Thursday, February 17, 2005
Stem Winder
We're confused.
When Willard Mitt stood before the Mass Biotech Council and said he'd make "the wooing" of biotech companies to the Commonwealth "a top priority" and do his best to ensure policies that would hurt the industry -- such as restrictions on stem cell research -- were not established in Massachusetts (source: Associated Press, 4/29/2004) did he mean that he would support or oppose the creation of new embryos exclusively for use by scientists?
Because if you can believe what the Fraud Governor is now saying, he wants to impose standards that would "criminalize" some biotech work, and "put the brakes" on new treatments on which the industry is working. (source: Boston Globe, 2/10/2005)
So when was Willard Mitt ly..., er, lying? When he addressed the Biotech Council, or when he was interviewed by the New York Times where Romney decided to come clean with his cloning position?
And when did he decide to throw his wife under the bus?
Romney told the Times, "my wife has (multiple sclerosis) and we would love for there to be a cure for her disease and for the diseases of others. But there is an ethical boundary that should not be crossed." (source: NYT, 2/10/2005)
The message within the message was continued several days later by conservative columnist Cal Thomas who wrote "the radically 'pro-choice' New York Times, which rarely credits any pro-lifer with standing on principle, suggests Romney may be taking this position to curry favor with social conservatives so he might pursue higher office. It is difficult to take such cynicism seriously when one considers that Romney's wife, Ann, suffers from multiple sclerosis, a disease that backers of stem cell research claim might be cured if they are permitted to do whatever they wish to embryos. That the Romneys would put their principles ahead of self-interest is rare in politics." (source: Salt Lake City Tribune, 2/15/2005)
Setting aside the howler that Thomas is implying that Romney is a "pro-lifer," the Fraud Governor has reduced his wife's illness to a political chit. Ann Romney's MS is suddenly proof that Willard Mitt has principles. In fact, his principles are seemingly so laudable that he'd put them ahead of the health of his wife!
Since when is it 'principled' to adopt a political position that works against the health interests of your wife? And how long has Willard Mitt held this 'principled' position? In 2002, when asked if the then Fraud Candidate supported cloning to create human embryos for stem cell research Romney's now $150,000-a-year Loathsome Spokesman said, "We haven't looked at [cloning] closely enough. It's a very complicated subject and we want to know it more thoroughly." (source: Boston Globe, 6/14/2002)
Romney's wife was affected by an illness that could possibly be lessened by stem cell cloning, but Willard Mitt hadn't looked at the subject close enough?
Too bad no one asked the logical follow-up question: "would you turn your back on your wife's health for political gain?" We bet Romney/Healey Inc had parsed every facet of that subject.
Interestingly, way back in aught-two Romney signalled that he would, in fact, turn his back on his wife's health for political gain. During an interview, the Boston Globe asked Ann Romney if she had any "qualms" about leaving Utah given her medical restoration while in that state. Let's pick up the piece as it was written:
"She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis three years ago, about the time he took over an Olympic operation reeling from scandal. But like him, she has since staged a remarkable turnaround and, at 53, now appears at the top of her abilities. Asked if she has qualms about leaving Utah given her medical restoration, she answers flatly, "Yes . . ."
Then she adds: "It's the one thing that's keeping us . . ."
Her husband nearly spits out his food as he interrupts: "Careful. Hold it. Don't finish that sentence . . ."
Anxious to respect her husband's wish, she nonetheless emphasizes her point. "Yeah, I do, huge qualms, because I've been healthy out here," Ann Romney answers.
She is not sure whether to credit the high altitude, the mountain air, or the resort life in a Deer Valley home where her visiting children and grandchildren ski on a hill behind their house, and where moose make almost daily visits to their back door.
"I don't know, but not knowing is scary enough," she says.
From all outward appearances, the 55-year-old Romney is poised to enter this year's governor's race with a Republican primary challenge he once dismissed against Acting Governor Jane Swift. He has commissioned a poll to gauge his political standing and has done nothing to dissuade a draft movement among state Republicans.
It's hard to conceive the glow around him ever being more luminous, and his multimillion-dollar fortune and fund-raising connections would make him the envy of any late-entry candidate. An announcement of candidacy could come as early as Tuesday.
For the next 48 hours, all that's left is a final gut check and family conversations, including consideration of Ann Romney's health. But one of her husband's aides emphasized that his wife's condition is unlikely to hold back his political career and that she is once again poised to become his number one cheerleader." (source: Boston Globe, 3/17/2002)
Yay Team.
So here's a question: why was former Governor Michael Dukakis excoriated for taking a 'principled position' against the dealth penalty at the theoretical expense of his wife, but Willard Mitt is lauded for taking a 'principled position' against stem cell cloning at the actual expense of his wife?
Hey Cal Thomas, you owe Mike Dukakis an article.
So is Willard Mitt's position grounded in public policy, or was it framed by his main handler, Wispy Mike Murphy, who was in the pay of American's to Ban Cloning, a special interest group led by William Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, and is Murphy trying to use this as a wedge issue to make Romney - aka Governor Gay, an avowed advocate of a woman's right to choose, the man who took a softer approach to crime - more attractive to the conservative right?
Or is this strictly about jobs?
Inquiring minds want to know.
We're confused.
When Willard Mitt stood before the Mass Biotech Council and said he'd make "the wooing" of biotech companies to the Commonwealth "a top priority" and do his best to ensure policies that would hurt the industry -- such as restrictions on stem cell research -- were not established in Massachusetts (source: Associated Press, 4/29/2004) did he mean that he would support or oppose the creation of new embryos exclusively for use by scientists?
Because if you can believe what the Fraud Governor is now saying, he wants to impose standards that would "criminalize" some biotech work, and "put the brakes" on new treatments on which the industry is working. (source: Boston Globe, 2/10/2005)
So when was Willard Mitt ly..., er, lying? When he addressed the Biotech Council, or when he was interviewed by the New York Times where Romney decided to come clean with his cloning position?
And when did he decide to throw his wife under the bus?
Romney told the Times, "my wife has (multiple sclerosis) and we would love for there to be a cure for her disease and for the diseases of others. But there is an ethical boundary that should not be crossed." (source: NYT, 2/10/2005)
The message within the message was continued several days later by conservative columnist Cal Thomas who wrote "the radically 'pro-choice' New York Times, which rarely credits any pro-lifer with standing on principle, suggests Romney may be taking this position to curry favor with social conservatives so he might pursue higher office. It is difficult to take such cynicism seriously when one considers that Romney's wife, Ann, suffers from multiple sclerosis, a disease that backers of stem cell research claim might be cured if they are permitted to do whatever they wish to embryos. That the Romneys would put their principles ahead of self-interest is rare in politics." (source: Salt Lake City Tribune, 2/15/2005)
Setting aside the howler that Thomas is implying that Romney is a "pro-lifer," the Fraud Governor has reduced his wife's illness to a political chit. Ann Romney's MS is suddenly proof that Willard Mitt has principles. In fact, his principles are seemingly so laudable that he'd put them ahead of the health of his wife!
Since when is it 'principled' to adopt a political position that works against the health interests of your wife? And how long has Willard Mitt held this 'principled' position? In 2002, when asked if the then Fraud Candidate supported cloning to create human embryos for stem cell research Romney's now $150,000-a-year Loathsome Spokesman said, "We haven't looked at [cloning] closely enough. It's a very complicated subject and we want to know it more thoroughly." (source: Boston Globe, 6/14/2002)
Romney's wife was affected by an illness that could possibly be lessened by stem cell cloning, but Willard Mitt hadn't looked at the subject close enough?
Too bad no one asked the logical follow-up question: "would you turn your back on your wife's health for political gain?" We bet Romney/Healey Inc had parsed every facet of that subject.
Interestingly, way back in aught-two Romney signalled that he would, in fact, turn his back on his wife's health for political gain. During an interview, the Boston Globe asked Ann Romney if she had any "qualms" about leaving Utah given her medical restoration while in that state. Let's pick up the piece as it was written:
"She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis three years ago, about the time he took over an Olympic operation reeling from scandal. But like him, she has since staged a remarkable turnaround and, at 53, now appears at the top of her abilities. Asked if she has qualms about leaving Utah given her medical restoration, she answers flatly, "Yes . . ."
Then she adds: "It's the one thing that's keeping us . . ."
Her husband nearly spits out his food as he interrupts: "Careful. Hold it. Don't finish that sentence . . ."
Anxious to respect her husband's wish, she nonetheless emphasizes her point. "Yeah, I do, huge qualms, because I've been healthy out here," Ann Romney answers.
She is not sure whether to credit the high altitude, the mountain air, or the resort life in a Deer Valley home where her visiting children and grandchildren ski on a hill behind their house, and where moose make almost daily visits to their back door.
"I don't know, but not knowing is scary enough," she says.
From all outward appearances, the 55-year-old Romney is poised to enter this year's governor's race with a Republican primary challenge he once dismissed against Acting Governor Jane Swift. He has commissioned a poll to gauge his political standing and has done nothing to dissuade a draft movement among state Republicans.
It's hard to conceive the glow around him ever being more luminous, and his multimillion-dollar fortune and fund-raising connections would make him the envy of any late-entry candidate. An announcement of candidacy could come as early as Tuesday.
For the next 48 hours, all that's left is a final gut check and family conversations, including consideration of Ann Romney's health. But one of her husband's aides emphasized that his wife's condition is unlikely to hold back his political career and that she is once again poised to become his number one cheerleader." (source: Boston Globe, 3/17/2002)
Yay Team.
So here's a question: why was former Governor Michael Dukakis excoriated for taking a 'principled position' against the dealth penalty at the theoretical expense of his wife, but Willard Mitt is lauded for taking a 'principled position' against stem cell cloning at the actual expense of his wife?
Hey Cal Thomas, you owe Mike Dukakis an article.
So is Willard Mitt's position grounded in public policy, or was it framed by his main handler, Wispy Mike Murphy, who was in the pay of American's to Ban Cloning, a special interest group led by William Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, and is Murphy trying to use this as a wedge issue to make Romney - aka Governor Gay, an avowed advocate of a woman's right to choose, the man who took a softer approach to crime - more attractive to the conservative right?
Or is this strictly about jobs?
Inquiring minds want to know.
