The NRA, GOP, Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, and Planned Parenthood Probe Committee should make a public apology toPlanned Parenthood organizaiton, shooting victims, and their family members for fabricating lies of the organization and misleading the American people.

Fiorina levies out-of-date charge on women job losses under Obama


As the only female candidate on the debate stage, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina said women voters shouldn’t assume that just because Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton is a woman that she has their interests at heart.

“It is the height of hypocrisy for Mrs. Clinton to talk about being the first woman president, when every single policy she espouses and every single policy of President Obama has been demonstratively bad for women,” Fiorina said. “Ninety-two percent of the jobs lost during Barack Obama’s first term belonged to women.”

Her 92-percent claim dates back to the 2012 presidential race when it was used by the Republican National Committee and GOP nominee Mitt Romney. At the time, March 2012, the claim had some numerical validity but was also cherry-picked and flawed. We rated it Mostly False.

We reached out to the Fiorina campaign and did not hear back, so we’re not sure if she based her statement on the same data as Romney’s campaign used.

But here’s what we found back in April 2012: Between January 2009 and March 2012, the total drop in employment was, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 740,000. In the same period, employment for women fell by 683,000.

Do the division and you get 92.3 percent.

A big problem with the claim in 2012 was that it cherry-picked the starting date for assessing Obama’s jobs track record. The recession began in December 2007, and he didn’t take office until January 2009, when it was nearly over. It’s difficult to blame any president for the economic situation he inherited.

The bigger problem with Fiorina making the same statement today is that Obama’s first term continued for another 10 months.  During that time, the women job numbers did a U-turn and became a net gain.

The government data show an increase of 416,000 working women between January 2009 and January 2013. Total employment also rose by 1.3 million. So more women actually were working at the end of Obama’s first term compared with the day he first took office.

We used the January 2009 to January 2013 timeframe to be consistent with the original Republican framing of the critique of Obama’s economic policies.

Our ruling

Fiorina said 92 percent of the jobs lost during Obama’s first term belonged to women. By January 2013, the jobs numbers don’t back it up at all. The number of women with jobs increased by 416,000 during Obama’s first term.

We rate this claim False.





What Happened to Carly Fiorina?

After she took the Republican field by storm in September, two polls show her slipping back into the second tier of candidates.

Remember Carly Fiorina? It now seems forever ago, but in late September she was being heralded as the next big thing in the Republican primary field—the outsider candidate who could marshall establishment support, and finally slay the Trump dragon.

Now look at the polls. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll Monday has her at 7 percent, running behind the much-maligned Jeb Bush. That’s down from 11 in late September. A CNN poll released Tuesday is even bleaker. She comes in fourth—tied with also-ran Chris Christie and behind Rand Paul, who’s on campaign deathwatch. That’s even worse than it seems, because in mid-September she was at 15 percent in the same poll, good for second place.

So what happened to Fiorina? There’s no single obvious explanation, but here are a few ideas.

Fiorina’s polling has correlated strongly with her debate performance. She surged after dominating the undercard at the first Republican debate in August, and after winning a promotion to the main stage for the second debate, she was the consensus winner there, too. After each debate, her numbers surged. But there hasn’t been a GOP debate for more than a month, since September 16.

In that time, her stock has plummeted. Fiorina has practically disappeared from the headlines in the last few weeks. She doesn’t seem to be as good at collecting “earned media”—attention in the press, more or less. Donald Trump and Ben Carson, in contrast, are great at creating controversies that get them on TV. John Sides at The Monkey Cage has been on a crusade to convince readers that Trump’s high polling, and any dips, are caused almost entirely by the level of media attention he receives. Carson’s statements about the Holocaust and gun control, or about the Umpqua massacre, may be derided by some, but they keep his name in the news—and they rile up supporters who see criticism of his remarks as persecution. (Fiorina pulled something similar off when she insisted she’d seen a video taken at a Planned Parenthood that did not exist, but that moment passed, and she hasn’t created another.)

People have been predicting the demise of Trump’s campaign since, well, before it existed, but the drumbeat actually grew after the second debate, in which he was generally said to have put in a subpar performance. But as Molly Ball points out today, that hasn’t happened—he’s really running.

The non-demise of Trump, and the continued strength of Ben Carson, seem to go a long way to explaining Fiorina’s struggles. Her big climb coincided with Trump’s first stumble. But now his polling has stabilized. There a large group of GOP voters who want an “outsider” candidate, but however large that group may be, it’s also finite, and it’s being split between Trump, Carson, and Fiorina. In fact, Fiorina’s campaign has taken the path that many pundits expected for Trump, while Trump and Carson both gained ground in the NBC/WSJ poll. As long as they’re strong, it will take voters away from her. Here’s the three-way matchup:


One lesson from this is that Fiorina will flounder until (a) Trump and/or Carson collapses; (b) she figures out the earned-media game; or (c) the next debate, which is October 28.
But Fiorina has always had a structural disadvantage in the campaign, because she is a woman. While Americans have become dramatically more willing to elect a female president over the last quarter-century, there remains some reluctance. It’s particularly strong on the Republican side of the aisle, as YouGov found in March:

Is the U.S. Ready for a Woman President? ‘Yes’ in 2007 vs. 2015

In a separate question, nine in 10 Democrats told pollsters that they’re rooting for a female president to be elected in their lifetimes—which lifts Hillary Clinton. In contrast, only a third of Republicans feel that way.

It’s also possible, though, that Fiorina’s support was never really there, that she was a paper tiger erected by the press. She doesn’t seem to have a natural constituency, doesn’t have much establishment support, and doesn’t have the same mix of charisma and outlandish comments that has boosted Trump. Perhaps her strong showings in late September were all just a media creation—poll numbers being pumped up by media coverage of the first debate, with her sudden polling jump begetting still more media coverage through the second debate. It will be easier to tell once post-debate polls start arriving, but even if  Fiorina turns in a strong performance—and past experience suggests she will—that may not be enough to sustain real momentum.

Update, 11:43 a.m.: John Sides points me to this graph, which shows how closely the collapse in press attention to Fiorina’s campaign tracks her polling collapse:

Carly Fiorina Television Mentions, Last 30 Days

2016 Campaign Television Tracker



FIORINAEarlier this week, the Center for Medical Progress released its seventh video in a month and a half attacking Planned Parenthood over the (perfectly legal) use of fetal tissue for medical research. The video is just as heavily edited as the preceding six, but in a new move, the clips also uses photos from unrelated sources.

The video features Holly O’Donnell, a former technician at biological company StemExpress, which until earlier this week helped Planned Parenthood distribute fetal tissue to medical research groups. O’Donnell talks about the process of collecting the tissue, as the video cuts to photos of fetuses.

But the photos used in the video are actually not of fetuses aborted at Planned Parenthood clinics, Think Progress reports, and in one case, the photo is not an aborted fetus at all, but a picture of a stillborn infant, used without the mother’s consent. Lexi Oliver Fretz originally posted the photo on her blog, in a post talking about mourning her stillborn son.

In a post on Facebook, Fretz writes:

The Center for Medical Progress’ campaign to get Planned Parenthood defunded has instigated renewed calls from Republican law makers to investigate the health care provider. But a group of Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and New York Congressman Jerry Nadler, denounced the Center for Medical Progress, with Nadler called the videos “nothing more than a witch hunt” against Planned Parenthood.

Some Congressional Democrats are also calling on the Justice Department to investigate whether the group broke state or federal laws in their undercover recordings, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Earlier this month, a California judge issued a restraining order against the group, preventing it from releasing undercover videos of a National Abortion Federation meeting, citing safety concerns for some of the top abortion experts who attended the event.

Five states–Louisiana, Alabama, Utah, New Hampshire, and Arkansas–have so far moved to try and directly revoke state funding for Planned Parenthood on the back of the videos, though, the New York Times reports, the organization has successfully fought moves like this in court in the past.



Warning: Missing argument 2 for ivan_embed_html() in /homepages/6/d590702398/htdocs/clickandbuilds/LABProLib/wp-content/themes/august/framework/helpers/post-formats.php on line 387

Bad news for GOP: Eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood? 61% Oppose 35% Support



Planned Parenthood’s standing in the public eye has not been diminished despite months of concerted attacks by Republicans, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll has found.

The poll found that the women’s health organization is viewed favorably by 47% of Americans and unfavorably by 31% in the Sept. 20-24 survey. That is about the same — even a tad better — than the 45%-30% split found in a Journal/NBC poll in July.

At a time when Republicans have been calling for cutting off federal funding to Planned Parenthood and threatening to shut down the government to do so, the new poll found that a strong majority of Americans — 61% — oppose eliminating funding, while 35% support a funding cut off.

The issue cuts along party lines: Among Republicans, 55% support a funding cut-off.  By contrast, only 19% of Democrats and 34% of independents favor stripping the group’s funding.

But even among people who want to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, only 27% favored forcing a government shutdown to accomplish the goal.

“If this happens, this is going to be very difficult for the American public to understand,” said GOP pollster Bill McInturff, who helped conduct the survey.

Republicans have mounted a concerted attack on Planned Parenthood in the wake of this summer’s disclosure of secretly-taped videos that show employees talking about the scientific-research use of fetal tissue and organs from pregnancies terminated in Planned Parenthood facilities.

The group provides an array of women’s health services including cancer screening and contraception as well as abortion. The group is already prohibited from using federal aid for abortions.

The poll found a clear partisan difference of opinion on the group:  Democrats viewed the group positively, by 73%-9%; Republicans were 18% positive, 59% negative.

Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster who helped conduct the survey, said the poll illustrated the political calculation of Carly Fiorina and other GOP presidential candidates who have leaned hard into criticism of Planned Parenthood: It will help rally primary voters, even if it hurts candidates among voters in the general election.



Donald Trump’s big vulnerability has surfaced

donaldHe might not flame out the way establishment pundits predict, but Donald Trump isn’t invulnerable either—and his weaknesses are beginning to appear.
Trump has obviously surprised everybody (but himself) by surging to the head of the polls despite jarring statements about Mexican rapists, our stupid political leaders and Carly Fiorina’s face. Trump’s undoing, however, might be hiding in plain sight—the four corporate bankruptcies his companies have declared.
Trump says these Chapter 11 filings are nothing more than a shrewd businessman using “the laws of this country” to his advantage. It’s true that bankruptcy is considered a legitimate way to restructure a troubled company and give it a second chance, instead of just liquidating it. But it’s also a last-resort option when all else has failed, and it is hardly a mark of success.
More importantly, there’s not really a Chapter 11 equivalent when it comes to government, especially the federal government. While a few municipalities and one metropolis—Detroit—have declared bankruptcy, it has hardly been a benign fresh start. Those bankruptcies have generally come at the end of a brutal process of cutting services, salaries and pensions, and raising fees and taxes, that often sends residents fleeing elsewhere. Detroit might be showing signs of life, but its population has plummeted and it’s a shell of the city it used to be.
Trump constantly touts his business experience as his greatest strength. “I want to put whatever that talent is to work for this country,” he said in the recent CNN debate, “so we have great trade deals, we make our country rich again, we make it great again.”
Two of his rivals, Scott Walker and Carly Fiorina, pointed out that part of Trump’s talent is expert use of the bankruptcy code. “You took four major projects into bankruptcy,” Walker said to Trump. “You can’t take America into bankruptcy.” That sound bite may have taken Walker and his staff weeks to come up with, but it neatly summarizes the problem many business leaders face when they try to enter politics: What works in business doesn’t always work in government.
Here’s the basic story on Trump’s four bankruptcies: All four were corporate bankruptcies involving properties in Atlantic City, the East Coast gambling hub that dwindled as many nearby states legalized gambling, eliminating the city’s monopoly. All four of those bankruptcies allowed the casino in question to shed debt and stay in business, instead of folding. Trump’s lenders and investors lost a lot of money, yet Trump was still able to keep raising money in the financial markets, a sign of his allure as a business partner and his ability to sell himself.
Trump has never declared personal bankruptcy, as he frequently points out. But his first corporate Chapter 11 filing, involving the Trump Taj Mahal in 1991, put Trump in a tight spot and forced him to sell his Trump Princess yacht, his Trump Shuttle airline and other prized assets. Plus, it cost him a lot of pride. So Trump has certainly felt the sting of losing, even if he didn’t go as far as a personal bankruptcy filing.
Has any of this prepared Trump for the challenges of the presidency? It’s hard to tell, but he didn’t  declare bankruptcy once and vow never to go through that again, as many recovered bankruptistas  seared by the experience have done. His bankruptcies occurred in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009—an 18-year span. As Forbes points out, Trump’s personal stake in the business declined each time, as he learned to put other people’s money behind his own name and spread the pain around, if it came.
It’s hard to see how this tactic might work in government, and it may generate the type of hubris (Trump? Hubris?) that leads smart people to think they can conquer the laws of nature and fly where others have crashed. The federal government can’t declare bankruptcy or anything like it without sending the world economy into a disastrous tailspin. Congressional Republicans tried a mini version of that by threatening a default on U.S. debt in 2011, and it backfired so badly that the stock market tanked for 6 months and their worst foe, President Obama, tap-danced to reelection.
Other than a brief flutter by Scott Walker, none of Trump’s other Republican rivals have hit him hard about being a serial bankruptcy declarer. If they’re tired of waiting for Trump to self-destruct, then bankruptcy is Trump’s Achilles heel. He considers it a routine and even prudent aspect of operating a business. It’s not, and it has ugly ramifications even under favorable circumstances.
Die-hard Trumpers will stick with their man no matter what. But Trump’s bombast will wear thin amid Republicans on the fence as they learn more about his bailouts and question whether that’s a model for government. Trump is such a good salesman that he’s made bankruptcy—the art of the fail—seem like a sound business strategy. He’s turning out to be a gifted politician, after all.
Rick Newman’s latest book is Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.


Carly Fiorina: 30,000 HP LAYOFFS


Behind Carly Fiorina’s 30,000 HP layoffs

It’s hard to run for president when your name is synonymous with massive layoffs.

The No. 1 criticism lofted at Carly Fiorina is that she oversaw the disastrous 2002 Compaq merger, leading to some 30,000 layoffs at Hewlett-Packard during her tenure as CEO. 
Fiorina has tried to spin the layoffs, saying they were the result of bad timing that coincided with the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000. 
She has also noted — correctly — that despite bruising layoffs, she hired more people than she fired. HP and Compaq had a combined 148,100 employees just before she was hired in 1999, and 150,000 by the time she was fired in 2005. 
Still, along the way, the cuts were painful. 

2000: Voluntary Buyouts

Fiorina was named CEO in July 1999 and eight months later, in March 2000, HP offered 2,500 employees a voluntary buyout package. 1,300 employees accepted the offer. 

2001: Furloughs and Job Cuts

In 2001, Fiorina asked employees to volunteer to take furloughs, hoping that the unpaid time off would stave off further job cuts. HP said the 80,000 who volunteered to take the furloughs saved the company $130 million. But many of those people ended up getting laid off anyway. 
Later in 2001, HP laid off 7,500 employees. The tech bubble had burst sending many countries into a recession. People weren’t buying as many computers, and HP needed to cut costs to save money. 

2002 and 2003: More furloughs and job cuts

In 2002, HP asked employees to once again take furloughs over the Christmas break. HP was hardly alone: Dell and Gateway (remember Gateway?) also furloughed their employees. Unlike its competitors, HP allowed its employees to use accrued vacation time. 
But HP remained the biggest job-cutter. The company also laid off 8,600 more employees in 2002. 
In 2003, HP laid off another 9,000 employees. 
In all, the terminations cost HP 26,400 jobs. And that doesn’t include that five months after Fiorina left in February 2005, HP announced another 15,200 job cuts. 
For sure, HP was not alone in cutting jobs during the dot-com bust. Many tech companies went out of business. 
And the job cuts did help HP save money through a particularly difficult time in the tech industry. Of the $3 billion a year HP said the merger helped save in “cost synergies,” $2 billion of the annual savings were attributed to layoffs and plant shutdowns. 
But Fiorina made a huge gamble in acquiring Compaq — and it didn’t work, sending HP into a tailspin it is still trying to climb out of. 
HP has announced more than 100,000 job cuts since Fiorina left. And current CEO Meg Whitman is now spinning off the PC unit that Fiorina created with the Compaq merger. 
When Fiorina was fired, she took home a $21.4 million severance package, which included $50,000 for career counseling. (Shareholders later sued, saying she got too big of a golden parachute)

CARLY FIORINA IS AN INSIDER: Advised Sen. John McCain on economics and acted as a surrogate


She advised Sen. John McCain on economics and acted as a surrogate during his 2008 White House run. She is a liar and hypocrite.

John McCain’s economic adviser Carly Fiorina hidden away after gaffes 
An economic adviser to John McCain has disappeared from public view after saying that neither he nor his running mate Sarah Palin were capable of running a major corporation.
Carly Fiorina, who rose from a secretarial position to become chief executive of the technology giant Hewlett-Packard, made the gaffes in two separate interviews. 
First she was asked by a radio host – who had just praised her own business record – that since Mr McCain “thinks Mrs Palin has the experience to be president … do you think she has the experience to run a major company like Hewlett-Packard?” 
Miss Fiorina replied: “No, I don’t. That’s not what she is running for.” 
Asked later in a television interview about her remark, Ms Fiorina said: “Well, I don’t think John McCain could run a major corporation.”
Miss Fiorina has since had planned television appearances cancelled. The incident comes as a blow to Mr McCain, who has seen a brief lead in opinion polls over Barack Obama fade away, the match-up returning to a tie.He has faced criticism for his lack of credentials on economic policy at a time when America is suffering from a global financial crisis.Mr McCain found himself wrong-footed by the US government’s £47bn bailout of the insurance giant AIG, and was forced to declare support for the action after opposing it only hours earlier.Mr Obama’s campaign pounced on Miss Fiorina’s comments as apparent evidence of his unsuitability to guide the US through difficult economic times.
In a statement it said: “If John McCain’s top economic adviser doesn’t think he can run a corporation, how on earth can he run the largest economy in the world in the midst of a financial crisis?”