Er, Tom...

....has yer boy Arlen slipped a gear...? No, no shtick because of the party
switcheroo, but because of comments like Kemp being alive if the GOP had allowed
more funding of cancer research, and this lack of funding is one of the reasons
he switched. I saw a report that said that gov't funding of cancer research
went from 2 to 3 bil under Clinton and from 3 to almost 5 under Bush (close
enough to about the same rate of increase, with Bush's tenture getting a slight
nod), but IAC, certainly no lack of funding under Bush. Apparently, he's making
this a (big?) part of his 2010 campaign, but ??? It's a worthy cause, but is it
really all that big an issue _for his re-election?

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
...has yer boy Arlen slipped a gear...? No, no shtick because of the
party
switcheroo, but because of comments like Kemp being alive if the GOP had
allowed
more funding of cancer research, and this lack of funding is one of the
reasons
he switched. I saw a report that said that gov't funding of cancer
research
went from 2 to 3 bil under Clinton and from 3 to almost 5 under Bush
(close
enough to about the same rate of increase, with Bush's tenture getting a
slight
nod), but IAC, certainly no lack of funding under Bush. Apparently, he's
making
this a (big?) part of his 2010 campaign, but ??? It's a worthy cause, but
is it
really all that big an issue _for his re-election?


Healthcare research has always been a big thing for him.
Both personal and practical politics.....Between the big University
Hospitals in Philly, Pittsburgh, State College and Hershey, a lot of pharma
R and D scattered statewide, it sells well. Sure, there WAS funding under
Bush, but with little thanks to the GOP, especially Senators, who ****ed old
Arlen off by obstruction tactics
(not all, BTW, there are a handful of GOP allies, but most such funding gets
sponsored and passed by Dems.
hth....................Tom

On Mon, 04 May 2009 21:34:43 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
...has yer boy Arlen slipped a gear...? No, no shtick because of the
party
switcheroo, but because of comments like Kemp being alive if the GOP had
allowed
more funding of cancer research, and this lack of funding is one of the
reasons
he switched. I saw a report that said that gov't funding of cancer
research
went from 2 to 3 bil under Clinton and from 3 to almost 5 under Bush
(close
enough to about the same rate of increase, with Bush's tenture getting a
slight
nod), but IAC, certainly no lack of funding under Bush. Apparently, he's
making
this a (big?) part of his 2010 campaign, but ??? It's a worthy cause, but
is it
really all that big an issue _for his re-election?


Healthcare research has always been a big thing for him.
Both personal and practical politics.....Between the big University
Hospitals in Philly, Pittsburgh, State College and Hershey, a lot of pharma
R and D scattered statewide, it sells well. Sure, there WAS funding under
Bush, but with little thanks to the GOP, especially Senators, who ****ed old
Arlen off by obstruction tactics
(not all, BTW, there are a handful of GOP allies, but most such funding gets
sponsored and passed by Dems.
hth....................Tom

Are you sure about that, Dems vs. GOP on cancer funding? I've heard, and
did a _very_ quick check to verify and it seems to check out, that in 1999 there
was about 3 bil to NCI alone (up from about 2 bil in 1991) in funding and by
2007, it was up to around 4.8 - proposed by Bush. I didn't see specifics as to
who did what, but Bush did do a fair bit for such stuff. Yes, I realize that
many wanted more (when it comes to "government money," someone always thinks
their needs are the greatest and most deserving...the ACS was bitching because
he "only" proposed the paltry sum of 4.8 bil to NCI - they said about the same
of Clinton's 2-increasing-to-3 bil over the 8 years - with 29 bil to NIH and
almost 6 to CDC) and there was bitching that it wasn't more, but it's not like
Bush or the GOP didn't fund it about like Clinton and at the same or greater
rate of increase. Bottom line for me is that I don't see how he can say that
the GOP did substantially less than the Dems when it appears they did about the
same (or even marginally better).

I'm not defending Bush or bashing Clinton on this, simply pointing out that
there seems very little _Federal_ difference in either party on "cancer money."

TC,
R

well, your original point seemed to be 'was Arlen slipping' by thinking this
would be a good talking point during a campaign. My response was 'no, he was
sharp as a tack, given his constituency'. Frankly, I couldn't be bothered to
look up which Senators and Representatives have been supportive of, or a
hindrance to, dollars allotted to healthcare and health sciences research. I
do suspect, that if one added it up, one might find far more Dem names on
the supportive side than Repubs, but that is only a guess.
Still, his interviews today seem to me as valid, saying that the GOP ought
to view his party switch as a wake-up call. Only a guess again, but I
suspect they won't get that message.........yet.
Tom

On Mon, 04 May 2009 23:35:47 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:

well, your original point seemed to be 'was Arlen slipping' by thinking this
would be a good talking point during a campaign. My response was 'no, he was
sharp as a tack, given his constituency'. Frankly, I couldn't be bothered to
look up which Senators and Representatives have been supportive of, or a
hindrance to, dollars allotted to healthcare and health sciences research. I
do suspect, that if one added it up, one might find far more Dem names on
the supportive side than Repubs, but that is only a guess.
Still, his interviews today seem to me as valid, saying that the GOP ought
to view his party switch as a wake-up call. Only a guess again, but I
suspect they won't get that message.........yet.
Tom


I wasn't trying to make a point, I was asking to see what you knew about it all.
His response could be taken, and indeed has been taken, as "the GOP could have
saved Jack Kemp (or as some have taken it, the GOP killed him), but it didn't so
I switched parties..." Even bringing up such a thing in such a forum
(basically, a Jack Kemp informal memorial session) was strange, but it came
across pretty strange as well since he was in the senior ranks of the GOP for
the last 8 years. I have no idea what it has led to in PA, but outside of PA,
he sounds like a nut with all the "and THAT is THE reason I switched" on a wide
variety of un-related topics, when just about everyone knows the biggest reason
he switched because it was his only real chance of get re-elected.

I guess it just shows even decent pols, once they've tasted it, will do just
about anything to keep themselves in it - Biden and the Veep-ship, McCain and
Bush, Specter and all this shtick.

Would he be in any real danger - moreso than he is - if he had just said, "look,
sure, mainly I'm switching to get re-elected, but it's a lot easier given the
way the GOP appears to be headed..." and then stuck to it and shut up? I guess
what I'm asking is that if he has fairly broad support in the voters overall,
why all the bull****?

TC,
R

wrote in message
...
I have no idea what it has led to in PA, but outside of PA,
he sounds like a nut with all the "and THAT is THE reason I switched" on a
wide
variety of un-related topics, when just about everyone knows the biggest
reason
he switched because it was his only real chance of get re-elected.

First, I don't know how it's playing in the Deep South, but it's playing
just fine here in PA. A weekend poll vs. possible challengers shows Specter
beating any Republican, including Ridge. He would, is the election were held
now, hammer Toomey by 22 percent. The fact is, I suspect Specter, nor much
of anyone in Pennsylvania cares what is thought of him in MS. Nor should
they. We don't get too exercised over YOUR Senators, after all.


Would he be in any real danger - moreso than he is - if he had just said,
"look,
sure, mainly I'm switching to get re-elected, but it's a lot easier given
the
way the GOP appears to be headed..." and then stuck to it and shut up? I
guess
what I'm asking is that if he has fairly broad support in the voters
overall,
why all the bull****?

because, despite the fact YOU think so, it ISN'T bull****.
He sincerely feels that way, and wishes to speak his mind. If you think this
is so simple as to be only about getting elected, you: 1) don't know Arlen
Specter, 2) don't understand half of what he's been subjected to from his
own 'fellow Republicans' and 3) don't realize that he probably COULD have
won as a Republican. I know it, and thus, he darn well knows it. Hell, Rick,
I even spelled out to you how it might have happened, and probably would
have. Apparently, he wanted to do this, for a complex mix of reasons. Good
for him!
Tom

On May 4, 3:07*pm, wrote:
...has yer boy Arlen slipped a gear...? *No, no shtick because of the party
switcheroo, but because of comments like Kemp being alive if the GOP had allowed
more funding of cancer research, and this lack of funding is one of the reasons
he switched. *I saw a report that said that gov't funding of cancer research
went from 2 to 3 bil under Clinton and from 3 to almost 5 under Bush (close
enough to about the same rate of increase, with Bush's tenture getting a slight
nod), but IAC, certainly no lack of funding under Bush. *Apparently, he's making
this a (big?) part of his 2010 campaign, but ??? *It's a worthy cause, but is it
really all that big an issue _for his re-election?

TC,
R

The NIH budget was roughly doubled from apx.$13.5B to apx. $27B from
1999 to 2003, mainly as a result of a coordinated push by a small
group of Republican and Democratic senators, including Spector.
Clinton and Bush went along with the effort. For most medical
researchers the budget pretty much went downhill after that: the
annual budget increase dropped to the 2% range, failing to keep up
with inflation, a lot of money was redirected to bioterrorism research
while other moneys were drawn off for the Global AIDS Initiative.