CANDIDATE PROFILE: CARLY FIORINA

Fiorina at Republican Party conference June 2015 (from here)
Fiorina at Republican Party conference June 2015 (from here)

One of my most astute commenters, Keith DeHavelle, likes Carly Fiorina.

There is no trace of liberal in Carly’s recent speeches and discussions. Nor was she ever a leftist or progressive, it seemed to me. Rather, there were instances in which she had bought into the Republican establishment party line. And even then, she was merely like well over 90% of visible Republicans at the time.

Now, all of that is gone — and has been for the past year or so. I just listened this morning to a speech by Carly to the Federalist Society last year, which was nicely done and had some material about her father, a conservative justice on the Ninth Circuit Court. (continued here)

Here is the speech mentioned.

Monica Crowley has a glowing editorial.

When Carly Fiorina speaks, people lean in to listen. It’s not just because she speaks in measured, almost soft, tones. It’s because she projects an extraordinary calming presence, even when discussing the most dangerous threats and vexing problems facing America today.

Prior to the first Republican debate, Mrs. Fiorina had been struggling to break through in a very crowded field. After her masterful performance, however, she immediately vaulted into the top tier, with the attention and fundraising prowess that brings. She was confident, fluent on the issues and delivered solutions-based answers. She was particularly strong when she laid out the philosophical differences between conservatism and progressivism. More candidates should be doing that. All the time. (continued here)

The Atlantic has what appears to be a favorable analysis of Fiorina, but they sure don’t like The Donald.

It’s hard for any Republican to stand out in a presidential field of 17—certainly when an impossible-to-ignore loudmouth is hogging the spotlight, and especially when your big chance to shine in a debate comes during a glorified dress rehearsal airing when most voters are still at work.

But if anyone can be said to have won last week’s GOP doubleheader in Cleveland, it’s Carly Fiorina. While Donald Trump has spent the last few days insisting he didn’t make a crude reference to Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycle, Fiorina has leapfrogged several of her fellow also-rans in the national and state polls taken since the debate. Relegated to the “Happy Hour” debate last Thursday, the former HP executive may not have been facing off against the cream of the GOP crop, but she came off as poised and self-assured, speaking cogently on policy and landing a few well-timed zingers that would have hit even harder had she not been speaking to an empty theater. Fiorina followed up her debate performance with a solid showing at Erick Erickson’s RedState Gathering, and she’s been a fixture on the Sunday and morning news shows in the days since. (continued here)

The Christian Post considers Christian faith.

A former adviser to John McCain’s 2008 bid for the presidency, Fiorina officially launched her own campaign for the White House in February. Fiorina was interviewed by The Christian Post in February, 2015. Below are six interesting facts about her Christian faith:

(from here)

So what do I think of the lady?

  • I am not especially interested in any candidate who thinks the way to gain political office is by running against someone else. So I don’t care how well any candidate rags on either B. H. Obama or H. R. Clinton. I want to elect a presidential candidate who is running to be the president of the United States, someone who can be trusted, someone knows how to do the job, someone who will support and defend our Constitution and our people. Fiorina could be that person.
  • I am not interested in the fact Carly Fiorina is a woman. I want to elect a presidential candidate who is running to be the president of the United States, someone who can be trusted, someone knows how to do the job, someone who will support and defend our Constitution and our people. What has a candidate’s sex got to do with that? Fortunately, Fiorina is running to be president, not the first woman president.
  • I will not vote for a candidate who wants to force Christianity on America. I want to elect someone who will protect the freedom we have to choose and practice our own religion, and Fiorina could be that person.

Fiorina has extensive executive experience, and she knows how to calmly convey her ideas. What she lacks is experience in political office. Given how difficult it is to find politicians who have not been corrupted by the system, Fiorina’s lack of experience in political office may not be a bad thing.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “CANDIDATE PROFILE: CARLY FIORINA

  1. Hey Tom

    Thanks for that. It’s so hard to piece together who these people are. Good stuff and very useful. It’s nice that there are people willing to look into this stuff and share it with the rest of us.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The Federalist Society, by the way, is quite interesting. When they put together discussion panels at their conferences, there are Obama defenders matched with America defenders. And the panelists have plenty of time, on both sides, to make their cases on a wide variety of issues.

      At the moment, I am listening to a discussion of political prosecution and investigation — including Scott Walker and your own former governor.

      The discussion of Chevron deference (there are two podcasts; either one works) is interesting, and gives a hint as to the massive infrastructure that has accreted around the administrative regulatory state. Taking this apart is truly a Herculean undertaking.

      On Ms. Fiorina: She has governmental experience from a different angle: She has been the head of an advisor board to the CIA and to a number of government policy agencies. From a CNN article on her a few months ago:

      In 2007, then-CIA Director Michael Hayden was wrestling with a pressing question, one that would rattle the secretive organization long after his tenure: How, he wondered, could the U.S. spy agency continue to fulfill its mission in a society that increasingly demanded more transparency and public accountability?

      To help find an answer, Hayden turned to Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, whom he had selected to chair the CIA’s External Advisory Board. She responded with a warning that the agency would have to adapt to confront rapidly-changing public expectations.

      “She contributed a great deal,” Hayden recalled, noting that the meetings were classified. “It confirmed for me what I thought was a coming crisis. It helped me with my judgment.”

      It’s an intriguing mix of experience; she is not completely disconnected from the halls of power and, as she notes, she has spent time with more world leaders than “anyone with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton.” And as she puts it, she was doing deals, not photo-ops.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Agree with Wally. Appreciate the background on the lady.

        It is sad, but we really cannot depend upon the corporation owned news media. The fact that a newspaper on TV network has its own preferred candidate really is not the problem. The problems stem from their hidden motives, their pretense of objectivity, and their misleading coverage.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. You’re welcome. Forgive me, my friend, but I’ve had a rough night and am inclined to fuss a bit this morning.

          Citizen Tom, you are a very long way from a Marxist and oppose them strenuously, as I am keenly aware. But you have fairly consistently adopted a bit of their language and approach in a particular area, and I’d like to suggest that you reconsider.

          You referred to, above, “corporation owned news media.” This phrase is common enough, but it furthers the “corporations are evil” meme that pervades Hollywood and, interestingly, the media itself. But let’s examine this. Is the form of ownership really the root problem, and worthy of being singled out as the adjective here?

          Let’s imagine that the New York Times were a sole proprietorship, owned and operated by a single scion of the Sulzberger family, instead of a publicly traded corporation that is failing in the public eye due largely to policy decisions. Would it automatically be more fair and reasonable in its presentations, now that its success or failure financially would be invisible to the public? I don’t think the effect would be positive. If Mr./Ms. Sulzberger wished to spend money on this pet project, it would do whatever that person wanted and “success” be damned. Despite publicly traded stocks, there is still a fair amount of this effect.

          Consider that even CNN and MSNBC are under some public pressure to do a better job because their biased approaches are failing badly in the marketplace and, as they are public corporations, that financial result is quite visible. They are taking small steps to soften their hard-left approach, reluctantly, because it is not working and they have a corporate responsibility to do what works.

          And yet, they resist this pressure, and still favor pushing the narrative of the left. That struggle continues each day, and to my mind, much is at stake, but the form of ownership of the entities involved is not the problem, and if anything provides a little bit of back-pressure.

          Many incidents have made clear that the predilections of “the corporation” are not always carried into the actions of the entity on a day-to-day basis. In fact, different media outlets owned by the same corporate group often have different sorts of biases, which goes against the hypothesis of corporation control being the issue.

          The progressive/establishment media is that way because the ranks are filled with progressive journalists and managers and board members and editors and so on, a failure of our education system that became evident in the late 19th century. There is no Corporate Directive that hangs in the boardroom that says “Ignore your beliefs and report the news using this particular slant.” Instead, what happens arises naturally from the fact that they all generally share the same beliefs, and tend to apply peer pressure (sometimes overtly, if the subtle social pressure doesn’t work) for those who get out of line and want to do, say, real journalism at a threat to favored topics or people.

          We have progressive media on the left, and have had for more than a century. We have establishment media on the right, sometimes in opposition but often blending into progressive media without a bright line of separation. And, here and there, are media sources that are based on honesty, Constitutional principles, and ethical journalism. Not many, and corrupting influences are always present from the progressive inclinations of our educational system, but the good guys are out there.

          But those are owned by corporations too, in many cases.

          The “corporate-owned” invective suggests a solution: Ban corporate ownership of media outlets. This would hardly solve the problem, the progressives would love it, and a great deal of uproar would be generated as you strengthen the government’s power, weaken free enterprise, and push America closer to the brink of dissolution while allowing the real corruption to grip the levers of power more tightly yet.

          Corporations are a mechanism for combining resources to make things possible to the private sector that otherwise could only be done by a government. This has been a very powerful, very productive force that has lifted billions from misery and poverty — and in fact had a lot to do with how the United States was first discovered and settled. I would not suggest including a general dismissal of this potent and positive component of free enterprise in your everyday speech, particularly if what you really mean is political corruption and cronyism. In those cases, it’s not the corporation, it’s the corruption that is the problem. But you unwittingly assist the progressive left’s goal of emasculating America when you take up their “evil corporations” language, and distract attention from the real and quite serious cronyism that infests our current regulatory regime.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Like

        2. Thank you for the observation. Sometimes what we think we are saying is not what people hear.

          I refer to the media as corporate or corporation owned for number of reasons.
          1. Most of the mass media is in fact owned by about six large corporations.
          2. The Left inveighs against Capitalism. The corporation owned mass media has been leading that charge for decades. I use the expression to remind the Left that the source of most of their information is the very people they say they distrust.
          3. Are corporations innately evil? No, but the form of ownership is an issue. Large corporations are creatures of government. States charter corporations, and the Federal Government regulates them. Large corporations, because of their ability to buy politicians, generally find ways to benefit from heavy government regulation and a complex tax code. Heavy regulation and a complex tax code may increase the cost of doing business, but it also stifles competition from smaller competitors, who otherwise might clean their clocks.
          4. Large corporations often strive to implement monopolistic practices. They merge with competitors and use their political influence to control the market and guarantee themselves a profitable income. With a little research, you will find the number of significant players in the mass media has steadily decreased. The Internet has complicated matters, but our government officials are doing their best to bring the Internet under its control. I have no doubt the big companies would be the biggest beneficiaries of a government controlled Internet.
          5. Crony Capitalism exists because Capitalism exists. Crony Socialism is simply a redundant expression. Socialism by definition is using the government to play favorites. Since the corporation owned news media exemplifies Crony Capitalism, perhaps, for the sake of clarity, I will start talking about the Crony Capitalist owned mass media.
          6. Crony Capitalism implies a perverted form of Capitalism. Cronyism is achilles heel of Capitalism. When government plays favorites, Capitalists start serving government officials, not the people who pay the bill, and that is most certainly true of our Crony Capitalist owned mass media.

          Like

        3. I have many thoughts on this topic. But I won’t bog this thread down with these; perhaps, should you decide to do a post on cronyism, we’ll discuss it. It’s important to separate cronyism from free enterprise, as it is the Achilles’ heel of government, not capitalism. As you suggested, it is a feature of corruption present in government systems as a general thing. Free enterprise is the best defense against it, as without corrupted government control, there are no favors for cronies to buy.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

  2. USA Today ran a cartoon depicting Ms. Fiorina. Apparently, the cartoonist was told “she is evil but attractive, wears earrings, has fairly short hair, and is evil”:
    http://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/nation-now/2015/08/01/august-political-cartoons-from-gannett-cartoonists/30981979/

    The cartoonist would have done a better job if he’d ever seen a picture of Carly Fiorina. I’d not have recognized her but for the big “Carly” button. But the “evil” intent of the cartoonist is evident enough … and he makes certain to connect this evilness with being a Republican (“Hewlett-Pachyderm”).

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Pingback: My Article Read (8-14-2015) | My Daily Musing

  4. Pingback: BPI reblog001 Daily Archives: August 14, 2015 | boudicabpi2015

  5. Pingback: BPI reblog001 Daily Archives: August 14, 2015 | Boudica2015

  6. Pingback: BPI reblog001 Daily Archives: August 14, 2015 | Boudica BPI Weblog

Comments are closed.