Stem cell research and the value of partisanship
Today, I was going to try to recognize all the leaders who have stood up for CD1 Democratic representative Diana DeGette's bill to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Including 2008 presidential contenders like Democrat Evan Bayh and Republicans John McCain and Bill Frist. But there are just too many to list. Over the last day, scientists have bashed the White House's lies. Advocacy groups have begged Bush not to veto this crucial bill. (See a PDF of organizations that signed a letter in support of H.R. 810 here.) And more than 3,000 people have signed the Progress Now Action petition.
But apparently it has all been for nothing. Sometime between now and 2:15 p.m., Bush will veto H.R. 810. We have elected a president who would rather throw embryos into a Dumpster than save lives or cure paralysis.
How much do you wish John F. Kerry was president right about now?
Some people bash me for being partisan. Today, you know why. It doesn't matter how hard we work to enforce the nation's laws or save the environment or advance science. As long as the theocrats rule America, we're losing the war.
This November, vote Democrat all the way down the ticket. It's the only way to take back America.
But apparently it has all been for nothing. Sometime between now and 2:15 p.m., Bush will veto H.R. 810. We have elected a president who would rather throw embryos into a Dumpster than save lives or cure paralysis.
How much do you wish John F. Kerry was president right about now?
Some people bash me for being partisan. Today, you know why. It doesn't matter how hard we work to enforce the nation's laws or save the environment or advance science. As long as the theocrats rule America, we're losing the war.
This November, vote Democrat all the way down the ticket. It's the only way to take back America.
9 Comments:
And potentially vote for Democrats who would squash scientific research, or amend the constitution to perpetuate discrimination, or recklessly endanger our civil liberties -- no way!
Because there are Democrats who voted against stem cell research, who voted for the gay marriage amendment, and many (too many) who voted for the PATRIOT act.
So I hope you'll forgive me for voting for *individuals*, not parties.
Because not all Republicans are theocrats. And not all Democrats are heroes. And you know that, Matt.
And lest I be accused of being *totally* negative, I've been very impressed at Diana DeGette's leadership in helping pass this bill, and I hope Angie Paccione joins her in Congress next year. :)
Seth,
No, not a single Senate Democrat voted against H.R, 810. The roll call vote is here. Check it yourself.
I'm not saying I hate all Republicans. In fact, if you read my post, I went out of my way to give respect to McCain and Frist.
But the party that controls the legislature has a huge advantage in deciding what sort of bills even escape committee. Therefore, you take a major risk if you vote for a politician from a party you generally oppose.
You seem to be anti-Patriot Act. So ask yourself, if the Dems ran the legislature, would the Patriot Act have even seen the light of day?
No way.
Of course, occassionally the risk is worthwhile. Occassionally the opposition party runs a great candidate and you have to break ranks. But I won't be doing it this year. The situation in America is too perilous.
As you yourself admit in your second post, you have posted only twice on this blog, both times to bash me. I have written nearly a dozen posts on this topic over the last week and you never chimed in on your respect for DeGette until now.
At least you actually posted. Too many times, people go complain about me on their own blogs and I only find out because their readers start hitting my site. Thank you for stating your views directly in a forum where I could respond.
Thanks for reading.
Well, shoot. I need to rephrase something. The Patriot Act would probably have "seen the light of day" in a Democratic congress. But not in it's current form. Subtle distinction, but important.
I certainly don't want to come across as "bashing" you, Matt. In fact, it's mainly because of your comparably high level respect for other people that I'm actually comfortable responding with criticism (if I posted similar things on DailyKos, for instance, I'd be shouted down and trampled). I try to make my own blog postings positive, but do find it harder to be positive when responding to other people's blogs.
I will note, in reponse to your comments, that I was referring to House Democrats who voted against H.R. 810 back in 2005.
(pause)
I'm try very hard not to be a partisan, because I find that partisanship generally blinds people to the best solutions. I'm not going to go around consistently praising Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarian *or* Greens, because I find none of the parties to be consistently praiseworthy. (You probably have a different assessment; I suspect that you find Democrats fairly consistently praiseworthy.) I think that one of the best move we could make in American politics would be to strike party labels from ballots, so that people would be compelled to *think* about individuals and how they'll govern, and not just choose an (often-arbitrary) party label.
But even more than individuals, I care about *ideas*. And I believe that many Democrats have good ideas. I also believe that many Republicans, and Libertarians, and Greens, and even sometimes some other folks have good ideas. And God help me if I denounce a good idea just because it comes from the "other" side of the aisle.
To put it bluntly, on many levels, I could care less about the Democratic Party, or any other party. Parties are *only* a means to an end.
So you want to convince me to vote Democrat? Talk more about your Democratic candidates, where they stand on the issues, and what they'll do to improve the lives of Coloradoans and all Americas. Not how we need Democratic committee chairs or how Bill Ritter has an engaging life story. Stop bashing Republicans (like you did in 9 of your last 15 posts) and start building a better America.
Be dynamic, not reactionary. Dammit, that's what most people *want* from their leaders. New ideas. Positive visions. Innovative proposals.
It's hard (just like political junkies like us often being being non-inflammatory hard). But I think it's worth it.
(Speaking of awesome ideas, How 'bout Hickenlooper's trees? Unbossed recently had a post right along the same lines :)
Seth, the problem is that the Republicans have complete control of congress because, as the majority, they head every committee, control the agenda, are the only ones who can pass legislation, initiate investigations or issue subpoenas. The few moderate Republicans don't keep the conservative majority from passing or blocking whatever they please but they DO count toward the majority that gives the Republican right almost absolute power. Likewise, any elected Dem will count towards a Dem majority, giving us all the chairmanships and power. The few who Dems vote with the Republicans then will not stand in the way of the Dem majority any more than the moderate Republicans have been able to block the wishes of the conservative Republican majority. Only by electing enough Dems to take back the house and senate do we have any chance of passing ANYTHING. That's why we CANNOT vote for ANY REPUBLICANS or AGAINST ANY DEMS in 2006. That's how congress works. The majority party pretty much takes all the power. We can only pass good legislation if we take back that power so we MUST be absolutely partisan in 2006. Unless you'd like to keep on calling your reps to ask them to vote for bills with no chance of becoming law.
Seth,
I did write about the Mayor's plan. See my post here.
Ack, I have so much to say and I need to hurry.
Refusing to admit when one party is wrong is essentially the same logical error as excessive partisanship. In both cases, one simply refuses to admit facts.
Currently the GOP is in the hands of big spending, big government, anti-science, anti-environment theocrats. Democrats are supporting personal privacy, innovation and fiscal responsibility.
People need to know that.
Anyway, if you want positive posts, prove it. Next time I say something nice, chime in and say "This is great!" Until then, you are only proving that people respond to negativism.
Seth, I just went through the link you posted and counted only 14 House Dem votes among the 194 nays. Not an impressive number. Thanks for posting the link anyway.
(Quick count. I could be a couple off.)
Thanks for commenting. Please reply, if you choose. I can't respond for the rest of the day. Not ignoring you. And certainly not out of things to say. Just have to attend to other stuff.
Matt:
Too true. We should all try to be better about that.
There's an old axiom that says that in order to motivate and effectively correct individuals, you should offer
praise to criticism in a 3:1 ratio. In politics, nearly everyone (myself included) is guilty of the opposite, which, I believe, is a larger reason why voter turnout in the United States is so abyssmally low. We've even managed to turn a discussion about how to be positive into a brawl about how neither of us are positive enough...
... So I'm gonna try an experiment for my blog comment and posts. Praise to criticism in a 3:1 ratio. Because things done right should be rewarded.
Post a Comment
<< Home