The spokesman should have spoken as to the great number of adult stem cell studies suggesting benefit. If nothing else he could have read a chapter in Coulter's recent book on this subject. She correctly lists many of the studies and notes that no embryonic stem cell has been used in treating an illness.
The President's staff needs direct tuition in these matters. The answers on embryonic stem cells should be clear and consistent and begin with these are blastocytes that develop into humans, snowflake children and so forth.
RATs are consistent in portraying anyone not agreeing with them as knuckle dragging, superstitious Neanderthals who just escaped the local Baptist or Roman Catholic Church.
Good, informative and to the point answers are what are needed and not a stumbling around narrative. Memorize if you must but make sure the facts are on the tip of the tongue. Also make sure you can explain adult, embryonic and cord blood stem cells.
The book on the war was presented like it was based on facts. It was one of the better efforts at confirmation bias one can find. He decided the war was wrong regardless of his claims to the contrary. Just another campaign effort.
I can't remember the author's name; however, he was bleary eyed, puffy and didn't look well. I hope he does not have the common writer's affliction of alcoholism or substance habituation.
What really shocks me is Russert's open liberal bias with no effort made at fairness. He used to be more genuine, personal and fair in his treatment of Pubbies. Not any longer. It is campaign, campaign and campaign some more.
Russert's own numbers must be bothering him. Nothing like displacing one's fears onto someone else with innuendo and fact selection.
The book on the war was presented like it was based on facts. It was one of the better efforts at confirmation bias one can find. He decided the war was wrong regardless of his claims to the contrary. Just another campaign effort.
I can't remember the author's name; however, he was bleary eyed, puffy and didn't look well. I hope he does not have the common writer's affliction of alcoholism or substance habituation.
#####
I second both observations. Well said!
Regarding your comment that Russert used to be more fair to Republican guests, that can only be by a measurement of degree of fairness. He has always been Dem agenda driven. When Clinton was in office, every interview that did not focus on Clinton's troubles (and Republicans being mean to him), focused on taxes or social security going bankrupt under the Republican led Congress. It was like he had a tic, his questions, spoken in the form of accusations, were so predictable.
It is possible to know the party affiliation of his guests with a muted TV by Russert's body language. On the radio the same distinction can be made by the aggressive or passive tone of voice.