PDA

View Full Version : Nancy Reagan praises Obama

Moby
03-09-2009, 06:07 PM
I wonder if the pundits are going to attack her now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090309/pl_politico/19787;_ylt=AlRNGyaN7pVYirR7aDo3W8ms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDM TFlc2p0Mm11BHBvcwM4NQRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3BvbGl0aWN zBHNsawNuYW5jeXJlYWdhbnA-

Craig Gordon Craig Gordon – Mon Mar 9, 1:17 pm ET

Under fire from congressional Republicans for lifting restrictions on stem cell research, President Barack Obama got a powerful endorsement for his move Monday from Nancy Reagan, the former president’s wife.

“I’m very grateful that President Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research,” she wrote in a statement released shortly after Obama reversed the Bush administration limits. “These new rules will now make it possible for scientists to move forward. I urge researchers to make use of the opportunities that are available to them and to do all they can to fulfill the promise that stem cell research offers."

Nancy Reagan has been an outspoken advocate of stem cell research — and scientists hope that the research could someday lead to a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, which afflicted her late husband, Ronald Reagan.

Her statement also illustrates how support for the research crosses party lines, even though many in the anti-abortion movement strongly oppose the research on moral and ethical grounds.

Reagan continued, “Countless people, suffering from many different diseases, stand to benefit from the answers stem cell research can provide. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to do everything in our power to find cures for these diseases — and soon. As I’ve said before, time is short, and life is precious.”
MintJulep
03-09-2009, 06:33 PM
No need to, besides, they have Obama hammering the Dow to discuss....

A much BIGGER issue.
Dale escondido
03-09-2009, 07:10 PM
Good for her, conservatives always cross party lines when they feel an issue is important.
If they stick to party lines always they dont stand for anything.
Then they are the sheep you mention occasionally.
Mr. Blue
03-09-2009, 08:42 PM
The only issue I have with this is she's a bit of a hypocrite. I mean, I hate when celebrities, the famous, etc, have no forethought about others until it directly hits home. If Ronald Reagan died of a heart attack, would she give two flying flings? Probably not.

It's amazing how stalwart people are in their views until it hits home...so in that regard it annoys me a little.
Dale escondido
03-09-2009, 09:25 PM
Thats just an assumption but you maybe right.
We are all the result of the impact life has on us.

When someone in the limelight changes posistion, assuming she did ,we are more critical.
Mr. Blue
03-09-2009, 09:53 PM
Thats just an assumption but you maybe right.
We are all the result of the impact life has on us.

When someone in the limelight changes posistion, assuming she did ,we are more critical.

I tend to think of people that plead with politicians for this or that and the politician can be stoic in saying, "I understand, but it's not right, I can't do anything about it" and then if it happens to them it suddenly becomes acceptable.

This may not be the case with Nancy Reagan, but this seems to be all too familiar a theme. People are allowed to change their opinion on topics, but I stop and think of all those people they turned away on the same topic years before.
Moby
03-09-2009, 11:35 PM
The only issue I have with this is she's a bit of a hypocrite. I mean, I hate when celebrities, the famous, etc, have no forethought about others until it directly hits home. If Ronald Reagan died of a heart attack, would she give two flying flings? Probably not.

It's amazing how stalwart people are in their views until it hits home...so in that regard it annoys me a little.
In the early 80s Reagan had support of Falwell but America was still an educated society with a focus on truth and science. People still believed in The Constitution and wanted to keep a separation of church and state.

I don't beleive Reagan or Goldwater conservatives would have put religion before science and society. That's a new thing that started in the mid 90s and has grown to what it is today.

I believe Ronald Reagan would have supported this science or at least not tried to stand in the way.
Mr. Blue
03-10-2009, 12:04 AM
In the early 80s Reagan had support of Falwell but America was still an educated society with a focus on truth and science. People still believed in The Constitution and wanted to keep a separation of church and state.

I don't beleive Reagan or Goldwater conservatives would have put religion before science and society. That's a new thing that started in the mid 90s and has grown to what it is today.

I believe Ronald Reagan would have supported this science or at least not tried to stand in the way.

Reagan was pro-life, he opposed Roe V. Wade, and if you've read on the type of arguments he made on that topic you'd see following that line of thinking he would have been opposed to this.

Since we can't 100% what the man would have said, we can only draw inference from what he did say on other topics.

Granted, I agree with you that the Reagan's and Goldwaters were far less to be bible thumpers and more along my idea of what a conservative should be.