Posted on 11/05/2015 5:01:55 PM PST by jimbo123
Ben Carson was put on the defensive on Thursday, with reporters pressing him about a series of reports that have sprung up questioning the factual accuracy of his past statements.
As Carson has gained in the polls, so has media scrutiny of the 64-year-old retired pediatric neurosurgeon and Republican presidential candidate, whose past and present statements have drawn no shortage of curiosity and interest.
On Thursday, during a stop on his book tour, Carson was pressed on everything from a report that questioned past claims of his physical violence toward others, an interview in which he appeared to struggle with the complexities of Cuban immigration policy in South Florida, and a rediscovered past speech in which he expressed his belief that the Great Pyramids of Giza were constructed by the biblical figure Joseph to store grain, not pharoahs' tombs.
A CNN reporter in particular tried to pry more details out of Carson after the network published a report titled "A tale of two Carsons" in which it could not corroborate the candidate's past claims in his books that he had acted violently in his childhood and adolescence toward his family and others - claims that are part of Carson's narrative of personal redemption.
Asked to be more specific about when the incidents occurred, Carson listed them in detail. "One of the ones where I threw a rock and broke someone's glasses, that occurred when I was maybe about 7 or 8, the stabbing, attempted stabbing incident occurred when I was 13 or 14, the - what's another incident? Give me another one," Carson asked a scrum of media on CNN in Miami during a book signing tour. "Trying to hit my mom in the head with a hammer? That was around the same time as the stabbing incident."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Whoa, back up that crazy train, sir! You mean Northern Pike are NOT descended from Yeti? Blasphemer!
;)
Thanks for the giggle.
Crap... You beat me to it... By several hours.
Woo Hoo! We agree on something. Carson give me the heebie jeebies.
BTW - I also think that having to vote for the lesser evil is a losing proposition, but we often get to that point because far too many on our side prefer to kibbutz from the sidelines instead of investing in a real conservative. It seems that 70-100 million of the People could outspend even the big donors. We get what we deserve - collectively - because far too many decide to hedge their bets and wait for someone else to boost the "prefect conservative candidate".
That was in Reno, if I recall.
And after your mother warned you against playing with guns, too.
Mormons, JW’s, SDA’s are all cut from the same cloth and have some strange connections with Egyptian stuff.
Momma Gave me that gun!
I don't understand how being critical of a candidate for saying silly things is "falling for" anything. The primaries are the time to pick the best candidate, and a time to filter out those who say silly things and embellish their CVs.
What is your assertion, that Politico made it up? We have his quote from 1998 and him on record confirming that belief yesterday (11/5).
Saying wacky things is an alarm bell, and an extremely important one for someone who is a political newcomer.
The “falling for silly things” part is the double standard we live with from the media and those that read on this site that don’t seem to see it. It’s people on conservative sites going, “Well, what-da-ya know! Boy those CNN folks are just great!” That’s the part. Vetting candidates is important. Where was this examination for any Democrat candidate in the last 20 - 30 years, esp. Obama? Where is it for Trump’s very liberal positions, now and in the past? The media’s attacks, (questions designed as “assassin’s bullets” as Rush put it) is what I’m upset about and not even that so much as the way they seem to be able “play” the voters on our side of the aisle. The MSMedia are our enemies. If you believe anything else you can’t be effect in the battle we face and that isn’t silly, it’s a fact. Religious conservative are their favorite. If it comes down to Cruz and Rubio who do you think the media will favor? They’ll hate both but I bet they go after Cruz more than Marco. If that turns out to be true, will folks on the right be aware of it?
The media is left, and supports Democrats; yes, we all know that. Complaining about it makes as much sense as complaining about water being wet or the sun being hot. It's the way things are; it doesn't mean you get to ignore reality.
Obama has not just said silly things he has out and out lied. Where was the media then? They were there in Obi’s corner kissing and caressing him, protecting their little god.
These are two different issues.
Yes. The media kisses Obama’s a$$. That is a fact.
But what does it have to do with whether Ben Carson has said, and is still saying, some pretty wacky things?
The double standard makes Carson’s silly goofy things look out of proportion to what they are and what is important (IMHO). I, personally, would much rather have had Carson as my president with all his goofy views, his SDA error of equating Jesus with Michael the archangel and whatever else he may believe, than to have our current resident in the White House. I believe the damage would have been far less to our nation. I believe the media has influence on the American public that is detrimental. People are so used to it they forget it affects their thinking. Remember, a lot of people would have voted for Romney with his LDS beliefs and his universal healthcare program even though they disagreed with him because they knew he, with all his goofiness in these areas, was probably better than Obama. Did the media save the day for Obama? I’ll leave that for you to figure out.
OK fine. I'd rather have Carson as President too. But this is the primary, and Carson has repeatedly shown himself to be not ready for primetime, and it looks like he has an issue with wacky religious and historical beliefs, and another issue with telling the truth. Both of those things I find indefensible. They don't make him evil, but they make him a poor candidate.
I'd rather this come out now and disqualify him than after the nomination when Republicans would be stuck with him.
You did not answer my question.
Okay, I agree with that. However, it is completely irrelevant, because our previous choices have not been between the Barack Obama and Ben Carson, and our upcoming choice is also not between Barack Obama and Ben Carson.
Perhaps the trouble isn’t on my side. What arguments would you accept?
No, I think the “trouble” is on your side.
You think I am looking for “arguments”, when all I really wanted was for you to answer my question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.