I Don’t Hate America!

The three remaining Republican candidates wishing to vie for the seat in Congress currently held by freshman DFL Rep. Tim Walz debated for the first time last night in Rochester.

First time? I guess if we’re playing under the “if no one was allowed to see it, it didn’t happen” rules, maybe

The Post Bulletin has coverage of the debate featuring Mayo physician Brian Davis, state Sen. Dick Day and state Rep. Randy Demmer, who collectively form “Team-3D.”

All three were fighting for the anti-immigration vote:

Day said a framework could be put in place that would alert potential employers to the immigration status of job-seekers.

“If we don’t protect our borders, we don’t have a country,” Day said.

State Rep. Randy Demmer of Hayfield and Mayo Clinic physician Brian Davis also said they’re strong believers in adopting a get-tough stance against illegal immigration.

Wow, great original insight, Dick.

The candidates also agreed on the importance of fostering greater energy independence by increasing the domestic oil supply, including drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and in making sure that DFL Rep. Tim Walz of Mankato is not re-elected to a second term in November.

I thought the cookie-cutter talking point on domestic oil was about “individual liberty and choices,” not energy independence. Oh, you mean this isn’t the Jason Lewis show? Sorry, my bad.

The candidates also seemed to touch on issues such as education, national security and health care.

The PB article did not mention if Iraq or transportation issues were discussed, though apparently Day’s greatest qualification is his old age and newest conquest is apparently earmarks.

“I’m too old to be influenced by power or prestige,” he said.

Day, an 18-year state senator, also said fiscal discipline would be a top priority and that he would shun earmarks.

“I’m a guy that says, ‘no earmarks. We should cut out the earmarks,’” he said.

I wish we could get real and stop with this demagoguery about earmarks. Good luck getting funding for a project, say, I don’t know, Highway 14, to go through the United States Congress in a stand alone bill. People complain about how nothing gets done in Washington as it is; can you imagine how bad it would be if every single line item to be appropriated had to have its own bill? Ollie has her views here.

Will we see Day on a mission to stop omnibus bills in the state legislature, too? Somehow I doubt it.

Tomorrow, Brian Davis will appear on NARN’s “the FINAL word” at 3:00 p.m. on 1280 AM. Glad to see Davis has caught on that it’s easier to reach his prospective voters on a conservative station as opposed to say, this lefty-blog.

If you’re in the First District, or even three miles away from the interchange of Cliff Road and 35E, and thus out of the 5,000 watt station’s reach, they offer convenient web streaming. How sweet of them!

I’d like to take this time to extend a warm greeting to new visitors from MNPublius (which has noted our “respect” for Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer), Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer’s own campaign (which noted that “the bloggers are talking” about the campaign in an email) and the Rochester Post-Bulletin’s new blog “Political Party,” which looked at how Dr. Brian Davis deals with bloggers such as us.

So, welcome.  Stick around.  Have a good time.

This past Saturday, Dr. Brian Davis (GOP candidate for Congress in the First) and I met each another for the first time.

Was Davis polite and cordial?

Arrogant and standoffish?

Diplomatic but firm?

Or was he none of the above and just went ahead with his plan to destroy me by unleashing his onslaught of evil, non-Mayo approved radiology, err, radiation oncology upon my being?

Stick around to the end of the post to find out!

That same day I made the four-mile trek to Prior Lake High School, my alma mater, in my hometown of Savage to check out the festivities of the DFL State Central Committee meeting and the debate between DFL US Senate candidates hoping to take on Norm Coleman next November.

The high school, open two years following the graduation of Jason and I (I had be nostaligic and check the athletic showcases; Jason looks so manly in his football uniform!), had yet to receive a visit from me. It is quite the impressive facility with just a few hundred people present, but I’m sure with overcrowded hallways and classrooms during a school day it is less so.

As I got there well before the debate I was able to secure a front-row seat nearby the TV cameras, Mike McIntee from the Uptake and a nice fellow who introduced himself as JP, a Republican tracker.

For a play-by-play rundown of the debate, check out my liveblog post.
Two hours certainly flies by when you have four candidates answering questions, and both factors also limit the amount of questions that can be asked. The debate was good in that it offered candidates a chance to give their views on a items which have yet to receive such focus such as NASA funding and the creation of a Department of Peace. Missed were lengthy discussions on climate change (so we don’t have to hear Al Franken recite Al Gore again) and transportation (bridge collapse, etc.).

Here are my impressions of how each candidate performed and basically my thoughts of each candidate so far:

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer: Passionate, thoughtful, and articulate. In my opinion he won the debate. Some friends of mine might be surprised I would think of a guy as far left as him perhaps the best candidate (considering I’m quite moderate), but I think he is a very qualified candidate for this position. So what if eliminating 70 percent of carbon emissions in the next ten years is close to impossible? So what if going to single-payer health care immediately is probably a proposition only from fantasy? So what if shutting down all military bases in Iraq soon probably isn’t attainable? The vision to at least try and get to those goals is what we need right now in this time of mediocrity (at best!) with Coleman.

Jim Cohen: He is a smart guy who has experience in several key areas but unfortunately doesn’t come across with any sort of “it” factor, especially when compared to the other three. Answering after Nelson-Pallmeyer may have hurt him during this debate in the following regard, but he comes across as regurgitating the same progressive viewpoints already delivered in a more passionate and thorough manner by Nelson-Pallmeyer. He spoke of needing new solutions for higher education, but had no solutions immediately available. He would be a fine candidate for the state legislature or even Congress, but just isn’t the guy right now to take on Coleman.

Al Franken: Uh oh, I better put on the protective armor before MDE pulls quotes from me. Just kidding, of course. Franken is someone who bugs me in the sense that he comes across as someone who always needs to be the “rockstar,” which is understandable considering his celebrity past but isn’t what all people want in a US Senator. Other things that bugged me about Franken during the debate: putting his hands on other candidates (just made him look controlling), tossing it to Ciresi a couple of times when it was his turn to answer (as if he was the moderator), all of the “I know so-and-so in a certain situation and I’m going to use two-and-a-half minutes telling that story and 30 seconds giving my position” stories, and his use of so many jokes. I know he’s a comedian and the use of jokes gets people to laugh and like him, but does nothing to prove to me personally that he is a the best candidate for this job. One joke that did work was was the Richard Pearle reference to point out why a cabinet level department of peace wouldn’t work, but continuing to make fun of things like George W. Bush’s public speaking ability doesn’t help him. Any College Democrat can do that; we need something more out of a US Senate candidate.

Mike Ciresi: Along with Franken, Ciresi appears quite moderate compared to Cohen and JNP and some people see these moderate stances as trying to win over Republicans; I’m not sure this is true for Ciresi. On health care, for example, Franken answered the question “What would you do to get to universal health care” by giving excuses why single-payer wouldn’t work. While not advocating for single-payer, Ciresi actually answered how universal would be paid for. I find it appealing that Ciresi, while having a tremendous resume as a trial lawyer, doesn’t feel the need to tell specific stories about his experience very often. After all, its a debate! Answer the questions and give us your positions.

Links to YouTube’s of the debate are here.

Now back to what I started the post with: Yes, as I was wrapping up shop and shutting down my computer, I was greeted by candidate for Congress in the First District, Dr. Brian Davis.

Yes, a debate in the Second district. With DFLers. Going for Senate, not the House.

Regardless of how ruthless we have been to him, he came across as a nice guy, even telling me that if it was indeed all of my own work, I did a good job with the Randy Demmer per-diem stuff.

Who else would have done the post if not me? That I don’t know. Davis gave me his business card and told me to contact him if we wanted to grant him an interview, which we may down the road.

As opposed to my four mile trek, Davis had an 81 mile trip one-way from Rochester to Savage. He must be very, very interested in the positions of the candidates for Senate from the DFL to make that trek with $3.00/gallon fuel, or maybe he was just making a pit stop before going to an old buddies house in some city like Shakopee for darts, pizza and beer?

Who knows. As long as he doesn’t tell me how to blog, I won’t tell him what to do with his Saturdays!

Below is a screen shot from Brian Davis’s official campaign website which illustrates a quote prominently placed on the front page:

“Instead of re-electing professional politicians, we need to return to a system of electing citizen legislators…”

I can interpret this to be nothing but a subtle dig at his three opponents for the Republican nomination to take on Rep. Tim Walz in Minnesota’s First Congressional District.

The three all are currently in elected office while Davis never has. Dick Day of Owatonna has served in the State Senate since 1991, Randy Demmer of Hayfield has served in the House of Representatives since 2003 and Mark Meyer of Lake Crystal serves as chair of the Lake Crystal-Wellcome Memorial board of education.

Walz, elected in 2006, had no prior elected experience. If Walz, who unseated six-term member Gil Gutknecht, is indeed the target of this quote it is borderline dishonesty on the part of Davis.

I must wonder: why would Davis take up prominent real estate on his home page going negative toward his Republican opponents as opposed to using that space for something which would highlight his ultimate goal: defeating Tim Walz?

As we have previously pointed out, Davis has struggled to collect campaign contributions within the First District. Will delegates to the GOP First District convention appreciate Davis’s negativity?

Dr. Brian Davis, Republican candidate for Congress in Minnesota’s First District, asserted that his third-quarter individual contributions under $200 help show the “whole story” of his supposed rock-solid support from within the district (this was in response to our report that just 15 of Davis’s 80 third-quarter individual donors were from Minnesota). We went on to blow his “whole story” claim out of the water by showing that a mere 5.7 percent of his total contributions were under $200. Thats barely a chapter or passage of the story let alone the whole book.

Now Davis is claiming another “victory” in his little battle to unseat Tim Walz (right here in the comments at IDHA! mind you!).

Hi DJ,

Twenty-nine percent of the contributions have come from Minnesota as of the conclusion of business yesterday (50 of 175 contributions). Twenty-six percent of the total originates from our State.

Wow. Get the man a cocktail!

29 percent!

Geez. He really showed me!
I wonder: if he gets 29 percent of the vote at the First District GOP convention for the endorsement, will he will brag about that, too?

All snarkiness aside, this figure is worthless for two simple reasons:

1. As I foreshadowed by with my sarcasm above, can anyone give me a situation in which 29 percent of contributions coming from inside a candidate’s home state could be impressive? Let alone impressive enough to brag about on a blog published by someone on that candidate’s opposing side of the political aisle?
2. Maybe the figure could be relevant but only after all of the fourth quarter reports are actually filed (mid-January)! Brian Davis has 29 percent of his contributions coming from within Minnesota. So f’ing what?! If he is going to use that figure as a benchmark to judge success, how can that be done without comparing it to those of his opponents?

Davis went on in the same comment to invite me to join the campaign as a volunteer.

Well, Dr. Davis, thanks, but no thanks. At the risk of sounding arrogant as you, I must say: continuing to dominate this game of intellectual ping-pong is much too fun quit playing in the middle of the game.

It seems that Brian Davis, candidate for Congress in Minnesota’s First District, has shown his hand when it comes to campaign strategy early on.

Apparently absent from that strategy is tact. Check out Jason’s earlier post highlighting Davis’s decision to campaign while trick-or-treating with his kids last week on Halloween.

Showing your family on a piece of literature or on a campaign website? That can give voters an opportunity to see the personal, as opposed to the political, side of the candidate.

Campaigning for office while your kids trick-or-treat? While not scandalous or even unethical, it’s the opinion of this blogger that trick-or-treating on Halloween is a very sacred annual event in a child’s life; one which should provide memories for a family based on the costumes, candy and carving of pumpkins. What Davis did crosses a delicate line and violates that sacredness. Those memories should not have to take a backseat to politics.

By showcasing such activity on his blog, Davis obviously feels this is “creative campaigning.” I find it to be simply “tacky.”

In the same post, Davis takes issue with our previous assertion that due to lackluster fundraising within the district, he may not have the support of those necessary to gain the GOP nomination. He didn’t have any real in-depth rebuttal, but had three comments about what we said. In the third comment, Davis becomes the second GOP contender for the First District nomination to show struggles with mathematics, but let’s start from the beginning:

1) It’s good to have friends and colleagues who are willing to provide support.

Sure. Al Franken has given similar justification for his outsta…er…out-of-state fundraising, but Kevin Kline, Lucy Lawless or Paul Newman will not be able to cast a vote for Franken at the State DFL Convention. Likewise, Davis’s nationwide network of physician friends who gave money will not be able to cast a vote for him at the district GOP convention.

The difference comes here: Al Franken has demonstrated that he has already built a grassroots network of supporters here in Minnesota who are working the phones and will doorknock with him. Has Davis? I mean, other than his children, of course. (Only kidding!)

2) Having receipts greater than expenses is a good way to run a business or a campaign.

Being stuck with campaign debt, which is a possibility for Randy “the Whammy” Demmer, would suck, so Davis is correct here. Of course, his personal contribution went a long way towards that accomplishment for the campaign.

Well, over one-third of the way toward that end anyway. Davis’s campaign kitty had $74,104.85 in it at the end of October; Davis donated $26,193.25.

3) The FEC reports don’t tell the whole story, particularly as it concerns donations at $200 and below.

I’m quite curious: what part of the story do they not tell, Dr. Davis? Of $55,035 of individual contributions in the third quarter, just $3,132 of that was from contributions less than $200, which aren’t listed on the FEC report. Even if all of that came from within the First District, at just 5.7 percent of individual contributions that’s hardly anything to brag about, or even “add to the story.” Compared to the percentages of his “Team 3-D” comrades, it’s even less impressive (Day had 20 percent and Demmer had 31.8 percent).

The percentage of the incumbent, Tim Walz, was 28.1.

Randy Demmer, who has proven he can’t count, isn’t a doctor, so I suppose I can see him having some issues with mathematics. For someone with a Ph.D., however, Brian Davis should be able to not only count, but do a better job of interpreting equations and figures.

*Knock knock*

    “Why hello there!”

“Hi, I’m Brian Davis, running for the House of Representatives in District 1″

    ”Do you want a Snicker’s?  Maybe some Caprisun?”

“No, I mean I’m running a campaign and am trying to get the word out”

   “You look so cute in that costume.  Are you a Republican?”

———–

Actually, according to his blog, the letter he gave looked more like this:

“October 31, 2007

Dear Rochester Neighbor:

Happy Halloween! The reason that I’m writing to you is to introduce you to my campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives in our District, the 1st District of Minnesota and to seek your support…..”

I just had to make a joke out of this.  I will admit that I was campaigning for Tim Walz last year during Halloween.  This was when I worked with the AFL-CIO: Working America organization.  It felt very uncomfortable to knock on a family’s door, being greeted with smiles, and tell them I was out door-knocking for union-endorsed candidates.  Of course, I did not have any kids with me as Brian Davis did.  I could see him getting a warmer welcome when with the kids, but really, the last thing a family wants to see is someone out campaigning.

 I stopped after only a few houses when the sun went down.  It’s an interesting tactic though… most people are home and expecting knocks on the door.  What better way to ensure getting the word out on a day people will answer, and not just ignore you.

 Hat tip to Brian for mentioning us on his blog within his Halloween post. 

A talking point the Republican Party has used lately to illustrate itself as the party best for Minnesota is that the Democrats finance their campaigns, at every level, nearly exclusively with out of state contributions. In a candidate debate held in Winona last year, District 28 State Senate candidate Steve Drazkowski, R-Wabasha, essentially accused his opponent, incumbent Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, of being bought off by Barbara Streisand and the fringe “Hollywood left.”

Barbara Streisand has an interest in southeastern Minnesota? I could barely keep a straight face at the accusation of Drazkowski, who has since been elected to the House.

Neither could Murphy.

This election cycle the right-wing bomb throwers have gone after DFL US Senate candidate Al Franken for his large amount of campaign contributions from Los Angeles, New York and other places not within Minnesota.

Looking to the First District Congressional race though, large amounts of out of state contributions are going to not a DFLer, but to a Republican, Dr. Brian Davis. Davis, a Mayo Clinic physician who is one of four Republicans seeking to unseat first-term DFLer Tim Walz, declared himself the undisputed champion for the third quarter fundraising period.

Via his blog:

This past Monday, October 15th, was the third quarter fundraising filing deadline, and I am very pleased with the support we’ve received. During the third quarter - July 1 to September 30 – our campaign reported $81,228 in total receipts. Contributions from individuals totaled $55,035 - the most of any Republican candidate in the race. Better yet, we still have over $74,000 in the campaign’s coffers.

The $55,035 of individual donations looks quite impressive compared to Day’s $39,707, Demmer’s $16,855 and Meyer’s barely-on-the-radar $2,650. However, of the 80 individuals who gave donations itemized on the FEC form (over $200), just 15 were from Minnesota.

An impressive base of donors? Hardly. The 65 out of state donors, nearly exclusively a group of physicians, may help get the campaign off the ground but will be unable to be in the trenches with the candidate knocking on doors, dropping literature and most importantly, voting in the First District GOP Convention.

Maybe Davis has plans to take a page out of the playbook of gentleman’s club owner Richard Jacobson and have all of them register as voters in the First and list “Mayo Clinic” as as their residences, but in our brief dealings with Davis we find him to be more reasonable than to attempt that type of shenanigans.

Of the $55,035, just $12,352 came from First District Republicans. Of that $1,450 was contributed in-kind by John Morris who flew Davis around. Davis himself gave the campaign $26,193.25.

If Davis feels that claiming “victory” after a FEC filing quarter in which he himself donated more than two times the cold, hard cash other First District contributors did well, more power to him.

It is Halloween; what Davis should not only find not impressive, but downright scary is who by and large gave more money to Walz than to him: other Mayo physicians!

You mean the Mayo employees (with the exception of a few) not only snubbed their co-worker, but gave a ton of money to his opponent? Yup! Over 90 employees of Mayo (radiologists, anestheislogists, cardiologists, neurologists, the whole gambit) contributed to the Walz campaign in the third quarter.

Most notably: Dr. Glenn Forbes, CEO of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, gave $2,300 to Walz. More interestingly: just a year and a half ago he gave $500 to Gil Gutknecht. It’s not surprising that if Davis can’t get the support of people like Forbes he isn’t getting the support of former Gutknecht supporters outside of Mayo, such as former GOP state Rep. David Bishop. Bishop, who was House Ways and Means chairman under Speaker Steve Sviggum from 1999-2002, gave Walz $1000.

Don’t get me wrong: Walz’s re-election bid is by no means a slam dunk. However, with how vulnerable some in the GOP consider him to be, the lackluster fundraising, especially by the so-called “third quarter champion” Davis, this Halloween has to be frightening to those looking to take back the First for the GOP.

Since some of the Republican candidates for Congress in Minnesota’s First District, such as state Rep. Randy “the Whammy” Demmer and Brian Daivs, have had problems with various issues such as “mathematics” and “perspective” it has been suggested that I open the Danielson School of Adult Education. If I did, I wouldn’t even require an admissions application from any of candidates lined up to take on Tim Walz as I know at least the two I mentioned can pay the tuition without a problem. Considering all of the extra per diem Rep. Demmer has taken, I would just be scared that his tuition would be considered publicly subsidized. Hee Hee.

I can teach the math course seeing as I have basically already given away the curriculum. My IDHA colleague and registered nurse Jason Bauman can teach an introductory course on health care. Ian Galchutt could teach a course on communications, but he would probably just indoctrinate the class with Barack Obama talking points.

While we work out issues with obtaining a land grant and gaining accreditation, here’s a classic from Hall and Oates clearly titled after the concept of my school.

Recent news concerning Dr. Brian Davis of the Mayo Clinic has caused me to write. Ollie from Bluestem caused quite a stir with the conservative author at “Blonde Sagacity.” Apparently it was enough of a stir to get Dr. Brian Davis to answer Ollie’s questions on the (not surprising) conservative blog.

The posts are related to Dr. Brian Davis view on embryonic stem cell research and his ties with the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology & Oncology (ASTRO). Ollie writes:

“Mayo cancer doc Brian Davis came out with his views:

Mayo Clinic cancer physician Brian Davis said he was committed to conservative values like protecting life, stem cell research, no same-sex marriages, securing our borders and remaining offensive in the Global War on Terror.

“You don’t need to destroy a human embryo to do stem cell research,” Davis explained.

This is interesting. Brian J. Davis was in Walz’s DC office in April on behalf of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology & Oncology(ASTRO) to discuss Walz’s position about stem cell when he told Walz of his potential plans to challenge him in 2008, according to the Rochester Post Bulletin. The Cancer Leadership Council includes ASTRO among supporters of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Will Davis continue to be active in an organization that supports legislation to expand embryonic stem cell research? We’re curious if he shared ASTRO’s agenda with New Ulm’s GOP funsters, or confided his opposition to embryonic stem cell research with Congressman Walz back in April while lobbying on behalf of ASTRO.”

Dr. Brian Davis answers these questions on the conservative blog:

1. Will Davis continue to be active in an organization that supports legislation to expand embryonic stem cell research?

Yes, I anticipate remaining active in this organization. While I may take issue with ASTRO’s stance on this particular issue, I remain supportive of the broader aims of the organization as they relate to providing quality cancer care to our patients and supporting cancer research.

2. We’re curious if he shared ASTRO’s agenda with New Ulm’s GOP funsters.

No, this was not a topic of discussion at the meeting in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota with the group from New Ulm and elsewhere.

3. Did Davis confide his opposition to embryonic stem cell research with Congressman Walz back in April while lobbying on behalf of ASTRO?

No, our discussions were focused primarily on the specific legislative agenda of ASTRO’s at that time. This agenda did not include any references to embryonic stem cell research. Nonetheless, Congressman Walz shared some of his views on embryonic stem cell research but did not inquire about mine. Consequently, I did not take the time to relate my personal views to him on this matter.

As a representative for ASTRO, Dr. Brian Davis should fully support measures that were passed as part of the organization’s legislative agenda. I keep thinking about how MSUSA students advocate for 0% tuition because we voted for this wording in our own agenda. When visiting with legislators, we are bound by our representation of MSUSA and the students to push a 0% tuition increase, not go there on our own and say we don’t personally care if tuition is increased. Dr. Brian Davis stated, “Consequently, I did not take the time to relate my personal views to him on this matter” referring to embryonic stem-cell research. If I was meeting with a legislator (or in his case, a congressman!) and they told me their stance on tuition, would I not take the time to advocate for my organization’s view… especially if I am there on behalf of the organization? Apparently if I didn’t feel strongly enough, I could ignore it. He pushed aside his trip to represent his organization, to represent himself instead. This is evidenced by his hinting of running against Walz.

The second statement that concerned me was his view on embryonic stem-cell research. Ollie quoted him saying, “You don’t need to destroy a human embryo to do stem cell research.” As a medical professional and person that people look up to, I am astonished that his personal bias goes beyond sound medical research. As a doctor, I respect him greatly for his work. I work with great doctors that excel in their practice. As a candidate for Walz’s seat, I criticize his belief that embryonic stem-cell research is the destruction of life. It is saving lives from soon-to-be-already-destroyed embryos! The American Medical Association, the organization that physicians are members of supports fully-funded embryonic stem-cell research. What is Dr. Brian Davis trying to prove when he doesn’t follow what research papers, organizations that he’s a part of, and many of his republican colleagues all agree on?

Just a quick paragraph from my 10-page research paper entitled, “Stem Cell Research: The Morality Policy and What Nurses Can Do”:

The authors, along with many organizations from the scientific community like the American Academy of Neurology and the American Medical Association show a congruent trend toward fully funding stem-cell research. Discussions are made on the ethics and how current restrictions limit research, slowing progression toward useful treatments. There were similar guidelines put forth among the articles that suggest new ways of ethically advocating stem-cell research (McCloskey, 2002; Okie, 2005). These guidelines tended toward stem-cell advocates and still the moral policy of opponents is challenged. The Committee on the Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research was quoted on a number of occasions suggesting recommendations to move forward with the vast potential stem-cell research has (McCloskey, 2002). The committee suggested that life is not being taken away from stem-cell research, and that stem-cell lines are from embryos already going to be destroyed. Opponents still hold their moral convictions despite the ethical bargaining of the committee.

Sources and great reads:

Cedar, S.H. (2006). Stem cell and related therapies: Nurses and midwives
representing all parties. Nursing Ethics, 13(3), 292-303.

Ennen, K. (2001). Shaping the future of practice through political
activity: How nurses can influence health care policy. AAOHN
Journal, 49(12), 557-569.

McCloskey, B. (2002). The controversy surrounding stem cell research.
Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, 3(1), 4-13.

National Institutes of Health (2006). Federal Policy
[Stem Cell Information]. Retrieved November 11, 2006 from
Web site: http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/defaultpage.asp

Okie, S. (2005). Stem-cell research: Signposts and roadblocks. The
New England Journal of Medicine, 353(1), 1-5.

Schwartz, R. S. (2006). The politics and promise of stem-cell research.
The New England Journal of Medicine, 355(12), 1189-1191.