"Ex-Gays" | George W. Bush | Health | James Holsinger | Medicine | News

Will Bush Recess-Appoint Anti-Gay Surgeon General Nominee?

Whatever happened to Bush's U.S. Surgeon General nominee James Holsinger?

Turns out, nothing.

HolsingerThe nominee, whose Senate confirmation hearings in July were marked with concern regarding a 1991 paper the candidate wrote on homosexuality, was sent a questionnaire at the end of July. It has not yet been returned.

Holsinger concluded in his 1991 paper that homosexuality was "intuitively" unnatural. Here's a bit: "In fact, the logical complementarity of the human sexes has been so recognized in our culture that it has entered our vocabulary in the form of naming various pipe fittings either the male fitting or the female fitting depending upon which one interlocks within the other. When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur..."

Holsinger said in July that he's not anti-gay and that the paper was based on "information available to him at the time."

Some are speculating that the reason for the languishing questionnaire may be that Bush is waiting until the Senate adjourns so he can make a recess appointment, allowing Holsinger to serve until the end of the current Congress late in 2008.

Think Progress reports: "Bush has been more than willing to use this executive power to avoid or delay battles over divisive nominees such as former U.N. ambassador John Bolton and Swift Boat-funder Sam Fox. In June, the Washington Post reported that Bush had filled 105 full-time positions with recess appointments, compared to just 42 such appointments under President Clinton at the same point in his presidency."

You may have missed...
Surgeon General Nominee Holsinger Says He's Not Anti-Gay [tr]
Surgeon General Nominee Holsinger Has Broad Anti-gay Bias [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Info available to him at the time? He was unaware in 1991 that straight people with their well-fitting parts could catch a sexually transmitted disease, or just thought it less likely?

    Why? Why, God who doesn't exist, why?

    Posted by: Marco | Oct 29, 2007 3:33:16 PM


  2. This is a travesty. And yet, I think we have bigger fish to fry than who Bush appoints U.S. Surgeon General for the next year.

    Posted by: peterparker | Oct 29, 2007 3:49:19 PM


  3. The position is useless and should be eliminated. The Senate needs to get these votes out of committee and vote--isn't that what we pay them for? It's not even an election year.

    Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Oct 29, 2007 4:32:41 PM


  4. Will Bush use a recess apppointment? Probably. He's done it before when he had a hard time getting controversial nominees around the Senate. (John Bolten, anyone?)

    And "Anon", the Senate is doing its job. It alone has the constitutional responsibility to review and approve the President's nominees for Federal offices. Now, if you want to live under a different form of government, say a dictatorship, then yes, all of Dubya's nominees would be rubber-stamped and there would be no hold up. But when a Senator (or a group of them) have issues with a nominee one of the options available to them is to "run out the clock" and hopefully force the President to name someone else - in theory, a better nominee who is actually qualified.

    What you should be asking, Anon, is why doesn't Dubya send better nominees to the Senate for confirmation? Why does he always have to pick the most controversial, unqualified people for these positions?

    Finally, Anon, only someone who had no idea what the Surgeon General actually does would refer to it as a "useless" position that "should be eliminated".

    Posted by: Jonathon | Oct 29, 2007 5:36:22 PM


  5. Of course he will, its not as if anyone in the Democratic party can stand up to him and his divisive, activist appointments. he'll do what he does best, trot out some of his cronies like he did with that other bigot, Southwick to sing how great he is and not anti-gay, typical of this whole reign of terror, he's right, and, those who support him get a gig, no matter how unqualified they may be. Only three requirements, anti-gay, anti people of color and anti-poor to be on the goverment dole do bascially do nothing but read something from the FDA.

    Posted by: Sebastian | Oct 29, 2007 8:08:30 PM


  6. The guy claims his beliefs were based on the "available science" of the 90's - when homosexuality had already NOT been considered inherently wrong or unhealthy by the scientific community for at least twenty years.

    So he's either lying, or like any scientist with bigotry in his heart, he ignored or never bothered to research the available scientific findings.

    Posted by: Ryan | Oct 31, 2007 11:49:21 AM


  7. Don't know. No big hope from him.

    http://www.findbilover.com

    Posted by: Daniel | Nov 9, 2007 2:19:21 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #191« «