I'm saying that the Democrats made the imminent war with Iraq the centerpiece issue in 2002, the result was an absolute disaster that got them cleaned out in the Senate elections. But why have a disaster once when you have the twice which they did in 2004 when they made Iraq the centerpiece and lost the presidential election. The Democrats can't compete in foreign policy, it is like trying to put Gary Coleman against Mike Tyson in the boxing ring. The reason is simple and that is that the current situation with terrorism is extremely complicated and for all the talk of having a plan, they are all bun and no beef, all sizzle and no steak. Meanwhile there is an abundant amount of opportunity on the domestic front to pummel the G.O.P. The stem cell veto is a golden opportunity. Health care in general and the minimum wage that hasn't changed in nearly a decade is also just a golden. There are countless other domestic initiatives that they could take on, but instead they are trying to talk foreign policy when they don't have a clue what to do. I voted for Kerry for purely domestic issue reasons, knowing good and well he had no plan for foreign policy other than saying "I have a plan."
In short, you are not going to have a scandal that resonates with enough voters to make things happen. The Democrats have been punting on first down and hoping for a scandal interception at the goal line. That's a terrible strategy in football and just as bad of one in politics. It simply isn't going to work that way. If you want to transform the political landscape then you've got to stop taking Iraq potshots and start grabbing the bull by the horns on the domestic issues, that's what Newt did in 1994 when the House & Senate were taken away from the Democrats. Until they do the same they're going to keep losing. The stem cell issue would make a great opening salvo for a Democrat "contract with America", but so far it all seems pretty lukewarm except possibly in Missouri where Senator Talent might get unseated, Santorum will also probably lose in Pennsylvania, so you can close half of the necessary vote margin in the Senate pretty easily, with enough effort you can probably scrape up the other two votes. Unfortunately the House is an entirely different problem. For a fifty vote swing it will take a revolution not seen since 1994 and so far it hasn't happened. Time is already growing short, you've got less than 4 months until the election and it were held today probably less than 6 House seats would shift either way.
I fully support stem cell research and would love to see government funding pass. I'm just gently trying to break it to you that unless an absolute miracle happens in the next 4 months, the issue of federal funding is dead in the water until January 2009. I think that you might as well write off the entire issue until the 2008 presidential campaign. The only soucres of funding outside Geron and other stem cell companies are going to be states, foreign governments, and charities. Us supporters of stem cell reserach need to count our blessings the federal government isn't banning the research, make investments in good companies like Geron, and try to get prospective state goverments (i.e. Blue States) to chip in some cash for the research. Let's play to win rather than fight a particular battle that's already been lost.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
