THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal
CHECK US OUT AT: http://delawareliberal.wordpress.com/Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Spivack on Stem Cells, Castle and Bush
Driving home I had WILM and heard a great clip from Dennis Spivack. That is the good news. The great news is that it was in a news story that called Castle out for being a fraud.
From Spivack's press release:
“The American people have spoken. Our elected representatives – in both chambers – have spoken. And the scientific community has spoken. Everyone is in agreement that these stem cells hold the highest promise for our future. Unfortunately, President Bush and Republicans in Washington would rather play politics and pander to an extreme minority.
Mike Castle has been on the receiving end of a lot of positive attention this week, and the bill is indeed a good one. However, in light of the President’s veto, Mike need look no further than himself for the blame.
As the chairman of President Bush’s re-election campaign here in Delaware and someone who voted with Tom DeLay on four of every five votes, Mike Castle is an enabler and a rubber-stamper. President Bush promised years ago that he would veto this legislation, and Mike Castle still decided he was the best man for the job.
Boohyah !! That's what I'm talking about!
posted by jason # 9:54 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Unfortunately, President Bush and Republicans in Washington would rather play politics and pander to an extreme minority.
Ha! If it wasn't for "Republicans in Washington," the bill wouldn't even have made it to the President's desk.
But I'm glad Spivack brought to everyone's attention Castle's leadership on an issue of so much importance.
Ha! If it wasn't for "Republicans in Washington," the bill wouldn't even have made it to the President's desk.
But I'm glad Spivack brought to everyone's attention Castle's leadership on an issue of so much importance.
and someone who voted with Tom DeLay on four of every five votes,
So, 4 out of 5 votes makes Castle DeLay's lapdog, but 9 out of 10 votes gets Lieberman booted from your party??
Explain that one to me.
So, 4 out of 5 votes makes Castle DeLay's lapdog, but 9 out of 10 votes gets Lieberman booted from your party??
Explain that one to me.
"Castle's leadership" and a buck fifty can get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
So, 4 out of 5 votes makes Castle DeLay's lapdog, but 9 out of 10 votes gets Lieberman booted from your party??
Explain that one to me.
Again...? How many times do I need to say that Leiberman (like Chaffee) is getting primaried because he does not represent the will of the voters of Ct.
Similarly, Castle's blind loyalty to Bush on the war on terror does not represent the views of Delawareans.
So, 4 out of 5 votes makes Castle DeLay's lapdog, but 9 out of 10 votes gets Lieberman booted from your party??
Explain that one to me.
Again...? How many times do I need to say that Leiberman (like Chaffee) is getting primaried because he does not represent the will of the voters of Ct.
Similarly, Castle's blind loyalty to Bush on the war on terror does not represent the views of Delawareans.
but 9 out of 10 votes gets Lieberman booted from your party??
No one is booting him from the party.
There are other dems who voted for the war and are not in trouble like Joe. Joe undercuts democratic positions and worst does it on fox news.
He is just a useful idiot to your side. Joe L does not get that yet and he has taken CT voters for granted for a long time.
No one is booting him from the party.
There are other dems who voted for the war and are not in trouble like Joe. Joe undercuts democratic positions and worst does it on fox news.
He is just a useful idiot to your side. Joe L does not get that yet and he has taken CT voters for granted for a long time.
It comes to the percentage of votes that MATTER as Jason often points out. Castle votes with GOPer evil when they must have the vote. Leiberman seems to do the same (with the GOPerheads).
# posted by 
: 12:24 PM
: 12:24 PM
Speaking of stem cells....wouldn't it be great if the media did some critical analysis of the stem cell issue instead of falling for the diversions staged by the White House?
As I understand it, the large numbers of frozen embryos in the USofA are a result of modern fertility technology that gives otherwise-infertile couples hope of having children. This technology requires massive numbers of ova to be produced by a donor woman through hormonal manipulation. Once harvested, the ova are fertilized and frozen until the time is right. Since the implantation of embryos is an expensive procedure, more are implanted in the prospective mother than are likely to make it to gestation. On top of that, the whole process has a very high failure rate, usually requiring repeated attempts. In other words, the "snowflake" babies that President Bush used as backdrops for his veto party last week were born as a result of technology that has a built-in failure rate of about 90%. In simpler words that even Sen. Brownback could understand, for each embryo that "lives" nine must "die."
Thoughtful people differ on when human life begins. I can respect that. I don't respect hypocrisy, however. If the President truly believes that it is wrong to destroy frozen embryos he should be campaigning for an end to the fertility technology that produces them in the first place. (I'd oppose him on that, but at least I'd respect his opinion for once) But he won't, either because a lot of rich people want access to the technology (price tag $80K+) or because he cares more about political capital than the actual life/death issues. So what exactly does Mike Castle see in this guy?
Tom the Blog-less
Washington, D.C.
Post a Comment
As I understand it, the large numbers of frozen embryos in the USofA are a result of modern fertility technology that gives otherwise-infertile couples hope of having children. This technology requires massive numbers of ova to be produced by a donor woman through hormonal manipulation. Once harvested, the ova are fertilized and frozen until the time is right. Since the implantation of embryos is an expensive procedure, more are implanted in the prospective mother than are likely to make it to gestation. On top of that, the whole process has a very high failure rate, usually requiring repeated attempts. In other words, the "snowflake" babies that President Bush used as backdrops for his veto party last week were born as a result of technology that has a built-in failure rate of about 90%. In simpler words that even Sen. Brownback could understand, for each embryo that "lives" nine must "die."
Thoughtful people differ on when human life begins. I can respect that. I don't respect hypocrisy, however. If the President truly believes that it is wrong to destroy frozen embryos he should be campaigning for an end to the fertility technology that produces them in the first place. (I'd oppose him on that, but at least I'd respect his opinion for once) But he won't, either because a lot of rich people want access to the technology (price tag $80K+) or because he cares more about political capital than the actual life/death issues. So what exactly does Mike Castle see in this guy?
Tom the Blog-less
Washington, D.C.
# posted by : 2:49 PM
: 2:49 PMSubscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Archives
November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 May 2007
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]