Posted on 09/09/2015 6:53:33 AM PDT by conservativejoy
I don't understand why Carly Fiorina has so much buzz. Katie Couric, one of the high priestesses of the global warming religion, separately interviewed both her and Ted Cruz about it, and the contrast couldn't be more different.
In a scene so loaded that it screams the famous Admiral Ackbar line, "It's a trap!", Archbishop Couric started her questioning of Ted Cruz by saying "97% of scientists agree that global warming is manmade", essentially asking Cruz if he is a fool or an ignoramus.
Cruz's response? He is totally unruffled, totally unapologetic, smiles genially, and tells Couric that the "97% of scientists" is based on a discredited study. Cruz says "Let's talk about facts", and talks about the fact that there hasn't been any global warming in 17 years. Period. "It's not happening," said Cruz bluntly. Then Cruz talked about how the media pushed "Global Cooling" on us in the 1970's, and whether it's global cooling or global warming, the basic motive behind it is always the same: about increased government control of the economy. And then Cruz said that liberals changed the name to "climate change", so they could always claim there was a problem regardless of whether it got hotter or colder. Cruz further said that the Democrats are abandoning union workers in favor of environmentalists, creating an opening for Republicans.
So Cruz started with a question meant to put him on the defensive, and turned it around to (a) disprove global warming (b) explain how it is scam used by the government to control us and (c) turn it into an opening to attract union voters. And he did it with a manner that was gentle and friendly and smart. He was superb, really brilliant.
But when the Right Reverend Couric asked the same question of Carly Fiorina, she hemmed and hawed when it came to the very basic question, "Is man made global warming a problem?" Carly repeatedly answered, somewhat evasively, that it wasn't a problem compared to fighting ISIS and other issues, but didn't want to answer the basic question. She also said that a single nation acting on its own cannot affect climate change. She says we have to focus on innovation, like clean coal. But she doesn't answer the basic question until finally at the end, when asked for the fourth or fifth time, Carly admits that "climate change" is real, just not as important as other issues.
Carly's interview was bad for several reasons. First, she looked evasive on answering the basic, simple question of whether man-made climate change is real, and she looked evasive because she was evasive. Not good. Secondly, she got the answer wrong. As we all know, there has been no global warming for 17 or 18 years. Thirdly, while she correctly stated that the US could not solve the "problem" alone, she bought into the Left's argument that there is a problem. She accepted the premise of their argument, and once she does that, she operates on the defensive. After watching that interview a low-information voter might think "Well, even Republicans agree it's real, now I have to figure out who is better on this issue."
Compare her response to Ted Cruz, who changed the entire focus of the question and turned it back on the Democrats. It's just no comparison.
By the way, for those of you who might disagree with me, the article I link to in National Review actually praised Carly for her performance, making the opposite point I was. If you're curious, go there and watch the two interviews and decide for yourself.
Cruz hands down.
Cruz-Jitsu
Fiorina is unfit to shine Cruz’s shoes.
Seriously!
Yes, Cruz hands down, going away, etc. The man is simply brilliant, starting with the most basic of debate techniques - NEVER let your opponent determine the rules of the game. Carly still hasn’t figured that out...or maybe she believes in the world’s biggest scam?
I love Cruz for POTUS. My only concern is whether he is, at this point in his career, electable. He would be, without question, the first person that I have really and truly voted FOR since 1984...but I don’t want to vote for my political dream and wind up with the Beast or Crazy Uncle Joe - either would be an unparalleled disaster, from which we might not recover.
Carly is no Cruz, she is completely unprepared and out of her element, whatever that might be (unemployment line after being fired?).
I love it when we’re Cruzing together.
Good article. Stark contrast. Fio is such an obvious establishment stalking horse.
Carly gets the buzz because she has been, over all, the second most aggressive campaigner (behind Trump) and she’s actually been the best anti Hillary campaigner.
I don’t think she’s close to Cruz over all, my opinion simply answering the “why” question posed by the author.
Fiorina will end up in a Trump administration, probably in Commerce. Cruz will be a great AG. We will need him to prosecute Holder and Lerner and Cankles.
Cruz would be great on the S.Ct.
Ran Lucent into the Ground
She worked for the Clinton Foundation
Praise the arrest of the Baltimore Police.
Not my cup of tea
Carly is nothing more than Jeb Bush with more estrogen running through his(?) system.
The more I hear her talk, or read what she’s said, the more I see her as Bush’s RINO twin.
If Trump gets the nomination, I just hope he does not pick this thing as VP just because it’s a female.
Fortunately Trump is not as stupid as the GOPe, and if a female partner would give him the best chance, then let that person be Palin.
She was also in favor of Obama’s dreamer policy for illegals. Just watch her debate with Barbara Boxer which is available on you tube - and you will hear some other things that should alarm the voters. Sure she can talk a mile a minute and spew out facts and figures like a machine gun - but there is no warmth or genuineness in her face. She’s so stone cold.
Absolutely-—but someone has to die or leave first. Not AG-—Trump could move him in immediately.
That’s what I love about Cruz. He actually rejects the liberal media premises, and, not only that, but uses the democrats’ lexicon against them. Notice that he will work in words such as “extreme” and “radical” when describing democrat positions and policies.
Well I’m glad the election is already over and done for. Thanks for the tip.
BTW, this was about Fiorina v Cruz. Give your knee pads a rest once in a while why don’t you?
It is about Fiorina and Cruz, and why neither of them will be president, and why it’s important to get them into the administration where they will be successful.
That’s a good word to describe his style of dealing with hostile interviewers. Cruz was a national collegiate debate champion. Ms. Fiorina may or may not have been justly dismissed from Hewlett Packard (I suspect she’s right in describing what happened as boardroom politics) but she clearly can’t think on her feet like Ted. He would be worth nominating just for the pleasure of watching him disembowel the Democrat opponent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.