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.

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

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.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!