She left AT&T and Lucent after running the stock price up with questionable numbers and left with her huge golden parachute. She then was hired by HP and went on to run HP into the ground before shareholders demanded she be fired.
HP workers booed her at company meetings. The company electronic bulletin board was shut down after employees used this forum to attack Fiorina.

Maybe this is why she wants the internet regulated.

I urge anyone that thinks she would be a good candidate to read what the insiders at HP and Lucent thought of her. Here are some quotes:
Board chairs Fiorina and Dunn authorized investigations that resulted in criminal activity.Fiorina acted as an ethically neutral leader who gained a reputation for being self-centered. She was perceived as lacking compassion, integrity, and humility.HP had a set of values and principles that allowed it to prosper over six decades of technological change. The company lost the trust of its employees, investors, and the public by setting these ethical standards aside. The story of Carly Fiorina is a cautionary tale, revealing ethical shortcomings

What is the RNC thinking?

She would do the same thing to taxpayers that she did to two fortune 500 companies, loot them of millions while living high on the hog.

Why, for instance, is there no protection of women and children on the Internet, when there is plenty in real life. She said this duality — where anything goes on the wild wild west of the Internet — would have to end.

How to protect children on the Internet = how to protect them from TV. Teach them discernment and good judgment of right and wrong, and turn off the computer if they find something they shouldn’t see.

As for protecting “women”–women are adults, and should know to log off if someone threatens them over the Internet. To my knowledge, a computer monitor has never attacked a woman. People can get into trouble with risky behavior and giving out information to strangers they can’t trust, but is that the fault of the Internet, or of people trusting strangers?

Fiorina doesn’t make sense here. If she was still CEO of Hewlett-Packard, wouldn’t government regulation of the Internet be bad for business?

I’ve written on here a number of times that everyone should read Wayne Allen Root’s “Conscience of a Libertarian” based on true conservative Barry Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative”. Wayne’s plan for term limits and higher pay to prevent corruption are right on the mark. I wish his message of conservatism was being promoted by someone.ANYONE….His collaboration with the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation has come up with a REAL conservative vision for America, one the Founding Fathers would be proud of, instead of the reelection game played by both parties now. One can only hope….

Period.

Dave R. on October 21, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Republicans may be doomed, but we are not. It’s time they pay attention and understand the reality of conservatism. Will we pay for it? Probably, but it will be better in the long run. They are trying to be all things for all people. We need another Reagan. “My way or the highway, this is how it’s going to be, this is America and don’t you ever forget it” kind of stuff. We’ll win some.

It starts locally. I’m meeting with the JP candidates, then County Commish, then Mayor. We have a big election in TX next year, hopefully one of them will be a true conservative. We’ll find out soon enough. I’m sending money to conservatives in other states to support their efforts. It will take time but it will be SO worth it in the end.

I attended a policy meeting this past weekend. They urged us to look 10 – 15 years into the future. We must concentrate on that time frame. YES, let’s make changes as we can now, but let’s keep our eyes on the prize and on the future.

The ‘Jacka** in charge’ cannot kill our collective spirit. THAT is what we hang on to.

Yellowdog12 on October 21, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Excellent.

For those that think they can change the GOP then you need to become a Precinct Committeeman. Here’s a site with the details. They are the ones that have the real power at the local level. Even if you can’t change the leadership from within it still sends a strong message that people have had enough and that a third party threat is real.

http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com/

she said it was inevitable that there would be more regulation of it.

No,, it’s not inevitable. What is inevitable is that big government types like this woman will continue to try and expand their controls over every aspect of our lives as much as possible!!
What woman and children need is protection from people like this woman!! Communism and Fascism has killed far more women and children throughout our history than has free speech!!
The internet threatens only those who want to control the message. That is the problem. And it is not inevitable that free speech will be regulated. They hope by repeating this line they will implant the “inevitable” message in people’s minds.
The only inevitable message that needs to be pushed is that the days of power are numbered for people who want to continue to shred the freedoms our constitution protects!

Ron Paul’s presidential campaign would have been impossible without it.

Spathi on October 22, 2009 at 5:45 AM

Ditto for Palin’s influence. Even after she quit, the lady wields a tremendous amount of power. No Facebook, no blogs, etc…she would have faded into semi-obscurity.

The communication enabled by the ‘net is the final hope for a candidate who isn’t a rubber-stamped RINO/DINO. Take that away and peaceful change becomes completely impossible, given how screwed up the USA has become. Not even TV and radio together could replace it’s influence, and that assumes one has the money to get enough face/voice time!

Ron Paul’s presidential campaign would have been impossible without it.

EconomicPirate on October 22, 2009 at 1:15 AM

I don’t feel your pain but I share it. Corporate and political elites fear and loathe the free Internet. Who knows what its evil tentacles might dredge up about affirmatively-actioned corporate-slime politician wannabes?

Corporate giantism, with its concentrations of economic power, can be as abusive as Big Government, in its narrow economic specialties. The two feed on each other at our expense. Too often, the goal isn’t to compete, but to stifle competition by lobbying, lawsuits, and dirty tricks. I read about Canada’s problem of a telecom giant throttling the traffic of small ISPs.

One answer to society’s political division is for ordinary citizens of both parties to separate the ideas of capitalism and free markets from oppressive corporatism — with its multiple disconnects of distant decisions, bureaucracy, financially unaccountable elites, support of anti-free market causes, and disparate impacts on individual communities. Leftists use these things to make people hate capitalism while conservatives make corporations a synonym for the “free market.” Very few conservative talkers attempt the subtle argument, but it solved some questions for me about things that don’t pass the smell test. When we regain representative government, limits need to be set along the lines of traditional morals, ethics, and competition.

Corporations do many good things for society, but it’s especially dangerous for conservatives to ignore the shadow side of these things.

Fiorina criticized Boxer for successfully sponsoring only three relatively insignificant bills in her 18 years in the Senate.

No wonder Fiorina almost ran H-P into the ground.
She doesn’t know the difference between a bug and feature.

Fact of the matter is that local governments have already created local monopolies with regards to ISPs. Now that in itself is understandable as the logistics of having many different companies all lay down the same infrastructure to provide the same service is akin to building 5 roads over each other.

If you are going to create these monopolies, a policy that is obviously not very “free market,” how do you expect to maintain what there would be if there were a free market? The only option is regulation. It sucks, but if you are going to have a non-free market industry it needs to live up to free market standards. If not then you run into the issue of rampant monopolies doing what they want with no option of any competition to bring them down to earth.

Simply: there is no competition. With this type of service competition wont work. Therefore, what we have now is a system where we have created monopolies and strive to keep the market as close to what a free market would be. It sucks, it is very anti free market, but it is the best that we have.

So why does net-neutrality matter? Lets say my local ISP is sponsored by the Huffington Post. In return my local ISP re-routs all political news blogs to the Huffington Post. Bye bye Hot Air. What are my free market options? Switch ISPs? Nope, no freaking competition. Even if I have the option between cable and DSL, they all will have their own little deals, and they are two distinctly different services, each with its own additional (understandable) service charges to set up a new connection.

So what am I to do? Move? The “free market” really dictates that in order to have competition I need to move? That is what you think the free market is?

How about the major conflict of interest these ISPs have now that they wish to not only be ISPs but content providers as well? With net-neutrality you have content choice. Without it you are unable to access HULU because comcast wants to push their own video on demand service.
http://www.comcast.net/tv/on-demand/

This whole thing is a major mess, but it is a mess that we created. If we wont have free market competition, and let me stress that we DO NOT, then it is ridiculous to say that the free market will fix what the free market would have fixed if there was an actual free market.

This whole thing IS a slippery slope, and what I wish would happen would be that the FCC JUST release information so that consumers are aware of what is actually going on as it is their local governments that set up these monopolies and is fully within their sovereign right to regulate their infrastructure and cities and not the right of the Federal government, but that is just wishful thinking.

People dont care about law and government until it actually affects them. So we will have these monopolies that the people unwittingly set up start to change their service in a manner that they do not like, and only then will people actually care to do something. I dont know, maybe that is how it should be. I just wish people cared about it now.

But in the meantime I must go against my ideal for of liberty and governance and support this regulation. I think this is the only way to avoid what will be a very bad period in which service will be cut with no competition or choice to save us. The worst part about this is that I sound exactly like a “the public is stupid and must be controlled” liberal and it sickens me. Talk about a slippery slope…

They have to control it…

Between this and NY 23, I just don’t know what to say.