There are other candidates…
I’ve been aware of this controvery, actually since sometime before even a couple of liberal blogs batted it about months ago.Â
But those medical credentials are in question after a report from The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky., found that Paul is not certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology, the most well-known group in the profession. Instead, Paul is certified by the National Board of Ophthalmology, a group he formed in 1997 to protest a policy disagreement with the ABO. His group is not recognized by the American Medical Association.
But Paul, who has been licensed to practice ophthalmology in Kentucky since 1993, says the fuss over his certification is unwarranted. “Do you think that they’re going to recognize a competitor?” he asked.
The GOP candidate once belonged to the American Board of Ophthalmology, but says he founded his own group after the ABO required younger doctors to renew their certification but grandfathered older physicians in. In a statement to The Washington Post, Paul said the group’s policy reminded him “of Congress passing health care legislation but exempting themselves from their own laws.”
So he set up his own “Rand Paul Doctor’s License”. Of course he did. This is the way the Blimp travels — through new coinage and new regulatory system that will evade a Centralized Government.
I have every reason to believe that Rand Paul is a competent Ophthalmologist — snide response to his “Accidents happen” statement about the Gulf Oil Gusher notwithstanding. The result of that thought is something to the effect of the Goldwater / Paul stand on the Civil Rights Act: oh yeah, Barry Goldwater hired and hires black people and does not discriminate in his business practice.
I suppose if Rand Paul were to offer his unique certification system as something with more stringent requirement in addition to the government one, argue that that one is too susceptable to the Warren Harding / George W Bush school of Regulatory Oversight, he might have something. Otherwise, his “do you think the AMA is going to recognize a competitor” winds us to the Craigslist School of Consumer Information.
The points about this supposedly novel article, which was posted with a point about Rand Paul and internet coverage of things, was actually a point brought up by Mark Ambinder at the supposed “Shock” of learning about Rand Paul’s views on Civil Rights. Local media — the decimated newspaper industry– is hurting and becoming less equipped to cover the contours of local new politicians. The thing I don’t understand about this argument is why I have not seen anyone bring it forward to the situation in the South Carolina primary race. The explanation that Vic Rawl’s name recognition was bleak is passed on by various news entities without any further reflection on some implications: I don’t think it’s entirely up to the “legitimate” Democratic candidate to keep his name identification to a respectable clip, and I don’t think it’s too much to ask for the Media to do survey dips of the whereabouts and whosabouts of the “other” candidates on the ballot. Arguably they produce boring stories, in the case of the Vic Rawl campaign, but the news is not supposed to be always exciting.
I suppose Vic Rawl’s somewhat angry statements about some corners remarking on his low name recongition as though “he did as little campaigning” as his primary opponent — Mr. Greene — is…
… well, I take it that politicians who are not not all that likely to win in the General have a greater belief in their likelihood to win than the reality, and Vic Rawl is no exception.
For today’s thoughts on Jim Clyburn’s “Elephant Dung” comment, we turn to the rapidly shifting wikipedia entries on these related articles, where we see this comment:
The possibility has also been raised that Greene was put up by non-partisan political consultants that were bored.
I wish I could just leave it there with no further explanation, but the article goes on.:Â
Nu Wexler, the former executive director of the South Carolina Democratic Party, commented “You have consultants doing this kind of thing just because they get bored, and they want something to tell good stories about. It’s almost like fraternity pranks.”
For my daily exercise of “exploring the avenues” of this South Carolina result — wherever they go– and theydo lead in different directions — something shady going on, something not shady going on — brings us to — Point #1:
A review of the primary election showed that of the state’s 46 counties, half have a significant gap between the absentee and election day ballots. For example, in Lancaster County, Rawl won the absentees with 84%, while Greene won election day by a double digit margin. Rawl’s campaign manager also claimed that “In only two of 88 precincts, do the number of votes Greene got plus the number we got equal the total cast.
All right. The question become: is there that massive a difference between what is likely a far better informed electorate voting absentee and the less informed electorate that run in the day of the election? Actually, perhaps: it may be the case that the electorate voting absentee has a pretty good habit of looking at the voters’ pamphlet as they vote, even looking at these below the radar not hyped by anyone elections.
Or it may be Diebold.
Item #2 — and here you will see my bias in automatically assuming that Alvin Greene was the legitimate winner. Does everyone remember Bob Conley?
I mentioned his 2008 Senate campaign a number of times — see here, and here. This election nomination was the result, I suspect, some issues of agreement between him and the democratic rank and file — see Ron Paul and the wars, as well the nature of the residual Solid South Democratic Party in this electorate. (See the third candidate in the Arkansas Democratic Primary that obtained ten percent running as a Tea Partier.) Tell me if this isn’t vaguely familiar.:
Conley, who had switched to the Democratic Party from the Republican Party,[7] was opposed by much of the Democratic establishment because of his controversial positions such as his vocal opposition to the immigration reform and same-sex marriage and his support of Ron Paul‘s presidential bid. A number of prominent Democratic figures in the state, including U.S. Congressman James Clyburn, supported Lindsey Graham over Conley in the general election.[8] Political scientist Bill Moore claimed “The bottom line is, by not paying attention to this race, they ended up embarrassed by what has transpired: a Republican getting the Democratic Party’s nomination for U.S. Senate and a Republican who comes across as even more conservative than Lindsey Graham.“
Graham had $3.8 million. In fact, he’s spent more time on the campaign trail for John McCain than he has defending his own seat. Conley only raised $23,628 during the campaign. Conley was so unknown that even Graham admitted “Almost no one knows my opponent. The Democrats really didn’t field a — make a serious challenge — in terms of trying to find an opponent for me.“
Recently, from the odds and ends of the “Daily Paul”, I saw a video from the “Southern Avenger” who I guess you’d know if you have enough of a specific type of blog in your purview — railing against Lindsey Graham and making citations toward Bob Conley — it was a tedious commentary — but that was the last time I saw mention of Bob Conley anywhere. The one thing to note about Conley, though, is that he did run a campaign and did state actual issues and positions and did attract his electorate and there is no doubt they knew what they were voting for — that cannot be said of the result in 2010.
It is worth mentioning that South Carolina does have Green Party candidate. Naturally, the party appears to be salivating at their opportunity for increased vote total chances. The one thing I will say is that I have spelled out my belief that all State wide and federal elections should come equipped with a required and necessary almost “Eat your Brocilla” type requirements to local media to cover Debate — as opposed to today where the underequipped challenger always makes the request and the entrenched Incumbent rebuffs the offer, except when they don’t. To think further on my theory of the Debate requirement and fine-tune it — perhaps a minimal test might be put in place that could — in cases like South Carolina — have some minimal competence requirement that could leave Mr. Greene aside and put the Green candidate — Tom Clements — in his stead.
I’d also like to note something about the Green Party — as you ponder something in relation to the contest in Arkansas and you know — something a bit familiar with Bill Halter’s warning about Blanche Lincoln moving on after the nomination to this arena — does have a candidate in Arkansas. They also had one in 2008, an election with no Republican Party candidate — thus the Greens received 20.47% — no idea how many were Republicans to Mark Pryor’s right. Apparently the Green Party candidate there is the mayor of Greenland — population 907 as of the 2000 Census. Make of it what you must.