General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRepublican Congressman Is Unaware There Is No Surgeon General To Head Ebola Response
Republican Congressman Is Unaware There Is No Surgeon General To Head Ebola Response
The Huffington Post | By Amber Ferguson
Posted: 10/23/2014 4:04 pm EDT Updated: 50 minutes ago
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) says Ron Klain is "off to a bad start" in his new role as the president's Ebola response coordinator, and that the U.S. Surgeon General should be the one leading the effort. But what Chaffetz doesn't seem to realize is that there hasn't been a surgeon general for more than a year.
Why not have the surgeon general head this up?" Chaffetz asked in a Wednesday appearance on Fox News. "I think thats a very legitimate question. At least you have somebody who has a medical background whose been confirmed by the United States Senate.
It begs the question, what does the surgeon general do?" he added. "Why arent we empowering that person?
more...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/jason-chaffetz-surgeon-general_n_6036544.html
pinto
(106,886 posts)A detriment to us all, regardless of party affiliation.
babylonsister
(170,963 posts)imo; we're aware of this, why isn't he?
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)Maybe if they actually worked full time they might be aware of what goes on in Washington.
I guess that's to much to ask of them.
tanyev
(42,360 posts)Good question, Jason. You gonna get back to us when you have an answer?
Hekate
(90,202 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)him....
THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE...
Are we going to survive these idiots?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)Looks to me like this would be an election "decider," i.e., if he has a Democratic challenger?
NYtoBush-Drop Dead
(490 posts)napkinz
(17,199 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Because "Your dead kids don't trump my rights." Their right to be afraid over all the other rights combined for the rest of us.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Yupster
(14,308 posts)Reid can call a vote any day he wants to.
The House has nothing to do with confirmations.
The senate got rid of the filibuster for confirmations.
This is all Reid's doing. He's delaying the vote till after the election to protect Landreaux, Pryor, Hagan and Begich from having to take a tough vote.
Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)Yupster
(14,308 posts)from the US Senate website, www.senate.gov
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
hold - An informal practice by which a senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The majority leader need not follow the senator's wishes, but is on notice that the opposing senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So, now after all these years, street fighter Harry Reid has developed a case of excessive courtesy?
As I said before, Senator Reid can call a vote for Surgeon General any day he wants to and have the guy confirmed. All he has to do is convince 50 Democratic senators (Biden breaks tie) to vote yes.
He won't do that before the election because more than five Democratic senators have told him they will not vote for this nominee.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)thanks to his stupid party?
Or is he just going around flapping his gums and having ignorant "news" people agree with him?
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)There has never been a vote for the surgen general since Reed has never scheduled one.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)enrich their fundraising.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)And refresh my memory, but wasn't it Chaffetz's political compatriots who were screaming for an "ebola czar" at the beginning of the week? Where was Chaffetz when all that complaining was going on? Seems like the Republicans will moan and complain no matter what happens. It almost makes you think that the President would be justified in ignoring these yammerers.
onenote
(42,383 posts)of course he hasn't been confirmed by the Senate, although why the hell that should matter is a mystery to me.
branford
(4,462 posts)Biography of the Acting Surgeon General
Rear Admiral (RADM) Boris D. Lushniak, M.D., M.P.H.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/about/biographies/biosg.html
I would also note that Murthy has not been voted on, no less confirmed, because Harry Reid will not permit a vote. This is because Murthy cannot muster a majority of Democratic support in the Senate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/us/senate-balks-at-obama-pick-for-surgeon-general.html
pinto
(106,886 posts)The surgeon generals office which deals with policies of medicine and public health is not usually a focus of gun-rights advocates. But an N.R.A. spokesman, Andrew Arulanandam, said that it was taking no chances that under Dr. Murthy the office would veer into gun policy. All the rules have changed as far as this White House is concerned, he said. Given Dr. Murthys blatant activism on behalf of gun control, thats not a gamble were willing to take.
The N.R.A. has said it will score any confirmation vote meaning that voting yes would negatively affect a senators annual rating from the group. This is not an idle concern for senators like Mr. Begich, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and John Walsh of Montana all Democrats who represent states where opposition from the N.R.A. could mean the difference in a close race.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/us/senate-balks-at-obama-pick-for-surgeon-general.html?_r=0
branford
(4,462 posts)The simple fact, as you readily acknowledge, is that Murthy's gun control positions make him controversial to as many as 10 Democratic senators, and therefore deny him the Senate majority needed for confirmation.
I agree that the position of Surgeon General is not usually the focus of gun rights advocates. However, it's equally unusual for the nominee to a position that many view as ceremonial, and certainly not partisan, to advocate what many consider to be a very controversial gun control view.
If the priority of the administration was actually having a Surgeon General to muster our Ebola-fighting resources, there are many highly qualified candidates, including the Acting Surgeon General, that could easily be confirmed by a bi-partisan Senate.
840high
(17,196 posts)General would be a very good choice.
TomCADem
(17,378 posts)I don't see the nominee as some sort of gun control activist. It is amazing that simply saying that gun violence raises a public health concern constitutes a controversial statement.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/11/what-conservatives-get-wrong-in-their-smear-cam/198449
branford
(4,462 posts)The fact of the matter is that Murthy is considered controversial enough by a sufficient number of Democratic senators that he cannot be confirmed, at least before the election.
What I find most unusual is that many claim Murthy is not a gun control activist, yet the actual basis for his notoriety and popularity appear to be these very same gun control positions, and the reason many are fighting so strongly for his confirmation. His resume is certainly impressive, but particularly due to his youth, is hardly exceptional or unique.
If the real reason why we need a permanent Surgeon General is to muster and coordinate our Ebola resources, I wish someone could explain to me what special or unique skills Murthy has in this area, no less that exceed the qualifications of other far less controversial potential candidates for the position, such as the Acting Surgeon General.
If the President truly believed that we needed a permanent Surgeon General for the Ebola crisis, he could readily nominate a highly-qualified candidate that could easily and quickly attain a bipartisan confirmation. The fact that we are still discussing Murthy a year after he was initially nominated demonstrates that the Ebola rationale for Surgeon General is, at best, a red herring, and the relative silence by the White House and Harry Reid, an acknowledgment that Murthy is more controversial than many would like to admit, and that he might not even be the best candidate available.
TomCADem
(17,378 posts)You might as well let the right wing hand pick your nominees if you can take any statement out of context and let Republicans deem it to be disqualifying. In other words, Murphy is hardly like Elizabeth Warren as a nominee for Consumer Protection. In other words, if we accept the idea that it does not matter whether the Republicans' objections to Murphy are legitimate, and that the Democrats should appoint someone who is more palatable, then that is just outright surrender. I can understand if Republicans were actually opposed to Murphy based on something more germane to his duties.
branford
(4,462 posts)I have no objection to Murthy, but such nominees need to be confirmed by the Senate, an innately political body.
In this instance, Murthy is not only opposed by the Republicans, but as many as 10 Democrats. He simply does not have the requisite majority even among our own party. Stop complaining about the Republicans, and change the minds of at least 5 Democrats. This same problem recently happened with Debo Adegbile. Obama and some Democrats were embarrassed, others cast votes that will hurt them in this election, he still wasn't nominated, and yet another loyal Democratic candidate fills the office. Politics is tough, and we need to choose our battles wisely.
Moreover, claiming Murthy's is not really a gun control advocate and that we need him to fight Ebola appears just as disingenuous as Republican complaints. Murthy has no special skill set or experience concerning Ebola or coordinating national resources to fight an epidemic, and the reason why many here support him so strongly is actually his public gun control positions.
TomCADem
(17,378 posts)...Rand Paul is a Republican as far as I know.
branford
(4,462 posts)A hold is an informal agreement among Senators, and Reid is not exactly known for his courtesy, particularly after the nuclear option.
The simple fact is that Reid likes the hold. He does not want to bring the nomination to a vote since he lacks of majority for confirmation. There are 55 Democrats in the Senate. He only needs 50 Democratic votes (plus Biden to break a tie) to confirm Murthy. As the NYT article clearly describes, as many as 10 Democrats will not vote for confirmation, particularly before the election.
If you want me to take claims of Republican obstructionism seriously in this particular instance, you first need to demonstrate that Murthy can be confirmed but for the Republicans. You need to convince members of our own Party that Murthy should be confirmed before you point a finger elsewhere.
TeamPooka
(24,156 posts)pinto
(106,886 posts)2464 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-7751
Did you vote on a confirmation for Surgeon General? I realize that's not your job. It's for the Senate.
Yet your party has filibustered any consideration on a Senate vote.
It's embarrassing to see a US Representative so unaware of the actions, or inactions, inherent to his job.
You may have stumbled here but there will always be a spot as a "political analyst" on Fox News for you.
Go for it.
branford
(4,462 posts)There are sufficient Democrats in the Senate to confirm Murthy today (if they were in session).
After Reid's "nuclear option," executive appointments only need 50+1 votes to close debate. There are 55 Democrats in the Senate, and Murthy hasn't received a vote because Reid refuses to schedule a vote.
The Republicans would love for Reid to put Murthy's nomination to a vote. Democrats would either sink the nominee and embarrass the White House, or vote for him, and virtually ensure a defeat in either their upcoming election or soon thereafter. A vote against Murthy and for 2A rights would be a positive for virtually all Republicans in their home states.
If Obama nominated someone totally non-controversial and non-partisan, particularly during the Ebola crisis, he or she would likely receive a swift and bipartisan confirmation, just like the recently nominated new VA Secretary after the recent scandals.
Republicans have certainly tried to block the president on multiple occasions, but the failure to confirm Murthy is the result of raw Democratic political calculus in an election year, and to some, cowardice.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Knee jerk reaction in response to his comments.
branford
(4,462 posts)green917
(442 posts)Sen. Rand Paul placed a hold on Dr. Murthy's nomination so, majority leader Reid couldn't bring him up for a vote, even if he wanted to! The reason? Petty politics over not wanting to pissf off the almighty nra....you may be okay with an advocate for the manufacturers of deadly weapons (and, that is exactly what the nra is) dictating public health policy. I, for one, am not. Dr. Murthy is eminently qualified for the position and should have been easily confirmed!
branford
(4,462 posts)The NRA, ACLU, Michael Bloomberg, the KKK or anyone else is entitled to speak freely and lobby their elected representatives, regardless of their viewpoint. There is no "manufacturers of deadly weapons" exception to the Constitution.
Moreover, as the NYT articles explains, as many as 10 Democrats will not support Murthy. No matter what you think of his qualifications, he cannot muster a simple majority of the Democratic-controlled Senate. The reason for the lack of support is immaterial. The filibuster issue is a red herring (and a "hold" is not a filibuster). The reason why the White House and Harry Reid are not screaming about Republican obstructionism is because forcing a vote will backfire on our party, and could even cost us the Senate. Murthy would also still fail to be confirmed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/us/senate-balks-at-obama-pick-for-surgeon-general.html
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)if he had all the Democrats behind him but he clearly doesn't.
Of course the Republicans are obstructionists but they are getting help from Blue Dog Democrats on this issue. The Republicans can't hold up the appointment alone. The Blue Dogs are siding with the Republicans to hold up this appointment.
I think your ire should be aimed at the DINO Blue Dogs.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)You read an awful lot into a simple question that wasn't directed towards you.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)his Blue Dog friends that support the Republican hold.
Response to pinto (Reply #11)
Yupster This message was self-deleted by its author.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)No wonder Utah is so out of touch with the likes of you. Forgot,we escaped from that backassward state. Oh how sweet it is.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)(See my posts above for an explanation of why Harry Reid will not allow a vote on the nomination)
onenote
(42,383 posts)Is there something he can do that the Acting Surgeon General doesn't have the power to do?
And is there some miracle step he can take that will significantly change the situation from where it is now?
lpbk2713
(42,696 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Initech
(99,915 posts)We have no surgeon general to deal with Ebola, so Obama nominates an "Ebola czar".
Ebola czar takes office, republicans complain that we don't have a surgeon general.
Obama nominates surgeon general, republicans complain about it.
The definition of insanity should be changed to "conservative republican".
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If that comment does not merit your "disqualifying" judgment, I don't know what does.
irisblue
(32,829 posts)dumbass
Rex
(65,616 posts)They make it obvious, daily.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)kairos12
(12,817 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)this is what they do. Don't give the president what he needs, then question why the problem isn't being addressed. Republican voters buy it hook, line, and sinker.
Sancho
(9,065 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Vote this fool out.
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)Ixnay on the surgeon generalay
malaise
(267,824 posts)among ReTHUGs
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)sammy750
(165 posts)The comments of Chaffetz shows how smart the Republicans really are and how much they care about the people and nation. They are in office for the power and to do nothing but become millionaires. It is easy money for law makers in office.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...did anyone remind that fool that HIS party has been blocking the confirmation of the Surgeon General?
Response to babylonsister (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Orsino
(37,428 posts)xocet
(3,870 posts)...
"I know there's some confusion there, but I don't think I was confused," Chaffetz said.
...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/jason-chaffetz-surgeon-general_n_6036544.html
Botany
(70,291 posts)"Well I do know there's an acting surgeon general, I understand that. The surgeon general is also an office. It's the Office of the Surgeon General. I know there's some confusion there, but I don't think I was confused," Chaffetz said.
xocet
(3,870 posts)Botany
(70,291 posts)What did one philosopher tell an other philosopher?
Don't put da' cart before the horse.
BTW I noticed from the clip he likes his hair product.
xocet
(3,870 posts)Here is a NPR report that mentions a book which correlates certain classes of jokes with philosophical ideas:
May 13, 2007 8:00 AM ET
Host Liane Hansen speaks with Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, authors of Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar... Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes.
Copyright © 2007 NPR. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.
LIANE HANSEN, host:
Okay stop me if you've heard this one. A Buddhist walks up to a hotdog stand and says, make me one with everything. The Buddhist pays the vendor and asks for change. The vendor says, change comes from within.
It helps to know a little about Buddhist philosophy to understand the joke, and the joke itself provides a little insight into Buddhist philosophy. And that's what Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein hope to accomplish with their new book, "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar... Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes". They've got a million of them. And they join us from member station WBUR in Boston.
...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10158510
PatrickforO
(14,516 posts)it's actually a CLOSE race and these charlatans might very well gain a MAJORITY in the Senate.
Yep, we truly have the government we deserve...
KansDem
(28,498 posts)And dumb as a pile of rocks.
Nice work if you can get it...
OldRedneck
(1,397 posts). . . I hear of something that is so goddam stupid, all I can do is bang my head into the desk over and over and over . .
czarjak
(11,194 posts)Why are you are you such a dickheaded dumbsss? You dickheaded dumbass.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Fox/Republicans are better at the propaganda business than Dems. Fox/Republicans know their audience; they know their audience has no memory and will flip with the outrage du jour. We've seen it time and again, Fox viewers will be outraged today on one side of a debate when, 6 months prior, they were outraged holding the opposite position on the same issue.
So now Fox News is blaming Obama. That's their business model. The only wonder here is that DUers think Chaffetz isn't playing his role in an orchestrated blame Obama campaign.
Nothing here, people...
ileus
(15,396 posts)TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)The article is stupid for that reason alone. The fact that they didn't highlight (in the headline) just WHY Chaffetz's faux pas is so telling.
It's bad enough that this feckless, self-promoting assclown is totally unaware that there IS no Surgeon General; but it's adding insult to injury that HuffPo didn't HIGHLIGHT the fact that it's actually HIS PARTY that is BLOCKING the appointment of a Surgeon General. And adding MORE insult to injury over the fact that the REASON they're blocking the Surgeon General's appointment is not because he's unqualified for the job of Surgeon General, but because The NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION wants him blocked over his personal opinions on gun regulations.
ARMYofONE
(69 posts)How's about we stick to legitimate criticisms of Repubs, and there are plenty of them, instead of parroting around demonstrably false memes that actually reflect negatively on the Democratic party. The failure to appoint a SG rests solely on Dem shoulders. #endderpnow
Links have been posted above. Here's another one.
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2014/02/26/rand-paul-places-hold-surgeon-general-nominee-vivek-murthy-but-serious-delay-not-likely-under-new-rules/vgnbvvTNQahsk7S3oEsTEL/story.html
TrollBuster9090
(5,953 posts)thus made it difficult for Red State Dems to support Murthy. To say the failure to appoint a SG rests "solely on Dem shoulders," because the block the Republicans and the NRA put on the appointment was not 100% impervious is a little silly. It's like shooting somebody through the chest, and then blaming them for their own death because they weren't wearing a bullet proof vest.