By Erik Rush
Cara Carleton Sneed of the Austin Montross-Juergens Sneeds is the daughter of Joseph Tyree Sneed III, himself the son of a Texas rancher and landowner. Sneed the Younger earned a degree from Southwestern University in 1941, then served as a Sergeant in the Army Air Corps during World War II.
In the postwar period, Joseph Sneed attended the University of Texas School of Law and became a full professor in 1954. After holding a few teaching positions on the East Coast, he served as Deputy Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice. In 1973, he was nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Richard Nixon, and sat on the court until his death in 2008.
The son of a Texas rancher who winds up a college professor on the East Coast, then goes to work for the government for the rest of his life definitely arouses my suspicion. It sounds as though at some point, Sneed the Younger may have become enamored of those novel sociopolitical concepts that were being bandied about at the time in universities and coffee shops by bearded academics and wealthy, spoiled writers from New York.
In any case, Cara Carleton Sneed of the Austin Montross-Juergens Sneeds had the sort of upbringing one might expect considering her background – Bachelor’s from Stanford, Master’s from MIT, and an MBA from the University of Maryland. She held a couple of high-level positions at AT&T, then moved on to Lucent Technologies (Bell Labs), where she ultimately became President of their Consumer Products Sector.
Now, I don’t have a problem with people who come from money. Someone has to come from money in America, or we’re Haiti. The problem I have is with people who believe that their money elevates them to the status of an innately superior being, which is antithetical to the founding principles of this nation.
What’s ironic is that there are wealthy Americans who grew up in poverty, but within a shockingly brief period of time came to believe that their money had elevated them to the status of an innately superior being. This being the case, I can only imagine the degree of elitism inculcated into someone whose family hasn’t wanted for much over the last hundred years.
Cara Carleton Sneed of the Austin Montross-Juergens Sneeds wound up getting married a couple of times while she was busy conquering corporate America. Her second marriage in 1985 was to a man named Frank Fiorina, who may have supplied her with the second most valuable asset she has considering her present career goals (the first being her very conservatively-estimated $100 million net worth).
That second most valuable asset would be her surname. In 2015, “Carly Fiorina” plays a whole hell of a lot better than “Cara Carleton Sneed of the Austin Montross-Juergens Sneeds.” It’s certainly a name more Americans can relate to than one resembling the title of a member of the British Royal Family.
So now Carly Fiorina wants to be President of the United States. Perhaps she’s bored.
One of the chief reasons people supported Mitt Romney in 2012 and why many are supporting Donald Trump at present has to do with their business acumen. Some of the worst problems from which America suffers are the result of profligate spending on the part of progressives in both parties; the presumption is that a savvy business person could reverse it all.
So let’s have a look at Carly Fiorina’s record in business, shall we..?
In 1999, despite a poor managerial history in her previous position at Lucent, Fiorina swept into Hewlett-Packard as the celebrated new CEO who was going to work miracles. For the next six years, Fiorina ran HP into the ground with the style of a spoiled, narcissistic autocrat. From clandestine computer sales to Iran despite international sanctions, to a forced merger with Compaq Computer Corporation that HP shareholders did not want and which resulted in massive layoffs, to her fundamental transformation of HP’s corporate culture into something resembling the court of the Red Queen, Fiorina set the stage to be ranked as one of the worst American CEOs of all time by several prominent business journals.
We know how superficially Americans evaluate candidates for high office. It’s a large part of why Barack Hussein Obama got elected. What really sickens me however, is when conservatives – and well-paid conservative analysts, who really ought to know better – get on the bandwagon for some RINO slob based on one or two favorable sound bites.
Over the last few years, many a conservative has been smacked with the proverbial two-by-four of realization that a preponderance of GOP lawmakers bear far more resemblance to Democrats than their perception of a Republican. And why not? As my WND colleague Mychal Massie pointed out some time ago: They all went to the same schools, studied under the same professors, and got the same degrees. The only differences between them are whether they have a “D” or an “R” after their names, and whether they aggressively advance socialism or make feeble, token overtures toward stultifying its advance.
I would submit that most of the Republican field of presidential candidates – including Carly Fiorina – are cut from that very cloth.
This “Carly Fever” that has sprung up among Republicans due to one good debate showing on the candidate’s part is nothing but shallow cult of personality infatuation. Fiorina’s deportment at Hewlett-Packard was imperious and cavalier; both the company and employees suffered mightily as a result. Despite this, she reaped lavish financial rewards during her tenure there (Fiorina’s severance package alone was valued at $21 million).
In many ways, Carly Fiorina was to HP what Hillary Clinton was to the U.S. State Department.
A lot of voters do indeed yearn for a truly transformational candidate like Ronald Reagan or perhaps an “American Margaret Thatcher” to burst upon the scene as an antidote to the poison of the Obama administration – but Carly Fiorina is no Margaret Thatcher.