Lion of the Blogosphere

Carly Fiorina

The New York Times is gushing with love for Carly Fiorina. Read the article if you think I’m exaggerating.

Commenter “mikeca” wrote the following:

If you are a low information voter I suppose you could get the impression that Carly Fiorina demonstrated command of the issues. Unfortunately, Fiorina most passionate moment when she was attacking planned parenthood was almost entirely factually incorrect.

Fiorina said: “As regards Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape, I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.”

There is a disgruntled former technician interviewed in one of the tapes. She talks about fetal hearts-beating and brain-harvesting, but there are no other witness or evidence to back up her claims. She admits at one point that the heartbeat was a response to an instruments and she definitely never says anything about keeping a fetus alive to harvest the brain.

In the video during this interview, CMP cut in couple of stock images that have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood. The one of a “fully formed fetus” that Florina was probably referring to is an image of a stillborn infant taken off the internet (without permission). This image is of a tragic stillbirth. It has nothing to do with abortion. It has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood. It has nothing to do with fetal tissue.

In other words Carly Fiorina was totally fooled by a deceptively edited video.

Of course in a Republican debate, nobody is going to call Carly Fiorina on her factually incorrect claims, because they all get their information from FOX News and other right wing news organizations that don’t bother to report these details. If Carly ever got to a debate with a Democrat, they would call her on her miss-information and demand she apologize to Planned Parenthood.

I thought about this comment, and I decided that Fiorina was not fooled by the video, she knew exactly what she was doing. I don’t think that Fiorina believes in half the crap she said during the debate, but she has a strategy to do whatever it takes to win the Republican nomination. She knew that no other candidate on stage would call her out and appear to be weak on abortion. She also correctly figured that the mainstream media will give her a pass on everything because she’s a woman and because they want anyone but Trump.

Let’s consider what else Fiorina said about Putin:

Having met Vladimir Putin, I wouldn’t talk to him at all. We’ve talked way too much to him. What I would do immediately, I would begin rebuilding the Sixth Fleet, I would begin rebuilding the missile defense program in Poland, I would also conduct military exercises in the Baltic states, I’d probably send a few thousand more troops to Germany. Vladimir Putin would get the message. By the way, the reason it is so critically important we that everyone of us know the General Soleimani’s name is because Russia is in Syria right now, because the head of the Quds Force traveled to Russia and talked to Vladimir Putin into aligning themselves with Iran and Syria to prop up Bashar al-Assad. Russia is a bad actor but Vladimir Putin is someone we should not talk to because the only way he will stop is to sense strength and resolve on the other side and we have all of that within our control. …

In contrast, Donald Trump, who said he would talk to Putin and get along with him, sounds like a sane moderate and an actual world leader in comparison.

Had any other had candidate said what Fiorina said, he’d be immediately branded by the MSM as a crazy extremist and a warmonger. But Fiorina can get away with it.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

September 17, 2015 at 3:29 pm

Posted in Politics

61 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It’s an “anybody but Trump” moment of panic. Random comments:

    “they all get their information from FOX News and other right wing news organizations”

    Lolz! Yeah, Fox News is “right wing”! We should be so lucky. But Progs truly believe this.

    Fiorina on Putin: Jesus Christ! The woman is more bloodthirsty than even Hillary, maybe. Did she get a blood transfusion from John Screwball McCain? Maybe she has a lot invested in defense contractors.

    In any case, she’s a dangerous nutjob. Which is exactly how she WILL be branded by the MSM if she wins the nomination. But she won’t.

    peterike

    September 17, 2015 at 3:40 pm

  2. “In contrast, Donald Trump, who said he would talk to Putin and get along with him, sounds like a sane moderate and an actual world leader in comparison.”

    I don’t have a problem with Trump’s saying he would talk to Putin. But talking will no more stop Putin than it will stop Iran or North Korea. You don’t stop strongmen with talk. They stall and haggle and bluff and push and keep doing what they damn well please until they either get what they want or someone stops them. Threats and bluffs don’t work against them because those are the tools they use. You either have to squeeze them until they’re forced to quit (sanctions) or you have to overthrow and kill them (Hussein, Gaddafi, etc). There’s no faking that. You’re either willing to do it or you’re not. Anything else is a waste of time. So Carly is absolutely right about that. And Trump knows that just as well as she does. He’s just not saying it in his campaign because, as you pointed out, “he’d be immediately branded by the MSM as a crazy extremist and a warmonger.”

    destructure

    September 17, 2015 at 4:49 pm

    • It’s possible that Donald Trump believes his shtick because he thinks he’s great. In any event, it doesn’t hurt to talk to Putin even if you know everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 17, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    • Putin is not Iran or North Korea. In fact, Putin is doing the right thing to support Assad. The stupidity of the right on the middle east is cosmic. We push off strong men and destroy civilization over and over (Saddam, Mubarak, Qwaddhaffy) and still, STILL expect Lake Wobegon to break out with just one more Islamic election.

      Putin supports the strong man, like we used to do, back before America completely lost its mind.

      “What is Putin’s play there anyway?”

      “Uh, civilization. Which used to be our play.”

      Dan

      September 17, 2015 at 5:14 pm

      • If LOTB had an “agree” button like Unz.com has, would have clicked it. Great comment.

        Dave Pinsen

        September 17, 2015 at 11:46 pm

      • It is not just the Right who think democracy and human rights are “the answer”.

        The American Left has always hated the policy of supporting strongmen.

        Who encouraged the overthrow of Mubarak, Khaddafi, and Assad? Not the Right, but Obama.

        Tarl

        September 18, 2015 at 10:17 am

      • Encouraging the overthrow of Mubarak was especially boneheaded, because he was the closest thing we had to an ally. Khadaffi also boneheaded, he was no longer bothering anyone. Dictators should be rewarded for backing off and becoming harmless.

        Assad was a pain-in-the-ass and deserved some sort of punishment. We should have supported one of his generals to overthrow him and become the new dictator who would be friendlier with us.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 18, 2015 at 11:05 am

    • “But talking will no more stop Putin than it will stop Iran or North Korea.”

      Stop him from WHAT, exactly? What is he trying to do to us? We, on the other hand, are mucking about within his legitimate sphere of influence, places we have no damn business being involved, like Ukraine.

      Putin is a rational man. Trump is a rational man. They are both strong alphas and they will speak the same language, even if it’s through a translator. Russia should be our #1 ally in the world and there’s absolutely no reason they couldn’t be.

      peterike

      September 17, 2015 at 5:15 pm

      • ‘Russia should be our #1 ally in the world and there’s absolutely no reason they couldn’t be.’

        Exactly. And this is what Russia would really want.

        Yakov

        September 17, 2015 at 7:07 pm

      • Yes, Putin is a rational man

        Yakov

        September 17, 2015 at 7:26 pm

      • The track record of cooperation with Russia doesn’t provide a lot of support for the idea of Russia as our #1 ally.

        Tarl

        September 18, 2015 at 10:18 am

    • ” … Threats and bluffs don’t work against them because those are the tools they use. … ”

      This makes no sense. You could just as well say force doesn’t work against them because force is a tool they use.

      James B. Shearer

      September 17, 2015 at 5:20 pm

    • Except that Russia has legitimate regional interests and territorial claims as well as a right to conduct independent foreign policy in its own interests. When Trump talks to Putin, it will be his chance to hear the voice of reason. The rest of the crowd is hopeless.

      Yakov

      September 17, 2015 at 5:22 pm

      • yeah I don’t get the problem with Russia. If they’re not exporting communism, I’m okay with normal territorial claims. We could probably use their help in the middle east.

        Mrs Stitch

        September 17, 2015 at 6:45 pm

      • ” I don’t get the problem with Russia. ”

        Talk to a Pole, a Ukrainian, a Latvian, a Lithuanian, an Estonian, a Georgian, etc. etc.

        Tarl

        September 18, 2015 at 10:19 am

    • So lets kill Putin now, Dr. Strangelove? The sunsets would be so colorful!

      Dan

      September 17, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    • And anyway Putin is doing the US a favor by propping up Assad. The Assad regime falling to ISIS would be a disaster for the US.

      James B. Shearer

      September 17, 2015 at 5:31 pm

    • You’re right about Putin, Destructure — he’s a barbarian warlord and our enemy. But you’re wrong about Trump. He’s not saying it in his campaign because he’s a phony — talks tough about little Mexicans, but not about Muslims or Putin, both of whom actually want to destroy us
      Dan (on female rulers) — the difference between a Monarch and a President is that the former represents his family and channels divine energy into his subjects, while the latter represents the citizenry that promoted him and channels their human energy into collective action. There have always been effective Queens — they became Monarchs because they were the representatives of their families best able to discharge the sacred function of these families. They employed male warlords as their agents in all important affairs. I think that America should have a Queen — this would satisfy the feminists. She should be served by a homosexual priesthood — they’d marry each other. The office of the Presidency would morph into the office of Warlord. He’d be advised by a Council of Wizards. The Muslims attack and she addresses the nation: “They have offended the Goddess. I have instructed my Warlord to take vengeance upon them, in the name of our dear offended Goddess.” Then the tungsten rods would begin dropping upon them from outer space.

      Garr

      September 17, 2015 at 7:44 pm

    • The situation is a lot bigger than the Ukraine and Syria. Russia may have lost it’s colonies but the cold war never really ended. It was merely interrupted while Russia recovered. Now they want to reconquer their former colonies in central asia and eastern europe. People may say it’s Russia’s sphere of influence and the US has no business there. But most of those countries don’t want to be conquered. Should the US have let Hitler and Stalin divvy up Europe? Or Japan conquer the far east because it was “their sphere of influence”? And what do you think they would have done next?

      I didn’t mention Assad but, since others did, a little background is in order. Iran was a staunch US ally until the Soviets backed the Islamists in the1979 Revolution to overthrow the Shah. Russia and Iran have been anti-American allies ever since. Over the last 30 years Iran has all but conquered the middle east. Lebanon, Yemen and Syria are all puppets of Iran. That’s why Iran’s ally (Russia) is sending troops to prop up Assad. As much as I despise ISIS and what they’re doing to the Kurds, Yazedi, etc they’re serving US (as well as Saudi and Israeli) interests by undermining an Iranian ally. That’s why the US hasn’t done anything to stop them. That’s the ugly truth and makes my skin crawl. But there it is.

      No doubt some still think Russia is right to back Assad or conquer the Ukraine. But it’s bigger than that. If left unchecked Russia will conquer Europe, Iran will conquer the middle east and China will conquer the Asia/Pacific. That’s why they’re such strange bedfellows. That’s their goal and the US is the only thing standing in their way. Time is NOT on our side.
      **
      “Russia should be our #1 ally in the world and there’s absolutely no reason they couldn’t be.”

      Russia wants to conquer Europe and we’re standing in their way. There’s no way in hell they’d be our ally.
      **
      “This makes no sense. You could just as well say force doesn’t work against them because force is a tool they use.”

      It makes perfect sense. North Korea and Iran are constantly threatening to bomb the US and getting concessions for it. Do you think threats would work against them? Hell no. Nothing short of force will stop them.
      **
      “So lets kill Putin now, Dr. Strangelove? The sunsets would be so colorful!”

      Someone should have done that after Putin’s botched assassination attempt of Viktor Yushchenko in 2004.

      destructure

      September 17, 2015 at 10:46 pm

      • Russia may have lost it’s colonies but the cold war never really ended.

        It ended when the Berlin Wall came down. We restarted it when we expanded NATO to the east and egged on “color revolutions” on Russia’s doorstep. If Russia were doing the same stuff in Mexico we wouldn’t put up with it.

        There’s no reason for us to have a cold war with Russia. Respect their sphere of influence in the former Soviet Republics and move on. The alternative is to risk World War 3 and drive them into alliance with China.

        Dave Pinsen

        September 17, 2015 at 11:53 pm

      • “It ended when the Berlin Wall came down. “

        destructure

        September 18, 2015 at 12:51 am

      • ‘Should the US have let Hitler and Stalin divvy up Europe? Or Japan conquer the far east because it was “their sphere of influence” ‘?

        Yes. None of it was our business. Nobody was going to invade the U.S.

        peterike

        September 18, 2015 at 9:12 am

      • We didn’t get involved with WWII until Pearl Harbor, when Japan DID attack the U.S.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 18, 2015 at 11:01 am

      • Smart imperialists pick off the smaller and weaker countries first. Then consolidate their gains before taking on bigger adversaries. I’d rather not wait until I’m outnumbered and surrounded to fight back.

        destructure

        September 18, 2015 at 12:40 pm

  3. Excellent post. I’m very impressed that you, while being unemployed at the moment, are able to produce material of such high quality.

    Yakov

    September 17, 2015 at 4:56 pm

  4. “Had any other had candidate said what Fiorina said, he’d be immediately branded by the MSM as a crazy extremist and a warmonger. But Fiorina can get away with it.”

    That’s true, but as a woman, she has to be the most aggressive person in the room if she is going to be taken seriously as a potential commander in chief. My ears perked up when she mentioned “the 6th Fleet” specifically rather than just talk about putting more ships in the Med. It gives the allusion that she knows what she’s talking about militarily. She has been coached very well. Even if she loses, which I fully expect, this is one time that her campaign staff seem to actually be earning their pay.

    Mike Street Station

    September 17, 2015 at 5:17 pm

    • She is not going for the win. She knows that, if Bubba’s wife is the candidate, she – Carly – would be the number one story in the world for weeks on end if she were selected VP at the Republican Convention, as that would mean the United States two-party system had, for the first time, guaranteed a woman as president or vice president. That being said, being able to put the two words Sixth and Fleet into a coherent sentence is a very low bar. She is smart enough to know that the VP slot is a very low bar.

      howitzer daniel

      September 17, 2015 at 9:15 pm

      • Also, she was almost certainly not “fooled” by the video described. She described people she considers to be despicable in a way that expresses her opinion that they are despicable. Basic rhetoric, and exactly what every winning presidential candidate since Washington – maybe with two or three exceptions – would have done in the circumstances. Voters hate candidates who stray too far from basic rhetoric, they are not electing self-important impartial academics with “unusual enthusiasm for accountancy and non-partisan Platonic accuracy” in their soul. That is what democracy is about, agree with it or not.

        howitzer daniel

        September 17, 2015 at 9:42 pm

      • Maybe a low bar, but it’s also a clever rhetorical device.

        Mike Street Station

        September 17, 2015 at 10:07 pm

      • the United States two-party system had, for the first time, guaranteed a woman as president or vice president.

        A joke from 1984:

        Q: How do you know the election is rigged?
        A: There’s a bush running for Vice President on both tickets.

        Tarl

        September 18, 2015 at 10:22 am

  5. Donald’s response to the Putin question was his biggest blunder of the night. Saying that getting along with Putin is the answer to the Ukranian crisis was a ridiculous answer. He doesn’t really know much about foreign policy and it shows.

    All of Carly’s responses were confident and substantive. Her “peace though strength” approach by military build-up was a perfect play to her audience. They were, after all, at the Reagan Library. Watch out for this one.

    B.T.D.T.

    September 17, 2015 at 6:22 pm

    • The answer to the Ukrainian crisis is for Russia to take over the Russian speaking areas. Trump may just understand this.

      Yakov

      September 17, 2015 at 7:45 pm

    • The answer to the Ukrainian crisis is for Russia to take over the Russian speaking areas. Trump may just understand this.

      I’m for partitioning Eastern Ukraine and leaving open the possibility of Belarus reunifying with Russia, assuming Putin can overcome Lukashenko’s coldness towards the idea.

      But giving Putin control of parts of Ukraine strictly because there are Russian speakers there is bad principle to work from. There are Russian speakers in the Balts and Western Ukraine, nations where where Putin could also lay claim to on that standard and where a strong majority, for good historical reasons, wants nothing to do with being ruled from Moscow.

      In exchange for Russia getting most of Eastern Ukraine, the Balts and the remainder of Ukraine should be heavily armed to deter Russia, a deterrence I think would be durable because Putin is mostly rational.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      September 17, 2015 at 8:40 pm

      • I meant majority Russian speaking areas that want to join Russia.

        Yakov

        September 17, 2015 at 9:50 pm

      • I meant majority Russian speaking areas that want to join Russia.

        That still doesn’t define the ground rules well enough; there are some towns in Latvia that are Russian speaking and would like to join Russia.

        Putin should be allowed to formally annex Eastern Ukraine – with a substantial ethnic Russian population it should never have been added to an independent Ukraine in the first place because, separated from Moscow, it would always remain a tempting target. But a land swap would have to be done so that Russia doesn’t interpret it as a blank check to charge off wherever there are Russian speakers.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 17, 2015 at 11:02 pm

    • “Saying that getting along with Putin is the answer to the Ukranian crisis was a ridiculous answer.”

      So what’s the answer then, genius? World War III? Sending thousands of American boys to die for neo-con insanity? To secure a few oligarchs in Ukraine? If this were my blog I’d ban you because I wouldn’t want you dirtying the waters.

      We have NO BEEF with Russia at all. None. It’s all made up nonsense to keep the war machine churning.

      peterike

      September 17, 2015 at 9:31 pm

      • The answer to the Ukranian crisis is to let Ukranians decide who Ukranian leaders should be & to to letting neocons in the State department stage coups when Ukranian leaders try to stand up for Ukranian interests.

        If the state department didn’t feel the need to have a puppet in Ukraine to pressure Putin with, there would be no Ukranian crisis.

        Rotten

        September 18, 2015 at 10:58 am

      • I was not suggesting that we go to war with Russia. I was stating that Trump’s answer lacked substance. Saying that he would “just get along with Putin” was a lame answer. His standard answer to foreign policy questions is usually something like “hey don’t worry about, everything will be great..just trust me”.

        These kinds of answers are insufficient for somebody who is running for President of the United States. I actually agree with you that we should have a more non-interventionist foreign policy. I could care less what happens to Eastern Europe.

        B.T.D.T.

        September 18, 2015 at 11:34 am

      • Any beef we have with Russia over The Ukraine we seemed to have caused when the Obama administration supported a coup against the corrupt, but democratically elected leader. No wonder Russia went nuts over it and staged a fake referendum to annex the Crimea. Honestly, I’ve no idea what the Obama administration is doing and no idea if they know…

        But the idea of partitioning the country into a Russian dominated and Western looking version makes sense to me. That aligns with the Ukrainian voting lines up. Really, most international problems could be solved with a good partition. It would certainly fix our problems in Iraq and Syria.

        Mike Street Station

        September 18, 2015 at 7:49 pm

    • “Saying that getting along with Putin is the answer to the Ukranian crisis was a ridiculous answer. “

      Indeed. But after a decade of war, most people don’t want to hear a candidate say they’re going to start new ones. It’s smarter for a candidate to claim they’ll use diplomacy and cross the Rubicon when they get to it.

      destructure

      September 18, 2015 at 12:15 pm

  6. Fiorina is just saying men better get used to it.
    Women earned majority of doctoral degrees in 2014 for 6th straight year, and outnumber men in grad school 136 to 100.
    http://www.aei.org/publication/women-earned-majority-of-doctoral-degrees-in-2014-for-6th-straight-year-and-outnumber-men-in-grad-school-136-to-100

    cesqy

    September 17, 2015 at 6:53 pm

    • good, so now we can get rid of all government programs and quotas that favor women. They don’t need them anymore. They can have their PhD’s in bullshit and their meaningless makework jobs

      shiva1008

      September 18, 2015 at 1:43 am

  7. Had any other had candidate said what Fiorina said, he’d be immediately branded by the MSM as a crazy extremist and a warmonger. But Fiorina can get away with it.

    At least Carly was a value creator at HP.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    September 17, 2015 at 6:55 pm

    • Wait, I though she was CEO.

      Jokah Macpherson

      September 17, 2015 at 8:21 pm

    • I’m not sure she was – http://carlyfiorina.org/. HP employees didn’t benefit from any value she created.

      Bryan Bell

      September 17, 2015 at 9:16 pm

    • Wait, I though she was CEO.

      In any corporate environment CEOs are always the hardest working value creators.

      HP employees didn’t benefit from any value she created.

      And why should they if it was the senior execs who created all of it?

      The Undiscovered Jew

      September 17, 2015 at 9:47 pm

      • Carly Fiorina was a lousy CEO. She merged HP with Compaq, when personal computers were in a downward demand, where the company no longer makes any PCs.

        On a similar note, part of the Manosphere is correct, when it comes to women and power:

        http://www.returnofkings.com/17995/dont-work-for-a-female-boss

        The emasculation of the Meriprole, is pretty much a dead gridlock for many guys, who can’t come with grips with it.

        JS

        September 18, 2015 at 11:39 am

      • Carly Fiorina was a lousy CEO.

        She failed because she had lousy, egotistical engineers.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 18, 2015 at 6:59 pm

  8. The Ukraine Crisis began when we fomented a coup in Ukraine to oust a pro-Russian democratically elected government. Russia doesn’t want hostile foreign powers interfering in its border states just like we wouldn’t want to foreign powers interfering in Mexico, Canada, and Caribbean nations. Nothing wrong to talk to Putin to arrive at a mutually agreeable position.

    The other Republicans want to rip up the Iran deal, confront Russia militarily, get involved in Syria and ISIS, keep a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m surprised no one brought up Cuba.

    Jimi

    September 17, 2015 at 7:27 pm

    • Cuba is one policy area I’m 100% in agreement with Obama. I actually think he should use up his remaining political capital on ending the embargo, but in the meantime send a Executive Order to the Treasury Dept. requiring 100% approval for all requests to visit Cuba.

      1M American tourists spending $1B would end the Castro regime faster than anything else.

      DSGNTD_PLYR

      September 18, 2015 at 10:56 am

    • Russia tried to steal a Ukrainian election with voter fraud and, when that didn’t work, tried to assassinate a Ukrainian presidential candidate in 2004. As for ousting a democratically elected government, it was only one guy voted out of office by a 70% parliament majority for corruption and ties to organized crime. His own party even voted against him. He was also the same guy who had run against the candidate Russia tried to assassinate. Russia responded by sending in officers to foment a revolution. So it’s really hard to make the case Russia was just minding it’s own business until big, bad America came in and started causing trouble.

      destructure

      September 18, 2015 at 1:29 pm

  9. She’s right that Planned Parenthood is evil. She’s also correct on Putin. I would never vote for her, but those are not the reasons why.

    Perturabo

    September 17, 2015 at 8:14 pm

    • Northwestern sociopathic warlords average 6 inches taller than Russian sociopathic warlords: compare William the Conqueror and Richard Lionheart with Stalin and Putin. It’s basically a question of mead vs. vodka. Do you want to live in a mead-world or a vodka-world? This is what you should all be asking yourselves.

      Garr

      September 17, 2015 at 10:19 pm

  10. Had any other had candidate said what Fiorina said, he’d be immediately branded by the MSM as a crazy extremist and a warmonger.

    The same dynamic occurred in ’80. Reagan was the wild extremist on foreign policy though his statements were entirely consistent with JFK’s. Who is the extremist as far as the media is concerned has nothing to do with the position and everything to do with the person.

    Curle

    September 17, 2015 at 8:57 pm

    • Fiorina has no intention (let alone a chance) of ultinately winning the nomination. Her function, on behalf of the GOP establishment, is simply to stop Trump’s momentum and dilute his voter share. Just like Ben Carson, she will be easily dispensed with once she has served her purpose.

      maj

      September 18, 2015 at 1:20 am

      • I agree for now, but if Jeb totally collapses in a heap the establishment will be looking for a new representative. She could be up for the job of establishment toadie.

        Mike Street Station

        September 18, 2015 at 7:52 pm

  11. All this talk about letting Russia have their “legitimate” sphere of influence is amusing to anyone with any understanding of history.

    Exactly the same arguments were advanced within the US government from 1941 to 1945 — “we shouldn’t fight Russia over Eastern Europe, we should let them have it and then they’ll be our buddy after the war.”

    How did that work out for us? Was Russia our buddy after we put our seal of approval on their territorial gains? Or did they develop new aspirations once the old ones were satisfied?

    Tarl

    September 18, 2015 at 10:29 am

    • No sane person wanted to fight Russia over Eastern Europe because since it *was* in their sphere of influence they could easily muster the troops and weaponry over there while we could not. France and Germany both failed to defeat Russia on those grounds despite mobilization advantages the US lacked. It was not a matter of “letting them have it”; we couldn’t have it, at least not without suffering massive casualties and enormous expense for gain that would be quite marginal to ourselves. (What do we care whose vassal Ukraine is?) The outcome of the Cold War vindicated the restraint exercised in 1945 by demonstrating what a tempest in a teapot the whole thing was in historical terms.

      Richard

      September 18, 2015 at 1:37 pm

  12. A very different take on Fiorina in foreign press. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3156767/White-House-hopeful-Carly-Fiorina-s-claims-motherhood-secretary-CEO-rise-fire-ex-husband-ridicules-calculating-tragic-stepdaughter-s-mom-says.html also an interesting take at the pro-libertarian LRC: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/carly-fiorina-destroyed-value-at-hewlett-packard/ and also: http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2015/05/04/president-fiorina-how-carly-did-at-hp/

    The first article has some inaccuracies, claiming Sanders is open borders (he isn’t) and Paul a Libertarian (he lost 75% of his support after the leader of the Libertarians, Michael Gilson de Lemos or MG, basically pointed out Rand Paul had a history of anti-Libertarianism and made no sense in terms of their long-held cross-partisan voting strategy).

    Fiorina seems like a crony/pseudo-capitalist getting in there and messing things up, something Libertarians denounce. She went in, looted the company, tanked the stock, and got rich by what? Shorting it? That seems to be what many people think may have happened.

    Trump– after getting some pro-libertarian support in his fights against the bribe-takers in NYC– basically got clocked in court by the unforgiving Libertarians over an Eminent Domain case, but is at minimum smart enough to realize they hold (the independent pro-libertarians) the balance of electoral power and the pro-libertarians vote for deadlock and a progressive President, so he needs to look like the progressive. He made a pilgrimage and had mea culpa meeting at the pro-libertarian confab in Nevada a few months ago. He came out saying he was against the anti-third party laws, the Drug War, and for free trade with reservations and strong diplomacy and negotiating, a big turnaround. Trump seems to have gotten Paul’s lost support for now, but Paul has come back from a kiss-and-make-up tour with pro-libertarians, but still is saying nothing pro-libertarians care about IMHO.

    Rob

    September 18, 2015 at 1:59 pm

    • There a lot of phony Libertarians out and about these days. Rand Paul and Glenn Beck are prime examples. These guys are not libertarians. They are conservatives.

      If you are against gay rights, abortion and drug legalization then you are not a Libertarian. Rand has the good sense to stay out of endless, unwinnable foreign wars. That alone doesn’t make him a Libertarian. It just makes him sane.

      B.T.D.T.

      September 18, 2015 at 2:45 pm

  13. There’s nothing wrong with the sixth fleet and we already have tens of thousands of troops in Germany. Restarting BMD in Poland would irritate Putin and probably start him building more IRBMs. None of these things would make him “get the message” but it sounds okay if you don’t know anything.

    Snape

    September 18, 2015 at 2:55 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: