I guess this shouldn't be too surprising, given Mike Frerichs' earlier pandering on the abortion issue.
At a Tuesday press conference, two leading Chicago politicians joined Frerichs in criticizing Myers' opposition to embryonic stem cell research. However, those criticisms fly in the face of Frerichs' previously stated opposition to that same research.
“Mike used to agree with me on this issue,” Sen. Myers said. “I'm a little surprised he's criticizing me for having the same belief he once held. I think people want a State Senator who is consistent on the issues, and this is just another example of Mike changing his position on a major issue to help himself politically.”ÂÂ
In Question 8 of a 1998 Right to Life questionnaire, Frerichs answered “yes” to the following question: “Would you vote to prevent the use of tissues and organs from deliberately aborted children in transplants or for medical experiments?”ÂÂIn other words, embryonic stem cell research.
If you don't like Mike Frerichs' position on a particular issue, just wait five minutes.
(DISCLOSURE: I work for Senator Judy Myers' campaign.)
This isn't news. It's only news when, I mean if, Frerichs is consistent.
Isn't there any requirement at all of not distorting your opponent's viewpoints too much? In the poll you cite, Frerichs is asked about whether he supports stem cell research using "deliberately aborted" fetuses. Most of the supporters of stem cell research are talking about using stem cells from fertility treatment embryos that would be thrown in the trash if not used for stem cell research. It doesn't take a genius to see that those two situations are not remotely comparable. Come on, you keep telling us what a nice person Judy Meyers is. Why do her handlers treat her as just another lying politician willing to say anything about her opponent whether it's fair or not if she thinks it will get her debating points?
I would call throwing an otherwise healthy embryo in the trash deliberately aborting that child's life...
You should see the Judy Myers fliers that have popped around campus. I have a feeling they weren't put together by the campaign or the Illinois Family Institute whose website is listed. They say things like:
"Myers, the only state senator for Bush"
"Myers, a REAL conservative"
Also emphasized her as an anti-abortion candidate and against stem cell.
It's obviously a negative ad, but the problem with it is that it claims to be an ad from her campaign. Very misleading. It's also been put all over campus, lots of copies, but not "paid for by blah blah blah (college dems most likely)" anywhere on it. Very fishy. Very sleazy.
Both sides are so sleazy it's sickening. Both Frerichs and Myers belong on the trash heap. Their campaigns are pure garbage.
4 years ago in the county board race, Frerichs did the same thing when he was running with Louie Smith. He made up a flier that pretended to be from "concerned citizens from Royal". The problem was that Frerichs sent this same flyer to people in Gifford and elsewhere with pretending to be "concerned citizens in Gifford, etc." He was trying to get people to vote for himself and one of the 2 Republican candidates running.
The problem was that during his mailmerge, he forgot to change some of the wording between Royal and Gifford and got caught with egg on his face.
Bottom line is that Frerichs will say or do anything to get elected, just like he did for county board, just like he did for state rep, just like he did for Auditor and now just like he is doing for Senate.
As the ad says - We can't trust Mike Frerichs in the State Senate.
I can tell you that they're not from our campaign.
But I'm not surprised that Frerichs' campaign has broken state campaign laws by paying for literature and then not disclosing it.
"Both sides are so sleazy it's sickening. Both Frerichs and Myers belong on the trash heap. Their campaigns are pure garbage."
Next time someone accuses me of censoring comments because I don't agree with their content, I'm using this one as Exhibit #1.
Skeptic--Who is Judy Meyers? Willing to say anything....
Scott, I'm surprised that you would try to redefine the word "abortion" to mean something other than the commonly accepted meaning in order to justify the clear distortion of the Myers's campaign. Here is the definition of "abortion" from Webster's on-line dictionary: "Function: noun
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation -- compare MISCARRIAGE b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy -- compare CONTAGIOUS ABORTION."
Again, Frerich's answer to the poll, which asked about using a "deliberately-aborted" fetus for stem cell research is entirely consistent with being in favor of using embroyoes left over from fertility treatments.
Now, would one of you Republicans who tout the honesty and integrity of Judy Myers answer my question? Isn't there some limit on how you can distort an opponent's position, or is everything fair if in furtherance of the cause of an honorable candidate?
Skeptic, I have always thought of abortion as the killing of a living human being, whether you want to call it a child, a fetus, tissue, an embryo, or whatever else people want to call it. I don't think Myers' claim on this issue is that much of a distortion. Mike has completely flipped his position on the central underlying issue of abortion...so to infer that he's also flipped on related issues, such as using aborted tissues for research, isn't much of a stretch to me.
skeptic,
From your own definition: "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus"
It's pretty clear to me.
I guess you have answered my question, Scott and Gordy. I'm disappointed. I had thought there were at least some standards of truthfulness that both sides would adhere to no matter how hotly fought the contest. All we get (on both sides) is "Liar, liar, liar, liar, liar, flip flop, flip flop, liar, liar, liar, liar.) It doesn't matter if there's any legitimate basis for saying that or not. The consultants running both campaigns have evidently determined that's the way to get more votes than the other candidate and the ends justify the means. (And by the way, I ran into Frerichs a couple of weeks ago, and told him directly roughly the same thing.) Not only the public, but the very idea of democracy as a form of government is hurt when the candidates engage in this sort of thing. I don't know the answer. Being turned off by the process and not voting because both sides are lower than scum lets the extremists on both sides make the choice and then we get government ever more polarized.
skeptic, if the question was changed to say "would you vote to fund the use of stem cells from fertility treatment embryos that would be thrown in the trash if not used for stem cell research (either way resulting in the death of the embryo)" would Frerichs change his answer? Would Myers?
"Bottom line is that Frerichs will say or do anything to get elected, just like he did for county board, just like he did for state rep, just like he did for Auditor and now just like he is doing for Senate."
"Why do her (Judy Myers) handlers treat her as just another lying politician willing to say anything about her opponent whether it's fair or not if she thinks it will get her debating points?"
They both seem to fit the Illinois political mold quite well. Next Tuesday will the voters continue to support these types of politicians or not?
redstate, I don't purport to speak for Frerichs and I have no idea how he would answer the question you posed. However, there are many people who honestly struggle with the issue of stem cell research, who are in favor of using embryoes that would otherwise just be wasted but would not be in favor of the question as posed: i.e. using "deliberately aborted" fetuses. That implies some kind of fetus mill where women would become pregnant and deliberately have abortions to provide fetuses for stem cell research. Speaking for myself, I would not be in favor of the question as worded, but I have no problem, in fact I support the general idea of stem cell research using embryoes that would otherwise just be trashed. Certainly the two positions are sufficiently different that it is dishonest to accuse Frerichs of flip-flopping on stem cell research based on that poll. My question remains unanswered: If Myers is such an upright woman, why does she permit that kind of campaigning to go on in her name? (Not to excuse Frerichs for letting similar garbage go on in his name, but this website is run by Myers' supporters, so I'm asking them.)
skeptic, my only point is that it still may be a flip-flop, or change of heart, even if you believe that the 1998 question did not really apply to embryonic stem cell research.
and, a side note, great article today at NRO about "snowflake babies", adopted embryos - apparently they don't have to be thrown away as medical waste: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGI4NDRkMWQyYjlhMmY2ZDQ0MDVmNDlmZDFhMDAxN2I=
RSW, thanks so much for posting that link. I had no idea that there was a program to adopt embryos. That is a fascinating project. I have a friend who is going through IVF right now, and she is terrified at the prospect of throwing away "unused" embryos.
IVF is a tough issue. In a perfect world, you would use every embryo, but I know that can be pretty tough on older moms. And I think the medical world likes to work in big batches, so they don't have to worry about running out of embryos.
Good luck to your friend.