25 thoughts on “Liberty Christ On The Cover of TIME

  1. It is sort of like polls becoming more accurate within 20 days of the election. Publications seem to want to have something to point to and say ‘See, we predicted this!’

    Of course Time really wants to hurt Whitman, but this won’t. Whitman’s problem is that she is not genuine, and linking her to the tea party (she has no part of the tea party) makes her seem more, not less genuine.

    HuffPo is saying since Rand is on the cover of Time, he will now need to be a meek freshman senator. You know him better than Huff Po does. What do you think?

  2. I agree that the purpose of this cover was equate the three other Tea Party candidates with O’Donnell. O’Donnell is rightfully trailing by 20+ points in most poles.

    This is why Gawker ran a ridiculous hit piece on O’Donnell yesterday from a paid anonymous source (see The Smoking Gun investigation on the topic). Much like the maligned John Ziegler The Gawker felt that her personal grooming habits were fair game for public consumption. hell, even NOW publicly admonished the piece.

    The only card the Democrats appear to be playing is trying to label the new Republican candidates as radicals and extreme. To quote Ted Kopple; “is that best you’ve got?”

  3. Has any other Kentucky politician ever been on the cover of Time?

    That’s pretty cool anyway you slice it!

  4. So, some of you think this is something to be proud of? OOkkk… by any chance do you happen to know the other people in the picture?

  5. Rand Paul’s seriousness at first seemed off putting to me.

    I’m liking it now, as it might be due to his sharp focus on achieving his goal: putting a stop to the seemingly unstoppable grow in the size of government.

  6. Also, I think the only “Tea Party” candidate here is O’Donnell. Whitman was heavily involved in the McCain campaign, Paul is backed by an out-of-state loon machine, and Rubio served in the Florida State Senate for a while before moving up to this race.

  7. Anon, I wasn’t so much off put by his seriousness as his seeming lack of ethics. If he did not want to recertify for ophamology boards he needed to tell his patients he was not board certified (many doctors aren’t.) Instead he made up his own fake boards and misrepresented himself as something he is not. As a doctor I find his lack of ethics damning.

  8. This is why Gawker ran a ridiculous hit piece on O’Donnell yesterday from a paid anonymous source (see The Smoking Gun investigation on the topic). Much like the maligned John Ziegler The Gawker felt that her personal grooming habits were fair game for public consumption. hell, even NOW publicly admonished the piece.

    Yeah dude. NOW and other feminists admonish sexism. Even against politicians whose policy positions we abhor. That’s how feminism works.

  9. Didn’t Rand Paul speak at the first Tea Party back in the 1700’s?

    Being a Tea Party candidate simply means you have support outside the establishment (and you lean conservative).

    And one medicated lady on the internet doesn’t speak for the Tea Party, as if it’s some organized group or something. And I’m not talking about Sarah Palin.

    Have a great weekend!

  10. michael, I disagree with that. Rand’s stand was very principled. If you disagree with the certification board policies, most people would say “there ought to be a law!”, whine, and do nothing else. Rand Paul took initiative and tried to improve things by his own initiative, as hard as it might be.

    He was actually certified by the most famous board. But then they starting requiring younger doctors to be recertified every 10 years while not requiring the same to older doctors. So a doctor who last passed the exam in the 60’s was certified, while Rand which passed the exam in the 80’s wasn’t certified. Rand’s certification was obviously more reflective of his ability, since he has done it more recently, so why aren’t you accusing those older doctors of misleading their patients? Some of those older doctors were recertified voluntarily, some weren’t. Again, why don’t you criticize them? Because you’re a partisan hack gasping at straws.

  11. The actual documentation of reality which I’ve laid out getting to you, RM? Half the Tea Party went home when the thugs wouldn’t have it any other way.

  12. Only two of the four (the men) are likely to win. The cover doesn’t say Whitman is a tea-party candidate, just one of “a new breed,” presumably California businesswomen (like Carly Fiorina). And at least one Kentuckian has been on the Time cover: Alben Barkley, twice, in 1937 and 1952. And I suppose you could could Secretariat in 1973.

  13. I know Horse Racing is political but, Matt Winn is not a politician.

    If that were the case we’d have to put that scary Kentucky Muslim, Ali.

  14. Hey anon, bRand’s stand on certification was anything but principled. If he disagreed with the current system of third-party documentation of a level of competency, which is accepted by the vast majority of competent registrants and upon which the American public has rightly come to rely, he should have worked within the system to refine it. That’s how systems advance, not through such contentious fracturing that potentially endangers everyone who chooses a board-certified physician of any specialty.
    It is clear and obvious that he couldn’t make the grade, so he started his own grade-giving organization.
    I am not ready to give up the fight. I think Jack still has a chance.
    But if he does win, bRand Paul will be no more effective for Kentucky than Rip Van Bunning, who basically took a 12-year nap at our expense. We can only hope he does no more harm.

Comments are closed.