NationStates Jolt Archive

As part of his ongoing war on science and reason, Bush nominated James W. Holsinger for the post of Surgeon General last week.

BarbinMD has some fun facts about the man who could be America's next top doc:

– Holsinger founded Hope Springs Community Church, which “ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian.” Holsinger said that he sees homosexuality as “an issue not of orientation but of lifestyle.” [Lexington Herald-Leader, 6/1/07]

– In serving on the United Methodist Judicial Council — the “court” that resolves “disputes involving church doctrine and policies in the nation’s second-largest Protestant denomination” — Holsinger “opposed a decision to allow a practicing lesbian to be an associate pastor, and he supported a pastor who would not permit an openly gay man to join the church.” [Lexington Herald-Leader, 6/1/07]

– In the early 1990s, Holsinger resigned from the United Methodist Church’s Committee to Study Homosexuality “because he believed the committee ‘would follow liberal lines.’” He also warned “that acceptance of homosexuality would drive away millions of churchgoers.” [Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 5/26/07; Time, 6/24/91]

Also, Jon Stewart reminded America that Dr. Holsinger wrote a report entitled "The Psychopathology of Homosexuality" for the United Methodist Church. Yup, folks, it's all in your head.

So if Bush can't win the war and isn't eligible for re-election, it seems that he's going to spend his time trying to squeak concessions to the evangelical bloc that helped elect him (once -- and no, I'll never let 2000 go, so don't ask). It might be too little too late for the evangelical movement, who've recently expressed disappointment with Bush for not doing more to advance their agenda, but too little too late on this issue is definitely too much.

Here's hoping the Senate flushes this turd like it flushed Harriet Miers.

When I think I can't thank my lucky stars more for not living in a place like the USA, things like these come along and I have to start appreciating my fortune yet again, and even more.

Ah, well.

We've had religious Surgeon Generals before - I think we can handle it. :p He's not a legislator after all, and won't deploy the FBI to make sure you attend church. :p

Could be worse. I mean, Bush could have nominated someone who repeatedly anally-raped his wife in charge of women's reproductive health.

Oh wait (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/mcgarvey).

We've had religious Surgeon Generals before - I think we can handle it. :p He's not a legislator after all, and won't deploy the FBI to make sure you attend church. :p

Not you again. I admire your ability to make lemonade out of any sourness you encounter, but man, it gets old after a while. It can even seem like you do it just to be contrary and don't actually believe half of what you type. That's none of my concern, but even Ned Flanders loses his rag every once in a while.

Sonny, if the US could "handle" a controversial Surgeon General, we'd have had Joycelyn Elders for more than three weeks. You remember her? She dared to advise that mentioning mastubation in sex ed classes just might cut down on the sexual frustration that can lead to things like date-rape. If a Surg-Gen was canned for wanting to tell the truth, it's no more odd to hope that one who completely ignores the truth be canned (or not confirmed in the first place) as well.

We've had religious Surgeon Generals before - I think we can handle it. :p He's not a legislator after all, and won't deploy the FBI to make sure you attend church. :p
Hopefully we wont have to "Handle" it

Not you again. I admire your ability to make lemonade out of any sourness you encounter, but man, it gets old after a while. It can even seem like you do it just to be contrary and don't actually believe half of what you type. That's none of my concern, but even Ned Flanders loses his rag every once in a while.

Sonny, if the US could "handle" a controversial Surgeon General, we'd have had Joycelyn Elders for more than three weeks. You remember her? She dared to advise that mentioning mastubation in sex ed classes just might cut down on the sexual frustration that can lead to things like date-rape. If a Surg-Gen was canned for wanting to tell the truth, it's no more odd to hope that one who completely ignores the truth be canned (or not confirmed in the first place) as well.

Interesting (if strange) psycho-analysis, but I think you're moving a bit beyond what I said. ;) The Surgeon General, or rather the candidate here, has some odd views, no doubt, tied to some religious beliefs that the majority of us don't subscribe to, sure. I don't think it will be a problem or affect us directly - how many people can even name the last Surgeon-General, honestly? :p I remember Elders, for the controversy, and maybe C. Everett Coop, but beyond that, not much. I happen to think that our current political climate will make whatever religous beliefs the candidate has here more or less inconsequential, that's all.

Interesting (if strange) psycho-analysis, but I think you're moving a bit beyond what I said. ;) The Surgeon General, or rather the candidate here, has some odd views, no doubt, tied to some religious beliefs that the majority of us don't subscribe to, sure. I don't think it will be a problem or affect us directly - how many people can even name the last Surgeon-General, honestly? :p I remember Elders, for the controversy, and maybe C. Everett Coop, but beyond that, not much. I happen to think that our current political climate will make whatever religous beliefs the candidate has here more or less inconsequential, that's all.

I'm about at the point where I would recommend to the Congress that anyone who Bush nominates for any job at this point be summarily rejected, even if he or she is eminently qualified, because if there's one thing Bush has proven over the last six years, it's that he could fuck up a peanut butter sandwich, much less a governmental appointment. He'd probably eat it with the peanut butter facing out.

So let the people who are serving quit, and let the career bureaucrats who are serving under them finish out the term. They're doing the real work anyway.

Could be worse. I mean, Bush could have nominated someone who repeatedly anally-raped his wife in charge of women's reproductive health.

Oh wait (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/mcgarvey).

Holy Flolloping Shitballs.

Thank you for that illuminating link. What the hell is wrong with the people in charge?

Holy Flolloping Shitballs.

Thank you for that illuminating link. What the hell is wrong with the people in charge?

They think government is the problem. That's why voting for a Republican is pretty fucking stupid--you're voting to put in charge people whose ideology is that government doesn't work. Well, of course it isn't going to work if you put people in charge who think it's not going to work--it's a fucking self-fulfilling prophecy.

Interesting (if strange) psycho-analysis, but I think you're moving a bit beyond what I said. ;) The Surgeon General, or rather the candidate here, has some odd views, no doubt, tied to some religious beliefs that the majority of us don't subscribe to, sure. I don't think it will be a problem or affect us directly - how many people can even name the last Surgeon-General, honestly? :p I remember Elders, for the controversy, and maybe C. Everett Coop, but beyond that, not much. I happen to think that our current political climate will make whatever religous beliefs the candidate has here more or less inconsequential, that's all.

I hope you're right.

I'm about at the point where I would recommend to the Congress that anyone who Bush nominates for any job at this point be summarily rejected, even if he or she is eminently qualified, because if there's one thing Bush has proven over the last six years, it's that he could fuck up a peanut butter sandwich, much less a governmental appointment. He'd probably eat it with the peanut butter facing out.

So let the people who are serving quit, and let the career bureaucrats who are serving under them finish out the term. They're doing the real work anyway.

No question there's a lot of frustration out there regarding the Bush admin - eight years (especially these kind of years) are enough to wear on anyone. I'm hoping to see Newt or at least Giuliani inject some new blood into the fading corpse of the government come next election. :p

No question there's a lot of frustration out there regarding the Bush admin - eight years (especially these kind of years) are enough to wear on anyone. I'm hoping to see Newt or at least Giuliani inject some new blood into the fading corpse of the government come next election. :p

Good fucking lord no. Gingrich was a leading proponent of the "government is the problem" agenda, for starters, so why in the hell would you put him in charge? And Giuliani is a freaking fascist. There's a reason his approval ratings were about where Bush's are right now just before the 9/11 attacks--it's because New Yorkers were tired of his shit. There seems to be this delusion on the right that if Giuliani gets the nomination, New York is suddenly in play in 2008. Let me disabuse you of that notion right now. He'll lose New York bad in 2008 if he gets the nod.

Again, with the "God damn him."
*carves another notch*

No question there's a lot of frustration out there regarding the Bush admin - eight years (especially these kind of years) are enough to wear on anyone. I'm hoping to see Newt or at least Giuliani inject some new blood into the fading corpse of the government come next election. :p

Okay, a Republican Pollyana. That's new.

But Newt? No chance in a million he's electable. Although...Gore v. Gingrich would be a pretty spectacular election.

That shouldn't be a problem. As of last night, a poll I saw on NBC Nightly News showed actor Sen. Fred Thompson surging into second place with 20% of the hypothetical sample vote...and he's not yet announced his candidacy.

Another actor -- and a character actor, not even a leading man -- is gaining political office because of the roles he played in movies and on TV. I think Lewis Black has it right:

"If this is evolution in terms of candidates, in 12 years, we'll be voting for plants."
For a party that constantly bitches about Hollywood liberals, they certainly like to nominate and elect actors.

Good fucking lord no. Gingrich was a leading proponent of the "government is the problem" agenda, for starters, so why in the hell would you put him in charge? And Giuliani is a freaking fascist. There's a reason his approval ratings were about where Bush's are right now just before the 9/11 attacks--it's because New Yorkers were tired of his shit. There seems to be this delusion on the right that if Giuliani gets the nomination, New York is suddenly in play in 2008. Let me disabuse you of that notion right now. He'll lose New York bad in 2008 if he gets the nod.

That shouldn't be a problem. As of last night, a poll I saw on NBC Nightly News showed actor Sen. Fred Thompson surging into second place with 20% of the hypothetical sample vote...and he's not yet announced his candidacy.

Another actor -- and a character actor, not even a leading man -- is gaining political office because of the roles he played in movies and on TV. I think Lewis Black has it right:

"If this is evolution in terms of candidates, in 12 years, we'll be voting for plants."

I'm about at the point where I would recommend to the Congress that anyone who Bush nominates for any job at this point be summarily rejected, even if he or she is eminently qualified, because if there's one thing Bush has proven over the last six years, it's that he could fuck up a peanut butter sandwich, much less a governmental appointment. He'd probably eat it with the peanut butter facing out

Rejected? From everything I can put together, I would suggest immediate imprisonment. Grade A douchebags who only get away with it because they have power and ruin the reputations of their victims.

Good fucking lord no. Gingrich was a leading proponent of the "government is the problem" agenda, for starters, so why in the hell would you put him in charge? And Giuliani is a freaking fascist. There's a reason his approval ratings were about where Bush's are right now just before the 9/11 attacks--it's because New Yorkers were tired of his shit. There seems to be this delusion on the right that if Giuliani gets the nomination, New York is suddenly in play in 2008. Let me disabuse you of that notion right now. He'll lose New York bad in 2008 if he gets the nod.

Giuliani's not my first choice, as I said - but I still like him. His stance on taxes, pro-business attitude, experience working with law enforcement, etc. He'd be a good second choice, I think, though I never did have any illusions about him winning New York. I wasn't born yesterday! :p

He's a good man

No, he is an evil, immoral hypocritical blight on the history of american politics, and one who has demonstrated time and time again that he is not deserving of holding poublic office.

That shouldn't be a problem. As of last night, a poll I saw on NBC Nightly News showed actor Sen. Fred Thompson surging into second place with 20% of the hypothetical sample vote...and he's not yet announced his candidacy.


He's a good man and a strong dark horse, but I think his age and lack of name recognition outside the core of the Party hurts him. It's a shame, since he's got charisma and some talent, but that's image for you.

No, he is an evil, immoral hypocritical blight on the history of american politics, and one who has demonstrated time and time again that he is not deserving of holding poublic office.

Okay, that's a bit extreme, especially without any sort of supporting evidence. ;)

whatever religous beliefs the candidate has here more or less inconsequential, that's all.

The problem is that his religious beliefs likely would effect how he would carry out his job. His beliefs have lead him to devote his life to some sort of bizarre pseudoscience that states that homosexuals can be "cured". It's no better than phrenology or dianetics.

Okay, that's a bit extreme, especially without any sort of supporting evidence. ;)

carrying on an affair while your wife is in the hospital sick with cancer while also criticizing the president for having an affair qualifies as evil, immoral, and hypocritical, and, just because you asked, supporting evidence (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2937633&page=1)

And frankly how you could refer to a person who did such a thing as a "good man" is disgusting.

carrying on an affair while your wife is in the hospital sick with cancer while also criticizing the president for having an affair qualifies as evil, immoral, and hypocritical, and, just because you asked, supporting evidence (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2937633&page=1)

And frankly how you could refer to a person who did such a thing as a "good man" is disgusting.

That's Newt Gingrich - Not Fred Thompson, who I described a few posts ago as a "good man," which I have no reason to doubt. ;)

I've been heavily involved in the HRC's campaign against this guy, and I'm really going to have to urge every single American here reading this to send a letter or e-mail or what have you to your Senators to vote against this guy, PLEASE.

I've been heavily involved in the HRC's campaign against this guy, and I'm really going to have to urge every single American here reading this to send a letter or e-mail or what have you to your Senators to vote against this guy, PLEASE.

*bows*

The problem is that his religious beliefs likely would effect how he would carry out his job. His beliefs have lead him to devote his life to some sort of bizarre pseudoscience that states that homosexuals can be "cured". It's no better than phrenology or dianetics.

He's apparently distanced himself from that view, according to the wikipedia. In any event, the post of Surgeon-General isn't exactly influential, and he knows enough to see quite clearly that he's out of the mainstream if he really does believe those things.

He's apparently distanced himself from that view, according to the wikipedia. In any event, the post of Surgeon-General isn't exactly influential, and he knows enough to see quite clearly that he's out of the mainstream if he really does believe those things.

Maybe, but there's no way to tell if it's a legitimate distancing or a "I want to get a government job" distancing. Being a cynic on these things, I tend toward the latter.

Maybe, but there's no way to tell if it's a legitimate distancing or a "I want to get a government job" distancing. Being a cynic on these things, I tend toward the latter.

Hopefully, Congress can do some arm-twisting and get some oaths and answers. :)

He's apparently distanced himself from that view, according to the wikipedia. In any event, the post of Surgeon-General isn't exactly influential, and he knows enough to see quite clearly that he's out of the mainstream if he really does believe those things.

I don't really care if he's publically distanced himself from that view. He's advocated it for years and with politics being what it is, I'll bet his distancing was to make himself seem less "radical".

It doesn't matter if the post of Surgeon General is influential or not. The Surgeon General is supposed to be nominally the seniormost medical official in the land, and having one that promotes such a beastly ideology wouldn't exactly say much good about us, would it?

Hopefully, Congress can do some arm-twisting and get some oaths and answers. :)

I'd just as soon not take a chance on the guy and instead appoint someone more educated and less of a dickweed.

I don't really care if he's publically distanced himself from that view. He's advocated it for years and with politics being what it is, I'll bet his distancing was to make himself seem less "radical".

It doesn't matter if the post of Surgeon General is influential or not. The Surgeon General is supposed to be nominally the seniormost medical official in the land, and having one that promotes such a beastly ideology wouldn't exactly say much good about us, would it?

If he rejects his former radical views publicly and under oath, as he's scheduled to do, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. He won't be able to advocate for those positions, at the very least, whether he believes in his heart that he's right or not.

I'd just as soon not take a chance on the guy and instead appoint someone more educated and less of a dickweed.

It's always best to nominate someone no one can disagree with and avoid all controversy - I'm just assuming that's not very likely. ;)

It's always best to nominate someone no one can disagree with and avoid all controversy - I'm just assuming that's not very likely. ;)

Aye. In reality, your best bet is to appoint someone who is liked by the majority, even if a rather vocal minority--say, the idiots of the religious right--dislike the guy.

If he rejects his former radical views publicly and under oath, as he's scheduled to do, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. He won't be able to advocate for those positions, at the very least, whether he believes in his heart that he's right or not.

Why should we do that? Why shouldn't the Senate just reject him and find someone a little less crazy?