Shameless Specter Blames "GOP Health Policies" for Death of Jack Kemp
But Arlen Specter--shamefully--used the occasion of Kemp's death to justify his political switch to again becoming a Democrat. From the story:
"Well, I was sorry to disappoint many people. Frankly, I was disappointed that the Republican Party didn't want me as their candidate," Mr. Specter said on "Face the Nation." "But as a matter of principle, I'm becoming much more comfortable with the Democrats' approach. And one of the items that I'm working on, Bob, is funding for medical research."
Mr. Specter continued:"If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."
One can certainly argue that the cancer research budget should be higher. One can also justify changing parties because one believes in increased spending. But to say that but for GOP policies Jack Kemp "would be alive today," is shameful demagoguery of a self-obsessed politician willing to use the death of a former colleague to justify his own desperate political maneuvers.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The same kind of bovine manure was shoveled after Ronald Reagan died of Alzheimer's when some said that "but for Bush's stem cell funding policies," Reagan would have been cured. Some politicians just stink.
Labels: Political Demogoguery. Arlen Specter. Death of Jack Kemp.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 7:00 PM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
I am so sorry Jack Kemp died. I had a lot of respect for the man. As for Spector, I have lost all respect for him.
This is the argument people on that side always seem to use:"If we get into power, the lame will walk, the blind will see, and the cancer patients will all be cured."
How old was Jack Kemp? What hospital was he in? In one I know of, geriatrics' cancer gets noticed and diagnosed but goes undisclosed and untreated until it is too late, because they are old, "treatment would be too harsh," "they've had a good life and it's time for them to die," they are supposed to die, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc. And it doesn't matter who they are or what they or their family want.
Edward's did the same thing in '04 following Christopher Reeve's death. It seems that there is no event that can be talked about on its own and that anything can be used for political gain. Mrs. King's funeral, anyone?
Very sad.
Disgusting.
Not surprisingly, National Right to Life gives Specter a whopping 53% rating. Politicians in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...
Some years ago, a researcher claimed in the popular science magazine Discover that cancer research funding for him and others had been cut so that the money could go to HIV/AIDS research.
He said that many breakthroughs in understanding cancer were starting to happen in the 1980s before the rug was pulled out from under all these efforts, after loud lobbyists persuaded Congress and others to put the $$$$$ instead into what many saw then (and I still see) as predominantly a lifestyle disease with comparatively few truly innocent victims.
Just threw out truckloads of magazines including those old issues of Discover, so I can't cite the exact issue, story title, etc. But trust me when I say that I remember his comments well.
Don't be promiscuous or share hypodermic needles and you aren't likely to get HIV. But anyone can get cancer, often seemingly at random. Ask my mother.
By the way, if this seems judgemental toward HIV "victims", allow me to note that we feel free to blame the overweight and obese for their "lifestyle choices" to the point of shaming them (ask me how I know) and making obnoxious calls to eradicate obesity. We even blame some cancer victims for their affliction if we perceive that it is lifestyle-related, such as tobacco smokers who get lung cancer. But as you recently noted, Wesley, we don't wish to judge those whose unwholesome activities led to their contracting a lethal virus.
Once again, Wesley Smith, I agree with you. Billions of dollars have been poured into cancer research since Nixon made his famous declaration of "war on cancer" in 1970. There has been very little to show for this research. Again, with reference to your earlier posting about common diseases not being caused by genetics, I believe much of the research into cancer has been wasted because of the medical bureaucracy's obsession with "proving" that cancer is a genetic disease (when most of it clearly is not).
Arlan Specter is being disingenuous by insinuating that the GOP, since Reagan, has somehow "restricted" research on cancer. I see absolutely no evidence of this. Indeed, they have bought as much into the genetic paradigm of cancer as the democrats and have promoted funding accordingly.
"Shameless." Oh, yes, I forgot; he switched parties. Well, that explains everything doesn't it?
get a grip, HW. Your partisanship is getting stale.
Plenty of Republicans play the "we'd have X licked by now if we'd only kill more embryos" card, HistoryWriter, and they receive just as much of our criticism.
Didn't Specter have cancer that is now in remission, and wasn't the successful treatment he received under the very same American system he is now attacking?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home