Rep. Dave Reichert goes out of his way to portray himself as a moderate, but a new, DCCC web-ad exposes his extremist views on stem cell research.
During the 2004 race, Reichert told FOXNews.com that he is “generally against embryonic stem cell research,” and he held to his position in 2005 by voting against final passage of HR 810, a bill loosening restrictions on federal funding for such promising research.
I haven’t seen any polling, but I’m guessing that puts him pretty far out of step with his district.
Darcy Burner’s strategy might just work. Her platform calls for cutting federal taxes, raising federal spending, and balancing the federal budget. Completely impossible of course, but it tries to please everyone. Bring up a few wedge issues against Dave Reichert, and maybe more people will vote for her.
Richard Pope, you have no credibility.
You support the party of borrow and spend. Every time they cut taxes, they raise spending. Your own party makes you non-credible.
Your fellow Republi-trolls on this blog are obvious bigots. Thus we can simply discount their opinions. Because you do nothing to question this, your fellow Repugs make you non-credible.
Also I think the reason Burner’s campaign will probably work is that Reichert is really a lackluster politician at this level. He’s a classic one-termer.
Oh, also the Republicans REALLY suck right now.
DISCLAIMER: Richard Pope is an aspiring hack for Republicans. Assume that his talking points — and any Rovian mud-slinging tactics — come directly from the Reichert campaign and allies within the Republican party. Also assume that Pope’s tactics will get uglier as the campaign progresses.
R(I)P used to add a touch of ‘interest’ to this blog. Since his most recent farse of running for another elected porition his ‘talent level’ has fallen to the depths of our 4 stooges (puddybud, rufus, jch and mark the village idiot)
Yeah the damn truth has a way of getting these GOP liars into trouble anytime. Of course there’s the classic republican defense…
“I’m for research, except when I’m against it.”
“Her platform calls for cutting federal taxes, raising federal spending, and balancing the federal budget.”
I guess you should know – it worked in getting Reagan elected. Of course, the Republicans talk about balanced budgets, but really only intend to do the first part – cut taxes for their wealthy friends and supporters. Then they raise spending on projects where they can funnel money to their big corporate friends and supporters – like the defense contractors.
Republicans say they are going to balance the budget by reducing the “waste and fraud” in the domestic budget (i.e., social programs), but when they actually start to cut there, the find that those programs are actually very lean already, and there is not much to cut without making even their own supporters scream. So they engage in games – calling ketchup a vegitable so they don’t have to include the cost of green beans in the school budget. When they do spend money domestically, it is targeted toward Republican districts, or is wasted on huge no-bid contracts to their big corporate friends to try to make up for their incompetence in disaster control.
Yet the Republicans continue the BIG LIE, that Democrats are responsible for big spending and budget deficits, despite running up record deficits in both the Reagan and Bush II administrations. You can tell who they really serve by their priorities: they give tax breaks to the wealthy first, and everything else is just sound bites.
Goldy, if you don’t understand the difference between “stem cell research” and “embryonic stem cell research,” just ask.
The Nineties are the halcyon days of fiscal restraint and a strong economy (for everuone) which we should smack the ‘thugs ’round the head and shoulders with anytime they presume to lecture on economic policy.
Thanks, Michael, for pointing out the distinction. Doesn’t it bother any of you that embryonic stem search gets very close to the line of breeding humans for scientific research? I guess if that’s okay to you, then you are at least being intellectually honest. But for many, I suspect it will make them hesitate on the ethics of it all.
Janet S. @ 10
No, you’re not breeding humans for research.
Look, gamets are property, fertilized embryos are property (we wouldn’t allow children to be frozen for later use, would we?). At some point, an embryo developed in vitro could conceivably become human enough that terminating it would constitute cruelty, but it’s very, very unlikey to reach that point.
In terms of cloning, if a woman uses her own embryo, substitutes her genome for the genome of the embryo (must be done at the one- or two-cell stage), the embryo is grown invitro and (since her adult genetic material won’t endure a lot of mitosis anyway) sacrificed early, what’s the problem?
She’s using her own embryo to save her own life.
Now, is it wrong for her to use her embryo to save someone else’s life? I don’t think so.
The only difference between embryonic stem cells and stem cells that come from a person in later development is the idea that the embryonic stem cells were lives created to be destroyed. But when two people can create something from their property that will never be alive and sentient or experience any pain, have they created another life, or is that still their own tissue?
I think there are a lot of pretty hard ethical tests that can be applied here and we are still nowhere near creating a human being in order to sacrifice her.
Interesting how Nancy RAYGUN came out for stem cell research when it was discovered that could help HER. That’s how republicans think. They’re only motivated by what THEY NEED. So the way to get stem cell research funded is to get a bunch of republican morons in a room with medical problems that can be solved by the research and presto, no more moral issue.
Bush and Co. assured us last year that with record oil co. profits , that there was no price gouging. Were they lying?
I am beginning to understand why the Catholic church has a problem with artificial insemination and test tube babies. It leads to some troubling situations, which can then be “resolved” and become the building blocks of the next ethical dilemma.
60 Minutes or someone did a story on all the half-siblings that are out there from donor sperm. They often live in the same areas and could conceivably meet up and generate children of their own. Who would know, unless the parents did genetic testing ahead of time? And then who is responsible for the possible genetic defects that would result?
But, as you point out, we (but not the church) have accepted the frozen embryo as a part of solving fertility problems. Now that we have, we can then describe them as “property” and use them for whatever purposes we feel like. I guess I don’t buy into the “property” argument, so the rest is not a given.
I am all for stem cell research. As more research is done, it seems that the non-embryonic types of stem cells are proving to be more useful and beneficial than the embryonic kind. Nothing is stopping private companies from pursuing the embryonic research, they just can’t just federal money. For the time being, I don’t see that as a major problem.
Hillary/Mckinney 2008!!! [hehe]
So libruls, how do you feel about what Peter Singer, bioethics professor at Princeton University wrote in his book Practical Ethics; “Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.” Wasn’t that chillingly cold line? Just think how many moonbats could have been culled after the abortion herd culling?
Do we harvest the cells from “defective” infants libruls?
Superstition trumps science and you don’t see that as a problem?
Oh right, not until you are the one with the spinal cord injury will science become more important than your 19th century dominionist heresy.
2000 years of old testament religious lawyers decided death of a fetus was worth only a fine while killing a child or an adult was a stoning offence. Both law interpretations were based on the concept of women and children as chattel. The fine was only because the man lost potential property.
If, when men come to blows, they hurt a woman who is pregnant and she suffers a miscarriage, though she does not die of it, the man responsible must pay the compensation demanded of him by the woman’s master; he shall hand it over, after arbitration. But should she die, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Exodus 21:22-24, Jerusalem Bible)
You gotta love the so called ethics of the GOP. They have no trouble killing tens of thousands in Iraq, but man oh man, talk about a cell that could be harvested – a fucking cell – and they go nuts.
You have to admire the “pro life” party, you know the one for letting old people die from medical conditions that could be cured if we did research.
Puddybud @ 16
The only “life” that social conservatives respect is that of fetuses and those in persistent vegetative states. If someone actually ambulates and respirates, then no respect is accorded to such life. That is why social conservatives are pro-war, pro-death penalty, and against anti-hunger programs. They only respect life at the margins.
LeftTurn: While we are killing those terrorists overseas, they won’t come and try and knock-up your daughter and kill your sorry librul ass! If you disagree, I hear Osama is looking for a warm bed and another wife to add to his stable!
Then you said sumtin weally stooooopid: “You have to admire the “pro life” party, you know the one for letting old people die from medical conditions that could be cured if we did research.
URL please?
URL your smelly butt, asshole.
SOMEBODY should’ve aborted P-Dookie’s stupid ass.
The truth about stem cell research — Mary L. Davenport, M.D.
The truth about medical research by ProudAss, Pee-Dookie and the cristianist anti-thought cabal:
“THEY’RE GOING TO MELT YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!”
Yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!
Left Turn….chew on this…
You gotta love the so called ethics of the DEMS. They have no trouble aborting 40,000 a day, but man oh man, they are just so concerned for Iraqi’s. Pro-Choice…a fraud.
26 – A lot of Republicans are pro-choice and a lot of those same Republicans, if you asked them, now consider themselves “independent”.
I wonder why?
40K Abortions a Day? I don’t think so.
And Republicans are 100% against choice? I think not. Republicans ♥ Abortion – as a wedge issue. They don’t want it to go away.
If you don’t believe in abortion – don’t have one.
Just thought I’d mention
http://www.republicansforchoice.com/
Now what?
Who woke up the mental midget in post#22? Rudejacks, is that you back there? Rudejacks there was a brain fart that you just passed?
No, the libruls have culled their herd by at least 30+ million since 1973! Please keep it up.
While I wished rudejacks parents implemented donkoinfanticide on his ass, I am glad they didn’t! He provides us whom think right continuous entertainment. What will be the next brain fart from the rudejacks school of mental midgetry?
http://www.merlehaggard.com/
On The Learning Channel they displayed the operation of a woman that had a 160+ pound tumor on her ass. In reality it was rudejacks being extirpated!
Reichert is a MINO – Moderate In Name Only.
I haven’t seen any polling, but Im guessing this blog is pretty far out of step with the mainstream.
Hmmmmm.
The “Mainstream” disapprove of President Bush
The “Mainstream” want abortion safe, legal, and rare.
The “Mainstream” want stem cell research
(I could go on and on)
Wow Goldy – you way out there! :-)
I finally found the rudejacks definitions I was looking for:
a·bor·tion (ə-bôr’shən)
n.
Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.
The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.
An aborted organism.
Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.
Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
Something malformed or incompletely developed – rudejacks miniscule mind; a monstrosity – his ego.
Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part – his brain, prior to full development or maturation – like normal human beings.
Robert: The ABC Poll
Eight in 10 or more say an abortion should be legal to save the woman’s life, to preserve her health, or when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest.
57 percent oppose abortion solely to end an unwanted pregnancy — “if the mother is unmarried and does not want the baby.”
Seven in 10 or more say they are against so-called “partial-birth abortions” or abortions conducted in the sixth month of pregnancy or later.
Situation —————-Should Be Legal—-Should Be Illegal
All or Most Cases ————–57% —————-42
To Save Woman’s Life ———–88 —————–10
To Save Woman’s Health ———82 —————–14
In Cases of Rape/Incest ——–81 —————–17
Physically Impaired Baby ——-54 —————–40
To End Unwanted Pregnancy ——42 —————–57
D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions —-23 —————–69
Pregnancy is 6 Months+ ———11 —————–86
Roe, Roe, Roe Your Boat
An antiabortion group, Real Women’s Voices, has a new poll with some interesting results. A majority of those polled (who were “adults” not registered or likely voters) “agreed with one of three traditional pro-life statements”:
Abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances.
Abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother.
Abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.
By contrast, “only 41 percent selected a pro-choice view,” and 75% would disallow abortion after the first trimester. Further
evidence of the Roe effect: “The 18-34 year old group (especially 18-34 year old women) was more likely than respondents overall to identify with one of the three pro-life views of abortion.”
What’s more, 65% described themselves as “familiar” with Roe v. Wade, but according to the press release, “when asked to identify which of four descriptions most accurately describes what the case provides as the law, only 29 percent selected the correct description”:
29% Made abortion legal in essentially all circumstances throughout pregnancy
18% Made abortion legal but only in the first trimester
17% Made abortion legal but only in limited circumstances
15% Made abortion legal but only in the first and second trimesters
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008289
Of course, the pro-borts and baby killers simply contend Americans are just too stupid to “understand”… I have to wonder if they actually “understand” how vehemently their namesake felt about baby killing: Despite the large monetary loss involved, The Revolution, the suffragist paper put out by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, refused to run ads for abortifacients. In her publication The Revolution, was written: “Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!” Susan B. Anthony referred to abortion as “child-murder” and Elizabeth Cady Stanton classed it with the killing of a newborn under the single term “infanticide.” As Elizabeth Cady Stanton phrased it, the practice of abortion was one more result of the “degradation of women.” Feminists then looked forward to abortion’s elimination rather than its adoption.[/i>
New is an interesting term. Some of us had this in March.
Is God guilty of murder for spontaneous abortions?
The EARTH IS FLAAAATTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!
They’re gonna MELT YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!
OH MY FAWKING GAWWWWWWWWWWWWD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh here’s your “Marianas’ Tom DeLay Forced Abortions Story”
Just a GREAT “Christion man he is!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/21/22202/7887
Dumbshit wingnutz.
Don’t tell MY daughter what to do with her uterus…you sick fucks.
Puddybud, are your ‘quotas’ involved in stem cell research?
There really is NOTHING more hypocritical than a christianist crypto-fascist:
“The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion”
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
(from a DKos Diary: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/23/91949/7401 )
Wow. What a fucking bunch of wack-job shitheels. Just like our little trollie pals here, huh. Hypocritical tools.
@10 Besides the moral grounds, the fact remains that nearly all the advances in stem cell research are not from embryos. There is very limited if any success attributed to embryonic stem cell research.
Just think – if abortion were more available, we wouldn’t have to suffer the mindless rambling of the inbred right wing morons who troll here when they aren’t over at MySpace trying to find kiddy porn!
LeftTurd: I support donkoinfanticide. It gets more donks out of the voting pool, it thins the gene pool, and it culls the moonbat wing of the donkocraptic party. Please keep abortion legal donks. Less people will be around to vote for your losercraptic party!!!
Hello… did drivel say anything worthwhile?