Apparently, Senator Frist has decided to back stem cell research, which is cheesing off the Christian right, of course. He’s won praise from Senators Reid and Kennedy, as well as Senator Specter. Nice of you to drop in on us here in the 21st century, Bill. Do stay a while.
I believe this has more to do with Frist’s presidential ambitions. He recognizes that Americans are more in favor of stem cell research than against it, like Bush is. And with Bush’s numbers in the toilet lately, Frist thinks that his ambitions would be better served if he tries to play both sides of the issue.
I don’t know if this means a formal blow-off of the Christian right, or if it’s just a poorly calculated political move. It’s not like the Christian right will throw its support to the Democrats if it doesn’t get what it wants, but is it possible—like in 1992—that they’ll withhold their support from any candidate if they’re offended?
I dunno. Maybe Frist figures that if moderate Democrats were willing to nominate an Iraq War supporter in 2004, conservative Republicans will be willing to nominate a science supporter in 2008. I don’t imagine someone like Frist could count on too many Democratic crossover votes, though.
I think you’re partially right in that it’s a politically motivated move (no surprise there) and that a basis point for it is popular opinion…possibly not with Presidential aspirations in mind, though. He may be positioning himself for reelection as well depending on the polling numbers from Tennessee and who his potential challengers are.
I think there’s also an element of the fact that a President polling at 42-43% is MUCH easier to defy than one higher. If Bush was polling at 65% Frist wouldn’t dare be that far off the reservation.
I doubt it. Frist has long said that he’s not going to seek a second term in the Senate, which means that Tennessee Republicans have been openly working on campaigning for his seat. If he changed his mind now, there’d be a lot of bad blood between Frist and his state party. I wouldn’t rule it out, but I don’t think he’s going to do that.
I think it’s pure politics, with maybe a touch of “rats leaving a sinking ship”. That’s just my opinion, with no cites or data to back it up. Just a gut feeling.
With his position on Terri Shiavo and the “HIV in tears and sweat” thing, Frist seems to put politics firmly over medical science, a sad position for a doctor to take.
I’d like to take the optimistic route and think this latest development means he’s going the opposite route, but I guess I’m just not that optimistic.
Or perhaps he’s a guy that has a tendency to occasionally shoot off his mouth in a rather stupid manner, but when he considers a matter carefully, researches it, and doesn’t feel compelled to say something stupid to make a point, he’s actually a reasonably bright individual.
This stem-cell issue is a no brainer (no pun), so it’s not suprising that he’s come around to it. He should be commended for ignoring Bush and finding a reasonable position on the issue.
Stem cell research is extremely popular. It’s one thing to oppose abortion, but quite another to oppose stem cell research. Yes, this is a political move on his part, but not a risky one, as many firmly entrenched leaders on the right have come to accept embryonic stem cell research as a good thing.
But this isn’t really about science, it’s about ethics. For instance, while embryonic stem cell research is very popular, research into human cloning is completely taboo. If this were just about science, both would be equally acceptable. You grossly oversimplify this by suggesting that those in favor of stem cell research are “pro-science” and those against are “anti-science”. There is a legitimate debate to be had on the subject, especially when it comes to federal funding. You have to keep in mind that the current administration hasn’t banned stem cell research, it just refuses to fund it on the federal level. Although you haven’t claimed in your OP that the research is currently banned, the way you’ve framed the debate is reminiscent of those who claim that witholding federal funds from certain artists can be considered censorship.
As a physician, Frist has miserably failed thus far in promoting rational views on medical/scientific issues. His “change of heart” on stem cell research funding strikes me as purely political, and will not change my opposition to his likely Presidential candidacy.
I hate to agree with the Christian Defense Coalition, but they’re right that he can’t have it both ways.
Your support on this one is nice, Bill, but it’s a wee bit late to try to position yourself as a principled, knowledgable man of science.
But this isn’t about cloning; it’s about stem cell research. I believe that withholding funds from research is unethical, if that’s what you mean, but I don’t see there being much of a debate on that now that Frist has come out in favor of it.
I guess I could phrase my argument as “pro-science funding” versus “anti-science funding,” but that’s a little unwieldy, and besides, it’s ultimately about our government’s support for (or opposition to) essential scientific research, which effectively means “pro-science” versus “anti-science”.
Yeah, but there are those who equate stem-cell research with cloning, because where are you going to get the embryos from? To them, there’s not that much difference, even though you and I know there is.
Eh, I’m not so sure Frist is “defying” Bush on this issue. Here’s my analysis. Bush has to oppose stem cell research to keep the Republican base happy. But he doesn’t really care about stem cell research, in fact he’d rather the issue were off the table. If enough congressional Republicans “defy” Bush and join with the Democrats to pass a stem cell research bill, he’s going to complain weakly in public, but in private be happy that the issue is off the table. Stem cell research goes forward, a popular position, but Bush is on record as opposing it so he doesn’t annoy the right wing, and the centrists aren’t angry anymore at Bush because, heck, they have the stem cell policy they want. Everyone happy.
I imagine the word has gone out that while Bush will continue to oppose stem cell research in public, they aren’t going to go after Republicans who disagree like they would on most issues, policy will change, and it will become a non-issue.
I agree with this, except that Bush would presumably have to, at some point, veto or sign some legislation on the matter, which wouldn’t allow him to just complain weakly in public.
But Frist has always shown himself to be a complete lapdog of the Bush administration, including some very embarrassing reversals of his own public pronouncements (once over the course of just an hour or two, if I recall correctly). My sense is that this is being done, if not at the direction of the White House, then at least in coordination with them.
Figure this is just a legacy move? Y’know: “Jeez, after that Schiavo thing, I might go down in the history books as a complete douchebag. So why not come around and support something that is a non-starter with the current administration! I’ll look good, and it won’t make a damn bit of difference anyway!”
Reasonable thing to do for a guy who apparently isn’t seeking another term.
I suspect Bush will veto the bill, but Frist will still be able to campaign on the platform that he supports embryonic stem cell research. I also suspect that Frist will stake out a position that is more restrictive than the Demcractic position so that he still looks “better” than the Dems to those staunchly against the policy. I do agree that this is all (or mostly) political posturing on the part of the Republicans.
I did not mean to equate the two (as some people do). My point was that it’s easy to call someone backward (or anti-science) in their thinking if they oppose embryonic stell cell research, and yet very few people would say that about someone who is opposed to research on human cloning. Opposition to both are purely ethical decisions and where you “draw the line” on what is considered dangerous scientific work. There are no scientific reasons to oppose research on human cloning-- just the “ick factor” or religious beliefs.
Note that I say “research on human cloning” rather than just “human cloning” as I think there are legitimate scientific concerns at this point about the problems that can arise if humans were cloned (eg, genetic defects). But that’s what research is for-- to deterime what the problems are and to be able to overcome then.
Surely you can’t believe it’s unethical to withold funds for ALL research. You have to prioritize. I didn’t see any detail in whatt Frist supports, but my guess is he’ll limit it to those embryos arlready formed for IVF and that would otherwise be disposed of. I doubt he’ll support the creation of embryos specifically for stem cell research.
Well, it all comes down to what’s considered essential. You can’t just slip that in there and assume everyone is going to agree. Like I said earlier, all politicians are “anti-sceince” at some point on the scale, and what we’re talking about is where we draw the line, not whether there should be a line.
I’m glad if it helps get stem cell research more federal funding. I wish he hadn’t compromised his position as ‘Senate Doctor,’ which he’s now throwing behind stem cells, by making such a complete ass of himself during the Schiavo controversy.
