The delusion runs deep
The Republicans assumed that Romney couldn't lose. They believed that the vast majority of the country agreed with them that Barack Obama was a terrible failure as president and could not wait to toss him out of office. They believed the whole country is just like them. And they learned nothing.
Here's Ben Carson:
"I personally don't think any of them will be very tough because it's going to be such a clear-cut election," Carson said. "We will be voting about whether we want a nation where the government is in control or a nation where the people are in control. I think it's going to be crystal clear and the people will make a — a clear decision."
That may be true, but I suspect it's unlikely to be the decision Carson and his followers blithely assume it will be --- it must be.
This is delusional thinking on such a deep level that it's hard to know what to say. I'm sure there are some people in Carson's following who think it's enough to simply say the choice is between a "government in control" vs "the people in control." They'll believe anything. Are there enough Republicans who are in the throes of such a mass delusion to actually nominate Carson or Trump?
I think there might be. And I don't know what they're capable of when once again, it doesn't work out for them.
Update: Oh dear God. John Amato has more:
But what really befuddled George most was his insistence that if George Bush, instead of attacking Afghanistan, told the middle east that America would become energy independent unless they handed over Bin Laden - that they would have immediately turned him over to us.
CARSON: Declare that within five to 10 years, we will become petroleum independent. The moderate Arab states would have been so concerned about that, they would have turned over Osama bin Laden and anybody else you wanted on a silver platter within two weeks.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's what you said he should have done.
But how would that have worked?
How would you have gotten the moderate Arab governments to turn over Osama bin Laden in two weeks?
He'd already been expelled by Saudi Arabia. He was already an enemy of those moderate governments.
CARSON: Well, I think they would have been extremely concerned if we had declared -- and we were serious about it -- that we were going to become petroleum independent, because it would have had a major impact on their finances.
And I think that probably would have trumped any loyalty that they had to -- to people like Osama bin Laden.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But they didn't have any loyalty to Osama bin Laden. The Saudis kicked him out. He was their enemy.
CARSON: Well, you may not think that they had any loyalty to him, but I believe otherwise.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you believe that had President Bush simply declared energy independence, they would have turned over Osama bin Laden.
How would they have gotten him out of the tribal areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan?
CARSON: I think they would have known where he was. You know, there were indications, for instance, during the Clinton administration that -- that they knew exactly where he was but didn't necessarily pull the trigger.
If -- if we could tell where he was, I'm certain that they knew where he was.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But at that point, we had some idea, but we didn't know for sure. I simply don't understand how you think this would have worked.
CARSON: Well -- well, here's the point -- here -- here's my point. My point is, we have -- we had other ways that we could have done things. I personally don't believe that invading Iraq was an existential threat to us. I don't think Saddam Hussein was an existential threat to us.
It's a very different situation right now.
Now, we have global jihadists who want to destroy us and our way of life.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But sir, I wasn't...
CARSON: And that is a completely different situation.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wasn't asking about invading Iraq, I was asking about invading Afghanistan, which had been harboring Osama bin Laden.
CARSON: Well, I was primarily talking about Iraq. You know, I wasn't particularly interested in going into Afghanistan but I do think that we should have taken aggressive action. And I think, you know, creating a base that did not require tens of thousands of our troops, that required a -- a group.
And I think we probably have that number pretty close to right now, about 10,000 or so, and being able to use our drones and being able to use our intelligence and things of that nature, I think that's probably all that was necessary in Afghanistan.
Is he on drugs? A serious question.