good post. i hate to say it because i support chuck. i hope he listens.

Did anyone see that video DeVore had that opens with Fiorina saying "I actually support some of President Obama's goals" and then a deep voice attacking her for that statement? Is Chuck DeVore saying it is wrong to agree with any of the President's GOALS (not policy, politics, or decisions, but goals) and that he and Obama don't share a single common goal? Carly should come out now and say that Chuck DeVore support prolonging the recession (since one of Obama's goals is economic recovery). This is a PRIMARY, we need to be a little more honest and respectful about what people really say and where they stand. If Carly is more moderate or liberal on a certain issue then criticize her on that, and if you can't find anything, well then, Chuck, maybe it is time for you to step aside.

As much as I can't stand Fiorina and think what she did to Hewlett Packard should be part of the debate, DeVore needs to attack BOXER not Fiorina.

Full disclosure: I'm Chuck DeVore's communications director, so, to paraphrase Reagan paraphrasing the Russians, trust but verify.

Mr Ingemunson would do well to dig a bit deeper on Carly Fiorina's record. She wants to have it both ways, and convince conservatives she's one of us -- which is why she nearly always will cite her most recent, campaign-era statements on an issue, without reference to her checkered past. To take Mr Ingemunson's points in order, here's some clarification on the Fiorina record -- with sources, so you may check for yourself:

1) CARLY FIORINA AND THE OBAMA STIMULUS:

Fiorina was and remains a conditional supporter of the Obama stimulus, starting with her praise on CNN in December 2008 (see http://bit.ly/3o3Oi7) for Obama's incoming economic team. In that same interview, she specifically endorsed the concept of an Obama stimulus -- "Well I think [Obama] is absolutely correct in saying that people on both sides of the aisle think economic stimulus is necessary" -- with the caveat that it had to give "small business" its cut. In April 2009, Fiorina went on record (see http://bit.ly/4i0J3i) to say that "she finds it encouraging that Congress is spending substantial amounts of money on broadband infrastructure" as part of the Obama stimulus. Finally, at the Web 2.0 Summit on October 22nd, 2009, (see http://bit.ly/1iifeb, at about the 7 minute, 30 second mark), she complained that stimulus funds went to construction, but not biotech.

The consistent theme throughout Carly Fiorina's public discussion of the stimulus for the past year is not her opposition to it, but her eagerness to see her preferred sectors get their cut. She is not a principled opponent of the stimulus, as Chuck DeVore has been from day one: she just thinks too much of it went to construction.

2) CARLY FIORINA AND INTERNET TAXATION

Fiorina has a long record talking about how best to make it taxation of the Internet happen.

For example, there's Fiorina's June 7th, 2000, testimony before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress (see http://bit.ly/33ZIei), in which she said to one Senator Barbara Boxer: "[T]o exempt, forever, online commerce from taxation is unrealistic. So let's start at the beginning. Let's do the heavy lifting -- a burden the states must first bear -- to simplify and modernize the tax system to be fit to apply to the online world. Such an effort will require serious, ongoing commitment."

Or how about her October 22nd, 2009, comments at the Web 2.0 Summit (again, see http://bit.ly/1iifeb at the 11 minutes, 25 seconds mark), at which she waxed eloquent: "Well, I do think that we're coming to the point where we need to acknowledge that the World Wide Web and the Internet cannot be forever a sphere apart from the rest of the world. The World Wide Web cannot be forever the wild, wild west, where anything goes. So, for example, I do think that it's foolish to take the very complex, very onerous tax system that we have today in the physical world and just layer it onto the online world. I think we have to do -- and by the way, I've thought this since 2000 when I testified before Congress on this point, so this isn't something new -- but I think we need to focus on simplifying our tax system, but I think we have to now begin to blend the realities of online and offline. That is what's happening in the world."

So just a few weeks back, she was touting her June 2000 testimony about how to make Internet taxation happen -- as an example of her current thinking. That's great she's saying otherwise now: but which Carly Fiorina do we believe?

3) CARLY FIORINA'S RECORD ON LIFE ISSUES

If Carly Fiorina is pro-life, that's laudable. That said, her record of pro-life conviction in the public square is exceedingly thin. I have a detailed examination of her pro-life credentials here -- http://bit.ly/2wMTKt -- with the key passage being: "Fiorina never uttered a public word on the topic, nor lent any support to pro-life activism, before embarking upon her political career. Indeed, pre-2008 media reports on Fiorina almost uniformly describe her as 'pro-choice' — for example, this 2004 San Jose Mercury-News piece (see http://bit.ly/XpznQ), in which 'Republican insiders said Fiorina [is] moderate and pro-choice.'”

Since announcing her formal candidacy days ago, Carly Fiorina has twice been confronted with direct questions about her pro-life convictions. In the first instance, she deflected the query. In the second, she demonstrated a surprising lack of basic information on one of the major public-policy issues before the very body she seeks election to.

At an appearance in Sacramento on November 5th, 2009 (see http://bit.ly/2IsIER), Fiorina was directly "asked whether she would vote to reverse" Roe v. Wade, and dodged the question: "The focus of my campaign are the issues that matter to the people of California, and what matters is what's on the table right now -- is how to we create more jobs and how do we get federal spending out of control."

Four days later, on November 9th, 2009, Fiorina was again asked about her pro-life views during an interview with KPCC's Larry Mantle (see http://bit.ly/40UzGN), and she responded: "I believe that life begins at conception. I would certainly [recognize] that there are exceptions for the health of the mother. I support stem-cell research. But let me just say that on these very difficult social issues, I recognize that not everyone shares my views. I also recognize that these social issues are not whats on the table today." The next day, the very left-wing Democratic blogger Brian Leubitz (see http://bit.ly/1EVRX1) rightly responded with two words: "Stupak Amendment."

If Carly Fiorina wishes to run on her pro-life credentials, this isn't the way to establish the necessary credibility.

---------------------------

Given all this, is it really DeVore's campaign that "strains credulity"? Seems more like the credulity is strained by Fiorina's own record -- and her attempts to obscure it.

Mr. Trevino, I appreciate you taking the time to detail the aforementioned items pertaining to Fiorina. As you probably have read in prior posts, my problem with her was how she "downed" a perfectly viable and successful company and then held them hostage to her demands. And, of course there's much more, but it goes towards her LACK of integrity. What she did with regards to "unlawfully" taping her fellow directors and then telling the court she had some incurable disease in order to have the case dropped, is also part of the problem I have with her. [paragraph] I do not think that the issue of "abortion" should be a topic because it is far too personal. So, whatever her views are on abortion, so be it. [paragraph] BUT, as for the other topics you aptly raise, I'm appalled. It further acts to destroy her credibility. [paragraph] I appreciate your response to Mr. Ingemunson's article.

Joshua Trevino, not to attack you but you once again just demonstrated how DeVore and his worshiping supports are unreasonable spinsters... "[T]o exempt, forever, online commerce from taxation is unrealistic. So let's start at the beginning. Let's do the heavy lifting -- a burden the states must first bear -- to simplify and modernize the tax system to be fit to apply to the online world. Such an effort will require serious, ongoing commitment." You used that quote to say Carly wants to tax the internet? Did you miss the "online commerce" part? From the very beginning of our country our Constitution laid out Congress as the body that regulates interstate commerce, and an ipod bough at a store based in Delaware and shipped to a consumer in Texas should not be exempt from taxes just because it was purchased over the internet! I don't like taxes anymore than you do, but to attack someone for having a discussion about the internet just because you don't understand the situation it is wrong. On the issue of regulation and criminal activity online, check out http://img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html and just read and refresh the homepage a few times, then tell me Chuck DeVore doesn't support closely monitoring or regulating that! The cute looking brown bear is a joking mascot for child predators FYI.

Funny enough, pre-campaign-Carly probably agreed with you. Now that she's positioning herself as a candidate, she doesn't, of course -- see her quotes in Mr Ingemunson's piece above.

As for 4chan and its ilk, disgusting and foul as they are, we can't suppress speech based upon plain aesthetics. There's nothing there that's legal online and simultaneously illegal in the "real world" -- a strange fallacy that Fiorina appears to believe.

Unreasonable spin? Nope: it's never unreasonable to demand principle or consistency of our public figures.

Eric, Did you notice that he can't just come out and say Barack Obama was born in Hawaii? Is he doing it to appeal to the fringe? You believe he was born in Hawaii, yes?

I know the left -- and Carly Fiorina's campaign -- loves to paint conservatives as fringe wackos, but what part of, "Make no mistake, the Constitution is clear: Barack Obama is the President," don't you understand?

Joshua, How about you make yourself clear and just say the position of your campaign is that Barack Obama was born in the USA? Your lawyer like argument basically comes off as an attempt to say it is a settled question. Your candidate pushed conspiracy theories by saying the president was unclear. Don't be hypocrites. Just say you have no reason to think he was born anywhere but Hawaii.

I'll dare to say that Joshua Trevino and Chuck DeVore WOULD NOT have supported Ronald Reagan, and here is why... In policy on most issues there is little difference between Fiorina and DeVore; both are pro-life, pro-family, anti-tax, pro-business, self-made candidates. The difference is appeal, Chuck DeVore appeals ONLY to the group from the average conservative republican all the way to the far right while Carly, with almost identical values and stances appeals to not only that group (potentially without DeVore poisoning the well) but also to moderates and independents, much like Reagan! I think today we judge how conservative a candidate is based on how much moderates dislike them and how many times they invoke Reagans name in a speech, instead of how similar they really are to Reagan and his ability to take the conservative message and reach out to those in the middle!

Joshua Treviño, What does it say about your campaign that you can't even say Barack Obama was born in the USA?

Looks like a leading Republican candidate for the Senate cannot clearly state that Barack Obama was born in the USA. Eric, is that a commentary on the base of the party that he is trying to win over or is it a sign he is a fringe candidate?