RUSH: Time for a See, I Told You So. This is delectable. We start with me, an excerpt of me pontificating on this program October 24th, 2006.
RUSH ARCHIVE: The Democrats politicized spinal paralysis and spinal injuries in the 2004 campaign, and now they are politicizing Parkinson’s disease, and they’ve done that, and it’s all about stem cell research, and of course embryonic stem cell research. Any bit of information or research that shows progress in either of these areas that does not involve stem cell, embryonic stem cell research, is rejected by the left. Now, why is this? What is so damned important about embryonic stem cell research? Why not adult stem cells? Why not research on umbilical cord blood cells that can be extracted from the blood in the umbilical cord? Because you can’t take abortion out of this mix. Just because it’s not being talked about in this campaign, do not be lulled and fooled into thinking that abortion does not remain the sacrament of the Democratic Party and its religion. It is the thing that they will never once compromise on, and they think that anything that stands in the way of embryonic stem cell research is going to be an obstacle to having abortions, and the converse is true.
RUSH: All right. So yesterday we had the news and shared it with you that researchers have made remarkable discoveries involving the availability of useful stem cells from fluid in the womb that protects the baby during gestation, the amniotic fluid, and of course any normal person would greet this news — even though there’s no evidence yet that embryonic stem cells show promise, other stem cells have, and do, but embryonic stem cells yet have yet to prove that. If you want to understand what this is all about or understand how that’s the case, if there had been any research that showed promise, there would be all kinds of private investor money going to people doing the kind of research in embryonic stem cells because there would be great profit at the end of it, should there be a great discovery that people are just waiting for the time to pass to make, but there isn’t any of that private money. 
It’s very limited, and that’s the reason the embryonic stem cell people are so incessant and insisting on federal funding, because without it, there won’t be any money. There’s no private investment, as there is in other areas of medical research. So when the amniotic fluid stem cell story broke yesterday, why, this was big, and it was exciting, and it showed the same kind of promise that those who advocate embryonic stem cells advocate, without killing the baby! Well, I’m sorry, folks, it was not good news to Democrats, particularly Tom Harkin and others. I just want to you listen to these sound bites. Last night on Capitol Hill, Congresswoman Diana DeGette from Colorado, a Democrat, held a press conference on the stem cell bill that the Democrats have written — and this is another thing. The Democrats, does anybody remember of them running on anything, in terms of their campaign of ’06?
In fact, wasn’t their stated strategy to not run on anything? We could probably find audio of Pelosi saying, “We don’t want to hem ourselves in.” Their strategy was simply to cream the Republicans on everything, just be critical, critical, critical; create a negative aura around everything happening in the country and then set themselves up as a change, as different. They didn’t run on anything specific. Now all of a sudden they’ve got a mandate? Yes, ladies and gentlemen! This is exactly how Democrats do it. They ran on nothing, and they won on nothing. But guess what? The nothing they won on as morphed not into fill in the blank, Pelosi and Murtha say they’ve won on leaving Iraq; Barney Frank says that the Democrats won on income differences between the rich and the poor. It probably won’t be long before Algore says the Democrats won on global warming.
Others will say, “Tax increases for the rich! We won on education. We won on Medicare. We won on Medicaid. We won on affirmative action,” and that’s how they’ll give themselves their age-old liberal agenda even though they didn’t run on it. Everyone knows the Republicans lost much more so than the Democrats won. Anyway, one of these bills that they claim that they have a mandate to move forward is embryonic stem cell research. They claim that that was part of their agenda and part of their campaign. It was nothing of the sort. A couple of Senate candidates did run on it, but in terms of the House and Pelosi, they didn’t get that specific. They were afraid to. Here, ladies and gentlemen, is Congress Dena DeGette.
DEGETTE: I do think that the study is fantastic news and the welcome it, but it’s not a substitute for embryonic stem cell research. This research is going on around the world, and has been for seven or eight years.
RUSH: You see? Even though the same thing might be available from amniotic fluid, that’s not good enough! It’s great news but it can’t take the place of embryonic stem cells. We must kill those embryos! I know this is hard for some of you to believe or hear, but abortion is the sacrament of liberalism in the Democrat Party, and nothing is going to get in the way of stopping it. Now, it gets even better. Tom Harkin, Democrat Senator from Iowa also spoke at a press conference for the federal funding for stem cell research. Here’s a portion of what he said.
HARKIN: It’s about hope, about giving hope to people who have Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries, kids with juvenile diabetes. It’s about hope. That’s what this legislation is really about. It seems like every time we bring this issue up there’s some paper comes out that our opposition grabs hold on of and says, “See? We don’t need this now.” Well, the same thing has happened here, but as Dr. Atala himself has said, this is no substitute for embryonic stem cell research. While the new study is noteworthy, it does not represent a major breakthrough and should not be described as one.
RUSH: Oh, yeah, it’s about hope! It’s all hope. It’s not about research; it’s not about results. He admits it here: “It’s about hope,” and, you know what, folks? It’s about false hope, and the Democrats specialize in it. There was John Edwards, the Breck Girl, in the 2004 campaign assuring those with spinal cord disease and injury that if John Kerry were elected Christopher Reeve would walk and there was Michael J. Fox presenting false hope that only embryonic stem cell research was going to be lead to the cure for Parkinson’s disease and anything else. Anybody who got in the way was trying to criminalize it and so forth, it was outrageous, and Harkin talks about hope? I know hope is an important thing, but false hope is cruel. Speaking of which, get this next bite from Harkin.
HARKIN: In the future, I urge those of you in the media to beware of over-hyping incremental advances in stem cell research, especially when they’re published on the eve of a congressional debate. So many opponents of our bill are now breathlessly touting this new study as if it makes all other forms of stem cell research irrelevant. It would be irresponsible from a scientific perspective and cruel to millions of Americans who are suffering from diseases like juvenile diabetes and ALS and Parkinson’s, spinal cords [sic] injuries, to abandon efforts to lift the president’s arbitrary restrictions on embryonic stem cell research on the basis of a single new journal article, and that’s all it is.
RUSH: Man. Unbelievable! There is no evidence to support the Harkin side in all of this, and he dares say that this is engaging in false hope and it is cruel to suggest that there might be some success in amniotic fluid? If it works, senator, what’s wrong with it? Why must you still continue to try to discredit all other research in favor of embryonic stem cell research, about which there are no success stories yet? It’s because of abortion, and this is what’s cruel. This is the false hope and the cruelty that the Democrats are famous for. Now they accuse others of it. That’s typical of them, too.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: It’s just amazing. Senator Harkin lashes out at a new scientific study released on the day before the Senate begins debate on embryonic stem cell research. He says, “That’s unfortunate, and it’s unfair,” and he urges his buddies in the Drive-By Media to ignore such things in the future because he’s not interested in debate, and he doesn’t want anything that challenges the orthodoxy of their position on this to become front and center. The audacity! The world’s greatest deliberative body has a member which tells its buddies in the media, “Don’t report that stuff, especially not on the eve of our precious debate.” Well, what’s the point of the debate, if you’re going to ignore some of the research in this?
Now, some of you might think that my driving force here, motivation on this is the protection of human life, and it is. As I’ve told you over the years, I think the longer we go down the road of deciding who lives and who dies based on the convenience or benefit to the living, we are destroying one of the foundational being blocks of our society and culture. I think we’ve already started down that road. Everybody knows it. We’re deciding who lives and dies at the beginning of life and at the end of life based on total convenience to ourselves. We don’t tell ourselves that of course. We say, “Well, that baby wouldn’t want to be born into a life of poverty. Well, grandma wouldn’t want to live like this. I know she wouldn’t! This is a humane thing.” So we tell ourselves we’re doing great, great things, and we don’t even have the guts to do it, want to give doctors the power to participate in assisted suicides and this kind of thing.
This is the proverbial slippery slope. But there’s also another motivation I have for this in making a big deal out of this and that is to continue to try to teach and instruct people into the ways liberals operate and attempt to persuade or even claim a majority of opinion is on their side. They are the exact opposite in many instances of what they claim to be. They’re not open to debate. They can’t win many of them and that’s why they refuse to participate and instead try to discredit and ruin and destroy their opponents. In many cases, they show straights of Stalinism: the state will exist in all power and treat citizens with contempt, as unknowing and ill-prepared to deal with the consequences of life. It’s really an arrogant condescension, such as is illustrated here by Harkin when he suggests that his buddies in the media simply ignore this, especially on the eve of such an important Senate debate. That’s really open and democratic, isn’t?