October
2006
Green trashes Doyle’s Stem Cell Ad – Mocks Fox’s Family Ties
In a moving ad for Governor Jim Doyle, actor and Parkinsons disease victim Michael J. Fox made an impassioned plea to Wisconsin voters; "the cures we are looking for may come from here… What you decide can affect millions of people, like me, like your family." Fox points out that Congressman Mark Green's votes have "set us back" regardless of how Green wants to spin his rubber-stamping of President Bush's failed and misguided policies on embryonic stem cell research.
Even in the ad, Fox displays the uncontrollable twitches and verbal tremors that Parkinsons patients often exhibit, lending an element of urgency to his message.
Fox, looks to Wisconsin to pioneer the ground-breaking, life-saving research that would save families. Green attacks this ad in a hair splitting manuever where he claims he's been a champion of "stem cell research". But Fox focused on the type of stem cell research that nearly all experts point out has the most promise to cure the most disabling diseases — embryonic stem cell research. Green conveniently sets aside the word "embryonic" because he has a solid record of opposing embryonic stem cell research. For him to denounce the Fox ad as dishonest is hypocracy at its base form.
Fox speaks from the heart. Now it is a question for voters — who is more believeable, a congressman who has supported President Bush in his attempt to limit embryonic stem cell research, or Fox, for whom this is a life-and-death issue.
While we are sure Green's wishes to Fox to "get well" are sincere, it is a shame that his votes in congress speak otherwise.
Share
Jim McGuigan
Jim McGuigan, Watchdogging Campaigns, Watchdogging Public Health
RSS feed
Link
What say does a governor have in the legalization of embryonic stem cell research??? It’s a federal issue. Green’s opinion really has no impact. It’s like asking the Mayor of Milwaukee whether he supports the Packers, whether he does or not, it doesn’t matter, he has no say in how they do.
The fact is that Green is NOT opposed to stem cell research. He is merely opposed to tax dollars used to create, future, not current, embryonic stem cells. Which essentially destroys a life (depending on your beliefs) in hopes that someone else’s life can be saved. Green fully supports all forms of stem cell research (adult, umbilical cord, etc) and even supports PRIVATE research dollars used for embryonic stem cells.
But once again, the dems out there was to spew forth lies and propaganda in order to push their agenda. Look on Green’s web site for yourself if you don’t believe me.
I think you guys are reaching on this one.
mkelover,
Using state money to fund embryonic stem cell research IS a state issue. Since Green has made his position clear on public funding of this kind of research, we can only expect him to do the same when it comes to state funded research.
Clearly you didn’t read what Watchdog has said here and apparently you did not listen to the Fox ad. He specifically points to embryonic stem cell research and to Green’s opposition to public funding of it.
Perhaps you should pay more attention to what you hear and read before you accuse people of spewing “lies.”
State’s rights. Even if the feds outlawed embryonic stem cell research, it would only apply to Indian reservations and national parks, and federally funded hospitials. A state could begin research at an independent facility and then take it’s case through the courts if blocked. Separation of powers.
But this is ridiculous. Green lies about jobs, education, is being punished for his votes on Senior Care and Medicare, and has what amounts to a split end of a damaged hair to stand on in stem cell research. He voted for or cosponsored legislation to BAN embryonic stem cell research EIGHT times. There’s not much Green supporters can do to save the issue for him except kill the messenger [he can't even say he "voted for it before he voted against it" - no thanks Mr. Kerry], except to throw out a rhetorical dustbomb or two.
Excuse me while I reach for my cup of coffee, which is sitting on a file labelled “Mark Green’s votes on stem cell research.” Hmm. Time to change the catbox again.
You people are ridiculous. Mark Green SUPPORTS stem cell research. He’s only opposed to tax dollars being spent on NEW embryonic stem cells…he supports ALL other forms. There is a tremendous amount of PRIVATE money being raised and spent on embryonic stem cell research, it’s not like it’s not being done.
I find it completely hypocritical of most liberals who are opposed to the death penalty yet fully support on-demand abortions even partial birth abortion. I’m not saying that I support the death penalty, I have mixed feelings, but for liberals to be against killing someone who knowingly and blatantly takes a life but yet is completely fine with destroying an innocent life even days/weeks before birth. It’s mind-boggling to be honest.
Cory –
It is a political ad meant to sway you a certain way, not necessarily fact. Wake up, dude! Watchdog puts their own spin on things, too. Think for yourself, brother.
Green’s record doesn’t support your argument for him. I think he’s counting on the general public not picking up on the difference between embryonic stem cell research and other kinds of stem cell research.
New post:
http://watchdogmilwaukee.com/blog/john-david-morgan/2006/green-acres-not-the-place-to-be-mark-greens-record-on-embryonic-stem-cell-research/
We try to respond intelligently here, and your comment above makes it difficult. Let’s just say nobody at Watchdog supports abortion. There are some rare, rare instances when a doctor should be able to make a medical decision when the life of the mother is at risk. That should be a doctor’s decision, not a politician’s.
There’s no moral plane for state-sanctioned death.
But back to Michael J. Fox – there is such a thing as an honest political ad, difficult as it may be to believe these days.
I hear you and understand. Nothing ethical in political attack ads…from BOTH sides of the aisle.
All I know is that Green supports almost all forms of stem cell research…just not new embryonic stem cells which require destroying a life (again, only if you’re pro-life).
If you don’t support abortion, then why do you support aborting an embryo that is life? I agree that if a woman’s life is at risk then abortion should be allowed.
The embryo has existed for only a week, and hasn’t matured into anything resembling form, but is teeming with endless possibilities, the ability to reproduce itself, to become any kind or tissue, to potentially improve life for so many people. But not life, created as it was in test tubes and laboratory culture trays.
So if you say life isn’t life at one week after conception…then when does life start? 2 weeks? Would you support destroying a fetus/baby at 28 weeks? If you support destroying a non-life at 1 week, then you should also support destroying a non-life at 28 weeks since most pro-abortionists believe that life starts at the moment of birth.
It seems to me that you may think that life starts BEFORE birth…you just can’t figure out when the moment is for you.
Your inflamatory rhetoric is sadly typical of anti-choice people.
Everybody has to struggle with when they believe life starts. For most people that time is quickening during the 3rd trimester.
The interesting thing is that (what appears to be most Republicans) believe so stridently against choice that they would rather a woman die than abort a child her body will not carry to term. If most republicans didn’t believe in that, they wouldn’t support people like Scott Walker or Mark Green.
I don’t know many Republicans, if any, who wouldn’t support abortion if the mother’s life was in the balance.
How is what I’m saying inflammatory rhetoric? I’m merely trying to get you to admit when life, to you, begins.
For the pro-life crowd it’s easy…life starts at conception. But for the abortion on-demand crowd it’s not as easy…they support embryonic destruction, but may/may not support stem cell research if it called for killing a fetus in the 2nd or 3rd trimester.
Mark Green, and others like me, do not care that private money is used for embryonic stem cell research because abortion is LEGAL in this country. Companies like Microsoft or even Halliburton can pay millions and do as much embryonic stem cell as they want. We just don’t believe that OUR tax dollars should go toward abortions involving embryos. What’s so inflammatory about that?? Seems pretty cut and dried to me.
mke,
You should look at your post. You call pro-choice people “pro-abortionists” and two column inches down you question, “how is what I’m saying inflammatory rhetoric?”
You can’t say that Mark Green doesn’t care that private money is used for embryonic stem cell research when the organizations he’s endorsed by oppose it in any fashion and their litmus tests is that candidates espouse their views. You may not oppose it, but Green does and at every turn he’s stood in the way of embryonic stem cell research.
Also, your insinuation that 2nd and even 3rd trimester abortions are common is just off base. I don’t know the stats on 2nd trimester but I do know that 3rd trimester abortions hardly ever happen. To claim that they’re rampant is a myth and dishonest to even suggest.
So again I’ll ask…when do you determine that life occurs? If you believe that life occurs at birth then an abortion in week 1 or week 28 shouldn’t matter because it’s not life at that point.
Abortion is LEGAL in this country. So Mark Green has no influence over the Roe v. Wade decision…thus he has no control over private companies choosing to conduct experiments and research in embryonic stell cell research. The ONLY form of stem cell research he opposes is NEW EMBRYONIC STEM CELL research…nothing else. Ask him yourself!! Call up his campaign office and ask…920-435-2006.
And by the way, what part of you isn’t pro-abortion??? I’m just calling a spade a spade, nothing inflammatory about that.