"Bush, sources said, previously had decided to flatly oppose federal funding of research that involved or used embryos gathered solely for research purposes, or embryos created through cloning human cells.
The issue Bush grappled with was whether to stand by his previous statements opposing federal funding for any embryonic stem cell research, or to reverse course and support the position backed by many of his closest advisers, including Thompson, Vice President Dick Cheney, Chief of Staff Andy Card and White House counselor Karen Hughes, according to sources.
Among those who recommended against any change in position, these sources said, were strategist Karl Rove, the top White House liaison to conservative Republicans.
During the presidential campaign, Bush said he opposed federal funding of embryonic stem cell research."
One NY Times columnist, whose name I can’t remember, said on CNN that what Democrats are likely to do, when the fighting resumes, is stress the differences between Bush and Reagan. If they do so tastefully and carefully, they can use Reagan’s legacy against him. They can make Bush seem diminuitive, petty, and humorless next to the legend of the Gipper.
Why shouldn’t Bush associate himself with Reagan? After all, he’s trying to associate his “damn fool war” with WWII. Associating himself with Reagan is a lot more plausible, which I know isn’t saying much.
Good strategy, but only if Bush goes overboard promoting Reagan worship. Looking at the memorium on Bush’s campaign website this morning: he hasn’t yet. I think Sam’s post reflects the president’s most likely, and best, strategy. It won’t do the dems much good to stress the differences between Bush and Reagan, if GW doesn’t emphasize the similarities.
I disagree. Regardless of how Bush treats the issue, I think that many conservatives are coming to have some difficulty aligning their own beliefs with Bush’s, and helping to point out how different he is from their own ideal may help to reduce the coherence they might automatically feel towards him. Sure, die hards won’t be swayed, but those who are honestly conservative (versus this neoconservatism of Bush) are more likely to be troubled by the differences. As long as Bush is one of the “us” in the “us versus them” dichotomy, he’s fine. But if many conservatives start to (rightly, IMHO) see him as the “other” in a new constellation, that will be detrimental to Bush. And I don’t think honest, “old-fashioned” conservatives really are in favor of bigger government, more intrusive government, torture, extreme secrecy, and a host of other aspects that go along with the present administration.
Sure, but I think that fracturing is most likely to come from dialog within the GOP. Comments by dems will tend to be ignored, and if excessive, open Kerry up to criticism of being mired in rehashing old dead history rather than providing a vision for the future. This’ll be a bit of a tricky dance for both parties.
And Kerry continues to take the high road. He just now walked quietly into the Reagan Library, faced the casket and placed his hand over his heart. He bowed his head, prayed silently, and then made a sign of the cross. He walked out as quietly as he entered, acknowledging no one. Not even a wave or eye contact. Very classy.
Unless Kerry rips off his face and shows himself to be Kang (or Kodos), he’s got my vote.
But I cannot make myself care about how either candidate tiptoes around Reagan corpse. Does this stuff really matter to anyone? Did anybody expect anything different, like him whipping it out and taking a piss on the casket yelling “HERE’S your trickle-down economics!”?
It matters to me as a matter of character. I never thought he might piss on the casket, but he had the opportunity to make a big deal out of his entrance and did not. Hell, I knew about it before CNN did because I happened to be watching C-Span when, suddenly, the line stopped moving and Kerry appeared out of nowhere.
I’m perfectly willing to believe that Kerry is acting out of a sense of decorum and proper respect. But I also think it works for him, as in peachy keen.
Kerry seems to be playing the long game, the election is way, way off - light years till Nov. - and he’s conserving his energy and ammo. He will never have as much money for TV as Bush, so he has to conserve whether he wants to or not.
As well, its very good strategy to stay out of the limelight when your opponent is emptying a magazine into his foot. The stinky news is marching in battallions, why even bother to distract attention to oneself? I bet if he thought he could get away with it, and embarrass GeeDubya into doing the same, he would suspend campaigning for a month. Out of respect for the dear departed, don’t you know.
Sweet Jesus, if he did that, I’d move to Chicago so I could vote for him twice.*
*Note: Management does not endorse actually urinating on actual people’s flag-draped coffins. Hypothetical wee-wee on hypothetical coffins, however, especially paired with snappy one-liners as above, can and have been known to make me want to commit hypothetical comedy election-fraud.
Naaaaw. I mean, I’m sure his eulogy won’t be an attempt to reinvigorate Bush’s own failing image. I mean, posting all Reagan’s old speeches, which are already available in more obvious places, certainly isn’t any sort of…
Isn’t it also possible that John Kerry does have a lot of respect for President Reagan the man and the office he occupied and he, oh maybe, is acting not politically, but the way he genuinely feels is appropriate. The same with GW? Ronald Reagan does have a lot of respect form both sides of the aisle.
La Times is reporting that Republicans are quietly saying that this could be a big opportunity for Bush to remake his image. I’m betting we’re going to see something like the casting of Iraq in the WWII mold, only with Bush as Reagan.
From a 2001 CNN story announcing his decision: