*slipping on flame suit* Defending Senate Dems re: Schiavo

I am fully prepared to get roasted like a Thanksgiving turkey here, so feel free to blaze away. But I feel like these maybe some points worth considering.

Imagine a diferent day yesterday. All the Senate Dems game up to fight the Schiavo bill. Suddenly, the GOPers have the perfect little talking points about this 'culture of life' crap, and can beat the Senate Dems over the head with this woman. The media goes along for the ride, as it always does, and suddenly the Senate Dems are on the defensive...just in time for the filibuster fight.

Remember: The objective of the GOP is never ever ever ever what they are making a big deal about, but is instead the thing behind and to the side of the thing they are making a big deal about. These GOP guys couldn't give a tinker's damn about Terry Schiavo, but want to make a hue and cry and maybe put the Dems off-balance for the filibuster argument, the final implications of which loom 1000x larger than on this issue before us today.

So yesterday, the Denate Dems go along unanimously on the Schiavo thing. The GOP guys have nothing to dun them with, and wind up actually with a Phyrric victory: A lot of people have had VERY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES with this, and a lot of people are appalled that the GOP guys did this. The polls are running 80% against them, and the Senate Dems didn't take the bait, so they are stuck with it.

One more time for annoying emphasis: The objective of the GOP is never ever ever ever what they are making a big deal about, but is instead the thing behind and to the side of the thing they are making a big deal about. These GOP guys couldn't give a tinker's damn about Terry Schiavo, but want to make a hue and cry and maybe put the Dems off-balance for the filibuster argument, the final implications of which loom 1000x larger than on this issue before us today.

Flame away.

I, however, will hold forth on anything. Football, feeding tubes, bees, etc.

It still shows the GOP is more obsessed with political exploitation than real issues and it shortens the amount of time Republicans can use Schiavo as a distraction tactic.

after the election i was quite concerned with how dems would handle the opposition party thing, but i have been pleasantly surprised with where and when they are standing up and where and when they let the rope out a little.

I completely agree.

The only way to win the game is to play it. Too bad more people don't understand that.

Which was someone to pin the tag EVIL on. The Dems didn't play the game. If we can agree that this was a silly interlude, then the Dems didn't contribute to making it even sillier than it is by making a phony fight out of it. Which is exactly what the Repubs were hoping for.

Too bad they couldn't have accomplished the same thing by standing back and saying, "You Repubs go ahead on this one. We'll wait for a real bill to vote on."

the judge finds the law unconstitutional. I was impressed that the Dems used that as the main debate point. The only thing would be how do you look professional when you are saying "told ya so, told ya so!"

It would be nice to hear Harry Reid say that to Frist. "In your face, cat boy!"

I love that line!

But they're much more mature then that. They'd do it where it hurts the most. ;)

from the counter himself. What does this make it 5,000? :P

saying "this is a personal decision, not a political one".

Then the GOP could have had their way and exposed themelves, without the dems tainting themselves.

from 2 directions now - It's a good thing you have thick skin!

I agree with you completely. Fighting would have given DeLay and Co. way too much ammunition.

Just kidding. Had to give you a hard time.

out into the public square and beaten.

Now WHO WAS THAT?

complaining about all the Schiavo threads yesterday?

:)

and since every other thread on any other subject is dropping like a brick, I might as well play along. When in Rome... :)

You should write a book about Schiavo and beat the rush. :)

unlike our president.

I also really agree with your point about Schiavo not really being the issue.

whining about all of the Schiavo posts and then making several of your own!

Just kidding....

This issue needs to go away as quickly as possible so that we can get back to dealing with issues that directly affect more than a dozen or two of the 300 million people who live in this country.

convenient thing!

if there's one thing i've learned reading DU the last 4 years, it's that that right thing should be done only when it's covenient for democrats. :eyes:

folks, methinks we have a WINNER!

Do you not see any merit in the idea that all the powder has to be kept dry for the filibuster thing, because the ramifications of that drawf this?

IMHO obviously.

look. i KNOW Delay et al couldn't give a rat's ass about Terri hell, EVERYONE knows that.

doesn't matter. see my thread earlier about Jay Severin (you know him from 96.9 fm talk) where he was 100% right (can't believe i just wrote that)

"If you (are a republican) think Congress stepping in on the Shiavo case is a good thing, you are a Traitor to the Constitution"

he is right (*shudder* again)

IMHO, the Dems voting for this are rolling over once again. IMHO it hurts them JUST AS MUCH as if they had voted against it.

its a lose/lose issue and frankly, scarier than shit.

sorry. not with you on this one.

when political expediency takes priority over integrity.

The dems removed one weapon from the pukes hands by not standing before what was going to be a steamroller anyway.

(And you have paid your penance to the Schiavo gods!) :)

amazed the Senate Dems all came as one voice on this.

Harkin gave some excuse today why he voted for this.."patient rights"..but other than that it seems like you say..a "Phyrric victory" for the shell gamers.

Sorry, I believe defending the constitution is a big battle! So what if they have to fight alot and keep fighting at every turn.

They swore an oath to protect the constitution. They didn't this weekend! That means they violated their oaths! (They meaning everyone that voted for the Terri Law, didn't bother to vote and compromised!)

They are there to defend the constitution...and if they got bogged down in this fight, there would be a large chance that they'd lose the filibuster fight. Imagine where we will be if we lose that filibuster fight, and a bunch of judges who think like Tom DeLay wind up on the bench? We won't even have the option to debate this culture of life crap; it will be the law of the land.

But I don't understand why they can't put up a united front all the time -and do what's right- instead of "saving up" their ammo for the important fights? It's not like they get any cooperation from the Repubs, EVER, so what's the point of chosing their battles? If anything, I think it weakens them.

Yes, I know it is a frustrating thing to hear that the Dems have to take media coverage into account before they charge into battle, but as we have seen time and again and again over the last few years, failure to take that entity into account has always led to disaster.

If the Dems had gotten in the way of this vote, the talking points would have been spread far and wide that we are 'trying to kill Tery Schiavo.' Hell, Rush today is saying exactly that, even though the vote was unanimous.

There is a good chance we would have had to fight the media and crazy repoubs on this, thus debilitating us for the filibuster fight.

I agree that this was an important battle. The other one is way way way way way more important, and about the exact same thing. This is about the idea of this 'culture of life' thing. The filibuster fight is about a broad establishment of this 'culture of life' crap within the judicial branch. It's like the difference between getting hit with a dart and hit with a bullet; both hurt like hell, but one will drop you on the spot.

this was so important- I could see through this from the get-go and have resisted posting in any of the NUMEROUS Shiavo threads- I just wish the Dems would be more unified and brave. Then they would be more protected from the media. Instead of individuals being trashed it would be the entire party,and the scum-sucking, putrid media, instead of picking out certain people, and making them look silly and "radical", would have to say all the Dems voted this way or that-maybe some Sheeple might start to notice that the Democratic party stands for what's right. Ah..probably not-never mind!

The violated the separation of powers provisions of the Constitution.

They get no pass from me! They can battle all the battles, not take a pass on one. Especially to use the excuse that they have another one to fight in the future. To think that maybe a compromise was worked out, well sure, I trust the repuke liars as far as I could throw them!

...which is what DeLay and those other republican assholes pissed all over this past weekend.

Thank you for the words of wisdom!

.

me and yazsir in the flame shelter.

Mmmmmmmm.... asbestos.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3312532&mesg_id=3312619


<<Shiavo case tactic to prove need for up or down vote and outlaw the fillibuster because the chances are that the federal court is going to rule exactly the same as the rest, in which case the radical right will scream bloody murder by Easter Sunday calling the court judges activists and urging the need to replace judges with Bush's nominees who promote a culture of life (which translate to courts supervising the goings on in the bedrooms of couples all across amerika).

Watch.>>

that broadcast their intent to play political football with this poor lady?

I think their subcontextual intent is about abortion, really

If the republicans win this and they hook ME up to life support, you should plan on being haunted just as soon as I can escape the life support and croak.

and get a bunch of judges in who will have this power all over the country, we will all be haunted.

Tom DeLay isn't coming for you. This is a smokescreen for the judges they want to appoint, who *will* be coming for you if the filibuster is killed off.

But we should also keep in mind the non-appearance of the democratic opposition that the John Q. Public, who may have actually been looking to the democrats for help on this issue, may have re-inforced the wishy-washy democratic image that is the republican stock accusation. I know it may have been a d_____ed of you do, d_____ed if you don't situation, but their non-action could still come back to haunt the democrats.

I'd fight in the front lines against these bastards.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/466053

... as any Federal court should, on grounds, the `pugs will wail about "activist judges" interfering with the "bipartisan" intent of Congress.

If a court does not strike it, then the Dems have aided and abetted a successful attempt to undermine the decisionmaking power of the courts.

If, indeed, 80% of the people in the country disagree with the law, they will also disagree with the Dems who supported it, which is not exactly good advertising.

This law has much implicit in it, and ties in with other legislation pending which seeks to diminish the powers of a third independent branch of government. That's the larger issue here.

Once again, I believe, Dems made a serious ethical and legal mistake in what was structured by the `pugs to be a highly political move. To my mind, continuing to play the Repugs game is to let them dominate the court (Pun intended.)

oh, and I agree with you...but I'll still have to shoot you.

I agree. This was foisted on Congress by the hypocrites who need to distract and deflect the public from important issues. This wasn't Democratic legislation.....let the Republicans explain why they need to case manage the bio-ethics of 350MM Americans., Let them explain why they are no longer defending the sanctity of the marriage or States Rights. Democrats don't need to set themselves up for a Republican media trap.

So when is Delay/Hastert going to bring the "Apple Pie Amendment" to the floor? I'll bet the Dems will roll on this, too.

have no idea there is a constitutional problem with the vote, but they do know about the feeding tube part of it. This will bite the Repugs bad on both counts and leave the Dems on safe ground.

People will see that the Repugs want to take away their right to do the proper thing in their own personal decisions in similar cases. The majority of citizens are already worried about being in Terri Schiavo's situation. It only takes a car accident, a stroke, a fall and bingo anyone of us or someone we love could be like Terri.

I agree with you Will.

I already see the public raising an eyebrow. Everyone at work (mostly nonpolitical people) are talking about it, upset that the federal government would intervene in our personal lives. Sadly, they don't see it as the REPUGS' doing.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/466053

Rather than using the unreal world of message boards to take a token symbolic stand?

Unbelievable.

the Repubs were passing around. They wanted the Dems to look bad by fighting this issue. Instead, even with the "great victory," most Americans in polls say they oppose the GOP tactics and many suspect hypocrisy. If the truth about the blivet**'s past vote on the OPPOSITE side of the fence comes out as it should, the image of hypocrisy can finally begin to become visible despite the Poodle Press.

The filibuster argument is indeed 1000x bigger than the TS case. I am also convinced that another thing behind the TS case is a longer term plan to set up a legal confrontation to eventually challenge abortion rights. It's in the language they use in the Schiavo case - "right to life," "defend innocent life," and so on.

No, they don't care at all about poor, dead Terry Schiavo and her suffering family. She's just a convenient stepping stone on their route to things they want.

and the Republicans proceeded to shoot themselves in teh foot with it.

YES, this issue was a sticky one and one that could have been hung on Dems so rather than fight and lose, they stepped aside and let the constitution get trampled by the Taliban. It may just turn out..it may finally scare Americans enough to make changes in 06..IF and I mean IF they use it strategically.

Coming on the heels, however, of the bankruptcy bill vote in which we were undermined by our own side and the ANWR vote in which we were undermined by our own side...it makes it all smell like so much shit.

What you are suggesting, Mr. Pitt, is that the Senate Democrats are more afraid of the Republicans than even the American People who by a 25-point margin OPPOSE the legislative intrusion made this weekend into a private matter. And futher, you are excusing their behavior.

If ever the Democrats have had a winning issue on the issue of ethics (better word than morality), this was it. And yet, they are scared shitless of little Tom Delay.

Pathetic.

-------

ABC News Poll:

March 21, 2005 -- Americans broadly and strongly disapprove of federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, with sizable majorities saying Congress is overstepping its bounds for political gain.

The public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case. Congress passed such legislation and President Bush signed it early today.

That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more — 70 percent — call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=599622&page=1

It's good not to give the Pubs amunition, and because they are in the minority, the darn bill probably would have passed anyway. I think it's going to be struck down as unconstitutional, and the arrogant, and noisy Pubs are going to have to just go away mad.

I actually think there was a way for them to phrase this bill that it could have been comstitutional, but they were so hyped about getting something done, they didn't take the time to think it through.

I'm glad the Dems didn't pick this as a battle. It will go down in flames on it'ss own!

,...this time. Their actions were reprehensible: imposing their power in personal matters while simultaneously dissing the Constitution and common law and courts and Doctors and guardians and,....Terri Shiavo, that poor woman being used as political bait.

:puke:

Think you missed that aspect.

the Republicans instead of the Democrats for a change, like the that appalling "memo" that was leaked and Dubya's previous fine record on sanctity of life issues. This could backfire big time. I only hope the federal judge hearing the case is a Republican. If not, they'll hit us over the head with that when he finds the whole thing unconstitutional.

They let the House do the 'dirty' work...and those that spoke out were eloquent.

How many times in the next weeks are we gonna hear "Clinton Appointee"

And, I think that would be the politically expedient move. However, this judge seems to want to "follow the law" (imagine that), so I'm guessing the judge will rule the the family has no chance of prevailing and will refuse the injunction.

And I'm betting that will be used as an argument when Frist takes away filibuster on judicial nominees.

...which is perhaps why the Dems didn't take the bait, as well. This was an empty gesture by a bunch of grandstanders.

for what they are. Personally, I felt better with a Republican judge making the last ruling than for a federal, Democratic judge.

;)

Kinda like the Iraq war vote? They all go along with the Repukes? :eyes:

Or the dogs with bees in their mouths, and when they bark they shot bees at you?" :D

to really let the repugs hold this one alone. totally create on their own. i agree it would not have behoved the dems to an all out court press on this, they would have lost. as we saw over the weekend those that labeled dem party as party of death. news and repugs were set to do just that

further on hte fillibuster battle. here we go. i know htis to be the next battle because i received my email from american family assoc. just dawned on me how as the next battle comes along i get an email from this association defing what the battle is. so when i received this, i knew this is what has been sent out to repug operatives to send to the sheep, so they have their talking points well rehearsed. i sit in awe of this fungus that reaches out in all directions

here is the email
Dear julie,

There is a fight going on in the U.S. Senate. While on the surface it is about who will control the confirmation of federal judges, it is in reality about far more than that. In fact, it is about the future of America.

In a few weeks the Senate will vote on changing the filibuster rule. It will be the most important vote taken during this session of Congress.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and 31 other liberal Democrats have thrown down the gauntlet: Do it our way or we will shut down the entire Senate except for national defense matters and "essential operations."

The media has put out so much misinformation concerning this situation that we did an interview with Sen. John Cornyn of Texas to clear up the confusion. Sen. Cornyn is recognized as the leading authority in explaining the battle over which rule will be used to confirm judges, the traditional 51 vote total required by the constitution or the 60 vote total desired by liberal Democrat Senators.

This 25-minute CD explains in a simple and clearly understandable manner what this battle is all about and what will happen when one rule or the other is finally decided by the Senate. This CD will help you understand what’s happening when the battle begins and what the outcome will mean.

I urge you to listen to this CD, then share it with others.

The CD is $10 including shipping and is available for immediate shipping.

Click here to order your CD today!
Sincerely,
Don

and setting legislative precedents: 1)to over turn courts (read that as abortion law) and legislate "must-have-life-at-all-costs" issues - (except,apparently, for the war dead, the death-row executions, and in buskevik Texas law cases) and, 2) to make useless the constitutional provision of a bill of attainder; and this from the "rule of law" folks!

If it wasn't so tragic, we'd be singing another verse of "Sweet Irony"

??? ;)



I agree, the Dems could have fell into a trap of being beat over the head of the Party that wants to kill Terri. This way, they own it. Then have trampled on their oaths, by not protecting the constitution, to pander votes.

since the latest poll is that 70% don't think congress should have gotten involved.

Every fucking time someone does one of those fucking Kerry half assed, 'think what the public might want' things, it fucking backfires. Every time.

Voters want someone who will stand up and say what they mean.

This whole thing was a ridiculous chirade and now we have a bill for one person. One person. It was obvious to everyone that the GOP was going to create a circus so why did the Democrats show up on a Sunday when they didn't have to? Why validate this insanity?

:thumbsup:

because I knew there was more to it than this Schiavo issue and went far deeper than Terri Schiavo.

As a result, I have learned much, re PVS, re the law and re the opinions of others and the working out of the specifics of this important issue.

I did not ignore one of them because I knew it is an important issue and sets an important precident that cannot be ignored.

It is being discusssed all over the internet and rightfully so.

It is now "hot"

I am sorry that some not only chose to not read the thread because I think they deprived themself of much information and much education, but am also sorry that those who were active in those discussions, were denigrated, sneered at and

now that it seems to have become a hot issue, people that indulged in threats and sneering and derision, are jumping back on

because it is now a hot political issue to be used to one's advantage.

your logic. Or do they?

You cite the 80% or so who are opposed to what the republicans did. I saw some polls that showed that over 60% think the vote was about political expediency. I just don't get what Pyhrric victory you're talking about. It seems to me that if Democrats were trying to cover their butts then they should have voted against the legislation which it turns out most Americans opposed. I fail to see how republicans can now turn public opinion around in their favor on this to make it a political issue, no matter how much they repeat the same false drivel about preserving life. Conversely, I fail to see how it helps Democrats who caved, as their core constituency will view their actions as craven and weak.

We have a stronger argument that the republican's claims of concern for this one woman's life are at odds with their budget priorities like funding nursing home care, Medicaid and Medicare, soldiers and veterans with head injuries, health care in general.

In every issue that comes before these members we put in Congress to represent us, they have a duty to vote their conscience, but just as importantly, vote in a way that preserves our party's notions of fairness, rightness, and equity. The problem with the bulk of this pack of Democrats, especially those in the Senate, is that when the voting begins they either have their finger in the wind or up their asses. Out go the promises to uphold Democratic principles and in comes this kiss-ass cowardice that intends to preserve their political viability. And they'll later wonder why they can't get their own party's voters to come out and support them.

If Democrats want balance for any future arguments like the upcoming filibuster battle then they better stop wobbling between kiss-ass conservatism and lily-livered, ham-handed lip service to their own constituency.

It has had me worried as to what was really going on this weekend.

They cannot now say, "ALL those Democrats..."

--IMM

approach.
They don't have a majority. The Congress is deeply divided on nearly every issue. It's the ONLY thing the Dems could do - and it worked.

and beat us back several times on core issues like the minimum wage with their filibusters. Our party just doesn't seem to be able to pul together and form a solid wall of opposition. I fail to see where such resistance would hurt us. As it is, we are gaining the respect of neither group of voters in our wavering, split capitulations.

Not by casting the same vile vote.

how it is that we're so faint that we can't address Schiavo *and* the filibuster at the same time. Until we can, they're going to keep doing this to us.

they will...

It's great to be idealistic and try to win all the battles, but some things you have to write off and consider how it will affect winning the war.

So much wasted energy on some things.

we don't have much left to write off. There is no energy coming from our party. It's being diluted by the actions of a scared collection of kiss-ass compromises. I don't believe that it's strategy. I only see fear and weakness.

I understand picking battle.

But fighting FOR the other side in a battle is something else.

we fell into their framing trap instead of using this an as entree into the fight against the judicial appointees. we lost a good opportunity to get through to the electorate using an issue that they -- whether any of you like it or not--are already reading about.
people should already be talking about the legislation being crammed down our throats--
perhaps the fillibuster issue would mean more then. they should be talking about lawmakers and judges who like to selectively ignore the constitution.

This is a win-win situation for the republicans. On the one hand, they've given their core supporters a bone. On the other hand, anyone who disagrees with them isn't going to trip over themselves and run to the Dems because many dems were on the same side as the republicans.

It's like the IWR, any time we criticized Bush and the repubs all they had to do was smirk and point out all the Dems that voted along with them.

We won't be able to use this later because so many of our own people were on board with the repubs. If we try, we'll be labeled flip-floppers and reminded how "well, at least we know where the Republicans stand on the issues."

Personally, I can't remember the last time the Dems, as a political opposition party, did anything that was worth defending. And with their pathetic, whimpy track record I'm not about to give them the benefit of the doubt here and hope with all my might that it has something to do with picking their fights. The Dems don't fight. They don't seem to have any desire to fight, with the exception of Boxer, Dean, and a handful of others.

...the fighters by your sighting, went along with this. What does that tell you?

Boxer and Dean have stood alone and stuck themselves out like sore thumbs to represent those of us who have been begging, longing for representation. They are fighters. Their individual track records are far better than the track record of the party as a whole.

My disagreement with your OP was that the democratic party deserves to be defended here because as a whole they have done nothing so far to give me hope that they were acting in any strategic manner or trying to pick their fight.

Harken has a statement up about last week's legislation and I called his office with my opinion.

I haven't seen a single name linked with the voice vote yesterday, or even who all was present from either side.

No one chose the option of calling for a quorum which makes me wonder how many of EITHER party were present. Couldn't it just have been a couple of repubs? How many have to be present for Senate business to be done if a quorum call isn't made? Do both parties have to be represented? What kind of notice is given for that kind of emergency session?

Frist, Harkin, and Santorum. At least that's what I've seen elsewhere on DU. Randi said today on her show that it was only 3. I've searching and searching for a roll call vote (apparently it was a voice vote with no quorum called). Can't find any Corporate Media reports.

On Edit to clarify subject

again.....

when they're concocting total bullshit-- Terri talks! -- and we have the overwhelming support of the the public on this according to all polls...how are people going to get it when it's about judges? the issue of appointing judges doesn't resonate quite as strongly with the general public. to be honest, people expect the lies about war, they expect the lies when you're going to appoint a judge, they're so used to that. but to go in and villify a marraige and totally misrepresent the facts of a very vulnerable woman and her familiy's dilemma for political gain, people might just find that really stomache turning. This could have played out very differently if they decided to have some balls.
we have just allowed the operation rescue people to get congress to rewrite the law to suit them. ask any woman you know how she feels about the dems rolling over for that.
it's embarrassing that they let this happen because of a senate seate, or the (anticipated) media backlash.. or if you insist, they're saving up their marbles for the big fight.
this could have been a great opportunity to start framing the issues we'll be fighting with the conservative judges... to get the ideas out there already and have them considered with empathy, instead of abstraction.
whatever the reason, it's just one more instance where they'll point to the dems not standing up for something. a lot of progressives feel shafted right now, and the other side will bite us on the ass for this to boot. and exactly what did we accomplish? a much needed rest.

Bottom line is this issue was not for congress to debate or decide. Dems didn't need to defend or object, the issue was for the courts.

It's constitutionality is highly dubious at the very best. Only time and the courts will tell. I think they had that in mind as well.

respond to this issue, as I have been trying to just ride it out, but last night was the last straw. Bush signing this thing in his pajamas. Guess he wasn't expecting to actually have to do that considering the Democrats went along for the ride. Probably threw Bush totally off his mark and what could he say, "no, I can't sign this now, I'm sleeping"...lol...it's amazing how political this thing is. Tom DeLay is the worst of the worse. I wish they could nail his slimey ass to the wall with all the crap he pulls...one day maybe...:eyes:

Congress has no place passing such a "law". Hence, all Democrats should have abstained, or voted "present" (isn't that the standard way to do it)? Would that even have been feasible? What would be the political implications?

I have a slightly different tack on this one. I think that the Dems did what the Dems almost always do these days and that is not much. It's just that this time, "not much" was exactly right for the situation. So basically, I think this is the same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was........(a nod to the Talking Heads)

It's that the situation was different. The situation called for the Democrats to be meek and quiet and they did it well. Goodness knows, they have plenty of experience.

I mean, really, I'm sure you've noticed how we have to damn near scream at the Dems to get them to do anything these days. We didn't scream this time (and rightly so) and so they did nothing.