Carly Fiorina: McCain/Palin couldn't run a corporation

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around Carly Fiorina's comments regarding John McCain and Sarah Palin's qualifications to run a corporation, following her controversial statements during a radio interview. Participants explore the implications of her remarks in the context of political qualifications versus corporate leadership, as well as the broader political landscape during the 2008 election.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note Fiorina's assertion that neither McCain nor Palin could run a major corporation, suggesting a disconnect between corporate leadership and political roles.
  • Others express skepticism about Fiorina's political acumen, questioning her current standing in the corporate world and the implications of her statements for her reputation.
  • A few participants argue that the political mistake made by Fiorina highlights a broader issue where Republicans may prefer a CEO-like figure rather than a traditional politician.
  • Some contributions reflect on the nature of political campaigns, suggesting that emotional reactions often overshadow substantive analysis of candidates' statements.
  • There are comments about Joe Lieberman, with participants expressing doubts about his allegiance and questioning his political motivations, which diverges from the main focus on Fiorina.
  • Several participants remark on the lack of accountability for corporate leaders, drawing parallels between corporate failures and political leadership.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; instead, multiple competing views are presented regarding the implications of Fiorina's comments and the nature of political versus corporate leadership.

Contextual Notes

There is a lack of detailed analysis regarding the specific political ramifications of Fiorina's statements, and participants express varying degrees of skepticism about the qualifications of political candidates based on their corporate backgrounds.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in political discourse, the intersection of corporate leadership and politics, and the implications of public statements made by political figures may find this discussion relevant.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
...asked by a St. Louis radio station today whether she thought McCain's running mate Sarah Palin could run a big company like her, Fiorina flubbed her answer.

"No, I don't," Fiorina replied. "But that's not what she's running for. Running a corporation is a different set of things."

Later on MSNBC, she tried to explain herself, but managed to make things worse. "I don't think John McCain could run a major corporation," she said.continued]
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/09/fiorina_flubs_r.html

Which would be worse: To let her go or to keep her? Either way, this was a very bad day for McCain and I suspect that we won't be seeing much more of Fiorina.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe McPalin will toss focus back to Wright?
 
Ivan Seeking said:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/09/fiorina_flubs_r.html

Which would be worse: To let her go or to keep her? Either way, this was a very bad day for McCain and I suspect that we won't be seeing much more of Fiorina.

All I can note is that Carly is knowledgeable about not being able to run a corporation.

What corporation is Carly running now?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wow, I hope she is hiding in a basement closet right now, horrible mistake lol
 
Ivan Seeking said:
Which would be worse:
Worse would be Joe Lieberman IMHO.

I believe that a president and vice president should have their undivided allegiance to the United States and be fully committed to serve its interests above the interests of all other nations.

I have my doubts in this respect about Joe Lieberman, I think he would have no qualms to bring physical or economic harm or even destruction to the USA if it would help Israel.
 
Poor Carly, after being shamefully ousted from HP after almost destroying it, she turns up with McCain. The poor woman has nowhere left to go.
 
Evo said:
Poor Carly, after being shamefully ousted from HP after almost destroying it, she turns up with McCain. The poor woman has nowhere left to go.

Maybe Nader needs help. The poor guy is having conversations with his parrot. :smile:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=256843
 
Last edited:
MeJennifer said:
Worse would be Joe Lieberman IMHO.

I believe that a president and vice president should have their undivided allegiance to the United States and be fully committed to serve its interests above the interests of all other nations.

I have my doubts in this respect about Joe Lieberman, I think he would have no qualms to bring physical or economic harm or even destruction to the USA if it would help Israel.

Lieberman and allegiance after his Republican convention performance apparently aren't on speaking terms.

Forget his loyalty to Israel. I no longer know what the man believes in other than his own self interest.
 
Lieberman who? Is that a cartoon character?
 
  • #10
I think it is noteworthy that Fiorina made a huge mistake politically, but she clearly meant what she said. I wonder how this is going to play in the corporate world.
 
  • #11
Ivan Seeking said:
I think it is noteworthy that Fiorina made a huge mistake politically, but she clearly meant what she said. I wonder how this is going to play in the corporate world.

It's not like corporate America is clamoring for the services of the overpriced Fiorina.
 
  • #12
LowlyPion said:
It's not like corporate America is clamoring for the services of the overpriced Fiorina.

I have no idea what her reputation is in the corporate world. These CEOs seem to escape accountablity for their failures. In fact they usually receive huge rewards for them. But what strikes me most is that many Republicans essentially want a CEO, not a President. In fact Bush has been call America's CEO. Given this mentality, how does it spin when one of their own, and a person close to McCain, declares him to to be unqualified?

She can say all she wants about Obama, but she doesn't even know him.
 
  • #13
Though there is precious little actual analysis of the incident in this thread, this makes a decent jumping-off point:
Ivan Seeking said:
I think it is noteworthy that Fiorina made a huge mistake politically, but she clearly meant what she said.
There are several basic points to be gleaned from the incident:

1. She meant what she said.
2. She made a political mistake.
3. By making the political mistake, she proved the corollary to her statement (CEOs don't necessarily make good politicians).
4. She's probably right!

Did you hear her snicker when she answered the first time? The implied answer is 'Heh - yeah, right :rolleyes: Of course not!' But politicians can't say things like that because people react to the delivery without actually examining the statement.

So while politically it is a mistake, I wish people in the media, the general public, and even in politics forums on otherwise scholarly sites could actually examine and take in such statements. I'm not naive enough to believe it possible, but this is the reason that political campaigns are reduced to mere marketing campaigns. There is no room for depth when people are driven by knee-jerk emotional reaction.
But what strikes me most is that many Republicans essentially want a CEO, not a President. In fact Bush has been call America's CEO.
That's a label Democrats use to ridicule him, not a Republican position. Nevertheless, he is an MBA and some people value that. Cynically, I'd say that the primary function of Presidents and today's stereotypical CEO's are identical (keeping their numbers up as long as they can, until they escape), but to me that makes it a bad idea to have someone who thinks like a CEO in such offices. What you really want is the founder-owner type. The type who treats his company like his baby/family and takes a personal interest in its success.

The thing about the Presidency is that no one is ever really qualified for it. There is far too much to know. That's what makes appointing good advisers and listening to them so important. And that irked me about the last two presidents: Clinton picked like-minded sycophants. Bush picked high profile experts - and then ignored them.
 
  • #14
Ivan Seeking said:
She can say all she wants about Obama, but she doesn't even know him.
Nor do I, nor do you - but we all do. That's politics.
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
News Was Sarah Palin the Right Choice for McCain's VP?
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
11K
News Will Sarah Palin's political career be limited to Alaska?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
News Palin pick an insult to our intelligence
  • · Replies 1K ·
34
Replies
1K
Views
97K
News Was the 2008 election a repudiation of Bush and the Republican Party?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K