Bush and friends

September 25, 2005 9:53 AM

"Three Biotech Stocks to Buy Now." From Wall Street to K Street, the Bush Administration is full of friendly faces.
posted by The Jesse Helms (18 comments total)

Those who can't ... govern.
posted by ericb at 10:02 AM on September 25, 2005

It's funny that in the speech in the final link he introduces John DiIulio, who shortly afterward was to describe the White House as having no policy, only politics, and refer to them as the Mayberry Machiavellis.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:18 AM on September 25, 2005

Those who can't ... govern.

Tell that to Clinton.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:21 AM on September 25, 2005

Some cronyism is expected in any government, but as Brown and Gottlieb have demonstrated, the real tragedy is that the positions thrown around in W's administration have put so many people's lives in jeopardy.
posted by Rothko at 10:28 AM on September 25, 2005

Here's the John DiIulio article from way back in 2003 and here is the money quote.

There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus," says DiIulio. "What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."


This was brushed off by the administration as sour grapes but was confirmed by other insiders such as Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke. Rove has been running this administration since day one. Every decision this administration makes is political. I just don't understand how so many people can be seduced into allowing them to do this. Sure there have been mass resignations in the CIA, FDA and EPA but have those resignations been publicized? Have their warnings been heeded? No, because our mainstream media is too busy carrying water for this corrupt administration than investigating their outright rape of our Constitution and Treasury.
posted by any major dude at 10:40 AM on September 25, 2005

I'm a little confused, what does this post have to do with biotech?
posted by delmoi at 10:57 AM on September 25, 2005

Read the first link, delmoi.
posted by Rothko at 11:00 AM on September 25, 2005

amd, I'm starting to wonder if the Bush administration won't actually be helpful in the long run, in that Black Plague, B5's Shadows, etc. kind of way. A lot fo leftists are having their usual people rising up delusions over Katrina, but I don't mean it like that. I just mean that you die when your priests tell you bathing is a sin, but culture evolves as a consequence. We've had an aweful lot of priest telling Americans "that bathing is a sin" and we are suffering the consequences.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:38 AM on September 25, 2005

"In a series of private conversations over the past few months, aides began second-guessing how they handled the Social Security debate, managed the public perception of the Iraq war and, most recently, the response to Katrina. The federal CIA leak investigation, which has forced Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove and others to testify before a grand jury, seemed to distract officials and left a general feeling of unease, two aides said. Aides were calling reporters to find out what was happening with Rove and the investigation. 'Nobody knows what's going to happen with the probe,' one senior aide said.

The result, say some Republicans, has been a president and White House team that has not been as effective, efficient and sure-footed running government as it was running for reelection. 'The shift from campaigning to governing has perhaps not been as quick as everybody hoped,' Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) said." [Washington Post | September 24, 2005]
posted by ericb at 12:28 PM on September 25, 2005

Read the first link, delmoi.

The first page doesn't mention 'biotech' or 'stocks' at all. I'm not going to read 9 pages of time magazine copy to figure out wtf it has to do with biotech.

I demand someone summarize for me!
posted by delmoi at 2:08 PM on September 25, 2005

From the third page:

What the bio omits is that [Gottlieb's] most recent job was as editor of a popular Wall Street newsletter, the Forbes/Gottlieb Medical Technology Investor, in which he offered such tips as "Three Biotech Stocks to Buy Now."
posted by Rothko at 2:23 PM on September 25, 2005

Nowwhere in the federal bureaucracy is it more important to insulate government experts from the influences of politics and special interests than at the Food and Drug Administration, the agency charged with assuring the safety of everything from new vaccines and dietary supplements to animal feed and hair dye. That is why many within the department, as well as in the broader scientific community, were startled when, in July, Scott Gottlieb was named deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs, one of three deputies in the agency's second-ranked post at FDA.

His official FDA biography notes that Gottlieb, 33, who got his medical degree at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, did a previous stint providing policy advice at the agency, as well as at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and was a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. What the bio omits is that his most recent job was as editor of a popular Wall Street newsletter, the Forbes/Gottlieb Medical Technology Investor, in which he offered such tips as "Three Biotech Stocks to Buy Now." In declaring Gottlieb a "noted authority" who had written more than 300 policy and medical articles, the biography neglects the fact that many of those articles criticized the FDA for being too slow to approve new drugs and too quick to issue warning letters when it suspects ones already on the market might be unsafe.

posted by alumshubby at 2:26 PM on September 25, 2005

Aw, crap...
posted by alumshubby at 2:26 PM on September 25, 2005

And where the f*&% was Time Magazine over the past five years, when all this stocking of government ponds with fat, happy, talentless trout was happening quite publicly?!?
posted by twsf at 3:54 PM on September 25, 2005

And where the f*&% was Time Magazine over the past five years

And where the f*&% was "any of the media" over the past five years.
posted by ericb at 5:21 PM on September 25, 2005

The leftists who dominate Time and the rest of the mainstream media were hedging their bets for the past five years. Katrina has finally emboldened them to push their chips into the pot.

I wonder if the timing is right, though: we on the right retain our entire communications apparatus, and now we can resell the country on the bias of the mainstream media all over again -- we can get a lot of mileage from educating voters on how the media tried to use natural disaster (aggravated by the incompetence of Democrat local officials) to push a national agenda of raising taxes, increasing regulations, undermining family values, seizing guns, and surrendering to foreign enemies.
posted by MattD at 7:46 PM on September 25, 2005

...and surrendering to foreign enemies.

By accepting some donations of food and staff from Canada?
posted by Rothko at 8:11 PM on September 25, 2005

Matt D wrote:

aggravated by the incompetence of Democrat local officials) to push a national agenda of raising taxes, increasing regulations, undermining family values, seizing guns, and surrendering to foreign enemies.

raising taxes: go ahead and show me one state that hasn't had to raise taxes due to the withdrawal of federal funds.

increasing regulations: show me where decreasing regulations has resulted in the public good. Or is corporate good to you synonymous with the "public good"?

undermining family values: like this right?

Seizing guns: You mean like this right?

surrendering to foreign enemies: yeah, this administration stands up strong to enemies, or maybe not.
posted by any major dude at 9:20 PM on September 25, 2005