Fox News Hosts Ben Carson Cliche Festival

I found the transcript of Ben Carson’s appearance on Fox News Sunday, where Chris Wallace did challenge him on his flat tax idea but then let him off the hook. On several other issues, he just let Carson get away with not even attempting to answer his questions or just answer with a list of platitudes.

WALLACE: All right. Let’s talk about real policies and drill down into some of them.

Here’s what you say on your Web site about Russia, “All options should remain on the table when dealing with international bullies such as President Putin.”

Dr. Carson, when you say all options, does that include the use of military force?

CARSON: All options includes all options. That doesn’t mean that would be my first option. When we look at Russia and we look at Putin, we can realize that he has great ambitions. His ambitions have been thwarted of late because of falling oil prices. And we should take note of that and realize that the economic weapon is a tremendous one in his case.

We have incredible natural resources in this country in terms of oil, in terms of natural gas, but we have energy exportation rules from the ’70s when we had an energy crisis that need to be gotten rid of, so we can use that to make Europe and other portions of the world more dependent on us. And that decreases his influence and his ability to expand.

WALLACE: But let me follow up. You say all options, all options. Under what circumstances would President Carson be willing to go to war with Russia? What are your red lines?

CARSON: Well, I would, obviously, do that in consultation with very competent generals and people who are more knowledgeable in that area than I would be. But, clearly, if the interest and the existence and the safety of the people of the United States was at stake — and that was the only way to protect them — of course, I would do whatever was necessary.

WALLACE: Would you go to war over Ukraine?

CARSON: No, I wouldn’t go to war over Ukraine, but I would handle Ukraine a very different way. You know, Ukraine was a nuclear arms state. They gave up their weapons. You know, it was agreed they would be protected if something happened with aggression.

Have we — have we lived up to that? Of course, we have not. And what does that say to our other allies around the world? It’s not a good sign.

This is totally incoherent. He declares that he would not go to war over Ukraine, but then seconds later he says that we promised to keep Ukraine safe from attack and we’ve failed to do so (which is true) and that’s bad. He contradicted himself literally within three sentences. And he says he would “handle Ukraine in a very different way” without offering a single different thing he would do.

WALLACE: OK. Here’s what you said about ObamaCare.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARSON: ObamaCare is, really, I think, the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And it is in a way, it is slavery.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: The worst thing since slavery?

CARSON: Well, you have to understand what I’m talking about. You know, ObamaCare fundamentally changes the relationship between the people and the government. The government is supposed to respond to the will of the people. Not dictate to the people what they are doing. And with this program, we’re allowing that whole paradigm to be switched around.

Uh, what? How exactly did ObamaCare “fundamentally change the relationship between the people and the government”? He doesn’t say. All he does is repeat a platitude about how the government is supposed to “respond to the will of the people” rather than “dictate to the people what they are doing.” But the government dictates to the people what they must do in a million different ways, from setting speed limits to forbidding them to dump toxic waste into a river. So how did ObamaCare specifically “fundamentally change the relationship between the people and the government”? This is just empty bullshit. He’s not saying anything of substance at all, it’s just gibberish.

WALLACE: Finally in the area of these remarks, just this week, you said that the president must carry out a law passed by Congress, but you said he doesn’t necessarily have to pass what you called a judicial law — which raises the question: Do you believe that the president must observe a decision by the Supreme Court?

CARSON: Well, what I said is the president doesn’t have to agree with it.

WALLACE: No, of course not. But does he have to — but does he have to enforce it?

CARSON: Well, Dred Scott, a perfect example. You know, the Supreme Court came up with this and Abraham Lincoln did not agree with it. Now, admittedly, it caused a lot of conflict and eventually led to a civil war, but we’re in a better place because of it.

WALLACE: But does the president have to carry out a Supreme Court ruling?

CARSON: The way our Constitution is set up, the president or the executive branch is obligated to carry out the laws of the land. The laws of the land, according to our Constitution, are provided by the legislative branch.

WALLACE: But, sir —

CARSON: The laws of the land are not provided by the judiciary branch. So —

WALLACE: But, sir, since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, we have lived under the principle of judicial review which says, if the Supreme Court says this is the law, this is constitutional, the rest — the executive has to observe that.

CARSON: And I have said, this is an area we need to discuss. We need to get into a discussion of this because it has changed from the original intent. And —

WALLACE: So, you’re saying this is an open question as far as you’re concerned?

CARSON: It is an open question. It needs to be discussed.

No, you really need to read a history book. Dred Scott was handed down in 1857, nearly four full years before Lincoln took office. In fact, the prior president, James Buchanan, hadn’t even been sworn in yet when the ruling was handed down. And no, this is not an “area we need to discuss” or an “open question.” And if the case involved a ruling that Carson agreed with and the president refused to comply with it as he’s demanding here, Carson would be the first one to scream TYRANNY! NAZI! COMMUNIST! DICTATOR!

Ben Carson literally has no idea what he’s talking about on any of those issues. He’s an utter ignoramus on virtually every political issue that he speaks on. Of course, that can only help him in a Republican primary.

"So much for Maple Street!https://i.kinja-img.com/gaw..."

Trump Aides: It Could Be Worse
"Fortunately, I avoided that but I had a plan that involved something along the lines ..."

Trump Aides: It Could Be Worse
"https://www.youtube.com/wat..."

Trump Aides: It Could Be Worse
"Now this: https://www.youtube.com/wat..."

Trump Aides: It Could Be Worse
Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    He’s not saying anything of substance at all, it’s just gibberish.

    In other words, he has learned to speak fluent wingnutese.

  • chrislrob

    What amazes me is that Carson is not getting smarter. He is as politically stupid as he was when this all began. Is he studying? Is he boning up on the issues? It is absolutely Palinesque. He’s going to rely on “competent generals” to advise him on Ukraine, but when it comes to taxes he and the tax experts will just have to agree to disagree…

  • gshelley

    But, sir, since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, we have lived under the principle of judicial review which says, if the Supreme Court says this is the law, this is constitutional, the rest — the executive has to observe that.

    I’m pretty sure Ed is normally fond of pointing out that people thought the courts had this authority before then – Hamilton wrote about it in the Fedarist papers

    After just reading the Wikipedia article on Maddison v Marbury, I wonder if Carson has any idea what the case involved, what the decision(s) were and what the legal and constitutional justification was.

  • John Hinkle

    CARSON: Well, you have to understand what I’m talking about.

    He’s right. We need to understand what he’s talking about. Anyone?

  • themadtapper

    Anyone who genuinely thinks Marbury v Madison needs to be rediscussed should automatically be disqualified from holding office.

  • dingojack

    John Hinkle: once Ben himself works it out, and communicates in some intelligible way to someone other than the voices in his head, we’ll get back to you!

    Dingo

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Of course, that can only help him in a Republican primary.

    Will it? Sure, he’s ignorant, but is he ignorant enough? Plus, other Republicans mix in resentment on a level far beyond his. Huckabee, for one, has already been cast in Mean Girls 2.

  • http://sidhe3141.blogspot.com jy3, Social Justice Beguiler

    I’ve said it before:

    When I remarked that heard about that one dude who said Dred Scott was a recent case he disagreed with…

    …and remarked that with all the talk about “judicial activism”, we’d be hearing about Marbury next…

    … it was a fucking JOKE!

  • abb3w

    It’s an open question, in the sense that Article V leaves the entire character of the American system of government a potentially open question for the legislative process. That is to say, politically, it’s an open question for the legislature and electorate whether they want to keep it that way; but legally, the judiciary considers the question pretty firmly closed.

    This makes the principle of judicial review an “open question” in much the same sense and degree that the question of republican government rather than monarchy is.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    What’s Ben Carson going to do if he ever meets a reporter?

  • blf

    What’s Ben Carson going to do if he ever meets a reporter?

    Refer her or him to the local policegoons to be shot.

  • Michael Heath

    Chris Wallace states:

    But, sir, since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, we have lived under the principle of judicial review which says, if the Supreme Court says this is the law, this is constitutional, the rest — the executive has to observe that.

    Ben Carson:

    CARSON: And I have said, this is an area we need to discuss. We need to get into a discussion of this because it has changed from the original intent . . .

    Marbury vs. Madison reflected original intent; it’s not a precedent that over-turned original intent. Mr. Carson continues to reflect a very large degree of ignorance, and because he’s wrong on the facts, a degree of idiocy as well.

  • busterggi

    Sarah Palin – back in black.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ busterggi : Hey, say what you like about Ben Carson (really please do!) but he’s no Sarah Palin – quite. For one thing I really can’t see him being picked as VP and an old man’s heartbeat away from the Presidency for another, his word salads still need just a little more tossing to quite reach her “heights” if that’s the word for them. There’s only one Sarah Palin – thank fuck!

  • scienceavenger

    Under what circumstances would President Carson be willing to go to war with Russia? What are your red lines?

    CARSON: Well, I would, obviously, do that in consultation with very competent generals…

    This bromide gets way too free a pass. When conducting a war and discussing tactics – where to attack, when, with what, etc., that is a decision best made by generals and not politicians (thank the gods Hitler never learned this). But whether to go to war is not – its the province of polticians and diplomats, hopefully with some military experience and understanding. That’s not to say someone can’t be both, ie Eisenhower, but for pete’s sake, take two of our greatest generals: Patton wanted to start a war with the Soviets, and McArthur with China. Generals should NOT be making that decision, and people running for office need to quit spouting that nonsense.

  • scienceavenger

    We have incredible natural resources in this country in terms of oil, in terms of natural gas, but we have energy exportation rules from the ’70s when we had an energy crisis that need to be gotten rid of, so we can use that to make Europe and other portions of the world more dependent on us. And that decreases [Putin’s] influence and his ability to expand.

    It’s downright amazing how many different issues the GOP manages to propose “more oil” as the solution. You’d think there was someone behind them pulling strings or something…