I just watched Chris Wallace interview Carly Fiorina. She’s running against Barbara Boxer and her 28 years in Washington. She claims to be different. Of course she talked about cutting spending and waste, which is all fine and well. But when Wallace asked her how she’d cut spending significantly—the big three entitlements she spewed the same weak shit all politicians do, and would NOT ANSWER THE FRIGGIN QUESTION. Much to Wallace’s credit, he grilled her on this, and made her look like just another full-of-shit politician.
Look, Toots, if you are serious about getting our financial house in order you gotta have some ideas on how to do that. Even if the 16% of the economy was rid of waste and stupidity 100%, you’d still need to look to the entitlement spending. And since you’re running for office, you need, you know to share those ideas with those whose votes you want.
So, Carly, if you want the job, speak the fuck up and let us know what you’d do when it comes to the difficult decisions. And SHUT THE FUCK UP with the “cut waste” bullshit. Yeah, yeah, there’s waste and you’ll cut it. But that doesn’t fix the damn problems. You’re only out here is to demonstrate the degree to which cutting taxes will spur the economy. Putting forth general proposition is fine in general sense, because it will. But when we have to climb out of a hole, you need to demonstrate that tax cuts (personal and corporate) will get us there without cutting entitlements.
Now, I’m sad to say, you still have my vote. But that’s only because you’re running against the detestable Barbara Boxer. I’d vote for Freddie Kruger over her. Heck, I even got one of these nice t-shirts to celebrate the end of her senate career. But, damn, woman, you’re making it hard to feel good about voting for you.
I wish I could do that. It’s just that SO I’m tired of Boxer, and we finally have a shot to rid ourselves of her. I could stay out of the Governor race, as I can argue for either of them. (Politically I’m more aligned with Whitman, but Brown, as part of the machine, may be able to get more movement.)
Wait a minute. You attack her for the fact that she cannot express in specific terms what she wants to do should she be elected, but in the end, you’re going to vote for her?! This is exactly what’s wrong with the political process in this country. As long as people continue to vote with the sentiment of “throw the bums out!” or “anybody but X”, we’re going to continue to get the shitty, do-nothing government we deserve. The better thing to do would be to vote your conscience and support a third candidate whose philosophy more closely agrees with your own. Sure, that person isn’t going to win, but why vote for someone who cannot even articulate what he/she wants to do once elected? That makes no sense at all.
Look it’s really simple. The Republicans vote in lockstep. Carly hasn’t given any serious indication that she would attempt to cross party lines like a few Republicans do on occasion. If she did, she wouldn’t make it past the primaries.
If you want tax cuts for insecure billionaires, exploding deficits and mau-mauing about a balanced budget amendment, vote Republican. Just recognize that they voted against Obama’s tax cuts in early 2009. Otherwise vote Democrat.
It’s simple, just look at the capital ® or capital (D) after the name. The importance of personalities in today’s political climate is vastly over-rated.
Its kinda unfair to single out Ms Fiorina, about whom I know diddly squat. All of the Republicans are running on the same platform and none of them has an answer to that question. They are counting on the cupidity of the electorate, that no one will really pay any attention to that, they just want to vote for the guy who swears he will cut spending, reduce taxes and shrink government. I would be much happier if I could believe that they have misjudged. Alas.
I don’t think you guys are being fair to magellan01. While he says he has serious reservations about Fiorina because of her inability to articulate any solutions and policies, he also says he has problems with Boxer because she has a record that can be pointed to and outlined her of doing things that he is “sick of.”
Fair enough.
Magellan01, can you articulate what some of those things are that Boxer has done that you are sick of, and how Fiorina’s “positions” merit a rant in the BBQ Pit four paragraphs long but still lead to your saying you’re going to vote for a cipher?
I’ll defend Carly here. It’s very hard for politicians to be honest during silly season. Though frankly honesty, candor and humility don’t exactly seem to fit her personality profile, given her failures at HP and dubious record at Lucent. Hey at least Whitman can point to some actual concrete professional successes, though I’m not sure how well the skills of a top-down boss translate into the executive branch of government. (Negotiators and deal cutters like Romney seem to me to have excellent training, though of course that’s not a guarantee, merely one of many qualifications.)
No, what irks me are conservative pundits and commentators show no interest in actually crunching the numbers. Anybody who espouses tax cuts, lower deficits but doesn’t propose cutting programs that they actually like probably isn’t serious. And mumbling about entitlements doesn’t cut the mustard either: let’s see your proposals; follow them with a discussion.
Quit reading George Will and the gas bags at the National Review and, sadly, forget about the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. One of the few sources for serious traditional conservative fiscal commentary is at http://capitalgainsandgames.com/ (Also, I’ve yet to visit Fiscal Times, but I’d like to.)
Tom Campbell was highly electable. This Democrat breathed a sigh of relief when he was shot down.
Campbell would have been an interesting Senator. But c’mon John Mace. The moderate Republican is an endangered species: do you really think he could have played that game better than Olympia Snowe? What exactly would he have done?
No, the only place for responsible traditional conservatives at the national level is in the Democratic party. State and localities are a separate matter.
ETA: This isn’t the 1970s - 1980s, when Republicans did not vote in lockstep and the moderate wing actually controlled the party.
Those of us in Silicon Valley see her as the person who wrecked HP-- the grand-daddy of the tech industry here. It has since recovered much of its former glory, even if the last CEO left recently because of a sex scandal.
She’s also the instigator of what is arguably the craziest campaign ad of the season-- the famous “Demon Sheep” ad. Said sheep being Tom Campbell-- perhaps the classiest, most reasonable conservative out there.
The fault lies in the nature of conservatism itself, it is resistive to change even when it is not gazing back with fond longing for days gone by. But change is inevitable, resistance is futile and self destructive. The simplistic Mr Micawber view of fiscal prudence that conservatives cling to with such desperation was useful enough, in its time. At least partly because everybody else was playing from the same premises, everybody accepted the same eternal verities.
But when other nations change towards some sort of progressive socialist/capitalist hybrid, and we do not, then we get behind the curve. And sooner or later, it costs us. A healthy, educated, engaged citizenry is a major boon to a nation, I would shamelessly argue it is rather the whole point of nationhood to begin with.
We continue to trade on our past, and resist changing towards the future. Does it make sense to borrow a lot of money to spend on our people, and thereby shore up our consumerist economy? I think so, even as I recognize the risks inherent in debt. A robust economy can deal with a large debt, a shattered economy can’t deal with any debt, regardless of how small. Is it a gamble? Sure, but not all gambles are the same. If you bet five dollars against five to one odds to win five dollars, you are a tard. If you don’t bet five dollars against the same odds to win one thousand dollars, you are even more of a tard.
I can respect a conservatism that accept the necessity of change but seeks prudence and caution as we adopt that change. But a conservatism that hopes to stand athwart progress is auditioning to be road kill.
The US has had a mixed economy – well basically forever and at the national level starting in the 1880s. Smart conservatives know that cries of “Socialist!” are pure posturing.
The moderate business conservatism of Eisenhower through Nixon was sensible, in that it had a grip. Moderates still had influence under Reagan – he raised taxes multiple times after all – but Reagan’s worst legacy was empowering the crazies. Still the real problems lie with modern conservative punditry, who preen and pontificate while evading the underlying empirical realities. Budget issues are merely the most visible manifestation of this.
I quote Brad DeLong again:
Oddly enough Reagan raised taxes on occasion, Nixon respected competence in government and Goldwater wasn’t personally a bigot. The problem is the conclusions that modern conservatives have drawn from these men.
I’ve voted for 3rd party candidates a bunch! In lieu of GWB twice, for example. So I get that. But in this election I’d rather have pretty much anyone other than Boxer. Certainly any one more conservative. So,it makes perfect sense.
Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out later. But it seems we’re pretty much on the same page. I don’t understand why no one is openly advocating raising the retirement age for SS for those under 55 or so. That affects me, but it just makes sense. Especially since the retirement age was set when the life expectancy was so much younger.
Not really. I too loathe Boxer, but be damned if I’ll vote for a pig like Fiorina. There is such a thing as the lesser of two evils, and Boxer is the lesser here.
It’s not like either one will do fuck-all about California’s economy. That little mess is going to fall on Brown and the Assembly.
This is precisely why I’m not a Republican any more. Sensible people like Campbell don’t have a chance.
Voting for Fiorina is like voting for a shortstop who committed two errors per game for the Hall of Fame. Getting booted by your board is no easy task. You have to both destroy shareholder value and piss people off. Remember, she got silenced by the McCain campaign for shooting her mouth off, and perhaps she decided to go into politics because no one would give her a job. I’d hope both sides would agree that the Senate should not be the unemployment office for laid-off CEOs.
ETA: on KCBS I heard polling numbers indicating the Fiorina is the type of candidate whose numbers fall as people become more familiar with her.
That idea gets bandied about by serious people from time to time. My personal (center-left) opinion is that we should split the difference on social security: cut benefits some (eg raise retirement age), raise taxes some (possibly by raising taxes on wage income of above $107,000: currently such rates are set at zero). There are other tweaks.
However. Social security is fixable. Health care really isn’t, absent some attempt to “Bend the cost curve.” That’s where serious deficit hawks focus their worries and attention. Not that they ignore social security, weapon systems or anything else.
Incidentally, I support Barbara Boxer. I have a copy of the 2004 Almanac of American Politics: their profile lists some of the older positions.
In 2001 Enron choked off the supply of natural gas and power to California and the state was hit by a set of rolling blackouts. Conservatives maintained that this was a case of the free market at work: commentators such as Paul Krugman knew better. PG&E faced the unenviable situation of price caps on their output and a free market in their inputs. Ooops – I guess they should have hired a few economists before they lobbied for deregulation, right? Anyway, Barbara Boxer proposed a windfall profits tax and temporary price controls on wholesale power suppliers. Conservatives feared that these controls would last forever: to my knowledge they have not. Boxer was vindicated. But she lost legislative battles that would have compensated California consumers for the price manipulation conducted by Enron, et al.
Boxer successfully sought to beef up port security following the 9/11 attacks. She supported the war in Afghanistan but opposed the war in Iraq. When Bin Laden attacked the US, Boxer felt that it would be better not to turn around and wage war on someone else. Oddly enough, some of her correct calls won’t endear her to much of the electorate: pointless wars are sort of embarrassing, right?
Strange but last election everybody, Repubs and Dems, said the health care system was broken and unsustainable. The Dems attempted to fix it and the Repubs watered it down. Now they think it needs to be repealed. It makes no sense, but like the idea they can magically cut the deficit with more tax cuts, they are selling it to people who don’t analyze very well. The Repubs are fiscally irresponsible and are running on platforms they know are untrue. It is shameful.