Yesterday, Dan Riehl wrote that Republicans should get off their duffs and stop playing defense
If (Republicans) had the intelligence and discipline to side-step things like the Limbaugh attack they might have a prayer. Instead of engaging it, they should come back with, This is simply the Democrats trying to prevent a discussion of how much their programs will cost, how much taxes are going to go up, and why you don’t re-build health care, energy and fundamental economic policy during a financial crisis.
He got his wish
A top congressional Republican on Sunday criticized President Barack Obama’s expected decision to reverse the Bush administration’s limits on embryonic stem-cell research, calling it a distraction from the country’s economic slump.
“Why are we going and distracting ourselves from the economy? This is job No. 1. Let’s focus on what needs to be done,” Rep. Eric Cantor, the Republican whip in the House of Representatives, told CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Really, that is all fake hoopla about reversing Bush on ESCs is: a distracton and a bone thrown to the far left who think the research will solve all Man’s ills. Of course, the teratomas associated with ESC research might be a hinderance. But, check this out
Obama’s move, scheduled for Monday morning, is part of a broader effort to separate science and politics and “restore scientific integrity in governmental decision-making,” White House domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes said Sunday.
What’s the expiration date on that pledge? Well, we could say it ended the minute Obama ends the restrictions on using federal money for ESC research, since the only folks truly interested in doing the research feed at the federal trough. Private researchers aren’t interested. And let’s not forget that Barry wants all sorts of AGW legislation, including cap and trade. Sure seems to be mixing science and politics, eh?
More:
“In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,” Obama said at the White House.
Sounds science would tell us that over-population is a problem, so, perhaps we should do away with those pesky murder laws, which are based on moral values. And laws against theft and rape are based on moral values, so, let’s get rid of those laws, too, OK?
But, if we want to talk morals, let’s consider that the same people who have no problem aborting babies and using human embryos for scientific research will have complete meltdowns over using animals to test products that help Mankind.
Tigerhawk tells us how to test to see if the science is being politicized.
Ed Morrissey: This decision places politics ahead of science. People demand government funding for hEsc not because it works, but because it’s popular. Pro-abortion activists want it as an endorsement of abortion as some sort of mechanism for scientific advance, and they’ve managed to sucker the rest into thinking that we’ll all die unless we start destroying embryos to keep us alive. No one has offered a single scientific reason to have the federal government fund hEsc research.
And more: regarding the link right after the more tag, Obama and his compliant media are all talking about ESCs curing Parkinson’s. Umm, see, the thing is, there are already treatments for Parkinson’s from using adult stem cells, and have been for years. Matter of fact, just this past February there was a big release about the use of ASCs reversing Parkinson’s in a patient. So, do we want to put our money into what is working, or what has so far not worked, and is simply a bone thrown to left wingers?
Just for clarification, what do you mean when you say “private researchers”? Give me an example.
I mean privately funded companies, rather then those receiving funds from the government.
Ah, you mean like those privately funded scientists, who argued that tobacco was good for you? Hey, what do you think would be the motivation for a corporation to fund scientific research? This might be the most ironic argument made by deniers. You have on your side, scientists who are funded by the coal and oil industries, and you have the tenacity to claim that it is the publicly funded scientists who are biased. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.