No one knew Obama before '04 Democratic convention. Dr. Carson is the hottest name out right now. He belittled Obama a month ago.
I get it. You have a problem on your hands. Ryan's not gong to do it. Rubio's not up to it. The party's not going to meet John Huntsman halfway. Hell, Jeb Bush is probably going to be a top three candidate. You don't have that deep a bench and you're probably facing a candidate with a tremendous name, recognition, deep experience, massive connections and the ability to raise money. And that's just Biden. If you get Hilliary, you also get the chance for the first woman president.
So you're willing to shake it up with a candidate with no name recognition, deep experience in something other than politics, no connections and an unproven track record of raising money.
You're right that Obama's profile was raised by the '04 Democratic Convention. However, he won his first election in 1996 or twelve years before he won the presidency. So if we are going by that schedule, Carson might be the man for 2024.
Also you want to compare and contrast a big speech at a Democratic National Convention and a big speech at CPAC. I'll start, for one people know what the Democratic National Convention is. For two, the Democrat who is in the best position to become president is invited. Christ Christie was nowhere to be seen at CPAC. Also, are you still pretending to be a a blue dog Democrat?
You know what Obama else did in 2004, he won an election to become a US Senator. Call me when Carson wins anything.
It's going to be a tough ride. Your best candidate may not make it through the primaries. Your establishment candidate's last name is Bush. And you have a Senator who's ego is big enough that he may run as a Tea Party third candidate. But you're right a lot could happen in four years. I didn't think in 2004 Obama would be the 2008 nominee.
I think Carson/Rubio ticket would win in a landslide in 2016. ......
With a Carson/Rubio ticket... you'd probably see a swing of at least 15%*Latinos and 10% of Women.* Don't discount the impact of Dr. Carson's care for children...and how it will affect women's perceptions. That = landslide.
After a several-day onslaught from fans and the media, many wanting to know his potential political plans, Carson has eased away from suggestions he may have his eyes on the White House. The 61-year-old doctor now says the likelihood of a presidential run is “incredibly small.” What he really wants is a second career in television when he retires from Johns Hopkins later this year.
We're gonna have a Ben Carson presidency, one way or another.
Well he had a good run. Remember those halcyon days, must have been a week ago, when he first learned his name and his future looked so bright.
Dr. Benjamin Carson, the famed Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon, apologized Friday for his "choice of words" and use of examples in discussing gay marriage on Fox News earlier in the week.
During Sean Hannity's show on Tuesday, when asked about the matter before the Supreme Court, Carson said, "Marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition."
The comparison of gays to members of the North American Boy/Man Love Association and those who engage in bestiality set off a backlash of criticism in the media, online and on campus. There is now a petition circulating at Johns Hopkins Medical to have Carson removed as commencement speaker in May at the School of Medicine.
chris hedges does an excellent job explaining the tragedy of fake liberals like kevinnyc
-The rewriting of history by the power elite was painfully evident as the nation marked the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. Some claimed they had opposed the war when they had not. Others among “Bush’s useful idiots” argued that they had merely acted in good faith on the information available; if they had known then what they know now, they assured us, they would have acted differently. This, of course, is false. The war boosters, especially the “liberal hawks”—who included Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Al Franken and John Kerry, along with academics, writers and journalists such as Bill Keller, Michael Ignatieff, Nicholas Kristof, David Remnick, Fareed Zakaria, Michael Walzer, Paul Berman, Thomas Friedman, George Packer, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Kanan Makiya and the late Christopher Hitchens—did what they always have done: engage in acts of self-preservation. To oppose the war would have been a career killer. And they knew it.
These apologists, however, acted not only as cheerleaders for war; in most cases they ridiculed and attempted to discredit anyone who questioned the call to invade Iraq. Kristof, in The New York Times, attacked the filmmaker Michael Moore as a conspiracy theorist and wrote that anti-war voices were only polarizing what he termed “the political cesspool.” Hitchens said that those who opposed the attack on Iraq “do not think that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy at all.” He called the typical anti-war protester a “blithering ex-flower child or ranting neo-Stalinist.” The halfhearted mea culpas by many of these courtiers a decade later always fail to mention the most pernicious and fundamental role they played in the buildup to the war—shutting down public debate. Those of us who spoke out against the war, faced with the onslaught of right-wing “patriots” and their liberal apologists, became pariahs. In my case it did not matter that I was an Arabic speaker. It did not matter that I had spent seven years in the Middle East, including months in Iraq, as a foreign correspondent. It did not matter that I knew the instrument of war. The critique that I and other opponents of war delivered, no matter how well grounded in fact and experience, turned us into objects of scorn by a liberal elite that cravenly wanted to demonstrate its own “patriotism” and “realism” about national security. The liberal class fueled a rabid, irrational hatred of all war critics. Many of us received death threats and lost our jobs, for me one at The New York Times. These liberal warmongers, 10 years later, remain both clueless about their moral bankruptcy and cloyingly sanctimonious. They have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocents on their hands
.....Those who doggedly challenge the orthodoxy of belief, who question the reigning political passions, who refuse to sacrifice their integrity to serve the cult of power, are pushed to the margins. They are denounced by the very people who, years later, will often claim these moral battles as their own. It is only the outcasts and the rebels who keep truth and intellectual inquiry alive. They alone name the crimes of the state. They alone give a voice to the victims of oppression. They alone ask the difficult questions. Most important, they expose the powerful, along with their liberal apologists, for what they are.