[quote]chadman wrote:
I think trying to lump Women’s Rights overall, with issues involving mental incapacitation is kinda ridiculous.[/quote]
you gotta admit (maybe?) that the precedent of giving total control to the man is an interesting one.
Nephorm, Mertdawg,
[quote]nephorm wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Eugenics is at the heart of Liberalism.
Extreme assertions such as this one require extremely compelling evidence. I would like to know the sources for your claim that go beyond anecdotal evidence. I take it you are not referring to Classical Liberalism with a big ‘L,’ but modern day liberalism with a little ‘l.’ I would argue that the ‘heart’ or ‘core’ of both modern day liberalism and conservatism is based in Classical Liberal values as embodied in the Constitution and prior Liberal political theory. But I am certainly interested to read your thoughts on eugenics as it relates to (L/l)iberal thought.[/quote]
I’ve done some research, as I was kinda unsettled and a bit angered by this claim. I was relieved though, by my findings.
The best site in my view is EugenicsArchive.Org: Image Archive on American Eugenics Movement which gives a pretty balanced view on the history of eugenics in the US, with loads of scanned primary sources.
Interesting is that it points out how the US measures towards eugenics (which began in 1907 and caused 3000 forced sterilisations by 1924), influenced a guy by the name of Adolf Hitler…
It also mentions that many backers of the movement were rich industrial magnates (for example Alexander Graham Bell). The idea was that pauperism, alcoholism and crime were hereditary, hence eugenics were seen as a measure of social engineering - a concept that was equally appealing to the left and the right of a certain social background. A key quote is: “Eugenicists envisioned a society that perpetuated white middle and upper class power. Eugenic leaders thought they were endowed with wisdom and had the right to pass judgement on others in the name of progress…” Eugenics Archive Theme
This off course included prominent liberals (like Margaret Sanger, later the founder of IPPF http://www.inklingbooks.com/inklinguniversity/C567674158/E1683977553/ ) as well as conservatives - although there seemed to be a certain timidity in the liberal press, as the targets of eugenically motivated immigration restriction laws targeted the political stakeholders of the left: lower class immigrants from poor European countries. It was the catholic cristian countries who were critical of eugenics, who also were the sources of the immigrants. But republican and conservative backers were equally present http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_4583_131/ai_85007831 . The last 2 sources I would consider somewhat biased (one to the left, one to the right), but I thought I’ll try to give a balanced view.
Is eugenics at the heart of the liberal movement (whatever exactly that may be)? Historically - no. Hence, I cannot agree with mertdawg on this.
Makkun
PS: I would really enjoy the political forums more, if they were guided more by discussion than debate - and less accusatory claims and outright personal attacks.
Some interesting observations for those who were outraged by the supposed “talking -points memo” on Schaivo that was attributed to the Republicans:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/416virea.asp
Fake but Accurate Again?
The “GOP talking points memo” on Terri Schiavo has all the signs of a political dirty trick. Where is the mainstream media?
by John Hinderaker
03/28/2005 12:00:00 AM
MUCH TIME MAY PASS before we fully understand the political ramifications of the Terri Schiavo case. For now, though, it seems that Republicans are taking a fearful beating. Opinion polls consistently show that a large majority of Americans disapproved of the effort–bipartisan, to be sure, but led by Republicans–to keep Mrs. Schiavo alive. To add insult to injury, most poll respondents hold the seemingly-inconsistent belief that the Republicans are not sincere, but are trying to capitalize on the Schiavo tragedy for political advantage.
One reason for this perception may be the “GOP talking points memo” that was distributed on March 17, when the Senate took up the bill that conferred federal jurisdiction over a last effort to save Mrs. Schiavo. The memo was first reported by ABC’s Linda Douglass on Friday, March 18. The next day, on ABC’s Good Morning America, Kate Snow confronted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay with “some talking points that Senate Republicans were circulating”; DeLay denied any knowledge of the memo.
On March 20, the Washington Post joined in, reporting ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49701-2005Mar19.html ):
[i]An unsigned one-page memo, distributed to Republican senators, said the debate over Schiavo would appeal to the party's base, or core, supporters. The memo singled out Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who is up for reelection next year and is potentially vulnerable in a state President Bush won last year.
"This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, which was reported by ABC
News and later given to The Washington Post. "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."[/i]
The full text of the memo was finally reported on March 21, when ABC News posted online “an exact, full copy of the document.” ( Senator Says His Aide Wrote Terri Schiavo Memo - ABC News ) ABC headlined the story, “GOP Talking Points on Terri Schiavo.” As quoted by ABC, the memo was odd, to say the least. The Senate bill was identified, incorrectly, as “S. 529.” (The bill was S. 539.) The memo also included five typographical errors, including misspelling Terri Schiavo’s first name as “Teri.” ABC obligingly identified four of these errors with a “sic.” The memo, as quoted by ABC, contained no hint as to who authored it. Its content, however, immediately raised questions.
MOST OF THE DOCUMENT, in particular paragraphs five through eight, does indeed consist of talking points. These paragraphs are arguments in favor of the Senate bill which would have been appropriate for use on the Senate floor or when talking to reporters. But these were not, of course, the paragraphs the news media were interested in. On top of these actual talking points were grafted the paragraphs that said “the pro-life base will be excited,” “This is a great political issue,” etc.
But, as was quickly pointed out by bloggers, these political observations are not “talking points” at all. These are comments on political strategy which would be out of place in argument on the Senate floor, or in a media interview. The plot grew thicker when it was pointed out that the bulk of the memo–paragraphs five through eight–was lifted word-for-word from the website of the Traditional Values Coalition ( http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2179 ). So it is evident that whoever wrote the memo spent no time formulating arguments in favor of the Republican leadership’s position; the memo’s legitimate talking points were merely cut and pasted off the internet. The anonymous author’s contribution was simply to add the explosive (and, in context, inappropriate) political observations.
Questions about the genuineness of the memo intensified when, later the same day, the far-left website Raw Story published, for the first time, a JPEG version of the scanned memo ( http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=202 ), which it said “[a] source on Capitol Hill has leaked.” The print version of the memo, as posted on Raw Story, was identical to ABC’s “exact, full copy of the document,” except that the four typos that ABC had identified with a “sic” were all corrected. Interestingly, however, the fifth typo–“applicably” instead of “applicable” in the sixth paragraph–which ABC did not so identify, was not corrected in Raw Story’s “leaked” version of the document.
THESE MYSTERIOUS CORRECTIONS raised obvious questions. Who created the second, corrected version of the memo? Why would they have taken a Republican-created memo and re-typed it, eliminating typographical errors, before “leaking” it?
More basic features of the memo also raised questions. There is nothing on the face of the memo to indicate who authored it. Contrary to normal congressional practice, not only is it anonymous, but it is on plain white paper, not the letterhead of any congressional or Senatorial office. It could, literally, have been created by anyone.
What, then, was the evidence for the claim that it was created and distributed by Republicans? As far as the public record shows: There is none. On the contrary, the only published report identifying the purveyors of the memo on March 17 states that they were Democrats. The New York Times reported on March 22 ( How Family's Cause Reached the Halls of Congress - The New York Times ):
[i]As tensions festered among Republicans, [b]Democratic aides[/b] passed out an unsigned one-page memorandum that [b]they said[/b] had been distributed to Senate Republicans. [emphasis added][/i]
Faced with growing questions about its story on the memo, ABC News backed off. An ABC spokesman told blogger Josh Claybourn that ABC never intended to suggest that Republicans created or distributed the disputed memo, but only that some Republicans received it on March 17 ( http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2005/03/memogate_part_i.html ). In Claybourn’s words: “ABC tells me they never meant to imply Republicans created the memo.” ABC’s revised position is, of course, ridiculous. They described the memo as “GOP Talking Points on Terri Schiavo.” But the fact that ABC has backed off its original report indicates that they have no idea who created the suspicious memo.
The other reporters involved in the story have gone to ground. Mike Allen of the Washington Post says he has information on the memo’s provenance, but he can’t reveal it ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54766-2005Mar21.html ). But his stated reason for believing the memo is not a hoax–“senators had it on the floor”–is laughable. Josh Claybourn reports that the Times reporter who described Democratic aides passing out the memo has declined to identify them.
To sum up, then: (1) The memo itself conveys no information about its source. (2) It is very poorly done, containing a number of typographical errors, failing to get the number of the Senate bill correct, and using points cribbed word-for-word from an advocacy group’s website. (3) The politically controversial statements are out of place in a talking points memo, and seem, on the contrary, ideally framed to create talking points for the Democrats. (4) Somewhat bizarrely, after the contents of the memo had been reported, someone corrected those typographical errors–but only those errors that had been pointed out by ABC. (5) No one has reported seeing any Republican distributing the suspect memo; the only people confirmed to have passed out the memo were Democratic staffers.
A REASONABLE CONCLUSION would be that the “talking points memo” might be a fake, created by Democrats to cast aspersions on the motives of the Republican leadership. Every Republican who has been asked about the memo has denied knowing anything about it. Unless someone talks–at a minimum, identifying the Democratic aides who distributed the memo on March 17–we likely will never know who, exactly, created it.
But the fact that the memo is suspect (at best) has not prevented Democrats in the media from relying on it to attack congressional Republicans. For example, conventional-wisdom weather vanes such as Eleanor Clift ( MSN ) and Ellen Goodman ( http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/good0323.htm ) have seized on the memo to berate Republicans and the “religious right.” Clift leads her column in the current Newsweek:
[i]The Republicans might want to rethink that memo of talking points they circulated last weekend about how intervening in the Terri Schiavo case is a "great political issue."[/i]
Goodman, who writes for the Washington Post, the paper which won’t tell us what evidence it has for the memo’s authenticity, says:
[i]And don't forget the infamous "talking points memo" ABC News found, reminding Republican senators that "the pro-life base will be excited" and it's a "great political issue."[/i]
There is little danger that anyone will forget the “infamous” memo any time soon; the mainstream media will make sure of that. So far, mainstream news sources have not even acknowledged that the source of the memo is in doubt, let alone set forth the compelling arguments suggesting that, in fact, it might be a political dirty trick. This is a case where the truth, as the old saying goes, is still lacing up its shoes.
John Hinderaker is a contributor to the blog Power Line and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard.
Death Is Beautiful?
Possibly the creepiest moment in the Terri Schiavo saga came Saturday afternoon, when George Felos, Michael Schiavo’s lawyer, appeared at a press conference without his client. Felos described having visited Mrs. Schiavo, who at that point had gone eight days without food and water. “Frankly when I saw her .?.?. she looked beautiful,” Felos told the assembled reporters. “In all the years I’ve seen Mrs. Schiavo, I’ve never seen such a look of peace and beauty upon her.”
OK, we understand “peace”: She’s not suffering, she wouldn’t have wanted to die, etc.–of course Felos is going to make that argument. But beauty? Felos is aestheticizing this poor woman’s death, after having helped bring it about? That’s just weird.
It turns out that Felos’s weirdness goes deeper still. In a 2003 article, Florida Baptist Witness editor James Smith looked at Felos’s 2002 book, “Litigation as Spiritual Practice.” It turns out Felos’s views on the “right to die” are informed by a “syncretic” spirituality that “mixes diverse religious traditions–including generous citations from the Bible and references to Jesus Christ–creating a composite of his own spiritual worldview.”
Smith quotes at length a story from Felos’s book about Estelle Browning, the subject of Felos’s first right-to-die case:
As I continued to stay beside Mrs. Browning at her nursing home bed, I felt my mind relax and my weight sink into the ground. I began to feel light-headed as I became more reposed. Although feeling like I could drift into sleep, I also experienced a sense of heightened awareness.
As Mrs. Browning lay motionless before my gaze, I suddenly heard a loud, deep moan and scream and wondered if the nursing home personnel heard it and would respond to the unfortunate resident. In the next moment, as this cry of pain and torment continued, I realized it was Mrs. Browning.
I felt the mid-section of my body open and noticed a strange quality to the light in the room. I sensed her soul in agony. As she screamed I heard her say, in confusion, “Why am I still here .?.?. Why am I here?” My soul touched hers and in some way I communicated that she was still locked in her body. I promised I would do everything in my power to gain the release her soul cried for. With that the screaming immediately stopped. I felt like I was back in my head again, the room resumed its normal appearance, and Mrs. Browning, as she had throughout this experience, lay silent.
Last week Terri Schiavo’s parents claimed that their daughter had tried to say, “I want to live,” when a visitor urged her to do so. Given what we know about Mrs. Schiavo’s conditions, this is implausible–but no more so than Felos’s claims of communing with the near-dead.
John Edwards, as a young trial lawyer, once famously “channeled” an unborn child who had suffered serious brain damage because (a jury found) the doctor had dawdled in delivering her by Caesarian section. As Smith notes, Felos goes further, receiving messages from unconceived children: “Felos clearly believes in reincarnation and even discusses a conversation with his yet-to-be-conceived, unborn son, who told Felos, ‘I’m ready to be born .?.?. will you stop this fooling around!’?”
Of course, if Felos (or a talking gleam in his eye) thinks the way to conceive a child is to stop fooling around, some medical expert ought to sit him down and explain the facts of life.
more kookiness from one of personal favorites:
FALWELL: She has never been on life support. A month ago, I was on a ventilator to breathe, and I had a feeding tube down my nose, just like she. And thank the Lord, I’m out of it, and I preached two times this morning in my Easter services.
But I’ve already given my living will. Don’t you dare pull the plug on me. I want to wake up in 14 years and say, “What day is it? What time is it?”
But I really think that the courts have been wrong –
What a NUT!
[quote]100meters wrote:
more kookiness from one of personal favorites:
FALWELL: She has never been on life support. A month ago, I was on a ventilator to breathe, and I had a feeding tube down my nose, just like she. And thank the Lord, I’m out of it, and I preached two times this morning in my Easter services.
But I’ve already given my living will. Don’t you dare pull the plug on me. I want to wake up in 14 years and say, “What day is it? What time is it?”
But I really think that the courts have been wrong –
What a NUT!
[/quote]
I have NO love for Falwell, but what’s nutty about this quote?
Look, there’s definitely politicizing on both sides. Conservatives know how Euthenasia turned into mass assisted suicide in Holland (I think it was), but conservatives should stick to the case not the precident. Its the fear of giving an inch here.
Also, based on her brain scan, her head is basically a case of water with some functioning peripheral animal responses. Literally, if her head had been blown off, or her brains completely blown out for all to see, so one would be arguing for life. If the doctors are right, after 15 years, OK, but I did know an older man who due to a potassium imbalance suffered a seizure and could not communicate. The doctor told his family that they should withdraw electrolytes and let him die because he was in a vegetative state. My dad, who was the priest went in and saw him, told the family to not remove the IV and within a day he was fully conscious and responsive and he lived another decade.
Also, Terri is not receiving medical treatment by definition-a plan to improve her state. I think a doctor could legitimately argue that withdrawing a feeding tube might be one last long shot to try to shock her out of her state. It has as good a chance as anything else. They can and should offer her food and water and see if she does respond.
ZEB-NOW is primarily concerned with women’s rights not to reproduce. And of course lesbian cloning!
As for Eugenics, just a couple points. I shouldn’t have said that Eugenics is at the heart of Liberalism. I should have said that there have been Eugenic tendancies in Liberalism as well as some late 19th century “conservative” who were really liberals. Basically, Liberalism has some Hegelian roots and seeing society as an evolving organism-Social Darwinism. Hitler and Stalin in my view were liberal who TOOK to a Social Darwinist philosophy. So really, I would say that many prominent liberals also happen to be Social Darwinists. In America it probably comes from Puritanism which is the foundation of American protestantism, and of the early political parties in America.
Another conservative issue. If the state has the right to determine when viable life ends, it has the right to determine when viable life begins. With abortion, viable life was originally defined by quickening, or set at the beginning of the 2nd trimester until medical technology allowed doctors to show beating hearts after only a couple of weeks. At that point, most states criminalized abortion.
But for conservatives to try to make this a federal issue is to me kind of like “2 can play at that game. Abortion should have been up to the states, but you liberals got that one through so we’re gonna make this a federal issue too.” Ultimately though, in my mind the legal issue is who is Terri’s legal guardian. That is the issue. Again, my wife says that people have feeding tubes removed all the time. The only issue here is that there is disagreement over who gets to decide-and a court has to determine that.
If what I just heard turns out to be true, thenMr. Schiavo is one mean, vindictive prick. It doesn’t sway me over on all the moral issues involved, but it sure makes me think about this mans character. I just saw a report that there now may be issues about arranfements after she passes. The parents want to take her home ‘intact’ for burial at their family plot. Michael says he wants her creamated and on his family plot. If after all that her parents have gone through, if he won’t allow them this–maybe I am changing my mind. What a cocksucker!
From USA TODAY:
In 1992, Schiavo had filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against two doctors who had been treating his wife before she was stricken. Late that year came a settlement: Schiavo received $300,000 for loss of consortium ? his wife’s companionship. Another $700,000 was ordered for Terri’s care.
Mary Schindler later testified that Schiavo had promised money to his in-laws. They had helped him and Terri move from New Jersey to Pinellas County, let them live rent-free in their condominium and had given him other financial help.
“We all had financial problems” after Terri’s crisis, she testified. "Michael, Bob. We all did. It was a very stressful time. It was a very financially difficult time. He used to say, ‘Don’t worry, Mom. If I ever get any money from the lawsuit, I’ll help you and Dad.’ "
By February 1993, Schiavo had the money from the lawsuit.
On Valentine’s Day that year, he testified, he was in his wife’s nursing home room studying. He wanted to become a nurse so he could care for his wife himself. He had taken Terri to California for experimental treatment. A doctor there had placed a stimulator inside Terri’s brain and those of other people in vegetative states to try to stimulate still-living but dormant cells.
According to Schiavo’s testimony, the Schindlers came into Terri’s room in the nursing home, spoke to their daughter, then turned to him.
“The first words out of my father-in-law’s mouth was how much money he was going to get,” Schiavo said. "I was, ‘What do you mean?’ ‘Well, you owe me money.’ "
Schiavo said he told his in-laws that all the money had gone to his wife ? a lie he said he told Bob Schindler “to shut him up because he was screaming.”
Schiavo said his father-in-law called him “a few choice words,” then stormed out of the room. Schiavo said he started to follow him, but his mother-in-law stepped in front of him, saying, “This is my daughter, our daughter, and we deserve some of this money.”
Mary Schindler’s account of that evening is far different. She testified that she and her husband found Schiavo studying. “We were talking about the money and about his money,” she said. “That with his money and the money Terri got, now we could take her (for specialized care) or get some testing done. Do all this stuff. He said he was not going to do it.”
She said he threw his book and a table against the wall and told them they would never see their daughter again.
[quote]EmperialChina wrote:
Scott1010220 wrote:
I have a simple question.
If I walked into her hospital room, I picked up a chair, and I smashed her in the head and killed her, would I be charged with murder?
If so, then by extension, whoever removes her feeding tube should also be charged with murder.
I don’t want to hear any mumbo jumbo, it is either murder or it’s not.
At least if I smashed her it would be quick.
Well the “Mumbo Jumbo” would be what you would call an “explanation” as to why and why not that is plausible. The example you set up is well kind of on the irrelevent side don’t you think?
That’s almost similar to me setting up a situation where if I said “If I try to commit suicide upon myself but I survive technically wouldn’t I be charged in the court of law…but wait don’t give me any mumbo jumbo just a yes or a no”. See it’s not all that terribly hard to come up with “examples” that really don’t placate any relevance in the situation if only by a thin strain of some non-crucial semblance.
[/quote]
Okay.
-
I said “No mumbo jumbo”
-
You didn’t even bother to give me a yes or no.
Just for the record, in the Scott book, that makes you an asshole.
My point was simple. It seems that there is no mercy in their so called mercy killing.
I can’t wait to see what the autopsy says!
There is so much I don’t think we really know about either the Schiavo’s or the Schindler’s. That Felos does seem to be a weird s.o.b.
The USA Today article does seem to contradict what everyone has said about Terri not receiving special treatments. It seems if Michael took her to California and had something put in her head, he was definitely trying to do something to help her “come back”.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
chadman wrote:
I think trying to lump Women’s Rights overall, with issues involving mental incapacitation is kinda ridiculous.
you gotta admit (maybe?) that the precedent of giving total control to the man is an interesting one.[/quote]
Joe,
If I could only be so lucky!!
Some interesting points about the autopsy and bashing her head in. As far as someone going in and killing her, interesting analogy but not a good analogy when it comes to the law. The law is clear. Her legal guardian has the legal right to give informed consent. If the information is accurate, the only question is who should be her legal guardian.
Interesting too, the landmark case which led to states defining death (as two flat EEG reading within 24 hours) came about because a woman was shot in the head destroying her cerebral cortex, and she was a registered organ donor. They took her off the respirator, but because the cause of death was listed as respiratory failure, they could not charge the shooter with murder. Terri is not dead. The issue with her is who has the right to informedly consent to removal of a feeding tube.
Also asked a couple of doctors what would have happened if she had no family and had been found and brought to the ER. They said that doctors remove feeding tubes from people in that situation hundreds of times a year throughout the country.
I’m still just don’t get it. You don’t like the guy. You wonder why an MRI wasn’t done. The judge hates women. What does any of that have to do with a legal guardian giving informed consent based on a physician’s advice. Some of you “conservatives” are starting to use that “liberal” logic.
Current system = Caring physician defines patient as being brain dead → Legal guardian gives informed consent.
Can someone tell me what alternative they’re proposing to the current system?
Also, I must have missed something, but aren’t the parents the ones that took this to court?
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
If what I just heard turns out to be true, thenMr. Schiavo is one mean, vindictive prick. It doesn’t sway me over on all the moral issues involved, but it sure makes me think about this mans character. I just saw a report that there now may be issues about arranfements after she passes. The parents want to take her home ‘intact’ for burial at their family plot. Michael says he wants her creamated and on his family plot. If after all that her parents have gone through, if he won’t allow them this–maybe I am changing my mind. What a cocksucker![/quote]
gee sasquatch, I’ve been saying this for almost a week now (about the cremation/burial).
You don’t listen to me! You don’t love me!
Give credit where credit is do. You haven’t swung me over yet JW, but You have been a formidable force. I have come to believe that there is indeed something rather scurvious about Mr schiavo. I don’t believe it changes my feelings about certain cases being adjudicated similarly, but this man is devious and a big prick to boot.
Only love from me now Joe!
Some interesting stuff concerning the polling data that the networks have been trotting out – as always, you need to read the wording of questions to truly understand the poll. Democratic pollster Pat Caddell talks about the problems with CBS’s poll data, and there’s a link in there to Michelle Malkin discussing the ABC news poll:
From Fox News Live, March 26 2005:
BOB SELLERS [FOX NEWS]: Most Americans have strong opinions about the Terri Schiavo case, and some new CBS polls suggest that their feelings are mostly on one side of that debate. In one poll asking what should happen to Terri Schiavo now, 66% of those that responded said the feeding tube should not be reinserted. In another sampling, people were asked if they were in a coma, would they have their doctor remove the feeding tube? An overwhelming 82% responded yes to this. But notice the poll use of the word “coma”, even though almost all doctors agree that Terri Schiavo is not in a coma. So, is this CBS poll really fair and accurate? We’re asking Democratic strategist and Fox News Contributor Pat Caddell. Pat, what’s your read on this?
PAT CADDELL: Well I’m very concerned, because I’ve always said in the years I was polling, that if you tell me the results you want and I’ll write the questions for you. Now sometimes we ask people when they don’t have a lot of information, this is a very complex case, what they think. But what’s being presented in these polls, particularly with CBS when it’s so disturbing to me because it’s being cited everywhere, and it’s not being cited accurately. But when you start your survey interviewing people, and describe a situation which is not the actual condition of Terri Schiavo, you have a problem. But even more importantly, the question that has been drawing the most attention is the argument that 82% of the people said they didn’t want the President or Congress involved in this matter. Well that’s not what the question was actually asked. The question that was asked on the poll was whether they should be involved in determining, in deciding what should happen to her. I happen to disagree with what the Congress did, but that is not what they did. They simply allowed her the right to go to Federal Court to seek a review of the facts. This is being presented, and then everyone is saying well look, we have a huge majority of evangelicals concerned, everyone’s saying they’re against it. That means George Bush is in trouble, everyone’s opposed to this. That’s not what was asked. And you have to be very careful, both that people understand the actual situation, and form the questions the way that people can make a proper judgment. As well as report them as such. What’s being reported today by CBS, and what is being said on the other networks which are using CBS’s poll rather than their own surveys, is saying that people say they should not be involved. That is not what was asked of people.
SELLERS: Uh-huh. There is also something that Michelle Malkin talked about the other day in her column ( Michelle Malkin: Biography and Latest Articles ), and you’re kind of on the opposite end of the spectrum politically from her, typically, I would assume. And she talked about the ABC poll, which asks a question about, “Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage, and has been on life support for 15 years”.
CADDELL: Yes, and she’s not on life support.
SELLERS: Exactly.
CADDELL: This has been a problem in which, in terms of explaining so people know. When ABC asked their poll last Sunday, only 16% of the people had been following the case closely. So a lot of people, for instance, assume what we’re dealing with is a situation where someone is on life support means that you’re getting breathing, that your organs are being run by a machine, and that you’re near death. That’s not the case here. People need to be explained to them exactly what the situation is.
SELLERS: Well then let me ask you this, Pat. Because this verges on a push-poll, which you–
CADDELL: Yes. Exactly.
SELLERS: So if you ask enough questions you can lead up to an answer that you want. Do you think CBS is doing that purposely, or carelessly, or what?
CADDELL: I don’t–I never–let me just put it this way. Usually they do their surveys most of the time in conjunction with the New York Times. This was one they did separately. I have to tell you, when I’ve seen complex issues, only once, which is in the Los Angeles Times with the recall here in California, have I seen a survey that made me wonder whether or not the results were prejudged before they were written. This poll is so basically designed to produce certain results, and then is being reported as such, makes me very concerned. Now it could be just pure incompetence, however I suspect that there’s more here than that.
SELLERS: Can you give–
CADDELL: And I’m a pollster. My business, it’s not about where you stand on the political scale. If you’re in the business of public opinion, it is to give the American people a proper reflection of their voice once they’ve had a chance to properly reflect what the actual facts are. It is not to design a poll to come out and try to drive the news media.
SELLERS: I don’t know if you’re prepared for this, but I’ll put you on the spot. If you could ask a question, what do you think would be a better question to ask, to get a feel for how people feel about Terri Schiavo?
CADDELL: Well, the first thing I would do is I would’ve started by asking people what they exactly knew about the situation. And then described actually the differences in these kinds of conditions, from the difference in life support, the difference in–
SELLERS: Vegetative state.
CADDELL: --vegetative state, so they understand it. And the fact is that there are several controversies here. Give an accurate reflection. And then ask people how they feel about it, once they’ve had a chance at least to get a scan on what is a very complicated issue. You don’t start, and if you’re going to get in the business of the Congress or what they’re doing, then you should state what they did–which was to allow a review. Now whether the people favored or opposed it. Not just a question that says that they were going to be involved in deciding her fate. None of us basically–I’m amazed at the 13% who wanted it. But that’s not what’s being reported. What’s being reported is saying the poll says that the Congress and the President, 82% say the President and the Congress should not be involved.
SELLERS: OK, interesting conversation, Pat. Thank you very much.
CADDELL: OK.
So how do you guys feel now that Jesse Jackson has entered the fray?
Does it give some of you lib types pause for a minute?
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
So how do you guys feel now that Jesse Jackson has entered the fray?
Does it give some of you lib types pause for a minute?[/quote]
I’ve always hated Jesse Jackson and this doesn’t change my opinion of him.