I don't get to watch the Sunday morning news shows -- Meet the Press, Fox News Sunday, etc. -- although when I do get to catch clips, I find the format engaging. You'd think that getting a chance to sit down, basically one-on-one, with the "movers and shakers" of government, business, medicine, science, etc., would be a phenomenal opportunity to "get at" the truth (or at least the guests' various versions of it.)
But, alas, it is election season!
Evidently, political double-speak has become rampant once again, and is the preferred mother tongue of all those who dare not lose any votes this close to polling time because they dare to actually SAY ANYTHING! I was quite amused by Carly Fiorina's stint on the aforementioned Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace on October 17.
Fiorina is the Republican candidate seeking to unseat the much-reviled Barbara Boxer in the California Senate race. She is a very smart lady, having served Hewlett-Packard as both President and CEO (her abrupt dismissal from that firm is not really relevant -- maybe) as well as 20 years as an executive with AT&T.
She has railed against Boxer and most of what she calls "career politicians" from both parties. They have failed to do their jobs, in her opinion, because they have simply not been willing to "cut waste" from government spending and cut taxes even further (especially on those who could stimulate our economy by creating jobs -- Repubu codespeak for the richest of the rich.)
I like Fiorina; I have followed her career for several years, and have been quite interested to hear what her solutions for our economic dilemmas might be. I have found myself sort of ready to buy in to her "let's-get-some-people-who-know-what-the-heck-they're-doing-up-there-in-Washington" mantra. So, I clicked on the video of the interview.
I gotta hand it to Chris Wallace; he tried, he really tried to get Ms. Fiorina to answer a simple, straightforward question about her proposals for fixing the economy. For a non-career politician, she sure aced the "don't let 'em trap you, just say things that sound good" quiz! (You can hear the interview and read a partial transcript here.)
Wallace: "So now, as a non-career politician, as the anti-Barbara Boxer, you tell me specifically what are you going to do to cut the billions, the trillions, of dollars in entitlements?"
Fiorina: "The previous non-partisan commission was just a feint for a tax increase. I believe that a Value Added Tax would be incredibly destructive to our economy right now." [Huh? Who said anything about a VAT?] "We need to start with the half a billion dollars in government waste that's already there."
Wallace: "But that doesn't even come close to the 4 trillion dollars needed just to avoid adding to the deficit, much less doing anything to eliminate the deficit. How are you going to cut the entitlements?"
Fiorina: "See, Chris, I have to -- you know, Chris, I have to say, with all due respect, you're asking a typical political question."
Wallace: "Ms. Fiorina, but that's where the money is. The money is in Medicare. The money is in Social Security. We've got the baby boomers coming. There is going to be a huge explosion of entitlement spending, and you call it a political question when I ask you to name one single entitlement expenditure you're willing to cut."
Fiorina: "Chris, I believe that to deal with entitlement reform, which we must deal with, we ought to put every possible solution up on the table, except we should be very clear that we are not going to cut benefits to those nearing retirement or those in retirement." [Wait...you're going to cut it, but not cut it?]
Wallace: "I'm going to try -- I'm going to try one last time and if you don't want to answer it, Ms. Fiorina, you don't have to. You're not willing to say there's a single benefit eligibility for Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security that you're willing to say, Yeah, I would cut that?"
Fiorina: "What I think we need to do to engage the American people in a conversation about entitlement reform is to have a bipartisan group of people who come together and put every solution on the table, every alternative on the table. And then we ought to engage in a long conversation with the American people so they understand the choices. Instead of rushing off into a closed room and having 100 senators figure it out for themselves, we need to engage people in the conversation."
Dadgum, this woman is good! I've never heard a non-political person speak so politically!
I especially like that last part about engaging the American people "in a long conversation." I'm just wondering how you do that? Does Carly have a living room big enough for 350 million people? Would they all come if invited? What kind of snacks will we serve?
Silly me; I thought the reason we elected 100 senators in the first place was so that they could "represent" us in having the conversation. Isn't that what a "representative" form of government is supposed to be?
If not, why is she seeking to become one of the club of 100? Why not just set up that "long conversation" with the American people with some of the corporate profits you have reaped over the years (not to mention the money being spent on your campaign?)
And I thought that if you asked a simple question, you were supposed to get a simple answer!
No comments:
Post a Comment