Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)A Surgeon General nominee ‘tied up in politics’ [View all]

© Jason Reed / Reuters
10/15/14 04:54 PMUPDATED 10/15/14 06:48 PM
Ellie Sandmeyer explained yesterday:
Fox personalities repeatedly worked to cast doubt on Dr. Vivek Murthys nomination, questioning his strong qualifications and smearing him as too political for the job. In March, network host Brian Kilmeade alleged that Murthy hasnt done much in his career yet, and argued that you want to be impressed with a Surgeon General nominees resume. [ ]
In addition to questioning Murthys qualifications, Fox has also worked to baselessly politicize Murthys position that gun violence should be considered a public health issue. Fox & Friends co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck falsely claimed that Murthy views gun ownership as a disease and forwarded claims that he has a radical agenda when it comes to guns and your health. Network legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. suggested Murthy would make the examining room about about party registration or about gun registration, and Fox host Megyn Kelly claimed that Murthy is not a big fan of the Second Amendment, and said he is so anti-gun that the NRA has decided to score this vote.
So when a Fox host complains that politics is leading to a vacancy in the Surgeon Generals office, the natural follow-up question is, Yes, and exactly whose politics might be responsible for this result?
As Rachel noted on the show last night, the public would benefit from having a qualified medical professional focused specifically on helping Americans better understand these complex medical questions. Too bad thats apparently not a politically viable option right now.
Read more: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/surgeon-general-nominee-tied-politics
35 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Blue Dogs won't support the Democratic President's nomination. So here's a question
rhett o rick
Oct 2014
#1
"Condemn" is a harsh word to put into a leading question, but any politician so easily cowed
Fred Sanders
Oct 2014
#2
If condemn is too harsh, then use whatever word you like. I condemn them for just this
rhett o rick
Oct 2014
#6
And thanks for the nice post. I get frustrated with Blue Dogs even though I know they
rhett o rick
Oct 2014
#19
TOO POLITICAL? Is that why the republicans made his confirmation POLITICAL????
George II
Oct 2014
#8
Because this is, historically, a politcal office. We need something not subject to
whereisjustice
Oct 2014
#12
First, we have acting Surgeon General. Second, the office has little power or influence
whereisjustice
Oct 2014
#32
Not forever poisoned. The Office does not belong to any one person, the Office is not symbolic, it
Fred Sanders
Oct 2014
#11
I'm a bit bafffled because many claim that Obama has no power of persuasion due to
whereisjustice
Oct 2014
#15
Yes, and it has been obvious since Day One --- You Lie! (The racist scumbag that yelled that out . .
Major Hogwash
Oct 2014
#33
Righteous Rant! The gop Big LIe Machine has done the opposite of working with the President..
Cha
Oct 2014
#35
Senate Democrats can confirm the Surgeon General without a single Republican vote.
tritsofme
Oct 2014
#24
Right. Because they can't, the filibuster no longer exists for executive nominees
tritsofme
Oct 2014
#30