AN AMERICAN MARGARET THATCHER
Imagine the difficulties Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party will face if the Republican nominee is Carly Fiorina. Carly has been a sharp and effective critic of Hillary’s mendacity and negligent handling of classified information. Carly has meticulously exposed and dissected Hillary’s lackluster public service record and her make-overs too numerous to count. Unlike Hillary, Carly is no apologist for the American empire but is committed to revitalizing it by rebuilding the military, disengaging America from negotiation with its enemies, reengaging America with its allies, and downsizing the bloated federal bureaucracy. But perhaps most significant among the contrasts with Hillary, Carly is a person of integrity. Hillary’s record of deceit is now legion, helping explain why an overwhelming majority of Americans consider her a liar.
If we have learned anything from Carly’s performance in the first two debates, it should be that she is well-informed, sincere, unabashedly conservative, and able to parry blows directed at her with grace and incisiveness. Unflappable, she has not a namby-pamby bone in her body. If nominated, she could well become America’s Margaret Thatcher and, like Margaret, rise to international prominence in defense of her nation. By contrast, Hillary has never assumed the mantle of true statesmanship despite decades of public service. Instead, Hillary is deeply rehearsed and lacking in that facility needed to respond well on the fly, even when confronting predictable and pressing issues. Hillary is not affable but is instead wooden and, although calculating, oddly unaware of how halting and deceptive she appears to others. She epitomizes corrupt and staged Washington politics, a willingness to advance a public persona which endeavors to hide a dark non-public one. She cannot remove herself from her own history of corruption, abuse of power, arrogant condescension, and ineptitude. Carly is Hillary’s opposite.
If Hillary were to face Carly in a general election, a stark contrast would be apparent on the issues, to be sure, and not on Hillary’s trump card, gender. Hillary has reflexively relied on feminism as a fall back in every campaign for elective office. She counts on women voting for a woman rather than a man if, for nothing else, to see the woman beat the man or, in this case, to see the woman become the first of her gender to be elected President. Steeped in the politics of sexism, Hillary speaks as if women were preoccupied with a subset of issues that only other women are best qualified to address, what those on the left call “women’s issues.” If the only female running, Hillary presumes herself best “qualified” to address “women’s issues.”
The feminism angle loses its persuasive force if Hillary faces another woman in the general election. In the end, if Carly is the Republican nominee she has the potential of peeling away from Hillary some twenty or more percent of the female vote. That is because other than touting that she is female as a novelty in electing her president, Hillary has little substantive depth and certainly no spontaneity and dynamism. By peeling away a large segment of those who wish to make history by voting a woman into the oval office while at the same time capturing a solid Republican block, Carly could well defeat Hillary in the general election.
Unlike Hillary, Carly possesses true depth and persuasive power. She has proven herself a formidable debater. She is a master not only of fact, policy, and law but also of timing and delivery. Hillary lacks comparable mastery and, indeed, has a history of official negligence in favor of convenience (of, for example, mishandling classified information because reliance on her personal server and portable devices was to her liking despite the risks to national security). Fiorina is also able on the fly to rebut contrary argument with relative ease, while Hillary struggles, and often stumbles, whenever she deviates from a scripted response.
The contest for party nominations has barely begun. Voters are still endeavoring to determine who among the candidates not only best reflects their concerns but also has the gravitas, wit and wisdom to succeed in the general election. It appears obvious that Washington outsiders have an advantage because the electorate is so disgusted with dysfunctional government, hypocritical politicians, and the self-destructive domestic and foreign policies of the current Administration that they yearn to avoid election of career politicians (like Hillary). As voters become serious, they will take into account many factors that define a candidate’s character but among them that may well be prominent in their minds is the ability of Fiorina to eliminate gender as an exclusively Democratic advantage.
Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.
© 2015 Jonathan W. Emord - All Rights Reserved
Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution” and says “all freedom-loving Americans are in [his] debt . . . for his courtroom [victories] on behalf of health freedom.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable eight times, seven on First Amendment grounds, and is the author of the Amazon bestsellers The Rise of Tyranny, Global Censorship of Health Information, and Restore the Republic. He is the American Justice columnist for U.S.A. Today Magazine and joins Robert Scott Bell weekly for “Jonathan Emord’s Sacred Fire of Liberty,” an hour long radio program on government threats to individual liberty. For more info visit Emord.com, join the Emord FDA/FTC Law Group on Linkedin, and follow Jonathan on twitter (@jonathanwemord).
Unlike Hillary, Carly possesses true depth and persuasive power. She has proven herself a formidable debater. She is a master not only of fact, policy, and law but also of timing and delivery.