I'll bet Bush wished that Congress had stayed totally away from Schiavo.
Passing that bill merely cornered him, he could not refuse to sign it for
fear of ****ing off the Christian Right. Had he refused, he might have taken
a bigger approval hit the other way. His last comments indicates he just
wants this to go away.

-W



wrote in message
ups.com...
I seldom have anyting positive to say about GWB. I admit it.

In the case of Terri S, Bush is doing what he thinks is right despite a
great political cost to himself and his party.
That's commendable.

According to a credible poll, about 2/3 of the people who self-identify
as conservatives and evagelicals (Bush's base) *oppose* congressional
intervention in the situation. As Bush cut short his vacation and flew
in his pajamas to sign the Sciavo bill at 1 AM, he rather obviously
supports federal intervention. Partially as a result, Bush's approval
rating has nosedived 6 points (from 49 percent to 43 percent). Good for
Bush, he's upholding his principles. When he does something admirable,
it should be noted just as much as his many screw-ups.



(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.

Bush's overall approval was at 43 percent, down from 49 percent last
month.

Over the weekend, Republicans in Congress pushed through emergency
legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life by allowing the case to
be reviewed by federal courts. That bill was signed by the president
early Monday.

Most Americans say they feel sympathy for family members on both sides
of the dispute over the 41-year-old Schiavo, according to a CNN-USA
Today-Gallup poll.

More than eight in 10 in that poll said they feel sympathy for Bob and
Mary Schindler, parents of Schiavo, who want to keep her alive. And
seven in 10 said they're sympathetic for Michael Schiavo, the husband
of Schiavo who says she should be allowed to die.

The CBS News poll of 737 adults was taken Monday and Tuesday and the
CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 620 adults was taken Tuesday. Both have
margins of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


03/24/05 08:32 EST

In article . net,
says...
I'll bet Bush wished that Congress had stayed totally away from Schiavo.
Passing that bill merely cornered him, he could not refuse to sign it for
fear of ****ing off the Christian Right. Had he refused, he might have taken
a bigger approval hit the other way. His last comments indicates he just
wants this to go away.

-W

Completely agree.

jps

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...
I'll bet Bush wished that Congress had stayed totally away from Schiavo.
Passing that bill merely cornered him, he could not refuse to sign it for
fear of ****ing off the Christian Right. Had he refused, he might have
taken
a bigger approval hit the other way. His last comments indicates he just
wants this to go away.


He's not running for anything. Why should he care about how the Schiavo
case affects his poll ratings? The man is standing on principle, as is his
brother (who *may* be running for something). Republicans (at the state and
the federal level) who voted against any life-sustenance bill have sold out
to insurance companies and hospital administrators.

In article . net,
says...

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...
I'll bet Bush wished that Congress had stayed totally away from Schiavo.
Passing that bill merely cornered him, he could not refuse to sign it for
fear of ****ing off the Christian Right. Had he refused, he might have
taken
a bigger approval hit the other way. His last comments indicates he just
wants this to go away.


He's not running for anything. Why should he care about how the Schiavo
case affects his poll ratings? The man is standing on principle, as is his
brother (who *may* be running for something). Republicans (at the state and
the federal level) who voted against any life-sustenance bill have sold out
to insurance companies and hospital administrators.

You're forgetting one little item.

He's the supposed head of his political party. Unless you count Karl
Rove as that person. In that case, Bush was acting on orders.

jps

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...
I'll bet Bush wished that Congress had stayed totally away from Schiavo.
Passing that bill merely cornered him, he could not refuse to sign it
for
fear of ****ing off the Christian Right. Had he refused, he might have
taken
a bigger approval hit the other way. His last comments indicates he just
wants this to go away.


He's not running for anything. Why should he care about how the Schiavo
case affects his poll ratings? The man is standing on principle, as is
his
brother (who *may* be running for something). Republicans (at the state
and
the federal level) who voted against any life-sustenance bill have sold
out
to insurance companies and hospital administrators.

I dissagee..... when Bush is standing on principle, he's adament and "on
about it". Best we got out of him here was "If we're going to err, we
should err on the side of life." That's hardly an "activist" position on the
matter. And just today he was quick to come out with a set of comments that
more or less equels "well that's that then" today when the Supreme Court
shot it down.

I'll bet like a lot of people, Bush is unsure exactly how to feel about
this, except that it sucks all around. While I personally feel that she's a
breathing cadaver, I don't (too much) care if they leave her hooked up as a
living science project for the next 10 years either. I don't think he has a
real adament horse in this fight, anyone with 1/2 a brain knows that she has
none at all. He just can't go against the parties general "right to life"
dogma when it runs up and bites him in the ass (like this case).

There's a difference between the Christian Right - and the Radical Christian
Right. And this case kinda shows who's vocalizing where. Bush has a couple
agendas (like the SS reform bill) that's he wants to move on - Terry Schiavo
is a side show he does not need when he has chosen his battles to fight. He
understood that his election bought him some "political capitol" to spend.
And he seems to know it's limits. I don't think he wants to squander it on
high profile circus issues like this.

-W

Clams Canino wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
hlink.net...

I'll bet Bush wished that Congress had stayed totally away from Schiavo.
Passing that bill merely cornered him, he could not refuse to sign it

for

fear of ****ing off the Christian Right. Had he refused, he might have
taken
a bigger approval hit the other way. His last comments indicates he just
wants this to go away.


He's not running for anything. Why should he care about how the Schiavo
case affects his poll ratings? The man is standing on principle, as is

his

brother (who *may* be running for something). Republicans (at the state

and

the federal level) who voted against any life-sustenance bill have sold

out

to insurance companies and hospital administrators.


I dissagee..... when Bush is standing on principle, he's adament and "on
about it". Best we got out of him here was "If we're going to err, we
should err on the side of life." That's hardly an "activist" position on the
matter. And just today he was quick to come out with a set of comments that
more or less equels "well that's that then" today when the Supreme Court
shot it down.

I'll bet like a lot of people, Bush is unsure exactly how to feel about
this, except that it sucks all around. While I personally feel that she's a
breathing cadaver, I don't (too much) care if they leave her hooked up as a
living science project for the next 10 years either. I don't think he has a
real adament horse in this fight, anyone with 1/2 a brain knows that she has
none at all. He just can't go against the parties general "right to life"
dogma when it runs up and bites him in the ass (like this case).

There's a difference between the Christian Right - and the Radical Christian
Right. And this case kinda shows who's vocalizing where. Bush has a couple
agendas (like the SS reform bill) that's he wants to move on - Terry Schiavo
is a side show he does not need when he has chosen his battles to fight. He
understood that his election bought him some "political capitol" to spend.
And he seems to know it's limits. I don't think he wants to squander it on
high profile circus issues like this.

-W

Sure does take the heat off DeLay for a few days though.

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
ink.net...
I'll bet Bush wished that Congress had stayed totally away from
Schiavo.
Passing that bill merely cornered him, he could not refuse to sign it
for
fear of ****ing off the Christian Right. Had he refused, he might have
taken
a bigger approval hit the other way. His last comments indicates he
just
wants this to go away.


He's not running for anything. Why should he care about how the Schiavo
case affects his poll ratings? The man is standing on principle, as is
his
brother (who *may* be running for something). Republicans (at the state
and
the federal level) who voted against any life-sustenance bill have sold
out
to insurance companies and hospital administrators.

I dissagee..... when Bush is standing on principle, he's adament and "on
about it". Best we got out of him here was "If we're going to err, we
should err on the side of life." That's hardly an "activist" position on
the
matter. And just today he was quick to come out with a set of comments
that
more or less equels "well that's that then" today when the Supreme Court
shot it down.

I'll bet like a lot of people, Bush is unsure exactly how to feel about
this, except that it sucks all around. While I personally feel that she's
a
breathing cadaver, I don't (too much) care if they leave her hooked up as
a
living science project for the next 10 years either. I don't think he has
a
real adament horse in this fight, anyone with 1/2 a brain knows that she
has
none at all. He just can't go against the parties general "right to life"
dogma when it runs up and bites him in the ass (like this case).

There's a difference between the Christian Right - and the Radical
Christian
Right. And this case kinda shows who's vocalizing where. Bush has a couple
agendas (like the SS reform bill) that's he wants to move on - Terry
Schiavo
is a side show he does not need when he has chosen his battles to fight.
He
understood that his election bought him some "political capitol" to spend.
And he seems to know it's limits. I don't think he wants to squander it on
high profile circus issues like this.


That's a pretty good assessment. We know where he stands on the issue...but
he's certainly not going to the mat over it.

On 24 Mar 2005 08:18:34 -0800, wrote:

I seldom have anyting positive to say about GWB. I admit it.

In the case of Terri S, Bush is doing what he thinks is right despite a
great political cost to himself and his party.
That's commendable.

According to a credible poll, about 2/3 of the people who self-identify
as conservatives and evagelicals (Bush's base) *oppose* congressional
intervention in the situation. As Bush cut short his vacation and flew
in his pajamas to sign the Sciavo bill at 1 AM, he rather obviously
supports federal intervention. Partially as a result, Bush's approval
rating has nosedived 6 points (from 49 percent to 43 percent). Good for
Bush, he's upholding his principles. When he does something admirable,
it should be noted just as much as his many screw-ups.



(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.

Bush's overall approval was at 43 percent, down from 49 percent last
month.

Over the weekend, Republicans in Congress pushed through emergency
legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life by allowing the case to
be reviewed by federal courts. That bill was signed by the president
early Monday.

Most Americans say they feel sympathy for family members on both sides
of the dispute over the 41-year-old Schiavo, according to a CNN-USA
Today-Gallup poll.

More than eight in 10 in that poll said they feel sympathy for Bob and
Mary Schindler, parents of Schiavo, who want to keep her alive. And
seven in 10 said they're sympathetic for Michael Schiavo, the husband
of Schiavo who says she should be allowed to die.

The CBS News poll of 737 adults was taken Monday and Tuesday and the
CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 620 adults was taken Tuesday. Both have
margins of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


03/24/05 08:32 EST

The only intervention was allowing the case to be reviewed by federal courts. To
me this is only providing due process of law.

It is surely not the 'family matter intervention' that the liberal media and
individuals are calling it. Hopefully the public will hear the correct story one
day without all the liberal hype.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On 24 Mar 2005 08:18:34 -0800, wrote:

I seldom have anyting positive to say about GWB. I admit it.

In the case of Terri S, Bush is doing what he thinks is right despite a
great political cost to himself and his party.
That's commendable.

According to a credible poll, about 2/3 of the people who self-identify
as conservatives and evagelicals (Bush's base) *oppose* congressional
intervention in the situation. As Bush cut short his vacation and flew
in his pajamas to sign the Sciavo bill at 1 AM, he rather obviously
supports federal intervention. Partially as a result, Bush's approval
rating has nosedived 6 points (from 49 percent to 43 percent). Good for
Bush, he's upholding his principles. When he does something admirable,
it should be noted just as much as his many screw-ups.


This is an interesting development from an ideological perspective.
Many people, who are died in the wool conservatives, strongly oppose
government intervention in this private matter. While many liberals,
who normally oppose Bush, suddenly herald his decision to intervene
for Terri's "rights".

This issue is not dividing down the usual party and ideological lines.

Dave

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:50:02 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On 24 Mar 2005 08:18:34 -0800, wrote:

I seldom have anyting positive to say about GWB. I admit it.

In the case of Terri S, Bush is doing what he thinks is right despite a
great political cost to himself and his party.
That's commendable.

According to a credible poll, about 2/3 of the people who self-identify
as conservatives and evagelicals (Bush's base) *oppose* congressional
intervention in the situation. As Bush cut short his vacation and flew
in his pajamas to sign the Sciavo bill at 1 AM, he rather obviously
supports federal intervention. Partially as a result, Bush's approval
rating has nosedived 6 points (from 49 percent to 43 percent). Good for
Bush, he's upholding his principles. When he does something admirable,
it should be noted just as much as his many screw-ups.


This is an interesting development from an ideological perspective.
Many people, who are died in the wool conservatives, strongly oppose
government intervention in this private matter. While many liberals,
who normally oppose Bush, suddenly herald his decision to intervene
for Terri's "rights".

This issue is not dividing down the usual party and ideological lines.

Dave

My thinking is that whoever took this case to court the first time has asked for
government intervention. The inclusion of the federal courts in the 'due
process' ladder seems only an extension of rights, not an intervention.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."