Redstate

Not much time, but:

The DeLay speech is better discussed here. Not quite what folks are making of it.

As for the hypocrisy/father thing: (1) I smashed up my favorite Transformers twenty years ago. Made sense at the time, I kick myself over it now. (2) Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.

As for the tort thing: I don't believe DeLay, or any other Congressman, is calling for a bar to the courts. There's a difference between capping damages and denying one's ability to reach them altogether.

Happy Easter.

Armando and EZ Writer over at DKos are already hot on the trail of tying this one around DeLay's neck, and so has been the L.A. Times, according to them, in their posts:

"Tom DeLay's Choice" and "Hanging DeLay Around Their Necks"

[Aside:  I find it interesting to note that the most popular Recommended Diary thread at DKos in the past couple of days (with 342 comments so far, more than twice as many as the next most popular RD, "More Evidence of Major GOP Rift" which had 165 at last count) was..."F*ing Religious Freaks"]

They're more than happy to help us publicly flog Tom DeLay at this point.  

Could it be a little "Side Step" from the "The Best Little Wh*rehouse in Texas being practiced by Mr. Delay?

"I'll continue to stand tall,

You can trust me,

For I promise,

I shall keep a watchful eye upon ya'll,

Ooo I love to dance a little sidestep,

Now they see me, now they don't,

I've come and gone,

AND Oooo I love to sweep around the wide step,

Cut a little swathe and lead the people on."

-    "The Sidestep," The Best Little Wh*rehouse in Texas

(Lyrics used for educational purposes only)

But seriously, most people at one time or another will face this same dilemma with a parent or other loved one. When or how do you say "enough" and let them go? Obviously Tom Delay has faced this choice and he in consolation with his family made a decision.

My whole problem with the "Schiavo situation" is how the invention of the Federal government into what is a family decision has been lauded as a good thing. There was one layer of State intervention into solving the schism between family members in reaching a decision to end Terry's life, a decision was reached and I believe that is enough intervention into a very personal, very human decision.

There's a very good case to be made that the Republican leadership didn't know very much about this case one way or the other when they pressed as hard as they did for Terri's Law in Congress.

It's much closer to the truth, I suspect, to realize that they mistakenly believed that their doing so would be a much more broadly popular move than it turned out to be.  It blew up in their faces so badly that even Grover Norquist had to start telling people..."Ummm...hey guys, look at the polls...LOOK AT THE POLLS."

We can argue this until we're blue in the face, but to me, in terms of the popular result, the Republicans may have helped themselves with the evangelicals but turned a lot of other people off.  In other words, they made a mistake and misjudged the popular response.  

Now, if we want to sit and debate the finer points of what DeLay is or is not, in my opinion, I don't think that has as much to do with it as his misreading of popular sentiment.

"They're more than happy to help us publicly flog Tom DeLay at this point."

Well, maybe "they" have a point.  Mr. Delay is, to an extent being hoisted on his own petard, and does appear to bend some of the ethics rules to suit his own purposes.

I've never much subscribed to the philosophy of "The ends justify the means", so supporting Delay in the face of charges of being ethically challenged just because of his power in the congress  and his positions on many issues near and dear to social conservatives just does not work for me.

 Let a fair and free and open to the public hearing be held by the appropriate Congressional committees on the charges against Mr. Delay. Sunshine and fresh air is the best antidote to all forms of corruption and charges of ethical lapses.

I saw the title of this diary entry and read the first line, and just put that comment in without reading the rest of it.  You're right to point out the fact that the Liberal blogosphere is all over this, and you're probably right to try to move the discussion slightly and ask whether even we should be supporting DeLay anymore.  

But the cynic in me is just screaming that this was a hastily-made decision, shot from the hip because the leadership believed the public would overwhelmingly be on their side.  Or at least closer to 50/50, not 20/80 as some of the polls have indicated.  

I read docj's comment in a different thread on the 25th and I immediately got that terrible sinking feeling.

On the substance of the ethics allegations against DeLay.  I do know that many many people on the Democratic side are very anxious to "hoist him by his own petard," and have been for quite a while, over a lot of issues from redistricting, foreign trips, etc., etc.  I haven't read enough yet to comment on those issues, personally.  

But I will say that the sine qua non of a party leader, especially when they are strongly advocating doing something this controversial, should be having one's finger accurately on the pulse of public opinion.  And I just think he failed that test spectacularly.

As bad as I think this was campaign was strategically designed (if any design at all) and carried out I'm not as worried as a 20/80 poll would normally worry me.


Why?


Hard cases and soft issues.  Americans overwhelming want to maintain a "Culture of Life" (this is more than a gut feeling I'm pretty sure that the data exists, anyone have a source?).  This is a very hard individual case which most Americans, and even conservatives, are siding against our leaders on. But by Fall 2006, Terri will be long forgotten individually by the middle voters.  But the question of "Which party is on the side of life?" will be even easier to answer than before.  And as far as wedge issues... no opposition candidate in their right mind is going to be running "The Jerk tried to Save Terri" ads.

That's where I disagree.  I really don't think people are going to forget this case as easily as some Republicans believe they might.  It's been a front-page news story for the past two weeks!  I know I'll never forget it.  I read that statement the other day on the New York Times' website and I said..."oooh, you'd better hope!"

I'm not as savvy about public opinion as some other people here are.  You might be right that many will forget, and others will be unwilling, to blame the Republican leadership for this.  For their sake, I hope you're right.

He has a bad habit of saying things on tape he shouldn't. In 2002, in Texas, he said parents shouldn't send their kids to Texas A&M because his daughter went their and knew of guys spending weekends with girls in the dorms.  That went over well with the Longhorn crowd, but not so much with the Aggies.


At the time it seemed like a minor slip up.

Republicans may have helped themselves with the evangelicals but turned a lot of other people off.

Personally I think it's even worse. Half the base is saying "Why in the world did you get involved in that?" and the other half is saying "Why didn't you take a stronger stand and intervene more closely?" The half measure has managed to irritate lots of people while satisfying none.

I forgot to include the analogy: impeachment.  That was front page story for a much longer time than Schiavo.  The public wasn't too hot for it, but I think we're still getting "Who do you trust more?" bumps out of it.


FWIW, if we hold on to DeLay too long (if the allegations are true) and keep doing silly things like changing ethics rules and shuffling committees just to keep him we're going to lose the capital that we picked up from the impeachment.

the Shindlers standing to appeal to the Federal courts constitutes "Federal Interference".

And the difference between Delay's father (in a coma and on artificial life support) and Terri (minimally conscious, no artificial life support -- only food & water) is not fine at all, but speaks directly to where the law is flawed on drawing the line at "personhood."

Withholding heroic or extraordinary medical care in the face of actual permanent comatose or braindead people is one thing ... starvation/dehydration of the non-terminal/non-dying/non-braindead is another.

Is this where we want our society to go? To where our right to our own life is NOT ours by right, but can actually be forfeit to a family member when we reach a threshold of "inconvenience?"

This disturbs me.

because the MSM running the polls has been demonstrated to screwing with the questions to achieve the negative to Congress results.

ABC made the mistake of posting their .pdf with the original questions (which disappeared promptly after it started getting negative attention) and CBS never gives what questions THEY asked (hmmm... I guess the lesson they learned from the Rather fraud-memo affair is to HIDE stuff from the people least they actually examine it)

The Bush Administration all that much.  We know that.  We also know that they have been trying recently to recast that antipathy in more "underdog-positive" terms, by claiming that they're always critical of whoever is in power.

But even Mark McKinnon has been forced to recognize the pile that's been stepped in, and is trying hard is trying hard to "Creating and Frame the Message."  But when he has to try to put some distance between the President and the Schiavo case by saying things like this:

But presidential advisers shrug off the latest poll numbers. "I believe . . . the president's recent favorable ratings and Schiavo case [are] probably entirely disconnected," Mark McKinnon, a Bush political strategist, said in an e-mail message. The slipping approval numbers were "more due to rising gas prices, rising interest rates and some recent economic uncertainty." As for Schiavo, McKinnon said he thinks "most people recognize [the] president's efforts as appropriate and simply motivated to save a life."

In other words, to explain the President's recent dip in the polls in terms of jittery economic indicators, somehow that doesn't make me feel much better.

The whole Schiavo issue came at a very unfortunate time, and I think the case can be made that the congressional leadership handled it in a very unfortunate way.  We're all going to have to deal with it, and move on, and get back on track with the things we elected this President and this Congress to accomplish -- and the sooner, the better.  

And now, I'm out of here for today.  See you all tomorrow, and Happy Easter.

about the "capital picked up during impeachment" unless you are referring to the capitol?

"Withholding heroic or extraordinary medical care in the face of actual permanent comatose or braindead people is one thing ... starvation/dehydration of the non-terminal/non-dying/non-braindead is another."

It comes down to the following I think.

You and the family have one point of view on the state of Terri and her wishes, the husband has another.  The matter was adjudicated in the state courts numerous times over an extended period of time and state court decided in the husbands favor. Tragedy here is that Terri did not leave written instructions and so this matter was before any court to begin with.

Many are unhappy with the decision(s) of the state court and seek to have Federal Judiciary to intervene where they have never before in this sort of matter, including it would seem the Congress of the United States.  I personally am troubled by Terri's fate and would hate to have to make this decision myself, and even more troubled by the thought that the Federal Government should be involved now and in the future in this sort of matter. I'm not going to tell you that I think you are wrong, nor do I know what the correct answer is,  everyone has to decide for themselves in these sorts of matters, for their family and the loved one, with minimal intervention of government I would hope.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way each of the following has handled the case involving Terri Schiavo? How about -- [RANDOM ORDER]?



Oh so biased...

The responses: 31/52 (fav/unfav) for Bush.  The media gets the highest marks 43/46, and the Republican congressman get the lowest 26/47




The good news is that there's a lot of No Opinions in the mix. Her death could change that (yes it's crass, but this after all is a political analysis).

I didn't see much that makes it sound better at your link except that i did find a link to a better transcript.  I think it pretty much speaks for itself.


At the end of the day he still thinks God brought "us" Terri to draw attention, and that he in some way is the embodiment of the conservative cause and if he goes down we will have a hard time finding a leader to replace him.  The two comments were sequential in time and I don't see how they're not linked in meaning.

that these polls are in the sea of Schiavo MSM coverage which has typically gotten the mainpoints of the case WRONG.

When you have even Peter Jennings editorializing during his "news" broadcasts on this case, I'm not surprised that a lot Americans have gone negative on Terri's right to a life default in the law.

If you want to hear more about ethics problems.

It's my opinion that the sooner we get rid of DeLay, the better.  He's 'damaged goods' in the Gingrich sense.

Otherwise this could blow up in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Jeb Bush is getting gutted for not doing more.

It seems there is actually a backlash from the religous conservatives also.

Seems to me this was one colossal lapse of judgement on all levels of republican leadership.

before, taking it out of state hands...

Roe v Wade

I find Democrat bloviating about "State rights" vis a vis 'end of life' issues amusingly ironic in view of their almost theocratic support of Roe v Wade.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto
.html

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.00016
6.00.htm

http://www.therightchristians.org/?q=node/view/688

Some links that you might want to review--The left of center blogs raising the concern that this law (signed by GWB) allows healthcare providers to make end of life decisions based on 'inconvenience'.  And, since there is often a financial stake in these situations, there is the taint of a profit motive.

We should demand the same of our leaders that we decry in our rivals.

The media barrage of coverage of the Schiavo case has caused me to think about "end-of-life" the way I never have before and not just about having a living will.

The Schindlers, their supporters, Tom DeLay, Joe Scarborough and others I've seen on TV have gone after the husband so directly and that has shocked me.  Since the money is, apparently, totally gone, this case probably has LESS of a component of self-interest than most.   My hunch is that most of these kinds of cases are about terminating an elderly person and then, obviously, protecting an estate from vanishing (very quickly) at a nursing facility is almost ALWAYS a component of the decision.  But no one brings it up.  

I see a potential to abuse the American public with laws that force some government agency to examine "conflict of interest" before allowing families to make the decision to withdraw life support.  You'd have to hire a lawyer to deal with that kind of examination, I'd imagine.  

I would like to see political candidates questioned about it.   I want to know what they'd like to do.

From the LA Times story:

Doctors conducted a series of tests, including scans of his head, face, neck and abdomen. They checked for lung damage and performed a tracheostomy to assist his breathing. But they could not prevent steady deterioration.

Then, infections complicated the senior DeLay's fight for life. Finally, his organs began to fail. His family and physicians confronted the dreaded choice so many other Americans have faced: to make heroic efforts or to let the end come.

"Daddy did not want to be a vegetable," said Skogen, one of his daughters-in-law at the time. "There was no decision for the family to make. He made it for them."

The preliminary decision to withhold dialysis and other treatments fell to Maxine along with Randall and her daughter Tena -- and "Tom went along." He raised no objection, said the congressman's mother.

. . . . . . . . . .

Like her son[Representative Tom Delay] she believed there might be hope for Terri Schiavo's recovery. That's what made her family's experience different, she said. Charles had no hope.

"There was no chance he was ever coming back," she said.

Based on the facts as they were presented in the article it seems that there were several distinguishing features between this case and Shiavo's in that (a) Charles Delay was unable to breath or eat on his own (whereas Shiavo only needed a feeding tube), (b) Delay needed to be hooked up to a machine for dialysis (whereas Shiavo required no similar "extraordinary measures), (c) Delay was steadily deteriorating whereas Shiavo is arguably stable, and (d) Delay died within 27 days of his accident as opposed to living on for 15 years.  The other (non-medical) distinguishing feature is that Shiavo's parents are on record as wanting to care for their daughter whereas the entire Delay family seemed to be in agreement as to what was best for the father.

In other words, the difference is between a more severe case in which the patient is deteriorating and it's less a question of "if" than "when" versus one where the patient's condition was less severe and arguably more stable for fifteen years.  It's also a difference between a situation where the family was divided over the issue (the husband wants to remove the tube whereas the parents want to continue care) versus one in which the family was unified.  I'm not saying that I am persuaded by these distinctions enough that I would support federal intervention in Shiavo's case (neither negate the federalism argument and I think that the courts correctly followed Florida law in that the opinion of spouse trumps the opinion of the parents) but I recognize that for the proponents of intervention, these were important facts and they distinguish this case from Delay's enough that it's not "hypocritical" for him to say that Shiavo's case was different enough from his own father's.

Also I find myself agreeing with Thomas with regards to the products liability issue.  AFAIK, neither Representative Delay nor any other prominent member of the GOP has ever said that we should be allowed to sue companies for defective products or even that they shouldn't be allowed to recover economic damages.  What they have done is suggest that (a) the loser ought to pay the winner's legal costs (as happens in other nations like the UK), (b) that there ought to be a cap on punitive damages, and/or (c) we ought to place a cap on certain "non-economic" damages.  It is perfectly consistent to say we ought to have a products liability system to enable people to recover when they have been harmed by defective products while at the same time saying that our current system is so rife with abuse that we need to reform it and perhaps place limits on certain types of awards.

Frankly I'm less concerned that keeping Delay as House Majority Leader would open up to charges of "hypocrisy" than I am that in removing him we would send a signal that Republicans are incapable of showing these very clear distinctions and have chosen to shy away from the argument over tort reform rather than making it.  It would be a grave in justice if we allowed disingenuous charges of "hypocrisy" trump the more credible arguments that we need to fix our tort system.

Because that one rates a 5.  Also, to corazon (in another thread), I haven't responded to his posts yet, but I would give things a few days before you reach that irrevocable conclusion.

I have thought for a long time that some people need to have a talk with Tom DeLay in private.  Maybe the President should invite him out to the ranch and have a little heart-to-heart.

"The other (non-medical) distinguishing feature is that Shiavo's parents are on record as wanting to care for their daughter whereas the entire Delay family seemed to be in agreement as to what was best for the father."

You are mixing, "wanting to care for" and "what was best for" as if they are the same thing.  Certainly, arguably they are not.  

Put another way, if Terri's parents agreed with Michael that she should be allowed to die, would you then have no problem with them pulling the plug?  Because, it seems like if that is the case, this isn't really about Terri, but more about her parents and their wishes.   If it isn't the case, then why is the fact that the entire Delay family agreed to pull the plug even relevant?

I am not arguing that this case is the same as the Schiavo case.  I am suggesting however, that, if you truly believe that absent a written living will, we should side with extending life; that this is analogous because Mr. Delay did not have a written living will.  Is the fact that the entire family agreed as to his wishes different in your eyes?  Why?

Been through that before and it might have turned into a question of assisted suicide in that case. And then I suppose that it's possible you would have seen some of the same kinds of outrage that you're seeing now, but at nothing approaching this level of volume.

The case is so difficult in part because of the split in the family that occurred for a constellation of reasons -- over the money, over the aggressiveness of her care, over the fact that she never left a living will because of that it is Michael Schiavo's word against the Schindlers', and many other issues.  

It's really an apples-oranges comparison, and that is what makes this case so difficult and so unique.

I've had a family member die from cancer, and that person's wishes were communicated beforehand and agreed upon by the entire family.  The deterioration was swift and irreversible, and everyone was informed of that possibility beforehand.  Their express wishes were that no extraordinary measures be taken to save their life, and so although it was painful and took place over more than a month, the issue of the care that was given was never debated -- everyone in the family agreed on it, and the person in question had taken care of the legalities regarding their estate wishes.    

You are mixing, "wanting to care for" and "what was best for" as if they are the same thing.  Certainly, arguably they are not.  

Put another way, if Terri's parents agreed with Michael that she should be allowed to die, would you then have no problem with them pulling the plug?  Because, it seems like if that is the case, this isn't really about Terri, but more about her parents and their wishes.   If it isn't the case, then why is the fact that the entire Delay family agreed to pull the plug even relevant?

You seem to be misunderstanding my argument, I am not stating my opinion on what should or should not be done in the situation with Schiavo versus the situation with Delay's.  What I am saying is that the situation with Delay's father is different enough from the situation with Schiavo that a reasonable person could honestly say it's okay to withhold treatment in the case of Charles Delay but not in Schiavo's case if they believe that a key issue is (a) whether the family all agrees or is divided as to what should happen to their loved one with respect to providing care, (b) the relative severity of their injuries and whether they are deteriorating, stable, or have a reasonable chance for recovery, and/or (c) how extraordinary the measures were that were required to sustain this person's life.  IMO because the two situations were so different in these three areas and each has been cited by proponents of keeping the feeding tube in Schiavo, I don't find the charges of "hypocrisy" to be credible.

I am not arguing that this case is the same as the Schiavo case.  I am suggesting however, that, if you truly believe that absent a written living will, we should side with extending life; that this is analogous because Mr. Delay did not have a written living will.  Is the fact that the entire family agreed as to his wishes different in your eyes?  Why?

I don't necessarily believe that nor have I ever made that argument.  Unless that is fact what House Majority Leader Tom Delay has in fact argued, then I don't see how it's relevant to the issue of "hypocrisy" which is what I addressed in my previous post.

under which to evalutate whether a feeding tube is in fact an extraordinary measure.  This is being hotly debated in connection with the Schiavo case.

When your loved one ceased to be able to eat (or to want to eat), did your family have a feeding tube put in while nature otherwise took its course?  What exactly did your family do about nutrition and hydration during this period?    

I am a little concerned that we are letting one type of condition (PVS) dictate what should happen in very different conditions, like end stage cancer.  

if Mr. Delay was on or off of a feeding tube for those 27 days?

Because the courts are apparently saying it is an extraordinary measure, and the family is apparently saying it's not.  

As for my family member, hydration was given intravenously, along with painkillers, and food when they could eat, which in the last two weeks especially was very infrequent.  They were conscious until about 12 hours before their death, and at that point the regimen was basically continued but nothing else was done, as per their wish.

I'm not worried about the PVS-Cancer confusion happening, really.  They're very, very different medical situations, and I'm certainly not trying to confuse the two.  I will say, however, knowing my family, had it been a case of PVS instead of cancer, we probably would have spent more money on noninvasive diagnosis to be absolutely, positively sure.  But then again, we would have had the money to do so, and again it is an apples-oranges comparison, and not many people in my family would allow themselves to get into this situation in the first place.  I don't mean to be glib, but that's just the way we are.

I went through something similiar in which my relative ceased to want to eat about 11 days before her death from chronic heart failure. In accordance with her wishes, I did not request a feeding tube be put in.  What I hear a lot people saying is that that means I was "starving her to death" and that I essentially murdered her and that I should have put a feeding tube into her until the very end - respirator no, feeding tube yes.

I've heard lots and lots distinction about respirators vs. feeding tubes and about how withholding one might sometimes be ok but withholding the other is always "starvation" and cruel and barbaric.  I have not heard a lot of distintions drawn about PVS vs. end stage terminal conditions where folks often stop eating or discussion about whether it's really so horrible to not put the feeding tube in (or to take it out) in those situations.  

you don't find your position hypocritical?

Feeling guilty.  This case is really extraordinary, and it's also extraordinarily political.  I am a little upset that it has been made such, and I've expressed that, because there are a lot of Republicans who are looking at circumstances that are not so different and really do not want the federal government getting involved.

Sorry if I misread your opinion.  But certainly you have to admit that the two situations are similar enough that Tom DeLay should know better than to second guess what another family is going through.  

As for this argument that the feeding tube is such a basic and non-extraordinary procedure . . .

I don't get it.  They seem to be saying, it is food, food is normal, thus a feeding tube is normal.  This ignores that a ventilator is only providing air, which is also normal.  This ignores that a dialysis machine only provides purified blood, which any normal person has no problem providing for themselves.  All of these life support devices do the same thing; they provide a very normal essential thing that the body usually can provide for itself.  Period.

It isn't like people get tubes inserted through a hole in their abdomen every day for the heck of it.  In that respect it is much much more invasive than a respirator.  

Just a few thoughts.  

I don't pretend to have all the answers and I publically wrestle with my own views.

But, IMHO, we are not dealing just with a 'private' matter, like consensual sex between adults or contract law like marriage, which I believe are issues best left to the People and their representatives at the state level -- we are dealing specifically in whether or not Terri's rights as a profoundly disabled person are being protected or not.

That, IMHO, rises specifically to a Federal level.

I feel that the label "hypocrit" is being tossed about as casually as "Hitler", not as facilitation to indepth debate, but to shutup and shutdown the views of people one doesn't agree with.