Obama's Clever Politics Attacks Schindler Family's Audacity of Hope.
In the last debate between Senators Obama and Clinton, the candidates were asked what their greatest mistake had been. Clinton went to her Iraq vote but Obama said it was his agreeing to the federal law that tried to save Terri Schiavo's life. He stated:I think professionally, the biggest mistake that I made was when I first arrived in the Senate. There was debate about Terri Schiavo and a lot of us, including me, left the Senate with a bill that allowed Congress to intrude where it shouldn't. And I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought more for making sure that families make those kinds of decisions and not bureaucrats and politicians.
It was only after Terri dehydrated to death, and one poll showed that the American people disagreed with the federal action, that the entire political paradigm changed. Suddenly for the Democrats and media, the whole thing had been an incursion by the Religious Right and intrusive Republicans wanting to put the government at the death bed, and Howard Dean promised to make it a big campaign issue. That stimulated this response from SHS:
I don't recall Howard Dean opposing the bill at the time. But if Dean and Democrats try to revise history and claim that the law was exclusively a Republican venture, then they will be branding themselves cynics and demagogues,who, when the heat was on, meekly went along. But later, when some polls showed that the move was unpopular, they claim federal intervention was an attempt to impose theocracy. Talk about political cowardice and cynicism!
But Terri's death--and the way she died-- isn't about mere politics for her family and Obama's answer was a knife in the heart. In response, they released a press release (full disclosure, at their request, I reviewed it for them) which stated in part:
"Is it so incredulous that a family had the 'audacity of hope' to believe its government would care about one profoundly disabled woman?" [Robert] Schindler [Terri's father] asked. "It is a shame that Senator Obama, who claims to embody 'hope,' is crushing it for the families of people with profound disabilities."
Labels: Terri Schiavo Case



6 Comments:
Obama has already offended baby boomers with his remarks and the gay/lesbian community with the McClurkin fiasco.
It's not surprising he wants to offend the disability community.
What is he talking about when he talks about "unity"?
I say this as an ardent Democrat who opposes his candidacy.
Here's something that bugs me:
I don't consider myself a feminist (blame bad experiences with feminist criticism in lit class at the university), but I disagree with the notion of women being forced to wear "non-revealing" clothing - not just forced by family or religion, but by a society that says if a girl dresses a certain way and then is harassed, raped, or otherwise attacked, she was "asking for it." I think that's bull and I think women should dress how they want to dress.
But if a woman is Muslim and chooses to wear covering clothing, she's doing that because it's what she believes. It's what she knows is right and whether I agree with her or not, she's standing behind her values and belifs and for her to do otherwise would make her a hypocrite. So while I dislike burkas and think they're being used to abuse the system, I would never expect a Muslim woman to shed hers. It's her belief and I would be crazy to think that she wouldn't do what she thinks is right.
You with me so far?
So here we are, in America, voting for people who are probably religious. An atheist makes it to the Senate? Kudos! But he's gonna be in minority. We vote for people knowing, *Knowing!*, that they have religious convictions.
And a lot of elected officials feel that they're required to think with their morals when they make a policy. They want to do what they feel is right. And everybody acts surprised and horrified if someone votes to pass a measure to save someone like Terri's life because, gasp!, they're trying to push their religion on us!
No, they're not. They're trying to do what they think is right for the majority of the people that they have a responsibility for. Every elected official has a responsibility for every citizen in the US. If an official is religious, he's going to bring his morals to the table as well.
Obama is saying, "I wish I hadn't done that!" because he's selling and buying morality he thinks will get him elected. He's playing off the citizens' disquiet at having other people's religious leanings "pushed" on us.
No.
A Muslim woman may be wrong for not rolling up her sleeves and washing her forearms to prevent the spread of infection in hospitals in the UK, but that doesn't surprise me because she is doing what she thinks is right. If, after having the situation explained to her and trying to come to an understanding, she refuses, she must be removed from the situation to prevent the spread of a problem.
If you disagree with someone's actions because, "He's pushing his religion on me!" then you remove him from the problem by voting for someone else.
It peeves me off that people act so shocked and angry when someone does what he thinks he's supposed to do, and when other people play off that shock and sell themselves for the largest number of votes.
Bah.
Believe it not, Terri Schiavo received less due process than the status of a kitchen appliance in probate court.
Terri recieved process, but she didn't recieve "Due Process" (Fundamental Fairness).
one lawyer who studied the case said that the Federal Judge who got the case ruled...
That Terri Schiavo WAS NOT entitled to be free from cruel and unusual punishment or treatment because she was not a convicted criminal.
That was utterly mindblogging.
The courts were unable or unwilling to give Terri "Due Process" that would have treated her AS WELL as we would have treated a person guilty of mass murder.
For this reason, the Schiavo case was truly a travesty of justice.
Congresss did a very honarable thing by giving Terri the Due Process Right that all death row inmates get - The right to take her case to Federal Court.
I think one can see the fundamental unfairness at work here:
People Guilty of mass murder - More Legal Protection.
Innocent disabled people - Less Legal Protection.
All Congress did was grant Terri Schiavo the right to due process because of the errors of Judge Greer, but Felos and his compliant media backers twisted it to mean something else entirely.
"And I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought more for making sure that families make those kinds of decisions and not bureaucrats and politicians."
And what if, as in Terri's case, the family cannot reach consensus? Did he utterly miss that? Is he stupid?
Even if one takes out all the political pandering, it was still the right thing to do.
Many people don't realize how long the case went on for.
The trial was conducted in 2000.
And for over 5 years NONSTOP the Schindlers tried RELENTLESSLY to fight for life of their duaghter.
Over that time period a plethora of evidence was presented to the court indicating doubt to her wishes and her medical condition.
As Wesley pointed out in an interview once, the Schindler's lawyers tried FOR YEARS to get a new trial and the courts kept saying NO! NO! NO! NO!.
Eventually the Schindlers and along with thounsands and thounsands of people appealed to Congress.
When Congress saw the blatant conflicts of interested that existed in adujication of Terri's wishes, the tremendous doubt in her medical condition (Over 40 doctor affidavitts stating no PVS and the lack of nurological examination in over 3 years), and the blantant judical errors (No legal counsel for Terri), Congress allowed the Federal Courts to look at the matter.
Even Judge Greer admitted in a hearing that matter was far from being resolved.
Unfortunately, the Federal courts did not honor Congress's request.
A private family matter?
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home