Make yourself a cup of tea and spend 1/2 hour getting to know Carly Fiorina as New Hampshire got to know her a week ago. A political outsider and previous CEO of Hewlett-Packard, she’s been watching politics and seeing that they don’t work for us, anymore. Hers is a much-needed voice of common sense.
Having served as an advisor to John McCain’s 2008 campaign, she served on the external advisory board of the CIA holding high security clearance. She has served in policy-making positions for national and state governments.
Carly has led a number of charities and nonprofits, most recently: chair of Good 360, the non-profit charity which Forbes has ranked one of the 10 most effective worldwide charities.
In her presidential bid, she is currently running 6th in New Hampshire polls and is tied with Jeb Bush in the delegate counts, she’s running ahead of Chris Christie and Ben Carson. Give serious thought to this serious contender.
As controversy surrounds ABC’s decision not to allow her to debate despite doing better in recent New Hampshire’s polls than several other candidates, Carly Fiorina discusses how so many other entities/powers that be get a say in the election process, but that somehow, voters for whom the ‘system’ should work, get the short end of the ‘stick.’
It doesn’t matter what your political preference, I feel there is injustice here and were this your candidate, I know you’d like me to know that I could see injustice where it is.
These are not my words, but a good introduction: “Such actions are also designed to “intimidate sources,” Scarborough noted, which Bernstein deemed “inexcusable.” There “is no reason that a presidency that is interested in a truly free press and its functioning should permit this to happen,” Bernstein asserted.”
Take the 9 minutes needed and listen to the story. Where does the need of the government to know, infringe upon our right to privacy and the ability of what is supposed to be a free press, to remain just that, free?
Isn’t this chilling? Doesn’t it make your blood boil? Even Carl Bernstein (or should I say, ESPECIALLY Carl Bernstein, is up in arms… Sounds like Watergate, Richard Nixon all over again. America, wake up; we need to be the WATCHDOG OF OUR GOVERNMENT!
There you have it: Obama, bankruptcy, and an unpleasant, forced end to entitlements as we know them, or Romney-Ryan and the preservation of entitlements that protect the elderly and disadvantaged, and that are sustainable for generations to come. Like Walter Matthau, Barack Obama is out of money, and has no plan to cut spending or to raise more without throwing us into another recession or worse. Unless he plans to find the equivalent of a rich widow, he should leash his attack dogs and offer some positive alternative to what Romney and Ryan are offering, rather than more of the policies that have brought us so close to financial disaster. Negative ads and squabbles over details are diversions from a debate over how to enable entitlements to accommodate our changing demographics and straitened finances, and a discussion of who would take the nation in the right direction. That is our real entitlement: to a debate on the relative merits of Obama’s “plan” to do nothing and Paul Ryan’s plan for reform.
“Greece has gone bust. Spain is in trouble. Around the world, what Walter Russell Mead calls the “blue state model” of welfare state governance is taking on water, including in the U.S. states under liberal governance. Every day, a new town in California goes bankrupt, even as its governor dreams of light rail. “
This is a guest post from The HubPages by guest author Bill , Henderson, reprinted with permission of the author
“Barack, Barack, Barack. Where shall I start?”
I guess I’ll start with what you said
“Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
First, no one said that we don’t need roads and bridges or infrastructure, so that’s an obvious straw man argument (and you are a genius at building straw men!). But your argument is also that we cannot make it without government (and you, of course), while the exact opposite is the truth. Government can’t do one damn thing without the taxpayers who provide the money via taxes, or the businesses government then hires to build that infrastructure.
Government earns no money, and couldn’t build a bird house.
Your surrogates are quickly rushing to tell us what you really meant, but why is it that the smartest man in the world so often has to have his people ‘splain what he really meant? I submit that you meant exactly what you said: Americans cannot thrive without a massive government guiding and supporting them every step of the way, and with a man like you at the helm telling us what we must do.
Well, I have news for you sir. I like to write about early America, because I’m in awe of the sort of brave men and women who left the comfort and relative safety of Europe and sailed to the new land where government did not exist. What an astoundingly courageous thing to do! There was no such thing as ‘infrastructure’, but they came anyway, and they persevered.
I’m also in awe of the brave men and women who later left the relative comfort and safety of the original states, and ventured into the unknown western frontier, where they were on their own, and government was nowhere to be found. There were no roads and bridges, and ‘infrastructure’ was a word that would not be coined for centuries. Yet with little or no help from government, they carved out the ranches, farms, and industries that made America an industrial giant. They expanded America, and government went along for the ride.
I would also point out to you, sir, that those times when government was out of the way were also some of the most productive times in our history! How could that be, when you claim that only government can pave the way? That is obviously untrue.
The role of government was spelled out by our Founding Fathers:
“We the people, of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
I’m surprised that a Constitutional scholar, and lawyer like you would be so woefully ignorant of the Constitutional role of government
Government is supposed to provide a taxpayer supported environment that allows “We the people” to prosper. Government was to be limited in power and scope, so that it was the servant of the people and not their master. Government was never intended to have the dominating role in our lives that you envision. That’s why the Constitution was written in ink and on stiff parchment, rather than on rubber than can be stretched to mean anything.
The sneering tone, delivery, snark, and blatant condescension of your recent remarks directed to and about business creators demonstrated your inherent hostility and derision toward the entrepreneurs and innovators which create new businesses and provide the backbone of American prosperity. You should be ashamed. What sort of president are you, when you constantly pit one American against another? You are the most divisive president in this old man’s memory.
You need to reexamine your motives, sir, apologize to America’s small business owners, and then run on your record. I assume you already know that the economy is in a shambles, unemployment is unacceptably high, and America has lost her triple ‘A’ credit rating. Why not run on that, instead of attacking America’s backbone?
I remember when we used to scold the lazy, good-for-nothings in America, the ones who refused to work and make something of themselves, whether adult or child. Today, we have a president who scolds the hard-working, successful business creators! How did we ever come to this?”
How’s life treating you? No, really … How is life treating you? Boy, that Republican primary was really something wasn’t it? They called it what? A vetting process? I guess that’s one way of describing it. From where I sat, it looked more like a demolition derby. The winner has three flat tires, his rear end smashed up to the back window, and has steam and smoke billowing out from underneath the hood. But the Mittmobile is gassed up and ready to run the Indy 500.
Yes, by definition, I am a conservative, so let me be the first to commend you on a job well done Republican Party. That was quite a spectacle. That fabulous vetting process netted us one of the best looking mannequins that I’ve ever seen. His suit fits absolutely perfect, and talk about exciting! He really lights up a room doesn’t he? Boy, if we can just take back the White House with this guy, our problems should be all over!
How’s life treating you ? If your boy can just get four more years, he should have this country running like a finely tuned sewing machine, right? He was just learning how to put on the skates during that first term right? You’re not going to like hearing this, but your boy has a couple of fatal flaws. One, he doesn’t understand math. Two, if his testosterone level was half that of his wife, he’d be twice the man that he is. People who love this man have been blinded by his oratory skills, and have mistaken progressive thinking and intellectual soundness for acute weakness. His inability to solve problems is a result of his inability to lead or accept responsibility.