Don't do it for the Gipper
Via The Corner is this report of Sen. McCain's support of the stem-cell bill that the President has threatened to Veto.
He added that he “would deeply regret if the president’s first veto was on this.” He said “it’s not good having Republicans fighting Republicans on this issue” and wishes “we could sit down with the president” and find some “middle ground.”
He added that he would rather the president’s first veto be on some pork-barrel spending bill (another topic he was passionate talking about).
The bill supports Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research and of course there is no middle ground. Where is a compromise possible when it comes to killing human persons for research? King Solomon tried the middle ground approach in jest when he offered to have a disputed baby cut in two and I wonder what Sen. McCain's version would be?
Now if he is against pork-barrel spending then why is he for ESCR? Truly this is pork-barrel spending to throw money into something that the so-called greedy pharmaceuticals and research labs aren't willing to throw research money at.
In another article.
Last week, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, an opponent of abortion and a prospect for the 2008 Republican nomination who has recently been courting the religious right, told me that Mrs. Reagan had lobbied him recently and he would be supporting the bill.
She has made the case that voting for stem cells is doing it for the Gipper.
Sorry you can't be both an opponent of abortion and ESCR. ESCR proponents are using the term early stem-cell research so I guess I can call ESCR early abortion. On another point I can almost hear the noise as Ronald Reagan spins in his grave at at high rotational rate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library as his wife uses his name to advance the culture of death. I hear they are going to be filling his casket with the same fluid used in hard drives so that the noise does not distract visitors.
Known as 
Can anyone who knows anything about President Reagan imagine that he would have traded a baby's life for his own?
I have an interesting moral dilemma...
Say McCain is running in the Republican primary against someone who is totally pro-life, pro-family and pro-Catholic. Hillary is going to be the choice for the Democrats, and McCain's challenger doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of beating her.
Do I vote for the pro-life candidate, or do I vote for McCain (while holding my nose) knowing that he will have a really good chance of beating Satan^H^H^H^H^HHillary?
Actually, there is a middle ground on stem cells and Bush took it back in August of 2001.
Say McCain is running in the Republican primary against someone who is totally pro-life, pro-family and pro-Catholic. Hillary is going to be the choice for the Democrats, and McCain's challenger doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of beating her.
Do I vote for the pro-life candidate, or do I vote for McCain (while holding my nose) knowing that he will have a really good chance of beating Satan^H^H^H^H^HHillary?
Well, if voting for the totally pro-life candidate were mandatory in the scenario you give, I should think going third-party would have been mandatory in just about every presidential election.
John McCain is a twit.
The second paragraph is intended to be quoted, but the italics got nullified after the first paragraph somehow. I have to remember that Jeff's blog behaves that way...
I find it odd that many people have lauded McCain for his across-the-aisle bipartisan appeal.
That alone is reason enough for me to mistrust him. Most people think "polarization" is bad-- I'm far more concerned about centralization, and men who are able to play both sides of the fence so as to acquire power. I.e., convince the Bible-thumpers you're not one of those New York liberals, convince the New York liberals you're not one of the Bible-thumpers, and presto!
Hello, imperial throne...
What is so bad about "polarization", anyway? Why do people always speak of abortion in terms of condemning "the extremes of both sides"? And then make lukewarmness out to be a virtue?
Is there any *other* way of answering the question except via the "extremes" of "yes" or "no"?
Maybe?
Why need Nancy Regan at all?? Makes no sence
Each one of the 'twits' that support this arch evil needs to be forced to read Jonathan Swift's “A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick.” It proposed eating them. An added benefit Swift wrote, was that eating Irish infants would add variety to rich Englishmen's diets.
Farming human beings in the vain hope of improving some aged person's quality of life is an evil thing.
Unfortunately, the idiots in Congress may take it seriously. When actually, the pamphlet is believed to be the greatest example of sustained irony in the English language.
+JMJ+
Jesus had something very interesting to say about the lukewarm -- it involved spewing them out of His mouth!
BTW, you're right-- McCain's a twit.
AND--why is a veto so bad?? Whatever happened to checks and balances--or did the courts rule against them, too!?
I find it interesting that McCain first takes a "bipartisan" stand and then whines that the president doesn't automatically support it because they're both Republicans.
Well, I didn't care for McCain before, but now I actively dislike him.
This is an example of poor understanding of what embryonic stem cell research is doing and whom it is killing. Anyone who is pro-ESC research and pro-life is living in la-la land and needs a boot in the behind ASAP.
If the pro-life movement loses the next election, this may be the cause. But at least the lukewarm will be known!