0
   

Anything to get elected

 
 
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 09:18 am
WASHINGTON -- After the second presidential debate, in which John Kerry used the word ``plan" 24 times, I said on television that Kerry has a plan for everything except curing psoriasis. I should have known there is no parodying Kerry's pandering. It turned out days later that the Kerry campaign has a plan -- nay, a promise -- to cure paralysis. What is the plan? Vote for Kerry.

I'm not making this up. I couldn't. This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: ``If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.''

In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately raising for personal gain false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable.

Where does one begin to deconstruct this outrage?

First, the inability of the human spinal cord to regenerate is one of the great mysteries of biology. The answer is not remotely around the corner. It could take a generation to unravel. To imply, as Edwards did, that it is imminent if only you elect the right politicians is scandalous.

Second, if the cure for spinal cord injury comes, we have no idea where it will come from. There are many lines of inquiry. Stem cell research is just one of many possibilities, and a very speculative one at that. For 30 years I have heard promises of miracle cures for paralysis (including my own, suffered as a medical student). The last fad, fetal tissue transplants, was thought to be a sure thing. Nothing came of it.

As a doctor by training, I've known better than to believe the hype -- and have tried in my own counseling of the newly spinal-cord injured to place the possibility of cure in abeyance. I advise instead to concentrate on making a life (and a very good life it can be) with the hand one is dealt. The greatest enemy of this advice has been the snake-oil salesmen promising a miracle around the corner. I never expected a candidate for vice president to be one of them.

Third, the implication that Christopher Reeve was prevented from getting out of his wheelchair by the Bush stem cell policies is a travesty.

Bush is the first president to approve federal funding for stem cell research. There are 22 lines of stem cells now available, up from one just two years ago. As Dr. Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics, has written, there are 3,500 shipments of stem cells waiting for anybody who wants them.

Edwards and Kerry constantly talk of a Bush ``ban'' on stem cell research. This is false. There is no ban. You want to study stem cells? You get them from the companies that have the cells and apply to the National Institutes of Health for the federal funding.

In his Aug. 7 radio address to the nation, John Kerry referred not once but four times to the ``ban'' on stem cell research instituted by Bush. At the time, Christopher Reeve was alive, so not available for posthumous exploitation. But Ronald Reagan was available, having recently died of Alzheimer's.

So what does Kerry do? He begins his radio address with the disgraceful claim that the stem cell ``ban'' is standing in the way of an Alzheimer's cure.

This is an outright lie. The President's Council on Bioethics, on which I sit, had one of the world's foremost experts on Alzheimer's, Dr. Dennis Selkoe from Harvard, give us a lecture on the newest and most promising approaches to solving the Alzheimer's mystery. Selkoe reported remarkable progress in biochemically clearing the ``plaque'' deposits in the brain that lead to Alzheimer's. He ended his presentation without the phrase ``stem cells'' having crossed his lips.

So much for the miracle cure. Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at NIH, has admitted publicly that stem cells as an Alzheimer's cure are a fiction, but that ``people need a fairy tale.'' Kerry and Edwards certainly do. They are shamelessly exploiting this fairy tale, having no doubt been told by their pollsters that stem cells play well politically for them.

Politicians have long promised a chicken in every pot. It is part of the game. It is one thing to promise ethanol subsidies here, dairy price controls there. But to exploit the desperate hopes of desperate people with the promise of Christ-like cures is beyond the pale.

There is no apologizing for Edwards' remark. It is too revealing. There is absolutely nothing the man will not say to get elected.

link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,903 • Replies: 33
No top replies

 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 09:48 am
You're working hard for them today, McG. I hope they are paying you well.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 10:31 am
Imagine...a politician who will say anything to get elected.

Who wudda thunk it!
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 10:32 am
"Bush is the first president to approve federal funding for stem cell research. There are 22 lines of stem cells now available, up from one just two years ago. As Dr. Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics, has written, there are 3,500 shipments of stem cells waiting for anybody who wants them.

Edwards and Kerry constantly talk of a Bush ``ban'' on stem cell research. This is false. There is no ban. You want to study stem cells? You get them from the companies that have the cells and apply to the National Institutes of Health for the federal funding. "

Facts are irrelevant to Kerry.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 11:00 am
"Facts are irrelevant to Kerry."

And.....that's a fact, LOL.

Oh - one other fact...Kerry will be irrelevant as of 11/03/04. Smile
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 11:06 am
Quote:

Where does one begin to deconstruct this outrage?


I think this question is important somehow...
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 10:06 pm
woiyo wrote:

Edwards and Kerry constantly talk of a Bush ``ban'' on stem cell research. This is false. There is no ban. You want to study stem cells? You get them from the companies that have the cells and apply to the National Institutes of Health for the federal funding. "

Facts are irrelevant to Kerry.

Brought up in another debate, but not funding new lines is panamount to a "ban". Large scale research, ie DNA code, is ALWAYS funded by government, not private industry. Industry uses the theories derived by the reasearcher. This is the basis for innovation, so not funding new lines, when all the available lines are contaminated, IS the same as a "ban"
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 11:02 pm
Re: Anything to get elected
McGentrix wrote:
WASHINGTON -- After the second presidential debate, in which John Kerry used the word ``plan" 24 times, ...


If you don't have a RECORD, having a PLAN is about the only fallback position available...
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 11:17 pm
Kerry will have a presidential record in four years. We can discuss it then.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Oct, 2004 11:19 pm
oh goody, another link to dr. farthammer, one doctor who never praticed anything but diseases of the rich.

farthammer is the guy who from his own wheelchair can tell if a person he sees on tv is mentally ill.

sure, dr farthammer.

his faith in science is matched only by his ideological blindness to reality.

maybe someone should explain the dear drain sniffing dr. that the way science works is to investigate, and bush has restricted government research on stem cell research.

bush restricted government stem cell research because he had his tongue up the anus of the religious right. you know, those mouth breathing idiots who just got government support to sell a book at the grand canyon's national park book store that stated that said canyon was created by noah's great flood.

imagine that? the educated world laughs at us for allowing such idiotic opinions to be treated with equal respect as evolution.

bush and a lot of his faux christians are creationists. and i can only wait with thrilled anticipation when he forces NASA to publish like findings that the Earth is actually flat.

farthammer is not a scientist. although many doctors are. and those who are would laugh at farthammer's absolutist attitude about what scientific efforts can produce.

do we need to mention that the structure of dna was discover only 50 years ago and we have already mapped the human genome in less than 2 generations hence or that in less than 70 years we went from being land bourn creatures to manned flights to the moon.

if there is anything i can not stand is a jerk-off like farthammer dismiss the power of science because he does not like a politician's belief in its power to heal the sick and infirm.

its not just farthammer's legs that are crippled, his soul is as well.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 06:56 am
Try to speak froml the heart, Kuvasc.

Stop holding back! :wink:
0 Replies
 
neue regel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 08:19 am
'Kerry will have a presidential record in four years. We can discuss it then.'

Perhaps....because up until now, no one has wanted to talk about John Kerry's 20 year Senate record.

Should he win, let's hope he'll accomplish MUCH more in 4 than he's managed in 20. Personally, I don't see him getting the chance.

After the Democrats claimed Bush would bring back slavery, nothing they say really surprises me, anymore. I just enjoy hearing the apologists try and explain away their whacked-out rhetoric.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 11:19 am
This election is not about Kerry.

This election is about Bush. That's why Kerry will win.
0 Replies
 
neue regel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 01:38 pm
I mostly agree with you. This election has nothing to do with John Kerry. Try as he might, he really can't give a decent reason to vote for him at all.

This is a vote for or against Bush...that's it.
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 01:55 pm
neue regel wrote:
'Kerry will have a presidential record in four years. We can discuss it then.'

Perhaps....because up until now, no one has wanted to talk about John Kerry's 20 year Senate record.

Should he win, let's hope he'll accomplish MUCH more in 4 than he's managed in 20. Personally, I don't see him getting the chance.

After the Democrats claimed Bush would bring back slavery, nothing they say really surprises me, anymore. I just enjoy hearing the apologists try and explain away their whacked-out rhetoric.


Just currious, have you ever looked up Kerry's voting record? What votes differed from your opinion?

I only ask this because NOBODY brings up his voting record, other then saying "he's the most liberal senator in the Senate". THis is absolutely false, he is a moderate democrat, als in the Clinton mold. In fact, he is in the 33% bracket concerning free trade. That's right, there are 17 more republicans who's positions are left of Kerry on Free Trade. Go to CATO for the information.

If you want to debate his voting record, then do it, but not with generalizations which have no merit. You have to bring up specific bills, say what he voted, then why you disagree with it. Not some copy and paste job from a Bushie site either, get the bill, what the bill says and why he voted the way he did. Then tell me why your opinion is different.

This is the logical way to debate, with facts. Instead all I hear is generalizations, and quick one liners. It's not a debate but spin when you say this stuff. I'll leave it up to you if you want to do the research and look up the bills he's signed.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 01:56 pm
neue regel wrote:
I mostly agree with you. This election has nothing to do with John Kerry. Try as he might, he really can't give a decent reason to vote for him at all.

This is a vote for or against Bush...that's it.


Well even if that were right (and I think it is not) perhaps that says a lot more than you might like to think, Neue.

Fact is...if Bush truly had a decent record to run on...all this trashing of John Kerry would not be needed.

But just as the Kerry side seems to have an inordinate number of people who want him elected as much because they hate the idea of Bush rather than because they like the way he (Kerry) operates...the Bush side seems to have more than its fair share of people who claim they will vote for Bush not because they think he has been an excellent executive or that he put together a competent administration...but because they "fear" and "hate" the "liberal" Kerry.

The people holding their noses while voting this November will not all be folks voting for Kerry...not by any means.

And that is truly sad!
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 03:29 pm
I'm no expert, but I have read the research of two stem-cell companies before investing in them and the technology really is promising. They have already regenerated spinal cords in mice, which is quite miraculous when you consider they don't fully even understand how the spinal cord works. This can't be too much different from humans (laymen's guess I'll grant you, but if you can do one, I have to assume you can eventually do the other).

All that not withstanding; John Edwards is a scumbag. This statement:

John, I'm the sleaziest of the sleazy, Edwards wrote:
``If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.''


is just another deplorable example of what he did as lawyer. It is reminiscent of when he told a jury that he could hear a dead, unborn baby and that the baby spoke through him. He may well deliver some very important messages, but the manner of his delivery is inexcusable. What a scumbag.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 03:53 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
All that not withstanding; John Edwards is a scumbag.


takes one to know one
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 03:56 pm
kuvasz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
All that not withstanding; John Edwards is a scumbag.


takes one to know one
How might you know that? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Oct, 2004 04:02 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
All that not withstanding; John Edwards is a scumbag.


takes one to know one
How might you know that? Laughing


Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Anything to get elected
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 10:29:16