Who in the Democratic party isn't a foreign policy limp noodle - besides Joe Lieberman, and we all know how much chance he has of winning in the primaries.

I feel like Tevye (from fiddler on the roof).

Michael's right and antimedia's right.
"they can't both be right"
You're right too.

That's why I almost always vote for gridlock. A government that is always fighting itself usually doesn't have time to screw things up for the rest of us too bad. Let's keep them quibbling instead of passing laws.

“All the talk I hear (even often in my own comments section) about how the Democratic Party is supposedly dead is a laugh riot.”

Oh darn it, I guess that include me as something of a comedy king. When will Jay Leno invite me onto his show? Should I give up my daytime job? I’m sorry but I still insist that the national Democratic Party is dead. War and other foreign policy matters trump the social issues. What chance does Joe Lieberman have of getting the Democratic nomination in 2008? A snowball in hell’s chance? Nope, the radical left represented by George Soros and Howard Dean are far more dangerous than Jerry Fallwell’s folks. They possess the veto power over that party’s presidential nominee.

Elections are won by being in the middle of the road?? The political parties fight in order to look different but they are pretty close to being the same party nowadays. Lots and lots of retoric, but thankfully not a lot of action. Previous post says its good they fight cause that keeps them from messing too much with the lives of us non-office holders. Wish they fought harder!!

I have to tell ya', I am a big believer in Federalism, but I'm having a tough time sleeping at night. I have read about so many people having their plugs pulled, and I myself hope that my family will pull my plug if I'm beyond salvation, but for some reason it's been very upsetting to think about Terri Schiavo, who is literally starving to death as I type this.

The question I keep on asking myself over and over is if I would ever be able to let my own daughter starve to death, even if she is in Terri's condition, and the answer is always no. I just won't be able to do it.

It amazes me that gay marriage and the ole scrape-scrape are held by some as as important as the war on terror and social security reform.

Every time I see one of those 'get your free tax-payer paid scooter if you're old' commercials, I'm reminded why I'll never vote democrat. Their lack of will on social security means they're all too willing to piss away my future for a few votes. My future is some 90 year old baby boomer driving an suv and talking on a cell phone forcing me off the road while I'm on my way to my second job to pay for their retirement.

What the democrats need is a woodstockian...Howard Dean yelling...bongo drum beating...circle-jerk of reconciliation. They need to re-connect with america's middle class, they're turning into the political party of the effete wealthy.

Elections are won in the center

I don't know Michael. I used to believe that, but Rove and the boys went out and found millions of new voters (as did Shrum and the boys, only not as many). I'm not sure that people in the middle are as motivated to vote. Prior to this last election, I didn't think intensity mattered much, after all each looney could only vote once. But now I'm wondering if playing to the base rather than to the middle, meaning activating new converts instead of persuading folks in the middle, isn't how elections are now won.

Or maybe I'd just like this to be true, since I am very comfortable that more conservatives exist in the country...at least during wartime.

“Oh darn it, I guess that include me as something of a comedy king.”

Minor mistake. Should read:

“Oh darn it, I guess that includes me as something of a comedy king.”

This allows, however, me the further opportunity to remind everyone that the Daily Kos is not going to disappear anytime in the near future. Presently, Kos is focusing on the social issues and especially the Terri Schiavo fiasco. But just remember: Kos is staunchly “anti-war” and will do anything to derail the war on terror.

Personally, I don't see what the draw is to formally join either the Dems or the GOPers. I'll vote for their candidates. But... I just don't see the net benefit of joining either. Particularly when they both seem so out of touch with what my life is like and about.

I sitll don't think the Republicans get it. But that's what you get when you engage in self-censorship and you only watch Fox News.

The 2006 elections will be their wake-up call. At least Santorum will go down I suspect.

I agree that gridlock seems like the best route at this point. They may take a substantial portion of your money (and way more in the future) and decide to stop following the law (A.T.F., in a few select states), but both sides of the "culture war" are wrong. I wish the libertarians would stop putting crazy people up for office at the local level. If we (I am on the bandwagon/trainwreck, take your pick) could gather a collection of sane people it just might work.

I'll take a crazy libertarian over the current two parties any day of the week.

Maybe we need to change the Constitution so Arnold can run.

"Give James Dobson the Sister Souljah treatment. Give him the Energizer Bunny of Sister Souljah treatments until he bitterly hates your guts. (I know, I know, that’s about as likely as Nancy Pelosi kicking Michael Moore in the balls on national TV while wearing her heels.)"

Lots of fun to think about, though.

"Give James Dobson the Sister Souljah treatment. Give him the Energizer Bunny of Sister Souljah treatments until he bitterly hates your guts. (I know, I know, that’s about as likely as Nancy Pelosi kicking Michael Moore in the balls on national TV while wearing her heels.)"

I think you are starting to get the big picture. What is the most important issue? Is it the war on terror? And if this is indeed the case---you will most likely have to choose between the party where James Dobson hangs his hat, and the one that welcomes Michael Moore with open arms. Isn’t life easy?

I'll take a crazy libertarian over the current two parties any day of the week.

Downtown, I think you haven't met many Libertarian candidates! I was a starry-eyed libertarian after being a starry-eyed radical during Vietnam. One of the few people I know who campaigned for John Hospers (one of the saner Lib't's). But the party at that time was populated by such a fringe-y bunch I wouldn't have lent them my lawnmower, much less turn over the government to them. I think they've improved some, but not enough, and the reaction to Gingrich sort of cut the legs from under the minimal government advocates. They have a long way to go.

Michael is right, partly. The R's have continued their tradition of self-sabotage, and it SHOULD cost them. Unfortunately, the D's are just as repulsive, often more so, and at times BOTH parties look to be on the critical list. There should be, if there's not, room for a plain-spoken third candidate who can stand up and say "Enough of this silliness!" Sort of a stealth libertarian, or a Perot with polish.

And hey, how come nobody's mentioned Hillary as a national-defense Dem? Wouldn't you love to see the '08 contest between two women?

“And hey, how come nobody's mentioned Hillary as a national-defense Dem?”

Some people cynically believe that Hillary Clinton is simply conning the electorate. Whatever, I am convinced that she will not get the nomination if she is genuinely perceived to be another Margaret Thatcher/Golda Mier “warmonger.”

Condi Rice? She will probably be on the Republican ticket as the VP nominee. This means the Democrats are royally screwed. Rice will earn a minimum of 20% of the black vote. That is enough to doom the Democratic Party in 2008.

I’ve registered as an independent for the last 15+ years after I left the Republican party when it lurched to the right of Goldwater. I wanted to Bush to be a one term president like his dad. But was forced to vote for him when the democrats select Kerry as their presidential candidate. I actually think that Hilary would be an excellent president. She’s obviously not a wimp. Puts America’s ideals first. Just as her husband was able to come to the middle and work with republican majorities in both houses of congress to pass intelligent legislation such as welfare reform and run budget surpluses, I believe Hilary will be able to bring the federal government to the center.

By the way, I think George Bush’s foreign policy is in the right direction . While I may not necessarily agree with his Social Security reform that he is pushing, I admire his courage to confront future crisis.

I just wish that the Democrats would offer intelligent solutions that made economic sense instead of simply appealing to our emotions. Yes, I want Jobs; But I want measure that induce our economy to generate middle income jobs; not simply ban outsourcing or other reflexive targets. Candidates who articulate smart, economically intelligent solutions will get my vote every time.

As long as the Republicans continue to utterly destroy the character of their opponents, and as long as folks like Mr. Totten buy the character smears, not much is going to change.

Senator Kerry is a bona-fide war hero with some serious terrorist scalps on his mantlepiece (read up on BCCI sometime), but we still have posts displaying fear that he might have been in charge of US security. This tells you an awful lot about what you need to know about US politics for the foreseeable future.

“Senator Kerry is a bona-fide war hero with some serious terrorist scalps on his mantlepiece (read up on BCCI sometime), but we still have posts displaying fear that he might have been in charge of US security.”

I do not even slightly feel an obligation to apologize for “displaying fear” that Senator Kerry might have become our Commander-in-Chief. It is my adamant conviction that he would have made us vulnerable to our enemies. Kerry’s butt kissing of the Old Europeans endangers everyone this planet. Have you seen the movie, “Hotel Rwanda?” Politicians like John Kerry get people murdered.

Do you really believe that we would be seeing so much recent progress in the Middle East if President Bush were not residing in the White House? Let’s get real. We can take it for granted that John Kerry not so discreetly promised George Soros and his “multilateral” comrades that he would be a wimpy President.

Have you seen the movie, “Hotel Rwanda?” Politicians like John Kerry get people murdered.

As versus Bush, who has so adriotly ended the killing in the area? This is beyond a straw man and well into a straw city, in which straw men and women go to straw jobs, manufacturing straw consumer goods which are then loaded onto straw container ships and shipped to straw households worldwide.

Do you really believe that we would be seeing so much recent progress in the Middle East if President Bush were not residing in the White House?

Well, of course not -- ever since the President visibly achieved Nirvana on network television, but then returned, to "Help the Middle East on their own spiritual path," I've been convinced that every single good thing that's happened in the Middle East has been entirely independent of historical forces or happenstance and due exclusively to the President's exertions. Oh, and every bad thing is Clinton's fault. And the French didn't help us in Lebanon.

We can take it for granted that John Kerry not so discreetly promised George Soros and his “multilateral” comrades that he would be a wimpy President.

I hate those wimpy guys, always spending billions of their own money to foster democracy in former Soviet bloc countries. What have they done to spread democracy? Except for that whole billions thing.

“Oh, and every bad thing is Clinton's fault”

Nope, that’s not true at all. Bill Clinton should be praised for biting the bullet and saving the Old Europeans’ rear end in the Balkans. Regrettably, a number of Republicans disgracefully placed obstacles in front of him. These are mostly the same ones who were also upset with President Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Clinton hesitated for a long time out of the concern that he would be perceived as acting “unilaterally. Eventually, though, he and his advisors got fed up with the Europeans hesitation to stop the genocide. They moved ahead and saved the lives of thousands.

Libertarian Christopher Layne is a quintessential example of somebody who was upset with both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush:

Christopher Layne wrote the following on May 20, 1999:

“The Clinton administration has made one miscalculation after another in dealing with the Kosovo crisis. U.S. officials and their NATO colleagues never understood the historical and emotional importance of Kosovo to the Serbian people, believing instead that Belgrade's harsh repression of the ethnic Albanian secessionist movement in Kosovo merely reflected the will of President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia. The administration's foreign policy team mistakenly concluded that, under a threat of air strikes, the Yugoslav government would sign a dictated peace accord (the Rambouillet agreement) to be implemented by a NATO peacekeeping force in Kosovo. Even if Milosevic initially refused to sign the Rambouillet agreement, administration leaders believed that Belgrade would relent after a brief "demonstration" bombing campaign. Those calculations proved to be disastrously wrong.”

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-345es.html

This is what Layne wrote last November 23, 2004

“With Powell leaving the scene, the administration's hardliners will be firmly in control of US foreign policy. Powell's departure is the foreign policy equivalent of a hurricane warning: rough weather is ahead. For one thing, Powell was the sole voice of moderation and prudence in the administration's senior policy-making circle. For another, his departure has triggered a round of musical chairs.”

http://www.realisticforeignpolicy.org/archives/2004/11/index.php

Why read Deamer? All he does is present Andrew ("Oh my god, I can't believe Republicans are against Gay Marriage") Sullivan. I quit reading Sullivan a while ago because his priorities seemed to be out of whack. I could be wrong, but he seemed to shift into being more about the 'in crowd' than where he came from.

Anyway, what were the liberal hawks expecting in Jesusland? The Schiavo case is going to stir up some ill thought out conservative emotions. I think it is better to filter all SMTP (Simple Minded Tittering Pundits?) like Bennet or Coulter (fill in you own left side) and focus on the center and the real signs of what are going on.

That said, my only addition on the Schiavo case is that the judiciary which has often recently gone to great lengths to extend the law to arrive at a 'result', this time went to great pains to ignore Terri Schiavo and focus on 'process'.

My favorite sign for today

The green side

Which ANSWER's the the question

NATIONAL TEACH-IN ON IRAQ: How Can We End This War? that the moonbats had on C-Span last night.

Ah, but where is the middle? It will take a while to discover. So we shall see, perhaps some shall be surprised. By the way, I would class this blog as socially Liberal but hawkish on the WOT, with a sprinkling of libertarians, conservatives, and some left wingers spicing up the comments. Unexamined conventional prejudice concerning DeLay, no matching outrage about Kennedy, a certified sleaze ball. Even my mom, loyal Massachusetts Democrat that she was, admitted as much.

Anyhoo, two years is still a bit off, and then we will shall see how the public weighs in. I am curious myself and don't have a prediction.

I was pro-Bush only because I was pro-Iraq war and pro a shake-up in the Middle East. Although I'm probably more conservative now than I've ever been (for a lifelong Dem), I'm not surprised to see the Republicans playing their games in Washington (or to see the Dems playing their games).

Except for Bush and foreign policy, I think most of the politicans are fundamentally unserious, cynical and hot dogs.

I don't know what I am but I do know I am alive so when politicians present their platform regardless of political party I intend to vote on the side of protecting and defending innocent human life's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness particularily those who do not have the capacity to speak for themselves.

Going a bit further, a possible historical analogy that occurs to me is the Dred Scott decision. I don't know that that is how things will go, but it is a possibility.

Kimmet; John Kerry is a self-described not bona- fied war hero. Of course, he's also a self described war criminal. You pays your money, you takes your choice. Unfortunately I've voted against him for more then 20 years but he's won anyway.

I have generally voted for Republicans only because they have been the lesser of two evils.

In this case I was glad to vote for Bush for all of the oft mentioned foreign policy reasons. The idea of some sort of Social Security privatization is a good one in my book though I'm waiting to see the exact specs before I sign on.

My two major complaints with Bush are on illegal immigration and larger government. Now, if you can point me to the Democrat that will vote for a smaller central government and protect us from illegal immigration. I'll consider him/her.

To listen to alot of the folks here moan about gay-marriage is hilarious. Did you happen to look at the numbers on all those state referendums? Even in the blue states the vast majority voted it down. This is hardly a Democrat vs. Republican issue.

Any sane analysis of politics has to ignore the Terri Schiavo story. It is way outside the normal realm and will lead to all sorts of bad law it it is used politically by either side.

As far as Kosovo goes I thought all those "genocide" claims were long since de-bunked. Nasty things happened, no doubt, but nothing that would reasonably count as genocide.

Raymond, the party that is willing to piss away your future is the Republican party. The tax cuts they passed in '01 and '03 are projected to cost THREE TIMES AS MUCH over the next 75 years as the projected Social Security shortfall over the same period of time.

I mainly stick with Democrats because of economic/fiscal/regulatory/social equity issues, rather than social ones. The Republicans have shown they will fight for your life until the bitter end, unless you're on Medicaid. The key 21st century generational issue as I see it is: which party do you trust to do the inevitable rationing of health care as humenely as possible?

But I'm glad to see those with a more libertarian bent getting disillusioned by the Bushies too.

I just don't get your visceral hatred for DeLay. Sure he's a sleazy pol, but, as others have pointed out, no more sleazy ( and considerably more civil) than Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi, Byrd, etc. - although I will admit that Byrd has become so cartoonishly bombastic that he's become more of an entertainer than a politician.

It seems to me that fear of the Christian right is what drives - or keeps - so many so-called moderates into the Democratic Party. I understand that fear; I used to feel the same way....you know, the "better-the- wild-eyed- utopian-liberal-than-the-religious-nutcase" attitude of many lukewarm Dems.

But I have yet to see the extremists on the right gain any real power within the GOP. What crap, exactly, has the Bush administration "thrown at us" that you believe the Dems have "fended off"? And where do you see the centrist impulse displayed on the Democratic side? Hillary?

I agree with Jonah Goldberg that what is happening here is debate rather than collapse. There is no tolerance for debate on the Democratic side these days, so many new "Republicans" (or at least independents who are flirting with being Republicans) are showing their new party exactly what they don't like about it. But internal disagreement, even intense disagreement is, at least to me, something to be desired, not feared. The far right will never hold sway in a party that accepts and integrates internal debate - it may influence that debate, but it will not crush it. And moderates, far from taking a walk, will remain as long as they are heard.

Anyway, I don't see anything resembling debate on the Democratic side. Until I do, my vote stays withthe GOP.

Having left the Democratic party in the late 1970s because it was no longer serious about foreign policy, I have some sympathy for Michael Totten and others with his views. I would love to have two parties that are serious about foreign policy. But I don't expect the Democrats to become serious any time soon, for reasons that I explain
here.

And I should point that it is not always true that the winning strategy for candidates is to move to the center. (I can say that with some confidence haveing spent some years of my life studying spatial models of elections. Sometime I may review the models and try to explain them on my site. Don't know how much interest there is in the subject -- or how much review I wouuld have to do.)

People who don't see any debate on the Democratic side are just refusing to look. The "New Republic" faction has been solidly hawkish, if not always pro-Bush. Until Dubya came along Democrats were always traditionally the party MORE inclined to use military force. Yet another reason why Dubya's conservative credentials are pretty suspect, whether you use traditional Taft or Goldwater conservatism as your yardstick.

BTW, where does Deamer mention having a gun pointed at his head for getting out the Bush vote? I am a native of NH and that seems pretty unlikely to me. The NH Kerry supporter set and the NH gun owner set don't have a lot of overlap in my experience.

In the Culture Wars, looks like the Republicans have turned the Schiavo Debate into their own Galipoli....

Seriously, I was very encouraged by a poll I saw that showed a really large majority against Federal intervention in the case. The Republicans in Congress are ripe for a smackdown, and I think they will get it in 2006.

As to buyer's remorse, none here. Kimmit's "war hero" spinning notwithstanding, the world at large would have seen Kerry as America's Zapata. The least bad thing that could have happened would have been a huge morale boost to America's enemies. The most bad thing would have been Kerry turning into the 21st century's Jimmy Carter. (His illustrious accomplishments in the Senate convinced me this was most likely outcome.) Bush sure isn't perfect, but I couldn't write a script in my head where Kerry didn't turn out to be awful. So color me satisfied with my choice.

Looking ahead, both major parties right now look like they're in a race to the bottom. IMHO, the Democrats have a head start, but they certainly don't have an insurmountable lead.

Who knows, if they get bad enough, maybe the Libertarians can leap from the Blogosphere into real power. Now that might be a fantasy script, but it's a movie I'd pay to watch.

Mark Poling -- I've never quite understood the extreme neoconservative antipathy to Jimmy Carter's foreign policy. His emphasis on holding our allies to higher human rights standards would seem to be a precurser to Bush 43's belated recognition that propping up "our" dictators in the Arab world is not the smartest policy. (I recall reading a Joshua Muravcik essay, perhaps in Commentary, that acknowledged this.) His hardline attitude towards the Soviets after their 1979 invasion of Aghanistan was a precursor to Reagan's hardline towards them. He refused to give in to any of the substantive demands of the Iranians who kidnapped our hostages, even though this likely caused him the 1980 election.

I think that the record of his Presidency is being lumped together with the record of his ex-presidency.

Carter should have invaded Iran after the revolutionaries committed the act of war of the seizing of the Embassy staff.

And thus it was that Eris giggled and caused prophecy to spring from the mouth of the President:

"You're free. And freedom is beautiful. And, you know, it'll take time to restore chaos and order order out of chaos. But we will."

For a time, at large part of the country thought they had order, only to find out that Bush is quickly working to restore Chaos.

Gosh, I love this country.. some popcorn and butter, an extra large soda and I'm set.

shhhh, the previews are over and I hear this show commin' up is a real side splitter.

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord

And no, sidesplitter was not a reference to The Passion.

Think "National Malaise", Marcus. Think Iran, and 444 days. Think helicoptors lost on the way to Tehran. Think even-odd license plates at the pump. Think blossoming Communist "insurgencies" with globetrotting Cuban "advisors".

And if you consider boycotting the Olympics was taking a hard line with the Russians, that may say a lot about how neo-Progressives approach making the world a better place.

Jimmy Carter's moral qualities are open to debate; his effectiveness as President was simply abysmal.

(And who are you calling extreme neoconservative? Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of the neos' foreign policy theories, but I consider myself as a hawkish libertarian, and have been in this sorry state for 30 years now.)

I never went all the way with my "conversion," either, Michael, for the reasons you stated. National defense is the one indisuputable duty of federal government, and the Dems are AWOL on it, so that leaves...Bush.

All US politics have moved to the left, to the "compassion" rather than "strength" meme. McGovern got 28% of the vote in '72 and his heir Kerry got about 50%. What hath the boomers wrought?

Bush's expensive and intrusive social spending programs, his sometimes timid and political warmaking, all channel LBJ, not the Gipper, leaving the Dems as sort of the SDS of national politics. The centrists will call the day.

Michael,

You allude to it in this post, and have mentioned it in others, of your concern with the "religious right." But I have to wonder if it is YOU who are left of center when it comes to social issues that speak to the "religious right." For example, despite the libetarian weight of the blogosphere, most Americans do not support gay marriage and might accept some form of civil unions. But even then, large majorities of the population, when asked, have admitted to being in favor of re-criminalizing homosexual activity. Large majorities of the population supports parental laws regardging abortion. Large majorities support ending partial-birth abortion, and a smaller majority supports abortion in the first trimester. These trends largely support the so-called "religious right," except for support of abortion in the first trimester.

As for the glamorizaton of "moderates" and the political center: in truth, such a thing is foreign to American democracy, and has arisen largely as a proxy representative of MSM opinion to support its own policy goals. Study American history and you'll find that commanding elections have been won by people who NEVER campaigned from the political center. George W. Bush was not a "center" candidate, nor was LBJ, Reagan, Nixon, FDR, Lincoln, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, Jackson or Roosevelt in his later years, among others. "Centrist" candidates won in elections where "character" was the only true issue in the election, and many of America's "war presidents" were centrist presidents with ineffective legacies. Those daring enough to choose a position apart from the muddled middle our remembered for their legacies. It is not true that by winning majorities, one must pick up the center. One can merely argue for policies that expose the natural divisions in society, and society chooses as a whole which solution it wants. Madison, in particular, DETESTED MODERATION IN POLITICS. He was the first "mud-slinger," working effectively with Jefferson to demonize the Federalist Party. To this day, their legacies in defining the Federalists can be found in the history books. Madison argued that democracy, to be healthy, depended on clear public choice on policy alternatives, and that such positions should do battle. He would have hated the glamorization of moderates.

That said, I think that if you have a problem with the "religious right," you should understand that it results from not them being out of step, but perhaps YOU being out of step. And understand that these battles will not go away and in the Madisonian tradition, will continue to do battle until one side can claim victory.

You've got some hysterical conservatives, yes... But this is an interesting constitutional dilemma. The Federal Courts and Supreme Courts power to interpret the constitution.

It's not really in the constitution. The courts adopted this power via their own rulings.

Hence, as it was not specifically planned, there are not really many (if any) checks (as in checks and balances) on their branch in the constitution.

I think we have a lot of frustration with the perception that the courts are legislating and refusing to follow constitutional law themselves.

In this case, the Congress has constitutional authority to grant federal review. The Federal judge just said no, I don't agree... Where is the check on the courts? Who is watching the watchers?

The other good one was the couple recent court cases where in the name of ‘interpreting the constitution’ Supreme Court justices used European court precedents… Outrageous…

"In the Culture Wars, looks like the Republicans have turned the Schiavo Debate into their own Galipoli...."

The Schiavo debacle is way overrated as a Culture War watershed. The vast majority of Americans believe that the government should stay out of personal family matters. Terri's Schiavo's case, however, has become a national soap opera, and like any good soap opera, has pulled people in on an emotional level. Polibloggers and their fans aside, I think that most Americans will forgive the Congress for losing their heads and rushing in like so many Dudley boys.

I think you are going to find that doctors and lawyers, who whether you like it or not are influential, will be very alarmed at the "save Terri!" hysteria and what it has wrought. From Glenn Reynolds, to Ann Althouse, to Elizabeth Whelan (pres of the National Council on Science and Health), to me, professionals who voted for Bush -- decent people who see the rule of law under serious and disturbing attack whilst holding out religiously motivated zealots as experts on PVS -- are now considering that all the snarking about the "religious right" just may be something we should have listened to more closely.

Judge George Greer, the FL probate judge who heard most matters relating to Terri Schiavo, is a Southern Baptist and a Republican. He has been effectively expelled from his Baptist church in the wake of these recent events. Further,and far more seriously, according to a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, authored by George Annas, JD/MPH (article found here: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/NEJMlim050643v4.pdf,) Judge Greer has received death threats and is under constant armed security. No doubt those who think shooting abortionists is a fine idea would deem Judge Greer a worthy target, what with all the rhetoric flying that Greer is a lawless man who just wants Terri dead. Judges and lawyers, including many who voted for Bush, are not going to accept that judges must go under armed guard in America; you should not, either.

All Greer did was faithfully adhere to the procedural and substantive law of the State of Florida. His rulings have been upheld on appeal innumerable timers, and the Florida Federal District Court this week ruled it would not issue a temporary injunction reinstating the feeding tube because there was not a "substantial likelihood" that Terri's parents could prevail on the merits in a de novo review of the case. By applying the "substantial likelihood" test, Judge Whittemore adhered to standard federal law. He was affirmed on appeal.

People are reciting comments supposedly attributed to Michael Schiavo ("when will the bitch die") and floating stray affidavits. All of these are hearsay, and I doubt most of those offering this "evidence" know whether those making these charges testified in court and whether their statements held up under CROSS-EXAMINATION.

Trial- and appeal-by-blog are deadly dangerous to our rule of law. They may yet prove to be literally deadly to Judge Greer. And before anyone says the person being submitted to deadly praxis is Terri Schiavo, please educate yourself by going to Abstract Appeal at: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html and read the holdings in this case, the Florida statutes regarding artificial feeding, and the controlling case law Judge Greer was duty bound to apply.

The rule of law has a right to life, too. If the Bush brothers' grandstanding, and that of the religious right, seriously impair it, you can expect some sizeable defections in the tenuous GOP ranks. More so if anything happens to Judge Greer.

Mark Poling --
I was wrong: it's not neoconservatives, but rather the "unilateral interventionists" that most vicerally hate Carter. Neocons were divided on him, then and now. Jeanne Kirkpatrick took the Henry Kissenger line on supporting authoritarian dictators, while Joshua Muravcik as I said has pointed out the positive aspect of Carter criticizing our allies human rights record.

I'm not saying Carter was a great or a particularly effective President, just that he was no McGovernite.

His political skills were mediocre at best, and his "malaise" speech was particularly stupid politically.

But the whole world was going through a shitty time back then. Just what would Gerald Ford or Ronald Reagan or Scoop Jackson have done differently had they somehow been elected in 1976? I suppose Reagan would have refused to have left the Canal Zone. That would have really shown 'em.

Regarding the hostages 444 days in captivity, as I said, the reason they remained in captivity was that he refused to negotiate with their captors over handing back the Shah's assets.

And if you're going to blame him for that Middle East tragedy, brought on by Islamic fundamentalism, when are you going to blame Reagan for the Marine barracks terrorist attack in Beirut in 1983? And when are you going to excoriate his McGovernite decision to cut and run immediately afterwards?

Regarding the Soviets, in addition to boycotting the Olympics and suspending grain shipments (both of which I opposed), Carter also ditched SALT II ratification efforts, and called for a big defense buildup in 1980. He brought B-1 bombers and MX missles on line.

Finally, his energy policy was courageous and visionary. Thomas Friedmann, another liberal hawk, is writing persuasively on the need for a sane, Carteresque energy policy today. Sadly, too many of other hawks seem to believe that we are fighting the war on terror in order to preserve our inalienable right to consume oil the way morbidly obese people consume food.

Mona: "People are reciting comments supposedly attributed to Michael Schiavo ("when will the bitch die") and floating stray affidavits. All of these are hearsay, and I doubt most of those offering this "evidence" know whether those making these charges testified in court and whether their statements held up under CROSS-EXAMINATION."

Um, Mona? The "evidence" that Terri wanted to die is hearsay also. Under normal rules, it would've been excluded from evidence. As to your greater point about the "rule of law": the courts have been inventing new substantive due process rights for the past 40 years now: a "right" to privacy, a "right" to an abortion, a "right" to engage in sodomy, and now a "right" to die. Surely the courts can invent a new right saying that absent clear evidence, and not evidence based on hearsay, can a person refuse medical treatment. And furthermore, even if refusing medical treatment is allowed under such a clear evidence standard, cannot the court invent a "right" not to be starved to death?

Courts have bent words for their own purposes for decades. Most law students will tell you that, after taking Con Law 101, it's obvious that the Supreme Court has been making it up nowadays. Many people, knowing this, are wondering why they're not doing it now. The only reason that seems to hold water is because they will not overturn a fellow Judge's order that Terri die. Overturning the legislature and the executive is the business of the courts. We have witnessed their de facto assumption of power in American democracy.

MJT -- "...the former vermin exterminator from Texas. (Good God, is it really that hard to find respectable normal people for the top roles in Congress?)"

Hope you're not putting down vermin exterminators here! It is actually a very noble profession, and they do important work in poor communities. For instance, cockroach shit is generally considered to be the major cause of the severe asthma that seems to disproportionately afflict black and Latino communities. (I shit you not...)

By the way, one of the greatest country/folk songwriters of our time was a vermin exterminator at one time. Now he sells real estate in Nashville. Go figure:
jamestalley.com

Sydney Carton: It is true that the testimony regarding Terri's wishes is hearsay, but some hearsay is permitted in court, and in this case is explicitly permitted by Florida law. (Please visit the Abstract Appeal site and read the many links to Florida law and holdings in this case.) However, the proponent of the hearsay is subject to intense cross-examination and weighing of his testimony by the court. That is a more secure process than internet rumor and innuendo.

In any event, Judge Greer did not make up any rights; this is not a Roe "grabbing rights from penumbras" situation. He applied both Florida statutes and case law. Any outrage at the result can and should be directed at Florida law, not at Judge Greer. (The legislature told Judge Greer, by statute, that a feeding tube is an artificial "life-prolonging" measure which may be refused. And if you think the hearsay about Terri's wishes should not be admissible, lobby the Florida legislature to amend the law.)

Judge Greer followed the law and is now under armed guard. This is very bad, and I surely expect that you understand why.

You voted for Bush. I blame you.

Mona, you misunderstand me. I know it's not a "grabbing rights from penumbras situation." What I want to know is: WHY NOT?

Judge Greer's armed guard is quite frankly not my concern. I'm much more concerned with a state engaging in murder than the usual routine.

Sydney Carton writes: "I know it's not a "grabbing rights from penumbras situation." What I want to know is: WHY NOT?"

Because Judge Greer followed Florida statutes and long-settled case law that are both substantially similar to law in most other states. Again, go to Abstract Appeal and read the chronology that links to relevant pleadings and holdings. That should entirely clear up your question.

And if you are not concerned that a probate judge in the United States is receiving death threats, if you insist he is part of a state apparatus "murdering" someone, then you are part of the problem. Murder is a legal term, and when killing someone, or allowing them to die is legal, by definition it is not murder. In Florida, for good or for ill, people have the right to to refuse artificial feeding when in a PVS. In Florida, as in some other jurisdicitons, in the absence of an advance directive, testimony may be taken about the PVS-victim's wishes.

If you object to the state of the law as it is in Florida and many other jurisdictions, then lobby to change these laws. But for God's sake stop the irresponsible rhetoric that inflames some to see Judge Greer as a lawless murderer, with the result that he now requires armed guards.

Mona,

Again you misunderstand me. You assume that when Judges write decisions, they normally follow the law as expressed by statute or precedent. That is patently untrue. Read any random Supreme Court decision to see how a judge gets what they want, irrespective of a statute or precedent or history. Now, in this case, it might be true that Florida statutes allow for withdrawl of medical care (which includes food). However, that is NOT the only law at issue here: there is such a thing as the Florida Constitution and the US Constitution. Usually, Constitutional interpretation allows a judge to get what they want irrespective of a statute or precedent. And since as we all know judges get what they want regardless of what a statute might say, the appropriate question is not whether the Florida statues were followed, but why the judges in this case did not see fit to declare that those statutes should be disregarded in favor of the higher law of the Constitution to give meaning to the Constitution by declaring that the Constitution requires something other than starvation.

What I am saying here, in other words, is that Judges could throw away those Florida statutes if they wanted to. They threw away in 2003 a statute allowing Governor Bush to re-insert the tube. Why not throw away those statutes allowing Michael the authority to kill her? It is not enough to say that they're following the law, because JUDGES DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW IF THEY DON'T WANT TO, THEY CAN THROW IT OUT. Do you understand? That is what I'm asking: WHY didn't they throw out those laws, and say that the Constitution's protection and guarantee of life to people requires something other than starvation.

Markus Rose:

And if you're going to blame him for that Middle East tragedy, brought on by Islamic fundamentalism, when are you going to blame Reagan for the Marine barracks terrorist attack in Beirut in 1983? And when are you going to excoriate his McGovernite decision to cut and run immediately afterwards?

Actually, after Reagan died I wrote about that on my blog. No, I didn't give him a pass on Beirut, and I took Reagan to task for a lot of other stuff that happened on his watch.

Reagan is also lionized for his stance against communism, and rightly so. His rhetoric truly did move the debate from the grounds of minimizing the advances of that hideous ideology onto the grounds of rolling it back and eventually consigning it to the ash heap of history. His focus on making our military more able to counter and then to dominate the USSR’s forced Moscow to give up its reliance on intimidation. Reagan sensed that intimidation is the oxygen of totalitarianism, and he is justifiably credited with bringing an Evil Empire to its knees.

But that was one theater and you can’t give Reagan a pass on everything else. He continued a trend of backing down from Islamic terror. In Reagan’s defense, he couldn’t have foreseen dangers twenty years down the road. But his half-assed handling of Lebanon (which included the pointless sacrifice of hundreds of troops sitting unarmed in Beirut) reinforced the jihadis’ idea that Americans were weak and fearful. That idea was born in Tehran, given terrible sustenance by Reagan, repressed but not destroyed by Bush 41’s partial success in the first Gulf War, nurtured by Clinton’s oh-so-nuanced responses to Islamist provocations, and finally blossomed in the events of 9/11.

On the critical issues of his day, Ronald Reagan was correct. On peripheral issues, his record wasn't good. Notwithstanding Grenada, Reagan never had to deal with a country facing a protracted military engagement. I’m not saying what he did was anything less than remarkable, but his agenda (and popularity) didn’t have to compete with the realities of troops getting shot at and blown up on a daily basis.

But being right and resolute on the critical issues made Reagan a great President.

(Sorry for chewing up so much bandwidth Michael.)

Again, no buyer's remorse here. Bush get's the Current One Big Thing. (On the flip side, Kerry tried to make nice with the government of Syria while Iraq was preparing for elections. Remarkable.) Is Bush wrong on something that may bite us on the ass 30 years from now? Probably. It's an unavoidable part of the job, I think. It's our job to bitch about the things we think are going to bite in the future, while not losing site of the Current One Big Thing.

Ralph Nader agrees with Sydney Carton:

Ralph Nader

money quote: "The court is imposing process over justice."

Sydney, after reading your latest I'm going to buy stock in Reynolds Wrap Aluminum Foil.

Tell us when you start seeing the black helicoptors.

The Terri Schiavo case has grown beyond her life. It's said that in order for the Judiciary to maintain its role as the supreme branch of the government that she has to die. Her life has become the battleground for an internecine power battle for two branches of government over who has the last word.

There aren't going to be any happy endings on this one, which just makes it that much harder to watch.

Sydney Carton writes: "I'm asking: WHY didn't they throw out those laws, and say that the Constitution's protection and guarantee of life to people requires something other than starvation."

Because, among other things, if I recall what I read in the many motions in this case, the court was not asked to do that. It is very rare for a court to rule on its own motion, and for good reason. And since when do conservatives ask courts to simply jettison a statue passed by the state legislature? If the people of Florida wish to removed artificial feeding from the statutory definition of measures that may be refused in contexts such as this, they are entirely free to do so.

Mr. Carton, as you may have guessed I am a lawyer, and I have practiced in probate courts. Further, I was a member of the Federalist Society in law school and have no patience for Supreme Court rulings such as Roe v. Wade. And I can assure you, most lawyers reading your caricature of all courts just doing whatever they want with no regard to faithfully adhering to law, most lawyers would know you are wrong; wrong in a way that threatens the integrity of a precious thing called the rule of law, and the public's trust in and reliance on it.

And in this case, in a manner that has resulted in a Republican, Southern Baptist probate judge receiving serious death threats. There is nothing properly conservative about enabling such a toxic atmosphere, or evincing no concern for it. Such positions are accurately attributed to anarchists.

Finally, I am not engaing with you further until you demonstrate having digested some of the actual papers and holdings in this case, which are found at Abstract Appeal.

Caroline, others: I gotta say the more I read about Schiavo, the more sympathetic I am to Ralph Nader and Nat Hentoff on this one.

I fully support the right to die. I support Kervorkian, as well as the Oregon assisted suicide law. The key point is she didn't give her consent, and there is too much uncertainty over whether she can feel pain in her current state. Unless we are absolutely sure, shouldn't we err on the side of life?

Mona: "Such positions are accurately attributed to anarchists."

Not only do I agree with you, that sentence is just classic. I may have to borrow it some time for my own purposes.

Markus-

At least the republicans are in the game.

If the right conditions existed in 08 (Bush passed meaningful social security, medicare reforms; wot winding down, etc.) then I can see giving my blessing to a democrat for president for the obvious reasons. I don't care about social issues, and some good ole Clinton gridlock would be a welcome sight.

Vanya: BTW, where does Deamer mention having a gun pointed at his head for getting out the Bush vote?

He mentioned that detail in Roger L. Simon's comments section. I should also say that I know Eric personally, and I may on occasion say something about him that isn't linkable.

Sydney Carton: You allude to it in this post, and have mentioned it in others, of your concern with the "religious right." But I have to wonder if it is YOU who are left of center when it comes to social issues that speak to the "religious right."

Yes, that is correct.

You say I am the one who is out of step rather than the religious right. Well, it depends. On gay marriage, yes, I'm way left of center, nowhere near the middle. But the religious right is definitely a minority. Only one American in three calls him or herself a conservative, and "religious right" is only one of the flavors of conservative available. The RR is nowhere near a majority and never will be.

Mark, Mona, and all,

Frankly, there is no need to characterize my post as anything extreme. When the Supreme Court recently ruled that executing a minor under 18 is unconstitutional, they gave "meaning" to the 8th Amendment, and threw out the laws of a bunch of states. They looked to Europe, to their own morals that supposedly evolved, and made their judgment. They didn't seem to care a whit for the democratically elected representatives that passed death penalty laws for minors. This is what the court has been doing for decades.

Now, perhaps "ALL" courts do not do this, especially in contractural disputes or minor technicalities of statutory interpretation. But without a doubt, it is happening, and it is happening by courts that make policy and which matter. I'm not interested if small claims courts do this. I am interested when the Supreme Court does it.

Mona may not want to discuss it with me, but her distaste for Roe v. Wade evidences knowledge of the fact that the Supreme Court's has disregarded democracy for decades. This case with Terri has distributed this knowledge, once confied to lawyers, to the mass populace. Mona says that "this threatens the integrity of a precious thing called the rule of law, and the public's trust in and reliance on it." I say: it's a little too late for that. How many laws have been ruled unconstitutional in recent years based on scratchy logic or bankrupt reasoning? The Supreme Court even said once that Colorado could not amend its own state constitution in one such way because they thought to do so would be mean to homosexuals. Such a declaration from the bench is outrageous, preposterous, and dangerous. And this has been going on for quite some time.

If you think this is the thinking of tinfoil-hat wearing anarchists, then perhaps you could read "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America," currently on the NYT bestseller list. Or if that is too populist for you, how about "The End of Democracy," a collection of articles from First Things debating the very danger of judicial authoritarianism.

The rule of law is not merely what judges say it is. I'd argue that a healthy respect for the rule of law begins with lawmakers: democratically elected lawmakers. Florida's lawmakers DID deal with Terri's condition in 2003, passing a law allowing Bush to re-insert the tube. But your elitist, unelected courts threw out that law, because they delcared it unconstitutional. Why? Because they said so, that's why, you peon. Get used to your Robed Masters.

Now for details:

Mona: "if I recall what I read in the many motions in this case, the court was not asked to do that." The Court was asked to consider if Terri's rights under the Constitution were violated. That's all that's necessary.

Mona: " And since when do conservatives ask courts to simply jettison a statue passed by the state legislature?" I see. Only leftists are allowed to have judicial activism. Well, then consider us screwed. A guilty charge of hypocrisy in my case is an easy burden to bear in the greater picture of things.

Mona: "There is nothing properly conservative about enabling such a toxic atmosphere, or evincing no concern for it." For my part, I hope Mr. Greer lives a long and healthy life, and doesn't have to endure a situation he is now imposing on Terri. That would be a tragedy.

Sydney Carton,

All Florida judges are either elected or confirmed by election. So much for "your elitist, unelected courts threw out that law...." Your rant about Romer v. Evans suggests that your opinion of the reasoning in that decision is similarly uninformed. Do you understand the difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional democracy, or do you just repeat the tired "unelected Judges" talking points that Mark Levin hands you?

I think there's a profound difference between a moderate and a wishy-washy fence-sitter, who tries their damndest to stay on the fence until that perfect fantasy option becomes available, and then they eagerly jump down onto the side with the greenest grass, and then immediately regret ever making a decision because no decision is good enough and damn those politicians for tricking me into thinking their grass really was greener when the whole reason I sit on the fence is because I know better etc, etc, etc, bla bla bla...

Michael is a moderate who made a tough decision between two evils, in an honest, principled way, and stood by that decision. I respect him for that (and other things). I'd respect him if that decision had gone the other way.

But I'd define "centrist" as a fence-sitter of the type described. A thoughtful and savvy politician might exploit the mood of the centrists to win an election, but a smart politician won't sell out his base to try to keep them off the fence.

This isn't a conservative crack-up. This is everybody doing the same thing they do every election.

And the Democratic party may not be as dead as some say, but it's ludicrous to put the Republicans in the same category of moribundity at all. There's a difference between being an outpatient and being in the ICU.

As far as kicking asshats to the curb, I'm with Michael 100% on that one.

See, a vote for Bush in 2004 was a vote for illegal detention, torture and extraordinary rendition, a vote for Bush was indeed at least a deliberate condonding if not a vindication of those policies - the rest is petty @ss-covering.

Then novakent, a vote for Kerry was just as clearly a vote for appeasing fascists, and everything else is @ss-covering.

Grow up.

Mr. Hat,

Are you going to distinguish every criticism of judicial authoritarianism as "uninformed"? In fact, the reasons for that case, like many others, are widely known and criticized.

How many lawyers worship at the altar of the bench? Perceiving yourselves close to the Power, you defend it. But your attention is misdirected. Power lies with the people, not with the judges.

Markus: "The key point is she didn't give her consent, and there is too much uncertainty over whether she can feel pain in her current state. Unless we are absolutely sure, shouldn't we err on the side of life?"

Yes. Especially when there are family members who are willing to assume her care and its expense. And at minimum, people should be permitted to give her water by mouth if they choose to. Or is the provision of water by mouth now considered artificial life support? (In other words, we're not talking about withdrawal of life support - we're talking about legally enforced killing.)Also, I just a heard a neurologist on NPR who said that partially conscious patients show activity on a functional MRI that is very close to normal people while PVS patients show no response. So there is a procedure that is capable of largely answering the Q re PVS but the judge refuses to order the procedure. If the functional MRI established PVS her parents might be able to let go. (yes I know she has electrodes implanted in her brain. Most artificial devices are made of non-ferrous metals and are MRI safe, although I don’t know about this one). But as it is - they will never know and neither will we.

Markus, while I also thought I supported euthanasia, I encourage you to read this link I posted on an earlier thread about the situation in Holland now. Note 2 implications: euthanasia is used as a routine means of cutting health care costs and where euthanasia is available – less money goes into palliative care, i.e. fewer hospice options available. Not to mention the casualness with which people start making assumptions about “quality of life”. The fact that this court is siding with the husband’s questionable word on this case bodes badly for the future here in the US IMO.

Euthanasia in Holland

vote for Kerry was just as clearly a vote for appeasing fascists

well, apart from the fact that Kerry wasn't appeasing anybody, the CIA is right now cooperating with fascists in e.g. Syria, while the deficit resulting from tax cuts and foreign adventures is to a large extent financed by the communists in China

but back to the point: I am genuinely puzzled how anyone with even the remotest regard for human rights and the rule of law could have voted for Bush in 2004

"while the deficit resulting from tax cuts and foreign adventures is to a large extent financed by the communists in China"

That kind of hyperbole is why noone will take you seriously and why people will tell you to grow up. Iguggest you look at the Dept. of Treasury web site before you toss around feces like that.

As for extended detentions for head choppers, it's go my vote.

Sure, sure, Bush=Satan, the gulags are around the corner, yada yada yada.

I know this is troll-feeding, but certain one-trick-pony posters always make me think of Tom Petty's "Spike":

Oh, we got another one, just like the other ones
Another bad ass, another troublemaker
I'm scared, ain't you boys scared?
I wonder if he's gonna show us what bad is?
Boys, we got a man with a dog collar on
You think we oughta' throw ol' spike a bone?

Hey spike what do you like?
Hey spike what do you like?

Here's another misfit, another jimmy dean
Bet he's got a motorbike,
What do ya'll think?
Bet if we be good we'll get a ride on it
If he ain't too mad about the future
Maybe we oughta help him see
The future ain't what it used to be

Hey spike, you're scarin' my wife
Hey, spike what do you like?
Please spike, tell us 'bout life?

feces like that

mishu, you obviously don't give a damn about human rights, but on that other topic you might wanna have a look e.g. here:

China recycles trade surplus into US Treasury bonds

or here:

Asia Can't Keep Funding U.S. Spending

or here

Asian central banks like China's have become America's bankers

or just about anywhere else

Now you fail to follow instructions novakant. I aske d you to look at the Dept. of Treasury website but you show me pages from Asia Times and Bloomberg. If you did, you would see that China owns 161 billion dollars in treasuries. 1.3% of GDP. Hardly what you call financing the U.S. economy.

I also recommend that you take a look at this chart regarding debt to GDP ratios as compared with other nations on the globe.

http://www.optimist123.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/both_meters_20050226.gif

Better yet, here's a graph that shows historical US debt burden as it relates to GDP.

http://www.optimist123.com/photos/uncategorized/debt_burden_history_20050204_1.gif

Oh those surplus years, they really put a dent in our debt.

Novakant: See, a vote for Bush in 2004 was a vote for illegal detention, torture and extraordinary rendition, a vote for Bush was indeed at least a deliberate condonding if not a vindication of those policies - the rest is petty @ss-covering.

You act as though everyone who voted for Bush is somehow obligated to be a right-wing partisan hack. But you know damn well this country is better off with independents and moderates in it who are willing to criticize the people they voted for. If had two choices in the last election. TWO. If it were up to me, neither Bush nor Kerry would be in the White House.

"He mentioned that detail in Roger L. Simon's comments section. I should also say that I know Eric personally, and I may on occasion say something about him that isn't linkable."

I also know Eric personally and heard him tell this story at a party.

The Schiavo hysteria represents the Breaking of the Fellowship between Bush-voting libertarians & the Republican base. And the Religious Right may prove to play the same role for the Republicans that MoveOn played for the Dems. Result: President Hillary. I can't stand Hill, but I'd vote for her in a heartbeat over a Delay or a Santorum.

For 30 years, the anti-abortion crowd has framed their oppostion to Roe as a states rights issue, but over the last week, we've seen that's a bunch of crap. Taranto actually accused the circuit court of judicial restraint. What hypocrites! (Oh I forgot, Coulter displayed her law school acumen by pointing out that liberals are sometimes inconsistent so in no position to criticize flip-flopping pro-lifers.)

You act as though everyone who voted for Bush is somehow obligated to be a right-wing partisan hack.

I don't think you're a right-wing partisan hack, I think you're someone who wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

But you know damn well this country is better off with independents and moderates in it who are willing to criticize the people they voted for.

Given this administration's immunity to criticism of any kind I wouldn't be too optimistic in this regard - and who said, you had to vote for Bush in order to be able to criticize him.

If it were up to me, neither Bush nor Kerry would be in the White House.

Yeah sure, but, in small part, due to your vote Bush is now in the WH and able to continue the abominable policies I mentioned above. You can't simply dissociate yourself from these policies. Explicitly or implicitly you must have made a decision to tolerate these policies, valuing the perceived benefits they might bring in the WoT above the human rights of those affected by them.

Novokant: "Explicitly or implicitly you must have made a decision to tolerate these policies, valuing the perceived benefits they might bring in the WoT above the human rights of those affected by them."

I have no problem admitting that I'm losing a whole lot less sleep over the rights of Gitmo prisoners - who thanks to folks like you are getting their 3 halal meals a day and their prayer mats - than I am over someone like Terri Schiavo - who is undergoing forced court order dehydration and starvation.

Taranto today: What accounts for the passion of those who want Terri Schiavo to die?

Got that? Anyone who humbly accedes to the courts is slavering for Terri's death

Imagine if Roe were overturned & state voters approved limited abortion rights (as most Americans support). Do you think for one second the anti-abortion crowd would accept that? Of course not, because 'life' trumps everything, & justifies any means (as we've seen over the last week). I'll never believe another 'pro-lifer' who pays lip service to states rights

If you did, you would see that China owns 161 billion dollars in treasuries.

That's only half of the picture. China also holds abut $600 billion in US dollars, which it sits on in order to artificially depress the value of the Yuan. Over the past year alone, China has accumulated $200 billion in dollars. If and when China decides to appreciate the Yuan, things will get very interesting very quickly.

We are, however, way off topic. Whatever the arguments for Bush's foreign policy, his economic policy has been extremely poor; only the extraordinary robustness of the US economy as a whole has prevented an Argentina-like meltdown, and there is reason to think that it might still happen anyway. Scary stuff.

Novakant: You can't simply dissociate yourself from these policies.

But I can dissociate myself from them, and I do. Would you rather I didn't? Would you rather I support torture or oppose it? Do you really want me to keep my mouth shut about it because I'm obligated to follow a right-wing party-line, even though I'm a ticket-splitting independent? Politics isn't binary. It is way more complicated than a reductionist left v. right dichotomy.

I hate some of the Bush Administration policies. And I would hate some of a coulda-been Kerry Administration's policies, too. There was no way for me to "win." Surely you've had to make a similar decision at some point in your life. Maybe not about politics, but about something. That's just how life sometimes is.

When you say I must approve of Bush's policy of rendition/torture (for example) because I voted for him, what do you expect me to say? You already know I don't approve because I've said so plenty of times in public. So what's the point in saying otherwise? Calling an explicitly anti-torture person "pro-torture" is self-evidently false.

Instead of bitching about my vote for Bush, why not just be happy that you and I <agree about rendition/torture and go from there and see what happens?

Caroline, pardon me if I am rapidly losing my patience with this mindless BS such as your claim that Terri Schiavo is undergoing coerced starvation. Go to: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf

Read how it is that Judge George Greer came to determine that -- as thousands, if not millions, who have executed Living Wills have done in advance -- Terri Schiavo would have repudiated artificial feeding if she were capable of speaking for herself. Read how utterly lacking in credibility those who disagreed were. Read also that Terri's parents have displayed at least as much unsavory interest in money as has been imputed to Michael Schiavo. (They think he stiffed them out of money awarded to him in the med mal suit -- $$ they had no legal claim to -- and that was what caused the initial split and ensuing acrimony.) And recall that this holding was upheld on appeal.

People in this nation have a right to refuse medical treatment, including artificial feeding. In some jurisdicitons, oral statements of the PVS-victim may be offered to demonstrate her wishes, and Florida is such a jurisdiction.

If you disapprove of any aspect of Florida law, and you live there, lobby to change it. But it is grotesque to be mischaracterizing a court in our country as "coercing" starvation. People who execute advance directives stating they do not wish artificial feeding in the event they are diagnosed as PVS do not seek "coerced starvation." They seek control over their lives, and that is the same control that, per Florida law, Judge Greer extended to Terri Schiavo.

Do conservatives care about facts and federalism only when it suits their puposes? I've described myself as "libertarian-conservative," but maybe it is time to drop the "conservative."

Mona: "People who execute advance directives stating they do not wish artificial feeding in the event they are diagnosed as PVS do not seek "coerced starvation." They seek control over their lives,"

Terri Schiavo HAD NO advanced directive. The courts accepted hearsay evidence of her husband regarding her wishes and he had a large enough conflict of interest that he shold have been relieved of his guardian duties.

But - on PAPER he was her husband n'est pas? Fine. So we're basing life and death decisions on documents. Then SHOW ME her advanced directive. Show me the document! Otherwise it's a tie. And in a tie such as that - life has to take priority or next thing you know - any Tom, Dick and Harry who stands to inherit a massive life insurance policy will be able to claim that his wife once told him that she wouldn't want to live like that and her feeding tube will be disconnected if she is unfortunate enough to be severely disabled, unable to communicate and unable to swallow.

Michael:
Serious question, if I may. This is not in any way a "gotcha" question or a disingenuous query.

The Religious Right has, broadly speaking, been in power (or their surrogates, more accurately) for the past 5 years in terms of controlling both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. And they've been in power legislatively for over a decade.

During that time, what law or legislation has been enacted on their behalf that has diminished your personal liberty? What freedom did you have before the Republican/Gingrich Revolution that you don't have now?

Again, this is not a gotcha question. I'm curious as to what has been done to snatch away American liberties.

Note: I personally loathe Pat Robertson (fraud) and (to a lesser extent) Jerry Falwell. And I believe that given a free hand, the Christian Right would use the power of the state in our lives that would be both dangerous and tyrannical. I don't disagree that they're a threat; only that their power and reach to enact their dangerous platform is almost non-existent.

SMG

Also Mona - explain to me why Terri Schiavo cannot be given water orally by anyone who wants to do so - as a good samaritan as it were.

Beautifulatrocities: "Imagine if Roe were overturned & state voters approved limited abortion rights (as most Americans support). Do you think for one second the anti-abortion crowd would accept that?"

Yes. Not the very extremes but the "most Americans" that you acknowledge would support it. What is your point?

Mona, please answer these three questions:
If you were in a PVS state, would you want to be hooked to a machine indefinitely?
If you were in a PVS state in Florida, would you want to be hooked to a machine?
If you were in a PVS state, would you want to starve to death?

I’m pretty you answered no to all of these questions, just like the folks around me.

Unfortunately, according to Florida law (nice link to Matt at Abstract Appeal), answering “no” to question 2 implies an automatic “yes” to question 3. Similarly, answering “no” to 3 implies “yes” to 2.

If you didn’t know this, isn’t it possible that Terri didn’t know it? So that, had the witnesses ever been asked about Terri’s view on whether she would want to be starved to death, they might have answered in a legally contradictory way. If they had done so, wouldn’t that be a strong indication there is no “clear and convincing” evidence over what she knowingly wanted, among the consistently legal choices? (Knowing in the Browning sense.)

This is a problem with Florida Law, and living wills -- under what conditions do you want to exclude life prolongation?

The 38 p 2003 Guardian Ad Litem report isn't much better, focussing on the swallow test, only, for PVS determination. Why not MRI and PET? I don't know.

Michael will prolly vote Dem because by 2008 the Dems will be talking tough. Heck, they might even want to expand the US military so as to export MORE democracy, faster -- paid for by higher taxes (on the rich!). And on the Religious Right "taking over", it's not like they're the Spanish Inquisition...

Tom Grey: "If you were in a PVS state, would you want to starve to death?"

Tom - break down that further, i.e. Would you want water even if you were willing to forego food?

Also Mona - explain to me why Terri Schiavo cannot be given water orally by anyone who wants to do so - as a good samaritan as it were.

Because she would likely choke on it. If she could take wtaer orally, they would have been giving it to her that way all along.

Sorry, Mona, if I'm stepping on your toes here.

"Because she would likely choke on it"

So now we're actually concerned that Terri might suffer from the experience of choking??

Just my two cents:

"Elections are won in the center."

No, they aren't. If elections were won in the center, Lincoln Chaffee would be Senate Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi would be a House back bencher. And John McCain might well be president.

Elections represent a choice that will have concrete repercussions spanning years. You don't pick a go- along - get- along to represent your interests. Elections are akin to loading your toolbox for a critical job, or picking the doctor who will perform your heart transplant.

Real leaders are going to have a track record of identifiable agenda points and clearly defined stances (whether accurate or not) on specific issues. Mere politicians will do what they have to do to win elections; their comfort zone lies in the system - wholly within the system - to the extent that their participation is an occupation unto itself.

This is o.k., because historically there's never been a parliament or legislature that has been noted for the caliber of the whole. The honors of history fall on those members that authored or enabled to pass bills that changed the course of states in times of stress. The moderates suit for business as usual - but they are frankly just temporizing influences at best, pawns at worst, when it comes to actually arriving at solutions to complex problems. This, too, is how it has always been.

System. Work. Well enough.

We are a nation divided. We have always been a tidal wave of change funneling through a slot canyon of bureaucracy. We are not broken. Not even close to being swept to either a socialist hell or a fascist theocracy. The system that was crafted with the intent of preserving the most liberty for individuals as possible yet allows for effective national government survives, and has functioned well enough to enjoy the support of the majority of the people.

Legislation is not a subtle thing. It is nothing like a fine quill pen and should always be treated with the respect afforded a sharp blade. It has works best when its power is aimed at the greatest good.

It is singularly unfit to pivot its power on one individual, in one unique case, in a mortal issue, with the undeniable and implicit consequence of establishing a precedent of individual relief by legislative action.

What would be the next exception, if the machinations of the Federal or state legislatures had stood? An act passed to protect a well- connected loser in an imminent domain court case? A religious figure (Catholic priest to Voodoo cult leader here) who seeks a zoning change and has the money and followers to lobby effectively?

The judiciary exists to attempt to solve the problems of individuals in relation to existing law. The flexibility exists to provide closure to parties.

Yes, Virgina, I'm still dead against the abuses perpetrated by overreaching jurists - but I acknowledge that their role often presents the grayest of grays where power and the ability to employ it exists. It is a consequence of the complexity of the issues they must face in the course of their duties; there's a reason why 'judge' and 'wise' are supposed to fit well together in a sentence.

But they are just men, in the end, trying to solve problems. They are never going to be perfect.

The Schaivo case has triggered a cusp in which existing seriously conflicting philosophies concerning the proper role of government, as well as the disparate public sentiments on what constitutes moral or ethical behavior, have been placed at nose- length for all of us.

I don't know what the hell I would do if I was Mr. Schaivo. I do know that if I was a legislator, all things being equal I would have fought the bills brought forth by the federal and Florida houses with my dying breath. They were misplaced; regardless of intent, they were misplaced efforts and demonstrated a lack of respect for the tremendous consequence inherent in landmark legislation.

I can understand the motives at play. From deeply moral to politically crass, I can see a huge field where all sorts of agendas could well drive support or opposition. But speaking only for myself, I would have left the question to the courts.

Note that the system has worked, though. That's important. The effort failed in its attempt.

2006 is coming. I'm a registered Republican. I don't know who I'll vote for for any particular race yet. I hardly ever do until I've seen the candidates in action. When I do choose, it will be based on the ability of the candidate (newcomer or incumbent) to convince me that he/she is serious about their intent to serve and worthy of the trust that they will support & defend, etc, before padding any particular personal ambitions.

I usually have lousy choices, far short of anything resembling an Ideal Choice. We all do, and always have.

The Schaivo case will fade with time. More people will go out of their way to leave last instructions and living wills. Doctors and lawyers will crank up their marketing for the same. Come 2006 and beyond, the issues by which individuals will judge their choices will be security, economic, and social... and each one will weight the mix to their own taste and vote accordingly. Unless an asteroid takes us all out, we'll end up with a troublesome mix in the congress and a president that cheers some and offends others.

And the sun will rise the next day.

Mike, Mr. Utah has it right - but there's a couple points more you should consider:

Issues matter. Come on man, you start this off by describing how you voted because of key ISSUES. Give the rest of us the same credit.

Process politics might work on the margins, or in unserious times - but its the message, not the medium, and "the middle" is no message.

Trianglization only works if your opponent has no message either.

Caroline writes: Also Mona - explain to me why Terri Schiavo cannot be given water orally by anyone who wants to do so - as a good samaritan as it were.

I've repeatedly linked to the site containing every relevant legal document in this case. Please locate those readily identified motions in the litigation history and read the moving papers and decisions for yourself. (It all revolves around her inability to swallow and the consequences of attempting to administer food and water orally.)

As for your accusation that Greer allowed hearsay in the matter of Terri's wishes, well, assuming one could not characterize her statements as going to state of mind, they are nevertheless admissible hearsay as per Florida law. Some hearsay is admissible in every single jurisdiction in the country, and in Florida, this is one of the exceptions. If a guardian alleges knowledge of the victim's oral statements on the subject, and wishes to present them in the context of removing certain life-prolonging measures, in Florida a court must have a hearing on the matter; that is the law in that state. Read the controlling case law on the matter, law that well-preceeds the Schiavo case.

If the law leaves anyone feeling that an unjust result has been reached, then the solution is to change Florida law, not to demonize a probate judge who faithfully performed his job.

I would entreat those who have bought into so much of the mythology flying around, generated by both Old and New Media, to consider the wisdom of turning Terri Schiavo into a totem, and casting her parents as wronged parents whose child is being killed by a wicked husband and a lawless, murderous judge. This is Oprah-level, delusion and madness of crowds. The truth is less sexy, and there are no villains here.

Mona - I read the documents at that site several days ago and while no doubt they have been updated, I'm not going to take the time now to re-read the updates. So feel free to dismiss everything that follows. I have no problem with that.

"It all revolves around her inability to swallow "

Yes. It does. So take a moment to swallow and be thankful that your entire life doesn't come down to that one particular muscular function.

"assuming one could not characterize her statements as going to state of mind, they are nevertheless admissible hearsay as per Florida law."

Acknowledged. As per Florida law. The sanctity of process. That doesn't make it right. Justice is what concerns some of us - not how smoothly process works.

"If the law leaves anyone feeling that an unjust result has been reached, then the solution is to change Florida law, not to demonize a probate judge who faithfully performed his job."

Mona - I realize that you are a lawyer and the fact that Judge Greer's life has been threatened is in my opinion abominable. Maybe you are even very close to the case or maybe not. I don't know. But some lunatic threatening Greer's life is irrelevant. Have you paid any attention to what has happened in the past several years vis a vis lefty rage against Bush? Threats or even veiled threats to murder him? Massive numbers of people marching in the street and burning effigies? Editorials wistfully recalling John Wlikes Boothe in major publications? I'm afraid Judge Greer is small fry. Just my opinion.

BTW - I don't care if she can't swallow. Why can't she be given water, even if it means choking to death? Instead of making me go revisit that legal site - why don't you just explain it to me in plain english. Why can't anyone give Terri water?

Tom Grey asks: Mona, please answer these three questions:
If you were in a PVS state, would you want to be hooked to a machine indefinitely?
If you were in a PVS state in Florida, would you want to be hooked to a machine?
If you were in a PVS state, would you want to starve to death?

I’m pretty you answered no to all of these questions, just like the folks around me.

Actually, I have a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, and have drafted them also for many friends and family. Most of us have specified that in the event we become PVS, we do not wish artificial feeding once that state has been diagnosed as permanent, which is generally after 12 mos. So, I do not answer "no" to your last inquiry. This is because I have an understanding of what happens in a hospice setting to persons in PVS when artificial feeding and hydration are discontinued, and I do not fear the process because of that understanding.

The Nancy Cruzan case was getting big media in the late 80s and early 90s, and there, the Missouri parents wished to "starve" their PVS daughter to death by removing here artificial feeding tube; there was no advance directive, and Missouri does not (or did not at the time, anyway) allow oral testimony regarding a PVS victim's wishes. (Imagine those evil Cruzans, monstrous parents who wanted to starve their daughter to death-- they must be death cultists.) The S. Ct. ruled Missouri was permitted to take that position, but did not have to. As Scalia wrote in his concurrence, this matter should be left entirely to the several states because the U.S. Constitution is wholly silent on the subject. (One does wonder whether they are citing his opinion in the motions now before the Florida federal courts alleging that Terri's constitutional rights have been violated; one anticipates the conservatives are not quoting Scalia on that point.)

People were talking about artificial feeding and PVS before Terri's heart attack, specifically because of the Cruzan case. I did, and so did members of my family.

I have watched this past few weeks in something like horror as a fevered frenzy built up in which conservatives began trashing federalism and promoting this narrative of l'affaire Schaivo in which Terri is suffering as if in a concentration camp (which I guess Mom and Dad Cruzan had in mind for Nancy) as her grievously wronged and saintly parents watch, all because of Evil Adulterous Husband and Death Cultist, Lawless Judge.

We need a calmer, more rational discussion of this controversy in which both the facts specific to the Schaivo case, and the facts about Florida and federal law in general, matter. That is not what we have been getting.

I don't know if this is what Terri Schiavo is going through or not but I told my husband tonight in no uncertain terms (not yet having a living will and never really having discussed it before) - I do not want to die of thirst, even if you cut off my food. I.e. Give me water, no matter how bad it seems or how long it takes without food:

Thirst

I guess this guy agrees:

Give Terri liquids

Well, TmjUtah, I think you and Michael are both right.

It was my impression that when Michael was talking about elections being won in the center, he was referring to Presidential elections. I think he was alluding to the fact that neither party has enough loyal members willing to vote for their party's nominee no matter what, so it's the more moderate voters--whether party members or independents--who tend to be the deciding factor in the vast majority of Presidential elections. That means that the winner is the person who shores up the base but at the same time wins the largest percentage of these more moderate voters. So, in that sense, I think Michael is correct, at least about Presidential nominations.

But in another sense, I think you're correct (how's that for my taking a centrist position?). Presidential candidates first have to be nominated by their own parties, and party members (especially those who vote in the primaries) tend to prefer the more polarized and less centrist candidates. So there's a certain tacking action required by the candidates--first, out to the extremes for the nominations, and then scampering back to cover the middle for the election.

So, a centrist like McCain didn't win the Presidency because he couldn't win his party's nomination in the first place. Same for Lieberman. IMHO, either might have won the election, if nominated.

SteveMG: During that time, what law or legislation has been enacted on their behalf that has diminished your personal liberty? What freedom did you have before the Republican/Gingrich Revolution that you don't have now?

None. That's because they have been effectively opposed. I have been one miniscule part of that opposition.

I don't disagree that they're a threat; only that their power and reach to enact their dangerous platform is almost non-existent.

You're telling me that me and my comrades, so to speak, have done a fine job. And I have no intention of quitting any time soon.

“So, a centrist like McCain didn't win the Presidency because he couldn't win his party's nomination in the first place. Same for Lieberman. IMHO, either might have won the election, if nominated.”

I cannot agree with this comparison. John McCain is “pro-war” and has an outside chance of earning the Republic presidential nomination. Such advocacy for a strong American military is anathema to the hard-core left of the Democratic Party. They will not allow anyone like Joseph Lieberman to be their party’s representative.

And I have one more point that must be added: no Democratic presidential nominee can be pro-Israel. John Kerry waffled on this issue. The Massachusetts senator’s own stepson blasted America’s relationship with our close ally only days before the election. Kerry’s successor in 2008 will not even be that favorable towards the Israelis. Liberal activists like Eric Alterman will make sure of that:

“On his blog at MSNBC.com, Alterman sneered at critics of the boycott. "I'm a Jew, but I don't expect Arabs to pay tribute to my people's suffering while Jews, in the form of Israel and its supporters -- and in this I include myself -- are causing much of theirs," he wrote, suggesting that one might as well expect gays to honor "the suffering of gay bashing bigots." Alterman noted that "the Palestinians have also suffered because of the Holocaust. They lost their homeland as the world -- in the form of the United Nations -- reacted to European crimes by awarding half of Palestine to the Zionists. . . . To ask Arabs to participate in a ceremony that does not recognize their own suffering but implicitly endorses the view that caused their catastrophe is morally idiotic."”

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17104

The above post is mine. For some reason my name is missing. Sorry about that. I do not believe in anonymous posts.

David,

If you place a check in the "Remember personal info" box you won't have to enter it again, nor will you accidentally post anonymously.

I'd give my right hand for an end to the Terri Schiavo fan fiction being spread in the media and on the Internet.

The AP is reporting (excerpt):

A North Carolina man was charged by the FBI on Friday with offering a $250,000 bounty for the murder of Michael Schiavo, the husband of a brain-damaged Florida woman dying in a hospice after years of legal wrangling with her parents.
...Meywes is accused of sending an e-mail putting a $250,000 bounty "on the head of Michael Schiavo" and another $50,000 to eliminate a judge who denied a request to intervene in the Schiavo case, the FBI said in a prepared statement. The FBI did not identify the judge.
"It is my understanding that whoever eliminates Michael Schiavo from the plant while inflicting as much pain and suffering that he can bear stands to be paid this reward in cash," the e-mail said, according to a text of the message contained in an affidavit prepared by Tampa FBI agent A.J. Gilman.

Rest here:
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050325/APN/503251053&cachetime=5

Carloine,

Terri cannot be given water, because this is a country still ruled by law. Like it or not, the law is the only stable thing we have to go on. Emotion, belief, faith, these are things for personal application not National Policy.

The Judge, not her husband ordered that life support be removed. A feeding tube and hydration are "life support" they are an artifical means to support life and without it, life would not be supported. If there is a problem with the law, you work to change the law. The Dems are wrong when they try to push gay marriage through the courts, and this is no different.

Tosk

Hrmmm, crazy Lefties trash the RNC HQ.

Crazy Righties, try to shoot abortion doctors, judges and innocent Americans.

Has our national politics degenerated to a inter-city high school?

Welcome to Da United Ghetto of America.

And people think I'm crazy for thinking its all just chaos hiding under order.

3.24.2005
BUSH, SINGLE-ISSUE POLLING, AND THE MYTHICAL IMPENDING CONSERVATIVE CRACK-UP

Much hogwash has been written lately about the impending conservative crack-up. Glenn argued that the Schiavo case might lead to it; Powerline argues it would more likely be immigration.

I SAY HOGWASH.

The polls almost ALWAYS show Bush with about 43-53% approval on any SINGLE ISSUE - INCLUDING IRAQ.

But these polls are very VERY misleading because they almost always ask about the single issue in a very general way, like: "Do you approve of the way Bush has handled .....BLANK."

Because Bush is a MODERATE, he almost ALWAYS gets a fair amount of disapproval from his far-right flank (perhaps as much as 5-10% of the public), and because the Left-wing of the Democrat Party thinks Bush is a hitleriansmirkingchimp, he almost always gets a non-hearing from another 5-10% of the public. Together, these two groups INFLATE the anti-Bush number by at least 10%. That's why Bush won the election by 9 million votes and the MSM was shocked - because nearly all the polls before the election failed to depict the true overall sentiment of the public. Those critical of Bush from his right flank will NEVER vote Democrat, and they will NEVER cause a crack-up of the GOP.

SO BUSH'S NUMBERS IN THESE SINGLE-ISSUE POLLS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS MUCH LOWER THAN HIS NUMBERS TRULY ARE IN A CRUNCH, or in a head-to-head race with anyone else.

FOR EXAMPLE: Polls show that GENERAL disapproval on Iraq has run as high as 65% recently, but that disapproval total INCLUDES many people who think that Bush has been too weak (folks more "HAWKISH" than Bush), as well people who think Bush is too bellicose and unilateral, (and/or alos includes folks who think we have too few troops there, and folks who think they should all come home immediately).

Likewise, disapproval on how Bush is handling Social Security also is over 50%, but certainly includes folks like me who think that FDR's welfare plan for eldsters is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme and should be entirely trashed. DITTO IMMIGRATION: many think he is too soft on illegals and porous borders, others think he is too tough.

The more Right-sided critics of Bush inflate the anti-Bush numbers and make Bush seem less popular than he really is because a politican has to be judged in comparison (or against) another politician.

That's why/how so MANY pundits MISREAD the polls - and always ascribe greater weakness in Bush than is truly warranted by the polls. (THIS IS WHY THEY ALWAYS MISUNDERESTIMATE HIM!)

SO: many see Bush polling badly - on particular day and on a particular issue - and then presume that this issue will lead to a crack-up of the GOP conservative hold. They see a weak politician sitting astride a teeter-totter when in fact Bush is a an "artisan of the possible" with a truly deep and simple commitment to basic universal values. In the crunch, we all know which side of an issue Bush will come down on: the values side. The CONSERVATIVE values side. And he did this in 2004 and won BIGTIME - carrying larger majorities in both bodies of Congress! And that's why the conservative movement won't EVER break-up over any one of these single issues as long as Bush is president.

The next GOP presidential candidate will have to be equally adept at PLAYING POKER as Bush has been, if he OR SHE is going to be a winner, and if conservatism is going to maintain its lead. In other words: it has more to do with how effectively the leader of the GOP handles the breadth of debate within the GOP, than any debate over any single issue.

WHY AM I SO SURE!? Two reasons: (1) Because the Left is bereft of ANY new meaningful proactive polices; the Left is reactionary. Given the choice between the NEW GOP and the Dems, most middle-of-the-roaders will choose the GOP. And (2), because the Democrat Party is moving evermore LEFTWARD (even as some of its SHREWDER pol's try to head to the middle - like Hillary and Richardson and Biden).

As a result, the standard bearers of the DNC in 2008 will have a MUCH GREATER PROBLEM winning the nomination and holding their party together (as they parade around Red America for votes), than the GOP will in their continued invasion of Blue America; (REMEMBER: Bush was closer in more Blue states, than Kerry was in Red states; Bush did better in Massachusetts than Gore!).

BOTTOM-LINE: The GOP is the BIG TENT PARTY now; therefore there's going to be more intra-party debate in the GOP than in the Democrat Party. DO NOT CONFUSE THAT FOR FAULT-LINES! It is vitality, not morbidity!

And let's face it: listening to Rice and Schwarzeneggar and Pawlenty and Santorum debate each other is ALWAYS GOING TO BE A LOT more interesting than listening to Sharpton and Kucinich and Kerry debate Hillary!

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2005/03/bush-single-issue-polling-and-mythical.html

Tosk: "A feeding tube and hydration are "life support" they are an artifical means to support life and without it, life would not be supported."

Terry Schiavo is able to swallow her own saliva. That means she can swallow water.

Terry Schiavo can swallow

"many see Bush polling badly - on particular day and on a particular issue - and then presume that this issue will lead to a crack-up of the GOP conservative hold."

Agree. I've read 3-4 articles about the "big mistake" that GOP made in trying to obtain a review of the Terri Schiavo case, because polls indicate that most people think it was the wrong thing to do. I think it was the wrong thing to do too, and would have said as much if someone had polled me. But it will have absolutely zero effect on how I vote.

oops, meant to write 'the "big mistake" that the GOP led Congress made'

Michael -

I'm a social conservative, as you know from my
previous postings to your site. I wholly approve of the thirteen state constitutional marriage amendments that were passed on November 2, 2004 during the national election. On life issues, I'm solidly pro-life, meaning I oppose both abortion and capital punishment. As for Terri Schiavo, she should be fed until she dies of natural causes.

On defense, I respect a Democrat like former Senator Sam Nunn, but wonder whether his kind is extinct? (Lieberman is close, but can't get any traction in his own party. He's Kos's favorite whipping boy). Meanwhile, Repubs have the only game in-town on defense/foreign policy.

All this being said, as a registered Republican, I split my ballot last time, voting Republican at the national level, and Democratic at the state level. My reasoning was that Roe v. Wade will ultimately be overturned by the Supreme Court, and Repubs need to control the Judiciary Committee and as many votes as possible in the Senate for that to happen. If I voted for Democrats at the State level, ironically, it's because I have a lingering respect for the kind of fiscal know-how that Congress showed under former President Clinton, where - for all his moral failings - large surpluses were created.

For their part, Congressional Republicans have made a mess of the budget, and we're running huge deficits that ultimately will sink our ship and the world economy's. (A streak of Ross Perot in me?) How is this not a moral issue, passing on huge deficits to our grandkids? It turns my stomach to think of that kind of slavery, inherited from generation to generation. (I've been debt-free for twelve years - talk about freedom!)

So, I guess all I can hope is that Bush gets a conservative on the the Supremes, then Roe v. Wade is repealed s