Posted on 11/15/2006 9:55:56 PM PST by neverdem
The only veto so far wielded by President George W. Bush was against the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act this past July. In something of a rarity over the last six years, the Act passed with bipartisan support. Bush issued his veto in the face of strong public backing for the research. For example, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken shortly after his veto found 68 percent of Americans in favor expanding federal support for human embryonic stem cell research. The president didn't veto the bill because he's against federal funding of scientific research; he vetoed it as a favor to his political following among anti-abortion conservative Christians. That turned out to be a big mistake.
The same July 2006 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll also found that 33 percent of voters said that they would be more likely to vote for their member of Congress if he or she voted in favor of stem cell research while only 19 percent they would be less likely to vote for them. (Forty-four percent said it made no difference.) The rubber met the political tarmac most prominently in Missouri where voters passed an amendment to the state constitution guaranteeing that "any stem cell research permitted under federal law may be conducted in Missouri." The margin was an admittedly puny 55,000 votes out of the 2 million cast. But keep in mind that stem cell research supporter Democrat Claire McCaskill beat stem cell initiative opponent incumbent Republican Senator Jim Talent by just 42,000 votes.
How did stem cell supporters fare in other races? Gail Pressberg and Pam Solo, the authors of the forthcoming Stem Cell Research: Promise and Politics, tracked 25 Senate and House races in which stem cell research played a role. In the seven of the eight of the closely contested senatorial races in which the Democrats won, all of them supported embryonic stem cell research. The victors were Bob Menendez in New Jersey, Jon Tester in Montana, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Ben Cardin in Maryland, Amy Klobuchar in Minnesota, and Jim Webb in Virginia. The only stem cell loser was Harold Ford in Tennessee. It is true that Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. who opposes embryonic stem cell research on religious grounds beat Republican incumbent Rick Santorum for the Senate in Pennsylvania. Of course, Santorum is against embryonic stem cell research based on his religious beliefs too, so it was a wash in that race.
Pressberg and Solo also note that in the three gubernatorial races in which stem cells played a prominent role, the pro-research Democrats all won: Wisconsin's Jim Doyle, Iowa's Chet Culver and Michigan's Jennifer Granholm. And in the midst of the mid-term slaughter of Republican officeholders, stem cell supporter California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also won handily with nearly 56 percent of the vote.
The result is less clear in the 15 House races tracked by Pressberg and Solo, but so far 8 Democratic stem cell supporters won, 5 lost, and 2 are still up in the air as of Thursday evening. The new Democratic Congressional leadership is expected to reintroduce legislation to expand federal support for embryonic stem cell research in the new session.
Look, if Republicans had opposed embryonic stem cell research on the grounds that dim-witted government bureaucrats haven't a clue about how to choose between scientific boondoggles and scientific brilliance, then perhaps the stem cell issue wouldn't have cut against them. Instead, conservative Republican pandering to the Religious Right on this issue made them look like uncaring anti-progress know-nothings to most voters. In the first post-election salvo of recriminations, Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, Executive Director of the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership, noted in a press release: "For the last two years centrist GOPers have warned the leadership of our party of the consequences of pushing a legislative agenda cow-towing (sic) to the far right in our party. Our warnings were ignored, and now our party is paying a devastating price." She's right.
Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent.
Stem cells DO NOT cure Democrats.
Exactly. Why were Republicans unable to point out that since 100% of the breakthroughs have been with adult stem cells, and that only adult stem cells allow the possibility of rejection-proof autologous transplants, ESCR would be a waste of money even if moral issues were a non-factor?
Can you say M S M? I thought you could....:>)
I don't understand this either. It seems such an obvious point -- but the abortion industry (and thus the MSM) have taken sides so its hard to get thorug all the flack.
Note how almost every stem cell advance news item only mentions that the advance was due to the use of adult stem cells deep in the text.
There is no bias in the MSN.
MSN should have been MSM.
Well, there was no single narrow reason [besides having lost touch]. Many things contributed: feet dragging on illegal immigration, crazy spending, "religion of peace" insistence, etc. Stem cells would be WAY down the list.
Probably because it's a dumb argument, and untrue.
Adult stem cells have been available for 40 years. Embryonic stem cells, six years.
OF COURSE adult stem cells are going to have more results. But 100%? Nope. Embryonic stem cell research is producing positive results all the time.
And another... Embryonic Stem Cell-Based Vaccines Prevent Lung Cancer in Mice
Spot on. If they could articulate other reasons that so far it's nothing but a boondoggle, I doubt the MSM would give them air time.
Your comment about ESC producing positive results strikes me as baloney. Here are the facts for ESC's: ZERO human clinical trials and ZERO treatments/cures.
Even if embryonic stem cells fail, there's no reason not to try... The Republicans shot themselves in the foot with this issue
Deliberate Idiots who deserve zero respect.
What's really irritating about this issue is how much of a loser it is. Anybody who is in any way conversant in the science of ESCs knows that sooner or later a disease will be cured by it. Maybe not a lot of diseases, maybe not new organ growth or whatever, but it's almost certain that it'll work for SOMETHING and we can't stop it in other countries.
And that's the kicker. Even if we sold out every other priority to ban ESC, the day China comes up with a treatment using them, it will be approved here the VERY next day, no matter if you have 60 Republicans in the Senate and 250 Republican Congressmen. It is an absolute turd of an issue and distracts from things where we actually can win, like abortion.
Most voters don't even know a thing about this. If it had actually been written EMBRYONIC stem cell research, perhaps, it would have failed. Who knows. It seems to me that only FReepers are the educated and informed voters.
I'm fairly conversant in it. I wouldn't hold my breath. Too much basic science is still unknown about the genetics of embryology, i.e. the regulation of gene expression and tissue differentiation, and the immunology of rejection.
Why the hell do we taxpayers have to pay for it? Nobody said
it couldn't be tried, just not at taxpayer expense.
But that's the thing - those problems need to all be solved only to realize the most advanced ESC ideas like organ growth. There is much lower hanging fruit like Parkinson's or regrowth of cardiac muscle and there are already some positive animal models in these areas. It only takes one success out of all the infinite possibilities for opposing ESCR to be a political death sentence - Senator X is voting against the cure for Parkinson's! It all seems pointless to me because in 5 or 10 years it will be here no matter what we do and it is a millstone around our necks now.
Dems are not running pro-abortion ads because they are ashamed of their stance and do not have the support of the people. They're running pro-ESCR ads for precisely the opposite reason. It is a very frustrating thing to watch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.