Charles Krauthammer, writing for the Jewish World Review, has come out with an article that precisely nails down the problem with John Kerry and John Edwards.
Highlights from Krauthammer's article...
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, for personal gain, raising false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable.
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 people with new spinal cord injuries 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 enemies of this advice have 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.
George 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 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, Kerry referred not once but four times to the "ban" on stem cell research instituted by Bush. At the time, 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, 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 using biochemicals to clear the "plaque" deposits in the brain that lead to Alzheimer's. He ended his presentation without the phrase "stem cells" having passed 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's remark. It is too revealing. There is absolutely nothing the man will not say to get elected.
Simply put, Kerry and Edwards are reprehensible. And I find it incomprehensible that they have as much support as they do.
It's Del.icio.us!
Furl It!
October 15, 2004 09:17 PM
I thought Christians were supposed to believe in miracles.
John Edwards didn't say it would happen while Kerry and Edwards are in office, only that it can happen through additional research.
October 15, 2004 09:37 PM
Wow, talk about a stretch. Joel, you are the only person I know that interpreted Edwards' comments in that way. This was nothing more than using the unfortunate death of Christopher Reeve to score political points.
October 15, 2004 09:53 PM
George Bush says we will defeat terrorism if he is re-elected. Is he promising that it will be accomplished in the next four years?
October 15, 2004 10:53 PM
Finally - a thought posted on here that seems pretty straightforward, at least somewhat unbiased, and actually quite intelligent. I find myself actually agreeing here. To claim that if the administraion changes, people will miraculously walk is definitely an ignorant ploy for political leverage, and quite a cheap shot using a wonderful man's death as fodder for the mudslinging cannon. However, if Edwards was referring to the fact that stem cell research should continue without fear of being shut down because of ethical debates, he is on the right track. If there is truth that the Bush administration would try to ban this research, there would be many who might lose the possibility of a cure someday in their lifetime. But Edwards using such a thought as political leverage is quite uncool. I think the comments made about Cheney's daughter were much more appropriate and much more tactful. By the way, I am glad to see some respect paid here for Christopher Reeve, a great man and a courageous man indeed. I had wondered if he might be labeled an infant killer and evil pro-abortionist here because of his great interest in stem cell research. I am glad to see that he is respected instead of ridiculed here. I applaud this gesture of stepping back to see the big picture of things.
October 16, 2004 12:19 AM
Just a quick question here - which may give anyone posting on here some insight into the great workings of The Mayor's mind -
I was searching the archives here just browsing and came upon an article in which Joel said he used to be a liberal. My question, Joel, is what happened to change your viewpoint. It must have been something rather traumatic for you to speak so wrathfully about liberals now. I am just curious because it does seem that you have a great deal of anger and unrest about any viewpoints that are liberal. To make a jest here, "did a liberal kill your father?" Ha ha.
Anyway, seriously, it might make sense to others here if they knew why you were so against more liberal idealisms. Just an aside, you said you used to think pot should be legal. I will admit here than many might consider me liberal because of certain questions I have regarding government and certain controversial issues, as well as the fact that I am agnostic, but I have always thought that pot and all drugs are part of the depravity affecting our country and our children. I would sooner see prosttution legals than see pot legal. Point here being, all liberals do not think alike, so why the broad generalization and hatred for that group of people?
October 16, 2004 09:30 AM
Two answers to your question Joel.
1) GWB has always said this is a LONG war. He never made pretenses that he was going to be around long enough to finish it.
2) Has there been an attack on American soil since 9/11? Nope. All the conventional wisdom said there would be. There is no telling how many terrorist acts we have stopped. Will there be future attacks? I have no idea. But I feel much safer with defense-minded people in charge than pacifists.
October 16, 2004 09:49 AM
Robert,
Thank you for your thoughtful and well-worded comments.
There is no doubt that I can sometimes come off as much harsher than I really am. Something about the Internet allows us to vent our spleen in a format that makes it easy to stereotype. In doing so, I also risk stereotyping myself. Joel Thomas and I have previously mentioned that were we to meet on the street we would most likely find each other quite likable and friendly.
I do agree that not all liberals are alike. In my perception, a very small minority of Americans are truly liberal. I think if ideology is spelled out for all to see, there are many more people who live as conservatives, but have bought into the rhetoric of the radical left. THIS is where the problem lies.
The Democrat party (the party of John F. Kennedy) has been hijacked by radical liberals who do not truly represent the people. There is more than enough evidence to indicate that these people have an anti-American mindset that is destructive to our citizens; making slaves of the poor by pitting them against the middle class and the rich; cozying up to corrupt leaders of third world and social ist european nations who think America owes them something; penalizing achievement by expanding government instead of empowering the people; by placing activist judges in seats of power where they are systematically dismantling the constitution; and by taking a laissez-faire attitude towards national defense, the one thing our government must NOT do. All one must do is look at the failings of the Clinton administration to see how 9/11 occurred in the first place.
My biggest beef is with the brazen lying and corruption within the leadership of the Democrat party. Their ties to union thugs, a failed educational system and radical special interest groups is ripping America apart at the seams.
Perhaps someday I will discuss my personal transformation in more detail. I am not angry at individual liberals... I think they are just misguided. I am quite angry with the leadership that has woven an intricate web of deception over a portion of the population, aided by their willing accomplices in the mainstream media.
I once was blind and now I see.
Best,
Joel
October 16, 2004 09:50 AM
Here is an example of liberal hypocrisy.
Democrats claimed again and again that Clinton's bedroom life was private.
The same people think Cheney's daughter bedroom choices should be public.
A rose by any other name is still a rose. What about a skunk? ;-)
October 16, 2004 04:50 PM
Joel,
The Cheney's themselves have spoken publicly about their daughter's orientation.
While I agree that Kerry shouldn't haven't mentioned Cheney's daughter, she was "out."
What Kerry might have said instead was Republicans find it "crucial" to be anti-geigh, yet Bush and Cheney don't even agree on the issue and Bush isn't bothered by the disagreement. (Just as Bush isn't bothered by the fact that his wife supports Roe v. Wade.)
October 16, 2004 08:15 PM
Sorry Joel.. doesn't fly. It wasn't about Mary Cheney being "outed". If you don't think it was inappropriate to "use" Mary Cheney, which is exactly what Kerry did, you are in the minority. Many democrats are also calling it a gaffe. Why?
We don't know whether or not Bush is "bothered" by the issue or by Laura's support of Roe v Wade.
The question offered to Kerry was, "What do YOU think...". He answered, "well if you ask Mary Cheney... blah blah blah..."
He was wrong.
Speaking of debate gaffes, do you think Bush scored big points to the question about the strong women in his life? He focused on Laura Bush and was very humble. Kerry, on the other hand, talked about the fact that Teresa is filthy rich, and then he went on to talk about his MOMMY. It was a hilarious moment.
October 16, 2004 10:10 PM
Joel,
I am glad for the opportunity to speak again about many things of great (or little) importance. I realize that this medium of conversation probably does make it difficult to exchange ideas in a proper way. I myself have probably used phrases that could be misconstrued here. I actually stumbled upon this site while doing some research on a topic of interest to me and have found it interesting, though sometimes frustrating, since. It seems that you and I actually agree on a number of things - I liked your comment about the leadership making you angry. Agreed wholeheartedly, except for one fact - the Republicans are also just as corrupt and just as guilty as Democrats, in their own way. I think most (I won't stereotype everyone) politicians are corrupt, regardless of their party. That is where we disagree - I think the big picture is this - we need change in this country on all levels, we need to move away from a focus on the holy dollar and capitalism and build a better future where money does not rule everyones life. How many people do you know that would be happier if their lives had less focus on money? But the sad truth is that most people are forced to work very long hours with little time for family just to make ends meet. This economic hardship is because of the fact that many in power, Democrat or Republican, continue to promote a system that tends to continue to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. America is supposed to e a land of opportunity, but how sad is it that now we live in a society where kids sell drugs because it allows them to live a better life than if they worked 40 hours a week at pathetic minimum wage and couldn't even pay the bills? Then there is American pop culture where such shows as "The Bachelor" shamelessly portray love as nothing more than "he's cute, he's rich, I want him!" How sad. Many turn to drugs and alcohol as an outlet for pain, or because they need to be "cool". It's pathetic. We need a definite change in this country - a change where ALL people of ALL races, religions, gender orientation, and lifestyles can live in harmony - a REAL melting pot of beliefs, idealogies, and generally good people. But I fear such change is a long, long way off.
October 16, 2004 11:04 PM
Joel,
I think you dislike Democrats so much that you just go off the deep end. I haven't made comments about Bush and Cheney that would come close to approaching the constant super-loathing you express of Kerry and Edwards.
I already said Kerry shouldn't have mentioned Cheney's daughter. As for Kerry mentioning Teresa, I think he was just expressing some humility and humor.
Republicans certainly had their fun making fun of Amy Carter and Chelsea Clinton, Limbaugh going so far as to say the latter looked like a dog.
I do think your filter is rather funny that I have to spell the word as "geigh."
October 16, 2004 11:36 PM
Robert... you are right. There is much alike in our attitudes and opinions.
Joel... I don't loathe Kerry and Edwards. I loathe what they stand for. Regarding the filter, it is unfortunate, but people are now spamming blogs with p-o-r-n sites. Many of them can automatically be blocked by entering certain keywords. But it ends up making it more difficult to use those words in a post. Its what happens when a few bad apples ruin it for everyone. :-(
October 19, 2004 12:00 AM
Mentioning Cheney's daughter, a person who has never injected herself into this campaign nor the public spotlight, was very cheap and very low. It just proves that John Kerry will sink to any level to for his own political agenda. He proved it when he came back from Vietnam when he viciously attacked his fellow soldiers back home (many of whom were being tortured in pow camps because of it)...and he proved in that last debate. Mary Cheney did not need to be brought up. The fact that she was "out" did not give Kerry or Edwards (or Edwards' wife) the right to do that.