Monday, November 9, 2015

Considering Carson

Ben Carson has dominated the national political news cycle in the last week.

He is leading the latest national polls and in the Quinnipiac Poll of November 4, 2015 Carson is beating Hillary Clinton by a 50%-40% margin in a hypothetical general election matchup.

Here are the demographic breakdowns from that poll between Carson and Clinton.

Note that Carson beats Hillary by 55%-35% with men and 45%-44% with women.

He has a 56%-34% margin with white voters (and we keep hearing that this is a racist nation?) and captures 19% of the black vote.

By contrast, Donald Trump loses to Hillary in same poll by 46%-43%. Why?  
Trump only wins white voters by 51%-38%. Where is the white privilege that the students at the University of Missouri are talking about? Perhaps Trump has a new complaint that he can generate PR with? He is being discriminated against by white voters who favor Carson over the The Donald?

Trump loses the women's vote by 20 points to Hillary while Carson is edging Clinton by 1 point.

In addition, Trump, similar to most Republican candidates, draws only 6% of the black vote compared to the 19% that Carson gets this important bloc of voters.

Looking at the polling numbers it is easy to see why Ben Carson is a big potential nightmare to the Democrats and the liberal mainstream media.

Therefore, it is of little surprise that we have seen that Carson's rise in the polls has been accompanied by a barrage of stories trying to take Carson down with questions about his rags to riches story.

There is little question that there is no more dangerous person to the liberal, progressive narrative in America than a successful, conservative African-American Republican.

We saw it with Clarence Thomas.

We saw it with Herman Cain.

We are seeing it again with Ben Carson.

We did not see anything of the sort with Barack Obama.

His college records are still sealed and almost no one who went to school with him at Columbia University even remembers him according to his classmate, Wayne Allyn Root.

I graduated Columbia University in June of 1983. According to Obama not only were we in the same graduating class, we had the same majors, Political Science and Pre-Law.
That would mean we took the same classes. I thought I knew every classmate in Columbia’s Political Science department.
Yet neither I nor anyone I knew ever met, saw, or heard of Obama.
This was reinforced two years ago in 2013 when I attended my Columbia University 30th class reunion.
I asked everyone – “Did you ever see Obama at Columbia?” Not one classmate answered affirmatively.
I simply couldn’t believe no one claimed to have met a classmate, who supposedly was in our class, and who was later to become president of the United States. So, I tracked down Professor Henry Graff, perhaps the most honored professor in Columbia history and Columbia’s Presidential historian. I interviewed Graff that same year for TheBlaze.
Professor Graff never met Obama; heard of him; or saw him.
Professor Graff said it was virtually impossible to graduate Columbia as a Political Science major without attending his history classes. Yet Graff never heard of him. He even studied his old records to verify Obama’s existence at Columbia … and found nothing.
Graff asked other Columbia professors. None remembered Obama ever being in their classes. All of this is on the record from my interview, published in 2013 here at TheBlaze.

Strange? It is to me. However, the media has never seriously tried to get to the bottom of much of Obama's backstory. 

Let me be clear, I have substantial reservations that Ben Carson is prepared to be President of the United States based on what I have observed so far in this campaign. 

He is far behind the curve in his understanding of a number of policy issues. He is undoubtedly a very smart man but, as we have learned over the last seven years, the office of President of the United States is not conducive to on-the-job training. It may not be brain surgery, but it requires skills and knowledge that the good Doctor may not possess right now although that could change over the next year.

I admire what he has accomplished in his life, his values and his commitment to the constitutional principles that he has articulated in his campaign.  

However, let him be vetted on his responses and ideas regarding policy positions and not on biographical details from 40 or 50 years ago. Of course, thus far, it seems that Carson's version of events is holding up rather well despite the scrutiny he has been placed under.

It is indeed ironic that some in the media have called Carson a liar concerning details in his book describing those old events while Hillary Clinton recently was shown to have told her daughter one story about the events at Benghazi while telling the American people (and the families of the Benghazi victims) a completely different story.  How was that played in the media?

Here is an example from the Washington Post's "The Daily 202 Report" headline the day after the hearing where that "contradiction" was exposed.

Eight reasons Hillary Clinton won the Benghazi hearing
Hillary also famously stated for years that she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary after he became the first man to scale Mount Everest.

The only problem with the story was that Sir Edmund was an unknown beekeeper in 1947 when Hillary was born. He did not become world-famous until he ascended Everest in 1953.

Double standard? You decide while we both consider whether Carson can become President.

My prediction is that he will not make it. Climbing Mount Everest was easier for Sir Edmund Hillary than it will be for Carson to go from the operating room to the Oval Office. That is especially true when the entire liberal and news media establishment is doing everything they can to make sure he falls before he gets anywhere close to the Presidency.

Running for President is not easy. That is especially true if it is your first political race. Carson says he is running because he believed he was being called by God to do so. If he wins, there should be no one that doubts the sincerity (or truth) of that statement. 

No comments:

Post a Comment