Here's the Nonsense: Carly Fiorina has been really impressive on the campaign trail. I think she'd be a great president.
Here's the Horse Sense: Yes, she's sounded good and impressed many of us, but now we need to get her to explain some things so we can determine if she's worthy of support. Anything less is irresponsible on our part as voters.
Many of us have been impressed with Carly Fiorina's performance in interviews and in the first presidential debate. She doesn't hesitate with answers, sounds strong on many issues, stands her ground, and, probably more than anything, is attracting the attention of voters because she's from the outside.
Voters are not looking for someone to do business as usual in Washington. They are fed up and want change. After decades of promise after promise by the GOP, voters are ready to tear down the system and are most attracted to outsiders with no ties to or love for politics as usual.
But is Carly a candidate voters should get behind? Do we really know much about her? Or is she another example of the stupidity of voters falling for someone because they say or do something to attract attention and immediately voters think that's enough to qualify them for the biggest job on the planet?
In looking for more information about her, I came up with an inexhaustive list of 10 things Carly needs to explain before voters decide whether to support her candidacy. If you do your own research you may come up with even more questions.
A little research raises some concerns, but you can't judge somebody based solely on their past. The fact is that people do change and if we aren't willing to allow them to do so, then we are the fools. Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat, but he changed. That doesn't mean that everyone who claims to have changed really has, but we should seek answers as to why they've changed and if their answers are satisfactory, then we should accept them.
So, let's take a look at some things Carly needs to explain (in no particular order) before voters could decide whether to suppor her.
1.) Ann Coulter has gone from liking Carly to hating her as a candidate. The Washington Examiner has reported that any love Ann Coulter had for Carly is long gone. Coulter has been upset with Fiorina for standing against repealing birthright citizenship.
Yahoo reported that she said, “It would take passing a constitutional amendment to get that changed. It’s part of our 14th Amendment. So honestly, I think we should put all of our energies, all of our political will into finally getting the border secured and fixing the legal immigration.” NBC also reported her saying she didn't support deportation, amending the Constitution or challenging the 14th Amendment.
This raises a question regarding Carly's lack of understanding of the Constitution. She needs to answer this: Since the 14th Amendment says nothing about birthright citizenship, why are you so convinced you need a constitutional amendment to stop giving citizenship to someone just because they happen to be on American soil when the child is born?
Her comment about deportation is not uncommon among candidates. We are a nation of laws and if we ignore them we are no better than the current people in power in Washington who ignore the laws they don't like. She needs to answer why she doesn't support deportation and have a better answer than telling us it's too expensive. The average illegal household that is deported saves American taxpayers over $700,000. It wouldn't cost anywhere near that to deport them.
2.) Newsbusters reported that she supported Senators Marco Rubio, Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, John McCain, Michael Bennet, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, and Bob Menendez's Gang of 8 bill that included amnesty and said, "I applaud and salute the Gang of Eight's proposal. Let's move forward and vote on that."
Her support for the Gang of 8 bill raises significant concern. The question Carly needs to answer is why she supported it and does she still feel the same way. And, if she's changed her position, then what caused her to change it and why.
3.) Fox News reported that Carly supported TARP and said it wasn't enough. This was the disaster at the end of the Bush administration that sent America spiraling into recession. In defending it George W. Bush made the stupid statement, "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."
Any person with even a modest understanding of our economy knows that TARP was a disaster from which we've still not recovered (And yes, Obama's continued spending and bailouts have been a major reason we've not been able to recover, but it doesn't change the fact that TARP is what sent us spiraling into recession.).
So, Carly needs to tell voters if she still feels the same way and why. And, since we've never recovered and it's looking like the economy is on the threshold of getting a whole lot worse in the near future, she should tell us if she'd advocate another TARP-like bailout.
4.) CNN reported that in 2011 Carly stood with establishment Republican leadership and Obama in opposition to the Republicans who were against raising the debt ceiling without real spending cuts.
She needs to tell voters if she still feels the same way and why. She also needs to explain whether she'd advocate raising the debt ceiling again, as we're about to see the GOP leadership do yet another time this fall, and if she does believe it should be raised again, why this continued added debt is good for America.
5.) Recently Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller raised an important concern. He writes, "Just as Carly Fiorina was starting to impress, she decided to play the victim card." He then goes on to tell how, when asked whether she is running for the vice presidential spot she plays the gender card and challenges those who raise the question by saying that no one asks a man if that's what they are doing.
But she is wrong, as Lewis points out. He gives many examples the same question being raised of men in the campaign. Carly, however, has decided to try to use gender to her advantage in this situation to intimidate those who would ask such a question.
Interestingly, it looks like she also played the gender card when Megyn Kelly got into a battle with Donald Trump. She threw support behind Kelly and either did it strictly because they are both women or because she didn't do her homework about what happened. (I've written about Kelly and Trump numerous times in recent weeks.)
Carly claims to be a conservative, but a conservative doesn't consider gender, race, ethnicity, or anything else that's not substantive when it comes to a decision. They look at qualifications and the minute any candidate raises something like this, it should be pointed out that this is nothing but pandering to some people based on something that's superficial.
So, Ms. Fiorina needs to explain why she would use her gender to challenge the person asking the question when the same answer has been sought of numerous other candidates who all happen to be male.
6.) Back in February of this year, National Journal reported that Carly believes humans contribute to climate change. During his 2008 run for the presidency, John McCain was promoting a cap-and-trade solution to climate change and Carly was working with his campaign. The San Francisco Gate reported Carly saying, "
Carly was against conservative efforts to defund Obamacare in 2013. She felt that since Romney lost the election to Obama that conservatives should not delay or defund Obamacare. Dr. Ben Carson has said that Obamacare was "the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery."
Carly needs to explain how not stopping it is good for America and why she wouldn't fight it. There's no excuse for any politician supporting Obamacare and not fighting to stop it.
8.) The Wall Street Journal reported that Carly said she would have voted to support Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court.
This makes me wonder if her gender card is being shown again because it makes no sense that any Republican should support the appointment of an extreme liberal judge. Or does she hold John McCain's view that a president should get the appointees he chooses with no challenge from the Senate, even though it's the Senate's job to scrutinize and make sure appointees are good for America?
The court already loses too many decisions to leftists who don't hold the Constitution with regard. Carly needs to answer why she would support such a nomination.
9.) The San Francisco Gate reported that Carly is against using abortion as a litmus test for SCOTUS appointments.
Over 50 million babies have been killed in America since the passage of Roe v. Wade. The question for Carly is how anyone could NOT have abortion as a litmus test for a SCOTUS appointment. A civil society cannot stand for the murder of the innocent, otherwise we're no better than Stalin, Mao, or Hitler.
10.) Even though she is against the Iran nuclear deal, Carly needs to explain why, as reported by the San Jose Mercury News, while she was in charge at HP they used Redington Gulf, a wholesaler, to circumvent sanctions the U. S. had against Iran. And why an HP subsidiary in Russia bribed officials for contracts, as reported by USA Today.
The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense
“…I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.… It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell
(c) copyright 2011-2016 Doug Johnson All Rights Reserved. All site content is copyright protected and subject to penalties for infringement of copyright laws.