Carly Fiorina: John McCain and Sarah Palin aren't qualified to run a corporation

[begbert2]

@LonghornDave

I think you are being unfair here. She certainly did not run it into the ground. She pushed for a merger which was opposed by the son of the founder. That’s why she was ousted. The company has done very well since the merger. I think, in retrospect, it looks like it has been a success.

She also was responsible for indiscriminate and unnecessary firing of employees and the ruining of company morale - she wasn’t nicknamed “the Hatchet” for nothing. Though if you want to think her firing was just due to a conflict of opinion with [one of] the founder’s son, I suppose that’s your perogative.

[LonghornDave]

@DSYoungEsq

And they just announced 24,000 layoffs.

Which would be relavent if the cuts had something to do with the PC side of their business. In fact, they relate to their merger with EDS with the majority of cuts being former EDS workers who are now redundant.

@DSYoungEsq

And Carly Fiorina was booted from her position because the shareholders thought she screwed up. So having her say something about someone being unqualified to run a company is quite ironic, unintentional as I am sure it was.

Sure, the shareholders may have thought she screwed up. That’s not really my point. My point is that in retrospect, it looks like the merger was a success and, hence, she is somewhat vindicated.

[LonghornDave]

duplicate post

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@LonghornDave

I think it is obvious that she is saying it because she believes it is a truthful statement. What possible experience do they have to run one of the largest computer companies in the world?

I don’t see why this is noteworthy. They aren’t running to be CEO of HP.

Agreed. She’s not running to be CEO of HP. However, the question asked of Fiorina was whether Sarah Palin has the experience to run a *major company *like Hewlitt-Packard. She and McCain might not be running to be CEO of HP, but they are running to be CEO of the United States, which is, in fact, a bit more complex than HP.

It’s balancing budgets, it’s playing politics, it’s hiring department heads, it’s maintaining a staff, it’s moving the organization forward with new ideas. If McCain’s top economic advisor doesn’t think either John McCain or Sarah Palin could do these things at a large company, how the hell are we supposed to have any confidence they can do these things on a much larger scale-- during an economic downturn-- as well as handle foreign affairs-- during a time of war?

Combine this with the fact that the Republicans have touted executive experience–ANY executive experience-- as being qualifiers for the top spot, Fiorina’s statements today are very telling.

How can you say about your candidate that he and she are not qualified to run a major company, and still expect us to put them in charge of the major company?

[magellan01]

I love it. The more I see threads like these and the posts like those from Shayna, the more convinced I am that McCain is going to be the next President.

Thank you.

[Happy_Lendervedder]

@magellan01

I love it. The more I see threads like these and the posts like those from Shayna, the more convinced I am that McCain is going to be the next President.

Thank you.

Anything to add, or were you just stopping by to clear your bowels?

[LonghornDave]

@Happy_Lendervedder

She and McCain might not be running to be CEO of HP, but they are running to be CEO of the United States, which is, in fact, a bit more complex than HP.

It is more complex, in an entirely different way. Being President is also more complex than being an NBA coach, it doesn’t mean I want Bill Clinton as the next coach of my team.

[ShibbOleth]

@LonghornDave

Sure, the shareholders may have thought she screwed up. That’s not really my point. My point is that in retrospect, it looks like the merger was a success and, hence, she is somewhat vindicated.

It’s her revisionist history.

In her memoir, Ms. Fiorina says H.P. missed its numbers on her watch only three times; in fact, the company fell short at least nine times on either revenue, profit or both. She also talks repeatedly in “Tough Choices” about the importance of setting targets and goals that make sense, and perhaps, during her time as a rising star at Lucent, she did that. But at H.P., she set goals that were out of touch with the reality of the company’s businesses. “When she first took over,” said Charles Wolf, an analyst at Needham & Company, “she promised revenue growth and improvement of metrics that she didn’t come close to meeting.” Right up until the end, that was too often the case.

The earnings numbers, though, tell only part of the story. “From the time she came to the time she left,” said Benjamin Rosen, the former venture capitalist and Compaq chairman, “based on the organization she built, the performance of the company, and the return to shareholders, it was not a good report card.”

The stock declined 50 percent during the five and a half years she was in charge. Although she said she was making employees accountable, she put in place an organizational chart with so many overlapping responsibilities that nobody seemed to be in charge. She larded the place with bureaucracy. She merged the highly profitable printer division with the struggling personal computer division, another questionable move.

“She was a huge blame game devotee,” said Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld of the Yale School of Management. Ultimately, she was selling Hewlett-Packard by selling herself — and inside H.P. all it bred was resentment.

Michael D. Capellas, the chief executive of Compaq, was supposed to be her No. 2. There are many people on Wall Street who say that he was the one who really sold the merger to the Street — and, because of his operational background, gave investors confidence that it might work. But Ms. Fiorina never had much use for him, and he left within six months. In her book, she belittles him at every turn.

She also took over his job as company president and head of operations, a role for which she was completely unfit. Her entire career had been spent in marketing and sales.

[Jas09]

Actually I think ishe’s wrong on the merits of her statement as well as it being a strange political statement to make. I see no reason why McCain, Obama, Palin, or Biden wouldn’t be effective as a CEO (perhaps Biden less than the other three). They have shown leadership and management qualities that many companies would appreciate in their leaders. McCain ran a Navy squadron, Obama has run a $200 million campaign operation, Palin has run a state government - I don’t think that any of these are necessarily easier to run than your average mid-size company (perhaps not a company the size of HP, but still). Surrounded by a competent and qualified executive staff I think they would all do just fine.

[Bricker]

@Happy_Lendervedder

I assume you have a cite for Dr. Fire’s statement? Or were you just being cute?

Cute. Sorry it wasn’t more obvious; I thought the over-the-top nature of my claim was evident.

For the record: so far as I know, Dr. Fire has actually expressed no opinion on any candidate’s abilities with respect to RNA interference gene splicing by double-stranded RNA.

And is being qualified to perform RNA interface gene splicing by double-stranded RNA ever argued as being a relevant qualification for the presidency? As opposed to serving as a chief executive to a multi-billion (or trillion) dollar organization? Executive qualifications have been a long-time arguement for the Republicans in this campaign, from the primaries on.

So far as I can tell, the word “executive” in this context refers to political or military executive leadership, not to business leadership, which requires a vastly different skill set.

[LonghornDave]

@ShibbOleth

It’s her revisionist history.

Obviously, the merger and her ouster are still controversial. However, as more time has passed, the merger looks to be a net positive.

Link

@WSJ

Few deals stirred as much controversy as the union between Hewlett-Packard and Compaq. Michael Dell once called it “the dumbest deal of the decade.” Yet almost six years on — a period that included a proxy battle with the son of one of the founders, a steady loss of shareholder value for the first year after the merger and the ouster of the first CEO, Carly Fiorina — the deal has turned into a success.

Shares of H-P have nearly tripled since 2004 and the company has surpassed Dell Inc. to become the world’s largest PC maker in terms of units sold.

[Acsenray]

@LonghornDave

what she is saying makes a lot of sense. Of course McCain and Palin aren’t qualified to be CEO of HP. They, like most politicians, aren’t qualified for all sorts of jobs. They wouldn’t make very good doctors, football coaches, chefs, roustabouts, or lots of things. They are trying to make the case that they are qualified for President and Vice President. It takes a very different skill set.

And here I’ve been bathed in conservative propaganda for the last 30 years or so that government should be run more like business and it takes an experienced businessman to run the government properly.

That’s the irony here.

[Bricker]

@acsenray

And here I’ve been bathed in conservative propaganda for the last 30 years or so that government should be run more like business and it takes an experienced businessman to run the government properly.

That’s the irony here.

I think you’re conflating two claims. Yes, the government should be run more like a business, but no, it’s a different skill set to run the government than it is to run a business.

[Acsenray]

@Bricker

I think you’re conflating two claims. Yes, the government should be run more like a business, but no, it’s a different skill set to run the government than it is to run a business.

1/ This makes no sense – if government should be run like a business then running government and running a business should have like skill sets

2/ Then why have all these candidates been including “business experience” as part of their qualifications for public office? Just to be fair, I’ll note that Mark Warner is apparently one of the more recent, but this line has been much more favored by the right.

[BrainGlutton]

How many POTUSes have we had, who were qualified to run a corporation? GWB failed at it (running a corporation, that is) and he has a Harvard MBA. The presidency is a job for a lawyer (or, better still, an economist, but that’s wishing for a pony), not a bizexec.

[magellan01]

@Happy_Lendervedder

Anything to add, or were you just stopping by to clear your bowels?

What? I expressed both glee and thanks. That’s not enough. Oh, okay, here you go: I hear that Barack Obama doesn’t know how to fly a fighter jet and John McCain does. Therefore, you must vote for John McCain, Then again, as far as I know, I don’t think either of them could perform brain surgery.

Let’s hope Biden or Palin have that skill, Otherwise we’re doomed. DOOMED, I tell ya.

[LonghornDave]

@acsenray

Then why have all these candidates been including “business experience” as part of their qualifications for public office? Just to be fair, I’ll note that Mark Warner is apparently one of the more recent, but this line has been much more favored by the right.

Business experience may make someone more qualified for political positions but having a political position does not make someone qualified to run a business.

[glee]

@LonghornDave

They, like most politicians, aren’t qualified for all sorts of jobs. They wouldn’t make very good doctors, football coaches, chefs, roustabouts, or lots of things. They are trying to make the case that they are qualified for President and Vice President. It takes a very different skill set.

It’s interesting that politicians have no training or qualifications.

One might say that the main skill set for President is:

• come across on TV
• able to raise huge sums of money

The VP needs:

• look good on TV
• come from a different State to the President
• be nasty about the opposing candidate

[Voyager]

@LonghornDave

Obviously, the merger and her ouster are still controversial. However, as more time has passed, the merger looks to be a net positive.

Link

Which just goes to show the NCR guy was able to turn around the mess she left. CEOs don’t get fired for missing one quarter. She thoroughly pissed off the board. Plus, I know lots of former HPers, many who went to Agilent, and they universally hate her guts.

[Bricker]

@acsenray

1/ This makes no sense – if government should be run like a business then running government and running a business should have like skill sets

2/ Then why have all these candidates been including “business experience” as part of their qualifications for public office? Just to be fair, I’ll note that Mark Warner is apparently one of the more recent, but this line has been much more favored by the right.

(1) Business should serve as a useful model for some government functions. But just because a home plumbing system may serve as a useful model for a municipal sewer system, we do not assign the job of designing a sewer system to the Roto-Rooter Man. Business doesn’t involve the level of political calculation and support that politics does.

(2) When a candidate claims “business experience,” I take it to mean he’s saying that because he’s been in business, he has some understanding of the concerns facing business owners and workers. That’s useful, but it’s not a necessary skill set.