A tale of two CEOs

Jay Nordlinger has penned a very positive profile of Carly Fiorina.  When asked about outsourcing jobs to China, for example, Nordlinger paraphrases her: "It would be more accurate to say that she 'outsourced' jobs from California to Texas, which had much more sensible government than that golden state, ruled by the Left."

She started out in humble circumstances.  "Then she went to work at a little nine-person real-estate firm, as a secretary. After six months, the guys running the shop said to her, 'We’ve been watching you, and know you’re capable of more. Would you like to learn what we do?'"  Her talent was evident to many, as she became CEO of Hewlett Packard.

In contrast, Donald Trump's business practices have been less than exemplary.  He has employed numerous illegals in building his Trump Towers, which should be a real problem for many readers of AT, though he is mysteriously given a free pass.  (Imagine if Jeb had done such a thing!)  His is no rags-to-riches story.  He inherited hundreds of millions of dollars.  Nothing wrong with that, but populists who are angry at the Establishment should take note.  Has anyone heard a substantive, nonrambling speech from him on any policy?

So why is Trump more popular than Carly?  Maybe because he comes across as angry.  Also, the news media have trained their cameras on him and put their mics in front of him.  He gets all the attention.  Carly doesn't.  Why not?  She's the perfect critic of Hillary, so the media must not let her have her moment.  She is articulate, while Trump seems to traffic in grunts and platitudes and boisterous statements: "I'll build that thar wall, and make Mexico pay for it!  No one can build a wall like I can!"  (Cue the applause and fist-shaking from angry populists.)  But he never quite explains how he'll make Mexico pay for it.  Then Mexico forces bad illegals to come up here.  What does "force" mean?  A Mexican bureaucrat points a gun at the criminal's head and frog-marches him across the border?  Explain specifically what you mean, Mr. "The Donald."

Yet somehow Trump has supposedly tapped into voter outrage.  Blunt truth be told, maybe he has tapped into a strain of angry voters who do not think critically, but react viscerally.

Neither of these two candidates will win the nomination.  It's a good thing for conservatism that Trump won't, but a pity Carly won't, though I don't imagine she could win nationally if she were, hypothetically, to get the nomination.  Nonetheless, I hope she can get on the debate stage and show her qualities over the other CEO.  If readers are attracted to CEOs and anti-Establishment outsiders who "tell it like it is" (whatever the two "its" refer to), it's baffling that they don't choose Carly over Trump.

Jay Nordlinger has penned a very positive profile of Carly Fiorina.  When asked about outsourcing jobs to China, for example, Nordlinger paraphrases her: "It would be more accurate to say that she 'outsourced' jobs from California to Texas, which had much more sensible government than that golden state, ruled by the Left."

She started out in humble circumstances.  "Then she went to work at a little nine-person real-estate firm, as a secretary. After six months, the guys running the shop said to her, 'We’ve been watching you, and know you’re capable of more. Would you like to learn what we do?'"  Her talent was evident to many, as she became CEO of Hewlett Packard.

In contrast, Donald Trump's business practices have been less than exemplary.  He has employed numerous illegals in building his Trump Towers, which should be a real problem for many readers of AT, though he is mysteriously given a free pass.  (Imagine if Jeb had done such a thing!)  His is no rags-to-riches story.  He inherited hundreds of millions of dollars.  Nothing wrong with that, but populists who are angry at the Establishment should take note.  Has anyone heard a substantive, nonrambling speech from him on any policy?

So why is Trump more popular than Carly?  Maybe because he comes across as angry.  Also, the news media have trained their cameras on him and put their mics in front of him.  He gets all the attention.  Carly doesn't.  Why not?  She's the perfect critic of Hillary, so the media must not let her have her moment.  She is articulate, while Trump seems to traffic in grunts and platitudes and boisterous statements: "I'll build that thar wall, and make Mexico pay for it!  No one can build a wall like I can!"  (Cue the applause and fist-shaking from angry populists.)  But he never quite explains how he'll make Mexico pay for it.  Then Mexico forces bad illegals to come up here.  What does "force" mean?  A Mexican bureaucrat points a gun at the criminal's head and frog-marches him across the border?  Explain specifically what you mean, Mr. "The Donald."

Yet somehow Trump has supposedly tapped into voter outrage.  Blunt truth be told, maybe he has tapped into a strain of angry voters who do not think critically, but react viscerally.

Neither of these two candidates will win the nomination.  It's a good thing for conservatism that Trump won't, but a pity Carly won't, though I don't imagine she could win nationally if she were, hypothetically, to get the nomination.  Nonetheless, I hope she can get on the debate stage and show her qualities over the other CEO.  If readers are attracted to CEOs and anti-Establishment outsiders who "tell it like it is" (whatever the two "its" refer to), it's baffling that they don't choose Carly over Trump.