printable version5 Questions: Political adviser to Michael J. Fox on stem cells and Nov. 7 elections
John Rogers
Last week, a commercial showing actor Michael J. Fox—shaking from his Parkinson's disease while he spoke in favor of stem cell research—aired in several states and quickly became the focus of campaign debates. To size up how the push to expand embryonic stem cell research could affect the Nov. 7 elections, Medical Center Report's Michelle L. Brandt spoke with John Rogers, a political adviser to Fox.
1. I recently read a critique that calls the commercial with Michael J. Fox the most powerful political television spot since Lyndon Johnson's daisy commercial. Why is it striking such a chord?
Rogers: Stem cells are on people's minds these days. There has been a lot of education and a lot of awareness about it. I think Michael is somebody that people know, somebody that people can relate to. He's a prompt for the issue for the people, and I think that's powerful.
2. You chose to run commercials in a few states. Why did you target the ones you did?
Rogers: We looked at states that had a pro-stem cell candidate running against a candidate who clearly is not for embryonic stem cell research. That was the first dividing line. We then went through and asked ourselves which were the close races. We wanted to get involved where we could really make a difference. We reached out to several campaigns, and a few said they'd love for us to do an ad. We put a lot of effort in getting the ads together, and we're now in three states—Maryland, Missouri and Wisconsin.
3. Although Missouri has made stem cell research a traditional pro-life issue, some candidates such as Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin have turned the issue into an economic one. Which, from your perspective, is likely to have more of an impact with voters?
Rogers: We view [the issue] as a pro-hope initiative. I think that the whole concept of hope and pro-life and how we view it—which is that supporting stem cell research is a pro-life position—is more germane. Economics is secondary to the science.
4. Rep. Heather Wilson, R.-N.M., has run campaign commercials saying she disagrees with President Bush's restrictions on stem cell research. Although the pro-stem cell candidates in the three states you've targeted are Democrats, would you support Republicans?
Rogers: From our vantage point, this is a nonpartisan issue crying out for a bipartisan solution. The fact that Heather is doing that is terrific. We're campaigning for Democrats because by and large it's Democrats who meet our criteria: A pro-stem cell candidate running against an anti-stem cell candidate. But Michael and all of us would campaign for Republicans, such as Rep. Michael Castle, R-Del., and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. This is about making sure we're electing pro-stem cell research candidates regardless of party.
5. Yet if the Democrats were to win control of both houses in Congress, isn't that likely to be better for the legislation to expand funding for stem cell research that Congress passed and Bush then vetoed?
Rogers: We're all about building a veto-proof majority. As a practical matter, when you look across the aisle there are by and large more Democrats who are pro-stem cell research—although that's not to say that no Republicans are pro-stem cell research. We've thought about, prayed and put intellectual rigor in this issue, and we've looked at the polls, which show 70 percent of Americans support this research. We're saying: the majority wants research to go forward, and our country is based on majority rule.