It's looking like the memo that I mentioned the other day in this post is, like the Dan Rather memos, fake. Josh Claybourn has a roundup of links on the subject here. I don't think it changes the truth of the claim that Republicans are exploiting the situation for political gain. Delay's comments before the Family Research Council on Friday, which were recorded, leave no doubt of that. Not only is he trying to use it for political purposes, but he thinks God struck the woman down just so he could do so. But the memo wherein they allegedly admitted this motivation appears to be fake.
- Log in to post comments
Good for you. I hope in the future things like this will temper your eagerness to believe absolutely any bad story about Republicans.
Um, he didn't say he didn't believe it -- in fact, he most certainly does believe it. He just thinks that memo is fake.
It's pretty obvious that the GOP is using this as a political issue. That's the "bad story about Republicans" here.
That they wrote a memo to that effect would just mean they're really fucking stupid in addition to being contemptible hypocrites.
Morat-
I agree with what you wrote, but I'd add that most Democrats are also contemptible hypocrites. Being in public office above a certain level virtually guarantees that you are a contemptible hypocrite. Some are more or less contemptible than others, I suppose, but the variation isn't terribly wide. I certainly don't doubt for a moment that the Republicans are exploiting what is really a non-issue to score political points. Delay said so quite bluntly in his comments the other day. I also happen to think it's going to backfire on them, since the public seems to be strongly against them. They're appealing to their base, of course, but that's the last group they need to appeal to at this point.
As far as Tim's point goes, I still maintain that any fair reading of what I've written over the years (and I've only had this blog for a year and a half) would not conclude that I "believe absolutely any bad story about Republicans". In just the past few months, for example, I have defended Clarence Thomas against the ridiculous criticism that Harry Reid aimed at him. What appears to be stronger criticism of Republicans than Democrats is really just an artifact of the Republicans being in charge of every facet of government. When Clinton was in office, I was hammering him 7 ways till Sunday.
Fake but accurate, Isn't that the line? We've heard that before. At any rate, kudos for the clarification.
I wonder whether you will now issue a clarification of your earlier claim that 70% of Americans favor pulling the feeding tube in light of the overwhelming evidence that the ABC poll was rigged.
See
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20050323.shtml
Michele Malkin would not know evidence if it bit her in the butt. Check out her new book on the Japanese Interment during WWII.
Of course a feeding tube is "life support" it is an artificial means of sustaining life.
If this "sworn affadavit" is so important, why did it not sway any of the other Florida Cases that have already been completed?
Answer, because this lady believes that lying to protect a "life" is justified.
Minor point. We don't know the "Dan Rather memos" (surely the "Killian memos") were fake. We only know that their provenance is uncertain. The two experts (out of 4) who originally certified the documents' authenticity stand by their judgements. Obviously this is not a battle that's worth fighting, but still.
ajmac wrote:
I didn't say that 70% favor pulling the feeding tube. I said that 70% didn't think Congress should have intervened. That remains true. And Michelle Malkin's criticisms of the poll are just plain silly. The entire claim rests upon the false claim that a feeding tube is not "life support" and that including that under the phrase "life support" somehow changed the outcome of the poll. That's absurd. She is in a hospital, hooked up to a machine that, if withdrawn, will mean she dies. By any sane definition, that is indeed "life support".
If that's what you said, then you misquoted the poll results.
"silly," "absurd," "[in]sane"... I suspect that sort of empty polemicism gets you readers, but I don't find it very compelling.
A hydration drip is life support in the same way that Tylenol is a narcotic. It technically fits the definition, but it's not what you think of when you hear the category named. That's why the questions were misleading. I know you can see that. You're obviously a bright guy.
At any rate, one out of two aint bad. Again, kudos for the correction on the memo issue.
Tylenol is not a narcotic, it is a (an?) NSAID.
ajmac at March 23, 2005 11:55 AM I wonder whether you will now issue a clarification of your earlier claim that 70% of Americans favor pulling the feeding tube in light of the overwhelming evidence that the ABC poll was rigged
I'm not sure how relevant polling information is to the issue of whether the feeding tube should be withdrawn or maintained. The issue isn't what a majority, or even a substantial majority, of Americans might favor. The issue isn't what the parents want. The issue isn't even what the husband wants. The issue is what the patient herself would want. The issue was litigated in the FL courts for the last 8 years or so through numerous trials and appeals and the courts found that the patient would have wanted the tube removed. Since throughout the proceedings the patient, Mrs. Schiavo, has been unable to speak for herself, the courts have had to rely on evidence produced by others as to what she would have wanted. One of the others was the husband, but he wasn't the only one. And the court made a determination based on that evidence.
I'm not sure what more needs to be said on the matter. That's essentially what Federal District Judge Whittemore said a few days ago. I haven't read the majority opinion in the federal appeals court decision, but I suspect that that would be underlying the decision, even if lurking somewhat in the background.
On the "sworn affidavit," the credibility of that affidavit was weighed during the litigation in the FL courts, and it was deemed incredible (that is, not credible) for a variety of reasons.
As far as Tim's point goes, I still maintain that any fair reading of what I've written over the years (and I've only had this blog for a year and a half) would not conclude that I "believe absolutely any bad story about Republicans".
FWIW, it is highly probably that one of the reasons that Republicans are bashed by bloggers (and commenters on message boards) more frequently now is that they are in power at the national level and are largely setting the political agenda nationally. I know that that is one of the reasons that I bash Republicans at the national level. When Clinton was in office, I was quite happy to bash him on internet message boards. And I actually used to praise some of the Republicans here in Massachusetts--Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci were Republican governors here throughout the 1990s, and they did quite well. I have to admit that I wouldn't support Mitt "the snitt" Romney, the current Republican governor, for anything, though.
I'm not convinced by Claybourn's post. He seems to assume that Democrat staffers would be dumb enough to make mistakes on the memo, but that Republican staffers would not be? I don't buy it. The plenty of stupidity to go around.
Who the hell cares about the memo? Or even about what electoral consequences the case may have? What's revolting to me is that the republicans will gleefully trash federalism, equality before the law, AND the guardianship that comes with marriage--all to impose their end-of-life policy preferences upon someone (Terri Schiavo) whom the courts have found did not happen to share them.
That's what's obnoxious, and if they happen to be using the issue to win votes (an arguable case even without the memo), then all it does is add insult to injury.