Hillary backed lab of donor (earmark for embattled Nobel-prize winning scientist James Watson)

Washington Times ^ | 10/30/07 | Jim McElhatton

[Libloather]

Hillary backed lab of donor
By Jim McElhatton
October 30, 2007

Lawmakers, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, have taken thousands in campaign cash from an embattled Nobel-prize winning scientist while earmarking federal money for his New York lab.

Mrs. Clinton and Sen. Charles E. Schumer, also a New York Democrat, requested a $900,000 earmark in June for the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, where James D. Watson served as chancellor before resigning last week after apologizing for comments that suggested that people descending from Africa aren't as intelligent as those from Europe.

Federal campaign filings show that Mr. Watson has donated more than $70,000 to candidates and their political causes, including a total of $3,000 to Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign on May 17 and June 25. Two days later, a Senate committee report showed that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Schumer earmarked $900,000 for the lab.

The majority of Mr. Watson's donations over the years have gone to Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, who has received more than $30,000 from the scientist, records show. Mr. Harkin is chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on labor, health, human services and education.

Phillippe Reines, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, yesterday referred all questions about the earmark to Mr. Harkin's office but added that there was no connection between political donations and the earmark.

"One thing had nothing to do with the other," he said.

Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign has returned nearly $1.3 million to hundreds of donors since July 1, including more than $800,000 tied to disgraced one-time fugitive Norman Hsu. The total figure is more than triple the returned donations for the rest of the Democratic field combined.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Harkin yesterday said the earmark is not likely to move ahead, partly because of the furor over Mr. Watson.

[Libloather]

"One thing had nothing to do with the other," he said.

It never does.

James Watson retired from his New York lab after suggesting that Africans are not as intelligent as Westerners.

[Hacklehead]

As much as I hate H KKKlinton, this is a cheap shot.

[Islander7]

"...Phillippe Reines, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, yesterday referred all questions about the earmark to Mr. Harkin's office...

The Buck never got here! She is such a crook!

[pieceofthepuzzle]

It’s interesting that such a high proportion of NIH-funded scientists support the democrats. If Hillary and company were to get their way and socialize medicine the huge amount of money it would cost would most definitely hurt the NIH budget in a big way. Socialized medicine would also create big disincentives for biotech and pharma and this would boomerang back and hurt those scientists who get industry sponsored grants as well. Still, people like Watson support the democrats because they think it is the ‘progressive’ party. Go figure.

[Just mythoughts]

Hillry has proclaimed herself an evolutionists... Seems the intellect they possess has been used to get first in line for the welfare handouts. Their ‘churches’ are public education and that wealth of donations, I mean TAXES, without them their theory cannot survive on its own.

[Tallguy]

Yep.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“It’s interesting that such a high proportion of NIH-funded scientists support the democrats. If Hillary and company were to get their way and socialize medicine the huge amount of money it would cost would most definitely hurt the NIH budget in a big way. Socialized medicine would also create big disincentives for biotech and pharma and this would boomerang back and hurt those scientists who get industry sponsored grants as well. Still, people like Watson support the democrats because they think it is the ‘progressive’ party. Go figure.”

Not the point. They would get their piece of the pie which is all that matters. The liberal elite couldn’t care any less about “the people.” All they care about is how big their yacht is or how many homes they have.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Actually, they wouldn’t get their piece of the pie, although they think they might. Most academics don’t make a ton of money (people like Watson with star power are a different story). In my view that is why, in part, so many academics are socialists or left leaning. In a word, ‘envy’. I think lots of Hillary supporters think she is going to ‘stick it to those ‘bas****s’, so they like her. What they don’t realize is that they will be equally affected, or maybe more affected by the policies a Hillary, Edwards, or Obama would put in place. The point is that their personal biases and envy are bigger determinants of their allegiances than their common sense. Kind of ironic for those who pride themselves on being ‘thinkers’.

[johnny7]

Won’t see this on the nightly news...

[Maverick68]

There is nothing wrong with taking a cheap shot at the Left. Unfortunately, we must use their own tactics against them sometimes.

[Just mythoughts]

These ‘elite’ above politics, and self proclaimed gods of knowledge crafted the welfare entitlement programs. They are first in line and they have perfected the protection racket of what keeps them fit. Tax payer dollars. Some of these ‘researchers’ despise corporate America and are in research to gain their fame. The ultimate accomplishment is making a name for themselves and there is a pecking order to get published and imagine making a peer review board level.... Some of these people are the haughtiest people on earth.

[weegee]

Political insiders will always have it better. All animals are equal under socialism. Some are more equal than others.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

I agree with you. We live in a ‘celebrity’ culture and it is this that motivates lots of academics, clearly. What I was trying to point out is that even though many academics support the democrats because they think the democrats will be good for them, ultimately they will find that they are not immune to the disasters brought about by social engineering. England has socialized medicine and research money is much harder to come by there than it is here. There will be so many unforeseen budget shortfalls under a socialized US health care system that they will not have much to throw at the NIH. Yes, there will be the well-funded elites, just like there are in England, but many of those non-celebrity scientists will struggle to fund their research, even if it is much more worthwhile research than that being done by the celebrity elites.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“Political insiders will always have it better”

I agree, entirely. I can’t stand socialism.

[SunkenCiv]

‘Black people are less intelligent than whites’, claims DNA pioneer
(James Watson)
Daily Mail | 10/17/07
Posted on 10/17/2007 4:36:52 AM EDT by TigerLikesRooster
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1912331/posts