Posted on 06/14/2015 4:07:47 PM PDT by tellw
Why do I think she is running a smart race?
She is transparent — she opened up her tax returns to the media for inspection. So..not just talking about transparency, but doing it…and doing it first.
She is going hard for the women’s vote — preemptively trying to get that vote from Secretary Clinton (to the extent any women or anyone votes only on gender.) She has hit feminism hard and is giving women a choice.
She is competing strong with the men. She seems like ‘one of the boys’ rather than the token woman candidate. And you know what I mean – she can hold her own.
She is out there talking about her foreign policy experience being more vast than any other candidate. To back it up, she talks about Putin and others.
She leans heavily on her experience as CEO of HP, and has used her HP firing effectively in her campaign.
She is direct — when she gets asked a question, she answers (so far, you don’t get that blather of talking points some candidates will dish out.)
(Excerpt) Read more at gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com ...
Yawn. I remember freepers beating this drum when Linda McMahon ran a second time and the media kept insisting the race was neck-and-neck after she had lost by 12 points in a GOP year the previous time around. Of course it all turned out to be BS and she got her butt handed to her on a silver platter when the actual election was held.
What we're seeing here is the mainstream media has been beating the "CARLY FOR VEEP!!!" drumbeat constantly, and a bunch of freepers are more than happy to drink that kool-aid and push this loser to the front of the line.
I don't care if she does a good job "attacking Hillary". I don't want Romney/McCain's gal a hearbeat away from the oval office, not to mention she'd get us zero electoral votes.
I think her role in this is as a “Stalking Horse” against Hillary. She can get in her head. If she moves up in the polls good for her.
I’ve got 5 picked that if they get the nomination, I’ll support, work, and vote for them, and she’s one of the five.
She reminds me of Wendell Wilkie, in that though coming directly from, business, she is a credible candidate.
I agree that the public is no party is going to choose a woman like her. The only reason which Clinton is being pushed is dynastic.
BillyBoy, if you think the Republicans have a chance of winning nationwide without a strong appeal to women, you are the one drinking the koolaid. I don’t see any comparison with Linda McMahon. Times change, people change. If we don’t change with them, we will have Hillary and another 4 year encore of Obama’s disaster.
I don’t see her winning the nomination, but if she continues to run strong, I look forward to seeing her through the campaign and make a strong impact on our politics in 2016. I like what I see of her.
Untwist, if you think we need Carly Fiorina to appeal to "women", you've been ODing on that kool-aid. I can easily think of a dozen female Republicans who are more conservative than Fiorina and would bring FAR more to the ticket than her, thanks to them actually WINNING elections in competitive states and implementing good policies in office.
>> I don’t see any comparison with Linda McMahon. <<
Go back and read the Linda McMahon threads from 2012 then. Every one of her cheerleaders claimed she had learned from her lousy 2010 campaign and was now a much more conservative "serious, clear-thinking Republican woman" who would give the Dems a run for their money in 2012 and make the seat competitive, so we needed to slate her again.
We've seen this song and dance before.
Yeah, Wendell got fired by his company when it went into the toilet, and then ran a losing Indiana U.S. Senate race before challenging FDR. Oh wait...
For a time, Reagan was rape and life of the mother. So was I. Sometimes it takes time to grow.
Incest as an exception simply makes no sense. It is either a rape/statuatory rape, or it is a consensual act between relatives of an age to know what they’re doing.
For the most part violent, brutal rape is a real issue that merits discussion. It’s not the baby’s fault, of course. But, we cannot deny that we have a seriously traumatized female in those instances.
Those murky, consensual rapes are hard to evaluate in terms of the facts, but they, too, involve an innocent child. I was watching something last week, probably on Fox, about rapes in which the victim had willingly gotten into bed naked with a person with whom the intent was sex. Even on TV, there wasn’t much sympathy, that that is a bad decision.
And there are those rapes in which there is absolutely zero evidence of rape and it involves people who have some kind of relationship.
Through all of these, the child is innocent. The one in which I have sincere sympathy is the violent rape. That’s why it’s important to drive back the point of infant viability to as early as possible. The child can be delivered as soon as possible, nurtured by the hospital, put up for adoption, and the woman can go on with her life, no doubt traumatized, but traumatized no matter what route is taken.
Better to preserve the principle of the sanctity of life. If we lose that, then the slippery slope will eventually see political opponents killed for ‘flaws in their nature’ such as happened with Jews in Nazi Germany.
The Wilkie who had an appealing public character, as opposed to Mitt Romney, for instance. With a dab of the same appeal that Ross Perot had with less eccentricity and more seriousness about actually winning office.
And rape is an act of violence for which an innocent party should not be made to pay with a life.
see #49
I like Scott Walker, and also believe he’s more conservative than Carly. However, I’m still researching them all, and am learning like the rest of us, little by little.
btw, when I clicked on an anti-life website, they had a petition to sign which was against Cruz and Santorum, which made me proud they are on my short list.
Of course, they are not perfect either, but no one is.
“....Better to preserve the principle of the sanctity of life. If we lose that, then the slippery slope will eventually see political opponents killed for ‘flaws in their nature’ such as happened with Jews in Nazi Germany.”
EXCELLENT post!
Many women who have abortions after rape end us feeling worse, because of the abortion.
I wish I could remember the name of the woman who was raped, became pregnant, had her baby, wrote a book, and asked why doesn’t anyone ask us how we feel.
P.S.
“....) Others have suggested that Reagan flip-flopped on abortion; this is also false. He advocated a health exception (for the life of the mother) which, as he explained later, was exploited to include virtually anything. (snip) Reagan learned that the exception became the rule, and he would oppose abortion of any kind from then on. ....”.
more http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222658/getting-reagan-right/mark-r-levin
This snip from the above excerpt is like what you stated in your post:
“..Reagan learned that the exception became the rule, ..”
The founding documents say "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" so it seems to me that a real constitutional conservative has to be pro life. I too think Carly is running for VP and I think she would be an excellent VP candidate. She is still on my acceptable list for the top spot. She is a very impressive lady.
Her Record at HP is that HP is still in Business.
She made the tough calls when the Bubble Burst in the Tech Business. She was lambasted, but the idea that she was not capable in her role as CEO is ridiculous.
Would she be as vilified at the time if she were a Man, perhaps, but I have my doubts.
Her mistake may have been the Compaq Merger, but like anything else, hindsight is 20 /20. That was where the major Layoffs came from, but if it didn’t happen, Compaq was toast and there would have been even more Jobs lost.
HP could have been a victim as well, then there would be no Jobs at all.
Before the flamers check in, I’m a Cruz guy, but when dealing with the die hard Hillary fanatics, you have to make the Playing Field Level, Uterus versus Uterus.
That being said, the double standards the media gives Santorum vs. Fiorina is ridiculous, and its sad to see freepers go along with it and drink the kool-aid.
Santorum had a long successful political career before losing a Senate race in a Dem state by double digits in 2006. The media treats Santorum as an embarassing joke. Fiorina had a long unsuccessful career in private sector and political agenda before losing a Senate race in a Dem state by double digits in 2010. The media treats her as a rising conservative star and top prospect for veep.
Santorum had a long track record in the conservative wing of the party, though endorsing his home state senator Specter after Bush twisted his arm, and endorsing Romney in 2012 after the only alternatives left were McCain and Huckabee (90% of freepers did likewise at the time) were poor decisions. Fiorina had a long track record in the center-right wing of the party, so endorsing RINOs and volunteering to be an adviser for the McCain & Romney campaigns were poor decisions that were not surprising coming from her. Santorum gets crucified for his last minute Romney endorsement, while Fiorina being tied to the hip of Romney & McCain gets swept under the rug because she's a "fighter".
Candidates like Trump and Fiorina are detractions from the real conservatives in the race. I hope they don't last long in the primary.
Yep. Good thing they fired her or HP would be defunct now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.