Posted on 04/11/2007 5:56:46 AM PDT by pissant
In my story today, I take a look at Mayor Giuliani's recent comments on the Terri Schiavo controversy, where he states that he supported the congressional intervention — but also makes clear that he was completely unprepared to handle the question, despite the fact that he was not only in Florida, but in the very county from which Schiavo hailed.
In the column, I report on Mr. Giuliani's response to a reporter's question and also on the responses of political observers who are puzzled by his lack of preparation. What I didn't have room for in the paper, however, is a full transcript of Mr. Giuliani's remarks. It is really a marvel of incoherence...
Here it is then, in full, from the transcript provided by the Giuliani campaign of the question from the March 4 press availability in St. Petersburg, Florida:
MAYOR GIULIANI COMMENTS ON TERRI SCHIAVO
REPORTER: Can I ask you about Terri Schiavo...
MAYOR GIULIANI: Sure.
REPORTER: this is the county that she's from. Did you support the congressional intervention to...
GIULIANI: I believe I did. I don't I, it's a while ago and I think I said that I thought every effort should be made to keep her alive. I don't know that I supported the, the whole thing to the very end, but I am not sure now.
REPORTER: I mean do you think it was appropriate, it had gone through the court system, the courts had said...
GIULIANI: I thought it was appropriate to make every effort to give her a chance to stay alive. But honestly I don't remember now the final... I am not sure I was asked in the last couple weeks of it.
REPORTER: Do you have a opinion on it now? I mean was it appropriate?
GIULIANI: I think we should let it rest. And I think that case got a tremendous amount of attention. My general view is you should do everything you can to keep somebody alive unless they have expressed a strong interest in not having very, very special things done; extraordinary things done. Obviously, you gotta do the ordinary and regular things and even some of the extraordinary things that's a legal matter and when you get into the area of discretion, as best we can tell we should follow the wishes of the person and their loved ones and in that particular case it was a dispute. So I think it was a tough case for everybody. I think it was a tough case for people on one side, tough case for people on the other, because the intentions weren't, weren't clear. Had the intentions been clear, maybe it've been an easier case.
(Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Press Availability, St. Petersburg, FL, 4/4/07)
The fact that Mr. Giuliani goes on at length to make the point that we should keep people on life support who have asked to be kept on life support makes it seem he doesn't even remember what the case was about. If Schiavo's wishes had been known, there wouldn't have been a controversy in the first place.
The question, then, is whether — once the courts in Florida sided with Michael Schiavo as to determining his wife's wishes and best interests — the Florida legislature, Governor Bush, Congress, and President Bush should have all intervened in one family's private medical dispute, turning it into a national media circus. As I mention in the story, I asked the Giuliani campaign for clarification on this point numerous times; they declined to provide any further statement, instead referring back to Mr. Giuliani's plea that, "I think we should let it rest."
Unfortunately for the Giuliani camp, neither side in the dispute is likely to let that happen. While the Schiavo case itself is over, the issues of pro-life and right-to-die are — no pun intended — alive and well. As is the issue of where the government's power to interfere in the lives of individuals begins and ends.
It's also a bit puzzling that Mr. Giuliani seems to claim he either had no position, or doesn't quite remember his position, on something major that happened just two years ago. He certainly doesn't seem to have said much on the case at the time. The one public position his campaign pointed out from the time of the controversy was this statement from an April 1, 2005, article from the New York Post (that's the day after Schiavo's death):
"I think the right decision would have been to keep the feeding tube in, under the circumstances of the case," former Mayor Rudy Giuliani said.
And, again, this statement has nothing to do with the actual issue in the case. If Mr. Giuliani were the guardian, he seems to be saying, he would not have removed the feeding tube. Fine. Perhaps this is the parallel of his statement that he is personally opposed to abortion. But, as with abortion, this leads to the next question. What conclusion does this lead the former mayor to, as regards public policy?
A rambling response in Florida, plus a week's time, and there's still nothing approaching an answer.
What part of “I think the right decision would have been to keep the feeding tube in, under the circumstances of the case,” don’t you understand??
The fact that Mr. Giuliani goes on at length to make the point that we should keep people on life support who have asked to be kept on life support makes it seem he doesn't even remember what the case was about. If Schiavo's wishes had been known, there wouldn't have been a controversy in the first place.
ping - more on this story
What part of this do you choose to not understand?
The fact that Mr. Giuliani goes on at length to make the point that we should keep people on life support who have asked to be kept on life support makes it seem he doesn't even remember what the case was about.
Rudy has been stumbling badly the last two weeks. He's showing that he's not ready for prime time.
In Giuliani’s defense, most Americans are incoherent on the issue. Not that I am a Giuliani fan - I am not.
“once the courts in Florida...”
We’ve already seen what a mess liberalized courts have made of the “sanctity of life” issue. The courts are not the final arbiters of the value of life or freedom. Once people are willing to concede that they are it’s game over.
Not only is Rudy still ahead in the polls, his standing in early primary and caucus state surveys rose within the past three weeks.
He's said he will appoint strict Constitutional justices.
That canard is dead as a doornail after last week.
Rudy lost 13 points after Fred's entry into the race became a possibility.
And he has made gaffe after gaffe the last two weeks.
He's peaked and will go down a long, slow slope.
And then turned around and expanded the definition to allow a 'strict constructionist' to uphold Roe v. Wade.
That spin got done in by Rudy last week. Why are you still attempting to use it?
That was the essence of the case. Her husband claimed she had expressly wished NOT to be kept alive if incapacitated. Others denied she had expressed that wish.
In fact, all aspects that revolve around end-of-life issues were brought up by that case.
It's really silly nitpicking to try to nail Rudy on this one.
The point is, there was no clear indication of Terri's wishes.
And the husband had a clear motive for wanting her feeding tube pulled.
Rudy completely missed the core issues with his comments.
Big deal. He was still first in the poll. If Fred Thompson runs most likely it will be a Rudy/Thompson ticket. Deal with it.
Ask any other candidate the same question and you’ll get a straight answer.
I really don’t care which side he came down on. But the man doesn’t know his own mind.
***...Giuliani replied: “If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, yes, if that’s the status of the law, then I would, yes.” Giuliani later stated that, as president, he would leave intact the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal abortion funding, except in cases of rape, incest, and pregnancies that jeopardize the lives of mothers. “As I have indicated before,” Giuliani said, “I will not seek to change current law as described in the Hyde Amendment...”...*** Look at what happened in NYC
Only in your dreams.
Rudy is showing he's not ready for prime time. His support is a mile wide and an inch deep. His only hope is a divided right wing of the party - and Fred's entry would eliminate that hope.
Wrong thread? This is about Terri, not abortion.
Duh. So it would follow that the case was about the fact that there was no clear unequivocal proof of her intention, hence Rudy's opinion that unless there are clear intentions, best err on the side of keeping in the feeding tube.
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.