The Bully Pulpit, Republican Style

A majority of Americans support:

* Stem cell research (77% support);
* Gay marriage (51% support); and
* Keeping abortion legal in some form (77% support).

So why are Republicans falling all over themselves to severely limit or ban stem cell research, gay marriage and abortion? Here’s why:

The best thing that could happen to the Republican Party would be for their nomination/tent revival process to end as soon as possible. Because the longer the Republicans evangelical arms race drags out and escalates, the more the eventual nominee will look like a preacher instead of a President. That sells in Republican primaries, but not with moderate swing voters in the General Election.

– Loveland

13 thoughts on “The Bully Pulpit, Republican Style

  1. There was just a note about how Chris Wallace, who will do Fox’s Romney interview, despises Romney. Just about everybody who served with the Newter in the House thinks he’s unfit to be president and would be a disastrous candidate. And there is a base which, judging by the Delaware and Nevada senate nominations, selects candidates on how crazy they are. The race promise to be a reality show conducted in an insane asylum. I look forward to watching.

    • No one gets information from Fox; that’s not what they traffic in. And Santorum’s declared that science should not be used in policy decisions; that ought to move him towards the front of the pack until somebody else says something crazier.

  2. Ah, I hate to break it to you – conservatives are fine with stem cell research. It’s fetal stem cell research that they oppose, and the risk that fetus will be harvested for research experiments.

    • It’s clearly much better that the blastocysts get flushed down the toilet, or however fertility clinics get rid or their leftovers, than they be used for research with actually might save the lives of existing human beings.

    • It’s not surprising that if a certain type of research is forbidden, it won’t produce any results. Why are researchers leaving this country to go abroad to do stem cell research if it’s irrelevant or unnecessary?

      As a type 1 diabetic, I have a dog in this fight. A cure is likely to come either from an artificial pancreas that automatically monitors and dispenses insulin or from replacing the islets, which if it can be made to work would be simpler and surer. A diabetic mouse would be well advised to go to Harvard where they are getting good results using stem cells. A human, however, has to look to Canada or Brazil where research using stem cells is being done that can’t be done here.

  3. Newt:

    your two arguments contradict each other. The NYT article makes it clear that fetal stem cells are essential for research, and also points out that scientists have found a source for fetal stem cells that do not come from blastocytes.

    Clearly, fetal stem cell research is not a scientific dead zone–it is just that clever scientists have managed to get around the static arguments of those who would impose their religious beliefs on others. Now those narrow minded people have no arguments left with which to oppose fetal stem cell research.

Comments are closed.