USA Today: It’s Totally Appropriate To Vet Presidential Candidates Named Ben Carson

The Editorial Board of USA Today says “He shouldn’t be immune from tough scrutiny or be able to play fast and loose with the facts.” Not how they set the vetting process up

Ben Carson has much to commend him. He was raised in poverty by a single mother and rose to the pinnacle of medicine, becoming an accomplished pediatric neurosurgeon. He and his wife have established a scholarship fund for needy kids. And his low-key way of speaking is a pleasant change from some of the loudmouths who are seeking the Republican presidential nomination and other political offices.

But none of this means that Carson, who heads into Tuesday night’s GOP debate in first or second place in national polls, is either immune from tough scrutiny or entitled to play fast and loose with the facts.

Because Carson, like Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina, has no prior experience in government but now seeks the nation’s highest office, the need for careful vetting is even greater for him than for someone who has long been in the political arena. While politics is not as technical as medicine, there is something to the argument that handing the White House to a political neophyte is like being operated on by an untrained surgeon.

Political neophyte, eh? I know what you’re thinking. We’ll get to that in a minute

Carson has a habit of saying things that are outrageous (such as that Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery), weird (Egypt’s pyramids were actually built for grain storage) or just plain wrong (his claim that he was offered a full scholarship to West Point, which he in fact never applied to).

The USATEB should probably get out more, because that Politico story on West Point has already been destroyed.

It’s entirely appropriate for journalists, competitors and voters to examine the record carefully and determine whether Ben Carson — and everyone else seeking the world’s most powerful position — tells the truth, makes decisions based on facts and has the right experience for the job.

OK, then, we eagerly await the vetting of Hillary. We’ll await the belated vetting of Barack Obama, which the USA Today, like most media outlets, refused to do, and still refuses to do. Obama was given a pass on almost everything, and when some issues, like Reverend Jeremiah Wright, arose, and media outlets were forced into covering them, they were either dismissed or the news outlets provided cover for Obama.

Will the USA Today provide deep detail on previous Clinton scandals (personally, I do think the Vince Foster issue is a true conspiracy theory, yet, if this was linked to a Republican, the media would be digging as deep as they did into Sarah Palin’s emails)? Will they dig deep into the dealings of the Clinton Foundation, and what Hillary may have done while serving as Secretary of State, a cabinet level position? Will they change up and start looking into Benghazi and her emails, rather than mostly providing cover? Her spotty resume? The spectacular greed? All the women she helped destroy who had accused Bill of sexual assault and/or rape?

We eagerly await the USA Today doing in-depth reporting on these subjects.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “USA Today: It’s Totally Appropriate To Vet Presidential Candidates Named Ben Carson”

  1. gbear says:

    Heh.We have an un-indicted co-conspirator running and all they can talk about is fluff.

  2. john says:

    Teacg you believe that the MSM which are for profit companies should do what YOU think they should or should they do what is best for their shareholders?

  3. gitarcarver says:

    So now john believes that private companies should to what they want in the search of a buck – a position he has derided before.

    Tell us john, do you think that applying the same standards of vetting to all candidates serves or harms readers?

    Do you believe information on candidates serves or harms readers?

    Do you believe in treating all people the same and that equal treatment should be a core value of companies?

    We know you won’t answer because you can’t and won’t debate anything.

    Trolls never do.

  4. Jeffery says:

    So there are things we don’t know about Clinton, lol? How many more Congressional, judicial and media reviews do you want? Oh, you just want them to be repeated in a bad light, constantly. You want the media to perform the political smearing for the far-right media. Sorry, that’s your job.

    If Dr. Carson can’t take the heat from the lapdog media, how will he tolerate hits from the Democrats? If you stand up to Politico how can you stand up to Putin???

    And when is the vetting of Trump going to begin?

    And we remember the vetting of Obama: Birth certificate. He went to church and his pastor said, Goddam America! gay. drug user. anti-white racist. Muslim. Married a Black lady. Has Black kids. pals around with terrorists. didn’t write his own books. didn’t go to Columbia or Harvard. Russian communist. Michelle said he was finally proud.

    Cons and Republicans have been working the refs for a decade, whining about how they’ve been victims of the press, who NEVAH look into the Dems.

    When is the vetting of Trump going to begin?

    Maybe the press is waiting until the general election to vet him, since there is so much to dig into. Maybe they’ll wait for the Dems to define him. Do you think Hillary is not doing opposition research on The Donald? Wives, concubines, business partners, business deals, bankrupt companies, crimes, cover-ups. She would love to run against Trump.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    Yep. USAToday looked at Clinton in this hard hitting news piece:

    Hillary Clinton emails reveal she needed help on emojis

  6. jl says:

    “And we remember the vetting of Obama: Birth certificate. Drug user. Muslim….” Actually, we don’t remember. Those items were brought up, but never vetted by the MSM. Instead, people who wanted those items looked into were called “racists”. End of discussion. When you can’t debate with facts, call people names.

  7. Jeffery says:

    And what became of all those right-wing investigations?

    What became of BENGHAZI!!, EMAIL!!, IRS!!, KENYA!! etc etc? Inquiry after inquiry, Congressional panel after panel, investigations galore, millions spent by right-wing “journos, an entire cable network dedicated to smearing Democrats! If there was something there wouldn’t someone have found it by now?

  8. gitarcarver says:

    If there was something there wouldn’t someone have found it by now?

    Gee, I would have thought that the administration lying about Benghazi was something.

    I would have thought that Clinton violating the law was something.

    I would have thought that the FBI taking possession of Clinton’s server because of the investigation and classified material on it was something.

    I would have thought that people being fired for breaking IRS regulations was something.

    But I guess you are right…..there is nothing to see.

    After all, if a liberal breaks the law and the media doesn’t report it in the woods, will leftists hear anything?

  9. drowningpuppies says:

    If there was something there wouldn’t someone have found it by now?


    That ‘rightwing’ FBI, mind you.

  10. drowningpuppies says:

    If there was something there wouldn’t someone have found it by now?

    In four separate articles of impeachment, Koskinen is charged with:

    Failing to comply with a subpoena for evidence, resulting in the destruction of that evidence – 422 backup tapes, which housed as many as 24,000 Lois Lerner emails;

    Failing to testify truthfully and providing false and misleading information to the Congress – Koskinen testified that the IRS had turned over all emails relevant to the congressional investigation (including Lerner’s emails), and then, when that proved to be inaccurate, he testified that the emails were unrecoverable, which also turned out to be false;

    Failing to notify Congress that key evidence had gone missing – the IRS knew the Lerner emails were missing as early as February 2014, and, in fact, destroyed the emails in early March 2014. But the IRS didn’t tell Congress until June of that year, well after White House and Treasury officials had been notified.

    In each of these charges, the evidence is clear – it is Koskinen’s own words, offered in sworn testimony to Congress, compared to the record of his and the IRS’s actions.

  11. drowningpuppies says:

    If there was something there wouldn’t someone have found it by now?

  12. drowningpuppies says:

    Yeah, what became of those investigations?
    Try to keep up.

Pirate's Cove