I’ve never been a big Ben Carson fan. Outstanding neurosurgeon, but president of the United States? Some experience in government, or at the very least some executive experience, is required.

But I can certainly understand why some conservatives do like Carson. He’s not a politician (and doesn’t speak like one), and his rags-to-riches story – from a rough-and-tumble youth on the streets of Detroit to becoming one of the most successful surgeons in the world – is nothing short of inspiring. Despite a violent streak in his early days, he turned to the Bible and to knowledge and turned his life around – a sharp, if unstated rebuke of the belief that more government intervention is the cure for what ails the black community.

The problem, of course, is that Carson’s backstory is filled with contradictions and exaggerations. He was never, for instance, offered a scholarship at West Point. No one has been able to corroborate stories of the violent episodes Carson supposedly went through in the past. And various other anecdotes found in his book appear to be embellished or completely fabricated. And while not evidence of pathological lying, photos of the interior of Carson’s home – which includes a portrait of himself and Jesus, as well as a shrine dedicated to himself – point to him as being kind of a weird guy.

For what it’s worth, Carson’s response to this outbreak of controversy has been pitch-perfect: the media is out to get him because he’s a black conservative who does the best against Hillary Clinton in general election polling, and they would never have treated Barack Obama this way. And to some extent, he’s right. While the media vetted Obama, it was a half-hearted effort, and there’s still a lot in his past that’s kind of sketchy.

But that’s besides the point. The point is that the truth doesn’t matter. All that matters is that conservatives think the media is out to get Ben Carson. So don’t expect an exodus of supporters from the Carson camp. Bashing the media is a tried-and-true tactic in a GOP primary, and that will help stop the bleeding – for a little while.

At the same time, GOP primary voters shopping around for a candidate, who like and respect Mr. Carson, are thinking – perhaps subconsciously: Something’s not right here. Regardless of how much Carson attacks the media going forward, his strongest polling numbers in the campaign are behind him. What lies in the future is a steady, slow decline in the polls – his campaign shot by the diminished credibility of his biography, which in the end was his only selling point in the first place.

85 Comments

  1. Progressive Wing

    So Carson lied and is now forced to apologize. He says, in a news conference, that he saw Muslims cheering in NJ on 9/11/01. Now he states that he “doesn’t stand by” his own earlier remarks, claiming he was referring to Muslims in the Middle East. He is clearly not presidential material, no matter what this thread’s resident Carson supporter/apologist claims.
    And Carson’s rank in Iowa has fallen from first to third in Iowa polls, with Trump and Cruz benefiting most.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ben-carson-newsreels-american-muslims-cheering-911/story?id=35376256

  2. Progressive Wing

    Carson popularity showing more signs of slippage in two key states.

    FOX poll of Nov 17 in NH shows Trump expanding his lead and Carson now falling behind not only The Donald but also Rubio and Cruz, and is now tied with (wait for it) Jeb?!

    Florida Atlantic poll of FL Republicans of Nov 16 now also shows Carson well behind Trump and also Rubio.

    • Progressive Wing

      But, dg, someone here had said, just two week ago, that Carson was rising, that liberals were in fear of his walk toward his ultimate nomination. Are you sure?

      • Progressive Wing

        And Carson continues to plateau or fall in the polls. He at one time led over Trump in Iowa–no more. And all poll syntheses/aggregators as of today now suggest that Carson peaked on about Oct 29th. So it’s been over 4 weeks with no poll gains for Carson.

        And his statements and claims continue to dog him. Yesterday, he sided with Trump about actually seeing news reports on TV of Muslims in NJ celebrating 9/11 attacks. Dozens of debunkers, news channels, and NJ police departments say that no such TV or police video reports can been found in that regard, and the lone print reporter who mentioned such reports of such said they were unverified.

        Again, his memory fails, as his urge to sell his biased narrative overwhelms him.

      • Ebrun

        Right. Apparently, only the Washington Post ran the story on September 18, 2001 and we all know how the Post and other MSM outlets often distort and exaggerate the news.

        • Progressive Wing

          Facts: There were no NJ demonstrations by “thousands and thousands” (as Trump claims) or even by hundreds, or by dozens, of Muslims on 9/11. None. No news reports, or police reports, no TV or MSM videos (despite Trum’ps and Carson’s claims that they saw such on TV), and no private videos that have come to the fore. None.

          This WP article below totally debunks Trump’s contention, Carson’s original lie, and your own implication that its article on September 18, 2001 was distorting and exaggerating.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3_na

          According to this WP piece, Jerry Speziale, the police commissioner of Paterson, NJ, which has the second-largest Muslim population in the US, said nothing of the sort ever happened. Speziale “minced few words, even using a barnyard epithet, while giving his response.’That is totally false. That is patently false,’ Speziale said. ‘That never happened. There were no flags burning, no one was dancing. That is [barnyard epithet].’ He said the main concern after the attacks was that the U.S. Muslim population would face retaliation, and so law enforcement officials worked with the community to ensure that did not happen. “They’ve been very helpful and law-abiding.”

          But go ahead and do what you usually do when facts get in your way. Twist things, offer hard to follow posts, deflect focus, smear the biased/distorting/exaggerating MSM source, or accuse liberals of, well, just about anything.

          • Ebrun

            I have no doubt Trump exaggerated or lied outright. My only question is where did the Washington Post reporter get the information that was published in the Post on September 18, 2001. Trump is using the Post story to validate his claim. Why aren’t liberals outraged or at least curious about the Post report if it was a lie or a gross exaggeration?

            Once again, liberals apply a double standard. Vilify Trump, but ignore the Post report.

  3. TbeT

    Carson may have a high IQ and be a great neurosurgeon, but there are different kinds of intelligence and intelligence-related skills. My belief is that Carson is adrift on most things outside the operating room. This is a good example:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/ben-carson-is-struggling-to-grasp-foreign-policy-advisers-say.html

    I have worked professionally with researchers in the biological and natural sciences, as well as those in social sciences. IMO, to excel at things relating to political science, policy-making processes, geopolitical analyses, and social science takes a different sort of mental processing and skill set. I do not believe Carson has that, and, in his struggles and believing himself very smart, makes things up. And as some of the world’s best medical doctors have remarked, they and their professional peers may be excellent technicians and mechanics when it come to the human body, but can be clueless when they step out of their discipline.

    The article also makes one wonder if Ol’ Ben is educable at this point in his life, and is still open and willing to learn.

  4. Apply Liberally

    Hmmm…..”Honest Ben” keeping dishonest, very close friends, and making much of his wealth from that association.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/ben-carson-alfonso-costa-healthcare-fraud

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/12/1449117/-Ben-Carson-made-millions-with-BFF-and-business-partner-a-felon-convicted-of-healthcare-fraud

    Costa was convicted of healthcare fraud and sentenced to “three years probation, one year of house arrest, 100 hours of community service, and he was ordered to pay restitution of $44,000 and a $250,000 fine. Costa later completed 125 hours of community service—working for Carson’s charity. Costa’s dental license was later revoked….”

    “Carson penned a gushing letter of support for his friend. He wrote that “next to my wife of 32 years, there is no one on this planet I trust more than Al Costa.”

    Hmmm…..

  5. Progressive Wing

    The Columbia article is also suffering from too long a shelf-life. In the time that has ensued since the Politico and the CJR articles were published, just about every balanced media source has figured out that both Politico AND Carson bear some guilt in the dust-up.

    I suggest you read the Columbia piece again, because, in trying to convince us all that it is only an indictment of Politico’s crime, you missed the following point it makes quite clearly (I swear you do have a reading comprehension issue):

    “Both pieces (Policio’s and CNN’s) included illuminating information that cast doubt on Carson’s much-admired personal narrative……Carson never received such an offer (to West Point). He had informal talks with recruiters about attending West Point. He mischaracterized this part of his story.”

    As all news sources now report accurately, despite Carson’s claims that he received a full scholarship offer from West Point, he, in fact, did not. He wasn’t promised admission, he wasn’t nominated by a high ranking federal official, he wasn’t accepted, he wasn’t offered a full scholarship, and the USMA has no records involving him or an application involving him.

    Yes, I am indeed repeating what have said numerous other times in my other posts in this thread, but I obviously have to. You continue to deny misrepresentation of the facts by Mr. Carson. And even thought the CJR source that you offer to us in support of you position on Mr. Carson states that he “mischaracterized his story,” I’ll guess that, in your closed-minded and partisan way, you will continue to be a denier and Carson apologist.

    • Ebrun

      I won’t question an individual’s honesty or call someone a liar unless I have absolute personal knowledge and evidence of such. You don’t have personal knowledge of Carson’s honesty, only suspicion and hearsay evidence from controversial news stories. His explanation of the military’s interest in him attending the USMA seems quite believable to me. He may have not been specific enough in his original claim, but I believe he was told he could have an appointment to West Point with what would have been a full scholarship had he wanted to pursue it.

      His explanation is quite logical; an African American ROTC student with a patriotic outlook and an awesome academic record. Just what the military was looking for back in those days and candidates that fit that mold were hard to find. In fact, it would much be much more surprising had the military not been interested in Carson as a candidate for the USMA.

      No doubt you’re going to believe what you want to believe, as am I. We just have different standards when it comes to calling people names.

      • Progressive Way

        And again, you don’t listen, don’t comprehend very well, and refuse to read r accept anything does not fit your mindset or your narrative on this.

        That CNN article itself says:

        “The Politico story does show that Carson said several times that he was “offered a full scholarship to West Point.” He made that claim in his book, “Gifted Hands,” and in several media interviews, including during an appearance on Charlie Rose last month.

        “Carson acknowledged Friday that HE WAS NEVER OFFERED A FULL SCHOLARSHIP TO WEST POINT, and sought to clarify that he had instead been given an informal offer or “nomination” to attend West Point.”

        Fact is he so “sought to clarify” only after the Politico story, because he’s been foisting a lie for years about a scholarship, and they, in fact, found out that he had never been nominated nor offered anything.

        Also, that CNN article was posted Nov 6. Four days later, Nov 10, having the benefit of more time to consider things, an Esquire article —-that I will have shared with you three times now —- addressed every point that CNN article makes. It especially makes the point that there are no such things as informal offers or nominations when it comes to West Point. It said:

        “Ben Carson did not receive any offer of a scholarship, or an appointment, or whatever you might want to call it. Not spoken or even implied. When he says that he did (and he has not backed off of this part of the story) he is not telling the truth. There is another word for that. It is apparent from everything listed above that he was not assured of acceptance, or anything like it, by any military officer. When he makes assertions to the contrary he is pitting his solitary word against the multi-century tradition of military subordination to civil authority and the honor of 240 years of oaths from the entire officer corps of the United States Army. Not to mention the legal proscriptions of the Acts of Congress dating all the way back to March 1, 1843.”

        (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39579/ben-carson-debunked-west-point)

        • Ebrun

          How naive! There are informal “offers ” to most everything of value. You are grasping at straws, flailing at shadows. The brouhaha over Carson’s West Point “offer” will probably help him gain support for his campaign as the public just does not trust the liberal media. And Trump’s latest harangue against him will likely backfire to Carson’s advantage.

          And, BTW, his detractors have yet to find anyone who has known or worked with Carson in the past to support the claim that he is dishonest or is a liar.

          • Progressive Wing

            So you have nothing else but that? Attacking the messenger? Call me naive, say I am grasping at straws, flailing at shadows? Your gun is obviously empty.

            Tell us, Ebrun, one other thing. How do you know that military officers at that time broke an honor code and regulations and assured Carson a scholarship?

          • Ebrun

            How do I know? The same way you know they didn’t. We have different opinions, and that’s all they are, opinions. There is no absolute proof. Why not give it a break and let the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and the other states decide what they think? They will be the ultimate judge of his character.

  6. Ebrun

    There is no proof that he lied or is dishonest, only suspicion. The liberal press and his other detractors have not been able to find anyone from his past who can verify the charges that he lied or was of dishonest character.

    His positions on foreign policy and his lack of political experience are legitimate areas of inquiry and criticism. That should provide liberals with plenty of ammunition to attack Carson’s candidacy. Why do you feel the need to engage in vitriolic personal attacks on his character. I suspect you and other Democrats fear he may be on the verge of a very successful candidacy despite his lack of political experience.

  7. Progressive Wing

    Ebrun:

    I thought so. That Federalist piece is old; I read it 5 days ago.

    And it is itself a biased hit piece.

    All one needs to do is read the intro: “Politico‘s Kyle Cheney admitted that he fabricated a negative story about Ben Carson.” Fact is that Cheney admitted no such thing.

    And then, in the next sentence, the article immediately qualifies that bogus lead by saying “At least, according to his own standards, he admitted the grievous journalistic sin”, which is a slyly-worded acknowledgment that the Federalist writer’s OPINION is that Cheney did something untoward.

    Really, try reading this one, which appeared in a popular, non-political source, and that had more time to assemble and analyze much more info/background about Ben’s bogus claim.

    • Ebrun

      Joe Scarborough sees himself as the de facto spokesman for the Republican establishment. He and Mica were bad mouthing Carson’s candidacy long before the current allegations were made. Joe’s credibility is much more suspect than Dr. Carson’s.

      • Progressive Wing

        “Joe’s credibility is much more suspect than Dr. Carson’s.”?

        Gotta love how GOP’ers turn against each other and devour their own!

        • Ebrun

          Yes, and that description would fit Scarborough to a tee except that he is no longer a Republican partisan. He is now a political commentator for MSNBC and he knows on which side his bread is buttered.

  8. Randy Guptill

    Hey EBRUN; How would you feel about Dr. Carson is he were a liberal Democrat?

    • Ebrun

      I would certainly feel free to criticize his policy positions and his idealogical inclinations. I doubt i would engage in character assassination or go back to his teenage years to try to tarnish his reputation.

  9. Mike Leonard

    Q: How can you tell that Sleepy Ben is a pathological liar?

    A: Because his lips are slowly moving.

  10. Arthur Dent

    Cease feeding the troll. It is an irrational creature and is strengthened by illogic and fiction. Logic and fact only cause it to create more illogic and fiction for its own sustenance.

    • Ebrun

      Apparently, comments on this blog have been the almost exclusive purview of those with liberal political views. And can liberals get down and dirty when one lone conservative commenter challenges their liberal orthodoxy.

      Sorry to crash your party, Arthur. I didn’t realize you and other regular commenters here would get so uptight when exposed to an opposing point of view. So you can chose to respond or not to respond to my comments. But rest assured I will continue to respond to the partisan conventional wisdom you, D.g. and other liberals post here.

      • Arthur Dent

        I will not feed you, trolly man!
        I will not serve you lamb or ham.
        You feed yourself on partial truth
        And bite the hands offer proof
        Of truthy truth that truly stings
        Your trolly view of people and things
        Are bad for you and bad for me
        So why not stop before we see
        That what you say is ridiculous
        And causes us to make more fuss!

        • Ebrun

          All right, Arthur! Glad to see you’re still posting here, even if you feel the need to resort to personal criticism rather than engage in political debate. So hang in here, you may yet come to respect the rights of those who disagree with you to express their views.

      • Ebrun

        I am not trying to present a legal brief here, D.g. Whether it’s character defamation or character assassination, the terms imply the same.

        But enough of polite discourse. It’s obvious what is happening here. A deliberate attempt by the left, with eager participation from the liberal media, to smear Dr. Carson as his increasing popularity, reflected in national opinion surveys, has the left fearing he is following a path to election similar to that of Obama in 2007-08.

        An article reprinted in Real Clear Politics today deconstructs the “fabrication” of a hit piece on Dr, Carson by the web site Politico and their subsequent attempt to back out without correction when other reporters called attention to their deceptive reporting.

        And since you made reference to “canned phrases, ” left me give you some editing advice. Terms such as “god complex,” “good little republican,” “victimization,” “pious expression,” “right wing lie source.” “jump on the cross,” “Martyr Victim Complex and “radical Republican machine” make your posts seem like they were written by a partisan political hack rather than coming from a sober and thoughtful concerned citizen.

        • Progressive Wing

          Hey, Ebrun. You’ve earned little trust or respect on these comments threads, as we’ve all experienced how you twist, deflect, spin, confound, and drivel. So, instead of saying “An article reprinted in Real Clear Politics today deconstructs the “fabrication” of a hit piece on Dr, Carson by the web site Politico and their subsequent attempt to back out without correction when other reporters called attention to their deceptive reporting,” and sending us on a wild goose chase to find the piece, why don’t you just give us the article’s URL? That way, we can actually assess its source, its shelf-life, and what it actually says, as opposed to relying on your typically shaded analysis of what some article may point out.

          • Ebrun

            P.W., I may not have earned much “trust and respect” from the liberal commenters on this site, but I sure have generated a lot of copy from liberals who don’t like their world view being challenged. Think I may have struck a nerve with some of you.

            BTW, I just posted the URL you requested for the article I mentioned. However, apparently whenever a link to another site is posted here it has to undergo comment “moderation” and I don’t know how long that will take. The article was originally published in TheFederalist.com and dated 11/06/15. It appeared a day or two later on the Real Clear Politics site.

        • Ebrun

          D.g. your latest innuendo that Carson is mentally unstable is nothing short of reprehensible. You must be extremely apprehensive of his candidacy to advance such an insidious slur.

      • Progressive Wing

        Dg: “Sophistry.” You left that word out. Ebrun, who laments how disrespectfully he is treated on these threads as a lone conservative voice, just loves to accuse others of “sophistry.”

        • Ebrun

          Oh wow, you liberals are so sensitive. Like the radical left on college campuses, you want a “safe space” online where you not exposed to opinions that are contrary to your own. So when commenters here present alternative points view that are held by roughly one half or more of U.S citizens, you believe they are “agitators” and respond with hostile personal attacks.

          Like the current crop of immature student protestors, you need to grow up and not expect to be protected from diverse ideas by authoritarian administrators or big brother government.

  11. Progressive Wing

    Ebrun:

    Do you have reading comprehension issues, or do you just refuse, in utter delusion, to accepts facts??

    Your man Carson, the man you tell us is the most trusted of the candidates according to surveys, said THIS in his 1990 book “Gifted Hands”:

    “Sgt. Hunt introduced me to General Westmoreland, and I had dinner with him and the Congressional Medal winners. Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point.”

    And this October 2015, on national TV, he said this in a interview with Charlie Rose: “I had a goal of achieving the office of city executive officer [in JROTC]. Well, no one had ever done that in that amount of time … Long story short, it worked, I did it. I was offered a full scholarship to West Point…”

    He did NOT say that he “was offered the opportunity to be appointed to West Point which would have entailed a full scholarship, but declined the offer to pursue a career in medicine.”

    HE WAS NEVER OFFERED A FULL SCHOLARSHIP TO WEST POINT. FACT. PERIOD.

    • Ebrun

      As he said last night, those were the words used by the military officials who tried to persuade him to seek a USMA appointment. Obviously, it was an informal, unofficial offer, but it was also a substantive offer that could had been fulfilled if Carson had decided to pursue it. When he declined the offer, that was end of the matter and no official appointment was ever made. This is entirely consistent with what Dr. Carson has written and verbally explained.

  12. Progressive Wing

    He has no understanding of “constitutional government.” His statements regarding no Muslims as president ignore –or are ignorant of– these words from the US Constitution: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    He is a joke of a presidential candidate.

    • Ebrun

      Once again, you distort what he said. He did not say no Muslim should be U.S. President, he said he would NOT SUPPORT a Muslim for President. Neither would I and millions of other Americans unless we could be assured the candidate would pledge adherence to the U.S. Constitution when if conflicted with the tenants of Islam.

      Dr. Carson did not reject the no “religious test” requirement, he simply stated that he would not support such a candidate unless he could be assured that the candidate’s religious beliefs did not conflict with the principles of American constitutional government.

      • Progressive Wing

        You are once again splitting hairs that don’t exist, just like Carson does, especially now that he is backpedaling. His and your explanations are not consistent at all with “I was offered a full scholarship to West Point,” and “I was the highest student ROTC member in Detroit and was thrilled to get an offer from West Point.” He didn’t get any such offer from West Point. He lied.

        THE LYING:

        “I was offered a full scholarship to West Point.”
        — Ben Carson, in his 1990 book “Gifted Hands”

        “I also represented the Junior ROTC at a dinner for Congressional Medal of Honor winners, marched at the front of Detroit’s Memorial Day parade as head of an ROTC contingent, and was offered a full scholarship to West Point.”
        — Ben Carson, in his 2015 book, “You Have A Brain”

        “The next question is from Bill. He wanted to know if it was true that I was offered a slot at West Point after high school. Bill, that is true. I was the highest student ROTC member in Detroit and was thrilled to get an offer from West Point.”
        — Ben Carson, in a Facebook post on August 13, 2015

        “I was offered a full scholarship to West Point.”
        – Ben Carson, in an October 2015 interview with TV news host Charlie Rose.

        THE BACKPEDALING and DEBUNKING:

        “Carson’s campaign confirmed to NBC News that the surging Republican presidential candidate never applied to the elite academy, despite writing in his 1996 book ‘Gifted Hands’ that he was ‘offered a full scholarship to West Point”…..
        — NBC News story, Nov 6, 2015 (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ben-carson-never-applied-west-point-campaign-says-n458731)

        “A spokesperson from West Point told NBC News they have no record of anything being offered to Carson….”
        — NBC News story, Nov 6, 2015 (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ben-carson-never-applied-west-point-campaign-says-n458731)

        “It was, you know, an informal ‘with a record like yours, we could easily get you a scholarship to West Point.’
        — Ben Carson, in Nov. 6, 2015 interview with the New York Times
        (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/06/ben-carson-west-point/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)

        “Ben Carson did not receive any offer of a scholarship, or an appointment, or whatever you might want to call it. Not spoken or even implied. When he says that he did (and he has not backed off of this part of the story) he is not telling the truth. There is another word for that. It is apparent ………that he was not assured of acceptance, or anything like it, by any military officer. When he makes assertions to the contrary, he is pitting his solitary word against the multi-century tradition of military subordination to civil authority and the honor of 240 years of oaths from the entire officer corps of the United States Army. Not to mention the legal proscriptions of the Acts of Congress dating all the way back to March 1, 1843.
        — Ben Carson Debunked: Inside His Made-Up West Point Story, Esquire, Nov 15, 2015
        (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39579/ben-carson-debunked-west-point)

      • Progressive Wing

        LOL. “…unless he could be assured that the candidate’s religious beliefs did not conflict with the principles of American Constitutional government.” That’s a religious test, not unlike the one that bigots tried to lay on the Roman Catholic JFK in 1960.

        He said that an ethnic/religious group, Muslims, would have to reject the tenets of their religious beliefs to be POTUS. That’s proffering a religious test, as well as a position that insists the US government demand certain religious beliefs of its office holders.

        Carson said that , for a Muslim to become president of the United States, “you have to reject the tenets of Islam. Yes, you have to………If they are not willing to reject sharia and all the portions of it that are talked about in the Quran — if they are not willing to reject that, and subject that to American values and the Constitution, then of course, I would.” That’s a religious test.

        There are many passages and teachings in the Bible that would conflict with the American law. He doesn’t address that. He doesn’t argue that an adherent to strict Christian Fundamentalism must reject strict interpretation and strict following of the Bible.

        He equates “American values” with Christian values ONLY, which is something that the founders insisted should not be the case.

        IMO, that makes him a bigot, un-American, and unworthy of the WH..

        • Ebrun

          Any American citizen is free to support or oppose any candidate for public office for whatever reason they choose. This is no “splitting hairs,” but a fundamental democratic right. Your failure to acknowledge this right suggests an authoritarian tendency.

          Neither Carson nor anyone else I am aware of said a Muslim could not be elected President. What we say is that we will not SUPPORTa Muslim for President of the U.S. who believes in the basic tenants of the Islamic religion. But if in fact a Muslim received a majority of electoral votes for President, then he should and would take office the same as any other elected President.

          This is not a religious test within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. It is the exercise of a personal preference that is fundamental to a democratic society.

      • JC Honeycutt

        The problem for me is that Dr. Carson’s (presumably) religious beliefs appear to conflict with reality and common sense. So far as I know, the principles of American constitutional government do not forbid anyone to believe that the pyramids were built by the biblical Joseph as granaries or that every living thing that currently exists was created in its present form: however, the fact that Dr. Carson believes in a completely different history and science than has been discovered and/or developed over the past several centuries makes me question seriously how he would deal with the issues that would face him as president in 2017 and thereafter.

        His statement re Moslems as potential candidates already indicates that he doesn’t necessarily support the separation of church and state: how would that affect his attitude toward the First Amendment–would he support its being changed or eliminated? What would be his position regarding public schools, since he clearly disagrees with their teaching (in general) regarding history and science? The next president is likely to make one or more appointment to the Supreme Court: what criteria would Dr. Carson use in selecting a nominee for that seat?

        In theory, I wouldn’t object to a Seventh-Day Adventist being elected President: however, if said Adventist professed the same beliefs that I’m hearing from Dr. Carson, I’d be first in line to vote for his opponent. I have nothing against 19th-century morals or forms of worship (other than the assumption that women and children are the property of the male parent; and, of course, the legitimacy of slavery): 14th-century history and science, not so much.

  13. Troy

    According to his account in “Gifted Hands,” he was offered a “full scholarship to West Point” after meeting with Gen. William C. Westmoreland, the Army chief of staff, because of his accomplishments in the R.O.T.C. in Detroit.

    “I didn’t refuse the scholarship outright, but I let them know that a military career wasn’t where I saw myself going,” he wrote.

    Elsewhere in “Gifted Hands,” Mr. Carson wrote that he had applied only to Yale because he could not afford the application fees for any more colleges. But over the years, he referred to his West Point invitation in a way that could make it seem like an official offer.

    In a later book, “You Have a Brain,” he described how he had decided which college to attend: “I still had the scholarship offer from West Point as a result of my R.O.T.C. achievements,” he wrote.

    More recently, in a Facebook post in August, he responded to a question on whether he had been offered a spot at West Point by writing that he had been “thrilled to get an offer from West Point.”

    But on Friday, Politico reported that according to West Point, Mr. Carson had never been accepted.

    Mr. Carson, in a telephone interview Friday, described his offer as less formal.

    “I don’t remember all the specific details,” he said. “It was, you know, an informal ‘with a record like yours, we could easily get you a scholarship to West Point.’ ”

    – sourced from: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/06/ben-carson-west-point/?_r=0

    Notice that most of the commentary are direct quotes from Carson’s own book. You be the judge. Poor choice of words? Poor choice of editors? How about a poor choice of an embellishment.

    But we of the moderate/progressive persuasion need not manufacture things to say about Ben Carson; he says it all himself. One need but sit back and listen.

    As far as Ebrun, I’ve tilted at this particular windmill in the past myself. Different topic, same tactics. I’m willing to wager however that despite the assertions put forth by our resident regressive, not one word of Carson’s book was written by the MSM or a liberal; unless of course Carson can count “gifted storyteller” with “gifted hands.”

    • Apply Liberally

      You are right on, Troy. It’s not like the media is putting words in Carson’s mouth. Just read his books, or watch his interviews. He has said, verbatim, twice, “I was offered a full scholarship to West Point,” and has said its equivalent many other times.

      Since being called out on his “full scholarship to West Point” claim a week ago, Carson has been walking back from it. It’s gone from his campaign office initially “clarifying” that he never applied and thus was never offered, to him changing his tune from “full scholarship offer” to “It was, you know, an informal ‘with a record like yours, we could easily get you a scholarship to West Point”—-in full-blown “you-know-kinda-sorta” mode.

    • Ebrun

      Funny thing about Dr. Carson’s credibility, Troy, is that public opinion surveys indicate that the public IS being the judge of his credibility and the results show a substantial majority believe he is the most honest and trustworthy of all the current Presidential candidates.

      It is obvious, of course, that the Left is undertaking a major effort to change the public’s perception of Dr. Carson’s honesty, but so far this effort has failed even with the energetic support and participation of the liberal media.

      • Troy

        Well that brings a question to mind. Is that general public meaning all voters, or only those that are likely to vote in the Republican primary? Those two numbers would be very different given the topic at hand.

        And the question being asked is a fair one. “What do you mean when you wrote/said…” No one else put that information out there to cause that question to be asked other than Ben Carson.

        On the flip side of this, there won’t be any Congressional committee assigned or selected to ask these questions of him, but he should answer it. Simple and forthright, no spin, no twist, no play on words. This would soon fade.

        • Ebrun

          Sorry Troy, but the polls i refer to are polls of the general electorate, not just of Republican primary voters. Check it out for yourself. You can find the results of these and all other credible polls at RealClearPolitics.com.

          • Ebrun

            Mother Jones is a far left operation and Politifact is the product of a liberal newspaper. Like I said before, a large portion of the public just does not trust the liberal media. These attacks on Carson’s character only increase his national support.

          • Progressive Wing

            So what’s your point, Ebrun? Almost every article/URL you’ve ever shared with us has been from far right media sources.

            Are you saying that Carson’s best bud Costa was not found guilt of healthcare fraud? Are you saying that Carson and this felon have not been in business together, and that Carson did not benefit financially?

          • Ebrun

            I think you know my point. The liberal media can rant and rail and disparage Carson, like Trump did yesterday, ad infinitum, and it will only increase his support in middle America. Mainstream Americans just don’t trust the liberal media. That is my point.

          • Troy

            Thank you Progressive Way. I wish I could say I was surprised by the result, but I’m not.

            It’s strange that when you tell people what they want to hear, not what they need to know, your popularity soars.

            While this thread isn’t about Trump, something I found mildly shocking this week was his statement, “wages in America are too high.” Based on that statement alone, I would have surmised that his popularity would start a downward spiral. But no, it’s virtually remained unchanged. Now when you think about collective insanity, take a group of people, i.e.; the Middle class, then have a billionaire stand in front of them and make a broad statement that they are making too much money; companies can’t compete. And nothing happens and these are the same people that Donald Trump draws most of his support from. And they’re already struggling to make ends meet. Their pay has been stagnant for decades and they still supportthis guy and the party that enables him. Now we can bend that just a little bit and voila, there is Ben Carson standing on the same path; they think and believe similarly.

            What is so broken that people are willing to vote themselves into pauperism and bolstering the notion of a 2 class social structure again. Well actually, one class. There will be the elites comprising the only social class and then there will be everybody else.

            That is a scary thought. It would make for an even worse reality.

  14. Ebrun

    You suggest that ” Carson would likely disregard the rules and consider himself worthy of doing as he pleases.” You mean that, if elected President, he should mimic President Obama?

    I don’t think so. If fact, one of the major themes of Dr. Carson’s campaign is a return to constitutional government. And by that he means the U.S. Constitution, not the United Nations Charter or some international agreement on global warming that fails to even meet the approval of the U.S. Senate.

    • Apply Liberally

      Plus, the US military is taking climate change VERY seriously, as it must. It knows the importance and ramifications of being prepared for and responding to such change, as it has serious national security implications. See;
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/11/14/does-our-military-know-something-we-dont-about-global-warming/

      Meanwhile, the bought-and-paid-for ideological radicals in the GOP just do the bidding of the global fossil-fuel complex………

    • Ebrun

      D.g, you should check the Constitution. A international treaty is not binding on the U.S. unless it is ratified by the United States Senate. So far, the Senate has wisely not ratified any international treaty on global warming. In fact, the Kyoto Treaty was rejected unanimously by the Senate back in the 90s. Obama can sign all the treaties he wants but they won’t be binding unless ratified by the U.S. Senate.

      And you can’t really be serious about the a presidential candidate knowing the details of the Migratory Bird Treaty. The White House, the State Department, the Justice Dept, the EPA and all of the other federal agencies employ legions of attorneys with extensive staffs who provide the President, the Cabinet Secretaries and the White House staff with legal advice on such matters. With all the serious problems facing the next President, what fool would expect a candidate to be well versed and able to expound on the Migratory Bird Treaty. Again, pure sophistry on your part.

    • Ebrun

      Golly D.g., I have to concede you have a point. I sure hope Dr. Carson bones up on our international treaty obligations before the moderators at the next debate grill him on the ramifications of the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918. Not being up to speed on our treaty obligations to migratory birds could prove to be a real embarrassment to Dr. Carson and his legions of supporters.

    • Ebrun

      D.g., you state that “Even one who views himself as omnipotent has to play by the rules.” Does that also apply to President Obama whose executive orders granting special status to some illegal immigrants was just found to be illegal by U.S. Fifth Circuit Court Appeals?

  15. Norma Munn

    I will give anyone a certain amount of leeway in a memoir, so had he simply used the word “scholarship” whereas the correct word would be “appointment”, I would ignore it. However, the issue of truth in his writings involves several issues, so I have some doubts about his veracity. But the far larger problem for me is his sense of himself as on a mission to save us and his zany, if not downright dumb, policy statements. Both are frightening coming from any serious candidate for the presidency.

  16. TbeT

    Breaking News! This just in from Andy Borowitz:

    Questions are now swirling around Ben Carson’s 1998 autobiography, ‘The First Man on the Moon.’

    Stay tuned!

  17. Ebrun

    Dr.Carson’s choice of terms got him in trouble. He should have said he was offered an “appointment” to West Point, not a scholarship. Of course, an appointment to West Point is the equivalent of a “scholarship” since all fees, tuition, room, board, etc. are paid by the taxpayers.

    I find it quite credible that in 1969, a time when there was heightened racial unrest in the U.S., an African American ROTC student with an outstanding academic record would be sought after by the U.S. Military as a career officer candidate. Carson’s decision not to pursue an “appointment” due to his interest in medicine is also quite credible.

    The MSM is pulling out all stops to discredit Carson. The GOP “establishment,” epitomized by bloggers like Mr. Wynne, is assisting the left with their character defamation of Dr. Carson. This is self-destructive behavior that will come back to haunt conservatives in 2016.

    Mr. Wynne, if you are really interested in electing a Republican in 2016, leave attempts at character defamation to the liberals! They are quite good at it and don’t need any help from the GOP establishment.

    • Arthur Dent

      There are none as good at character defamation than the right-wing smear squad, typified by Karl Rove, the gruesome crew in radio “entertainment,” the various right-wing agitprop engines, and the like. If they don’t like the truth, they just come up with a barrel of falsehoods and convince their followers that it’s the truth.

    • Progressive Wing

      Except that Carson was never offered anything —not a full scholarship, nor an “appointment,” —from West Point. The USMA has no record of ever receiving an application from, nor a letter of nomination for, Ben Carson. His claim that he got a “full scholarship” offer from West Point is a bold-faced lie. Period.

      And anyone who insists that Carson received either a full scholarship or appointment to the USMA, or that Carson simply chose the wrong word, is aiding and abetting a lie.

      And isn’t it classic and laughable how uber-conservatives will first attack liberal challenges, then distill down their attacks to Dems, then further narrow their spewing down to “the media,” then, ultimately, as now demonstrated in this thread and as a grabbing-at-straws response, bash those in their very own party?

      • Ebrun

        According to Dr. Carson, General William Westmoreland raised the prospect of a West Point appointment in a 1969 meeting with him. If you don’t think the preeminent four-star Army General at the time couldn’t arrange an West Point appointment for someone he sponsored, then you don’t understand the how political clout works, even in the military. Since Carson declined to pursue an appointment, there would be no official records of the offer.

        And your insistent implication that Dr. Carson is a liar supports my contention that character defamation is a liberal’s preferred method of politically attacking those with whom they disagree.

        • Progressive Wing

          Your reply is a massive fail as it is begins with “According to Dr. Carson….”.
          Carson’s West Point story is his own tale, and a tall one indeed, as it has not been corroborated by the USMA nor anybody in the know and/or any official capacity.

          And as you are always want to do by playing your little word games, “raised the prospect” does not mean “offered a full scholarship” or appointment.

          Here’s what Carson said in his 1990 book “Gifted Hands”:

          “I felt so proud, my chest bursting with ribbons and braids of every kind. To make it more wonderful, we had important visitors that day. Two soldiers who had won the Congressional Medal of Honor in Viet Nam were present. More exciting to me, General William Westmoreland (very prominent in the Viet Nam war) attended with an impressive entourage. Afterward, Sgt. Hunt introduced me to General Westmoreland, and I had dinner with him and the Congressional Medal winners. Later I was offered a full scholarship to West Point.”

          He also related a similar tale in two of his other books.

          This October, he doubled down on that claim, sharing this in a interview with Charlie Rose: “I had a goal of achieving the office of city executive officer [in JROTC]. Well, no one had ever done that in that amount of time … Long story short, it worked, I did it. I was offered a full scholarship to West Point, got to meet General Westmoreland, go to Congressional Medal dinners, but decided really my pathway would be medicine.”

          The truth is that he wasn’t offered a full scholarship because he didn’t apply for admission to West Point. One cannot be offered a scholarship without applying first, and also without gaining a nomination for acceptance by a member of Congress or some other high-ranking federal official. So his statement that “Later, I was offered a full scholarship to West Point” is patently false.

          And while that dinner may have sounded like a intimate or at least special meeting between him and the medal winners and Westmoreland, it was a banquet attended by many other invitees (I was at a banquet once at which Al Gore ate and spoke, but I would never say that ” I had dinner with him”).

          Carson is a liar, and you are as gullible as they come.

          • Ebrun

            Character defamation seems to be your political bread and butter. But it’s more of a reflection on your character than on Dr. Carson’s.

          • Progressive Wing

            So, in other words, you have no response to any of my counterpoints.
            And like all the GOP candidates, when whatever they say or have said is challenged, you simply attack the questioner/challenger.

          • Progressive Wing

            He never formally applied to the USMA. He was never formally offered either a “full scholarship” or “appointment” to the academy. His statement that “Later, I was offered a full scholarship to West Point” is false.

            This from: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ben-carson-never-applied-west-point-campaign-says-n458731

            “”It was, you know, an informal ‘with a record like yours we could easily get you a scholarship to West Point,'” he (Carson) added.

            “A spokesperson from West Point told NBC News they have no record of anything being offered to Carson, but that is not uncommon for an applicant at that time who does not ultimately seek admission.”

          • Ebrun

            He has never claimed to have “formally applied to the USMA.” And he never claimed that he was “formally offered a full scholarship or appointment to the academy.” He was offered the opportunity to be appointed to West Point which would have entailed a full scholarship, but declined the offer to pursue a career in medicine.

          • Ebrun

            Have you not kept up with recent public opinion surveys which show that Dr. Carson is by far and away the most trusted by the American public among all the Presidential candidates, Democrat and Republican? These polls have obviously sent shock waves, not only through the Democrat Party, but also through the GOP “establishment.”

            His popularity among the general public has led the left and the Republican establishment to undertake a campaign of character defamation. Dr. Carson leads Hillary Clinton in the Real Clear Politics average of all credible polls, thus sending the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media into a frenzy of negative stories designed to demean his credibility.

            GOP establishment types are wary of Dr. Carson because they have little or no influence over him or his campaign. Thus, we are beginning to see the not so subtle innuendoes about his credibility and predictions of his campaign’s imminent demise from RINOS like Mr. Wynne. These attacks may prove to be effective eventually, but the motives behind them are patently obvious.

          • Ebrun

            Sorry, D.g, but so far at least, the public is just not buying the left’s attempts to smear Dr. Carson.

          • Ebrun

            Dg., all the talking heads I heard on the cable news networks (CNN, MSNBC, Fox) last night and this morning thought that support for Carson would increase as a result of the debate. I agree with you that Rubio and Cruz did the best, but nothing happened to stymie the increasing support for Dr. Carson.

          • Ebrun

            Ok D.g., I’ll defer to your knowledge regarding the legal significance of the MBT. But as a campaign issue in 2016, as they’re said to say down South, “that dog just ain’t gonna hunt.”

  18. Nortley

    “and they would never have treated Barack Obama this way.”

    Oh please. The media actually gave serious coverage of all the birther nonsense, all the claims that the President is a Muslim (complete with the implication that there was something wrong with being a Muslim) and a host of other tea party conspiracy crap.

    “there’s still a lot in his (Obama’s) past that’s kind of sketchy.”

    Elaborate.

  19. Apply Liberally

    You are right in saying:

    1. “Outstanding neurosurgeon, but president of the United States? Some experience in government, or at the very least some executive experience, is required.”
    2. “Carson’s backstory is filled with contradictions and exaggerations.”
    3. “He was never, for instance, offered a scholarship at West Point. No one has been able to corroborate stories of the violent episodes Carson supposedly went through in the past. And various other anecdotes found in his book appear to be embellished or completely fabricated.”
    4. “The point is that the truth doesn’t matter (I’d add “to the radical extremists that make up the GOP’s new neo-con base.”)
    5. “GOP primary voters shopping around for a candidate, who like and respect Mr. Carson, are thinking – perhaps subconsciously: Something’s not right here. Regardless of how much Carson attacks the media going forward, his strongest polling numbers in the campaign are behind him. What lies in the future is a steady, slow decline in the polls”.

    And you are wrong in saying:

    1. “Carson’s response to this outbreak of controversy has been pitch-perfect.” (More like tone-deaf).
    2. “…..they would never have treated Barack Obama this way.” (The media did indeed weigh in heavily — as did his political opposition— on Obama’s relationship to Rev Wright, and his inexperience).
    3. “…there’s still a lot in his (Obama’s) past that’s kind of sketchy.” (Only if one is a birther and a bigot).

    .

    – :

  20. Ghost of Reagan

    It was always evident that Carson is “kind of a weird guy.” All you have to is absorb his demeanor and listen to the zany things he says.

  21. Arthur Dent

    “While the media vetted Obama, it was a half-hearted effort, and there’s still a lot in his past that’s kind of sketchy.”

    Okay, you’ve dropped this into your editorial without specifying exactly what it is that YOU, the writer, considers sketchy about President Obama’s past. There are “sketchy” items that he has documented (if you want to characterize his youthful enjoyment of “choom” as “sketchy,” if you want to characterize his attendance of schools in countries other than the U.S. as “sketchy” – I wouldn’t characterize either as such). But which of the many unsubstantiated insinuations that various stripes of conservative have raised against him do YOU consider “sketchy?” And you have included the modifier “a lot” in your sentence, so we, your readers, would like to see “a lot” of these allegations about his past that you consider “sketchy.”

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!