Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, one of the largest tech companies in the world, and also a former senate candidate, is pushing heavily towards a potential run for president in 2016. While she is great, and a far better option than what the Democrats will be putting up, I have to seriously question why she should be president. Yes she has gained much experience as the CEO of a worldwide company and worked for numerous boards and charities. But she has no experience when it comes to matters of foreign and national policy.
I do not believe she should run for president. Mainly because there is a good opportunity opening up for her in California. I am not speaking of Sen. Barbara Boxer retiring in 2016, which is a seat that Fiorina has run for once in the past and lost. I’m talking about the governor seat California governor seat which is opening up in 2018 as current governor, Jerry Brown, is term limited.
Running for governor might be a far better option for her than jumping right into a presidential race. The positives about running for governor is that she already has experience running a statewide campaign in California and has roots their. And after the reign of Gov. Brown there appear to be some people who are thirsting for change in the governors mansion. Also, it would give her experience at governing and working with a legislature, and getting a good hold on policy making.
Though a possible run for the empty senate seat in 2016 would not be a bad option. Being able to hold the title of governor, especially governor of the state of California, would give her great credentials for a future presidential run if she were still open to it, which I imagine she would be.
We will see what will happen in the coming months. I predict that she will run, but will drop out mid February, before Super Tuesday. And will make it on to several candidates short lists for who they want to choose as their Vice President.
As we gear up for the 2016 presidential race, conservatives both grassroots and activists and national figures, have begun campaigning in a sense, for who they think is the best candidate for the job. And some of the choices have made me stop and ponder whether some people are being a little hypocritical when it comes to their chosen candidate and how they have acted in the past.
The issue that I’m getting at is one of experience, namely experience in politics and with certain important policies and issues. I recall back in 2008 when it was Obama VS. McCain, conservatives went after Obama for his severe lack of experience, and that he was not at all prepared to become the leader of the free world. Even touting the experience of McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin.
Now fast forward six years, and people are choosing candidates. Some of the candidates, have been praised for their lack of experience. Individuals such as Dr. Ben Carson, who rose to national stardom after his public condemnation of Obamacare during his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, Carly Fiorina who was the CEO of Hewlett-Packard and ran unsuccessfully against Sen. Barbara Boxer in 2010, and Senators Ted Cruz (Texas) and Rand Paul (Kentucky).
I pose the question, don’t these people embody what they fought against in 2008, a severe lack of experience and knowledge in key issues and policy making? The only real difference between Sen. Obama and these individuals is that Obama is liberal his views, and these individuals are all conservative, even libertarian, in their views.
All of the potential candidates I listed above are good people I am sure. But they are not what we need. Remember, it was a president with a lack of experience that has gotten us into this mess. Do you truly think that putting someone like Cruz or Carson into the presidency would be a wise decision with what they would be facing? It seems that the last six years have made people upset with the workings of Washington, and have only seen the dark side of politicians. But what they have forgotten is that people with experience have gotten great things done, people who have lived a life a public service and still follow the will of the people. That seems to have been forgotten, and now we find ourselves pitted against one another in a battle over how politicians gotten us into this mess and how only a non-politician can get us out and no other. That is a very dangerous view, and one that I oppose.
In such serious times as we are in, it is not good for conservatives to divide and bounce about, going for candidates who present a limited skill set in a world on the brink of chaos, and would need guidance in the matters of policy making and what is needed to be done.
As for Sen. Ted Cruz. Cruz is a first term senator, who to his credit is a good conservative, a good speaker, but has done nothing in the way of legislation. I know people like to play the card that they were under a Democrat majority with a Democrat president, but that is no excuse. It has been proven before that you can pass good legislation if you work hard for it. Rick Santorum proved that to be true as a Congressman, serving in DC while Bill Clinton occupied the White House, pushing through welfare reform that eventually passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by Clinton. So pulling that trick won’t work for Cruz and others.
I would much rather keep Sen. Cruz, Sen. Lee and Sen. Rubio in the senate. Some of these freshman senators still need to prove themselves in matters of policy and passing good reforms and legislation. We need someone with a record of accomplishments and success’ in working to pass laws, and not just rhetoric.
In closing I would like to bring up the topic with which I began. I beg my fellow conservatives to not fall into hypocrisy. Stay the course, politicians are good people too, we knew this at one point. Let us clear our vision and move toward the shining city on the hill.
It has come to my attention that a lot of conservatives are pushing for Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon from Maryland, to run for president in 2016.
I, like others, noticed him back in 2013 when gave a fiery speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. I felt he was eloquent, and brought up good points, but one thing continues to bother me. That no one really knows Ben Carson.
I would bet that if I went to any conservative at a rally or event and asked them why they liked Ben Carson they would say that 1. he isn’t a politician, 2 he is against Obamacare and 3 he is a regular guy. All that is great, but what are his core beliefs? What does he believe?
For those that have been paying close attention they will already know his feelings on abortion, and gun control, two of his notable faults. On abortion, just in this past year, Carson endorsed Dr. Monica Wehby of Oregon and called her pro-choice campaign stance “savvy”. Stating that though she is personally pro-life, it was savvy of her to take a more pro-abortion stance while running for Senate. Here is a direct quote.
“She has a very good value system — she’s running in the state of Oregon. Now she is criticized by some because she’s pro-choice. Personally, she’s pro-life and does everything just like I do to try to preserve life, but she’s pragmatic also and she knows that there’s no way you’re going to win in Oregon with that stance. There’s a difference between just being principled and saying, ‘These are my principles; I can’t deal with anything else,’ and being principled and savvy. If you’re not savvy along with your principles, you’re not going anywhere.”
Then there is his position on gun control, something he has begun walk back since he seems more serious about running for president. His response to Glenn Beck’s question about semi automatic weapons is that you should not be able to have them large population areas, an answer that begins to step on the toes of law-abiding citizens. Here is the video of Carson’s response to Beck.
So already, this perfect candidate persona is broken, he is not as great as he first appeared to be. But that ultimately is not my number one reason as to why I do not want Ben Carson to run for president. My biggest issue is that he has never held elected office, and he has no idea how Washington works. And in such volatile times as we are in at the moment, I do not believe now is the time to be attempting to elect a non-politician who believes in “savvy” campaign stances.
Right now, especially with the mess that will be left to clean up after the Obama administration leaves, what is needed is someone who has experience in Washington, and who has a strong knowledge of national security and foreign policy. Someone who can get our country back on track and fast. And I do not believe that person to Ben Carson. As nice of a guy as he is, he does not posses the leadership that we will need in a post-Obama America.
This past week, a massive rally took place in Paris, France which was attended for over 3 million people, and a little over 40 world leaders. Including French President Hollande, German Chancellor Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, England Prime Minister James Cameron among others. But there was one world leader that was noticeably absent. President Barack Obama, the president of the free world, and a nation that has been fighting the war on terrorism for years.
It would be expected that the leader of the United States then would join one of the largest rally’s, let alone historic, as citizens and leaders took a firm stand against radical Islam. Any past president, even former president Bill Clinton, would have traveled to Paris to stand with other world leaders. But Pres. Obama did not.
Instead he stayed home, only releasing statements and speaking on the tragedy. In doing so, he revealed his true feelings on radical Islam and attacks free speech and free expression. That he just plain does not care. About the world-wide attack on free speech and expression, and against humanity as a whole. If he cared, and believed what he said, he would have taken the first flight to Paris to stand between President Hollande and PM Netanyahu. He would have stood arm in arm with them and walked in solidarity.
I have hoped that he would do the decent thing and stop hiding behind faux feelings and press releases, and decide to be honest and up front with the American people about his feelings. But that is a fantasy that will never come to fruition.
It will be interesting to see how White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest will handle the questions that are coming his way. Gauging from his past briefings, it should be one to watch.
There are two prospective presidential candidates, both named Rick, and whom appear to be similar. But they are drastically different when it comes to the safety of American citizens.
The two Ricks that I speak of are Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, and Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania. The issue at hand is the Ebola outbreak that has made its way onto the plains of the United States.
There are certainly major differences between how these two potential candidates would deal with the current crisis facing our nation. Perry would continue to allow the influx of individuals who have contracted the disease to walk into the United States and infect others. And will only go as far as to put in place new screenings at airports. Santorum would secure our borders to ensure that America would have the best chance at avoiding the outbreak. While sending support to the affected nations to help those infected and work towards eradicating the disease.
It is quite clear, that on this issue and others, the two Ricks differ greatly. Keep this in kind as the Republican presidential primary nears. Rick Santorum has the safety of American citizens at the forefrunt of his foreign policy plan. Rick Perry is just mimicking the failed policies of the Obama administration.
This past week, Rick Santorum went onto On The Record with Greta Van Susteren. During the course of the interview Greta asked the former senator and presidential candidate about the situation with Ebola. Below is the question and Santorums response.
Greta Van Susteren: “If you’re a President of the United States what do you do when you find out there’s been ebola diagnosed in your country?”
Rick Santorum: “You have to rely on the scientists. The same thing with the military. You have to rely on the folks who are your experts in the military to make this decision. Travel restrictions certainly would be very very high on my list. Where people are immigrating from. We know where the hotspot is. We know it’s a danger. We have to do things to protect our country. We have to put Americans first here. Obviously we want to provide help & support for those in West Africa, but we have to make sure that we aren’t bringing people into this country who could have been exposed. If you look at this situation of this person. They didn’t have any symptoms, all the things you would have expected someone with Ebola to have, this person didn’t have. So, that makes you think we have to be overly cautious about what people we bring in from that area of the world.”
Santorum’s response to the situation is very appropriate and contradicts the actions taken by Pres. Obama and his administration. The administration’s officials have treated the case of the American who traveled home and brought the disease with seemingly no real concern. Officials have even refused to entertain the idea of banning incoming flights from infected countries. Where as Rick Santorum realizes the situation we are in and the actions that must be taken.
In cases like this we cannot afford to react after the fact. We must act and prevent these things from happening, while also sending support and aide to West Africa where the situation is most dire. Rick Santorum sees this reality and knows what has to be done.
Now, we are forced to go into damage control as the disease exists now within our borders. This will now make it harder to help West Africa and any more aid workers who may get infected while abroad.
In this case, Rick Santorum is absolutely correct. We must do what is best for Americans and put our citizens first.. And that is to ban all incoming flights from West Africa, and then to help them fight it.
(At the time of writing this article, a video from the interview was not available. It will be posted once it is made available.)
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin is currently facing a tough challenger in his bid for re-election this November. The most recent polls point to the two being tied for the position, but past experience says that Walker has an edge and could come out with a victory and retain his seat. After all, he initially won his bid for governor back in 2010 in a blue state, and then won with even larger margins (53-46) when he faced a recall election in 2012 (though I have to say now that after speaking with a good friend, the recall election might not be a good indicator for whether or not he will win this November. It was an effort to get people to vote Walker out on a “whim because of all of the horrible things he’s done for the middle class”. Definitely food for thought that we should take into consideration).
All of this, along with his success in being popular in a state that has been typically lead by Democrats, and being successful in making Wisconsin a right to work state, gives him great recognition and power on the national level. Whether he could make a successful bid for president in 2016 is currently questionable, though he does have some national support for such a campaign. There is another position though, that all of the men and women preparing for a run for president in 2016, should have Walker’s name at the top of their list for. And that is vice president.
It might not seem like a lot, but having someone like Walker on the ticket would make a candidate’s chances (especially a Romney or Romney-lite candidate) much better, as Walker is much more appealing to conservatives. Also, he could help Republicans win over Wisconsin, a state that has been elusive to the party for many years, and gain some necessary electoral votes.
I hope that the candidate’s take Walker into serious consideration as the prepare to start up their bid for the highest office in the land next year.