One Speech Doth Not A POTUS Make

rand paul


Rand Paul: ‘Seriously’ weighing 2016 bid

Before Thursday, Rand Paul — tea party firebrand — hadn’t vaulted into the top tier of Republican power players.

But all that seemed to change this week. The Kentucky Republican senator showed serious clout by holding a 13-hour filibuster to delay the confirmation of President Barack Obama’s candidate to head the CIA, John Brennan.

Paul himself seemed to appreciate that this was an important moment for himself, confidently acknowledging to POLITICO in an interview that he was “seriously” considering running for president in 2016.

“I think our party needs something new, fresh and different,” he said. “What we’ve been running — nothing against the candidates necessarily — but we have a good, solid niche in all the solidly red states throughout the middle of the country.”


Not to take anything away from the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, but it takes more than a speech to make a president.

2004 was not a good year for Democrats but there was one bright spot. At the national convention this skinny guy with big ears electrified the crowd with a keynote speech. Four years later he successfully parlayed the attention he received from that speech into winning the Oval Office. How’s that working out?

Randal Howard Paul is a medical doctor who is board-certified in Ophthalmology. His electoral history consists of a single election. In 2010 he was a Tea Party candidate running as a Republican but his ideology leans heavily to Libertarian. I’m not going to recite all his policy positions because if you are thinking of voting for him you should find them out for yourself.

My issue is not with his ideology. (I’ll save that for another time.) My issue has to do with his lack of experience. That is a correctable condition but I’m not sure if it can be fixed in the next 3-4 years. That’s okay, Rand Paul is only 50 right now. He has time to build up his resume.

No offense to Dr. Paul, but I don’t want to see another wet-behind-the-ears rookie get elected to the most important job in the world.

YMMV


About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

128 Responses to One Speech Doth Not A POTUS Make

  1. myiq2xu says:

    It was a helluva speech though.

  2. Yes, one hell of a speech. But you are correct- do we really want another inexperienced fellow? Then again, do we want a partisan hack who has played the game and has the backing of the ptb?
    We are so screwed. Experienced people like Hillary and Govs Palin and Romney scare the bejeesus out of the power brokers.
    As an aside, I never found that keynote speech of teh once to be all that. (Truthfully, I have never found any of his speeches inspiring or stirring or whatever. I find him to be a terrible speaker. But I am old and can remember great speakers like MLK, JFK and Bobby. And have heard both Hillary and Bill in person. No teleprompters! And an authentic connection with their audiences.)

    Where are the leaders? Crushed. Spit on and trampled on the orders of the PTB.

    • votermom says:

      I agree – personally I prefer someone with the governing experience of a governor.

      But I’ve noticed that governors – Clinton, W, Palin, Mitt – have been consistently savaged by the media, while Senators – Kerry, McCain, Paul Ryan – get off fairly lightly. It’s probably part of the media’s Versailles courtier mentality – don’t burn any bridges with DC insiders, attack any outsiders.

      I also agree that Sen Rand Paul so far outshines Sen Barack Obama. It’s not so much the speech, impressive as 13 hours of extemporaneous speaking is, as is his willingness to challenge the admin and draw fire, even from his own party, in the process. In this he also outshines the other 2016 shiny new hope, Marco Rubio.

  3. myiq2xu says:

    Vali Nasr:

    Still, Holbrooke knew that Afghanistan was not going to be easy. There were too many players and too many unknowns, and Obama had not given him enough authority (and would give him almost no support) to get the job done. After he took office, the president never met with Holbrooke outside large meetings and never gave him time and heard him out. The president’s White House advisors were dead set against Holbrooke. Some, like Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, were holdovers from George W. Bush’s administration and thought they knew Afghanistan better and did not want to relinquish control to Holbrooke. Others (those closest to the president) wanted to settle scores for Holbrooke’s tenacious campaign support of Clinton (who was herself eyed with suspicion by the Obama insiders); still others begrudged Holbrooke’s storied past and wanted to end his run of success then and there. At times it appeared the White House was more interested in bringing Holbrooke down than getting the policy right.

    • Yup. Everything with that crowd is about “bringing down” “enemies.” And anyone who did not bow down and grovel from the very beginning is an enemy.

    • myiq2xu says:

      But my time in the Obama administration turned out to be a deeply disillusioning experience. The truth is that his administration made it extremely difficult for its own foreign-policy experts to be heard. Both Clinton and Holbrooke, two incredibly dedicated and talented people, had to fight to have their voices count on major foreign-policy initiatives.

      Holbrooke never succeeded. Clinton did — but it was often a battle. It usually happened only when it finally became clear to a White House that jealously guarded all foreign policymaking — and then relied heavily on the military and intelligence agencies to guide its decisions — that these agencies’ solutions were no substitute for the type of patient, credible diplomacy that garners the respect and support of allies. Time and again, when things seemed to be falling apart, the administration finally turned to Clinton because it knew she was the only person who could save the situation.

      • leslie says:

        These people are like a high school clique who were at the bottom of the social heap when they started and by virtue of luck, find themselves on the student council. They are fully aware that their popularity could be over if someone simply starts rumors or reminds fellow classmates that *these* guys were *those* guys not too long ago.

    • myiq2xu says:

      On one occasion in the summer of 2010, after the White House had systematically blocked every attempt to include reconciliation talks with the Taliban and serious regional diplomacy (which had to include Iran) on the agenda for national security meetings with the president, Clinton took a paper SRAP had prepared to Obama. She gave him the paper, explained what it laid out, and said, “Mr. President, I would like to get your approval on this.” Obama nodded his approval, but that was all. So his White House staff, caught off guard by Clinton, found ample room to kill the paper in Washington’s favorite way: condemning it to slow death in committee meetings. A few weeks after Clinton gave Obama the paper, I had to go to an “interagency” meeting organized by the White House that to my surprise was going to review the paper the president had already given the nod to. I remember telling Clinton about the meeting. She shook her head and exclaimed, “Unbelievable!”

      Clinton got along well with Obama, but on Afghanistan and Pakistan the State Department had to fight tooth and nail just to have a hearing at the White House. Had it not been for Clinton’s tenacity and the respect she commanded, the State Department would have had no influence on policymaking whatsoever. The White House had taken over most policy areas: Iran and the Arab-Israeli issue were for all practical purposes managed from the White House. AfPak was a rare exception, and that was owed to Holbrooke’s quick thinking in getting SRAP going in February 2009, before the White House was able to organize itself.

      The White House resented losing AfPak to the State Department. It fought hard to close down SRAP and take it back. That was one big reason the White House was on a warpath after Holbrooke. But Holbrooke would not back down, especially not when he thought those who wanted to wrest control of Afghanistan were out of their depth and not up to the job.

      • wmcb says:

        Disgusting. He’s a paranoid surrounded by sycophants and intelligence hacks. This is why Egypt, Libya, P/I and just about everything in the middle east has gone to shit in the last 4 years.

        • angienc (D) says:

          Yes and Bill & Hillary did everything they could including straight up lying to get him “re-elected” last November when they could have just laid low.

          I’m still pissed.

  4. elliesmom says:

    What I hope will come out of Rand Paul’s speech is the people who found themselves unexpectedly in bed together because of it will now go out on a date.

  5. Somebody says:

    Well Paul has an automatic fan base from his father’s followers. His filibuster drew enough attention for a broader number of people to give him a look.

    I agree with you, I don’t want another wet behind the ears POTUS. I also agree with VM I prefer someone with some governing experience.

    It will all come down to which American Idol the low information voters think is the coolest……….or which American Idol candidate the media props up, but I’m being redundant.

  6. DeniseVB says:

    I think we need serious election reform to strengthen qualifications for Prezzy. Maybe every 4 years have all the Governors select one of their own, much like the Cardinals pick their Pope 😀

    VM is right, Governors are brutalized in the media and by their own parties. Romney and Palin were the most qualified candidates we’ve had since maybe Reagan and Bill Clinton by virture of their governorships and other successful accomplishments in their careers.

    Then again, Jimmy Carter and GWB were governors too.

    I like Rand’s spirit. At this moment, he’s more qualified than Obama, having run a medical practice, then on to the Senate, and can talk for 13 hours, passionately, without a teleprompter. Yes, my bar is low, but I want to be inspired, not threatened.

  7. catarina says:

    If it comes down, goddess forbid, to Paul vs Jeb Bush for R nominee, I’m pulling for Paul.

    More experience would be better, but at least his worldview was shaped by his dad and not Frank Marshall Davis…

    • 49erDweet (D) says:

      It’s very important to know who your friends AREN’T.

    • Somebody says:

      Rubio isn’t exactly the guy his image projects. Although, I believe he will most likely be the GOP nominee.

      Everybody is so worried about Jeb…..another Bush oh my! Who do you think punched dear Marco’s ticket?

      • wmcb says:

        I don’t think he’s the worst of the bunch (Santorum would be). And I think his love for this country’s exceptionalism is genuine. But he is all too willing to make cozy with the status quo. He wants to massage and tweak it, not remake it. Doesn’t make him a bad person, just not my first pick.

      • foxyladi14 says:

        he is not NBC can;t be Potus. 🙂

  8. votermom says:

    lolololol

  9. Falstaff says:

    This guy’s “board certification” in ophthalmology is completely phony. I rate him as only marginally more trustworthy than Obama.

    • myiq2xu says:

      Don’t be a tease. Show us what you got.

      • lililam says:

        He supposedly found his own “board” cuz he couldn’t get into the big bouzouki board. He strikes me as arrogant and simple minded- not a good combo. I am intrigued by Ted Cruz, however.

        • lililam says:

          That was boys, this iPhone has its own presumptions

        • angienc (D) says:

          You’ve got that wrong — he was board certified by the state board in KY (what you call the big bouzouki board) but it changed some things with how dues were managed that many didn’t like (I’m not sure of the fine points of the rationale underlying the disagreement) and Rand & others decided to form an alternate board as a protest. Accordingly, Rand stopped paying his dues to the “big bouzouki” board, so his certification lapsed.
          His medical degree is valid and up until about 6 years ago he was “big bouzouki” board certified.
          You are obviously unaware that being board certified mostly has to do with a doctor’s ability to obtain malpractice insurance. I mean, states/other authorities will tell you to make sure to go to a board certified doctor, because that allegedly guarantees that they meet the minimal qualifications in their specialty but that board certification doesn’t really reflect that much on their actual ability as a doctor. A doctor — such as Rand — who was board certified for a few decades prior to a protest/political fight with the KY state board most certainly did not loose his ability to cross the minimal threshold of board requirements.
          Nonetheless, the board certification dispute in his background *is* the attack that the KosKidz have been leveling at Rand — TPTB know that like SEC docs, board certification is something most voters don’t understand so the incident can be twisted and presented as you do here (i.e., that Rand “couldn’t get into” the big bouzouki board”) in the same way they lied about Romney “possibly having committed a felony” with the filing of SEC docs for a company he still OWNED even though he no longer managed it on a day to day basis. Others ignorance is what the Obots prey on.

        • angienc (D) says:

          Plus — unlike an attorney’s license to practice law in a state (something that both Obama & Michelle *lost* in IL, meaning they are *not* able to practice law), a doctor doesn’t actually *have* to be board certified to practice medicine as long as they don’t lie to their patients about their board certification.

        • wmcb says:

          My understanding is that some opthalmologists got pissed that the board was becoming as much about raising money, lobbying, cutting Big Insurance deals, and politics as it was about medical standards. It’s not the first time docs have tried to make an alternate board that’s solely about, um, MEDICINE.

        • angienc (D) says:

          @WMCB — that sounds about right re: what I read with the board certification thing. And you know, I’m sure an opponent could raise doubts about Rand’s decision to protest the KY state opthamology board (his being paranoid, whatever) but they can’t just do that — they HAVE TO LIE. I’m not saying lililam did it intentionally — I’m sure that is the way she read about it — but a license to practice medicine (which Rand *does* have) is NOT the same thing as being board certified in opthamology, which is just about a doctor’s specialty, not his ability to legally practice medicine.
          Yet, the Obots are lying and presenting the dispute not only as Rand being unable to practice medicine but that he was NEVER certified with the “real” KY state board, both of which are flat out lies to make him seem like he wasn’t “smart” enough to get the certification and to imply that he is unable to practice medicine. They lie because they know — just like with what they did to Romney — that the MSM will provide cover for their lies and that most people are ignorant on these things, so can be fooled.
          They lied about both Clintons, they lied about Palin and they lied about Romney because they *had* to in order to “beat” them. For me, Rand being in that “we must lie to destroy” company, tells me a lot about what I need to know about Rand. YMMV.

        • foxyladi14 says:

          same problem as Rubio not NBC. 🙂

    • votermom says:

      reading that & his linked blog post about blue civil war and the thought of major political re-alignments becomes very exciting

  10. yttik says:

    I don’t think Obama’s problem is his lack of experience, I think it’s his ideology and his background. He’s not in office bungling around because he doesn’t know what he’s doing, he is doing exactly what he set out to do.

    Ron Paul has a lot of experience and a lot of appeal to many, but his ideology is so rigid, I’d rather not see him as president. Is his son any different? I don’t know. We need somebody with a servant’s heart. A President needs to serve the people and the country, not a rigid ideology.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Sigh, Romney had a servant’s heart. I agree Obama bumbles, the country crumbles, he’s just not that into us. 😦

      • angienc (D) says:

        Yep, we had that election. The MSM and 52% of the electorate (allegedly) decided they preferred the opportunistic huckster who told them what they wanted to hear.

    • votermom says:

      Not specifically about Rand Paul, but I wouldn’t mind a libertarian leaning POTUS in 2016 because the pendulum needs correcting. We’ve gone so far into the authoritarian model.

      • wmcb says:

        That’s the only thing that consoles me about a possible Paul run and win. Yes, he’s way too libertarian and tiny tiny govt for me.

        But given the creaky resistance of the govt machine, Congress, etc, he could go in there guns blazing to strip it all down to basics, and maybe manage to peel off a few layers of bureaucracy at best.

        It’s sort of like pouring a little boiling water into a icy tub. Too much is a bad idea, but in this case I’m not really afraid it’s going to cook me, because the rest of the tub is SO damn cold.

  11. votermom says:

  12. HELENK says:

    maybe six years as Senate Majority Leader would be good experience for Rand Paul then a presidential run. We need someone in the Legislative branch who knows how to do the job and just what the job is. We need some new blood in the legislative branch as too many have stayed too long at the fair and forgot why they are there

    • DeniseVB says:

      Just Rand being Rand is what we need in the Senate right now. Imagine, a Senator doing what he was elected too. I hope he focuses on 2014 to take back the Senate with a few more Ted Cruzes 😀

      Though I’m sure the OFA Army will take him down soon enough, it’s how he fights back that will leave the impression.

      • wmcb says:

        I’m actually keeping more of an eye on Cruz than on Rand or Rubio. He has some libertarian chops, but isn’t as fringey as Paul. He is not an insider like Rubio, and due to his TX solicitor experience has more practice at fighting organized resistance and winning. He’s aggressive as hell, but at the same time not easily wound up and emotional. He has argued before the Supreme court 9 times. And WON many.

        And BTW, do you realize that if any of those three run, they will have had two more years experience in the senate than Obama had?

        • DeniseVB says:

          I finally read the wiki bio of Rand and was impressed with his bonifides and how he spent his non-political years (like set up a clinic for the poor to have sight saving surgeries). With his citizen activism, he seemed to be an overachiever. Compared that to Obama’s pre-political career of nothing much, it blew my mind. I have a feeling Obama has set the bar so low, everybody’s gonna look great !

        • votermom says:

          Afaik Cruz is not presidentabile 😉 because he was born in Canada.
          But I like him very much; right now he;s my favorite of the TP senators.

      • foxyladi14 says:

        And he gave back a bunch of money he didn’t need too. Now if they all did that??? 🙄

    • HELENK says:

      I remember Trent Lott saying being senate majority leader is like herding cats. That experience would be so beneficial to Rand Paul. He would learn the ins and outs of every committee. He would learn who to use as a go to guy. He would oversee all.
      It is ok to say well backtrack did not have any experience, but do we really want that again? the country has some large problems that are going to be around for awhile. I do want someone who has taken the time to learn. He would still me young enough to have an open mind and not believe he is owed

  13. driguana says:

    With all due respect to the above comments, look how easily someone with no experience in any important category other than “campaigning” easily won both recent presidential elections. I personally doubt it will now be any different in coming elections in the foreseeable future. It will be all about campaigning, charisma and schmoozing…oh and what’s-in-it-for-me promises, too. It will have little to do with credentials. If that, sadly, is the real case, who’s out there?

    It’s very interesting that I am helping my French in-laws prepare for their citizenship exams and I would venture to say that they know more about American government, history and politics than most Americans….sad but true. I have to admit that by doing this, I’m learning quite a bit myself.

    In regard to HELENK’s above comment, we need a transfusion!!!!

    • DeniseVB says:

      Some parts of the filibuster I watched, Rand certainly brought up many of Obama’s campaign promises that he’s done a 180 on. Obama promised a new Washington with lots of love and kumbayah. He’s done the total opposite per Rand.

      Most of us here didn’t support Obama in 2008 because we gathered enough information that he was a nothing burger media creation (h/t tingles matthews). It was a nasty (Hillary, Sarah), misogynist (Sarah) and vile(progs) campaign. Obama’s first term was more of the same and a continued campaign against his “enemies”. The shock and awe was that he was re-elected, seemingly, to finish them off.

      • angienc (D) says:

        Yes but most of here who didn’t support Obama in 2008 & knew he was lying with his ridiculous promises would have been *happy* to be proven wrong about him for the sake of the country, unlike those who did support Obama or those who assimilated into the borg in time for the 2012 election after Obama proved he was exactly what we knew him to be because they can’t *stand* they were wrong & would rather double down on stupid than admit it.

        • DeniseVB says:

          I’ll admit, was hoping to be proven wrong too, but in my gut, I knew this “blank slate” candidate didn’t have the creds to pull it off. Sadly, I was right.

        • swanspirit says:

          I have often pondered that , the difference between those of us who saw right through him and the obots and I know we have discussed it , but it still makes me shake my head sometimes , because so many ( too few still) saw him for what he was immediately .
          One conclusion I have come to , is that we saw him as a person , not as a person of color .In other words , we were and are exactly the opposite of racist .Sometimes I think the obots act as if they had never known , been friends with , worked with , anyone of color , and that Obama was the first they had ever seen .
          And as bad as I thought and felt he might be , he has been and is still i worse than that .

        • wmcb says:

          Swan, I think the color thing, the deep desire to invest in him the power to expiate racial guilt, was a huge part of it.

          You’ re correct on who the white-guilters are as well. The only people I know racked with racial guilt are white liberals who know very few black people, and the few they do know are upper class or in academia.

          Among us white blue collar folks, there are 2 basic types: the few who are actual racists (pretty easy to spot), and the rest of us who live our lives happily every day with people of color. We have friends, enemies, bosses, employees, relatives, good neighbors we adore, jackwad neighbors we despise, people we like and people we hate who are black or brown.

          Blue collar whites don’t feel any cognitive dissonance at disliking a black man for good reason, because we do it every day. Same as we like or appreciate a black man every day.

          The fact that these guilty liberals wet their pants at the prospect of disliking a black man for any reason whatsoever shows that they have very little experience with the vast good/bad likeable/asshole gamut of humanity into which a black person can fall, same as anyone. Black people are symbols to them, not persons.

          We out here in the real everyday working world are pretty fucking integrated, and pretty damn relaxed about it.

        • angienc (D) says:

          Yep, Swannie & WMCB — I said at the time, growing up in NOLA I wasn’t that impressed with Obama — I had lived with/being taught by/etc black attorneys, judges, teachers, doctors, etc every day of my life, so Obama wasn’t my first exposure to an educated black man as he obviously was for his most vocal supporters.

        • HELENK says:

          In 2008 I worked for a black general manager. We were both democrats. i was a Hillary supporter and he told me he was for backtrack. At that time i asked if a new hire conductor could do his general manager’s job. He was taken aback and said no. I replied that the same measurement should apply to backtrack

        • votermom says:

          I was very interested & open to Obama initially because he’s multi-racial and raised in a 3rd world country – both things I can relate to. Even the part of losing one parent early. Ironically, I think that made it easier to me to see through him too.

  14. HELENK says:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G

    I am afraid that Rand Paul is going to run into the same ambushes that Sarah Palin did. It has been over 5 years since she ran for office and she is still being attacked by Republicans. Notice that both Palin and Paul woke up the American people and gave them hope and the expectation that they deserve more then they are getting from the old guard.

  15. wmcb says:

    I’m not on any bandwagons, though it was a fabulous 13 hour full-throated defense of civil liberties the likes of which I haven’t heard in ages. I am still internally applauding, cheering, and grateful about that.

    But when it comes to the GOP, if it’s a choice between the cushy connected old guard choices like Jeb, or the inexperienced libertarian firebrand, I’d tell them go with the firebrand. The ONLY hope for the GOP to re-emerge as any kind of balancing counter to the aggressive Statists now running the Dem side is for them to re-invent themselves and realign. Otherwise they are dead in the water. The old guard fears that these new populist, libertarian-minded young guns will kill off the party as they knew it. They may be right. What they fail to see is that without some dramatic shaking-up, that party is dying a slow and painful death anyway. It’s not salvageable. Adapt or die.

    Interesting times.

    • wmcb says:

      In short, while I agree 100% with myiq about experience, politics is never a matter of who’s your ideal theoretical candidate. It’s about who is available, who has the exposure, who has enough of a base to get them off the ground.

      Right now in the GOP, it’s either the flashier less experienced populists, or the deal-cutting bidness as usual guys. That may change, but that’s how it looks right now.

      • myiq2xu says:

        Right now I can support my ideal candidate. When it gets closer to the election I’ll have to choose from who’s available.

        These days I rank character and competence above ideology.

    • angienc (D) says:

      Palin/Paul 2016!

      Has a catchy alliteration even. 🙂

      • HELENK says:

        sounds good to me. wouldn’t that shake up the PTB

        the msm would be in a frenzy. but a funny think happened the other day, those who twitter rule the world and the msm is so yesterday. even now the twitter is still going on unhappy with McCain and Graham and their attacks on Rand Paul . this could make a big difference in their reelection

    • Constance says:

      Republicans are committing suicide. There aren’t that many young people going to the Republicans because young people think Republicans are against birth control and against abortion and that is the only thing they can tell you about Republicans which many young folks consider enough. Republicans won’t do anything to change that impression and they have some wacko stuff in their platform. All of the discussion about “government paying for your birth control” comes off as sexist because they aren’t worried if they are paying for men’s ED drugs AND women are being forced to buy health care policies that will cost them hundreds of dollars a month, why should women be expected to willingly pay for something that excludes the only health care they need? Why absolutely no talk of excluding vasectomies and ED drugs from health care policies so “the government” won’t have to pay for the behavior of immoral men? The Repubs aren’t backing away from this nonsense and it will kill them.

  16. DeniseVB says:

    Oh my, looks like the State Dept. stepped in it again, WTG JK !

    From Treacher:

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/08/michelle-obama-and-john-kerry-wont-be-honoring-that-anti-semitic-911-fan-after-all/

    Of course her hateful tweets should be a disqualifer, but I still don’t know what she was being honored “for”. I think it was Ace who chronicled her tweet excuse she was “hacked”, then the State Dept backed her excuse …. to postponing her “award” ….. now cancelled and scrubbed her bio. Makes me wonder what else the SOS is missing?

  17. angienc (D) says:

    I know what you’re saying and I’ve got concerns with Rand (especially on foreign policy) but I think it is grossly unfair to say someone who was a “community organizer” before being elected to office and someone who was a medical doctor as being equally “inexperienced” just based on their time in elected office.

    • myiq2xu says:

      Obama’s biggest failing is not experience, it’s character.

      • Somebody says:

        Gosh Obama’s failings are a LONG list. I think he lacks any whiff of leadership and yes definitely character. Seriously though Obama couldn’t lead a boy scout troop.

    • It’s also worth pointing out that in 2016 Paul will have an entire term under his belt, which is more than you can say for Obama.

      • DeniseVB says:

        Obama started his campaign shortly after he was sworn in, I think it was 4 months ? He went from the Illinois State House to President in 2 years. Nobody questioned his experience?

  18. HELENK says:

    http://weaselzippers.us/2013/03/08/dem-sen-dianne-feinstein-echoes-mcrino-in-slamming-stupid-rand-paul-drone-argument/

    Rand Paul must of scared the hell out of them. now it is dianne feinstein attacking on the tweety tingles show

  19. wmcb says:

    Jumping the Sequester. Read the whole thing, then tell me that Washington is serious about being fiscally responsible. All the things listed in this article are just the tip of the iceberg.

    The problem is NOT that DC hasn’t enough money. There are countries who spend less per capita than we do, and still manage to provide adequate govt services. And that’s not even counting the large tax burden of, and the many many programs run by the states.

    The next time someone bleats “For the Chiiildreeen” at me with their hand on my wallet, I’m going to tell them to leave me the hell alone and go ask Washington why the fuck they are so badly mismanaging the Children’s money. Talk to them, not me. Ask THEM why they keep spending the grocery money I gave them on crack whores and horse tips and new designer shoes. Why does Washington hate the poor?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323628804578346811646984052?mg=reno64-wsj.html?dsk=y&dsk=y

    • myiq2xu says:

      We’ve learned that the White House employs three calligraphers, who cumulatively earn $277,000 a year. The Environmental Protection Agency gave $141,000 to fund a Chinese study on swine manure. Part of a $325,000 National Science Foundation outlay went to building a robotic squirrel.

      The government gave a $3,700 grant to build a miniature street in West Virginia—out of Legos. It shelled out $500,000 to support specialty shampoo products for cats and dogs. A San Diego outfit got $10,000 for trolley dancing. The feds last year held 894 conferences that each cost more than $100,000—$340 million altogether. But Mr. Obama is too broke to let American kids look around the White House.

  20. myiq2xu says:

    Althouse:

    “Seems like a lot of twentysomething women, including me, have felt bad? strange? uncomfortable? guilty? childish? about wanting a boyfriend…”
    “… but we hardly talk about it.”

    • wmcb says:

      We live in a fucked up world. Women are supposed to never feel qualms or reservations about sex, to the point that we celebrate “sluthood”. But the desire for an actual stable relationship, for love? For a man to cherish them? Nah, that’s sneered at as regressive.

      And to whose advantage is that? Not women in my book, but I’d say the Prog Boyz are just dandy with that state of affairs. Funny how that worked out.

      • myiq2xu says:

        “Love” is an invention of the Patriarchy designed to enslave women.

        I’m pretty sure I read that at Reclusive Leftist.

        • myiq2xu says:

          The political meaning of intercourse for women is the fundamental question of feminism and freedom: can an occupied people–physically occupied inside, internally invaded–be free; can those with a metaphysically compromised privacy have self-determination; can those without a biologically based physical integrity have self-respect?

          — Andrea Dworkin

        • wmcb says:

          *snort* Puhleeeeze. A lot of what passes for feminist thought these days is really just some emotionally fucked up and conflicted women trying hard to project their dysfunctions onto the rest of us, so they can avoid dealing with their fucked-up-ed-ness.

          “If we are all just oppressed, then I don’t have to face my neuroses. Handily, any sane woman who points out the VERY obvious fact that I’m a neurotic basketcase can be written off as needing her consciousness raised.”

        • angienc (D) says:

          Shorter Dworkin: all sex is rape.

  21. myiq2xu says:

  22. HELENK says:

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/rands-stand-shakes-up-the-2016-landscape/

    Even if Rand Paul does not run in 2016 he has raised the bar for those who do. That is a good thing. Where do they stand on American rights, what are they willing to do to undo the damage done by the last bunch?

  23. SHV says:

    ” it changed some things with how dues were managed that many didn’t like (I’m not sure of the fine points of the rationale underlying the disagreement) and Rand & others decided to form an alternate board as a protest”
    **********
    The major issue was recertification. Beginning in the ’70s, medical boards began to change to time limited certification, (10 years) then requiring a new exam. During the change over, there was a “grandfather” provision for those who were certified prior to a specified date, ie they didn’t have to recertify. Ophthalmology was one of the last boards to change the rules and Rand and about 100 other young Ophthalmologists objected to the grandfather provision, feeling that the rules should apply to all. The situation apparently got quite ugly. Rand et set up there own board.

    • angienc (D) says:

      Thanks for the clarification SHV.

      See — nothing to do with the actual ability to practice medicine (which is a medical license — which Rand has — and which is different from a board certification in a specialty, such as opthamology or plastic surgery, etc).
      As I wrote above — the Obots are lying like rugs about this to present Rand as *never* having been board certified and implying that is the same thing as being licensed to practice medicine. Since they had to lie the same way about Bill, Hillary, Sarah & Romney, it makes me want to take a closer look at Rand.

      • myiq2xu says:

        It’s kinda like lawyers and the ABA – you don’t have to join, you just have to join your state bar association.

      • swanspirit says:

        But we never hear why Obama and wife gave up their license to practice law !

        • votermom says:

          “gave up” my dear aunt fanny – those two never give up anything that isn’t taken away by force
          😛

        • angienc (D) says:

          Nobody “gives up” their license to practice unless 3 things: (1) they retire and put themselves on voluntary inactive status so they don’t have to pay the bar dues; (2) they move to another state and will no longer be practicing law in the state of their previous residence, so put themselves on voluntary inactive status so as to not have to pay bar dues (right now, for example, I have a license to practice in both NC & LA, but since I’m living & practicing in NC, I’ve put myself on voluntary inactive status in LA so I don’t have to pay bar dues in both states) OR (3) they are FORCED to for some reason, that usually doesn’t reflect well on them.

    • lililam says:

      That’s the story- I forgot the specifics. Thanks, SHV. btw, Angie, I never implied he wasn’t an MD or even that he wasn’t an ophthamologist. As a board certified and separately licensed health professional, I am aware of the difference. I apologize for being incomplete in my comment this morning- I was on my way to work. However, I am still not impressed with Rand- I get the same gut level feeling of insincerity from him that I got from Sir Barksalot back in the day. I just cannot articulate my feeling too explicitly yet.

      • angienc (D) says:

        I didn’t say you weren’t, lililam — in fact, I wrote that your presentation of it *is* what the KosKidz are selling to mislead people & that you were probably only repeating what you read — I didn’t mean to imply that you were purposefully trying to mislead anyone.

        I’m not sure how “impressed” I am with Rand either — I’ve got serious reservations about him myself — but I don’t agree with the dishonest attacks that are already being launched against him.

  24. HELENK says:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor

    senators expect more talking filibusters after Rand Paul masterpiece.

    is that a damn i better get up off my dead ass and do something if I want to get reelected thought?

    • wmcb says:

      Yeah. The old dinosaurs figure they’d better go get them some “Don’t Primary Me Bro” photo-ops, tout suite.

Comments are closed.