Waffles

I promise, Senator Frist... I won't call you a flip-flopper. Just make up your damn mind.

Frist back on support of Stem Cell research bill

In a break with President Bush, the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, has decided to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, a move that could push it closer to passage and force a confrontation with the White House, which is threatening to veto the measure.

Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who said last month that he did not back expanding financing "at this juncture," is expected to announce his decision Friday morning in a lengthy Senate speech. In it, he says that while he has reservations about altering Mr. Bush's four-year-old policy, which placed strict limits on taxpayer financing for the work, he supports the bill nonetheless.

"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Mr. Frist says, according to a text of the speech provided by his office Thursday evening. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified."

Actually, if this is your real (and permanent) stance, I rather like this new thing you're showing called a BACKBONE.

Why "justice" for the Justice is up to the GOP

decaffed in a rare moment when Christie doesn't feel like linking sources.

1. The Democrats have held back ANY negative comments.

The "worst" thing from any Senator on Roberts is "I won't say until I know more," or "We'll see how he does in the hearing." Is that so terrible? In fact, unless Roberts has a history of bombing abortion clinics, or vows to overturn Roe v. Wade (which he won't if he wants to be confirmed, and won't do anyway) the Democrats will probably let him pass. They might not vote for him, since he's strongly pro-corporate, but a filibuster might be a bad move that'd backfire.

2. A timeline doesn't guarantee justice.

In fact, it might hinder it. What's so bad about a thorough hearing? He's still getting a hearing. The Dems won't filibuster. So it's also a fair hearing. So just because the Senate might not rubber stamp Roberts according to some juvenile timeline doesn't mean he isn't getting a fair confirmation.

3. As any good lawyer should know, evidence is crucial.

The party that doesn't give up the pertinent data and papers is the one obstructing justice. Get it? Bolton will get a vote when you relinquish those damn papers. I mean, isn't this administration's theory "if you're complaining about how much you have to reveal, maybe you've got something to hide"? If so (and it does, since the Patriot Act was extended recently), shouldn't the same standard be applied to the Bush administration?