May 10, 2007 12:20 AM
Political science fiction? (UPDATED)
Cue the Twilight Zone music HERE.
Imagine, if you will...
...one of the great mysteries of the vast, political universe...
... from this month's first nationally-televised Republican presidential debate.
Why? When Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado was dying to talk about illegal immigration, and everyone in the audience expected him to talk about illegal immigration, why did he get a question about organ transplantation instead?
It's a mystery, and one that was still bothering Tancredo when he made a Sunday morning visit to This Week with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News. Watch the video HERE.
Well, the mystery has been solved -- we think.
It's too strange and complicated to explain, so we'll leave it to an expert science fiction writer at the Memphis Flyer magazine. (You've got to check this out -- at least if your name is Tom.)
Believe it, or not.
----------
UPDATE: The source of the mystery responds in an exclusive interview with "Back roads to the White House."
David F. Diamond, 75, a retired radio commentator and little-known presidential candidate from Tennessee, has just called to explain how he came to get his suggested question used during the Republican debate.
He said he is running for president to solve a severe shortage of organs available for life-saving transplants, and so when the co-sponsors of the debate, Politico.com, asked average folks to submit suggested questions, he sent in his question just like the rest of the general public.
Diamond said he wasn't even watching the debate when a friend called and said his name had just been read on national television.
"I just got lucky or I asked the right question," he told us. "It's not a mainstream topic for candidates, but that's the campaign I want to run."
His telephone voice is that of someone who has been in broadcasting for 40 years, which is to say deep and radio-worthy.
"I'm running a poor man's campaign for president. I don't have any wealth. I don't have any contributors at this point," he said. "I'm not going around the country because I don't have the budget to do that."
"I want to win, but my fall-back position is if I don't win, I have served the public interest by focusing public attention on this issue, which no one has done," he said.
Aside from his organ transplantation issue, he has a rather unique platform.
"If I should get the nomination, I'd ask the man who'd run almost as well as I to become the vice-presidential nominee, and then I'll adopt all of his positions on all the other issues," Diamond says.
So there you have it. A bandwagon for Rep. Tancredo to hop onto.
See the comments section for a copy of an editorial that Diamond has submitted to Politico.
May 12, 2007
7:03 AM
Lars writes:
The market rules! Let it rule. Don't hold it back. Lives are at stake. Where's Christian charity now , Mr Tancredo?
May 11, 2007
6:33 AM
Judy Overman writes:
What I want to know is why is everyone trying to hush Tom Tancredo. There is little mention of his name on television or radio. When his name is mentioned it is brief, to say the least. I think the problem is he does not have big money behind him. Big business wants illegals to do cheap labor so they make more profits. It's hush, hush, Tancredo. Give him ridiculous questions in the debates to totally humiliate him. Don't even think about letting him speak because what he may say just might make sense to the American people and give him a chance to be considered seriously for President. Is that what the liberal media is afraid of????
Come on media. Your dirty underwear is showing. Give this man a chance like everyone else. Just what is it you are afraid of????
May 10, 2007
9:31 AM
submitted by David F. Diamond writes:
The following has just been submitted to Politico.com (at their request).
------------
Editorial from republican presidential candidate David F. Diamond of Memphis, Tennessee.
In Thursday night's (5/3/07) republican presidential debate, the executive editor of Politico.com, James
VandeHei, posed my question to Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo: "Do you have a plan to solve the shortage of organs donated for transplant?"
I was not identified as a candidate, probably because almost no one knew I was. But I issued press releases to local and national media as early as March 15th. And on April 9, I stood outside the Federal building in Memphis and gave this statement to local reporters:
"The latest polls just out say that Republicans are looking for more choices for President. And I understand their frustration. The big boys in the race are taking lots of different positions on the issues. That’s understandable as they try to distinguish themselves in the marketplace.
The win-win aspect to this is that our candidates will refine the party’s stand on the major issues and in the end, by the time of our convention, we will be unified. I’m sure of that.
And that’s why I am focusing my candidacy on the issue of solving the shortage of organs for transplant purposes. This is designed to give my fellow Republicans another choice in the contest as it continues to evolve. As the presumptive party nominee, I have committed myself to adopt the positions of the number 2 contender who runs on all the other issues. In other words, he or she will have best expressed the consensus of the party’s view on all the big issues. And I’ll happily adopt those views as mine. In addition I will ask that person to serve as my vice-presidential running mate.
Here’s the beauty of all this: With me as the nominee and a vice president whose views I will enhance and support -- along with supporting the party platform -- we will have a unified party going into the general election. And we will have a candidate who can seriously attack a real problem. Thousands of people die each year because not enough organs are available for transplant.
My plan is a real solution to a real problem. And here it is:
-----------------------------
First, I need to state that this plan does not contemplate any sale of a kidney from a living person. There are risks in having such surgery and for that reason and others, we set that aside and take no position on that question. In point of fact, the need for kidneys will be adequately supplied with adoption of my plan.
The shortage of organs is taking the lives of 6,900 people unnecessarily each year. Donation is good. It is the highest altruistic step that a person can contemplate. However, for a number of reasons, many people are not willing to donate.
The solution is to provide a regulated system allowing the organs of cadavers to be sold as follows:
1. The Federal Organ Transplant law needs to be changed. A futures contract can provide that when a person has decided, for whatever reasons, not to donate organs, he or she (hereafter: the provider) can commit to a plan to have the organs sold if and when the provider is brain dead. This contract will also be signed by the next of kin, spouse or nearest living relative so that that party understands the purpose of the contract and agrees that they will not oppose its implementation when the provider dies. A provider's option to cancel the contract at any time prior to the provider's death will be included in the contract..
2. The sale of organs can be conducted by a broker, attorney or individual designated by the provider. Appropriate compensation to that party, such as a commission for services provided, would be set forth in the contract. The rest of the money will go to the provider’s estate.
3. The party designated by the provider must maintain a public record (like a broadcaster's operating log which is available for public viewing) specifying the individual who gets the organs, how much is being paid and the identification of the provider. This transparency will eliminate the need for a black market, and will stimulate public awareness. If there is a public record, as soon as organ sales begin, the news media will write articles about it pointing out how much money was involved in the transactions and stressing how much money goes to the heirs. This will persuade a lot of additional people to agree to such a contract, thus increasing the supply exponentially. Through the action of the law of supply and demand, the increased supply will cause prices to decrease to a level most people will consider reasonable. Unless you allow prices to be set by the market process you put a limit on the number of organs that might become available. Any fixed price, set by government or a special agency, would diminish the supply which would defeat the goal of making the most organs available. That would cause some individuals to decide not to participate. But if they knew that the organs they might provide are going to bring whatever the market process allows, they’ll have every incentive to take part.
4. The organs would have to be sold only for transplant to U. S. citizens in order to avoid foreigners from bidding up the price and reducing the supply to Americans. Of course, if other countries should adopt model legislation such as ours then we could reciprocate and become partners with them since their organ supply could be shared with ours.
5. The poor will not be discriminated against. They will have access to organs because the law will provide that, just as in Medicare or Medicaid presently, the government will pay for any medical procedure or supplies that the patient needs, upon a doctor’s certification that it is medically necessary. The government would buy organs on the market for those with Medicare or Medicaid unless donated organs were available. The same principle will apply for those with health insurance. And the wealthy, who may choose to be self insured, would be free to arrange for organs in the same market. Of course, people would still be free to donate organs. And participation by providers in the futures contracts would be entirely voluntary.
6. The use of this law will allow the provider to leave an estate to his heirs or a designated charity. A provider, with few or no assets, might otherwise have little to leave when he or she passed.
The proposal I’m offering will be, of course, subject to improvement and modification by the federal legislature. Meanwhile, I welcome and will entertain seriously any changes suggested so long as they do no damage to this essential requirement: We have to let the law of supply and demand work in order to maximize the number of organs that will be made available.
Oh, Tancredo never answered my question. He apparently thought I was advocating cloning bodies to use their organs. I hope this will disabuse him and any others of that notion.