You must set the ad_network_ads.txt file to be writable (check file name as well).
President Hillary? [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

PDA

View Full Version : President Hillary?


canofsoup15
11-04-2004, 07:10 PM
The defeat of John Kerry has left Hillary Rodham Clinton as one of the most powerful elected officials in the national Democratic Party - as well as the top prospect for the presidential nomination in 2008, according to party officials and strategists. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/nyregion/04hillary.html?ei=5006&en=dfc20f84753541d8&ex=1100235600&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=)


Personally I don't think she stands a chance, I think right now the Democrats need a strong male leader, just because of the hesitancy to vote for a female.


Reefdweller was right:


Yippee now for all the "Hillary 08!" talk to begin. UGH!!!!!!!!!!!


DISCUSS!

<img src=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/ERUZIES1.gif>

<marquee behavior=alternate><Font size="1" Color="blue">
I got the glass, I got the steel. I got the love to hate.
</font><font color=red> All I need is your head on stake.</font></marquee><Font Color = White>

This message was edited by canofsoup15 on 11-4-04 @ 11:13 PM

fiestygal
11-04-2004, 07:14 PM
i was thinking how about for 2008 RUDI GUILLANI as a potential runner for the presidency

<IMG SRC="http://tenbatsuzen.homestead.com/files/fiestysig1.jpg">

AIM- yelowrose1981

Its time to party.... Italian Style

"Let's have a bachelor party! With chicks, and guns, and fire trucks, and hookers, and drugs, and booze!"

GodsFavoriteMan
11-04-2004, 07:17 PM
Rudy? And have all our Civil Liberties taken away? Isn't Bush bad enough?

I'll give credit where it's due. Rudy did a masterful job during 9/11. He was more presidential than the president, but otherwise, no way in hell I'd want him.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/goodluvin_copy.jpg">

42nd-delay
11-04-2004, 07:19 PM
It won't be Hilary.

------------------------------
"42nd-delay is the only person who's making sense." - Ron, 3-12-02

WRESTLINGFAN
11-04-2004, 07:19 PM
I guess she can run for president. The constitution does not forbid someone to run after serving 2 terms as Co- President

FIRE SATHER!!!!!!!

reeshy
11-04-2004, 07:19 PM
Sorry...Rudy would have my vote in a heartbeat.....He's a stong politcal leader and knows how to unite people...I work in Harlem and most of the people I know there would vote for him!!!!!!!

[center]<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=reeshy">
[center]

keithy_19
11-04-2004, 07:20 PM
She's the anti-christ.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/keithy.gif

GodsFavoriteMan
11-04-2004, 07:20 PM
Anyway, getting myself back on topic, no Hillary, wouldn't work I'm afraid for the same thinking that it wouldn't work for Obama. I think we're stuck with white males for several years to come.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/goodluvin_copy.jpg">

mikeyboy
11-04-2004, 07:23 PM
I don't think that in 2008 this country will be ready to elect a female as President, so I don't see it happening.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=mikeyboy">
Ron & Fez Show Log (http://www.osirusonline.com/ronfez.htm); Daily News Scratch N' Match is the Devil
Just because you don't listen doesn't mean I don't have a radio show
The Music Mikey Likes Show on RadioBBQ, weekdays 12-2 (http://www.radiobbq.net)

reeshy
11-04-2004, 07:27 PM
What's the matter, Godsfavoritewhatever....you can't rebut????

[center]<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=reeshy">
[center]

silera
11-04-2004, 07:43 PM
He's a stong politcal leader and knows how to unite people


Before 9-11, most of New York couldn't stand him.

He's far from a uniter. More of a divider and conquerer.

Plus, he's an adulterer, pro-choice, New Yorker.

No way he'll get anywhere in a national elected position.

He does have a good change at a Homeland Security nomination.


Hillary has no chance of being a nominee because she inspires so much hate on the other side that she would drive republicans to the polls not only to vote against her, but any other democrat on the ticket.

Her best bet is to stay in the Senate in the hopes that one day, she can be leader of the house or appointed by a Democratic President to a position within the administration.



<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

reeshy
11-04-2004, 07:45 PM
Her best bet is to stay in the Senate in the hopes that one day, she can be leader of the house


She could not be that unless she is a Representive.....she's a Senator

[center]<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=reeshy">
[center]

HBox
11-04-2004, 07:48 PM
Plus, he's an adulterer, pro-choice, New Yorker.

No way he'll get anywhere in a Republican Primary.

Corrected. This election only makes that more clear. If the national electorate is this socially conservative, just try and imagine the next Republican Primary and the ultra-red state voters who will decide it.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

silera
11-04-2004, 08:02 PM
Her best bet is to stay in the Senate in the hopes that one day, she can be leader of the house


She could not be that unless she is a Representive.....she's a Senator



Oooh Reeshy. You GOT me. I'm a complete idiot.

Or maybe I meant leader of the senate of which she's a part. It's the House of Congress, made up of two branches.

For someone pointing out that another person is ignoring their points, kudos on ignoring mine.


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

This message was edited by silera on 11-5-04 @ 12:03 AM

Mothball
11-04-2004, 08:07 PM
http://www.newyorkslime.com/rudy-hillary2.jpg

LiquidCourage
11-04-2004, 08:09 PM
The thought makes me want to vomit.

GodsFavoriteMan
11-04-2004, 08:24 PM
Before he was even elected the first time, in October 1993, candidate Rudy opposed letting Louis Farrakhan speak at Yankee Stadium. In March 1995, a wall of cops surrounded City Hall, with horses, scooters, nightsticks, riot gear, barricades and Mace, to keep 20,000 high school and college students from marching on Wall Street. That June, Rudy kicked Yasir Arafat out of Lincoln Center. The following May, he would use armored cars against homeless squatters. The first official act of his second term, last New Year's Day, was to close his own inauguration to the public, after which he directed the Metropolitan Transit Authority to remove from buses and subways a New York magazine ad that took his name in vain, which was followed by checkpoints and roadblocks in Greenwich Village against anarcho-syndicalists and other rowdies, and video surveillance cameras in Washington Square Park.

When cabbies last spring objected to a new set of onerous regulations, they were met with ridicule by Rudy, an accusation by his police commissioner that a proposed convoy of protesters constituted a "terrorist threat" (wonderfully coded, since many cabbies are Middle Eastern), a deployment of livery drivers as scabs (later ruled unlawful by an appellate court) and an army of cops with tow trucks who closed the East River bridges to any taxi without a fare, forcing angry drivers to walk from Queens and Brooklyn to Manhattan. "They know we broke their strike -- destroyed it really," Rudy boasted. "Nobody showed up today. And that didn't happen just because we allowed business to go on as usual. That happened because we had a plan to stop them from doing it."


Is all this true? If so, yes, that bothers me.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/goodluvin_copy.jpg">

TheMojoPin
11-04-2004, 08:25 PM
If the Democrats learned NOTHING from 2000 and 2004, they'll run Hillary.

Sadly, I see it as almost inevitable.

And the talk of the Republicans running Rudy, or trying to amend things so Arnold can run down the line, is ludicrous. What won everything for the Republicans this time? Neo-conservatism. Rudy and Arnold are basically Republicans in name only...Joe Lieberman is more conservative than those two. Rudy and the Terminator are some of the most liberal Republicans around, and that won't stand up under the scrutiny of a presidential election. The influx of conservative voters that showed up and gave Bush such a big boost this year will vanish if either of those two hippies run under the Elephant banner.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

GodsFavoriteMan
11-04-2004, 08:38 PM
The influx of conservative voters that showed up and gave Bush such a big boost this year will vanish if either of those two hippies run under the Elephant banner.


Hippies? HAHAHA, I can't imagine Giuliani sitting down and enjoying an evening of "Hair."



<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/goodluvin_copy.jpg">

This message was edited by GodsFavoriteMan on 11-5-04 @ 12:38 AM

Mothball
11-04-2004, 08:48 PM
http://www.wdwagoner.com/WPKN-FM/images/Bill-&-Hillary-1970-New-Hav.gif


Hippie freaks!

TheMojoPin
11-04-2004, 08:48 PM
Compared to the neo-cons running things now?

They'd be seen as being as pinko as I am!

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

NewYorkDragons80
11-04-2004, 09:02 PM
If the Democrats learned NOTHING from 2000 and 2004, they'll run Hillary.

Sadly, I see it as almost inevitable.

And the talk of the Republicans running Rudy, or trying to amend things so Arnold can run down the line, is ludicrous. What won everything for the Republicans this time? Neo-conservatism. Rudy and Arnold are basically Republicans in name only...Joe Lieberman is more conservative than those two. Rudy and the Terminator are some of the most liberal Republicans around, and that won't stand up under the scrutiny of a presidential election. The influx of conservative voters that showed up and gave Bush such a big boost this year will vanish if either of those two hippies run under the Elephant banner.
If this election has proven anything, it's that social issues are a front-burner issue for the majority of Republicans. Of the names being thrown around; Pataki, Giuliani, Ah-nold, and McCain, McCain is the only one who represents their values. The only issue he is liberal on appears to be gays in the military, but I doubt that'll be as much an issue as gay marriage. When they examine his protection of the unborn compared to the other candidates' lack thereof, and his sheer electability, they'll wonder why they ever dared call him a turncoat.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

HBox
11-04-2004, 09:08 PM
I guess I can only hope that the Republicans pull what the Democrats did the last 2 elections and run a stiff like Bill Frist, which I think is possible since he's more socially conservative than McCain. But, then again, even he would probably get elected.

EDIT: I also believe that McCain is pro-stem cell research, which could work against him.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

This message was edited by HBox on 11-5-04 @ 1:11 AM

MrPink
11-04-2004, 09:15 PM
wait women can be president now? next they'll have gays in the army. what is this world coming to? but she would never win cause noone wants a woman president.

"Would you fuck me? I'd fuck me"

reeshy
11-05-2004, 12:29 AM
For someone pointing out that another person is ignoring their points, kudos on ignoring mine.


I didn't ignore you...I responded to your mistake...that's all.....was I wrong??????

[center]<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=reeshy">
[center]

This message was edited by reeshy on 11-5-04 @ 4:30 AM

reeshy
11-05-2004, 12:35 AM
Before he was even elected the first time, in October 1993, candidate Rudy opposed letting Louis Farrakhan speak at Yankee Stadium. In March 1995, a wall of cops surrounded City Hall, with horses, scooters, nightsticks, riot gear, barricades and Mace, to keep 20,000 high school and college students from marching on Wall Street. That June, Rudy kicked Yasir Arafat out of Lincoln Center. The following May, he would use armored cars against homeless squatters. The first official act of his second term, last New Year's Day, was to close his own inauguration to the public, after which he directed the Metropolitan Transit Authority to remove from buses and subways a New York magazine ad that took his name in vain, which was followed by checkpoints and roadblocks in Greenwich Village against anarcho-syndicalists and other rowdies, and video surveillance cameras in Washington Square Park.

When cabbies last spring objected to a new set of onerous regulations, they were met with ridicule by Rudy, an accusation by his police commissioner that a proposed convoy of protesters constituted a "terrorist threat" (wonderfully coded, since many cabbies are Middle Eastern), a deployment of livery drivers as scabs (later ruled unlawful by an appellate court) and an army of cops with tow trucks who closed the East River bridges to any taxi without a fare, forcing angry drivers to walk from Queens and Brooklyn to Manhattan. "They know we broke their strike -- destroyed it really," Rudy boasted. "Nobody showed up today. And that didn't happen just because we allowed business to go on as usual. That happened because we had a plan to stop them from doing it."


Is all this true? If so, yes, that bothers me.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/goodluvin_copy.jpg">


before you cut and paste something....can you at least quote sources,,,looks like something you might have made up!!!!!!

[center]<IMG SRC="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=reeshy">
[center]

A.J.
11-05-2004, 02:36 AM
She won't make it out of the primaries.

I stand by historical trends: you need to run Governors in order to win. The Democrats need to find a Governor -- preferably from the South (if there are any). A junior Senator from the Northeast is not going to have national appeal -- regardless of her married name. She just doesn't have much to run on.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

BooBooKittyFuck
11-05-2004, 03:25 AM
i think that hillary and rudy will both try, i will personally vote for rudy and in my opinion he will win by a landslide for a couple of reasons.

1) what he did for 9/11

and 2) unfortunately in todays day and age the united states is still run mainly by male influence. we have more of a chance of having our first black president than we do of having a woman president.

i do not mean that in any disrespect but sadly it is true. women still have less rights than men these days and i do not think she will make it in office.



<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/images/sigs/booboo1.jpg">

Thx PanterA for the cool Pic

mdr55
11-05-2004, 03:34 AM
i will personally vote for rudy and in my opinion he will win by a landslide

I don't see that happening at all.

2 things to remember about them red states: 1. They hate New Yawkers (so Rudy and Hil won't have a shot) and 2. Don't think they'll accept a woman as President yet (so Hil is out)

BooBooKittyFuck
11-05-2004, 03:59 AM
Yes but, if they have a choice between the two (assuming that they don't want to waste their vote on the independant) who do you think they would vote for?

Not argueing, just wondering what you think. 8)

<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/images/sigs/booboo1.jpg">

Thx PanterA for the cool Pic

silera
11-05-2004, 07:44 AM
For someone pointing out that another person is ignoring their points, kudos on ignoring mine.


I didn't ignore you...I responded to your mistake...that's all.....was I wrong??????


Yes.

You chose to correct me on what was a misinterpretation of my words instead of discuss the points I brought up as to why Hillary and Rudy would both be unviable as presidential candidates.

I suppose we should make this entire thread about the semantics of the House of Congress and how ill informed anyone that wouldn't want Rudy as a president is. And by ill informed I of course mean stupid. And by stupid I of course mean a blithering idiot that doesn't say she means leader of the senate house when she's talking about a senator.

And that blithering idiot is me, and therefore Rudy should be president and nothing I said should be addressed because they are drooling utterances from a blithering idiot.





<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

curtoid
11-05-2004, 08:16 AM
A lot of what I would have said has already been said...

Rudy - won't win the GOP primaries. There are Democrats in the south and the midwest more conservative than him.

Hillary - Too polarizing; has a vagina and vaginas scare white Republican men (and boys, as in Keithy's case).

Democrats - need to nominate a strong, moderate governor. Enough with the Senators!

The press wants a Rudy vs. Hillary election; I'm not sure the American people could stomach that, though.

McCain - Too old; wish he had run again earlier this year against Bush, just to make the GOP primaries interesting.

Edwards - Could have made a solid run for it in '08 had he not run this time around and brought nothing to the ticket.

Barring another complete mental and moral shift in the collective, the GOP will only be able to get a conservative in there through their primaries. George Allen or Jeb Bush seem likely to me.

Likely Democrat governors that could run: Thomas J. Vilsack (Iowa);Bob Holden (Missouri); Mark Warner (Virignia) and Bill Richardson (New Mexico).

ALL OF THAT SAID...I would never bet against a Clinton. Those people know how to win elections.






http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/22.jpg
"One of our normal friends." - RB

This message was edited by curtoid on 11-5-04 @ 12:17 PM

badorties
11-05-2004, 08:22 AM
guillani will either obtain a sweet cabinet positon, and there's talk of a govenor run ...

he'll never run a successful presidency run -- he'll be torn to pieces ... maybe as a VP

neither hillary nor obama will be the candidate ... more than likely it will be two rich, protestant white males from either the bible belt and/or the mid west ...

the only ethnic/minority could be that former govenor of either arizona or nevada that's hispanic ...


<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=badorties"><br>

+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+

Uncle Smokey
11-05-2004, 08:33 AM
Giuliani acheived mythic status in the days after 9/11 because the over-controlling, quasi-dictatorial facets of his personality provided comfort to a rudderless city desperate for a strong, decisive leader.

Prior to 9/11, as Silera pointed out, he was a thin-skinned, small minded, grandstanding prick who thrived on conflict and divisiveness.

A few great memories of America's mayor include:

-His attack against a Brooklyn museum for portayals of Catholic figures in a medium which included elephant dung (the artist, an African, meant the portayals to be respectful).
-His maniacal attempt to enjoin NY magazine from running advertisements on buses and subways stating that they were one good thing "Rudy can't take credit for."
- His threat to videotape men exiting strip clubs so as to show their wives and girlfriends where they were spending their time.
- The coerced resignations of Bill Bratton and Jack Maple, the two men most responsible for the drastic reduction in crime in NYC during his adminstration, because Bratton had the temerity to appear on the cover of Time magazine, without Rudy, in a feature discussing crimefighting.
-His utter contempt for complaints of police brutality in a city where it was becoming more and more prevalent, culminating in some very high profile shootings of unarmed, innocent citizens.

Others have mentioned some other great stuff, and Im sure theres a ton im not thinking of off the top of my head, especially from his days as US Attorney, for instance, Rudy and Al D'Amato dressed as gay bikers to buy drugs uptown will make for some great campaign ads. Add to that that he is twice divorced, Catholic and Italian, which should play wonderfully in the heartland, although as I recall his first wife was also his cousin, so there might be some red state appeal there. I wouldn't hop around on one foot waiting for a Guiliani presidency.

<IMG SRC="http://www.jrsfilm.com/bishop1.asp">

silera
11-05-2004, 08:56 AM
Thanks for reminding me what an asshole Rudy was.

For the last two weeks I've had to listen to this lisping divisive fuck chuckle and snort at his own bad jokes on tv and I remembered how utterly obnoxious he was and how repugnant I found him.

He led the city through a great period of crime reduction, and economic boom, and was such a glory mongering antagonizing dick that people still hated him while begrudgingly voting for him.


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

keithy_19
11-05-2004, 09:12 AM
Hillary - Too polarizing; has a vagina and vaginas scare white Republican men (and boys, as in Keithy's case).


What the hell? That was a cheap shot.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/keithy.gif

keithy_19
11-05-2004, 09:13 AM
I think that everyone remembers Rudy for 9/11. No one I know really thinks of him as the Rudy before. I say he would win if he ran.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/keithy.gif

Doctor Manhattan
11-05-2004, 09:16 AM
Not going to happen by 2008. Nothing to do with Hillary but the same rednecks who just elected Bush (Not saying all his supporters are but you know he wouldn't win without that God fearing, Ignortant, Wal-Mart, Nascar crowd who really think W talks to Jesus) are not going to elect a woman.

Well, There is one exception, If the Republican's find a woman to nominate against Hillary, then we'll have a woman president.

<a href="http://www.fox.com/24"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/ep3sig01.jpg" border=0></a>

Uncle Smokey
11-05-2004, 09:20 AM
He'll never be elected or even nominated to run for president.

He does however, reek of national ambition. Note the pretty new suits and haircut, the tan and the laidback, faux-jovial demeanor.

If the Justice department is Giuliani's prize for the shilling hes done the last few weeks, I predict that he will make Ashcroft look like Abby Hoffman by the time he's done. That man and the Patriot Act were made for each other.

<IMG SRC="http://www.jrsfilm.com/bishop1.asp">

A.J.
11-05-2004, 09:27 AM
He does however, reek of national ambition.


I heard he wants to be Commissioner of Baseball.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

mdr55
11-05-2004, 09:33 AM
I don't know, I think I would vote for Hillary
http://www.beautifulblackwomen.com/img/women/karyn-parsons4.jpg

After all her father is a judge and her cousin is the Fresh Prince of Bel Air.

curtoid
11-05-2004, 09:42 AM
Well, There is one exception, If the Republican's find a woman to nominate against Hillary, then we'll have a woman president.

Surprised she hasn't been mentioned yet...

http://www.vvm.com/~cdhoit/rice.JPG

It's already begun... (http://www.vvm.com/~cdhoit/condi.html)


I'm scared... (http://www.rice2008.com/)I'm really scared... (http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store.aspx?s=condi2008)

Sorry Keithy if you were offended - it was a cheap shot. Vaginas can scare some Democrats too..

http://resources.kucinich.us/show_image.php?id=483&thumb=1

Dennis Kucinich - A Man's Man (http://www.kucinich.us/)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/curtoid/22.jpg
"One of our normal friends." - RB



This message was edited by curtoid on 11-5-04 @ 1:48 PM

A.J.
11-05-2004, 09:45 AM
The only thing Condi wants to be President of is Stanford University.

Or maybe NFL Commissioner...

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

TheMojoPin
11-05-2004, 09:57 AM
If the Justice department is Giuliani's prize for the shilling hes done the last few weeks, I predict that he will make Ashcroft look like Abby Hoffman by the time he's done. That man and the Patriot Act were made for each other.

Oh, wow, good call...the timing is perfect with Ashcroft potentially stepping down...

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

keithy_19
11-05-2004, 01:58 PM
Sorry Keithy if you were offended - it was a cheap shot. Vaginas can scare some Democrats too..


It's ok sir. Just do yourself a favor and don't start your car. Trust me.

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/keithy.gif

BooBooKittyFuck
11-05-2004, 02:02 PM
aww don't pick on keithy, this boy probibly gets more tail than the rest of you. Leave him alone!!!

<img src="http://www.ronfez.net/images/sigs/booboo1.jpg">

Thx PanterA for the cool Pic

NewYorkDragons80
11-05-2004, 05:38 PM
EDIT: I also believe that McCain is pro-stem cell research, which could work against him.

Not necessarily. Bush really only beat McCain because of name recognition as well as a slightly more conservative platform. Despite McCain's views on stem cells and campaign finance reform, he actually has a very conservative record that he should be proud of. This will be even more visible if he runs against a Pataki or Giuliani.


[quote]Washington, DC - Fifty-eight U.S. Senators have written a letter to President George W. Bush calling on him to change our nation's policy on federal funding for scientific research on embryonic stem cells, which may hold the potential for cures to some of the most deadly and debilitating diseases - including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer and multiple sclerosis.

"This issue is especially poignant given President Reagan's passing," Senator Feinstein said. "Embryonic stem cell research might hold the key to a cure for Alzheimer's and other terrible diseases. This is why we must do everything in our power to support this research and give hope to the millions of Americans who suffer today."

The letter was originated by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Tom Harkin (D-IA), the authors of legislation to ban human reproductive cloning, but allow nuclear transplantation research to continue under strict federal guidelines. A summary of the legislation is attached.

This legislation establishes a clear divide between nuclear transplantation research, used only to produce embryonic stem cells - and human reproductive cloning, which is unethical and immoral and should never be allowed. Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to save millions of lives -- and improve the quality of life for millions more.

In the summer of 2001, President Bush announced a policy that limits federal funding for research on stem cell lines derived by August 9, 2001. While it originally appeared that 78 lines would be available for research under the policy, only 19 lines are now available to researchers, and these lines may not be suitable for therapeutic use for humans.

The text of the Senators' letter follows:

June 4, 2004

The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research.

As you know, embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases and conditions that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others.

Embryonic stem cells can be derived from in vitro fertilized (IVF) embryos that are developed in excess of those needed for the procedure used to enable infertile couples to have children. The IVF process results in more embryos than are needed by the couple. There are estimated to be more than 400,000 IVF embryos, which are currently frozen and will likely be destroyed if not donated, with informed consent of the couple, for research.

We very much appreciate your words of support for the enormous potential of this research, and we know that you intended your policy to help promote this research to its fullest. As you know, the Administration's policy limits federal funding only to embryonic stem cells that were derived by August 9, 2001, the date of the policy announcement.

However, scientists have told us that since the policy went into effect more than two years ago, we have learned that the embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal funding will not be suitable to effectively promote this research. We therefore feel it is essential to relax the restrictions in the current policy for this research to be fully explored.

Among the difficult challenges with the current policy are the foll

mdr55
11-05-2004, 05:59 PM
Trent Lott from Mississippi representing. I actually met him at the country club during a party or fund raiser when I used to live in Meridian, MS.

My first name drop. ;)