- Appearance in Davenport Friday
- Better than some is about as far as we will go
- Her political attributes do not make up for policy shortcomings
Carly Fiorina held what was billed as a sort of Christmas party affair at the Figge art gallery in Davenport on Friday. Attendance at the pleasant 5:00 event was 100 – 110 with the rest press and staff. The turnout, even with the holiday season conflict, was not top tier.
We expected better this late in the game, not so much in attendance given the timing and parochial Iowa expectations that “she will be back,” — but in what she had to say. Fiorina seemed evasive, an impression that we note in a number of the commentaries we reviewed for background to this.
Ms Fiorina was there and chatting people up when we arrived at 5:15 or so and she continued to do that until the start of her 6:00ish speech and after it as well. The “speech” was short and was focused on presenting an aura of the “iron lady” — she made reference to Margaret Thatcher and asked “who do you want to debate Hillary”? In our opinion, most of her competitors would do credible jobs, five come to mind.
One can maybe pass off the constricted length of her speech Friday as deference to the casual Christmas party theme — but not if she really feels the need to get a consistent message out, and time is of the essence for that. She did manage to get in a recitation of and minimal elaboration on three of the six points of her plan for America. One of those involves implementing zero based budgeting for the federal government, which is great, except she incorrectly stated that we have a balanced budget amendment and “where has that gotten us.” The US does not have a Balanced Budget Amendment.
The reference may have been to an act of Congress, no more effective than a chamber resolution, or oft stated political intentions of one sort or another, but the misstatement about a balanced budget amendment stood out because she does present herself as the voice of authority. And besides, “zero based budgeting” has been talked about a long tine as well to no avail. We support it but with the full realization it is a concept that can gamed, piled high and deep, rubber stamped and in and of itself does not cut the size of government.
Fiorina does have a great presence about her and her diction is superb but any reputation for directness was lost on us particularly during the short question and answer session after her short speech. Four questions were asked and two of them were evaded. The first evasion was as regards responding to whether she supported repeal of the 17th amendment. In 1913 Senate elections were moved to popular election replacing the founders design of each state’s senators being appointment by their respective state legislatures.
Repealing the 17th Amendment is a concept that has been around for years as many conservatives have come to appreciate repeal as a useful way to help restore state’s rights and true federalism. Fiorina could have begged off by simply pointing out that the role of the president in such matters is tangential while stating any predilection she should have. As a policy leader she can certainly express a position on the matter but she did not answer the question. For us it raises the question of the extent of her approach to government reforms
The second question Fiorina evaded was by yours truly inquiring as to how she would have voted if she were a federal legislator on the “Ryan/Pelosi/Reid /McConnell” budget appropriations bill just passed. She did not answer the question and only criticized Congress for pushing matters down the road, or some such topic shift. Of course it was a loaded question – with a straight answer producing a load of information. Some of her competitors for the nomination had to go back to Washington and actually take a position, well Cruz did – he made sure he was there to vote against it — and Graham was there to vote for it. Of course Rubio missed that vote like so many others.
Carly Fiorina has an impressive background and is capable of being direct so we were expecting straight talk about issues whether or not we agreed with her. We had no trouble eliciting yes or no answers from other candidates when we could get recognized to ask them. Examples – Jindal — keep the filibuster – yes or no – his answer – no. Next question – the budget reconciliation – yes or no — his answer – no. As regards Santorum keep the filibuster – yes or no – his answer – yes. Next question – the budget reconciliation – yes or no — his answer – yes he would have voted for it. We were disappointed Fiorina would not answer simple enough questions.
Here are some links to commentaries about candidate Fiorina:
What happens when Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina are compared head to head?
Mark Levin’s Conservative Review contains an issue by issue comparison (score card) of the Republican candidates. Each item evaluated is backed up with links substantiating the rating. It is a highly recommended reference.
R Mall
