When did anti-vaxers change from ultra-liberal eco terrorist hippies to far right tea bagging conservatives?
Again, I don't know because I didn't ask him about it, but given the context of the answer in the interview, he's probably saying that he's seen cases of problems arising from children receiving immunizations and is suggesting that a possible reason for it could be that too many were received at once. Either way, no one was suggesting that parents not get their kids immunized.
An interesting article about Rand Paul and why his honesty get's him in trouble. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...f5ba9a-ad61-11e4-abe8-e1ef60ca26de_story.html Rand Paul’s gaffes offer a glimpse of his worldview It has become the Rand Paul pattern: A few weeks paddling vigorously in the mainstream, followed by a lapse into authenticity, followed by transparent damage control, followed by churlishness toward anyone in the media who notices. All the signs of a man trying to get comfortable in someone else’s skin. The latest example is vaccination. “I have heard of many tragic cases,” said Dr. Paul, “of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.” Following the ensuing firestorm, the Republican senator from Kentucky insisted, “I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related.” In effect: I did not sleep with that causation. Paul blamed his troubles on the “liberal media” — which, after a little digging, reported that, in 2009, he had called mandatory vaccinations a step toward “martial law.” When Chris Christie commits a gaffe on vaccination and reverses himself, it indicates a man out of his depth. With Paul, it reveals the unexplored depths of a highly ideological and conspiratorial worldview. The same dynamic was at work when Paul accused public health authorities of dishonesty about the true nature of the Ebola threat; or when he raised the prospect of Americans “typing an e-mail in a cafe” being summarily executed by a “Hellfire missile”; or when he accused Dick Cheney of supporting the Iraq war to benefit Halliburton; or when he accused the United States of provoking Japan into World War II; or when he criticized the application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to private enterprise. Wherever you scratch the paint, there is some underlying, consistent philosophy at work. This, of course, is true of any thoughtful politician (which Paul certainly is). But while many prospective presidential candidates seek catchier ways to express their political philosophy, Paul must take pains to conceal the ambition of his ideals. His domestic libertarianism provides no philosophical foundation for most of the federal government. As a practical matter, he can call for the end of Obamacare but not for the abolition of Medicare or Medicaid or the National Institutes of Health. Yet these concessions to reality are fundamentally arbitrary. The only principle guiding Paul’s selectivity is the avoidance of gaffes. Of which he is not always the best judge. The same is true of Paul’s “constitutional foreign policy,” which he now calls (as evidence of his evolution) “conservative realism.” There is no previously existing form of “realism” that urges a dramatically weakened executive in the conduct of foreign and defense policy — which is Paul’s strong preference. He denies the legal basis for the war on terrorism, warns against an oppressive national security state and proposes to scale back American commitments in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Paul is properly described as a libertarian noninterventionist. His father, Ron Paul, is gleefully specific in his charge that American aggression creates the “blowback” of terrorism. The son qualifies the argument without repudiating it. “Some anger is blowback,” he now says. In 2009, he called his father’s theory a “message that can be presented and be something that Republicans can agree to.” A recommended reading list posted (briefly) last year on Paul’s Senate Web site included Chalmers Johnson’s “Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire” and Ron Paul’s “A Foreign Policy of Freedom.” On both domestic and foreign policy, Rand Paul holds libertarian views that, if fully and publicly expressed, would bring new rounds of controversy. It is a difficult position for a candidate when every glimmer of authenticity is a potential blunder. Paul is a talented politician, capable of embracing creative ideas (as on criminal justice reform). But it is increasingly difficult to identify his target political audience. Is it libertarians with a panting desire for establishment legitimacy? I had thought that part of the appeal of libertarianism was its defiance of elites. By any objective measure, Paul is a strong presidential candidate. He is one of a few Republicans capable of raising the funds to run a national campaign. And he is one of the most consistently interesting candidates in the field. But he is likely to be interesting in self-destructive ways, as on the issue of vaccination. For all its flaws of length and cost, a presidential campaign strips away pose and pretense. And that is a particular problem for Rand Paul.
It was never one or the other, the real dichotomy in our system is between moderate technocrats and extremist anti-authoritarians. Liberal and conservatism meant something from the '29 crash through the fall of Saigon, but now we just manufacture, amplify and factionalize tangential issues, verbal gaffes and marital discord to maintain the fundraising channels and subsidize news media and talk radio.
Health care policy, tax policy, stimulus vs austerity, etc are not tangential issues. They are issues that the two parties fundamentally disagree on and effect virtually everyone in the country.
Rand Paul always has problems when he talks honestly about his conservative version of libertarianism. For instance when he talks about how he was against the Civil Rights Acts in his weird Pauly sort of way. i.e small business owners should have the FREEDOM to not serve blacks, Hispanics, women. Rand is lucky he did not get ensnared in the controversy over hand washing by restaurant workers after going to the bathroom.
oh geez i feel dirty because i have read the blowback book that paul had suggested to read on his website. im going to go take a shower now
Crumbling under pressure? "Republican voters love Scott Walker because he is a union busting college dropout who blindly subscribes to the Koch economic agenda. What Scott Walker is quickly proving himself not to be is an electable presidential candidate." Scott Walker Humiliates Himself On The World Stage By Dodging A Question About Evolution
Rand caught lying about his undergraduate degrees. Senator's office forced to admit that he never graduated from Baylor University
As much as I would like to Brian Williams the guy, he did get accepted to Duke Medical before he qualified for the B.S. Unlike Walker I don't think that's much of an issue, an M.D. is pretty much a biology degree.
Except no one in the GOP actually likes him. He consistently polls behind guys like Ben Carson and Ted Cruz. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html On Rand Paul, I found this to be more ridiculous than the Baylor thing: http://www.salon.com/2010/06/14/rand_2/ ... According to an amusing story in today’s Louisville Courier-Journal, the Kentucky Republican Senate candidate bills himself as a “board-certified” physician even though he is not actually certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology — the only recognized body that certifies doctors in his specialty. Paul’s only certification was provided instead by something called the National Board of Ophthalmology, which is very convenient because he operates that organization himself. As the Courier-Journal explains drily, the American Board of Ophthalmology, which maintains a fully staffed headquarters in Philadelphia, has existed for roughly a century and currently lists about 16,000 doctors on its rolls. (Most hospitals and insurance companies strongly prefer doctors who are board-certified because certification indicates that they have kept up with changes in technology, best practices and so on.) The National Board of Ophthalmology has existed since 1999, when Paul “founded” it, lists no more than seven doctors, and its address is a post-office box in Bowling Green, Ky. He had claimed to be certified by both boards, but Courier-Journal reporter Joseph Gerth quickly discovered that claim was false. ...
Most people who get into medical school don't already have the degree because they're current college seniors, right? I assume Duke wanted him badly enough that they told him he could start without finishing his BS.
It's been reported in various places that at the time, Duke medical school did not require completion of the bachelors degree. Early admittance was a thing for top students. On the 'board certified thing' again there's plenty of info out there about how he was originally certified by the official board, and later broke off to his self formed protest board due to disputes over who-knows what and didn't renew the official one. (some of it, interestingly, over disagreements over not enough regulation of older doctors...--kind of an odd libertarian stance). Whatever. He continued to have his med degree. I think the board thing was voluntary. He's certainly a nutter. But I think these are two false scandals. Hopefully they don't detract from his greater faults. In related news....will the coronation of Hillary be made official? Will Kucinich at least run out of habit? Hello? Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me.....is there anyone at all.
