Conyers Vs. Gupta. Oh, It's On. (ABC)

[kpete]

Conyers Vs. Gupta. Oh, It's On.

January 08, 2009 2:17 PM

A "Dear Colleague" letter was sent from Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to other members of Congress to solicit signature for a letter to the President-elect protesting the notion of a Surgeon General Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

(Yes, Mr. Conyers misspelled "Sanjay" and "Nobel" Prize.)

"January 7, 2009

"Dear Colleague,

"Please join me in signing a letter to President-Elect Barack Obama that Dr. Sunjay (sic) Gupta not be nominated for the post of Surgeon General.

"I join in opposition with respected Noble (sic) Peace Prize award wining economist Paul Krugman, who has very serious concerns with having Dr. Gupta be the nation’s Surgeon General. (See January 6, 2009, New York Times Hosted Blog, 'Conscience of a Liberal.' Available at http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/the-trouble-with-sanjay-gupta.)

more at:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/conyers-vs-gupt.html

[OhioChick]

1. K&R

:kick:

[Sebastian Doyle]

Ram HR676 down their goddamned corporatist throats, Mr. Conyers!!

And get Dennis in on this too. I have a feeling he will be. :)

[leftstreet]

9. HR676 !!

I wish the M$M would talk about HR676

x(

[1776Forever]

11. Yes, us hell raisers will now be yelled out again - I am right with you Sebastian!

:hide:

[Mojambo]

13. Hell Yeah.

Sing it brother.

[deaniac21]

2. Hell of a staff!

[NJmaverick]

3. Before the Democrats can enact a single piece of meaningful legislation

they manage to self destruct in an orgy of pettiness. :eyes:

[I814U]

6. I'm torn...

...between supporting my president and being wary of Dr Gupta's of questionable loyalties.

I want to believe that Obama has our best interests at heart and that Dr Gupta is more in line with those intents than the ambitions his former paymasters. It takes a lot of faith and I'm trying to hold on to it.

[merh]

31. You can support your president and not like all of his appointments

It's like working for an employer and not liking everyone employed by the company. That's life, you aren't going to like everyone and everyone does not see the world as you see it.

The man in charge is Obama, from what I have been able to gather from a read of his books and the way he ran the campaign, he will be in charge and it is his policy that the folks he appoints will be expected to adhere to. I'm willing to give him a chance to take office and set some policy before I get all wrapped up in concern.

There is too much to fix to worry about the tools used to make the repairs, let's get the repairs made.

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. Yes, because it's always "petty"

To want ACTUAL change in this country. As opposed to more of the same bullshit we've had for the last 28 years. Conyers is one of the good guys, and he's got the REAL health care plan that America needs. Right now.

[NJmaverick]

10. Well you are not going to get any change if you manage to implode before acting

Sorry I think you need to have a better reason to block our President's choices, than you don't like a person's position on one issue.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. I'd say the Surgeon General's position on HEALTH CARE REFORM is fairly relevant.

If you're going to be the number one doctor in the country, shouldn't you want the best quality health care for all Americans?

[rhett o rick]

23. You tear down dissenters, but what is your position? Do you think Gupta is the best choice?

An adequate choice? or You will blindly support all Obama's choices?

[marshall]

15. Who needs Republicans when Democrats are determined to fight Obama

Is there going to be a Democrat step forward to fight . every . single . thing . that President Obama does?

[rhett o rick]

24. Unlike republicans, we will keep our candidate's feet to the fire.

And we will question every single thing that he does that smells rotten. We have a lot invested in Obama, our country. We are not going to relax until this country is fixed.

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. The Gupta nomination isn't pettiness. It is an unmistakeable statement of intent.

Conyers is right.

[rhett o rick]

30. Bingo. nm

[B o d i]

4. Paul Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, not the Nobel Peace Prize

Is it that hard to do a quick google?

[Virginia Dare]

5. Can anybody name the current surgeon general without googling?

seriously, does the person do anything? There could be an amoeba currently serving in that post for all I know. Sorry, but you've got to pick your battles.

[leftstreet]

7. It's Dr. Phil, isn't it?

[Virginia Dare]

12. I think it's Captain Morgan...

or maybe Captain Kangaroo?

[leftstreet]

14. Even Captain Kirk could get us better healthcare prices

[Sebastian Doyle]

17. It's just too bad Captain Kirk can't recommend his favorite physician to the job

..... he's dead Jim :evilfrown:

[Virginia Dare]

28. He could still do it....n/t

[zorahopkins]

18. Captain Kangaroo is Dead, So It Must Be....

Since Captain Kangaroo is dead, the current Surgeon General must be Captain Crunch.

[rhett o rick]

22. So your argument is that we shouldn't care who Obama picks because it isn't an important job?

The very fact that Obama choose him over more qualified candidates (IMHO) says tons.

[Virginia Dare]

27. My argument is anybody is qualified to do that job..

Martha Stewart could do that job. It matters little, if any at all.

[rhett o rick]

29. So why oh why did he choose Gupta instead of Martha Stewart? He has a reason.

It is reasonable to question him and ask for his reasoning. Personally, I would prefer Martha over Gupta. But that's just me.

[Daemonaquila]

38. ALL the posts matter.

I'm tired of hearing that argument. Every single one of those nominees matters. They all influence policy and public opinion about those policies. A relatively weaker post can become extremely powerful depending on the person who holds it. We need neither a pretty face with no substance who does nothing in the post of Surgeon General, nor an active administrator who isn't on board with what's best for the american people and selling it for all it's worth. Gupta could be either of those, but he won't be a strong advocate for smart universal coverage or a 1-payer system.

When choosing a Surgeon General, Obama needs to take the Hippocratic Oath to heart - First of all, do no harm!

[tpsbmam]

36. Nope, but I remember a couple of surgeons general who were more vocal, as I suspect

Gupta would be. And I remember both the good and the bad.

Joycelyn Elders (Clinton): I considered her an excellent SG. She advocated for consideration of legalization of some illegal drugs and for contraceptives in schools, among other things. Clinton (incredibly hypocritically) fired her after her comments about masturbation, which were made in response to a direct question about the subject. I was pissed at Clinton on that one -- he buckled to the hypocritical moralists instead of standing up for a terrific SG. ( didn't always agree with her, but she was overall good.)

C. Everett Koop (Reagan): had some good and lots of bad. Was very anti-choice BUT refused to buckle on the right-wing demands that he report on damages to women that simply didn't exist. He had a real battle on that one, resulting in the Koop Report that he reportedly didn't write, didn't approve and didn't want written. He certainly was very strong on the smoking issue and IIRC he was the first SG to call nicotine addictive. His AIDS work was VERY mixed, but despite right-wing fury at him, stuck to promoting condom use as a means of preventing transmission and he stuck to the importance of sex education in schools. He sucked and continues to suck on issues like pesticides and he/ACSH are total sellouts on many issues, including pesticides. He's too often a corporate/right-wing shill these days but he has done some good work and he's certainly memorable.

I'm sure others can remember more but those two were quite memorable for me. Just because we don't remember most doesn't mean that the SG can't have a big impact on policy -- he/she can. Look at Koop and his impact on tobacco!

[goforit]

19. Conyers is absolutely right We can not have Oil companies let alone Pharmaceuticals

make decisions for American citizens according to their profit goals.

Gupta is a "PAY to PLAY" pharmaceutical propagandist.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Did Conyer's have any objections to any Bush appointees?

The homophobic one, for instance?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

21. Krugman's two paragraphs of strong concerns?

:rofl:

[K Gardner]

25. I don't get it. I'm not crazy over Gupta, but I don't see a coherent objection in this

piece.

Despite the fact I personally don't care for Gupta, Obama had his reasons. He wanted a salesman and he got one very familiar to america. Hopefully, they'll use Gupta as PR and do the REAL work around him.

[merh]

32. Conyers wants the single payer health care plan

this is his way to have his case heard, it is a politic shot across the bow of the administration. He wants his plan given due consideration and he has a right to expect that. He is letting them know that Obama's plan is not going to be an easy sell.

[AzDar]

33. Excellent.

No more Corporatists, please.

[rateyes]

34. I would be tempted to listen and support Conyers in this effort, if he had

listened and supported those of us who worked hard to have him uphold his constitutional duties to hold impeachment hearings.

[merh]

35. I share your frustrations.

We put so much faith in Conyers and, at one point, he had us convinced he would pursue impeachment - then he said it was too late.

Conyers has let me down on a number of issues, I can't get all excited about what he does any more as I don't see him following through for the people, I see his concerns for political clout as controlling.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. This Battle Is Becoming Really Ridiculous And Petty.

Gupta is fine and was selected for good reasons. John's feigned outrage as well as written mistakes makes him look silly and causes him to lose some credibility in context of this appointment.