7/16/2006

Laughable GOP hypocrisy on Democratic video

Republicans aghast at mere illusion of their own tactics



"It makes my stomach turn to see national Democrats so blatantly exploit the sacrifices made by the men and women of our armed forces," says National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Chairman Tom Reynolds (R-NY).

"Well, frankly, I think this is the most tasteless gesture I've seen in my time in politics," whines Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY).

So there you have your Republican mock indignation of the day, from the same people who have used the 9/11 tragedy every day over the last five years for their own benefit. I guess when, like the folks at the RNC, you exist in a pool of slime every day, you automatically assume that everyone else is just like you.

Read the story and see the video.

1 comment:

offthewire said...

www.timeswatch.org is a right-wing watchdog site that aims to spin everything printed in the New York Times as part of the vast left-wing conspiracy. Here's their take on the ad:

NYT Shrugged off DCCC's "Coffin" Video the Day It Was Pulled

The Times, your finger on the pulse of politics?

On Friday, the same day the Times shrugged off the implications of an online fundraising video from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee showing flag-draped coffins of soldiers, the Democrats pulled the ad. (The Times noticed, barely, with a 100-word AP brief in Saturday's National Briefing section, "Democrats Pull Ad Showing Coffins.")

On the morning the DCCC pulled the ad, the Times devoted one brief story by Anne Kornblut to the matter. Kornblut treated the controversy as no big deal and just another partisan issue, quoting two Republicans opposed to the video and one Republican and one Democratic source in support of it.



NYT Contrast: Sweet Joe Lieberman vs. "Unpleasant" Sensenbrenner

Slate’s generally left-leaning "Today’s Papers" column today notices a slanted contrast between two political profiles by reporter Mark Leibovich. Take it away, Andrew Rice (and thanks for lightening my workload):

"A couple of days after running a thick skewer through Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., the NYT's Mark Leibovich takes an elegiac look at Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat who is facing a tough primary challenge because of his stance in favor of the Iraq war. ‘Mr. Lieberman's allies discuss him these days with a tinge of sadness, as if mourning a kindly gentleman who has wandered into a bad neighborhood,’ Leibovich writes. ‘Colleagues have approached him on the Senate floor to console him, asking how he is holding up, as if he is sick or experiencing some trauma.’ Let's see: a controversial Republican is ‘prickly,’ ‘cantankerous’ and ‘unpleasant’; an unpopular Democrat comes off like he just needs a hug. This sounds like a job for....Ombudsman!"



Times Tries to Exploit Stem Cell Divisions in GOP

The Senate prepares to take up a bill to allow federal financing of research on stem cell lines that are derived from embryos now in cold storage at fertility clinics and slated for destruction. Sheryl Gay Stolberg is ready to pounce on the vote as yet another imminent Republican crackup in Sunday’s “Senate

Appears Poised for a Showdown With the President Over Stem Cell Research.”

“The president’s mind has not changed; his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, reiterated the veto threat this week. That keeps Mr. Bush in good stead with the religious conservatives who make up an important part of his base, but at odds with other leading Republicans, including Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, who is a heart-lung surgeon and has pushed to bring the measure to a vote.”

Predictably, Stolberg sees trouble for Republicans come November: “The coming week’s reprisal of a debate that Mr. Bush thought he had put to rest is exposing deep fissures among Republicans as the November elections draw near. Polls show that a majority of Americans support the research, and stem cells already figure prominently in several key races, among them a hard-fought re-election battle by Senator Jim Talent, Republican of Missouri, who opposes a state ballot initiative to protect the research and plans to vote against the Senate bill.”

Well, it depends on how you ask the question, as a National Review editorial points out:

“It is true that most polls show public support for embryonic-stem-cell research. But that support drops substantially when it is clear that the research would be taxpayer-funded and would kill human embryos. In 2005, CBS found that the public approved “of medical research using embryonic stem cells” by a 58-31 percent margin. But when CBS asked whether the federal government should limit funding to existing stem-cell lines or increase the number, enough of the supporters defected to the conservative side to produce a 48-37 percent plurality for the president’s policy.”

Stolberg cites a newly minted liberal heroine: “Nancy Reagan became an advocate for the research while caring for her husband, former President Ronald Reagan, who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and died in 2004. Mrs. Reagan spent this week calling undecided senators to urge them to vote for the bill. While supporters say they have the 60 votes needed for approval, they are trying to secure 67, the number necessary to override a veto.

“Whether they will succeed is unclear. With 55 Republicans, including staunch abortion opponents like Senators John Thune of South Dakota and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, the Senate has become more conservative since the 2004 elections. Even so, Republicans across the spectrum, from Senator John W. Warner of Virginia to Senator Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, have signed on to the bill.

“With a vote scheduled for Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Congress could soon be in the uncomfortable position of sending Mr. Bush a measure he will not sign.”

The overall tone is one of lament, as Stolberg seems to fear that the “more conservative” Senate won’t go along with a vote on the bill to loosen restrictions on federal funding.

Then there’s this debatable point: “[Sen. Sam] Brownback and other opponents argue that adult stem cell research, in which cells are drawn from blood and bone marrow rather than from embryos, is more ethical and has yielded encouraging results. But scientists say embryonic stem cell research, still in its early stages, holds far greater potential.”

All scientists, or just those that happen to agree with liberal conventional wisdom on stem cells?