Take a stand, Fred
USA Today ran a story this week on the “top 25 headlines that shaped history.” The 23rd-ranked story was the fight for the life of Terri Schiavo.
Flabbergastingly, when GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson was asked about the case today, he said he had no opinion and couldn’t remember the details:
Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson gave no opinion Thursday when asked about efforts by President Bush and Congress to keep Terri Schiavo alive, saying he does not remember details of the right-to-die case that stirred national debate.
Thompson was asked in an interview for Bay News 9’s “Political Connections” program whether he thought Congress’ intervention to save the life of the brain-dead woman two years ago was appropriate.
“I can’t pass judgment on it. I know that good people were doing what they thought was best,” Thompson said. “That’s going back in history. I don’t remember the details of it.”
Congress passed a bill after Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed in March 2005 to allow a federal court to review the case, and Bush returned from his Texas ranch to sign the bill into law. But a federal judge refused to order the tube reinserted, a decision upheld by a federal appeals court and the Supreme Court.
Thompson, a former Tennessee senator who left office in 2003, did say, “Local matters generally speaking should be left to the locals. I think Congress has got an awful lot to keep up with.”
This was a case on fundamental matters of ethics, end of life issues, and the definition of personhood and humanity...and Fred punts the question?
Attention, Thompson campaign: Reacquaint yourself with Terri’s Fight here.
***
Previous Terriblogging.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » Video: Fred Thompson Blasts MoveOn.Org
- Sorry, Michelle « Buttle’s World
- politicalpartypoop.com » Blog Archive » Thompson, Schiavo…
- Life of the Party
- Fred, How Can You Not Remember Terri? « www.TheReaganWing.com
- Terry, yes, everybody else, no! « Cowardly political musings…
- “Take a stand, Fred” « Vox Nova
- Matthe3w
- 0b75f2a1cb61454e41dd
- bench warrant laws
- Jessie
- Michelle Malkin » Memo to ABC, NYTimes: Terri Schiavo was not “brain dead”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: End of life issues
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
I was ready to like him. He’s sort of weird.
If Fred had been asked about what was served for dessert before the Battle Of Salamis this would be a perfectly acceptable response.
There’s really not much to lose, this early in, for a candidate to give a real response either way. Silly thing to fudge on.
I don’t think there’s enough info there to pass judgment on Fred or his values. If he didn’t remember the details then not making a stand only means that he’s smart enough to make informed choices.
I think what happened to Terri Schiavo was horrible. But does that mean that congress should have gotten involved in her case? I think they need to pass right-to-life measures that protect the Terri Schiavo’s in our country, but it’s up to the courts to applies the laws to specific cases. Remember that whole separation of powers issue?
I think Fred did the right thing here.
Fred said and did nothing wrong. I do believe that Bush should have stayed out of this. This was a terrible situation no matter what direction taken, however I do believe that this matter should have stayed inside the state
“I know that good people were doing what they thought was best”
Don Rumsfeld has advice for the Ignorant and Oblivious, so I do say.
*Know when you don’t know.*
Those who take the libertarian point of view on this issue could try the following experiment: go without food or fluids for 13 days and see how you feel.
The problem, GC, is that Fred said or did nothing at all here.
He’ll have to do better in debates, where you can’t get by going “deer caught in the headlights” for an answer.
In a general election debate you can be sure Hillary – and likely any other opponent – will (rightly) pounce on “I dunnos” & “it beats me” answers regarding matters of major national public debate.
Fred is probably not going to be my guy, but I have no problem with him on Schiavo. This was a private matter between family members. Politicians had no right to intervene, especially Repubs who held themselves out against judicial activism- which is actually what they tried to ignite as they tried to intervene in a private matter that had already been litigated and resolved. DeLay’s arrogant intervention was completely unacceptable to me. I want my husband to make these decisions for me, not my parents (unless I’ve specifically appointed them), and certainly not politicians in Washington.
His statement on this subject is typical. Fred is clueless and not very bright and has no real convictions. I have also heard from a person that had to deal with him for a day that he is rude and aloof in person. If he gets the nomination, hello President Clinton.
Geminicontender says:
Then you are a moral relativist, as bad as liberals are. You think starving a person to death is “as terrible” as keeping her alive as her parents wished for. That argument is the same as pro-abortion feminists stating keeping an unwanted unborn child alive is “as bad” as killing her.
It also amazes me how liberals and moral relativists are so against sticky mouse traps and want to ban them for cruelty because mice starve to death, but then are rallying to starve people to death like Terry Schiavo.
Also, I think the was Senate was minimally involved with Schiavo. It seems like they had recessed and weren’t actually called back, that the Senate under First just went along in abstencia somehow with whatever The House was doing, unfortunately.
“…going back in history.”.. two or three years.
Fred, like many of his ilk (and much unlike Reagan) is all performance and little substance. He could make Mary Had A Little Lamb sound dramatic, but unfortunately, his own views when pressed have about as much reliable fact.
Fred would, however, probably remember this old commercial line which is evermore appearing to apply to his Presidential candidacy: “Sorry, Charlie. Only the best tuna get to be Starkist.”
Fred is weak and vulnerable as hell, and as the libs begin to recognize this for a fact, beware this extremely dangerous certainty for ‘08: The libs will lovingly prop him up as a wonderful Presidential condidate – before they tear him to pieces if he gets the nomination. That’s how they work, and probably always will.
Repubs were wrong to get involved. Private matter.
This seems like a political calculation. Only the true believers come out in primaries and Thompson doesn’t want to annoy the Christian/Evangelical base by supporting the decision of the courts. However, a huge majority of Americans were against Congressional intervention. This issue was poison for the GOP and was the beginning of the end for the GOP majorities.
Thompson doesn’t want something he said in 9/07 to haunt him in 1/08 or 11/08. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Amazing. I guess you also think the OJ/Nicole Simpson bit was a “private matter” also–or for that matter all domestic violence is a “private matter” and that police, courts, and politicians should not get involved.
Starving to death a woman in a coma–there have been examples of those in her state coming out of a coma–is not a “private matter.” Congress was correct to get involved.
It is flabbergasting how people like Dandapani and limmo buy right into the MSM spin–and justify starving to death a human being. These people have no concept of how sacred life is.
Topically – what’s problematic for Thompson is while we all can speak off the cuff (and quite passionately, at that) from obviously differing views, he was hard pressed to be able to do likewise, at least in this case.
Why are folks so hard on Fred? Sheesh. With all the questions blasted at candidates every day, I’d have a hard time giving a considered answer, too.
The fact of the matter is that his answer was generically spot on. What’s to whine about?
You want to complain, bitch about what HIllary or Obama would say to that question.
I’m glad hes not commenting on it. I like the fact that he thinks local issues should be kept local. I totally agree with him. less federal government, thank you very much. anyway, terri schaivo has nothing to do with current issues. anyone who brings it up is just trying to fuel controversy and rhetoric. it is completely irrelevant to anything important going on right now in the world.
Gabe-
Nicole Simpson was murdered. I whole-heartedly support laws against 1st degree murder and court resolution.
Also, I support the courts litegating matters such as Schiavo, which was done very completely before DeLay intruded. I supported the decision of the Florida courts (appealed and upheld) according to state law which held that she was irreparibly brain damaged and that her husband could represent her wishes by withdrawing life support. If I don’t leave a living will (and after Schiavo, I have). I do not want to be kept alive after I’m brain dead, and if there’s some dispute over my wishes, I want my husband to make the ultimate decision, not my parents, not Tom DeLay. I want the laws to respect the primicy of marriage and give superior rights to my husband in matters of this sort. The courts did that in Schiavo. Politicians had no right to insert themselves into this case.
Look, this was a terrible situation that I wish on nobody. It was a matter that the government had no business taking part in.
The Catholic League wanted to tie this to the abortion debate and it has nothing to do with abortion. She was in a coma for a decade and her husband tried everything he could (even attending medical school) to try to find a way to make her well.
How dare you judge a man who lost his wife (though she was alive, she wasn’t a human being) and was living with the shell of a woman agonizing over whether or not she was in pain while in the coma.
So what would you ‘holier than thou with no consequence’ people do with the husband? You want to send him to the electric chair? You want instead of one tragedy there be two – except the second one be the death of a healthy man?
I agree with stem cell research too. A lot of good can come from it and here again, it has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is wrong and barbaric. . . so is the death penalty.
This was a difficult decision for a man and his sick wife. Sitting in judgment of him speaks more about you than him.
I might ad – LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!
Fred also chaired the committee investigating Chinese money in the ‘96 Clinton campaign, and resolved from it that no issues advocacy ads with depictions of candidates should be allowed.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2007/09/13/is_fred_necessary
I don’t have a vote for this Clinton enabler. If those who are dazzled by the “electability” of stars nominate him for the GOP candidate, I’ll do a write-in, in the General Election.
For those of you celebrating the death of a woman some doctors thought could be easily restored to some level of health – and ability to talk – at the hands of the husband who most likely threw her down the stairs, may I say that to all appearances, Fred is the perfect candidate for you.
But you are not the right fellow party members for me. Enjoy Clinton Lite!
Please don’t tear up a man with harsh judgment like this.
I am one who thought that Terry shouldn’t have been dehydrated/starved to death.
Harsh and judgmental attitudes are better served by lefties. We do not need to emulate that.
If Fred says something concrete that we can disagree with then fine. It is NOT POSSIBLE for every candidate to be aware of every issue …
and….
each issue is calculated as to how many people will be turned off in either direction.
It is better that GOOD people like Huckabee, Thompson, Romney, Guliani do NOT weigh in on every issue.
Choose your battles wisely is the key.
What do you people think are the top 3 issues.
Let’s stick to that please.
Thank you. I hope I’m persuasive to some. Really. I am with you but think at a high level we need to pick and choose our battles and not have a 10 or 100 point litmus test. We will get nowhere with that.
As a strong conservative I would label the TOP 3 issues as:
1) Strong National Defense
2) Lower Taxes and Spending – Reducing dependency on government
3) Illegal Immigration
You know Thacker, you make very goot points for Michael. However, he also had a family with another woman who he finally made “honest” after Terri was starved to death. Even Judge Judy said that although the law was followed correctly, he should have signed over her care and rights to her family. They had loved her all her life, he hadn’t been married to her too long when she fell sick. No one knows for sure what she went through in the end and no one knows if she was aware of it. I lived in Tampa when this first happened and I remember everyone I knew in college thinking he had something to do with her condition right away. Right or wrong, the spouse is always the suspect as there was some question as to how long it took him to call 911.
As for Fred and the others, it’s way too early and why isn’t anyone asking Hill, Obama or Breck girl about this?
Terry schiavo was already dead, her brain was largely gone and replaced by spinal fluid. Keeping her body alive and fighting over it was grotesque, her spirit had passed on.
The presidency is one very hot kitchen, Dave, if a person wilts just because it’s a warm day, that’s a problem.
As I noted before a lotta people here have been able to handle it right off the cuff with no problem. I don’t know very many people who have neither heard of the case nor very many who were unable to give an opinion either way.
“Generically spot on”? That’s completey meaningless. Unless you are referring to the “That’s ancient history” and “I dunno” line of answers as being “spot on”.
Coupla probs there, Dave. It never helps the blamer to point at others and claim “I’m clueless, but they are just as bad as me.” Just not a legitmate, nor wise, defense.
Second, we know where Hillary and Obama stand. Fred’s problem is apparently even he doesn’t know where he stands.
Fred already had the “lazy” & “dumb” tags which were exacerbated with a seeming never-ending “announcments of non announcement” about running. If he wants to further court those tags a series of fumbles and gaffes like this one should do the trick.
He’s had a very difficult time keeping a staff together, so maybe he’s just not getting good advice. If there’s anybody with even half a brain in his campaign ranks, they’ll be briefing him and issuing position papers directly addressing this question.
If Fred is tele-prompter addicted he’s gonna have a hard time ahead. His Republican opponents wont provide him with one and Hillary would tear him to pieces while he’s struggling to find answers.
He and his campaign need to get out front on this. I like him, but I expect him to be informed and able to articulate his views. If he can get a handle on slip-ups like this, it’d be a wise move.
Interesting how the report quoted in Michelle’s post on this subject (in the grey box below her short post) described Terri as a “brain-dead woman.” Terri was brain-DAMAGED, not brain dead. She was not a vegetable – not even close – and Michael Schiavo killed her to cover up the fact that he assaulted her.
I used to think that society approved of abortion because (in most cases) you don’t hear the baby scream when it’s killed AND it happens relatively quickly. Now I know today’s society can stomach starving someone to death. God help us. Please.
To be to fair to Thompson … Schiavo died in 2005 two years after Thompson left office. It’s highly possible that Thompson knows very little of the factual details surrounding the situation.
Ooops. Should have read …
“To be fair”
In our electoral system as it functions (or dis-functions) today, there is a premium placed on quick and glib answers. And, while there is certainly value in having a leader who has shown himself to be quick on his feet, let’s not forget that *being* president isn’t the lightning round on Jeopardy!
What’s vastly more important to skillful and wise leadership, is well though through, temperate judgment and the strength of will to act on that judgment. Or, frequently, to *not* act when hotter heads are screaming “*do* something!!!”
I am much more impressed with a candidate who doesn’t *have* all the answers, but rather shows the ability, and does the hard work, to arrive at good ones when it matters. I think Fred has that ability, and yes the work ethic, to do just that and be a remarkable president.
The luxury I enjoy is I’m not a columnist or commentator who has to deliver a final opinion by the end of the next 24 hr news cycle. The time scale that matters stretches all the way from today till the moment I’m standing there with a primary ballot in my hand.
dead people don’t tapdance
Rusty is right. I did not understand at the time (and still don’t) how this was being perceived by people to turn them away from Republicans, but it sure did turn them away.
Why take a stand on an issue that’s not current, when you are guaranteed that your stand will be misunderstood?
To have formulated an opinion over 2 years after ubiquitous, to the point of near all-pervasive coverage isn’t quite a wild, frenzied or unreasonable expectation, opgenorth.
Unless Fred’s running for Miss South Carolina, of course. I hope he’s not going to start sprinking “such as” in future interviews.
His people need to better prep him, Fred is promising and I’m for him at this time, but he needs to learn to nip these problems in the bud.
Rose -
He sure wanted some activist judge to have her killed off, but fast. Then he demanded immediate cremation. Organized crime ain’t got nuttin’ on this guy.
For all of y’all saying this was a private matter, you can’t be more wrong. I would have objected if the government would have stepped in and said it can’t be done, but all they asked for was another level of judicial review. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, especially when it deals with a fundamental right such as the continuation of life itself. Regardless of the stand on the issue you take, another view of the judicial process didn’t hinder the outcome.
If someone came out of the blue and posed this question to me it would have required some plausible amount of time to answer. Bay News-9 was trying to catch him off-gaurd and succeeded. Any answer he gave would have been met with controversy from one side or the other. I’m sure currently Freds mind is filled with answers more geared along current events and was taken aback somewhat.
Illegal Immigration is part of the requirement for a Strong National Defense. Then we can add:
3) 2nd Amendment Rights
What he should have said is that the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Like it or not, we have to rely on our judicial system. Thankfully, President Bush has appointed new justices to the court who may have a higher regard for life than were there at the time of the Schiavo case. As President I will appoint justices who do care about life.
At least that’s what I think he should have said and probably what he really thinks.
I just googled Terri Schiavo to see if there was any news and look at what I found. It seems Mr. Schiavo is under investigation for use and reporting of funds related to a Terri-Pac he started..read the details…this guy may get another day in court..and maybe this time it won’t turn out so well for him.
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2007/09/13/schiavo_inquiry/
I agree with your opinion about the sanctity of life, but I guarantee Fred has absolutely no opinion on the Terry Schiavo matter and probably didn’t even know who Terry Schiavo was. He has almost no opinions on any topic. But it seems a lot of Fred supporters have flooded this site and string of comments. Fred has now lost the Catholic vote because of his lack of opinion on the Terry Schiavo case.
Democrats are itching for us to nominate Fred because they know Clinton wins if Fred is nominated. He is our John Kerry.
As for Republicans who naively think the Terry Schiavo case was a “private matter,” you are as bad as those who rely solely on the MSM for information and then think we should pull out of Iraq or that global warming is a crisis.
You need to educate yourselves and stop relying on the MSM for information. Many doctors thought that Terry Schiavo with proper treatment could come out of the coma–and some have. Of course, the MSM didn’t report that.
The “loving husband” played a suspicious hand in Terry’s accident that caused the coma in the first place. He already had a girlfriend and thus would benefit from her death.
As far as the Terry Schiavo case being “beginning of the Democrat majority in Congress,” Republicans have constantly made the mistake of allowing the MSM to control debates and not responding. It doesn’t mean that you should not do the right thing because people have been influenced by MSM propaganda. We shouldn’t pull out of Iraq because the MSM has convinced many that Iraq was a mistake.
The court has no right to order anyone’s death, ESPECIALLY when the parents want her alive and thus Congress was right to get involved.
But I agree. If you think the court has a right to order someone’s death and you care nothing about the sanctity of life, Fred IS the candidate for you. You will help elect President Clinton.
If OJ had been her medical proxy, and if she’d been on life support, then yes, it would have been a private matter.
Equating a double murder with the Shivo case is really reaching. It wasn’t a federal matter in the slightest. At most it was a state issue. Fred’s opinion would be nice, but frankly it would never be an issue. He’d never have cause to make a decision on it one way or the other. If a bill should come up in congress banning a “shivo situation”, I would hope he’d veto it based on that whole “Congress needs to stay the hell out of our lives”.
And some people have survived sky-diving with a non-working parachute. Doesn’t mean it’s the norm, or even common.
Terry had zero (that’s none, nada, zip, zilch, liberal-like) brain activity.
You don’t usually get better from that.
So, Congress can tell you what to eat, where to live, who to marry, and when you get your medical care, eh?
It might not have been a purely private matter, but in no way was it a federal issue for congress to rule on.
The Court didn’t order her death, they ordered that the wishes of the person holding legal medical proxy be followed. I’m sorry that you disagree with what his wishes were, but that’s a fact of life.
The medical proxy laws are in place for a reason. If you end up with your Medical Proxy in the hands of your ex-spouse or soon to be ex-spouse, I would suggest changing it.
As Fred Thompson is running for president of the United States and not dean of ethics and medicine, I think his answer was perfectly appropriate. He may not have recalled the specifics, but he appears to understand the overall issue.
I think Fred is on the right track here. Issues like this should be off limits to politicians, especially at the federal level. Conservative Republicans and Libertarians can’t on the one hand complain about nanny state intrusion on people’s general medical needs, then demand it make heavy handed decisions on one particular component.
#27 greenLibertarian said:
You have no idea how much brain it takes to keep a human being conscious.
“Keeping her body alive” = feeding her and giving her water.
Even if you did believe in souls and spirits, which I doubt you do, you would not know their status, unless you’re claiming to be Ms. Cleo or John “Crossing Over” Edward or some other charlatan.
I don’t really care for Thompson, but this was a difficult question to answer given that an autopsy showed. Shaiavo’s brain had shrunk and she had NO chance of recovery.
That being said, if you’re trying to get elected president, you ought to have answers for the difficult questions. Saying that you don’t remember the facts (everyone here seems to remember the jist of it all), seems to be a total cop out.
There was much discussion of the “intervention” by Congress over the Terri Schiavo case. But in reality that intervention was only to give the parents legal standing in the case. The parents still had to file a suit in a state court, which failed, and Terri was killed anyway.
I think Fred may have stubbed his toe on the question. It may have been one he had not thought about recently, and was off guard on.
I find it disturbing that a court can order a innocent person to be killed because her husband wants her dead.
#45, it doesn’t take much brain, but it requires SOME. Terry had none.
It’s an easy thing to check. They have entire departments dedicated to observing brain function. Whole machines. It’s like it’s a science or something.
If there’s no activity, there can be no awareness. If there is no awareness, there can’t be life. She’d passed on, moved on, long before the toobes were pulled and the power was shut off.
Again with the false claim that the courts ordered her killed. The courts ordered that existing laws be followed.
Terry’s parents should never have had standing, and it was wrong to inject standing where none existed.
quite the interesting article. Thanks for the link.
There’s been a lot of talk about how some doctors said she could have made a full recovery. Were these statements made before or after the autopsy? Just curious as this may help clarify what appears to be a contentious issue in this tread.
Like most people who argued for the execution of Terry logic is obviously not strong suite here, AOFM. For example the comment you responded to also claimed -
“Terry schiavo was already dead”
The problem with that should be exceedingly evident: if someone were dead, why the need to kill them?
Those who supported the killing of Terri Schiavo just never really gave their reasoning (such as it is) very much thought at all.
Medical Affidavits
You can read ‘em yourself, Taylor. The autopsy would quite obviously have no bearing on treatment. Dead people don’t respond well to any kind of treatment. The criminal tragedy is she was refused treatment and therapy by her “husband’ when therapy could have led to a partail or full comeback. Doctors who were interested in actually treating her – rather than killing her – were forbidden to help.
#43 swj719AWG said:
Extraordinary life support is not food and water. If you wish to starve and/or dehydrate a family member, it is not a private matter.
Most murders are state issues. Murder per se is not federal crime. Murder being legalized by a state, however, is a legitimate federal issue.
Courts are the government as well and by your standard should stay out too, especially when they deem your life unworthy of life and that you shouldn’t be fed at all – through a tube or orally.
Wrong.
It didn’t matter whether she’d recover completely. What mattered was that she was a human being who needed food and water just like the rest of us.
Comments about the chance of a full recovery were made before the autopsy. The autopsy was conclusive that there was no hope of recovery. That autopsy was political cyanide for Sen. Frist after he tried diagnosing her by videotape.
People talk about activist judges. An activist judge has no respect for the law. Here, the law was followed to the tee.
And I can’t believe I’m reading so much about federal intervention on a conservative site!
There is so much wrong with this. First, why the scare quotes around “husband”? They were married. Meaning he gets to make her life-and-death decisions. It’s like this everywhere. Since so many “family values” types (scare quotes on purpose) like to talk about the sanctity of marriage, why can’t the husband make the most important decisions on her behalf? Marriage isn’t sacred if these decisions can be overruled by hysterical parents. This was between Terri and Michael and no one could legally get between that. That’s one of the things that makes marriage great.
And no amount of treatment could have helped her. She had more than a decade of therapy with no signs of improvement. The autopsy only confirmed what most doctors already knew.
Read my comment above, Rusty. Not too many people recover from much of anything after an autopsy. The basic idea is treating people while they are alive.
Yup, especially in this case about the one who wanted her dead. About as activist as ya can get.
#51 purplepeep said:
Yes, like for instance:
Q: Why can’t we feed her by tube?
A: That’s medical treatment and she doesn’t want treatment according to her proxy!
Q: Okay, we’ll pull the tube and feed her by mouth.
A: You can’t do that she’ll choke to death!
Q: Won’t she die anyway without food & water?
A: SHE’S SUFFERING WHY CAN’T YOU LET HER GO?!
Q: We could ease her suffering with pain medication and care.
A: HER SPIRIT’S GONE ANYWAY! SHE CAN’T FEEL ANYTHING BECAUSE SHE HASN’T GOT ANY BRAIN ACTIVITY!
Q: I thought she was suffering? How can she suffer if she has no feeling?
A: SHE’LL BE A DRAIN ON SOCIETY KILL HER!
Q: She got plenty of money from a lawsuit for her rehabilitation. She didn’t need public funds. Her husband used the money to hire lawyers to legally wrangle a way to kill her.
A: YOU DON’T KNOW THAT MICHAEL IS GREAT HARGAKLALALHJKJSDHKJSHAK
Why aren’t the other candidates being asked this question? Because there’s not a good answer. It was certainly tragic that Terri was starved to death. There were more humane ways to end her life, but ironically not available. I say ironically because somehow the system thinks it’s morally better to let her starve, and supposedly die naturally, rather than using chemicals to end her life much quicker. It seemed to me that the country was split on the Schiavo case. It’s very difficult to sit on the sideline and pretend that we knew everything about the case. Apparently, laws were followed or higher courts would have overturned lower court decisions. Even the Florida Supreme Court passed.
It’s long over. Fred did the smart thing by dodging the issue.
As did OJ.
Your prognosis will be iven all due consideration. I would take time to disagree with you but I have a heart-lung transplant to do and have to be in my own operating theatre in just a few secs.
Nice to work with the nurses, tho, eh what?
Fred Thompson seems to be hell-bent on being characterized as a federalist. Generally speaking, I agree with federalism: local matters should be left to the locals. That’s a very “originalist” point of view, and a conservative one as well, I think. A majority of our founding fathers were federalists.
However, when locals authorize starving a woman to death it’s time to step in and say enough is enough.
I won’t dispute that, but it seems that by the time Congress took the issue up that was a moot point. While the autopsy would obviously have no bearing on treatment, it would give us an idea if treatment were possible…….or not, as I just finished reading some of the reports (thanks for the link peep, I had never really followed thec ase that closely, with the exception of the MSM headlines, which was a mistake).
I wouldn’t expect Thompson to have this report committed to memory. My guess is that he’s pulling a Clinton and not answering the question because he knows that whatever answer he gives, the opposing view will be upset by it.
The bottom line for this thread is what bearing will this have on Thompson? I’m not sure the dems want to play the consistency card here, but I’m no bald, freaky looking, political strategist.
I guess the real question, at least for now, is how many people who were considering voting for Thompson in the primary have now cast him aside, and who will they choose instead (Huckabee, Hunter)?
#55 Rusty said:
You’re wrong, according to her husband diary back when she was being given therapy. One of the reasons she got a controversial bone scan was because she was saying “No”, “Stop”, and “Mommy” while exhibiting pain in response to physical therapy.
S/B “husband’s diary”, pardon me.
I’m not so sure its sacred if you go off and start another family when your wife is in the hospital. That’s why it’s in quotes.
#58 orlandocajun said:
No, it’s morally better to have people who love her take care of her.
I hope every took this issue as a lesson to get a living will.
I’ll be honest, I was starting to get pulled in again by Fred’s gravitational pull over the past few days, but this changes things, again. Terry Schiavo crisis could not have been more cut and dry. Earth to Fred, Earth to Fred, do you copy?
One reason why I think it should be pretty vivid in his memory is that Fred was the one who prepped John Roberts for his Supreme Court nomination appearance before Congress, the Schaivo case was one of the areas covered re: the law and judicial philosophy involved. So he had to have a good working knowledge of the facts.
I think it’s more as some folks have said, Thompson didn’t want to say anything controversial. Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing is up for individual folks to decide.
I’d like to hear Rudy’s answer on this one. I might not like it, but I bet he’s at least got an opinion.
All Thompson would have had to say is ” I’m glad Congress erred on the side of life, as I would expect them too,” and we may not be having this discussion.
Another thing that should give reason to pause; when this guy was suing for millions he claimed it was so he could take of Terri for the rest of her life.
After he blew the money “the rest of her life” line got amended. To paraphrase Algore, “it was time for her to go”.
As reported in one of the news links above, he’s still not above violating the law for quick dollars – he’s been constantly ripping off his “fund”.
Most folks think I’m full of something, lol.
You can Google up Fred, Roberts and Terri – using the full names – and I expect you’ll find confirmation, if not more info.
Ah, here’s a link to part of a Wash Times story about that reference -
Article Excerpt
“”Former Senator Fred Thompson, who is helping Judge Roberts in his meetings with senators, does not believe that Judge Roberts made comments as described in the article. For example, the Times writes that Roberts ‘made clear he was displeased with Congress’s effort to force the federal judiciary to overturn a court order withdrawing her feeding tube.’ He said no such thing, according to others in the meeting,” Mr. Gillespie admonished in his letter.”
I’ve been one of those before, but will concede defeat in the Vitter arguement of the past.
I appreciate what Fred has to say. The government involvement in the Schiavo matter was shameful.
An attempt to make this an election issue would be shameful, and a distraction from more important matters.
Was there a reason why this didn’t go to the Supreme Court?
I’d check the other pages at the Schaivo site, Taylor. It’s her family’s side, but you cross check w/other places & news sites. At any rate, there’s a lotta info at the site.
The comparison between OJ and Michael Schiavo is moronic. A man who allegedly butchered his ex-wife and her friend/boyfriend/waiter/whatever can not be compared to someone who had a legal right to deny Terri life support after a decade of treatment.
I must admit I am stunned that this post got such a high commenting turnout. I hadn’t thought about Terri Schiavo in years.
SOmeone equated “activist judge” with the judges who decided this case.
I’m sorry, but judges that follow the law as writen aren’t activists… It’s the ones that make “stuff” up as they go that are the activists. The ones that IGNORE the law as writen.
Whatever your stance on right-to-die, or abortion even, I would hope that everyone would at least agree that it is not – baring a constitutional amendment – a matter the federal government has a say in.
hahaha – I really don’t even think about things like that, it’s so 6 days ago or something. Always something new to jawbone about.
“On Tapper! On Vitter! On Spitter, The Broken-Nosed Reindeer!”
Total agreement, and a logical position to take. Unfortunately, logic goes right out the window when the topic of right-to-die or abortion pop up.
#79 Rusty said:
The legal “right” to withhold “artificial” nutrition and hydration in Florida was pushed into legislation by Michael Schiavo’s death-and-euthanasia obsessed lawyer George Felos seven years after Terri Schiavo was first hospitalized.
The “life support” was food and water. It was withheld via tube and via mouth.
You, me, and everybody on this thread is on this variety of “life support”.
You haven’t thought about it because you didn’t realize the full implications of it. Had I simply listened to what the MSM said about Terri Schiavo’s situation and done no further research, I would probably think the same way you do.
Incorrect – you’re not aware of the facts of this case. In cases like this, where a judge plays “it depends on what is-is” with the law to achieve his desired political end you end up with horrible and obvious injustice.
e.g. Were you for the Dred Scott decision? The judges who decided Roe V. Wade “followed the law” and did everything legally, so therefore they’re not activists?
The judge, Greer, wanted Schiavo dead, this is demonstrated by his constant refusal to allow any intervention to help her, including even denying a petition for intervention by the Department of Children And Families, a government agency. This was/is a Kevorkian-style judge with a very pro-death agenda. He got his wish.
I haven’t thought about it because there are more important things for me to think about. Gay rights, Iraq, Katrina, homeland security, students’ rights, etc etc etc.
The legally protected actions of Michael Schavio are old news.
And you can beat the “blame the MSM” drum all you want, but the MSM didn’t write the laws, and there weren’t any liberal-bias journalists on the bench upholding those laws.
Since she couldn’t swallow, I don’t think you can make a strong case that they could have effectively fed her orally.
By the way, if anybody wants a narrative about the Terri Schiavo case that’s not on the Terri’s Fight website, you can read this one which has links fleshing out some of the details.
I have many, many links bookmarked on this case and similar ones. Here’s a story about a woman in a similar situation with one notable exception – her husband and family were unanimous in their desire to care for her. She had a much different outcome because of it.
#87 swj719AWG said:
Comment #57, answer #2.
Purplepeep, judging by your comments, you are off the rails in tinfoil hat land.
Griswold v. CT (from which Roe v. Wade was born) was an activist decisions. I’m pro-choice, pro-contraception and I will admit those decisions were out of left field. However, there is nothing activist about the interpretation of the law in the Schiavo case. A husband has the right to give or deny care to a spouse (one of the reasons I fight so hard for gay marriage). Terri’s parents lost every step of the way save for getting temporary injunctions. So either this was the biggest judicial conspiracy of all time or you’re simply wrong.
Guess which option I’m taking.
We have a 14th Amendment that takes care of that one. Been covered for some time, actually. I suspect you mean special right, which is a different issue altogether, and no – just because two guys like it in the butt doesn’t mean they get special treatment under the law. Sorry.
I can honestly say that I haven’t heard a thing about this issue, aside from the whole “liberal teachers shouldn’t be able to punish conservitive students for disagreeing/writing papers that don’t support said teacher’s ideology” thing.
What rights am I, as a student, being denied, dare I ask?
Look, just because my answer is short, and to the point, I fail to see how it’s actually WRONG.
If the person can’t swallow, it’s usually hard for them to injest food with out artificial means being used. If you use artificial means, it wouldn’t be in keeping with “no artificial feeding” decision.
I rarely disagree with Michelle, but this is one of those times. The federal government should have stayed far away from that tragic case, and Thompson is right to distance himself from it. The fact it comes up at all yet again illustrates the misguided lack of focus occurring far too often in the Republican Party.
The small government aspect of the Republican platform is far more important than the federal government bending over backwards to address one local case. Fred didn’t answer because too many misguided fanatics would twist and rally against whatever common sense answer he gave. Too many within the party can’t see the forest for one tree.
This is why we will keep losing or scraping by with slight wins despite that our opponents are so obviously flawed.
What rights am I, as a student, being denied, dare I ask?
just because two guys like it in the butt doesn’t mean they get special treatment under the law. Sorry.
I apologize for the threadjack.
Recommence Terri Sciavio talk in 3,2,1…
#85 Rusty said:
The “legally protected actions” of Michael Schiavo weren’t legal when he began them in 1993. He had to wait until 1998 for his very connected lawyer to pave a pathway for him and anyone else who didn’t want the useless eaters to inconvenience them.
No, there were Carter and Clinton appointees either turning a blind eye to what was going on or wanting the utilitarian ethos to gain ground in our society.
I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. Judging by the posts here, this is clearly an issue of importance to many conservatives. As Purplepeep has pointed out, Thompson clearly had enough information to make an informed response, but chose to play the ignorance card.
If you wanna play with the big boys expect hard questions (unless you’re a dem) and expect to have your answers scrutinized. Just because we disagree with you on something doesn’t mean we won’t vote for you over the other guy. But a nonanswer is right out of the dem playbook and totally unacceptable.
The decision was also repealed. And it would have never stood up to a propper 1st amendment challenge.
You want the list of smart-assed comments? Cause I can if you want.
Look, in this country marriage is more of a legal contract than anything else. If it were purely religious, judges couldn’t marry you “By the power
of Grey Skullbestowed by the state/commonwealth.”Marriage is not, then, a right by definition. I can’t marry my sister, or cousin, or goat. I don’t have the “right”.
Do I support gay marriage? No. Do I support civil unions? Sure.
Because “Civil Unions” are for all intent and purposes what a marriage is anyways these days.
And they do have that opportunity. I don’t persoanlly agree with “don’t ask, don’t tell”, and think the ‘ban’ shouldn’t exist at all, but I don’t run the military.
…but maybe Fred just needs more time to finally make his decision. And when he finally does, he can make several announcements that he’s going to announce his decision in a few weeks.