Ben Carson Switches Political Parties

[bonnie]

 

Print Friendly

• 

GageSkidmore

After years spent as a registered Independent, Ben Carson has officially changed his political distinction to Republican, growing one step closer to announcing a run for president in 2016.

In an interview with the Washington Times, Carson all but confirmed he was going to run, noting that as an Independent, he wouldn’t want to “split an electorate.”

“It’s truly a pragmatic move because I have to run in one party or another. If you run as an independent, you only risk splitting the electorate,” Carson said.

This isn’t the first time that Carson has changed affiliations. As a young man in Detroit, Carson identified with the Democratic Party, before being captivated by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. After Reagan left office, Carson switched to Independent, in part due to how the Republican Party treated President Bill Clinton during his impeachment in 1998.

“Like most Democrats who were black I was told most Republicans were evil, racist people. But then I started listening to Ronald Reagan and I thought God it just makes so much sense. Let me investigate this.”

 

[JoeMo]

It would take quite a leap of faith to vote for Ben Carson.  He has as much experience in government leadership as Obama had (maybe less); and I see how well Obama has worked out.

[LifeHiscost]

It would take quite a leap of faith to vote for Ben Carson.  He has as much experience in government leadership as Obama had (maybe less); and I see how well Obama has worked out.

Yes but I don't think Dr. Carson believes in political correctness nor bearing false witness for the sake of expediency.

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[bonnie]

It would take quite a leap of faith to vote for Ben Carson.  He has as much experience in government leadership as Obama had (maybe less); and I see how well Obama has worked out.

There really isn't any comparison between the two men. The man that Dr Carson so far has shown himself to be and the man Obama has proven himself to be

[joeb]

It would take quite a leap of faith to vote for Ben Carson.  He has as much experience in government leadership as Obama had (maybe less); and I see how well Obama has worked out.

The problem with Obama is, and always has been, is that he puts his political power, ideology, and race ahead of what is good for the country.  Obama has deliberated divided people in his push for his political agenda.  Carson, as his actions show, is doing what is right for the nation before his own political stance. 

 

Obama has often sacrificed truth and what is right on the altar of his political agenda.  Carson is doing exactly the opposite. 

 

Obama's leadership problems have not been because of inexperience but because of character issues.  Carson doesn't have those faults.  He says and does what needs to be said and done, and then lets the chips fall where they may.   In other words, Carson is avoiding the issues that have doomed Obama's presidency to one of failure.

[Tom Wetmore]

Switching parties to be electable...  

[Jon Arend]

It would take quite a leap of faith to vote for Ben Carson.  He has as much experience in government leadership as Obama had (maybe less); and I see how well Obama has worked out.[/quote

I agree that Dr. Carson lacks political experience. Yet I also look at where those with political experience have led this country and I say why not let him have a chance. I am looking forward to hearing more from him during the campaign.

[Woody]

I don't believe there is anything such as an "Independent party". Ben has always been a Republican. He took part in the Republican straw polls earlier in the year. He might have called himself independent from either party .... but he has really been republican. If a person does not want to be either a Republican nor a Democrat .... the declare themselves independent. But that is not a party. And eventually they end up making a choice to either caucus with one side or the other.

[bonnie]

I don't believe there is anything such as an "Independent party". Ben has always been a Republican. He took part in the Republican straw polls earlier in the year. He might have called himself independent from either party .... but he has really been republican. If a person does not want to be either a Republican nor a Democrat .... the declare themselves independent. But that is not a party. And eventually they end up making a choice to either caucus with one side or the other.

 Actually Dr Carson was a registered democrat years ago. He left the democratic party and called himself an independent.

I am sure there are those that will take issue with becoming a republican at this time. Dr Carson does not appear to be a foolish man. Interesting that those that prior to his gaining prominence on the political scene thought he was great,now because he makes a common senses decision the guns will come out. If Dr Carson had any illusions as to who his friends were,he soon won't

[joeb]

Switching parties to be electable...  

Hmmmm.....   Are you saying this because of the color of Dr. Carson's skin?  I'll bet you are as you're criticising a black man.  That makes you a racist by your own criteria for accusing others.

[fccool]

Integrity and politics simply don't mix.  This switch is ironically among the first compromises of integrity one must make on the way to the White House.   Then come political funding and lobbying, which is really trading political favors for campaign funding.   And, once you are elected, there are a plethora of other issues you simply have no control over.

 

In short,  he shouldn't run.    You don't change US politics.  It changes you.

[joeb]

I have to laugh at the accusation of Dr. Carson "changing" parties to get elected.  The reason I do is because it keeps me from getting really angry. 

 

Dr. Carson said the only reason he changed from an Independent was to keep from splitting the conservative vote.  To make the implication against him that he did this only in his attempt to get elected is a very subtle personal attack.  It rejects Dr. Carson's own explanation and as such accuses him of lying.  After all the accusations of racism for criticising Obama's dishonesty the dishonesty in this attack on Dr. Carson's integrity is incredible.  Obama has had to publicly admit he lied again and again, and he's made such incredibly ludicrous assertions of only having learned about things his administration knew about and were involved with from the reports.  Dr. Carson has done nothing like this, and has survived IRS audits that came right after his prayer breakfast statements about Obamacare.  If they could have found anything even slightly dishonest about his finances we can know without a doubt it would be front page news.

[joeb]

Integrity and politics simply don't mix.  This switch is ironically among the first compromises of integrity one must make on the way to the White House.   Then come political funding and lobbying, which is really trading political favors for campaign funding.   And, once you are elected, there are a plethora of other issues you simply have no control over.

 

In short,  he shouldn't run.    You don't change US politics.  It changes you.

You call this a compromise of his integrity?  He switched from Independent to Republican without changing one of his stances on anything.  It was done to keep the possible vote for him to keep another conservative from winning the presidency.  It simply puts him in the same pool as the Republican candidates and probably ensures that he won't be the Republican candidate.  That's an act of selflessness, not selfishness. 

 

If he was selfish he'd remain an independent and run by himself ensuring he was a candidate for the presidency at the possible cost of ruining another conservative's chances of being elected. 

[bonnie]

Hmmmm.....   Are you saying this because of the color of Dr. Carson's skin?  I'll bet you are as you're criticising a black man.  That makes you a racist by your own criteria for accusing others.

Joeb,liberals are exempt. They simply cannot be racist and if they find any fault with Dr. Carson it is because it is warranted 

[bonnie]

I have to laugh at the accusation of Dr. Carson "changing" parties to get elected.  The reason I do is because it keeps me from getting really angry. 

 

Dr. Carson said the only reason he changed from an Independent was to keep from splitting the conservative vote.  To make the implication against him that he did this only in his attempt to get elected is a very subtle personal attack.  It rejects Dr. Carson's own explanation and as such accuses him of lying.  After all the accusations of racism for criticising Obama's dishonesty the dishonesty in this attack on Dr. Carson's integrity is incredible.  Obama has had to publicly admit he lied again and again, and he's made such incredibly ludicrous assertions of only having learned about things his administration knew about and were involved with from the reports.  Dr. Carson has done nothing like this, and has survived IRS audits that came right after his prayer breakfast statements about Obamacare.  If they could have found anything even slightly dishonest about his finances we can know without a doubt it would be front page news.

With friends making comments like that Dr Carson doesn't need any enemies

[Tom Wetmore]

Hmmmm.....   Are you saying this because of the color of Dr. Carson's skin?  I'll bet you are as you're criticising a black man.  That makes you a racist by your own criteria for accusing others.

 

That is just  an absurdly idiotic idea.  You really had to scratch through the bottom of the barrel to come up with that one...

 

 

That you would jump to that conclusion really say more about you than me....

[Tom Wetmore]

I have to laugh at the accusation of Dr. Carson "changing" parties to get elected. The reason I do is because it keeps me from getting really angry.

Dr. Carson said the only reason he changed from an Independent was to keep from splitting the conservative vote. To make the implication against him that he did this only in his attempt to get elected is a very subtle personal attack. It rejects Dr. Carson's own explanation and as such accuses him of lying. After all the accusations of racism for criticising Obama's dishonesty the dishonesty in this attack on Dr. Carson's integrity is incredible. Obama has had to publicly admit he lied again and again, and he's made such incredibly ludicrous assertions of only having learned about things his administration knew about and were involved with from the reports. Dr. Carson has done nothing like this, and has survived IRS audits that came right after his prayer breakfast statements about Obamacare. If they could have found anything even slightly dishonest about his finances we can know without a doubt it would be front page news.

And your comment confirms my point. Political parties are an artificial construct. There are not just two to choose from. Candidates can run under a variety of party designations, including making up a new one or as the generic "independent" candidate. Generally a politician that runs as an independent does so because they cannot in good faith embrace the whole of what each party stands for, or some particular part(s) that may be repugnant to their ideals. As between the two main parties, not fully Democrat nor fully Republican.

It is not about honesty, integrity or whether Ben is lying or not. I know him to be an honest man of integrity. What I simply said was that in order to be electable most candidates will choose one or other of the two major parties rather than remain independent, start their own party or decide to run as one of the distinctly minor or fringe parties. That he does not want to split the conservative vote simply confirms that going from independent to any party is to avoid splitting the vote in a close election which has indeed cost candidates the election. Why did he not stay independent as he has been for many years? Because it is very hard to get elected as an independent. And splitting the vote is only one reason. Other reasons are that, if you join one of the two major parties, you also gain their nationwide political infrastructure, manpower and financing. As an independent candidate for president, you would have to build all of that. That is a huge undertaking that in the time left before November 2016 is very challenging if not impossible.

So I stand by my statement that to be electable Ben "switched" (that was not my word but the one who started this thread) parties, or really just joined the one closest major party to his ideals. Why do that? If he expects to be elected he pretty much has to.

[bonnie]

 

So I stand by my statement that to be electable Ben "switched" (that was not my word but the one who started this thread) parties, or really just joined  the one closest major party to his ideals.    Why do that? If he expects to be elected he pretty much has to.  

I am pretty sure you know that in starting this thread,I neither wrote the article or the title

[Tom Wetmore]

Not trying to be picky but yes, you did write the title. Recheck the link you gave for the article that you posted from Rare. Not the same title. Close, but you paraphrased it and used "Switches" where the Rare article used "changed". And while I am compelled to nitpick, who is "GageSkidmore"? Not the writer for Rare, the version of the story you posted.

[bonnie]

Not trying to be picky but yes, you did write the title. Recheck the link you gave for the article that you posted from Rare. Not the same title. Close, but you paraphrased it and used "Switches" where the Rare article used "changed". And while I am compelled to nitpick, who is "GageSkidmore"? Not the writer for Rare, the version of the story you posted.

I don't mind you trying to be nit picky. But always keep in mind that little saying about "assuming" something.

I repeat,I did not write the title I did not paraphrase.

I receive several news stories in my inbox daily. I have several on this topic. The title and the article itself are from two different

sources.When I C&P for some reason the only portion that I was able to repost was the title. When I went back into my inbox I grabbed the first article as they all said essentially the same thing. I am not  really familiar with Rare so initially chose not to use that. Obviously it was important or so it seems and I should have used the article that I originally tried to. I think the first may have been western journalism but am not positive. As to "Gage Skidmore" as you are not nit picky I am not going to waste my time looking it up,but would think with the name under the picture that maybe it is the photographer.  

[bonnie]

I did go back and check just for you and it was western journalism

 

Ben Carson Switches Political Parties - Western Journalism

http://www.westernjournalism.com/ben-carson-switches-political-parties/

[fccool]

And your comment confirms my point. Political parties are an artificial construct. There are not just two to choose from. Candidates can run under a variety of party designations, including making up a new one or as the generic "independent" candidate. Generally a politician that runs as an independent does so because they cannot in good faith embrace the whole of what each party stands for, or some particular part(s) that may be repugnant to their ideals. As between the two main parties, not fully Democrat nor fully Republican.

It is not about honesty, integrity or whether Ben is lying or not. I know him to be an honest man of integrity. What I simply said was that in order to be electable most candidates will choose one or other of the two major parties rather than remain independent, start their own party or decide to run as one of the distinctly minor or fringe parties. That he does not want to split the conservative vote simply confirms that going from independent to any party is to avoid splitting the vote in a close election which has indeed cost candidates the election. Why did he not stay independent as he has been for many years? Because it is very hard to get elected as an independent. And splitting the vote is only one reason. Other reasons are that, if you join one of the two major parties, you also gain their nationwide political infrastructure, manpower and financing. As an independent candidate for president, you would have to build all of that. That is a huge undertaking that in the time left before November 2016 is very challenging if not impossible.

So I stand by my statement that to be electable Ben "switched" (that was not my word but the one who started this thread) parties, or really just joined the one closest major party to his ideals. Why do that? If he expects to be elected he pretty much has to.

 

 You make it sound like party affiliation is rather arbitrary, but it's not as simple as that.   When you run with a certain party, there are political strings involved.   Yes, you have a better chance at winning, but that's precisely because party system is linked with various lobbies and funding channels that provide exposure, media coverage and channel the election.   All of this comes at a cost of political handouts down the road.  

 

We can call this "integrity" if it's something you as a candidate believe is ok. 

[Stan]

Interesting snippet of Ben Carson,  states the problem for Sabbath Keepers will come from the right not the left.  HOWEVER right and left means the opposite in Australia than in the US as far as politics, wonder if Carson knew that?

 

[bonnie]

Interesting snippet of Ben Carson,  states the problem for Sabbath Keepers will come from the right not the left.  HOWEVER right and left means the opposite in Australia than in the US as far as politics, wonder if Carson knew that?

 

I wish my dad were alive today so I could talk with him. From the time I was a child he  maintained it was republicans that would do just that. There wasn't a right or left then but he maintained that the democrats would bring about a time that God was almost a profanity if spoken outside the home or church. The republicans in a misguided attempt to right things would use force to bring God back into daily lives.

How far are we from that now? Most here are solidly behind the numerous lawsuits over values. 

[lazarus]

I'm not sure what the problem is with suggesting that Carson did this to get elected. Not splitting the conservative vote makes sense of you want to get elected. If he remained "independent" he had no chance of being elected. I think he has no chance anyway but he is doing what he needs to do to get elected.