The Carly Fiorina Foreign Policy Gravitas Myth

Everyone is sucking up to her right now.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-media-says-carly-fiorina-won-but.html

But mostly just to bring down Trump by hook or by crook. It doesn't matter who won as long as it's agreed it wasn't Trump.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/last-night-was-about-stopping-trump.html

And she's clearly feeling herself this morning-and why not? If everyone calls her the Debate Dominatrix who is she to disagree with the punditry.

"Carly Fiorina doesn’t feel bad about her attacks on the debate stage Wednesday. She thinks they make her presidential."

“I hope it’s pretty clear that I am a fighter,” the former Hewlett-Packard CEO said on CNN’s “New Day” Thursday. “If you can’t fight on a debate stage than you’re not going to be able to stand up” for Americans."

"She said she was pleased with her performance and, though she interrupted some of the other challengers on the debate stage, made all the points she wanted to."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-2016-cnn-presidential-debate-reaction-213772#ixzz3m0llC1sj
Here, though I think she uses a key fallacy-that to be a strong President you have to win debates.

History shows debates are not this important. Nixon one  twice without debates. Reagan didn't have many debates with Mondale.

Obama was supposed to have gotten creamed in his first debate in 2012 with Romney. But does anything really get proved by this?

I see this mostly as concern trolling by the press. In some ways based on the media narrative Fiorina is the opposite of Trump. A lot was made when Hugh Hewitt stumped him on the leaders of ISIS and the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas.

Carly, of course, hit the questions out of the part. That's because in style she is the anti Trump. She is very polished and studied.

She's the college valedictorian, no question. She always studies meticulously for the foreign policy exam and aces it while some other students stumble.

But there is a difference between acing a foreign policy exam and actually being strong on foreign policy, must less being a strong commander in chief.

The media focus on Trump's stumble is rather selective too. It's hardly a gaffe on the level of Sarah Palin's 'I can see Russia from my window.' or Rick Perry not knowing the names of the government agencies he wants to shutdown.

Honestly, I try to keep myself pretty informed and up to speed on the big issues of the day and I can't claim I would have aced Hewitt's exam either.

But to claim that passing it is a litmus test is just silly.

And when you remember that W failed a similar test in 2000 and the media didnt' belabor that just shows that this is just selective breatbeating and so not really substantive.

In a way Trump is right. You can promise to do this and that and anything you like campaigning. But in a sense 'specifics' are going to be lies-as you are promising things you don't' know you can deliver.

What he says on foreign policy actually makes sense-or more sense than Fiorina or Rubio-another student who always crams for the foreign policy exam.

You can't make all kinds of promises for what you will do on day one, as until you're on the ground you can't have the full picture.