BYRON YORK: Why is there no surgeon general? Ask Democrats.

Some of President Obama’s most ardent supporters have accused Republicans of “politicizing” the Ebola crisis. It’s not a terribly serious accusation; a public health emergency requires the response of many government agencies, so how could politics not be involved? There’s nothing wrong with that.

One specific charge, though, deserves an answer. The Ebola scare has made many Americans aware that there is no U.S. surgeon general. (The post is filled by an acting official who is not in line for the job.)

There is, however, an Obama nominee for surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, who has not been confirmed by the Senate after more than a year of waiting. Why hasn’t Murthy won Senate approval in all that time?

To hear some of the president’s advocates tell it, it’s the Republicans’ fault. “GOP blocks Surgeon General nominee,” tweeted Eric Boehlert of the pro-Obama group Media Matters. “After blocking surgeon general nominee, Republican blames Obama for surgeon general vacancy,” added another pro-Obama group, ThinkProgress. . . .

In February, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee voted along party lines to send Murthy’s nomination to the full Senate. It has sat there ever since.

It would take just 51 of the Senate’s 55 Democrats to confirm Murthy. But that confirmation has not happened. “There is bipartisan opposition, so Sen. Reid hasn’t even tried to bring him to a vote,” says another senior Senate GOP aide.

By the way, Reid, who has never been shy about criticizing Republicans, is not among those publicly blaming the GOP for inaction on Murthy. A Reid spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

They don’t want to vote on an anti-gun zealot’s confirmation, at least not until after the elections.