“Excuse me. Can someone direct me to Dr. Carson’s head?”
I must admit, I’m a little annoyed at my head for exploding this time, even given the provocation. After all, it involves Ben Carson, and I assumed that the small but nauseating doses of Ben Carson idiocy I was forced to listen to during all those debates served as an anti-head explosion vaccination of sorts, though if Donald Trump is to believed, which of course he isn’t, I was risking autism. I assumed there wasn’t anything the deluded doctor could say that would be so stupid and outrageous that it could cause a brain-pan eruption at this point. Obviously, as I stare up at the brain-splattered ceiling in my office, I was wrong.
I now realize that Ben Carson may be the only living human being alive whom I would consider voting for Donald Trump to keep out of the Presidency. I’m not certain, mind you, but it’s stunning to me that anyone is even close to that bad. What would a choice between Trump and Dr. Ben be like? It would be like choosing between Billionaire Biff in “Back to the Future II” and Chance, the well-meaning, lucky moron in “Being There.“ It would be like choosing between Mister Burns and Homer Simpson.
When Carson announced he was endorsing Trump, some pundit wrote that it was “huge.” I tried to imagine the kind of voter who would regard the judgment of a manifest dim-wit like Carson a persuasive reason to vote for a massive fraud like Donald Trump. See, endorsements are silly all by themselves, unless you are just lost. Who is so devoid of pride and self-confidence that they think, “Well, I admire X, and thus I will assume that X’s judgement about who I should vote for to lead my country is better than my own”?*
Now imagine someone thinking that when the endorsement comes from someone who isn’t wearing pants, has a gooney bird nesting on his head, and is carrying a sign that says “Kourtney Kardashsian is God.” What kind of a person is persuaded by that fool’s presidential choice? Yet Ben Carson, with his bizarre belief about how the best person to handle the most difficult job in the world would be someone with no relevant skills or experience whatsoever—let’s not even get into his beliefs about pyramids and other matters—is no less ridiculous than the pantless goony bird character, and a lot more arrogant.
Endorsing Donald Trump is foolish, but no surprise when a Ben Carson—you know, a moron— is the endorser. Today, however, he “explained” his endorsement, and revealed that it was even more incompetent and irresponsible than an endorsement of an atrocious candidate is by nature.
Interviewed on the “Steve Malzberg Show” yesterday, Carson explained that..
I. He wasn’t really all that sure that Trump would be a good President. See, Ben, an endorsement is supposed to tell people that you have decided that a candidate is the best candidate, and that generally is taken to mean that the endorser at least thinks he would be a good President. Ben is apparently from the Bizarro Planet, however, and he said…
“Even if Donald Trump turns out not to be such a great president, which I don’t think is the case — I think he’s going to surround himself with really good people — but even if he didn’t, we’re only looking at four years, as opposed to multiple generations and perhaps the loss of the American dream forever.”
Wait—who is running against Trump who will be elected for “multiple generations” ? What the heck is Carson babbling about?
Get the gooney bird! But it got worse.
At least Carson thinks Trump is the best of a bad lot, right? Well, not exactly. Here’s Ben:
“I didn’t see a path for Kasich, who I like, or for Rubio, who I like. As far as Cruz is concerned, I don’t think he’s gonna be able to draw independents and Democrats unless has has some kind of miraculous change… Is there another scenario that I would have preferred? Yes. But that scenario isn’t available.”
“With one of the other candidates, you mean?” Malzberg asked.
“Yes,” Carson replied.
What exactly does Carson think helps about a Presidential endorsement that is accompanied by the disclaimers that he isn’t really sure his candidate will be very good at the job, and that he would have preferred to endorse any of three other candidates? Does Carson think? Can he think?
And he wasn’t done yet! Carson then said that Trump had promised him a role in his administration, “certainly in an advisory capacity,” thus implying that the reason he endorsed his fourth choice as President whom he really wasn’t sure could do the job anyway, was that the doctor was bribed. Federal law prohibits candidates from directly or indirectly promising “the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy.” I know, I know, this has to be the most flagrantly and frequently violated law related to politics on the books. However, those involved seldom are so candid about it.
This is Carson’s one saving grace: he’s honest. He’s not smart or sensible enough to realize that being a retired neurosurgeon who blundered into fame by criticizing the President at a prayer breakfast no more qualifies someone to run for President than having six toes on one foot. He was jaw-droppingly absurd in the debates and ran an incompetent campaign that wasted his contributors’ money on crooked consultants, but he never tried to hide his incompetence, in part because his oddly-constructed mind isn’t able to discern what normal human beings think is incompetent.
Thus he happily informs the world that he doesn’t have much confidence that Donald Trump will be a good president, and would have rather endorsed one of the other candidates, but that he endorsed Trump anyway, because he was bribed with a promise of a job Carson is completely unqualified for anyway.
Ben CARSON, Ladies and Gentlemen!
Did no one explain to Ben—surely a 12-year-old could have done it— that the idea of an endorsement is to help the designated candidate by indicating that a respected figure believes he is the best choice, so more people will vote for him? It is also best not to put the candidate endorsed into legal jeopardy by explaining that the endorsement was enticed by a violation of federal law.
As I write this, my head feel like it is going to blow again. How dare such a pathetic, ignorant fool presume to mess around in the governance of a nation? How could the United States allow more an an ineducable few reach adulthood without the modicum of critical reasoning skills and civic literacy to know that someone this self-evidently deluded should be laughed back under his rock, instead of allowed to distort the critical process of choosing a President?
_____________________
*Okay, the answer is, “Someone who isn’t very bright.” All right, all right! As both parties are proving, that category IS “huge.”
Ethics Alarms 
All silliness aside, what about last night, which knocked Rubio out and rendered Kasich mathematically out of the game.
If Rubio had left a week ago, Cruz would have carried Florida and a brokered convention would be almost certain. It’s still very likely, despite what the media is saying, and Trump is almost guaranteed to lose a brokered convention.
I renew my prediction that the powers that be will recognize a brokered convention NOT nominating Trump would yield blood in the streets (not to mention Cruz). I predict they nominate Trump in the end. On the third ballot.
I predict Cruz on the second.
Should we run a pool? I wanna take Paul Ryan on the third.
Awright we got us a pool going!
I thought Rule 40 or the Republican National Committee requires someone to have won 8 states to be considered, so the only two people that could be nominated are Trump and Cruz… Or did I read the rule completely wrong?
That rule was added to keep Ron Paul’s name out of nomination. The rules committee isn’t obligated to keep it this year, also a motion to suspend the rules is always in order.
NOBODY likes Cruz. No way.
Interesting assertion to make about the 2nd place guy…
Nobody in the Republican establishment likes Cruz. Context matters and we were talking about a brokered convention.
And apparently nobody in the Republican ‘establishment’ likes Trump either… So between their 2 percentages, if what’s left is the ‘establishment’, then I have no idea who you think they’d throw their ‘weight’ behind or why you think their weight would matter in a contested convention…
Well … duh! If it’s a brokered convention, it’s because they are going to get rid of Trump. See below. I predict Romney/Kasich.
I’m not sure you’re familiar with the process…
I am familiar but it doesn’t matter. I don’t think Romney seriously will get it — but they would be smart to put him on the ticket.
I don’t think they CAN put him on the ticket, Rule 40 requires a candidate win 8 states to be considered in a brokered convention, Rubio and Kasich have an uphill battle, Romney or Ryan just can’t unless they say… enter now and immediately win basically everything left.
They can suspend Rule 40. Just like I can suspend the LOL rule, or let you call the moderator a “dick.” It’s their party.
I’d like to see them suspend themselves.
My hope is for a hung convention for at least 5 votes and someone else walks into the presidential spotlight at the convention.
In my humble opinion, it really doesn’t matter anymore what happens at the GOP convention, they’re just nominating a fall guy; Clinton will get the Democratic Party nomination and she’ll “win” the general election – that is if we actually have an election. 😉
I forgot to say that Carson is a political doofas, always has been.
Oh, we’ll have an election… even if we don’t get the real results. But does it really matter when the powers that be have controlled who is before us, even in the early primaries? Don’t fool yourself into thinking that Trump isn’t in their pocket. And Hillary. And even Bernie.
Who they hell is “them?” And how come they only seem to reveal themselves to you?
charlesgreen said, “Who they hell is “them?” And how come they only seem to reveal themselves to you?”
Who the heck are you talking to and where the heck did you get this “them” that you supposedly quoted? Your comment is well beyond unclear.
Go troll someone else. (Oh, I see, that is your modus operandi.)
A bit testy today, are we???
Sure. Try having my girlfriend and see how you are.
Wait…is that an offer? I think that’s unethical, unless your girlfriend has consented, and it not informed consent until she talks to my wife.
I suppose I could have worded that differently, but I did add the word “try”. Perhaps, “Try dealing with someone who is part Sharon Stone from Basic Instinct and part Glenn Close from ‘Fatal Attraction’ and see how you are in social circumstances with others.” (Not that I know anyone like that… I’m just sayin’…)
OK, in response to you and Zoltar, I’ll rephrase.
You state that “the powers that be” have Trump, Hillary and Bernie “in their pocket.”
I personally do not know WHO has all three of those people “in their pocket.” Presumably it’s someone or some organization that stretches beyond party lines, because it covers GOP and Democrats.
Do you mean Wall Street? (I doubt Bernie’s in their pocket?). Do you mean the Koch Brothers? (I doubt any of them are in their pocket). Do you mean “the Washington establishment?” (I doubt Trump is ‘in their pocket.’)
So I guess I’m saying – define WHO are these “powers that be?” And please explain something about what it MEANS to be “in their pocket.”
And if I sound a little skeptical, well, it’s hard not to. I suspect loose language without much specificity behind it.
But hey, prove me wrong: Tell me whose pocket they are in, and define what it means to be “in their pocket” anyway?
After another four or five elections go by and nothing changes (in a good way) will you begin to wonder WHY nothing changes (in a good way)? Why do both parties when in power enact laws and write XO’s that violate the Bill of Rights but it is very rare that either party acts, when it is in power, to reverse the acts of the other party when it was in power?
Why was there never a real attempt to appeal the A.C.A.? We saw fake, grand-standing attempts but not real ones? Why? There is a reason. Follow the money. Rush is an airbag but he was right when he uttered that phrase. Follow the money in every circumstance… whether it involves your enemies or those who call themselves your friends and especially those who present themselves as your heroes.
Why do both parties when in power enact laws and write XO’s that violate the Bill of Rights but it is very rare that either party acts, when it is in power, to reverse the acts of the other party when it was in power? We are being caged by a power that lies above and behind that which we are shown. I will not name names because it is not hard to figure out for yourself. Take the red pill. Unplug. Follow the money.
Where will Trump get the money to run a general election campaign if not from these powers that be? Secretary Clinton will have a billion dollar war chest. Trump is wealthy but he doesn’t have a billion in cash that he could use to write himself a check, he doesn’t have a billion in the stock market that he can just liquidate, he owns property and gets payment from licensing deals.
If there is a brokered convention, my prediction is the ticket will be Romney/Kasich.
Trump already has warned that there will be rioting if he doesn’t get the nomination — i.e., he’s giving the signal to his supporters to “please riot.” What a great presidential candidate!
Interesting pick…agree with the rioting, but hard to see getting from riots to Romney. But Kasich on the undercard is a good bet.
I don’t know if I agree with that statement. Those votes might have gone to Kasich.
Kasich didn’t campaign in Florida.
Maybe. But if Rubio hadn’t spoiled the vote, it’s almost inconceivable that Trump would have carried the state. My point was more that every delegate Trump doesn’t get puts us a step closer to a brokered convention, and Rubio ran interference for Trump.
No doubt that Rubio should have dropped earlier. Unfortunately, it takes a big ego to run for President and then those egos get in the way of reality and what’s right for the country.
“Even if Donald Trump turns out not to be such a great president, which I don’t think is the case — I think he’s going to surround himself with really good people — but even if he didn’t, we’re only looking at four years, as opposed to multiple generations and perhaps the loss of the American dream forever.”
Is another example of “We’ve GOT to do SOMETHING (Stupid)”:
He believes that a republican loss would cause the American Dream to be lost forever (And I think you underestimate the truth of that, if you consider Supreme Court appointments, even if Carson is too stupid to understand why he’s right.), and so We’ve GOT to do SOMETHING: Vote Trump.
The one reason one would vote Trump over Clinton is that both parties will obstruct him, and the media will call him out on anything that looks like bullshit. By sharp contrast, the Democratic Party and the media will be lapdogs for Clinton.
You’re translating thought into nonsense. ALL Presidents are elected for four years. Since Trump isn’t a conservative, who knows that he will appoint conservative judges, or even human judges? If he leads to a collapse of the opposition party to the Democrats, a loss of both houses and President Warren in 2020, how is Trump a remedy to any of this?
He’ll probably appoint celebrity judges. I suppose we’ll soon have to find out about Gary Busey’s views on the Exclusionary Principle and the right to privacy.
A tad more seriously: I wonder if McConnell isn’t playing a very smart game here. By appearing intransigent, he gets Obama to appoint a moderate, vs. someone much more left-leaning in the high probability chance we get President Hillary.
It would not surprise me one bit to see him grumpily give in, sometime around mid-May, to the idea of holding hearings, give this nominee a hard time for a few months to run out the clock, then finally approve him in September. He could then rub his hands with glee over how he put one over in Barrack Hussein.
And hey, maybe he’d be right?
Which would make it just plain old politics, old school. I hope that’s the scenario. I doubt it.
Old school would be a relief, wouldn’t it.
Word is there’s a deal to approve Garland in the lame duck session if the Democrats win the White House.
He’s not. That’s the point of my fallacy: He’s correctly identified a problem (even if he’s too stupid to know why), but his solution doesn’t actually address the problem, it’s just the best solution his feeble thought process can churn out.
“Clinton could send up 4 of the most panderful democratic nominations ever, We have to do something.” Isn’t entirely without merit. “Vote Trump” Is entirely without merit. It’s like a non-sequitur answer.
I heard that on the radio this morning, and nearly drove off the road laughing.
Way to go Ben! “We’re only looking at four years!” That has to be one of the all-time best/worst lines of the campaign, even though it was uttered by a non-candidate.
To your credit, you were always critical of him. And Trump. And Hillary. And Bernie. And there’s a lot to be critical of (Kasich only looks good by comparison, IMHO).
I do wonder, though, if your perspicacity gets in the way of your predictive objectivity. If I recall rightly, you said there was extremely little chance of either Hillary or Trump getting nominated, even though the “smart money” was suggesting otherwise. and of course, the smart money is looking smarter by the week.
Are you, Jack, perhaps an optimist at heart – a softie, even – who is constantly disappointed by the reality so often served up to us?
(Kasich only looks good by comparison, IMHO)
“This is true. And what does that say about the state of American politics? Where did all the good candidates go?” Our humble commentor asks, thinking cynically that America failed to elect one in 2012.
Also looking good by comparison:
Jimmy Kimmel, Pat Robertson, Raven Symone, the late Nina Simone, Simple Simon, Simon Legree, a can of Simoniz Wax, Lassie, the contents of the poop bag I filled on Rugby’s walk yesterday, and my dead, used BMW (as of this morning.)
I have to disagree. Pat Robertson? – no way. The rest, sure.
He is insane. He is also twice as smart as Trump, and actually does understand something about ethics. Besides, if he’s right about God, we’re saved.
I am still not convinced. The determination of the FBI is surprising even me: if Hillary is indicted, will she still be nominated? I have been reading the comments on some of the literate conservative sites: it is astounding how many hard right voters say they’ll vote for Hillary rather than Trump.
I still believe that both parties are capable of ratioanal management, no matter how badly they have botched everything so far. I still believe that Trump will keep crossing lines until he crosses the wrong one. I have been right that he will keep escalating: did anyone imagine that he’d boast about his penis on national television? What does the GOP do if he uses a racial epithet in a rally?
As for Hillary: she is making Biden look deft. Announcing that she wants to put coal miners out of work? Saying that “no Americans died” in Libya when Benghazi is still what most Americans think of when that country is named? She’s beyond belief.
I may be Anne Frank here, but I really believe that the democracy works, and that somehow this fiasco will be averted.
Indeed, you may be Anne Frank here. Aptly put, IMHO.
Well, she was right. Unfortunately, that wasn’t enough to save her.
That’s the Anne Frank story – in one line.
Trump is advocating for rioting if he doesn’t get the nomination. I wonder if that will wake people up.
More like Davy Crockett or Constantine XI or any number of defenders of hopeless sieges in history. There isn’t any way out of this one. I predict chaos at the GOP convention that will fatally wound the nominee, whoever it may be, before the campaign in earnest ends, and a Hillary victory a la Reagan in 1984, as the population says “we can’t deal with this, we’re voting for the side that can keep its shit together.”
Jack: Any way you can do a post on what you hear around town on how the email thing will shake out.
I have been wondering for some time whether Dr. Carson has some sort of geriatric intellectual disability…
…because this level of lack of self and cosmic awareness seems to beg that kind of diagnosis.
Believing this is the only thing keeping me from painting the wall with my brain cells.
I have plenty extra for you to use. It’s a nice, rich shade.
I have very good, rational, and intelligent friends who have met Ben Carson. They had a pediatric consult with him a few years ago with their daughter. They said that he was perfectly normal during that encounter and seemed intelligent.
I personally think he is high-functioning autistic.
That might explain why he didn’t correct Trump when he said that vaccinations cause autism.
Possibly, speaking as someone who IS one. That said, most of us folks on the spectrum know what roles we aren’t suited to fill, and President of the United States, where a gaffe or explosion of temper is potentially a world-ender, isn’t one of them.
One negation to many?
What an excellent choice! …
I’m going to go ahead and endorse my dog for President. Sure, she is a bit of a war hawk and has a hard-line stance on squirrels, but she would be a better first female president than Hillary and is certainly more competent than Trump. I refuse to comment on whether I have been promised a position in her administration.
A little levity at the right time is a good thing.
Maybe your dog for vice president. That way, when congress does not cooperate, President Burns can “release the hound!”
I am going to go on record and say that my dog is unfit for office. Most of his own species hates him (Cruz). Further, my dog hates all cats and we’ve had to construct a gate to act as a border between the upstairs and the bottom two floors (Trump). However, he is much loved by the humans in our home so at least he would carry the vote here (Kasich).
Now, my oldest cat, on the other hand, displays excellent leadership qualities, but I fear that she may be a socialist (Bernie). Perhaps she should keep her post of Senior Senator.
(BTW — I desperately wanted to add a Clinton comparison but none of my animals are that cunning.)
Cunning. Like announcing that she wants to put coal miners out of jobs. Like saying no Americans died in Libya. Like saying that Wall Street gives money to her because of 9-11. Like saying that sexual assault accusers should be believed, when she’s married to Bill. Like saying that Nancy Reagan was an advocate for AIDS victims. Cunning.
If there is one thing this campaign has shown Hillary Clinton NOT to be—other than honest, it’s cunning.
I meant cunning in the cartoonishly evil sense of course. Sheesh.
http://s85.photobucket.com/user/ytree/media/HillaryClintondog.jpg.html
I have been falsely accused of using a blue-footed booby in the graphic rather than a gooney-bird. Wrong. HERE is a blue-footed booby:
Two of my favorite birds! And either one would have been a better candidate than Carson.
Ugh, now I’m going to be hearing a kids song about this odd bird in my head all afternoon…
Actually, I can understand his explanation – he thinks Trump is the best of the bunch, which is technically an arguable opinion, but that trump would be a bad president, which I agree with. Not a good endorsement, but an accurate statement.
But he doesn’t say he’s the best of the bunch. He says he’s the one must likely to win. That’s not an endorsement.