Stem Cells & The MidTerms

The issue of stem cell research may have a larger impact on the midterm elections than previously thought.  While gay marriage and immigration reform are certainly one of the main weapons being used to try and get the republican base out to the polls this November, some news shows and many blogs are calling attention to Rush Limbaugh’s ad hoc attacks on the Michael J Fox ad, accusing him of “acting” and “going off his meds” for political effect, even after several medical authorities have cited that Fox’s erratic physical movements in the ad are a result of the medication itself.  Now from 10ZenMonkeys comes a post regaling some of the most striking ads this political season.  This one, highlighted on Americablog, seems particularly effective:

That little girl at the end is pure political savvy that would make Rove proud.  It’s unusually effective for a Democratic ad, I must admit.  (The ad actually has several versions for different incumbent congressmen.)

Here’s hoping that true conservatives are finally fed up with the divide-and-spend religious divisionists running the Republican party.  Nancy Reagan, Arlen Specter, hell, even Bill Frist backs stem cell research.  The public overwhelmingly supports publicly funded stem cell research.  Check this 2004 Harris poll:

 

TOTAL 2001

TOTAL 2004

Party Identification

Republican

Democrat

Independent

 

%

%

%

%

%

Should be allowed

61

73

60

80

83

Should not be allowed

21

11

18

5

7

Not sure/ Refused

18

16

21

15

10

But science doesn’t seem to matter one iota to the partisan base.  They just don’t get the gravity of the situation.  Dimwits like Limbaugh would rather joke about someone’s disease than admit there might actually be some hope on the horizon.  Yeah, that’s a party I don’t need to belong to. 

QuakerJono resides in Missouri and has the 411 on the Michael J Fox ad if you’re interested:

The opponents are using the ignorance of the majority and the emotionally charged nature of the debate to manipulate voters and then calling foul when the McCaskill campaign uses the same technique (with less outright lying).

One should vote one’s conscience on this issue, but one should be free to develop that stance from the facts of the case, not from special interest group manipulation, particularly when that manipulation is pure sophistry.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Stem Cells & The MidTerms

  1. I must be missing something here. I’m unsure why this ad is being called “nasty”, particularly in relation to the other four. Effective and personalizing, sure, but nasty?

  2. I agree. I think it’s a pretty good ad, and just left a comment asking the same question you are. How is calling for accountability on one’s votes “nasty?”

  3. It’s nasty because it misrepresents the facts. The people who are voting against the funding are (for the most part) NOT against the research. They are against the federally funding of that research. I am in total agreement. I do not want tax money going to fund any research program. It is not the job or the business of the federal government to do this. This should only be private funding and maybe state funding via educational institutions.

    The goverment can’t do anything right. Why do we want it to do this? Why do we think that funding with federal money will help? Especially since, with the funding, layers and layers of regulations will be imposed. Please people Use your heads.

    The ad plays to the emotions of people and not to the intellectual. Only people with no brain think with their heart.

  4. “The goverment can’t do anything right.”

    First of all, there’s an “n” after the “r” in government.

    Secondly, the government wouldn’t be this big phantom organization doing the actual research itself, it would only be funding the research.

    Thirdly, there are important reasons for having the results of this research be public, which is not guaranteed at all if the research is funded only by those who will make monetary profit from it. If we only allow private funding, then there is no guarantee of public access to research results, let alone eventual treatments derived therefrom. Tax money already goes to scads of “research programs” that are no more than fronts for the pet causes of politicians. This research can not only save lives, but save taxpayer dollars in the long run by eliminating or reducing need for expensive, long-term medical treatments and medications currently paid for by Medicare/Medicaid. Alzheimer’s, Cancer, Parkinson’s, M.S., the list goes on and on. Millions of Americans can potentially benefit from this research. If it is done publicly. I don’t want federal funding to go to “Faith-Based Initiatives”–as a general rule, I don’t think my government should TOUCH my faith, thank you very much–yet millions went to private “faith-based” organizations last year in the hopes that it would do some public good. This research has the potential to blow away every single medical advance mankind has ever made COMBINED. We are absolute fools to not fund it.

    I can see having objections to working with stem cells from a moral standpoint, and have some worries in that regard myself. But to say “I don’t want my tax dollars going there” is shortsighted at best. Your tax dollars are going into the healthcare of this nation one way or another, so why not invest it wisely, with the prospect of future diminished costs???

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s