Carly Fiorina’s Surge

Fiorina’s first remarks in the debate were fired at Trump. In answer to the question about whether nuclear codes should be entrusted to someone like Donald Trump, she responded that “Mr. Trump was a wonderful entertainer and terrific at business,” and that with time and under pressure, everyone’s true character will be revealed. While Fiorina’s confident remarks were assertive, they evaded the original question, so the moderator put her back on task, pointing out that she did not indeed answer the question. Again, she avoided a direct response, saying it was up to the voters to answer.

Fiorina, in an attempt to give Republicans a more level-headed “alternative” to Trump, made clear her opinion that a good leader is not afraid to challenge the status quo and “change the system.” She did well to remark on how the best leaders are those that unlock the potential in others.

Everyone anticipated a Fiorina comeback to Trump’s remarks about her face. Stating “I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said,” she elicited a round of applause and compliments from Donald Trump to cover up his faux pas.

Finally, she went after Trump’s call to end birthright citizenship by stating how “arduous” the process would be, given that it would require a two-thirds majority from the states to repeal that part of the fourteenth amendment.

Fiorina came out on top when it came to Donald Trump. She was like an impenetrable forcefield. However, her responses to the rest of the considerably more pressing issues were full of holes.

Despite the US’s already massive military defense spending, more than China, Russia, and France combined, Fiorina wants to spend more money to rebuild the missile defense system, rebuild the Sixth Fleet, arm the Kurds within US control, give intelligence to the Egyptians, promote further solidarity with Israel, impose tighter restrictions on Iran, put more troops in Germany, rebuild the missile defense program in Poland, and scare Vladimir Putin into negotiations. She wants the US to build up its national defense so it is respected and feared. However, the Sixth Fleet is already enormous, and the US already has 40,000 troops in Germany. She did not bring us anything new and enlightening with these policies and had the most extreme stance out of all the candidates on this issue.  It appeared as if she were trying to overcome the stereotypical image of a passive woman by overcompensating with overly aggressive policies.

In answer to the question on why her experience makes her qualified to be president, she responded that she led Hewlett Packard through a difficult time when she was CEO.  She claimed that she doubled its revenues, quadrupled the cash flow, tripled the rate of innovation, led in every market category, and increased the number of jobs to 300,000. She claimed that board member Tom Perkins himself apologized and said she was a terrific CEO and that the board was dysfunctional. In addition, she claimed to have risen from being a secretary to a CEO. First of all, the only time she did clerical work was in the summers between dropping out of law school and starting business school. She began her climb with a management-training program at AT&T after she got her MBA. Not exactly a rags to riches story. When she was hired in 1999 as CEO of HP, she had no CEO experience NOR interviews with all of the board members. She was fired six years later. Did she indeed double revenues like she says? Kind of… She doubled revenues controversially through the acquisition of Compaq Computer and a variety of other mergers… However, there was no increase in net income for HP even though the S&P 500 had increased by 70% in that time. HP’s debt increased from 4.25 billion dollars to 6.7 billion dollars and its stock price was cut in half, which was considerably worse than the 15% decline in the S&P 500 Information Technology Sector index. Thirty thousand jobs at HP were lost. After her departure, little remained of the Compaq Computer merger, along with employee morale and modest leadership. And might I add, she left with nearly $100 million in her purse. Yale Professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld even labeled her as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time.

Fiorina’s constant attacks on Hillary Clinton will seem hypocritical after I tell you this: After her loss in the 2010 Senate campaign, Florina was ridden with debts and did not bother to pay them off until she launched her presidential campaign. She points out that Clinton would have to “defend her track record” on Bengazi, her e-mails, and her server. Fiorina challenged any democrat to name an accomplishment of Hillary Clinton. There are too many to fit into this article. The Clinton Foundation? State Children’s Health Insurance Program? Violence Against Women office? The list goes on.

Fiorina’s back-story about losing her step-child to drug abuse and call for decriminalizing drug addiction was moving. She called for the educating of America’s youth on the true effects of marijuana and made it known that it was not like drinking a beer. Fiorina’s more personal side came out with this, though she gave no specifics on how the prison system should be decriminalized.

While giving no specific immigration plan, Fiorina immediately called President Obama out on not fulfilling his promise of immigration reform. While Obama did not get to the task right away when he was elected, after his re-election he spent a year crafting an immigration-reform bill.  It was the Republicans in the House of Representatives that stopped Obama’s immigration-reform bill.

Fiorina made sure to profess her disgust for the videos released on Planned Parenthood. “I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, it’s heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.” Well Ms. Fiorina, maybe you should watch the tapes sometime yourself. That did not happen.  Maybe Fiorina should get her facts straight before preaching.

Fiorina decided that we shouldn’t change the faces of the $10 and $20 bills, Alexander Hamilton and Andrew Jackson respectively, because she believes it doesn’t help to change our history. According to Fiorina, not changing the face on the $10 bill will somehow “recognize that women are not a special interest group but a majority of the nation.”   Does that make any sense to you?