No, it wasn't a cynical ploy

US News ^ | 3 26 05 | Michael Barone

[flixxx]

4/4/05 By Michael Barone No, it wasn't a cynical ploy

A lot of sophisticated people are clucking at the actions of Congress and George W. Bush that attempted to save the life of Terri Schiavo. This was pandering to the religious right, we are told, a cynical partisan ploy by Republicans, an intervention by an activist, even ayatollah-like federal government into a state court case and a family dispute. I do not put myself forward as an expert on this case, nor am I certain that Congress and Bush made the right decision or that the courts, state and federal, made the wrong one. But I do think much of the criticism and condescension is misguided. And I think that the response of elected officials reflects one of the great strengths in our country: a confident belief in moral principles that stands in vivid contrast with what we see in much of Europe and in the supposedly sophisticated precincts of this country.

[flixxx]

I happen to strongly disagree with Mr. Barone about this issue, but he is always a good read and (as always) has REASONED arguments to back up his statements...as opposed to many of the other columnists who have chimed in on the Schiavo issue.

[hflynn]

On the Schiavo issue most members of Congress, on both sides, were not indifferent but acted on moral convictions in a difficult situation. They were trying to do what they believed was right. They deserve respect, not contempt.

I don't thing so. Nobody voted on the record. The majority of Democrats (and some Republicans to be sure ) real opinion on the issue was reflected in the daily DNC talking points spewed out by the mainstream media. The Democrats were not about to undermined their only source of power, the courts. If that meant starving a woman to death, so be it. Like so many of their dirty deeds, it happened during the holiest days of several religions, no accident.

[proxy_user]

Unfortunately, many of the problems we've had in the past involved leaders who were morally driven.

One could cite, for example, Woodrow Wilson's approach to the post WWI settlements, or Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. Both Democrats, I know. But the Republican approach in the past has been rather hands-off. Of course, circumstances are different now in many ways.

But excessive zeal may not always aid the cause. For example, if the voters don't like it and put the Dems in in 2006 or 2008, I would have to say it's counterproductive.

[rightazrain]

I thoroughly agree with Michael Barone. This whole issue has been driven by morale imperatives. There is just too much controversy concerning Terry Schiavo's condition not to reinsert the feeding tube and get to the bottom of it.

IMO, Terri's so-called wish to die has only been established by hearsay evidence of her husband, reinforced by his relatives. His timing on the claim was questionable, considering that many years went by before he made the claim. He accepted money in an amortized settlement based upon her achieving a normal lifespan. Only after that did he seem intent upon her dying so he could claim the balance unspent.

It is poetic justice that all of the money is now going to go to his lawyers because of his blood feud with Terri's parents.

I only wish that his desires for a cremation could be curtailed so that all those reported broken bones could be analyzed, as well as what is left in her cranium.

[lawnguy]

I saw an Oliphant cartoon in the paper last week that showed God prepared to throw lighting bolts at those who St. Peter told him were being political on this issue.

The cartoonist openly wished for the first target to be Tom Delay

It was as disgusting a cheap shot as I've ever seen from this lame, no talent, communist cartoonist.

Whatever else you might think about Mr. Delay, he has never wavered on this issue, and unlike most on the other side of the aisle, he spoke out publicly.

[ClaireSolt]

Here's where the criticism about Congress not suited to responding to the needs of one person breaks down. I can call my congressman or Senator and ask for constituent services and get them: a missing social security check, tickets to tour the white house etc. Important things.

[NutCrackerBoy]

For example, if the voters don't like it and put the Dems in in 2006 or 2008, I would have to say it's counterproductive.

This is a good, sensible piece by Barone.

There's definitely Schiavo-backlash at many levels; it'll be noisy and unpleasant for awhile in the media and on the Internet. Let's be clear about what it is. Allowing hopelessly ill or completely incapacitated people to quietly slip away is a sort of quiet freedom we have that could be lost to overly-emotional busybodies. It's embarrassing to air it out, with the unseemly bickering.

But I don't think this backlash will have electoral legs because no actual harm has been done.