In any court proceeding, there’s usually a winner and a loser. Not in this case, though. Here, everyone loses.
Her husband has been nationally villified by people who don’t even know him. His parents have lost their daughter, but not before presenting a national picture of themselves that wavered between pathos and pathetic, depending upon one’s point of view. Her life was cut short. And whereas anyone who remembers Karen Quinlan has forever etched in their minds the smiling picture taken as a school portrait, Terri Schiavo leaves behind a lasting image of a bedridden woman with glassy eyes who is either looking hopefully at her parents or–as her liquified brain would suggest–wasn’t looking at anything. Politicians attempted to make some quick hay and capital by going national over something that should have remained personal, with plenty of shame available to cover both GOP and Dem behavior.
Everyone loses.
This should never happen again.
But it will.
PAD
• 
Well said, Peter. I don’t always agree with the opinions put out on the site, but in this case you put the feelings of countless millions across better than I know I could have.
At least no one’s producing t-shirts reading “The courts ordered my daughter dead and all I got for it was this lousy t-shirt.” Yet. Give it a week.
On the subject of the attempts at making political hay, I found this little tidbit in a column by Andrew Sullivan at this link:
“That is how Bill Bennett, a leading conservative activist, could write last Thursday in the conservative National Review, that Jeb Bush, the Florida governor, should simply overrule the courts, break the law and send armed guards
to insert the feeding tube by force.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1543032,00.html
and I really don’t care for all that it suggests.
My apologies. I left out that it was thanks to Mark Evanier that I ran across that column.
It might sound callous to say that I’m glad she finally died, but as most rational people would agree, it’s certainly for the best. It’s time to move on. She’s in a better place, if you believe in such things. It’s time for the families to start the grieving process (and probably the lawsuits) and for the government to start minding its own business (which, as we all know, it won’t).
Tom DeLay said earlier, “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.”
As much as we’d like all this to be over, as long as opportunistic politicians think they can score points, we’ll unfortunately be hearing about Terri for many months to come.
“Tom DeLay said earlier, “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.”
As much as we’d like all this to be over, as long as opportunistic politicians think they can score points, we’ll unfortunately be hearing about Terri for many months to come.”
Especially if Tom DeLay and his bully boys have anything to say about it. Can you believe he wants to impeach the Federal judges who didn’t fall into lockstep with Congress and instead followed the law in regards to Schiavo? What a chilling effect. Bush should make it a moral imperative to overrule DeLay’s comments immediately. The moment you start punishing judges just because you don’t like their opinions, that’s pretty much it for checks and balances.
PAD
Sorry, but it isn’t over.
First begin the civil suits. Definitely a Wrongful Death suit against Schiavo, and possibly ones against the State of Florida and Jeb Bush for malfeasance of duty. Plus, I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the future, the Schindlers sue a couple of their advisors, not to mention the inevitable suits against whichever insiders write books.
Plus, I have the terrible feeling that Michael Schiavo will be gunned down a year hence by some crazed ex-Operation Rescue member, which act Randall Terry will call “inappropriate” and “deplorable,” but will say it is just a case of Schiavo “reaping what he sowed,” all the while disavowing his own complicity and incitements.
After all, it’s happened before …
The moment you start punishing judges just because you don’t like their opinions, that’s pretty much it for checks and balances.
That’s pretty much the point, isn’t it? Checks and balances are only getting in the way of their agenda. I’m sure Bush and those congressional Republicans understand what they’re doing, not just with the threats, but also with public comments that aim to undermine the public’s respect for and valuation of an independent judiciary. Makes it easier to brush those pesky judges aside once you’ve convinced the public they’re all wackos standing in the way of the good of American society.
As for Michael Schiavo…can’t say I’m entirely sympathetic. He’s brought some of the bad image on himself, with actions like barring the family from Terri’s final moments.
As for Michael Schiavo…can’t say I’m entirely sympathetic. He’s brought some of the bad image on himself, with actions like barring the family from Terri’s final moments.
Didn’t that come AFTER some of the Schindler family got into a scuffle with the security people? How is that Mr. Schiavo’s fault?
How could it remain a “family” matter when the family DISAGREED?
How could it remain a “personal” matter when the family brought it to court?
Since when is life and death ONLY a “personal” matter?
And how come Michael Schiavo wanted the rights of a husband but seemed to have trouble handling the responsibility of that whole wedding vow deal of forsaking all others? and how come he didn’t seem to recall Terri’s wishes until AFTER he got the money from the lawsuit?
Find out the answers to the above questions and more . . . in the transcripts of the half dozen trials over the past FIFTEEN YEARS where those questions were–or could have been–raised and answered.
And when DON’T politicians (as well the press and pundits) on all sides make hay out of a national issue? and when AREN’T there a mix of grand-standers and true-believers in an issue?
“It’s a ‘personal’/’family’ matter.”
Had Terri been someone’s pet or an “endangered” animal and you wanted to remove hydration and nutrition from it to “allow” it to die, see how fast the politics switch. As fast as when politicians will switch on a dime when debating drugs and guns and whether the mere presence of them should be banned or just harmful uses of them.
“Err on the side of life.”
Unless you’ve been sentence to death on flimsy evidence and shoddy lacksadaisacal lawyering one’s defense attorney, or one starting a war–or is it just err on the side of your own country’s life? Or it was someone NOT named “Terri Schiavo” who was on feeding tube but too bad for you, Congress explicitly stated the law would not have any precedence for other cases.
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. “Politics. Bah, humbug.”
“Everyone loses.” I was thinking the exact same thing earlier.
But where DeLay is concerned… there are so many ways in which this man’s opinion is invalid and hypocritical. He’s harping on the “activist judiciary”. Arrogant? If the courts had actively interjected themselves into the matter and forced the decision, *that* would be arrogance. No, if anything, the courts were consistent, at every level, even when their decisions were close. Nevermind the fact that he’s throwing a smoke screen and trying to deflect the growing scrutiny of his own misdeeds. Nevermind the fact that he and his own family chose to allow his own father, who was in the same predicament as Terri Schiavo following an accident, to die with dignity.
It’s unfortunate that even after she’s finally allowed to pass on, Terri Schiavo will still be used as a political ping pong ball by these “pro life” thugs.
Wildcat
There’s a lot more to fidelity than where you put your pëņìš.
As a non-American I feel sort of on dodgy ground here, but apparently that Mr DeLay has been going on about “out of control judges”.
Now, like I said, I’m not an American, I’m not from a country where the consititution is written down even, but I sort of thought that the US Constitution was quite keen on Judges not being controlled. Whole great bits about separation of powers, checks and balances and so on.
If I’ve not just got the wrong end of the stick, could someone point this out to Tom? I understand he’s some kind of law maker himself. He really shouldn’t have to have ignorant Brits point out the central basis of his legal system.
Get your living will put together. And if you have one, make sure it’s current. That’s all that needs to be said because you sure as hëll don’t want the government making the decision.
Dave Golbitz: It might sound callous to say that I’m glad she finally died, but as most rational people would agree, it’s certainly for the best.
Especially, since she was only alive from a biological standpoint. She breatha and ate… and then not entirely on her own. Rehabilitation wasn’t really a possiblity. Her brain was severely damaged and brain cell’s don’t grow back. She’d essentialy already been dead for 15 years.
Liquidlin: There’s a lot more to fidelity than where you put your pëņìš.
Sex is a natural biological and psychological drive. So… let me get this straight. Sex with an aware human being that you’re not married to… that’s bad. Sex with a vegetable that you are married to.. that would be okay? That’s just creepy.
This is one of those times when I feel like I should say something momentous, but can’t find the words. So I’ll simply extend my sympathies to all of Terri’s loved ones. The pavement on the road to Hëll notwithstanding, they did what they did out of love.
As for Terri, I’m unsure as to the details of the afterlife, but I hope that wherever she is, she’s at peace. And I’m sure that, if one or both of the parties who decided her fate here on Earth did wrong in her eyes, she’s forgiven them. Let that be the end of it.
Now, like I said, I’m not an American, I’m not from a country where the consititution is written down even, but I sort of thought that the US Constitution was quite keen on Judges not being controlled. Whole great bits about separation of powers, checks and balances and so on.
You have it right. The US Constitution requires that judges be independent precisely to keep them from bowing to external political pressure so that they can apply the law in a fair and impartial manner. But, DeLay doesn’t care about checks and balances. This all about pushing through their agenda. It was never at all about what Terri Shiavo may or may not have wanted. As I said before, there is no doubt that in the coming week, we will see more calls for the “nuclear option” to get rid of the filibuster so that Bush can push through all the “right thinking” judges.
As for Ken from Chicago: Repeating the same tired vilifications against Michael Shiavo serves no good anymore. The Schindlers actually encouraged him to date other women before they started to disagree about Terri’s condition. There is virtually none of that settlement money left, so what would have been the point of trying to inherit it? I realize that your mind is so closed to possibility that he actually did do what he believed Terri would have wanted that you’ll never give a serious thought to those questions, but maybe you should try actually reviewing some of the facts instead of the empty rhetoric.
“and I really don’t care for all that it suggests.”
It suggest that Bill Bennet made a dtupid suggestion and Jeb Bush ignored it. No big.
. She’s in a better place, if you believe in such things.
Hëll, she’s in a better place if you don’t believe in such things! If I’m ever in that position you all have my permission to come put me out of my misery. (Oh, hey now, what’s with the big smiles?)
. The moment you start punishing judges just because you don’t like their opinions, that’s pretty much it for checks and balances.
Agreed. (Along with the whole opening post. Well said, PAD.)
There’s a lot more to fidelity than where you put your pëņìš.
Fellas, do NOT try this line at home.
Didn’t that come AFTER some of the Schindler family got into a scuffle with the security people?
Not what I read.
Didn’t that come AFTER some of the Schindler family got into a scuffle with the security people?
Not what I read.
Then you didn’t read enough.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050401/ap_on_re_us/schiavo_6
Except:
“Felos confirmed that no one from Terri Schiavo’s side of the family was with her when she died, but disputed the Schindlers’ account of why that was. Schiavo’s siblings had been asked to leave the room so that the hospice staff could examine her, and Bobby Schindler started arguing with a law enforcement official so Michael Schiavo had him kept out, Felos said.”
There’s a lot more to fidelity than where you put your pëņìš.
Fellas, do NOT try this line at home.
LOL. Yeah, I don’t see my wife buying that line either.
Well if this case proved one thing it proved the gullibility of a large cross section of the american public. I heard several people that not only believed she was fully consciene but was being restrained so she would not get up and walk out of her room or feed herself.
Tom DeLay what a hypocrit, he pulls the plug on his own father and then causes tons of grief to another family as he tries to use them to dodge his own malfesance.
And for those who are having fits over the fact that Schiavo moved on with his life and started a family with another woman… Maybe you should actually go and read the multiple trial transcripts where Schindler admits to encouraging Michael to find a girlfriend and move on. This was of course before the greed set in and the families split but Schindler didn’t seem to have a problem with it and encouraged it prior to it becoming an opportunity for his own stupidity.
As for we treat our animals better, what a joke. I hope to never hear that stupidity again but I’m sure I won’t be so lucky. No we sure do treat our animals better, we break their necks, put them in gas chambers, shoot them in the head or stick them with needles full of neural toxins. Of course our animals don’t starve because we kill them long before that oppotunity arises.
The scary part is living wills aren’t even good enough for these crackpots. Already right to lifers are trying to introduce laws that override an individuals right to choose who to end. We’re in for a fight.
Some changes will come from this case.
First, *everyone* who doesn’t want to be in a persistent vegitative state is going to fill out and update their living will. Heck, now these are available from download at many news sites.
Second, “culture of life” will replace “family values” as the Republican catchphrase. (Lack of health coverage and support for capital punishment will *not* be mentioned anywhere near this phrase.)
Third, expect Bush to be a greater “divider, not a uniter.” In this case, he’s shown a complete lack of respect for the division between the judiciary and executive branches of government — and it’s continuing. He’s now discussing ways to get around opposition to his plans, and that will be vehemently supported by those who want Bush’s agenda to run rampant over all objections, and opposed by those who want checks and balances to remain.
Long days ahead…
Felos confirmed that no one from Terri Schiavo’s side of the family was with her when she died, but disputed the Schindlers’ account of why that was. Schiavo’s siblings had been asked to leave the room so that the hospice staff could examine her, and Bobby Schindler started arguing with a law enforcement official so Michael Schiavo had him kept out, Felos said.
Wow, Michael Schiavo’s lawyer gives an version that puts his client in a better light. Whoda thunk.
Has the law enforcement official backed up that claim? Seems pretty odd that it would be Michael who had to keep him out if it was a law enforcement official he was arguing with.
It suggest that Bill Bennet made a dtupid suggestion and Jeb Bush ignored it. No big.
Um, I seem to recall that Jeb TRIED to send in … well, not troops, but at least police to reinsert the tube, and that said police were told “not without a judge”.
With you on the “stupid suggestion” part, though — and firmly agreed with pretty much everyone concerned about PAD’s initial post. No one’s winning here, from any point of view I can think of.
And now the John Paul II death watch continues…
TWL
who plans to write more later
Has the law enforcement official backed up that claim? Seems pretty odd that it would be Michael who had to keep him out if it was a law enforcement official he was arguing with.
I’m sure the cop has more important things to do with his time than answer idiotic questions from people about something that’s none of their f–king business. Most police units don’t even allow their rank and file members to speak to the media anyway, so if you’re looking for him to confirm it, good luck. As for Michael Shiavo keeping him out, he was the legal guardian, and therefore, it was his call.
As for Michael Shiavo keeping him out, he was the legal guardian, and therefore, it was his call.
That still doesn’t mean he’s not a dìçk.
If the Schindler’s had actually gotten into it with security, they’d have been arrested. This is pretty obviously a case of the guy being spiteful and vindictive. So much for “respecting Terri’s wishes.”
Um, I seem to recall that Jeb TRIED to send in … well, not troops, but at least police to reinsert the tube, and that said police were told “not without a judge”.
Tim, this is a very confucing story that sort of popped up and got dropped. It was based entirely on annonymous tips so take it all with a grain of salt but here’s what I’ve pieced together from the Miami Herald–apparently after the judge ordered the tube removed the DCF made an appeal to a higher court. This had the result of nullifying, for a 3 hour period, the removal of the tube, although the DCF may not have realized this at first. When they did, the story goes, a bunch of them went to the hospice, possibly with the goal of taking her back ot a hospital–which, due to this loophole, they might have been legally allowed to do (this would have been yet another court case). Butby this time the original judge had closed the loophole. So they had to abandone the idea.
Not quite the “Jeb goes nuts” story that it was presented as…but you have to wonder how our court system got so freaking out of control. It’s amazing ANYTHING gets done ( a school I worked for once had to spend 2 years in court fighting a case against a guy who claimed he was illegally fired as a busdriver. His probalem? He was a convicted child abuser!!! WTF?
(BTW, the Palm Beach Post version of the story is a good deal less dramatic–agents were “on standbye” waiting for judicial approval that never came. The story about them being en route and backing down came from Michael Schiavo’s lawyer. Is it too much to ask for reporters to dig a little deeper and find out which version is true? What ever happened to investigative journalism?)
That still doesn’t mean he’s not a dìçk.
Well, I can’t argue with a mind that closed, so I won’t bother. I’ve never met Michael Shiavo, and I’ll wager, neither have you, so neither of us really knows what kind of a person he really is. All we know is just what we’ve read or seen on TV. It’s obvious that you’re only going to read everything about him in the most negative light possible.
Cops don’t have to automatically arrest somebody just for arguing with them. If Terri’s brother didn’t physically threaten anyone, what exactly would they charge him with?
Personally, I believe both Michael Shiavo and the Schindlers did what they thought was best for Terri. The courts had to make a call as to who knew her wishes and best and the fact that they did not find any of the allegations lobbed at Michael Shiavo credible is an important detail that those who want to try him in the media tend to ignore.
Cops don’t have to automatically arrest somebody just for arguing with them. If Terri’s brother didn’t physically threaten anyone, what exactly would they charge him with?
If the cops give you an order to leave, and you refuse to leave, they’ll arrest you.
And if it was just a mild protestation, is that worth banning them from Terri’s final moments? Do you think that’s “what Terri would have wanted”?
I mean, come on, let’s use some logic and common sense here.
I have to agree with just about everything you said, Peter. If you look at the way the rest of the world covered this story, it wasn’t exactly America’s finest hour, from George Bush flying back to Washington in order to sign an energency bill (ignoring the Texas bill he once signed which went in completely the opposite direction), to members of Congress who are members of the medical profession making a public diagnosis based on examination of a video tape, to the right-to-life people trying to bring water into the hospice, forgetting of course that we’re dealing with a woman who probably didn’t even have the capability to swallow so the water definitely would have killed her, to the number of people who referred to ‘Terry’ as if they actually met her.
But the absolute highlight of this parade of hypocrisy were the people who celebrate the sancity of life by- wait for it- making death threats against everyone from the judges that were doing their job, to Schiavo himself. Yeah, that’s a good way of showing your respect for life: threaten to kill somebody.
I mean, come on, let’s use some logic and common sense here.
Careful. You might be surprised at what happens.
If the cops give you an order to leave, and you refuse to leave, they’ll arrest you.
Reread the article. No where does it say that the officer ordered him to leave, only that they argued.
And if it was just a mild protestation, is that worth banning them from Terri’s final moments?
I don’t know if it was just a “mild protestation.” And neither do you. You’re bias is showing again.
I mean, come on, let’s use some logic and common sense here.
I have been. Take your own advice.
I like how they say the “activist” judges will get whats coming to them, but one of the last judges to rule against the tube was a conservitive judge Bush appointed.
It will soon be moot. The POPE will die soon and Terri will be brushed aside like yesterdays news.
Did anyone see the New York Post or News the other day…big front page picture of Terri…and big bold letters…”NEWS COVERAGE OUT OF CONTROL!” Seriously!
PAD wrote: “Everyone loses. This should never happen again. But it will.”
Yep. Wise words, indeed.
George Bush flying back to Washington in order to sign an energency bill (ignoring the Texas bill he once signed which went in completely the opposite direction)
Speaking of confusing coverage…I’d read this in multiple sources, then I read that the bill he signed was, while not what he wanted, at least an improvement over the then current law in Texas…which, if true, is something that really ought to mentioned by critics if they are actually interested in the truth.
Anybody know the truth about this? Anyone care?
Re troops sent in –
This story is unclear. From what I’ve read, state ‘agents’ were sent to retrieve Terri & take her away so a feeding tube could be reinserted. However, the local police wouldn’t allow it because there was no court order or warrent, so the agents left. After that there was a flurry of denials from Jeb & assorted department heads as to who sent in the agents.
Independant judicary – Yes, the judges are supposed to be fully independant. That’s why judges are appointed for life. So that their decisions won’t be influenced by politics. The founding fathers saw the danger of judges not being independant.
“activist judge” is just another way of saying ‘a judge who doesn’t rule our/my way’.
“Tom DeLay what a hypocrit, he pulls the plug on his own father” – and when questioned about, says “it’s a personal/family matter”
Anybody know the truth about this? Anyone care?
Well, if it was an improvement ogver the previous law, it couldn’t have been much of one. Just look at the most recent use of the bill where the 6 month old was removed from the machine over the parents objections. Also, I haven’t heard even the biggest of Bush defenders come forward to defend this law, and if there was a defense to it, you’d think these would be the ones to do so, no matter how half-assed a justification they might have to make to do so.
“Personally, I believe both Michael Shiavo and the Schindlers did what they thought was best for Terri.”
Here’s the interesting and somewhat sad thing. I absolutely agree with you that they both thought they were doing what was best. The thing is, it seems to me–based purely on observation and not any sort of scientific polling–that those on the husband’s side, more often than not, have empathy for the parents and don’t condemn them for their efforts. Whereas those on the parents’ side, more often than not, want the husband’s head on a stake.
PAD
You’re wrong, Mr. David. There is one big winner. The media outlets, whether they were the overt puppets of Bush or the guys who wanted a buck, were able to create a terrific circus. They descended over the scene, making everything grist for the mill and baking bread of emotional misery – or, perhaps more appropriately, making lots of “communion wafers” to share that misery with everyone.
Perhaps the most galling was the Paramount show “The Insider,” which normally chats glowingly and enthusiastically about celebrity scandal, playing a little “sorrow music” (probably the only piece in their music library) over pictures of Schiavo. And asking totally uninvolved but PR-minded jerks like Mel Gibson what they thought. The only way it would have been worse is if their big celebrity anchor Pat O’Brien hadn’t gone into rehab for his drunken obscene phone calls; hearing his smarmy voice faking sympathy would be too much to take.
But for those who’ll miss it, don’t worry; the Pope’s impending death is also being covered by them. The media circus moves to another town with more exotic food. And don’t think this is new; go rent the Billy Wilder movie “Ace in the Hole” a.k.a. “The Big Carnival” to see how long ago this has been going on.
From what I’ve read, state ‘agents’ were sent to retrieve Terri & take her away so a feeding tube could be reinserted. However, the local police wouldn’t allow it because there was no court order or warrent, so the agents left. After that there was a flurry of denials from Jeb & assorted department heads as to who sent in the agents.
Now that’s interesting. I had only heard that the agents were “on their way” and turned back. Now this implies that they got there and were made to leave. Someone must be lying or exagerrating, and it doesn’t seem like it would be difficult to find out who.
Well, if it was an improvement ogver the previous law, it couldn’t have been much of one. Just look at the most recent use of the bill where the 6 month old was removed from the machine over the parents objections. Also, I haven’t heard even the biggest of Bush defenders come forward to defend this law, and if there was a defense to it, you’d think these would be the ones to do so, no matter how half-assed a justification they might have to make to do so.
Well, here’s the take of someone at the National Review.
In August 1996 the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article describing procedures then in effect in Houston hospitals. Under these procedures, if a doctor wished to deny a patient lifesaving medical treatment and the patient or the patient’s surrogate instead steadfastly expressed a desire for life, the doctor would submit the case to the hospital ethics committee. The patient or surrogate would be given 72 hours notice of the committee meeting would be allowed to plead for the patient’s life at it. During that short 72 hour period, the patient or surrogate, while preparing to argue for life, could also try to find another health care provider willing to give the lifesaving treatment, food or fluids.
If the ethics committee decided for death, under these procedures there was no appeal. There was no provision that the food, fluids, or lifesaving treatment be provided after the decision while the patient or family tried to find another hospital willing to keep the patient alive.
So under these procedures, the hospitals in Houston were denying life-saving treatment, food and fluids against the wishes of patients and their families, when the hospital ethics committees said their quality of life was too poor. Patients and families were being given only 72 hours after being notified of the proposed denial to find another health care provider.
In 1997 there was an advance directives bill going through the Texas legislature that would have given specific legal sanction to such involuntary denial of life-saving treatment. An effort in the Texas legislature to amend the bill to require treatment pending transfer to a health care provider willing to provide the life-saving treatment had been defeated. When that bill reached Governor George Bush
Here’s the interesting and somewhat sad thing. I absolutely agree with you that they both thought they were doing what was best. The thing is, it seems to me–based purely on observation and not any sort of scientific polling–that those on the husband’s side, more often than not, have empathy for the parents and don’t condemn them for their efforts. Whereas those on the parents’ side, more often than not, want the husband’s head on a stake.
Don’t know about the “more often than not” part–we are talking about a LOT of people on both sides and I’ll wager that the actual number of crazies is a tiny minority–but you are correct that the husband’s supporters have overall behaved better.
That should be a lesson for Right to Lifers–if Randall terry or his ilk ever shows up, show them the door. Every time the idiot opens his mouth you can almost hear support growing for whatever it is he opposes. There are fools like that on the left as well–Ward Connely comes to mind–and they should be treated like toxic waste by whoever has the misfortune of seeing them show up, ready to lend a hand.
Here’s the interesting and somewhat sad thing. I absolutely agree with you that they both thought they were doing what was best. The thing is, it seems to me–based purely on observation and not any sort of scientific polling–that those on the husband’s side, more often than not, have empathy for the parents and don’t condemn them for their efforts. Whereas those on the parents’ side, more often than not, want the husband’s head on a stake.
Well, you don’t have to look far to see that, Peter. Just read what some of the people have posted in your own forum about him.
Like most things gone wrong in this country, I blame Bush. I’m still trying to figure out how he sabotaged the Eagles in the Superbowl. Seriously, it’s tragic that discourse in this country has been reduced to everything being, “either you’re with us or against us.”
It’s a credit that Michael Shiavo’s supporters realized early in the debate that they had nothing to gain by attacking two grieving parents. On the other hand, the Schindlers’ attorney had no problem going on Fox News and calling Michael Shiavo a liar and a murdered and say that Judge Greer was “determined to kill Terri.”
I think, though, that the constant villification of Michael Shiavo is one of the reasons that polls show how badly the pandering in Washington backfired on DeLay and Bush. It’s striking that even among evangelicals, their so-called “base,” polls showed strong disapproval of the Congressional interference. Whether they agreed with Michael Shiavo’s position or not, the overwhelming majority of Americans have already come to a consensus that these decisions are best resolved among the family, rather than by politicians.
Michael Schaivo will be “gunned down a year hence?”
You give him that long?
I’d be surprised if the guy lasts three months. Same with his lawyer and the judge.
Which is the thing that make me MOST sick about this whole, stupid thing.
Randall Terry and his whole sick, hypocritical crew are only truly “pro-life” as long as it serves their selfish needs. They’ll mouth BS Christian platitudes about the sanctity of life, but make it clear that anyone who incurs their wrath must “pay the price” and eventually some deluded fundy nutcase gets the point, picks up a gun, and carries out their wishes.
If George W., for example, is so commited to “erring on the side of life” then why execute all those criminals in Texas? Especially Carla Fay Tucker, the darling of the Christian Right, who’d repented and “reformed” herself. He didn’t seem all that keen on “erring on the side of life” in her case.
Make no mistake, those who weep and gnash their teeth over Terri and the “culture of death” they think did her in are killers who are just as brutal and viscious as those they stand against. they’ll cry crocidile tears over Terri and then jump for joy when Michael gets murdered.
A bunch of lying,hypocritical wolves dressed up in pro-life life sheep’s clothes.
Make no mistake, those who weep and gnash their teeth over Terri and the “culture of death” they think did her in are killers who are just as brutal and viscious as those they stand against. they’ll cry crocidile tears over Terri and then jump for joy when Michael gets murdered.
That makes no sense. You’re calling them “killers”–on what basis I can’t imagine–and yet saying that the opposing side is also cruel and viscious.
Jeeze, everyone, get a frikkin grip.
It’s a credit that Michael Shiavo’s supporters realized early in the debate that they had nothing to gain by attacking two grieving parents. On the other hand, the Schindlers’ attorney had no problem going on Fox News and calling Michael Shiavo a liar and a murdered and say that Judge Greer was “determined to kill Terri.”
I think the strongest thing I’ve seen is that Michael Schiavo’s brother is angry that his brother has been called a murderer, and that he harbors ill feeling toward the Schindler family for that. Not sure I blame him for that.
But he also says that a personal apology would heal that…and I think that says volumes as well.
Thomas R. wrote: “You’re wrong, Mr. David. There is one big winner. The media outlets, whether they were the overt puppets of Bush or the guys who wanted a buck, were able to create a terrific circus.”
“Overt puppets of Bush” infers that, for political reasons, conservatives were behind the whole controversy and subsequent media circus. This is wishful thinking by the anti-Bush crowd, and it exposes a fundamental problem facing the Democratic Party today: There is a sizeable and vocal (even obnoxious) faction within the Democratic Party which seems to believe that all “pro-life” religious people are Republicans.
This view alienates moderate and conservative Democrats, and is why the Democratic Party is so badly splintered right now. I read a number of columns by avowed Democrats supporting the parents of Terri Schaivo, who wanted the feeding tube to stay in. Even Jesse Jackson came down on the parents’ side, making those who “blame” the controversy on DeLay and other Republicans only look particularly foolish and ill-informed.
As I said in a response I posted on Mike Gold’s column, in my opinion, the Democratic Party is currently on life support, and if the radical Democrats don’t lose their myopia and intolerence for those who disagree with their “progressive” viewpoint, the next victim in a semi-vegitative state they kill might be the party itself.
And now the parents of Terri Schiavo are selling the personal information of all the misguided suckers…er…I mean, donors, to a direct-marketing firm.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/kgtv/20050329/lo_wkmg/2648050
As I said in a response I posted on Mike Gold’s column, in my opinion, the Democratic Party is currently on life support, and if the radical Democrats don’t lose their myopia and intolerence for those who disagree with their “progressive” viewpoint, the next victim in a semi-vegitative state they kill might be the party itself.
Yes, because as we all know, the Republicans under the leadership of the Bush administration has been nothing but open-minded towards those that disagree with their “neoconservative” viewpoint. /sarcasm
“That makes no sense. You’re calling them “killers”–on what basis I can’t imagine–and yet saying that the opposing side is also cruel and viscious.”
Huh — you’re right. Got carried away. what I should have said was:
“Make no mistake, those who weep and gnash their teeth over Terri and the “culture of death” they think did her in are killers who are just as brutal and viscious as they imagine those they stand against to be. They’ll cry crocodile tears over Terri and then jump for joy when Michael gets murdered.”
Den wrote: “Yes, because as we all know, the Republicans under the leadership of the Bush administration has been nothing but open-minded towards those that disagree with their “neoconservative” viewpoint. /sarcasm”
Why is everything in terms of Bush or the Republicans? I wasn’t talking about the Republican Party’s problems, I was talking about the Democratic Party and ITS problems. Keep in mind that I was raised and spent a large chunk of my life in a city — Chicago — that has not had a Republican mayor since 1931.