BoF
To be honest, I don't see that the source of the numbers should cast doubt on their veracity. Nor am I sure that Professor Yamamoto's take on Bush's stem-cell policy reflects the truth. (Show me a scientist that doesn't want more federal funding and I'll show you a green dog.) Harvard researcher Douglas Melton went around the system and created 17 new stem cell lines; now he's sending out cultures for the postage price. The consensus among scientists may be that they want more money. If so, then the minority seems to be doing quite well without.

You said that "with state budgets being tight, it would make more sense, at least from my point of view, for funds to go through NIH." I'd point out that the Constitution doesn't put medical research in the realm of Federal power, but that's one piece of paper that's pretty roundly ignored. Instead, let me remind you that even California's deficit is less than one percent of GSP (check me if you want, I could only find old numbers) whereas the deficit of the United States is something like four percent of GNP. Seems like a good excuse to defer budgetary authority to the states.

You also said that "Bush's stem cell decision was, in my opinion, not about money--but about placating religious conservatives." I respect that opinion, but I'm also going to respectfully disagree. John Dilulio said that the Bush White House was too heavy on politics, and he's probably right. It's still hard to believe that Bush, something of a Christian conservative himself, is protecting the rights of human embryos just to make other people happy. It's hard to believe that he's pandering to the religious right by liberalizing the federal stem-cell research policy. And it's hard to believe that he's seeking the favor of a political minority (one that's probably already on his side) at the risk of alienating the majority. Particularly when the majority's with him.

Edited to add those obnoxious italics near the end. I'm a sucker for style.

PacoBell

I'm going to try to start a new topic on stem-cell as soon as I get time to do the research. If you want to beat me to the punch, feel free to do so.

Meanwhile, I don't think the link you provided necessarily supports Bush's position.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=4792

Apparently, the public agrees with Bush's position of limited funding, but would approve even more funding.

Stem-cell research is not the ONLY issue I have with Bush, but it was one of his first decisions as president that annoyed me.

I think Kerry will fully fund stem-cell research and that's one of the many reasons I support him.

So supporters of stem cell research (read: not necessarily supporters of Bush's plan) include some who support an expansion of federal funding. That's such a weak statement, I'm not at all surprised that it's true.



More important is to see who Bush is alienating with his stem cell proposal: most of the one-third are those who want stricter controls on stem cell research - ostensibly, the shady "Christian Right." Again, that makes sense - Mr. Bush is easing restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research. If he was pandering to religious conservatives, he probably wouldn't choose to move in the direction they directly oppose.

Tommy G. Thompson Bio

Seems Tommy was a career politician. He was never a doctor or a health care professional. He was a lawyer and a four term governor. Hardly was the Secretary of Health and Human Services post bestowed on him for other than political reasons.

His claim to fame is the work for W-2's program to curb welfare - not altogether a bad plan - just not a major qualifier for issuing position papers on stem cell research.

See this post to see the narrow Christain fundamentalist 'moral' stance against the "murder" of embryos go down in flames.

Reminds me of Rumsfeld as a Secretary of Defense while he never served in the military. Why do I think this would have been a better team with Colin Powell taking a bigger role and being no less than the Secretary of Defense?

It's all about the election, and not about the moral choices for George W. Bush, I am afraid. He's a man on a mission, apparently, and he does not care who he has to use in order to accomplish it.

This is a pattern for the President, the Great Uniter. While he praised the work of the troops overseas, he was working on cutting their combat pay and veterans benefits.

While Bush praised the brave police, firefighters and other first responders, he was cutting back federal funding for these programs in the cities he was pledging to protect.

Bush's Homeland Security plan was to be "Cost Neutral," using the civil servants already employed, but to cut out overtime pay. To date, only one in five incoming cargo loads is being inspected, and people of Middle Eastern descent have joined the Mexicans in crossing our porous southern border into the United States.

Bush's No Child Left Behind program funded the testing to be undertaken in all of the schools. Now overcrowded schools in the inner city with multiple discipline problems and problems with parential attentiveness/compliance are supposed to perform as well as the better-funded, better-staffed suburban schools. Where is the equity there?

The Bush administration had to fudge on the numbers it would cost to institute the Prescription Drug Plan for seniors--even Republicans were upset about that. They found out after it passed.

While George W. Bush pledged to "bring to justice" those who plotted and executed the 9/11 attacks, he allowed out of the country flights of Saudi Arabians (the country most of the terrorists had come from), including members of the bin Laden family. After saying getting Osama bin Laden was our number one priority, he abandoned looking for him after the Tora Bora fiasco in order to invade a non-belligerent country that had no documented ties to the attacks. Why? Weapons of Mass Destruction, of course. When that excuse fell through, he said it was in order to liberate the Iraqi people, whom you have seen over the past few months have been less than overjoyed to have the American "infidels" around.

In response to the deaths of American troops that are taking place more frequently, Bush admitted to a miscalculation about the post-war plan in Iraq, and he attributed it to "catastrophic success."

Since Bush took office, Americans have lost jobs, many due to outsourcing because NAFTA just didn't somehow work out the way Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Carter, Ford, and Bush said it would. But the economy is said to be recovering, even though the once-reliable high tech jobs are being shipped to India, and Americans are earning less for their paychecks while paying far higher health insurance premiums. But if Bush doesn't acknowledge these problems, they don't exist, apparently.

All Americans seem to be dwelling on is the fear of other terrorist attacks. And yet, Bush has done essentially nothing in this country to ensure that the attacks do not happen again. Instead, Americans have been seeing their money poured into Iraq to rebuild infrastructure and the lives of their loved ones spent on protecting people who care more about their religion than about democracy.

These are all reasons why I am voting for John Kerry. President Bush has made the wrong decisions, and he turns a deaf ear to anyone who offers him anything other than praise and support.

I agree, wholeheartedly! A C student is one who is either incompetent, lazy, has
learning disabilities, or is un-focused. We should demand the highest standards
from a president. He falls miserably short, academically. As a public speaker,
he is inept. A president must have a command over the vernacular of his
country. These are but two areas that GWB is gravely lacking.


Even more importantly, George W. Bush has done nothing to curb
the massive amounts of illegal immigrants that are pouring into southern
California (and other places), except to offer them rewards for their illegal
actions. He is a man of contradiction, saying he is doing everything to fight the
war on terrorism, while turning a blind eye to the most obvious way of
preventing terrorism - to effectively close our borders!

He caters to his special interest groups above and beyond anyone else. So, the
rich, elitists of America can rest easy with him in office. The rest of us are S.O.L.

The only thing I can say about John Kerry is that he's not GWB. That, in and of
itself, will get him a lot of votes, from those of us who are beside ourselves with
disgust for the Bush administration.

Check your facts, PACPanzer. Donald Rumsfeld served as a Naval Aviator on active duty from 1954-1957 then in the Ready Reserve until 1975 and finally in the Standby Reserve until he officially retired from the Navy in 1989 as a Captain. It's all right here.

Right you are, Aquilla! I was thinking of Dick Cheney as I typed Rumsfeld. I would still rather have had Powell as the Secretary of Defense. Powell seems to be honorable and measured while Rumsfeld is dismissive and had to have been complicit in authorizing "anarchy" and ignoring IRC reports or worse for the conditions Gitmo and Abu Ghraib to flourish.

Rumsfeld personally authorized the detainment of a suspected terrorist captured in Iraq for some 7 months without reporting his capture to the International Red Cross - a clear violation of the Geneva Convention.

Here is the story from June 17th:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/17/...ain624411.shtml

As America goes to the polls, terrorism, Iraq, healthcare and the
economy will most likely be the most salient issues for most voters. But,
Americans should also be aware of two other related concerns. First, if
George W. Bush is re-elected, he will be a “lame duck,” since the
Constitution prohibits a president from serving more than two terms. This
makes it more likely that, knowing he need not face election to a third
term, Bush will push the ultra-right’s agenda even more vigorously than
during his first term. Americans already disappointed with Bush’s
performance therefore have reason to expect not just “more of the same,” but
probably much worse if he is re-elected.

Also, whoever is elected this time will most likely have the
opportunity to appoint one to four Supreme Court justices and many more Appeals
Court judges. Thus, if Bush is re-elected, one may expect the grisly axe
of the ultra-right to be hacking away at civil liberties for decades to
come! All of this gives Halloween a whole new, much scarier, meaning!

Polls suggest that a significant, though dwindling, number of Americans
believe that George Bush can handle terrorism better than John Kerry.
Hopefully, they will soon "see the light." For, while Bush has
continually bungled in this area, John Kerry has made a strong commitment to
correcting specific weaknesses.

Bush’s ineptitude has surfaced in a number of ways. He has often argued
that the Iraq war is a justifiable part of anti-terrorism efforts. Yet,
his suggestion that there were collaborative links between Iraq and
al-Quaida has been rebuked by both the 9-11 Commission and his own
Secretary of Defense. Moreover, there is no solid, credible evidence that Iraq
otherwise posed an imminent threat against U.S. security, directly or
indirectly. Bush’s tragic Iraq misadventure has diverted American forces
from the search for Bin Laden and his followers and has incensed many
throughout the Islamic world, making them more receptive to terrorist
recruiting efforts.

What about "homeland security?" In the years since 9-11, Bush’s
administration has failed to provide adequate safeguards against the use by
terrorists of jetliner cargo-holds and shipping containers to smuggle in
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons that could wreak massive destruction in the U.S. Security over
chemical plants and trains also remains inadequate.

If any of the above criticisms sound familiar, it may be because John
Kerry has been perceptive enough to voice them. And, he has a plan to
correct the weaknesses in homeland security and the insight to ensure
that no poorly conceived wars will occur during his presidency.

So, whom do you feel safer with: Bush the Bungler or John Kerry? The
choice should be obvious!

Perhaps that is because, what critics never seem to realize, the reason why a long-time politician like Kerry would seem to have contradictory stances, is that he has been a Senator for so long, and times and national circumstances change. You can't just look at the numbers on his voting record and say that two votes were near opposite and so he "flip-flopped." Ten or twenty years ago, the U.S. may not have seen it necessary (as a whole) to increase defense spending. For the most part, it was entirely the September 11th attacks that have now caused the huge push for an increase in national defense. The fact that Kerry, along with the rest of America, has awoken to this fact does not mean that he has flip-flopped. He has reassessed a desicion based on what is currently relevant. What is wrong with making decisions based on what seems right at that time. It's sticking to the exact same ideology forever, unequivocally, and without consideration for change that is completely irrational.

Well, the election is over, so I guess this thread has been downgraded to a curiosity. Still, here Kerry won, 56 votes to Bush's 38.

We will never know how good a President Kerry would have been. I think he's a little old to do a Nixonesque comeback, and Teresa probably would be upset if he tried. But Kerry made a lot of good points, perhaps too many, because Bush had so many negative points. That certainly made it harder for the Kerry campaign to focus on just one or two issues.

I hope the future Democratic nominee will be more successful, and maybe these political threads will be instructive to the next would-be kingmaker.