Tag Archives: Carly Fiorina

Why I Think The Republican Debate Is A Joke

Posted on by

I am watching the Republican debate. This is a collaboration between the Republican establishment and the media to make sure a non-establishment candidate does not win the Republican nomination. The media would like Hillary Clinton to win the presidency, but a lot of Americans are not necessarily following the media in this plan.

Note that Carly Fiorina is not on the stage and the John Kasich is. The only voting that has taken place in this election cycle has been in Iowa, where Carly Fiorina got more votes than John Kasich. Since that number represents actual votes, rather than inaccurate polls, I believe the people on the stage tonight were not chosen fairly. The establishment candidate is on the stage; the non-establishment candidate is not. Admittedly, the difference in the number of votes is small, but the fact remains that Carly Fiorina got more votes than John Kasich.

To add insult to injury, Breitbart.com has posted an article today about one of the moderators of the Republican debate. Martha Raddatz is married to a Harvard Law School classmate of Barack Obama. President Obama attended her wedding. President Obama appointed Julius Genachowski (Ms. Raddatz’s husband) to head the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  Ms. Raddatz is one of the moderators of the Republican debate. Does anyone actually believe that she will be an unbiased moderator?

The Republican Party needs to choose the moderators for the Republican debates. These moderators need to be people who do not have strong ties to the Democratic Party. What is happening now on ABC is an attempt to use the Republican Presidential candidates to ensure a Democratic victory in the Presidential election in November.

Some Thoughts On The Republican Debate

Posted on by

Late last night The Weekly Standard posted an article about the Republican Debate last night. The debate on CNBC was a tutorial on media bias. The questions were ridiculous, and the candidates called out the moderators on the silliness.

The article reports:

The three winners of the night were pretty obvious: Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump.

Rubio ended Jeb Bush’s campaign with the kind of body shot that buckles your knees. That’s on Bush, who never should have come after Rubio in that spot for a host of strategic and tactical reasons. But what should scare Hillary Clinton is how effortless Rubio is even with throwaway lines, like “I’m against anything that’s bad for my mother.” Most people have no idea how fearsome raw political talent can be. Clinton does know because she’s seen it up close. She sleeps next to it for a contractually-obligated 18 nights per year.

Cruz was tough and canny—no surprise there. He went the full-Gingrich in his assault on CNBC’s ridiculous moderators. He did a better job explaining Social Security reform than Chris Christie, even (which is no mean feat). And managed to look downright personable compared with John Harwood, whose incompetence was matched only by his unpleasantness. If you’re a conservative voter looking for someone who is going to fight for your values, Cruz must have looked awfully attractive.

Then there was Trump. Over the last few weeks, Trump has gotten better on the stump. Well, don’t look now, but he’s getting better at debates, too. Trump was reasonably disciplined. He kept his agro to a medium-high level. And his situational awareness is getting keener, too. Note how he backed John Kasich into such a bad corner on Lehman Brothers that he protested, “I was a banker, and I was proud of it!” When that’s your answer, you’ve lost the exchange. Even at a Republican debate.

And Trump had a hammer close: “Our country doesn’t win anymore. We used to win. We don’t anymore.” I remain convinced that this line (along with his hardliner on immigration) is the core of Trump’s appeal. But he didn’t just restate this theme in his closing argument. He used it to: (1) beat up CNBC; and (2) argue that his man-handling of these media twits is an example of what he’ll do as president. It was brilliant political theater.

I am not a Trump supporter, but I am supporter of the way he handles the press–he doesn’t back down. He’s not afraid of calling them out when they lie.

The article at The Weekly Standard regards the six candidates with an actual shot at winning the nomination as Trump, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, and possibly Fiorina and Christie. I think they are on to something. I will say that whoever wins the nomination will have some really smart potential cabinet members to choose from.

North Carolina Holds A Constitutional Caucus

Posted on by

PRESS RELEASE

NEW BERN LOCATION

North Carolina TEA Party Constitutional Caucus

TEA Party Constitutional Caucuses were held in 9 locations in North Carolina today, and the results are in. In the Presidential Caucus, a total of 789 votes were cast across the state. Ted Cruz was the clear winner with 391 votes. This means that Ted Cruz took 50.13% of the vote. Since there was no limit on how many presidential candidates that could be nominated (so long as each was seconded), this was an impressive showing.

Ben Carson got 328 votes, or 42.05%. Another impressive showing, but Ted Cruz was the clear winner with more than 50%.

Constitutional conservatives in North Carolina who so choose can vote for Ted Cruz in the primary knowing their votes are likely to align with those of other Constitutional conservatives.  They can thereby use the caucus results to counter the RNC’s “spliter” strategy designed to split the conservative vote and get Jeb Bush elected.

Donald Trump got 31 votes, Rand Paul received 18, and Carly Fiorina got 6. Marco Rubio received 4 votes, and Bobby Jindal, 2.

Ninety five people participated in the Caucus in the New Bern Location. Locally, Cruz got 41 votes, Carson got 39, Trump got 11, and Paul, 1. There were 3 people who abstained from voting.

After a brief break in each location, the speeches, caucus, and voting process resumed. This time, the conservative choice for U.S. Senator from North Carolina was sought.

Statewide, Larry Holmquist got 169 votes (58.28%). Dr. Greg Brannon got 106 votes (36.55%). U.S. Representative Mark Meadows got 13 votes (4.48%). Incumbent, Richard Burr, got 1 vote.

In the New Bern location, Greg Brannon received 29 votes, Mark Meadows got 13, and Larry Holmquist, 2. Anecdotally, there was much conversation during the caucus period questioning whether Greg Brannon can be talked into running, and whether it might not be better to keep Mark Meadows where he is for now.

Statewide results can be seen at www.teacaucus.org

 

During The Silly Season Don’t Even Trust The Fact Checkers

Posted on by

The Tampa Tribune posted an article today about one area of fallout from last week’s Republican debate. One of the parts of the debate featured Carly Fiorina talking about an undercover video of Planned Parenthood activity involving essentially dissecting a live aborted baby for its parts. The media was not in a hurry to report Ms. Fiorina’s comments and even went so far as to attempt to discredit them.

The article reports:

You know the video series, now 10 episodes presenting an increasingly dark view of Planned Parenthood’s cash-for-parts business. You know, also, if you’ve been following it at all, that traditional media outlets have spent months avoiding almost any coverage of or comment about them.

Oh, except for that frenzied moment a couple of weeks back when they thought they’d caught the producers sloppily editing even the full-footage videos from which the gritty, shorter versions were gleaned.

Never mind that it was an investigation paid for by Planned Parenthood, and that the investigators — Fusion GPS — are a left-wing outfit with a history of hostility for social conservatives (a fact omitted from any of the mainstream coverage), and that the Center for Medical Progress — producers of the series — swiftly posted the dropped footage (the content of which turned out the be even more problematic for America’s biggest abortion provider).

To the extent there was any reporting on the Fusion GPS investigation by Big Media, it was essentially stenographer service for Planned Parenthood, and that was enough for pro-abortion pundits to declare the whole business debunked. Enough of that. Back to extracting Hillary Clinton from her self-imposed fix.

But it wasn’t debunked, of course. And episode 10, released this week, presents Planned Parenthood officials, once more thinking they’re talking to fellow travelers in the baby parts trade, in full mercantile mode, sounding more like wholesale butchers than essential providers of women’s medical needs. Which, come to think of it, sums up the situation precisely.

The Planned Parenthood videos are edited, but they are accurate. How Americans react to what is going on will tell us a lot about how civilized we are as opposed to how civilized we think we are. I find it ironic that many politicians think nothing about demonizing corporations for their profits (actually corporations are in business to make profits, pay their stockholders, and engage in commerce), but will not demonize Planned Parenthood for making a profit off of selling aborted baby parts while taking money from taxpayers, lobbying Congress and being paid off by Planned Parenthood PAC’s.

I think we may have our outrage misplaced.

Last Night’s Republican Debate

Posted on by

I am a football fan. One of the great things about football is that when you turn on a football game, you see a football game. It is played like a football game and reported like a football game. Last night I turned on the Republican debate. I am not exactly sure what I saw. I am a Hugh Hewitt fan. He was there, sitting in a special chair. I believe he had less talking time than most of the candidates. I guess that’s okay–the candidates were the ones having the debate, but why was he there? Also, why was the debate reported as if it were a football game. It’s not a football game–it’s supposed to be a serious discussion to help voters determine who they want to run for President. Or is it?

Now I am going into some tall grass. In August, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the establishment Republican’s strategy to make sure Jeb Bush was the party’s nominee. Basically, the strategy was to split the conservative vote in every early primary state so that Jeb Bush would win, even without a plurality of votes. If you look at the candidates, the theory cannot easily be dismissed. Marco Rubio will take Florida, Ted Cruz will take Texas, Lindsey Graham will take South Carolina, etc. Therefore, by the time you get to the more liberal Republican states, no conservative will have enough votes to challenge Jeb Bush.

In July I posted an article by Mark Jones which explained a new rule by the GOP:

Any state, other than the four exempt states already mentioned, that holds a Primary the first two weeks of the month will be forced to allocate those delegate on a proportional basis.  This means that if 5, or even 15, candidates are on the ballot, each candidate will receive a percentage of our delegates commensurate with the percentage of the vote they receive.This may sounds like a fair process on the surface, but as usual, there is more to the story.  The RNC’s penalty will mean that a number of very conservative states,with high delegate counts like Texas, Virginia, and North Carolina, that intend to hold early Primaries, will be forced to divide their delegates among multiple candidates.  In fact, 10 of 15 Southern states plan to hold their Primaries in this window. Conservative stalwarts like Colorado and Utah also plan to hold Primaries in this window.  It is highly unlikely any candidate will emerge from these conservative states with enough delegates to establish a significant lead or gain momentum in the race to be the Republican nominee before March 14.

The purpose of the debate (in the mind of the establishment GOP) is to divide the support among the conservative candidates. The media tends liberal, so they are going to play along so that the Republicans put forth a weak candidate. Unless the conservatives running for President agree among themselves on who gets out of the race and who remains in the race, we are going to have Jeb Bush as a candidate. I can assure you his candidacy will result in a Democrat President. The success of Donald Trump has thrown a bit of a wrench into the establishment plan, but I seriously doubt that a majority of Americans support a Trump presidency.

There are some good conservative Republican candidates. If nothing else, the assembled people on the state would make an amazing Presidential cabinet. The problem is finding a conservative leader. I am sure Jeb Bush is an intelligent and very nice man–I just don’t want to see him as the Republican candidate–I don’t think he can win.

How Media Bias Works

Posted on by

There have been a number of videos posted on Facebook of people attempting to list the accomplishments of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. There have also been numerous articles, jokes, etc. This is something of a problem for her presidential campaign, and CNN has done its part to solve the problem.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday about a CNN op-ed by Eleni Kounalakis. The article praised the accomplishments of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

These are some of the articles glowing accounts of Secretary of State Clinton’s accomplishments:

As a diplomat, she wielded the star power of one of the world’s most well-known female leaders. And finally, she had the right kind of work ethic, the right brand of wonkiness, to be embraced quickly by her 70,000 new employees at the State Department.
***
For three and a half years at my post in Budapest, I started my mornings reading Clinton’s daily schedule. Hillary Clinton traveled to more countries than any other secretary in the history of the department, logging nearly a million miles and visiting 112 nations. She visited countries that hadn’t had a U.S. secretary of state visit for up to five decades (Laos) or ever (Togo). After all, America can never have enough friends.

The article decribes Mrs. Kounalakis as follows:

Eleni Kounalakis was United States ambassador to Hungary from 2010 to 2013. She is the author of “Madam Ambassador, Three Years of Diplomacy, Dinner and Democracy in Budapest,” published by The New Press. She is a senior adviser to the Albright Stonebridge Group.

That’s fine. Sounds good. However, the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine tells us a little bit more:

Although a case could be made that she, like many ambassadors before her, was tapped only because of her political activism—and the more than $1 million she helped raise as head of Greek-Americans for Hillary Clinton—Tsakopoulos Kounalakis brings to her post professional and personal experience well suited to navigating the challenges her new job presents.

As Ambassador Ken Yalowitz, director of Dartmouth’s Dickey Center and a 36-year State Department veteran, points out, “Although ambassadors will always have their respect, foreign service professionals have a general concern when a political appointee is named. But political appointees can be exceptional diplomats—well qualified, highly motivated. Often they can accomplish things because of their access to people a career foreign service officer might not be able to reach.”

Indeed, in addition to other political activism such as serving four times as delegate to the Democratic National Convention from California, Tsakopoulos Kounalakis has meditated with the Dalai Lama and been honored by the Greek Orthodox Church for her interfaith work mediating forums with the World Council of Religions for Peace. She has also served on the California State World Trade Commission.

Does anyone actually believe that the CNN op-ed piece was objective?

 

The First Republican Debates

Posted on by

I feel obligated to share a few thoughts on the Republican debates last night. Obviously, the star of the first debate was Carly Fiorina. She obviously has the education, business experience and acumen, and leadership experience to be President. The other person in the early debate who came across very well was Bobby Jindal. Governor Jindal also has the educational background and leadership ability to be President.

The second debate was a little more convoluted. At this point I should mention that I listened to both debates rather than watching them due to cable television issues in the community where I live. The second debate sounded more like the World Wrestling Federation than Republicans, but it was instructive. After a question was asked about the ‘war on women,’ I was glad to see Lindsey Graham comment that the ‘war on women’ is happening in the Middle East in the country that President Obama is trying to make a treaty with–not in the Republican party. The concept of a ‘war on women’ has no place in a Republican debate–it is a Democrat party talking point and Democrat party fiction. I was also left with the impression that Chris Christie is definitely from New Jersey. Having spent my teenage years there, his concept of discussion was somewhat familiar. Recently I had a friend in North Carolina who had been dealing with a New Yorker ask me how to tell if a New Yorker was angry–it seemed as if they were always talking very fast and very loud.

The Republican party can do better in the coming debates. The problem was not with the candidates–I felt that the problem was in the questions. We don’t need to see candidates attack each other–we need candidates that state their positions and contrast those positions with those of the Democrat party. The voters will choose the person who expresses their ideas clearly and is most aligned with their views. I also suspect that the participants in the next major Republican debate will be slightly different.