Sorry to do this to gentle Ben, but he can’t win nationally.
It was easy for me to write the ten reasons not to vote for Trump. He’s outlandish. His pep rallies right now in the build up to the primary elections early next year will fade (if there’s justice in the human universe).
Carson, however, is a nice and pious and soft-spoken, genuine believer; he’s the anti-Trump.
Nice though he may be, here are five reasons you must vote for someone else, to be the GOP national nominee.
1. His memories about his business connections are off-kilter
He says he was not involved with Mannatek, but he gave paid speeches for them. Did he deny it in the October debate because he got caught or because he genuinely couldn’t remember?
I could easily imagine Rubio tackling the issue head-on. I can more easily imagine him and other GOP nominees (except Trump) not getting involved with such matters.
What else might come out about him?
2. He does not have inspirational passion
This is so obvious that we don’t need to camp out here. This is not the angry passion that Trump and the hyper-conservatives and WHINOs (White House In Name Only) have, as they follow Trump to electoral defeat, like ducklings that imprinted on a chef who specializes in cooking duck.
But a national politician—the leader of a party, no, of an entire movement—needs to have some level of passion that can move the crowds.
It’s called charisma. Reagan had it. FDR had it.
Even when we don’t expect that level of it, Carson has none. He whispers.
3. He doesn’t know the nuts and bolts of the complicated issues
In the debates, he comes across as less than ideal on issues like taxes and budgets and foreign policy. His life experience as a surgeon has not allowed him to keep up with the details of the national business.
The contrast is clear when I listen to the competing politicians like Rubio, Christie, Bush, or even Fiorina, who at least has budgetary and business experience, without all the Trump drawbacks.
Update on his uniformed views, Nov. 19, 2015: NRO has a piece spelling out his lack of knowledge about foreign affairs.
4. He’s not a Washington insider
“What? Washington’s the problem!” No, Washington is not the problem. One politician in Washington is the problem—Obama.
Don’t you think that if Romney had won, we would be passing all sorts of sound fiscal policies, our national debt would be going down a lot more, the economy would grow a lot more, and obese Uncle Sam who be forced to lose weight?
We would have left a military base in Iraq. We would have imposed a no-fly zone over Syria, so Asad would have fallen easier and quicker. Russia would not dominate the area now.
We could have nominated Supreme Court judges who show some humility before the Constitution, so we wouldn’t have “SCOTUS-Five marriage” now.
I could keep going.
The “Washington problem” would have disappeared the day after Romney took the oath.
Sorry, but so-called Washington insiders are needed—people with experience. It’s difficult to imagine a large, multi-national company placing a fresh graduate from an MBA program as the CEO right at the start. He needs to be a mid- to low-level manager first.
However, if you still don’t want an insider, then vote for a former (or current) governor. At least they know about complicated government issues.
5. He says needlessly wacky things
I don’t need to dwell on his comments, like his saying Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery or his belief about a (hypothetical) Muslim president. This public speaking deficiency comes from not campaigning on a smaller level, like an assembly seat in an obscure district in an obscure state. It takes practice to do anything well, and Carson does not have the practice, so he gives the wrong interviews.
He might say other disqualifyingly wacky things between the GOP convention is June and the elections in November.
Update on his wacky statements, Nov. 12, 2015: he reaffirms his belief that the pyramids were build to store grain.
Update again on wacky statements, Nov. 22, 2015: he compares some Syrians to rabid dogs. He intends to be insightful with these (apparent) equivalents: rabid dog = terrorist; good dogs = good Syrians. Are we prejudiced against good dogs just because of one rabid dog? Of course not. The only problem with his equivalence is that many Muslims regard dogs as unclean. And it’s generally not a good idea to compare any human to a dog.
Those five points add up to these basics:
A badly weakened Hillary would have him for lunch in the debates.
His absence of even a molecule of passion could not stir up the voters who live between the two forty-eight yard lines.
These voters would surely sense his inexperience in November.
We’re going to experience election confusion at the GOP convention in June or the elections in November–or both. We need someone who knows what he’s doing.
I would be very nervous about gentle Ben, if he were my nominee.
And so would you, if you think about it.
Let’s select him as Surgeon General (if we don’t foolishly cut that position in 2017 or 2018).