One more thing: Ben Carson and the media
You might think that the media attack on Ben Carson had the intent of damaging his standing among Republican voters in the primary. And if you think that, you’d be correct. The MSM has been distressed by the prospect of a man such as Carson, who polls well against Hillary Clinton, getting the nomination.
But even if that doesn’t work, and Carson successfully defends himself against the charges, and GOP voters reject what the MSM is saying about him (which seems to be happening), those MSM hit pieces on Carson still would be considered a success if they damage Carson with their natural and more trusting readership, Democrats and moderates.
So, what are the polls saying? Republicans still like him, they really really like him:
Over seven in 10 Republicans have a positive view of Carson (71 percent), similar to his 68 percent favorable rating in a Post-ABC poll six weeks ago. Businessman Donald Trump is close behind, with 69 percent favorability among Republicans, followed by Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) at 58 percent, former Florida governor Jeb Bush at 56 percent and Sen. Ted Cruz at 53.
What distinguishes Carson from his opponents is how intensely Republicans like him — 39 percent report a “strongly” favorable view of Carson, 13 points higher than for Trump (26 percent) and more than twice as many with strongly positive views of Rubio (19), Cruz (18) or Bush (12).
Moreover, Americans in general like him:
Carson also boasts largely positive ratings beyond the Republican party. By 50 percent to 32 percent, considerably more Americans have a favorable than unfavorable view of Carson. And in fact, that 50 percent favorable rating is the best for any presidential candidate in Post-ABC polling going back several months.
But inroads have been made in Carson’s standing with Independents:
His unfavorable ratings among political independents have risen to 35 percent, up from 23 percent six weeks ago. But even here, his overall image among independents continues to be positive, with 47 percent giving him favorable reviews.
So, it’s a modified success for the media.
The media isn’t through trashing Carson, not by a longshot (unless his polls drop significantly, in which case they can dispense with bashing him and start liking him again). The media isn’t even through with the “Carson the fabulist” attack, as you can see by columns such as this one by Richard Cohen in the WaPo, which trots out the same tired accusations.
Funny thing, though: Carson’s spirited and intelligent defense of himself against these accusations may have the paradoxical effect of showcasing a different side of Ben Carson. Those who may have thought him too phlegmatic for the presidency may be heartened by seeing his energetic defense of himself.
I watched part of an interview with Dr. Carson last night on O’Reilly’s program. Dr. Carson said that they (political snoops) have been to every address he’s ever lived at, his place of work (before he retired), and he says there is nothing to find so, therefore, they dug into the book. If that is true, they are going to go after his religion (already happened with the artwork from his house going viral, as if he were ‘kooky’ for having a picture of himself with Jesus…who knows who made that piece of artwork. A family member? A patient? I doubt he commissioned it himself) and probably after any malpractice cases (which there are likely to be some…he practiced brain surgery…highly risky stuff).
I think religious black Americans love Dr. Carson. I don’t think they will believe this junk either. I think there are enough people out there who are informed. And there will be mention of it on tonight’s debate for sure…which will give Dr. Carson another platform to declare it was all lies…which it was.
Remember when the MSM called Reagan the Teflon Amiable Dunce? I suspect they will soon be referring to Carson as the Teflon Uncle Tom.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was on Megyn Kelly’s show last night denouncing Carson’s candidacy as an insult to the black community. Kareem is a far left activist who, in spite of all his good fortune and accolades as an athlete, claims to be a victim of the white culture. He was appointed1n 2012 by Hillary Clinton as a cultural ambassador for the United States. (Whatever that means? – Probably something to please Obama and the black victim culture.)) Kelly treated him far more seriously than she should have. He’s a race hustler like Calypso Louise, the Reverend Jackson, and Al Sharpton.
We will see more well-known blacks denouncing Ben Carson as not a real black. Much as they have attacked other black conservatives. It is so predictable what they are doing, but Ben is standing up to them. He’s an example for all GOP candidates to follow.
I think this more spirited side of Dr. Carson actually corroborates the knife story they are trying to discredit. He said he had a bad temper. Obviously when pushed, he can push back.
Ben Carson wants you to know that he really did try to stab a friend and the media is wrong to question his violent past…. What? You can’t make this stuff up folks. It’s seems pretty clear that Carson’s past is the issue and NOT the media. They didn’t make it up. Also, the West Point ‘scholarship’ was what HE called it. Not the media. Stop blaming the media for doing their job. If Carson cannot handle a few stories about his ACTUAL past then he certainly cannot handle being President. Period.
MDL:
Interesting distortion. Carson didn’t say the media is wrong to question his violent past. The belt buckle story was a story of redemption—ever hear of redemtion? I wrote about the story before the recent controversy ever erupted, here.
Carson is pointing out that the media is questioning the story by doing things that cannot possibly authenticate it and then calling him a liar when those things fail to authenticate it. It’s about lies, not violence or lack thereof.
As for the word scholarship, it turns out that West Point itself used to use the word in its recruiting ads. As usual, the MSM fails to exercise due diligence when attacking a black conservative.
As do you.
mdl, people like you are convincing me to caucus for the good doctor. Thank you for red flagging what you fear the most. And do not bother responding with a comment on your sincerity. You are what you are, and I am old enough to know your ilk for nearly 5 decades. Its humorous that you fail to realize you are expendable to the masters you serve.
It’s clear the zombies like the rotter behind MDL’s face screen, needs to be dealt with first before civilization can advance to the next step.
Apparently, Trump is still trashing Carson on this too.
I see more of a distortion by those [mostly conservatives] who think the media is bashing Carson. They aren’t. He is the front runner and few people know who he is. It’s called vetting. Look, Bill Clinton faced far more criticism [of a sexual nature] yet he survived. If you cannot accept the fact that the media might report bad things about you – even if they are dubious – then don’t run for the presidency. I have no problem with Ben Carson on a personal level. I’m sure he is a nice guy and he is certainly a good doctor [although his view on pyramids is odd]. But he is very green and IMO not qualified to be President. For what it is worth I would take Fiorina over him because she at least has a fighter’s spirit. But I’ll take Rubio over all of them because he at least knows how Washington works. That matters.
MDL:
How would someone “accept” the fact that the media might report bad things about him/her? By not criticizing them for it? By not answering them or defending him/herself? By not saying the media is lying or distorting, if you think they’re lying and distorting?
What is this “acceptance” thing?
Carson’s never been my first choice–I prefer Cruz, Fiorina, Rubio, maybe even Christie in some ways. But I can see quite clearly that the media charges so far against Carson have been ridiculous, and I think Carson has fought back quite well.
No candidate would, or should, “accept” what the media does when the media distorts or lies or exaggerates.
I ran across this quote from Margaret Thatcher that is applicable to Dr. Carson:
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
The left does not have a political argument thus they use ad hominem attacks. And you Trump supporters, take a good look at what your fellow does. Almost all of his attacks have been against fellow Republican candidates and they have all been personal.
Apres Fox Business Channel Debate, I think Carson is filling out his policy card nicely, and more coherently that Trump (not that that’s a high standard).
References to what generals say about taking a place in the West of Iraq, near Kurdish areas, for instance – I heard a similar scenario from Admiral McCraken (the retired special ops commander when Bin Laden was killed and taken), interviewed on Charlie Rose, PBS show [atranscript ought to be up online, if they are still doing them this season].
MDL writes “his view on pyramids is odd….”
My understanding from the fracas is that it is mentioned as a “possibility.”
Pre-Roman Biblical history, for me, gets sketchy – there is a great absence of literature to cross check claims of fact. Therefore, most of the narrative goes literary tropes and interpretation of patterns assumed as fatcs, bearing on theological point scoring.
Do YOU – MDL – REALLY want to go there? Because I’m far too unversed to attempt to challenge those who are.
If a doctor wants to claim a “possibility” in a forest of them about matters bearing on God – a belief I don’t share, anyway – why should I care? I only care if it leads to harming self or others.
Can you tell me how Carson has raised pyramids as granaries to this level of importance today? Because I can’t!