The Republican antics over Terri Schiavo will make great campaign commercials next year. For the Republicans, that is. (A neutral blog about the case can be found here)
It won't surprise regular readers that I think the DeLay/Frist/Bush actions in this matter cynical and damaging.
At this point they're in so deep with the mess they've made that they're really obliged to keep going, even if polls show that most Americans oppose what they're doing.
But in a fortnight--at most--Terri Schiavo will be dead or forgotten. Until October 2006.
Then woe betide any Democrat who actually voted against the Schiavo bill. Sure, the abstract ideas of separation of powers and federalism are important to defend.
But the first the marginally interested voter will hear of Democratic opposition to the Schiavo bill in 2006 is from a Republican ad bombarding the district with the message that the Democratic candidate voted against keeping a woman alive.
And while a close examination of the ethical issues leads one to believe that Congress should not interfere in this decision, that is not how a superficial reading of the case in 18 months will make it sound.
And its true that Bush's concern for thousands of tsunami victims and possibly innocent victims of U.S. military torture stand in stark contrast with his rush to sign this legislation about one woman. The "culture of life" is selective and limited. But the tsunami and the torture happened to large numbers of distant people. The electoral impact of life and death decisions is typically realized in individual stories, not larger tragedies.
The Republicans -- if they are united -- can do what they wish with this issue. It seems strange that they are so united--surely there must be some for whom over-riding the careful deliberations of a state court is a step too far--but if there are doubters they haven't raised their voices. In the wider scheme of things Democrats would do well to realize that they can't win this fight, and just let it blow over without actively opposing it. The Democrats have forced a wedge between Bush and congressional Republicans on Social Security.
The sooner Terri Schiavo's life returns to its proper, relatively private, domain, the better for the Democrats and the country.
Posted by robe0419 at March 22, 2005 05:47 PM | TrackBackI don't think this will be a useful issue for Republicans in '06, given those poll numbers. They'rep laying to their base, but clearly on this issue, unlike gay marriage, their base is in the super-minority.
With the Schiavo case, the Repubs have actually come up with a sharper wedge for themselves than they came up with in Social Security. The NYT today has a story on how the "process conservatives" are being divided from the social consrevatives over the anti-federalism of this ploy.
I think this will come back to bite 'em. It's demonstrating the intrusiveness of the Right into personal and family decisions.
Posted by: Tim at March 23, 2005 12:53 PMRemember "Laci and Connor's Law", the one that "protects pregnant women from violence"? The one that John Kerry voted AGAINST? John Kerry doesn't think pregnant women should be protected from violence. The evidence is clear.
Same thing here. Next year it'll be "Terri's Law" to protect "the disabled" from being allowed to die simply because they are a burden on loved ones. Check out some of the pro-life web pages out there. I've heard of Schiavo referred to as "disabled" and "handicapped" more times than I can count. The groundwork is laid. In 18 months, the Republicans will be on the side of the disabled (and everyone else who requires special long term medical care) and the Dems will be on the other side. Not everybody will buy it, of course, but some will. And it won't be good for the Dems.
Posted by: Jim at March 23, 2005 08:15 PMFlorida's legislature and Jeb Bush already passed a Terri's Law a few years ago--it was ruled unconstitutional.
Posted by: Tim at March 24, 2005 11:13 AMDoesn't matter. The law, and whether or not it's constitutional, is far less important than the symbolism. I can hear the TV commercial voice it now: "Democrat candidate X voted against Terri's Law, which would have protected disabled people from being starved to death." The famous American public's attention span will have forgotten all about this case by next year, and the Republicans will make hay with such a campaign. What, candidate X wants to starve the handicapped? Those democrats get worse all the time.
Posted by: Jim at March 24, 2005 07:04 PMI don't want to sign up for believing in the theory of Republican electoral omnipotence, but ... they do seem to have a generally [electorally] successful strategy of using the media to advance their political symbolism.
There's enough people who don't pay attention to the news on a regular basis, but nevertheless might be persuaded to vote if they can be fired up enough, that it's worth it for the Republicans to have these regular political circuses.
Even if Terri's law was unconstitutional, it's not factually inaccurate to say that the Democratic candidate voted against. The bar to get misleading attack ads off television is high. So, there's little downside for candidates airing those ads.
What I do wonder is what campaigns is this going to work in. The House is so gerrymandered these days there's scarcely 10 districts left where the margins are small enough that shifting a couple of thousand floating voters could be worth it.
Posted by: Evan at March 25, 2005 10:47 AMWhat about the long term? Sure there may not be many opportunities to benefit from this in 2006, but how about in 2008? They'll use it next year for no other reason than to increase the public's suspicion of Democrats in general.
Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2005 02:08 PMGood point. It does seem to be a gambit that would work better for the President than in a House race, but who knows. There was that memo that said this would put the Florida Democratic Senator, Bill Nelson, in a tight spot.
Posted by: Evan at March 25, 2005 03:24 PM