Surgeon general is responsible for many more public health issues, and specifically the communication and PR about the issues.

The Ebola czar is focused specifically on Ebola policy implementation, and is not a medical position. Sure, it looks bad, but it makes sense if you think about it. They need someone to start now, and continue for as long as it takes. The election is 2 weeks away and Murthy will likely be resubmitted for SG shortly after.

Outstanding post!

Republican consent is not needed to confirm any nominee, Murthy could be confirmed with 50+1 votes.

Reid made the decision not to hold a vote until after the election based on the wishes of Democrats.

I feel like this is worth pointing out. I've read a few articles saying the nomination is "caught up in politics" and that couldn't be a better description.

It goes without saying that Lamar Alexander is a moron and a hypocrite, but he couldn't block the SG if he wanted to.

CDC comes under Health and Human Services, a Cabinet level office.

The skills needed to respond adequately to the Ebola outbreak are administrative, not medical; a newly-appointed surgeon general would be assuming the top spot of a public health service whose workings they would be unfamiliar with and which in any case is run by other administrators who one hopes are competent enough to do their jobs properly. And the front line response for a public health issue of this nature is the CDC, which, as noted, comes under the purview of the Department of Health and Human Services, not the US Public Health Service.

... we have Gun Culturists making the usual excuses for their despicable actions.

nomination. The Blue Dog Democrats are. While the DEmocrats have the numbers, they don't have the votes. In other words, the Democrats do not control the Senate, the conservatives do.

Democrats are blocking Murthy's confirmation

There are 55 Democrats in the US Senate, no filibuster on executive appoints due to Democrats instituting the "nuclear option," and Murthy only needs 50+1 votes for confirmation.

All 45 Republicans, and even 5 Democrats, can vote against Murthy, and he would still be confirmed (VP Biden would break any tie).

However, as many as 10 or more Democrats do not support the nomination, and Reid, the Democratic Majority Leader, refuses to bring Murthy's nomination to a vote to avoid the humiliation of a defeat and to prevent vulnerable Democrats from having to cast an potentially unpopular vote before the election. They were forced not too long ago to do that with Debo Adegbile, and they will not tolerate it again.

Ironically, most Republicans would love to cast a vote against Murthy, as it would burnish their 2A credentials, which would last well after the Ebola crisis ends. Even if Republicans could still use the filibuster, they would probably not do so for a position as largely ceremonial as Surgeon General when such a vote could have other lasting political benefits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/us/senate-balks-at-obama-pick-for-surgeon-general.html

Moreover, given Democratic opposition to Murthy for many months, if the position of Surgeon General were as essential as some claim to protect America from Ebola, there are more than ample non-partisan and highly-qualified candidates that President Obama could nominate that would easily be confirmed by the Senate. What makes Murthy so uniquely or specially qualified concerning Ebola that we should engage in a nomination fight could badly hurt Democratic chances to retain the Senate as well as raise the gun issue generally when it has not benefited our party?

Lamar Alexander may be a fool, but his points are not totally without merit, and you certainly cannot lay the blame for the lack of a permanent Surgeon General, no less Murthy's confirmation, solely at their feet of the GOP.