Does your boy GW have anything to gain by using his first veto on this stem-cell deal against the wishes of a goodly number of his party?

This issue is soooo far off my radar screen that I've got no clue.

He may just believe it's wrong and is veto-ing his conscience. Gain/loss may not enter into it at all. Didn't he also state clearly in his campaign that he was against this? If so, he's only living up to his campaign promise. Shame on him for that.

He's already got the bible-thumpers locked up, so he doesn't need to pander to them anymore. That and he's a lame duck, and this is so ridiculously small an issue it's got no bearing on whatever legacy he may have.

The research will only move overseas.

Edit: GW is not my boy, I'm an Obnertarian.

i disagree.
him shutting this down last time was a big fork in the road of religious morality vs science.

The funny thing about this argument is that at least Stem Cell Research puts the Embryos to some good use, if they aren't used then they will likely remain frozen forever...so really GW and Tom Delay aren't helping them much at all....just my $.02

Yeah, which is why I find their argument against stem cell research so annoying. These so-called "lives" are just going to be thrown away/ remain frozen anyway. Seems like they're just posturing to make the bible-heavers happy.

BINGO!!!

this is the correct answer.

The shame is that stem cell research without the US participating really, really hurts the speed with which any progress can be made.

The US will eventually get on board not necessarily for the possible medical benefits for people, but because of the money that can be made and the fact that we're pretty competitive bastards.

Steve

are there any Bushevik scientists? i mean, who the fuck sticks up for this guy out there? I know at least 100 and all of them are vehement in their dislike for GW, even the republicans.

I hate religion. I really hate it on this issue because my wife is diabetic.

maybe you two aren't praying hard enough? oh shit you're not Jewish are you?

No, but that made me laugh. I'm certain that we aren't praying hard enough.

I keep wondering about why there's so little discussion of saving the lives that *are* vs. protecting the lives that *might* be. Being on "the side of life" should actually apply to living people.

Albion, why hath thou forsaken Me?

My grandfather's Parkinson's really make this issue hit close to home. But of course he still voted for Bush. Not because he religious. Mostly becasue he is rich.

Like someone said and Dalen re-iterated, this is a set up vote for a lot of folks.

Bush thinks he is right and doesn't care, but it gives many in their caucus cover...either they are not "tools of the radical agenda, rather sensible, main street business Republicans" or "they voted against the Jesus-hating, Bible-banning, radical homosexual agenda of the Democrats, and the RINO elements in their own party."

Think this may also have something to do with Frist losing credit on the Senate nuclear option compromise? Gives him 2 feathers in his habit...against that "maverick" McCain.

Sadly, Democrats are still too dumb to have an answer to all of this.

This is my hope, call me naive.

There is talk that the House has enough votes to over-ride any pres. veto. That would be sweet.

Kinda like a kick in the teeth...of someone other than you.

maybe someone can help me understand this:

the bush positions on stem-cell research and the death penalty, as i understand them, follow:

stem-cells: a life should never be destroyed to save another life

death penalty: not used to punish, but to deter others who might commit capital crimes, thereby saving lives.

doesn't seem to jive to me. i'm sure it makes perfect sense to that half-wit, but how does he convince others?

Valuing a cell over a mother with Lou Gehrig's disease is not only scary, but also insane. I'm sorry, but Bush and all of those in Congress who cater to the Christian Right on this issue are assholes.

What makes it work for them, unfortunately, is that it's simple, and simple sells. "We Value Life" is a very easy thing to spout, but "we do too, but we also value the quality of life, to the extent that..." --you've already lost all of Kansas.

[W]They can't really do that, can they Mr. Cheney?[W]

I'm all for stem cell research, but the belief that it's going to cure every known disease from ALS to stuttering to athlete's foot is very foolish.

The point is that there is the potential to cure many diseases. I haven't met many people who believe that SCR will lead to a cure for everything, but the list of diseases that it could potentially cure is amazing.

The president is so out of the mainstream on this issue that it's no wonder his approval ratings recently hit an all time low. Thanks for bringing us back into the dark ages dude.

By the way, while he's doing this I should mention that he has no problem with developing new nuclear weapons, so he probably didn't get to the part of the bible about compassion yet. Keep reading asshole.

I really think people are overlooking something that I thought was pretty obvious: Bush isn't vetoing it simply because it's "wrong," he's vetoing it because there is a fear that embryos will be created solely for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. I don't really disagree with creating embryos to help those in need, but I understand the concern - this starts sounding an awful lot like we're creating human-parts factories, and the boundaries for what is acceptable and what is not will eventually erode away so that anything is acceptable. Maybe today we harvest stem cells from embryos, but is it so ridiculous to think that someday we may "grow" entire people to get their hearts? That's kind of a scary thought. That's what's going on here - Bush is drawing a line. I disagree with where that line is drawn, but I understand the concern that drives him to draw the line at such a limit. Hopefully that line, like most, will erode eventually and we'll see some real forward movement in stem cell research.