Took Down the Ben Carson Thing

Took Down the Ben Carson Thing November 6, 2015

The Politico piece that sparked it looks more and more like there’s no There there.  I still am highly skeptical of his dramatic conversion account. And he still lied about his 10 year relationship hawking Mannatech.  And his quack remarks about the pyramids as grain elevators and the Big Bang as a fairy tale persuade me that the Kook is strong with him.  But I decided Politico made such a hash of things that it was not right keep crediting their reporting.

"Well. Religion is interesting. :)"

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"But you're searching and questioning …. and, in Jack's experience, people without any sense of ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"I'm very sorry to hear about your illness. Of course I hope the cancer never ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"A "hard Brexit" will never happen. Britain will leave with a deal of some sort. ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Dave G.

    Charming. Still, at least you took down the piece that is increasingly looking flawed and not worth basing anything on. Well done.

  • Scott Bute

    We should all have as few flaws as Dr. Ben Carson. If he were running as a Democrat, such as say Hillary Clinton, the press would just yawn at this.

    • Bill

      The press would be too busy investigating her e-mails and Benghazi.

      • Dave G.

        Actually it would have to be the Republicans. Most of the media coverage of Benghazi has been about the Republicans investigating it, not the press actually taking the initiative itself to do so. From the beginning, it seems the press has been willing to accept the official answer from Hillary, whatever that answer happens to be at the moment. It’s just the Republicans who keep making an issue of it. So we’re back to square one, or Bute’s observation.

        • Bill

          It might help if the Republicans released some of the information they have been gathering, such as the Sidney Blumenthal e-mails they kept harping on, but then voted not to release to the public. Until there is more evidence, we have to assume the best interpretation of what a person says.

          • Dave G.

            Of course it would help. Since you can bet the media will do scant little in terms of finding some deep throat who will help it out. That’s the problem. One of the contemporary narratives is that the GOP does these things for partisan reasons (as if the Democrats wouldn’t). But that narrative is aided by the fact that the press must be dragged kicking and screaming into discussing such things about Democrats (name me five times the press has made something a Democrat has said into a scandalous news cycle), tries to make the stories as much about the GOP and motives as the investigation, will gladly take the Democrat’s first explanation, and then will quickly move on until the GOP is forced to come up with some other piece of news that demands at least a day of coverage. Now if the press did a Nixon, or an Iran-Contra, or even a misspelled potato on this, who knows what we might have discovered?

            • Bill

              Fox News is letting us down.

              • Dave G.

                Well, FOX can’t do it alone. 🙂

  • Cypressclimber

    Good move. I commend you.

  • FrogLeg

    The piece may have been shoddy, but it’s only getting worse for him. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/11/06/carsons-westmoreland-story-match-records/75328960/

    • chezami

      Yeah. He’s a fabulist.

      • Dave G.

        Are you sure? So far all of this has come out in a couple days. And in that time, one of the press’s stories has been backtracked. The others rest on ‘we’ve not found any evidence.’ OK, fair enough. But what does it mean? The Catechism makes it clear we are to assume the best interpretation of what a person says. And in this case, we have to ask: if the media has found no evidence, does that mean he’s lying? And in the Detroit News case, does that mean he lied, or maybe got some detail wrong? I know I’ve done that. I’ve given my testimony, only to be corrected afterwards by my wife on a detail. Does that mean I’m a fabulist?

        The problem with politics is that it’s so easy to become everything we say we hate politics for in the first place. So here’s my thing. I don’t know Carson. I do know I don’t trust the media. He might be a liar. He might have made mistakes in his memory. He might be a fabulist. But right now, I need more than this. He did give an answer in a previous debate that I took notice of, something about him endorsing a product that he said he didn’t care about, while it seems he actually did care about and endorse the product. So that’s certainly enough to make me think he might be willing to play fast and loose with the facts.

        But for me, I still need more. If in only a couple days the media hits with several stories and then in a day has to backtrack on one in that period, I’m willing to wait. If for no other reason than it’s what the Catechism says I should do. And if all I can say about Carson is I don’t know anything about him, then I have no reason to do otherwise, unless my faith is in the honesty and eternal fairness of the media. My two cents, for what it’s worth.

  • Mike Blackadder

    Ben Carson is being smeared. Whether or not there is partial truth to some of the stories is hardly worth talking about and I’d feel guilty doing so. He’s a black Republican. It will probably be worse even thanwhat the media did to Sarah Palin.

    • Lying about a scholarship offer and acceptance into West Point is not “partial” truth. It’s a deliberate and verifiable falsehood, the kind that should chase any credible candidate out of the race.

      Carson just proved he’s sociopathic enough to say or do anything that he thinks will get him elected.
      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/08/ben-carson/carson-defends-west-point-scholarship-story/

      • Mike Blackadder

        Except he didn’t lie about getting a scholarship. That was the part that Politico had to retract. He said that he met personally with General Westmoreland who told him he could receive a scholarship. Carson did not pursue a scholarship at West Point; he wasn’t interested in a military career and was set in going on going to Yale.

        So the media creates a narrative that Carson lied about receiving a scholarship because they deliberately misrepresented the content of “Gifted Hands”. The low-information segment of public opinion is made to believe he is a liar, and no one notices when the story is retracted/corrected.

        So no, Carson does not appear to be a pathological liar. However, when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton told us for three weeks that the Benghazi attacks happened due to a anti-Islam Youtube video, when they said this was the opinion given to them by the intelligence community, that there was no indication this was a pre- planned terrorist that was the behavior of sociopaths. In fact at the debate with Mitt Romney Obama said that he told America that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Today he would tell you that he did not mislead America into thinking the attack was due to a Youtube video. THAT my friend is your example of a sociopath.

        • chezami

          Except Army records indicate Westmoreland was not in Detroit when Carson says he was.

          • Mike Blackadder

            Edited by Mike:

            Reading more of the facts, it seems likely that Carson recalled the wrong event/date meeting Westmoreland, but that’s a far cry from concluding Carson lied or that his campaign admitted that the West Point story was a fabrication.

            The original claim that Carson fabricated a story about applying to West Point and being admitted is now known to be a media invention designed to make Carson out to be a liar. Now we hope to salvage the story that Carson is a liar on the specious possibility that he pointlessly invented the whole story about Westmoreland and that even this meeting didn’t happen. That’s not thinking clearly in my opinion. Other than media fabrications there is no indication that Carson is a pathological liar. I think you should face the much more likely outcome which is that Carson really didn’t fabricate anything and he’s been hosed by the media. Why would you want to be on the wrong side of that story?