ShareThis Page
In Carson’s defense |

In Carson’s defense

| Sunday, November 15, 2015 9:00 p.m

In the fiercely competitive and rough-and-tumble world of presidential politics, it is easy to misarticulate one’s thoughts, even for a neurosurgeon.

When Dr. Ben Carson spoke of eligibility for a scholarship at West Point, he was probably about 17 years old, and, in a state of exuberance, he may have misunderstood or misinterpreted what he heard.

As to his analogy to the Founding Fathers, he may have been trying to contrast today’s modern bureaucracy, subject to intense attention from powerful lobbies, with the first Congress of the United States.

The first Congress lasted for a term of two years, from March 4, 1789, to March 4, 1791. Lawmakers met in three sessions, the first two lasting about seven months, the last about three months.

While lobbyists have always been with us, even in Colonial times, today’s lobbyists maintain a higher degree of influence with elected officials.

We live today in more complicated times.

Dr. Carson has devoted his life to pediatric neurology, which demands intense training, leaving little time for other pursuits.

He is not a career politician, unlike most of his current competitors.

At least he didn’t say: “What difference does it make, anyway?”

William Angel


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.