Discussion: Sanders: The Stories About What Carson Said In The Past Aren't 'Fair Game'

Discussion for article #242635

This stuff isn’t about things someone leaked that Carson said 40 years ago. It’s about his autobiography and changing stories about his life. If any of it is from that long ago then its perfectly fair game to show the pattern of dissembling and a lack of concern for facts.


I couldn’t disagree with you more, Senator.


Sen. Sanders, context is everything. Personally, I do believe it very well might be important to bring up an issue or subject someone (such as yourself or Dr. Carson) commented on 30 or 40 years ago. It could be important–or not–in helping to shape an opinion of the person’s growth over the years. Obviously not every single subject or comment on it is relevant today – but I think it’s foolish to not research a person’s history when considering them for such an important position as POTUS or judgeship, etc.


I disagree Senator, Dr. Carson’s behavior is repetitive.


If what a person said in the past reveals that the person in question is a dangerous lunatic or a serial fabricator, it’s fair game.

If prior statements involve policy choices, on the other hand, the candidate can always say, simply, “At one time I thought that was the correct way to go. I no longer think so, and here’s why…”


I think he may have a point that we tend to focus on personalities and not on principles. Of course Carson is a kook and a grifter. Everyone else is doing a great job on this. Bernie just wants to talk about something else: how the country should be run, what the future looks like. I think he’s right, personally.


…even if his past indicates dementia, bi-polar disorder, inborn turpitude --blessed by Jesus?


1 Like

I have nothing against Bernie (even though he is not my first choice), but I do have something against “Kumbaya” Democrats. Being nice won’t win elections. Carson’s lies are relevant, as they show what kind of a person Carson is.


But in this case, it is really a bad case of false equivalency on Bernie’s part. We are not talking about who you would want to have beer with, who is wooden, etc. We are talking about a guy who is repetitively, habitually lying throughout his life and selling his biography made of those lies to his advantage. Bernie is dead wrong if he thinks that is noting to disqualify that person.


“Focus on the issues” is a direct, more-than-legitimate shot at the media. As usual, the attending media representative ignores it.
I agree that if you run for president, almost everything is fair game, and I don’t see the slightest problem with what’s happening to Carson, but given a choice I would still rather have spent the last week discussing the disaster of electing a theocrat to the presidency than what West Points’ admission mechanics are.


Stupid, stupid, stupid move by Sanders.


What I find interesting about Carson, is that he keeps blaming the “progressive secularists” when it is the Republican establishment, i.e. WSJ and Poitico that are doing most of the attacking. Secular Progressives?


Carson’s current campaign for president repeatedly draws on his stories about his past. Those stories must therefore be checked. If Hillary or Bernie branded themselves by reference to their youthful exploits, these would obviously also be scrutinized. Carson made this bed and must now lie on it.


Sounds nice in theory, but, its tilting in the wind.


Agreed, and he’s definitely right that there’s no sense in the media dragging this out for another round in asking every single other candidate what they think about the latest “Carson revelations” and then getting further reactions such as what Marco said about what Trump said about Carson, to the point that issues are never actually discussed — a situation that may be great for TV ratings and know-nothing reporting, but doesn’t do a great job of informing the American people about what intentions these individuals may have for actually running the country, if elected.


It isn’t about what Carson said 30-40 years ago, it’s that he still stands by those comments, despite them not being true.


Exactly. I’m not sure Sanders is objecting to the media reporting on Carson’s serial lying and other pathologies, so much as insisting on asking HIM about it. He doesn’t feel like an authority on Carson and has his own issues he wants to talk about, so why drag him into a mud fight? That’s the point.


I didnt realize Carson had policies or a platform that could even be discussed, I thought his entire campaign was based on his personal biography, in which case, it ought to stand up to some scrutiny.


Outlaw abortion, replace Medicare with “savings” accounts etc. Plenty of policy in there, you just have to ignore the dog whistles.