Ben Carson Switches Parties – Will He Run?

[massadvj]

Democrats figured out long ago not to do this and they enter the general united.  And, they tend to win.

Well, then, if you want your choice as a voter limited, you can always become a Democrat.   ^-^

[truth_seeker]

Except all we do is split the party, damage feelings and limp into the general election splintered.

Democrats figured out long ago not to do this and they enter the general united.  And, they tend to win.

The entertainers' careers are enhanced, by threats or actual runs. Santorum, Palin, Huck, Bachman (now), etc. I think Carson is using this approach.

And I think it is NOT helpful in the long run, for it dilutes the money and media attention away from the real, serious ones.

[Cyber Liberty]

I guess Carson announced he's in.  Well, I am not going to vote for him in the Primaries, but I will if he makes it to the General.

[aligncare]

Except all we do is split the party, damage feelings and limp into the general election splintered.

Democrats figured out long ago not to do this and they enter the general united.  And, they tend to win.

Yep. Republicans are so transparent you can see their rear ends from the front. Democrats are disciplined and tenacious.

[massadvj]

I guess Carson announced he's in.  Well, I am not going to vote for him in the Primaries, but I will if he makes it to the General.

With Huckabee, that apparently makes at least two who are now in that I will probably not vote for. I'm still glad they are on the menu.

I'll tell you one thing I would like to see, and that is for candidates to square off in one on one mutually-agreed upon debates.  I think Newt and Cain did this last time, and it was interesting.  I think I'd rather see several of these than those staged affairs with 8 or 10 candidates on the stage.

For those of you looking for a "rigged" election, be careful what you wish for.  How much do you want to bet that right now the Bush dynasty is approaching Walker trying to see if he has a price for staying out?  If not Bush, then Romney, who did manage to keep Christie out last time.  I hate these kinds of behind-the-scenes shenanigans.  Let's just have a nice, chaotic mess in which all the ambitious men (and women, if any) in the GOP make fools of themselves, and the biggest fool gets the nomination.

[Cyber Liberty]

With Huckabee, that apparently makes at least two who are now in that I will probably not vote for. I'm still glad they are on the menu.

I'll tell you one thing I would like to see, and that is for candidates to square off in one on one mutually-agreed upon debates.  I think Newt and Cain did this last time, and it was interesting.  I think I'd rather see several of these than those staged affairs with 8 or 10 candidates on the stage.

For those of you looking for a "rigged" election, be careful what you wish for.  How much do you want to bet that right now the Bush dynasty is approaching Walker trying to see if he has a price for staying out?  If not Bush, then Romney, who did manage to keep Christie out last time.  I hate these kinds of behind-the-scenes shenanigans.  Let's just have a nice, chaotic mess in which all the ambitious men (and women, if any) in the GOP make fools of themselves, and the biggest fool gets the nomination.

I don't want to see anybody on the menu because it's "his turn."  I'm looking straight at Jeb Bush when I say that.

[evadR]

Big menu, little menu, medium sized menu, it doesn't matter to me as long as we don't attack each other.
I still believe in Reagan's 11th commandment but I realize that has long gone by the wayside.
We give too much fuel to the propaganda media and the rats.

[massadvj]

I don't want to see anybody on the menu because it's "his turn."  I'm looking straight at Jeb Bush when I say that.

But isn't that what the "limited choice" crowd is advocating?  Let's not dirty up the pretty boy -- whoever it may be -- before the general election.  Probably, they are worried about Scott Walker getting trashed.  But that's not the way it would work.  In a system in which candidates were limited, Scott Walker would be kept out because he would be seen as a threat to a Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney. 

[Cyber Liberty]

But isn't that what the "limited choice" crowd is advocating?  Let's not dirty up the pretty boy -- whoever it may be -- before the general election.  Probably, they are worried about Scott Walker getting trashed.  But that's not the way it would work.  In a system in which candidates were limited, Scott Walker would be kept out because he would be seen as a threat to a Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney.

You have a more intelligent avatar than I, so I bow to your wisdom.  I just wondered for a moment there about how 2012 would have been different if we didn't have a pretty boy candidate able and willing to destroy any challengers, or as you say, "dirty up."   Because it was "his turn."   

My only, meager point was, "Please no candidates because it's 'their turn'."  I can see now that was a rubbish opinion.  It was stupid.

[DCPatriot]

You have a more intelligent avatar than I, so I bow to your wisdom.  I just wondered for a moment there about how 2012 would have been different if we didn't have a pretty boy candidate able and willing to destroy any challengers, or as you say, "dirty up."   Because it was "his turn."   

My only, meager point was, "Please no candidates because it's 'their turn'."  I can see now that was a rubbish opinion.  It was stupid.

There's nothing "rubbish" about your opinion.

I feel the same way you do.   Hoping for a candidate that will rip off their face....and then show it to them.   

I'm tired of "nice".  I want a brawler...albeit one that can string a few coherent sentences together in front of a camera.

[aligncare]

With Huckabee, that apparently makes at least two who are now in that I will probably not vote for. I'm still glad they are on the menu.

I'll tell you one thing I would like to see, and that is for candidates to square off in one on one mutually-agreed upon debates.  I think Newt and Cain did this last time, and it was interesting.  I think I'd rather see several of these than those staged affairs with 8 or 10 candidates on the stage.

For those of you looking for a "rigged" election, be careful what you wish for.  How much do you want to bet that right now the Bush dynasty is approaching Walker trying to see if he has a price for staying out?  If not Bush, then Romney, who did manage to keep Christie out last time.  I hate these kinds of behind-the-scenes shenanigans.  Let's just have a nice, chaotic mess in which all the ambitious men (and women, if any) in the GOP make fools of themselves, and the biggest fool gets the nomination.

And then the Candy Crowley media does it's typical hatchet job and makes certain the GOP is perceived as a three ring circus.

No, willow down early to three or four heavyweights with proper resumes, and put aside our own parochial agendas. Let's get on with the important things, like restoring the nation.  We're only trying to fill -at most- an eight year job here. One person alone can't save us. Presidents are like streetcars, relax, another will be along soon.

[massadvj]

You have a more intelligent avatar than I, so I bow to your wisdom.  I just wondered for a moment there about how 2012 would have been different if we didn't have a pretty boy candidate able and willing to destroy any challengers, or as you say, "dirty up."   Because it was "his turn."   

My only, meager point was, "Please no candidates because it's 'their turn'."  I can see now that was a rubbish opinion.  It was stupid.

I agree with your point.  Unfortunately, the GOP has a long tradition of nominating "your turn" candidates.  I think we'd be less likely to nominate one with a free for all primary than with one that was rigged ahead of time. 

We'll never prevent the "your turn" syndrome.  For example, I'd bet you a dime to a donut that either Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney will run, but not both.  I believe it is Jeb's "turn" and Mitt will stay out if Jeb is in. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't want it "rigged" either.  But putting a Jeb or a Mitt in the race rigs it.  You refer to a menu.  To me, a menu is a set of pages in a restaurant where I can view all of the options in equal light.  But that's not what we'll get if any "my turn" candidate is on the menu because they fill entire pages with their presence (and it looks like an ink blot).  They suck the air out of the room.

I don't want Jeb to run and knock the money out of the sails of a Santorum.

I don't want Mitt to run and suck the money out of a Kaisich run.

Putting a "his turn" candidate on the menu "poisons the well," to borrow a phrase.  Declaring that "rigging" is not an appropriate use of the term.

[Cyber Liberty]

I agree with your point.  Unfortunately, the GOP has a long tradition of nominating "your turn" candidates.  I think we'd be less likely to nominate one with a free for all primary than with one that was rigged ahead of time. 

We'll never prevent the "your turn" syndrome.  For example, I'd bet you a dime to a donut that either Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney will run, but not both.  I believe it is Jeb's "turn" and Mitt will stay out if Jeb is in.

I reread this, and I se you agree with me far more than disagree.  Sorry.   

[massadvj]

I don't want it "rigged" either.  But putting a Jeb or a Mitt in the race rigs it.  You refer to a menu.  To me, a menu is a set of pages in a restaurant where I can view all of the options in equal light.  But that's not what we'll get if any "my turn" candidate is on the menu because they fill entire pages with their presence (and it looks like an ink blot).  They suck the air out of the room.

I don't want Jeb to run and knock the money out of the sails of a Santorum.

I don't want Mitt to run and suck the money out of a Kaisich run.

Putting a "his turn" candidate on the menu "poisons the well," to borrow a phrase.  Declaring that "rigging" is not an appropriate use of the term.

It's hard to beat big money.  Kasich and Santorum are simply unable to raise enough money to run a national campaign, especially against the Clintons.  At least that's the conventional wisdom.  I don't agree with it, but that is the thinking, and that's why the party money people go with the "your turn" guys.

Knowing our nominee is going to be up against the Clintons, it means the campaign will cost a minimum of $500 million.  Right now, Bush, Romney and maybe Perry could raise that much money.  Another contender could come along who might, but he would have to have a lot of conservative enthusiasm behind him to do it.  That kind of enthusiasm cannot be manufactured with conservatives (liberals yes, see OPapaDoc).  It has to come about organically.  And that will require a grueling primary test.

I'd like to see a primary that produces an authentic conservative who people go all in for.  Right now, I am inclined to think that it could be Scott Walker.  It also might be Rand Paul, but the energy would be much more youthful and vigorous in that case.  If there is genuine energy behind someone, then all the money in the world won't be able to defeat him.  If there isn't, we'll nominate the "your turn" candidate.

But we are not going to agree on someone ahead of time.  The person has to be tested.

[speekinout]

It does not help to have a large menu of potential candidates who have not been vetted. All it takes to make a Nov. win almost impossible is a few candidates in the debates making airhead statements such as the ones we heard from GOP candidates like Akin or O'Donnell. The rest of the campaign is overtaken by the eventual candidate having to denounce those silly statements. (Yes, I know those weren't Presidential candidates, but they were unvetted candidates for GOP offices, and all GOP candidates had to answer to those statements over and over)
The dims vet all of their candidates, and the GOP has to do it as well. I know that will irritate some conservatives who have a favorite candidate who doesn't pass vetting, but I want a GOP President - maybe not my favorite choice, but whoever it is will be more to my liking than any dim choice we'd get.

[evadR]

There's nothing "rubbish" about your opinion.

I feel the same way you do.   Hoping for a candidate that will rip off their face....and then show it to them.   

I'm tired of "nice".  I want a brawler...albeit one that can string a few coherent sentences together in front of a camera.

What you want is a Newt Gingrich without all the baggage.

[truth_seeker]

It things go as many would like, the GOP Congress will try to take some stuff away from the peasants, like food stamps, extended unemployment benefits, etc.

So whoever becomes the GOP nominee for Potus, will have to sell voters why those were wise actions (regardless of if they are implemented).

IOW convince voters of the wisdom of fiscal responsibility.

[massadvj]

It does not help to have a large menu of potential candidates who have not been vetted.

OK.  How do you propose to vet them, if not in a primary election? 

[MACVSOG68]

Getting back to Ben Carson, I saw a thread on him on DU this morning.  They immediately compared him with Herman Cain, and the discussion went back and forth on the entertainment value between the two.  This from the left wing that for years has continually charged Republicans with racism.  Only one poster over there wondered why the Cain comparison.   

[speekinout]

OK.  How do you propose to vet them, if not in a primary election?

The candidates should be vetted before they're allowed to participate in a primary debate or other party supported venue. They can put their names on the ballot, but unvetted candidates shouldn't be allowed to distract from the serious contenders. That requires the party leaders to do the vetting. It can be done without having any small group act as "kingmakers"; each faction of the party could vet and clear their favorite choices. If someone can't get support from at least a few elected officials or party leaders, then they aren't a good choice anyway.

[jmyrlefuller]

The candidates should be vetted before they're allowed to participate in a primary debate or other party supported venue. They can put their names on the ballot, but unvetted candidates shouldn't be allowed to distract from the serious contenders. That requires the party leaders to do the vetting. It can be done without having any small group act as "kingmakers"; each faction of the party could vet and clear their favorite choices. If someone can't get support from at least a few elected officials or party leaders, then they aren't a good choice anyway.

That's all fine and good until certain factions decide they're going to be the kingmakers above all others. That's how Iowa and New Hampshire have managed to wrest control of the process from the rest of the country.

[massadvj]

The candidates should be vetted before they're allowed to participate in a primary debate or other party supported venue. They can put their names on the ballot, but unvetted candidates shouldn't be allowed to distract from the serious contenders. That requires the party leaders to do the vetting. It can be done without having any small group act as "kingmakers"; each faction of the party could vet and clear their favorite choices. If someone can't get support from at least a few elected officials or party leaders, then they aren't a good choice anyway.

Yes.  The party leaders are so much smarter than the rest of us.  They should decide. 

[olde north church]

Yes.  The party leaders are so much smarter than the rest of us.  They should decide.

On the other hand, being held hostages to the vanity of lesser men is preferable?

[massadvj]

On the other hand, being held hostages to the vanity of lesser men is preferable?

Since I consider myself the least of all men, it can't possibly apply to me.