Dream Team

[SassyLady]

Reading up on candidates and every now and then I come across something that so eleoquently says what I wish I could put on paper because it truly reflects what I'm thinking. This article resonates with me. Cruz was not one of my original top three but he's moving up the totem pole. Carson was already there.


The presidential election of 2016 will be a defining moment for the nation and for the Republican Party.
Not so for the Democratic Party. There's no controversy among Democrats about what America should be and what their party is about: big government, welfare state socialism and secular humanism.
The only question about the Democratic presidential ticket is which welfare state socialist, secular humanist the party will nominate.
The picture for Republicans is more complex, and this makes Democrats happy. They see Republican Party dissension as division and weakness, which, in their view, can only help Democrats.
Key issues divide Republicans about principles (what is America about?) and political strategy (what are the best tactics for electing candidates and advancing the party agenda?).
So let me say what I see as the Republican "dream team" ticket for 2016: Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.
Yes, I can hear Democrats saying, "Oh yes, I hope Star is right. This will guarantee another four years of our big government socialism. These tea party whackos could never win."
And I can hear the Republican "establishment" saying basically the same thing (any chance these folks have more in common with Democrats than they do with real conservatives?).
Both parties are being hammered now in the polls, but Republicans more than Democrats. And among Republicans, the tea party is really being hammered.
So how can I seriously say that a truly conservative tea party ticket is the answer for the Republican Party and the country?
First, looking at polls is the formula for political failure.
Apple co-founder and technology entrepreneur Steve Jobs was widely quoted for his disdain for market research. Jobs' view was that leaders and entrepreneurs don't start by asking people what they want, and then trying to give it to them. Visionaries see what problems need to be solved and deliver solutions that customers never dreamed of.
Political leadership is no different than business leadership in this regard. Polls reflect yesterday. Leadership reflects tomorrow.
What is the relevant information we should be looking at today?
We should be looking at the ongoing dismal performance of the American economy and of the ongoing dismal state and breakdown of the American family.
The polling data we should look at is the deep dissatisfaction Americans feel about the state of the country, its direction, and the low levels of trust they have in their government and political leaders.
It's time for Americans to have a real choice. We know what the Democratic Party is going to put on the table for them.
A Cruz-Carson ticket would give Americans a clear, no-nonsense, honest alternative: two Americans who are really committed to what America is about and what made it great. That is traditional values, limited government, free markets and a strong national allegiance and defense.
Given the sweeping demographic changes of the country, it can't hurt to hear this from two self-made Americans: one of Spanish-speaking roots (Cruz's father emigrated from Castro's Cuba) and one African-American raised in a ghetto in Detroit.
Both are living examples that personal success is not about government programs but about taking personal responsibility. That freedom is about creating and serving, not about claiming and taking. And neither has interest in political game-playing.
Ironically, the tea party was born when the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, came to life. Now, as the Obamacare disaster unfolds, Americans are starting to understand what the tea party saw then.
We shouldn't be trying to drag the tea party back into the amorphous masses. We need the tea party out front to lead.
I don't see a more powerful team to do this than Cruz-Carson.


http://urbancure.org/mbarticle.asp?id=387&t=Ted-Cruz-and-Ben-Carson-a-2016-dream-team

I had no idea that Star Parker was so conservative. I like her. She should run for President. Conservative black woman ... the dems wouldn't know where to start.

Lots of thought provoking essays at this site.

http://www.urbancure.org/

[Kathianne]

Reading up on candidates and every now and then I come across something that so eleoquently says what I wish I could put on paper because it truly reflects what I'm thinking. This article resonates with me. Cruz was not one of my original top three but he's moving up the totem pole. Carson was already there.



http://urbancure.org/mbarticle.asp?id=387&t=Ted-Cruz-and-Ben-Carson-a-2016-dream-team

I had no idea that Star Parker was so conservative. I like her. She should run for President. Conservative black woman ... the dems wouldn't know where to start.

Lots of thought provoking essays at this site.

http://www.urbancure.org/

I read several of her essays, very impressive. Thanks for the site!

[SassyLady]

Reminds me of Thomas Sowell.

Carson is on the UrbanCure board.

[Drummond]

I wonder if women are being favoured, just because they're women ? Me .. I don't think it should be a deciding factor, one way or the other.

'Dream Team'. OK, how about ... Trump & Santorum ? Trump because of his drive, determination, no-nonsense language, not wanting to suffer fools gladly .. his utter rejection of PC restraints. Partnered with ... Santorum, to keep him grounded on foreign policy issues, because it seems that Trump won't quite reach his Conservative standard in that specific, yet vital, area.

The one concern I now have about Trump is that he's changed his view on illegal immigrants (a dialogue between myself and Kathianne proved this, and I've had to concede that much to her). This, from what I've seen, is undeniable. From, in February, being very strongly 'anti' an Obama initiative on amnesty for them, to going a long way, by July, to favouring the idea within a 'merit system' context ... doesn't speak to any image of a leader especially grounded in what he believes.

Trump, with his Conservative instincts and intolerance for PC stuff, but, properly grounded by a 'steadying' partner like Santorum. Popular and forceful image leading, but with sober reflection and balance working in the comparative background. Between them, they could add up to a truly stellar balance, may I suggest ...

[red state]

Reminds me of Thomas Sowell. Carson is on the UrbanCure board.

Sassy, I don't care how "black" a candidate is or how womanly......the LEFT will NEVER accept a SANE individual (regardless of their appearance or background). We've seen this with Clarence Thomas, Allen West and others (white or non-white). It is the degree of commie "PINK-O" or "rainbow" that these PUKES accespt....THEY will viciously attack anything that stands for the ole Red, White & Blue's Constitution!!!!

[Kathianne]

I wonder if women are being favoured, just because they're women ? Me .. I don't think it should be a deciding factor, one way or the other.

'Dream Team'. OK, how about ... Trump & Santorum ? Trump because of his drive, determination, no-nonsense language, not wanting to suffer fools gladly .. his utter rejection of PC restraints. Partnered with ... Santorum, to keep him grounded on foreign policy issues, because it seems that Trump won't quite reach his Conservative standard in that specific, yet vital, area.

The one concern I now have about Trump is that he's changed his view on illegal immigrants (a dialogue between myself and Kathianne proved this, and I've had to concede that much to her). This, from what I've seen, is undeniable. From, in February, being very strongly 'anti' an Obama initiative on amnesty for them, to going a long way, by July, to favouring the idea within a 'merit system' context ... doesn't speak to any image of a leader especially grounded in what he believes.

Trump, with his Conservative instincts and intolerance for PC stuff, but, properly grounded by a 'steadying' partner like Santorum. Popular and forceful image leading, but with sober reflection and balance working in the comparative background. Between them, they could add up to a truly stellar balance, may I suggest ...

Thanks for conceding the amnesty issue. There's more problems though, as this obviously anti-Trump essay points out. BTW, just because it's biased, doesn't mean there's not truth within:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/14/the_phenomenal_incoherence_of_donald_trump_127769. html
(

The Phenomenal Incoherence of Donald Trump

ByRich Lowry (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/rich_lowry/) - August 14, 2015

...

There is only one area where his communication skills are lacking: The man that Trump refers to as Trump is not always adept at expressing Trump’s views. (I've noticed this too. When he goes into 3rd person, watch out for strangeness. It's also when he's big on braggadocio.)

The loudmouth mogul may be very good at saying words, but coherence and consistency sometimes elude him. Especially when he gets beyond his comfort zone of extolling his own phenomenal awesomeness and calling America’s leaders stupid and the leaders of China and Mexico — the new axis of evil — smart and cunning.


After that, it gets foggy.

...

In a CNN interview, Trump outlined an amnesty via temporary deportation: “I would get people out, and I would have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal.” How would the federal government, which can’t run the immigration system we already have, manage mass relocations of millions of people presumably to their countries of origin, only to be vetted and returned to the United States forthwith? “It’s feasible if you know how to manage. Politicians don’t know how to manage.” Oh.


As for so-called Dreamers, Trump has considered the matter very carefully: “We’re going to do something. I’ve been giving it so much thought. You know, you have, on a humanitarian basis, you have a lot of deep thought going into this, believe me. I actually have a big heart. . . . But the Dreamers, it’s a tough situation. We’re going to do something. And one of the things we’re going to do is expedite. When somebody is terrific, we want them back here. They have to be legally.”


There you have it — an immigration priority of the Trump administration will be legalizing “terrific” Dreamers after they’ve been deported/re-imported, on an expedited basis, of course. For this, we need a populist revolution?

It is a testament to Trump’s tenuous grasp on the most basic matters that he can take a crystal-clear conservative priority, defunding Planned Parenthood, and make it a head-scratching hash of seeming contradictions.


He told radio-show host Hugh Hewitt that he would be willing to shut down the government to defund Planned Parenthood. Then he told Chris Cuomo of CNN that he might defund only Planned Parenthood’s abortion business, not the rest of it: “I would look at the good aspects of it.”

...

My colleague Jonah Goldberg famously described Mitt Romney as speaking conservatism as if it’s a second language. Trump speaks it as if he needs help from a translator. He told Hannity the other night of the glories of health savings accounts, a market-oriented reform, even though he had praised socialized systems in Canada and Scotland (why not all of Great Britain?) in the debate.


One lesson of the success of the Trump-for-president campaign is that as long as you are not making sense with great certainty and forcefulness, no one will care much that you aren’t making sense. For now, it’s part of the genius of Trump as communicator.

Unfortunately the last paragraph is what seems to be where his success is coming from. He's very forceful in what he's saying, hasn't any issue with consistency, even within the same interview. But for some reason, many love that about him.

[Abbey Marie]

Nice find, Sassy. Especially the line about how looking forward is leadership.
I'd be thrilled with this team, with either one as Prez.

[SassyLady]

I wonder if women are being favoured, just because they're women ? Me .. I don't think it should be a deciding factor, one way or the other.

The dream team of the post doesn't have a woman. Don't understand your comment in the context of this thread.

Perhaps, someday, the pendulum will have swung to the point where people say "I wonder if white men are being favored just because they are white and male".

If men are perceived to have certain qualities due to their gender, why is it a negative for a woman to be given due respect for qualities that are gender specific? Just saying .......

[Kathianne]

The dream team of the post doesn't have a woman. Don't understand your comment in the context of this thread.

Perhaps, someday, the pendulum will have swung to the point where people say "I wonder if white men are being favored just because they are white and male".

If men are perceived to have certain qualities due to their gender, why is it a negative for a woman to be given due respect for qualities that are gender specific? Just saying .......

It was written by a woman? LOL!

[gabosaurus]

The dream team of the post doesn't have a woman. Don't understand your comment in the context of this thread.

Perhaps, someday, the pendulum will have swung to the point where people say "I wonder if white men are being favored just because they are white and male".

If men are perceived to have certain qualities due to their gender, why is it a negative for a woman to be given due respect for qualities that are gender specific? Just saying .......

Because old white men are uneasy with the fact that they are no longer at liberty to screw up things to their heart's content.
Men have been in charge since this country began and look where we are now? One step out of the dumper.
I think it is time to allow a woman to run the country. Men can make us sandwiches. :cool:

[Abbey Marie]

The dream team of the post doesn't have a woman. Don't understand your comment in the context of this thread.

Perhaps, someday, the pendulum will have swung to the point where people say "I wonder if white men are being favored just because they are white and male".

If men are perceived to have certain qualities due to their gender, why is it a negative for a woman to be given due respect for qualities that are gender specific? Just saying .......

I also was confused about that.

[fj1200]

Reading up on candidates and every now and then I come across something that so eleoquently says what I wish I could put on paper because it truly reflects what I'm thinking. This article resonates with me. Cruz was not one of my original top three but he's moving up the totem pole. Carson was already there.

First, I'm liking Cruz more and more and not particularly sold on Carson but... second, I think the "team" that's running has some stellar talent and needs to be put to use by the ultimate candidate to really help distinguish why conservatism is superior to the alternative. Somebody talks about taxes, somebody talks about regulations, etc. and Carson especially talks about poverty and race. How to rise out of poverty, how to rise above the race aspect. etc.

Conservatives need to educate and inform and not just be against.

[SassyLady]

First, I'm liking Cruz more and more and not particularly sold on Carson but... second, I think the "team" that's running has some stellar talent and needs to be put to use by the ultimate candidate to really help distinguish why conservatism is superior to the alternative. Somebody talks about taxes, somebody talks about regulations, etc. and Carson especially talks about poverty and race. How to rise out of poverty, how to rise above the race aspect. etc.

Conservatives need to educate and inform and not just be against.

I saw Carson's name listed as a member of the advisory board for UrbanCure. If you haven't stopped by the website yet, you should soon. I had no idea who this woman was but she blew my socks off. I just followed the link because the team intrigued me. Getting her take on the current issues was refreshing. Very well thought out. Check out their mission.

Educate and inform -- I agree. In all honesty, it would be way easier if there wasn't so much to be against. Where to start? So many things wrong it's hard to stay focused on which move will have widest, deepest impact ... with positive results. Getting rid of all the current politicians would make me happy, but that would definitely cutting the nose off to spite the face. :slap:

[SassyLady]

So, we have Pres & VP slots filled.

Who will fill the other cabinets posts?

I vote Trump for Director of Homeland Security. Yes? No? :poke:

[Kathianne]

So, we have Pres & VP slots filled.

Who will fill the other cabinets posts?

I vote Trump for Director of Homeland Security. Yes? No? :poke:

No on Trump, I doubt he'd take a anything but President.

[Drummond]

The dream team of the post doesn't have a woman. Don't understand your comment in the context of this thread.

Perhaps, someday, the pendulum will have swung to the point where people say "I wonder if white men are being favored just because they are white and male".

If men are perceived to have certain qualities due to their gender, why is it a negative for a woman to be given due respect for qualities that are gender specific? Just saying .......

I'm aware that, as you say, 'The dream team of the post doesn't have a woman'. But all the same, I didn't imagine seeing the name 'Star Parker', nor the words 'I like her. She should run for President.'

Did this really escape everyone's notice ?

In recent days I've seen strongly-expressed arguments made in favour of Carly Fiorina .. even though she's weak on (I would claim) the single most important feature of her responsibilities the Presidency would require. Now, the wish that Star Parker runs for President, even though she isn't ... ??

The impression left is that there's a strong motivation to see a woman break through and beat the male candidates .. even someone not standing .. ?

For myself, I don't care what gender the President is .. after all, I was delighted to have Margaret Thatcher as my PM, as everyone knows. My comment concerns why the female gender is SO preferred by some posters .. when gender shouldn't, surely, even enter into it.

[tailfins]

I wonder if women are being favoured, just because they're women ? Me .. I don't think it should be a deciding factor, one way or the other.

'Dream Team'. OK, how about ... Trump & Santorum ? Trump because of his drive, determination, no-nonsense language, not wanting to suffer fools gladly .. his utter rejection of PC restraints. Partnered with ... Santorum, to keep him grounded on foreign policy issues, because it seems that Trump won't quite reach his Conservative standard in that specific, yet vital, area.

The one concern I now have about Trump is that he's changed his view on illegal immigrants (a dialogue between myself and Kathianne proved this, and I've had to concede that much to her). This, from what I've seen, is undeniable. From, in February, being very strongly 'anti' an Obama initiative on amnesty for them, to going a long way, by July, to favouring the idea within a 'merit system' context ... doesn't speak to any image of a leader especially grounded in what he believes.

Trump, with his Conservative instincts and intolerance for PC stuff, but, properly grounded by a 'steadying' partner like Santorum. Popular and forceful image leading, but with sober reflection and balance working in the comparative background. Between them, they could add up to a truly stellar balance, may I suggest ...

Donald Trump is the P.T. Barnum of US politics; Barnum was also a Northeastern Republican. What has Trump done besides talk? How do you know Trump will "walk the walk"? There's a sucker born every minute. I don't intend to be one of them.

Actually P.T. Barnum was a better politician than Trump if you consider the below quote:


"A human soul, ‘that God has created and Christ died for,’ is not to be trifled with. It may tenant the body of a Chinaman, a Turk, an Arab or a Hottentot – it is still an immortal spirit"

[Voted4Reagan]

Because old white men are uneasy with the fact that they are no longer at liberty to screw up things to their heart's content.
Men have been in charge since this country began and look where we are now? One step out of the dumper.
I think it is time to allow a woman to run the country. Men can make us sandwiches. :cool:

and a 40 something African American Male did any better?

Come on Gabs....

[fj1200]

Educate and inform -- I agree. In all honesty, it would be way easier if there wasn't so much to be against. Where to start?

There may be a whole lot against but the message can be surprisingly simple especially as the country mostly leans conservative IMO. Most states already have Republicans in control and should embrace local control. This election should be a cake walk for us we just need to take advantage.