Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bush Blocks Stem Cell Bill In First Veto
America's Debate > Archive > Election Forum Archive > [A] Election 2006
Google
BoF
Lordhelmet has already started a thread on the merits of stem cell research. I want to approach this matter from it's possible political implications. I don't want to steal LH's thunder, so I'm linking his thread to mine.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry192174

We can debate moral considerations on his and political ramifications on mine.

President Bush just exercised his first veto on the stem cell bill passed by Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...?referrer=email


Questions for debate:

1. Do you think Congress should override the veto?

2. Do you think Congress will override the veto?

Given widespread public support for the research, do you think that:

3. This action help Bush with the base, hurt with moderate and swing voters?

4. Will Bush's poll numbers rise or fall over this matter?

5. If Congress fails to override the veto, will this give Democrats an issue with which to
smile.gif hammer Republicans in the November elections?
Google
Amlord
1. Do you think Congress should override the veto?
2. Do you think Congress will override the veto?


These are the same question, since the answer to the second is No: they don't have the votes. They are 52 short in the House and 4 short in the Senate.



QUOTE
Given widespread public support for the research, do you think:


Ah, a push poll... whistling.gif

3. Will this action help Bush with the base at the expense of moderate and swing voters?

Blip. This issue only matters to a small group of voters: cultural conservatives. Others probably don't care as they aren't affected one way or the other. Bush is a lame duck, he can do what he feels is right instead of what will help him politically (although I contend that this isn't much of an issue one way or the other).

4. Will Bush's poll numbers rise or fall over this matter?

Zero impact. Again, nobody cares much about this other than people you already support Bush. As I have said before, stem cell research continues--it is simply privately funded or uses the approved lines of existing embryonic stem cells. Informed people know this. Those that aren't informed probably don't care.

Stem cell research vote a great sham

5. If Congress fails to override the veto, will this give Democrats an issue with which to hammer Republicans in the November elections?

If? Congress is not going to veto this. The votes are not there.

Hammer? The Republicans? The Republicans helped pass this: 50 House Republicans and . Frist blasted Bush over this.

QUOTE(Bill Frist @ apparently a Democrat now)
"I am pro-life, but I disagree with the president's decision to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act," said Frist. "Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available."


Bush isn't up for re-election, so it won't hurt him any. It might hurt a few Conservatives, like maybe Rick Santorum, but really this is a non-issue with most people.
BoF
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 19 2006, 03:17 PM) *

Bush isn't up for re-election, so it won't hurt him any. It might hurt a few Conservatives, like maybe Rick Santorum, but really this is a non-issue with most people.


Now really Amlord, I just didn't know Bush wasn't up for reelection. rolleyes.gif The thread isn't about Bush per se, but his dragging other Republicans down.

You tend to minimize things and this is just a classic example. Given the number of people with diseases this research could possibly impact, I think it's going to be a bigger issue than you might think. In essence, whether or not stem cell will do all some think, Bush has robbed people of hope. If this had been a promising new defense system, Bush would have signed it. Shame on Bush. mad.gif

BTW: I've alraedy called and raised holy hell with the offices Rep Kay Granger, Sen. Kay Biiley Hutchinson and Sen. John Cornyn.
Amlord
QUOTE(BoF @ Jul 19 2006, 04:27 PM) *

QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 19 2006, 03:17 PM) *

Bush isn't up for re-election, so it won't hurt him any. It might hurt a few Conservatives, like maybe Rick Santorum, but really this is a non-issue with most people.


Now really Amlord, I just didn't know Bush wasn't up for reelection. rolleyes.gif The thread isn't about Bush per se, but his dragging other Republicans down.

You tend to minimize things and this is just a classic example. Given the number of people with diseases this research could possibly impact, I think it's going to be a bigger issue than you might think. In essence, whether or not stem cell will do all some think, Bush has robbed people of hope. If this had been a promising new defense system, Bush would have signed it. Shame on Bush. mad.gif


Seeing how I'm one of the people with one of those diseases and I actually support his stance, where does that leave you?

I will admit that the appeal to emotion is high. How could Bush NOT want to give Michael J Fox a chance at a better life?

The question isn't rhetorical, I'll tell you why: the "chance" is a hope and a prayer. There is no evidence, despite intense research, that embryonic stem cells are any more effective than adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells at curing diseases. In fact, despite all the research done, there are currently zero clinical trials involving embryonic stem cell treatments and over 1000 involving adult stem cell treatments.

This in spite of the fact that there have been 132 studies done on embryonic stem cells since 1998 (85% of which involve stem cells lines approved under the Bush plan). None of these has reached the clinical trial phase?

This is a wedge issue and your rhetoric simply confirms it.
BoF
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 19 2006, 04:04 PM) *

Seeing how I'm one of the people with one of those diseases and I actually support his stance, where does that leave you?


I am indeed sorry that you suffer from such a disease, but your lone personal example doesn't 'leave" me anywhere!

QUOTE
The question isn't rhetorical, I'll tell you why: the "chance" is a hope and a prayer. There is no evidence, despite intense research, that embryonic stem cells are any more effective than adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells at curing diseases. In fact, despite all the research done, there are currently zero clinical trials involving embryonic stem cell treatments and over 1000 involving adult stem cell treatments.


Even if you are correct, Bush has jerked the rug of "hope and prayer" out from under thousands of people.
entspeak
1. Do you think Congress should override the veto?

2. Do you think Congress will override the veto?


No and no.

This action help Bush with the base, hurt with moderate and swing voters?

Don't know.

Will Bush's poll numbers rise or fall over this matter?

Don't know.

If Congress fails to override the veto, will this give Democrats an issue with which to
hammer smile.gif Republicans in the November elections?


I believe that Democrats will make this an issue in the November elections, yes.
BoF
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 19 2006, 03:17 PM) *
QUOTE(Bill Frist @ apparently a Democrat now)
"I am pro-life, but I disagree with the president's decision to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act," said Frist. "Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available."


Bush isn't up for re-election, so it won't hurt him any. It might hurt a few Conservatives, like maybe Rick Santorum, but really this is a non-issue with most people.


You are dreaming if you think you are getting off as light as just Rick Santorum. Here's what Dana Milbank said on Countdown last night.

QUOTE
KEITH OLBERMANN: Bit should the democrats, considering political calculus here, could they thank Mr. Bush for signing the veto today? Because with that base of popular support for it, could cell research—could the stem cell issue be something on which the democrats could try to run in the fall?

DANA MILBANK, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER OF THE “WASHINGTON POST”: You better believe it. It‘s—same that gay marriage really was for republicans, a sleeper issue last time around that really brought their people out. This has the potential to do that. It‘s a wedge issue, it‘s part of the culture wars, but this is a rare one, if not the only one that actually benefits the democrats. It‘s going to be on the ballot in Missouri where Jim Talent, a senator, voted on Bush‘s side of this issue. He may face some trouble for that. George Allen in Virginia, a couple of other key races, so it‘s—for democrats it‘s quite an exciting thing to actually have a cultural issue that is to their advantage.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13957390/

I'll bet a few Republians are shaking in their boots. tongue.gif
Amlord
QUOTE(BoF @ Jul 20 2006, 05:23 PM) *

I'll bet a few Republians are shaking in their boots. tongue.gif


Why the smiley face? shifty.gif

If this were true, then these Republicans would have voted the other way. It isn't as if this was a straight party line vote. Politicians are just like any other animal: survival first.

AuthorMusician
1. Do you think Congress should override the veto?

Yes. It's time that Congress do what the SC did recently: send the message that it is President Bush, not King George.

2. Do you think Congress will override the veto?

Might happen. This has reminded members of Congress that they are representatives in a democracy. They don't have the benefit of an electoral college, and maybe the gerrymandering won't help. This might be especially true in the red southern states that have been absorbing masses of northern liberals as people seek work.

3. This action help Bush with the base, hurt with moderate and swing voters?

He has appealed to a minority of moralists who can't think themselves out of the fog. No help, a heaping portion of hurt.

4. Will Bush's poll numbers rise or fall over this matter?

He'll get a bounce off the rock bottom from fence-sitting moralists.

Ha! Just kidding. There are no fences on the moral mountain. There isn't anywhere to go but down, too.

5. If Congress fails to override the veto, will this give Democrats an issue with which to
hammer Republicans in the November elections?


We would like to be hammers for a change. The political landscape needs more hammers. It would be good to have handles of logic on those hammers. The longer the handles of logic, the more effective the hammer heads.

Let's try this: All humans start out as zygotes. All zygotes do not become humans.

And this: Researchers want stem cells to cure diseases. Stem cells come from zygotes.

This: Critics of researches claim stem cells can come from other places. Researchers disagree.

And: Critics of researchers have various agendas but little expertise on the subject of stem cell research.

Also: Moral politician is an oxymoron. (It's strange that a president who has worked directly to kill fully developed humans gets nervous about zygotes. But it fits a pattern. See the moral mountain above.)

In addition: Sick people want cures.

Finally: Every human can become a sick person.

That's a nice long handle for the hammer.

Emotion can be a big help too, which can't be mapped out. Most people (apparently) would rather zygotes be sacrificed than mommy or daddy or whatever member of the family.

Hmmm. Family + values = opportunity.

Or, family + support = what the voters want

Then, family + corporate interests = soldier factory

But, family - jobs - opportunities - hope + crap food + flooded housing + high fuel prices - public transportation = big headaches

Yeah, emotions can be mapped out, but they are still messy.

The point is that logic and emotions can be used to change the power structure away from current directions to alternatives.
Doclotus
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 21 2006, 08:28 AM) *

Why the smiley face? shifty.gif

If this were true, then these Republicans would have voted the other way. It isn't as if this was a straight party line vote. Politicians are just like any other animal: survival first.

You're partially correct that this is a bi-partisan issue. However this issue is far more divisive for the GOP. Thus, I'd plan on seeing it be a key issue in certain races. Possibly a successful one. Santorum in particular may suffer, but he's getting hit hard for a variety of reasons.
Google
BoF
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 21 2006, 07:28 AM) *
Why the smiley face? shifty.gif


Amlord I have a lot to smile about. wink.gif Tom DeLay talked about a permanent Republican majority. Nothing is permanent. Please notice a couple of things in the link below.

1. Observe the number of times control of the house has changed. The question of a reversal of republican ascendancy is one of when, not if.

2. There were 204 Democrats and 229 Republicans in the 108th Congress [2003-2005]. There are 202 Democrats and 232 Republicans in the current Congress. That’s a net gane of three seats. Had it not been for DeLay’s shenanigan in the Texas legislature that gerrymandered 5 to 7 new Republican seats, then it’s possible Republicans would have lost House seats in 2004 - despite Bush victory.


http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressio...y/partyDiv.html

QUOTE
KEITH OLBERMANN: We did not even mention stem cell and the veto there in our introduction, here. That was a move counter to the beliefs, if the polls are correct, of up to 72 percent of the American public. Is there anyone firmly in the president‘s corner these days? I mean, even his wife and mom must have been horrified when he was talking with his mouth full at the G-8 earlier this week.

<snip>

HOWARD FINEMAN, “Newsweek: I talked to a strategist who‘s very close to Karl Rove and George Bush, knows them well, has worked with them. He told me he thought that the republicans could lose both the House and the Senate. That might be lowballing on purpose, but it reflects the mood of gloom in and around the White House. The problem is that they have neither carrots nor sticks. They don‘t have the carrot because George Bush is very unpopular. He seems unable to handle events at this point, desperately low approval ratings. And there‘s no stick either because what is Karl Rove going to threaten to do? Not allow the president to go into your state or district? A lot of republicans don‘t want him there.

The stem cell veto, is just a piece of the puzzle. I don’t know how many seats Democrats will pick up in either house, but I think we’re beginning to see the end of the “permanent” Republican majority. The fact is that Republicans have everything to lose. The Democrats control nothing and have little to lose.
BoF
It seems that Bush’s approval rating has slipped several points in recent days. Here is the latest from Rasmussen—37% as of 7-25-06.

Bush Job Approval

This link changes daily.

QUOTE
Thirty-seven percent (37%) of Americans approve of the way that President Bush is performing his job. That’s just the second time this month that his Approval has fallen below the 40% mark. It’s also the President’s lowest rating since mid-May. Just 26% of Americans share the President’s view that

stem cell research is morally wrong.


How will this influence voters in Virginia where incumbent Republican George Allen, who supported Bush, is in a tight race?

A month ago, Allen had slipped, but was ten points ahead. I’m anxious to see a current poll.

Virginia Senate Race
Victoria Silverwolf
1. Do you think Congress should override the veto?

Yes, but that is a discussion best left to another thread.

2. Do you think Congress will override the veto?

Not a chance. The two-thirds majority simply isn't there.

Given widespread public support for the research, do you think that:

3. This action help Bush with the base, hurt with moderate and swing voters?


Well, it will clearly help with the most loyal of all Republican voters (religious conservatives.) But how much more help does the GOP need from that branch of the American voting public? I don't see much effect on other segments of the population.

4. Will Bush's poll numbers rise or fall over this matter?

Little or no effect, I suspect. The second Bush Presidency will always be remembered as an era when foreign policy reigned over all other issues.

5. If Congress fails to override the veto, will this give Democrats an issue with which to hammer Republicans in the November elections?

Possibly a little. One must keep in mind, however, that all controversial biological issues are very double-edged swords indeed. There are very sincere, very politically active American citizens who believe that the President is, quite literally, keeping babies from being killed.

Here in Tennessee, there is a very nasty three-way primary race going on to see who will be the Republican candidate for the US Senate (and the almost certain winner in the general election.) The only issue being discussed in the attack ads that these three men have been slinging at each other is which one is the most conservative. In particular, one candidate is under attack because, years ago, he said something that might be interpreted to mean that he was not as extremely pro-life then as he is today. In such a climate, I guarantee you that an ad pointing out that the candidate supported President Bush's veto against "the wanton murder of our most helpless citizens" would earn some votes.
Amlord
QUOTE(BoF @ Jul 25 2006, 04:58 PM) *

How will this influence voters in Virginia where incumbent Republican George Allen, who supported Bush, is in a tight race?

A month ago, Allen had slipped, but was ten points ahead. I’m anxious to see a current poll.

Virginia Senate Race


Allen is comfortably ahead, despite his support for the President's veto on this issue: Poll: Allen leads race for Senate

QUOTE
The Republican senator leads Democratic challenger James Webb by 16 percentage points in a statewide survey conducted last week by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research. But one-fifth of the voters remain undecided, and Allen still lacks majority support in his bid for a second term, according to the poll.

Allen has the support of 48 percent of the voters surveyed and leads Webb by wide margins in most regions of the state. Webb, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and former secretary of the Navy, leads Allen in densely populated Northern Virginia but remains unrecognized by one-third of the state's voters.

<snip>

Allen also holds an 11-point lead among independent voters, a group that Webb's campaign has been working hard to attract.

Webb has tried to cast Allen as a philosophical clone of the president, citing Allen's tendencies to support administration policies and legislative initiatives. In a debate last weekend, Webb criticized Allen for siding with the president on issues ranging from the war in Iraq to restricting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.


Allen hasn't seemed hurt by his support of the President on this issue.
A left Handed person
1. Do you think Congress should override the veto?

148 blastocytes have been turned into babies, 400,000 exist, and I suspect 1000s are terminated annually. This issue is very simple to me, and would be even if I were pro-life.

Conservatives argue that adult stemcells are enough, but they are not. They are limited by both availability, and broadness of potential application.

Embryonic therapys have already been developed for animals, and were it not for the limitations placed on research, they probably would have already been developed for humans as we'll.

2. Do you think Congress will override the veto?

It didn't.

Given widespread public support for the research, do you think that:

3. This action help Bush with the base, hurt with moderate and swing voters?

It will help him with his religious base, but hurt him with many people with the type of disease that could be treated with embryonic stemcells.

4. Will Bush's poll numbers rise or fall over this matter?

Not empirically I suspect.

5. If Congress fails to override the veto, will this give Democrats an issue with which to
hammer Republicans in the November elections?


Bush defying the wishes of congress, and 70% of the American people certainly shouldn't bode we'll for the Republican electorate, though this issue is relatively minor.
BoF
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 31 2006, 11:39 AM) *

Allen is comfortably ahead, despite his support for the President's veto on this issue:

Poll: Allen leads race for Senate


Allen's lead is dwindling. The "macaca" remark, makes him look like the small soul person he actually is. With Allen losing support, the Democrats may start pouring money into Webb's race.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State...giniaSenate.htm


Amlord
QUOTE(BoF @ Aug 25 2006, 02:55 PM) *

QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 31 2006, 11:39 AM) *

Allen is comfortably ahead, despite his support for the President's veto on this issue:

Poll: Allen leads race for Senate


Allen's lead is dwindling. The "macaca" remark, makes him look like the small soul person he actually is. With Allen losing support, the Democrats may start pouring money into Webb's race.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State...giniaSenate.htm

It's nice to know that you know George Allen personally enough to comment on the size of his soul. ermm.gif

The race has tightened and this latest poll should a wake up call for Allen. He's firmly in my "re-elected" category, however.

He may well be the safest Republican Senator in this election cycle.
Jaime
How about we focus on the actual debate questions? smile.gif

TOPICS:

1. Do you think Congress should override the veto?

2. Do you think Congress will override the veto?

Given widespread public support for the research, do you think that:

3. This action help Bush with the base, hurt with moderate and swing voters?

4. Will Bush's poll numbers rise or fall over this matter?

5. If Congress fails to override the veto, will this give Democrats an issue with which to hammer Republicans in the November elections?
Vampiel
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 19 2006, 05:04 PM) *

QUOTE(BoF @ Jul 19 2006, 04:27 PM) *

QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 19 2006, 03:17 PM) *

Bush isn't up for re-election, so it won't hurt him any. It might hurt a few Conservatives, like maybe Rick Santorum, but really this is a non-issue with most people.


Now really Amlord, I just didn't know Bush wasn't up for reelection. rolleyes.gif The thread isn't about Bush per se, but his dragging other Republicans down.

You tend to minimize things and this is just a classic example. Given the number of people with diseases this research could possibly impact, I think it's going to be a bigger issue than you might think. In essence, whether or not stem cell will do all some think, Bush has robbed people of hope. If this had been a promising new defense system, Bush would have signed it. Shame on Bush. mad.gif


Seeing how I'm one of the people with one of those diseases and I actually support his stance, where does that leave you?

I will admit that the appeal to emotion is high. How could Bush NOT want to give Michael J Fox a chance at a better life?

The question isn't rhetorical, I'll tell you why: the "chance" is a hope and a prayer. There is no evidence, despite intense research, that embryonic stem cells are any more effective than adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells at curing diseases. In fact, despite all the research done, there are currently zero clinical trials involving embryonic stem cell treatments and over 1000 involving adult stem cell treatments.

This in spite of the fact that there have been 132 studies done on embryonic stem cells since 1998 (85% of which involve stem cells lines approved under the Bush plan). None of these has reached the clinical trial phase?

This is a wedge issue and your rhetoric simply confirms it.


As far as the questions are concerned I do not believe this will have a very large impact on any elections in the near future only because other issue's overshadow it, and for the political implications I agree with Amlord.

Although this quote may be true, the content leave's you with an innacurate assement of stem cell research. Half the truth is only the begginings of a lie.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp

QUOTE
Preliminary research in mice and other animals indicates that bone marrow stem cells, transplanted into a damaged heart, can generate heart muscle cells and successfully repopulate the heart tissue.


I realize this debate is not about the implications of stem cell research so will not debate it further in this post, but being on of the "swing voters", seeing as to how Bush has not moved to illegalize the research it will not sway my vote for any party (seeing as to how everyone is there own person with there own views anyways despite political leanings).
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2021 Invision Power Services, Inc.