7/30/2004

16 Comments »

1. Three words: stem cell research.

   The first executive order Kerry will make will be to allow federal funding for stem cell research. And Kerry can do this unilaterally, without having to get the support of Congress.

   Everything else is a wash. Iraq? No real difference in policy. War on terror? Same as Iraq. Returning to a sane fiscal policy? Divided government might do some good. Maybe. Abortion/Gay marriage? That’s just red meat for the right-wing base. Free trade? The only difference will be in rhetoric.

   But every year we put off stem cell research is a year we don’t have a cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and Type I diabetes. And I don’t know about you, but I fear the long slow decay of Alzheimer’s far more than I fear being blown up by a crazed Islamic terrorist. And, just to lay my cards on the table, someone I love very much has Type I diabetes, and I’d pay everything I have to cure her. And right now, stem cells are the best hope I have for a cure.

   Comment by Brock Sides — 7/30/2004 @ 11:00 pm

2. There you go. That’s what I’m talking about. Thanks, Brock, and even though I’m not in favor of [a-word], I think the ban on stem-cell research is silly–and I have never seen what [a-word] and stem-cell research have to do with each other, anyway.

   Comment by Mark Hasty — 7/30/2004 @ 11:06 pm

3. We’ve heard plenty in the past four days about John Kerry’s Vietnam service, but I think what is impressive is actually his congressional record.

   The thing that impresses me the most is that he devoted a huge amount of time, especially in his first few years in office, to the military, and specifically to veterans’ issues. He fought to get MIA/POW’s (or their bodies, or even just knowledge about their fates) from Vietnam long after the war. He fought for veterans’ benefits when it was fashionable to cut them to trim the budget.

   I think that shows a lot of loyalty. There are myriad Democratic causes, and Kerry could have, like many people in his party, tried to straddle them all. Instead, while he *did* take (often complex and nuanced) positions on these issues, he kept his focus on the people who he felt we owed the most to - those who had been asked to fight, bleed, and die for their country. When Kerry talks about his “band of brothers”, he isn’t just generating platitudes, and his 20 years of service in the Senate proves it.

   I like the idea of a guy who is willing to lay it all on the line for people nobody else gives a crap about. It makes me feel like, if he’s elected, he’s going to do the right thing by me too.

   Comment by Dave — 7/31/2004 @ 2:00 am

4. I’m voting Bush. Here are a few reasons, in no particular order.
   Tax cuts. Somehow a deputy sheriff with a postal clerk wife has become the rich. Our taxes skyrocketed in the previous administration, they’re down a little. Meanwhile the tax cut shortened the recession, adding revenue to the Treasury.
   The war. I’m not real happy to have our troops in harm’s way but at least they’re fighting this bunch over there, rather than over here. Since the 1970’s when this current round of expansionist Islamic terror first reared it’s ugly head the administrations (of BOTH Parties) have reacted rather than acted. Finally we are acting, they are reacting to us. In any kind of fight the one taking the initiative is usually the victor. I don’t claim that this war is going perfectly, no war ever does. I do claim that for the first time in thirty-odd years we aren’t standing around with our dicks in our hands, waiting to be attacked.
   Integrity. Ennron, Global Crossing and a bunch of other corporate thugs turned once-proud corporations into Ponzi schemes under the previous administration. This administration caught them.
   Energy. The technnology to free us from dependence on fossil fuels is at least another generation away. One Party wants to ease our dependence on foreign oil by drilling our own sources, one Party wants to close our own sources off (and do what? That question is unanswered).
   Social Security. The Bush Administration is at least trying to keep it solvent, the other side merely wants to kick the can down the road. We can’t afford that, in less than fifteen years, if nothing is done, the whole rotten mess is going to fall down around our ears.
   Education. Unless we put in meaningful reforms, especially competition, more generations of America’s poor will be condemned to stay that way.
   In my youth political figures of one party would stand in the schoolhouse door to keep poor, minorities out of the better schools. Today that same Party is standing in the schoolhouse door to keep poor minority children IN the failing schools.
   Stem cell research. This administration is spending more than ever before on stem cell research. They’re spending on adult stem cell, umbilical cord and the sixty existing lines of stem cells. The only thing that Federal money isn’t being used for is ‘harvesting’ human fetuses for more. Since all available evidence points toward that as the least promising line of research, fine with me. I’m the guy that had to take early retirement because of Parkinson’s, I’m following this.
   Gun control. It’s an abject failure. Everywhere that citizens are allowed to own and carry firearms violent crime trends down. Everywhere the ownership of firearms is restricted it trends up or stays the same. I’m not usually the smartest guy in a large, crowded room but I can read the crime stats.
   I have many other reasons but this is getting long. I met George Bush during his first run for Governor. I spent most of an hour with him in a very small group, no more than six as people came and went. I spent some time active in local politics, I was a Precinct Chairman. I’ve met a lot of politicos. During the time I spent with Dubya he talked TO me where just about every other politico I’ve met talked AT me. He listened to what I had to say and responded with more than canned talking points. I like the guy. During his time as Governor and his term as president he’s given me no reason to change my mind. He’s smart, he’s tough enough to handle the challenges and he’s humble enough to listen to the little guys.
   I think that George W. Bush will go down in history as the Republican version of Harry Truman. Underrated in office, growing in stature as history examines him.

   Comment by Peter — 7/31/2004 @ 10:29 am

5. Here’s another reason to vote for Kerry: as Americans, one of our fundamental values is that we want our kids to be able to achieve more than we could. I know I want that dream to be a reality for everyone’s children and not just my own.

   With 40,000,000 Americans having no health care at all, and with health care, drug, and college costs increasing far faster than real incomes (often at double-digit annual rates), even many hard-working parents are finding it difficult to make ends meet, protect their kids’ health (and their own, so that they can continue to be providers), and afford decent higher education.

   Nobody likes taxes, but I like the current picture for working Americans even less. As someone who could easily end up in one of the top tax brackets, I don’t mind contributing a bit more so that my neighbors’ children can have the same opportunities I’ve had.

   John Kerry has said over and over again that his top domestic priorities are affordable health care and education. More than that, he wants to reverse the trend towards unregulated “free” trade with countries that have far lower labor and environmental standards, so that American workers can compete on a level playing field. John Kerry’s entire domestic plan is geared towards keeping the middle class - and therefore the American Dream - alive.

   Comment by Dave — 7/31/2004 @ 11:51 am

6. Peter:

   You point about education is excellent. I live in a state where the teachers’ union is the 400-lb gorilla of politics, and I share the frustration. I wish somebody would stand up to them.

   Dave:

   You’re right, I see it as almost inevitable that taxes are going to go up under the next admnistration, whomever may be in charge. I don’t mind, so long as we get something for our money, y’know? And health care and education are two things that are always on my mind.

   Comment by Mark Hasty — 7/31/2004 @ 12:40 pm

7. Despite all the rhetoric, I see - and have always seen - the two parties as essentially a wash on defense issues. So that doesn’t factor in to my decision-making. Two areas that do factor in are the environment (I know this isn’t high on most priority lists, but this is my list) and health care. I see environmental issues as tremendously important, because they tend to be far-reaching and significant in ways we don’t always suspect. And my position is that we should err on the side of caution environmentally, because having air or water that’s a little too clean is not such a bad thing. Health care? We may not need a national health care system, but wer’re spending an incredible amount on health care in this country, and we’re not getting a great health care system out of it. So we need something better than what we have. I trust Democrats much more on those issues. Decision made, for me.

   Comment by Harry — 7/31/2004 @ 7:07 pm

8. There is no *ban* on stem cell research. There is a federal ban on using federal funds to pay for *embryonic* stem cell research. Any private company can fund all the embryonic stem cell research they want. And the federal government can fund adult stem cell research.

   http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html

   Comment by bryan — 7/31/2004 @ 10:16 pm

9. I have a friend who thinks like you do, and it’s infuriating. Why shouldn’t you vote against an incumbent if you think he’s done horrible damaging things to our country? Letting him off with “just tell me positives about the other guy” is a huge handicap.

   Comment by M1EK — 8/1/2004 @ 10:15 am

10. I wasn’t going to say it, but I sort of agree with Mike (well, not on the “infuriating” part). I like Kerry a lot, and I agree with him on most points. But I would vote for any Democrat with a pulse because of how dissatisfied I am with the job the current Administration has done.

    On the other hand, I also understand that there are many people out there like Mark who don’t have an interest in politics and need a positive reason to vote for one candidate over another. This includes both jaded independents and those who are outside the “normal” political spectrum - Greens, Libertarians, etc. - who don’t normally see much difference between the two parties.

    I don’t think those of us on either side can afford to dismiss a request like Mark’s, because (a) we care so deeply about who gets elected, and (b) it’s people like Mark who will decide this election.

    Comment by Dave — 8/1/2004 @ 12:45 pm

11. responding to Peter on a couple of points:

    The reality is, we cannot *drill* our way to a solution to long-term energy needs - nor even to short-term needs, given the places the oil industry wants to drill. Democrats don’t want to “close our own sources”. They do, however, want to preserve certain areas that have high environmental value and questionable oil, gas, or coal resources or are in areas prohibitively difficult to develop. I won’t argue that they’re right in all cases, but wholesale drilling only slightly extends the deadline. Under Republican energy policies, energy independence will *always* be a generation away. We’ve lost 20 years of research into alternative energy sources because of Republican policies. I don’t want to lose another 10 or 20.

    Social Security - I would argues that partial privatiztion may actually hasten the collapse of SS, because we don’t have, and won’t have, the political will *as a nation* to allow seniors whose SS accounts have collapsed due to poor investments to starve in the cold. We would, inevitably, pour government resources into a “rescue package”. But the SS funds available would be less because of the reduced income from diverted contributions. And don’t try to blame it on Democrats - it will be a true bipartisan rescue, because both parties would feel tremendous pressure from the voting public to so something. Personal responsibility is a great theory, but when it’s people’s aging mothers and fathers, they would easily get hypocritical.

    Comment by Harry — 8/1/2004 @ 9:48 pm

12. M1EK and Dave:

    Of course it’s enough to vote against a candidate for any reason whatsoever. I’m just getting tired of “Bush lied/Kerry lied” ad nauseum. I wanted to see if anybody out there could give me a good rationale for their candidate that didn’t resort to the usual negativism.

    Comment by Mark Hasty — 8/1/2004 @ 10:43 pm

13. Hrm… energy independence is another very good reason to vote Democrat. In and of itself, there’s nothing wrong with the current Administration’s strong ties to both domestic and Middle-Eastern oil interests, but they’re going to be much less gung-ho in promoting true energy independence (with a combination of alternative fuels, more efficient technologies, etc.).

    I like Kerry’s promise to subsidize research and production so that U.S. auto manufacturers can turn out hybrid, electric, and/or fuel cell vehicles sooner and cheaper. It’s killing *five* birds (Mideast oil dependence, trade defecit, the environment, manufacturing jobs, and terrorist funding) with a single stone.

    Comment by Dave — 8/2/2004 @ 12:21 am

14. RE: Blogs 14
    1. YES! It’s the return of RE: Blogs! I’ve just been too preoccupied with SO much - I missed a week. I’m dreadfully sorry! So spank me already and get it over with! With everything I have going on - - I’ve been sorely neglecting my blog. …

    Trackback by Just A Girl — 8/2/2004 @ 2:08 am

15. There is no *ban* on stem cell research. There is a federal ban on using federal funds to pay for *embryonic* stem cell research.

    Which, for all practical purposes, is a ban on embryonic stem cell research. If you use federal funds to pay for general purpose facilities, you’ve got to make sure those facilities are never used for embryonic stem cell research. If the pay salaries of lab assistants, they can’t do paperwork relating to embryonic stem cell research. In other words, if you do embryonic and adult stem cell research, you have to set up an entire separate lab if you use federal funds (which almost every research company and university does).

    And although I’m not an expert, it’s my understanding that the embryonic stem cell research is the most promising at the moment, particulary for Type I diabetes. (Which is why the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation is lobbying so hard to lift the Bush ban.)

    The ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell was the single worst policy decision of the Bush’s first term. And it’s one that can be reversed by an executive order from a Democratic president.

    Comment by Brock — 8/2/2004 @ 9:36 am

16. And although I’m not an expert, it’s my understanding that the embryonic stem cell research is the most promising at the moment, particulary for Type I diabetes. (Which is why the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation is lobbying so hard to lift the Bush ban

    I’m not an expert, either, but I have to say that any *promise* of embryonic stem cell research at this point is incredibly far off and uncertain. Not saying it couldn’t happen, but the mere suggestion that it holds “promise” is not a reason to lift such a ban.

    But you apparently refuse to accept the very fact that there IS NO BAN on research into embryonic stem cells. There are major corporations in this country with billions of dollars to spend on research - apart from federal funds - which could fund embryonic stem cell research as easily as they fund Viagra research. Don’t give me that crap.

    Further, you don’t mention that there are already strains of embryonic stem cells that are available for research.

    You might be interested in this quote from a stem cell researcher:
    According to Gulbrandsen, the administration’s decision to permit federal funds to be used for research on at least some stem cells lines—a decision heavily influenced by former Wisconsin governor and current Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson—was a turning point in the debate.
    “Bush’s decision was a landmark decision,” Gulbrandsen says. “A lot of people don’t like it, but it was an ingenious political solution. That decision wouldn’t have occurred without Tommy Thompson there.”
    http://www.news.wisc.edu/packages/stemcells/

    Comment by bryan — 8/7/2004 @ 6:12 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment