July 29, 2004
What liberal media?
Ron Reagan defends stem cell research
Some in GOP wince over Ron Reagan's planned speech
So, Ron Reagan hurled one final spit in his father's eye and spoke at the DNC convention. Forget for a second that, as Ross Mackenzie writes in Townhall.com, Ron 'is not a well-known ethicist or medical researcher. He will be there just to stick it to the GOP and Bush'. Ron taking center stage on this issue gives the impression that the entire Reagan clan in behind it. Funny then that I only learned of Michael Reagan's firm opposition to Stem Cell Research from one line in the last issue of National Review. A google news search for "Michael Reagan"+"Stem Cell Research" produces 51 hits. The same search substituting the name Michael for Ron, produces 1170 hits.
UPDATE: So, Ron Reagan is just deeply concerned about stem cell research, huh?
Posted by Karol at July 29, 2004 12:18 PM
What is your point retardo? Why would the DNC have Michael Reagan speak if he opposes stem cell research when their position is pro? Maybe if Michael also favored stem cell research, but said he would vote for Bush anyway, while Ron said he was voting for Kerry -- but the DNC picked Ron you might have some point (although, now that I think about it, you wouldn't have a point then either because if two people have the same point might as well pick the one that's voting for you.) Further, if you don't understand that having Ron Reagan speak at the DNC is news versus Michael Reagan not speaking at the DNC not being news, then...well...I can't help you.
P.S. I like how you fail to mention that Nancy Reagan is also pro stem cell research and gave an interview to Katie Couric saying so, in february. Plus, Ron got her blessing. So it's michael spitting in his very alive mother's eye, not ron spitting in ronald's very dead eye.
Michael's mother is Jane Wyman, not Nancy.
It is kind of disgusting that the Bush administration is restricting medical research. The Democrats are right to make a big deal of this and I applaud Ron Reagan Jr. on this.
Well that explains it, michael's just a baby that hasn't accepted that his parents aren't getting back together. Now that's a scoop!
"Retardo?" Attaway to elevate the discussion, Dawn. One wonders if you're this eloquent in person or if it's just on the net that you discuss political disagreements by pulling out the "retardo" card within the first five words.
I am very much for stem cell research. However, Mackenzie is right. Ron Reagan is doing what he's been doing for most of his life. Trading on the name nad accomplishments of his father. If his name were Moskowitz or Chan or Lee or anything other than Reagan, he wouldn't have gotten any closer to the convention than the free speech cages that the DNC set up, much less have had a chance to speak. The DNC had a chance to address a serious issue with a serious speaker. Instead, they went for the cheap political points, which tells me what they really think of the importance of the stem cell research issue.
Jay Leno said it best! "What did President Bush say when he heard about Ron Reagan speaking in Boston? "Who would listen to the son of an ex-President..."
Yeah, exactly a George Bush supporter criticizing Ron Reagan for trading on the name and accomplishments of his father, is like the pot calling Omarosa a black person.
If Michael Reagan's last name were "Moskowitz or Chan or Lee or anything other than Reagan," would he have a radio show/appear on Fox News every other day?
I don't listen to Michael Reagan's show, so I can't say how good or bad it is or whether he might have been able to make it in the industry without the obvious advantage og his name. However, if the RNC invites M. Reagan to speak on a topic on which he has absolutely no special expertise, you can expect the same criticism from me.
As for Bush having the advantage of his name and family, let's not forget that before he was ELECTED President, he was elected Governor of Texas over a very popular incumbent (Ann Richards) and was then re-elected with an amazing 68.6 percent of the vote. Unlike Ron Reagan and his speech, it wasn't as if Bush was just picked up off the street asked "hey, you have a prominent name, how'd you like to be President?"
Besides, do you think that FDR would have been able to launch his political career by being elected to the NY State Senate in 1910 if he hadn't come from a wealthy family and if his cousin Teddy hadn't been an enourmously popular President just a year prior? Or are you willing to level the same criticism at FDR that you are directing at GWB?
Jherka, that seemed like a critisism of Bush.
The Bush administration is not restricting medical research. It is simply refusing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. If you want to clone people, dissect them and experiment on the pieces without their consent, fine. You don't have a right to use my tax dollars to perform such acts of barbarism.
It's curious that this embryonic stem cell research, which is supposedly so promising, is having a hard time securing private funding as compared to adult stem cell research or umbilical stem cell research.
By the 1980s, adult stem cells were literally curing a variety of cancers and other diseases; embryonic stem cells have never been tested on a human. Adult stem cells now treat about 80 different diseases; again embryonic stem cells have treated no one. Adult stem cells obviously aren't rejected when taken from a patient's own body, though they may be from an unmatched donor; embryonic stem cells have surface proteins that often cause rejection. Implanted embryonic stem cells also have a nasty tendency to multiply uncontrollably, a process called "cancer." Oops.
So why do we keep hearing so much about "miraculous" embryonic stem cells? Because private investors know otherwise, pumping money into adult-stem-cell research and leaving embryonic-stem-cell labs and companies desperate to feed from the public trough.
It is also notable that Reagan (jr.) nowhere in his speech mentioned the word "cloning" even as he described the process of cloning an embryo.
After promising to "do justice to the science," Ron Reagan described the process of obtaining embryonic stem cells in a way that left out the fact that the cloning process he described creates a human embryo which is killed in order to harvest its stem cells. Ordinary listeners who are unfamiliar with cloning technology — and, by the way, Ron Reagan was careful not to use the word "cloning," though that is exactly what he was describing — would be left with the impression that the process generated embryonic stem cells without generating an embryo!
You would almost think he was deliberately hiding something, something to be ashamed of.
Not that I don't criticize Bush on occasion (I certainly do) but the above wasn't a criticism of him. Please read it again and, if you still think that it's a criticism of Bush, kindly quote the section of my post that you are referring to.
And it's "Jheka;" no "r." I'm sure that was just a typo, though.
Hate to say it but I am with Dawn on this one. How is Ron supporting stem cell spitting in President Reagan's eye. Considering Nancy Reagan agrees with Ron, I dare say no one would accuse her of spitting in her late husband's eye.
Having said that, there is something else here. Reagan beat a pro tax pro abortion pissant politician by the name of George Bush in 1980 for the presidency. He threw Bush the VP as a sop after heavy public flirting with Paul Laxalt (YAY) and Gerald Ford (shrug). Nancy hated the Bushes and they responded in kind-saying that the Reagans hated the Bushes because the Bush kids came out so much better than the Reagan ones.
Remember despite all the war, Reagan Bush team talk, Reagan did not endorse Bush until very late in the 1988 primary season and gave him a less than ringing endorsement in 1992 (when health may well have been a factor).
And while the Bush kids may have turned out better than the Reagan kids, neither of the Bush presidencies comes close to the Reagan one. Reagan would not be in the dog fight that W. is in.
The government finances a good portion of basic medical research in this country. And many scientists believe that there is value in embryonic stem cell research. It seems unreasonable to restrict research here for the concern of religious fanatics on a clump of cells.
Dismissing me as a "religious fanatic" when I haven't mentioned religion is an obvious attempt to avoid the argument. One need not be religious to object to the cloning of human beings for purposes of dissection.
All human beings begin as a "clump of cells." On what grounds do you revoke their legal right to be protected from murder? They are too young? Then why not experiment on fetuses? Newborn children? Teenagers? Adults in a vegatative state?
Where and why do you draw the line?
"Many scientists" who can't get private funding, even in the speculative world of biotech, go running to the government. Does that mean the government MUST fund a practice that many taxpayers, regardless of religion, feel is repugnant, i.e. the creation of human life in order to experiment on him without his consent, destroying him in the process?
If that is the case, than what if many scientists believed there was value in dissecting adult human beings? Would it, in your view, be incumbent on the government to fund this research? Would it be incumbent upon the government to remove the legal protection against murder from some class of human beings?
And who would these scientists experiment on? Would you experiment on children because they're young and therefore aren't entitled to the right to life? Would you experiment on black people because they're dark and therefore aren't entitled to the right to life? On what grounds would you remove the inalienable right to life from what set of human beings?
Wait, I know. You would authorize experimenting on religious people because they're not as educated as the rest of us and therefore aren't worthy of legal protection. Whew. That means I'm safe. Dawn Summers better watch out, though.
BTW, I misspoke in my first post. Dubya did allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on existing embryos, but proscribed federal funding for creating embryos for the purpose of destroying them.
Hardly restrictive enough, IMHO. And not something Regan would do, were he President today.
That's exactly it. It's not something Reagan would do if he was alive today. And, other than Ronald Reagan's son, who the hell is Ron Reagan and why do we care what he thinks?
Maybe Ron is preparing to run for office. You are only saying who cares what he has to say because you don't like what he was saying. If you liked what he was saying you would think young Ron was the best thing since sliced bread.
Ron's my boy! (no really, I think he's one of us). We embrace him. BTW, wasn't he spectacular in Esquire?
Would you experiment on children because they're young and therefore aren't entitled to the right to life? Would you experiment on black people because they're dark and therefore aren't entitled to the right to life?
We should experiment on liberals. They are a lower form of life with marginal resemblences to human beings. Perfect test results + no real loss.
Let's cut the ... George W. Bush put up a huge show to commemorate Reagan's death in June. One month national mourning! State funeral. The first since the 70's. Because Reagan was a great Repubblican... and this is an election year. But when Mrs Nancy Reagan and Ron Reagan politely asked: "Okay, you are using all this wonderful commemorative whoopla for your political agenda... fine, but can you allow stem cell research, that "could" have saved Ronald?", Bush says (legitimally... we all know how he thinks) "Not a chance". That's why Ron went to Boston. To push his envelope. And that's why the democrats welcomed his public "betrayal"... EVERYONE has an agenda.
Paul, I actually don't care one way or the other about stem cell research. So, you're wrong.
Tobes, he's definitely a friend of Dorothy's.
Gianclaudio, ex-presidents make their own decisions as to what type of funeral they want. The month-long mourning had nothing to do with Bush.
Karol, I'm not talking about stem cell research.
I am saying that if he was talking about any political subject you agreed with and was speaking at the RNC, you would be blogging about how much you worship him.
His brother and I agree on most things and I'd never once mentioned him before.
I did not dismiss you as a religious fanatic. I said that that it was the concern of religious fanatics that was the cause of the Bush policy.
I do not think there is a good line to draw between life that should be protected by the state and life that need not be protected by the state. However, stem cell research is based on research on cells from a very early stage in human development. I have read that they derive from blastocysts comprised of only about 100 cells. This is what I meant by "clump of cells." I am not advocating doing research on adult humans without their consent. If you have trouble telling the difference between a blastocyst and an adult, I cannot help you there.
And just because there is not enough private funding does not mean that research should not be done. A lot of basic research may be very valuable to society but may not yield value to any particular firm. Thus, the proper place todo it is in the government or non-profit sector. And since a lot of labs, hospitals and universities receive government funding, restrictions on government funding of stem cell research can have a major effect on this valuable research in the United States.
Sorry, I was exaggerating to make a point.
I will rephrase.
You are only saying who cares what he has to say because you don't like what he was saying. If you liked what he was saying on any issue and he was speaking at the RNC you would have no problem with him.
I do not think there is a good line to draw between life that should be protected by the state and life that need not be protected by the state...
I am not advocating doing research on adult humans without their consent. If you have trouble telling the difference between a blastocyst and an adult, I cannot help you there.
I don't think I'm the one who has a problem telling the difference between a human being and a blastocyst. By your own admission, one should be entitled to legal protection while one should not, but you don't know "where to draw the line." Or why.
And therein lies my point. Your distinction is not based on anything concrete, just your feeling that there is a distinction. Someone who possesses the brute force of government power could feel that there is a distinction between fetuses and adults, and fund experimentation on fetuses. Someone who possesses the brute force of government power could feel that there is a distinction between children and adults, and fund experimentation on children.
If you don't draw some kind of line, giving the government the power to withdraw legal protection from embryos gives the government the power to withdraw legal protection from you and me.
It should not come as a great surprise that some people who are not "religious wackos" are simply unwilling to sign on to the logic that gives the state the power to exterminate anyone it chooses.
A lot of basic research may be very valuable to society but may not yield value to any particular firm. Thus, the proper place todo it is in the government or non-profit sector.
If the research in question is repugnant to a large number of taxpayers, the proper funding for it is certainly not their tax dollars.
I misquoted you above. religious fanatics, not wackos.
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Maxima Culpa
No, the bi-coastla crap was Reagan's wish, the month-long BS was all Bush.
Why are you trolling under the name Jheka? I thought you used the name Blitz and posted at DemocraticUnderground. Now you're a Bush supporter? I thought you voted for Al Gore? Boy are you mixed-up. Seek help boy.
Jheka used the name Blitz when he pretended to be a Democrat and posted at DU.
He used the name jheka when he posted as a Republican over at LGF.
He eventually got sloppy and was kicked off DU.
He now uses both jheka and Blitz when posting at LGF.
He uses the name jheka on his pro-Bush blog 'the dailyblitz.'
I just call him by his real name: Eugene.
Nice to see you again Rabii LNMB. You do good work at PFC.