Facts Show Ben Carson Wrong About Other Candidates Not Being Scrutinized

Of course Ben Carson is wrong to claim that no other presidential candidates have not had to deal with the type of scrutiny that he is now receiving.

Despite Ben Carson’s  ridiculous claims that is somehow being treated differently in this campaign than other candidates have in the past is totally absurd. First Read finds it’s just not true. (As if we even needed to put this in print–anyone who follows politics knows Carson is wrong.)

Carson might come to understand that when the only thing—the ONLY thing–that makes for his political resume is a biography means that personal story has to be accurate and honest.  Carson is not telling the truth about his past and reporters have caught him.

So for Carson to claim he is being picked on…….barf!

“We found a combined 165 New York Times and Washington Post articles that were all (or partially) about Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright between the time Obama first launched his presidential bid (Feb. 2007) and his 2008 victory (Nov. 2008). During that same time period, we found an additional 41 New York Times and Washington Post pieces on Obama and Bill Ayers. And from the start of her campaign (April 2015) until now, we discovered a combined 44 NYT/WaPo articles about Hillary Clinton and her email server.”

“Bottom line: When you’re atop of the presidential polls, you’re going to get scrutiny — lots of it.”

2 thoughts on “Facts Show Ben Carson Wrong About Other Candidates Not Being Scrutinized

  1. No its not the same and you know. Here is an example, why has this never been covered? Why has politicol never looked into it? Why have you never blogged about it? I really don’t need to answer those questions as you will yourself.

    In a column by Maureen Dowd called “Hillary Clinton Says She Once Tried to Be Marine,” we learn:

    Speaking at a lunch on Capitol Hill honoring military women, Hillary Rodham Clinton said that she once visited a recruiting office in Arkansas to inquire about joining the Marines.

    She told the group gathered for lunch in the Dirksen Office Building, according to The Associated Press, that she became interested in the military in 1975, the year she married Bill Clinton and the year she was teaching at the University of Arkansas law school in Fayetteville.

    She was 27 then, she said, and the Marine recruiter was about 21. She was interested in joining either the active forces or the reserves, she recalled, but was swiftly rebuffed by the recruiter, who took a dim view of her age and her thick glasses. ‘Not Very Encouraging.’

    “You’re too old, you can’t see and you’re a woman,” Mrs. Clinton said she was told, adding that the recruiter dismissed her by suggesting she try the Army. “Maybe the dogs would take you,” she recalled the recruiter saying.

    Dowd pointed out why the story doesn’t seem truthful.

    Mrs. Clinton told friends that she had moved to Arkansas for only one reason: to be with Bill Clinton. Years later, she would tell Vanity Fair that she had stayed because “I didn’t see anything out there that I thought was more exciting or challenging than what I had in front of me.”

    She and Mr. Clinton married on Oct. 11, 1975 in Fayetteville.

    So, if she was talking to a Marine recruiter in 1975 before the marriage, was she briefly considering joining the few, the proud and the brave of the corps as an alternative to life with Mr. Clinton, who was already being widely touted as a sure thing for Arkansas Attorney General?

    If Ms. Clinton moved to Arkansas to be with and marry Bill, then why would she join the Marines and be separated from Bill just before her wedding?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s