Of the seven on the stage, Carly Fiorina, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Perry stood out.
Of the three, the most combative and most deserving of standing on the Big Ten Stage, in terms of speech and power? Carly.
Before and after her debate, her campaign released a number of eblasts, askinng "What's wrong with this picture?", featuring the Top Ten Republicans who made the cut for the Big Ten debate.
Fiorina did not make it, even though she has been cutting up Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment more than most candidates. She even demolished Katy Couric on Yahoo.com News, reprimanding her with: "You would not ask me that question if I were a man."
Fiorina also compared herself to Margaret Thatcher, and she had every right to do so. She is a tough woman who understands the power of the free market. Her comments were outstanding, especially her well-placed attack against Donald Trump as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton: "I did not get a call from Bill Clinton before running for office".
Like Jindal and Perrt, she stood out like an overachiever in a mainstreamed English or math class, but they belonged in the Honors are Advanced Placement program.
Why did the three of them end up at the "Are you kidding?" debate?
They had low polling numbers. They are not getting enough media attention.
Let's ask a more specific question: why didn't Carly make it into the Top Ten?
Is that the fault of the media?
What has Fiorina failed to capitalize on, so that she can stand with the big boys in the main debate?
What record does she have to run on, which would merit more attention?
She was the CEO of a major corporation. Working from secretary to the top desk, she also supervised the transition of the company's employment to foreign workers. US Senator Barbara Boxer, who was running for reelection against Fiorina in 2010, made her into a female version of Romney, who liked to fire people and had no compassion for working Californians.
|Carly asks prospective voters about the current debate line-up:|
"What's wrong with this picture?"
She needs to look back at her own record to find the answer.
Even after spending $187 million on two major statewide races in the Golden State, Republicans came up short, Fiorina lost her bid for US Senate against a relatively weak incumbent whom even Democrats do not care for.
Oh, and let us not forget that Fiorina received a severance package from her company Hewlett-Packard. She underperformed, according to her stockbrokers, and her company had to restructure to recover.
So, she has a record of failure as a CEO and a US Senate candidate.
The San Francisco columnist Debra Saunders further exposed that Fiorina had not paid off her consultants following her US Senate campaign. One of her credits died. "She was a dead-beat to a dead-beat" Saunders wittily wrote.
So, Fiorina has great rhetoric. She is not afraid to throw verbal punches.
But she has not executive or elected experience. She lost a major campaign for office, and she had not money, or at least refused to compensate her creditors.
What's more - why did she not go on the attack against Barbara Boxer the way she has effectively lashed out at Hillary Clinton? Where did she suddenly get this spunk and flair to fight back?
Most likely she is trying very hard to get into the media's crosshairs and make it into a major debate.
This method is not working.
So, Fiorina asks: "What's wrong with this picture?"
Carly needs to look in the mirror, and assess frankly her prior record. So far, primary voters are simply not that into her. She has been out of the political game for six years, she launched her campaign without any traction at the outset, and despite the pleadings that she is the only woman, and tough candidate, running for the Presidency, Republican primary voters simply have a bevvy of better options.