That's our Sen. Rand Paul, showing leadership for Kentuckians with authentic frontier gibberish.
A reporter asked Paul if he thought Kynect should be dismantled. Paul responded that he was "not sure."
"You know I'm not sure — there's going to be … how we unravel or how we change things. I would rather —I always tell people there's a fork in the road. I was in healthcare for 20 years so we had problems in healthcare so we had problems in healthcare but we could have gone one of two directions," Paul said. "One was towards more competition and more marketplace and one was toward more government control. The people who think that the government can efficiently distribute medicine need to explain why the VA's been struggling for decade after decade in a much smaller system. And they also need to explain, even though I think we all want Medicare to work better, why Medicare is $35 trillion short. There's a lot of questions that are big questions that are beyond the exchange and the Kynect and things like that. It's whether or not how we're going to fund these things."
What happened to "It has to be repealed" Rand? Suddenly Republicans like Rand and Mitch can't say if they want to get rid of Kynect or not. They certainly hated it before and promised us it would surely fail.
Except for the fact Kynect has been a model for the entire country, and everything. Suddenly it's the Palin-speak above. Suddenly it's not a yes or no answer anymore.
Funny how that works.
Posts
2 comments:
The hysterical ninnies over at the dailykos.com are dismissing this list of sixteen questions as just another mountain of NSA disrupter troll bullshit, which to their minds means that it can simply be sneered out of existence.
I agree with your point on question eleven, which dovetails nicely with the central point of the Kinsley book review that was treated so poorly by the Greenwald sycophants. To whit: do we want important national security decisions to be made by our elected representatives, or by lone wolves like Snowden who manage to seize a fulcrum with which they can exert an outsized influence?
We need to keep a tight check over our elected officials - just look at the damage that Bush and his cronies were able to inflict with their arrogance - and whistleblowers are essential when they reveal important abuses and ongoing criminality. But Snowden with his accent on old programs that have since been reined in and Greenwald with his lurid exaggerations of programs that might one day be activated, these hardly constitute existential threats to the Republic that justify the mindless histrionics that have been displayed in some circles. Blowing important secrets just to gratify some petty grudge against the NSA is not in the national interest, especially when it chokes off support for important efforts aimed at stopping the CIA which truly is on the rampage and needs to be chained up forthwith.
But I thought Senator Not Sure was supposed to be the smartest man in the world!
Post a Comment