Skip to main content

Here's a little present for those who voted to meddle in the private affairs of the Schiavo family:

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 09:28 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I love it (none)
    But how many of these people actually vote?
    •  Actually voting (4.00)
      That's a whole other subject.  File it under, maybe.    No one knows if we can still vote.
      •  My local News talking head commented (none)
        that although these numbers are unfavorable, most Americans have short memories, and it may not impact future elections.

        It's our job to remind voters which of their Congress persons meddled in and voted for interfering in our most private moments.

        Most Americans are a lot dumber than we give them credit for- George Carlin 2004

        by maggiemae on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:18:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  anyone have the link (none)
          for the vote statistics?

          "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." ~ George Washington

          by guyermo on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 11:08:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  you are right however (4.00)
          It is our job to not let them forget... Just like pro-life was all that it took for the pendullum to swing into the right-wing direction, now the mushy middle is NOT liking what they see of the new Republican theocracy...i think this is a Reaganesque moment (in reverse)if we use it right...DID YOUR congressman vote to intervene in a private family matter?  Do you want them interefrering in YOUR family decisions.  Should they decide if MY living will is good enough for them?  or MY right to birth control  (we should back on down to just the right to birth control...that is where many of these religous freaks are going wiht this...it is also the root case law of Roe v Wade)...I do think this is the moment of Republican hypocrasy for all to see...We need to keep it alive in the press.  We should have a commercial comparing Shaivo and the Texas baby case and play it over and over and over.  Come on  Move On, I'll donate.
          •  AND, why not... (none)
            turn this into a campaign?

            We could seek to take back the "culture of life" from these wingnuts?

            Who in their right mind believes that torture is part of the "culture of life"?  How about reducing Medicaid benefits for the poor and infirmed?  How about cutting back on HeadStart for schoolkids?

            That is what the Rethugs stand for.  That is not consistent with a culture of life.

    •  Not Many! (none)
      My guess is that the ONLY people who would vote based on this issue are already going to vote....they're in the base of either party.  Those in the middle aren't going to cast a vote based on this issue.  They won't even be thinking about it come election time.  And they are generally swayed by whatever is happening at the time of the election.
      •  There is a minor advantage here for the Dems (none)
        (well, not the ones that voted for it)

        The advantage is a piling-on effect.  If it becomes one more thing where the Republicans are out of touch or extreme, it helps, merely by adding another thing on the checklist (social security is on top of that list).  But it's not a big help.  Heck, if I was to answer the poll about whether or not my vote would change if my House representative voted for it, I would only say "somewhat less likely" myself.  But every little bit helps us.

        •  I honestly don't think this matters even that much (none)
          Think of it this way:

          Those 20% "more likely" voters are either hard core republicans or evangelical christian democrats (think Jesse Jackson. So it strengthened the base and perhaps even stripped some unlikely voters out of our corner.

          The 54% are either liberals, democrats or passive aggressive greed conservatives, who either weren't going to vote for a thug anyway or will have forgotten this by the time 2006's new republican tax-cut agenda hits the wsj.

          The 18%? Probably greed conservatives who don't give a fuck about anything but money, or slimy, opinionless "swing voters," whose brain functions are in a state similar to poor Ms. Schiavo's.

          If there's a benefit here I don't see it.

          You can kill a flock of sheep with witchcraft, provided you also feed them arsenic.

          by Lud on Tue Mar 29, 2005 at 11:13:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I would presume that non voters are covered under (none)
      the 18% who responded "doesn't matter".

      This is not a mexed missage.

      by CityofGod on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 11:42:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cool, watch how fast the rats jump ship! (none)
  •  Poll response (none)
    Is there a category for, "Schiavo matter notwithstanding, I never voted for this right-wing rubber stamp in the first place, and I'm never going to?"

    ~Liberal in the best sense of the word~

    by Lucky Ducky on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 09:29:45 AM PST

  •  More Graphics (4.00)

    As the Radical Fundies turn against Shrub, Jeb, Delay and the Cat Murderer


    "Jeb Bush are you a Man or a Mouse?"


    "COWARDLY JEB!"

    •  "Mommy- Help me- Pain"? (none)
      Do these whackjobs understand PVS?

      No brain-No headache!

      No pain!
      No speech capability.
      Nobody home!

      I'm grateful for the fact Terri survived past yesterday or the fundie whackos would be having a "she has risen" Easter resurrection field day over her death.

      Most Americans are a lot dumber than we give them credit for- George Carlin 2004

      by maggiemae on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:35:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  68% of Republicans?! (none)
      Wow...amazing...

      Of course the pundits will say all the Republicans they interviewed were Chafee clones.

      "George was very much in the 'cool' group, and it seemed to me that he wasn't that interested in those who weren't"--Robert P. Marshall

      by BlueEngineerInOhio on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 12:27:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  given these poll numbers . . . (none)
    would it not be nice if the Democratic Party had not allowed the vote in Congress to be so dang bipartisan?
    •  Sadly (none)
      Congressional Democrats are a bunch of chickens. 95% of Americans have to be behind them before they will dare to articulate progressive values.
      •  The problems is (none)
        We aren't standing behind them enough!

        They WON'T do anything if we don't make them.

        It is our responsibility.

        Its no wonder that once we got a bipartisan negative out of congress; we got a bipartisan positive out of the people.

        Write all of your dem house people and tell them you will stand behind them.  You are their backbone.

        Otherwise they'll just wimp out on everything.

        This goes for republicans too.  My senator is John McCain.  I am a democrat, but he is my senator.

    •  Precisely ... what was needed was (4.00)
      a strong loud credible DEMOCRAT's voice to stop this. That is all it would take, one voice from the senate. Instead they, but for the 53 who stood with the Rule of Law in the House are just beltway lumps.  Indistinquishable.  Democrats are fearful of the right wing megaphone.  Over and over.  They need to stand up early.

      Thank god for the house Dems, the 53, but 47 voted with Bush.  

      The Republican spin (Mitch McConnel over the weekend) is that this is "fully bipartisan" and that "no Democrat in the senate was opposed".  
      And that the Democratic vote in the House "was split".

      •  Yes...sadly... (none)
        those Dems just plain old FUCKED UP. 47 congressmen waiting for the Dean spine transplant.
      •  Those dems (4.00)
        are looking more and more like they did on the Iraq vote.  Out of step.  One would think some dem, somewhere would have the political antenae to spot one of these disasters coming down the pike.  

        Although I don't think putting up a pitched battle against the bill would have helped, just not having any dems voting for it would be huge.

      •  Sometimes Things HAVE TO BREAK Before (4.00)
        they can be fixed.

        Let's say that the Democrats had 'stopped the circus' before it got out of congress.

        The Republicans would have never had to 'face the music' for this circus at all.

        So, while I rarely disagree with you M-Cat, I am going to say that letting the Republicans run themselves through on their own sword seems poetic justice to me.

        LL

        Lefty Limblog - It is time to WIN instead of "Appease and Cringe". Fight the Rethugs!

        by LeftyLimblog on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 09:52:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  that was a big gamble though (4.00)
          ...and in the long run, it may make those Deomcrats just as vulnerable as the Republicans during the 2006 elections. Yo can bet that the Republicans will spin this as much as they can against those Democrats and that spin will not be pretty!

          The Bush numbers are good news, but imho, Dems can't be too comfy about the overall congressional support numbers.

          "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

          by catnip on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:11:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Dems Problem (4.00)
            As I see it, the Dems will lose this issue even though they have the numbers on their side.  And it's due to one thing:  they insist on debating issues like this by using appeals to reason and logic.  This issue isn't about reason.....it's about emotion.  When Dems go on talk shows and wherever else they always come off looking like they are trying to reach a truce with the other side...."Let's just all agree that this is a tough issue".....blah blah blah!  This will never work.......What Dems need to start doing is calling these people what they are......a bunch of craven nuts who don't care about this woman at all.....They need to stop assuming that those on the other side are actually sincere in their beliefs.......and they need to stop giving these beliefs any credit at all.  

            Right now, as I see it, our side is losing this whole thing even as the numbers show we should be winning.  And it's due to the total naivete of our national spokespeople.  They just don't understand how to fight on issues like this.

          •  As angry as I am (none)
            at the Dems who voted with the Repubs on the Schiavo bill, I want to head off the nonsense that we all know is coming in 2006. We know that the Repubs are shameless in hypocrisy, that they will throw anything and everything at the wall in campaigns to see what sticks. And so we know that in 2006 they are going to be throwing "these Dems voted against the mainstream of America" at the wall, hoping that their own votes will have been forgotten, and there's a real danger it WILL stick. There's a chance that they'll turn the public memory completely upside down.

            I don't want to see this happen. I'd like to privately chastise those Democratic members of congress who acted to trample the constitution, but allow them the public spin if any.

            Is there any? Is there any distinction between the Democrats who crossed the aisle and the Republicans who've been crying "culture of life"?

            •  well, so far as we know, unlike delay and frist, (none)
              no dem has been recorded speaking about the political uses to which terri schiavo could be put. there is also no dem talking points memo circulating on this aspect of issue (though the repubs are now trying to say the memo was a dem contrivance to make the repubs look bad).

              We get a lot of advice. We tend to listen when somebody's won something. - Joe Lockhart

              by yankeedoodler on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 07:56:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Not to be argumentative, ...;) (4.00)
          but what are the demonstrated strengths and on-hand electoral tools that Dems will use effectively to undercut (it must be active, no reliance on passive collpase of the other party) the Republican spin on this?  Remember the R own the megaphone.

          Despite much hard work in the field, late, too  late! but earnest in 2004, Dems deeply wounded themselves early but not opposing Bush in his first term.  Over and over he co-opted them.  I see aht again now, (in fact I think it is more intense even) for fear of the R megaphone, Democrats are co-opted.  They themselves do not represent, with a clear voice, any consituency.  They enjoy historical support, and support from those who cannot stomach Bush.  That is weakness masking as strength.

          Democrats do not make the case for themselves then sell that as immense, convoluted wisdom.

          Over and over in the GE the ground game, the strategy and the tactics of the other side were minimised, the dems were sold as winning.  It owuld have been better to be more wary, more astute and a TON sharper about the R ground game.  And less accepting of the waaaay too much of a mess as message at the top of the ticket from the Dems.  Over and over Democrats thougth that people would just reject Bush and be happy to vote for the dems (ABB ws dangerous frnakly)... they constantly thougth they were "owed" the vote.  It is much tougher than that...

          One example:  Dems were checking registration numbers for new voter registrations.  They started checking in roughly October of 03.  But the R began their intensive voter registration (whihc they continued thru their "closed" rallies as well) right away in 2000.  We started out behind byt blowing off the election thru 01, 02 03.  I have seen no interest, none, in how Feingold built his win.  NO interest.  They love it that Bayh won.  What a pity... they need to learn from the Feingold win... Kerry barely pulled out WI.  But my take dems would rather point to the DLC president (see! look!) than to Feingold.

          Did Democrats grow a new body part?  Not that I noticed.  Instead we have weeks of circus and now we will have weeks of circus re-spin work... As they shove the hard whacko righties out of sight.... democrats will be lumped with useless R, a la Mitch mcConnell's spin above.  FOX already says, if the Dems disagreed they needed to stand up and say so... (SUnday, HUme and Beltway Boys)

          Democrats need to get articulate (buy voice boxes if need be), they need to be out front early, imprint with their message (find one, hone it and DELIVER it) and keep ramming it home.  the rock hard truth is they have to WANT to do that.

          If I see that then there is hope.  I don;t see it... have not seen it for a long time.

        •  there are ways of losing (none)
          if we'd let it pass, but denounced it as sick, intrusive partisan meddling, and then lost it with a party line vote, no fillibuster or anything, and then sat back for a week and let the republicans try to use it to smear us, and wait for the backlash (or better yet, work behind the scenes to build one out of the media eye), we might have wrung some good out of that utterly awful display of wingnuttery. we have got to ber better at losing to win, and that means party-line votes. reid has shown some baby-steps on social security, but we really need to make it clear to these aisle crossers that party unity is the only thing that'll let us claw our way back into power, and that if they cross that line, they'd better have their own funding and volunteers and be able to survive a primary challenge.
        •  But now the circus has come to town! (none)
          This is a rare opportunity to begin the case against an activist Congress, Presidency, and their media sympathizers. For once, we have the attention of the American public and the dems are quiet on the pubs' strategy for one party rule and their scam against conservatives.
      •  yep, i was thinking the same thing (none)
        sometime closer to 2006, i can just hear it now:

        'I voted for Terri Shiavo before I voted against her.'

        dang, i wish they had been on top of this one.

        •  You are right - (none)
          Many have already done this i.e., I think it was wrong for Congress to intervene but I voted yes.
        •  I think LL's on to something (none)
          There would never have even been this disaster for the Repugs if we had disallowed this vote in the first place. The Repugs can point to bipartisan votes all they want, but with the media FOR ONCE placing the blame squarely on them, with all the vocal players being Repug (DeLay, Frist, Bush, BabyBush) and clearly craven and opportunistic, and with their out-n-proud status as the party of the Christian right, the public perception ultimately will be that the Repugs let loose this catastrophe. And don't forget -- no Repug in '06 could credibly use the Schiavo vote against a Dem (so no Dem will have to say "I voted for Terri before I voted against her"), but any Dem challenger to a Repug CAN. See downthread a bit; Omar links to a good piece by Rude Pundit. It won't be easy, but I'm with LL: we can take advantage of these poll numbers.

          The public wants what the public gets, but I don't get what this society wants -- Paul Weller

          by jamfan on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:21:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm with you (none)
            Carl Levin pulled some nifty ju-jitsu to make sure the bill didn't order the tube re-inserted.  Then he just got out of the way and let them pass the bill.  The Republicans are the one who have been grandstanding, diagnosing from tape.  The blowback is going to hit the Republicans much more strongly.

            That being said, I don't see any reason why 47 Democrats should have voted for the bill.  I wish they had voted no or present.

            What color are your pajamas?

            by Unstable Isotope on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 03:14:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  The concern was about Americans with disabilities (none)
      The disability advocate organizations felt that this will set a dangerous precendent with regard to the rights of the disable. Namely, that this is a continuation of society's role of disgarding the disable. I disagree because I don't think the science here indicates anything other than the fact that patient here is brain dead, but I understand their point. My issue has been the politization by both sides of this issue. I really wish people on here would do a little less gloating about the Republicans, and a little more consideration of the consequences. I am for what is being done in the case (letting her go rather than leaving her in this state), but to say there aren't additional issues going on here other than how it affects the Republican is how the Democrats manage (as Jolly Buddah- a poster over at mydd has said) to pull a lost from the jaws of a victory. Tom Harken (I believe I heard this somewhere) was the lead on this, and most Democrats took their cue from him on this issue because they wanted to respect what the disability advocate organizations were saying.  

      These diaries are the danger of the politization of this issue: Just because the American people support the general principle doesn't mean they want either party involved in this. The more deeply we get involved in it- the more we seem to be no better than the Republicans- and whereas the Republicans right now are taking sole blame- if we get involved- it becomes yet another one of those situation of a pox on both your houses- and as the party out of power- we have the most to lose in that. I have begun to wonder what the American people would think of some of these postings on this diary coming out Democrats? They aren't approaching this as politics- its a visceral response.

      I have just given you two reaons. There are others. One of which is a question of whether we should even condone what was in my opinion a Constitutionally illegal process of usurping the rights of states. Now, this becomes difficult in the face of Roe- but one can argue here that this is about not limiting rights- where as Roe was about increasing them according to federal law alone.

      •  Your post on the concerns of disability rights (none)
        orgs over this case brings up an aspect of this situation that I have been really concerned by.  So Many GOPers have fought against in ADA in many forms, especially from the right leaning judiciary on all levels, and always from right wing judges, recently from anti-ADA judical nonminees Jeffery Sutton and William Pryor, and going way back to 1990, here is a heaping helping of who voted against enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act were: Bill Armstrong (R-Colo.), Christopher Bond (R-Mo.), Jake Garn (R-Utah), Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), Gordon Humphrey (R-N.H.), Jim McClure (R-Idaho), Steve Symms (R-Idaho), and Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyoming)...Obviously there are many more examples, but these are just some which help to prove that the Repugs are NOT behind disabled Americans.  So to see diabality rights activists laying on the ground blocking access to Schiavos hospice from those with DISABLED loved ones inside made me ill. Joining forces with the wingnuts and "evil" empirists does not strengthen disabled communities, the same red tape wearing kooks who are out there protesting the rights of a single brain dead woman to die will not be backing disabled people on Anti-ADA  rulings, Anti-ADA compliance issues, or descrimination issues.  They will back the pols who back every antiADA issue that comes up.
           Another thing that I have been worried about is that while we see the great poll #'s and what appears to be a blacklash forming over Schiavo and even the SS issue, I think that to assume that the negative impact will be devestating to the GOP is premature.  It will take a real unification of the Dems on party platforms, voting together on house and senate levels, etc. and I don't believe that they will use these issues to their full potential.  As mentioned above, the Dems often to back down to percieved threats from the right; and combine that with the schitzy GOPDEMS like Lieberman and Moynihan speaking out in support of GOP plans/idealogies/etc. I just don't know that the Dems will be able to pull together and pull it together to use these HUGE GOP missteps againts them.
        •  The problem is that this is not one of those (none)
          issues where I think the Democrats can stand out. You can only stand out here, if as Armando argued to me one ignores the human dimension and make it about the politics and legal ramifications. I got a low rating for daring to question to wisdom of ignoring the emotional element to this. But, in my view, ignoring the emotional element is problematic because so many people on both sides see this so viscerally. Not as in, for or against, some people who are against it still say the Dems and Reps shouldn't be involved, and vice versa.  I am for the right to choose, and yet I feel that we shouldn't. A lot of times here (D Kos and liberals in general) there is a disconnect between the emotional, and its value to understanding the political discourse. I wrote a diary a few months ago about what do you have to lose? In it, my central point is that these discussion between the conservatives and liberals are often waged about ideals without passion. What is it that you are passionate about here, and why? If the Democrats came out too political on this they would get what the Republicans are getting because deep down in most people's gut they don't think anyone on the right or left should be using this as a political football.
          •  I don't know if stand out is exactly it... (none)
            maybe more regroup, and take the exsisting benefits before they disappear.  They do not need to exploit Terri Schiavo the person to do this, but while people ARE feeling violated by GOP actions, wouldn't now be a good time to redefine what the Democratic party represents? And with that said, to bring that message to the people while people are open to hearing it?  Perhaps I am misinterpreting the sitch here, but when the GOP has struck out with a huge portion of the country, shouldn't Dems be using this oportunity to bring them onto the "good" side?
               B/c if the Dems were in control and committed gaffes of such enormity, don't you think the GOP would be milking it and using it every second of they day until they had all the power...Ya know, kinda like they did thru 8 years of Clinton...
            •  The thing is that I don't think it is necessary (none)
              to do much here outside of saying- you know what the Republicans in Congress are doing is wrong. That's it. Nothing else needs to be said. It's like going to a funeral- do you know say a lot- or do you just say- my condolences? You say little, and people have more respect for that than if you come out with a long spotlight grabbing monologue about how great the person is. It maybe a matter  of preference- but I know for me- I want to respect the private moment of someone else's grief by paying respect, but not indulging internal stuff which may make me want to say more. It's  a different psychological outlook that most politicians are used to- and it changes the rules.
              •   I see what your saying (none)
                but I don't know if you get what I am saying. I don't feel Schiavo should be the bridge.  I DO feel the backlash resulting from the primarily GOP interference needs to be capitalized upon.  Terri Schiavo's name need not be mentioned.  All that needs to be mentioned is THIS: Internally-Unify your asses, elected Dem officials.  And get Lieberman and his ilk the hell out.  Externally, to the public: This is the Democratic party.  This is how you will benefit. Support us and we will support you by___,_,__,____.

                   B/c unfortunately, as a country, we allowed the Schiavo issue to open the door to a pandoras box of ugliness, control, and power madness.  We allowed it to take hold in the media, in our gov't, and hell in our day to day lives.  And while in most cases, while I would totally back your POV, in this instance I feel we have been handed a meal ticket.  And since I also feel that the Dems are really poor at manipulating circumstance to fit their agenda, unlike the GOP, it needs to used to the best intrests of the party, and as such, the best interests of the people. Regular people. Like us. And b/c I feel that in the wake of this, regular people are going to want to feel that their officials WILL indeed represent them, and now have a pretty good idea of who WON'T represent them, but will go for the power grab, lefties need to START now aligning the Democratic party as the party of the people, the party that can be trusted.  

                Pleasure discussing this w/ you.  Made my very long workday slighty more enjoyable.

                •  I agree to some degree that we need to fight (none)
                  It's just a question of whether this is as people think it is. My guess is that it is not- that the best we can do is to let them do this to themselves. When you think about it- for the longest time- while the Republicans were in the wilderness- a lot of what hurts the Democrats are things they did to themselves. I don't mean the civil rights movement, or women's rights, or the economic issues. I mean the carricature (the super liberal who is more interested in idealogy to humanity (that was the carricature regardless of whether it was true or not)- the Republicans are building up their own carricature that is seeping into the minds of those out there in the public. No one event will do this- it will happen as the rules change. And they are. There are somethings on which we can help them along- ie, social security in painting themselves strategically into a corner. There are others that we need to be smart enough to let them inflict their own damage.

                  I wrote a while back that the Republicans face a bigger problem than the Democrats. They face the internal center of their party that can not hold under the pressure. What does a Paleo Conservative have in common with a Neo Con have in common with a libertarian have in common with a Theocon have in common with a Rockerfeller Republican? The answer of course- is very little besides the desire for power. But, power, as the cliche goes is a weird thing. It can look like everyone has it during an election, but afterwards it can look as the theocons are realizing that they dont have as much power as they thought. Afterall, the polls (which I hate)do show something important. What happened to the country lurching rightward voting for their leaders on conservative values? This was 5 months ago, and now look at where they stand. You can expect this to happen more because the center of the Republican party can not hold as it presently stands.

                  One of the other things that I have argued in thinking strategically is to ask yourself when a situation calls for action, and when a situations for standing out the way to let the enemy inflict its own wounds. The Republicans have done more damage by the Democrats standing out of the way, than they would have if we had created the same triangulation of liberal v. conservative paradigm that they have been using for a generation. The interesting thing about both this situation, and that of Social Security is that on some level- they inflicted the wounds on themselves by doing what people with too much power always do- they become greedy and do stupid things.

                  I end with a Nightline program from the other night about Tom DeLay. I was watching it, and I was mostly irritated until this lady from his homestate of Texas came on talking about how invulnerable DeLay is, and how he always lands on his feet, and that they will only take him out of Congress when he's dead. To her he's teflon. But, what I got from it- was something more important- he thinks he is teflon, and the result is that as we can see he is making more mistakes. Mistakes that are pissing off even his fellow Republicans. This is how I think, in part, they will fall. More Tom DeLays, and more screw ups like Social Security. They confused a 3 pt victory built on lies with mandate. The truth is neither party right now has a mandate in this country.

        •  Some disability rights orgs... (none)
          are dependent on government grants for their existence/survival, especially in the wake of the games that are being played w/the budget and social programs.

          That being said, they (disability rights orgs.) are sure as hell not going to bite the hand that feeds them.  After all, the orgs have to play politics/sway which the wind blows or their funding is cut.  The actual organizations may say one thing, but the orgs. DO NOT represent the feelings/opinions of many people w/disabilities re: Ms. Schiavo.

          As a traumatic brain injury survivor, and I (and other traumatic brain injury survivors) feel that Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube should have been removed years ago, as her diagnosis was existence in a persistent vegetative state and her prognosis gave no indication of recovery.  (My prognosis was excellent.)  

          The only second term dubya deserves is 20 to life!

          by Street Kid on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 02:57:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  All of what you say maybe true, but the core (none)
            problem on this blog has been an oversimplification of the issues- like an abulance chaser waiting at the scene of an accident to see if he or she can cash in on the accident. Now, did we cause the accident? No. The Republicans here led to this crash. But, the fact that we are talking about cashing in on it is problematic because we don't get to even acknowledge what you are - that this is a complicated issue even within the disable community where the organizations maybe saying one thing, and the rank and file is saying another.
    •  I think they played it right (none)
      If the Dems had been united opposing the law, the Republicans' would have just twisted it around and made it look like they were killing Terri. By just letting it happen, the country gets to see what happens when the right wing gets what they want.
      •  They could have just walked out (4.00)
        Don't vote on it at all.

        Walk out of the fucking building to the steps and have a press conference saying: "our hearts go out to the families in this matter and believe the process and rule of law will find the best resolution under tragic circumstances.  Congress should not turn this tragedy into a circus and we will not take part."

        Then Reid can give the finger and we walk back to our cars.

        A nation afraid of the world cannot lead it. JW

        by Velvet Revolution on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:20:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is awesome. (4.00)
    I have to admit, I was one who thought this thing would operate to favor the Rethugs.

    But, these are excellent #s.  Are Americans getting wise to these wingnuts?

    Now we just have to ride the backlash wave and use it to help us amplify our issues.

  •  Problem is... (none)
    ...our team in Congress takes the same exact hit as their team. We're not benefiting one bit from this. It's not perceived as the repub's BS, it's perceived as Congress' BS and the shrub's. I'm afraid this is what we're getting for not having faught this.

    If you cannot convince them, confuse them. Harry S. Truman

    by brainwave on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 09:36:08 AM PST

    •  Please read my post above (none)
      for why we lose regardless of what we do on this issue.
    •  Nonetheless... (my keep the faith reply!) (none)
      (1) Anything that voters perceive as a negative with regard to the president strongly tends to affect his party disproportionately in the next election, and that effect can be truly significant if the opposition plays its cards well (keep hope).

      (2) Despite some support from Dems in Congress for this horrible bill, the Dems who did vote for it, simply by their silence, seem much less craven and opportunistic than the Repugs, who are getting painted in the media as the perpetrators in this mess; I swear, I am always on the lookout for coverage that is biased against the Dems, and I've seen nothing but "Republicans screwed up big-time" regarding this case; if that mantra is drummed loudly enough, it will affect people's perceptions. To me, that's an enormous benefit -- finally, finally, the media sound and fury is NOT blaming Democrats!

      (3) And lastly, the public perceives this as Congress's BS in a bipartisan way. Well, in 2006, a lot of Congresspeople who voted for this bill will be running for office -- all the Reps and a number of Sens. Even though there were Dems who did vote for this bill, a Repug challenger, due to what they've let their party become, can't use that vote against a Dem in an election. However, a Dem challenger can use it against a Repug, and a hell of a lot more Repugs voted for the bill. I think the timeframe allows us to craft a biting and unified message (that is not insensitive or crass) about this horrible bill for all Dems to use against all Repugs in '06; I just hope we do.

      Try not to fret!

      The public wants what the public gets, but I don't get what this society wants -- Paul Weller

      by jamfan on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 09:55:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fundies are PISSED at Bush Family (photo) (4.00)

    The radical fundies on msnbc this morning were pissed and attacking both Jeb or Shrub for not seizing Terri.

    Frankenstein Monsters Larry Klayman called on Jeb to Resign, and Randall Terry said Jeb is no better then a "Nuremberg war criminal" and that "the [U.S.] should apologize to Hermann Goering, Julius Streicher, and the others tried at Nuremberg." [Scarbourgh's special sunday show.]

    •  That is the (4.00)
      whitest group of people I've ever seen.

      Poor oppressed white Christians.  So put upon.  They've got nothing but time, money and energy to spend crusading on this, but don't give a flying fuck about the disabled lady two houses down who is about to lose her Medicaid and home health nurse.

      A nation afraid of the world cannot lead it. JW

      by Velvet Revolution on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 09:58:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How do they stay that white (none)
        That far south? I get crispy in less than half an hour of direct sunshine, even my pasty (Mennonite ancestry) skin gets darker than them?
        •  Are we cousins? (none)
          I'm the same way- Mom is from Anglo-Norman stock, Dad from a very old Mennonite family (he was the first to marry an 'English') and I burn at the drop of a neckline...

          More to the point though, I am also a bit worried as how 'white' the whole debate is. And to realize that the white, middle-class, Evangelical/Fundamentalist, SUV-driving, Wal-Mart-shopping, suburb-dwelling crowd has now found another issue (besides abortion) that they can weep and moan and pray in public about, and through which they think they can claim a kinship in persecution like that of the Jews in Auschwitz.

          Why someone would want to be persecuted is beyond me...

          "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." -Karl Marx

          by Lainie on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 03:24:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  persecution brings moral authority (none)
            and moral authority gives you the power and the right to do whatever you want, and make everyone who disagrees with you STFU. victimhood, like authenticity, is a valuable political commodity. the christian right's claiming the mantle of john brown, bush's dog-whistle head fack about dred scott in the debates, and the wingnuts' rabid support for likud are all ways of appropriating someone else's moral authority to use as a club. the more emotionally powerful the symbol, the more of a punch it packs.
  •  The problem is (4.00)
    that the purported experts, from Larry Sabato to all the beloved pundits, claim that only the 21% who would be more likely to vote for a rep who voted in favor of intervening will remember in teh next election.  According to conv. wisdom, the people who disapprove will forget with the next celebrity scandal.

    The Dems need to preserve this moment, with all the sound bites & images they can cache.  Dems too often assume that they don't need to remind people.  The Repubs have prospererd in large part because they never overestimate the capacity of voters to recall outrages.  Repubs pound away at issues & images.  Dems see a good issue and seem to say that of course people will remember that.  Guess what, they won't.  Not if they don't get a regular dose of memory-boosting ads/references/talking points.

    Dems need to remind voters just who wants to send state troopers to hospital beds, who wants to insert themselves into family discussions, and who wants to decide when the phrase 'the sanctity of marriage' means anything.

    •  Yes. (4.00)
      Dems always forget that they need to amplify, promote and disseminate their messages.  This one is kind of a toughie, since the last thing we want to do is be seen as "using" the situation for political ends.

      But for those Dems who voted for Congressional intervention (what were they thinking?), the Dem leadership has done a good job of lettting the Rethugs eat themselves.

      •  I just dont' see how we can screw this up (4.00)
        just argue that this is another example of the GOP lunatics sticking the government where it doesn't belong.

        This is a metaphor.  They can come together in one day and pass this bill but can't find Osama.  Can't do this, can't do that.

        What am I saying.  We'll screw this up and the GOP will feel absolutely no sting from this as they are feeling no sting on the Social Security fiasco.

        We remain all defense and no offense.

        A nation afraid of the world cannot lead it. JW

        by Velvet Revolution on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:32:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry (none)
      You make some of the same points I made below.  By the time I typed and posted, you had posted your entry.
    •  Preserving the moment. (none)
      There was an image of neo-nazi protestors at the Schiavo hospice. I never saw them on RWCM. Still searching for it...maybe someone else remembers? and can pull it up for the record.
      •  They weren't neo-Nazis... (none)
        They were calling Jeb Bush, and by extension us, Nazis for support of euthanasia.  Which is BS, of course, but still, they weren't neo-Nazis.  The fact that they were holding up swastikas next to pictures of Jeb Bush and screaming "Sieg Heil" nonwithstanding.

        (Insert Democrat Here) for President in 2008!

        by teenagedallasdeaniac on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 01:22:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The people in favor (none)
      of what Bush/Delay did, in the graphics at the top of the story, almost exactly equals the percentage of people who voted this administration into a second term.

      The other 65-75 percent, who opposed what was done last week, is comprised of the people who voted for Kerry/against Bush or who were eligible to vote but for whatever reason did not.

      Bush, the choice of only 25 percent of the country.

      There's a nice-ninny priest/at tea in everyone,/all cozy and chatty as auntie,/but a saint comes/and throws rocks through the window. -- John Ciardi

      by Mnemosyne on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 12:17:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Issue (none)
    Too bad a number of Dems voted for the darn thing, which makes it a less-powerful issue for us to run on. Yes, I understand we made a smart compromise - but we coulda all abstained when it came time for the vote.
  •  Internals? (none)
    Any way we can get internals on this?  The Repubs are gonna claim (like with every poll that showed public disagreement with "Terri's Law 2") that the polls were biased.
  •  We'll see (4.00)
    my gut tells me this did wonders for their "destroy the judiciary and end fillibusters" agenda.

    The majority of incensed Americans will be incensed about something else next week, Democrats will not do what it takes to pin this fucker to the GOP (case in point, Joementum yesterday on Meet the Press) and the right wing is absolutely thrilled at what their leadership has done.

    The only way this red dot becomes a stain is if the right wing continues to flex its muscles and get to the front of the line on agenda items and the Ds talk all day and all night about how a bunch of psychopath, Koresh-in-trainings have hijacked our government.

    A nation afraid of the world cannot lead it. JW

    by Velvet Revolution on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 09:39:52 AM PST

    •  I don't agree (4.00)
      This isn't just wingnuttery about abortion or gays, issues that don't affect most of us at any given point in time.  

      This is about an issue that affects each and every one of us all of the time and about which a lot of us have some very intimate knowledge.  

      A very small group of people are saying some very alarming things like "it's never ok to withhold artificial hydration and nutrition" or that the right to life is in the Constitution so the state can, nay, must step-in and prevent you from making your own choice on this issue.  The Judicial Watch guy said "even Terri couldn't make this decision for herself"!

      Almost everyone I know has either had to deal with this situation.  And those who haven't have spent some time contemplating "what if that's me lying there" because it could be.

      This issue - it's a whole different ball of wax.  It's real to a lot of people and lots of us know more than we care to about the issue.

      •  We'll see (none)
        There are literally dozens of examples of what you just said that haven't turned the tide one iota.

        We are, once again, going to sit back and wait for the press to do this for us.  We continue to believe the press will start concentrating on the abuses of the GOP in power and give the narrative people need to understand just what is being done to them by the psychopath Republicans.

        It ain't going to happen.  The lunatic fringe of the GOP has been front and center for years (impeachment, anyone?) yet the Ds have done exactly nothing to counter it.  They attacked it in a unified way exactly once, in 1996.  It didn't win Congress back, so we've moved to another strategy four more times.

        The fact that people like Robertson, Falwell and Terry literally control the GOP state parties across the country and make up the majority of their voters is the stinking pile of dog poo on the rug, but the Demcorats keep talking about the cat box, or the trash can.  They have to hone in and talk about nothign other than that turd on the rug.

        Until we do that, until we use their actually in power right the way they used our fringe left, we are going to sit here and have little victory after little victory while we lose the overall war.

        A nation afraid of the world cannot lead it. JW

        by Velvet Revolution on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:38:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That is also why (none)
        I think that the Republicans haven't been able to fool people about Social Security. Too many people have it in their lives or know the good it has done for someone in their own family.  The Republicans can't fake us out about either one of these issues because everyone in the country has a stake in them, and can't sit back and watch while other people's lives are ruined while it never touches theirs.  

        Same with a draft for the military, but that is another thread........

  •  HAHA! (none)
    Take that DeLay and company!
  •  Sign of the cult of personality (none)
    75% think it was wrong for Congress to get involved, yet only 70% thought the President was wrong? Why one and not the other? I bet the 5% difference is from people who can't accept the fact that their beloved President can do no wrong...
  •  Behind the Curtain (none)
    I'm just waiting for the straw that breaks the camel's back.  I thought maybe the revalation of the propaganda machine by the NYT would do it.  But the polls suggest that this is Bush's most unpopular decision.  

    I love a 45% approval rating.  Hah!

  •  The Reps are saying (none)
    . . . to quote a favorite Republican (or maybe he was a Reagan Democrat, since the nuclear power plant was unionized):

    "D'OH!!!"

    "While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in prison, I am not free." - Eugene Debs

    by matthewc on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 09:41:42 AM PST

  •  And that's the way the MSM presents it too (none)
    This morning on NPR the abominable Cokie Roberts, discussing those poll numbers, was dishing out blame for Congress' actions with equal measure. The gist of it was, repubs did it b/c they thought they could pull a fast one on the religious right, and dems did it b/c they're scared to death now when it comes to "values" issues and so just stick their head in the sand. Fuck that.

    If you cannot convince them, confuse them. Harry S. Truman

    by brainwave on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 09:44:21 AM PST

    •  woops (none)
      Sorry, this was meant as an afterthought to my comment upthread. Again, my point is, so far it's only us here who seem to think that we're benefiting from the repubs' blunder.

      If you cannot convince them, confuse them. Harry S. Truman

      by brainwave on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 09:47:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gee (3.66)
      I wonder where the Ds got it in their heads that they should worry more about values and be more like the Republicans on these issues?

      Bottom line: the Democrats, for the most part, sat on their hands in the late 40s through the 50s because they were afraid to stand up to McCarthy.  They are doing the same thing today.

      It is safer for them to sit behind the rock and wait a decade for the lunatics to finally go to far than it is for them to stand up to the lunatics.

      Of course, just hope you don't become a target of the lunatics in the mean time.

      Spineless Ds.  Stand up and fight or get out of the way.

      A nation afraid of the world cannot lead it. JW

      by Velvet Revolution on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 09:53:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yay!! (4.00)
        I wonder where the Ds got it in their heads that they should worry more about values and be more like the Republicans on these issues?

        Thank you thank you thank you.

        I was wondering if someone (besides me) was going to nail the  "we must have values that look more like mainstream [read:  Republican] voters" up on the wall so we can all see gawk at how wrong-headed it is.

        We needn't have been caught on the wrong side of this issue.  Damn the Democrats and their spineless hand-wringing.  

        Wake up and smell the jackboots, sheeple!

        by lightiris on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:13:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  this is amazing (4.00)
    The president is like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest these days with his lame duck domestic policy.  He can tout success in Iraq all he wants to but when it comes to dealing with our own country, he hasn't the slightest clue.  He pissed away a "mandate" he never had between trying to dismantle social security and the Schiavo fiasco.  He's really digging himself into a hole because what once made him seem like a "principled, straight shooter" is now making him look like he really is even to his own supporters - just plain stubborn and rash.  

    Lets see how Pappa Rove plains on bailing Baby George out this time.  

    Whats most ironic though, is the Schiavo thing was probably blown out of proportion with a lot of intent to cover up the current House ethics scandal, and it ended up hurting them in the end.  Now they have to distract the American public from the distraction itself to save face.

    pity concrete doesn't burn.

    by The Party Plague on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 09:44:36 AM PST

  •  Dems need to capitalize on this (4.00)
    and The Rude Pundit offers this;
    But of course the delicate question is how the Democrats use the glazed eyes of Terri Schiavo against the Republicans. And, as with most matters political, the Rude Pundit has the ready, easy solution: it's all about the inference of language. If a Democrat is up against a Schiavo Republican (and, good, wise, vaguely left pundits everywhere should start calling the wacked-out, ultra-Christian Republicans by this nom de guerre), don't bring out Schiavo's corpse. Instead, just say that you support the government staying out of "the most intimate decisions a person" (or "family") "can make." Or some such shit. You see what that does? It evokes Schiavo without saying her name and, frankly, it also covers things like abortion rights, gay rights, and more. If the Schiavo Republican wants to question you about it, then you have free rein to bring up Schiavo. Despite the cries to the contrary that the Schiavo matter will go away, rest assured: by 2006, the Republican party will have either been eaten by its most rabid members or be silent on Schiavo to the point of suffocation.

    So let's be optimistic here for a moment: the Republicans are spitting blood on the bar floor. If you wanna be a pussy Democrat, you pick your opponent up and say, "Let's be friends" and buy him a beer. But if you know anything about Republicans and the political game, that fucker's gonna smash that bottle of Bud over your head. The better way to play it? Sit on his chest and pound his head on the floor until he's drowning in his own vomit.

  •  COME ON HOWARD!!!! (none)
    Time to get the grassroots hootin' and hollerin' on this one!

    /really really longed to see President Dean...

  •  Breaking News (none)
    Indonesian earthquake story interrupted for Schiavo father press statement. She's still alert and communicating but time is running out.

    I think we'll all be impressed by her eventual last words.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 09:47:38 AM PST

  •  HOW EASILY WE FORGET!!!!!!!!!! (4.00)
    Remember when the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton and Americans said they would hold the Republicans responsible?  Most voters will forget this story by the time the 2006 midterms roll around.  The only ones who will think about it when they walk into the voting booth are the hard-core supporters of either side (and these people's votes are not swayed by anything).  Republicans are bastards, but they are smart bastards.  They would not be so active in this tragedy if the midterms were three months away.  Republicans know that voters have short-term memories.  Consequently, most of their attacks on the poor and the environment occur during the first few months of a new term.  As kos indicated earlier, the Schiavo tragedy is filling the coffers of the Right.  This story could end up being the best of both worlds for the Right (energize the base, collect lots of cash, and only suffer a short-term polling hit that will not affect the midterms).  I wish I could be as optimistic as kos, but the reality of the past prevents me.
    •  Only the (none)
      psychopath right will remember this and they will end up happy.  They are gravy-training this and will be sending out fliers with Hillary Clinton and Michael Shaivo on it within the month.

      In three weeks, most Americans will care more about which talentless hack gets booted off of American Idol than remember this.

      Impeachment.  Stealing a presidential election.  Lying into a war.

      Ds haven't capitalized on any of those, so I'm not getting my hopes up on this one either.  If there has ever been a group of folks better at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory than the our Democrats, I have yet to see them.

      Please, Howard.  Use this as a metaphor on why the GOP sucks.

      A nation afraid of the world cannot lead it. JW

      by Velvet Revolution on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:07:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No wonder... (none)
      ...you guys always lose. Well, not always, but far too often.

      A promising situation is... a looming and certain failure.

      A grim situation is... just what you expected.

      Why don't you just all go and blow your brains out instead of posting here?

      No wonder the American left is so weak. They have a loser mentality -- every silver lining has a dark cloud.

      To win, you have to fight. If you aren't interested in winning, just shut up, k?

      "Salvation is by way of the truth, not by way of the fatherland" -- Chaadaev

      by sagesource on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 12:56:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you for saying that (none)
        I mean, I'm all for "expect the worst, hope for the best" but this is more like "expect something worse than you can possibly imagine, hope for something slightly less sucky". Sometimes I get so drained reading here that I just want to give up.
    •  All smoke screen (none)
      Did Schiavo or did Schiavo not erupt right about the time Bush's Social Security Piratization ship started taking on water?

      Meanwhile, the continuing capital coup rolls on, from phony predatory lending bills to gutting the Community Reinvestment Act.

      But in our fully tabloidized society, even "progressives" and "intellectuals" are easily diverted into the politics of spectacle.

      I've been shouting from here in the wilderness since the beginning of this thing that we can't get distracted by this, that we need rather be warning all that will hear that this is a distraction from what's really going on.  Because while this may look bad on the poll numbers right now, the impact of spectacle is but a will-o-the-wisp, it disappears when the next shabby media upheaval emerges to take its place.  But the continuing capital coup is forever.

  •  Wedge issue if I ever saw one (4.00)
    Some advice for Dean and Reid: this is the Democrats answer to gay marriage bills around the nation, use it.
  •  Dems Have Big Work to Do Here (none)
    Graphic on the TimePoll looks good, but there's a connection that the Dems should work to make: that GOoPers voted precisely this way because of their VALUES, which include intrusion into folks private lives, disrespect for the rule of law, and a willingness to say whatever they believe will give them a political edge. Only a quarter of the sample was willing to hang the V-word on the GOP stance here.

    Are you as curious as I over the splits? I'd expect that the quarter that answered "values" are likely to coincide with those who thought the GOP did right. Our side's got to do better at defining just who the GOP is, why they do what they do, and what their values really are.

    Just Politics, my ass. Their primary value is to stay in power, and do whatever it takes to do so.

  •  The sober reality (none)
    The reality is that although people tend to be critical of the president on a whole host of issues, that hasn't helped the Democrats.  I suspect that after the mid-term elections, the status quo will be maintained.  Plus, public opinion is so fickle.  Very few people are engaged enough to even have an entrenched opinion.
  •  My new favorite framing word: extreme (4.00)
     I plan on using it with regard to everything the Republicans do and propose.

    Proposal to end the fillibuster : extreme

    Privatization of Social Security :extreme

    How Republican legislators are filing bill after bill to protect wealthy corporations and ultrawealthy individuals at the expense of the middle class : extreme

    •  It's a shame (none)
      that we have to have that as "new".  Our opponents are psychopaths.  They are frothing lunatics that care more about the literal words of the "Left Behind" series than they do the damn constitution.  They have no principles, yet we do not cal them on that.  They have no morals, yet we do not call them on that.

      We continue to fight with Marquis of Queensbury rules while they kick us in the balls.  I'm sick of it.  My nuts hurt, let's pull of these glove and start aiming for the gonads.

      A nation afraid of the world cannot lead it. JW

      by Velvet Revolution on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:11:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Rude Pundit gets it right: (4.00)
    link
    But of course the delicate question is how the Democrats use the glazed eyes of Terri Schiavo against the Republicans. And, as with most matters political, the Rude Pundit has the ready, easy solution: it's all about the inference of language. If a Democrat is up against a Schiavo Republican (and, good, wise, vaguely left pundits everywhere should start calling the wacked-out, ultra-Christian Republicans by this nom de guerre), don't bring out Schiavo's corpse. Instead, just say that you support the government staying out of "the most intimate decisions a person" (or "family") "can make." Or some such shit. You see what that does? It evokes Schiavo without saying her name and, frankly, it also covers things like abortion rights, gay rights, and more. If the Schiavo Republican wants to question you about it, then you have free rein to bring up Schiavo. Despite the cries to the contrary that the Schiavo matter will go away, rest assured: by 2006, the Republican party will have either been eaten by its most rabid members or be silent on Schiavo to the point of suffocation.

    So let's be optimistic here for a moment: the Republicans are spitting blood on the bar floor. If you wanna be a pussy Democrat, you pick your opponent up and say, "Let's be friends" and buy him a beer. But if you know anything about Republicans and the political game, that fucker's gonna smash that bottle of Bud over your head. The better way to play it? Sit on his chest and pound his head on the floor until he's drowning in his own vomit.

  •  Although I know that this was a lose , (none)
    lose for the Democrats, because no matter what we did it probably would have been spun against us, ie Culture of Death if we voted against, and weak in not distinguishing ourselves if we vote for it, I would probably in hindsite, have preferred being labled as supporting the Culture of Death.  

    The polls are not seperating the Repubs from the Democrats.  We are all labeled as Congress.  And as we have seen, a whole lot of people are not able to make the distinction by themselves , that it was the Rs that promoted this, or figure out that the Democrats we didn't have any power.

    How are we going to use this in the fight against radical judges by saying,"See who the radical judges represent.  You don't want them", when we went along with the idea that judges could not make the proper decision in the first place and it was okay if the Congress jumped in to override them?

    Can we say that we learned from this and are now pushing moderate judges, because the people have spoken and do not want extremism in govt. Do you think that we can use the fact that this taught us a lesson in the process? because we are not going to be able to act like we stood up against extremism and non interference in private lives after supporting an extremist move in Congress without much of a fight.  We might have ruined our integrity in fighting against right wing extremism by supporting it , or at least not opposing it in this situation. How can we overcome this?

    •  See Omar's link to Rude Pundit (none)
      one posting above yours. I think it's a good start.

      The public wants what the public gets, but I don't get what this society wants -- Paul Weller

      by jamfan on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:12:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That will be good for the 2006 elections (none)
        when Republicans are opposed by previously unelected Democratic candidates.  The Democratic candidate can pound the Republicans head against the floor and use it as an issue to distinguish themselves.  But I am concerned about when the Senate votes on judicial nominees and the Dems. are not able to say that it is important to oppose the extremist right nominees, when seemingly the Dems did support extremism in this deal by not opposing bringing the Schiavo into the Federal Govt, and not making a big deal out of it being wrong to involve govt. in personal lives.
        •  Sure thing, definitely a concern (none)
          But first and foremost, the important thing about judicial confirmations is that the Dem senators vote against wackos; the Schiavo case really doesn't have the power to affect that. It doesn't matter at all whether or not they are able to credibly say that it is important to oppose extremist nominees, so long as they still do oppose them. No Dem is likely to say, "Well, I didn't object to Congress interfering in the Terri Schiavo case, so therefore I am morally obligated to vote to confirm the Justice Reverend Holyfather to the Supreme Court." And ultimately, the media are blaming the Repugs for this mess, and the Repugs are probably desperate to make the issue go away quietly, so really, it could be OK for us if we play our cards right. I just hate seeing so many comments on this thread so down about something that is finally a tiny piece of good news for us.

          The public wants what the public gets, but I don't get what this society wants -- Paul Weller

          by jamfan on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:35:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm thrilled to death at the turn of events (none)
            It is almost like the Easter Bunny came, and brought a basket of captive Republicans to torture and play with to my little hearts content.   I think people are down about it, because it just seems too good to be true, that this could be the break we've been waiting for.  We have to scour every part of it to see if it is defective, before we can use be comfortable using it and so we don't get blown up and destroyed  while were riding it to victory.  
  •  Drudge asleep at the wheel again (none)
    The Drudge home page currently features a right-to-lifer behind a large sign reading "Feed Her!" with the URL dahl.com. That's the website of Chicago DJ Steve Dahl who, according to the show log, joked on Friday about sending a minion down to Florida "with a pizza and a blender" as publicity for the show. How long before the crowd, invariably described as "solemn" and "peaceful," consists of Spring Break gawkers and unemployed louts shouting "Hoooowaaard Steeeeern"?
  •  What a nice little present (none)
    for the whores who decended upon this family's anger and grief in attempt to cash in politically.  Let this also be a lesson to those Democratic legislators who facilitated this madness: rats, jump off the sinking ship or capsize with it.  Democratic numbers are plunging alongside those of the GOP; how different would the polling scenario be if Democrats had presented a united front against congressional intervention?  

    Kudos to those Dems, particularly Nelson (FL) and Frank (MA), who vocally refused to get involved with the Schiavo circus.

    •  Barney Frank (4.00)
      An extremely strong voice of reason and truth in this whole affair.

      "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

      by catnip on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:22:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why is Frank calling for hearings though? (none)
        I thought Barney Frank was very erudite in his comments on the floor and this weekend until he called for hearings on the matter.  Though I understand that he wanted them to include a real debate and discussions of cuts on medicaid and medicare funding but you know that this is not what will happen in the rigged House.  That is not what will sell tickets on CNN and the cable shows so that is not what will get the play and it will just prolong the issues.  We could end up with a new federal review of right to die issues, more lies about activist judges and the excuse to use the nuclear option which is why I think they started this in the first place.  

        Micheal Schiavo is scheduled to supposedly appear before a Senate subcomittee on April 6th (with Terri as it hasn't been amended yet, I gather) but  depending on when she dies, they might just want this all to just quietly go away since it isn't playing well.  I doubt they will call him in the long run.  It was a tactic.

        I truly understand the concern of the disability community but I think this issue works as much against them as it does for them.  They have worked so hard for more control over their own bodies and now even though they may be adults and married it may be given back to their parents because of some new standing under federal judicial review?  

        I think Frank calling for hearings is giving them what they want. Perhaps I'm not seeing the strategy, perhaps it will prolong the agony.  It is just that I see a potential very bad law as the down side.

        •  Oh, I think it could work (none)
          by underlying the financial implications of all this that the Repubs don't want you to think about: that keeping someone alive in a PVS brings up the question of "who will pay for it?" in a time where the Repubs are cutting the Medicaid budgets in order to "balance" the budgets without "raising" taxes on the wealthy or cutting back on military spending: highlighting that their budgets do not live up to their Christian values.  Plus it puts them on the spot for undercutting a court system that was working very well on on the Schaivo case ...
    •  Also Give Kudos (none)
      to the 100 or so members of Congress who didn't fly back to DC last Sunday to vote for this shit.

      I'm happy to say that it was a bi-partisan effort in California (all 54 members, including 20 Republicans, stay put on the West Coast).

      We now have to keep this issue, as well as Social Security, and GeeDubya's basic screw-ups in the fore front until November, 2006.

      You can bet I will make some Congressional Black Caucus members look over their shoulders, because I plan to stand in front of their forums and pass out flyers with talking points to explain to the participants how they have been voting against their constituent's interests (bankruptcy bills, predatory lending, and the Schaivo interference bill)...come September, 2005; cause they think they have seats in "safe" districts.  They want to kiss Lieberman's ass in an effort to transfer "Joementum" to themselves - well, they have to GO!

      Get rid of anything useless...like the Democratic Leadership Council. Visit the weblog: www.getridofthedlc.blogspot.com

      by The Truth on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:57:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Are Jeb, etc. insulating themselves (none)

    The best thing in the world for Jeb is to have the nutcases put his name on a billboard and say "have you no shame"-- it indicates to the 80% that he is with the majority and not interfering... so in a way they are working against us.

    Anyone have this stat:

    The Top Ten Schiavo voting Republicans with the highest Kerry percentage?

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:16:28 AM PST

    •  He's not hiding for nothing.. (none)
      ...everyone knows this was triggered by Bush et. al.'s involvement.

      They public is pissed, perfectly stoked by the shock coverage on cable.

      No the half of the fundies, the radical element, will stay home next time.

      In any event, poor poll numbers have a way on feedin more poor poll numbers.

    •  any Jeb polls out there? n/t (none)

      "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

      by catnip on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:23:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  New bumper sticker (none)
    Seeing as "the base" is getting really upset at Jeb for not doing more...what about making a sticker for them "Bush lied, Terry died"

    I have nothing to say.

    by calistan on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:16:38 AM PST

  •  Dems will do well to shut up for a while (none)
    Let's not forget that Terry Schiavo is going to die soon. This is not the time to be making political points. I think when the time comes the Dems can take the position of mourning for her and sorrowing over the shameless political and media posturing that intruded into a family's most terrible possible tragedy. Be the ones to dissociate from the circus and the politics and focus back on the tragic events that should have been left within the family.

    Until that time, the Dems should just shut up for a while. This is a time for Dems to remember what they're supposed to be about, not just political positioning. It's one time when both concerns point in the same direction.

    •  I'm sorry, but that is old thinking (none)
      that got us in the fix we're in now.

      Our playbook has been "let's see how this plays out" but in the short attention span theater that is the American electorate it just looks like we don't believe in anything.

      Strong and wrong is kicking the shit out of us.

      Time to call this for what it is: a bunch of right wing lunatics that have hijacked our government.  What's next, teaching creationsim in our schools?

      Oh wait....

      A nation afraid of the world cannot lead it. JW

      by Velvet Revolution on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:27:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  oh, I'm sorry (none)
      but I disagree completely.  The Dems need to come out swinging while people are still outraged . . . they need to be sad, mournful, respectful . . . but they need to put distance between their respect for the rule of law, for marriage, for the Constitution, and the complete lack of respect the Repubs have shown.  
      •  Politics are hell... (none)
        ... and the rethuglodites are attempting to use the situation for political benefit -- and people recognize it. D's should, in the wisest ways, use their gaffs to provoke any and every pain possible:

        • Bush lied, Terri died
        • DeLay pulled the plug on his father
        • Bush, when Texas governor, pulled the plug on anyone who couldn't pay
        • BushCo acted irresponsibly in its use of govt dollars and resources to legislate family affairs
        • Erring on the side of life only applies to white people
        • Erring on the side of life does not include compassion for those with HIV and AIDS
        • It's OK to err on the side of life in the case of some diseases (bulimia) but not others (AIDS)
        • BushCo really doesn't value marriage
        • BushCo doesn't value the sovereignty of the family

        So much more to write and so, so sleepy.
         

        Chaos. It's not just a theory.

        by PBnJ on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:52:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  It will help tremendously to pin this on (none)
    the Republicans, if Randall Terry and the Nutcases (Good name for a rock band) go to Washington and confront the Republicans as they say they are planning to do.  

    This might be a double layer of chocolate, if this emphasizes that the Republicans are connected to these people, and the public gets to see another act by the extremist right on display.

    The promised trip to Washington could be the thing that keeps on giving , and keeps the whole freak show fresh in everyone's memory.

    •  terrorism (none)
      And can we get Randall Terry's link to the anti-abortion terrorists underlined? You know, the ones who blow up clinics and shoot physicians and terrorize pregnant women?  It pains me when the media just presents him as just another "spokesperson" . . .
      •  Exactly (none)
        this would be like us having the Weathermen as our spokespeople.

        The man has a long history of inciting terrorism against Americans -- including judges and other elected officials.  He is on a jihad where his whacked out, do as I say, not as I do, brand of religion is #1 and he'll take out anyone who disagrees with him.

        The man should be in prison, yet here he is as a highly visible spokesperson for the GOP's cause celebre.  And Ds have done squat to tie him and his extremism to the GOP as a whole.

        A nation afraid of the world cannot lead it. JW

        by Velvet Revolution on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 10:46:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Precisely... (none)
          The man has a long history of inciting terrorism against Americans -- including judges and other elected officials.

          And the exact reason he and Operation Rescue were not tolerated in San Francisco.  And ''civil terrorism'' was the exact assessment of what he and his people carry out, that was the assessment made in the 80s here.  The legal community and judges were very effective in countering Terry... took a while but they moved on.  

  •  Congress and the Presidency are Republican (none)
    The democrats may be lumped in under "congress" right now, but in the end it is the republicans who are in charge of the congress, and the republicans in congress who brought this whole mess up. It wouldn't have happened without republican leadership.

    It is up to the democrats to build on this. We need to take this opportunity to start to shift away from Bush and start branding the Republican led congress as the source of all of America's woes.

    Bush and HIS REPUBLICAN LED CONGRESS are for increasing the defict, gutting social security, drilling in ANWR rather than changing our oil dependence, letting the drug companies increase prices on taxpayers by not letting Medicare negotiate for lower prices, for changing the ethics rules so corrupt republicans can stay in office.

    Republican led congress are the key words.  That concept has to become the umbrella covering all the country's problems. Too much power in one party's hands. No way to stop this corruption. They won't police themselves.

    The only way to change things is to vote them out of office.

  •  Here's what I want to know (4.00)
    With the American people strongly apposed to the efforts of the Schindlers and their allies, how come the media is giving them such sympathetic coverage.  And forget FOX.  Both MSNBC and CNN are defintely angling this from their point of view and continue to do so while also acknowleging evidence that most of their audience is on the other side.

    Why?

    veritas vos liberabit

    by WWGray on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 12:34:50 PM PST

    •  Because it's cheap and safe. (none)
      One reason they give so much coverage to the Terri Schaivo case is that it's cheap.  It's the same reason they devote so much time to the Michael Jackson case, the same reason they gave so much coverage to Kobe Bryant and O.J. Simpson.  If the viewer doesn't like it, the viewer is free to turn the channel... to see the same coverage on another news network.  It's almost collusion, they know that the viewer can't choose a news network that isn't covering it.

      The reason that their coverage is so slanted is that it is safe.  The media won't poke a stick at anything that will bite back.  The Republican leadership wants this story cast their way, and they will bite back if it doesn't go their way.

      I'd like to ask the inverse question:  With the media coverage so slanted, how is it that even Republicans are opposed to the government's  intervention?  This is quite unusual - people's opinions don't usually go so contrary to what is presented.

      I think it is because the public understands what brain-dead means.

      •  other news sources (none)
        It's almost collusion, they know that the viewer can't choose a news network that isn't covering it.

        Which is why so many of us have turned off the teevee. Permanently. Years ago. And we ARE a growing market. The only news I get off teevee is The Daily Show. Enough of us do this and eventually they'll notice.

  •  25% - 30% SUPPORT it? (none)
    Is anyone else more than a little concerned/depressed that 25-30 actually support what's happening?

    I'm shocked there are that many...

    •  well sort of.... (none)
      I thought it was the best political football for them and everybody would join the circus....

      My jaw dropped when I actually saw for the first time that the public was not fooled.

      unbelievable.

      If this keeps up... we might even get a democracy in this country.

  •  How about give them another present (4.00)
    If we could just kill one more 'sure thing' they have going, we might get the poor people in the red states to actually see that they are getting screwed .

    plasticrevolution.org

    If we rain enough paper we'll get noticed, if we get noticed, we could bring this bill (bankruptcy bill) back into debate and maybe even get it revoked.

  •  Thanks for the present, kos!!!! (none)
    I've got to check a few things out tomorrow!

     

    The only second term dubya deserves is 20 to life!

    by Street Kid on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 03:01:58 PM PST

  •  Biased graphics (none)
    How very cute. Our "libral media" obviously made the color scheme seen on this poll coincide with certain results.
    I'm having a hard time explaining this, but I think you get the point.

    Was it right to intervene?
    Yes=red
    No=blue

    Values or politics?
    Values=red
    Politics=blue

    Vote for your congressman=Red
    Vote against your congressman=Blue

    This seems a little subliminal to me or maybe I'm just paranoid.

  •  Revealing Survey (none)
    The survey is very revealing.  Notice that fewer respondents blame the President and even fewer still would vote against their entrenched Representative who is more than likely a Republican.  What is the conclusion?  Time and time again there is a tendency for the Republican voter to cut their Representative some slack, and above all to always give even more slack to their President.  They still think he's a nice guy.  Go figure.
  •  Paranoid (none)
    Are you paranoid?
    Yes
  •  "Memogate:" blame the backlash on us (none)
    The right would like to claim that the public has been brainwashed to condemn Congress on this, and it's all on account of that "fake" memo. Very recently in the Weekly Standard ("Fake but Accurate Again?"), Powerline's Hinderaker suggested that the "Republicans are taking a fearful beating" because of this "suspicious" memo, a "political dirty trick."

    Hinderaker's elaborate conspiracy theory relies on a stupid error and is easily debunked. Yes, I am shamelessly pimping my new diary.

  •  Colors (none)
    Why are the "no" votes blue, and the "yes" votes red?  The blue votes represent those against Bush and Co, while the red votes are those good little Republican sheep.  

    How nice of Time magazine to code everything for us!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site