Thursday, November 12, 2015

The media can dis Carson on his beliefs yet ignore Hillary's beliefs. Why is that???

“Anti-science,” and anti-intellectual, is very much what the Democrats would have you believe Republicans are today, thus the critical national conversation about the fact that Ben Carson seems to believe that the pyramids were built for the purpose of storing grain.
Does it really matter???
Mrs. Clinton’s brand of crazy is, as those of you who remember the 1990s know, some next-level stuff. She purported to hold policy conversations with the long-dead Eleanor Roosevelt; her apologists now attempt to present those as mere exercises in imagination, but Mrs. Clinton brought in assistance in the form of Jean Houston, a deeply nutty New Age figure who found her way into mysticism via research involving LSD and who is associated with the so-called human-potential movement: think Esalen, Aldous Huxley, and all that rubbish. Hillary's weirdness has never been presented as a real challenge to her fitness for office.

If Carson's statement is of value isn't Clinton's policy conversations equally of concern?
Imagine some enterprising reporter for the Washington Post or the New York Times would inquire as to whether Mrs. Clinton has had any policy salons with ghosts lately, or what Senator Sanders thinks about the science of circumcision, or Barack Obama whether it’s appropriate to proffer federal subsidies for voguish nonsense just because California licenses it.   Seems there really may be substantial bias in the media.




  1. Of course it happens with most political BS but when you do a search for 'Ben Carson believes pyramids'... you get the original CNN story and site after site of direct reprints... and they want to shut down Drudge because he links directly to the source?...

    'Mrs. Clinton has had any policy salons with ghosts lately,' ... hell Perot was skewered by Gerald Posner for being crazy. Everyone including the Bush campaign picked up on it and destroyed him. Death threats by Cuban Mafia while probably meaningless were reported to both him and the local police by the FBI....Eccentric? probably... crazy?... Distinguished Eagle Scout, Naval Academy, Top sales at IBM but when he tried to pitch is ideas to them, he was ignored... he founded EDS and made his wealth... crazy?... I don't think so.

  2. The intent of the post was to highlight the difference between how candidates are treated in the media.

    The Carson story was from 17 years ago. The enlightenment of Hillary 20 or so years ago. One reported on, the other ignored.

    In either case, does the position of a candidate 20 years ago matter?
    If a politician changes their position in the last 5 years does it matter?
    Can a candidate actually change their mind on policy after announcing their intent to run for office without being skewered?
    When is a candidate a flip flopper and when can they actually have a change of opinion due to more information presented to them without being chastised by the press?

    1. Personally, I don't give a shit about what people said greater than 10 years ago. Within 5-10, it becomes more relevant as it likely reflects on the outlook the candidate is going to bring into the job in the present day. The pyramid grain story is kind of some whacky shit, but it's shit I nonetheless could not care less about. What I do care about is a statement that says, "We need to make ISIS look like losers so people stop joining them". He's also said directly that to make his tax plan work, he will take away home interest deductions for everyone. These statements, to me, have bearing on what his policy agenda will be, the stupid pyramid comments do not.

      That said, I feel no sympathy. We famously have the term "flip-flopper" in the lexicon because of a ridiculous mischaracterization of what John Kerry said. To a person who is honestly trying to make a decision about who to vote for, these silly quote screams are just stupid noise. But to the rabid of both directions, they are red meat to get themselves all worked up over. I chuckled at the pyramid thing and that was the extent of my reaction. Carson won't be on the ticket anyway, to quote someone else, "What does it matter?"

    2. The Republican Party leadership is deathly afraid that either Trump or Carson might become the candidate. Yet, they don't dare attack them as long as they are leading in the polls. It is quite a problem, and so far there is no satisfactory solution. Keeping ones fingers crossed probably won't help. And then, on the other hand, the Democrats would like nothing better. I've never witnessed a presidential campaign like this.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. What I find comical is the hand wringing that is starting to go on wherein people like JEB! and I think even Rubio are saying, "We have to get it together to beat Hillary". That's becoming a campaign slogan. Not, here's what we can do, but, vote for me because the candidate you really like (Trump or Carson) can't beat Hillary. THAT;s whats kinda pathetic to me. Nobody in the Democratic race is saying anything like that.

      Given the historical collapse in recent Republican primaries by candidates who have lead this early, I'm willing to bet a little money there is some established predictability. The Republican party leadership may not like that they are not currently in control of their process, but that will change in due time and they will be able to conduct the same completely lack luster campaign they conducted in the last two general elections.

  3. All the candidates have been skewered by the press. Republicans by NBC and Democrats by Fox, for instance. Dr. Carson will get even more as long as he stays up in the ratings. Only Trump seems immune, his far out stuff is treated as a joke, not to be taken seriously, yet his ratings remain at the top.

  4. Mick and Max

    Seems there may be a bit of a problem with comprehension. As you have pointed out, the Media have been running public opinion on the debates.” The people " have no input and the media rely on talking heads and gossip mongers. Same thing here and Rupert Murdoch is the leader of the pack.

    Perhaps there would be value in having a third voice, one which represents the people but then this idea would be an affront to the luddites who are welded to the Constitution. Of course there would be no necessity for a third voice if the people shook off the shell of apathy and ignorance. Is it a utopian dream to imagine even the least educated having just a little knowledge of your history and politics?. No wonder Monkeys can lead the Polls, would Trump be where he is if the voice of the people was given a chance? Sadly, I believe the answer is yes. The man in the street cares little and understands less. I have spoken to several America visitors here recently and without exception they displayed indifference and ignorance of the issues. Three of their number were of the opinion that America was stuffed and all claimed that US participation in the Middle East was an exercise in futility, driven by US desires to control the Oil and the politics of the region.

    What was interesting was that the wives of my new friends all agreed with the men and displayed even less insight into the subject. None could discuss Hamilton other than to say he was "murdered "by Burr. None knew of the Reynolds affair and the involvement of Monroe but all had a vague recollection of the Monroe doctrine, the speech and surprisingly, two were aware of the involvement of Jefferson with his advice to Monroe in the formulation of the plan.

    Cheers from Aussie.

    1. I don't remember how many times I had heard the song "Alabama" by John Coltrane before I really sat down and listened to it without distraction. It is, to me, a deceptively angry and anguish filled song. Without context and without some explanation to a younger listener today, it's just some black guy playing a saxophone. When I play it for people who have never heard, most kind of shrug their shoulders. It doesn't stir those who don't have the time or patience to listen and ask themselves what the message of the music is. I get a chill literally every time I listen to it. For someone interested in the period, this seems like an invaluable snippet of brilliant expression. For everyone else, it's some obscure jazz song.

      I would unfortunately, as some scholars here clearly know, be among the ignorant and unable to dissect every word of the founding fathers with you. Is this what is ruining the country?

  5. I would never dis Carson because of his beliefs. My problem with him is his statements which show a lack of knowledge, especially in foreign affairs. He is becoming a laughing stock, which is a real shame, since he is obviously an intelligent man. I put at least part of the blame on his campaign staff and advisers.

    1. A note Mick, does he sound any different than Barack Obama 7 years ago on the campaign trail. Why is a novice Republican any different than a Novice Democrat?

      Why does the left criticize a Carson yet they were so quiet about Obama who has yet to forge the necessary alliances to work with congress?

      7 years ago the left reject the years of experience for Obama with no experience. Why is it so laughable now?

    2. No he doesn't sound like Obama 7 years ago. I happen to go to an Obama speech in late October of 2008 and he spoke very well, very intelligently and very forcefully. He didn't himhaw around like Carson does. Carson never really answers a question because he doesn't have one.

    3. Reading eloquently from a teleprompter and speaking without a teleprompter as certainly 2 different things. Was the speech off the cuff or prepared remarks from a speech writer?

      7 years ago Obama was very adept at saying exactly what the people wanted to hear. Little substance, many platitudes about being the president of the people, having the most transparent president ever, uniting the nation.

      Prepared speech? Saying what everyone wanted to hear from a teleprompter? I also attended a speech prior to his election. He did speak well. They were all prepared comments. There were no off the cuff questions allowed. Several questions were asked and amazing the teleprompter anticipated the question with a prepared remark which he read.

    4. More bullet points Louman? Obama gave his speech pretty much off the cuff. Let's see who used a teleprompter when talking on TV,

      There's one reason above all others that President Obama uses a teleprompter in delivering most of his speeches: he's good at it.

      Ronald Reagan was the same way. He was more at ease in reading his speech off the dual screens of a teleprompter than looking up and down at a speech text on his lectern

      Not so, George W. Bush. He often got that nervous, deer-in-the-headlights look when giving an address from a teleprompter. He would seem stiff and ill-at-ease. He did not convey a sense of understanding.

      By the way did you know that Obama has the ability to read the teleprompter and his written speech almost simultaneously? That way if the teleprompter goes down he doesn't lose his place in the speech. Wow he must really be dumb huh?

  6. Max Lou and Mick.
    Top posts from all of you. Lou makes the most telling point;Obama seven years was so wet behind the ears he would have been in trouble with Sara Plain in a debate on foreign policy. He has learned and some will say prospered in this area.

    Mick has joined the throng of opponents and sheets home some of the blame onto staff. Sorry Mick, a bloke who aspires to the office of POTUS has to take responsibility for what he enunciates as policy. Thing is, can you provide examples to back up your assertions..

    Max hides his light under a bushel. Notwithstanding your politics, you have a deep understanding and more importantly a belief; your interest in and disgust with some proposals will lead you to a considered vote come election day. We may not agree with your choice but at least it will be a reasoned choice. No one can wish for more. As to the historical references, without these reference points you would have no keystones upon which your nation had been built. If nothing else, read the writings of the old timers, revel in the use of prose which is now sadly deficient in the education system. Look closely at the speeches of the major players of the period. You will find a little humbug(after all they were in the main, politicians).There is far more humbug on the Hill now, some two hundred years later, what have we learned

    Cheers from Aussie

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Hey John,
      Hope you are well. In our endeavor for learning, I pose the question about experience. Some people in had no qualms about voting for Obama even with his limited experience in 2008. Today you hear all about Trump, Carson and their lack of experience.

      Why is it ok for one party to thrust a unqualified candidate forward as president and not the other party?

      Yet another point is that they are outsiders and will be unable to work with Congress. The issue is the same, Obama had 2 years in the senate and little in relationships. Why is this such an issue with Carson or Trump?

    3. Lou we tried an unproven candidate you are absolutely correct, How'd it work out. We don't need to try that experiment again.

    4. Rick, unproven at what? I'm not so sure that knowing how to shepard a bill... any bill, through congress counts as substantive. Our current president’s prior life’s experience, other than giving speeches and inciting crowds gives us little to work with. At least with Trump you get someone who clearly works hard, knows how to play the game and wins far more than he loses. Carson has actually completed most everything he has done with top accolades from people around him and few of them were just academics. Professional politicians remind me of the vast majority of DIY guys... they have a loose understanding of the problem but by the time they finish with it, you know they should have called a qualified plumber...

      The problem here, I fear, is that the establishment left and right don’t want the ‘problems’ fixed... things are working as intended...and their minions bobble head in agreement. You can see that most clearly this election. Republicans (those who attempt to pull the strings) want who they want... not someone who has sold themselves to the American public( hell rather than unifying around one of the top candidates, they are talking about drafting Romney for yet more division) and the Democrats have who they want already(unless she goes to jail) and they aren’t going to let side shows like uncontrolled debates getting in the way of having YOU elect who THEY want for president.

    5. Lou
      The learning experience, both for the Presidential Candidates and for us lesser mortals who sit waiting for the miracle of enlightenment.

      History gives us plenty of precedents in the US of men elected with no political background. I guess the very first President was such a man but no one could then or now deny Washington the right to be the first.

      After Washington we have Zach Taylor, Ulysses S Grant, Grover Cleveland ( first term) Andrew Jackson and for the young amongst us. Dwight D Eisenhower. I write from memory but I am reasonably sure this is a representative sample of “Inexperienced Presidents”. This is not the time or place to critique the service these men rendered during their terms but it does provide a rebuttal to those who decry the lack of experience of Carson. At the same time is it not reasonable to question the lack of political experience of Barrack Obama before he won the Presidency?

      Cheers from Aussie

    6. The experience I speak about is the experience of working in Congress. Working on various committees. The experience of building working relationships with both parties. The experience of compromise. The experience of dealing with various aspects of our governing process.

      The American people spoke clearly about a business person running the country as the Dem's condemned Romney for his business dealings. Perhaps they were to stupid to understand that he saved more jobs than he ended. The nature of his business.

      Bit then again they a;so spoke clearly about not caring of the president could tie his own shoes as long as the rhetoric was what they wanted to hear.

      Some things the newly elected president will never know until they take office, some things they should know, alliances built, relationships established.

      As to the past presidents, the world is a different place as is the US.

      My point is and remains, why is it ok to elect a novice democrat to office yet not a novice republican? After all the reality of today isn't all about who is elected as president but more who that person chooses to advise them and assist them in making choices that affect the country and the world.

      As to any of the candidates running today, I have yet to decide which candidate is best for the country.

      As to Ben Carson, he does have positive attributes. As head of a department in a large hospital, he has certain experiences that could be of value. Compromise, budgeting ability, building relationships, management ability among some of the requirements for that job. Of course on a much smaller scale.

      Having said all that, which candidate has pledged, (not that it matters as they lie as the last president did) to unite the country?

    7. Lou
      My thanks as always. Several points needing attention. First and foremost, are you not disenfranchising all but members of Congress from becoming President of your nation? Where else is the experience you crave to be found but in the houses which for two decades have demonstrated their inability to manage a stag night in a brothel?.

      Why do you insist that the power base for the presidency must come from an entity distrusted by the electorate?.

      Your argument starts to crack when we consider the points above and it finally breaks apart when you dismiss those whom history has shown to be at least no worse than those selected from the crowd of mediocrity which is available on a regular basis on the hill.

      Perhaps the answer is to be found in the age old label of the two major parties. Dems are fed hate by their mothers in the form of an additive to breast milk, every session on the teat brings forth a little reinforcement. The same applies to Pub babies. Never think for yourself but drink up and grow to hate the opposition.

      We see this phenomenon in the offerings of correspondents here, William uses the Civil War to denigrate Lincoln purely on political grounds. That the first Pub President prevented irreparable division within a fledgling nation is surely cause for universal approval.

      It is your final Para which I find intriguing, quote Having said all that, which candidate has pledged, (not that it matters as they lie as the last president did) to unite the country? Unquote. Here I believe you have asked the correct question, the answer can probably be found only outside the regimented and compromised members of the two houses.

      Has that man/woman yet appeared? Probably not but Carson may well be a possibility. If an equally persuasive candidate can be found among the Deems then let us have a look at him/her.

      There you are, I wonder why you and I can have a reasonable conversation when people such as William finds my offerings so offensive,

      Cheers from Aussie

    8. John,

      I discount no one. I currently do not have a favorite for the presidency which includes the Dem's running. I did like Jim Webb who has dropped out. Seems he was a bit to realistic for the masses and lacked support.

      My comments comes from this statement:

      "Lou we tried an unproven candidate you are absolutely correct, How'd it work out. We don't need to try that experiment again."

      My question is if the Dems tried a untested unseasoned politician, why couldn't the Repub's demand the same?

      Who knows a Carson/Trump may make a great president. That is unknown and may never be known. Mine is more of a philosophical question.

      Unfortunately there are many in congress who could be presidential materials however with the current political climate they are unlikely to ever step forward and take a shot at the golden ring. That includes some dems as well as repub's.

      Having said all that, which candidate has pledged, (not that it matters as they lie as the last president did) to unite the country? Unquote.
      The answer is simple. Not one candidate has talked to the entire country. Both parties talk to their supporters. Not one candidate has spoke about how they would unite this fractured nation.

      A shame because as the days roll by the rhetoric becomes more extreme as the candidates try and capture their base. As Max would say after the nomination the rhetoric will cool, lies begin and talk about one country which we no longer are begins. The reality today which if far different from the past is the quality and the success of a president is in who the president chooses to advise them on issues facing not only the nation but the world. Chose wisely and your a hero. Choose poorly and the results are also known.

      Both sides will then begin to pander to the independents, left and right who will decide the election.

    9. Not one has actually talked about law and order or the constitution either... but then again, those are passé concepts. At one time I thought I had an idea what independents stood for but today not so much.

      The focus on housekeeping, by me, is exactly the wrong criteria, unless you are looking for professional elite. Senate selection process guarantees stability even if the 17th amendment destroyed its intent. No one is truly prepared to be president. The house is meant to be reactionary. Barring the trend of incumbency the house was meant to be replaced fresh every two years.

      Not counting the select committees and caucuses over 50 standing and special committees exist between the two houses. Not defined as any part of congress, I would dare say that they started as an empire building exercise. More often than not they constrain and complicate the legislative process. I often hear that the world is too complicated for some simple this or basic that and I have to wonder just what came first, the committee or the complexity; the establishment of a permanent political class or some necessity that required it.

      You speak of the need for people who can work between the two parties... not withstanding present reality, good governance should come from good ideas and not from party affiliation, cross party cooperation is a redherring created by people who like to divide and of course, be reelected. The ability of a person to build relationships and compromise are traits built from a very early age, not created upon election and it is for the electorate to decide the degree to which a person is amicable to compromise on various issues.

      Then comes the word ‘compromise’. I roll my eyes every time I hear it. On the surface it sounds reasonable but there are two major things occurring in government that do not lend themselves to any compromise at all. Review with me for a minute, the words of the first amendment.

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

      The first 5 words of that statement aren’t debatable nor without modification, room for compromise.

      If someone presents a bill that in some way gags the press, without dealing with a blanket freedom of the press in the first amendment... the law is unconstitutional... No Compromise available...that is, if you believe in the rule of law.

      The second is the growing use of ‘omni’ bills. Someone creates an absolutely vital spending bill... part of the bill’s wording allows for-say- indefinite detentions. Someone else gets a motion passed forbidding amendments requiring an up or down vote. If you care about the ability of people under our government to get a fast, fair trial by a jury of their peers then, without removing that bit of the bill and for the overall long term good of the country... you say NO to the whole damn thing! At that point nothing gets done and you become an obstructionist. More and more people are drawing those kinds of lines in the congressional sand... more and more people are getting elected to do just that. How many bridges to nowhere must be built to get a good bill through congress?

      This all leads to your last comments about the importance of the president we elect. It isn’t very hard to see integrity... it isn’t easy to project if you haven’t got it. While integrity may not reflect bearing, it will tell you a lot about who they will surround themselves with. After the horror of Wilson and FDR we are seeing the re-emergence of the ideologue leader who is less concerned with using the best available information (and the law) to solve problems and more focused on fulfilling their vision, with or without the will of the electorate. They surround themselves with ‘yes men’. Congress doesn’t seem to grow a lot of integrity... the ones that are get marginalized.

  7. You all underestimate Dr. Carson.

    Talk about a laughingstock. Jeb was endorsed by Bob Dole yesterday. Jeb has been running non stop ads in the Metropolitan media area. What's he got? 7%?

    Yer all correct, the Tea party is dead.

  8. And Rick, we did try an unproven democrat, perhaps an unproven republican will be better.

    1. I doubt it Louman. look Obama did have some political experience. Maybe limited but some. Dr Ben and the clown Trump have 0 experience. How would they handle a Paris attack if it happens in NYC or LA? We don't have time Louman, for anyone dem or repub to learn the job right now. 2009 was a different time. Our economy might have been a mess but the world was a safer place then. Oh yeah Obama and Hillary are the cause of our dangerous world today I forgot. That's more talking point bullshit.

    2. Yes Obama was a part time legislator in Ill. and a 2 year voting present Senator.

      How many budgets did Obama put together? How many as head of a major department did Carson impact? How many businesses bid Obama run? The president is only as good as the people they select as advisers. The reason Obama is as much as a failure as Bush.

      How has Obama handled Syria with line in the sand? How about the fiasco called Egypt, Libya not to mention the exodus and vacuum of Iran. Obama is far from even a novice at foreign policy which is vacant in this administration. Hillary certainly is minus the qualified to be president as I exclude liars and people lacking integrity from the list.

      As a note I am neither a Carson nor a Trump supporter as I anm not a Hilly or Sanders supporter.

      Unfortunately the people that could actually do the job well have been discounted by the parties and the media and the far left and right. So we will have another hate filled election with the hateful left or hateful right bitching and moaning about the candidate elected and in either case they will be correct as both parties will present a far left or far right candidate. Like Obama, they will be the president of the party and not the people of the US. Moderation is history.