Does Rand Paul's win spell trouble for the Republican Party?

[OL FU]

Did anyone notice that those goddam white racist tea partiers in Charleston SC nominated an african american to run as a republican for congress. and he beat Strom Thurmond's (the segregationist) son in the primary damn racist tea partiers, they did that just to fool you

[mrklean]

Did anyone notice that those goddam white racist tea partiers in Charleston SC nominated an african american to run as a republican for congress. and he beat Strom Thurmond's (the segregationist) son in the primary damn racist tea partiers, they did that just to fool you

Still a bunch of rednecks...............lol Naw, Congrats on His win. He earned it and he ran a great race. Yeah hes Black but hes still a Repuke!!!!

[Baldy]

Did anyone notice that those goddam white racist tea partiers in Charleston SC nominated an african american to run as a republican for congress. and he beat Strom Thurmond's (the segregationist) son in the primary damn racist tea partiers, they did that just to fool you

Still a bunch of rednecks...............lol Naw, Congrats on His win. He earned it and he ran a great race. Yeah hes Black but hes still a Repuke!!!!

At least you didn't call him an Uncle Tom.........yet.

[mrklean]

Still a bunch of rednecks...............lol Naw, Congrats on His win. He earned it and he ran a great race. Yeah hes Black but hes still a Repuke!!!!

At least you didn't call him an Uncle Tom.........yet.

I wont. as long as hes a real man. I dont care what Party hes in. There all a bunch of rooks of the system.

[native]

Did anyone notice that those goddam white racist tea partiers in Charleston SC nominated an african american to run as a republican for congress. and he beat Strom Thurmond's (the segregationist) son in the primary damn racist tea partiers, they did that just to fool you

'
They're gonna nominate a woman Sikh for governor, too.

[OL FU]

Did anyone notice that those goddam white racist tea partiers in Charleston SC nominated an african american to run as a republican for congress. and he beat Strom Thurmond's (the segregationist) son in the primary damn racist tea partiers, they did that just to fool you

Still a bunch of rednecks...............lol Naw, Congrats on His win. He earned it and he ran a great race. Yeah hes Black but hes still a Repuke!!!!

Redneck is still a badge of honor down here Fortunately while still around racism has lost some of its flair

where's cleets

[houndawg]

Did anyone notice that those goddam white racist tea partiers in Charleston SC nominated an african american to run as a republican for congress. and he beat Strom Thurmond's (the segregationist) son in the primary damn racist tea partiers, they did that just to fool you

'
They're gonna nominate a woman Sikh for governor, too.

Some other Republican has been saying in public that she was getting some on the side with him.
You know it's BS.

Republicans boning women? Yeah, right.

[OL FU]

'
They're gonna nominate a woman Sikh for governor, too.

Some other Republican has been saying in public that she was getting some on the side with him.
You know it's BS.

Republicans boning women? Yeah, right.

Maybe it was Mark Sanford, she has a little of the Argentine look

[Appaholic]

Rand will find a way to lose this election to an oatmeal Democrat who will last one term, and life will go on.

Yep. The door to questioning his credibility is little more open....

Rand Paul Not Considered Board Certified by AMA; His Reponse: So What?

Dr. Rand Paul, the Republican who is running for the Senate seat vacated by Jim Bunning in Kentucky, and backed by the Tea Party, does not hold AMA certification to practice medicine, according to the AMA.

An opthamologist, Paul told the Louisville Courier Journal,

“I’m not going to go through all that right now … What does this have to do with our election?”

The AMA panel that board certifies doctors says the candidate isn’t even on the list.

The American Board of Medical Specialties does not recognize certification by the group, National Board of Opthamology, run by Paul and founded by him in 1991.
http://indyposted.com/27125/rand-paul-n ... e-so-what/

[GannonFan]

Rand will find a way to lose this election to an oatmeal Democrat who will last one term, and life will go on.

Yep. The door to questioning his credibility is little more open....

Rand Paul Not Considered Board Certified by AMA; His Reponse: So What?

Dr. Rand Paul, the Republican who is running for the Senate seat vacated by Jim Bunning in Kentucky, and backed by the Tea Party, does not hold AMA certification to practice medicine, according to the AMA.

An opthamologist, Paul told the Louisville Courier Journal,

“I’m not going to go through all that right now … What does this have to do with our election?”

The AMA panel that board certifies doctors says the candidate isn’t even on the list.

The American Board of Medical Specialties does not recognize certification by the group, National Board of Opthamology, run by Paul and founded by him in 1991.
http://indyposted.com/27125/rand-paul-n ... e-so-what/

Now see, this is where politics gets really pointless. I have no dog in this fight, but board certification isn't something to get worked up about. This guy graduated from Duke, he is licensed to practice (you don't need board certification to practice), and for at least a decade he was board certified by ABMS. Apparently, him and a few hundred other opthamalogists didn't like that older opthamalogists were exempted from requirements in the recertification process done through the ABO, and they decided to form their own board (apparently they didn't like the concept that some members would be grandfathered out of spending the money to be recertified while younger members would be forced to spend the money as often as the board saw fit to require recertification). It's not that unusual as there are something like 180 or so non-ABMS boards in the country today.

My point is, it's crap like this that passes for real political debate. Someone throws out a half-researched article, if that, about how Rand says he's board certified, but not by a specific board, and there's enough loose ends left out there that you can paint it as a crazy idea. People tend not to delve deeply into a story and just a casual reading of this story would make the guy seem odd. Of course, knowing a little more about the story, it doesn't come off as negative against him at all. But that's not what political debate is these days - it's about grabbing a headline, content be damned.

[houndawg]

Some other Republican has been saying in public that she was getting some on the side with him.
You know it's BS.

Republicans boning women? Yeah, right.

Maybe it was Mark Sanford, she has a little of the Argentine look

She's boneable for sure. I think Sanford is a double-agent or some kind of plant.

[OL FU]

Maybe it was Mark Sanford, she has a little of the Argentine look

She's boneable for sure. I think Sanford is a double-agent or some kind of plant.

I think it was MaineJeff who said he was Forrest Gump with a hardon.

[Appaholic]

Yep. The door to questioning his credibility is little more open....

Rand Paul Not Considered Board Certified by AMA; His Reponse: So What?

Dr. Rand Paul, the Republican who is running for the Senate seat vacated by Jim Bunning in Kentucky, and backed by the Tea Party, does not hold AMA certification to practice medicine, according to the AMA.

An opthamologist, Paul told the Louisville Courier Journal,

“I’m not going to go through all that right now … What does this have to do with our election?”

The AMA panel that board certifies doctors says the candidate isn’t even on the list.

The American Board of Medical Specialties does not recognize certification by the group, National Board of Opthamology, run by Paul and founded by him in 1991.
http://indyposted.com/27125/rand-paul-n ... e-so-what/

Now see, this is where politics gets really pointless. I have no dog in this fight, but board certification isn't something to get worked up about. This guy graduated from Duke, he is licensed to practice (you don't need board certification to practice), and for at least a decade he was board certified by ABMS. Apparently, him and a few hundred other opthamalogists didn't like that older opthamalogists were exempted from requirements in the recertification process done through the ABO, and they decided to form their own board (apparently they didn't like the concept that some members would be grandfathered out of spending the money to be recertified while younger members would be forced to spend the money as often as the board saw fit to require recertification). It's not that unusual as there are something like 180 or so non-ABMS boards in the country today.

My point is, it's crap like this that passes for real political debate. Someone throws out a half-researched article, if that, about how Rand says he's board certified, but not by a specific board, and there's enough loose ends left out there that you can paint it as a crazy idea. People tend not to delve deeply into a story and just a casual reading of this story would make the guy seem odd. Of course, knowing a little more about the story, it doesn't come off as negative against him at all. But that's not what political debate is these days - it's about grabbing a headline, content be damned.

Overall, I agree with your sentiment. However, my point was that Rand Paul wears the mantle of "true change" to Washington politics...a muckraker, not your same old Washington Politician...his own man...yet, it seems that RP is using this "certification" to build himself & his credibilty up. But it's a certification from a board that he founded (bet that was a tough test), is not recognized by the AMA and, in this day & age, I couldn't even find a website for the board (send a link if you can find one). Sorry, that kind of stinks as I hold him to a higher standard. It sounds eerily similar to the guy in Connecticut claiming Vietnam Vet status even though he was stateside the whole time. Yes, techinically there is a difference, but not by much....

[GannonFan]

Overall, I agree with your sentiment. However, my point was that Rand Paul wears the mantle of "true change" to Washington politics...a muckraker, not your same old Washington Politician...his own man...yet, it seems that RP is using this "certification" to build himself & his credibilty up. But it's a certification from a board that he founded (bet that was a tough test), is not recognized by the AMA and, in this day & age, I couldn't even find a website for the board (send a link if you can find one). Sorry, that kind of stinks as I hold him to a higher standard. It sounds eerily similar to the guy in Connecticut claiming Vietnam Vet status even though he was stateside the whole time. Yes, techinically there is a difference, but not by much....

There's a huge difference between the two. Saying you're a Vietnam vet who never fought in Vietnam is vastly different than saying you're a board certified doctor, just not with the AMA.

Like I said, there are about 180 boards that are not under the umbrella of AMA certification - it doesn't mean those boards are bogus, it just means they don't fall under the AMA's governance. And it's not like Rand didn't use to be a part of the AMA board - he was recertified on that board on 3 separate occassions, so it's not as if he was not capable of it - clearly he was. And the reason why he and more than 200 colleagues left to form their own board was very clearly stated - they didn't like the politics of the AMA board that removed the recertification requirement on older doctors (and therefore saddling younger doctors with the costs to support the board).

As for it's current status, I think basically Paul lost this battle - the AMA wasn't going to change despite his protests and they were never going to recognize his independent board. I don't believe that anyone has ever claimed that Paul and his colleagues were not worthy of AMA certification (by most accounts every one of them had and would continue to be certified) but the guy took a stand against something he thought was unequally applied.

What I dislike about articles like this, and the propogation of them, is that it does lead to tons of innuendo and character assassinations that have no basis whatsoever. Most people don't even know what board certification means. Heck, there are articles out there now questioning whether he even has a license to practice (he does, you don't need board certification to practice). There are articles implying that he's basically certifying himself because he couldn't do it the normal way (again, untrue considering he never had a problem recertifying before) and there are articles even questioning his education (as far as I know, I'm pretty sure Duke is a pretty respected medical school). But none of this matters - people can write headlines with catchy by-lines, very similar to what you posted, and people never dig deeper than that. If we're going to be herded around by shallow journalism, then we pretty much deserve the leaders we get.

And I say all of this not even being a resident of Kentucky and really with no dog in the Paul election fight whatsoever. He may very well be a crackpot. I'd rather we find out that he is a crackpot by actually doing so, not just throwing out trite and shoddy stuff like this and pretending it means something more than it is.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Overall, I agree with your sentiment. However, my point was that Rand Paul wears the mantle of "true change" to Washington politics...a muckraker, not your same old Washington Politician...his own man...yet, it seems that RP is using this "certification" to build himself & his credibilty up. But it's a certification from a board that he founded (bet that was a tough test), is not recognized by the AMA and, in this day & age, I couldn't even find a website for the board (send a link if you can find one). Sorry, that kind of stinks as I hold him to a higher standard. It sounds eerily similar to the guy in Connecticut claiming Vietnam Vet status even though he was stateside the whole time. Yes, techinically there is a difference, but not by much....

There's a huge difference between the two. Saying you're a Vietnam vet who never fought in Vietnam is vastly different than saying you're a board certified doctor, just not with the AMA.

Like I said, there are about 180 boards that are not under the umbrella of AMA certification - it doesn't mean those boards are bogus, it just means they don't fall under the AMA's governance. And it's not like Rand didn't use to be a part of the AMA board - he was recertified on that board on 3 separate occassions, so it's not as if he was not capable of it - clearly he was. And the reason why he and more than 200 colleagues left to form their own board was very clearly stated - they didn't like the politics of the AMA board that removed the recertification requirement on older doctors (and therefore saddling younger doctors with the costs to support the board).

As for it's current status, I think basically Paul lost this battle - the AMA wasn't going to change despite his protests and they were never going to recognize his independent board. I don't believe that anyone has ever claimed that Paul and his colleagues were not worthy of AMA certification (by most accounts every one of them had and would continue to be certified) but the guy took a stand against something he thought was unequally applied.

What I dislike about articles like this, and the propogation of them, is that it does lead to tons of innuendo and character assassinations that have no basis whatsoever. Most people don't even know what board certification means. Heck, there are articles out there now questioning whether he even has a license to practice (he does, you don't need board certification to practice). There are articles implying that he's basically certifying himself because he couldn't do it the normal way (again, untrue considering he never had a problem recertifying before) and there are articles even questioning his education (as far as I know, I'm pretty sure Duke is a pretty respected medical school). But none of this matters - people can write headlines with catchy by-lines, very similar to what you posted, and people never dig deeper than that. If we're going to be herded around by shallow journalism, then we pretty much deserve the leaders we get.

And I say all of this not even being a resident of Kentucky and really with no dog in the Paul election fight whatsoever. He may very well be a crackpot. I'd rather we find out that he is a crackpot by actually doing so, not just throwing out trite and shoddy stuff like this and pretending it means something more than it is.

Nice work GF.

[Appaholic]

Overall, I agree with your sentiment. However, my point was that Rand Paul wears the mantle of "true change" to Washington politics...a muckraker, not your same old Washington Politician...his own man...yet, it seems that RP is using this "certification" to build himself & his credibilty up. But it's a certification from a board that he founded (bet that was a tough test), is not recognized by the AMA and, in this day & age, I couldn't even find a website for the board (send a link if you can find one). Sorry, that kind of stinks as I hold him to a higher standard. It sounds eerily similar to the guy in Connecticut claiming Vietnam Vet status even though he was stateside the whole time. Yes, techinically there is a difference, but not by much....

There's a huge difference between the two. Saying you're a Vietnam vet who never fought in Vietnam is vastly different than saying you're a board certified doctor, just not with the AMA.

Like I said, there are about 180 boards that are not under the umbrella of AMA certification - it doesn't mean those boards are bogus, it just means they don't fall under the AMA's governance. And it's not like Rand didn't use to be a part of the AMA board - he was recertified on that board on 3 separate occassions, so it's not as if he was not capable of it - clearly he was. And the reason why he and more than 200 colleagues left to form their own board was very clearly stated - they didn't like the politics of the AMA board that removed the recertification requirement on older doctors (and therefore saddling younger doctors with the costs to support the board).

As for it's current status, I think basically Paul lost this battle - the AMA wasn't going to change despite his protests and they were never going to recognize his independent board. I don't believe that anyone has ever claimed that Paul and his colleagues were not worthy of AMA certification (by most accounts every one of them had and would continue to be certified) but the guy took a stand against something he thought was unequally applied.

What I dislike about articles like this, and the propogation of them, is that it does lead to tons of innuendo and character assassinations that have no basis whatsoever. Most people don't even know what board certification means. Heck, there are articles out there now questioning whether he even has a license to practice (he does, you don't need board certification to practice). There are articles implying that he's basically certifying himself because he couldn't do it the normal way (again, untrue considering he never had a problem recertifying before) and there are articles even questioning his education (as far as I know, I'm pretty sure Duke is a pretty respected medical school). But none of this matters - people can write headlines with catchy by-lines, very similar to what you posted, and people never dig deeper than that. If we're going to be herded around by shallow journalism, then we pretty much deserve the leaders we get.

And I say all of this not even being a resident of Kentucky and really with no dog in the Paul election fight whatsoever. He may very well be a crackpot. I'd rather we find out that he is a crackpot by actually doing so, not just throwing out trite and shoddy stuff like this and pretending it means something more than it is.

Fair enough. Your points are very vaild.