Friday, May 30, 2008

Carly Fiorina – McCain Campaign Advisor

Carly Fiorina has been active recently. The chairman of the Republican National Committee's Victory '08 is – as one lefty blogger says – “The CEO who drove Hewlett Packard into the ground? The CEO who alienated her own employees? The CEO the share-holders rode out on a rail? The same Carly Fiorina who's McSame's point woman on economic issues”. He likes the symbolism while others question her raison d’être.

Slate: Democrats frequently need business surrogates and market whisperers: rich, successful people who can reassure the CEO class that the candidate won't threaten them much and that he understands the needs of business and the markets. Republicans traditionally haven't required such ambassadors, but McCain does.

So Fiorina is dutifully making the rounds of the media circuit making the case that McCain has embraced the political correctness of the day and will use the administration to save the planet.

Wired: But secondly to your very first question, unlike George Bush, McCain believes global warming is real. He believes climate change is real. He believes that the US must play a leadership role in addressing this problem. So when he thinks about energy independence, which is a national security issue, an economic security issue, he thinks about it in the context of also environmental protection, and making sure that we're making progress on global warming.

Fiorina repeats McCain’s absolute belief in the need to fight global warming on CNBC this evening just a day after admitting in a Michigan campaign stop that there is still a possibility the whole global warming alarmism may be (glance right, glance left, whisper) ... not true.

WWJ News radio: But the possible John McCain running mate certainly isn't Bushlike in her views on global warming, pointing out that if we fight global warming and it turns out not to be true, "all we will have done is create a bunch of new technologies and a bunch of new jobs," while if we do nothing and it is true, "that would be catastrophic."

On one hand, it’s refreshing to know this is “say what you have to say” politics as usual. On the other hand, it’s the same old politics of justifying increased public sector spending regardless if there are any valid reasons.