NYT: 3 Senators (Clinton, Murray, Coburn) Plan to Bar Vote on F.D.A. Head

[DeepModem Mom]

3 Senators Plan to Bar Vote on F.D.A. Head
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: June 10, 2005


Although an inspector general's report failed to find evidence that Dr. Lester M. Crawford was having an affair with a subordinate, three senators say they plan to block a vote by the full Senate on his nomination to head the Food and Drug Administration.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is scheduled to vote on the nomination next Thursday.
But Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Patty Murray of Washington, both Democrats, say they will put a "hold" on the nomination, a move that will bar a vote by the full Senate, until the F.D.A. issues a long-delayed decision on over-the-counter sales of the morning-after birth control pill. Such holds cannot be placed until the committee votes.

A spokesman for Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said Dr. Coburn would place a hold because the food and drug agency had failed to require new labels for condoms warning that they do not fully protect against sexually transmitted diseases....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/politics/10fda.html

[katsy]

1. I don't know why I find this so ironic.

"... failed to find evidence that Dr. Lester M. Crawford was having an affair with a subordinate <snip>."


I'm glad that Hillary is going to put a hold on this, even if the affair has nothing to do with her decision.

[CottonBear]

2. Crawford is nothing more than a political tool. He is a bad scientist.

I know a retired professor who worked at a Vet-Med school where Crawford was an administrator. Crawford was allowed to skip taking advanced level biochemistry courses when pursuing his PhD in pharmacy. Crawford bouced back and forth from the university to government posts (under Republican administrations) and back over the course of many years.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Sounds as if he's not at all qualified for the post --

I often say that these people are not interested in governing, even when it comes to public safety -- they're only interested in pushing their extremist agenda, and enriching their supporters/enablers.

Thanks for your info.

[CottonBear]

4. You are very welcome.

You are spot-on in your analysis.

[geckosfeet]

5. "only interested in pushing their extremist agenda, and enriching

their supporters/enablers".

Sadly enough, they really feel that this is governing. All those other people are "the workforce".

[Lindsay]

6. Point well taken, geckosfeet.

They don't understand the difference between governing and ruling.

Scary bunch.