Ben carson slipping in polls


Two things - First, unlike some of the folks on this site, I claim no crystal ball. Second, as a result of point #1, I claim no special skill regarding looking into the future and telling you who can or can’t win the presidency. Those two points made, I can tell you in plain English that I have opinions regarding my personal take on who might have the best chance and my personal preferences.

So, my personal preference at this point in the race is a Rubio § /Fiorina (VP) ticket. As for my opinion, I think it would be a formidable ticket. Both are very bright, both are conservative enough, both (especially Rubio) are well grounded in national security and both can express themselves without the use of a halting, hesitant cadence and both project “command presence” without the continual use of or reliance on loud bluster. Again, it is my OPINION they could beat Hillary and whatever appeasement Democrat running mate she might select. Notice I said COULD beat, not WOULD beat. Recall, I am not armed with a crystal ball like some.

My biases and admissions out of the way, let me address the candidacy of Ben Carson. In my opinion, Dr. Carson is perhaps one of the most truly admirable and likeable and smart and well-meaning individuals we have ever had run for the office of POTUS. That said, and in spite of my opinion of him as a human being and as a world-class physician, it is my opinion that at this point in time - considering the “conditions on the ground” - he is NOT suited to be POTUS - not right now.

Again, in my opinion, he does not possess the necessary skill-set required to fully understand and deal with the complex dynamic that is the Middle East and foreign policy/national security in general. Yes, as POTUS he could appoint the right people to advisory positions, but to do so and to make sound use of their input in the context of his required decision making he would himself have to possess more than a passing acquaintance with the pitfalls/history/issues/problems of the mess to be dumped in his lap Day #1. Dr. Carson simply does not have the requisite depth in these areas - in my opinion. And the more he speaks about the ME and national security issues the more obvious it becomes he is over his head.

Perhaps without the transcendental threats posed to this nation and the West in general Dr. Carson would be a good, even great, fit. How I wish we could bring what I truly believe would be his healing powers to bear on the internal social turmoil we are currently experiencing within our borders. However - again, in my opinion - this election cycle is not his time.

What role would I like to see Ben Carson play - how about the head of the Veteran’s Administration - charged with reorganizing (read, privatizing) the care given veterans. The government can’t run a toy train on a circular track - and that’s not opinion, that’s fact. In his spare time he could help the next POTUS sh*t-can the Affordable Care Act.


Carson has my vote as of now. I truly admire him as a person. Would he be a good President? Events and the times shape a Presidency not the person? The President can only react to what happens. I personally think if we let the military take the reins on the ME they can solve the problem. We are practically at War. What else do we have a military for if not to wage war. No President, unless he has served himself, can reasonable be expected to handle such a thing. This is where democrats fail. They see war the same way they see politics. Were it so simple there would be no War.


They can only fight the war, they can’t solve why the war happened to start with. Or why these things will likely repeat themselves.


Seravee sez: "They see way(r?) the same way they see politics. "

As well as their penchant for micro-managing!


:rofl: I do not know what it is but I have been terrible at typing the last few months.


He slipped in two that I saw (national and NH I believe), but improved in two others:
CBS 58 - Poll: Carson Leads Wisconsin GOP Field

Ben Carson tops GOP presidential field in Colorado - CBS News

As for Rubio and Fiorina, they both scare the crap out of me. Both were willing to impose a Syrian no-fly zone and shoot down Russian planes. What a great idea, starting World War 3 to help radical Muslims.


[quote=“Bigfoot_88, post:6, topic:47756”]
He slipped in two that I saw (national and NH I believe), but improved in two others:CBS 58 - Poll: Carson Leads Wisconsin GOP FieldBen Carson tops GOP presidential field in Colorado - CBS NewsAs for Rubio and Fiorina, they both scare the crap out of me. Both were willing to impose a Syrian no-fly zone and shoot down Russian planes. What a great idea, starting World War 3 to help radical Muslims.
[/quote]Rubio is too hawkish for me too but I’d vote for him and I’m confident if there is a WWIII it won’t be his fault.


Reagan was never in the military and yet he ran a very strong campaign on very dogmatic ideas as to what he would do regarding the Middle East and Russia, and this was when Russia was a legitimate threat to worry about.

The results were astounding, we gained instant credibility with our enemies and supreme confidence from our allies; then we broke the Soviets and ended the Cold War.

Reagan’s plan was to worry far less about what motivates these enemies and worry far more about communicating what motivated HIM, Reagan made damn sure the enemy knew who he was and offered no interest in who they were.

That is how a successful foreign policy is implemented, not by learning how to recite names and historical events that murderers use to justify their evil deeds; I know of no successes in history where the strategy was to “Understand our enemy” unless we are talking about “Understanding how to locate and kill them”.

Russia is a faint shadow of its former Soviet self yet Putin has managed to make himself relevant and inspire coddling from just about every Nation, he does this by convincing the world that he is willing to go to any length if he thinks it is in HIS Nations best interest.

The idea that Putin would start WW3 over us shooting down their planes in a predetermined no fly zone is laughable yet people still think this could be a likely consequence, he has achieved this respect by ignoring the agendas of everyone else and only considering his own; Putin knows very well what he could and could not do but he also knows that ATTITUDE can mask a magnitude of weakness.

I am not suggesting that Carson would be a Reagan in foreign policy, or in domestic policy for that matter; I only wanted to address the fallacy that military service is required to effectively be the Commander in Chief; what is required is only a deep love for the United States and a sober lens with which to view the threats to our people.


MDMikeB brings up an interesting combination I hadn’t considered. Yes, a Rubio/Fiorina tandem would be formidable indeed. I too happen to believe that Rubio has the best shot at winning for the Republicans. I also happen to believe he is a good candidate who can relate to the average American and what America needs to be successful.

RET423, no, Russia wouldn’t create WW3 over an attack on one of their aircraft and both sides would probably do their best to deny an attack even occurred to save face and prevent a response that the world would look out for, but it would create a “dirty war”. Tit-for-tat attacks and “micro actions” of a varying nature that wouldn’t help anyone. Fiorina and Rubio are just speaking strongly without getting opinions of senior military leaders and intelligence agencies who might give them strong recommendations to the contrary behind closed doors. These experts would of course be at their disposal if they were president, and yes, this is where decision making and trusting your people is vital.

It’s a given that Russia wants to be at the table when Assad is replaced. Putin may not be a saint, but he certainly isn’t naïve and how some consider him a cowboy without any calculation in his blood is beyond me. He will help take out ISIS, protect the Assad regime until a suitable replacement is agreed upon and protect and even expand Russian interests. Regardless, neither side wants a war, in Russias eyes they want to be respected, and dare I say, there might even be a little muscle flexing in the region to send a message to Saudi Arabia to close the taps…the price of oil is impacting Russian economy worse than the sanctions.


As I understand it, he was; just in a limited capacity because of health/physical issues.


I, too, do NOT think a military background is necessary to lead this nation. I do think a certain level of intellect and range of knowledge is required in order to provide a basis for rational decision making. Recall that Reagan came by his foreign policy/economic positions as a result of a very lengthy evolutionary process and political involvement. He arrived at and ultimately staked out his positions not as a result of meeting with so-called experts to “bone up” for an election - he had immersed himself over a long period of time in the issues he deemed most important - in his case Russia/communism/freedom was of particular interest and concern to him. He didn’t just show up in Berlin one morning to deliver his “Wall Speech” at the Brandenburg Gate. That speech WAS Reagan - the position and sentiment expressed were his - and it was years in the making. And, Reagan had a vital quality - “command presence” - a way of communicating that signaled both STRENGTH and AUTHENTICITY. He was believable.

One other point I would like to bring up. Medicine - all medicine, but specialty medicine in particular - requires an incredible commitment of ones time/effort and a near-singular, largely exclusionary focus if one is to be at the top of their chosen field, as was the case with Ben Carson. I’ll leave it at that.


Reagan was in the Army (reserves).

I remember that, but didn’t recall the details, so here they are:

Military People

He enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve on April 29, 1937, as a private assigned to Troop B, 322nd Cavalry at Des Moines, Iowa. He was appointed Second Lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the Cavalry on May 25, 1937, and on June 18 was assigned to the 323rd Cavalry. Reagan was ordered to active duty for the first time on April 18, 1942. His first assignment was at the San Francisco Port of Embarkation at Fort Mason, California, as a liaison officer of the Port and Transportation Office. He applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the AAF on May 15, 1942, and was assigned to AAF Public Relations and subsequently to the 1st Motion Picture Unit in Culver City, California. On January 14, 1943 he was promoted to First Lieutenant and was sent to the Provisional Task Force Show Unit of This Is The Army at Burbank, California. He returned to the 1st Motion Picture Unit after completing this duty and was promoted to Captain on July 22, 1943. In January 1944, Captain Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in New York City to participate in the opening of the sixth War Loan Drive. He was re-assigned to the 18th AAF Base Unit on November 14, 1944, where he remained until the end of World War II. He was separated from active duty on December 9, 1945. By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the AAF.


For the record - Reagan was quite nearsighted, thus he could not be assigned to a combat unit. But he was deemed qualified for a limited duty assignment in the Army Air Force. As noted above, he stayed stateside and made training/recruitment films. He was in the military, but not in a way most of us think of when speaking of “military experience”.


Dr. BC is at best top tier VP material …


I disagree; one shouldn’t be Commander-in-Chief if one hasn’t served. That would have eliminated Lincoln, but it also would have eliminated FDR, the Bill of Wrongs, and Obama.


I think the only way I’d agree to that is if military service was universal and compulsory.


I disagree; that opens the door for a malcontent to jerk them around. I’d rather serve under a Commander-in-Chief who had chosen to be in my shoes.


[quote=“Fantasy_Chaser, post:17, topic:47756”]
I disagree; that opens the door for a malcontent to jerk them around. I’d rather serve under a Commander-in-Chief who had chosen to be in my shoes.
[/quote]It’s anti-democratic, not everyone can serve even if they want and it kind of turns the idea of civilan control of the military on its head.


Once shooting starts, you can’t rule out war. Of course it would be stupid, but that hasn’t stopped wars from occurring before.


Putin knows, like all his predecessors knew, that war with the US would result in the DESTRUCTION of Russia–and maybe even large parts of the US. Since what Russia ENVIES about the US is its productivity, it won’t take that chance.