U.S. President George W. Bush signed an executive order during his term in office which restricts federally-funded stem cell research on embryonic stem cells to the already derived cell lines. He supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on the already existing lines of approximately $100 million and $250 million for research on adult and animal stem cell.

Has anybody ever asked President Bush, Senator John McCain or Senator Barack Obama how they would feel if while using those already derived cell lines of embryonic stem cells, researchers were to find a cure for say, cancer, kidney disease or blindness?

If it's proven that using embryonic stem cells can cure millions of kids that are dying of leukemia -- would the right to life folks change their tune and insist on federal funding for more research and development?

If it's their child that's dying would they change their minds and allow funding?

It's kind of like the famous question put to Governor Dukakis about what he would do if his wife were raped and murdered:

"Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?" Dukakis replied coolly, "No, I don't, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life,"

Remember that?  Which if any candidate or Party would change their mind about embryonic stem cell research -- if it's found that it can save lives?

I’m probably going to catch some heck for suggesting this but do the recent suicide attacks in Pakistan and Yemen make anybody else think of an October surprise?

We’ve had two terrorist attacks in the last week.  Today was in Pakistan’s Marriott Hotel and earlier this on Wednesday militants disguised as soldiers detonated two car bombs outside the United States Embassy compound in Sana, Yemen.

After each attack, President George W Bush came on television condemning the terrorist attacks and saying something to the effect of,

“this serves as a reminder of the terrorists threats we are all under.”

He warned that the United States was

“at war with extremists who will murder innocent people to achieve their ideological objectives”.

Even General Petraeus came out and said,

“that one of those objectives was to try to cause the United States to lose our nerve and to withdraw from regions of the world.”

You get the feeling you’re being REMINDED of TERROR and 9/11 again?  I get the feeling they are saying, “Are you SURE you want a Democrat to run things?”

I’ve got one thing to point out and I’ll let you make your own assumptions.

Remember when Bush and Cheney use to accuse Saddam Hussein of paying the Palestinians $25,000 to commit suicide in Israel?  Keep in mind that these people are dirt poor.  $25,000 would support their whole families for years to come.

Now for the big question.  How hard would it be for the U.S. or an allie of ours to go to Yemen or Pakistan and offer up that same deal to some poor man or woman?  $25,000 is a petty cash to some people in the U.S.

If you thought it might convince voters to vote Republican again — would you be willing to pay somebody to set off a bomb?  I’m betting there are hundreds out there that would be.

In other words folks, the timing of these bombs are perfect — Election Day just 44 days away.

General Petreaus’s comment, “that one of those objectives was to try to cause the United States to lose our nerve and to withdraw from regions of the world.” — could be reversed.  If the terrorists really wanted us to LEAVE — and if it’s true what McCain and the Republicans are saying that Democrats will immediately pull out (which we all know they won’t) of Iraq — don’t you think the terrorist would just go underground till ‘after’ the election?

Wouldn’t they just wait till Obama became President?  Why would they ‘help’ John McCain get elected by scaring voters to vote for him by bombing places again — knowing ‘he’ plans on ’staying’ in Iraq indefinitely?

Does not compute folks.

I'm probably going to catch some heck for suggesting this but do the recent suicide attacks in Pakistan and Yemen make anybody else think of an October surprise?

We've had two terrorist attacks in the last week.  Today was in Pakistan's Marriott Hotel and earlier this on Wednesday militants disguised as soldiers detonated two car bombs outside the United States Embassy compound in Sana, Yemen.

After each attack, President George W Bush came on television condemning the terrorist attacks and saying something to the effect of,

"this serves as a reminder of the terrorists threats we are all under."

He warned that the United States was

“at war with extremists who will murder innocent people to achieve their ideological objectives".

Even General Petraeus came out and said,

 "that one of those objectives was to try to cause the United States to lose our nerve and to withdraw from regions of the world.”

You get the feeling you're being REMINDED of TERROR and 9/11 again?  I get the feeling they are saying, "Are you SURE you want a Democrat to run things?"

I've got one thing to point out and I'll let you make your own assumptions.

Remember when Bush and Cheney use to accuse Saddam Hussein of paying the Palestinians $25,000 to commit suicide in Israel?  Keep in mind that these people are dirt poor.  $25,000 would support their whole families for years to come.

Now for the big question.  How hard would it be for the U.S. or an allie of ours to go to Yemen or Pakistan and offer up that same deal to some poor man or woman?  $25,000 is a petty cash to some people in the U.S.

If you thought it might convince voters to vote Republican again --- would you be willing to pay somebody to set off a bomb?  I'm betting there are hundreds out there that would be.

In other words folks, the timing of these bombs are perfect -- Election Day just 44 days away.

General Petreaus's comment, "that one of those objectives was to try to cause the United States to lose our nerve and to withdraw from regions of the world.” -- could be reversed.  If the terrorists really wanted us to LEAVE -- and if it's true what McCain and the Republicans are saying that Democrats will immediately pull out (which we all know they won't) of Iraq -- don't you think the terrorist would just go underground till 'after' the election? 

Wouldn't they just wait till Obama became President?  Why would they 'help' John McCain get elected by scaring voters to vote for him by bombing places again -- knowing 'he' plans on 'staying' in Iraq indefinitely?

Does not compute folks.

I thought I'd remind voters what Governor Mitt Romney said during his campaign about Senator John McCain's TEMPER. 

Thanks to Avenging Angel on DKOS.

Here are the Romney campaign's top 10 episodes of "the McCain way" of rage and fury.  Only the heading for each is shown below:

1. Defending His Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And Screamed, "F*ck You!" At Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).
2. In 2000, Sen. McCain Ran An Attack Ad Comparing Then-Gov. George W. Bush To Bill Clinton.
3. Sen. McCain Repeatedly Called Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) an "A**hole," Causing A Fellow GOP Senator To Say, "I Didn't Want This Guy Anywhere Near A Trigger."
4. Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A "F*cking Jerk."
5. In 1995, Sen. McCain Had A "Scuffle" With 92-Year-Old Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) On The Senate Floor.
6. Sen. McCain Accused Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Of the "Most Egregious Incident" Of Corruption He Had Seen In The Senate.
7. Sen. McCain Attacked Christian Leaders And Republicans In A Blistering Speech During The 2000 Campaign.
8. Sen. McCain Attacked Vice President Cheney.
9. Celebrating His First Senate Election In 1986, Sen. McCain Screamed At And Harassed A Young Republican Volunteer.
10. Sen. McCain "Publicly Abused" Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL).

Why voters need to be reminded of this ANGER is beyond me; because all one needs do is watch the man speak at a rally or during a speech or press conference (which he rarely gives -- probably because he tends to get angry fast).

Remember the famous scream by Howard Dean in Iowa, the famous comment by John Kerry about having been for it before being against it (flip flop), remember the famous picture of? 

Remember Michael Dukakis' famous ill-fated staged gaffe of sitting and riding in an Army tank?  How about the Willie Horton ad, remember that?

How about George HW Bush's lack of knowing how much a gallon of milk cost, remember that?  Or the 'read my lips' comment.

And of course there's the famous ad paid for by George W Bush about John McCain fathering a black baby.

All these comments, actions or ads pretty much caused the candidates to lose their race for President.

Well, it appears John McCain and Sarah Palin have both made their own famous - boo boos - this week.

John McCain announced that he felt the "fundamentals of the economy are still strong" and just yesterday he announced he would fire the SEC chairman even though he can't.  Not to mention the gaffes about Iran and Al Qaeda.

Sarah Palin says she's got foreign policy experience because she can see Russia from the coast of Alaska.  Her plans for women's rights is to keep Title nine going (sports for girls) in high schools and colleges -- because it helped her get where she is today.  Last but not least, and possibly worst of all, at a rally yesterday she used the following to describe a McCain/Palin administration ----- it is the Palin/McCain Administration.

It would appear that John McCain and Sarah Palin have LOST this election -- if history has any say in the matter.

I'm sure the political pundits will claim Senator Barack Obama's rise in the polls is because of the economy sinking -- I disagree of course.

While yes it's helping a bit, I think it's because of Obama's recent attack mode and John McCain and Sarah Palin's campaign lies and gaffes. 

Americans are finally seeing Palin for what she is and McCain is losing ground because HE picked Palin and because of his lies about Barack Obama.

McCain stopped his own momentum -- he should never have picked Palin.  Mike Huckabee would have won him the election.

There's an article on HuffingtonPost.com that talks about Barack Obama's campaign saying they have a better chance at Florida than Ohio in November.

They explain their reasoning by discussing what happened in 2004 with John Kerry's campaign by saying,

"Bush won Florida by 380,000 votes in 2004. If you look at the number of registered African-Americans who did not turn out in '04 it is over a half million; 900,000 registered young voters didn't turn out. There are over 1.4 million voters who we consider base voters who didn't register.

"We have enough base voters in Florida to win the election if we can just turn them out. "

A thought occurred to me while reading this article.  Could the Obama team being playing reversed psychology with the McCain camp?

Perhaps they want to scare the Republicans into believing they (Obama) actually has a chance of winning in Florida (when they really think they have little chance of doing so (seniors aren't voting for Obama in polls)) only to make McCain spend even more time and money in Florida -- instead of Ohio,  where Obama has a better chance of winning because of the middle class (younger and middle age) workers are losing their jobs.

Make McCain divert his attention to Florida -- giving Obama a chance to gain momentum in Ohio.

What's your opinion?  Do you really think Obama can win either State?  I do.

Republicans had control of Congress for 12 years, 6 of those with a Republican president and a conservative leaning Supreme court --- yet they refused to stop Roe vs Wade and write a constitutional amendment to stop gay marriage or remove gun laws ---- WHY?

Because they'd have no ISSUES to run on during their future political campaigns.

 

Are you aware that having experience with Title IX (the law that states that high schools and colleges must have equal sports for both men and women) gives you the right to say you have a strategy for economic empowerment for women? 

Did you also know that being “point guard” and helping to win your high school’s national championship game also qualifies as a strategy for economic empowerment for women?

 

When Govern Palin was ask about her strategies for economic empowerment for women she said,

“Well first let me take a shot at that, and I’ll tell ya, I’m a product of Title Nine in our schools, where equal education and equal opportunities in sports really helped propel me into the—I guess into the position that I’m in today where–-“ McCain interjected telling the crowd that his running mate was a point guard that won her high school’s national championship.

Palin continued, “Sports were very, very important to me growing up, you know just learning about self discipline and healthy competition and about what it takes to win and even how to graciously lose sometimes. But how to win, that’s what it teaches ya. Now, I was a product of Title 9 where legislation allowed that equal opportunity.”

Did you also know that having a son in the military qualifies you as having foreign policy experience?

When Governor Palin was asked about her foreign policy experience and to provide specific skills, she said she is a,

“Washington outsider” that her opponents are going to be “looking for a whole lot of things that they can criticize” and even told the audience then can play stump the candidate:

“But as for foreign policy you know I think I am prepared and I know that on January 20th if we are so blessed as to be sworn into office as your President and Vice-President. We’ll be ready–I’ll be ready. I have that confidence.” Palin said “I have that readiness and if you want specifics with specific policy or countries go ahead you can ask. You can play stump the candidate if you want to. But we are ready to serve.”

Senator John McCain stepped in and tried to defend Palin by talking about her experience with energy (oil) and that her son was in the military deploying to Iraq.

 

So folks, in case you weren’t aware of it – sports and being in the military count for women’s rights and foreign policy experience.

Two questions for John McCain:

How much money did you and your wife lose yesterday and today in the stock market?  What percentage of that would you need to 'live' on?

Did you have to kill a child face to face during the Vietnam war?

Two questions to ask Sarah Palin:

When did you inform your sister of being asked to run a VP?

When were you first notified that you were on John McCain's short or long list for VP's?


http://coonsey.wordpress.com/

Two questions for John McCain:

How much money did you and your wife lose yesterday and today in the stock market?  What percentage of that would you need to 'live' on?

Did you have to kill a child face to face during the Vietnam war?

Two questions to ask Sarah Palin:

When did you inform your sister of being asked to run a VP?

When were you first notified that you were on John McCain's short or long list for VP's?

I have a bone to pick with the Democratic National Committee.  They did something during the Democratic Convention that made history; but they didn't bother telling Democratic voters.  They nominated 2 presidential and vice presidential nominees -- not just one each.

Why else do we see Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin running like Democrats?

They are running their campaign as though they were fresh from outside of Washington going up against the 'good old boys' there.  Most recently they are declaring they will go after the stock market abuse, large company abuse, using what is normally considered a Democratic principle -- Regulation.

They've also been offering up health care, tax, ethics, environment and energy reform.  They claim they want to go after the corrupt oil companies, drill for more oil off shore and they are now for innovative ways to ween ourselves off oil. 

They even claim to now 'understand' that Americans aren't ready to remove the Roe vs Wade law.  All Democratic principles. 

They tell us they are going to 'fix' Washington.  Completely ignoring the fact that Senator John McCain's been a huge part of it for the past 26 years.  Completely ignoring the fact that they've both been life long Republicans and have agreed with George W Bush more than 90% of the time the past 8 years.

Wow Democratic Delegates -- you really screwed up -- you nominated 4 people to run as Democrats this Election Cycle -- better change those Voter Ballots right away!

Keep the media on Palin - that's the reason for the McCain camp is now saying Sarah Palin will not meet with investigators about Troopergate.

Just refresh your memory on the George W Bush administration.

They have spent their entire term in office avoiding answering questions; Claiming Executive Privilege.

This sudden refusal to cooperate with authorities is nothing new when it comes to the Republican Party, especially the current one.

But what makes this refusal by Palin and McCain different is -- they WANT the media's attention to stay on Palin.

John McCain does not do well in the public eye.  It's starting to show that after a full week of counter attacks by Barack Obama -- John McCain is probably seeing internal polls showing Obama's hurting him again. 

McCain's polls went up when the media was talking about Sarah Palin the woman.  Even when it was about her not talking to the media (notice that's rarely mentioned now - her not talking).

Having the story about Sarah 'protecting' her sister and son from this 'bad man' the Trooper (sister's ex-husband) -- actually serves to 'help' Palin among women. 

They'll ignore that she 'used' her power as Governor to try and get him fired.  They'll picture her as being a typical mom and sister -- standing up to the bully (hince...standing up for women).

We'd all do ourselves a favor by getting what facts there are out there then dropping the issue -- let Alaska authorities handle the situation.

Or suffer for talking about Palin for another two weeks before the first debate.

Barack Obama was RIGHT, John McCain was WRONG!

U.S. Gen. David Petraeus said Sunday that experience in Iraq shows it will take political and economic progress as well as military action to tackle increased violence in Afghanistan.

"You don't kill or capture your way out of an industrial-strength insurgency," he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

"We've got a situation in Afghanistan where clearly there have been trends headed in the wrong direction," Petraeus said.

"Military action is absolutely necessary but it is not sufficient."

"Political, economic and diplomatic activity is critical to capitalize on gains in the security arena," he said.

If Senator John McCain thinks so highly of General Petraeus, even declared him,

 “one of the great military leaders in American history”,

why then, does McCain refuse to acknowledge that Senator Barack Obama was right all along.
 
As the General says,

“You don’t kill or capture your way out of an industrial-strength insurgency”. 

It takes more than a military surge to solve the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A question to ask Senator John McCain at the debate in two weeks:

Senator McCain, are you the Republican Party's nominee for President?

Well sir, if you are, Republicans were in control of Congress from 1994 through 2007.  You also had a Republican president for the past 8 years and a Supreme Court leaning conservative sir. 

You guys are the ones that got us into the housing failures, banks and mortgage lenders going bankrupt, two wars, North Korea with uncontrolled nukes and Iran on the verge, gas prices going from an average of $1.40 per gallon to something around $4 per gallon.

And you want another four years of Republican control sir?  Thanks but no thanks Senator.

Anybody else notice how the story on John McCain being in the lead by 4 pts in Ohio is titled; but when they talk about Barack Obama and his lead in Virginia, they called it a NARROW LEAD?

Makes one wonder who's side they are on does it not?

Title of article says,

Poll: McCain Holds Four Point Lead In Ohio

Title of article says,
Poll: Obama Takes Narrow Lead in Virginia

I just finished watching a movie called Stop Loss.  For those of you that know nothing about it, it's a movie about soldiers coming home after their several tours of duty to get out of the Army, only to be told they have to go back -- they've been Stopped Loss.

Years of sand, heat, flies, fleas, killing or be killed mentality and the only reality they have is their buddy on the left and right of them.

All of the men suffer from battle fatigue and have nightmares or visions from the war -- some are able to control them, some are not.  Those that can't end up killing themselves.

One man in the show, the Staff Sargent decides to go AWOL.  He refuses to 'mess up' and get more of his men killed making the wrong decisions. 

In previous missions he led his men into a trap.  Several died and loss arms and legs.  He also had to kill a man that was holding his, what appeared to be, 5 year old boy.  The man had a grenade in his hand about to blow himself, the boy and the Sargent who was helping another comrade to safety.  The Staff Sargent had to shoot and kill the man, and while doing, so he killed the boy.

This and many other missions is why he said - no more.

While experiencing the outside world, hoping his Senator will stand by him now that he needs help in return -- he finds that avenue is just another wall.

After losing another soldier and friend from a self inflicted wound, he and another buddy get into a fight.  The friend tells him something like they 'need' him, to please come back with him.  The Staff Sargent refuses and walks away.

He goes to say his last goodbyes to his family, breaking everyone's heart; but they want him to be safe so they support his choice.

Just before crossing the boarder to Mexico, the man stops.

He ends up on the bus with his platoon -- headed back for yet another tour of duty in Iraq.

You don't know if he'll be back or not.  The End.

650,000 soldiers have gone to Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. 80,000 of them were Stop Loss soldiers.

More went as part of the Surge in 2007.  At the time of the movie it was unknown how many were Stop Loss.

John McCain served bravely in Hanoi for 6 years, he also flew many missions over Vietnam.

George W. Bush -- you are reported as having gone AWOL yourself -- your reason however was to go work on a political campaign.

Dick Cheney -- you got 6 deferments to get out of serving.

I have only one question for you men.

Senator McCain, I realize you dropped bombs on faceless human beings; but did you ever have to kill a man, woman, boy, girl or baby -- face to face -- while on duty?

If the military is all voluntary -- why then can they not voluntary opt out too?

I'm repeating the below idea because I want all readers to see it (night and day).

I sure wish I was a movie director.  I’d be making one heck of an ad reminding folks of the Bush years; to heck with McCain and Palin.  Americans need to be reminded of what we’ve gone through for the past 8 years.  Yes, I said ‘reminded’.
 
We all know that Americans, or should I say human beings, have a short memory.  Isn’t that what President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have banked on for the past several years.  They’ve ‘ changed ’ the story line so many times it’s hard to keep up.

I would begin by editing the “Special Comment” given by Keith Olbermann Countdown (MSNBC), picking off parts showing how the Bush administration used carefully timed ‘terror alerts’ to distract the media from ‘other news’ of the day.  News that would make the administration ‘look’ bad.  The alerts are all perfectly timed to ‘change ’ what the media is reporting.

I would bring back the story of the leaked CIA agent’s name and how Bush promised to fire the person that leaked the name – then 'changes' his mind and ends up pardoning Scooter Libby one of the men to have leaked the name.

I would point out how Bush ‘changed' his mind and signed hundreds of Executive directives overriding bills that Congress passed and Bush signed.

I would point out the “United States does not torture” comments by Bush and the Attorney General, then I’d show the testimony showing how they  'changed' their minds and admitted that, yes indeed, we ‘did’ torture prisoners.

I would show they push for war in Iraq by Bush, Cheney, Condi Rice and even John McCain – all implying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, that we must avoid the mushroom cloud, WMD comments, and piece of cake, we’d be greeted as liberators, and the insurgency are in their last throes, etc… then they 'changed' their minds once again and admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I would show how Bush argued a federal Department of Homeland Security wasn't needed, and then   ‘changed' his mind and devised a plan to create one.

I would show how he resisted a commission to investigate Iraq intelligence failures, but then changed his mind and relented.  He also initially opposed the creation of the independent commission to examine if the 2001 attacks could have been prevented, before changing his mind and getting behind the idea under pressure from victims' families

He said they were only spying on international communications – we find out later they  'changed' their minds about who to spy on.

I would show clips of Bush and McCain during Katrina and later how they  'changed' the way they handled disasters.

These are just a few examples that someone with a great deal more smarts then I could put together in a coherent video.

At the end of the video I would show clips of John McCain saying on live television that he supported Bush 100% and that he voted for 90% of what Bush wanted. 

Finally, I would show video clips of John McCain and Sarah Palin talking about bring reform and ‘change’ to Washington.

John McCain/Sarah Palin – More Bush years to come -- More Change?