Ben Carson: Bungling Surgeon

The chief proponent of this claim is actually Wayne Allyn Root:

Why are the college records, of a 51-year-old President of the United States, so important to keep secret? I think I know the answer.

If anyone should have questions about Obama’s record at Columbia University, it’s me. We both graduated (according to Obama) Columbia University, Class of ’83. We were both (according to Obama) Pre-Law and Political Science majors. And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia. I certainly thought I’d heard of all of my fellow Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him. Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.

But don’t take my word for it. The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never found one who had ever met Obama.

Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up.

Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?

Obama’s College Classmate: ‘The Obama Scandal Is at Columbia’

Snopes says they've debunked this, and as i said previously, Obama admits to not being very involved in campus life at Columbia:

In his memoir and in interviews, Obama has said he got serious and buckled down in New York. "I didn't socialize that much. I was like a monk," he said in a 2005 Columbia alumni magazine interview. He told biographer David Mendell: "For about two years there, I was just painfully alone and really not focused on anything, except maybe thinking a lot."

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/fo...n-bungling-surgeon.107435/reply?quote=3966838

 

While not defending the claim, it's worth pointing out that his off campus roommate isn't a great source to refute the claim that he didn't/barely attend(ed) classes at Columbia.

No one is claiming he didn't live in New York City at the time. The questions are about his academic record while there.

 

Right. People just don't seem to give a fuck about s-mail servers and Benghazi. Do you think maybe there will be some traction if Congress holds more hearings?

 

You've already made this circular argument Cran. The public doesn't care, so the media shouldn't cover it.

But, it is the tone of the coverage. Look, I'm fine with an argument that portrays Carson as unfit for the presidency. He is unfit for the Presidency.

I'm still waiting for anyone in the main stream media to portray Hillary as unfit for the Presidency.

She's lied and obstructed justice her whole career. (Cattle trading futures, and the Rose Law Firm billing records to go all the way back to the beginning.)

She's treated little people like shit. (Don't believe the stories about how she treats the SS, fine, how about the WH Travel Office?)

She set up a private email server to avoid Congressional oversight, and FOIA requests. (You'd think this one would actually offend the media.)

Her career is dependent on her marriage (and the acceptance and covering up of his cheating on her, and his serial sexual harassment of women).

She has no accomplishments as a Senator or a Secretary of Stare. (Libya was supposed to be her big success.) From the Russian reset, to Middle East policy, are foreign policy has been a mess, and only got worse under her.

She's flip flopped on major policies that her husband enacted, and she supported. (Don't Ask, Don't Tell. DOMA. the Crime Bill. Gay Marriage. etc. And, in the case of DOMA, she lied about the reason why they supported it)

But, somehow, despite getting beaten by a first term Senator 8 years ago, she's the best the Dems have to offer, and is uniquely qualified to be President.

 

I hope that's not a misprint. Because that's 80 percent of the job, right?

 

The claim was that no one at Columbia remembers him.

Someone at Columbia remembers him.

If the clown who hasn't posted in nearly a year wants to claim he barely attended classes, he should claim that.

 

No. Hillary sycophants don't care; a lot of the public DOES.

That being said, I think the media coverage of Hillary has been OK. Carson coverage is going to be more visible in 2015 simply because he hasn't been in the public eye for decades, including eight years in the White House and being a principal in one of the most extensively covered presidential primaries in history.

And, some people apparently forget that for the better part of the last six months or so, the vast majority of Hillary coverage centered on A) the email scandal, B) Her drop and Bernie's rise in the polls, and C) Biden's possible entry into the race, thus supplanting her as a front-runner who could actually generate excitement. It reminds me a lot of the "Anyone But Mitt" coverage in 2012. The latest Benghazi coverage was treated like the joke it has long since become.

Not exactly glowing, overall.

 

He remembers living off campus with him. That's different than remembering him from going to school with him.

 

I'm curious to here someone articulate a rationale for a Hillary Presidency.

Best I can tell, she's "fought" for the middle class, and women, and children "her whole life" and in 2008, as Senator from New York, and beneficiary of Wall St. funding, she told Wall St. to "cut it out".

Wow. Strong.

Ted Cruz gets mocked for constantly fighting, but never winning. What has Hillary ever accomplished?

It's telling that we have a former SoS running a campaign devoid of talk about foreign policy, or her success as SoS. It's focused almost entirely on domestic issues.

 

No shame in being beaten in an election by our best president since Roosevelt, and HRC remains a far better candidate and far more qualified than any of the GOP candidates.

 

LOL. Even if you want to argue that he is a great President, that's employing 20/20 hindsight. At the time, we was a first term Senator, with one good speech under his belt.

 

Obama was a great campaigner who genuinely inspired people. Their instincts were correct.