Comments on: Will the GOP Need Life Support?

By: Copper

Copper — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:41:28 +0000

I'm disgusted by both parties and their pandering. My vote will go to a 3rd party candidate.

By: Jemima Gaines

Jemima Gaines — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:28:38 +0000

If this is a real case of the tail wagging the dog, then the Republican Party does have something to worry about. It has given too much credence to extremists, who, not so surpisingly, turned their ire on the Bush brothers and other GOP leaders when they didn't get what they wanted. Despite the blanketing of the blogosphere by 'Blogs for Terri,' the constituency for the claim that Schiavo was not really in a persistent vegetative state was small according to the polls. Yet, the GOP leadership catered to it. I don't see how they can not be harmed by having misread the public so badly.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 19:20:09 +0000

w/ Dean and Hillary leading the way, moderates like myself will vote for anyone the Republicans put forth. Seems to me the best thing that can happy for the Republicans is for Hillary to run and having Dean craft the message/strategy for the rest of them.

By: GP

GP — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:49:04 +0000

The Republicans have created a Catch-22 for themselves by simultaneously marginalizing two of their large factions (social conservatives by not doing enough and economic conservatives by doing too much). This will have some minimal negative impact on fund raising, turning out the vote, etc. However the majority of the Republican party, like the rest of the country, sees this for what it is: an arrogant and hypocritical explotation by their party of a private family issue. Being pragmatists, they will realize that the Democrats are equally likely to do the same with a different set of facts. So generally, no harm no foul.

The risk for the Republicans though is that the Democrats finally pull their heads out of their cavernous *#$'es and throw this dramatic overreach by the Republican party back in their face. Crafting a message which threads together Sciavo and many of the other recent Republican overreaches into a coherent, centrist message of small government, respect for life, pragmatism, ethics and federalism would sucker punch the Republican leadership right where they deserve it. Without any obvious strong leadership or personalities on the Democratic side at this moment, this will be difficult. But, as with anyone who is down for long, the Democrats will soon lick their wounds and rebound with a strong message that resonates with a majority of Americans. And the Republican leadership is making that all too easy as of late.

By: Just Me

Just Me — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:08:16 +0000

"There does not seem to be a viable third party on the horizon, so the alternative for Republicans alienated by the social conservatives is to either sit things out or to vote for the Democrats."

Well apparantly there is currently a third option, at least among the blogsphere, and that is to demonize the Christians.

Honestly, while I can't say that I am thrilled with congressional intervention, I am also not all that offended by it, maybe that is because I would much rather see my government interfere in order to protect life than take it away.

This whole Schiavo matter makes me feel like we aren't too far from declaring open season on the handicapped, and that scares me. I do not want to turn into the Netherlands, where doctors kill people, because they determine their quality of life isn't worth living, or because they may suck up too many resources. Humans do not create life, who are we to determine when it isn't worth preserving?

But overall, I think in about 6 months this will mostly be a non issue. Most pro lifers are not bolting the party no matter what threats Randall Terry makes, and I guess some libertarians might, but who are the bolting for? If they are bolting over the congressional intervention, it isn't like they are getting better with the DNC, since the DNC thinks federal intervention is the thing to do in every case but human life issues.

In the end, it may affect a few votes, but I predict this case will mostly be forgotten before the next election cycle begins, and I don't see either party trying to touch this one, since it really is a non winner.

By: JackLewis.net

JackLewis.net — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:45:17 +0000

Blogger roundup
Terri Schiavo Ethics: The Evangelical Outpost, Stones Cry Out, Barbarians at the gate Felos the nutcase: Captain's Quarters CodeBlue Challenge:...

By: wavemaker

wavemaker — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:54:23 +0000

Gee, realipundit, although I agree, I'm having trouble squaring your comment here with what you emailed me last week when I tried to explain the law part of this case to you -- and you said "leave me alone."

Once again, James, I share your view...Monday's post, http://www.screenshogblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/on-morality-and-hard-cases.html.

By: reliapundit

reliapundit — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:24:53 +0000

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!

AND THEN THERE'S THIS: the polls ALWAYS misunderestimate Bush.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:12:32 +0000

Yeah, this is a republican thing: Jessie Jackson, Ralph Nader, 50% of the democrats who voted on the case.

You are seeing this as republican/democrat while I don't think this turns out this way. What will this do to Christian blacks, for example, who typically vote democratic. I think there is no clear answer.

If anything this is upsetting libertarians, and no one likes them anyway.

By: whatever

whatever — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:59:28 +0000

Few people will remember this case in six months, including me. The ones who do and will vote on it won't be enough to swing an election for dog catcher, so I think you are being a little too hopeful in your analysis.

By: Joyse

Joyse — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:40:47 +0000

I don't know if this has anything to do with what you were talking about, but fighting so hard for Terri made me wonder why our government isn't fighting this hard for the rest of us. Do we have to be brain dead to get help in health care and protection by the government? Are we, the over 44 million not worthy of the same involvement by our government to help us stay healthy, or even get healthy?