After today my guess is a Trump / Carson ticket. This is the ONLY reason I can imagine that would have Carson endorsing Trump.

I think you would be surprised at Trump when he is in a serious business or policy discussion. From what I can see and what I hear from others, he hires very good advisors, listens to them, and carefully weighs the options- leaving out political correctness and other such nonsense. We need that for 4 years (if not forever) in government. The other politicians have been chameleons, just pandering to their contributors.

Exactly, and just as in the Obama case, I believe the Republicrats, would look on it as "only fair"that Cruz be allowed to run. Should Cruz somehow get it, we will probably see a huge Democrap effort. Which could succeed since they own the courts and DOJ, apparently.

Exactly, this has been building for 20-30 years or longer, and the technology boom has made it happen a warp speed now, instead of over months. Used tobe you had to get newspapers and TV stations on your side,and they wielded the power. Now, the Internet is King, and news can flash in seconds and fantasy becomes reality. Trump has figured that out, his bombast spreads a 1000 times faster than a sound reasoning position.

wiggys, I am in agreement with a lot of your position here, however, I would also say (as has been argued here) that it is one of those times when the system has broken and all we get are the pieces. It may bode bad for us as a whole, but it is almost just a selection of lesser of 2 evils, which no democracy should ever have to make. That may be why some of us question whether we are even in a democracy anymore, or if democracy just means becoming a state of manipulated fools who know no better than what is predigested and delivered to them by the elite.

it's like Gore in 2000 -- without the supreme court
in the mix. . Jeb can't pull this thing too far. . after
next tuesday, the list of sore losers will congeal. -- j
.

an interesting article on what our choicews are!

Which presidential candidate will do the least harm?
BY DONALD J. BOUDREAUX | Tuesday, March 8, 2016, 9:00 p.m.
Email Newsletters
Sign up for one of our email newsletters.

The November election will almost surely feature an unprecedentedly bad choice: Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump. A calculating, power-mad machine politician with a history of duplicity and rule-breaking versus an economically ignorant and boorish rabble-rousing American version of Mussolini and Peron. This “choice” is akin to one between being killed by garroting or by being burned at the stake.

The only “benefit” of a Clinton victory is that it means a Trump defeat. Ditto for a Trump victory.

At this moment — my assessment might change tomorrow — I have a slight preference for a Trump victory. The reason is that the same mainstream media that would fawn idiotically over a Clinton administration would be appropriately merciless on a Trump administration. President Trump would not receive, because he does not deserve, any benefit of the doubt. President Clinton would receive, even though she does not deserve, every benefit of the doubt. This almost-certain difference in press treatment would tightly check the policies of President Trump while they would fuel those of President Clinton.

Also, President Trump might inadvertently scrub off of the presidency the aura of faux majesty that now encrusts it. The president is a human being — a naked and imperfect ape, like the rest of us. Yet he's treated, because of his high office, as if he is uniquely wonderful and valuable to Americans. He's not. Finally, unlike Trump, Clinton has a political track record. It's ugly. Of course, like the typical politician, Clinton changes her stated opinions to win votes, so we know that she's unprincipled. But to the extent that we can infer from her record any of her “beliefs,” it's clear that she has no understanding of economics. And her instincts are those of a central planner — a harsh nanny, a pitiless schoolmarm, an officious elite with no trust in ordinary people to live their lives as they choose rather than as she and her fellow intellectual elites suppose ordinary people should live their lives.

On foreign policy, she's not only hawkish, but also — as her actions as secretary of State prove — an unusually reckless hawk.

No one who is as obsessed as Clinton obviously is with gaining power should be trusted with power. Nothing good will come of a Clinton presidency; it will be calamitous, at home and abroad.

But I do understand those who fear Trump more than they fear Clinton. Trump's lack of a political track record makes a President Trump even less predictable than a President Clinton. And while being less predictable means, in the abstract, that the policies pursued by Trump might turn out to be surprisingly better than those pursued by Clinton, in practice such an outcome is unlikely.

Nearly everything spouted from Trump's loud mouth should frighten the bejesus out of sane adults. Build a border wall? “Protect” ourselves from low-priced goods from China? “Rough up” protesters at political rallies? Really? These are the rantings of a thug, not the proposals of a civilized liberty-loving man.

One thing now seems likely: Come noon on Jan. 20, 2017, presidential power will be held by someone unprecedentedly untrustworthy to hold it.

Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics and Getchell Chair at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

the civil war is on in the republican party...may liberty and freedom win...

Sadly, no one--ever--built a coherent case based on Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations. (Or when they did--and I know about one such case here in New Jersey, and covered it as an independent journalist--the Administrative Law Judge refused to admit Vattel as an authority.) That work clearly defines "natural born citizen" as one whose loyalties have no division, about which no one can possibly entertain any doubt. Such a person must be born in-country to two citizen parents--though "born in-country" can include "born on-station" if one of the parents is in the military or diplomatic service. That would cover, say, the son or daughter of an ambassador, born in the host country.

But Mrs. Cruz was not an ambassador nor any other kind of diplomatic officer.

What we are contemplating is acceding to the abandonment of the Vattel standard. Which every President except Jefferson, Arthur, and Obama has met.

For Jefferson, the Framers made an exception: "or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."

Arthur skated on this. He hid his Irish parentage.

About Obama, enough said.

The whole idea of defeating Trump is really stupid. I would think that the other candidates would want us to understand and appreciate THEM for what they offer, and when they try to destroy another candidate, I think its because they have nothing to offer.

Don't know, figured it was a non started based on the Obamanation....

No. A judge ruled the plaintiff in that case hadn't filed by the deadline.

Can you or anyone else show me one case that any judge has actually decided on the merits?

Maybe, but I would almost see one of them in a funeral in a year, with their neck in a scarf to cover the finger marks, unless they keep themselves apart.

The Cruz thing is already played out, I thought a judge ruled he was eligible.

To be clear, I don't see Trump being VP to Cruz, but I can definitely see Cruz being VP to Trump. If that's what it takes to get Trump the nomination he'll suck it up. And Cruz doesn't really have years of being the boss -- he's a first term Senator. He would build his resume for 2020 or 2024.

Stay away from John E. Bush, otherwise known as Jeb.
This only shows that the Republicans can be endlessly stupid. They are becoming experts in party division leading to loss.Their best procedure would be to announce a party unity, say something patriotic, and finish with "Let the best man win." If anything happens at the convention that shows the candidate got there through some sort of inside deal, then Hello Hillary and good bye Republican party.

Before the primary campaigns even began, the CFR had made clear they wanted Bush, good enough reason there to NOT vote for him! If he pulls off being placed in as the compromise, we have a choice between a Marxist/socialist or a one world government, Common Core pushing elite - enough to make one leave the country. The candidates should say, "Please, do not endorse me."

Absent the consideration I must mention, Cruz would better serve himself by staying a thousand miles away from Jeb. The trouble is, he's in very thick with the Bushes. I suspect he has a Cabinet pick for the other brother, Neil.

But even that's not the killer circumstance.

Ted Cruz is not eligible to the office. (Neither is Rubio, but that doesn't matter; Rubio is finished.) Ted Cruz was born out-of-country, and not on any military station--in fact his mother never served in the military, nor in the diplomatic corps. And Ted's father didn't get naturalized until this century.

I know some of you here don't know what to make of Trump. Some of you compare him to Hank Rearden, but others compare him to Orren Boyle or James Taggart. But at least Trump is eligible.

And it's too late to substitute anyone else. No name reco.

That's just what the elders of the compromise party needs, a compromise candidate.
Sure as heck won't be the principled Cruz.
I'm suddenly thinking how Dr. Frankenstein (the GOP elite) inadvertently created a loose cannon for a monster.
The Boris Karloff version also had silly looking hair.

Or maybe Kasich, as so far he's the mature, sane one. That could be a ticket I could get behind, actually - Trump/Kasich. I could get behind Trump/Rubio, but I think the animosity between them may have grown too deep - then again, after last night's breach into sanity (must be driving the Demoochercrats nuts) maybe... just maybe...

I can't see Cruz, tho. And Jib the Shrub? Someone should wake him up from his delusional fantasy.

Maybe Jeb and the rest of the pro-Clinton party-busters should meet (again?) with their fraulein Leader's secret rep and strategize how they can monkey-wrench that.

Jib???

When you see this, remember exactly --who-- is driving splitting and dividing and conquering the RP, and who that splitting and destroying benefits. (If you need a clue, look for the pantsuit)...

Another Clinton trick. Someone ought to send Jib packing. And he can take Romnuts along with him.

He's so lame he refuses to realize the Jib has been cut and his boat has sailed. Maybe he can get his mommy up there to stand up for his plot to get Hellary elected by destroying the GOP.

I believe Jeb actually thought because the RNC told him "you are our guy" or something, that everyone would just fall at their knees for him. I really do not think he accepts this is not so.

I do not see Cruz or Trump sharing power with each other, it would be an unending battle between them. Maybe Rubio, but not Cruz.

Indeed, if that happens, then it is time to scrap this entire system and start over.

I ALWAYS thought that Jeb would be the nominee. Always. If that happens here and Hillary steals the nomination due to "super delegates" let's just sit back and watch the system unravel before our eyes. Funny thing is...the average schmuck won't even notice. They'll just go, "Der....duh...uh..."