"Meet the Press"'s
Chris Janning accompanied the ophthamalogist senator and got plenty of access, but she took so many shots at him behind his back that it was ludicrous:
CHRIS JANSING: And now to a Meet the Press exclusive: A journey to Guatemala with Kentucky Senator -- and Doctor -- Rand Paul. Top Republicans eyeing a run for president in 2016 have spent a lot of time in two key battleground states: 20 visits to Iowa, 10 more to New Hampshire. But so far, only Paul has turned a foreign country into a unique photo op....
Footage of poverty-stricken eye patients.
CHRIS JANSING: ... A mission to restore sight, and hope, to the poorest of the poor. And if it all plays well to American voters it could further Rand Paul's personal mission, too -- to position himself for a race for president.
Oh, please.
RAND PAUL: I've been doing, you know, this kinda stuff for 20 years and so--
CHRIS JANSING: But not in a foreign country.
Gotcha!
RAND PAUL: Right. Well, I've been operating on kids from Guatemala for, you know, it-- I think the first kids I operated on were 1996. This isn't something new that we're doing.... A physician is who I am. And, you know, to represent who I am, that's who I am. I'm a physician.
CHRIS JANSING: But you just won't always bring camera crews.
Gotcha!
RAND PAUL: Well, you know, depicting who I am, I think, is an important part of-- presenting a face to the public.
CHRIS JANSING: There is no doubt about the humanitarian aspect of this trip.... Chronicling it all are Paul's advertising team.... Whose TV commercials helped him with his upset win for Senate four years ago. Also along, a film crew from Conservative super PAC Citizens United, with equipment that included a drone for aerial shots, and its co-founder and President Dave Bossie.
Citizens United! We switch to an interview with Bossie.
CHRIS JANSING (TO DAVID BOSSIE): Does having Citizens United, Dave Bossie, there make it look more political?... Bossie did some charity work of his own, helping to install a water filtration system. But he spent many hours with Senator Paul and gave advice to the camera crew. For Paul, too, long hours in the O.R. were interspersed with interviews, multiple conversations with us over three days where nothing was off limits....
Some interesting interview follows. Rand talks about Ferguson and takes a big shot at Hillary Clinton, positioning her as a war monger.
I think that's what scares the Democrats the most, is that in a general election, were I to run, there's going to be a lot of independents and even some Democrats who say, "You know what? We are tired of war. We're worried that Hillary Clinton will get us involved in another Middle Eastern war because she's so gung ho."
After the commercial break, we see more footage of the poverty-stricken eye patients, and Jansing credits Paul for "lives transformed," then makes this awkward transition:
For all the successes here, Rand Paul was effective but not emotional, something that worries even supporters who know winning primaries is often as much about kissing babies as making policy statements.
Suddenly, Paul is "not emotional" and this is something to be worried about? And suddenly Jansing is talking to one Ed O'Keefe of The Washington Post, who is saying:
He reminds me of doctors I had who are very matter-of-fact, and I think that's where he gets it, that you know he sees a problem and he fixes it and he moves on.
What?!! Doctors Ed O'Keefe has known? O'Keefe is splatting out a stereotype about doctors, based on his personal experience — who the hell is he? — and pinning that on Rand Paul? That's nonsense, and it's a real insult to Paul. Elections require emotion, Rand Paul went to Guatemala and donated his surgical skills to many impoverished patients, so Rand Paul is missing something needed in elections, because he's a doctor and Ed O'Keefe knows some doctors and they aren't emotional. This is the worst presentation of evidence and conclusion I've ever seen on a serious news program.
CHRIS JANSING: But you wonder how that will translate on the campaign trail…
How what will translate? The tendency of doctors to look at patients, figure out what is wrong with them, and apply their expertise to cure or alleviate their problems?
ED O'KEEFE: It could be very difficult.
Brilliant. And Ed O'Keefe
could be a big hack. Then Jansing said:
CHRIS JANSING: Do you go to Iowa and not shake hands?
And we had to rewind to make sure O'Keefe hadn't revealed that Rand Paul has some germophobia quirk that prevents him from shaking hands.
ED O'KEEFE: That's, I think, the next test.
CHRIS JANSING: Dr. Paul's enthusiasm for medicine is palpable, and he's a guy who likes his odds when he's the one controlling the outcome.
This is just some free-swinging doctor stereotyping. Of course, a surgeon doesn't cut into your eye unless there's a good chance it will help, and if he does, he exercises great control over the placement of the knife in the eyeball.
So if he runs, it will be because — like here in the O.R. — he thinks he's got a real chance of winning.
No. You have not established that the surgeon's approach to politics is the same as his approach to surgery. You just made that up!
पोस्ट्स
१०० टिप्पण्या:
So how does a Constitutional law professor approach Politics?
Lets ask Obama.
Why the surprise?
Any threat to Leftism is to be put down and that means non-Left people never ever do anything with pure motives.
So what if Paul has been doing charity work for close to 20 years...its all cynical resume padding for running for public office ... you can tell because he's not 'emotional' about his work and he's too controlling.
Like or not Mitt Romney but his charitableness wasn't just money but hands on work with people in need -- something either the media ignored or sneered at as "insincere."
Leftists don't believe in private charity, so why should they give any credit to their enemies who engage in such?
Rand Paul, should he run, would be the second Republican candidate ever that I actually wanted to vote for.
Ann Althouse: "This is the worst presentation of evidence and conclusion I've ever seen on a serious news program."
Well, there's your problem right there.
For some odd reason, despite all evidence to the contrary, you still believe...what? That these "mainstream" media folks are something other than democrats with bylines?
The left isn't in a position to launch a lawfare campaign against Rand Paul, so they do the next best thing in typical Alinskyite fashion: take something that in a sane world is a real strength of Pauls and try to turn it into something cynical and ugly.
I have no issues with the content of your post, but please tell me you are not surprised by this "mainstream" media hit piece as the tone of your post indicates that maybe you are.
Rand has them all stirred up early because he appeals to realists on both sides, not just riding the conservative talking points that have been loosing he voters anyway.
Revenant: "Rand Paul, should he run, would be the second Republican candidate ever that I actually wanted to vote for."
Curiosity question: who was the first? (though I think I might be able to guess).
Yet another sterling example of why, for better or worse, a huge swath of the TV audience keeps that dial (does anyone have dials anymore?) firmly fixed on Fox News.
I don't think Rand Paul has too much of a chance in the Republican Primary.
1) He's a Senator
2) He's not pro military enough (Good for those who loved his father, bad for the rest of us)
3) He hasn't been around long enough
4) He seems to be playing too many sides of the fence all at the same time
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, as some conservatives that really annoy me don't like Paul, which makes me like him just a little more.
Curiosity question: who was the first? (though I think I might be able to guess).
Carl DeMaio, who is currently running for Congress in the district I live in.
Won't vote for him in the primary.
But you are right that the way the MSM treat him is ridiculous.
I'm surprised you seem surprised.
But perhaps it's a good sign: if the MSM really do upset people like you consistently in this way, there's a chance the country won't repeat the Barry mistake.
What eric said.
Plus, there's no shortage of indigenous indigents and helping them would have better short term political optics I think. Paul must be thinking way ahead to time when many more Central Americans are here. I believe he's on board with that.
I didn't say I was surprised that they undercut him. I found it ludicrous that they did it so crudely. The use of Ed O'Keefe was especially inane.
MTP is trying to restore itself after the booting of David Gregory... and then it does this.
This article is why they're desperate to portray Rand Paul's trip negatively. The WaPo article was no better than the MTP feature.
"But photo op!"
And since when are surgeons known for good bedside manner?
2) He's not pro military enough (Good for those who loved his father, bad for the rest of us)
You're confusing "pro-war" and "pro-spending" with "pro-military". There is a reason why Ron Paul received more donations from active-duty military than the rest of the Republican field put together.
But it is certainly true that the Republican establishment is still obsessed with war.
As far as MD's running for office, I wish Ben Carson would run. I believe he even writes his own speeches.
I saw that piece. I agree they had the knives out for Paul, but it didn't work. The optics (heh) are that Paul was restoring vision to impoverished peasants and Obama was playing golf. Paul looked very dedicated and altruistic in his scrubs, and the NBC team looked very petty in their bias.....,They should have done a think piece on Assad. They could show how the training for an eye surgeon subverts and destroys those qualities we most desire in our leaders. Flash pictures of Assad in scrubs and then pictures of Syrian corpses. More pictures of Assad in scrubs and more pictures of Syrian refugee camps. Every time they show a picture of Assad he should be in scrubs.
As a former Iowan who has followed political news for about 45 years and once ran an Iowa precinct caucus as the precinct chairman I feel it is right that I tell you that Iowa has a primary, too, in June as I recall. That is when there is a vote, not at the caucuses. There is a straw poll at caucus time. And I think only Jimmy Carter rode his Iowa caucus win all the way to the White House.
"But it is certainly true that the Republican establishment is still obsessed with war."
Who is the 'republican establishment'?
Democrats talk about war -- anti -- more than the GOP talks about war. "Obsession" is very much in the eye of the beholder.
On the other hand, the Dems are clearly obsessed with race. The GOP would rather not talk about it at all, yet according to the Dems, race is (or should be) the topic of conversation in every home in the US.
Contrast this with the New York Times cover piece on Obama golfing.
Message from the MSM?
Obama golfing during crises is OK, because we say so.
Rand Paul doing charity work? Not so much.
He sees a problem and fixes it and moves on? And this is a bad thing why?
"Obsession" is very much in the eye of the beholder. On the other hand, the Dems are clearly obsessed with race.
In the eyes of those who be Holder that's true.
Who is the 'republican establishment'?
The House and Senate leadership, the party leadership, and leading strategists and money men.
Democrats talk about war -- anti -- more than the GOP talks about war. "Obsession" is very much in the eye of the beholder.
The notion that Democrats are anti-war flies in the face of the fact that every Democratic President of the last 100 years -- with the sole exception of Jimmy Carter -- has launched or escalated wars while in office.
Obama isn't anti-war. He's incompetently pro-war. There's a difference. :)
I think it makes more sense to count many in the media as not coming back for awhile, if ever.
Building counter-weights seems part of a decent plan.
The notion that Democrats are anti-war flies in the face of the fact that every Democratic President of the last 100 years -- with the sole exception of Jimmy Carter -- has launched or escalated wars while in office.
That sounds like a cover for some kind of weakness on their part.
Obama golfing during crises is OK, because we say so.
Be honest, now. Would you *really* be happier if Obama was signing legislation and issuing executive orders? Of all the things Obama is likely to do, as President, isn't "golfing" one of the least likely to have negative outcomes?
As a nation, we would be better off if more Presidents responded to the latest "crisis" by doing nothing.
Revanant: " There is a reason why Ron Paul received more donations from active-duty military than the rest of the Republican field put together."
Not true. And I don't know why you keep saying this.
The reality is Ron Paul received more in donations "from people who list the military as their employer on donation records. This includes members of the active and reserve forces, retirees, civilian workers, veterans and some spouses if they listed one of the military services as their employer."
That's a s***-load more "types" of people than just "active-duty military" personnel.
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20120209/NEWS/202090331/Ron-Paul-gets-most-military-donations
That sounds like a cover for some kind of weakness on their part.
It is a cover for weakness on both parties' part. "Oh, look at how horrible it is 6000 miles away," they say. "That's so much more important than our runaway national debt, low rates of employment and burdensome regulations".
Um, Drago... did you read that article you linked? It supports the statement I made.
What?!! Doctors Ed O'Keefe has known? O'Keefe is splatting out a stereotype about doctors, based on his personal experience — who the hell is he? — and pinning that on Rand Paul? That's nonsense, and it's a real insult to Paul. Elections require emotion, Rand Paul went to Guatemala and donated his surgical skills to many impoverished patients, so Rand Paul is missing something needed in elections, because he's a doctor and Ed O'Keefe knows some doctors and they aren't emotional. This is the worst presentation of evidence and conclusion I've ever seen on a serious news program. "
Serious news program? When was that ever true?
Democrats are big in to emoting because they are only capable of creating problems or making them worse and actually solving problems.
"Ed O'Keefe knows some doctors and they aren't emotional. "
I knew a doctor who got emotional. He was a very good orthopedist but he had a young woman patient who had her ankle crushed between a car and the curb. He did several surgeries and they failed. He finally melted down in her room at the hospital one day and quit his practice. He moved to LA and started over. I hear he did well there. Probably avoided emotional involvement, though.
How what will translate? The tendency of doctors to look at patients, figure out what is wrong with them, and apply their expertise to cure or alleviate their problems?
A doctor who looks at us then cries. He gets emotional, talks about how he can feel our pain. He brings some things he heard here and there about how to make people better, makes a guess about what's wrong by polling people in the waiting room, and applies a cure that may cure us but is more likely to make us much worse and give us other ailments besides.
That is how being a politician translates into being a doctor.
A couple days after I left the hospital for my right below the knew amputation, I went back for a follow-up. I saw my surgeon in the front and I joked "there is the guy that did this to me." The stone-cold look on his face did not show an ounce of emotion or response. And I couldn't care less. He did great work and I healed perfectly. I couldn't care less about his complete lack of personality and warmth. Better for me and countless others that he choose to be a surgeon and not a comedian.
I think the MSM will warm up to Rand over time. He will likely be the least objectionable Republican given that his foreign policy, aside from drones, is closer to Obama's than any other Republican or even Hillary.
This is the worst presentation of evidence and conclusion I've ever seen on a serious news program.
I'm sure it was bad, but the worst? The worst ever? Hyperbole is a kind of evidence, too.
Shorter NBC: helping brown people is bad.
Suge Knight, Ohio Dentist says:
So I was at the Dental Convention in Guatemala, talkin' teeth with homies, some real Dental Gangstas Old School types, and we go out to do some free work at a clinic, real charitable shit, you feel? Man, some of those Guatemalans have some f**ked-up teeth, it's like they had a gang war all up in their motherf**kin' mouths and shit. So me and the D's, we be pullin' teeth and slicin' up gums when some punk-ass Guatemalan orthodontist comes in and shoots me six motherf**kin' times. Imma bout to give the boy a hard-ass smackdown when some Guatamalan soldiers grab the dude and take his ugly ass out on the street and shoot him like he was stealin' TVs during a riot, so I go back to yankin' out ugly-ass teeth and slicin' up stinky-ass f**ked-up gums, I'm All Pro and shit. That's Guatemala, bitches.
Althouse,
"This is the worst presentation of evidence and conclusion I've ever seen on a serious news program. "
Sure, it would be the worst, if you were watching an actual news program, rather than agitprop.
Jansing has a real problem with her position. While Paul in principle and practice helps to improve human lives from conception to death, Jansing in principle and practice supports their abortion by the millions. She should exercise some discernment and separate politics from principles. Perhaps she will recognize the absurdity of attempting to reconcile what she claims to believe and what she actually supports.
Then her head would explode. I'd pay to see that!
Ed O'Keefe: "because he's a doctor and Ed O'Keefe knows some doctors and they aren't emotional. "
Howard B. Dean, MD: YEAAARGGGHHHH!
You expected quality from Meet the Press?
I think Rand is going to struggle getting past that video of him nearly running from fhe Hispanic woman in Iowa. That was a media mistake by Paul he may never get past nationally.
Ann Althouse said...
MTP is trying to restore itself after the booting of David Gregory... and then it does this.
8/24/14, 10:12 PM
Deck chair shuffling on the Titanic here, Ann. You've got to understand, NBC News didn't think David Gregory's messaging was wrong. They just think that for whatever reason, he was no longer any good at delivering that message.
They don't want to discard Gregory's narrative, whether it's Chris Jansing on a temporary basis or Chuck Todd in the permanent role. They just are hoping a new presenter will make the message Gregory was pitching more palatable to viewers (though I actually do expect Todd to do his best Tim Russert impersonation in 2015 ... followed by his best George Stephanopolous impersonation in 2016).
Ah yes, the democrat party media boogeyman. Don't you all know that the media in America is the propaganda arm of right-wingnut republicans? Don't you all remember how Meet The Press savaged candidate Obama for going to Germany and giving his "citizen of the world" speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate? Why, they still ridicule our president for claiming that attending third grade in Indonesia qualified as "foreign policy experience".
"The notion that Democrats are anti-war flies in the face of the fact . . . "
But I didn't say that they were anti-war. I said they talked about being anti-war.
Silly Revenant. Don't you claim that you were a preacher-man? Aren't preacher-men supposed to be good with words?
He HAS to go out of country to practice. He's not legit here.
Rand Paul is an opportunist. Another in a long line of sleazy politicians.
Doctors have to balance compassion and empathy with cold reason and emotional distance. Without compassion, they can't heal; without distance, they become overwhelmed and ineffective. Sounds to me like Dr. Paul has this down to a "t," so I'm not seeing what the problem is, other than the fact that NBC will say and do anything, anything at all, to undermine a potential Republican presidential candidate.
BTW, Prof. Althouse, thank you for watching MTP so the rest of us don't have to. That qualifies as combat duty in my book.
" Democratic President of the last 100 years -- with the sole exception of Jimmy Carter "
No, Jimmy stood by in shocked disappointment as the Russians marched into Afghanistan and started world conflict III. Actually, I think the Seven Years War, known to us as the French and Indian War was WWI.
It may be he cant do charity work here because of fear of litigation. Many Drs. go to Central America and Haiti to do charity work. It is appreciated there.
From "When Harry Met Sally" --
Marie is played by Carrie Fisher. Sally is played by Meg Ryan.
Marie: The point is, he just spent $120 on a new nightgown for his wife. I don't think he's ever gonna leave her.
Sally Albright: No one thinks he's ever gonna leave her.
Marie: You're right, you're right, I know you're right.
Marie's lover will never leave his wife. And reporters for every TV station except Fox will reflect the political culture that breeds most journalists. They are free to do that because of the First Amendment. They sincerely think they are always fair.
THere's a lot of LIVs out there, and this kind of BS works - it got you to vote for the "non-demagogue" in 2008.
I don't know how good a president Paul would make. But I do know it would be nice to have a president who has some detectable skill (in this case eye surgery) other than than the socially destructive skill of sleazy race-guilt hustling.
Lots of posters here keep referring to Meet the Press as a news show. It is not. It is entertainment. How about if we all just stop using the word journalist and use the word entertainer, from here on out. Is there any substantive difference between Saturday Night Live and Meet the Press? Whats the difference between David Gregory and Stephen Colbert? Personally, I laugh more at Gregory.
It is not by mistake that lots of young adults get their news from the Daily Show.....and consider themselves well informed.
Oh please. It was a photo op. You want them to breathlessly cover his campaign ad like he's a saint? If you want to promote your good works, be prepared for people to think maybe you have an ulterior motive. Which he clearly does. And who cares?
"I think the MSM will warm up to Rand over time."
I find your naïveté touching.
Echoing and extending the comments by Douglas, there's great confusion here over how doctors are when they're treating patients and otherwise in that mode, vs. what they do "after hours". Now, my major experience is with a pediatric group that my father handled the business affairs of, they didn't lose patients very often, but when they did they took it very hard.
Surgeons, and other specialties where failure is much more likely to often inevitable (and imagine being an oncologist or geriatrician), play a more difficult emotional game, but again unless you're personally interacting with them outside of the practice of medicine you're not going to see their more normal human side.
"MTP is trying to restore itself after the booting of David Gregory... and then it does this."
You have to ask yourself, restore themselves with whom?
I watched that piece. It was cringe-inducing.
Remember, when it came out that Sen. Coburn was doing medical work at free clinics in DC in his spare time, the left made nasty comments about that, too.
Madame must not watch network news much.
And the Democrat left does not trust Hillary! because they know she will go whichever way the polls, but mainly Billy Jeff, say will be good for Clinton, Inc.
and you should watch the news - if nothing else, to see what they don't want to talk about.
As someone else noted, when Obie is on vacation in general and on the links in particular he not screwing up other stuff.
True that.
However, he is actually working and performing an important job. Obama has, single handedly, over the past 6 years, mare liberals (or libertarians if you prefer) respectable.
Would Ron Paul have been such a viable candidate without Obie showing the way? Would we be talking about Rand Paul as a possible candidate without Obie leading the way?
Obie will be president for 8 years, assuming that he makes it all the way. The good that he has done, in lighting the torch for liberty will endure long after he is gone.
I don't know whether he is doing this intentionally or not. I tend to think not but then I wonder how it would be possible to do something as game changing by accident.
Doesn't matter. For all the short term problems Obie is causing (and they are many) he has put the US on the road to liberal recovery.
John Henry
Doctors do this all the time -- pro bono surgery for the poor in 3rd world countries. Do the pundits go to doctors who don't do this?
Oh please. It was a photo op. You want them to breathlessly cover his campaign ad like he's a saint?
Your number of pro bono eye surgeries is...what? Even this year, not the last 20.
You want them to breathlessly cover his campaign ad like he's a saint? If you want to promote your good works, be prepared for people to think maybe you have an ulterior motive. Which he clearly does. And who cares?
He started doing this in the late 90's to prepare for a possible Presidential run in 2016?
This is the theory?
His ulterior motive happened to also help resolve sight issues amongst kids too poor to have had their families fix them without help.
Yeah, Rand Paul is such an asshole. Really. Fucking useless cunt doing that whole free eye surgeries thing. Heck, maybe I should hold him down so you can stomp on him, while we're at it.
Can't believe the nerve of some people. HELPING others. Pretentious mother fucker...
NBC News has a "cooly professional culture?" Lolol
I read the Drudge-linked article about the lobster back running the show.
Farmer said...
Oh please. It was a photo op. You want them to breathlessly cover his campaign ad like he's a saint? If you want to promote your good works, be prepared for people to think maybe you have an ulterior motive. Which he clearly does. And who cares?
8/25/14, 7:13 AM "
Can you think of one national democrat with comparable good works and can you think of one national democrat the media doesn't cover like he or she isn't a candidate for sainthood?
Farmer said...
Oh please. It was a photo op. You want them to breathlessly cover his campaign ad like he's a saint? If you want to promote your good works, be prepared for people to think maybe you have an ulterior motive. Which he clearly does.
Hard to argue with this. Rand Paul is clearly busting his butt to take off some of the rough edges associated with his father and some of his own associates. He is doing a fairly good job of it in general. But, it is still just politics.
Cuban Bob asked:
Can you think of one national democrat with comparable good works and can you think of one national democrat the media doesn't cover like he or she isn't a candidate for sainthood?
Hilary! used to donate Bill's used underwear to charity. Does that count?
Or is it just another example of her doing good works with someone else's money? (Or skivvies in this case)
John Henry
Did Paul ask MTP to follow him or did MTP find out and ask?
There's promote, then there's "promote."
Mission trips to restore vision in Third World countries is the average ophthalmic surgeon's idea of a vacation. In the last couple of years surgeons from our company have gone to India, Ethiopia, Central America, and North Korea (via China). Paul is doing what his professional peers are doing.
I alluded to a possibility of Obie not finishing out his full 8 years.
I should clarify that I do not think he will be impeached. I do think he will finish them out.
However, if he loses badly in November, as he is shaping up to do (losing the Senate and more seats in the House) he may decide to resign. Not much chance of it but there is a possibility. Probably for medical reasons (He'll have a convenient minor heart attack or such)
Maybe he will just tell us that we are not worthy of him and he refuses to serve us any longer.
Or, the demmies may just get sick and tired of him dragging them down and decide to relieve him under the 25th Amendment. Perhaps the only way for Joe O'Biden to get into the White House.
It would then position him to run for Prez as an incumbent. Not that VPs ever do well in presidential elections but Biden seems to believe he is different.
I think we are stuck with Obie until 2017 but he is perhaps the first president I have thought might not make it all the way.
John Henry
I've know about Paul's summer excursions to offer his services - necessary to keep his license - since the first summer after taking his Senate seat.
So, since when was a politician's activities not a photo op?
And BTW, is this Jansing person male or female? [wink/nod]
But what about his gaaaaaafes?
Chris Janning's from Ohio so maybe she's just not used to the way people from Kentucky talk and do charity work.
Typical libertarian, lacking in empathy, though, right?
Doctors do this all the time -- pro bono surgery for the poor in 3rd world countries. Do the pundits go to doctors who don't do this?
Seriously. How do they think that American got Ebola last month? What do they think Doctor's without borders is? I went down with a group that did free dental work in Honduras a number of years ago (I was not doing the dental work, just to clarify lest anyone think this is meant as a brag). This stuff is incredibly common and tons of doctors do it. I mean, good for Rand for being one of them, but yeah. It is very common.
Sorry, I realize the ebola guy wasn't doing surgery.
Texas has very strict and expensive medical licensing requirements. One of them is to practice medicine at least 20 hours a week. This probably means that Paul is not licensed in Texas and could not even do free care there. This is something that Texas should change. I know about it because it affects my wife.
Rand Paul, along with Steven Breyer, is a member of that very small group of the government elite who have a clue about STEM and economics.
The rest are a bunch of humanities majors--history, English, and so on. It will be nice to finally have the president since Hoover and Carter who has mastered Chemistry, Physics, Biology and Math. Rand scored at the 90th percentile on the MCAT. Take a look at some sample questions!
The last thing we need is another lawyer like the Clintons or Obama who successfully resisted every impulse to take a hard STEM class in college.
Revenant said...
Um, Drago... did you read that article you linked? It supports the statement I made.
Yes, and it does not support your statement.
"military related" donations from multiple sub-groups are lumped together.
So, for instance, what % of the donations cited actually were given by "civilians" to Ron Paul?
In any event, you should read the comments by the lefties at the WaPo.
It's garages all the way down.
"For Paul, too, long hours in the O.R. were interspersed with interviews, multiple conversations with us over three days where nothing was off limits"
"Nothing was off limits." That must be a refreshing change.
Guatemala is a nice country but poor and not the safest place in the world. I've been to Guatemala City a couple of times and there are lots of warnings about precautions to take.
One of them is to never travel outside the city after dark. Another is to never get in a cab unless the hotel has arranged it.
My client told me it is worse, the hotels don't like to scare the tourists.
My son went on a medical mission with Patch Adams' group about 10-12 years ago. A group of doctors and medical students in a van, Guatemalan driver going out to the country to run a clinic.
They got kidnapped.
Apparently it is a normal procedure there. A village can't get the govt to fix its potholes or the like so you take the next bunch of tourists hostage.
They were very well treated, entertained and fed. My son said he would have enjoyed it if he had known they could leave.
After about 10 hours the govt sent someone to take care of the problem and they were all released.
Not a big deal, apparently. Unless you happen to be a hostage when the govt decides to make an example and goes in shooting rather than giving in.
Paul could have played it safe staying in the US. Instead he went to a dangerous area where he is needed.
Good on him.
Perhaps Obie will go there to run some golf clinics when he leaves office.
Eye clinic, golf clinic. All the same thing, right?
BTW: Flying in and out of Guatemala City is an experience in itself. The approach is below the level of some buildings and a monument. The low slow approach is because the not overlong runway ends in a 100 foot cliff.
There were wrinkles in my seat from sheer pucker power.
John Henry
John: "BTW: Flying in and out of Guatemala City is an experience in itself. The approach is below the level of some buildings and a monument."
Sounds like Lindbergh Field in San Diego.
One of the cooler approaches in the US.
But it is certainly true that the Republican establishment is still obsessed with war.
I don't know if this is true or not. If they believe as I do that it's far better to deal with evil early in the process rather than wait until it is a formidable foe, then it's not obsession. It's common sense.
I find the Republican establishment odious for a number of reasons, and I have no need to defend them, but I look forward to the day when I can go to the airport and leave my shoes, coats and belts on and women don't have to pass through those scanning devices with their hands over their heads while some TSA type in a dark room is pleasuring himself.
- Krumhorn
"He reminds me of doctors I had who are very matter-of-fact, and I think that's where he gets it, that you know he sees a problem and he fixes it and he moves on."
This sounds like it should be Rand Paul's campaign slogan.
I can't imagine the tone-deafness that sees that as a slam.
I don't know if this is true or not. If they believe as I do that it's far better to deal with evil early in the process rather than wait until it is a formidable foe, then it's not obsession. It's common sense.
The belief that "evil" can be eradicated from the Earth via the might of the US military is neither common sense nor obsession. It is insanity.
What matters isn't "will this evil grow if we don't destroy it now". It is "is the potential threat of this evil to America so great that it is worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives in an attempt to eliminate it". With a follow-up question of "how likely are we to succeed".
Where ISIS is concerned, the answers are "no" and "very unlikely".
Poor, poor Rand Paul. He invites a news crew to watch him being a kind, charitable, decent man and they have the temerity to suggest it's a photo op. What a cynical world we live in. Why can't reporters just report what the candidates want them to report? Say, maybe they could just read press releases written by Rand Paul For President 2016!
A couple of commenters seem confused as to what "photo op" means. It does not mean "any opportunity for a politician to get good press".
A politician posing with doctors = photo op.
A politician actually performing surgery on poor people = good publicity, not a photo op.
Prof. Althouse...
Sorry, but the argument you have cobbled together does not demonstrate "impugnment" of Mr. Paul's motives. If you can pull a rabbit out of your O.E.D., I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.
Realize that your assertion requires you to explain how the suggestion that a top-level politician is burnishing his image with voters might be indicative of some character deficiency on his part. It would seem more reasonable to assume he is just doing his job.
Beyond that, I would characterize your argument as thin and tendentious...so much so that closer inspection is not warranted. This is not unusual for the arguments of pedants who misuse language.
I'll take this as good news. If they're starting in on Rand Paul, they must think he has a shot.
Meantime, let viewers compare and contrast him spending his vacation using his skills to help the less fortunate, while Hillary is jetting off to the Hamptons.
Reminds me of senator Obama who travelled to Africa to work as a pro-bono lawyer during his vacation.
O-ops, never happened.
The belief that "evil" can be eradicated from the Earth via the might of the US military is neither common sense nor obsession. It is insanity.
What matters isn't "will this evil grow if we don't destroy it now". It is "is the potential threat of this evil to America so great that it is worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives in an attempt to eliminate it". With a follow-up question of "how likely are we to succeed".
Where ISIS is concerned, the answers are "no" and "very unlikely".
Every time in American history that we have adopted your view, we have paid an horrific price. While evil cannot and will not ever be 'eradicated from the Earth', it can be declawed and isolated. And the time to do that is early and before it becomes an existential threat.
I do not want to leave to my kids a world in which they have to relive my parents' experience in WWII...or their parents' experience in WWI.
That's not the same as going to war with all bad people. If the Tutsi and the Hutu want to savage each other or the Serbs and the Bosnians want to have an ethnic cleansing party, it's heartbreaking but local. If Chavez wants to impoverish his people, I don't see the point in stopping him.
But this business in the Middle East must be vigorously stopped in its tracks. We cannot hide from it. There is endless hell facing us and our children if we do not.
-Krumhorn
That's right, Hyphenated American:
One very important point to recognize about all STEM and econ is that they are valid everywhere, even on the Moon and Mars.
On the other hand, a lawyer often can't practice law in the next state, especially if it's Louisiana, since the laws vary and he is required to be licensed. Forget about practicing law in Guatemala!
Unfortunately, the practice of medicine is hobbled by licensing restrictions as well, though cross-licensing is rampant, and of course the science and art are identical. Licensing of medical practice should be eliminated, as Milton Friedman often maintained.
As a physicist, I've participated in the design of fighters, bombers, ICBMs, rockets and nuclear weapons and have never been required to be licensed. I suppose that if I were required to have a license, I'd just find a country that would hire me without those restrictions.
"Say, maybe they could just read press releases written by Rand Paul For President 2016!"
Exactly! Remember all the skepticism with which they greeted Obama's campaign?
Thank goodness this isn't any kind of one-sided thing.
tim in vermont said...
Exactly! Remember all the skepticism with which they greeted Obama's campaign?
Thank goodness this isn't any kind of one-sided thing.
Rand Paul invited NBC along in order to look good to potential voters. They pointed it out. If you want to argue that all politicians should be treated that way, I'm with you. But to suggest that NBC reacted cynically or harshly in this situation is kooky. It would've have been laughable if they hadn't pointed it out. If they don't treat the other side that way, argue that. Don't argue in favor of essentially giving Paul a paid advertisement on network TV.
The reaction ought to be, "Congratulations, NBC! Great work! Now do your job with all the politicians you cover!"
This sort of reminds me of when "Brill's Content" came out. Don't feel bad if you don't remember it, I only remember it because of this one incident. Their publicity before their first issue was that it was going to be different, that Steven Brill was going to take conservative viewpoints seriously and be as unbiased as they could manage.
The first issue was a hit piece on one of Clinton's enemies that could have been written by Dan Rather. I never looked at it again.
'The reaction ought to be, "Congratulations, NBC! Great work! Now do your job with all the politicians you cover!"'
Ha ha ha! Nobody ever said that before! Could you say that again?!? That is such a refreshing thing, to hear an idea you never heard before on the internet expressed by an obvious sage such as yourself!
Now back in the real world. Those of us on the right have said that probably more than a million times on the web. To little avail. Insty says it all the time, if you want to ensure the press does its job, vote Republican.
I know it is hard to see outside your bubble, but there are ideas that you may not have encountered that actually have some validity.
"if you want to ensure the press does its job, vote Republican."
Ain't that the truth?
Every time in American history that we have adopted your view, we have paid an horrific price.
If by "every time" you mean "never", then yes.
The two major attacks on the United States in our history -- Pearl Harbor and 9/11 -- weren't brought about because of meek diplomacy or "isolationism". We were anything but "isolationist" towards Al Qaeda and Japan.
Ooh, look at him. He can do eye surgery. Big deal. Can he get $200,000 plus "expenses" to spout platitudes?
Rand Paul invited NBC along in order to look good to potential voters. They pointed it out. If you want to argue that all politicians should be treated that way, I'm with you. But to suggest that NBC reacted cynically or harshly in this situation is kooky.
Hey, you spelled accurately wrong.
It would've have been laughable if they hadn't pointed it out. If they don't treat the other side that way, argue that. Don't argue in favor of essentially giving Paul a paid advertisement on network TV.
When a Democrat does something similar, I won't attack them for doing it.
NBC just bitched that Paul saved the sight of poor kids. Meanwhile, their network televises some of the shittiest shows on television.
No one expects the media to get all goo-eyed over Paul performing pro-bono surgery. But it's pretty clear from the level of cynicism displayed by these DNC hacks posing as journalists that they are determined to lambaste this as a cheap stunt, when it is undeniable that (a) Paul has certain noble skills that most Congressmorons don't have and (b) he's using his vacation time to use those skills to help the less fortunate, in contrast to our golf pro president or Hamptons-hanging Hillary.
All politicians want attention when they do something charitable, but I really don't remember the press harping so much on the "photo op" factor. Clearly the Left is starting to see Paul as a credible threat--he may not be able to get the GOP nomination and beat their sacred cow Hillary, but he is enough of a wild card politically that they have to get him out of the way.
If Rand Paul has a good PR operation, he'll overcome these clods as Bush often did. The American people don't have a lot of respect for these traditional media outlets and this is one reason.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा