The Time for Fiorina to Appear “Warm” on National TV Comes Later

It was inevitable that someone would suggest that Carly Fiorina should try to exhibit a warmer personality on the debate stage. The comment was made on one of the news channels, I don’t recall which. Later on, a young man in the Fox News focus group said that he had seen her in a public gathering and she was quite friendly.

Regardless of whether more people think Fiorina is warm or not, women know that they must first convince the world that they are to be taken seriously before exhibiting normal human emotions. Strangely, in our “advanced” society, the male candidates are given much more leeway to show the full range of human emotions. A sentimental Gov. Chris Christie used stories of his 9/11 experience to appeal to the emotions of the audience. He didn’t have to deal with headlines like:

“’Emotional,’ ‘implusive’ Bachmann erred on vaccine issue, ex-aides say”1
… ironically, Donald Trump addressed the effects of a specific vaccine anecdotally during the CNN debate, but was not judged in the same way in the media.

Christie and his fellow male candidates on both sides of the aisle don’t plan their next speech with this hanging over them:

“It’s very hard to find the balance between appearing strong and tough and caring and engaged and then crossing your line to where you’ll be labeled shrill and bitchy…”2

Carly Fiorina’s strategy is smart. In the initial “second tier” Republican debate (August 6 on Fox News), she knew she had to be informed and forceful in order to stand out. She accomplished this in a group of seven candidates. Improving poll numbers had her placed in the “prime time debate” on September 16 hosted by CNN. Same strategy with the same result, only this time in a crowd of eleven. In addition, she became the first of the Republican hopefuls to put Donald Trump in his rightful place.

I am confident that the time will soon come where she will be able to show her non-competitive side without being penalized. Still, she will keep this in mind, for a recent study showed:

“If males show emotion they are not deemed unstable, but are instead patriotic. These double standards set an uneven playing field for female candidates. The media coverage of male candidates historically focuses on their character and key issues in the campaign. Female candidates must deal with those issues in addition to many more which creates a burden upon female candidates.”3

In the end, it won’t matter. Carly Fiorina is up to any challenge.

1 – (LA Times typo, must have intended “impulsive”) article by James Oliphant, Los Angeles Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/15/news/la-pn-bachmann-vaccine-20110915, 9/15/2011

2 – from Diana Owen, an associate professor of political science and the chair of American studies at Georgetown University, as quoted in “Can Clinton’s Emotions Get the Best of Her?”, by Emily Friedman, ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4097786&page=1, 1/8/2008

3 – “Media Gender Bias in the 1984 and 2008 Vice Presidential Elections,” Undergraduate Honors Thesis at Utah State University by Katherine Shaunesi Reeves, http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=honors, 12/1/2009

Advertisements

Instead of Undeserved Comments About Romney, Let’s Promote the Leadership That Walker, Carson and Fiorina Offer

Maybe it’s the lingering disappointment over how the Romney campaign was run in 2012. Or, perhaps, it’s a result of minimal ability on the part of political satirists, but the time has come to stop criticizing Mitt Romney’s irrelevant perception that he lacks pizzazz as a national figure. A recent example was a jab which claimed his decision not to run again brought his greatest response of enthusiasm from Republicans. It was particularly aggravating because it came from a site which normally focuses on the very real incompetence we are being subjected to by the current Administration on a daily basis.

Good Leaders Don’t Have to be Great Cheerleaders

Sure it can be invigorating to have a sparkling leader who can ignite a fire in the spirit of the people. But for every youthfully exuberant Kennedy, Great Communicator Reagan or even an overzealous Teddy Roosevelt, we’ve been fortunate to have a stately Washington, a practical if somewhat distant Jefferson and a sincerely wise, but definitely un-Hollywood Lincoln.

Which is More Beneficial to Our Nation, Substance or Misleading Rhetoric?

If compared to our current resident of the White House (who, for purposes of this article, shall remain as nameless as the true characterization of “Islamic insurgents”), Romney has no reason to apologize. He ran a state government successfully. Meanwhile, his opponent skated through a period of time as an undistinguished community organizer. Among his unaccomplishments as senator, he didn’t have the moral fortitude to vote against partial-birth abortion. Romney’s gravest faults included not sending some comments through a politically correct filter beforehand or challenging the Democratic candidate on his overseas investments or his litany of half-truths.

With Romney, protection of our Constitution would have taken priority over protecting the public image of party members in the Senate. We wouldn’t have had a Majority Leader submissive to the President who was willing to fiddle while the economy burned, by not bringing crucial House bills to vote in his chamber of Congress.

We Citizens Bear Some Responsibility to Rally Ourselves, Too

There are extraordinary times when the head of state must lead the charge for his people. Franklin Roosevelt confronted Depression despair with programs to steady the ship while waiting for the strong-willed economy to respond to a stimulus such as World War II. Winston Churchill was instrumental in leading his countrymen against daunting odds as the bombs fell all around the British.

But we adult citizens must display some initiative, too. As management experts will attest, ultimately the employee must motivate himself. The supervisor can only create the best environment for it to have a chance. The same holds true for leaders and citizens.

Republican Talent for 2016

What does this mean for the next presidential election? Candidates for the Republican nomination are beginning to surface as they normally do more than a year before the party’s convention. My hope is that those who participate in the primary process will take intelligent looks at those who may not have the big names yet, but who have excellent ideas toward improving our nation.

It would behoove everyone to recognize the tremendous leadership qualities of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, neurosurgeon emeritus Dr. Benjamin Carson and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. Among them, they have guided those entrusted to them through forbidding challenges in government and business in addition to matters of life and death. They have many achievements in the things which matter, more than just “activities”1 as a Secretary of State or endorsements from a press which may be blindly enamored.

From the former CEO, the retired surgeon and acting governor, we will receive the real story regarding solutions to our nation’s problems, free from the camouflage of politically correctness. As a result of her extensive business travels overseas, Fiorina has a better sense of the worldwide political pulse than those in the Administration.2 Dr. Carson’s firsthand knowledge of the medical field has helped him envision a simple, yet effective way to change Obamacare through HSA’s (health savings accounts).3 Walker has proven abilities to achieve the difficult balance between management and labor in a governmental setting. Their credibility is enhanced in that they have accomplished much despite experiencing an impoverished childhood (Carson), starting from the corporate bottom as secretary (Fiorina) or not having a college degree (Walker).

These are real leaders for the major challenges we must address now. They have a penchant for facts over hearsay, yet they are personable. More importantly, they also have ability to bring the moral change so desperately needed in our federal government. This counts more than anything else.

1 – from Fiorina’s speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit on 1/24/2015, “We must understand our role in the world – which is to lead – and the nature of our allies and especially, our adversaries. Like Hillary Clinton, I too have travelled hundreds of thousands of miles around the globe. But unlike her, I have actually accomplished something. Mrs. Clinton, flying is not an accomplishment, it’s an activity [emphasis added].” on http://time.com/3681536/carly-fiorina-hillary-clinton/, by Zeke J. Miller, updated 1/24/2015

2 — “I have have met Vladimir Putin and know that it will take more to halt his ambitions than a gimmicky red ‘Reset’ button. Having done business in over 80 countries and having served as the Chairman of the External Advisory Board at the CIA for several years, I know that China and Russia are state-sponsors of cyberwarfare and have a strategy to steal our intellectual property. I know Bibi Netanyahu and know that when he warns us that Iran is a danger to this nation as well as to his own, that we must listen.” Ibid.

3 – “Health Savings Accounts Far Better Than Obamacare,” by Benjamin S. Carson, Sr. M.D. and Dr. Evelyn Spiro, R.N., http://realbencarson.com/health-savings-accounts-far-better-than-obamacare/, 7/10/2014

Fiorina Turns Dems’ Claim, that the GOP is the “Party of Business”, on Them!

GetAttachment
Carly Fiorina on Fox News, 2/4/2015

Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and possible Republican candidate for president, pointed out the contradiction in one of the Democrats’ traditional criticisms of the Republican party. In a recent speech in Iowa she said:

GetAttachment (1)

“Liberals call us the party of big business, but then, they continue to increase the burden and the complexity of taxes and regulations until only the big and the powerful and the wealthy and the well-connected can survive.”

In an interview by Martha MacCallum on Fox News yesterday, she continued describing the plight of small businesses:

“Seventy per cent of small business owners describe government as ‘hostile’ to them. We are now destroying more businesses than we are creating for the first time in U.S. history.” She reminded the viewers how detrimental this is to our economy as “small businesses create 2/3 of new jobs.”

… But wasn’t the Obama Era, now in its seventh year, supposed to reverse the severe recession caused by the supposedly insensitive Republicans and their greedy comrades?

This Administration is Making a Habit of Catering to Big Business

In addition to creating an environment which is toxic to small businesses, we must also recall the President pulling a 180-degree on his party’s anti-big business philosophy when it came to Obamacare. He guaranteed the insurance companies that the American public would bear the brunt of ¾ of their losses as a result of the new health care law.1 Remember, these are big companies. These are the same ones which are viewed by the Democrats’ as their enemies when it comes to social policy.

And let’s not forget Common Core. While not officially an Obama project, it is being pushed along through Race to the Top money, etc. courtesy of the Department of Education.2 In this social engineering experiment, millions stand to be made by textbook and other producers of educational material and tests. Of course, there’s additional money to be made as “Dozens of the nation’s top CEOs will meet to set the plans for a national advertising blitz that may include TV, radio, and print.”3 Don’t expect any “Mom-and-Pop” companies to receive a significant piece of this.

CONCLUSION

Looks like the only hope for the little guy in 2016 is that the Republicans defeat the Democrats, the real Party of Big Business.

1 – Not only that, but “As Laszewski explains, Obamacare contains a “Reinsurance Program that caps big claim costs for insurers (individual plans only).” He writes that “in 2014, 80% of individual costs between $45,000 and $250,000 are paid by the government [read: by taxpayers], for example.”

“In other words, insurance purchased through Obamacare’s government-run exchanges isn’t even full-fledged private insurance; rather, it’s a sort of private-public hybrid. Private insurance companies pay for costs below $45,000, then taxpayers generously pick up the tab—a tab that their president hasn’t ever bothered to tell them he has opened up on their behalf—for four-fifths of the next $200,000-plus worth of costs.” From ”Bailing Out Health Insurers and Helping Obamacare,” by Jeffrey H. Anderson, http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bailing-out-health-insurers-and-helping-obamacare_774167.html, 1/13/2014

2 – A 5-part analysis of Common Core, its deceptions and pitfalls will be posted later this month on http://www.ohioconservativereview.com

3 – “The Problems with the Common Core, by Stan Karp, http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/28_02/28_02_karp.shtml, winter 2013/14