The Wheels Down Politics Show – Dr. Ben Carson

(Click above to play in the browser or Direct download by clicking here, or by searching Wheels Down Politics on iTunes.)

IMG_3127Jerry Kratochvil interviews Republican Presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson on the Iran nuclear deal. Dr. Carson talks about his views on the deal, the need for it and whether it makes America safer.

Dr. Carson gives his views on whether America should be at the table at all with Iran right now, and what may be down the road in ten years. He also talks about what the implications of the deal may be for Israel.

Dr. Carson finishes by relating what he hears from the people of Iowa as he travels the state and what the most important issues are that face the country today.

On the web: Ben Carson for President
Twitter: @RealBenCarson
Facebook: Dr. Ben Carson

***

You can find this, and all of our podcasts at WheelsDownPolitics.com and by searching Wheels Down Politics on iTunes.

16 comments

  1. Doctor in Nukeland says:

    Dr. Carson sounded like he was half asleep on the couch during this phone interview, which was mostly about a nuclear weapons deal.

    There are bloggers here who have been executives in nuclear war planning. They might have had more of substance to say on the Iran nuke deal than a doctor who is what, number X of 14 in the polls? Healthcare, sure.

    Carson was okay. But there is okay and then there is running for POTUS. Need wake up for that.

    Dr. Carson approached the matter as well as the average conservative plumber might. And that’s great. We all have opinions. But when it is time for your cancer screening, do you really care what a plumber has to say about the merits of fecal occult blood tests and sigmoidoscopy as alternatives to colonoscopy simply because the dude has an expert grasp of how piping works?

  2. Sparkles says:

    Ben Carson is a gifted pediatric neurosurgeon.
    Ben Carson is also a 7th Day Adventist who believes in creationist theory, proposing all life on Earth was created by God about 6,000 years ago.
    Ben Carson rejects Darwin’s theory of evolution.
    Ben Carson believes, due political correctness, modern day America is very much like Nazi Germany:
    “I mean, [our society is] very much like Nazi Germany. And I know you’re not supposed to say ‘Nazi Germany,’ but I don’t care about political correctness.”

    It is embarrassing to imagine Ben Carson he would be taken seriously for a seat on city council, let alone as a presidential candidate.

  3. stroker says:

    Carson reminds me of a biology teacher creationist I know. He embraces science right up until he refuses rationality. False skeptics. The Left is full of its own false skeptics too. The morality of any issue, left or right, pushes altruism or justice or holiness into a tyranny where contrary opinions cannot exist. Contrary opinions are freedom. Refusing to see things as they are is the blindness tyranny needs to thrive. Case in point, Justice Kennedy.

    Justice Kennedy says the Same-Sex Marriage ruling is like Flag Burning. Americans are fools for not seeing how good it is. He thinks Americans have become proud of Flag Burning lately. He cannot tell federal cases from state issues. He seems to be suffering mental disease.

    The flag is a national federal symbol. Marriage is a state contract. The SCOTUS has now made marriage a federal demand and thus to disobey that demand a federal crime, so the SCOTUS can now extend or prohibit marriage however it wishes. It won’t ban DNA defective people from marrying and creating massively retarded children, because this ruling effectively separates producing healthy children from the act of marriage simply because gay sex doesn’t produce ass babies. Which means SCOTUS has not only made marriage a federalized rite, but it has divorced marriage from the process of propagating children. This necessarily opens marriage to the sorts of incest and polygamy Obama grew up with as his heritage. Justice Kennedy thinks the SCOTUS is helping Americans be wise.

    The same SCOTUS decided ala Dred Scott that Democrats were right to have Human Slavery perpetual in all the US states. It took the bloodiest war in our history to reverse that Court decision.

    Our Constitution presumes a massive stroke is the best way of dealing with lifetime appointed Justices who are assholes and insane. Okay, let us all root for the stroke. Stroke, stroke, stroke…

  4. Anonymous says:

    Here’s some news about Ben Carson. He’s a BRAIN SURGEON. He ain’t Huey Long.
    If you want someone to scream at you go find Hillary or Bernie or Donald.
    He always speaks in a low tone and is succinct.
    Everything he said about the Iran deal is true and accurate.
    Sorry that’s not entertaining for you.

  5. The Grundle King says:

    Off topic, but interesting in some respects…(in)Justice Kennedy responded to questions regarding the same-sex marriage ruling with the following:

    “We have to reflect on what these issues mean, and when we have a controversial case — and a very difficult case like (same-sex marriage) — we draw down on a capital of trust, a deposit of trust,” Kennedy said. “We spend that capital of trust, and we have to rebuild that capital. We have to put new deposits, new substance into this reservoir of trust.”

    It’s not surprising that what he’s basically saying is that he bases his rulings not on a law’s particular constitutionality…but on the combined size and vociferousness of the group that the ruling will rankle. The funny thing is that, when you “draw down” on the public trust, you entirely lose the trust of swaths of the citizenry. I do trust that some of the justices will continue to interpret laws based on their constitutionality, but I don’t have any trust whatsoever in the institution of the SCOTUS.

  6. Sparkles says:

    And now, for something completely different…

    “The reality is that it is a painful agreement to make, but also necessary and wise,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who drafted the first sanctions against Iran, passed in the United Nations Security Council in 2006 and 2007, when he served as GW Bush’s Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs.

    In an article for the Financial Times, Mr. Burns goes on to state:
    “This is a sensible agreement and far preferable to an Iran unfettered and ever closer to a nuclear weapon. Its great advantage is to freeze Iran’s nuclear efforts for a decade to come..
    ..The nuclear deal advances western interests. It is a historic step forward for the US and Europe.”

    Mr. Burns is currently Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and a member of the Board of Directors of the school’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

  7. From the “Comments” tab up above:

    Leavenworth Street encourages readers to comment on the blog posts.

    Please note that you DO NOT have to leave your name, email, address or web page. These fields are optional.

    However, we ask that you adhere to the following rules:

    * Please enter some sort of a name — either yours or a made up one — to assist in the conversations on the comment boards
    * Do not enter web links or phone numbers. We do not want to have to police the veracity of the link and we do not want you pimping your or someone else’s web site. Any comments with links will automatically NOT post.
    * Do not cut and paste articles.
    * Keep your comments P.G.
    * Try to keep your comments relevant to the post topic.
    * In the words of the great Jim Rome, “Have a take and don’t suck.”

  8. Oracle says:

    Sparkles makes a good point about the Iran agreement. Way too many people made snap judgments before even reading it (mostly on the right, but also some on the left). Now that the experts have had time to read and analyze it, most are saying positive things. Some of you live in la la land thinking the Iranians would agree to everything the U.S. and its allies wanted. Sure, it’s far from perfect and could fall apart, but it’s better than the status quo. Those who want to keep the sanctions don’t realize how difficult it would be to keep them in place over the long-term. It only takes a few countries to drop them to make sanctions ineffective.

  9. The Grundle King says:

    The thing is this, Oracle…

    Iran gets up to 24 days to obfuscate, obstruct, and outright lie before allowing an inspection if they are suspected of producing nuclear weapons. And even then, I don’t think the agreement is clear as to when an inspection would actually take place…assuming our “friends” in Russia and China go along with the inspection request. Many defenders of the deal have said that Iran couldn’t just hide that stuff in 24 days…let alone 2 weeks. But a resident chemist has shown that, not only could Iran hide it…they could hide it really easily.

    I disagree that he deal is better than the status quo, because now with an agreement in place, any attempts we (America) make to clamp down on Iran will be viewed as aggression on our part…whereas with the status quo, any attempts by other countries, including those so-called “friends” mentioned earlier, to ease sanctions would be viewed as said countries going soft on Iran’s dreams of nuclear proliferation. I really don’t know why keeping those sanctions in place over the long-term would be difficult…sooner or later, I feel Iran’s leaders would have had enough of the pain imposed by the sanctions…or Iran’s people would have had enough of the pain imposed by the pigheadedness of their leaders.

    Now they get a windfall of cash that’s been held back by the world community, and a huge new stream of income from oil exports.

    Any guesses at where all that money is headed?

  10. Oracle says:

    The problem is sanctions never hold. Never! Even if the U.S. kept them, soon other countries would start dropping them making our sanctions powerless. Sorry, but I’m going to side with the experts who spend their lives working on this stuff.

  11. Union College, which is Seventh-Day Adventist, invited me out there to give a seminar on what they called ‘the atheist theory of the origin of life’ (which I preferred to call the scientific theory). They were very gracious, let me speak, a couple of students asked intelligent questions, and then we went to a lunch. No post-seminar beer for the speaker, of course. I asked their physics prof. how he reconciled young-earth creationism with his knowledge of physics (we can see light that left galaxies long before the biblical Adam and Eve were supposed to exist). He said he hadn’t been able to reconcile the two, but he was confident both were true and that there must therefore be a possible reconciliation. I find that unsatisfactory, but he at least wasn’t denying the science. And he was certainly no ignoramus or rube. On the contrary: kudos to someone who, while believing one thing as a matter of faith, is willing to listen to something entirely opposite.

    Carson gave an answer to an atheist at a campaign event that pissed me off a lot more. It was to the effect that if you think you’re descended from monkeys, maybe you’re closer to them than you think. It was abrasive and a little obnoxious. While I’m not saying I could never vote for a creationist, he lost any possibility of my vote with that answer.

  12. Oracle says:

    Is that just a snark or your actual belief? So Chemistry questions should be directed to my neighborhood garbage collector? Really, not all of us have the time or expertise to delve deeply into an issue. One shouldn’t blindly follow experts but neither should they be blindly discounted.

  13. The Grundle King says:

    “One shouldn’t blindly follow experts but neither should they be blindly discounted.”

    But conservatives are supposed to blindly believe that this deal with Iran is the best possible deal that could be had, and we’re supposed to get behind it…and if we don’t, then we’re racists or some such nonsense.

    I’m not one to say that there aren’t some benefits to making a deal with Iran, but the fact that it could take up to 24 days to get authorization for a weapons inspection should give pause, especially when it’s not clear what would happen if the committee failed reach a consensus to approve such an inspection. The fact that the Iranians will apparently continue to hold Americans hostage should give one pause, especially when the “experts” you tout traded away 4 high-level terrorists for one American deserter.

    Sure, the Prez says that discussion (the American hostages) is a matter to be dealt with separately…except, since we’re talking about a nuclear weapons agreement, then why is the embargo on the import of ‘conventional arms’ (read: all weapons non-nuclear) not also a matter to be dealt with separately? Why was it acceptable for Iran to negotiate for weapons for Hamas and Hezbollah…err, I mean Iran’s “self-defense”, but it was not acceptable for our country to negotiate for the release of American detainees?

    And if you’re content to cop-out and leave all of that to “the experts”, then maybe you can address something a little more simple…what happens if Iran breaks the deal? What, we re-impose sanctions that you say don’t work and won’t hold?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.