Dems Smear a Candidate: VA Example

This is an interesting article on Stem Cell Research. The key here is embryonic stem cell vs adult stem cells.

If Adult Stem Cell research is so promising and Embryonic is not, then why do the liberal politicians keep harping on it? Because they know that the conservatives are basically against destroying an embryo and therefore, it makes it look like they are against Stem Cell research in general. It has nothing to do with which is more clinically successful.

MJF seems to be weighing in on the political side as a poster child. He should know better.

 

I can't think of a medical researcher in the world who would believe that embryonic stem cell research "is not so promising." Adult stem cell research has yielded some amazing findings and treatments, but the two fields are not the same. Think of embryonic stem cell research as the 13-year-old Freddy Adu. Just because he hadn't scored in a World Cup yet doesn't mean that we should throw him to the wolves.

By the way, what's your position on in vitro fertilization? I'm wondering how many petrie dishes you've adopted lately.

 

No, it means that Freddie, just like stem cells, needs to grow up first to be effective.

I have no idea what you’re setting me up for, but I’ll bite. I don’t care for IVF but then again, my wife and I do not have problems reproducing.

 

Maybe my analogy was bad. Embryonic stem cells aren't simply adult stem cells that haven't grown up yet. The Adu analogy meant that there is tremendous--and I mean tremendous--potential in stem cell research, and that refers to stem cells of all kinds. What the anti-stem cell research advocates want the public to believe is that we don't need Freddy Adu ten years from now because we've got Brad Friedel now.

IVF destroys embryos, too.

 

Fertilizing eggs for the purpose of destroying for research vs fertilizing eggs for the purpose of having babies doesn’t sound like the same thing to me.

Please explain.

 

For one thing, I believe that (in many cases) these particular fertilized eggs are used for stem cell research. Secondly, in IVF, multiple eggs are fertilized; the embryos that don't get implanted are either stored or destroyed.

Both procedures result in the destruction of many, many embryos--that aren't and won't become viable. The difference is that stem cell research allows those embryos to (possibly) be put to good use.

 

Ok, you've convinced me. I am now against IVF.

 

So what would you do with the 500,000 embryos that are currently being frozen, knowing that almost all of them will eventually be destroyed?

 

Cool. I'll go ahead and forward your information to a clinic. How many will you be willing to implant in your wife? Would a dozen be too many?

 

Well, not only was Fox on his medication, but he notes that he was overmedicated. (He doesn't say this, but I'm certain that getting the "right" dose isn't always easy to do for conditions such as these.)

Other interesting tidbits: if he went off his meds, considering the stage of his Parkinson's disease, he would not be able to speak.

Oh, and he has campaigned for Arlen Specter in the past. So much for him being a Democrat schill.

So much for Rush's talking points. Bang, bang, bang, they've all been knocked down. I bet you guys feel kind of dumb for falling for that nonsense, but it's okay: it happens to the best of us.

 

I'm sure this is what you meant.

 

Joking about his disease, how classy.

Actually it's the type of stupidity I would expect from any one AGAINST MEDICAL RESEARCH. Wouldn't it be great if we could go back to the Middle Ages? Not feeling well? We'll drain some blood out of you.

Maybe the politicians should leave the research to the scientists.

Allen is as dumb as a doorknob.

I'll be voting for Webb.

 

You enjoy his novels too?

 

I really hate this novel thing being part of the discourse, but I suppose it's kind of a chickens-coming-home-to-roost moment for my side of the aisle. Too much of an issue was made of Scooter Libby's novels a year ago, and I protested about making the novels an issue back then. Now, it's biting us in the ass as Drudge pulls the same stunt.

Here's essentially what I wrote in the P&CE forum: unless Libby or Webb were advocating certain behavior (and neither did), then they have no responsibility whatsoever to censor themselves in their own novels. I truly believe in the necessity of a space where adults can create art or entertainment with grown-up themes and for a grown-up audience. The way this issue is being handled--as a means of pandering to politically correct prudes and idiotic "moral value" crybabies--sickens me. It utterly sickens me.

Make no mistake about it: Drudge is appealing to the absolute dumbest segment of the population: the segment that simply cannot understand the concept of moral ambiguity. It's the same segment that believes that Huck Finn advocates racism, that Harry Potter advocates Satan worship, and that Maurice Sendak engages in child pornography.

Democrats should have never made an issue of Scooter Libby's novel. It embarasses me that these novels have become part of the political discourse.

 

I do feel dumb for believing Rush on MJF not taking his meds. I should’ve listened to you. I do still question why he went ahead with the filming in that condition.

Regardless of that, the real issue here is that Cardin voted against Stem Cell Research. It is a misleading ad from someone that we are not allowed to question.

 

As he says in the interview that he filmed in his condition because he has no way of knowing how bad or good he'll feel from day to day. Parkinson's isn't like a flu; Fox had no way to know that the next day or even next week would be any better. It's silly to think that Fox had any obligation whatsoever to candy-coat his own condition!

EM-BRY-ON-IC!!! This bill reaffirms the ban on funding for embryonic stem cell research while painting itself as a pro-stem cell bill!

Why on earth can't the GOP conduct an honest campaign on this issue? And to think that some of you get so bent out of shape when your party is accused of lying.

 

I’m glad you’re sickened because frankly I am too, especially at Webb’s response that it was not a sexual act (typical). I think what really sickens you is that there are voters in American today that have morals and do not care to vote for someone that produces this kind of trash.

You guys are a piece of work, while being bashing Drudge for his investigative work you see no problems with

1. Crying racism for an ad in Tennessee that after viewing several times personally, still cannot see where it’s racists, nor can my African-American friends figure it out either.
2. Demand that the Speaker of the House resign for no other reason except that he is Republican, and then hiding it under the mask of protecting our children from predators (only applies to Republicans, ie Studds).

Apparently this is the way campaigns are going to be run from now on and you guys have set the tone, but obviously you don’t have the balls for it. You’re a bunch of whiners that cry foul every time YOUR guy is caught in the mud.

 

I’m talking to a wall here but here goes anyway. I said the ad was misleading. Why do you think Cardin would not vote for expanding any kind of research other than embryonic? BECAUSE IT’S P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L. He only wants a cure with embryonic stem cell research only.

 

One line taken out of context is trash? Please. If this concerns you, let me know when you guys are ready to throw Scooter Libby or Newt Gingrich or Bill O'Reilly under the rails.

The ad isn't racist, per se, but it plays on racist anxiety among the party's idiot wing. If you don't think the white woman at the ad's end is code, you're kidding yourself. Corker himself even condemned the ad!

Friends and relatives of mine have dated/married interracially, and all of them will tell you about how they get the evil eye, even in this day and age. I don't think you feel this way; I know I don't. But you can't seriously deny that resentment over interracial relationships simmers under the surface. This ad exploited that fear, and it did so knowingly. There's a reason that everbody on the right has distanced himself from the ad . . . after it aired, of course.

Studds's playmate was of legal age at the time and in that region. His behavior, appalling though it may have been, broke no laws. You already know this. You also know that the Studds case happened 23 years ago.

I'm not taking any position on Hastert until the investigation finishes, but I do find it interesting that members of his own party insist that they had warned him about Foley, to no response.

I'm with IntheNet: the mudslinging needs to stop on both sides. When you guys are prepared to denouce Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, Bob Corker, etc., let me know.

Me, I like guys like Obama and even McCain, who can run a campaign with minimal negativity.