Blog Archives
Soaring Above the Rest
Fact: Carly Fiorina is winning.
Another fact: Americans love winners.
Whether at a campaign event, a Happy Hour gathering or standing at a podium for 3 hours in front of Air Force One in the library of President Ronald Reagan, former technology CEO Carly Fiorina is defining herself as knowledgeable, savvy and purposeful. The former is immensely important, but it’s the combination with the latter that may be what’s really separating Carly Fiorina from the dozen+ other candidates vying for the Republican nomination.
Quick note: All the immature bickering and name calling by a few of the candidates was unwelcome, especially in the presidential library of Ronald Reagan, a strong leader and a gentleman above all else. It was incredibly disrespectful and I have a feeling viewers noticed who said such things in the place built for the man whose conduct was antithetical to such juvenile behavior. Visually, a tipping point may have been reached for some.
Carly Fiorina is a political outsider in the sense she’s never held elected office. She ran for senate in the deeply blue California in 2010, but lost. She guided HP through the difficult tech bubble, but was ultimately fired by her board. However, as she mentioned last night, industry colleague Steve Jobs made sure to offer his condolences and shared experiences in that area.
That’s what we call a ‘mic drop.’
Mrs. Fiorina’s answers to questions during the past two debates demonstrate she is one of the best candidates in the presidential race, regardless of party. What’s more is it’s still early in the race and more opportunities will arrive to showcase skill and strength on each and every issue. And we haven’t even heard the questions and answers about specific economic policies, like tax reform, entitlement reform, healthcare, spending, etc.
It seems like (along with Marco Rubio) that Carly Fiorina has a purposeful reason for running for president of the United States of America. There’s a sense she has a grand vision of American exceptionalism that’s rooted in service to her fellow citizens. She recognizes that the country’s economic foundation is unmistakably shaky and that the foreign policy identity of the United States is lost when its power (soft and hard) and resolve is needed most. She’s offering clear, intelligent solutions so that the American people can succeed.
Equally important is there’s a genuine goodness and sincerity about Carly Fiorina.
Despite professional and political shortcomings and personally devastating hardships, including the tragic death of a child, she has an inspiring success story. In a condensed manner, she was secretary of a small real estate company and rose to become the CEO of a major technology company in an industry dominated by men and she led Hewlett-Packard to impressive results. And, above it all, she beat breast cancer.
Don’t dare question her personal strength and determination to make something life-changing and positive happen.
Not everybody excels at everything, not everybody succeeds at the time everyone thinks they should and not everybody is uniquely qualified to be president of the United States, but when each of us discovers our true path in life, it usually leads to a bottle with lightning in it that ignites into a remarkable sight for all who see it and experience its wonder. Throughout history, people look to individuals with this electricity in them, leaders they can have confidence in, for a story to connect with and a vision to follow.
Ronald Reagan offered eternal optimism and a sunny, opportunistic tomorrow.
Carly Fiorina is showing us what sparks in a bottle looks like.
Actually, that looks a bit more like lightning…
Fiorina’s Second Debate Win
“In a victory for the former HP CEO, the cable network announced Tuesday that it is amending its rules for qualifying for the Sept. 16 debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library to include all candidates who are polling on average in the top 10 in surveys conducted after the Aug. 6 Fox News debate.”
–Zeke J. Miller (TIME)
This recent development is the sensible response by CNN. Plus, the second Republican debate on September 16th could prove to be the pivotal debate for Carly Fiorina. Why? Her fantastic performance at the “Happy Hour” debate was her first positive introduction to the country and Republican electorate, but now she has high expectations. Mrs. Fiorina has been given the opportunity to articulate her conservative message and vision at the wondrous Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
If Carly Fiorina, in front of Nancy Reagan, can channel the charming wit and grand inspiration of the man for whom the library was built, her ascent in the polls will continue and sustain during the coming months.
To stand out in the house of Reagan, she must not fall victim to or engage in shouted interruptions by desperate poll climbers, but instead rise to inspirational storytelling that illustrates how the United States of America can successfully deal with its dangerous foreign policy threats and how it will rebuild its economic foundation (opportunistic tax reform, spending reductions by focusing on the priorities of the times, structural entitlement reform, a specific plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, legal and illegal immigration, etc.) that will lead to an optimistic (yet attainable) future.
This is her chance at a very rare second first-look. There will be a particularly bright spotlight on Carly Fiorina in how she will deal with the widespread anxiety and turmoil at home and abroad.
What would Ronald Reagan do?
“Peace through strength.”
That seems like a savvy approach for the debate’s venue and for the American people tuning in.
Goliath v. Goliath
“I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”
—William F. Buckley, Jr.
The sentiment above may perfectly encapsulate the politest inner (and entertainingly outer) intellectual assessment of Buckley to ideological enemy Gore Vidal and vice versa.
Fortunately, for political and philosophical enthusiasts, the 20th century’s intellectual brainpower of the citizenry for conservatives and liberals made sure to apply their thoughts and opinions in the form of never-before-seen jabs and rhetorical roundhouse kicks on national television. Even more fortunate is that a documentary of their epic battle on the desperate ABC network for the 1968 presidential election at the Democratic and Republican Conventions was made.
(Best of Enemies is one title both sides can, surprisingly, agree on)
Debate has rarely seen such high-minded, reserved intellect juxtaposed with simmering, raw emotion.
Buckley and Vidal are undeniably confident and charming, especially to the delight of each person’s admirers. But even members of the opposition have to salute their rivals’ clear linguistic prowess and quick wit, despite overwhelming differences in their views of the world.
With the evolution of cable news and constantly improving technology to record and disperse communication, this sort of televised political fireworks was bound to happen. The difference with William F. Buckley, Jr. vs. Gore Vidal is that it was lightning in a bottle between two giants in political commentary and American society more broadly. Moments like this are rare and profoundly cherished. Duplicating this magic is virtually impossible.
Just ask movie studios.
Another difference from the era gone by as documented in Best of Enemies was the selectivity of the highest intellect on politics, life and the social order for a prime-time 1 v 1 battle. Conversely, today’s public dissensions simulate the worst instincts of reality television, comprising of endless small ball soundbites and unrestrained, obnoxious insults interrupted with occasional insight and guidance by writers and thinkers of substance and perspective.
There are intellectual leaders and commentators of conservatism and liberalism in today’s journalism ranks, but they aren’t given the same elevated and exclusive platform as Buckley and Vidal. They’re here, just waiting to sit directly across their enemy to battle on the front lines of their cause for the future of the nation’s civilization on television’s biggest stage.
Ultimately, was this epic match-up between two men with seismic intelligence, who genuinely despised one another as displayed by their heated temperaments, good for public discourse and debate on television? For their respective movements?
Either way, “I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”
The Middle East’s Chilly Future
“Upon verification that Iran is keeping its commitments to dismantle much of its nuclear program, major economic sanctions will be lifted, effectively releasing more than $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets.”
— Justin Fishel & Molly Hunter, ABC News
The key word with Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon has been verification, yet the early details released thus far on this historic deal do not inspire hope that the international community will prevent Iran from building the bomb. Is Iran giving the international community unprecedented, completely transparent access to their most protected facilities? No. Has the United States and its allies forced Iran to abandon its existing nuclear program? No. Instead, what’s been negotiated is a timeline as to when Iran will build their bomb, not if.
And the effective economic sanctions will cease to impede Iran and the billions of dollars will, accordingly, be reinvested into reaching their primary objective of weaponizing to a terrifying capacity after predictably deceiving future inspectors.
If the objective of this historic deal was to prohibit Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, mission not accomplished. President Obama merely made this a future president’s prodigious foreign policy migraine. It may be viewed as a good deal today, but it’s a devastating “solution” when Iran has their world-altering bomb in the foreseeable future. Iran will surely skirt the agreed upon rules and regulations (like always) as they adjust their calculations for their underground science project to continue by the end of the next decade, with the ambition to become a nuclear superpower.
A nuclear Iran now appears inevitable.
“Iran has not agreed to robust “anytime, anywhere” nuclear inspections. They have not agreed to a heightened level of scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has already been frustrated by Iran’s lack of cooperation. Snap inspections have been replaced by pre-approved “managed” inspections, with no guaranteed access to all Iranian nuclear sites, or to military facilities where secret research may be carried out. These are weaker verification provisions than under the 1990s Agreed Framework with North Korea under which Pyongyang still developed nuclear weapons.”
— James S. Robbins, USA TODAY
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu severely criticized the deal. Put simply, he said it was a “historic mistake for the world.” We all know the the life-and-death stakes for Israel on this issue. And the virtual silence from the surrounding Arab nations is very telling. It’s probably a safe hypothesis that the Middle East is about to begin its own nuclear arms race, with the potential to enact a new cold war and possibly a new world order in the forthcoming ten to fifteen years. Iran’s neighbors will build comparable arsenals to defend themselves as a realistic precaution. The collateral damage of what’s likely coming as a consequence of this deal is greater than the perceived short-term benefits.
This deal failed to diminish Iran’s supreme ambition.
The Obama administration was so desperate for a deal/photo-op for legacy purposes that it didn’t negotiate for its sole purpose: preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Some foolishly argued that no deal meant impending war, which was utter nonsense. The alternative to a perceived bad deal was a better deal. Unfortunately, the latter never came to fruition due to the United States and its P5 + 1 partners’ impatience and refusal to (in a unified front) declare and defend a red line of crippling conditions against Iran.
“There’s no strategic plus in (the Iran deal) for the United States,” Stein continued. “All there is is just taking Iran, a meddlesome, dangerous, killer, terrorist state and making a nuclear power. People who want to die, people who’ve pledged to die in order to eliminate Israel. This is a scary group of people to allowed to have a nuclear weapon.”
— Ben Stein, The Steve Malzberg Show
President Obama has routinely criticized the late President Reagan’s policies. Interestingly though, Mr. Obama is now adopting Reagan’s, “trust, but verify” mantra he used during the Cold War for his 2015 Iran deal. However, one important distinction needs to be made about the these two presidents and this phrase: Reagan ended the Cold War, whereas Obama appears to be starting one.
Strong leadership is about making decisions that will lead to a brighter future. It seems like the words that were missing from the Iran nuclear negotiations on our side were strong leadership. The lack of this essential characteristic is what inherently prevented a better deal from being established and ultimately signed.
Unfortunately, strong leadership is not verifiable in President Obama.
Jimmy's Daily Planet 