since they are afraid the voters don't trust them on gun issues... why not nominate a different surgeon general rather than forcing crazy leftists to write obfuscating articles.
in the middle of your article db we did see the real issue illuminated. In a March 14 piece in The New York Times, Jeremy Peters wrote about the battle over Murthy. “We are recalibrating our strategy around his floor vote,” he quoted one senior White House official as saying, who added that a range of options was being discussed. They included working with Democratic leaders to gain more support, delaying a vote until after the midterm elections, or allowing Dr. Murthy to withdraw.
Not stalking .. just doing some probability .. I suspected there was a high probability chance than yet another Salon staffer would look quite effeminate. Googling his name showed that .. I wasn't replying to you by the way.
Polls are all about how the questions are phrased and who gets asked them. What do you think the numbers would be on a representative sample if asked: "Do you think it would be prudent to restrict travel from countries in Africa with active outbreaks of ebola, as many foreign countries have already done?"
Suddenly the Surgeon General is the only person in government who can talk about elbola? How about that moron from the CDC Dr. Frieden? He's the one they sent out to tell us a travel embargo would make things worse. I'd love to hear him justify that piece of fiction. If it was so crucial to get a Surgeon General confirmed, all they have to do is nominate someone who is qualified and not an anti-gun zealot or off the rails on some other issue. Guns are not a medical issue.
Nonsense. With that as a standard, they could pretty much dictate how you raised your children,which of course is their aim. Guns are not a medical issue any more than how much you owe of your credit cards or how fast you drive.