Calpundit takes a bill written, passed, and signed during the Clinton administration and manages to turn it into Bush-bashing.
Apparently the name Bush is synonomous with bad, or evil.
*** Update ***
People seem to be missing my point. I think the legislation at hand is a bad idea- any screwing with peer review is not wise, IMHO. What I find amusing is that the only way Kevin and Chris and Mr. Robbins can effectively highlight the pitfalls of the bill is to invoke the evil specter of George W. Bush.
hln
Clinton was the meat of the Bush sandwich? Atkins dieters are all Democrats?
Oh, I guess that’s out of scope.
hln
Kimmitt
I feel quite confident that Republican lawmakers, who controlled the House and the Senate at the time, won at least a few legislative victories against Bill Clinton.
Kimmitt
Also, I’m having a hard time finding any mention of President Bush, in particular, in the post. The post excoriates conservative Republicans for a pattern which Drum finds disturbing, offering up (yet another) example of manipulation of the scientific process to obscure results.
John Cole
The whole reason the bill is evil or wrong is this quote:
“If one excludes scientists supported by the government, including most scientists based at universities, the remaining pool of reviewers will be largely from industry — corporate political supporters of George W. Bush.”
scarshapedstar
Yeah, the nerve of this guy! Of COURSE the Tobacco Institute, for example, will be completely honest in reviewing scientific studies saying that their products kill people! What ulterior motive could they possibly have?
What’s more impressive is that you turn a perfectly reasonable assessment of the current sordid state of American scientific research into “BUSH-HATING!”
John Cole
For the record- I agree that it is a stupid provision and I am against it. My point was, in order to show that it is wrong, the only way they can effectively communicate this is to invoke the specter of evil Geogre Bush.
Kimmitt
I understand now. I humbly accept your critique; when I see that the President or his Administration does something, my first thought is that it is either incompetent or malicious. I consistently have to police myself, for this is not always the case.
JKC
John-
I read Kevin’s post as GOP-bashing as opposed to Bush-bashing. And in this case it’s hard to argue that it’s inappropriate or excessively “partisan.”
I might also point out that significant parts of the GOP still seem to be cowering and/or enraged at the mere mention of the junior Senator from New York, who has been blamed for All Manner Of Evil in this country. It may not be fair, but it’s hard to feel sorry for GWB if he gets tarred for something stupid done by a member of the party he leads.
James W
Your post is off-target, John. You are attempting to impugn Kevin, when on the broader points he’s got it exactly right. The implication of your post is that Kevin is blaming the Bush Administration for something Clinton did. This of course is not true.
First, to echo Kimmitt’s comment, nowhere does Kevin even mention Bush. In fact, he goes out of his way to point out that this rule was inserted into a bill by
John Cole
Ask yourself this:
Why does Bush’s name have to be mentioned atall to describe this as a lousy bill? He had nothing to do with it, but in order to show how really bad it is, Robbins writes about how this helps “Bush’s corporate sponsors” and both Chris and Kevin chirpily repeat it.
I am not way off base, I am merely pointing out how Bush has become synonomous with evil, much like, as JKC has pointed out, Hillary has with some on the right.
James W
If all either of them were doing was criticizing this particular bill, you’d have a point. But they’re not. Their point is to frame this bill in the context of a broader pattern of very real indifference to science by this Administration.
I’ll grant that to some, simply mentioning ties to Bush or Clinton is enough of an indictment either way. I disagree that that’s what Robbins and Drum and Mooney are doing in this instance. Chris’ post is, after all, about three pages long. It’s not quite fair to reduce that to a “Bush Bad” knee-jerk type argument.
John Cole
And I would argue that Chris’s post is thoroughly persuasive without EVER mentioning Bush. It is, as you noted, three pages long.
Pootie Tang
John
The bill said that Congress passed said peer review had to be done by independent scientists. It’s the Bush administration (specifically the OMB) that in August 2003 defined independent as meaning non-government funded scientists.
Why is it inappropriate to blame the Bush administration for its own policies?
Pootie Tang
Aargh
OK, me grammar be bad, but the point still stands: The Bush administration has changed the definition of the word independent, and that is what this is about.
john young
What Pootie Tang said.
White House gets points here for being clever. Sure sounds good to require that reviewers be independent. But if independent means non-gov’t, who’s left with any funding? Few. I’d just like confirmation that the language from OMB eliminates researchers with any gov’t funding sources, rather than the particular agency in question. Maybe other agencies wouldn’t have scientists in a relevant field so maybe my question’s rather moot.
Chris and/or Kevin say the GOP intentionally put the “independent” phrase in the bill (and conservatives commenting on Kevin’s blog say why wasn’t it Clinton’s fault for signing a bill with this provision hidden in it). I gotta decide whether to think the GOP conspired to put this in years ago as a Trojan horse, figuring to complete the deed by redefining “independent.” Why the focus on the bill, not the regulation?
Too bad this is so obscure and essentially boring. Science as medecine ball.
Scoob E
Have any of you read the actual Bulletin? http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/infopoltech.html#iq As a scientist, it seems perfectly reasonable after you’ve read what it actually says.
It deals specifically with policy-making from internally generated science/results. The bill is about formalizing the independent peer review of internal research in studies that lead to policy changes, etc.
Meban
Innouncement!!!