So maybe they are not, as of yet, opposing the start of the 2009 Major League Baseball season, but what is the Republican Party not opposing this year? They have opposed the budget. They have opposed universal health care. They oppose freedom of choice. They oppose the bailout. They oppose the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Yesterday, they railed against the lifting of the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.
I get the notion of the loyal opposition. But doesn’t a party have to stand for something, instead of being defined as the party that opposes everything? To show the absurdity of it all, Republicans are, allegedly, morally outraged at the concept of federal funds being used to conduct research on embryonic stem cells. However, back in 2001, President Bush allowed federal funding of embryonic stem cell research on existing lines of stem cells that may have been created with the use of federal funds. However, Bush prohibited federal funds to be used on research with new lines of stem cells, even if they were created through the use of private funding. So research is morally justified if the federally funded stem cell lines were created prior to 2001, but similar research into new lines created from private funds is immoral?
So what exactly are they opposing: the research or the use of federal funds to create new lines of stem cells? Or are they so confused they do not even know and are just reflexively opposing everything? Because no matter how you parse it, there is no moral consistency to the Republican position.