Don't believe a word you hear on this. If the GOP is actually negotiating with him it's just because they think pulling the rug out at the end will make him look worse. After the debacle over the budget with Boehner I've come to the conclusion that the GOP is incapable of anything resembling coherent effective governance at this point. They're a party full of bomb-throwers who want to win at all costs and don't care what the consequences are. If they win the election they've done the best thing they could and if the world ends on the next day, well they went out winners. Queue SJ to point out that winning is always a good thing.
I was referring specifically to the presidents most recent addressing of the nation. Sounded good to me - whether congress works with him is obviously another story. Hopefully this isn't politicized.
It's already politicized. Oct 9th: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...senators-seek-to-block-funds-to-combat-Ebola# GOP: No funds to combat Ebola in Africa. Oct 15th: http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senators-who-opposed-obama-“czars”-now-want-one-for-ebola-192811900.html GOP: Get a Czar to combat Ebola now! Today: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/221086-republicans-blast-obamas-pick-for-ebola-czar GOP: Your choice for the Czar sucks! It's a political football with the GOP doing what they have done at every turn in the Obama Presidency: opposing the President without regard for the consequences. You guys have forgotten that politics is not a continuous bloody battle for every inch of ground punctuated with 6 month battles over elections. Now it's all blood all the time. Good luck with that.
I share a lot of the same views as the republicans but I would never consider myself "one of them". So I disagree with the "you guys" crap. It will be unfortunate if congress can't come to a compromise on this one.
Why should we need to come to a compromise on this? Why aren't the Republicans pounding on the White House door looking to make a deal? Particularly given the number of times they've stiffed the President over the last 6+ years? You know why? Because they don't see any value in making a deal that is greater than the potential political value of having this turn into a total debacle. They've completely lost perspective on what government means and what it does. They see politics purely as a weapon to be fired whenever the opportunity arises and never as the actual debate over and implementation of policy. This is a sea-change for us as a country. We no longer have two parties looking to debate policy and implement their plans for the good of the nation. We have two parties that prefer fighting on the decks of a burning ship instead.
Paul is the Right's Obama at the moment. He could get elected in the right circumstances but he's going to have to knock off the Republican Establishment to do it. That's what Obama did when he took down Hillary in 2008. So you get to that point but you have the problem that the overall demographics aren't as favorable for Paul as they were for Obama. The GOP is still in a generational decline that has been masked by the timing of the 2010 elections. The Democratic base is in near hysteria over the prospect of Paul's election and so turnout goes up for them. Paul wins the election on the GWB model of taking all the solid GOP states, which total about 170 electoral votes at this point, and then winning the new swing states in NC and VA alongside several of the traditional swing states in Ohio, Florida and Indiana. He picks up Iowa and Colorado narrowly and winds up at 271 electoral votes to the 267 that Hillary gets. It's like 2000 all over again however there's one important difference. The Democrats pick up House seats in all the swing states that would normally have gone to the party winning the election. They don't lose as many House seats as you'd expect in the blue states. They do this because Rand promoted some fence-sitting among Moderates who split their ticket and because the Democratic turnout was higher than you'd expect and so the congress is fairly evenly split in 2016 with the Republicans narrowly controlling the House and the Senate effectively split by the requirement of 60 votes to get anything done, which neither party is even close too. Then Paul announces his first big initiative, whatever that is, and finds that keeping his party in lockstep was much easier on the campaign trail than it will be as he tries to do whatever is going to send lots less money to the congress members districts. The Democrats are just opposed. No deal here. Paul is going to have to get it all done on the GOP side of the ledger. And there is no way in hell he's going to manage that. There's political value in being able to get the back benchers in the other party to acquiesce or even agree with specific policies you're trying to get through congress. The last time that state of affairs existed in US politics was about a decade ago. I don't think it's coming back anytime soon. Scorched Earth politics just creates more of the same.
Of Course you don't blame the Texas Hospital...Personal Responsibility is just a slogan. Much easier to blame all of life's problem on the government.
tough to get it right when the cdc is telling then the wrong thing to do, no one is trained properly and they don't have the right equipment. I guess the hospital itself shares blame ... I'm speaking more about the individuals. "all of lifes problems" lol, drama queen much? do you honestly think the cdc has done a good job with this situation?
I grew up in the Elmira NY area. I spoke to a friend of mine who is an ER doctor at one of the hospitals there. He strait up said they have no plan, no training and no equipment. Here's hoping any case of ebola walks into a major city ER where they have the ability to handle it.
That feel when you are at the gym and a person near you is on the phone talking to someone saying they know someone who has Ebola. Smh.
Still waiting for that link where you got the information on the 5 people in hazmat suits that got ebola.
If you're Chief of Medicine at a major hospital and somebody has to tell you to prepare your staff to deal with the potential for an Ebola case getting off a plane and walking into your ER then you're just not doing your job. The nurses who leaked on the situation at the hospital said that the staff had been given no specific preparation related to the Ebola outbreak that has been going on for a year now and that the staff had to go look stuff up on the internet. They didn't have the appropriate protective gear available. The CDC actually has had Ebola guidelines up since the early 2000's. They've updated them now to make the job easy for a CoM or hospital administrator (or beleaguered unprepared nursing staff) to go online and figure out where they've got holes (literally) in their system. It costs money to be prepared for Ebola in the ER. I have no doubt that the CFO of that hospital was perfectly happy with where things stood right up until the moment the guy leaking copiously at both ends showed up and infected a couple of the nurses. Both the CoM and the CFO should be fired immediately. Neither of them did their job in this case. CFO of a major medical institution's job is to prepare effectively in the most cost-efficient manner - not to hide under a pile of coats in the corner until something terrible has happened.
I was wrong to make a comment that sounded like I was saying that the hospital shares no blame. I had the front line people (mostly the nurses) in mind when I made my comment and should have been more clear. Surely there is blame at the hospital itself, that said, the CDC itself has not done a good job here despite its claims that there was nothing to worry about here. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/u...n-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
hopefully. it sounds promising that they've nipped it in the bud in the states. hopefully they're having similar success in slowing it down in africa.
