Rand Paul and the lies of political gain

roscoe

Well-known member
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Regardless of Fauci's or Paul's medical credentials wrt to virology, Mike Huckabee made a valid point which I here paraphrase and summarize in my own words: Fauci is a government employee; we the people are the government; we elect certain people to represent us in the operation of governing; of which one task is to oversee the employees we hire to do that; if Fauci was my employee and he took that disrespectful tone and contentious approach toward me, his employer, he'd find himself with a pink slip in his inbox. He forgets who he works for. Arrogant SOB.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Regardless of Fauci's or Paul's medical credentials wrt to virology, Mike Huckabee made a valid point which I here paraphrase and summarize in my own words: Fauci is a government employee; we the people are the government; we elect certain people to represent us in the operation of governing; of which one task is to oversee the employees we hire to do that; if Fauci was my employee and he took that disrespectful tone and contentious approach toward me, his employer, he'd find himself with a pink slip in his inbox. He forgets who he works for. Arrogant SOB.
I actually think that calling Fauci a liar in front of the whole country is a provocative thing for Paul to have done. He doesn't get a pass for that, so Fauci was well within his rights to call Paul out. Rand Paul needs that, frankly - he is the one who has showed extreme arrogance, in my judgement.

Anyway, he is not Rand Paul's employee, he is mine (and yours), and my interpretation is that he is looking out for the people rather than the politicians. If he has to push back against disingenuous politicians (whether Donald Trump, or Rand Paul), so be it. I think it shows spine.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Well, my interpretation is that he's looking out for himself.
Well, he is human, so I expect he doesn't like being called a liar. I would have pushed back against Rand Paul, too. Huckabee is wrong about that (among other things).

But I haven't seen him give any advice that I think is politically motivated. He largely follows the science, as far as I can tell. States that generally follow his advice on mask recommendations and vaccinations are doing better that those that haven't. I think the evidence is clear on that.

But does he resent having politicians second guess him? I am sure he does, considering that they are unqualified to do so, and that they seem to be pursuing a 'gotcha' agenda rather than just asking what we need to do to get through this thing with a minimum of death and disablement. Which is what they should be doing.

You are aware that he has received quite a few death threats for contradicting the Trumpian line. Yet he has been hanging pretty tough.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
...

But does he resent having politicians second guess him? I am sure he does ...
That's one of the reasons we have politicians ... to oversee our ("we the people") best interests and proper governance, which includes requiring accountability from those hired to do the work, and if the account given doesn't make sense or ring true, some second-guessing may be in order. No doubt some overseers pursue that task with too much vigor and/or with their own one-sided self-interests foremost (see Elizabeth Warren as a rather egregious example). Yet, IF the "boss" is wrong and IF the "employee" is correct, then the way the good employee goes about convincing his or her boss to the correct point of view is most certainly not the method utilized by Dr. Fauci, and if he hasn't learned how to relate to his supervisors and his superiors by now, it's high time for him to either be fired or to retire.

I personally began second-guessing Fauci almost a year ago already, when he was still serving on Trump's coronavirus task force. It was clear to me that he was jockeying to come out as the hero no matter which direction the pandemic might take OR which direction the elections might take.

At this point it's his whole attitude and approach that I find objectionable and I'm not really sure I care all that much anymore about whether he's right.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
That's one of the reasons we have politicians ... to oversee our ("we the people") best interests and proper governance, which includes requiring accountability from those hired to do the work, and if the account given doesn't make sense or ring true, some second-guessing may be in order. No doubt some overseers pursue that task with too much vigor and/or with their own one-sided self-interests foremost (see Elizabeth Warren as a rather egregious example). Yet, IF the "boss" is wrong and IF the "employee" is correct, then the way the good employee goes about convincing his or her boss to the correct point of view is most certainly not the method utilized by Dr. Fauci, and if he hasn't learned how to relate to his supervisors and his superiors by now, it's high time for him to either be fired or to retire.

I personally began second-guessing Fauci almost a year ago already, when he was still serving on Trump's coronavirus task force. It was clear to me that he was jockeying to come out as the hero no matter which direction the pandemic might take OR which direction the elections might take.

At this point it's his whole attitude and approach that I find objectionable and I'm not really sure I care all that much anymore about whether he's right.

Fauci is part of the Executive Branch. He doesn't answer directly to Congress, which is how the system was designed. He can be called to testify, and that is where politicians like to grandstand, which is what Paul is doing. Paul is in no way his 'boss'. He simply represents 1/100th of the voice of the Senate.

Fauci has been largely right, and his previous boss was wrong. You may be sympathetic with Trump, and may see Fauci as a gadfly, but I don't think that is how history will remember him. His predictions and advice have been, scientifically, on the money, and in the US population's best interest, whatever his personality flaws may be (I am sure he disliked Trump personally). I haven't seen any hard evidence that contradicts that basic truth.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
He doesn't answer directly to Congress ...
Of course he answers to Congress. Any person called to testify before a Congress committee is obligated to answer to Congress. Of course, they could decline the invitation .... unless and until they're subpeoned, but if they testify, subpeona or not, they are obligated to answer, and to answer truthfully. Which branch of government they belong to isn't relevant to their obligations, with one exception: "Executive Privilege" may be exercised by the President to prevent their appearance, but that wasn't operative in Fauci's case.

History will certainly remember him and how will depend on who writes that history.

And the funny thing is ... well, no, not funny, sad really, because it just shows how bad his judgment really is: if he'd just 'fess up - "hey, we screwed up, I'm sorry, we shouldn't have done that, it was wrong to trust the Chinese, it will never happen again" - then you'd find that the overwhelming sentiments of the American people would be those of sympathy and forgiveness, and he would be remembered kindly, and silence his critics, to boot. As it is, I don't think that's going to happen. He just keeps digging his pit deeper and deeper.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
When I say 'answer', I don't mean respond. I mean in the sense of being in the chain of authority. As an Executive Branch employee, he is not in Rand Paul's chain of authority. Of course he answers questions put to him by Congress, as anyone would (upon invitation or subpoena). But just because you or I might be called to answer questions to the Senate does not mean Paul has legal authority beyond that. His legal chain of authority really only extends to his own staffers. (Perjury before Congress is prosecuted by the Justice Dept., also an Executive Branch division, although in practice it almost never happens).

I never said anything about Executive Privilege, just the the branch of government under which Fauci is commissioned. Judicial Branch employees also do not answer to Congress, in my sense. (See Articles II and III).

Anyway, what you are doing is called 'begging the question', logically speaking. That is, you assume the answer in your argument. We have no evidence that he in any way funded helped the Chinese do anything untoward. That is still some right-wing speculation that is largely petering out. So he really has nothing to apologize for. If a smoking gun comes out, history will judge him harshly. But, barring that, he is the man who stood up to the president who suggested putting bleach and UV lights in human bodies.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Anyway, what you are doing is called 'begging the question', logically speaking. That is, you assume the answer in your argument. We have no evidence that he in any way funded helped the Chinese do anything untoward. That is still some right-wing speculation that is largely petering out. So he really has nothing to apologize for. If a smoking gun comes out, history will judge him harshly. But, barring that, he is the man who stood up to the president who suggested putting bleach and UV lights in human bodies.
Well, you're begging the question, too, logically speaking. The research conducted in Wuhan meets the definition of gain of function per the NIH definition. The U.S. funded virology research in Wuhan, funding approved and granted by Fauci's agency, that's a matter of public record. Fauci, as head of the agency is responsible for its activities. The logical chain is: Fauci is responsible for enabling Chinese gain of function research. If Fauci wants to dance around the issue by saying he didn't authorize and fund gain of function research then he's very carefully parsing his semantics in order to avoid blame. Funding was granted. What the funding was used for is a matter of accounting. Funds go in one big pot and come out of the same pot. Who can tell what funds were used for what. The CCP certainly didn't need the money so funding them for anything at all was a mistake and whether or not the exact funds granted for research were used for gain of function can't be proved or disproved, but the grant certainly did make funds available for whatever the CCP chose to use the funds.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
....But, barring that, he is the man who stood up to the president who suggested putting bleach and UV lights in human bodies.
Oh, fer cryin out loud, you're really stretching, aren't you?!?! Nobody, and I mean nobody took that comment seriously, except maybe if Fauci did, it just goes to highlight his poor judgment, and perhaps his antipathy toward a man who probably had him pretty well scoped out.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Oh, fer cryin out loud, you're really stretching, aren't you?!?! Nobody, and I mean nobody took that comment seriously, except maybe if Fauci did, it just goes to highlight his poor judgment, and perhaps his antipathy toward a man who probably had him pretty well scoped out.
I am pretty sure Fauci knew not to take him seriously (in terms of understanding the science of the virus) from the outset, but it highlights the way the two men approached the virus. Fauci offered reasoned short-term solutions (social distancing, masking, etc.), while the vaccine was developed. All pretty reasonable suggestions, and pretty much standard protocols established for this kind of outbreak.

I don't even know what to say about Trump's press conference. It was bizarre - he was just kind of winging it, obviously without having talked to any doctors or scientists. I felt bad for Deborah Birx - she looked like she wanted to pull a Homer Simpson.


I actually felt bad for Trump at the time - it must be pretty embarrassing to show the world how out of your depth you are.

But you can be sure that, as the NIH and CDC watched on TV, they knew they had to just do what was necessary for the country, irrespective of Trump. You can imagine their thought balloons - 'this is the man in charge'? And then they had to figure out how to work around him.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Well, you're begging the question, too, logically speaking. The research conducted in Wuhan meets the definition of gain of function per the NIH definition. The U.S. funded virology research in Wuhan, funding approved and granted by Fauci's agency, that's a matter of public record. Fauci, as head of the agency is responsible for its activities. The logical chain is: Fauci is responsible for enabling Chinese gain of function research. If Fauci wants to dance around the issue by saying he didn't authorize and fund gain of function research then he's very carefully parsing his semantics in order to avoid blame. Funding was granted. What the funding was used for is a matter of accounting. Funds go in one big pot and come out of the same pot. Who can tell what funds were used for what. The CCP certainly didn't need the money so funding them for anything at all was a mistake and whether or not the exact funds granted for research were used for gain of function can't be proved or disproved, but the grant certainly did make funds available for whatever the CCP chose to use the funds.

Actually, I think I am pretty well informed here, so I don't believe I am assuming anything not in evidence. The NIH funded a US virology group (EcoHealth) working on the Chinese zoonotic viruses. They worked in China because that is where the viruses come from. That group subcontracted for some small amount of their work that they didn't have an appropriate lab for. And that subcontracted work was not gain-of-function. The Obama administration had put a halt to gain-of-function research in 2014.

Here is a good break-out of the details:
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Quote from your linked article: "The grant cancellation came at a time when then-President Donald Trump and others questioned the U.S. funding to a lab in Wuhan" That is the correct and responsible reaction, and it should have come from Fauci.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Quote from your linked article: "The grant cancellation came at a time when then-President Donald Trump and others questioned the U.S. funding to a lab in Wuhan" That is the correct and responsible reaction, and it should have come from Fauci.
Unless the viruses were coming from that area in China and we wanted access to the early appearances of these viruses. That's why we (used to) send people to Congo and other places with zoonotic viruses. Then Trump cancelled that (USAID's PREDICT program). He also eliminated the White House National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense. He literally took down our guard at the worst possible time.

Past efforts have helped with previous outbreaks of things like various influenza strains (bird and swine) from China and elsewhere in Asia, and with Ebola that threatened to cross borders (including our own).

It is just not as simple as people seem to want to believe. Trump's attitude was always to pull up the drawbridges. But that obviously will never work with viruses. The best defense being a good offense and all that. Playing 'gotcha' on whether some subcontracted lab on a tiny little subgrant might have done something that edges close to protocols misses the whole point. You do need to be at the right place, doing the research. Otherwise you are just swatting at mosquitoes after the screen door is open.

The fact is, if the Chinese wanted to weaponize a coronavirus, they didn't need EcoHealth's tiny subgrant to do it. They have unlimited resources - people, labs, money, you name it. And there is no evidence that they were doing it. It is just Rand Paul trying to score points to show loyalty to Trump, for those voters.

The real question is why the US Gov't didn't have a lot more people there doing research, considering how common these zoonotic viruses appear in Asia. That is the question Congress should be asking. Trump should be on the stand in front of Congress explaining why he gutted the programs designed to detect and solve pandemics. (He also tried to cut the CDC's budget, by a whopping 16%).
 
Last edited:
Top