Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Really... I think you'll say that for any Republican ticket.

I absolutely would for anyone running currently, yes. You see it as me just being a partisan liberal, but the truth is, as a moderate, I honest believe this is the worst electoral lineup of my lifetime. There is no permutation of currently available assclowns that are workable. Maybe Lindsey Graham, but he has no chance.

While as I'm not a Republican, none of these guys are my ideal candidate, nonetheless here are some of the Republicans I would like to have seen: Lisa Murkowski, Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, Mitt Romney, or Susan Collins. But, alas, we throw elections with the lineup we have, not the one we wish we had.

Carson declares war on the press

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson admonished the Washington press corps Friday, calling the news media “embarrassing” and “insincere” and vowing to “expose” the institutional bias he says runs rampant.

Speaking at a gathering of reporters and communications professionals at the National Press Club in Washington, Carson lashed out at the press, citing several instances where he believes his views have been misrepresented.

“Many in the press will say I’m sensitive and that I should not be thinking about running for office, because I get offended by what they do,” he said. “But the reason I expose the press is because I want the people of America to understand what they’re doing. It’s not because I’m sensitive.”

he retired neurosurgeon said he has no intention of calling a truce with the news media.

“I will continue to expose them every time they do something, so that as more people understand what they are and what they’re doing, it will negate their affect,” he said. “Until they have the kind of transformation that’s necessary for them to become allies of the people, we have to know what they’re doing.”

Carson’s frustration with the press is boiling over as the presidential candidate, who is soaring in the polls and raising tens of millions of dollars from grassroots conservatives, has battled weeks of controversial headlines.

Carson believes his views on guns and religion have been intentionally distorted by reporters eager to sink his presidential hopes.

“The good thing is that a lot of people in America are on to them and understand what they’re trying to do, and that’s one of the reasons we’re doing well,” Carson said. “It seems like the more they attack me, the better we do.”

This week, Carson said that if he had been at Umpqua Community College, the site of a recent mass shooting, he would have stood up to the gunman. Many people interpreted the remarks to mean that the victims didn’t do enough to protect themselves.

Carson this week also called for arming officials on school grounds, described an encounter with a gunman at a Popeye’s restaurant and said that the Holocaust would have been less likely if the Jews in Germany had been armed.

Carson on Friday defended his remarks on the Holocaust but said that in several other instances, his words had been taken out of context or overblown.

“Everything needs to be looked at in context, and when news media picks one word or one phrase and they run with it and try to characterize people like that, I gotta tell you guys, that’s why people don’t trust you anymore,” he said. “I mean you’re down there with used car salesmen.”

Carson also recalled an encounter with a reporter that led to a story about him being unprepared to deal with the threat of a hurricane.

Carson said he was getting on a bus when he was approached by the reporter and didn’t have time to answer in full.

“I mean, this is the level of insincerity that we see, and it really is kind of embarrassing to see that,” Carson said.

Carson said he’s a frequent target for attacks because as a black Republican, doesn’t fit the mold of a traditional conservative and therefore is viewed as a threat to the liberal order.

He said there’s “still hope for the press” but that they must be called out on their hypocrisies in the hopes “that some of them will recognize it’s almost a sacred obligation they have to the people, to be honest.”

“There is only one business in America that is protected by the Constitution, and that is the press, and there was a reason for that. It was because the press was supposed to be an ally of the people," Carson said.

"They were supposed to expose and inform the people in a nonpartisan way. When they become partisan, as they are, they distort the system as it was supposed to work, and they allow the side that they pick to get away with all kinds of things.”

 d-usa wrote:
I do think Bush is trying. It seems like he is doing the minimum amount of talking needed to let people know he is still in the run while trying to lay low enough to let the other guys implode without suffering collateral damage.

 whembly wrote:
But, man... the 90's truly did call back... eh?

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But, man... the 90's truly did call back... eh?

Yes, I look forward to hearing all about Clinton and Bush while watching the X-files.

 whembly wrote:


What would be a solid ticket then?

 d-usa wrote:
The Warren issue is that she is a pretty good strength to the Democrats where she is at right now.

And while you always look at what you gain when picking a VP candidate, you also need to look at what you lose when that person leaves their old office.

 Killionaire wrote:
It looks like Carson is really, really trying to 1-up Trump in appealing to a portion of Trump supporters: The openly insane.

Fiorina's not going to be able to escape the fact that her only qualifications are that she was a CEO, and that she was quantifiably awful CEO.

Trump remains popular with the base of open racists.

The rest probably really should keep their heads low, and wait for later in the process. It's almost certainly the right strategy in these interesting times.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:


What would be a solid ticket then?

I still think a Kasich ticket could bring down any democrat right now, maybe with a Rubio as VP (mainstream enough at the head to get votes and the VP would blunt the Latino vote maybe just enough), better would be Nikki Haley. Anything else is just a pipe dream IMHO. As far as Clinton/Warren, I agree that it would likely be a winning ticket (watch as 65% of the female pop votes dem) but I don't think Clinton thinks she needs it (and she probably doesn't). And if she doesn't need Warren, she won't pick her. My guess is she picks Evan Bayh. She has had a little crush on him for years. She would be smart to pick Warren, but when has she been smarter than she needs to be?

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But, man... the 90's truly did call back... eh?

Yes, I look forward to hearing all about Clinton and Bush while watching the X-files.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:


What would be a solid ticket then?

I still think a Kasich ticket could bring down any democrat right now, maybe with a Rubio as VP (mainstream enough at the head to get votes and the VP would blunt the Latino vote maybe just enough), better would be Nikki Haley. Anything else is just a pipe dream IMHO. As far as Clinton/Warren, I agree that it would likely be a winning ticket (watch as 65% of the female pop votes dem) but I don't think Clinton thinks she needs it (and she probably doesn't). And if she doesn't need Warren, she won't pick her. My guess is she picks Evan Bayh. She has had a little crush on him for years. She would be smart to pick Warren, but when has she been smarter than she needs to be?

Right now? No, not after Kasich's response to concerns about his plan to cut Social Security benefits was to "get over it". Senior citizens are a pretty large voting block (not much else for them to do), and you certainly don't want to piss them off by trying to take their bingo money.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But, man... the 90's truly did call back... eh?

Yes, I look forward to hearing all about Clinton and Bush while watching the But th X-files.

Yip, all we need is another ATF scandal, and it really would be the 90s all over again

Is there another ATF scandal as we speak?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:


What would be a solid ticket then?

I still think a Kasich ticket could bring down any democrat right now, maybe with a Rubio as VP (mainstream enough at the head to get votes and the VP would blunt the Latino vote maybe just enough), better would be Nikki Haley. Anything else is just a pipe dream IMHO. As far as Clinton/Warren, I agree that it would likely be a winning ticket (watch as 65% of the female pop votes dem) but I don't think Clinton thinks she needs it (and she probably doesn't). And if she doesn't need Warren, she won't pick her. My guess is she picks Evan Bayh. She has had a little crush on him for years. She would be smart to pick Warren, but when has she been smarter than she needs to be?

Right now? No, not after Kasich's response to concerns about his plan to cut Social Security benefits was to "get over it". Senior citizens are a pretty large voting block (not much else for them to do), and you certainly don't want to piss them off by trying to take their bingo money.

And how many news cycles did that last? less than one? Old people are forgetful for as much as they hold grudges. I find it weird that a policy issue would be held to a regular standard in this election cycle. How sad.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I think I may have to reconsider my position of Trump being the most terrifying GOP candidate. Carson, the more I read about him, is starting to sound like a potential dictator.

 d-usa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile the totally non-partisan investigation continues to move along the "is anyone surprised" track:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/10/politics/benghazi-committee-investigation-political-hillary-clinton-brad-podliska-lawsuit/index.html

One month ago, this staffer had a chance to bare his soul, and raise his claim this Committee was focused on Secretary Clinton in a legal document, not an interview, and he did not do it. Nor did he mention Secretary Clinton at any time during his counseling for deficient performance, when he was terminated, or via his first lawyer who withdrew from representing him. In fact, throughout the pendency of an ongoing legal mediation, which is set to conclude October 13, this staffer has not mentioned Secretary Clinton. But as this process prepares to wrap, he has demanded money from the Committee, the Committee has refused to pay him, and he has now run to the press with his new salacious allegations about Secretary Clinton.

To wit, until his Friday conversations with media, this staffer has never mentioned Secretary Clinton as a cause of his termination, and he did not cite Clinton’s name in a legally mandated mediation. He also has not produced documentary proof that in the time before his termination he was directed to focus on Clinton. The record makes it clear not only did he mishandle classified information, he himself was focused on Clinton improperly and was instructed to stop, and that issues with his conduct were noted on the record as far back as April.

Because I do not know him, and cannot recall ever speaking to him, I can say for certain he was never instructed by me to focus on Clinton, nor would he be a credible person to speak on my behalf. I am equally confident his supervisor, General Chipman, did not direct him to focus on Clinton.

In fact, when this staffer requested interns do a project that focused on Clinton and the National Security Council, he was informed by the Committee’s deputy staff director his project was ‘not approved.’ This individual was hired as a former intelligence staffer to focus on intelligence, not the politics of White House talking points.

On September 11th, in his mediation filing, this staffer specifically claimed his reserve status as a basis for his termination. I would note first this staffer’s reserve duty was approved both times it was requested.

In all of the interviews conducted since news broke of Secretary Clinton’s email arrangement, exactly half of one interview focused on Clinton’s unusual email arrangement. The Benghazi Committee has now interviewed 44 new witnesses, including 7 eyewitnesses to the attacks never before interviewed, and recovered more than 50,000 pages of new documents. Approximately 5 percent of those are Secretary Clinton’s self-selected email records. I cannot say it any plainer than stating the facts, the Benghazi Committee is not focused on Secretary Clinton, and to the extent we have given any attention to Clinton, it is because she was Secretary of State at all relevant times covered by this Committee’s jurisdiction.

“Had CNN contacted the Committee regarding its interview with this staffer before it rushed to air his sensationalistic and fabulist claims, it could have fully questioned him about his unsubstantiated claims. But that is the difference between journalism as practiced by CNN, and the fact-centric investigation being conducted by this Committee.

This Committee always has been, and will be, focused on the four brave Americans we lost in Benghazi and providing the final, definitive accounting of the Benghazi terrorist attacks for the American people.

 whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

 d-usa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile the totally non-partisan investigation continues to move along the "is anyone surprised" track:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/10/politics/benghazi-committee-investigation-political-hillary-clinton-brad-podliska-lawsuit/index.html

About that... Gowdy responds as well:
http://t.co/wPLKhFbRwn

One month ago, this staffer had a chance to bare his soul, and raise his claim this Committee was focused on Secretary Clinton in a legal document, not an interview, and he did not do it. Nor did he mention Secretary Clinton at any time during his counseling for deficient performance, when he was terminated, or via his first lawyer who withdrew from representing him. In fact, throughout the pendency of an ongoing legal mediation, which is set to conclude October 13, this staffer has not mentioned Secretary Clinton. But as this process prepares to wrap, he has demanded money from the Committee, the Committee has refused to pay him, and he has now run to the press with his new salacious allegations about Secretary Clinton.

To wit, until his Friday conversations with media, this staffer has never mentioned Secretary Clinton as a cause of his termination, and he did not cite Clinton’s name in a legally mandated mediation. He also has not produced documentary proof that in the time before his termination he was directed to focus on Clinton. The record makes it clear not only did he mishandle classified information, he himself was focused on Clinton improperly and was instructed to stop, and that issues with his conduct were noted on the record as far back as April.

Because I do not know him, and cannot recall ever speaking to him, I can say for certain he was never instructed by me to focus on Clinton, nor would he be a credible person to speak on my behalf. I am equally confident his supervisor, General Chipman, did not direct him to focus on Clinton.

In fact, when this staffer requested interns do a project that focused on Clinton and the National Security Council, he was informed by the Committee’s deputy staff director his project was ‘not approved.’ This individual was hired as a former intelligence staffer to focus on intelligence, not the politics of White House talking points.

On September 11th, in his mediation filing, this staffer specifically claimed his reserve status as a basis for his termination. I would note first this staffer’s reserve duty was approved both times it was requested.

In all of the interviews conducted since news broke of Secretary Clinton’s email arrangement, exactly half of one interview focused on Clinton’s unusual email arrangement. The Benghazi Committee has now interviewed 44 new witnesses, including 7 eyewitnesses to the attacks never before interviewed, and recovered more than 50,000 pages of new documents. Approximately 5 percent of those are Secretary Clinton’s self-selected email records. I cannot say it any plainer than stating the facts, the Benghazi Committee is not focused on Secretary Clinton, and to the extent we have given any attention to Clinton, it is because she was Secretary of State at all relevant times covered by this Committee’s jurisdiction.

“Had CNN contacted the Committee regarding its interview with this staffer before it rushed to air his sensationalistic and fabulist claims, it could have fully questioned him about his unsubstantiated claims. But that is the difference between journalism as practiced by CNN, and the fact-centric investigation being conducted by this Committee.

This Committee always has been, and will be, focused on the four brave Americans we lost in Benghazi and providing the final, definitive accounting of the Benghazi terrorist attacks for the American people.

 whembly wrote:

For what it's worth, I'll take Gowdy's word more seriously over CNN "Dude... where's my plane" every time.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

For what it's worth, I'll take Gowdy's word more seriously over CNN "Dude... where's my plane" every time.

Of course you will. Gowdy is searching for a "truth" that you want.

 d-usa wrote:
And what an obvious "truth" it is. Despite numerous investigations already clearing the matter being investigated a partisan group decides that yet another investigation is needed, with the only result being the discovery of something completely unrelated to Benghazi. That something being celebrated by the partisan group as a victory with one of the leading members of the house actually admitting that the only purpose of the investigation being a political witch-hunt designed to damage a political enemy, an admission that cost him a very prestigious political post, and another person now coming forward stating the same thing that was already admitted: it has nothing to do with Benghazi and dead Americans are being used for a political vendetta.

It's obvious to anyone that manages to come out of the partisan sea long enough to catch a breath of reason.

 whembly wrote:

Heh... CNN claims that they contacted the committee without stipulating "who".

 whembly wrote:

It could've been Cummings... but Gowdy's response infers that *he* was not contacted.

 whembly wrote:
The political ramifications, among them HRC taking a beating, is a side effect... not a justification for, the Select Committee.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The political ramifications, among them HRC taking a beating, is a side effect... not a justification for, the Select Committee.

Is this another one of those things that you've repeated so many times that you just regard it as truth? Because that's what it looks like to everyone else.