The story isn't over, and the right wing didn't fail. Under normal
circumstances, Terri's death would have gone unnoticed, as well as the
conspiracy that goes along with it. Instead, the story has focused the
attention of the right wing on the faults of the judiciary which are going

to be dealt with, and also the right to die issue, which is also going to be
dealt with.

"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:c9mr41ppoff6qecco8mqig6olj1flh92he@4ax.com...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/040105.html

Terri Schiavo & the Right-Wing Machine

By Sam Parry

April 1, 2005


The media frenzy surrounding the Terri Schiavo case is new evidence of
the American Right's ability to dominate national news cycles, a power
that has become possibly the most intimidating force in modern U.S.
politics.

In the Schiavo case, however, the Right has discovered that even its
impressive message machinery sometimes can push the envelope too far.

In the Schiavo tragedy, leaders of the Christian Right and the
Republican Party marketed themselves as the defenders of life and
painted their liberal adversaries as intellectual elitists lacking
compassion for a defenseless woman.

Conservative leaders also hoped to rally their base around the need
for more conservative judges who would defend the so-called "culture
of life."

With stunning bravado, the Right played on the Schiavo story's appeal
as a round-the-clock cable TV drama:

a life-or-death countdown;

grieving parents;

a husband who could be made into the heavy;

supposedly insensitive judges;

Republican leaders rushing to the rescue, including both Jeb and
George W. Bush.

But then the results of early opinion polls rolled in.

Those samplings of public opinion suggested that -- at least this time
-- the religious Right, congressional Republicans and the Bushes may
have overreached, looking more ghoulish than godly.

The conservatives may have underestimated the risk of exploiting a
crisis that touches on the personal experiences of too many Americans.

It is one thing to whip up outrage against a foreign leader, such as
Iraq's Saddam Hussein, or to focus anger at an individual politician,
like Sen. John Kerry.

Few Americans have much knowledge of foreign affairs or have much
sympathy for a politician whom they know mostly through televised
images.

In both situations, it's easy to get the U.S. public to think the
worst.

But the Schiavo case featured an issue that thousands of Americans
face every year:

how to deal with painful end-of-life decisions for their loved ones --
and whether they themselves would want to continue living with severe
brain damage, kept alive in a semi-vegetative state with tubes coming
out of their bodies.

People who have been forced to contemplate such matters know that
there are no easy answers, only hard choices.

According to an Associated Press report, the decision to take a
patient off life support is one that is made "at least tens of
thousands" of times every year, though actual figures are not tracked
at America's hospitals.

"It's so common, many hospitals don't require these kinds of decisions
to be brought before an ethics panel anymore," Laurie Zoloth, a
professor of medical ethics at Northwestern University, told the AP.

The Los Angeles Times reported that a similar end-of-life decision
even confronted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in 1988 after his
father, Charles, was injured in a tram accident and had no hope of
recovering from a near-vegetative state.

DeLay joined other family members in deciding to end his father's life
support.

That experience, however, has not stopped DeLay from fanning the
flames of outrage against Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, and the
judges who backed the decision to remove her feeding tube and let the
brain-damaged woman die after 15 years in what doctors diagnosed as a
"persistent vegetative state."

Though the Schiavo case was far from unique, the conservatives
displayed their media might by transforming it into the dominant news
story for almost two weeks, drawing 24-hour coverage on cable channels
and overwhelming other news that might normally be viewed as more
important.

Only a few liberal commentators have dared to note, for instance, the
contrast between Bush's high-profile role in the Schiavo case and his
low-profile performance after a Minnesota school shooting that claimed
the lives of 10 people, the worst such incident since the Columbine
massacre in 1999.

The apparent logic behind Bush's differing reactions was that the
Schiavo case was a cause celebre for Bush's Christian conservative
base, while the Minnesota school shooting carried the risk of reviving
demands for tighter gun control, which might offend another powerful
Bush constituency, the gun lobby.

So while no legislative initiative followed the Minnesota deaths, the
Republican-controlled Congress held an extraordinary weekend session
to pass special legislation to put the Schiavo case back in federal
court.

Perhaps even more remarkably, President Bush interrupted a Texas
vacation to fly back to Washington to sign the bill.

This was the same George W. Bush who so treasures his relaxation on
his ranch that he went fishing after receiving a briefing on Aug. 6,
2001, about Osama bin Laden's determination "to strike in U.S."

There was also no clear reason why the Schiavo legislation could not
have been flown to Texas for the president's signature, rather than
having Bush dramatically return to Washington.

The political theatrics were reminiscent of another case of Republican
moralistic posturing:

the 1998-99 impeachment crisis over Bill Clinton's lying about sex
with White House aide Monica Lewinsky.

Then, the Republican-controlled Congress intruded into another private
matter -- marital infidelity -- where millions of Americans, including
many leading Republicans, had personal experience.

_________________________________________________________

The Repugs never learn, do they.

Harry