Ronald Reagan Jr to speak at democratic convention

[Lanshark]

Should be interesting...

Posted on Sun, Jul. 11, 2004





Ron Reagan to address Democratic convention

BY GAIL SHISTER

Knight Ridder Newspapers


LOS ANGELES - (KRT) - In a move sure to embarrass Republicans, Ron Reagan will address the Democratic National Convention this month.

Reagan, son of former President Ronald Reagan and an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, will be at the podium on the second night of the four-day event in Boston, July 27, in support of stem-cell research, he said Sunday in an interview here.

David Wade, a spokesman for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, confirmed Reagan's appearance, but sources said the date had not been determined. Scott Stanzel, press secretary for President Bush's campaign, declined to comment.

Reagan, a Seattle resident with his wife, clinical psychologist Doria, said he was contacted about two weeks ago by the Democratic National Committee. He said he "had a nice chat" on the phone with Kerry, "but he wasn't pushing me. I had already decided."

A registered independent who has long been an outspoken political liberal, Reagan said he would not campaign for Kerry or any other candidate. He said he would vote for Kerry, however, "as a way to defeat Bush."

Reagan, 46, said he also did not vote for Bush in 2000, despite the fact that Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, was vice president during Ronald Reagan's two terms in the White House.

President Bush "has made some terrible mistakes," most notably, attacking Iraq, Reagan said.

Reagan also opposes Bush's stand on stem-cell research. That is the only reason Reagan accepted the Democrats' invitation, he said.

The Democratic Party's platform calls for lifting restrictions on research using stem cells from human embryos. Bush signed an executive order in August 2001 that limited federal help to financing stem-cell research on embryonic stem-cell lines then in existence. He said such a limit would not require the destruction of any more embryos.

Day-old embryos are destroyed when stem cells are extracted, and the process is opposed by some conservatives who link it to abortion.

Reagan and his mother, Nancy Reagan, are passionate advocates for stem-cell research, which could lead to a cure for Alzheimer's disease, among other disorders. After a 10-year battle against Alzheimer's, Ronald Reagan died June 5 at age 93.

"If they had asked me to say a few words about throwing George Bush out of office, I wouldn't do it," said Ron Reagan, in Los Angeles to attend "Hardball" host Chris Matthews' session with TV critics. Reagan is a political commentator for the show on MSNBC.

"This gives me a platform to educate people about stem-cell research," Reagan said. "The conservative right has a rather simplistic way of characterizing it as baby killing. We're not talking about fingers and toes and brains. This is a mass of a couple hundred undifferentiated cells."

Reagan, who will cover the Democratic and Republican conventions for "Hardball," said he expected criticism from many Republicans for his five-to-eight-minute speech to the Democrats.

"The Republican Party now is not the Republican Party of my father, not that it would be of great concern to me, one way or the other," he said. "I'm not a Republican and I never have been.

"My father wouldn't expect me to be a Republican just to emulate him. He raised his kids to be independent thinkers. ... I'm not terribly popular, apparently, with a lot of Republicans. I imagine some of them are pretty angry about what I've said about the Bush administration."

Should he be asked, Reagan said he would not attend the planned tribute to his father at the Republican convention, which is Aug. 30-Sept. 2 in New York.

"I don't think, in good conscience, I could take the chance that somebody could read that as an endorsement of this administration," he said. "I'll support any viable candidate who can defeat Bush."

Instead, Reagan suggested that the Republicans invite his half-brother, Michael, an evangelical and stem-cell research opponent, to speak at their gathering.

"Then we could have dueling Reagan sons," he said.

---

© 2004, The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Visit Philadelphia Online, the Inquirer's World Wide Web site, at http://www.philly.com

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.

 

[LScot]

I figured as much from his eulogy at his father's memorial service. But, I've stated that here before. You could tell so much about him from that speech.

 

[N.Bailey]

I just posted this on another thread, but felt it was appropriate to post to this one too. If this is real reason for going I mean.



http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...04/205ljfnl.asp

Of Stem Cells and Fairy Tales
Scientists who have been telling Nancy Reagan that embryonic stem cell research could cure Alzheimer's now admit that it isn't true.
by Wesley J. Smith
06/10/2004 3:00:00 PM

"PEOPLE NEED A FAIRY TALE," Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, told Washington Post reporter Rick Weiss, explaining why scientists have allowed society to believe wrongly that stem cells are likely to effectively treat Alzheimer's disease. "Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand."

Or maybe Big Biotech needs access to taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell and cloning research--private investors generally give companies engaged in these endeavors a cold shoulder--and they are using famous grief stricken families like the Reagans to do their political lifting. If true, it demonstrates a depth of insincerity and disingenuousness that is as cruel as it is unjustifiable.

Here's the story: Researchers have apparently known for some time that embryonic stem cells will not be an effective treatment for Alzheimer's, because as two researchers told a Senate subcommittee in May, it is a "whole brain disease," rather than a cellular disorder (such as Parkinson's). This has generally been kept out of the news. But now, Washington Post correspondent Rick Weiss, has blown the lid off of the scam, reporting that while useful abstract information might be gleaned about Alzheimer's through embryonic stem cell research, "stem cell experts confess . . . that of all the diseases that may be someday cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer's is among the least likely to benefit

But people like Nancy Reagan have been allowed to believe otherwise, "a distortion" Weiss writes that "is not being aggressively corrected by scientists." Why? The false story line helps generate public support for the biotech political agenda. As Weiss noted, "It [Nancy Reagan's statement in support of ESCR] is the kind of advocacy that researchers have craved for years, and none wants to slow its momentum."

This is a scandal. Misrepresentation by omission corrupts one of the primary purposes of science, which is to provide society objective information about the state of scientific knowledge without regard to the political consequences. Such data then serves as a foundation for crucial moral analysis about whether and how controversial fields of scientific inquiry should be regulated, a debate in which all are entitled to participate. But we can't do so intelligently if we are not told the truth.

Some scientists have become alarmed by how politicized science has become. As Roger Pielke, Jr., Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado warned two years ago in the prestigious science journal Nature, "Many scientists [now] willingly adopt tactics of demagoguery and character assassination as well as, or even instead of, reasoned argument," in promoting their views. This politicization of science, he worried, has led some scientists, "not to mention lawyers and those with commercial interests," to "manipulate 'facts' to support" their advocacy, "undermining the scientific community's ability to advise policy makers." Consequently, he warned, science "is becoming yet another playing field for power politics, complete with the trappings of political spin and a win-at-all-costs attitude."

Political science has gotten so bad that a few biotech advocates have resorted to outright misrepresentation. One of the most notorious of these cases occurred in Australia where Alan Trounson, a leading stem cell researcher (as reported by the Australian on August 27, 2002) admitted that he released a misleading video to "win over politicians" during that country's Parliamentary debate over embryonic stem cell research. The video depicted a disabled rat regaining the ability to walk after being injected with embryonic stem cells--or so Trounson claimed. In actuality, the experiment used cadaveric fetal tissue from five-to-nine-week old aborted human fetuses, an altogether different approach that was irrelevant to the embryonic stem cell debate. Parliamentarians were furious, forcing a highly embarrassed Trounson to apologize abjectly.

If biotechnology advocates would allow a grieving widow to believe cruel untruths about the potential for stem cells to cure Alzheimer's, what other fairy tales are they telling us--or allowing us to believe--to win the political debate? This is a crucial question, given that the decisions we make today will have a tremendous impact on the morality of the twenty-first century. The time has more than passed for the media to do some serious digging.

 

[tinatark]

Stem Cell research speeches are typically more appropriate as the one his mother made, before congress, I would think.

Oh, and I thought the DNC "purpose" is to select the presidential nominee.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Stem Cell research may benefit advancement in cures for other diseases and conditions. It isn't limited to Alzheimers.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Stem Cell research may benefit advancement in cures for other diseases and conditions. It isn't limited to Alzheimers.

I don't disagree with you on this fact, but don't you think the public should know the truth? Why can't we stick with the truth and let the people decided based on the facts only? Why does the spin have to be put on it in order to get government funding? It's not that I am personally against this, but let's be clear, it's not going to help alzheimer patients.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
It's not that I am personally against this, but let's be clear, it's not going to help alzheimer patients.

I don't think that's an accurate statement. Although stem cell research may benefit other conditions more than Alzheimer's disease, scientists are not saying that it wouldn't lend any insight into advancing treatment.

"Stem cell transplants show great potential for other diseases such as Parkinson's and diabetes, scientists said. Someday, embryo cell studies may lead to insights into Alzheimer's. If nothing else, some said, stem cells bearing the genetic hallmarks of Alzheimer's may help scientists assess the potential usefulness of new drugs."

 

[heart4pooh]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pres Bush didn't stop stem cell research, just limited it to the stem cells now available. Are they gone already? I thought there were enough for quite awhile... Also, I read somewhere recently that scientist have found another cell that may even have more potential to be used... from a fluid in the eye or something... I think it's crazy to say that Pres Bush doesn't want to help find a cure for such awful diseases. He just thinks we need to find a better way.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pres Bush didn't stop stem cell research, just limited it to the stem cells now available.

That's correct. And if I'm not mistaken, the limit only applies to federally funded research. I believe that private money can still go to fund any kind of research on stem cells.

 

[Galahad]

Weren't the Democrats warning the Republicans not to cravenly use the death of President Reagan for political gain?

 

[Lanshark]

Would Jr be speaking at the DNC if he were not President Reagan's son?

 

[ToriLammy]

Well, no he probably wouldn't be speaking if he wasn't President Reagan son. Maybe Ron is using the death of his dad to try and get back in the public eye, maybe he went to the Dems and volunteered and them not being stupid said - yeah, okay we'll give you spot on the program

 

[year2late]

I am not sure what the harm is. It is more than well known that Jr. did not share his father's political views --- so he is not up there for shock value.

I also see no harm to an individual speaking to the merits of stem cell research at the DNC. Present legislation and future legislation could potentially curtail alot of research. It would be a good time to promote the potential merits of the research. The conventions are also a time to fire up the base.....this is just one way.

 

[Disney Doll]

Ronald Reagan Jr. certainly has the right to speak anywhere that he is invited to speak, on whatever subject he chooses.

However, I would have to agree with the poster who said that, in general, I would hope at least a percentage of the voting public would prefer facts to rhetoric or "spin" and be allowed to think on our own, rather than have someone tell me what to think.

There are usually many facets to these medical issues, including financial and ethical. Our ability to keep people alive in this day and age is astounding compared to what it was even 20 years ago. However, alive is not necessarily living, and that is the differentiation we must make. I am sure that the last 10 years of President Reagan's life were very difficult for the family. I have cared for chronically and terminally ill family members, so I know firsthand of what I speak. But everything is not a miracle cure.

The human body, by design of Nature is good for 80-100 years, in general. In the 19th century, the life span was even less. Better health care has enabled to extend the lifespan to what it is today. But witht hat extension, comes repsonsibility. Overpopulation is a problem, healthcare for the elderly is a problem, since there are more of them. These are problems that are only going to continue to grow as we become more able to extend the lifespan to 100-150 years. My parents are older. They are in good health, thank God, for their age so far. When the day comes that they are no longer in good health, I will not fight to try and prolong their life. I will fight to try and let them enjoy the life they have left.

Humans aren't supoosed to live forever. Natural selection and survival of the fittest are still laws of nature.

 

[DawnCt1]

There is no surprise here. I can't remember a time when Ron Jr or Patty for that matter, were ever supportive of their father's politics. Why should now be any different? Michael, the adopted son is more like RR than the other two.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Galahad
Weren't the Democrats warning the Republicans not to cravenly use the death of President Reagan for political gain?

Let's wait for the Republican convention and see just how they handle it.

I don't see how Ron Reagan speaking at the DNC is using Reagan's death in any way.

Humans aren't supoosed to live forever. Natural selection and survival of the fittest are still laws of nature.

Well then, let's just do away with medical treatment all together.
You do realize that people can develop Alzheimer's as early as their 40's and 50's?

 

[Galahad]

I don't see how Ron Reagan speaking at the DNC is using Reagan's death in any way.

So as follow up to what Lanshark asked earlier....would he be the chosen speaker on at the DNC, even on this subject if his Father hadn't recently died? This can't be anything other than a "political" coup for the DNC. I can think of no other logical reason for them to choose him. He is not particularly visible or famous unless you watch a lot of dog shows. Michael J Fox or Christopher Reeves would make more sense.

I think it interesting that all now hinges on how the GOP responds, not the fact that the DNC would go this route in the first place.

 

[AirForceRocks]

ITA Galahad - of course it is using President Reagan's death for perceived political gain. But it's his son, so if he wants to do it, more power to him.

I'm in favor of federal funding of stem cell research, but I do think it is misleading for people to say that this is some great open gate to curing Alzeimers, when researchers have stated that they don't see a great benefit from stem cells for Alzeimers patients.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Galahad
So as follow up to what Lanshark asked earlier....would he be the chosen speaker on at the DNC, even on this subject if his Father hadn't recently died? This can't be anything other than a "political" coup for the DNC. I can think of no other logical reason for them to choose him. He is not particularly visible or famous unless you watch a lot of dog shows. Michael J Fox or Christopher Reeves would make more sense.

I think it interesting that all now hinges on how the GOP responds, not the fact that the DNC would go this route in the first place.

I think they would have asked him whether RR was still alive or not. I don't think he would have agreed though as long as his father was living.

Just a guess, because no one can really know, but I think the idea of having him or Nancy speak probably started when Nancy came out publicly in favor of stem cell research and made her public plea to the administration to change their policy.

No, whether the RNC uses Reagan's death to further their agenda has nothing to do with whether or not the DNC is doing the same. I simply added that because a poster was claiming that the DNC was using RR's death in a "cravenly" way.

The Republicans want to cash in on the popularity of RR and his death simply brought that to the surface after many years of him being out of the public eye.

The Democrats are in the enviable positionof having a life long dedicated Republican (Nancy Reagan) being critical of this administartion's policy regarding stem cell research. I would bet that Ron Reagan has the blessings of him mother. He appears to be quite dedicated to her now.

While I questioned the propriety of using RR's death immediately after his death and during the mourning period, I see nothing wrong with either side's actions at this point. Just don't call the Dem's behavior "craven" unless you're willing to do the same thing when the Republicans have their turn at bat.

 

[Alice28]

Originally posted by Galahad
So as follow up to what Lanshark asked earlier....would he be the chosen speaker on at the DNC, even on this subject if his Father hadn't recently died? This can't be anything other than a "political" coup for the DNC. I can think of no other logical reason for them to choose him. He is not particularly visible or famous unless you watch a lot of dog shows. Michael J Fox or Christopher Reeves would make more sense.

I think it interesting that all now hinges on how the GOP responds, not the fact that the DNC would go this route in the first place.

I whole-heartedly agree. I highly doubt he would have been asked if Ronald Reagan had not passed away this year.