Stem cell alternatives being ignored

The Weekly Standard has an excellent editorial, based on this moral principle: "There are some things we should never do, even in the name of progress. The moral history of mankind, as Paul Ramsey once said, is more important than its medical history." It is with this in mind that I wonder why more press attention is being given to President Bush’s plan to veto the bill funding embryonic stem cell research as opposed to the other (neglected) bills in the US Senate that would fund stem cell research that doesn't destroy embryos. Why are the majority of politicians in the US House and Senate, and their counter-parts in Europe (albeit to a lesser extent), so bent on destroying human embryos when alternatives are available?