After Scott V. Jeb, How's Ben Doing?

The latest Quinnipiac Poll of likely GOP Iowa Caucus-Goers has Scott Walker pulling ahead of the pack with a closely grouped bunch trying to find their groove behind the pole position. There’s lots of media coverage of Jeb’s somewhat disappointing numbers - his favorables are strong but so are his unfavorables - and less so of Rand Paul’s relatively strong showing, especially among liberals. Not much is said about another candidate who with far less resources is just behind Paul and Huckabee and has the lowest unfavorables of any of the candidates. That would be Ben Carson who has remarkably consistent numbers across the poll, with a somewhat stronger showing among evangelicals and conservatives and, unlike Paul, a weaker showing among liberals. But even there his numbers show little deviation from the mean.


Could that mean that the Caucus-goers are starting to trust Ben Carson more than the other candidates? And could that be because the affable physician is very clear, if not combative the way Cruz is, about his ideas and his platform? A sniping and snarky piece last November in the Washington Post, for example, was all about his campaign strategy rather than the substance of his platform. It felt like an attack ad more than an article. And it was the kind of quibbling over process that turns off most voters, especially conservatives. But Ben Carson is more than willing to patiently answer questions from both sides of the political spectrum that tend to be of the "yes you're a brilliant surgeon, so what?" variety. And his assertion of reason over hysterical feuding is a compelling one. The consistency of Carson's numbers seem to suggest that across the political spectrum people are getting to know him and he has the potential to appeal to a fairly broad, if limited, base, even as his message is consistently conservative. It's about what he achieved, and how he achieved it, not who he is. It is unlikely, especially given his lack of political experience, that Ben Carson will be president. That is clear from the numbers. But he is already a significant factor in the 2016 race, as much as for his ideas of individual responsibility and how each of us, and all of us, can strive towards that goal, as for how he quietly goes about spreading his message. Scott Walker may feel that an early lead in the Iowa polls is as much a curse as a blessing. Ben Carson doesn't worry about that. He's right in the thick of the race, exactly where he needs to be.

Posted by Keeley at February 24, 2015 9:49 PM
Comments
Comment #390194

In the previous thread, I posted a link of a recent poll. It shows 49% of Republicans do not believe in evolution, 57% want to the US to officially become a Christian nation, and 66% do not believe in human-caused Global Warming.

It is beliefs like these, beliefs belied by facts, which makes today’s GOP a laughingstock, and the slate of candidates a clown bus full of jokers.

Assuming Palin and Trump do not run- both are notorious for chasing cameras to promote their own brand name- assuming that, the chief Bozo on the clown bus is none other than Dr Ben Carson.

In Oregon, we actually had a female brain surgeon run as a Republican for the Senate. It was arguably the worst senate campaign in the entire country. Carson is even worse. His chief claim to fame is that he was rude to Obama. He regularly makes stupid, over-the-top statements, and then feels persecuted because everyone noticed he was being stupid and over-the-top.

So there is nothing wrong with someone wanting to be president. It’s a free country. However, there is everything wrong with this clown being near the top of the polls. It is incredible anyone would support him. He knows nothing about law and nothing about politics. What next? Maybe that guy who sells Swiffers or some damn thing on informercials will be the next GOP candidate. Why not? If 18% of the GOP will go for Carson, why, the sky is the limit for aspiring clowns everywhere.

Posted by: phx8 at February 26, 2015 3:56 PM
Comment #390202

If a community organizer (lol) can be President, why not the Swiffer guy?

Oh, and that was a pretty racist post, Phx8. I would really hate to see your posting privileges revoked, so please be more careful in the future.

Posted by: kctim at February 26, 2015 5:24 PM
Comment #390209

kct, I saw nothing racist in phx8’s post. I think you read between the lines or something. Hey it’s a free country if anyone can garner the political will and backing to become elected as President Obama was able to do, then they should be able to become president. Give it a try kct, I however will not be voting for you.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 26, 2015 5:48 PM
Comment #390211

Speaks, lighten up and think about it some man.

Posted by: kctim at February 26, 2015 5:56 PM
Comment #390215

Ha! I did not realize CPAC started today. And guess who was the first speaker? None other than Dr. Ben Carson! I really called that one when I said “chief Bozo on the clown bus.” I swear, I did not know he would lead off the conference!

There was nothing racist about my previous comment, kctim, but here is a comment that is more controversial, spoken by a talking head on tv: ‘Nothing cheers up a crowd of white conservatives more than a black man getting onstage and criticizing the first black president.’

If you parse that statement, it is undeniably true. CPAC is an almost entirely conservative white audience. And Carson was one of the only blacks in the room, a man with virtually no qualifications to even be considered for president, and yet he led off the three-ring circus with a speech attacking the president, and pretending blacks vote in monolithic numbers for Democrats because they are all brainwashed into believing the same things and want the same things.

And that is not true.

In political terms, blacks are a fairly diverse demographic on a number of issues. But there is one issue for them that trumps the others… Being pro-life or pro-gun or religious fundamentalist just doesn’t matter if you are subjected to discrimination and your most basic rights to life and liberty, and that is why blacks and women and gays and Asians and other demographic minorities vote Democratic. The Democratic party is not a monolithic ideological block, not at all. Not even close. But it is the party that is fighting for their rights.

Posted by: phx8 at February 26, 2015 6:06 PM
Comment #390242

Wow that CPAC crowd is kind of nutso! They got Scott Walker to compare his ability to face the threat of ISIL by referencing how he faced the Union protesters in his state. Yikes, law abiding citizens of the country he would like to serve as President as being compared to violent criminals, and he got applause. Even that wizard of wisdom Rick Perry called the statement inappropriate.

And then there’s the story of Ben Carson’s bio on the CPAC website being accompanied by a picture of Tim Scott (R-SC).

I suppose I could make a comment about how some people think people of another race all look the same but I won’t.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 27, 2015 9:56 AM
Comment #390243

phx8

Kinda like the ability to choose a crook and a girlfriend to lead Oregon down the tubes. Does not say much for choosing a gov who lives the crooked life style. The comments on Ben and Scott were, were only strange opinions and nothing more. They hold no weight or influence. So What’s new on the western front other than one more D to hit the dust.

Posted by: tom humes at February 27, 2015 11:13 AM
Comment #390245

The OR governor is not the first old man to let a younger woman make a fool of him. He was a good public servant and it was a sorry way to end a long career. He has no one to blame but himself.

Posted by: phx8 at February 27, 2015 11:30 AM
Comment #390249

Here is the speech Jeb Bush needs to make at CPAC:

“Like you, I am a conservative. I am a moderate conservative. (Boos). And I am the only one on this stage that can win the White House next year. (Boos).

Look around you. Notice anything? Virtually every person in this audience is white, and the large majority of you are male. And if the only voters you can attract in 2016 are white males, you will lose and you will lose big. Not only will you lose the White House, you will lose the Senate too, because the math there is heavily against us. And if you lose the White House you will also lose the Supreme Court for a generation.

You want to win. I want to win. And I can do it. And I am the only one up here who can. But I need you to protect my back…”

Of course, he will not say anything like that, but at some point, these CPAC conservatives are going to have to go through a time of introspection, and correct an obvious problem- a lack of diversity and an inability to appeal to women, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and gays. It is a simple matter of math. Jeb Bush knows it. Do these CPAC conservatives? They can change now or they can wait to lose big in 2016. Opposing immigration reform, supporting an abortion plank so radical even female Republicans in the House balked at voting for it, a stand against gays so openly bigoted it is repellant, and more, is a virtual guarantee for a huge loss.

Posted by: phx8 at February 27, 2015 11:43 AM
Comment #390251

Phx8

Your first post criticized Carson’s intelligence and beliefs. As you said, Carson is black. As the last 7 years have shown, criticizing or questioning a black persons intelligence, beliefs or policies they support, makes a person racist.
You guys set the standard. I am only playing by your rules.

“Being pro-life or pro-gun or religious fundamentalist just doesn’t matter if you are subjected to discrimination and your most basic rights to life and liberty, and that is why blacks and women and gays and Asians and other demographic minorities vote Democratic.”

Political BS.
Blacks, women, gays, Asians and other demographic minorities vote democratic because democrats pander to them as a group who is entitled to special treatment, instead of as individuals who are entitled to equal treatment.
They vote democratic because democrats believe being a hyphenated American is more important than being an American.

Posted by: kctim at February 27, 2015 11:52 AM
Comment #390253

Like the OR brain surgeon who was a Senate candidate in 2014, Carson is smart. He is well educated. He is probably wealthy. That comes along with being a doctor. A big ego also comes along with it. However, being a smart well educated doctor does not make a person a smart politician. And that is a big problem in the case of Carson. He says stupid, over-the-top things. He doesn’t know what he is doing, he doesn’t know the issues, he doesn’t know anything about law or legislating, he knows nothing about foreign policy, and he knows nothing about economics. He thinks having beliefs is a good enough substitute, and as a result, he looks ridiculous. He looks like another laughy, daffy clown.

You write: “Blacks, women, gays, Asians and other demographic minorities vote democratic because democrats pander to them as a group who is entitled to special treatment, instead of as individuals who are entitled to equal treatment.
They vote democratic because democrats believe being a hyphenated American is more important than being an American.”

I am sure you believe that. And I am also sure conservatives who share that belief will lose big in 2016.

Take the example of an illegal immigrant. A person who comes to this country and stays wants to be an American . Not a hyphenated American. An American citizen. They are willing to give up their hometown, their friends, their culture and sometimes even their family to go to another country, to come here and make a new start. We are a nation of immigrants. It really is an astounding and wonderful thing. And why anyone would want to deny that to immigrants, or imagine people are giving up everyone and everything and leaving it behind to come here and then do nothing, or expect “special treatment,” is hard for me to comprehend.

Posted by: phx8 at February 27, 2015 12:23 PM
Comment #390255

They call themselves hyphenated Americans. They demand their culture take precedence over American culture. They send American dollars to the country and hometown that you say they give up.

“And why anyone would want to deny that to immigrants”

Why the wordplay? Nobody wants to deny anything to immigrants. What Americans want is for immigrants to follow the legal process in order to become an American. When immigrants ignore that legal process and then demand citizenship, that is demanding special treatment.
It is not hard to comprehend at all.

Posted by: kctim at February 27, 2015 12:52 PM
Comment #390257

Phx8
“He says stupid, over-the-top things. He doesn’t know what he is doing, he doesn’t know the issues, he doesn’t know anything about law or legislating, he knows nothing about foreign policy, and he knows nothing about economics. He thinks having beliefs is a good enough substitute, and as a result, he looks ridiculous. He looks like another laughy, daffy clown.” Were you talking about Obama? Thought so.

Immigration has two facets. Can I share these points with you? One is illegal and the other is legal. Now most people are in favor of legal immigration. Also most people are opposed to illegal immigration which has a myriad of problems that go along with it. Criminality is the prime problem. Going to the head of the class is another prime problem. Those two alone should be the sole argument for the options available.

Posted by: tom humes at February 27, 2015 12:59 PM
Comment #390259

My leftie friend above says he can’t comprehend “illegal” when used to describe those not authorized to be on American soil. Very sad.

And, I can provide scores of obama “being stupid videos” and remarks.

I wonder why the libs are so adamant in opposing what they believe are un-winnable Republican candidates? Maybe they are closet Conservatives.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 27, 2015 1:54 PM
Comment #390262

I have said it before but I will say it again, there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. It exists in the mind of fox new viewers and the people who propagate their lies. Any one who comes here is an immigrant, always every time. The immigrant and the method they obtained to arrive here is reviewed and if the person seeking immigration did not follow the rules they are sent back to their country of origin unless there are extenuating circumstances. At no time are they referred to as illegal, perhaps undocumented but not illegal during this process. It is not against the law to want to immigrate to this country. It is how you accomplish that immigration that is then reviewed and adjudicated if necessary.

President Obama has not displayed anything that you speak of RF. We know how you like to tell lies here, bad boy, bad.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 27, 2015 2:27 PM
Comment #390264

Wikipedia:

“n the United States, an alien is “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.”[7] The U.S. Government’s use of alien dates back to 1798, when it was used in the Alien and Sedition Acts.[8] U.S. law makes a clear distinction between aliens and immigrants by defining immigrants as a subset of aliens.[7] Although U.S. law provides no overarching explicit definition of the term “illegal alien,” the term is used in many statutes[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] and elsewhere (e.g., court cases, executive orders). U.S. law also uses the term “unauthorized alien.”[18][19][20][21][22] U.S. immigration laws do not refer to illegal immigrants, but in common parlance the term “illegal immigrant” is often used to refer to any illegal alien.”

Speak needs some additional tutoring in “parsing” as he is getting a D+ now.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 27, 2015 2:37 PM
Comment #390265

Parse your strange reasoning out RF. The entry clearly states that “immigration laws do not refer to illegal immigrants”. Now I know as I said before this law stuff makes your head hurt. But it would appear now that your misunderstanding of the law actually induces you to lie. I am not surprised.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 27, 2015 2:43 PM
Comment #390270

Put on your dunce cap my friend. Illegal alien is used in “statutes, court cases, executive orders”…

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 27, 2015 3:37 PM
Comment #390274

But not in US immigration law, silly man. I know it’s law and it makes your head hurt. Take off your tin foil hat and have a nap my unknowing fellow commenter. Your fear is palpable.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 27, 2015 3:45 PM
Comment #390278

illegal is used commonly to describe the situation that an immigrant finds oneself in. You may not have the ability to find it in the documentation you are looking in. I and millions of Americans refer to them as illegal. You can call them what you want. When the immigrant steps his pinkie across the border and has no documentation to show his nationality, he is illegal no matter what your argument is. So your argument is a strawman argument and was blown down by one of the three pigs.

Posted by: tom humes at February 27, 2015 4:53 PM
Comment #390279

No tom you are incorrect. US immigration law does not care what you want to call them and that law does not refer to them as “illegal immigrants”. You can call them what you want but in order to be correct by US Immigration law standards you would need to refer to them simply as immigrants.

I know this blows all of your predetermined notions about anyone you might consider to be an “illegal immigrant” out of the water, but many of those people are good people striving to make a better life in a country of their dreams. Not all but many.

Strawman refers to using a hypothesis that is not truthful to determine something that you would like to be true but isn’t. That would be what you are doing.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 27, 2015 5:03 PM
Comment #390280

Further more the immigration laws of our country are very carefully written for enforcement purposes. These laws are written this way because we are a nation of immigrants and the people who had to write those laws knew that and had to be very careful how they refer to immigrants because well we are all descended from immigrants or are immigrants unless of course you are native American and well then you are just screwed and thanks for the land.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 27, 2015 5:10 PM
Comment #390281

Parsing changes nothing. Speaks can sleep on our Constitution and still remain ignorant of its contents.

Oh, wait, that’s obama’s schtick.

To be sung: “First I say I can’t, and then I can…”

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 27, 2015 6:01 PM
Comment #390289

Speak: “Further more the immigration laws of our country are very carefully written for enforcement purposes.”

Well, doesn’t that speak volumes about hyperbole. “Enforcement Purposes” which obama has decided need not be enforced. A laugh a minute with the leftie bunch.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 27, 2015 8:01 PM
Comment #390319

RF, as I said before it is law and the enforcement of law that gives you problems. This has been the job of the executive branch since the Whiskey Rebellion.

Your President ultimately has to decide the measure of enforcement that needs to used to effectively implement the law. And yes we know, it makes your head hurt.

Posted by: Speak4all at March 2, 2015 9:54 AM
Comment #390321

We do not have unlimited resources to enforce the law. For example, the police cannot ticket every person exceeding the speed limit. They have to pick and choose when to enforce the law. It is the same problem with undocumented immigrants. There are an estimated 11 million. It would cost @ $60 billion to deport that many people. Therefore, Obama used an executive order to require deportation in the most demanding cases. Just as a policeman will not ticket someone going 5 miles over the limit, but certainly ticket one going 30 miles over- even though both are technically breaking the law- so Obama will only ask for deportation of felons, rather than otherwise law-abiding, working, undocumented immigrants.

Posted by: phx8 at March 2, 2015 11:09 AM
Comment #390322

If the police are investigating an accident and it is determined that you rear ended somebody because you were going 5 mph over the speed limit, you will be ticketed.

While it may be financially unfeasible to track down illegal aliens and deport them, there is no reason we should not deport illegal aliens when they are discovered.

Posted by: kctim at March 2, 2015 11:30 AM
Comment #390325

Isn’t this interesting. Selective Law enforcement. Not surprising as we already have Selective Justice?

I wonder what other laws won’t be enforce by obama citing costs as the reason?

When law and justice become subjective, the individual exercise of freedom and liberty will follow.

I have often referred to new “group rights” promoted by liberals and not found in our Constitution.

We should not be surprised then that these same folks find new “group rights” in law and justice. If a group is large enough, and thought to be politically friendly, we can ignore laws pertaining to them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 2, 2015 1:15 PM
Comment #390328

kctim,
Yes, if an accident occurs and the person was going 5 mph too fast, there will be a ticket. However, if there is no accident, and the person was going 5 mph too fast, there will be no action, even though the speeder was clearly doing something illegal. Why not? Because it is not financially viable. We do not have infinite resources, and so, we must pick and choose how we use them. We want police chasing felons and spending their time and money on preventing serious crimes, and not on ticketing people going 5 mpg too fast, even though both are illegal. It has been a similar situation with marijuana for some time. The same applies to undocumented aliens. If there is no felony involved, it is better to send the person along with a warning. Deportation costs money, and if the person is not guilty of a serious crime, it just doesn’t make sense to send them packing. It is not a good use of resources.

Posted by: phx8 at March 2, 2015 2:31 PM
Comment #390329

Phx8

Other than the ignoring the illegal aliens part, that is pretty much what I said.

Disobeying the law and going 5 mph too fast is equivalent to disobeying the law and being in the country illegally. Cops aren’t out tracking either one.
When something happens and either one of those illegal activities are discovered, the proper punishment should be expected.

If we are going to hold an American citizen responsible for his unlawful actions, we sure as hell should hold an illegal alien responsible for their unlawful actions.

Posted by: kctim at March 2, 2015 2:44 PM
Comment #390330

Prosecutorial discretion

Posted by: Speak4all at March 2, 2015 3:28 PM
Comment #390332

A leftie calls deportation a waste of resources.

Of course, we all know that they don’t use any resources being here illegally. Dumb Twit

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 2, 2015 4:58 PM
Comment #390338

“we all know that they don’t use any resources being here illegally”

I wouldn’t doubt that that $60 billion in resources to deport them is less than the resources they steal from us while being in the US illegally.

But, they tend to vote democrat nowadays, so whatcha gonna do. LOL!!!

Posted by: kctim at March 2, 2015 6:01 PM
Comment #390712

20150320wengdongdong
michael kors handbags

Posted by: dongdong at March 20, 2015 10:06 PM
Post a comment