I actually thought I totally understood that vetting process; I really and truly did.

Then I watched in 2007 and 2008 important things which had to do with background be not only ignored, but NEVER discussed. Ok, that's over.

Now we have candidates on both sides that need vetting, and we focus on Ben Carson, and what appears to be an exaggeration in his book while we ignore others of more import.

I am not a Carson fan, by any stretch, but he is a good, honest man who is being ripped apart, while the media has a love fest with candidates that they approve us.

We have a candidate who according to Black Lives Matter embraces their cause and all they stand for: this candidate has publicly and privately endorsed them. They, and their founders are avowed anarchists. Why is this not vetted ?

We have another candidate who has obviously intimidarpted the media, and they instead of vetting report on him as if he were a realty show.

We have another canidate who is an avowed socialist and proud of it, and he seldom is asked about that leaning.

I am in no way confused about vetting. There must have been a meeting in 2007 where they changed the rules, and we now as voters must do our own vetting.

The Carson media outburst embarrasses me as someone who cares about character. Hearing this incident become THE incident when there are canidates on both sides who have much larger items to vetting is simply embarrassing.

He said this in his book; have any of you even read the books of the other canidates ? Have any of you ever then read the lies told in those books ?

Do not lecture me on vetting please