About that cancer research funding…

January 18, 2007

President Bush, yesterday:

“First, I’m pleased that we’re funding cancer research. We’re up about 25 percent or 26 percent since 2001; it’s a commitment that I made when I first came to Washington, it’s a commitment we’re keeping. And the reason why it makes sense to spend taxpayers’ money on cancer research is that we can make some good progress, and have.”

ABC News Medical Editor Timothy Johnson, a few hours later:

“[W]hen the administration tries to take credit for increased spending, per se, I think they’re misleading. It is true that the total budget for the National Cancer Institute has gone up by $1.2 billion since 2001. But most of that occurred in those early years under a Clinton initiative. The budget was actually cut last year and the projected budget for this year is to be cut even further. So, I think it’s a real tragedy that we are cutting the budget for the National Cancer Institute at a time we’re on the verge of many exciting discoveries.”

As Steve M., who has a good post on this, noted today, Johnson “doesn’t exactly live up to the liberal media stereotype — he’s an assisting minister at West Peabody Community Covenant Church in Massachusetts and the author of a book about his Christian faith.

And now he wants the public to know that when the president brags about “keeping his commitment” to funding cancer research, he’s not telling the truth. What kind of person a) cuts funding for cancer research; and b) lies about it?

And now he wants the public to know that when the president brags about “keeping his commitment” to funding cancer research, he’s not telling the truth. What kind of person a) cuts funding for cancer research; and b) lies about it?

No Comments »

None necessary. That says it all.

  • The same type of un-feeling person who smirks and giggles when talking about Iraq being a broken egg.

  • Good question CB. I’m sure we’ll hear nothing about this from the Dems or anywhere else in the MSM.

    I wish I could be a compassionate conservative, i.e., full of shit.

  • And the reason why it makes sense to spend taxpayers’ money on cancer research is that we can make some good progress, and have.”

    Thanks CB. Bush is trying to sound like he has thought it over carefully because he is a good steward of taxpyer’s money. No money for healing, unlimited money for killing.

  • To call this administration morally bankrupt would be an insult to morally bankrupt people. These people defy explanation. I don’t want to abuse the Nazi description, but it’s almost as if the entire cadre was re-incarnated and has taken over the whitehouse.

  • I’d love to see Olbermann open this can of whoop-ass on Glorious Leader-Type Person. Better still, I’d love to see the “Axis of Rupert Network” try to defend it….

  • Bush is a born again Christian. That is the kind of person cuts cancer funding and then lies about it. Many of today’s born agains would have Jesus arrested , tried, and convicted, he is too much of a peacenik !

  • … And Bush still insists after pulling all his crap that he still sleeps better than people would think. It’s unconscionable.

  • The type of person who would do such a thing is a same type of person who was responsible for the execution of Jesus of Nazareth: a religious bigot and hypocrite. George Bush, is a legalistic prick, who wouldn’t know the truth if it spit in his face. (Which, by the way, I hope someone will do to him one day.) Let’s hope this little charade doesn’t go unnoticed.

  • Someone needs to ask Tony Baloney how he feels about these cuts, since he’s a cancer survivor.

  • “Johnson “doesn’t exactly live up to the liberal media stereotype — he’s an assisting minister at West Peabody Community Covenant Church in Massachusetts and the author of a book about his Christian faith.”

    I don’t get this. Maybe I am not close enough to the chattering class to see it, but most of the christians I know are quite liberal, or at least left-leaning. Even those that aren’t place a high value on honesty and accountability. I’m sure that there are religous lunatics whose beliefs bear no relation to christianity as I understand it — I’ve met a few, but mostly only see them on TV.

    Anyway, I get that you are saying this is a stereotype and not reality, but whose stereotype? I don’t think the christian right has this stereotype, they are well aware of the many liberal christians.

    As far as Bush is concerned, my guess is that he has no idea about this. Probably someone showed him a statistic (one of very few that can be construed as good news) and he simply repeated it. I very seriously doubt that issues like this are, or every have been, on their radar screen.

  • Birdie, I think if you define Christian as a follower of the teachings of Christ, then all Christians are liberal.

    The Theocratic Reactionaries who claim to be Christian are just Pharsees, inheriators of the traditions that lead to Jesus’ execution, not his veneration.

    • Comments are closed.