Paul too, I presume. MD from Duke.
Looks that way. Again, from Wikipedia:
“Paul dropped out of Baylor without completing his Bachelor’s degree in either biology or English, when he was accepted into his father’s alma mater, the Duke University School of Medicine. At the time, Duke did not require an undergraduate degree for admission to its graduate school. He earned an M.D. degree in 1988 and completed his residency in 1993.”
That whilst the Democratic Party are spending money on their core constituents, often through Gov’t borrowing now and paying later(free stuff), the Republican party have struggled to fight the politics of fiscal deficit spending.
It’s a substantive question in a number of ways:
- Is such high deficit spending in itself bad?
- If it is bad, how does a Republican candidate best counter it in the Presidential campaign?
It’s exactly the type of question Republican candidates need to be tackling head on.
I think Rubio, Kasich, and Romney (if he ends up drafted) would have a chance against Hillary. The latter too might make adequate Presidents, but I’d worry that Rubio, like GWB, is lightweight who would choose poor advisors. If I had to pick a Republican to serve in the White House among current top contenders, but couldn’t have Kasich, Romney (or Christie!), I’d go with Donald Trump! Paul and Cruz – both extreme even by their extremist party’s standard – would be tied for next-to-worst ahead only of … (guess who? Yeah, call me a bigot.)
Kasich is about Reagan policy-wise; that he’s the leftishest on the stage just shows how far right the GOP has moved.
I’d like to see Rubio get tripped, as he might have the best chance against Hillary. But some little Gotcha, albeit 100 times as criminal as anything Hillary is accused of, will have little effect on the nearly brain-dead GOP voter base.
Interesting. Do you think Jeb’s fall was due toTrump, that Jeb would be ahead of Rubio now if Trump had never entered the race?
I regret time wasted watching the overcard. Is the undercard somehow more interesting? What gets me is how Republicans insist on certain memes. Opposition to Obamacare is a must (though the objection seems mainly the name). One candidate said “I think we need to repeal every rule that Barack Obama …” and, like Pavlov’s dog, the audience erupted in applause before the sentence was finished.
The eccentric billionaire may be trying to self-destruct. If he wins the nomination, he’ll be devastated in November, but will have to first spend a billion of his own money to avoid embarrassing himself. He’s smart enough to know this.
Might be why he decided to throw his support behind Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback” program.
Who’s gonna clean the rooms at his hotels now?
It may have been an aggravating factor, but I don’t think Trump was the main cause of Jeb:('s fall. Bush is gaffe-prone, out of sync with the zeitgeist of the GOP primary base, and lacks retail political charisma. He’d be about where he is now, even without Trump in the race IMO.
Right, the core problem with the Bush campaign is Bush. I think even he knows it.
And the reason he’s the problem is that he doesn’t really want the job, and is only running for it out of family pressure.
At least wasn’t quite so clueless as to mention that program’s name. But everyone knew what he was talking about.
Is there any country where the analogous events are any better?
While I agree that Rubio probably won this debate, it’s sort of like being the best debater on the team in a very small high school. He didn’t strike me as being impressive, and his biggest fail was probably when they lobbed the “How do you stack up against Hillary Clinton’s impressive resume?” softball over the plate. While he eventually stammered out something about this being a generational issue (and we all know that today’s youth are excited about the GOP’s take on, well, just about everything), you could practically see the flop sweat forming.
The problem being that while the entire panel is unanimous that a Clinton Presidency would be a hideous disaster, none of them have been interested in clearly articulating why they think that. The reality being that, despite having enough skeletons in her closet to fight off a legion of Argonauts, Clinton does have years of experience in bare knuckle politics and will probably make a quite competent executive who’s unlikely to rock the boat for any corporate interests. Tough sell for Rubio.
Do you mean she’s for corpo interests or agin’ 'em?
I used zero based budgeting when I was at Intel. What does it mean? Absolutely nothing.
I would like to note that I predicted Ted Cruz’s use of the phrase “Obama’s IRS” prior to him saying it.
Of course, he probably precedes anything negative with the adjective “Obama”, so perhaps that wasn’t such a out of left field prediction in the first place. 
Canada’s debates were pretty good, in both French and English. Just last month—I’m sure it got substantial media coverage in the US, since unlike your debates, it was relevant to elections in 2015. And all the candidates participated in both national languages: can you imagine a time in the US where every major candidate is expected to be competent in both English and Spanish?
This is dead on. Every indication is that she’ll be the ultimate status quo president. She’s drifted a bit to the left to deflect Bernie Sanders, but I expect she’ll swing right back to the center for the general and in her presidency. Her foreign policy will be much more interventionist and confrontational than Obama’s, presumably less so than GW Bush, in short an Establishment-approved foreign policy. Viewed from the center of the American political spectrum, her agenda is so utterly conventional and uncontroversial, it’s no wonder Republicans are so desperate to build up exaggerated claims of dishonesty and corruption. They literally have nothing else to bonk her with.
The funny thing is, let’s say Republicans are right and Clinton turns out to be unusually dishonest and corrupt. How does that harm Republican interests and policy goals? Actually, a big presidency-destroying Clinton scandal would be humiliating to Democrats and a huge long-term win for Republicans. If they really believe that she’s the second coming of Nixon, they ought to play a long game and simply let her win.
It means you don’t consider the budget of the department this year to determine the budget of the department next year. Every year is a clean slate: you determine only from needs what budgets will be like. There’s no way Intel works this way.
Right, because no Republican was ever elected again after Nixon.
Right, because someone made that claim.
The implication is that Nixon’s scandal was a huge long term win for Democrats. In reality, it got Carter a single term.