Could Someone Please Explain This For Me ?

  In  2005, Rep. Mike Castle (RINO-De) sponsored HR810, titled the Stem Cell Research Bill of 2005. Of course Rep. Castle voted yes on the bill.

  Basically the bill was intended to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that uses human embryonic stem cells. The bill passed the House on o5/24/2005, it then passed the Senate on 07/19/2006. The bill was vetoed by Pres. Bush. The override of the veto failed.

  In 2007 the exact same bill was sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Harry Reid as S5 and titled the Stem Cell Research Act of 2007. Again the bill was intended to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research using human embryonic stem cells. Rep. Castle again voted yes for funding this research. Again the bill passed both the House and the Senate and was vetoed.

  Now I could make all the arguments about how I feel that embryonic stem cell research is so closely tied to abortion. How the research using these stem cells could in my opinion lead to more abortions in the future. That in my opinion, even if the stem cells are obtained from donated embryos that would be thrown away anyway, that it is still the wasting of human life. Even though Rep. Castle considers them “medical waste”, his words not mine.

  I could make all of those points, but what I really want to ask is, how do all of you so-called fiscal conservatives out there who are supporting Mr. Castle in his Senate campaign, justify spending federal dollars to support this research? If the research were worth developing wouldn’t private companies be flocking to fund it? Actually there is quite a bit of evidence that embryonic stem cells could cause more problems than they can cure. And yet Mr. Castle insist on pushing and voting for this sort of legislation.

 Is this the type of fiscal conservative and small government candidate that conservatives are looking for? Not this one .

  And by the way, for all of you fellow social conservatives out there, here is another reason to not vote for Mr. Castle.  On 07/18/2007 Rep. Mike Castle voted no on S2754. This was a vote to pass a bill amending the Health Service Act of 2005, to develope methods for stem cell production, without the use of human embryos.

  So while Mr. Castle is all in favor of funding embryonic stem cell research, it would seem that he is against developing alternatives. Could someone please explain this for me ?

Advertisements

15 Responses to “Could Someone Please Explain This For Me ?”

  1. Judson Bennett Says:

    Regardless of the validity of your argument which is true, When Castle crushes O’Donnell in the primary, who will Frank vote for–Coons who will vote wrong 100% of the time or Castle who will vote wrong 20% of the time?

  2. frankknotts Says:

    First off Mr. Bennett, don’t count your RINO eggs before they are hatched.Mr. Castle is not the best candidate to be running in a GOP primary this cycle. When was the last time he had to face a primary? His moderate bi-partician mumbo-jumbo may not play so well with the more conservative electorate that will be showing up this year.
    But just for argument sake, if he does manage to win, I will be leaving that box as empty as Mr. Castles rhetoric. Mr. Bennett, we have had enough conversations for you to know that I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I will not be a party , even by casting my single vote, to sending Mike Castle back to any office other than that of some high priced law firm that he is so fond of.

  3. Judson Bennett Says:

    That is exactly what I thought you would say which completely tells us all you do not care if the Senate ever has a Republican majority, unless it is under your fanatical terms.

  4. frankknotts Says:

    Mr. Bennett, we have had this discussion many times. Mike Castle is no conservative, I want a conservative. If my only choice is a Democrat , or someone who should be a Democrat, then I will abstain. Tell me Mr. Bennett, why do you think the Democrats didn’t throw their big gun B. Biden at Castle? I’ll tell you why, because why waste him against a candidate like Mr. Castle who is as good as a Democrat win?It might even have split the Democrat vote and given the election to the Libertarian candidate.
    What do I gain as a conservative by voting for Mike Castle? He votes liberal on social issues, and he votes liberal on important fiscal issues.
    I guess if all I was interested in was putting “Rs” behind names then Mike Castle would be fine. If I had no concern about the nation as a whole. If my small little world revolved around building political capital for my next run for office then I would be willing to tow the party line where ever they told me to.
    But the only political capital I pocess is my one vote , and I will cast it for the person I feel represents my views and sir, Mike Castle does not and I will not embarrass myself again by voting for him.
    You call it my “fanatical terms”, I call it principles and values.

  5. Judson Bennett Says:

    Without a Republican majority, you get nowhere. If a majority of the Republican elected Senators are Conservatives and a few Rinos/ Moderates as you like to call them tip the balance in favor of the R’s, then conservative values can and will happen in the law. If the Dems have the majority, they control everything. We control the committees, we control the leadership, we make it happen by having an R majority. You just don’t get how it all works apparently?

  6. frankknotts Says:

    I get it Mr. Bennett, but un-like some people I would prefer to have all conservative “R”s. When you have Mike Castle in congress, who has been labeled the most liberal member of the House of Representative by The National Journal, and he votes with the Democrats on the most important issues, then your theory is just that a thoery. Compromise may be the art of politics, but it is also the first step towards defeat. My idea is not to have any Democrats, but I also hope to have zero Mike Castles.

  7. frankknotts Says:

    By the way Mr. Bennett if people such as yourself would give up this idea of protecting and defending Mr. Castle and put your support behind Christine O’Donnell we could have the best of both our worlds. You would get your majority of “R”s and I would get my conservative Senator. Or are you frightened by a real conservative?

  8. Judson Bennett Says:

    I am not frightened of anybody. Unfortunately, I’m convinced that Christine ODonnell is not the real deal that you are putting your faith in. I know too much. She has about as much chance as the man in the moon of being elected. You will see!

  9. frankknotts Says:

    The point is Mr. Bennett, that if people who know Mr. Castle’s voting history are willing to vote for him out of force of habit or some misguided since of loyalty to him or party, then we will continue to get more of the same liberal votes on key issues that we have been getting from him. Do you want your energy prices to go up due to cap and trade? Did you think cash for clunkers was a good idea ? Was TARP the answer to our economic problems? Do you like paying more for your cars due to CAFE standards? Should the federal government be funding embryonic stem cell research? It is hypocritical for people to call themselves conservative and then throw there vote away on “THE MOST LIBERAL REPUBLICAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES”, according to The National Journal.
    Why is it that people are so ready to talk about any personal finance troubles that Ms. O’Donnell has had, but are willing to totally ignore Mr. Castle receiving money from banks while sitting on the House Financial Services Committee. Or the fact that he is recieving $31,200 from Humanscale who would love to sell its furniture to the federal government not to mention maybe getting a greeny vote here and there.
    But maybe you are right, maybe Mike Castle is exactly the kind of person we want to send to be our next Senator, that is if we don’t care about conservatism and if we don’t care about the nation and if we don’t care about our childrens future.

  10. Judson Bennett Says:

    Chris Coons will be better for our nation and our children’s future? Bottom line O’donnell for many reasons cannot win, even if by some miracle she beats Castle in a primary. Frankly, Castle would have to get caught doing something henious for that to happen which is unlikely. If the right wing “conservative” voters choose not to vote which is what you intend to do–Coons could very well prevail. Good for our country and future generations? Eventually a conservative candidate who can win will emerge for the job–someone like Eric Buckson from Dover perhaps, but it won’t ever be O’Donnell.

  11. frankknotts Says:

    Well Mr. Bennett, at least you’re consistant, first Deaver and now Coons. You seem to prefer the liberals over conservatives. If you were half as concerned with conservative values as you are with trying to call the winner, then maybe you could see that if people such as yourself , who always preaches big tent, would get behind O’Donnell, she can win. But I guess you only believe the big tent crap when you are asking conservatives to vote for some sheep in wolf’s clothing candidate.

  12. Judson Bennett Says:

    I never said Coons was a good choice in any way shape or form. That is a blatently false statement. You make many.

    You prefer to bash dedicated Republicans who have worked for the GOP for years instead of Democrats.

    What have you ever done for a Republican candidate or for the GOP for that matter? Have you ever stuffed envelopes, made phone calls, distributed literature, or written a check?

    The reality is O’Donnell can’t win period. If she was a legitimate candidate I would support her, but I know that she is not.

    The truth is you would prefer Coons over Castle which might indeed happen. You throw the word conservative around like you invented it.

    It’s just insipid semantics you proport with little experience or knowledge. Such big talk, but never any walk.

  13. frankknotts Says:

    First Mr. Bennett, let me apologize, I looked back at your last post, I admit I didn’t see the question mark.
    As for your question,”What have you ever done for a Republican candidate or for the GOP for that matter? Have you ever stuffed envelopes, made phone calls, distributed literature, or written a check?”
    I don’t know what makes people think they have some sort of lock on giving their opinion based on stuffing envelopes. But let me ease your mind. I have sent money to Ms. O’Donnell’s campaign. I spend quite a bit of time talking about my opinion on her campaign. I have recently been asked to be involved in getting the message out by her campaign.
    Now all of that being said, this shouldn’t be about me or you . It is about who is the best choice for the nation. In my opinion, a man who has been a part of the problem for thirty or more years is not that choice.
    I don’t understand why you and others feel this sence of loyalty to a man who has shown no loyalty to the party, the people or the conservative movement. And no I didn’t invent the word but I am still free to express my definition of it. As are you.
    No I’ll ask you again since you walked around them before,
    “Do you want your energy prices to go up due to cap and trade? Did you think cash for clunkers was a good idea ? Was TARP the answer to our economic problems? Do you like paying more for your cars due to CAFE standards? Should the federal government be funding embryonic stem cell research? “

  14. Judson Bennett Says:

    NO to all your questions. The Castle votes were wrong in my opinion and I told him so to his face. However, the only way to prevent these things from happening again again in the future is to elect a Republican majority. That is the point here and the original premise of the discussion. Christine O’Donnell is not electable for many reasons of that I am certain. I prefer Castle over Coons and of that I am certain, as well. Castle will prevail at the convention and in a Republican primary in September. Whether he beats Coons remains to be seen? READ COONS’ MANIFESTO BELOW:

    FYI: I just got this copy of the actual Chris Coons (D) (Candidate for US Senate) article… it is some manifesto!

    Chris Coons: “The making of a Bearded Marxist”

    By Chris Coons

    “College is supposed to be a time of change, a time to question our assumption about the world and define our basic values. For me, the transformations of the last few years have been especially acute. I came to Amherst from a fairly sheltered, privileged, and politically conservative background. I campaigned for Reagan in 1980, and spent the summer after freshman year working for Senator Roth (of Kemp-Roth tax-cut fame.) In the fall of 1983, I was a proud founding member of the Amherst College Republicans. In November 1984, I represented the Amherst Democrats in a hotly contested pre-election debate against my former roommates, co-founders and leaders of the Republicans. As the debate progressed it became obvious how unreconcilably different our opinions had become. What caused such a shift in only one year?

    I spent the spring of my junior year in Africa on the St. Lawrence Kenya Study Program. Going to Kenya was one of the few real decisions I have made; my friends, family, and professors all advised against it, but I went anyway, My friends now joke that something about Kenya, maybe a strange diet, or the tropical sun, changed my personality; Africa to them seems a catalytic converter that takes in clean-shaven, clear thinking Americans and sends back Bearded Marxists.

    The point that others ignore is that I was ready to change. Experiences at Amherst my first two years made me skeptical and uncomfortable with Republicanism, enough so that I wanted to see the Third World for myself to get some perspective on my beliefs. Certainly Kenya provided a needed catalyst; I saw there poverty, and oppression more naked than any in America, and I studied under a bright and eloquent Marxist professor at the University of Nairobi. Nevertheless, it is only too easy to return from Africa glad to be an American and smugly thankful for our wealth and freedom. Instead, Amherst had taught me to question, so in return I questioned Amherst, and America.

    When I first arrived at Amherst, I was somewhat of a Republican fanatic. I fit Churchill’s description, namely, that a fanatic is “Someone who can’t change their mind, and won’t change the subject.” While other freshman share care packages from home, I was equally generous with my inherited political opinions giving them to anyone who would listen. It was in this manner that I soon met a creature I had never known before—a Democrat, several of them. Some of the “Leftists” that I met early on were terrifyingly persuasive, although I never admitted that. A few became my friends and provided a constant nagging backdrop of doubt, for which I am now grateful.

    More importantly, during sophomore year, several professors challenged the basic assumptions about America and the world relations with which I had grown up. Cultural Anthropology inspired a fascination with other peoples, and undermined the accepted value of progress and the cultural superiority of the West. In examining the role of myths in “primitive” cultures, we also studied the myth of equal opportunity in this country, a myth I had never questioned. A course on the Vietnam War painted in gory detail a picture of horrible failures made possible by American hubris and dogmatism. I came to suspect, through these and other courses, that the ideal of America as “a beacon of freedom and justice, providing hope for the world” was not exactly based in reality. So, I went to Africa, hungry for a break from Amherst and eager to gain some broader political insight from the brutally real world. What do other nations think of us? Can private enterprise and democracy solve the problems of developing nations? Is Marxism an evil ideology, leading millions into totalitarian slavery? These were some of the questions in the back of my mind as I left for Kenya.

    What I learned in Africa unsettled me. I saw the deprivation and oppression of the poor and the politically disfavored in a way not possible in the U.S. In Kenya, my position was not at stake; I was not directly benefiting if the underprivileged had little hope of advancement. I lived with the struggling African family for a month and came to know the hardships that they face. What surprised me was the attitude of the elite; I became friends with a very wealthy businessman and his family and heard them reiterate the same beliefs held by many Americans; the poor are poor because they are lazy, slovenly, uneducated. “Kenya is a land of opportunity,” they said, “those who work receive their just reward.” I knew this was not true in the case of many black Kenyans; this story merely served to justify the position of many who had done well only by working for the British colonialists. I realize that Kenya and America are very different, but experiences like this warned me that my own favorite beliefs in the miracles of free enterprise and the boundless opportunity to be had in America might be largely untrue.

    When I returned last summer, I traveled all over the East Coast and saw in many ways a different America. Upon arriving at Amherst this fall, I felt like a freshman at an unfamiliar school all over again. Many of the questions raised by my experiences of the last year remained unanswered. I have spent my senior year reexamining my ideas and have returned to loving America, but in the way of one who has realized its faults and failures and still believes in its promise. The greatest value of Amherst for me, then, has been the role it played in allowing me to question, and to think. I had to see the slums of Nairobi before the slums of New York meant anything at all, but with out the experiences of Amherst, I never would have seen either. “

  15. frankknotts Says:

    Mr. Bennett, I also told him to his face that he was wrong on voting for TARP, and I got his patended line about “weighing the cost of doing nothing”. He does not care what the people think, that is the point. And when you say, “However, the only way to prevent these things from happening again again in the future is to elect a Republican majority.” you are missing the point that a majority that includes Mike Castle is a majority that can’t be counted on, so what is the point . You say you don’t agree with how he votes on key issues that effect all of us, and yet you say you will vote for him because he is the one who can win? That is a bit circular. If you and others like yourself would vote your concience instead of some party line lockstep, then O’Donnell has the same chance or better. It is only when people cast their vote for reasons other than their beliefs that the system fails to elect the right person .

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: