Bolten can’t defend the indefensible

July 24, 2006

If you missed it, be sure to check out White House Chief of Staff [tag]Josh Bolten[/tag]’s performance on [tag]Meet the Press[/tag] yesterday. Tim Russert must have eaten his Wheaties because when it came to the president’s [tag]veto[/tag] on [tag]stem-cell[/tag] [tag]research[/tag] [tag]funding[/tag], he asked all the right questions. Unfortunately for Bolten, he didn’t have the right answers.

Russert, noting Tony Snow’s choice of words, asked Bolten, “Does the president believe the use of an embryo for stem cell research is murder?” Bolten wouldn’t say directly, but he implicitly agreed, explaining the administration’s belief that a “human embryo is a human life that deserves protection.”

Russert followed with the logical next step: “If the president believes it is human life, how can he allow private stem cell research to go forward, go forward, if, in fact, that is murder?” Bolten couldn’t explain, saying only that it’s a “very difficult balance.” Russert followed-up again, noting that we’re using federal funds for existing embryo lines, which suggests we’re funding experimentation on embryos “obtained by homicidal means.” Again, Bolten hedged. Russert tried to explain the problem to his guest.

“The logic, Mr. Bolten, as people are listening to this, the president is saying no, we can’t use embryos that are going to be discarded by in vitro clinics because, according to a spokesman, that’s murder. But we can use embryos that were existing before I became president, that’s OK. And if you have a private company and you want to use those embryos, that’s OK. Back to the central question: does the president agree with his spokesman, Tony Snow, that the research on the embryo in, in fact, to use that embryo is murder? […]

“Would you then move to close down in vitro clinics — if, in fact, those embryos are being created and used by private companies for research and the president’s spokesman says that’s murder, and the president said it’s a human life, why not then close down the in vitro fertility clinics? Because they’re creating embryos that, in the president’s view, will be murdered.

If it was boxing, a referee would have stopped the fight. Russert kept asking for an explanation of a policy that doesn’t make any sense, and Bolten kept struggling to get the interview over with.

It got particularly interesting when Russert asked Bolten to explain Karl Rove’s take on the issue.

Russert: Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, said that adult stem cells show far more promise than embryonic stem cells, and the White House could not identify any scientist who could confirm that. Is—does the president agree with Mr. Rove?

Bolten: I’m, I’m no scientist, not, not quantified to speak on it, but I think the point that Karl was getting at is that there are alternative means to achieve some of the promise of the — of the embryonic stem cells that, that scientists…

Russert: No, he said “far more promise.”

Bolten: Well…

Russert: Can you — can you cite any scientist who believes that adult stem cells have far more promise than embryonic stem cells?

Bolten: Well I can’t cite scientists on either side of it, but what I can tell you is that adult, adult human stem cells have already shown enormous utility in, in the amelioration of disease in this country. Embryonic stem cells have, have yet to fulfill the promise that many see, but, but there — but there is a legitimate promise there, and that’s why the president has struggled so much with that difficult balance…(unintelligible).

Russert: But is there any — is there any evidence that you’re aware of, or the president’s aware of, that says that adult stem cells show far more promise than embryonic?

Bolten: Adult stem cells have already demonstrated for — in the amelioration of disease…

Russert: So you agree with Mr. Rove.

Bolten: I — like I said I’m not — I’m not a scientist and I don’t…

Russert: Well, I don’t think Karl Rove is, either.

Bolten: Well, he knows a lot of stuff…

Actually, Rove doesn’t. His claim was demonstrably false; Bolten just didn’t want to say so.

C&L and TP have video, and the transcript is online. It was a train wreck.

I have heard that the Bush twins, Jenna and Barbara, were conceived through in vitro fertilization procedures, or some sort of lab assisted conception (which often results in multiple births, such as twins, etc.).

If this is true, it is certainly under-reported, and would qualify as one of the greatest contradictions of the so called “Culture of Life”.

In order to have children, George W. and Laura were willing to sacrifice all those embryos necessary to create one child.

This is the dark underbelly of the “pro life” fanatics: the core belief is that even in vitro fertilization procedures are immoral, since one must create many embryos that will later be discarded in order to facilitate one (or multiple) live birth(s).

  • It’s nice to see logic applied to the policies of this administration. There is no viable evidence of bias in the interview (though I’m sure the kool-aid drinkers will argue that), because it’s simply carrying an argument to its logical conclusion. The same tactic should be taken with the Estate Tax, global warming, the War on Terra, etc. Not only is it holding the government accountable for what it says, it makes for damn good TV.

    Oh, and every time I see Bolten, i think of the term “Pedosmile.”

  • Well, he knows a lot of stuff…

    I was stunned by that. But at the same time, it was the perfect answer. This is why everything Bush has touched has turned to crap. ‘He knows a lot of stuff’ is what passes as expertise with these people.
    How many more days must we endure these clowns?

  • Actually, reading the transcript tells me that it was “the mother of all train wrecks.” It was almost a little version of the nuclear pummeling of Hiroshima—and I’m waiting to hear our glorious simian-in-chief utter the fateful words:

    “Heck of a job, Joshie.”

    Now, I’m not a scientist; never pretended to be, either. But I have read quite a bit on the subject of stem-cell research…and quite frankly, I’m not seeing anything of substance that could promote adult styem-cells as being more useful—in any category whatsoever—than embryonic stem-cells.

    Does Josh Bolten even know what the phrase “amelioration of disease” means? All it means is “to make it better.”

    And this from the representative of a government that wants to do a slash-&-burn to all sorts of programs that can “ameliorate” a lot of illness and disease in this country—school lunch programs, affordable housing for the poor, affordable healthcare, a prescription drugplan that is really a prescription drugplan, fixing Social Security (with “fixing” not being the equivalent of castrating)….

    Can we just pack these fools on a plane, ship them to a deserted patch of sand in the middle of the ocean, and let them play “Gilligan’s Island” by themselves?

  • Bolten: “What the president has said is that as far as the federal policy is concerned, no federal funds, your tax dollars and my tax dollars, will go towards promoting the destruction of that human embryo.”

    That’s all it is, children. If your money is not used for reseach, you are not ‘sinning’ by killing a human being, and neither is Boy George II.

    Let other people (like Californians) spend their money on stem cell research and go to hell for it. But not Boy George II. He’s got to stay ready for the Rapture.

    Why is that so hard for them to say?

    But the best exchange, as far as I’m concerned, was this:

    MR. RUSSERT: To be continued. Josh Bolten, White House chief of staff. We thank you. I look forward to the time you come back and we talk about the deficit and the debt and all of the other subjects you’re so familiar with.

    MR. BOLTEN: All the good stuff.

    Josh Bolten thinks the deficit and the debt are the good stuff? Boy, was he ever whipped.

  • I saw the MTP re-run on MSNBC late last night…

    Dunno why Timmeh had such a burr under his saddle…I presume his mother or big Russ are suffering from pre-Alzheimer’s…

    Russert’s prosecutorial grandstanding is tiresome…why didn’t he just tell Bolten the Administration position was morally and logically indefensible and quit wasting oxygen…(I suppose the powers that be at GE would be unamused, if Russert cut the cr*p.)

    But…it would make for a good quote in Monday’s WaPo…

  • Hey, remember when Bolten was appointed, and the talking heads said he would bring more discipline and help craft a more coherent message around the administration’s policies, and cynics said the problem wasn’t that they lacked good message-crafting, but that the policies themselves are crap?

    Well, it turns out the problem wasn’t that they lacked good message-crafting, but that the policies themselves are crap.

  • Too bad the bozos on the WH bus want us along for the ride. Below the polemic radar these fools know that by forcing a privatization of stem cell research first, before it becomes too developed and available to the hoi polloi, the benefits of such research can become profitable for Rove’s friends in the private medical profession. These nimcumpoops use a faux moral indignation to promote what is in essence their own vested interests. It is up to all Americans to call bull shit on these incompetent questionably elected WH officials.

    Reason and logic are wonderful agents for any small “d” democracy as they promote policies that are more equitable for all members of said democracy. This WH cannot anchor itself in reason and logic simply because Mr. Bush has ascended to the WH for the mere purpose of protecting specifically the vested interest of oil, and more generally, the vested interests of Bush family friends. I truly believe that there is not one ounce of small “d” democratic values in any member of this current WH staff, let alone in both Bush and Cheney. I remember Cheney as a junior political hack for Nixon in the ’70s, and by now, Cheney is too old of a dog to learn a different trick.

    Americans of all ilks: Vote the Rascals out in ’06 and ’08! -Kevo

  • Let’s not get carried away praising Russert here. Sure, he raked Bolten over. But Ricardo is right–he must have someone directly affected by this issue. Otherwise, he would have bent over and spread ’em like he usually does. Still, it was a pleasure to see the thug Bolten squirm. What an inept piece of shit he turned out to be.

  • Well, it turns out the problem wasn’t that they lacked good message-crafting, but that the policies themselves are crap.

    Comment by BC

    The policies themselves ARE “crap”. One would think that every reporter out there would see ShrubCo as a bottomless bowl of
    M&M’s and just make themselves sick pigging out on them. There’s not one issue or policy within any area of ShrubCo’s corrupt and perverted purview that couldn’t be dismantled just as quickly and with just as much incredulity.

  • “Let’s not get carried away praising Russert here. Sure, he raked Bolten over. But Ricardo is right–he must have someone directly affected by this issue. Otherwise, he would have bent over and spread ’em like he usually does.” – Farinata X

    I disagree, Russert isn’t the watchdog that you’d like him to be, but if there is ever a blatant hypocrisy, as there was in this case, he’ll definitely point it out. Sure, he rode Bolten more than most, but that’s because Bolten kept dodging the question, trying to avoid answering it.

    And let’s not blame Bolten too much folks. He’s told what to do. It’s not his fault that Bush/Cheney/Rove all have completely faulty logic on this subject. There really is no answer to their unexplainable policy on stem cell research.

  • “There really is no answer to their unexplainable policy on stem cell research.” – TL

    Again, I disagree. Their answer is the same as the Abortion issue. They want Abortion outlawed not to save fetuses, but to save their own souls. They are convinced they will go to hell if they don’t reverse this policy. Listen to the rethoric about ‘America losing it’s way’. They believe that God looks at what your country does and blames you for it.

    They don’t take the Stem Cell debate to the same level, yet. They are focused only on the funding. They’d love to utilize the treatments that come out of stem cell research, but they can’t allow the Feds to use ‘tax payer’ money to fund it, or risk their souls.

    What poor unwed women do in back alleys, or research scientists (all secular humanists doomed to hell anyway) do with private money doesn’t threaten their trip to heaven.

    It would be so nice if we could just get them to say it, sometime.

  • Lance, I think you’re missing the point that they are in favor of In Vitro fertility clinics but yet opposed to stem cell research. It’s hypocritical to say that one is okay but the other is not, they both have the same outcome: the destruction of embryos.

    That was one of the most amusing parts of Bush’s speech after the veto. He abhores the thought of destroying embryos, yet for every IVF child that was at that speech, undoubtedly dozens, if not hundreds of embroys were destroyed to create that child. It’s completely hypocritical and unexplainable.

  • Every time Bolten came out with his line about how taxpayer money won’t be used to destroy human life, I wanted Russert to shoot back ‘What do you say to people who don’t want their taxpayer money going to destroy innocent (already born) human lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.?’ Though I’m sure all we’d get from Bolten was the administration’s standard ‘loss of innocent lives is an unfortunate side affect of fighting the global war on terror’ cr*p.

    I also wish Russert had challenged Bolten on the facts about embryonic vs. adult stem cell research as stated in the Chicago Times article (and numerous other articles I’ve read).

    The administration’s position is hypocritical and has no defense IMO.

    Has there been a new poll on the president’s approval ratings since the veto (and the G-8 “missteps”)?

  • TL, hypocrisy is dependent a lot on your real reasons, not just your public excuses. I suppose, in the end, Republican’ts are all hypocrites on this issue because they are simply using it to bag ‘values’ voters. The analysis needs to be done on the ‘values’ of these voters. Why, for instance, do they want to outlaw abortions while still shaming girls for pre-martial sex which leads to unwanted pregnancies often aborted just to avoid the societal shame the ‘values’ voters will impose? Because the ‘values’ voters don’t give a damn about the babes that are born, they care only about themselves and their own souls. Thus also their extreme intolerance of homosexuality. Right now they are fighting a (losing, we hope) battle on even defining homosexuality as a deviancy. What they want is to criminalize homosexuality, at least, so that everybody ‘good’ knows that gays and lesbians are ‘bad’. Unless that is American policy, they view their souls as in danger.

    So we come to stem cell research. Embryos die. Half of all embryos die as a natural consequence of reproduction. Having them die is not the ‘soul threatening tragedy’. What is the danger to the ‘values’ voters souls is the funding of a deliberate dismemberment of an embryo to culture its stem cells for research. That’s playing god, as they see it. And they are not going to risk their souls by paying for it with their taxes.

    It is not necessarily undignified to die. It’s arguably undignified to be taken apart for spare parts. In fact, there are many Christians who oppose organ donations for just that reason. Dismembering embryos for stem cells is treating them like junk yard wreck.

    Embryos dying down a drain? Why isn’t that the same? I can’t really close the circle, I can only explain the point from which they draw it. I suspect a lot of ‘values’ voters would like to close down IVF clinics. They just have the sense not to argue for it.

    When possible, it is always best to understand an opponents reasons, and not just his excuses. Hypocrisy is a nice charge to throw around, but people rarely ever admit to their own.

  • I suspect a lot of ‘values’ voters would like to close down IVF clinics. They just have the sense not to argue for it.

    Absolutely correct, on both counts.

  • Lance, we aren’t talking about “‘values’ voters” as a whole, we’re talking about one in particular: the President. And it’s not that he doesn’t “have the sense not to argue for [the closure of IVF clinics].” He openly endorses and believes in IVF clinics (note when he used them in his version of “show-and-tell” at the press conference, parading them around to show how wonderful the IVF children are). He believes that IVF clinics promote pro-family values. But, at the same time, according to Tony Snow’s paraphrasing of Bush’s words, Bush thinks that “murder’s wrong.” Bush equates the destruction of embryos for stem cell research with murder, and will not support it. But conversely he will support IVF clinics, ignoring the fact that their existence leads to the destruction of embryos. That is hypocrisy in the purest definition.

  • “There really is no answer to their unexplainable policy on stem cell research.” – TL

    That’s what I’m arguing against TL, not if their reasons do or don’t qualify as hypocrisy (The practice of expressing feelings, beliefs, or virtues one does not hold or possess). Boy George II may be a hypocrite about this because he both opposses the funding of stem cell research with federal dollars because it requires the active destruction of embryos while at the same time ‘supporting’ in-vitro fertilization techniques that create far more embryos than can be used in reproduction, leading to some of their eventual destruction. But there is an answer to why he holds that position.

    I’m simply saying understanding why he thinks the way he does is more valuable than pointing fingers and yelling ‘hypocrite’. Because, in the end, Boy George II’s self serving ‘soul saving’ policies are far more a danger to America than one simple case of hypocritically opposing funding of stem cell research with new cell lines to play up to his base while at the same time supporting IVF to not piss of upper middle class parents.

  • “There really is no answer to their unexplainable policy on stem cell research.” – TL

    That’s what I’m arguing against TL, not if their reasons do or don’t qualify as hypocrisy (The practice of expressing feelings, beliefs, or virtues one does not hold or possess). Boy George II may be a hypocrite about this because he both opposses the funding of stem cell research with federal dollars because it requires the active destruction of embryos while at the same time ‘supporting’ in-vitro fertilization techniques that create far more embryos than can be used in reproduction, leading to some of their eventual destruction. But there is an answer to why he holds that position.

    I’m simply saying understanding why he thinks the way he does is more valuable than pointing fingers and yelling ‘hypocrite’. Because, in the end, Boy George II’s self serving ‘soul saving’ policies are far more a danger to America than one simple case of hypocritically opposing funding of stem cell research with new cell lines to play up to his base while at the same time supporting IVF to not piss off upper middle class middle aged would be parents.

  • That’s the point though, no one can understand the logic of a hypocritical person.

    Take a hypothetical example of the President of the NRA, Charlton Heston, suddenly deciding to campaign for gun control while still acting as President of the NRA. There would be no logic in his actions, as he would be hypocritically calling for gun control while leading an organization strictly opposed to gun control.

    Bush is opposing the destruction of embryos for stem cell research, while at the same time promoting the “family values” that IVF clinics promote when they destroy embryos as a byproduct. It’s an illogical position, a hypocritical position.

    The defintion of hypocrisy, as defined by Dictionary.com, is as follows:

    The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

    Bush professes that he is opposed to the destruction of embryos. However, he also professes how he supports IVF clinics, clinics that destroy embryos as a byproduct. Therefore, Bush is a hypocrite. It’s not a “charge to throw around,” it’s blatantly obvious. Bush doesn’t mind the destruction of embryos when it suits his needs (i.e. the pro-family agenda), but won’t accept the destruction of embryos when it doesn’t.

    I won’t even bother to go into the hypocrisy of being concerned with the supposed “life” of an embryo more than saving the life of a person or child with a terminal disease.

  • “That’s the point though, no one can understand the logic of a hypocritical person.” – TL

    Which positions will garner the Republican’t party the most votes possible in the 2006 mid-term elections? (remembering they are discounting the votes of about 49% of Americans)

    Answer: Being pro-IVF and anti-embryoic stem cell research.

    Perfectly logical. Hypocrisy means the expressed excuses are not the real reasons for a person’s positions.

  • Regarding the voting, the pro-IVF I’ll agree with. But the anti-embryonic stem cell research? Not at all. Polls show that roughly 75% of Americans are in favor of stem cell research. Presumably the 25% left are the “values voters” that the Republicans aren’t likely to lose anyway. After all, they only need to scare up more of the gay marriage talk to bring out droves of “values voters.” However, there are plenty of swing voters that could be influenced negatively by the President’s stance on stem cell research. Given that the Senate passed the measure with a healthy majority, it obviously ruins the image of Republican soliderity that persisted through most of Bush’s presidency.

  • TL and I just own this thread.

    The problem with your 75%-25% issue is that votes are by state for Senators and district for Representatives. I’m sure the votes for and against in the Republican’t caucus (and maybe in the Democratic one too) were carefully considered for the re-electability of the incumbents. Boy George II is not up for a vote this time. He gets all the heat for vetoing the bill and all the credit gets spread over his minions.

    You have to make a case, be bold, that the Democrats should take the House and Senate so as to get Federal funding for Stem Cell Research. Can you do that to the electorate, and not to me?

    • Comments are closed.