Tag Archives: Rand Paul

medical news, national news, political news

Americans love freedom, but …

A growing battle over mandatory vaccinations for public school children is turning into a culture war of sorts.

Libertarian-leaning Republicans suggest that requiring vaccinations against communicable diseases impinges on parental rights to choose whether their children should be vaccinated. The main medical enemy is measles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-pauls-and-mr-christies-irresponsible-comments-about-measles-vaccinations/2015/02/03/b269c9da-abc1-11e4-9c91-e9d2f9fde644_story.html

Have those who contend the issue is choice actually considered some of the consequences of their request for greater latitude on this matter?

The Washington Post editorial takes aim at U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., for their irresponsible comments regarding vaccinations.

They both should know better than to mutter what they’ve said about the subject.

Especially, Dr. Paul, an ophthalmologist by training. As a medical doctor, he ought to be acutely sensitive to the value of vaccines as guardians of the public health. But he isn’t. He’s instead a politician pandering to one of the bases of his party in his budding quest to win the Republican Party nomination for president of the United States in 2016.

As the Post opined: “Both the governor and senator seem to be suggesting that it is fine for parents to avoid vaccinations for their children. But is this really a matter of individual rights? Liberty does not confer the right to endanger others — whether at a school or Disneyland or anywhere else.”

Measles cases are on the increase, endangering children and those who come in contact with them. Protecting the public health ought to be one of those areas where government involvement shouldn’t be challenged.

Sadly, it is being challenged by politicians who should know better.

 

medical news

Now it's vaccines that divide the parties

 

It’s official. There is no limit at all to the categories of issues that divide Republicans and Democrats.

The issue today is childhood vaccines. Yep. Believe it. Republicans are now raising the issue of whether parents deserve some choice in whether their to vaccinate their children against diseases deemed infectious and a hazard to public health.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231547-clinton-science-is-clear-vaccines

At no time rearing our two now-grown sons did my wife and I ever — not a single time — wonder whether we should forgo a mandatory childhood vaccine in order to, say, enroll our boys in public school. Yes, the issue has percolated for decades, but in our household we never got all hot and bothered over whether the school system where our kids would enroll required such vaccines.

But here we go. A presidential campaign is just around the corner and one of the potential GOP candidates, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is making an issue of the vaccines.

Likely Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton posted a tweet that lays it out clearly: “The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and . Let’s protect all our kids.”

Goodness, gracious. The vaccines protect our children against some serious infectious diseases. You’ve heard of how measles can cause blindness; chicken pox produces lifelong cells that lead to shingles later in life; mumps, pertussis and all manner of fevers can be fatal.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another Republican thinking of running for president, walked back a statement in which he said parents should have the choice.

The vaccine issue flares up from time to time — kind of like a toddler’s fever. How about icing this one down and recognize the value that mandatory vaccines bring in protecting our children and inoculating the public against these serious diseases?

 

entertainment news, national news, political news

GOP offers a flood of SOTU responses

Jon Stewart is a comedian, an entertainer, a satirist of sorts.

He also has a way of bringing some harsh truths to light, such as when he poked fun at the multiple Republican Party responses to President Obama’s State of the Union speech.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/jon-stewart-destroys-gops-dueling-sotu-responses-how-many-fcking-people-are-at-this-tea-party/

The “official” response came from freshman U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa. That’s fine. Ernst is a rising Republican star, having taken over a seat held by longtime Democratic liberal Tom Harken, who retired from public life in 2014.

Then came — count ’em — three TEA party responses.

Rep. Curt Clawson of Florida weighed in for the TEA party wing of the GOP. But wait. There were more.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky had his version of the TEA party response. I guess Sen. Paul represented the isolationist/dove wing of the TEA party.

And then, of course, we had Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas with his TEA party response. Cruz represents, I reckon, the loudmouth wing of the TEA party. The young man hasn’t shut his mouth a single time since taking office in January 2013. He’s become the Republican version of, say, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Stewart asked a foul-mouthed question about “how many TEA party members are out there?”

The query speaks to a potential problem facing Republicans as they prepare for the 2016 campaign for the White House. Cruz and Paul and potential presidential candidates, along with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (man, I love writing the word “former” in front of Perry’s title), Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and maybe a dozen more individuals I can’t think of at the moment.

They all represent varying wings of the GOP. They all are going sling barbs and arrows at each other. They’re going to bloody each other up, seeking to court the “base” of the party — whatever it has become.

The multiple TEA party responses illustrates what’s both right and wrong about Republicans at the moment.

They’re right to welcome a lot of voices; diversity is a good thing. They’re wrong in trying to outshout each other.

 

national news, political news

Rev. Huckabee joins growing GOP field

It’s official, or practically so.

Mike Huckabee is going to run for president of the United States in 2016. He quit his Fox News Channel talk show amid signs he is getting set to make his decision.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/mike-huckabee-ends-talk-show-weighs-presidential-run-113948.html?hp=t3_r

He’s a former Arkansas governor. He’s glib and funny. He’s also a staunch conservative.

Let me re-introduce an element that is likely to play a role in a Huckabee presidential campaign. He’s an ordained Southern Baptist preacher.

Why is that important? Many Americans are going to look to someone such as Huckabee strictly because of his well-known, firmly established and say-it-loud Christian faith. They’ll rally to his side for that reason chiefly — if not exclusively.

It certainly isn’t a disqualifier. Heck, I’m a practicing Christian myself. All of our presidents have shared the basic tenets of my faith. I’ve never voted for a president on that basis.

Indeed, the Democratic Party has had its share of clergy running for president. Rev. Jesse Jackson ran twice in the 1980s, as did Rev. Al Sharpton in 2008.

However, the Constitution states clearly that there should be no religious test for anyone seeking any public office. I have taken that to mean that I, as a voter, need not consider a candidate’s religious faith as a reason to vote for him or her. I choose not to go there.

Huckabee’s fellow Republicans are getting ready for him. Rand Paul is attacking Huckabee’s tax policy while he was Arkansas governor, just as he has targeted Jeb Bush’s “moderation” while he served as governor of Florida.

The GOP field is expanding. Huckabee could be one of the more interesting candidates running. Look for him to play to his party’s evangelical base. Hey, with a Baptist ordination in his hip pocket, he’s got something none of the other GOP hopefuls can claim.

 

International news

Why oppose relationship with Cuba?

The continuing argument over whether the United States should normalize relations with a Third World communist country 90 miles off the Florida coast continues to baffle me.

The Cuban-American community is split on this issue. Republican politicians — and even a couple of Democrats — by and large oppose it; Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is a notable Republican exception to that opposition.

The opponents of President Obama’s decision to begin that process keep citing Cuban’s horrible human rights record. Yes, it’s horrible, but let’s compare it with another nation with which the United States does have diplomatic ties.

It’s Vietnam.

Consider a few facts about this country.

* We fought Vietnam in a bloody and brutal war for roughly a decade. The Vietnamese killed 58,000 Americans during that struggle. How many Americans have died fighting Cuban military personnel since Fidel Castro assumed power in 1959? Nineteen, while fighting Cuban troops during our 1983 invasion of the island nation of Grenada.

* How did the communists from the north respond when they took control of Vietnam? They imprisoned those who had worked with the South Vietnamese government, sending them to what they called “re-education camps,” which was a euphemism for concentration camps. I met a few of those “re-educated” Vietnamese when I returned to the country in 1989. Believe me when I say that they were treated as common criminals by the conquering communists.

* Have the Vietnamese enjoyed the same kind of human liberty and freedom that some in Congress are demanding of Cuba? Hardly. Vietnam remains a hardline communist autocracy. There’s been plenty of economic reform since Saigon fell in April 1975 and the country is enjoying some economic prosperity. Its people do not live totally free, however.

And yet we’ve been diplomatic partners with Vietnam since July 11, 1995, when President Clinton opened that door.

Why are some of us now so reluctant to follow the same course with Cuba?

Let’s get real. If we can bury the hatchet with a former battlefield enemy, then surely there lies opportunity to forge a relationship with a nation that poses zero military or economic threat.

 

 

International news, political news

Lame-duck status has its advantages

Sometimes it can be good for politicians to use their lame-duck status to move important debates forward.

Take the lame-duck president of the United States, Barack Obama. All he has done in the past few days is call for a profound change in our nation’s relationship with Cuba, with which we’ve had zero relationship for, oh, the past 50 years.

With no more campaigns to run, or elections to win (or lose), the president has done what he could have done years ago. Indeed, earlier lame-duck presidents dating back to the Johnson administration could have done it.

They chose sit on their hands.

Contrast that context with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a possible — if not probable — candidate for president in 2016. He’s a TEA party Republican who’s backing the Democratic president on this deal.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/rand-paul-supports-opening-cuba-113677.html?hp=b2_l3

Paul will have some answering to do if he faces the deeply split Cuban-American community in south Florida in a couple of years.

Obama has staked out an important change in U.S. foreign policy with this push for “normalization” of relations with Cuba, which came with the release of Alan Gross, an aid worker who’d been held prisoner for five years on a bogus spying charge by the Fidel/Raul Castro regime in Havana.

He had to have figured he could act now that he’s a lame duck. Of course, no politician ever admits to such a thing. They offer up high-minded rhetoric about “doing the right thing” or “acting in the best interests” of the city, state or nation.

That explains, perhaps, the president’s change of heart on Cuba. It doesn’t explain Sen. Paul’s courage on the issue, given that he’s bucking many fellow Republicans on this matter.

About the only thing that makes sense about Paul’s support of Obama on the Cuba policy issue is that he’s not going to run for president after all. I hope that’s not the case.

As for the president, well, lame duck status does have its advantage.

 

International news, political news

Cuba policy change provokes GOP fight

President Obama is picking a fight — between two Republicans who might want to succeed him in the White House.

I love this infighting.

Obama has announced a dramatic change in our nation’s policy toward Cuba. We’re moving toward normalization of relations, you know, with embassies in both countries and ambassadors representing their nation’s interests.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky supports the change; GOP Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida opposes it.

So, what does Paul do? He calls Rubio an “isolationist.” He mentions his colleague by name. He takes direct aim at the young Floridian’s opposition to what Paul thinks is a reasonable and long overdue change.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rand-paul-tears-isolationist-marco-rubio-over-cuba

I happen to agree with Sen. Paul on this one.

He wrote an essay for Time magazine in which he lays out his argument. “The supporters of the embargo against Cuba speak with heated passion but fall strangely silent when asked how trade with Cuba is so different than trade with Russia or China or Vietnam,” Paul wrote. “It is an inconsistent and incoherent position to support trade with other communist countries, but not communist Cuba.”

Rubio is among those “strangely silent” lawmakers who cannot grasp the need for change in the U.S.-Cuba relationship.

Rubio actually baited Paul with a statement he made on Fox News: “Like many people who have been opining, [Paul] has no idea what he’s talking about,” Rubio said. Paul’s op-ed essay in Time was in response largely to what Rubio said.

So the intra-GOP fight has commenced.

Rubio’s own Cuban heritage gives him some credibility on this issue. However, like a lot of politicians who blind when the subject of Cuba comes up, Rubio needs to look at the big picture and understand what Barack Obama and Rand Paul both get: If a 50-year policy doesn’t produce any positive change, then it’s time to change the policy.

 

national news, political news

End of ticket-splitting? Perish the thought

Mary Landrieu’s loss of her U.S. Senate seat in Louisiana might be the least surprising part of the 2014 mid-term election.

She was the last statewide Democratic officeholder in Dixie.

What does surprise me — and unpleasantly so, I should add — is that according to one veteran political observer, the ’14 mid-terms have ushered in the end of ticket-splitting.

http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/stu-rothenberg-mary-landrieu-runoff-bill-cassidy/

More and more Americans are voting for the party rather than the candidate.

Stuart Rothenberg, writing for Roll Call, says voters are just hitting the straight-ticket spot on their ballot and that voting for individual candidates’ is becoming a rare occurrence.

What a shame.

Rothenberg attributes this to the growing ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans. The parties have become branded as standing for certain things and voters aren’t wasting their time studying candidates’ stands on key issues of the day.

Democrats are being identified as the party of liberals such as Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Al Franken of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The Republican brand includes the likes of Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas, two favorites of the TEA party movement within the GOP.

The casualty, therefore, becomes the practice of examining what the candidates say about issues, relying instead on the party’s message.

I would prefer we did away with the straight-ticket voting option. If someone wants to vote straight Republican or straight Democratic, then make them go through the ballot race by race, candidate by candidate and make them think — if only for an instant — about the candidate they’re about to endorse.

Why can’t we require voters to at least go through the motions of thinking about their vote?

 

State news

Abbott staying neutral in '16 GOP primary

Nice try, Chuck Todd.

The moderator of “Meet the Press” tried to lure Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott into endorsing someone for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Abbott didn’t take the bait, saying he is “staying out of” the primary activity. Translation: I ain’t endorsing anyone, but I’ll support whoever the party nominates.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/12/abbott-staying-out-of-2016-gop-presidential-primary/

But then the thought occurred to me: The ’16 presidential field well could be chock full of current and former Texas politicians, and perhaps the son of a former Texas politician.

Look at the Lone Star lineup.

* Lame-duck Texas Gov. Rick Perry is making all kinds of racket about running once again for his party’s presidential nomination.

* Freshman U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz also is acting like a candidate in the making, delivering speeches to fundraising giants and making a nuisance of himself by showing up in front of TV cameras at any opportunity.

* Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who grew up in Texas, is a possible — some say “probable” — candidate.

* U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is the son of a former Texas member of Congress, Ron Paul, who has run unsuccessfully already for his party’s nomination.

Am I missing anyone?

Count ’em. That’s four leading politicians with Texas ties looking (possibly?) to run for president of the United States.

Yes, the GOP is mighty strong in Texas.

 

International news, national news, political news

Trying to figure out why they're called 'truthers'

Andrew Napolitano is a so-called “truther.”

He believes the 9/11 attacks were somehow concocted by the federal government.

According to Media Matters, a left-wing journalism watchdog organization, Napolitano — a Fox New contributor and former judge — said this: “Napolitano has made numerous appearances on (radio talk show host Alex) Jones’ show. During a 2010 interview, Napolitano told Jones, ‘It’s hard for me to believe that [World Trade Center building 7] came down by itself,’ adding, ‘I think twenty years from now, people will look at 9-11 the way we look at the assassination of JFK today. It couldn’t possibly have been done the way the government told us.’ After his appearance, families of 9-11 victims criticized Napolitano for being “willfully ignorant of the facts surrounding the collapse of WTC 7.”

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/10/rand-paul-writes-foreword-for-confederate-apolo/201516

Why bring this up?

A potential candidate for president in 2016 has written a foreword in Napolitano’s new book, “Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Assault on Civil Liberties.” The possible candidate is U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who now is associated with someone who has some truly nutty ideas.

His new book also chastises President Lincoln for provoking the Civil War when, according to Napolitano, slavery was dying a natural death anyway.

Let’s not forget as well that he believes President Obama is usurping our liberties and freedom.

But this post is about truthers and the idiocy surrounding the notion that the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington were an inside job.

Andrew Napolitano is one of them. And for the life of me I cannot understand a sitting member of the Senate contributing to this guy’s literary career. To think we call these people “truthers.”

Be sure to keep this bit of intelligence in mind the moment Sen. Paul declares his presidential candidacy.