Carson, Fiorina announce 2016 presidential bids

disneydude said:

Fiorina has ZERO credentials. She has never held public office and was fired for incompetence at HP. What makes her a great candidate in your mind? Oh...wait....you don't need to answer...its obviously the (R). Carry on.

Click to expand...

Bush for the sacrificial lamb, Florina as the green mint jelly .. delicious

donsutherland1 said:

Of the two, Ms. Fiorina has executive experience albeit all of it in the private sector. Whether she can craft a case that such experience would be applicable in governance (where the responsibilities and interests involved differ from those of running a major corporation) remains to be seen. Elements such as leadership, ability to align support, work within economic constraints, etc., likely are transferable. But governance is highly complex, so she will have real challenges to overcome. That her name recognition is low also increases the magnitude of challenge facing her.

I don't believe she will wind up becoming a first-tier candidate. If she runs a capable campaign, she might increase prospects of a major Cabinet appointment were the GOP to win the Presidency. Such a position would offer her a springboard that would increase her chances of attaining an elected position i.e., in the Senate or as Governor, in the future.

Carson, who has no leadership experience is not likely to be a major factor. His rhetoric might excite part of the primary electorate, but it won't be a substitute for his lack of relevant experience. When a candidate is widely seen as not being ready to govern the nation, there's virtually no chance that such a candidate will make it through the primary process, much less be elected in November. That's Carson's problem.

Click to expand...

Fiorina has ZERO government experience, while her business experience is quite suspect. She was run out of HP because of poor performance.

The Inside Story Of Carly's Ouster - Businessweek

I am not sure why she wants her record at HP skewered, as it undoubtably will be. She is going no where, but to embarrassment. She is not a serious candidate.

humbolt said:

Damn straight. You are a primary source. You don't voice your own opinions. You just post the facts, Jack. Hillary could move up to first class if she just acted like a first class person.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you're trying to be funny, but it comes across incoherent

Like McCain after a night of jello shots.

Not as knowledgeable as most on Fiorina's record, though the bit I caught of her on one of the Sunday TV shows, she seemed pretty good (in terms of speaking and such).

Still surprised by Ben Carson's career achievement/records, being I recall him being a total nutjob.

upsideguy said:

So, are the Cons going to buy a bus to accommodate all of their clowns?

Click to expand...

While they are filling up the clown bus, I think Pat Robertson should give it one last go too. Hell, throw in Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes too.

upsideguy said:

Fiorina has ZERO government experience, while her business experience is quite suspect. She was run out of HP because of poor performance.

The Inside Story Of Carly's Ouster - Businessweek

I am not sure why she wants her record at HP skewered, as it undoubtably will be. She is going no where, but to embarrassment. She is not a serious candidate.

Click to expand...

She believes her record is a good one. Of course, as noted previously, it is fair game for the campaign. Moreover, I also don't expect her to become a serious contender for the nomination.

fmw said:

I like what Fiorina says. If I were a voter I might vote for her. She goes in third place in my Republican candidate list. But unfortunately, the party will probably offer up Bush as the nominee and the same old status quo grind will continue.

Click to expand...

She ruined HP with her management style....most women don't belong in certain jobs. The Condi Rice's and Maggie Thatcher's are far and few between.

SouthernDemocrat said:

While they are filling up the clown bus, I think Pat Robertson should give it one last go too. Hell, throw in Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes too.

Click to expand...

Alan Keyes, Fred and Dr. Carson would all make very good Presidents. But a large % of the American people, want a shyster instead who will lie to them! obummer and hillary fit the bill.

donsutherland1 said:

Three points:

First, I don’t see her becoming a first-tier candidate with a serious chance of capturing the nomination.

Second, it will be her challenge to suggest that her experience provides elements that are transferable. I gave examples of the kind of elements that would be transferable. Whether she demonstrates she possesses them is a different matter.

Clearly, her tenure at HP was controversial and relatively short-lived, so we’re not dealing with a senior executive who indisputably had a lengthy and successful tenure. But was it all bad?

Her critics will suggest that it was. She will argue otherwise, almost certainly suggesting that her ‘tough choices’ positioned it for longer-term success. Whose narrative will prevail remains to be seen.

Third, at the time she was working in senior management at Lucent, the company had largely become little more than a “go-go firm” seeking growth at virtually any risk. The company’s practices of financing purchases of its products that might otherwise not have taken place (common in manias, as one saw with the degradation of mortgage lending as the housing bubble ballooned) and its acquisitions binge could not have been farther removed from its early history as Bell Labs. It was transformed into a high risk technology company that had little resemblance to its long, successful history within AT&T as Bell Labs.

She was a senior manager, but the CEO almost certainly played a much larger role in setting and pursuing the company’s strategic direction. IMO, given its strengths and opportunities, Lucent should have become an industry leader.

The toxic practices of revenue growth maximization and dizzying acquisitions binge destroyed it, for all intents and purposes. I suspect that Lucent’s acquisitions may well have colored her overall perspective on such deals, though I haven’t read her autobiography, so I’m not fully sure of this. However, the fact remains that Ms. Fiorina was just one of the senior managers involved in running Lucent. She bears some, but not all of the responsibility for its demise. The campaign offers an opportunity for critics to vet that part of her record, as well as for her to provide a defense.

Personally, I look forward to that debate. It might make for one of the more serious campaign discussions in an environment in which campaigns are often mounted on the basis of numerous but shallow soundbites.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the well reasoned excellent rebuttal.

You are right in that Ms. Fiorina was not the CEO of Luscent, and in all fairness the telco tech-bust that started early with Lucent did cascade to the other telco & telco infrastructure providers over the next several years.

But where I do disagree is with your relatively passing assessment of her poor performance at HP. She was there I believe 6 years, and in those years HP was all-over the map in acquisitions & divestitures, and I really don't recall any positives, but many rolling disasters. She was forced out of HP mid-decade, and subsequently forced out of the industry - the latter is an extremely telling consequence. And quite honestly, if you Google lists of the top recent worst corporate CEOs, you'll find she's as likely as any to be on it - another telling sign.

But you are right, it will be interesting for her voice to be heard, though there's far more qualified & successful tech & corporate CEOs out there, in my opinion.

I cannot see myself voting for her due to her poor record (irrespective of her feasibility.

Edit: After a reread of your reply after posting, I'd like to compliment you on your insight & historical perspective of the AT&T/Bell Labs/Lucent (Murray Hill NJ) compendium, for lack of better words. Pre-divestiture BellCo/Bell Labs really was an amazing entity - the gave us the transistor for chrissakes, which made everything we do possible. What '82 started, became even wilder in '96, as can be seen by Lucent.

(I suspect you may be an analyst or investor - but no need to share if you so choose)

earthworm said:

Bush as the nominee ??
Bush the youngest as the sacrificial lamb is more like it ..

Click to expand...

Partisanship seems to be effective at closing minds.

Chomsky said:

Thank you for the well reasoned excellent rebuttal.

You are right in that Ms. Fiorina was not the CEO of Luscent, and in all fairness the telco tech-bust that started early with Lucent did cascade to the other telco & telco infrastructure providers over the next several years.

But where I do disagree is with your relatively passing assessment of her poor performance at HP. She was there I believe 6 years, and in those years HP was all-over the map in acquisitions & divestitures, and I really don't recall any positives, but many rolling disasters. She was forced out of HP mid-decade, and subsequently forced out of the industry - the latter is an extremely telling consequence. And quite honestly, if you Google lists of the top recent worst corporate CEOs, you'll find she's as likely as any to be on it - another telling sign.

But you are right, it will be interesting for her voice to be heard, though there's far more qualified & successful tech & corporate CEOs out there, in my opinion.

I cannot see myself voting for her due to her poor record (irrespective of her feasibility...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words. It should be noted that I'm viewing her entry into the race in what I hope is a reasonably objective fashion.

Personally, I believe she could have done more at HP and the company's shift toward trying to become a single source provider of a whole range of computing services undermined its long-term competitiveness. A clearer focus on imaging and closely-related technology products/services would have given it greater strategic flexibility than it wound up having from its somewhat unrelated acquisitions. However, focus can be "boring," so many companies are seduced by diversification that ultimately consumes enormous resources and takes them far away from their core competencies.

The skill sets to run these businesses were quite different from the company's core businesses and, at least in my view, the whole wound up becoming less than the sum of its parts. In fact, its current market capitalization of $62 billion remains far below its just over $100 billion figure at the end of 1999. That represents a nearly 40% loss of shareholder value. If one considers inflation, one is talking about an approximate 55% loss of shareholder value. Any way one cuts it, the company's performance from 1999-present, which includes the Fiorina era, was characterized by a large loss of shareholder value. In contrast, other technology-related companies experienced significant growth in market capitalization since that time and the overall technology sector (even excluding Apple, which skews the figures) has fared better.

While avoiding the benefits of hindsight as to what businesses were better, the empirical literature argues for building from core competencies, migrating to growth sectors (if the company seeks growth and/or its main businesses are facing maturity or decline), and retaining a lot of strategic flexibility in industries subject to rapid change. The company's acquisitions (not limited to Ms. Fiorina's purchase of Compaq) deprived it of flexibility in an industry that was dynamic and rapidly evolving. The Internet was still in a rapid growth phase. One could not have known the spin-offs that would occur over time (tablets and smartphones), but history is rich with examples demonstrating that young industries often evolve rapidly and unpredictably. The need to retain flexibility should have been a paramount consideration.

That's my personal opinion. In part, I share some of the critics' assessment, but not in areas where retrenchment would have given it greater control over its cost structure. I don't suggest that all acquisitions were bad, but do believe diversification should have been far more related to its core competencies and carried out over a slower pace to allow possible synergies to be realized. For purposes of illustration, would HP be better off as a manufacturer of tablets (acquisition of Palm) or a company whose products/services were oriented around tablets? IMO, the latter approach would be better, as the company would not have been locked into its own product in an industry it didn't quite understand (a glaring flaw in its decision) and the evolution of which was highly uncertain early on in terms of what technology, design, operating system, or company would gain dominance.

Obviously, Ms. Fiorina's narrative differs from her critics' accounts and from my own personal opinion. Her challenge is whether she can persuade others that her decisions were sound given what she knew.

donsutherland1 said:

[...] Obviously, Ms. Fiorina's narrative differs from her critics' accounts and from my own personal opinion. Her challenge is whether she can persuade others that her decisions were sound given what she knew.

Click to expand...

Just thought I'd mention: Erin Burnett interviewed Ms. Fiorina for a 6 or 8 minute segment on CNN. She did very well I thought, surprising me a bit.

I think she might bring a bit more to table than I initially thought, and she was surprisingly deft at handling problem areas (such as HP lay-offs) while still appearing reasonably sincere.