I saw my eye doc on Tuesday. He made a credible case for Fauci to be replaced . . . .

[Stinky The Clown]

. . . . not replaced in his job but replaced as a media spokesman. His reasoning was pretty simple, really. Fauci has become the news and his person has eclipsed his message. Not by intent, but by mediapoliticiansrightwingdumbies. No matter why, it simply is.

He suggests Fauci continue to advise and guide but that we find a new public face of it all.

I am not sure I agree with this but the argument is worth consideration.

Thoughts?

[NoRethugFriends]

1. hell no. no giving in to the bastards. (nt)

[Casady1]

2. If they change him as a spokesman

then the republicans will consider it a victory. This will only amplify their bullying and will give them license to bully more. Democrats cannot surrender and must continue to stand up to the bullies.

[KarenS]

3. I understand,,,

people that rely on facts tend to basically over-explain the reasons why they are coming to the conclusion,,,,
I love Dr Fauci and I love how he explains but he is not a media person for the masses.

and

on edit: I don't think it should be a formal replacement/announcement just ease someone else in. He's an old man for heaven's sake he does not deserve all the hatred he's receiving.

[Demsrule86]

4. No and no.

[USALiberal]

5. Your eye doctor??? Is he some type of expert on viruses?

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Are you?

What if I said he was a neighbor? A business acquaintance?

Why the snark? It is an opinion that I had never hear articulated dispassionately.

[Hekate]

33. He was only opining on being the spokesman/public face, not on Fauci's undoubted expertise

[LuckyCharms]

6. They'll just try to destroy the person who replaces him.

That's how they operate.

[demmiblue]

10. Yep. n/t

[stopdiggin]

14. yes. if you're one of those

for which 'Fauci has become the message' - I'm seriously questioning whether a 'new face' is going to bring you around.

On the other hand - maybe the poor schmuck could really use (in fact would appreciate?) a break.

[Septua]

21. It's a 'shoot the messenger' thing for...

..telling the truth. The Cult hates truth...

[Demsrule86]

7. Your doctor sounds like a right winger.

[Irish_Dem]

16. Yes, he is clueless.

[Walleye]

8. Republicans will do this demonizing to anybody who is even remotely on our side.

[Claustrum]

9. That used to be how we operate many years ago.

If you have someone too "controversial", you replace him. But it doesn't work under the current republican right wing alternative fact world.

1) They will make whoever that replaces Fauci too "controversial" anyways. They don't like the message, they don't like their position (that is opposite) to them. There is no getting to them.

2) They only get their "spokesman" more extreme and crazy. They aren't moderating their spokesmen. Why should we? And lets be honest, Fauci isn't some staunch leftist. He is just speaking from a science perspective and the right doesn't like that.

3) The COVID restriction phase is coming to a close worldwide (not only in the US. It's happening in a lot of countries right now). Unless there is another variant that kills a lot of people, the CDC role is diminishing.

[Blues Heron]

11. dont give in to the bastards

Nothing wrong with Fauci. find another eye doctor?

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Thanks for the snark. Got a rec for a new eye doc?

Good message: "dont give in to the bastards Nothing wrong with Fauci"

Silly "blame the messenger" message: "find another eye doctor?"

[Blues Heron]

26. Sorry Stinky. you're right

It was unnecessary snark on my part.

[AngryOldDem]

12. Who would the new "public face" be?

They demonize anyone who’s telling the truth.

[riversedge]

13. I am tempted to say Do not give in but his PH work is SO important and I think it is worth considera

tion.

Sad--and horrible that he has to hire security to protect himself and his family. That is another consideration.

[panader0]

15. My only concern about Fauci is his age. He has worked tirelessly on covid-19

and for years before on every infectious disease we've had. The guy is 81 years old and deserves
every bit of respect the country can give him. The critics calling for his death must be wearing hard
on him. I say, if he feels he can be of service, let him continue.

[JustAnotherGen]

17. I would have a hard time

Taking anyone as seriously as I do Dr. Fauci. I also trust him.

[Karma13612]

18. Well, I remember the days when the US Surgeon General had a LOT

More public facing presence than they do lately.

Not sure why that ever changed unless it has to do with the Repukes being anti-science and therefore appointing idiots. Then when a Democratic administration comes along, they are afraid to give their pick too much visibility since the position itself has been degraded?

I have no clue anymore. But, I think it would be nice if our USSG would get in front of a camera once in awhile and tell the American people that COVID is bad and Masks and Vaccinations are helping. It has been left up to HHS, MCR and the CDC. That’s fine, but they are getting no respect from a whole chunk of the country.

I know I’m probably wrong, but I’m just sick of the disrespect I am seeing towards ‘good-guys” in this country, across the board.

[Beakybird]

19. I agree with the eye doctor who never claimed to be a virologist btw.

The CDC should find an extremely sharp and quick on her toes female scientist with Jen Psaki level communication skills.
Faucci is good with the media, but we need someone who kicks ass and takes no names.

[634-5789]

20. Nope. Make the MAGAts and mouth breathers cringe when they see him!

[Omen78]

22. I think its about the message.

Once the person becomes a deflection of the message, the message isn't effective. The battle should be saving lives not right or left.

[CentralMass]

23. I'll take Fauci as spokesman over Willinski (sp ?) any day of the week.

[SoonerPride]

27. I think your eye doctor should stick to opthamology

and leave public messaging to others.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. You're correct. He is not entitled to an opinion and I should never have posted about it.

You DO understand that was SARCHASM. Not sarcasm. SARCHASM. Different word. It often but not always applies to those who dwell in the ozone.

[SoonerPride]

30. You asked my thoughts.

The last line of your OP said "thoughts?"

Well, I gave you mine which is that your eye doctor should not be in charge of public health information messaging.

That's my thought.

If you don't agree, that's fine.

I didn't chastise you for posting it.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. He never asked to be in charge. I didn't suggest he should be.

He had an opinion that I shared.

That reduces your "thoughts" to snark, at best.

Have a swell day. See at the Student Union. Maybe we can grab a pop.

[SoonerPride]

32. You seems personally offended that someone has a differing opinion

Maybe message boards aren’t for you.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. Actually, it seems that perhaps you have an issue with comprehension.

Let's start with the fact stated in the OP. To wit: he stated cogently *his* opinion. I found it cogent and debatable and posted it here. I said I didn't agree with it but found it worth discussing. On the notion of agreeing with him, as stated in the OP, I didn't agree with it. Which is sort of agreeing you, actually.

But see, here's the thing. That was not the question, was not even hinted at in the OP, yet it is now a point of debate between you and me because you invented the idea and use a more or less insulting tone to present it.

In light of your inability to be honest about your intent (as I assume it to be) in debating what was not a topic intended to be debated in the OP, you and I are now measuring the distance of our respective urine streams.

I'm done.

You should be too.

I hope you have a great evening.











Oh. And by the way I was not offended by you. Please don't allow yourself to think your opinion of me and whether or not I am suited to use message boards matters. For all of that to be true, I would have to find value in your opinion of me. Truly, I don't.

[Poiuyt]

34. There's nothing bad about the idea

Find a Jen Psaki type media person to deal with the press.

[Emile]

36. As long as they don't make Rand Paul the media spokesman!

[ProfessorGAC]

37. I Disagree With Your Doctor

1. They never actually had a problem with him, it was with what he represented. A public health expert they couldn't intimidate into silence. They were reacting to THE MESSAGE, and in typical fashion, had no rebuttal than to attack the messenger. To tens of millions of people, he's not damaged goods.
2. Replacing him will be trumpeted as a victory on the right. We should give them no victories, even imaginary ones.
3. A replacement is going to be sending the same message. Given my belief in #1, the face of the messenger is irrelevant.
4. We're now appearing to be on a true backside of the pandemic. Replacing him now robs him of the chance to be the happy face on the return to closer to normal life. He's done nothing to lose the privilege of being the one to cheerily take the country back to DEFCON 5.

[cadoman]

39. Fauci is one of the best things going in government

I wouldn't mind if he were on TV three hours a day. Just give him a mic and let him roll.

The man is the single best resource we have in the fight against COVID. No one has more trust or credibility or experience with this virus. It's only because Trump undermined him that he has any issues. Give him our full support.