Look, I know the Democratic party in Georgia lines up to the right of center.  Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) is pro-gun, anti-abortion, opposes federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, voted with Republicans in 2005 to block debate on investigations of "alleged administration abuses relating to the Iraq war," co-sponsored one of the no-flag-burning bills, and co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act.  Aside from his positions on Medicare and Social Security (which seem to be, keep them and don't privatize them), he's pretty much a conservative.  The only reason I can figure for him to be in danger here is because he chose to put a "D" behind his name instead of any other random letter, and the Republican base, whipped into a frothing frenzy here, is ignoring the fact that he's just like them in favor of another guy, who will want to privatize Social Security, who chose an "R."  It's ridiculous.

That said, what is even more ridiculous is Zell Miller, former Democratic Senator from Georgia, is out campaigning for Rick Santorum.  Rick Santorum, who:

• Compares homosexuality to bestiality
• Supported the Terry Schiavo debacle
• Voted "No" on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation
• Voted "No" on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education
• Voted "No" on repealing tax subsidies for corporations that move their jobs offshore
• Voted "No" on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%)
• Voted "Yes" on defunding renewable and solar energy
• Voted "No" on including oil and gas smokestacks mercury regulations
• Voted “Yes” on allowing lobbyist gifts to Congress
• Voted “No” on establishing a Senate Office of Public Integrity
• Voted “Yes” on loosening license and background checks at gun shows
• Voted “No” on allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for prescription drugs
• Voted “No” on allowing patients to sue HMOs
• Voted against educating teens on contraception, for abstinence-only education, and for every abortion related ban that has come before him
• And states he agrees with Bush 98% of the time
  Source for votes: On the Issues

For all he's trying to recast his image in the face of this year's election, Santorum is anti-everything the Democratic party supposedly stands for.  He's a hard right wet dream.  Nobody who calls himself "Democrat," regardless of his particular stripe, should be campaigning for this guy.  If Miller wants to campaign for Santorum, because Miller "believes in his leadership that much," then he's welcome to do so, but he should pick another random letter to stick behind his name.  "D" is just a bald-faced lie, even in Georgia.

How about "W" instead?

Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) is working on a compromise on stem cell research, reports the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC).

Personally, I lean decidedly left when it comes to stem cell research, particularly embryonic stem cells.  If the embryos (or pre-embryos, as clinics refer to them) are not going to be developed - for whatever reason - then I fully believe it nobler to use them in furtherance of cures for disease or injury than to either dispose of them or keep them frozen forever.

I recognize, however, that a number of people feel differently, for reasons they believe as fervently, and that that number constitutes a significant enough population to block most research altogether.  This makes compromise necessary if we hope to make any inroads at all.

Isakson, working with Steve Stice, a professor at the University of Georgia, has identified such a compromise: underdeveloped eggs (those which are fertilized but do not develop) and fertilized but malformed eggs which cannot survive in the womb.  These by-products of in vitro fertilization are routinely disposed of in biomedical trash heaps.  The pre-embryos will be destroyed whether they are used for research or not.  They will not be saved indefinitely, they will not be implanted - ever, in their current state, they will simply be trashed because they are of no use whatsoever to anyone at all, ever.

Except stem cell researchers looking for cures for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and spinal cord injuries: all of which affect actually born human beings who are not biomedical trash heaps - they have real lives, and families who love them, and children or parents or friends or pets who count on them.  People, fully developed human beings, who could benefit from the material contained in a set of cells that will never, not even under ideal circumstances, never become a human being.

Isakson shopped his proposal behind closed Senate doors this past summer, but had few, if any takers on either side of the debate.  Those favorable to stem cell research wanted the whole enchilada: no barriers to any research on fully-developed, donated embryos.  Much as I would like to see it, this isn't likely to happen at this point in time.  Even if Democrats take the House and the Senate, there is still the president to deal with.  He will veto any such bill with absolutely no regrets, and the Dems aren't going to have enough votes to overcome that.

Granted, malformed or underdeveloped pre-embryos aren't the most desirable candidates for research, but they are better than the restrictions scientists labor under now.  Currently funded research is restricted to 64 strains that were on record when the last law was signed.  Researchers indicate those 64 stem cell lines "have been contaminated and are degenerating."

Early in his presidency, Bush limited federally funded research — a relatively small $38 million this year — to 64 stem cell lines then in existence worldwide. Researchers say they are hampered because most of those lines have been contaminated and are degenerating. Dozens of new stem cell lines have been created, but have been ruled off-limits to federal funding.

Isakson's proposal would give stem cell researchers access to donated, fertilized eggs, but only those that are considered nonviable and destined for destruction.

Certain other Republicans have expressed an interest in Isakson's proposal and could be brought on board compromise legislation.  Progressives have an opportunity to take a step forward on the issue, if only those in the legislative branch can give up the all-or-nothing mentality.

All-or-nothing got us "nothing" this year, and the year before that.  Let's go for "something."  Work the compromise, pass it, and overturn the subsequent veto.  We could get the votes for that, and we'd be doing a greater, more concrete service to the research community than we do by insisting on what it, at this time, a political impossibility.

Get just one step closer, and the impossible becomes more possible.