|
Home > Archive > Medicine transcription > March 2005 > AP Story: Most Evangelicals Oppose Government on Schiavo
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
AP Story: Most Evangelicals Oppose Government on Schiavo
|
|
| Jay Vance 2005-03-24, 12:21 pm |
| Poll Details Concern About Federal Intervention in Case
(March 24) -- More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves as
evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by Congress
and President Bush in the case of the Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman
at the center of a national debate.
A CBS News poll found that four of five people polled opposed federal
intervention, with levels of disapproval among key groups supporting the GOP
almost that high.
Jay
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-03-24, 12:21 pm |
| "Jay Vance" <jay@vancedigitalDELETE.com> wrote here for all to
seenews:nqCdnVMcxbiSfN_fRVn-ug@adelphia.com:
> Poll Details Concern About Federal Intervention in Case
> (March 24) -- More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves
> as evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by
> Congress and President Bush in the case of the Terri Schiavo, the
> brain-damaged woman at the center of a national debate.
>
> A CBS News poll found that four of five people polled opposed federal
> intervention, with levels of disapproval among key groups supporting
> the GOP almost that high.
>
> Jay
>
>
>
too bad they didn't take the poll before they took action, huh?
| |
| Jay Vance 2005-03-24, 12:21 pm |
| > too bad they didn't take the poll before they took action, huh?
Well, I'm been thinking about that, and it occurs to me that Bush and
Congress may be thinking this is a win-win deal for them. You notice that
Bush never actually came out and said he wanted to put the feeding tube back
in; all he said was we ought to err on the side of life or something like
that. What Congress and the President did was to allow the case to be heard
by a federal court--but what if they knew in advance that the federal court
was likely to turn down the request? In that case they can be seen as being
pro-life but at the same time they aren't directly intervening in the
dispute, and they probably knew in advance that the appeals were likely to
be turned down, hence the long-term downside is neglible.
It smacks of typical Washington politics to me. Disappointing, but
certainly not surprising, and not something that changes my overall support
for Bush. There are more things about him I like than I dislike, and
unfortunately these days that's about the best anyone can say about
politicians of ANY flavor.
Jay
| |
| RaeMorrill 2005-03-26, 9:59 am |
| Jay Vance wrote:
>
>
> Well, I'm been thinking about that, and it occurs to me that Bush and
> Congress may be thinking this is a win-win deal for them. You notice that
> Bush never actually came out and said he wanted to put the feeding tube back
> in; all he said was we ought to err on the side of life or something like
> that. What Congress and the President did was to allow the case to be heard
> by a federal court--but what if they knew in advance that the federal court
> was likely to turn down the request? In that case they can be seen as being
> pro-life but at the same time they aren't directly intervening in the
> dispute, and they probably knew in advance that the appeals were likely to
> be turned down, hence the long-term downside is neglible.
>
> It smacks of typical Washington politics to me. Disappointing, but
> certainly not surprising, and not something that changes my overall support
> for Bush. There are more things about him I like than I dislike, and
> unfortunately these days that's about the best anyone can say about
> politicians of ANY flavor.
>
> Jay
>
>
Seems like this is downright and out and out dishonest to me.
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-03-26, 10:00 am |
| "Jay Vance" <jay@vancedigitalDELETE.com> wrote here for all to
seenews:Q7SdnbDKlpAPc9_fRVn-qA@adelphia.com:
> What Congress and the President did was to allow the case to be heard
> by a federal court--but what if they knew in advance that the federal
> court was likely to turn down the request? In that case they can be
> seen as being pro-life but at the same time they aren't directly
> intervening in the dispute, and they probably knew in advance that the
> appeals were likely to be turned down, hence the long-term downside is
> neglible.
>
That's a very good point, one I hadn't really thought about. Of course,
I've been busy as a bee and haven't really thought much about it in a day
or so. I would imagine they aren't the first and won't be the last
politicians to humor someone to keep from having a nasty fall-out with one
group. Besides, what did it hurt to let them have their case heard? Her
tube was still out. Nobody ordered it put back in until the case was heard
or anything. I guess even death row inmates have a last reprieve by the
government before they are executed, I guess they figured why not Terri?
| |
| Jeannie Wilson 2005-03-29, 6:51 pm |
| "Jay Vance" <jay@vancedigitalDELETE.com> wrote here for all to
seenews:nqCdnVMcxbiSfN_fRVn-ug@adelphia.com:
> Poll Details Concern About Federal Intervention in Case
> (March 24) -- More than two-thirds of people who describe themselves
> as evangelicals and conservatives disapprove of the intervention by
> Congress and President Bush in the case of the Terri Schiavo, the
> brain-damaged woman at the center of a national debate.
>
> A CBS News poll found that four of five people polled opposed federal
> intervention, with levels of disapproval among key groups supporting
> the GOP almost that high.
>
> Jay
>
>
>
too bad they didn't take the poll before they took action, huh?
|
| |
|
|