By By Russell Akiyama

So, where will the Conservatives take us now? Yes, it would seem that both the left and right are (at least congressionally) taking up arms or more specific, cellular constructions that could potentially be arms, against the executive.

A few years ago, the president was able to galvanize his party against the “un-American” agenda of the left with much avail. Unfortunately for him, his party in Congress is beginning to become weary of the almost draconian hold congressional leadership kept against the moderate Republicans in both houses. James Dobson, a social conservative leader, was seen endorsing, “virtually excommunicating the seven Republican members of the Senate who support the accommodation,” according to a Los Angeles Times article on April 30. Writing on the controversial judicial appointments and the current stem cell debate, Ronald Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times looks at the line of compromises Republicans will have to make with both the Democrats and their own moderate contingent. “Fifty House Republicans voted with Democrats last week for legislation to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research,” wrote Brownstein.

Moreover, Bush’s approval ratings are at the lowest they have ever been in his five years as president. According to the most recent Gallup poll, the president’s approval ratings are the lowest of any president in their second term. His rating is an anemic 45 percent-even sadder, when compared to the next lowest second term approval rating at 56 percent, which belongs to the late President Ronald Reagan in March 1985.

What does this mean? To quote Carolyn Dudek, a professor of political science at the University, “The writing is on the wall.” In the same Gallup poll, the president received marks lower than 50 percent in every question with exception to his handling of terrorism. Issues included questions on social security reform, job creation (or lack thereof) and of course, national security.

Recently, the president commented on CNN about the opposition to his agenda in Congress, saying, “It would be like water trying to cut through rock…” Well, Mr. Bush, it would seem that your rock is becoming more like mud as the liquefying resolve of the members in Congress and the polls of the American people are cutting through your agenda in historical proportions.

Here are some of the promises of stem cell research: “Stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions and disabilities including Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.” These are diseases that have gone for years without many breakthroughs by way of cure. In fact, one of the most prominent proponents for stem cell research is none other than the wife of one of the most famous conservative presidents of our time: Nancy Reagan.

It would seem the president’s strategy of forceful moral injection is running into a wall. As reported in the New York Times, in a recent press conference, Bush spoke on the ethical implications of the research. “I felt it was best to stand on principle, and that is, taxpayers’ monies for the use of experimentation that would destroy life is a principle that violates something I — I mean, is a position that violates a principle of mine.”As the president said in his usual jumbled style, the justification for using the first veto of his presidency is founded in moral principle.

Let’s look at other historical decisions that were made on basis of moral principle: the Spanish inquisition of 1478 was a war on the “heretics” in Hispania that the Roman Catholic ruling monarchy and class endorsed and began. The result? The burning of 323,362 people, and 17,659 in effigy, as stated by bibletopics.com. The victimes were mostly Jews who had lived in Spain.

Next, we have the Thirty Year’s War, which was fought between the Catholic Bourbons and the Protestants to solve “dogmatic” issues between the two factions. The result? Millions died in a war that spanned an entire generation, and several countries were thrown into a tailspin in terms of population, geography and economics. Apartheid was a segregationist policy adopted in South Africa to, “secure the native population” of the country. As a result of this historical decision: “71 percent of people aged over 20 years have not completed secondary schooling. In 2001, 60-percent of 9-year-old children were unable to write, 70 percent of men aged 30 to 40 are unemployed – educated only for manual work,” according to bstrust.org.

What many individuals also do not realize is the recent stem cell bill passed in Congress only allows scientists to use leftover embryos that are frozen in fertility clinics from couples who used in-vitro fertilization. During the in-vitro fertilization process extra embryos are made, yet few Americans consider this process unethical, and it has blessed many couples with the oppotunity to have children.

There are approximately 400,000 frozen embryos that most likely will be discarded, unless, of course, a few hundred thousand mothers get the urge to donate their wombs and bring to term these “snow-flake babies.” If we want to delve into moral principles again, it would seem these clusters of cells could sacrifice themselves for the greater good – in the same manner Bush asks soldiers to lay down their lives in Iraq.

So what will be the end of this debate? Will it end in a menagerie of lost opportunities? Will President Bush relinquish the fight over stem cells? Or will this debate end in a misinformed veto, sealing the fate of an already unpopular leader?