Ben Carson on Risk Aversion

Ben Carson on the Left

On the Politics of Punishing Aborting Mothers

While Donald Trump was on a MSNBC Hardball Townhall with Chris Matthews, made some extraordinary ejaculations about abortion.  Pro-Lifers have been chary about Trump's recent conversion to being against abortion, especially as the Manhattan mogul had labeled himself as being "very pro-choice" in the past.  Moreover, Trump continues to speak highly of Planned Parenthood's contributions to womens' health during Republican debates, even after the Center for Medical Progress' investigative videos implicating Planned Parenthood Clinics trafficking baby body parts for sale and altering abortions to get the most optimal harvest.

Well, Mr. Trump may have overcompensated to ingratiate  himself with pro-life Republican voters for the Wisconsin Primary.  When Chris Matthews pressed Trump about the consequences of banning abortions, Trump proposed that women having abortions should suffer some sort of legal penalty for incurring an illegal abortion (but men would be alright).



More than just wanting to punish women for having abortions, Trump seemed to acknowledge that women would still seek out illegal abortions in unmonitored clinics. 

The public reaction to Trump's "modest proposal" was a swift and stern firestorm. The Hillary 2016 and Sanders campaigns immediately jumped on Trump's bold bluster to condemn this ham handed handling of womens' issues.  On social media, a Dominican Friar indignity opined that those who wish to punish women for having abortions have no idea about their psychological or moral pain he hears about in the confessional.

The Trump campaign twice tried to walk their man from off the abortion ledge. At first, Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks tried to pawn decision making of penalties off to the states.  But several hours after uttering this incredible idea, Trump took the counsel of his advisers and did an about face, walked back the punishing aborting mothers' idea to a more conventional Republican pro-life position of punishing the doctor and seeing the woman as a victim.

CNN noted that Trump took three abortion positions in one afternoon.   Former 2016 Presidential rival and now Trump surrogate Dr. Ben Carson explained away Trump's peculiar position on punishing abortion women.  Carson claimed that Trump (like himself) is not a professional politician and that he had been ambushed with the question. Judging from the three positions in a span of hours, Trump either had not thought much about the issue or needed to have some political sense knocked into him for the primary face offs.

This Trump gaffe created an opening for his Republican rival Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) to issue a statement on the sanctity of human life and on affirming women.


In addition, Cruz had a previously scheduled rally to honor women on the same day of the abortion kerfluffle.

While Presidential candidates should not pick their positions on weighty moral issues on the weather vane of popular opinion, it is dubious if Trump's flip flops on abortion will help him with women voters.  According to the recent Marquette Law poll, Trump's support from women lagged 11% behind men.  Threatening to punish women for abortions will obviously alienate him with progressive voters who are pro-choice.  However, flip flopping on anti-abortion views within hours of each other impeaches his newly formed pro-life positions too.

Ben Carson's Passive Aggressive Trump-eting

After suspending his 2016 Republican Republican nomination race, Dr. Ben Carson came out to endorse front-runner Donald Trump. 

For those who still believed that Carson was a different kind of politician, one imbued with integrity and principles, Carson's embrace of Trump was surprising.  After all, Carson's rise to the top of the polls in November 2015 was thwarted by Trump's insinuation that he was "pathological" like a child molester. Moreover, Carson's political schtick was principled constitutionalism and Tea Party inspired smaller government.  Trump bloviates about getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse by Uncle Sam yet gives no specifics.  And Trump barely mentions the Constitution and gives little reference to the rule of law. 

Carson made mention that he was promised some sort of advisory role (if not a Cabinet position) in a Trump Administration, which reeks of pay for play deal political deal-making.  However, Carson's passive aggressive observation that even a failed Trump presidency is just four years makes his endorsement further seem like political expediency. 

Pity.

On Earned Media and Enabling

Campaigns must be able to spread the word about their campaigns when doing wholesale politics.  Thus campaigns must either buy media spots (paid media) or generate free media coverage (earned media).  This may be accomplished from  a spectacular campaign event, an unusual comment which is considered "newsworthy" or from media hits.

The 2016 Republican field has used different media strategies to varying effect. For example, former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) and his independent (but sympathetic) Right to Rise Super-PAC gathered a huge war chest to sway voters.  The Jeb! strategy was to earn legitimacy in Republican voters eyes by amassing a cornucopia of endorsements and shape the field by flooding the airways with paid media.

Obviously, this strategy did not work out well for the Bush scion.  Pointing to a score of retired generals who endorsed Jeb did not prove to have much sway.  Some of the name endorsements, like former Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) really seemed dated.  And Jeb bringing out his mother and former President brother in South Carolina smacked of desperation. This was too little too late and did not generate significant (or particularly positive) earned media

More telling was the money that Jeb and the Right to Rise Super-PAC burned through tens of millions of dollars on paid media.  The Jeb campaign and Right to Rise  flooded the airwaves in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina but Bush fell in towards the back of the pack and suspended his campaign early in the voting.

The Washington Post published a telling graphic to illustrate the cost benefit of Republican Primary campaigns on paid media and actual votes.

The only campaign which spent more per vote than Jeb Bush did is Dr. Ben Carson. But as Carson Campaign's Business Manager (tellingly NOT a Campaign Manager) Armstrong Williams knows, branding can be quite expensive.  But it can also be lucrative for those charged with placing the ads.  Bush confidant Mike Murphy worked at the Jeb oriented Right to Rise Super-PAC but reportedly earned $14 million for buying the earned media.  Nice job if you can get it.

On the other end of the campaign publicity spectrum,  there is earned media.  Capitalizing on earned media has been one of the keys of Donald Trump's current success in the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary race.  Donald Trump has been a master creating controversy to keep the spotlight focused on him and earning lots of earned media. During the summer of 2015, Trump received saturation media coverage by the networks.   Trump's experience doing reality television already established name recognition and a branding of successful businessman in the eyes of many non-political low information voters.  By saying outrageous things and constantly attacking opponents who threaten his perch, Trump generates tons of earned media.

Another characteristic of the 2016 Trump campaign is a persistent attack on the media. Trump complains seemingly whenever a media organization reports something critical.  Trump will label them nasty, unfair or stupid.  Trump has gone so far to eject credentialed media with whom Trump does not like the line of their questions.

Trump has a trend of disparaging journalists who challenge him, from benign interviews with Katy Tor to hostile news conference exchanges with Jorge Ramos.  Most famously, Donald Trump launched myriad mysogenic slurs against Megyn Kelly, a Fox News anchor who questioned how Trump treated women. Several months later, Trump claimed that he was boycotting Fox News debates because of Megyn Kelly's inclusion, but later relented when Trump discovered that missing debates could hurt him amongst the electorate. To be fair, it might also have been a Trump technique of truthful hyperbole to further self promotion.

The attack dog mentality plays well for the angry electorate but Trump's tirades against Fox News seem somewhat counter-intuitive. Fox News has long been considered the major media outlet most friendly to Republican voices. Despite what Trump-eteers trumpet on social media, much of Fox News is friendly towards Donald Trump.  Trump has long done weekly call ins with Fox & Friends.  Judge Janine Pirro has a longstanding friendship with Trump and has formally endorsed him.  In addition, Sean Hannity is a personal friend, as is Bill O'Reilly.  Both are happy to give the Manhattan mogul airtime, but these shows do not necessarily endorse the candidate, although O'Reilly was obsequious in begging Trump to participate in debates (even promising to take milkshakes off the ledger).

So why does Trump peseverate on complaining about Fox News? The answer may be several fold. Trump loves positive news stories about himself. Despite all of the earned media, news hooks and friendly airtime through the auspices of Fox News, Trump has not won over Megyn Kelly thus he feels justified to rail against Fox.  Cynically, Trump might deduce that attacking Trump may appeal to his "silent majority" of blue collar (Reagan) Democrats that are poised to support a populist like Trump but their perspectives have been poisoned by constant Democrat lambasting of Fox News.  From a Machiavellian mode, by intimidating a strong opponent, it sends a bully message to the rest of the media and harbors a hint that they might lose access if they do not say nice things about Trump.

For running a comparatively shoe-string budget campaign, Trump has done well trading on celebrity, controversy and earned media access.  Cable channels love to run with Trump quips because they attract eyeballs and create controversy, which improves ratings. Trump tends to speak unscripted, so you never know what he is going to say.  As many campaign rallies have been at large venues, live media coverage can be justified as being newsworthy. Trump is not shy about doing interviews with those he can rely upon not to be hostile interviews, so he gets lots of airtime.

It is a curiosity that progressive channels like MSNBC and CNN have also been Trump obsessed. Is it because it is newsworthy? Does it attract eyeballs? Or could it be media manipulation to help pick the Republican nominee who will be easiest for a progressive to beat? Enabling through earned media isn't always an endorsement.

Some might conclude that Trump is brilliant in leveraging earned media to his advantage in the 2016 Election. But glowing coverage and earned media can only get a candidate so far.  And those who live by the media can perish by the media.  Senator John McCain had such a chummy relationship with the media on his Straight Talk Express, but the media mob turned on him after he won the 2008 Republican nomination. NBC News has bought all of the footage from Selena Scott's BBC documentary on Donald Trump but is holding the damning information until after the convention. The Lamestream Media has not focused on some of the business connections of the real estate tycoon.

Unless the Republican electorate is convinced that it is a Trump landslide, it is difficult to see how an earned media oriented strategy works to appeal in nine separate primary races during the so called SEC primary on March 1st.  Then on March 15th, there are several big winner take all states in Florida, Ohio and Illinois which have many media markets and are not built for quick barnstorming campaigns.

But Trump is not the only seriously competitive candidate in the Republican nomination race.  Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) campaign relies heavily on endorsements and paid media.  Rubio and his independent (but aligned) Conservative Solutions Super-PAC had amassed a vast war chest.  Moreover, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and his four independent (but aligned) Keep the Promise Super-PACs have raised lots of money and have been have resisted the temptation to blow the war chest early.  This paid media, combined with strategic earned media news hooks and organized Get Out the Vote drives, could deflate the Trump balloon.

Trump is short on specifics but loves to taut his poll ratings and his greatness on media availability, might not look as promising for earned media if the so called Trump Train is slowed down.  For example, Donald Trump accepted his second place finish in the Iowa Caucus' gracefully and did not use social media much the next day.  Consequently, Trump disappeared from the media spotlight.  The next day, Trump cranked up the smear machine questioning Cruz's eligibility and other outrageous claims that Carson had votes stolen from him during the Iowa Caucus.  That media circus strategy works well  for Trump when everyone is concentrating on the next state.  But when there are many simultaneous contests in diverse regions, that might not be a successful strategy, especially if the media (or the establishment) has anointed the new "golden boy" for saturation coverage.

Looking forward to the General Election, once the Republican nomination is decided, even friendly foils in the media become fierce foes. This is to maintain impartiality, to create controversy to become newsworthy and often reflects the liberal Lamesteam Media bias.  If a candidate is overly reliant on earned media from chaos campaigning and chummy Manhattan media ties, it could endanger the viability of such a candidacy. Oppo research leaks to the media about a candidate's shortcomings (or even silly stuff like crating a dog on top of a station wagon for a summer vacation) can dominate the media landscape and besmirch the reputation of a former media darling. While such jaundiced journalism would not alienate the hardened core of Trump supporters, it would bolster the ceiling of popularity and drive the debate to terra incognita. 

Ben Carson on Faith and Immigration in America

Responding to Pope Francis' extemporaneous remarks after a pastoral visit to Mexico, Republican Presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson had a sagacious comment. 

The Paralepsis Politician

Radio personality Chris Plante pointed out that one of Donald Trump's favorite rhetorical tricks is to use paralepsis. That is a rhetorical device to  attributing a smear away  from himself while simultaneously trumpeting the slam. So far, it has given the Manhattan Mogul quite a bit of earned media in the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination race.

For example, Donald Trump constantly tried to cast doubts on Senator Ted Cruz's (R-TX) eligibility for running for President, by claiming that others would sue over the unlitigated "natural born citizen" question.  Eventually, Trump dropped the charade of quoting others about Cruz's eligibility and then taunted him as a "Canadian anchor baby".

Donald Trump took down Dr. Ben Carson as he was rising in the polls by seizing about Carson's autobiographic attribute of a bad childhood temper.  Trump challenged Carson's story as being unbelievable.  Trump took it further by labeling such behavior as being pathological.  Trump implied that Carson was like a child molester because they say there are no cures for pathological behaviors. So  attack by innuendo then attribute the origins to others.

Trump took this paralepsis politics to a new low on the eve of the New Hampshire Primary.  As the Manhattan Mogul critiqued his opponent's answers from the Republican Debate in Manchester, Trump touched upon Cruz's answer about enhanced interrogation of terrorists. A voice from the audience shouted out an epithet. Trump paused and asked her to repeat the sexist slur. But that was not good enough, so Donald Trump proclaimed that Ted Cruz was a "pussy" from the podium.



From a technical standpoint, Trump exploits the anger of others and repeats it, but tries not to leave his fingerprints on the verbal assault. From a cultural and common courtesy standpoint, it is incredible that a major party candidate thinks that utter such offensive insults before an audience, even attributed to others, is acceptable public discourse.  This is not being a politically incorrect iconoclast but being a boorish buffoon who does not display the internal fortitude to own what he intends to say.

It is widely expected, based upon the polling and potential for crossover votes, that Donald Trump will win the New Hampshire primary.  Being an insult celebrity candidate in a crowded field can garner a rabid core of supporters.  As a television personality who made his mark in reality television, he should know that ultimately to win, Trump  needs the support from those who have been vanquished earlier.  While Jeb Bush may not be the beneficiary, he is quite right that "You can't insult your way to the nomination."

There is a school of thought that many low information voters decide who to vote for President based upon who they would like to have in their living rooms every day for four years. Will it be the  paralepsis politician  who sounds like he has Tourette's Syndrome? 

More Muddled Message From Ben Carson

The Ben Carson campaign has been capitalizing on a kerfluffle regarding a CNN report just as the Iowa Caucuses were starting that Carson was suspending his campaign. Other opponents, such as the Cruz and Rubio campaign, trumpeted the information to their grassroots operatives.  A subsequent clarification from the Carson campaign that he was off the campaign trail for a few days to get some R&R as well as fresh clothes, were not passed along to the Caucus precinct captains.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) publicly apologized for not passing along the additional information.  Some have been scandalized by a recorded telephone call (isn't dissemination a felony unless there's two party consent?) that the Cruz campaign pushed a suspended campaign pitch to win over Carson voters.

Dr. Carson has perseverated on this point.  First, he claimed Christianity forced him to accept the apology but then his forgiveness was conditional.  Then his expectation evolved to having heads roll in the Cruz campaign.  Now in day three of this contrived controversy, Dr. Carson went on television to demand:"Don't do what's legal, but what's right". Whatever does that mean in the primary process?

In addition, is this selective outrage?  The Rubio campaign was also trafficking in this report. Why is Cruz the sole focus? Is it animus against Cruz because some of his New Hampshire staff and fund-raisers defected to Cruz?  Is it because both Cruz and Carson are competing for the same sliver of the Republican primary electorate?  Or is it to gang up on the front runner which neither the establishment nor the press likes?

That pious platitude is about as clear as Carson's campaign clarification that he was leaving the campaign trail to get fresh clothes in the heat of a primary that could determine the viability of the Carson campaign.

It is unclear what Carson really wants, other than more publicity and burnishing his personal brand. Perhaps he will answer when he returns to New Hampshire on Saturday afternoon for the Republican Debate.  But if he thinks that this whiny, ambiguous complaints about past contests endears himself to conservatives, he is as mistaken as former Governor Sarah Palin was about her endorsement of Donald Trump for President

Cruz Decimates Dirty Trick Charge

In the wake of losing the Iowa Caucuses, Republican Presidential hopefuls Dr. Ben Carson and Donald Trump have been making hay about an alleged dirty trick in Iowa.  The some operatives in the Sen. Cruz (R-TX) campaign as well as Sen. Rubio (R-FL) grassroots activists passed along the information that Carson was going off the campaign trail and would be making a big announcement.

While Senator Cruz did make a public apology that his staff did not pass along subsequent media reports that Carson was just going off the campaign trail to fly to Florida for a change of clothes, this was insufficient for Dr. Carson who wanted heads to roll in the Cruz campaign.

Trump has gone so far as to declare himself the real winner of the Hawkeye Cauci and demanded a do-over to make things right.

When pressed to answer for this campaign tactic, Cruz answered by impeaching the press.



Will this inconvenient truth quash the ersatz controversy.  Of course not.  

Dr. Carson is getting more media spots in the last couple of days to build his brand then he has received in weeks.  Mr. Trump regains the media circus spotlight while establishing a potential charge that the Republicans treated him unfairly, so he would be justified to run a third party campaign.  The Republican establishment will be happy to sully Cruz as his platform threatens the Cocktail Party business as usual.  And the media loves a Republican food fight, especially since it draws attention away from the fledgling campaign of Democrat First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

Ben Carson Fires 50% of Campaign Staff

Much of the news cycle in the wake of the Iowa Caucuses has been the allegation by GOP presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson that his campaign was harmed by an alleged "dirty trick" by the campaign of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).

The unforgivable sin was Cruz grassroots operatives sharing CNN reports that Carson was not hustling to campaign in New Hampshire and South Carolina and might have a big announcement in the coming days.  This perception of a fledgling Carson campaign was compounded by a clarifying news release that Dr. Carson was flying home to Florida to get a change of clothes then heading off to Washington DC for the National Prayer Breakfast.

Dr. Carson has generated a bevy of television spots singling out front runner Senator Cruz (while ignoring the same "sins" from the Rubio campaign).  Carson has allowed his self proclaimed "good friend" Donald Trump (the same guy who compared Carson to a child molester) to use the kerfluffle as an excuse to invalidate the Iowa Caucus results and proclaim himself the winner of the Hawkeye Cauci.

Well, the rest of information which Carson spun as a "dirty trick" seems to have been confirmed.  Now Carson confidant Armstrong Williams announced that the Ben Carson campaign is firing 50% of its staff, supposedly to make it lean and mean to go the distance.

Might this move be because Carson SuperPAC and fund-raisers have been abandoning the campaign?  How about the resignation of Carson Campaign Manager Barry Bennett and Communication Director Doug Watts at the end of 2015?  Then there was the news of resignation of top Carson financial aide Dean Parker, who was reportedly pulling $20,000 a month for himself.

Perhaps Carson meeting polling projections of coming into a distant fourth place in the Iowa Caucuses killed his presidential chances?  Maybe Carson was able to give the bad news to his supporters after resting, praying and having a fresh suit. But at least Armstrong Williams will still be at Dr. Carson's side.

Carson has proclaimed with pride that he is not a typical politician. But Carson has done many things which  impeach the serious quality of his campaign.  Some have likened Carson's campaign as a promotion of his brand, since his campaign site links to his book site.  But the whiny nature of Carson's political persona demonstrated in debates and his conditional forgiveness may alienate him from conservatives and serious Christians.

On Chaotic Campaigning and Ceilings

Manhattan Mogul Donald Trump's sober response to coming in second for the 2016 Republican Iowa Caucuses did not last long.  The day after, Trump seized on a sketchy story that the Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)  campaign "cheated" by passing along media reports of Dr. Ben Carson's retreat from the campaign trail.




But then Trump linked it to the Canadian "birther" attack, which ought to tip off Carson supporters on Trump's sincerity. Later, Trump doubled down on social media to demand that the Iowa Caucuses be held over or Cruz's win nullified. So much for being dignified and concentrating on the future.

The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein offered an analysis on the primary campaign.  Metrics indicate that Mr. Trump has a solid core base of core followers which may number up to 25% of the electorate, as long as their dear leader is winning.  The record setting turnout in the Republican Iowa Caucuses did not help the populist pugilist as conventional wisdom held.  Last minute decision makers decidedly turned away from the Trump train.

In order to win the nomination, a candidate eventually must garner a majority of voters (as well as 1,237 delegates in at least six primary wins) to take the nomination.  Data indicates that Trump has a ceiling of support.  The large lump of core supporters may help him in a crowded field, but it will not take him over the top.

Trump has utilized an unconventional primary strategy, eschewing organization and retail politics for celebrity driven campaign events, earned media from outlandish statements and constantly attacking his opponents with insults and paraliptical innuendo. Now that ballots have been cast, the circus show is no longer easily winning eyeballs.  More importantly, it does not seem to be winning converts.

Rush Limbaugh had a blue collar caller who had previously been in the Trump camp for the political incorrect fighter appeal.  But the Trump supporter had been dissuaded by the renewed attacks on Cruz  by Trump over the Carson kerfluffle.  This support may ring essentially hollow as Trump had insinuated that Dr. Carson had the pathology of a child molester in November 2015).  The caller began to question if Trump is fighting for real reasons or if it is part of his show.

This sort of agonizing re-appraisal from Trump-eteers as well has the apparent hard ceiling of Trump support may not bode well for his candidacy in the future.  This is not to say that Trump should immediately be written off.  Trump's lead in New Hampshire is formidable.  In addition, the large lead that Senator Bernie Sanders has in the Granite State's Democrat primary may allow many cross over votes to a competitive race as well as "reverse Operation Chaos" by Democrats voting for their favored foe to defeat in the November General Election.

Winning a primary contest does not necessarily mean that the spotlight will fall on the victor. Ask Ted Cruz after the Iowa Caucuses.  Much of the media has focused on the over-performing Senator Marco Rubio third place finish. But with the tight timeline of primaries and stories emanating from unexpected results may mark the end of domination of the news cycle by realty show like media stunts. Not that such an inconvenient truth will dawn on everyone.  Conservative media pundit Ben Shapiro echoed Donald Trump's true tactic: "I keep whining and whining until I win."

 Time will tell if that continues to work in Election 2016.

Politicking, Faith and Forgiveness

In the hours before the Iowa Caucuses were held, CNN reported an odd story about the unconventional campaign of Dr. Ben Carson.  CNN reported that Carson was not immediately going to New Hampshire or South Carolina after the Hawkeye Cauci but would be heading home to Florida.

Campaigns on the ground in Iowa took that Carson curveball as an indication that Carson might be withdrawing from the nomination race. The Cruz campaign passed word out to their grassroots to use this news as a selling point in the caucuses.

In the end, Dr. Carson came in fourth place, with the same percentage of support that was indicated by the later polls. Yet the Carson campaign is crying foul that Cruz cheated.  Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) offered an apology.  

Yet that uncommon political humility seemed insufficient for Dr. Carson.




Much of the impetus for the Carson campaign is evangelical Christian fervor.  It is curious how Dr. Carson is quick to label himself as a Christian but be parsimonious about forgiveness.  Carson later demanded his terms for forgiveness-- heads in the Cruz campaign should roll.

Several realities impact Carson's sanctimonious tact.  Firstly, his strategy of not rushing off to the campaign battlegrounds was giving a false flag. This was compounded by pushing back on the withdrawal rumor by claiming that Dr. Carson needed fresh clothes.

Secondly, the Cruz campaign was not the only one to seize upon reports of the Carson campaign's premature demise. Rubio ran with it too. So why the selective outrage? Might it not be due to faith principles but the cold calculation that Cruz and Carson campaigns are competing for the same slice of voters?

Thirdly, Dr. Carson is allowing himself to be used by Donald Trump.  After ingesting a brief serving of humble pie the night of his Iowa Caucus second place showing, the bombastic attack is back with the Donald.  This time, Trump is championing the cause of  Ben Carson, who was supposedly cheated by Ted Cruz, so there should be a do over in the Iowa Caucus.  Sure.  This "help" for Dr. Carson is coming from a good friend who compared the neurosurgeon to being pathological like a child molester in November.

The 2016 Republican Presidential primary process has hosted a half dozen religiously oriented candidates:  ex Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR); ex Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA); ex Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LS); Gov. John Kasich (R-OH); Dr. Ben Carson and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Others have tried to ingratiate themselves to evangelicals.  But we will know them by their actions.

 Referring to Two Corthinthians at Liberty University is a clue of being disingenuous. But what is more telling is candidate who does not want to bother God by asking for forgiveness.

Forgiveness is a vital part of walking the path of Christianity. Carson claims that he accepts Cruz's apology but it hardly sounds like it from his initial quote. The subsequent call for heads to roll sounds like conditional forgiveness.

But will that standard be be equally applied to all supposed wrongdoers? Should it matter that others are conflating this supposed harm to be a cudgel for their own purposes?  Was this stiff necked notion of mercy applied for someone who slandered you?

Jesuits have the concept of presupposition-  meaning that one gives another the benefit of a doubt unless proven otherwise.

While this conservative appreciates the constitutional and faith driven campaign of Dr. Carson, I have been unimpressed by the manner which he campaigns.  It is more than making rookie mistakes.  When he is in the spotlight, he seems to whine. What is more disconcerting is the duplicitous demonstration of faith, in which Carson embraces his duty of forgiveness as a Christian then makes stipulations on a sincere apology.  All the while, this kerfluffle is being exploited by someone who thrives in insults and acrimony. 

Ben Carson on Regulation and Taxes

George Will on Primary Placeholders

Perusing the Political Pumpkin Patch

The Jack-O'-Lantern is a Halloween tradition associated with the strange flickering lights over peat bogs thought to made by will-the-wisps or Jack-O'-Lanterns. To emulate this flickering light, the flesh of a pumpkin is scooped out and an image, which is usually comical or grotesque, is carved out on the gourd. 

Pumpkin carving can be traced to the mid-nineteenth century in American and the British Isles. But today, pumpkin carving is not confined to crudely hewn scary faces for Halloween. This allows folk artists with stencils to create all sorts of scary countenances and images from the political pumpkin patch. While most of these carvings depict faces, some renditions are more conceptual.

The President is often a subject for pumpkin portraits.

But a lame duck President like Barack Obama just may not be scary anymore. Or more likely, we have to live the nightmare not vex over it. 

Partisans may create Jack-O'-Lanterns to depict their favored party in a positive light.

Top contenders from the Presidential nomination often get the pumpkin carving treatment.  Former First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-AR NY)  seems to be a favorite to depict for both supporters and detractors.  

Surprisingly, cursory searches could not find carvings of Hillary clad in more Halloween attire.

Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the other leading contender in the Democrat primaries, also had many depictions in pumpkins.  

It took twelve hours for that folk artist to carve the pumpkin homage to Sanders. Many progressive Jack-O'-Lanterns may also  "Feel the Bern".

There was a curious quirk among Republican pumpkin carvings.  Logic would lead one to believe that the most popular candidates would be more likely to be popular carvings.  But it there is nary a carving to be found of current frontrunner Dr. Ben Carson.  

Could this be because the Seventh Day Adventist Church frowns on Halloween for occult associations?  Not very likely.  A more reasonable explanation is that Jack-O'-Lanterns traditionally depict comical or monstrous images.  Opponents may disagree with Dr. Carson but his characteristic soft spoken and thoughtful delivery makes it difficult to demonize.

On the other hand, there were plenty of Jack-O'-Lantern depictions of  strong second place challenger for the Republican Presidential nomination--Donald Trump. 

While this rendition of "The Donald" was colorful and employed multi-media, it only merited fifth place in the Oklahoma State Fair.  It would be a huuuuuge mistake to associate "The Donald" with anything but the best.  So a more traditional pumpkin carving is in order.

Although I suspect that stencils may be out there, it was hard to find carvings for Gov, Jeb! Bush (R-FL) or Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). And the carving for Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) paled in comparison to his eminence during the GOP CNBC Debate.

By this time next year, as we will be in the culmination of the Election 2016 campaign cycle, there this little doubt that there will be many more adorned gourds in the political pumpkin patch 

As Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI 1st) has become speaker of the House, there was no need for the Boehner-O'-Lantern

Too many knives seemed to have spoiled the Jack-O'-Lantern.

On The Cruz Effect and the Capitol Hill Cocktail Party

Former Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) was recently interviewed on Sirius-XM radio by Pete Dominick in which he disparaged "The Cruz Effect".  Coburn chaffed at lawmakers being put in a position to make desperate stands about legislative items which he believes have no chance of overcoming a veto. This was not the first time in which Coburn raised this reluctance to futilely fight. Coburn said similar things to Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's Morning Joe in 2013.

Senator Coburn was a 20 year veteran of the Senate and had developed a reputation for being "Dr. No" for his conservative intransigence.  Yet before retiring to tend to his Colon Cancer after the 2014 election cycle, Senator Coburn exhibited an animus against Tea Party types, with Huffington Post headlines bragging of a Coburn Smack Down of the Tea Party. Coburn was quick to condem Senator Cruz's shut down tactic on Obamacare. Some Tea Party constituents wondered if he was a Charlatan, Traitor or Patriot for his go along to get along Senatorial approach  gun control.

Although he is no longer in the Senate, Senator Coburn is pushing a Cocktail Party approach to things. In Oklahoma, it is not hard to sound conservative and promise to repeal Obamacare, protect the second amendment or now even to defund Planned Parenthood.  But where the rubber meets the road in legislating in the District of Calamity, intentions and ardor matter.

When speaking to Scarborough about Obamacare in 2013, Senator Coburn rightly points out that Republicans did not have 67 votes to overcome an expected Presidential veto from Barack Obama. Right. So when has either party had vetoproof supermajorities in the Senate? Not in nearly half a century.  In the 89th Congress (1965-67), Democrats held 68 seats in the Senate and 295 House seats. During the New Deal, Democrats had veto proof majorities in the 74th and 75th Congresses (1935-39).  During Reconstruction after the Civil War, there were veto proof majorities for Republicans in the 39th, 40th, 41st and 43rd Congresses.

So having an assured veto proof majority is a rarity in American polity. Nowadays, the benchmark seems to be reaching Cloture (now set at 60 votes in the Senate).  After the election of Barack Obama and the eventual seating of Senator Al Franken (D-MN), Democrats had Cloture proof majority until Senator Scott Brown, the elected replacement for Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was seated (replacing interim Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA)).

So it is fanciful for a Republican to think that their measures will have veto-proof (or Cloture proof) majorities by party votes alone through regular legislative procedures. But does that mean not doing anything because you are unsure if it will be enacted?

The reason why the comments of a former Republican Senator matter is that it epitomizes the conflict on Capitol Hill for the next Speaker and is a reason why outsider Republican Presidential candidates like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) are leading in the polls.

What has been called the Surrender Caucus is only happy to fight for bills which they are certain will be enacted.  Sure, you can campaign conservatively for the "rubes" back home, but politicians who are comfortably ensconced in the District of Calamity Cocktail Party won't spend any political capital for causes in which victory is uncertain.  Hence they surrender without a real fight.

For example, with the recent effort to defund Planned Parenthood, there were attempts to attach a rider onto a Continuing Resolution to divert funding for womens' health from the embattled abortionists to community health centers. The Byrd Rule for budget bills only required 51 votes for passage (avoiding a Cloture Vote). But President Obama promised to veto the CR and Republican Leadership feared that it might be blamed for a government shut down.  So they surrendered without a fight and Senate Majority "Leader" Mitch McConnell jammed down a clean CR through December 11th. This was not a one-off but was indicative of a pattern, which Tea Party renegades like Cruz have exposed for the shame that it is.

It might have been messy, but having must pass legislation like the Highway Bill, a Continuing Resolution or a real Congressional Budget with liberally unappealing riders might have forced the hand of President Obama to shut the government down.  If the Republicans had a better communication strategy, they might not automatically be blamed for shutting the government down when it was an Executive Branch veto which did the dirty deed.  As the branches sought to craft a resolution, concessions might be extracted.  So in the case of Obamacare (a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act), a nigglesome provision like the employer mandate could be up for grabs, which eventually would kill the clunky and unpopular system.  But that involves some guts to take a political risk and then be ready to fight hard in the media and on Capitol Hill.But it's so much easier to, echoing Mr. Coburn: "Dingity, we tried but we just didn't have the votes to do it. Too bad (but we'll still rail against it for the next election).

The House Republican Caucus is set to nominate another candidate for Speaker.  Despite the entreaties of Speaker John Boehner that he is retiring after the crowing achievement of his Congressional career of having Pope Francis speak before a Joint Session of Congress, the reality is that he was set to resign because he would lose a Vacate the Chair vote.  Boehner could not win the necessary votes in the GOP Caucus because the Freedom Caucus both wants a leader who will fight but will also vote on their legislation rather than dictate what will be voted on (and will will or will pointedly lose and be a campaign issue).

After the talking heads shows this weekend, there is speculation that House Ways and Means Chairman Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI 1st) is reconsidering running for Speaker but he does not want  any strings attached to achieve the big chair.  Ryan's record on immigration issues does not jibe with conservatives and not allowing stands for legislation not certain to pass goes against the grain of the Freedom Caucus.

In the larger Presidential Primary picture, many insiders wonder why political novices like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina lead in the polls.  Perhaps they are not seem corrupted by the system and are talking a good game about fighting the power.

Senator Coburn's cautionary comments about legislating are true enough, but they reveal that establishment Republicans don't really want to fight. Some Tea Party elected officials have not sold out to the Establishment. This explains why Leaders are anxious to primary rebellious Tea Party types and bad mouth others.  Since Republicans have not had a Veto Proof majority since 1875, is it their role to be Democrat lite, only proposing what can get passed and signed by a Democrat President?  What about the years when there were Republican Majorities in both Chambers of Congress and Republican President?  It does not seem like things were much different then.

Pundits have noted that Congress has a similar favorability rating to the Hermit Kingdom of North Korea with communist dictator Kim-Il-ung. This might explain why disaffected voters might welcome a congressional Cruz missile in the form of fighting for principles and causes.  This will be put to the test during the Republican primaries.  But political junkies might get early indications how this "fight to fight" will succeed  in the Speaker's Race.

Iranian Womens' Soccer Team -- What a Farsi (sic)!

Al Arabiya reported that eight members of the Iranian Women's Soccer team are not actually woman and having been playing on the national team without a sex change operation. Some of those cited played their entire career as men but only revealed their gender on their last day of duty. Seven players were terminated because of this controversy. 

This is not the first time that the Iranian women's team has been over-inclusive in their team make up.  In 2014, when the Iranian governing soccer body started gender testing, it was revealed that four players on the women's national team were men awaiting sex change operations. 

The Iranian womens' soccer team is renowned for wearing a modified hijab when they are on the pitch.  FIFA banned the Iranian Womens' team in 2011 as the international body deemed the headscarf unsafe.  Perhaps.  But headwear certainly helped hide these sporting Tootsies.

Ironically, the Iranian Women's soccer team has experienced troubled fielding legitimate women soccer stars abroad.  Last month, standout player Niloufar Ardalan was stopped from traveling to Malaysia for a match by her husband who wanted his wife to follow sharia law by staying home and caring for her child. 

Aside from the jocular grotequeries of the Iranian Womens' Soccer team farce, this brings up several ancillary meta-issues.  President Obama made an Executive Agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran over Nuclear Arms.  Many questioned provisions which allow the Iranians to self inspect, citing their history of cheating.  The multiple malfeasance by the Iranian Womens' soccer team does nothing to dissuade this perception of Persian prevarications. 

Secondly, the number of Iranian Womens' Soccer players who are supposedly having sex change operation calls into question transgender issues.  While operations may mutilate genitlia to mimic the female body features, does it really change someone's genetics.  In the wake of Bruce "Call Me Cait" Jenner's rollout, questioning this scientific fact can bring a civil discussion to blows.  

Last year, MMA fighter  Tamikka Brents reacted to her Technical Knock Out by transgendered athlete Fallon Fox (ne Boyd Burton).  Brents opined:  

I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor. I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right. Her grip was different, I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch…

Some say this is just sour grapes after being TKO'ed. Perhaps.  But does a sex change operation change a person's skeletal and muscular structure? Of course not. This XY advantage becomes more evident in combat sports like Mixed Martial Arts, boxing and wrestling.

Lately, the political news has been abuzz over politically incorrect comments made by Republican Presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson about how he could never support an unreserved Islamist for President.  Liberals lambasted the proud non-politician candidate as being a racist (which incorrectly presupposes that Islam is a race).  But the crux of the matter is that an Islamist adheres to sharia, a holistic religious, cultural and political legal system which  supersedes any existing secular law.  

Part of sharia allows for taqiyya, deception to advance one's aims by cheating.  It is sad to wonder if the Iranian "Womens'" Soccer team had to cheat to try to win, but the hijabs seem to do more than protect a woman's female honor on the field.  What a Farsi (sic)!

P.J. O'Rourke on Republican Schizophrenia

Dr. Ben Carson on Leader of America

When GOP Presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson made a birthday wish on September 18th, he expressed his deep spiritual nature along with patriotic sentiments.