Krauthammer misrepresented Edwards' stem cell comments, Democratic stem cell bill
In his January 12 Washington Post column, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer again distorted former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) 2004 comments on stem cell research, claiming that Edwards "starkly and egregiously" claimed that if Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) were elected president in 2004, "Christopher Reeve will walk again."
Christopher Reeve, an actor and advocate for embryonic stem cell research, died on October 10, 2004, nine years after he was paralyzed from the neck down in an equestrian accident. At a campaign event that day, Edwards said:
EDWARDS: Christopher Reeve just passed away. And America just lost a great champion for this cause. Somebody who is a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell research and change the lives of people like him, who have gone through the tragedy. Well, if we can do the work that we can do in this country -- the work 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.
As Media Matters for America noted at the time, several conservative media figures, apparently spurred by Internet gossip Matt Drudge, distorted Edwards' statement by omitting Edwards' words about "the work we can do in this country" on stem cell research, and suggesting that Kerry's election alone would have prompted people like Reeve to walk. Drudge's website blared: "Edwards: 'When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again'..."
Krauthammer furthered this distortion of Edwards' remarks in his January 12 column, claiming that Edwards promised Reeve himself would walk again, when, in fact, Edwards was referring to "people like Christopher Reeve," those who suffer from illnesses or injuries that stem cells might prove effective in treating. Krauthammer wrote:
When President Bush announced in August 2001 his restrictive funding decision for federal embryonic stem cell research, he was widely attacked for an unwarranted intrusion of religion into scientific research. His solicitousness for a 200-cell organism -- the early embryo that Bush declared should not be destroyed to produce a harvest of stem cells -- was roundly denounced as reactionary and anti-scientific. And cruel to boot. It was preventing a cure for thousands of people with hopeless and terrible diseases, from diabetes to spinal cord injury. As John Edwards put it most starkly and egregiously in 2004: If John Kerry becomes president, Christopher Reeve will walk again.
Also, while Krauthammer claimed that he "disagreed" with Bush's 2001 decision to prohibit federal funding for research on new embryonic stem cell lines created from "fertility-clinic embryos that are discarded and are going to die anyway," he nonetheless "applauded his insistence that some line must be drawn, that human embryos are not nothing and that societal values, not just the scientific imperative, should determine how they are treated." According to Krauthammer, a "line" was necessary because "many stem cell research advocates" -- none of whom he identified -- take the position "that embryos are discardable tissue with no more intrinsic value than a hangnail or an appendix." He went on to attack the Democratic stem cell research bill that passed the House on January 11 by a vote of 253-174, claiming that it "erase[d]" the "line" Bush drew in 2001, which "rescue[d] us from the moral dilemmas of embryonic destruction."
Unmentioned by Krauthammer, however, was the fact that the House-passed bill requires that to be eligible for federal funding, stem cell lines must be created from fertility clinic embryos that would otherwise be discarded -- the exact position Krauthammer claimed to support. According to the bill:
B. Ethical Requirements -- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
are obviously made up.
Within the last few days , I've seen conservatives clearly posting on this site that the support for stem cell research is driven by scientists and leftists crazy lust for killing little tiny babies.
Have they stopped caring about the feti?
Calling all kooks! Calling all kooks!
" several conservative media figures distorted Edwards' statement by omitting Edwards' words about "the work we can do in this country" on stem cell research, and suggesting that Kerry's election alone would have prompted people like Reeve to walk. "
This is a distortion of statements on it's own. Even with those words inserted where mmfa says they should be, then Edwards still says if Kerry is elected then people like Reeve will walk. Since Bush did authorize stem cell research simply saying that Kerry being elected would have caused the lame to walk again is just as deceitful and distorted. Let's all welcome mmfa to the world of distorted reporting.
But in an extremely limiting way, where kerry proposed doing much more.
Also, mmfa is reporting that krauthamer said in his article that edwards said "Christopher Reeve will walk again," which, of course, is a lie (or "misinformation," if that's the technicality you require).
" But in an extremely limiting way, where kerry proposed doing much more. "
By doing what? Tying one hand behind their backs? Or by not allowing women to sell their fetus's to companies that do research?
You're second point is just semantics. He left out a word, similar to Kerry's "failed joke". Do you or mmfa think Kerry meant that 'if you are dumb you will end up in Iraq'? If so, then you must also think Krauthammer meant that Chris Reeves will walk again.
Krauth's comment appeared in a written, edited, published document. You can't compare that with kerry's verbal remarks. Whether kerry "messed up his joke" or not is debatable, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
For me, the bottom line is that what krauth wrote isn't true, he almost certainly knew it wasn't true when he wrote it, and he and his editor failed to correct it prior to publication.
Edwards said that Kerry's presidency would lead to stem cell research advances so promising that paralyzed people -- LIKE REEVE -- would walk again.
Krauthammer's said that Edward's said if Kerry's elected, the LATE CHRISTOPHER REEVE would walk again.
There's no comparison. The former is campaign rhetoric, hyperbole. The latter is a flat-out intentional distortion of said rhetoric.
This is precisely the kind of bull the press got away with in the 2000 election.
Gore said he had a hand in developing what eventually became the Internet. The press reports "Gore claims to have invented the Internet".
MMFA is right in posting this thread, since it exemplifies the intentional distortion of an easily accessible quote.
Unfortunately, some have had the misinfo. pounded into their heads for so long, even when the truth is outlined clearly as above, it has no effect.
On another note,Fantagor posted the following;
"...if Kerry's elected, the LATE CHRISTOPHER REEVE would walk again."
Did Fantagor call John Kerry God, or just accuse him of some sort of zombie activity?
Hey, that's easy.
Edwards insinuated that only by electing Kerry and therefore use tax money on research was the only way to get the disabled like Reeves walking again.
MMFA is spinning the obvious once again.
"Edwards insinuated that only by electing Kerry and therefore use tax money on research was the only way to get the disabled like Reeves walking again." --LH
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't see where Edwards said it was the only way. It stands to reason that more money would make it more likely that people like Reeves would walk again and more work would be done sooner or faster on stem cells. Who am I to argue with your claims of "insinuations". Your mind-reading is so obviously more keen than anyone elses.
Besides I see that you don't agree with Krauthammer and you inserted the word "like" into your post. I guess even you don't agree with that characterization, which is of course the topic of this thread.
"Edwards insinuated that only by electing Kerry and therefore use tax money on research was the only way to get the disabled like Reeves walking again. "
I am glad you see the fallicy of this tatic and how unfair it is. How about we. Address the Republicans and thier use of this very same tactic. You how those BIG BAD TERRORISTS are out to get us and only by electing Bush and his cronies can we be SAFE>>>>
Edwards was very plainly pushing the agenda that only federal spending could enable advances in stem cell research.
Currently there are very few restrictions for states or private industry to invest in ESCR.
I agree with limited federal spending on ESCR but the bulk of the federal dollars should continue to support proven research on non-embryonic stem cell research.
The state level is probably a better platform to handle the ethics and funding of ESCR.
"Edwards was very plainly pushing the agenda that only federal spending could enable advances in stem cell research." --Wesley
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I disagree with the word "only" in your post. You are apparently trying to marginalize what Edwards said (along with LH) by inserting that word. Not that it really matters.
It should be pretty clear that with more federal money, more work would be done under Kerry. Call me crazy, but I don't think that is really all that disputable.
Outside of that, you have demonstrated that Edwards has an opinion (if not a bit distorted by you) and so do you. That's just great, but the topic is the fairly blatant misinformation being peddled by Krauthammer, which I noticed you haven't addressed at all.
I don't think Krauthammer's statement was anymore misleading than that of Edwards. They both shadow the line of truth but are both examples of simple political rhetoric.
That rhetoric aside...the issue about ESCR is about funding and ethics.
On the ethical side, the right-to-life avocates have their heels dug in...but they lost the high ground in the battle years ago with the onset of fertility clinics and in vitro fertilization. Over the last 25 years countless human embryos have been created and destroyed.
On the funding side...the answer is very clear. Additional federal funding, on all types of stem cell research, will open the doors for cures to many suffering people. The question should not be an "either/or" issue concerning ASCR and ESCR.
The federal budget is not unlimited...even though elected officials on both sides of the aisle act like it's a bottomless pit of money.
The ethical side of the argument is a boiling cauldron of passion with heartfelt positions on both sides. As a right-to-life advocate, I wince at tinkering with genetics. Yet, I cannot ignore the reality of the present science and its benefits.
I wonder how many people "like Christopher Reeve" would have the potential of climbing out of their wheelchairs if $320M had been spent on any type of stem cell research...rather than trying to build "a bridge to nowhere" in Alaska?
First of all, Krauthammer blatantly misrepresented Edwards. There is no arguing that.
Secondly, Edwards only "misinformed" based on your subjective impression of what he meant. There is a difference between the two.
It is reasonable that putting more money and resources into research into what the majority of scientists believe is the cure with the most potential -- ESC.
There is a difference in the way ESC would have been funded under Kerry / Edwards. I hope you see that it wouldn't have hurt stem cell research to have more money. Edwards comments are entirely defendable. Krauthammer's weren't.
I don't have a dog in the Krauthammer/Edwards fight...you obviously do. I see this as Simon Maloy picking nits...nothing more...nothing less.
Calf rope.
I guess that in order to demonstrate true independence, I would have to agree with you. Why do you need to assign some sort of motive on me in order to marginalize my opinion.
I see. We can't just disagree on this with two independent minds.
I fail to see where Krauthammer's remarks equate to Edwards' remarks. Maybe (call me crazy) you just had a weak argument to begin with. Nah, it couldn't possibly be that.
That is a pretty balanced take on this issue Wesley. I would posit that a whole lot of research is done with tax dollars. The NIH bankrolls a lot of new drugs, the Pentagon does a whole lot of high tech reserach for industry. This is the way it is done as often as not. Federal funds. This doesnt argue against your point, its true funds are finite. I am just saying it is hardly breaking new ground for tax dollars to be spent for medical research, remember Taxol?
If only the "Vanity Gene" had been discovered before this guy was born:
[link to www.slate.com]