Another blatent abuse of supoena power (Schiavo case)

  I have an expression, "tyranny of the plurality"
that is becoming applicable again.  I noticed it probably in
the beginning with the whole Cuban embargo problem.  A single,
albeit large, minority can have a disproportionate effect on
politics if their issue in effect has no "opposing"
side.  In the case of Cuba, the immigrants placed this issue
well above other political considerations, yet anyone who
might be inclined to think otherwise, probably would not have
it placed anywhere near the top of their priorities.  So the
minority "rules".

   It can be said of almost any "single issue"
voters.  But in the case of the Schiavo issue, it is easy for
all of these politicians to pander to this particular set of
right wing nuts, because how many of us really have this issue
high on our political agendas.  It's a bit like the stem cell
research.  People might have cared one way or another, but it
was not high on their list of priorities.  So the pandering is
not only rampant, but excessive.  And even if I try to elevate
the issue in some sense, what is the "pitch"?

   This case brings up good valid points.  If this poor woman
has any legacy, it's that a bunch of us may run out and write
this stuff down.  It will do our loved ones as much good as
ourselves, as it may lift the burden of decisions they'll have
to make by knowing explicitly.  However, there in lies the
rub.  How do you fight what is happening to her, and build
some opposing consensus, without coming off looking like yer
out to kill people?  What is the "Pro" position? 
What does your rally look like?  What does your flier say?