GOP Congressman clueless about Surgeon General

[RandFan]

Are you complaining that the representatives of the people listen to their constituents? Heaven forbid.

It's listening to only the special interests that bothers me.

In any event, surely you have heard the name Robert Bork. Right?

 

[angrysoba]

I agree and add another

They can't do all the laughing by themselves.

 

[Unabogie]

Political pay back appointing cronies is a real problem. The cluster **** that was Katrina was in large part due to a Bush crony. It sucks.

I actually don't see why the so-called czar needs medical experience. I think he needs managerial experience. Klain has vast experience in government, including dealing with large bureaucracies, which is largely what this job requires. He oversaw the stimulus grants, which was seen (outside the GOP fever swamps) as a well run operation. He's held jobs in both government and the private sector. Unless there's some indication that he would eschew medical expertise or shirk his duties, there's nothing wrong with the choice that isn't pure partisan hackery.

And of course, as with all Obama "scandals", it's ok if you are a Republican.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/20/flashback-when-conservative-media-didnt-care-bu/201229

In 2004, Bush's bird flu czar was Stewart Simonson. He worked as an assistant secretary of health and human services for public health emergency preparedness. And although he had no medical experience or expertise in public health, he did enjoy a noted career as a Republican political insider.

 

[marplots]

It's listening to only the special interests that bothers me.

In any event, surely you have heard the name Robert Bork. Right?

Yes. He was duly confirmed by the US Senate as the Solicitor General. Are you claiming that special interests got him appointed to that job somehow? He was also confirmed by the Senate as a US Circuit Court of Appeals judge. Was it special interests who got him confirmed that time?

If Senate confirmation is going to mean anything in our system, then sometimes they aren't going to rubber-stamp whomever the President nominates. It's in the Constitution.

 

[Spindrift]

Are you complaining that the representatives of the people listen to their constituents? Heaven forbid.

So the NRA is their constituency? Those 3 to 4 million NRA members are representative of the entire country?

 

[marplots]

So the NRA is their constituency? Those 3 to 4 million NRA members are representative of the entire country?

They are an effective lobbying group. Are you saying that the rest of the country couldn't rally together and be just as effective a voice? There is certainly a great deal of power that comes from concentrated, passionate effort backed by money - no doubt. But isn't that same mechanism available to the "approve this guy's nomination" side?

Is there some reason we can't have a Surgeon General who won't run afoul of the NRA? I thought politics was the art of compromise.

 

[Spindrift]

They are an effective lobbying group. Are you saying that the rest of the country couldn't rally together and be just as effective a voice? There is certainly a great deal of power that comes from concentrated, passionate effort backed by money - no doubt. But isn't that same mechanism available to the "approve this guy's nomination" side?

Is there some reason we can't have a Surgeon General who won't run afoul of the NRA? I thought politics was the art of compromise.

But we know the Republicans hate art.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Easy: because their position is popular. Next question?

Exactly, yet when normal gun owners never support the positions they clearly must hold, such as the legality of selling your guns off to some dude you met on the internet in a parking lot some where. That is a very popular position for gun owners, because otherwise how would the NRA support it?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So the NRA is their constituency? Those 3 to 4 million NRA members are representative of the entire country?

Well they are who gun owners have chosen to speak for them. So you have to look at all gun owners not just members.

 

[tyr_13]

No. Reid could get a vote if he wanted one. He doesn't want one, because he doesn't have enough support, because there are enough Democrats who won't support that nominee. And Obama is indeed too stubborn to advance an alternative candidate.

While I agree with part of this, that the candidate does not actually have enough support, I don't think Obama has not floated an alternate candidate because he's stubborn. I'd say it's a combination of actually wanting this candidate and being politically useful for making Republicans appear to be bending over backwards for a special interest whose objection is nonsense for the position.

On that position, I don't think it's the a topic the Surgeon General should or would have much influence on so I don't care what the view of guns of the Surgeon General is.

 

[plague311]

They are an effective lobbying group. Are you saying that the rest of the country couldn't rally together and be just as effective a voice? There is certainly a great deal of power that comes from concentrated, passionate effort backed by money - no doubt. But isn't that same mechanism available to the "approve this guy's nomination" side?

Is there some reason we can't have a Surgeon General who won't run afoul of the NRA? I thought politics was the art of compromise.

My questions is, why should we? Basically the only answer I see being trotted out here equates to, "Cause". That's about it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They are an effective lobbying group. Are you saying that the rest of the country couldn't rally together and be just as effective a voice? There is certainly a great deal of power that comes from concentrated, passionate effort backed by money - no doubt. But isn't that same mechanism available to the "approve this guy's nomination" side?

Is there some reason we can't have a Surgeon General who won't run afoul of the NRA? I thought politics was the art of compromise.

Because the NRA has veto power over most anything in this country.

 

[marplots]

My questions is, why should we? Basically the only answer I see being trotted out here equates to, "Cause". That's about it.

We should consider another candidate because the current nominee can't get approved by the Senate. If that equates to "Cause," then I suppose that's the right answer.

 

[rdaneel]

"Socialism" is a word that is easily equivocated. Could you define your usage of the word for us?

In any event, I've seen no evidence for your proposition. *Nations highest in HDI (including GDP) and Economic Freedom are those that provide social services (to a point, SIME/DIME studies show there is a point of diminishing returns). Correlation does not imply causation but it would be nice to at least have a correlation that moderate levels of social services harms economies.

*sorry to those who have been done this road with me before. Until I get some substantive data and argument to rebut it I'm going to keep bringing it up.

But don't you see, no matter how well a [scarequote]Socialist[/scarequote] country is doing, it can never catch up with the goalposts of how it COULD be doing if not for all those wasteful social programs. Why, if it weren't for that, we'd have flying cars, jetpacks, and free energy static electric motors by now.

 

[WildCat]

Government of the people, by the people and for the people sounds good but in reality it is just a platitude. Besides, whatever is best for special interests like the NRA is in the best interest of the nation.

I see, you want government by the people, for the people, and of the people, but not people who are members of the NRA or support gun rights.

It's just certain people that you wish to influence the government.

 

[WildCat]

On that position, I don't think it's the a topic the Surgeon General should or would have much influence on so I don't care what the view of guns of the Surgeon General is.

Huh? The SG decides if it's an issue they're going to get involved in, and it's clear this guy would make it an issue. So if you think the SG should not be involved in this issue then you should oppose his nomination.

 

[DavidJames]

No. Reid could get a vote if he wanted one. He doesn't want one, because he doesn't have enough support, because there are enough Democrats who won't support that nominee. And Obama is indeed too stubborn to advance an alternative candidate.

Evidence for each of the 4 claims.

 

[newyorkguy]

The NRA has a history of opposing any attempt to involve the public health sector in the gun debate. They were able to work with Republican members of Congress to get a CDC study defunded.

Prior to 1996, the Center for Disease Control funded research into the causes of firearm-related deaths. After a series of articles finding that increased prevalence of guns lead to increased incidents of gun violence, Republicans sought to remove all federal funding for research into gun deaths. News link

The NRA also sought to ban Florida pediatricians from asking parents if there were guns in the home and then suggesting some steps to take to protect children in the home from accidental shootings. (Thousands of children are shot by accident every year.)

 

[casebro]

If so many of the public are anti-gun, how come so few anti-gun laws have been voted in by direct vote of that non-existant majority?

But back on the OP's actual subject, the CDC is being run by some Temporary Surgeon General. I don't know his name, but somebody is in charge.

 

[fishbob]

I see, you want government by the people, for the people, and of the people, but not people who are members of the NRA or support gun rights.

It's just certain people that you wish to influence the government.

1 person, 1 vote.
Not 1 whacktard NRA president speaking for millions, not a few NRA lobbyists speaking for millions.