« What is Palin’s Position on Vice-Presidential Exemptions?
Gallup Daily Tracking: McCain Retains 5 Point Lead Over Obama »
A Brief Moment of Outrage
If I may, I would like to take a moment to interrupt your normal rage of righteous indignation over this or that with a brand new entry in the “Why On Earth Would You Say That?” competition. Out on the campaign trail once again, Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden took time out to say,
I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy, because there’s joy to it as well, the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect. Well guess what folks? If you care about it, why don’t you support stem cell research?
I don’t care whether he meant it that way or not, but one of the more idiotic things you could do at this point is is start tossing out arguments that drag Sarah Palin’s child into a scientific debate. Does anyone really think this is going to win sympathy or support for the Democratic ticket? There is a valid debate to be had on stem cell research in terms of whether or not it should be done at all, whether adult or embryonic stem cells should be used, moral and ethical considerations, etc. But it can all be done in a mature way keeping to the science at hand or, at most, the general principles regarding the use of embryonic material.
Somebody has to get a leash on this guy.
40 Responses to “A Brief Moment of Outrage”
What was that Michelle Obama quote from a day or so ago?………something about Barack not being afraid to pick smart people?
yeeesh!
yeah, that's a definite “wtf” moment there. another foreseeable drawback of picking biden, his persistent foot-in-mouth disease.
It was Biden's “off the cuff” mentality that spooked me a bit when Obama picked him in the first place. But I don't see this wrinkling many feathers, and if it does he'll 'clarify' what he meant to say. To which I say “OK, tell me your plan for the country!!”
no.. no.. no… You gotta attack attack attack! Go get 'em! Community organizers weak! Stem cell research alluding to candidate's child! GO FOR IT! It's survival of the fittest. Losers die! Winners live! Kill Kill KILL!!
WHO'S WITH ME?!?!!!!!??!?!?!!?!!!?!?!?!!!?!?!!?!?!??!?!!??!!!!!?!!?!?!?
Anyways… This was said about Biden from the get. Attack dog VP. Foot-in-mouth. Acceptable risk. Don't get all squirrely on it now.
And isn't this part of small-town frankness that we SO love this election cycle (no disrespect to small towns since I live in one now).
I can't get riled about this after McCain and Palin made Trig and their unwed but pregnant daughter major campaign props during the RNC.
So why don't they overwhelmingly vote in support of stem cell research?
Senate bill 5, 32 Republicans voted nay, the house version HR3, 158 voted nay.
Somehow the Republicans get to own this issue now because a VP candidate has a child with a developmental disorder? Since she isn't talking I suppose we just have to guess.
Palin and the McCain camp are constantly putting Palin's family front and center. They play “hot potato” with the poor baby at photo ops. She even “outed” her own daughter. The central part of her supposed appeal is her family. Sorry, don't really see the outrage here.
Well, to be fair, the reason it isn't a good analogy for Biden is because the 'respect for the embryo/child' position supports both having and raising your child even when pre-natal testing shows serious defects and opposing stem cell research.
Myself, well, this is one of those issues that shows I am not the 'lock-step' conservative it sometimes seems I am. I would abort that seriously defective child (in conjunction of course of my partner agreeing), and I fully support embryonic stem cell research.
Lastly, while this may be (is) a 'foot-in-mouth' moment, even given my first paragraph, we must be getting desperate for things to be offended about if this is all it takes.
Stem cell research is a very legitimate issue…I am very curious to see where Sarah Palin stands on this.
Now, whether my Joe Biden was politically corrrect on how he put it is debatable
My mistake, Palin has spoken out on the issue. From her RNC address:
To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.
I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.
Of course as governor she slashed the school budget for special needs kids by 62%.
All four candidates should stand up in one press conference and sternly denounce the use of their children in this campaign in any way, shape or form. Moreover, there are laws protecting the privacy of children and they should warn that anyone who comments on their children from now on will be prosecuted and sued for damages.
Enough is enough.
Silhouette,
This is more about parents and their priorities than the children themselves.
“Of course as governor she slashed the school budget for special needs kids by 62%.”
C'mon now lurxst, I think Leonidas brought this up in an earlier thread and provided a link to it. Here it is again in case you missed it:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming…
“Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.”
As Pauly Shore constantly reminded Stephen Baldwin when he would get worked up in 'Biodome' many years ago “exhale Stub, exhale”. I never thought I would be able to reference 'Biodome' or Pauly Shore with regard to politics…
AR:
i'm sure that most of us here (not all, of course) are less one-dimensional that what our blog posts might seem to show. it is refreshing to see.
i don't know what exactly you mean by “serious defects” or “seriously defective”, though, but i would hope it wouldn't include most fetuses with down's syndrome which, i think, can still result in a person with a life worth living.
Stem cell research offers hope to cure some developmental disabilities. So why shouldn't those who want to help children with developmental disablities want to help them by favoring stem cell research?
Do you not understand this? I guess not, since you think this involves some scientific debate involving Trig Palin. What scientific debate is that? There is no scientific debate over whether unborn children with Down's syndrome should be aborted. That's a matter of personal morality and judgment over whether such a life is worth living. A majority of parents now choose abortion for such children. That Sarah Palin did not is not a scientific issue, and I see no connection between that and what Joe Biden said.
Do you? Are you thinking Trig Palin could have been used for harvesting stem cells if he had been aborted? No, he would not have been used that way. So what scientific debate do you mean?
As a physician, I'm used to people lashing out without understanding the facts of a medical or scientific issue. I can't tell here if that's what you're doing or if your outrage is even beyond what I can guess. Would you care to clarify just what you're talking about?
DavidD,
I think people get a little jumpy whenever kids are brought into political discussions, even in the most tertiary of ways.
Thanks for the link jchem, I'll concede that piece of info about special needs funding is way off target.
Cheer up, liberals!
New NBC/Wall Street Journal poll coming out around 6:30 tonight.
Obama will be in the lead!
onleyone – no, wasn't thinking Down's. I was actually thinking about a friend of my wife who just decided to carry a very severe spina bifida manifesta (myelomeningocele form) child to term. We talked about it two days ago, and agreed we could not have made the same decision.
Somebody has to get a leash on this guy.
I completely disagree. Each of the candidates should have to spend two days 'miked up' as they do in the NFL with coaches and players on the sidelines. It would truly be a window into their soul.
Each of the candidates should have to spend two days 'miked up' as they do in the NFL with coaches and players on the sidelines. It would truly be a window into their soul.
Funny, you should bring that up. I read that Gibson will tail Palin around Alaska for two days as the mechanics of the interview.
Since I don't know if Jazz will clarify where his outrage on this came from, not some uneasiness as ChrisWWW describes but outrage, I went looking to see what others are saying. At cbsnews.com, their story includes this:
“The line received a standing ovation from the crowd of several hundred.”
Now, who's right, those people or Jazz? Beats me. Biden's words don't make me angry. They also don't make me stand up and cheer, saying, “That's sticking it to them, Joe!” They're just saying something obvious to me, not something mean. The McCain campaign called it a low blow, but then they say that about many criticisms. Why can't evangelical Republicans just say that their version of God prohibits them from supporting all kinds of stem cell research? Are they afraid swing voters might blame them instead of God? What's a low blow about any of this?
DavidD,
I think this again illustrates the evangelical disconnect between what happens before birth and after. Evangelicals are willing to go the mat for a zygote, but once the child is actually out in the real world, they have no trouble denying them health care or a clean environment.
Well, Doc, what do you expect someone who shows up to see Biden do?
To me, the Bidenesque quality of the comment was the stretch of logic that the two are necessarily linked issues.
Caring for a special needs child and believing or not believing there should be public funding of stem cell research strikes me as pretty much a non-sequitur.
It makes perfect sense if you believe the problems of a special needs child can be ameliorated by treatments derived from stem cell research.
Take it a step further, if stem cell research could correct genetic defects or otherwise aid a troubled child and by extension their parents, might not less genetically defective children be aborted?
Most people who aren't liberal support stem cell research and other research — it's been the Left that (with some exceptions where they infuse science with politics or when they use technology to further their causes, like notorious lefty playpen blogs) has been anti-technology and anti-progress since the Sixties.
The real problem here is that the Left is unrealistic about stem cell research and what it can achieve, in what amount of time — same with alternative energy and other favored pet causes. Stem cell research is the object of idolatry by the Left as a political weapon against the religious right — that is the explanation for the fulminant nature of the agitation for it.
[shrug] Washington can just boost funding and efforts in R&D for this as well as other things, if the money can be found to allocate a sensible additional amount for it.
You make some pretty damn brazen assertions. It's time for you to back some of them up. Go.
There certainly is a stretch between actually helping any child with a developmental disability and the current state of stem cell research, but if you had a chance to speak with those who care for children with juvenile diabetes, you would hear all sorts of realistic hope for their children being helped by stem cell research. So it's not a non sequitur.
Still, now that I have the image of Joe Biden's audience standing up and cheering this line, I'm sure the line was more about emotion than logic. Is that wrong? Is it OK for Sarah Palin and John McCain to be both mean-spirited and liars in their attacks on Democrats, but these words from Joe Biden means he should be put on a leash?
It's not that it's a non-sequitur; Biden is exploiting the silly views so many on the Left hold about stem cell research that are unrealistic, and using them as a weapon against the Religious Right and by extension, all Republicans, conservatives, or GOP-leaning voters this year. The implication is that while Dems yammer in support of stem cell research, Republicans don't share that fervor, and “therefore” they are [all, not just religious righties with embryonic stem cells] against stem cell research. It's nonsense, of course, but look at who he's aiming at with his appeal to emotion.
Meanwhile, if you want a real-world case of exposure of failed behavior of the opposition, look at the nature of opposition to nuclear power that is on political instead of scientific grounds (naturally).
You go. Go to the playpen blogs and read what's being said about Palin. Look at the idiotic anti-tech views toward nuclear power or other substitutes we can have short term that clean the air like coal-to-liquids. Do your own homework and be responsible for a change, Chris, and learn to substitute maturity for an uncontrolled temper.
It's gonna get _really_ bad with Some Folks if McCain-Palin pulls far ahead…
OK, Doc……….sign me up for a table at the next JDR event. Find me a company that is doing research and I will buy some stock. Just don't send me an IRS notice and we can both be copacetic on this matter.
DLS,
Opposing nuclear power plants, on the grounds of safety might I add, is your proof that lefties are anti-science? Surely you jest.
DavidD: That Sarah Palin did not is not a scientific issue, and I see no connection between that and what Joe Biden said.
Well said. h/t to CO too. It is indeed unfortunate that a connection was made, because nothing about one's opinion about stem cell research enlightens the choice the Palins made. Then again, it isn't exactly the first time a connection was implied, and real people, even children were used as rhetorical — or worse, actual — props to make a political point. Regarding stem cell research I think the worst example was Bush's parading a handful of snowflake babies before the cameras. Had he been honest about the magnitude of the problem he would have had to appear in front of enough freezers to fill a stadium. And of course there was Rush's criticism (and caricature) of Michael J. Fox. And even Nancy Reagan beseeched memories of her husband in the name of the cause.
DLS: Meanwhile, if you want a real-world case of exposure of failed behavior of the opposition, look at the nature of opposition to nuclear power that is on political instead of scientific grounds (naturally).
How about economic grounds? No one seems to be talking about that part — least of all McCain.
I rather thought that the first sentence made the “outrage” in the title obvious as being sarcasm, but apparently not.
I got it Jazz and that's why I responded with my RAH-RAH comment. But this is Election '08! WEIRDNESS ABOUNDS!
Really, Jazz? This is what outrages you?
As the parent of a boy with a developmental disability, i think Biden asks a damn good question. And if you bother to actually read what he said, he's not dragging Trig into this debate – Sarah Palin did that, by pointing to him during her convention speech as evidence that parents like me will have “a friend in the WH” if she wins. This despite her record of slashing funds for special education in Alaska, making it harder for kids with a DD to get therapy & a good education; and her stated position opposing on narrow THEOLOGICAL grounds (which to me are distinct from MORAL grounds) research that might make DDs less common & easier to live with.
And what outrages you is that Biden would ask a legitimate question about a topic that his opponent has already brought up as a basis for voting for her? Really, Jazz?
Between you & Gandelman relentlessly talking down the Democratic ticket (you by harping on imagined slights like this, Joe by talking up every poll that shows Obama hasn't won the election yet, both of you by determinedly changing the subject every time public policy threatens to intrude on the campaign) I'm getting real close to dropping TMV from my feed.
anon_tw, I think you need to research Palin's support for special needs children — she didn't cut funds, she considerably increased them overall. She also distributed them more evenly, so certain districts got less whereas most got more.
Jazz, again you are ambiguous. So are you saying that you sarcastically meant Biden was feigning outrage in his words? That's so ridiculous I didn't consider that there was any outrage but yours. What's wrong with him just making his point, to which the Republicans can make theirs. Why spin this?
It seems you did mean “idiotic” and “leash”. Well, if I come here again I will consider the source before thinking your words mean anything.
This whole piece is a lot more idiotic than anything Joe Biden says. Ordinarily I don't use “idiotic” for anyone, not even when I'm outraged, but if that's the language you choose, so be it.