Fiorina - a typical political question.

[Mass]

Really?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026170.php
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/124563-california-republican-refuses-to-name-spending-cuts

...

California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina (R) reiterated her call for an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts on Sunday but refused to name entitlement programs she'd cut to offset the resulting growth of the deficit.

Extending all the tax cuts is estimated to add $4 trillion to the deficit.

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace asked Fiorina, who's challenging Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), which programs she'd cut.

Really, voters dont have the right to know what entitlements she would cut. So, I guess Fiorina still has not learned the lessons about accountability she should have learned in corporate America.

Eventually, a frustrated Wallace asked, "Where are you going to cut entitlements? What benefits are you going to cut? What eligibilities are you going to change?" Fiorina refused to answer, calling the line of inquiry a "typical political question."

I haven't the foggiest idea what that means. Asking a Senate candidate who's talked about entitlements to answer a question about the details of her approach to entitlements is too "typically political" to warrant a response? By this reasoning, isn't literally every question directed to candidates about the major issues of the day a "typical political question"?


Seven times Wallace asked for any kind of details about the kind of spending cuts Fiorina would support if elected. Seven times, the confused conservative candidate declined. It was embarrassing for the candidate, exasperating for the host, and painful for the viewers.

Coming from the CEO who nearly destroyed HP, this silence should be worrisome for voters.

[saltpoint]

1. Worrisome indeed. Carly refuses to say which programs

she would vote to slash.

And slash them she would.

In the Fear Arena, public service is the enemy.