Redstate

Or simply Frist is just dumb. He may have the skills needed to be a heart surgeon but the guy got rolled on the judicial nominees and now he's torpedoed his own Presidential aspirations.

But realize he was President Bush's pick to replace Trent Lott. Put some of the blame on the White House for choosing this political doofus.

That ideas which are som plain and clear to floks outside of Washington, DC are so often confusing to those inside DC. Frist, who does much good around the world charitably donating his medical services, and who stood so strong for life over Terri Schiavo has now, if the stories are accurate embraced without good explanation a position that is anti-thetical to what he has claimed to believe.

desecrating the grave of his Presidential campaign. I don't feel quite as strongly as you do about the issue, but I know cheap pandering and failure of character when I see it.

"The Majority Leader has not just failed social conservatives on this issue, but fiscal ones as well."

This point should get a lot more emphasis than it does.

The issue of government funding for embryonic stem-cell research should interest people all over the big tent.  This idea being pushed by Frist and the Democrats, that big government is needed for research to happen, is daft.  The lie being pushed, that President Bush has banned such research, is shameless.

If millionaire Hollywood actors and Democratic Senators want the research done, there's nothing to stop them from funding it themselves.  And if it's as popular as they claim, they should have no trouble getting lots of donations to their cause.

Keep government out of it, though.

leaving the senate, and him no longer being the majority leader, because the last half of his title is sadly lacking.

I realize that Frist is well liked, but his leadership is horrible, and he seems more determined to waffle on things important to conservatives, than to stand up and fight for them as the right thing to do.

The one thing his tenure as majority leader has convinced me of, is that I will not even be considering him for the presidency.

I've held off critisim of Dr. Frist until now.  

His failure to get an up or down vote on Bolton, his inability to force a vote for all Federal Appeals court nominees, and now the support of a practice built off the life of an unborn child.

I don't really care about the idea of Bush vs Frist- or that this shows some deeper power struggle.  This is about taking a position that is clearly not in line with the conservative base of the party.  The same base which came out in force for President Bush and helped secure the election.

With Dr. Frist leaving the senate in 2006- maybe he can go and work for a firm willing to kill unborn children in order to harvest their cells.  

As it is, he has no place running for the nomination of the Republican Party.  

And this isn't about Frist, but the embryonic stem cell debate in general.  I hope it is OK to ask here.  If not, I appologize.

How do you feel about the use of "surplus" embryos from fertility clinics?  It has been said that they discard them from time to time.

Would it be OK to use those, because they would never have the possibility of being implanted in a human being and thus coming to term, or does it remain a federal funding issue for you?

Then also, are you interested in preserving those embryos, as well, and keeping them from being discarded in the first place?  Or is that "acceptable" because the clinics are private and don't use federal funds (I don't actually know if that is true or not)?

How do people here feel about this?  Does anybody know about those clinics?

is that they run with discipline.

It is clear now that Frist's lack of character is the weakness the dems have exploited in stalling Bolton, ahve used in holding up reformingthe court and are likely to use in holding up the nomination of Roberts.

first we had that jerkwad who cetrayed the party by leaving it. Now we have a weasel from Tennessee

who is undermining himself, the party, our President and the country...and for what?

So I'm a strong pro-lifer and anti-stem cell researcher and I disagree with what Frist did today.

But should we really be calling him a traitor ?

Does one particular position out of step with what is likely a slim majority of the GOP and a minority of the general public constitute someone being a traitor ?

Seems a bit harsh.

"He knows there is no scientific debate about when human life begins."

This sentence alone struck me as so far out to fringe territory.

There really IS ZERO debate on this subject within the scientific community?  And what conclusion did they reach?  What meeting was that, and who cast the deciding vote that it was at conception, and not at implantation in the uterus, or the beginning of a heartbeat, or the beginning of brain activity, or at viability...

Please show evidence that this is the case.

Because if Frist is part of the scientific community as a medical doctor, he just proved that there IS debate, didn't he?

... I was wondering the same thing.

As far as I'm concerned, the government shouldn't get into the business of funding scientific experiments on "surplus" human life.

embryos to be used, the federal government just isn't going to fund it.

Personally I think it is life, and I am not comfortable using human life in human experimentation projects.  

Also, we overly focus on embryonic stem cells when adult and cord blood stem cell research has produced the most promising results-and the feds are willing to fund that.

SO my opinion is that just because we can do something, that doesn't make it okay to do it, and embryonic stem cell research fits into that catagory for me.  

of leadership he exhibited, I might go for your argument.

But the reality is that the problem isn't the big tent with him it is his position as the majority leader, and he waffles, and just has no leadership ability.

He may be nice.

But he is a horrible leader, and he showed that on his handling of judges, of his handling on Bolton, and will probably screw up Roberts' nomination while we are at it.

Although I agree with federal funding of stem cell research, this is such a bad move for Frist. I never thought he had much of a chance at the nomination anyway, but now I think he can forget it.  He's got to be the most inept major politician around.

You are OK with private entities doing whatever they want?

I am not trying to trap you or use your words against you, but isn't that the same argument that is being made about abortions?  "It is between a woman and her doctor?"

Or does the fact that it is "surplus" make it a different category?  Or the experimentation?

I think I am leaning to the side that says that if they are going to be destroyed anyway, that life should be used to benefit the suffering.  But I am trying to keep an open mind.  I wouldn't want there to be the generation of extra "surplus" embryos just for that purpose.  I could see a slippery slope, and no good way to stop it.

it's a flip-flop-flip or else a flip-flop flip-flop.    As he supported the funding of embryonic stem cell research before he opposed it.  But now he supports it again.  Anyway, you know what I mean.

I have to point out that this:

"if he has his way - Trey Jones would not exist."

is not merely innaccurate,... it is a deception.

The discarded embryos that will be used for stem cell research are in fact embryos that are being discarded.  They are not embryos that the egg and sperm donors would have donated to other couples, as Trey Jones and the other "Snowflake babies" are, they are embryos that are going to be incinerated or frozen to death.  If the egg and sperm donors choose to donate their healthy embryos to other couples then there will be no opportunity to conduct ES cell research.  The only embryos that will be used for stem cell research are those that are no longer being considered for any reproductive purposes.

Also, this:

"the embryos he seeks to have destroyed at taxpayer expense"

is not technically accurate as the stem cell lines would be established in laboratories that are not federally funded.  Once established there, federally funded labs could ask for samples of the embryonic stem cell lines so that they could use them to research new cures for diseases.  

As for this:

"Bill Frist is a man without principles."

I agree with you.  But that was evident when he first flipped, or flip-flopped, or whatever on this issue.

His comments were breathtaking in hypocrisy and incoherence.

I had seen plenty of Democrats admit to a moral truth but settle on policies that neither defended nor reflected that truth.  Frist actually said that life begins at conception.  He went on to say that this life is unworthy of protection.

His argument on the science is inconsistent as well.  The science just isn't promising.  In nature these cells give rise to all cells in the body.  In the lab, they have only given rise to tumors in mice.  

No human has been treated.  And no human clinical are close to being approved.  Look at clinicaltrials.gov.  There you'll find the plethora of adult stem cell treatments in human clinical trials for diesease like diabetes, parkinsons, cancers, and so on.

Apart from this life argument, the most compelling for me from a federal policy standpoint is that the private sector isn't investing in this stuff.

New Jersey Rep. MIke Ferguson told reporters this morning that biotech execs tell him they "can't possibly justify to our shareholders to invest their money in science which is so unpromising when there are other such promising alternatives like cord blood, like adult stem cells, like placental cells."

We can't expect taxpayers to shoulder the risk of this research.  BEnefits are at least a decade away and if they don't come (this is likely), we will have diverted precious time and resources away from treatments that are saving lives today.

As a libertarian, I don't support federal funding of any sort of medical research but this choosing this issue to make your stand ranks right up there with the tactical brilliance of the Teri Schiavo fiasco.

You want to win on abortion or any other "life" issue?  Then learn to position yourself where you can capture the majority of citizens to move them closer to your position.  The reason why pro-lifers have generally be more successful at least legislatively is because they've found the positions where a majority of citizens agree (e.g. ban on partial birth abortion, waiting periods, parental notification, etc.) that enjoyed popular support where as the pro-abortion side has been forced to defend a position (no restrictions on any abortion) that most people find abhorrent.  

Like it or not, the public doesn't agree with you about embryonic stem cells particularly not as how most people don't seem to have a problem with in vitro fertilization even though the practice today results in the destruction of unused human embryos.  A public that already agrees with this practice is going to be hard-pressed to be persuaded that embryos which are already going to be destroyed ought not to be used to possibly save another person's life.

Ghoulish?  Perhaps but when the alternative being presented (even though it's a distorted picture) is grandma with Alzheimer's or grandpa needing a heart repair and you've got about 60 million baby boomers who are scared s***less about the nightmare living as an invalid and being a burden on their families, you need to learn to tread carefully on this issue unless you're hoping to get your brains beat in by Democrats who recognize that "end of life" issues are about the only "social issues" where they're on the side of the majority in the public and would just love for a wedge issue like this to use against Republicans.  

We got off lucky on Teri Schiavo because it was a one-time deal and there were Democrats who voted for it which prevented them from gaining any traction on the issue.  But now we're starting down the path where Democrats might be able to find an issue particularly since we're a party divided on this (especially when so many pro-lifers like Orin Hatch are lining up on the other side) and it's an issue where we're in the minority.

Learn to pick your battles and to proceed strategically if you're interested in prevailing on the issue.  And BTW, while I have my own problems with Frist and no problem with replacing him or any other leader (Delay and Hastert included) so long as it's because there is someone better to do the job, calling him a "Traitor" ranks right up there with the Kossacks who jumped on Durbin for apologizing for his Nazi smear.

When the emotions cool and reason is regained, change the title.

My take on this is the following:

The government has two choices.  

1. Fund or partially fund research involving the destruction of human embryos that would have been destroyed anyway.
   
2. Do not fund such research

Option 1) has many sticky ethical questions and would involve complicated oversight issues, not to mention the expenditure of tax dollars on something the federal government doesn't have a constitutional mandate for.  There is potential benefit, but this benefit can be gained from other avenues of research (i.e., adult stem cell research).

Option 2) has no ethical issues, no oversight or regulatory implications, and no cost in terms of tax dollars.  No benefit here (other than constraining the government), but also doesn't preclude involvement in alternatives like adult stem cell research.

When I back away from the issue and look at it in these terms, it seems that option 2) is the better choice.

I'm talking about government funding and subsidization of an act.  That's a matter wholly separate from the government banning an act.

There is a middle ground, where we don't ban something, but we don't have the government pay for it.  I favor the federal government to be in that middle ground  for both abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.

Here are some additional thoughts:

http://republicansenate.blogspot.com/2005/07/bill-frist-sellout.html

Of course the government should not be using tax dollars to finance the destruction of human embryos.

Nor should they be using tax dollars to subsidize widespread pollution, as they have done this week in the energy bill. It ia true that the energy bill helps industry and the economy. Well, so would embryonic stem cell research, but so far we have been able to say no to that economy booster.

Fighting for human life is not an all-or-nothing struggle. Making sure the federal government doesn't fund the killing of human embryos is only a first step for me. Someday when the political winds are going the right direction and the culture is prepared I hope there's a move to ban all ESC research. But just like partial-birth abortion this is a step-by-step process.

does this enables Democratic presidential candidates to come off stronger and better positioned to defeat GOP candidates on the stem cell issue in 2006?

If GOP can't maintain momentum as the election approaches by having a firm hand on leadership and leading on various issues.  It can't afford to look like it's starting to waver, giving in to Democrats and pressure from interest groups, even if it's just one person.  We're talking about a Senate majority leader!  This is too important for us to ignore completely.

If not, then we may see Democrats picking up some seats in both Houses in 2006 as long GOP is unable to stand up firmly on major life-or-death issues.

Right now, Frist has totally lost all of my respect for him.  Indeed, he is now no longer a favorite presidential candidate for 2008...

I'm wondering if can anybody is willing to swallow and say, "Michael Peroutka?"

Sorry to editors at Redstate.org, but I couldn't resist adverstising weakly about US Constitution Party.

Yeah, I tend to agree here.  It would be a little extreme to call him a traitor for simply being off the GOP reservation on one or two issues (note that no-one is calling Arlen Spector or George Pataki traitors), but he has caved or just generally been weak on a number of issues, particularly recently (filibuster, appointee confirmation for judges, Bolton, others, and creating a cohesive ruling coalition in the Senate like Tom DeLay has in the House).

Does Newt have any political proteges without the social baggage?

I strongly encourage the continuing coalescence of the pro-abortion and the pro-toleration-of-Islamists wings of the party.

... and conservative foriegn policy -- but is admittedly mixed on conservative social values -- I couldn't agree more with this.

It's obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't even realize that Bush's principled stand on this issue has done nothing, nothing, to prevent priately-funded research.  

They (MSM, Democrats) drive me a little further to the right every day.

As for Frist, he'd have been infinitely wiser to take the bully pulpit on this and explain to America that there's plenty of embroyonic stem cell research in this country.  

It seems to me that it's pretty obvious that the only bright line is conception. That's when you've got a unique organism. Science won't tell you what life is though. It also won't tell you what's worth protecting and what's not. That's a moral judgment.

Since "life" is such a loaded term, I think scientists tend not to debate when it begins.

Pro-lifers are winning (sort of) because of better tactics.

Moving on.

That makes a lot of sense.  It ispired me to find this NIH site where you are right, it says:

Adult stem cells such as blood-forming stem cells in bone marrow (called hematopoietic stem cells, or HSCs) are currently the only type of stem cell commonly used to treat human diseases...  The clinical potential of adult stem cells has also been demonstrated in the treatment of other human diseases that include diabetes and advanced kidney cancer.

But it also says:

There are currently several limitations to using adult stem cells. Although many different kinds of multipotent stem cells have been identified, adult stem cells that could give rise to all cell and tissue types have not yet been found. Adult stem cells are often present in only minute quantities and can therefore be difficult to isolate and purify. There is also evidence that they may not have the same capacity to multiply as embryonic stem cells do...

I didn't see much about cord cells.  But hopefully, science will be able to catch up to these problems without having to use embryos.  I think your last point resonates well:  just because we can do something, that doesn't make it okay to do it  That is the point, isn't it?  Is it worth it, just because it is easier...?

for the clarification.  Your point is taken.

"failed fiscal conservatives"

We already spend money on health and basic science research.  This proposal does not increase the amount we spend on NIH or NSF or anything else.  It merely allows those researchers who recieve federal funding to use those dollars on the research that they believe will be most productive in gaining new knowledge and curing diseases.

If we are going to provide money to find a cure for Parkinson's disease, shouldn't we allow scientists and doctors to use that money in the most productive manner possible?

It seem to me that everyone agrees that clinically proven treatments developed from embryonic stemcells is a distant future possibility. Wouldn't be better to take all the leftover embroys and implant them into women willing to incubate them for a decent, living wage, birth the donor organisms and nourish them while they grow the organs that can then be harvested for transplant. In short, why grow them in a dish when there is a well proven method that produces viable, marketable, life-saving products?

Picard90,

I'm going to give you a warning, which is more than you may get from somebody else. Please note that this is specifically a Republican site, not a conservative site. Promotional links to the sites of other parties are not welcome, no matter how angry you are at Bill Frist.

Secondly, we frankly don't like to be associated with some of Mr. Peroutka's more extreme comments, especially those about the Confederacy, etc. They don't speak for anyone I know who is either a Director or editor, and we will not promote him.

IT's the principle that counts here.  By siding  with the liberals, and equating "supporting research" with "using government to support research," he is adopting and advancing an ideology of expanding government.

When the public is convinced all good things must come from government, fiscal conservatives are doomed.

Allen? Brownback? Anyone else that should be mentioned on the short list?

I think it could have even been harsher. The bright side, I suppose - is that we won't have to spend time agonizing about Frist's commitment when he's in Iowa.

 

>>>>is that they run with discipline.

Sorry, the grass is always greener! Democrats are only disciplined these days because of complaints from the grass roots that they weren't doing it as well as the G.O.P.  Plus, y'all did us a big favor by getting rid of Daschle. He was even less effective than Frist. After months of watching Reid, Pelosi finally figured it out after yesterday's CAFTA debacle. Some Democrats are going to pay dearly for that yes vote.

Allen somewhat-although not sure about his position on stem cells.

Newt has talked about running.

I think there are a couple of others.

McCain is pro life-what is his stem cell research position (although he may be opposed on issues of federal spending, he generally is a budget hawk).

And backing away from his courageous opposition to killing her, or rather, ameliorating its political harm to his presidential hopes.

"So, Mr. Leader, it's like this. Our polling shows you with a reservoir of goodwill among Republican voters, but once we start a series of informed ballot questions on Schiavo, you go right down the tubes. People think you were grandstanding and interfering in a private, personal matter. So you need to do something to distance yourself from that position, to distance yourself from being affiliated with the 'wacko Christian' wing of party."

"OK, how do I go about doing that?"

"First, it's important to get on the good side of the national media, who led the howling against defending Schiavo's life. All the humanitarian trips to Africa just don't cut it anymore -- they're too far away from the cameras."

"All right, the media and I get along OK, so I guess it's just a question of positions."

"Right. Second, we find that it's useful to balance a pro-life position with a little, well, to put it bluntly, death."

"What?"

"By death, I mean an "enlightened, nuanced" position on life."

"I'm nuanced. Go ahead."

"We recommend that you come out in favor of federal funding of the destruction of embryos. You distance yourself from the crazy Christians, for whom all life is sacred, you get away from being too closely connected with Bush -- he's a lame duck, anyway -- and you join most of the other 'moderate,' well-received candidates like John McCain on the side of warm and fuzzy research. It's a no-brainer."

"Well, politics isn't brain surgery, and anyway, I'm a heart surgeon, ha, ha, so sure. Line up the petri dishes. I'll go to the floor after the recess."

"Uh, Mr. Leader, we also see that your position on CAFTA proved unpopular. We recommend that you speak as soon as possible, to step on the President's success on the trade issue."

"Good. I'll do that. Good job. How much did we pay you for that polling?"

"Well, a lot sir, but you know, good polling doesn't come cheap. Only principles do."

Using government resources efficiently and effectively should be a goal of everyone in government and everyone who is a citizen regardless of party.

If you want to defund the NIH say so and tell someone to campaign on it.  A few campaign commercials showing all the cancer patients cured at NCI and all the treatments developed there and elsewhere using federal funds will be great for increasing next years budget for cancer and other health research.

when I read your reference to the expenditure of tax dollars on something the federal government doesn't have a constitutional mandate for (don't they love to do that?), but I think your analysis is spot on.  I think you, Neil, and JustMe are pulling me back a little, here.

You mean that Frist isn't building a big tent?

He is really just waving a small umbrella in really big and erratic arcs to cover different people at different times?

Maybe it is a southern thing-- Pander Bear Love?

For a doctor and a senator, two jobs that you might think require both intelligence and ego, Frist seems to be half-way ideal.

of this issue.

To take that one step further to its horrible conclusion: Why use mothers?  Why not just develop the technology and have them implanted in pigs, instead?  Then you can still keep them less than human...

Is it Frist's position that warrants this disavowal, or his flip-flop that does?

If Frist had been for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research from the very beginning, would your (collectively) wrath be lessened?

-TS

I'm more "fiscally conservative" than many, and there's no doubt in my mind that federal support is absolutely critical for scientific research.  It is one of the few areas in which government has a significant role to play.

(Whether one should funder stem cell research is, of course, a different issue.)

I was allready not keen on Frist - mostly because of his stance and tactics during the Shivo matter and his opposition to Stem Cell research.  The fact that he flipped on it doesn't get me to change my mind - he seems to be doing it from a tactical point rather than from the heart.  I think he was probably in favor right from the start, but just didn't have the guts to say so.

I like Frist and the idea of a Doc in the White House is appealing, but I think he has shown that he does not have what it takes.

I am please that the Stem Cell bill will probably get passed now, but I hate for Frist to pay such a high cost.

For the record, I don't think that the Federal Goverment should be spending any money on medical research, but since they are, I don't object to this.  As for those that do, how to you think the PETA crowd feels knowing that their tax dollars fund research on animals?  They probably feel as strongly about it as you guys do.

than his position.

And his overall inability to lead or move any of the GOP agenda forward frustrates me.

It's not his position that is getting people so riled up.  For example, George Allen supports stem-cell research and he gets mostly yawns on Red State (and enthusiastic support on some other conservative sites).

What irks conservatives about Frist is his lack of leadership and transparent political pandering.  In 2001, he was moderate on social issues.  In 2004-5, he "evolved" into a social conservative.  Since that didn't work out so well for him in the presidential polls, he's now going back to being a social centrist.  

This leads us to believe that none of his moves were actually from the mind or the heart, and that all of them were based on how many votes he could get.  That wouldn't be becoming out of a guy running for city council, let alone the White House.

Frist doesn't have what it takes to be president.  He just doesn't.

We've been using adult stem cells for decades and we only "discovered" embryonic stem cells a few years ago.  Given time great improvements will be made with embryonic stem cells but we have to be able to do the research.  Right now private industry will not fund this research because it doesn't have immediate applications as a product.  Federal funding is needed so that Universities and medical schools can develop the technologies that are necessary for private companies to develop products from.

Regarding this point:

"But hopefully, science will be able to catch up to these problems without having to use embryos."

I agree with you.  The most promising research in that regard is with Catherine Verfaillie.  She has isolated cells from adult bone marrow that  have many of the characteristics of ESCs but even she supports ESC research because the only way to learn how to make these cells differentiate into different tissue types is by conducting research on embryonic stem cells to learn how they become adult tissue types.

Pigs have strong, maternal instincts, unconfused by secular, feminist logic.

i am pretty surprised how quickly it seems that posters here have turned against a party leader...  i also think it is clear that he has made a bet that there is promise in moving to the center...  there may be something to the idea that just because way right-wingers are loud, they are not the majority?

he's a smart guy and spends his life thinking about these strategic moves...i think there is a clear opportunity in the next election for a more level-headed centrist to emerge as a winner.

its hard to keep government out of somethings but insert into others?  keep gov't out of stem cells but let gov't dictate rules on abortion?  keep gov't out of stem cells but let gov't dictate whether its acceptable to love a certain person based on their gender?

cant really have it both ways, i dont think

For one, Frist used misleading statements and hid some facts, which makes me wonder about his motives.  Here is my views in the long version:

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/455

The big one I caught was how he chose to say there was no impact right now on stem cell research in general, or even emrbyonic researxch.  So why would he admit in couched terms that there is no impact while proposing a change?

I think I agree with Hugh Hewitt on this, he has come to this compromise point honestly.  I honestly think it is wrong, but I can understand it.  The extra embryos from fertility clinics could be seen 'donated' to science like other parents donate their children's bodies.  I can see a connection.

The sad thing is it just is not needed.  I posted extensively here on why primate based stem cell research provides plenty of material to uncover how to control the transformation to a target cell type.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/298

Even a medical doctor (he is not a scientist, they have a common understanding but are not by any means similar) can be mistaken about research and where it is. Doctors used known, documented methods to help patients.  They do not typically explore new boundaries in biology or medicine, and therefore can have an inaccurate impression of the entire research process.  

against Frist a good while ago for his utter inability to lead the senate.  This is more sort of like the last nail in the coffin or the straw that broke the camel's back for most of us.

sullying someone's opinion by dragging unrelated islamist terrorism into the fold?  whats the deal, bro?

but what do you think about the centrist platform idea?

"[P]ro-abortion"?  "[P]ro-toleration-of-Islamists"?

I have no idea what you're talking about; nor do I see why it's appropriate to continue the discussion on this thread.  

you are right that a centrist guy might appeal, but Frist has proven himself incapable of leadership-he can move to the right, to the center, he can stand on his head, but at this point he has made it perfectly clear to me that he is unfit for the presidency (actually he had already done that to me over the Bolton matter, this is more the icing on the cake).

Sorry, harvesting young humans for spare parts is not moderate or centrist.  The fact people do not understand the issue is different from what they would feel once they did understand the scientific facts on this subject.

I seen many a support become a non supporter when presented with the full, complete picture.

The moderates will be on the adult stem cell wagon.  It has shown results, for one.

All the talk about "surplus" embryos essentially stems from in-vitro fertilization. Truth be told, there is absolutely no way humanly possibly that all embryos created as part of in-vitro fertilization can be carried to term, which raises a serious question that no one wants to address?

Is it really a good idea to have a legal medical procedure that results in the creation of life that will ultimately be destroyed?

I'm not blind to the fact that this would make people upset to be told that they can't use the tools of medical science to create a child, but forget about ESCR, IVF creates these embryos. It's like having a child and an abortion at the same time.

Honestly, if as a society we want to provide outlets for unwanted pregnancies that aren't abortion (because making it illegal doesn't make it go away - it only makes it illegal), why not close off in-vitro to promote adoption?

this isnt about what youre making it about - there is real upside for treatment to make lives better.  you ever had someone close to you suffer with one of these diseases?  

youve got to think bigger picture here - im afraid thats the way centrists do - they outnumber folks as committed as you.

This is another big government spending program which promises the moon but might not deliver even a guy bending over with his trousers down.  The cost is too high, in both blood and treasure.

Dick Durbin, in praising Senator Frist this afternoon, mentioned that no profit will be gleaned from this laboratory experimentation.  It is a simple fact of nature that if you want something done cost-efficiently, quickly, and RIGHT, it should have a market incentive.  If they were serious about utilizing this lab experimentation to find cures for whatever they think they are going to cure, the market would take care of it, for as long as it was legal, and the federal government would stay far away.

This is buffoonery of the highest order.  Bill Frist, MD, has handed a victory with even greater emotional than logistical import to the enemies of abortionists, conservatism, and the Republican Party.

I hope he enjoys Dick Durbin's praise.  And Ted Kennedy's.  He will never receive the 2008 GOP nomination for President -- although he could conceivably pull a John Anderson and run third-party with Pataki.  In fact, he may not long remain majority leader.  His leadership has been questioned for other reasons of late, and we hear grumbling from Trent Lott's corner.  (Sometimes I really miss Nickles.)

... He's absolutely right.  

if I am going to vote for a centrist, I actually lean more towards McCain or Guliani-people who have been there their whole careers-Frist has totally killed my ability to appeal to me ever with his utter inability to lead.

As for a centrist platform in general, I don't think centrists win that often-they have to not only have a weak field to run against in the primary, but a weak candidate from the other party-centrists in general do not appeal to the base, and they often aren't trusted to come through on the things they say they will.  In general-they aren't trusted.

About the only centrist who has managed to have any success in recent years was Clinton-and part of his success was he was able to play the base like a fiddle, and appeal to them when needed,but move to the center when needed.

Every other centrist in the end lost big.

Thank you for giving me a warning.  I'll avoid linking to US COnstitution Party next time.

Should I change my signature, since it does mention the fact that I am a member of the said party?

think he can coach hil to a win?  i was surprised when she started getting all this media attention about 2008 and then DIDNT deny it.  shes gonna run.  shes smart and hes even smarter.

because you might make life better for other humans.

I really don't want to invoke Godwin's law, but there really is something Hitleresque about the whole "lets kill humans to help other humans"  Just doesn't sit well on my morality radar.

conclusion

but you are making the call that petri (sp?) dish samples are humans with the same characteristics and social value as babies, children and adults...it just cant be the same...everythings different about the two...if you wont entertain that idea, then you shouldnt be debating since youre mind is made up.

BTW, Thorley's particularly right about Frist's failings as a leader.  I'll be happy to see him go.  

Still, RedState's current approach of designating as "traitors" the majority of Republicans who share Frist's opinion on this subject is a good move.

the fact that the whole IVF industry creates embryos they know they were never going to use, and now wants to get more cash by selling them sickens me.

I admit that I am not all that comfortable with the whole IVF and other aspects of the fertility treatment industry-I think it suffers from a severe lack of ethics, and things like this just make it worse-they now have a financial incentive to create even more human embryos to part out for experiments.

I feel for people who experience fertility issues, but I am not super comfortable with the direction fertility industry has taken us.

I have said it once, and will say it again, just because we can do something, that doesn't mean we should do it, and it doesn't make it right.  

Should be "is not a good move."

How many innocent lives does he get to kill for a 'centrist' policy?

Either he has a pro-life principle or he doesn't.  It's that simple.

How many babies do we sacrifice before we determine that it doesn't work, Bill?

A million?  A billion?  More than that?

If Bill Frist is Senate Majority Leader in 2007, I'm no longer a Republican.  There are limits to my tolerance, and this exceeds them.

I'll vote for myself before I vote for any Republican candidate in the Senate or higher if this is allowed to stand and he keeps his job.

I never trusted him in the first place, but this is purely beyond the pale.

opinion that it is human life means I have no voice in the debate, well pray tell who is going to tell all you "part out the babies, it might help other people" when your ethics have crossed the line?

If my mind being made up on this issue prevents me from entering the debate, then what doesn't your mind being made up the other direction boot you out of the debate?

Also, while we are at it who says that an embryo and other humans "just can't be the same" do believe they all have human DNA, and believe it or not, every single human was at some point an embryo with the same number of cells found in that petrie dish.

back, and I don't even think he was all that perfect.

I almost wonder if a John McCain wouldn't do better as majority leader-I suspect that while he is in the center issues, he would by virtue of the position tell the Dems when they and their obsructionist ways can go take a hike.

Name one treatment that has been successfully conducted with embryonic stem cells.

However, there have been a multitude of successful treatments of diseases with adult stem cells.

Just because the scientists want to play God with embryonic stem cells does not mean that the Federal Government has to support them.

Don't believe the hype of the media, Bush was the first President to allow any federal funds to be used for research, in a limited, controlled way.  What this bill would do is open up the floodgates to all sorts of bad research.

If private research wants to pay for it, and take upon themselves the moral opprobrium of the destruction of life, so be it.  But the Federal government should stay out.

but many of those I have read seem irrational.  I thought that the tie that binds folks here is rabid pro-Republican philosophy.  I didn't realize it is rabid pro-life philosophy, down to the molecular level.

To read the descriptions of Frist on this page, one would think he is a combination of Aaron Burr, Dr. Mengele, and Hillary Clinton.

I may be way off base, because I haven't read or heard Frist's statement, but the arguments presented here don't seem to me to address a reasoned use of embrionic stem cells that are going to be destroyed anyway.

I suspect that Frist is on the right side of the issue, although as you say it may mean the end of his Presidential aspirations.  So what?  Too many politicians put their own personal ambitions above what they believe is right.

just look at her votes in congress compared to the speeches she gives to the party base.

Yep she is going to run, and she is going to try to do it the Clinton way-where you play to both bases, although I think she is in reality far more to the left than Bill (as dems go I would say he is more centrist than leftie) so she may have a harder time bolting to the center.

But she is going to run, the question is whether or not she can win, but with the Clinton plan and Clinton there she may be able to (although Kerry tried the Clinton plan, and he failed miserably).

how do you feel about the idea of letting people die of conditions that could be treated?

Frist isn't running for re election so at worst we get him as majority leader for another year and a half (I am almost hoping he will step down as majority leader and let somebody else fill his shoes-I would take almost any senator in the GOP at this point over Frist).

a right-winger actually trying to incorporate science into the argument!  i applaud it but just hope its not only because it suits your argument.

or let them die?  There isn't anything possibly in the middle there that we can maybe do?  ARe you saying that adult stem cell research and cord blood research have had no success?

Come on, that is a false dichotomy and you know it.  Try again.

 first sentence is the people with various illnessess.

Also, Charles Krauthamer has some interesting opinions on this issue-maybe you should try reading him.

but wouldnt it be foolish to limit ourselves to just one avenue when the other is likely to be more powerful?

it comes down to the fact that you believe that a spec in a petrie dish is worth the same as a human.  i cant do anything about that view.

definitely go read some Charles Krauthamer-it may be enlightening.

... against the President in principle.  in politics he probably held out as long as he could considering he didn't agree with the President's position philosophically.

the posters seem to actually think that dems are out to commit "murder"...  i mean give me a freaking break??

thanks for the interchange.

Yes, this is a Republican site.  Red State's leadership has even taking an official position against government funding of embryonic stem-cell research.

You know who else has that position?  President Bush, the leader of the Republican Party.

So you tell me who's being anti-Republican: Red State in its opposition to Senator Frist, or Frist in his opposition to the President.

killing life, and at the moment there is nothing that says funding for the research can't be raised privately.

If you feel strongly in the murder of human life in the name of saving other life, then by all means pull out your check book and write a check.

...where Frist ends up fallling on this issue, he's a poor candidate.  He does not organize well.  He might be a wonderful and decent guy.  But a Presidential candidate he is not.  

To beat Hillary, we need someone who will be a forceful advocate of GOP ideas.  Frist is not that guy.  For as nice as he is, I just can't see him maintaining the kind of aggressiveness he needs to compete over a year on the national level.

Did you join just today, to support Senator Frist, in the way some Democrats joined to support Senator Specter?

Doctors do not knowingly create embryos they never intend to use.  Eggs are retrieved, they are fertilized and hopefully will develop into embryos.  However, not all embryos will survive until day three or day five when they would be transferred.  In addition to that, there is absolutely no assurance that any embryos that do survive until transfer will actually result in a pregnancy nor will the remaining cryopreserved embryos survive thawing.  Untold number of couples have had to undergo multiple aspirations because they had an insufficient number of embryos.

Finally, embryos are never sold.  While an increasing number of couples are donating their excess embryos, most states prohibit their sale and no ethical fertility practice in those states that have no laws, would ever proceed with a transfer where the embryos were sold.

I'm currently (along with my wife) going through IVF.  It makes me angry when people talk about banning it and I would bolt the GOP in a heartbeat if it ever became the norm position of the party.  Why not ban birth control pills that prevent an embryo from implanting?

An embryo that is not implanted is never going to turn into a human without help from science.  It's not like a fetus in the womb that will (God willing) if it's left alone.  What is the difference between that and an egg?  Or a sperm?  An embryo out of the womb is only the potential for life - it is not life in my book.

I have tried not being emotional about this issue, but I find the arrogance of those who want to ban IVF too much to take.

taking of innocent human life as murder.

And some of us do in fact believe that the embryo that so many seem to think is useful only to used in experiments is a human life.

Experimenting on that life is in fact murder-even if the government doesn't charge it as such, morally that is how it is seen.

BTW my opinion doesn't apply to dems, but to people who think it is a great idea to use humans for experiments.  

Get with the program. If you are a conservative, you must accept the premise that the government should not interfere with property rights by regulating the environment or energy usage. It is a good thing to reduce emissions and conserve energy, but it must be strictly a voluntary undertaking.

You realize that this is a Republican-oriented web-site, don't you?  Casting aspersions will only get you banned, as it seems you should.

But yes, let's look at the science.  Name one thing that has been done with embryonic stem cells that has led to the cure of a disease?

I've been in more hospitals than I care to recall dealing with three cancers that my wife had, and yes, we relied on some pretty high-falutin science to cure her, thank God.

But there is a line between ethical research and un-ethical research.

Just because we can do a thing, does not mean that we should do a thing.

Slicing and dicing the building blocks of life, without constraint, smacks of the utter loss or abandoment of our own humanity.

Death and disease are horrible, and we are fortunate to have the miracles of modern science available to us to fight these things, and we are fortunate to have people seeking new and innovative ways to keep making more progress.  But to save a life, or just to make a life better to live, at the cost of a destroying an innocent life, degrades us all.

the official RedStates positions.

To read them see here: http://www.redstate.org/section/endorsements

If you want to do "infant stem cell research", knock yourself out.  It's not like it's against the law or anything.

But do not expect me to be cheerful and happy about having my tax money going to finance it.  My beliefs lead me to think that it is not right.  And while I am not so knee-jerk reactionary as to force my beliefs onto others, neither will I stand by and allow anyone else to force me to finance theirs.  Particularly when it involves what I consider to be human sacrifices.

Go ahead and toss your children into Moloch's maw and pray to him for whatever you want.  But don't expect me to help you build that idol, or feed the fires.  I'm opting out of that process.  

IMO, that's what it amounts to.  So far, the "promising research" isn't very.  The stem cell lines deteriorate fairly quickly.  And if they need to kill a few babies to save me, I'll just go ahead and die, thank you very much.

And that's the name of that tune.

So call him a failed leader ... dump on his Presidential hopes .. but a traitor ?

Still seems a bit harsh.

Jim Jeffords was a traitor.

right on.

Way back when people tossed their children into the fire, in hopes that the gods would grant them a blessing.

Now instead of tossing them into the fire, we slice them and dice them and pray to the gods of science that there will be some kind of a cure.

I don't think either is morally justified.

I especially don't think the taxpayer should be expected to fund it.

...you assume that science is rarely on the side of the ri