Posted on 08/24/2006 6:50:14 PM PDT by wjersey
THE EYES of the political world will be on us come fall. Pennsylvania is home to the hottest Senate race and three of the most contested House races in the nation. The outcome of the Santorum-Casey, Fitzpatrick-Murphy, Gerlach-Murphy and Weldon-Sestak races could determine control of Congress.
The vulnerability of many GOPers is war-related. But there are also important social issues, notably the attempted intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo.
Some clues on that might be found in Connecticut, which just had a bruising Democratic primary between Joseph Lieberman and Ned Lamont. Not only did they differ on the war, but also the Schiavo case. In fact, Ned Lamont welcomed Michael Shiavo at a statehouse campaign appearance.
"I am a staunch believer in government staying out of private lives... Lieberman believes government should rule lives," Michael Schiavo told me this week.
Michael Schiavo has formed TerriPac, a political fund-raiser, to get involved in races where those who opposed him in the battle over his wife are standing for re-election. He has taken a position in Florida congressional races, its gubernatorial election and two congressional races in Colorado. He has a stump speech that he delivered in Connecticut.
"I bring up points about what they did to myself and Terri, interfering in our decision about end of life. I have points about Bill Frist and Tom DeLay, and comments they made. They never even met Terri, never knew Terri. Rick Santorum, who drove down on the campaign trail to raise money for Terri's hospice, stood outside and made comments and never even met my wife Terri."
Ah, Rick Santorum.
Schiavo's invoking of Santorum's name raises an interesting question: To what extent will he seek to influence the outcome of that and the other hotly contested Pennsylvania races?
"Casey agrees also that government should run your life, should be involved with that. I'll play some role in that race, campaigning and reminding people what both gentlemen did. Both are wrong; neither one of the gentlemen are good for us. We need to find another path."
I asked Sen. Santorum about the prospect of Schiavo campaigning against him.
"He went into Connecticut, and he could go into every single member of the U.S. Senate who was in office the last couple of years and do the same thing because my vote was no different than every other member of the... Senate because it was a unanimous decision...
"So if Michael Schiavo wants to... campaign against every other incumbent U.S. senator, he's free to do so, and that's all I have to say about it."
And what does Schiavo have to say about the congressional races in our area?: "I will be there for anyone who needs my support. If they are good and the believe politics do not play a part in any of our personal or private affairs - I will be there to support them whether they are Democrats or Republicans."
So far, he told me, no one has invited him.
Says political consultant Larry Ceisler: "I am not surprised at all. Michael Schiavo is radioactive. But at the same time, if I was running a campaign against Santorum, I wouldn't mind if he showed up in town, and I'd be snickering in the back of the room."
Michael Schiavo was a Republican until last year, when he joined the Democrats. I wondered what had initially drawn him to the Republican Party given that the GOP standard-bearer interrupted his summer vacation to return to Washington in his PJs just to get involved in the Schiavo case.
"I believed in what they were doing at the time, and I went with it. Now doing what they've done to me, the Republicans started this - the Republicans did this. I don't want to be on that team. They started the fight, not me.
"Whatever your choice is, it is your own personal choice. There should not be another American, another government, telling you that you are wrong. I might have my belief but I have no right to impose it or throw it on somebody else who doesn't believe in what I do."
Apart from the issue that now defines him publicly, the nursing supervisor told me he is "mostly conservative."
"I'm a live-and-let-live guy," he said, which I am sure some will find ironic.
The killing of Terri Schiavo did damage to Republicans because people at the grassroots saw the politicians impotence in the face of evil.
We elected these people to do more than they did.
Terri's death was a watershed moment in disillusioning many towards Republican leaders. (The Bush brothers, Congress, Florida GOP politicians etc.)
The War on Terrorism may save the GOP this election year but we shall see. I think the cracks are getting bad and Terri Schiavo's killing helped create many of them.
All conservatives want to murder their wives?
Sadistic and an employee of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office too. Sheriff hired him, Sheriff resigned, Sheriff took an unopposed seat in the Fla House to vote to kill Terri, this year MS gets a promotion to supervisor of nursing at the Jail. MS travels all the time to support democrat candidates promising that all republicans will pay for helping Terri.
The GOP is paying every single day for NOT helping Terri. Sheriff Rice is a Republican too and so is Judge Greer.
That pretty much sums it up.
I still wouldn't want you in charge my end of life decisions....to keep me hooked up to some machine or feeding tube to extend my suffering until YOU decided it was "moral" not to resort to more desperate means.
And then claim only others are making decisions for God when you disagree with them.
So the police are here to make sure our final wishes are held to the State's evaluation. The individual's decision is meaningless.
are you a conservative or an anarchist?
Are you a conservative or a communist?
I've actually been really busy as of late so I don't know the answer to this one . . . which does Jeb support?
No, but they want to respect the requests of their loved ones.
But that doesn't stop the busibodies who feel their personal opinion should override the opinion of the individual.
But if it serves the agenda of the extreme Right, individualism is jettisoned as "collateral damage."
What YOU want is irrelevant.
so you're saying that a murderer's actions are his wishes and should not be interferred with by the government? what about terrorists? Should the government step in there? When the individual steps outside the borders of the law, the government must interfere.
The DU is the second lie to the left, point your anarchist ship towards it.
No offense, my friend, but you can't apply your opinion over an event of which you have no first hand knoweldge.
Your opinion in this case is of zero weight (as is all of the people who posted on all those Schaivo threads).
Bottom line: The parents only got involved when there was significant money in play. Terri made her desires known to her husband. He acted on those. The law is very specific on this. He can do so and did so. It is only the scofflaws ("we should refuse laws we don't like") who don't understand why this should stand.
Please provide factual substantiation of a murder here. Your hyperbole notwithstanding, Terri made her desire known to him and he did what she wanted. It was the busibodies who prologed her agony.
The DU is the second lie to the left, point your anarchist ship towards it.
I am sure you are bery familiar with it. Since it fits with your "the Gummit should decide everything" philosophy.
Me, I prefer freedom.
Links?
Michael had the government interfere and change the law, to almost make it legal in Terri's case. Not quite legal, but close enough that he could get the government to interfere again, and declare it legal, in spite of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
He was the legal and final arbiter of her desires. She was brain dead. To provide her release was his duty.
And he repeatedly had the government interfere, time and time again, until he got what he wanted. It was always about what he wanted. He even said so. Now, what was that about not wanting the government to interfere?
Trying to keep the government from interfering with Terri's desires means you have to get involved with the government.
Thus your disdain for someone's final desires.
Please do not stick your nose in if I become a vegetable. I don't want nor need your busibody "help."
Neither did Terri. People like you kept her soul earthbound much after she should have been released. As she wished.
Feel free to ping me when it suits you. If you can't follow common courtesy, how can you possibly understand the importance of following the last desires of someone who never wanted to be a vegetable?
OK, I am confused. How does:
An autopsy report on a brain-damaged woman at the centre of a long legal battle in the US has shown that she suffered no trauma before her collapse. Terri Schiavo's parents had accused her husband of abusing her before the collapse in 1990, but Michael Schiavo denied the claim. The report also confirmed Mr Schiavo's assertion that she was in a persistent vegetative state.
How does this support your position?
I won't waste our collective time checking an "objective site" like "blogsforterri."
First, you have no idea what knowledge I have about the event. You might try considering taking your own advise in that regard. Second, I am free to reason and form an opinion and apply it based on the information at hand...and it is not yours to say that I can or cannot.
As I have said all along, I may be alone in this, and it certainly may not be your opinion or thoughts on the matter. But it is mine and I stand by it.
You have stated your opinion of all those who posted with counter opinions to yours on "those" threads and of the parents...that's fine. As I said you are entitled to come up with and voice your own opinion...as am I.
Live-and-let-die.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.