unqualified people, together again.
But, they are now back in California! Huzzah! And as you can see from the ad to the right, they're still up to their old fear-based campaigning methods. While Californians understand that there is a difference between Senator Boxer and Tom Campbell, NOM is trying to tie the two together as some sort of hippie love twins of John Maynard Keynes and Divine.
I would write up some witty commentary about the inanity of this ad, but a comment on the YouTube video pretty well sums it up:
Maggie Gallagher drinks water.
Joseph Stalin drank water!
Maggie Gallagher walks on two feet.
Adolph Hitler walked on two feet!
Maggie Gallagher wears black.
Darth Vader wore black!
Thanks, NOM, for the sophisticated political commentary.
To put in a more sophisticated way, you could pull a slew of policy areas where Boxer and Campbell disagree. Point to real climate change action, stimulating the economy, and getting people back to work, and Boxer has the advantage. But, NOM is simply afraid.
NOM is terrified that the Republicans will give up their hard-hearted and hardened positions on marriage equality in favor of a big tent approach that would welcome those who support marriage equality. They understand that when that happens, eventually those who support equality will ensure complete control of all branches of government. If Republicans are not dogmatic, the rapidly shrinking anti-equality movement will lose its public face in the political sphere. They need the dogma to persist, so they wrap their message in one of general conservatism, completely forgetting that real conservatives (small "c") prefer the government not making decisions such as who they can and cannot marry.
While the Right is afraid of Campbell, there is plenty of reason for us to be as well. While he takes a few socially libertarian positions, he is generally very right-wing on economic issues. He opposed most of the stimulus, which even the American Enterprise Institute has now said was successful at reducing the unemployment explosion. He opposes real environmental protections.
Senator Boxer has been working for every Californian for every day of her term, and will continue to do so for as long as she remains in the Senate.
Tom Campbell was totally in it to win it. It's just that he was in it to win another "it." But his heart is totally in the Senate race now, though:
"What we've seen in the last year is a tremendous growth of the federal government, tripling the deficit and an expansion of the federal role in health care and financial services," Campbell told The Bee. "The federal issues are just exploding in the last year." (SacBee)
You see, it's just now that he realized that federal issues are important. Not when 12 months ago when Barack Obama inherited the worst economy in a generation. Not 6 months ago, when the vitriol around health care reached its crescendo. Not when President Obama was struggling with Afghanistan decisions. Now. When it looked like he was about to buried under a mountain of Whitman's cash.
Not to be a cynic twice over, but, well, I'm going to be a cynic again. Not only did Campbell wait, but he was also preening for the cameras in a perhaps more visible campaign. And one more thing, under state finance laws, one is allowed to raise a lot more than you are allowed to raise per contributor under federal laws. I wasn't able to determine how many big donors Campbell had, mostly because his funding was so anemic and the second half numbers haven't been filed yet. But, if one were to really, really need to raise his name ID, I'd think some additional time in the Gov race would be appealing
This has been brewing in the rumor mill for a few months now it seems. It looks like tomorrow will be the day that Tom Campbell makes it official. He's going to run in the GOP Senate Primary rather than for Governor.
In a move that will rock the state's political landscape, former Silicon Valley Congressman Tom Campbell will announce Thursday that he is dropping out of the California governor's race to run for the U.S. Senate, the Mercury News has learned.
Campbell has scheduled two news conferences to make the announcement: one at 9 a.m. in Los Angeles, the other at 2:30 p.m. at the San Jose Fairmont hotel, according to an e-mail from Campbell's campaign that was sent Monday to his major supporters. The e-mail referred to a "soon to be announced new venture" - confirmed by campaign sources to be a Senate run. (SJ Merc)
I think in order to rock the state's political landscape, you sort have to a) not telegraph the move months ahead of time and b) have a clear path to victory.
Tom Campbell would be a pretty tough race for Barbara Boxer. I think the betting line would still lean Boxer, but he's a more polished candidate than either Fiorina or DeVore. And he has the whole, not crazy thing going for him over DeVore. The trouble for Campbell is the same in the Senate race as it was in the Governor's race, except with a lot less money sloshing around. Basically, he's trying to run a campaign for the general electorate of the state in a primary. And given that the only people really excited to come out and vote in the GOP primary will be the right-wingers, the primary will be really, really tough for Campbell.
I suppose on the bright side for him, he won't be fighting Whitman's crazy dollars in this race. But the real winner here has to be Chuck DeVore. The "I can play sane on TV" vote just got split between Fiorina and Campbell. DeVore just might be able to somehow grab this nomination.
On the Larry Mantle Show on KPCC, Carly Fiorina had this to say:
I believe that life begins at conception. I would certainly that there are exceptions for the health of the mother. I support stem-cell research. But let me just say that on these very difficult social issues, I recognize that not everyone shares my views. I also recognize that these social issues are not whats on the table today.
Not sure what to say to this other than these two words: Stupak Amendment.
Rarely do you see such an epic takedown from the left in a dead trees major newspaper. Sure, sometimes you see something on the paper's blog, and you get the dissembling manifestos from the right. But, the combination of a progressive perspective and actual readers? Well, that's a rare one.
So here's the tally thus far on Fiorina the candidate: Business celebrity with an equivocal record, cancer survivor with a secure employer-sponsored health plan, "problem-solving" candidate spouting ancient Republican nostrums. I can hardly contain my excitement.
At one point, I thought Hiltzik was even eavesdropping on my gchats during her launch event. During a segment where she called for bills to be on the internet, specifically pointing to the health care bill, I said to my friend who was also watching, "well, maybe she can't steer her HP windows computer over to thomas.loc.gov." Because, you know, if she had, she would find on the home page of that site, a list of the major health care bills pending right now. I took a peek at the main house bill right here. It even has these things called hyperlinks to let you move around the bill easily.
Hiltzik has a similar takedown of her whole transparency argument. He then moves on to health care, where her "big idea" is pretty much the health insurance lobby's wet dream:
More disturbing is her advocacy of allowing insurers to sell policies across state lines. This is a "reform" the insurance industry has been after for years, because it would allow them to evade the more stringent regulations of some states by selling all their policies out of states with hands-off regulators.
For a clue to how this works, notice how credit card companies issue their cards from banks in places like South Dakota and Nevada, which have no usury limits, rather than, say, California, where the cap is 10%. But even Californians can't sign up for a card issued in California, so we're stuck with the South Dakota sky's-the-limit variety.
If this is what Carly Fiorina is going to bring, perhaps she will be able to get some big checks from Blue Cross. However, she won't be able to get the votes from Californians that one assumes are her ultimate goal.
Senator Boxer (for whom I proudly work) and supporters across the state are hosting campaign house parties this afternoon. For Caliticians who aren't able to attend one of the parties, you can watch live here as Senator Boxer and L.A. Councilman Bill Rosendahl discuss the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill, the campaign, and answer questions from house parties.
Chuck DeVore is still an unknown to most Californians, and Carly Fiorina is only slightly more recognized. However, it seems that amongst Republican right-wingers, Chuck DeVore might as well be Madonna; they just love him.
Tea party activists are also lining up behind challengers to GOP establishment-backed Senate candidates in Colorado and Connecticut. In California, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina - like Crist, another National Republican Senatorial Committee-favored Senate contender - is the target of tea party animus in her primary against conservative state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore.
"My impression is that the support among tea partyers for DeVore is high," said Mark Meckler, a California-based organizer for Tea Party Patriots. "I hear nothing but praise for the guy." (Politico)
Now, you have to separate the two tea party factions. You have the faction that is run by the rich and powerful, that one is led by my former congressman, Dick Armey. But however they are bringing these folks, there is another part of it, that is pretty much your old Republican grassroots. Not much has really changed here, but some of the branding. So, the right-wingers are all abuzz with the hunk of burning electability that is Chuck DeVore. In case you don't know much about him, perhaps we should trust those who know him best, the right-wingers: He's a far right ideologue. Surely that will sway California's center-left electorate.
Meanwhile over in Camp Carlyfornia, we have Carly's turn to get beaten up with the facts that she isn't particularly interested in voting. Fiorina has a stunning 5 for 18 record since 2000. Clearly, she believes in civic engagement.
But don't worry, she's found an issue that she can use to curry favor with the base: West Central Valley water. Carlyfornia's op-ed in the Fresno Bee takes the Sean Hannity line, you know the one where farmers rool and fisherman drool! Boooooo salmon!!
The logic of the editorial is truly stunning though.
Common sense would tell us that it shouldn't take an act of Congress to put the urgent needs of people ahead of a small fish. Apparently it does. ... Congress tried to act the week before my visit to the Valley, however, Senate Democrats -- led by Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer -- defeated a California water amendment offered by South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint. This amendment should be reconsidered and approved. (FresnoBee)
The DeMint (R-South Carolina) amendment would have banned water diversions from farms in the state of California for the purposes of saving endangered species. Never mind that even Sen. Feinstein thinks this is none of his business, the fact is that ignoring one fish isn't really the way to solve important problems. It is this kind of short-term thinking: use whatever resources we have at hand, that has led us to the dangerous situation with climate change.
I recommend that Carlyfornia take a look at the story of DDT in Borneo. You soon begin to realize that nature is a delicate balance. You can't simply take out one player and expect the house of cards to remain in place. In the case of Borneo, DDT was used to reduce malaria, but ended up creating a series of local extinctions that threatened the way of life of Borneo. In the end, the WHO had to airlift cats into the island to save the ecosystem and the way of life for real human beings there.
Field continues its data dump with the poll numbers for the Senate race (PDF). While just skating the magical "50% line" Senator Boxer is doing pretty well at this point:
When Boxer is paired against the two GOP U.S. Senate hopefuls, the incumbent holds early
Candidate
Fav
Unfav
No Opinion
Boxer
48
39
13
Fiorina
12
16
72
DeVore
9
9
82
double-digit leads over her two lesser-known opponents in general election match-ups. Against Fiorina, Boxer's lead is 49% to 35%. When she is paired against DeVore her lead is 50% to 33%.
Senator Boxer has a huge advantage in name ID, but it is very heartening to see that despite the constant right-wing attacks against her, she is still a very solid +9 on the favorability scores. So few have heard of Fiorina and DeVore that the numbers aren't hugely significant right now. However, I did find it interesting that more Democrats than Republicans had an opinion of Fiorina.
But in the Republican battle, these numbers must be insanely frustrating for Carly Fiorina. She was supposed to cruise to the nomination, but she is tied (21-20) with Chuck DeVore, a right-wing Assemblyman without a ton of money. You have to wonder, if she doesn't bounce back from her bad month or so that she had, will she really want to get involved in this mess. Carlyfornia Dreamin' was such a clear disaster, will she really want to sink much of her own money into the race, and will people really give her any money if she doesn't sink some of her ill-gotten HP gains into it? It's really something of a vicious feedback loop for Carly now.
Meanwhile, Senator Boxer is losing some of her base enthusiasm. A health care and/or climate change win would do worlds of good for her amongst the Democratic base. Although perhaps some better language on cap and trade wouldn't hurt either.
But, leave it to iCarly to ensure that we simply cannot stop talking about her. Her campaign is fizzling even before it officially launches. Over at righty blog RedState, they have word that Fiorina will not self-fund her campaign one iota.
The takeaway here? Carly Fiorina will not self-fund. Actually, let me give that the all-caps extravaganza it deserves:
Carly Fiorina WILL NOT SELF-FUND.
Given that the NRSC and Senator Cornyn, in public and private, have touted Carly's self-funding potential as the major reason for supporting her - despite her record of political non-participation, despite her emerging Iran scandal, despite her lackluster corporate record, and despite her series of foot-in-mouth moments - this is a big deal. We have Cornyn and the NRSC telling donors and big names, "Screw Chuck DeVore and the conservative grassroots, we want Carly's cash," and we have Carly telling potential hires, "My cash ain't coming."
How inept can the NRSC be? History has yet to record a full answer. And that's not even the whole story.
And given the extraordinary level of effort that the National Republican Senate Committee (NRSC) has put into recruiting Fiorina to run, this is rather embarrassing. She cannot hire a campaign manager because anybody worth a lick realizes that Fiorina has no shot without at least some level of self-funding.
She did hire a fundraiser, Marty Wilson, who was very briefly with Poizner's campaign, and did most of the raising for the Governor's campaigns. However, it appears that he is finding the going quite tough with a candidate that doesn't really have the base with her and isn't prepared to self-fund.
This campaign could, quite possibly, be the most hilarious campaign since oh, hmmm, well, we really do have too many funny campaigns in this state, don't we? Anyway, it's gonna be hilarious!
Anyway, Carly Fiorina officially launched her exploratory campaign yesterday, and let's just say that she was met with a slew of questions you generally don't want to get at the start of the campaign. Let's start with Carla Marinucci's Citizenship Test:
Critics suggest maybe not, considering that Fiorina, 54, who has a spotty voting California voting record, never cast a ballot in two other states where she lived previously, according to public records.
Officials in Morris County, N.J., said records show she registered to vote there in 1997 but did not vote in a single election and was dropped from the voter rolls in 2005 as inactive.
Before that, Fiorina lived in Montgomery County, Md., where the registrar's office said they reviewed state databases and found no listing of Fiorina's voter registration.
Fiorina strongly disputes the voting records as "just wrong," her spokeswoman, Beth Miller, said. Miller said Tuesday that Fiorina has no records to prove her past voting record and has acknowledged her failure to vote in some elections. But while "she didn't vote all the time ... she did vote," the spokeswoman added. (SF Chronicle 8/19/09)
As I said, questions from a major newspaper reporter about whether you voted in the past are really not the way you want to start a campaign. From the word go, her spokesman is on the defensive about just exactly why she wants to win this gig. After all, this really goes to the heart of the race. If you really care so much about the future of the nation, why not bother to at least vote?
And over at the LA Times, the quick blurb about her candidacy was finished with the following:
Her personal wealth would make Fiorina a heavy favorite for the Republican nomination. But she would have a tough fight to unseat Boxer, a Democrat seeking a fourth term. And Fiorina is opposed to abortion, which puts her at odds with most California voters.
Fiorina was fired from Hewlett-Packard after a rocky tenure. (LA Times 8/19/09)
Ouch. Now, if you were starting off a campaign, and that's the close of the story on you, basically calling you a failure, you'd have to consider that a flop. Poor Carly.
I'd call that a resounding "wah-wha." (P.s. I love the internet. I found the sound from Super Mario brothers in like 4 seconds.)
That is not to say that this will be an easy fight for Sen. Boxer, as Fiorina can come at her with wads of self-infused cash. So, she will still need plenty of support. And plus, Fiorina has a ton of experience in planting bugs and tapping phones. So, we'll have to use the super decoder rings to talk about the campaign amongst us Democrats.
UPDATE: The SJ Merc has a story on the race. It's more blather about how Fiorina is going to give a tough race. But for another perspective, check out Josh Treviño's tweets. Treviño, a conservative blogger and strategist, is a huuuuge Chuck DeVore fan, and seems rather pissed that Sen. Cornyn and the NRSC pushed Fiorina into the race. My favorite tweet:
This always bears repeating: Carly Fiorina was the only person fired by the '08 McCain campaign for incompetence. Think about that.9 minutes ago from TweetDeck
If you've been watching your TV over the past few months, you've undoubtedly seen the rotoscoped ads (edited based on user input) from Charles Schwab that feature that tagline Talk to Chuck.. When you visit the website, you should notice the emblem at the lower right corner: a square "talk bubble" with "talk to Chuck" inside it. Notice the style and font.
Now go over and have a gander at the website of self-styled conservative Republican (why anyone would call themselves that these days is beyond me) Chuck Devore, who is challenging Barbara Boxer for her Senate seat in 2010.
Scroll down. Notice the "talk to Chuck" with the square talk bubbles and a very similar block font? Definitely not coincidental. And IANAL, but does this constitute some sort of infringement of intellectual property rights? After all, if I were a brokerage, I wouldn't want to be associated with a political candidate on either end of the spectrum. Then again, if I were a political candidate on either end of the spectrum, I wouldn't want to willingly associate myself with a brokerage house. But then again, I'm not Chuck Devore.
