Message to media: Bush first to fund stem cell research only because GOP Congress blocked Clinton plan
During the June 20 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, White House correspondent Brett Baier reported that President Bush "pointed out" during a press conference "that he is the first" president "to provide funds for embryonic stem cell research." Later in the program, Washington Post columnist and Special Report "All Star" panel member Charles Krauthammer called Bush "the first president who actually funded embryonic stem-cell research" and asserted that during President Bill Clinton's tenure "there was a ban" on federal funding. Also, two Associated Press articles, one on June 20 and one on June 21, reported, "There were no federal funds available for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would spend tax money for research on lines of cells that already were in existence." In fact, a Clinton administration proposal to fund embryonic stem cell research was blocked by a Republican Congress, and revised guidelines for such funding issued under Clinton were suspended by Bush in favor of stricter rules.
In explaining his June 20 veto of a bill that would have eased restrictions for stem cell research funding, Bush claimed he was the "first president to make federal funds available for embryonic stem cell research":
In 2001, I announced a policy to advance stem cell research in a way that is ambitious, ethical, and effective. I became the first president to make federal funds available for embryonic stem cell research -- and my policy did this in ways that would not encourage the destruction of embryos.
As Media Matters for America has noted (here and here), after Congress passed a bill in 1993 that included a provision allowing federal funding of human embryo research, the Clinton administration convened a panel that proposed federal funding for obtaining stem cells, which would entail the destruction of spare embryos from fertility clinics. Contrary to Krauthammer's suggestion, it was the Republican-controlled Congress, not Clinton, that in 1995 and subsequent years included a ban on the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research in appropriations bills, which derailed the Clinton proposals. After researchers achieved the isolation of embryonic stem cells in November 1998, the Clinton administration drafted revised guidelines to fund embryonic stem cell research, but those rules had yet to take effect when Clinton left office. Clinton's rules were suspended by the Bush administration in favor of its own rules.
Bush's stricter rules limit funding only for embryonic stem cell lines already in existence at the time he issued his policy in a August 9, 2001, nationally televised speech. As The Washington Post reported on August 10, 2001, "the new policy will replace guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health a year ago under the Clinton administration that would have allowed the first federal subsidies of human embryo cell research."
From the June 20 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BAIER: Instead, the president issued an executive order promoting research on, but not funding for what are called pluripotent stem-cells that like human embryonic stem-cells hold the potential of regenerating into different types of cells and tissues in the body that can be used to fight disease, but these cells would not endanger human life. The President cited medical research breakthroughs on cells taken from umbilical cord blood and amniotic fluid, as well as new research on adult stem cells.
BUSH: [video clip] And our conscious calls us to pursue the possibilities of science in a manner that respects human dignity and upholds our moral values.
BAIER: The president pointed out that he is the first president to provide funds for embryonic stem-cell research, making $130 million available for research on stem cell lines from embryos that had already been destroyed before he came to office, and has since spent more than $3 billion funding research on different forms of stem cells. Top Democrats like Presidential candidate [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] were quick to denounce the President's veto.
CLINTON: [video clip] This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science; politics before the needs of our families. Just one more example of how out of touch with reality he and his party have become.
[...]
HUME: All right now lets not go in -- go there. Charles, let me let you have a crack at this since this is an issue you care about.
KRAUTHAMMER: Look the president is serious about the moral objection he has, and that is that you don't destroy human embryos to produce stem cells. He had not banned all research on it or even federal assistance; he banned only the kind that actively destroys embryos. He allowed all the existing lines that had existed before his policy was announced in April of 2001. So there is a research supported by the federal government. Look, I happen to disagree with the President. I would have allowed what the bill in the House and the Senate would have wanted, which was the use of discarded embryos from fertility clinics. However, I respect the president's position, unlike the Democrats who attack it as if it's -- totally cynical. Mrs. Clinton said today that the -- when I am president, I will lift the ban on stem-cell research -- as you indicated.
There is no ban, in fact under her husband, there was a ban. But Bush is the first president who actually funded embryonic stem cell research, but he said only of a type which is morally defensible.
From a June 20 Associated Press article headlined "Bush vetoes embryonic stem cell bill, urges research on other stem cell lines":
Most of the Democratic candidates have urged Bush to expand the research.
Scientists were first able to conduct research with embryonic stem cells in 1998, according to the National Institutes of Health. There were no federal funds available for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would spend tax money for research on lines of cells that already were in existence.
Currently, states and private organizations are permitted to fund embryonic stem cell research, but federal support is limited to cells that existed as of Aug. 9, 2001. The latest bill was aimed at lifting that restriction.
Those paragraphs were repeated in a June 21 Associated Press article headlined "More Measures on Stem Cells Expected."
Bush and his stance on stem cell research is yet another reason why this is by far the worst President ever to reside in the White House. Clinton would have fully funded it if allowed by the Republicans
Come on now. You can't use embryos for anything. It is unethical. Period. After all, they have to be incenerated. This is the concept the right uses to justify this procedure. The ashes which are minerals, will go back into the top soil. The minerals are absorbed by the new plant. The new plant ends up in a cow. The cow is slaughtered and an expecting mother eats a cow brain sandwich. The minerals are used to build the new cellular makeup of the unborn child. The child grows up to be a republican and the cycle is perpetuated. After all, scientific research could lead to the discovery of a moron detector and republicans are afraid of setting off devices that can identify a reality they can't face. I think this is somewhere in the bush doctorine.
Dude, pass that around, whatever it is you're smokin'! =)
sounds like you thougt I was serious. Her is something you can try at home with the family. Eat a deep fried cow brain sandwich. If you are a democrat it will have no effect. If you are a republican, Your family will be astounded at how smart you have suddenly become. bush has managed to avoid these sandwiches at ALL COST. If he had just one bite his constituency* would abandon him thinking he was an INTELLECTUAL ELITE. (* the religious right)
Nope. Didn't think you were serious. =)
The mineral thing is the reality of nature. Cells: You have 80-130 trillion of them. That is all you are. Cells = water, minerals and protein.
They laughed at Marconi also.
Why not leave this to the public sector? The government can't pay for everything. Whatever it touches turns to crap anyway... call it the Mr. Hanky Touch.
CANNON:
Damn that government! Screwed the private sector out of the thrill of going to the moon. Developed a lot of useful technology along the way, too. Oh, wait. The private sector has no interest in spending "research" money on things that don't make the cash register ring THIS QUARTER, so all the CEO's can get their bonuses.
So, no trip to the moon, after all. You're right, this government stuff is so lame, they can't do ANYTHING right. Leave it to EXXON/Mobil. They'll take care of us. Brilliant.
Cannon's absolutely correct on both points.
The federal government does almost nothing well, and stem cell research is being done privately every day by companies who are actually good at this kind of thing.
It's being used as a political football by both parties, but John Edwards takes the cake for being the most vile about it. He said during the '04 race:
"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 will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again"
How revolting is this guy? "Vote for us and you'll walk again, I just know it!"
How anyone can vote for someone so low is beyond me.
Yeah. I wonder if he flew back in the middle of the night to vote and sign a bill to... oh, wait, that was Republicans and Terry Schiavo.
MAX:
So you're a "the government does almost nothing well" kind of guy. A HATE AMERICA fellow, believing that America would have been much better off socially and economically if the government hadn't existed. Everything in the hands of elite aristocracy, who would set proper tolls on all roads, operate their own "justice" system, and deal with such trivia as national health, equality, and the environment.
Some were born to be subjegated by power, and are simply not fit for the self-rule a democracy like America offers, because it is so damn hard. Let the CEO's handle everything ... after all, THEY have our best interests at heart. Right? Beejezuz!
What a fool you are. Every tyrant's dream subject, dumb and compliant.
I'd love to read a littany from you of all the things this government has done well since 2000. That would be a pretty short read.
Bruce, that's not really fair. The past seven years, we haven't really had the A-Team on the field . ;0)
You are wrong wrong wrong, but even if you were not you would be. We are talking about government *funding* here. The same smart people at these companies would be doing research, but they could do MORE research because they would have MORE money.
Its my understanding that the ban prevents any facility that accepts government funds for anything can not do stem cell research at the same facility. So it is not just a ban on government funded research it also is a barrier to private sector doing the research. I think it is disengenuous for those who oppose government funded research to brush it off as no big deal and say the private sector can still do it...it isn't that straight forward.
Democrats promote enlightenment.
The GOP promotes the Dark Ages.
Democrats believe in science, knowledge, and progress.
The GOP believes in religious dogma, ignorance, and "the good old days" when women and minorities knew their place.
Democrats believe we should use our brains to develop ways to ease human misery.
Republicans believe that suffering is the just due of being inferior, of flawed character, unworthy of grace; to ease such punishment-as-suffering would be to defy "God's will".
Democrats believe serving HUMANITY is the highest calling by God.
Republicans believe CASH is the highest calling, by God!
Democrats believe in a loving God.
Republicans believe in a vengeful God.
Democrats believe in slavery.
You must depend on the mothership for your health care.
You must depend on the mothership for your retirement.
The mothership decides which speech codes are passed to control your speech.
The mothership taxes you into a state of government dependence.
The democrats promote a return to the 1800s and slavery only they want to enslave people of all colors.
Usually slavery has something to do with controlling behavior and/or restricting movement. Providing citizens benefits isn't even in the same universe.
You really are quite mad, aren't you?
Probably, but I recognize that the left wants to control speech and control people's financial lives by making them dependent on social programs and therefore dependent on voting Democratic.
And you guys just want to be able to listen to all of our conversations (which I am sure would not stifle speech) and grow the government while making it more inefficient and telling people "it doesn't work" right?
I am not sure where I heard this before, but Conservatives are the only people who go into a profession (conservative politicians) to try and prove it (government) doesn't work. Does that happen in any other line of work?
I staunchly believe in embryonic stem cell research.
However, I am staunchly against using federal tax dollars to pay for it.
Yeah, I don't want my tax money spent on the destruction of our military in the unsuccessful attempt to steal Iraqi oil, either. Guess I'm SOL for now - soon you will be too.
You know, we've had 5 years to steal the oil, and there isn't a soul over there who could stop us from taking it.
So why haven't we done it?
Guess you haven't heard about all those exploding pipelines. You probably also don't know that the big ol "benchmark" that everybody is all bent out of shape about the Iraqis failing to meet is the oil law that turns over the oil fields essentially to US big oil. For some strange reason, the Iraqi parliament is somewhat reluctant to pass that law and adjourned for two months rather than pass it. When they come back, I predict that they will stall it as ling as they can while Buchco fumes.
Eventually they will have to pass it or they will be replaced. Maybe a few stray mortar rounds will find the mark when they are in session or there will be a coup we "reluctantly" support - I don't know the exact scenario but
Oops! Hit post instead if italics.
...that law will be ratified somehow! Bet on it.
Why would Bush, an oil man (who couldn't find oil in Texas and now Iraq) wanna get the oil flowing from the second largest oil field on the planet when prices are so high?
MAX:
Don't know if you're Naive or just stupid. You don't think OIL has been flowing from the Iraqi fields EVERY DAY, making billions for ... somebody?
We've got about 130,000 troops now in Iraq. Have you added up the reports? 20,000 in Baghdad, 10,000 in Tekrit, ... uh, where are the REST? Guarding the flowing pipelines, that's where. Protecting the black gold, keeping the flow going for American corporations.
It's a party in the board rooms of Big Oil, and they don't want it to ever end. RECORD PROFITS, and no Saddam to deal with. It is immoral on so many levels it's sickening.
I'm glad to know you are an authority on the deployment of US troops in Iraq.
There are many more than 130,000 US troops in Iraq. This source places the number as of Jun 20 at 162,000.
You obviously are as clueless about where they are deployed as you are about the number. There is a sizeable force in the Mosul area. There are also forces deployed in Baquoba, Fallujah, and in Anbar province. None of these places has any working oil wells, the nearest being the Kirkuk fields to Mosul.
In your case, "informed opinion" is an oxymoron. Misinformed opinion is more the like.
based on the above, we must also assume in the absence of proofs to the contrary your opinions about stem cell research, the topic at hand, are equally misinformed.
NL:
Your first link doesn’t work.
Your second link (mosul) puts the number in Iraq at “about” 132,000. Doesn’t say where they are to be working, or have any numbers for Mosul.
Third link (baquoba) takes total number to 156,000, with only ONE BATALLION (300 to 1000 soldiers) guarding the area being discussed. Leaves 155,000 unaccounted for. I said they are guarding the oil. Where's your evidence otherwise?
Fourth link has total number at 145,000, says nothing about WHERE they are deployed.Fifth link (anbar) talks a lot about conflicting demands for more troops, but says nothing about WHERE the present troops are stationed, and gives NO number for Anbar.
I made a claim that a large number of our forces are engaged in defending the OIL FIELDS. Nothing you have said, and NONE of the links you presented, has contradicted, rebutted, or challenged this.
The TOTAL number of troops in Iraq has changed, and while you are correct that the number has gone from 130,000 (which I stated) to closer to 160,000, this only makes your job HARDER. There are now MORE soldiers to account for, and in all your links, the only figure stating an actual number stationed in a particular “province” was 1000.
Linking is good, as long as it helps to make your point, or to actually rebut a point that was made. Seems YOUR links only made my assertion harder for you to challenge. Where ARE the troops, if not guarding the oil? Hmmm? Any info to THAT question?
You must not read much either.....After Bush ditched Miers he hired Fielding as WH Attorney, You did know that Fielding was KEY in putting together the contract for Iraq Oil, and the Oil GIANTS....where the Oil Giants got 75-80% of the proceeds for the next 30 years, didn't you?
Keep up....okay. Not stealing the oil indeed.
I hate that it has to be an issue - but the last election proved that this is a winner for Democrats. I don't think that anyone wants to destroy embryos but a lot of living beings could potentially be helped by this research. Someday the fantasy of deriving cells equally useful without the destruction of embryos may become reality. Meanwhile the research is already being done - elsewhere. How many millions more lives could be saved and how much sooner if this research was funded here? We'll never know. How many of the destroyed embryos would have become human beings? Zero. There is no shortage of the frozen - "snowflakes" aside.
There is a shortage of integrity and intelligence in the White House, however.
The issue here is MMFA caught the GOP "speeding" on yet another talking point.
The media either didn't know, or were intentionally trying to mislead the public that Bush and the GOP were actually supportive of embryonic stem cell research. They were not.
They blocked the research under Clinton, and only favored a watered-down version under Bush when it became too popular to oppose.
It is immaterial (to me) which posters are for it or against it. The fact is...the public has been misled. And MMFA set the record straight.
Misled? I think not. MMFA is trying its typical revisionist history. Bush got it done. Clinton didn't. It doesn't matter that Clinton issued guidelines, blah, blah, blah. He failed. MMFA can twist and spin all it wants but the fact is Bush is the first president to get federal funding for stem cell research.
That being said, no more federal money. Let the private sector handle it from here. In the long run that is the best way anyhow, less government red tape.
Media Matters presents real posts of genius
real posts of genius!
Today we salute you, mr. right wing stem cell picker upper boy.
mr. right wing stem cell picker upper boy!
Your concern about that stain on your pants warrents special attention.
How did my kids get here?
All it takes is a mop and hot water to make things right again.
What a stubborn stain!
And rubbers? If they are good enough for tires, why aren't they the household tool for being christian?
How did refuse become refuse?
So crack open an ice cold bud light, stem cell boy. Because you can wipe up a dribble at the speed of veto!
mr. right wing stem cell picker upper boy!
Bush also got the Department of Homeland Security "done" as well as the 9/11 commission. He staunchly opposed the creation of each, though, and only gave his support when it became too popular to oppose them any longer.
In each case, Bush was not a leader, but a follower. Bush is not leading on stem cell research either. Almost certainly too incurious himself to care much about stem cell research on his own, he's feeding his party's base on this issue.
In 50 years, they'll look back in astonishment at the senselessness of this opposition, too. They won't be crediting Bush with leading us on this issue...merely limiting us.
It's pretty pathetic when you claim that only the government can lead in research. Why in the hell should be depend on the government to do all the medical research? Talk about draconian.
Dude, I think you need to look up the word draconian in a dictionary.
Yeah...
Darn the government for developing the polio vaccine. That should have been left to the private sector.
For all the IDIOTS that think the private sector will have the American public best interest at heart, look how well they managed Walter Reed, or tried to put out enough flu vaccine a couple of years back, or how spendthrift and efficient the private sector has been with their contracts in Iraq and the rebuilding of New Orleans.
Face it, the private sector exsists to make money, it could care less about curing diseases or illnesses unless they can make a buck off of it.
EASYGOER:
It's too easy to dismiss Bush as a bumbler, with the speaking skills of the average blithering idiot. He used to make some people laugh with his "folksy" ways, and his disarming nicknames. A guy we'd like to have a beer with, except he's an alcoholic ...
All this hopes to overshadow the tremendous HARM this man has done to our nation. He is personally responsible for the senseless and needless deaths of TENS OF THOUSANDS. He has gutted policies built up over decades to protect our rights, to protect our national assets, to ensure humane and equal treatment of human beings.
I haven't said this before, but the evidence is now clear. Bush is not only the very worst president we've ever had, he qualifies as a MONSTER. History will marvel that he was elected in the first place, but will be stunned he managed to be REelected.
Of course, studies in the future ... without iron-handed Bush-controlled "law enforcement" officials blocking investigations and running interference ... will show that the elections of 2000 and 2004 were nothing less than a COUP engineered by the Rightwing to short-circuit our Democracy.
Then the only question will be WHY we Americans allowed this fraud of a president to continue to occupy the White House and give orders. We today marvel at how the German people could have allowed THEIR nation to be taken over by tyranny, so we have much soul-searching to do as a country. We need to resolve: NEVER AGAIN.
Nice screed. Your rant has about as much credibility as claims by various kooks that the Apollo moon landings were staged in a studio here on Earth and that 9-11 was a "controlled demolition" carried out by government insiders. Better stock up on tinfoil now while its still cheap.
And what do these ravings of yours have to do with the proposition that Clinton should be given credit as the first President to sponsor stem cell research?
There is little doubt that manipulation and fraud were rampant in 2004. You have to have your head in the sand to deny that. Some people have already been convicted.
However, while some efforts were orchestrated at very high levels - e.g., "vote caging" - there is no evidence that it was a well coordinated effort. Also, the nature of some of the acts preclude any predictions as to the impact on the election. That's still not a good thing; i.e., we simply can't have faith in the results in some of the closer votes.
Another crackpot.
Show me ONE prosecution, successful or otherwise, of any person in the state of Florida who manipulated any poll results in either the 200 or 2004 elections. You can't because there aren't any.
Otherwise, put on your tinfoil hat and get in line with the rest of the kooks.
Clinton does get credit. In the early 1990's the topic of federal funding of stem cell research came up. Ethical concerns were brought up.
In the later 1990's another method was developed which satisfied the ethical concerns. Clinton became interested and started the ball rolling on bringing back the idea of a federally funded stem cell research.
All Bush did was take the ball that was in motion watered it down and took credit.
Molly Ivans wrote numerous articles on how Bush did this when he was governor. Molly pointed out out many bills and ideas were in the makings before Bush arrived on the scene and as soon as Bush arrived he took credit for those bills and ideas.
Just as Bush was nothing more than a Johnny come lately in Texas he was a Johnny come lately in the concept of federally funding stem cell research. He simply took credit for something that was in the makings before he arrived just like he did in Texas.
The fact remains that Clinton did not ever sign a bill into law that provided funds for human embryonic stem cell research. Bill Clinton actually signed THIS law in 1995, which forbids the destruction of human embryos for federaly funded stem cell research projects.
Therefore, your contention that he was the first President to provide funding for human embryonic stem cell research is simply false as is this entire MMFA thread on the subject. Bush was the first President to sign such a bill into law, and that is fact.
This epsisode on MMFA is just another example supporting the thesis that Liberals are no more than a collection of shoddy prevaricators, much like borderline personalities, who chronically distort or lie about everything, continually rewriting history to suit their own pet ideologies.
Tex. Why are you sugar coating your highly perspicatious view. Try again and this time let it all hang out.