Our predictable leftist press is, of course, angrily opposed to Ben Carson, this time because they are unable to find proof of his claim that in his youth he committed some violent acts. So let me understand the logic of this folly: if Carson were able or willing to prove his past violence would the press then consider that he would be a great candidate for president? But since there is no proof of violence, are the liberals instead saying that his apparent history of nonviolence makes him a bad candidate? Do you suppose that if the leftist press were able to locate someone who said he or she had been attacked by Carson, that the press would then praise Carson for his acts of violence and his subsequent conversion to religion and his becoming a world respected surgeon? Who the hell knows what these leftist idiots would say, except that if Carson is a Republican and a conservative, he’s a bad person and not acceptable for any elected office.
You can bet that whatever is learned about Carson’s past he will be criticized for it. The whole thing is so stupid that one wonders at the sanity of our liberal press corps. Are they calling him a liar of are they just laying the ground so they can be critical of him for being either violent or nonviolent, whichever they can prove?
On the other side of the political aisle, when Juanita Broaddrick accused Bill Clinton of raping and beating her (and this type of activity is in keeping with much of what we know about Clinton’s personality and his past actions) the press just yawned, turned their backs on Broaddrick and resumed their attacks on Republicans. They were unable to disprove the allegation of violence, which they momentarily and timidly tried to do, but they were certainly not going to present the accusation to him and press the case to make him admit his violent act. And of course the press is not interested at all in Hillary’s lying about Benghazi and her risking national security by sending and receiving classified emails on an unsecure server. And forget that Hillary has lied in the past and seems to be making a habit of it in her presidential run (remember her lying claim that she landed under enemy fire in Bosnia?).
Could the race of a black, successful non-liberal presidential candidate play any part in the press’s attacks on Carson?
To answer the three questions posed in your first paragraph: no. Why are those questions even being asked?
To answer the questioned posed in your second paragraph, it seems to be that Carson may be a liar; this is one of several storie that he tells for which there is no evidence. Just making up a bunch of crap is not Presidential, and tha’s the entire point.