United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Carly Fiorina camp goes to war with the RNC
Source:
Politico
URL Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/ ... nc-main-debate-cnn-121757.html
Published: Aug 26, 2015
Author: Steven Shepard
Post Date: 2015-08-27 12:56:44 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 5224
Comments: 55
Carly Fiorina camp goes to war with the RNC The Republican businesswoman is crying foul over possibly being left off the next main debate stage. The RNC’s response — tough luck. By Steven Shepard 8/26/15 8:38 AM EDT Updated 8/26/15 10:41 PM EDT The first GOP presidential candidate to go to war publicly with the Republican National Committee is not Donald Trump. It’s Carly Fiorina. Faced with the very real possibility that she will again be relegated to a lower-tier debate, Fiorina’s campaign is going after the RNC and the news organization the committee picked to host the next debate, CNN. What has ensued is a tense back-and-forth, with Fiorina’s camp charging that the RNC should be doing more to ensure that the debate stage represents the true top 10 candidates, and the RNC saying tough luck, the rules are set. Fiorina, the only female candidate in the GOP field, has surged in the polls since a widely praised performance in the “happy hour” debate earlier this month. But she has a problem: There haven’t been enough polls to catapult Fiorina from 14th place, where she stood going into that debate, into the top 10 ranking for CNN’s Sept. 16 debate. That’s because CNN — unlike Fox News, which used only the final five polls released before its debate — outlined criteria this spring in which it said it would average the results of polls released between July 16 and Sept. 10. And of the 10 polls that currently qualify for inclusion in CNN’s average, eight were conducted before the first debate. The Fiorina campaign’s solution? Since CNN has already said it will use all the polls, it should weight down the older surveys and weight up the post-debate polls — and the RNC should make sure that happens. “The RNC should ask CNN to treat the polling in July the same as the polling that comes after,” said Sarah Isgur Flores, Fiorina’s deputy campaign manager, in a Medium post. “Because there were nine polls released in the three weeks before the last debate, one would expect 18 polls released in the six weeks between the two debates. If that does not happen, the polling average of those six weeks should be treated as the equivalent of 18 polls. Assuming the numbers remain consistent with current polling, Carly would easily place in the top 10 for the main debate.” [snip]
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-15) not displayed.
.
.
.
#16. To: misterwhite (#11)
2) Laws are written according to the will of the people, not the will of the politicians. 3) Writing new rules in mid-stream which favor the rule-writer is not lawmaking. It's cheating. (1) Laws - things that have the force of law - have always been created by courts - that is what the Common Law is. Statutory law is written by Congress. Regulatory law is written by the Executive branch. It's all law. (2) Laws always have been, and always will be, nothing more than the opinions of the legislator. In America, the people choose the legislators, but the legislators legislate according to their own opinions. If the people don't like what they've done, they can replace them in the next election. Other than in ballot initiatives at the state level, the people never write laws directly, and the laws are only "by their will" through a very attenuated pretense. (3) All changes to all rules is always mid-stream.
Fiorina will come after him, and Trump will fire that at her on national television, prime time. It will be great.
I thought that was Trump's schtick. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much I thought that was Trump's schtick. Yeah, it is Trump's schtick. Except he has an actual track record FOR doing things and calling out Jorge Ramos, Megyn Kelly, Jeb Bush, and the GOPe. Fiorina? Not so much. She's a pathetic loser who was an AA CEO who got fired. During this go-around she tried to piggy-back Trump thunder by played the "I support Megyn Cheap-Shot Kelly." And NOW she's whining...."Waaaah.....I'm a girl! Yo won't let me play with with the boys!!" So tell me -- what's Fiorina's schtick again, and who do you support??
Name ONE politician that isn't. Again -- when you can back it up (like Trump), you CAN self-promote. Politics is the art of selling yourself. No kidding. ALL sales is an art -- be it politics or real estate or product or vision. By definition one self-promotes ideas, conviction, strength, and credibility to get things done.
Not as much as if they picked MSNBC.
I don't believe the candidates had a say in the matter to agree or not. Weren't the rules changed for the first debate, or was that the first two debates. It was originally slated to include only the top 10. Shortly before the event, they decided to include all the excluded candidates in an event a few hours earlier dubbed the "happy hour" or "kiddie" debate. If the party and CNN wanted to make the change, I doubt the FEC would stand in their way. From the Politico article: “To be clear, if Carly isn’t on the main stage, it will not be because her rise in the polls can’t overcome lower polling from July, but because only two of CNN’s chosen polling companies have released polls at all since the first debate,” she wrote. “If the RNC won’t tell CNN to treat post-debate polling consistently with pre-debate polling, they are putting their thumb on the scale and choosing to favor candidates with higher polling for three weeks in July over candidates with measurable momentum in August and September.” It's hardball party politics. The GOPe turds cannot rise to the top on their own, so the party is doing its best to flush away the unwanted turds. So far, Trump is too big to flush.
Precisely. Now get ready for the local experts to tell you it ain't so.
“Look, you have a woman who got fired from her job. And I mean fired viciously. She got fired viciously. She then went out and lost in a landslide when she ran in California for the Senate (to Barbara Boxer in 2010). And I mean, she lost in a landslide. She got clobbered. And now she’s running for president. Now, I’m all for it. I think she’s a very nice woman. But she got fired. And, she lost in a landslide. Does that qualify you to run for president?” The response to the criticism of Fiorina as HP CEO came by way of a full page ad in the NYT today, by Tom Perkins, a member of the HP Board of Directors back then. https://carlyforamerica.com/blog/icymi-former-hp-board-member-tom-perkins-the-truth-about-carly/ New York Times By Tom Perkins RESPONSE TO: Andrew Ross Sorkin August 17, 2015 “Carly Fiorina’s Business Record: Not So Sterling” The consensus is clear: Carly Fiorina won the first Republican Primary debate. As a result she is climbing the polls and into the top tier of candidates. Her rise has led pundits to speculate about her tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard. I was a member of the HP Board of Directors much of the time Carly was the CEO. I was in the room for many of the decisions she made. I can attest to the strength of Carly’s leadership, the accuracy of her vision and the quality of her management. Carly was an excellent CEO. She led HP through one of the worst economic times in decades. Less than two years into Carly’s leadership, the dot com bubble went bust. Silicon Valley was in chaos. Companies were shedding jobs almost daily. There were so many layoffs The Associated Press ran weekly announcements regarding layoffs at tech companies. And The San Francisco Chronicle declared 2001 “The Year of the Layoff.” While other Silicon Valley icons like Sun Microsystems disappeared, Carly’s vision and execution not only helped to save HP but made it a strong, more versatile company that could compete in the changing technology sector. I was on the Compaq Board during the HP-Compaq merger and remained a member of the new HP Board once the merger was complete. Both companies knew that we needed something dramatic to inject life back into our companies. The merger, while controversial, was unanimously approved by every member of the HP Board and won approval from shareholders. Thanks to Carly’s leadership there was a path forward for this storied but troubled company. Critics questioned the move, but history proves Carly was right. Post merger, HP became the biggest computer company in the world. It positioned HP to compete in integrated systems and allowed us to compete in sectors beyond the core strength of the company, printers. Carly was hired at HP because it was struggling. Revenues were down, quarterly earnings were missed, innovation lagged and growth stagnated. HP, once the leader in Silicon Valley, was clinging to the status quo and failing to embrace the new tech era. Silicon Valley companies were prospering by taking advantage of the new technologies; HP was stubbornly clinging to the past. HP needed a change agent and someone who could return the company to its glory days. Carly was the right choice. The results of Carly’s transformational leadership? HP revenues doubled to more than $80 billion, innovation tripled to 15 patents per day, the growth rate more than quadrupled 6.5 percent and we grew to become the 11th largest company in the country. Carly did what she was brought in to do: turn the company around make it successful again. Not only did she save the company from the dire straits it was in, she laid the foundation for HP’s future growth. Critics often claim was fired at HP because she was unsuccessful. As a member of the board, I can tell you this is not true. In truth, it was the Board I was a part of that was ineffective and dysfunctional. The HP board of directors included family members of the founders. Carly worked with the hand she was dealt as best as one could. While Carly fought to save the company and the employees within, some board members fought for their own power or advancement. You see, some board members wanted to micro-manage the company, hand picking friends and allies to run divisions. This is no way to run a global company and Carly had the strength of character and courage of conviction to stand up to it and ultimately she lost her job because of it. While lesser leaders would have accepted offers of transition plans and graceful resignations, Carly would have none of that. Carly demanded to be fired. In order to restore peace to the board I voted to fire her. That was a mistake. In the months and years after Carly left, the Board of Directors remained dysfunctional. The Board members who plotted Carly’s ouster eventually resigned after an embarrassing investigation by Congress. I have no question that Carly is a transformational leader who uniquely has both vision and the expertise to implement it. We are in the middle of a heated election, and often facts and the truth get lost in the heat of partisan rhetoric. As someone who worked with and observed Carly first hand I can attest to her abilities, intellect and talent. I am proud to support Carly Fiorina for President of the United States. Tom Perkins Tom Perkins is the founder of the California venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.
They will take hours of free airtime on any network.
It would be amusing to know who paid for the article, him or her?? They will take hours of free airtime on any network. Not even close. Any network would offer them free air time in order to get the viewership for higher ad rates. I wouldn't even be surprised if networks were willing to pay THEM to hold their debates on their network. They can write it off their required public service time,also. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Only if Trump is there. Early primary debates have never drawn an audience before. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is a private 501(C)(3) corporationn, not a government entity, and was created jointly by the Dems and GOP when they conspired to wrest control of the debates from the League of Women Voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates The CPD sponsors and produces debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and undertakes research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988. The Commission is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf, a former head of the Republican National Committee, and former White House press secretary Michael D. McCurry. As of 2014, the Board of directors consists of Howard Graham Buffett, John C. Danforth, Charles Gibson, John Griffen, Antonia Hernandez, John I. Jenkins, Newton N. Minow, Leon Panetta, Richard D. Parsons, Dorothy Ridings, Alan K. Simpson, Olympia Snowe, and Shirley M. Tilghman. [...] In 1988, the League of Women Voters withdrew its sponsorship of the presidential debates after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly agreed to a "memorandum of understanding" that would decide which candidates could participate in the debates, which individuals would be panelists (and therefore able to ask questions), and the height of the podiums. The League rejected the demands and released a statement saying that they were withdrawing support for the debates because "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." Christopher Hitchens speaking at a September, 2000 third party protest at the Commission's headquarters. At a 1987 press conference announcing the commission's creation, Fahrenkopf said that the commission was not likely to include third-party candidates in debates, and Paul G. Kirk, Democratic national chairman, said he personally believed they should be excluded from the debates.
Carly is strictly GOPe. She just wants in on the real money. She is a globalist fraud.
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Beware of Carly, the GOPe stealth candidate.
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
I believe if you agree to participate, you agree to the rules. No? But in today's society, who knows? There are many stories of people who participate in our society, violate the rules, then complain afterwards that the rules were unfair or stupid. Perhaps if they complained before they violated the rules they'd have more credibility. Of course, that's what's wrong with society today. Individuals think the rules are for other people, not them. Apparently, Carly Fiorina is one of them. "Weren't the rules changed for the first debate?" No. But they did add a completely separate debate for the lower tier candidates. This gave her an opportunity for airtime (that she could have refused) that she wouldn't have had otherwise.
Now get ready for the local experts to tell you it ain't so. Courts don't create laws. The leislature does.
Nope. Common Law is simply stare decisis -- a court decision made on case law or precedent. Our courts do not write new laws. That said, a judge can certainly reinterpret statutory law or existing common law (eg., the Kelo decision), but that is usually looked upon negatively as judicial activism. "Regulatory law is written by the Executive branch." Executive orders are limited to the implementation and enforcement of statutory laws written by Congress.
And then you get in, and once you're in, if the rules are bad, you go right after them and try to change them. Prussians worship rules. They set out battle plans and adhere rigidly to them, permitting no deviation. Occasionally, they win. More often, they declare war on Russia, and then invade France because "that's the battle plan - those are the rules" and they cannot be changed. And so Prussians lose. Today, the land that was called "Prussia" once is today called "Poland" and "Russia". Those Prussians sure stuck by their rules. They made a fetish out of worshipping the laws they made, and insisting on their strict implementation. And they were smashed to pieces and lost all of their land. In life, the only absolute rules are the ones that God made - the physical ones (you can't breathe water), and the moral ones (don't kill people). Human rules are made for a time, to address a situation. When they don't work, you change them if you can, but if the rules are ossified and the people supporting them are Prussians, then you break the rules and rely on differentials of power to be able to make your breaking of the rules stick. The rules in this case don't make sense. Fiorina is interesting. The other candidates are not. So her stink about them will result in a change of the rules so that she gets on the main debate panel versus Trump. If Pataki were complaining about the rules, nobody would be changing them for him, because he is neither interesting enough, nor has seen enough surge in popularity, to be able to persuade anybody to change the rules for him. They'll change the rules for Fiorina, and that's fine. We don't live in Prussia. Nobody does. Prussia is gone. It was a bad idea to begin with, and its rigid adherence to arbitrary rules was a complete failure. We've never been Prussians, and we're not going to turn into them. Rules are opinions. They can change. They can be forced. They can sometimes be broken. They're guidelines only.
All of our original law came from Common Law. It was codified later by statutes that sometimes changed it. The equitable power of courts makes the law for the case, and makes the law for the lower courts. How the courts rule determines what the law actually is. The Supreme Court made the current abortion law of America. Legislatures and Executives have no power to override the Supreme Court's imposition of abortion law. They have tried, and the Supreme Court has struck them down and cleared off their competing law every time. Law doesn't work according to the simplistic lines in civics books. It's more complicated than that.
Most law is in the form of regulation, which determines how the general statutes of Congress and legislatures actually are applied. The Executive branch writes the regulations.
Abortion on demand is the law of the land. It struck down statutes passed by legislatures. Courts have always created laws. They don't create statutes. Judicial opinions are not statutes, but they are laws. Regulations are not statutes, but they are laws. If Sam and Bill want to get married, and want the New Church Bakery to make their cake for them, the local officials will marry them, and the bakery will bake the cake, even though legislatures passed statutes that say no no no, and even though state constitutions were amended by the people to say no no no. Because the Supreme Court makes the Supreme Law of the land by interpreting the Constitution. Courts make laws.
Just the opposite. They told legislators across the country that writing laws banning abortion violated a woman's right to privacy protected by the U.S. Constitution. This is the judicial activism I was referring to.
They struck down individual statutes and executive decisions, and imposed their own decision. That's lawmaking. If one wishes to call it something else, one can hide what it is under fake labels. I call a spade a spade.
Courts overturn laws which violate the constitution, and issue a ruling to that effect. There is no new law, written by the courts, which take the place of an overturned law.
If Sam and Bill come to me to get married. They will end up blood from their heads.
Abortion on demand until the second trimester was never passed as legislation. The Supreme Court overturned the laws against abortion, wrote a one-trimester law, and then overturned laws that sought to reduce or change the law they wrote. Congress wrote a law about state health care exchanges and tax subsidies. The Supreme Court changed the law to be what they thought it ought to be.
The American Constitution lends itself to an activist Supreme Court, and the American system is structured around that. Judges make laws here.
Then you'll end up in prison for assault, with a long term due to "hate crime" legislation, which was (admittedly) passed by legislatures, and approved and enforced by courts.
And blood from their wherever.
Putting a bullet in a couple of fags pestering me to marry them would be self defense. Who says they would find the bodies?
No, Vicomte13 was precisely correct. Also, the Constitution is law made by the people, not the legislature. The amount of regulatory or administrative law far exceeds what the legislature pumps out.
Who says they would find the bodies? Murder is not the way.
No one would want to marry you tardo.
Murder is not the way. I'm not a pastor. So no need to worry. I should't say stuff like that someone like Fred Mertz might take me seriously.
So is an old time vaudeville comedy routine. Either one of them is as relevant to the presidency as the other.
The U.S. Constitution created three co-equal branches of government. It wasn't until 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, that the U.S. Supreme Court assigned itself sole responsibility for interpreting the constitution.
1803 is a long, long time ago.
Yes it was. But where were we? Oh, yeah. My point was that the U.S. Constitution did not lend itself to an activist Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court lent itself to an activist Supreme Court. It gave itself the sole power to interpret the constitution and has the last word on the matter.
That's true. The Constitution as written has nothing about activist Supreme Courts or Presidents able to send forces into combat without a Declaration of War, or Congress being able to delegate its powers to the Executive branch, or any of the other structural aspects of our system. And if government were operated on a Sola Scriptura basis, the fact that the Constitution says or doesn't say something would really be the final word. But our system isn't Sola Scriptura, so the fact that the Constitution doesn't permit those things doesn't really matter. It doesn't explicitly prohibit them either, and they are our system, so we're stuck with them.
1) Laws are written by Congress. She's running for President.
#17. To: misterwhite (#12)
“Look, you have a woman who got fired from her job. And I mean fired viciously. She got fired viciously. She then went out and lost in a landslide when she ran in California for the Senate (to Barbara Boxer in 2010). And I mean, she lost in a landslide. She got clobbered. And now she’s running for president. Now, I’m all for it. I think she’s a very nice woman. But she got fired. And, she lost in a landslide. Does that qualify you to run for president?”
#18. To: Liberator (#1)
Fiorina is clearly all about self-promotion.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#19. To: Deckard (#18)
("Fiorina is clearly all about self-promotion.")
#20. To: sneakypete (#14)
(Edited)
(Fiorina is clearly all about self-promotion.)
#21. To: sneakypete (#13)
The fact that the alleged GOP would pick CNN tells you everything you need to know about them.
#22. To: misterwhite (#5)
And she agreed. Now she wants to change the rules (though I'm sure she'd scream bloody murder if another candidate tried this).
But after determining that the final polling average could very well include more surveys conducted before the first debate than after, Isgur Flores aimed directly at the pollsters and the RNC in her Medium post.
#23. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite (#16)
(1) Laws - things that have the force of law - have always been created by courts - that is what the Common Law is. Statutory law is written by Congress. Regulatory law is written by the Executive branch. It's all law.
#24. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#12)
Earlier this year, Trump had this to say on Carly Fiorina being President:
ICYMI: TOM PERKINS, “THE TRUTH ABOUT CARLY”<
8/27/15
#25. To: sneakypete (#13)
The fact that the alleged GOP would pick CNN tells you everything you need to know about them.
#26. To: nolu chan (#24)
The response to the criticism of Fiorina as HP CEO came by way of a full page ad in the NYT today, by Tom Perkins, a member of the HP Board of Directors back then.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#27. To: nolu chan (#25)
The fact that the alleged GOP would pick CNN tells you everything you need to know about them.
#28. To: sneakypete (#27)
Any network would offer them free air time in order to get the viewership for higher ad rates.
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is a private firm. It began in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties to establish the way that presidential election debates are run between candidates for President of the United States. The Commission is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation as defined by federal US tax laws, whose debates are sponsored by private contributions from foundations and corporations.
#29. To: nolu chan (#0)
#30. To: nolu chan (#0)
#31. To: nolu chan (#22)
"I don't believe the candidates had a say in the matter to agree or not."
#32. To: nolu chan (#23)
(1) Laws - things that have the force of law - have always been created by courts - that is what the Common Law is. Statutory law is written by Congress. Regulatory law is written by the Executive branch. It's all law. Precisely.
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
(1) Laws - things that have the force of law - have always been created by courts
#34. To: misterwhite (#31)
I believe if you agree to participate, you agree to the rules. No?
#35. To: misterwhite (#33)
Nope. Common Law is simply stare decisis -- a court decision made on case law or precedent. Our courts do not write new laws.
#36. To: misterwhite (#33)
Executive orders are limited to the implementation and enforcement of statutory laws written by Congress.
#37. To: A K A Stone (#32)
Courts don't create laws. The leislature does.
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
"The Supreme Court made the current abortion law of America."
#39. To: misterwhite (#38)
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
"Courts make laws."
#41. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
If Sam and Bill want to get married
#42. To: misterwhite (#40)
There is no new law, written by the courts, which take the place of an overturned law.
#43. To: misterwhite (#38)
This is the judicial activism I was referring to.
#44. To: A K A Stone (#41)
(Edited)
If Sam and Bill come to me to get married. They will end up blood from their heads.
#45. To: A K A Stone (#41)
"They will end up blood from their heads."
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#44)
Then you'll end up in prison for assault
#47. To: A K A Stone (#32)
Courts don't create laws. The leislature does.
#48. To: A K A Stone (#46)
Putting a bullet in a couple of fags pestering me to marry them would be self defense.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#46)
Putting a bullet in a couple of fags pestering me to marry them would be self defense.
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#48)
Putting a bullet in a couple of fags pestering me to marry them would be self defense. Who says they would find the bodies?
#51. To: Vicomte13 (#34)
Fiorina is interesting.
#52. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
"The American Constitution lends itself to an activist Supreme Court, and the American system is structured around that. Judges make laws here."
#53. To: misterwhite (#52)
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
"1803 is a long, long time ago."
#55. To: misterwhite (#54)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]