Carly Fiorina Opposed “Stimulus,” Opposes “Card Check”
Earlier today, I had the chance to interview Carly Fiorina on her campaign for the Senate; I expect to devote at least two posts (including this one) to the conversation.
Given that one of my readers had wondered whether the former HP CEO had backed the $787 “stimulus,” that has failed to fulfill its promise to keep unemployment below 8% and so set it on a downward trend, my first question was to address that reader’s concern. I asked her if she supported the “stimulus” (as some of Chuck DeVore’s campaign material suggests). She began her reply with an emphatic, “No.” She pointed out that she had such as much on Fox and CNN in March. Her opposition, she reminded me, has been “consistent and on the record.”
She doesn’t believe the “stimulus” attacked the real problem and asserted it wouldn’t create jobs.
When I brought up “card check,” she said she “adamantly” opposed the legislation, adding that she “cannot understand” why anyone would want to undermine the secret ballot in union elections.
Two things most impressed me about the interview. First, Carly undertands how government regulation impedes innovation in the marketplace and hurts entrepeneurs, preventing employers from creating jobs. Second, she recognizes the importance of new media, intending to use “technology aggressively” in her campaign.
To be sure, I’m not on board with Carly on every issue. She, for example, supported Prop 8. But, I do like the general gist of her campaign: to use new media to promote conservative reform the federal government and so to promote free enterprise and job creation.
13 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Congrats on the interview. Are you going to interview her Republican opponent?
I’d love to ask her how she would shrink, not slow the growth of, but shrink government. I’ve found thats a good way to weed the real fiscal conservatives out from the rhetorical ones. The former will have concrete answers because they have actually thought about the issue, the latter will hem and haw because they have no real interest in shrinking govt.
I readily admit I know little of Fiorina, and am just beginning to learn about her — will be interested to hear about the rest of the interview.
Comment by American Elephant — November 23, 2009 @ 7:25 pm - November 23, 2009
Dan, thanks for carrying forward my question!
With Fiorina’s answer, we’ve arrived in territory where the only way to accuse her of supporting the stimulus is to simultaneously accuse her of being a ridiculous liar. Which I do *not* accuse her of; quite the contrary. I’ve been impressed with her recent appearances. I asked the question because others have asked the question of me, and I couldn’t find anything definitive on google, but I will take this latest answer as definitive, that Fiorina was against the stimulus. (The right position, IMHO)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2009 @ 7:49 pm - November 23, 2009
Agreed. (I voted against Prop 8; although I do not fault Prop 8 supporters / gay marriage opponents, because they had a valid point that SCOCA was wrong to have imposed gay marriage on CA by judicial fiat.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2009 @ 7:53 pm - November 23, 2009
“Fiorina was against the stimulus”
Fiorina had no responsibility whatsoever on the matter, and was not an out-front political figure at the time it passed. As a result, her “position” speaks only to the question of which constituency she is seeking to win over, not on how she would have voted if the responsibility were on her shoulders.
Comment by Tano — November 23, 2009 @ 8:50 pm - November 23, 2009
And card check? Isn’t that a totally dead issue by now?
Comment by Tano — November 23, 2009 @ 9:49 pm - November 23, 2009
So why the purple-plexia over whether or not Palin supported it?
Nope:
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/61049-sen-brown-decent-chance-for-a-card-check-deal-to-pass
Perhaps you and the other a-hole liberals would like it to be forgotten so it can be sprung on us later, but it’s not dead. Not as long as liberals are still rewarding the unions for their
kickbackser….”campaign contributions” (yeah, that’s the ticket).Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 23, 2009 @ 11:41 pm - November 23, 2009
As per #4, it seems poor Tano, ever looking for a nit to pick with us, now suggests private citizens shouldn’t speak out on public matters and about things of which he is most ignorant. In January 2009, shortly after Obama took office, Fiorina spoke out against the “stimulus.”
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 24, 2009 @ 1:33 am - November 24, 2009
“now suggests private citizens shouldn’t speak out on public matters”
Huh?
Comment by Tano — November 24, 2009 @ 1:46 am - November 24, 2009
Tano, it’s how I reply to this statement, “Fiorina had no responsibility whatsoever on the matter”.
Sounds like you’re saying private citizens shouldn’t speak out on such issues. I think you may have meant “authority” instead of “responsiblity.”
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 24, 2009 @ 2:01 am - November 24, 2009
Dan, I think Tano meant that anybody who was actually in office would naturally come around to the left-liberal position on Porkulus. It’s a way of discounting our opposition to it. “They don’t really mean it. Or if they do, they’re just stupid because because Porkulus is The Only Way and if they were in office, they would of course recognize it and cave in.”
That kind of thinking is true… of left-liberals and Gitmo. Keeping a couple hundred terrorists locked up in Gitmo is the only way. In the last year, Obama and other lefties have been forced to recognize that. In a strange, twisted way, as reality teaches our leftie friends various hard lessons, their minds produce a defensive projection that is it somehow libertarians/conservatives that are being forced to learn various hard lessons – or who would be so forced, if they held office. Thus they can avoid seeing the fact that libertarian-conservative ideas, unlike leftist ideas, actually work in reality and don’t need to be drastically altered.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 24, 2009 @ 5:35 am - November 24, 2009
It would seem to me a mistake to vote against or for a candidate for governor based on that person’s Prop 8 position. I can understand frustration when that candidate doesn’t share one’s views on the issue (whether it’s candidate for/voter against or candidate against/voter for), but given the way California’s government works with ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments, it seems that a governor’s power to affect the issue one way or another is limited. Much more important, it seems to me, is to vote for someone based on taxation and government spending. CF will undoubtedly be a lot better than any California Democrat. The main issue is whether she will be solid against big government and not give in like Arnold did. At this point, it seems like she’d be a huge improvement.
Comment by chad — November 24, 2009 @ 1:04 pm - November 24, 2009
I sure hope she wins next year. Boxer is the worst Senator in the entire country.
Comment by Andrew — November 24, 2009 @ 2:31 pm - November 24, 2009
“Sounds like you’re saying private citizens shouldn’t speak out on such issues”
THats the dumbest interpretation I have ever heard.
Ain’t I a private citizen speaking out on issues?
“I think you may have meant “authority” instead of “responsiblity.””
No, I meant responsibility. She had no responsibility for making public policy, so she was completely free to make irresponsible statements geared to cultivating a political following.
Comment by Tano — November 25, 2009 @ 1:37 am - November 25, 2009