Party affiliated or not...

Whether you're republican or democrat shouldn't really matter...judging from some of the things Rand Paul has said this week, it douns to me like he's on the right track. I could be wrong but considering how pathetic the government spending has been I would think just about everyone would agree regardless of party affiliation. This week he has been quoted as saying;

"His message is really not about political parties and it's not about Republican or Democrat. His message is - we cannot as a country spend more than we take in without repercussions. Voters are unhappy with 2 trillion dollar annual deficits. They don't understand why we have to balance our own family budgets and yet Congress can't do the same. He says he'll work with Democrats who understand that the private sector and not government, creates jobs. And, he'll vote against his own party if it doesn't stay in line.

He says he'll start with attacking provisions that he thinks would worsen the Recession, and eventually wants ‘Obamacare’ repealed. Paul says party affilation does not matter. Instead, he calls for “serious discussions for serious problems” - like getting people back to work. Paul tends to think the most important thing is to know that he doesn't see things at all in terms of partisan politics, he doesn't see things as Republican or Democrat at all. If the republican party is right he votes with them. If they're wrong he'll vote against them. He says he's going to continue working and seeing patients and that he has to figure out exactly what the rules of the Senate are and what they will allow him to do.”

I know he's a salesman/politician...and can talk a lot of smack like most salesmen can...but at least what he's saying so far seems like plain common sense to me.

We've heard all that before. You know the saying about the proof of the pudding. We'll find out. One thing that bothers me, though, is his statement that he's going to continue his medical practice, AND be a Senator at the same time. Being a United States Senator, and running a medical practice, are both full-time jobs, each of which often requires long hours. I don't see how anybody can do both effectively. His exact words are, “I'm going to continue working and seeing patients, and I have to discover exactly what the rules of the Senate are, what they will allow me to do.” To me it's just incomprehensible that he wouldn't check on that before he ran, and it makes me wonder how much of his motivation to run was a desire to serve, and how much was a desire to be like Daddy.

I agree with you Road Toad, they all say alot of things that they never follow through with in the end. He is on a high now cuz he won so lets see how long it lasts. Personally I would never vote for a doctor to be a politician who still has an active practice. If a person is in the senate or in any political office they need to dedicate themselves to the people they represent. Now if he gives up his practice then that would show he is motivated to be good in his new role. No way he can do both well and one or both will suffer.

[QUOTE=RoadToad;431703]“I'm going to continue working and seeing patients, and I have to discover exactly what the rules of the Senate are, what they will allow me to do.”[/QUOTE]


Wonder how his patients would feel if it was the other way around. :)

[QUOTE=pontooner;431710]Wonder how his patients would feel if it was the other way around. :)[/QUOTE]

I don't think his patients would care. Didn't he certify himself as an opthamologist anyway? I think he is already starting out with little credibility among peers, so I am not holding my breath for him to accomplish much of anything - For Kentucky's sake, I hope I am wrong.

Here is a link that explains it
[url]http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/06/rand-paul-boardcertified-ophthalmologist-but-which-board.html[/url]

Is Rand Paul who hasn't served a day as Senator any better or worse than a Senator who is sworn in but does little too nothing and has no excuse?

Give the guy a week, month or year in office and lets see what he does. I think he will find out that it's not possible to do both even if he wanted to.

All that happened is that the Dems got their butt and ideals handed to them on a platter.....So I'm not so sure the sky is falling just yet.:)

[QUOTE=Col Forbin;431712]I don't think his patients would care. Didn't he certify himself as an opthamologist anyway? I think he is already starting out with little credibility among peers, so I am not holding my breath for him to accomplish much of anything - For Kentucky's sake, I hope I am wrong.

Here is a link that explains it
[url]http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/06/rand-paul-boardcertified-ophthalmologist-but-which-board.html[/url][/QUOTE]

No that really does NOT explain it.......it just gives ABC's and YOUR VIEW of it.

So I did some of my own research.......

* He was board Certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology for nearly 10 years.

* Now, he is board Certified by National Board of Ophthalmology, which he was a big player in creating.

Do you even care, or understand WHY the NBO was created?? Basically doctors who were certified prior to a certain year never have to be certified again. Rand Paul created the NBO to FORCE a better method of certifying Opthamologists.....but I guess that doesn't matter.

Personally, I'd much rather have a DOC that is certified every few years than one that was grandfathered in due to age.

HM.

Later,

Geo

Ok...tryin' to find some political humor along the way here....Of course Paul can do both jobs...we all already know politicians don't do anything in office anyway, it should come easy for him to hold a political office and practice in the healthcare field at the same time!

Time will tell...so far I like what he says, now let's see what he does.

Didn't you start the Conway vs Paul thread a little over a week ago and say

"up until recently I was thinking Rand Paul had my vote no matter what. But in light of some of the things Paul has said and some of his actions during the past week or two...I'm not 100% sure I'd like to vote for him either. Although Paul does seem like the lesser of the two evils.

To bad my vote leans toward the lesser of two evils...wished I could feel like I was voting for a stand up guy...I'm just not sure about this Paul rascal. But...who else is there?"


Either you had a big change of opnion on him or were you just fishing for replys with the Conway vs Paul thread? Just asking.

[QUOTE=pontooner;431737]Didn't you start the Conway vs Paul thread a little over a week ago and say

"up until recently I was thinking Rand Paul had my vote no matter what. But in light of some of the things Paul has said and some of his actions during the past week or two...I'm not 100% sure I'd like to vote for him either. Although Paul does seem like the lesser of the two evils.

To bad my vote leans toward the lesser of two evils...wished I could feel like I was voting for a stand up guy...I'm just not sure about this Paul rascal. But...who else is there?"


Either you had a big change of opnion on him or were you just fishing for replys with the Conway vs Paul thread? Just asking.[/QUOTE]

Yep...shore nuff, that was me that started that thread....and you're correct again, I was fishin' for others thoughts about him. In my opinion, and until he proves otherwise he's still the lesser of the two evils at this point, I just happen to like what he's said this week.

I didn't have that big if a change of opinion...before he got elected he was the lesser of the two evils and I was going to vote for him....well, I voted him...he won...and right now today he's still the lesser of the two evils.

Now let's see if he knows how to dribble the ball...

[QUOTE=Chubminnow;431762]...and right now today he's still the lesser of the two evils....[/QUOTE]

and voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil ;)

Andrew

Or I cancelled out someone else's vote for the more evil of the two :)