Uh, absolutely?
Fairly certain. Fairly.
What? Why? No, the TEA Party is not there to sabotage Republican access to Presidential power.
I can see his opponents trying to make an issue of it, but I doubt it would get any legs. Jordan’s been THE Nike guy forever and it hasn’t dinged his reputation even a little.
An endorsement of a product is not the same as an endorsement of a company’s general practices, nor does it involve any role in running said company. Paul Krugman pocketed $50,000 from Enron and then wrote a puff piece on them and it hasn’t diminished his reputation either(his BBQ Pit-style way of dealing with those who disagree has accomplished that, but that’s another issue).
Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, but I just can’t see endorsing a product as particularly damaging, especially when the company and it’s products are still on the market. Plus the lawsuits stem mainly from their false advertising of the product. Unless Carson himself made fraudulent claims, and it doesn’t appear that he did, it’s nothing.
Nice to throw that random bomb without the details.
It doesn’t matter what Carson did, he’s not going anywhere in politics. Unless he makes a third party run, and if so, more power to him.
Now, Jeb Bush making mad cash off Obamacare, that’s going to a fun little campaign topic.
We’ll see. Herman Cain led the Republican field for a short time and he comes from a non-political background as well. Sounds to me like they can’t find women in Carson’s past, so this is the best they can do.
Yeah, he’s just a creationist snake-oil salesman. Other than that, rock solid judgement and character.
He’s also one of the greatest doctors ever. His IQ is probably higher than anyone in the field. He just has to learn his new trade.
And stop promoting magic potions and saying that biology is a made-up science.
Even if he is very smart, he’s been broken by brainwashing as a child. He’s damaged goods, and if medical school can’t show him evolution is real, he is most likely completely unable to learn facts that contradict his conditioning.
OK, I’ve seen Ben Carson mentioned on here before, and I admit I was visualizing a white dude.
I googled him just now. That dark-skinned guy is Ben Carson? And his background is neurosurgery?
OK, I’m just going to figure you can’t be serious if you’re endorsing him for…what are you endorsing him for? He has a non-poli-sci education, and he’s apparently running in a conservative coalition party. As a dark-skinned man.
Maybe for a Senate seat, that could work. But for President of the USA? No, this plan is both ignorant and stupid. He can’t win. He can be floated as a pretense to encourage blacks and anti-racists to think there’s a place for them at the conservative table. He can represent the hope of Christianists that conservatism is about creationism and pro-life policies, not shooting young black men in the face. But the coalition embraces racists still.
He’s a fake candidate at best, sorry. He’s a no-hoper.
Ah, the compartmentalization of the human mind is a wonderful thing. There are all sorts of different types of intelligences too, none of which indicate you have any of the other ones. It’s always a weird feeling when you talk to a PhD and realize that he may be knowledgeable and competent in his specific domain but he’s also a grade A moron.
Carson will destroy himself if he doesn’t learn what he can and can’t say as a candidate. But Democrats won’t get much mileage out of basically accusing him of being an idiot savant. Especially when they keep on touting how smart their candidates are and then watch them lose debates against supposed simpleton Republicans.
Wow.
Did he get a mailing from one of those outfits that tell docs they’ve been nominated as one of the Top Physicians In America? I received just such a letter last week. All I had to do was pony up $50 or so to get a frameable certificate and a handsome leather-bound volume with my bio in it.
I passed. Betcha Ben Carson has a listing, though.
Democrats don’t have to do a thing. Carson lacks the discipline to run a campaign for president.
If your republican candidates reject evolution, deny climate change and insist on “teaching the controversy”, then their stupidity is factual. It doesn’t matter what happens in the sound-bite opportunities Americans call debates.
You might want to replay the Biden-Palin debate. Wow.:rolleyes:
In the 2012 campaign, you can argue that Romney won the first debate against President Obama; however, most would rightly counter that the latter was not on his game that night, for whatever reason. At every subsequent debate, Romney got creamed. “Please proceed, Governor.”
Bobby Jindal gets some pushback for a speech on Islam and “no-go zones”: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/19/politics/jindal-no-go-zones-london/index.html
That’s the whole problem. We judge candidates more on their “game”: speechifying, debate performances, how well their staff spins things in their favor, and not enough on what they’ve actually DONE to show that they can be President.
Hey, you were the one who brought up the debates as something of apparent importance as you saw it. (“Democrats won’t get much mileage out of basically accusing him of being an idiot savant. Especially when they keep on touting how smart their candidates are and then watch them lose debates against supposed simpleton Republicans.”)
If our judging candidates on whether they’re on their game for a debate is “the whole problem,” then you shouldn’t have brought it up in the first place to support your contention about Carson.
Not so sure about that. The only people that watch debates are those that are invested enough in politics that they’ve already decided who they’ll vote for. We all watch them to cheerlead for our team. Sure, if someone makes a gaffe (like Gerry Ford) it can make a difference but in general they’re not significant. What counts is advertising and how effective your negative ads are compared to the other guy.