Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Schiavo Autopsy Backs Earlier Medical Evidence

An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband's contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had massive and irreversible brain damage and was blind, the medical examiner's office said this morning. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused.

This shouldn't be surprising to JABBS readers, although it will be interesting to see how the "conservative media" handles the story. They certainly handled it poorly in real time.

Will they bring back Dr. William Hammesfahr, who bounced around between Fox News and MSNBC and various conservative talk radio, making claims about Schiavo's condition -- claims that he was unable to prove in court?

Will conservative hosts like Sean Hannity and Joe Scarborough finally admit that they didn't know what they were talking about when they presented "the other side of the story" -- trotting out Hammesfahr and two discredited nurses, not to mention doctors who had never treated Schiavo but felt they could diagnose her by watching three-year-old video?


And here's another question worth asking:

Will the conservative media take a second look at whether there was political benefit to turning the Schiavo tragedy into a national "pro-life" agenda item?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the Right's entire argument -- which caught the fascination of the mainstream press for weeks on end, and diverted attention away from Iraq and more pressing issues -- has been completely deflated.
Let's see whether the Right-wing commentators who made so much noise about their dubious claims now proven false will now bone up to the truth. I doubt it.
Expect silence.

1:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Silence is golden as the saying goes. Besides, the "Right" already won this argument. And as usual, the Left continues to fight the battles of the past. They better start looking to the future or the taste of defeat could linger for more than a decade. Prediction: The left will continue to lose so long as it puts it political future ahead of what's good for America. How's it feel to be a perenial loser?

3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How does it feel to be a perennial liar?

So the right can lie and lie and lie, and then when the left tries to fact-check, the right can call the left a bunch of whiners and then move on to the next set of lies? Are you kidding me?

3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Answering a question with a question shows a sheer lack of debating skills. Whether the Right has lied is a matter of opinion. While the Left being a big loser is a statement of fact (who could forget the humiliating loss the left suffered in the recent Presidential election). I guess a majority of Americans would rather try their luck with alleged liars than a Party of Losers.

4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Democratic Party isn't a bunch of losers, in the same way the Repulbican Party wasn't a bunch of losers in the mid-1990s, after Clinton won re-election.

But given a choice between being factually accurate and struggling to get my message across, or getting my message across by lying, I'll take the former.

As it applies to this issue, you can't convince me that Joe Scarborough didn't know that William Hammesfahr had been discredited by the court when he booked him as a guest. You can't convince me that the Fox News research staff is so stupid as to actually think that a Congressman writing a letter is the equivalent of a Nobel Prize nomination -- as it claimed in the case of Hammesfahr.

They seized on an issue that they thought would help them in the cultural wars. Maybe they strengthened themselves with the religious right. I don't know. But these are pyrrhic victories, because mainstream America is being turned off.

Kerry wasn't a great candidate. But Bush isn't going to run for re-election in 2008. So it's a clean slate. Which party has the better track record on the economy? On taxation and tax fairness? On education? The environment?

The GOP now is very similar to the Gingrich-led "revolution" of 1994. It is drunk with power, and it is turning the American people off, issue by issue. Schiavo this week, another DeLay scandal next week. The death toll in Iraq is rising, and we don't have an exit strategy. We still haven't caught Osama bin Laden. The average American is paying attention to stories like the GM layoffs and the United Air Lines pension scandal. The polls suggest the tide is turning away from that lamest of ducks, GW Bush.

4:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's poke fun at this silly analysis, just for kicks.
Anonymous said...
"Silence is golden as the saying goes. Besides, the "Right" already won this argument."

The Schiavo case is largely responsible for Bush and the Republican-dominated congress hitting record low approval marks in the polls, and for being cited for being out of touch and heading the country in the wrong direction.

"As usual, the Left continues to fight the battles of the past."

So you're saying it's okay if Republicans and Bush are found to have lied or made big mistakes in the past which continue to adversely affect the future welfare of the country.
How does the saying go: One who fails to study history is doomed to repeat it. Even a moron understands: You cannot correct a problem until you understand precisely how the problem started in the first place.

"They better start looking to the future or the taste of defeat could linger for more than a decade...
And as usual, the Left continues to fight the battles of the past. Prediction: The left will continue to lose so long as it puts it political future ahead of what's good for America. How's it feel to be a perenial loser?"

The Democrats lost the last election due to Karl Rove spin that concrete evidences have since largely discounted: i.e. Bush did not blow an opportunity to catch Osama Bin Laden at Tora Bora, Bush acted in the country's best interests attacking Iraq, the Swift Boat Veterans, and on and on.
If the American public knew then what they know now: Bush's persistent denials of the realities of the Iraq War, the war's mushrooming costs, Bush's attempts to shove a social security plan nobody wants down our throats, etc. Bush would not have been reelected.
As a matter of fact, a recent poll showed that the Americans would now prefer Democrates in control of congress over Republicans 42% to 35%.

So Democrats are the losers? If current conditions do not change, we can kiss many of the Republicans goodbye after the 2006 mid-term elections.
And we shouldn't eliminate the possibility of impeachment hearings in upcoming months for Bush and company, as the public becomes increasingly interested in the revealations of the officiated Downing Street memo and several subsequent memos of the British government.

5:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am someone who considers himself centrist and often am at odds with the bloggers here. That said, i think it is necessary to call out those who intentionally write something just to raise the ire of the other side. The conservative blogger who began the silence is golden, the right won argument is wasting everyone's time and should not be engaged here at all.

Noone won anything, a woman died after gong through a ridiculous public scrutiny--everyone lost.

the public's ridiculous fascination with what is called news these days is astonishing. The republican right made the miscalculation that this fascination could be extended for political gain and hence you had the schiavo shenanigans. It is clear this was a mistake and hurt the congressional republicans, period. Didnt necessarily help the ignorant dems, but certainly hurt the republicans. The republicans are overstepping recently, which is a shame. they are being controlled by a fringe. so stupid...they could have remained in power for years if they learned to wield the power stick carefully (because the dems are inept and have no clue what they stand for).

Whomever is more capable of grabbing the center will win the next presidential election. Whether or not the republicans lose seats in 2006 (and i suspect they will based on their recent actions) still remains to be seen. It is amazing...the dems really have done nothing positive but still the republicans keep screwing up. Hence, people are sick and disgusted with congress overall.

It doesnt really matter if the schiavo matter comes up on the news now. it isnt big news....i would pose that the right has already lost that argument and the dems would look better not trying to rub their faces in it. Ultimately, this was a human being with a caring family and they were utterly used by the media, the public and then congress. Very sad representation of America and its representatives.

6:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am tired of this Republican-created stereotype that the Democrats have "no clue what they stand for."
The Democrats have more of a willingness to look at all sides to an issue and come up with a reasoned solution that works for everyone and thus produces a better result. Democrats understand that issues are complex and often demand additional study or thought.
The Republicans like to characterize what should be looked upon as a strong trait as a weakness or indecisiveness. What bullshit! If you had to choose someone to make a decision that impacts your life, health or well-being, or that of your peers, wouldn't you prefer someone who listens to your side and weighs the evidences, rather than accepting on the decision of a single authority?
Most Right-wingers condemn Democrats or Liberals until they take a moment and recognize that they actually stand for their own interests.
Then we have a statement that Democrats have "done nothing positive" so baseless that it does not merit a response.

6:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Democrats are "controlled" by the lunatic fringe, eh?

Give some examples. If the lunatic fringe were so powerful, why did only one Democratic Senator stand up and challenge the electoral college vote in Ohio? That was a "lunatic fringe" issue if there ever was one.

When you say things like that, you lose all credibility for your whole argument. It's like when conservatives say that Democrats favor abortions or "abortion on demand." It's red meat for your fellow conservatives, but it has no bearing on reality. It's like saying that Democrats sided with Michael Schiavo because they hate Bush. It's preposterous.

9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It works both ways.
Do you recall when Clinton was in power and the only thing the Republicans could do was tear him and his policies apart like a mad bulldog?
What bothers me at the present time is when facts and evidences surface demonstrating the Bush Administration has indeed participated in wrongful and deceptive activity, anyone who brings the issue to light is immediately discredited as having a liberal, anti-Bush or Democratic bias. This attitude as now accepted by a fearful press worried about a "liberal-bias" taint accomplishes nothing but to prevent the truth from ever coming to the surface.
The party in power subsequently gains the ability to ramrod anything down on the public, whether harmful or beneficial.
Unfortunately, we do not have an ultimate autopsy of every issue like the one done on Schiavo's brain to finally arrive at an objective truth.
Instead we get a congress slanted towards the party in power.

9:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to the blogger immediately above, i tend to agree but would suggest that what the biggest problem is the fascination of americans with non news like schiavo, the runaway bride, MJ (at least he was a celebrity), peterson, the aruba chick.....puhlease end this misery. i can no longer figure out whether this is the media dumbing down america or that america is dumb overall and chooses these stories over real life issues that affect people everywhere.

to the blogger two above, silly response. i dont know any republicans who truly believe the dems like or want abortion on demand etc....nice grouping of fellow republicans from someone who doesnt like the discussion on fringes of the party. so all repulicans are grouped together. just so stupid. no doubt there is a group on the right that feels this way and they represent the lunatic right, which is the offset of the lunatic left which you dont think exists. and despite your indication, the dem senators did not side with anyone in the schiavo case if you ask me. they backed off and let things happen. they may have talked afterwards but many voted with the republicans in congress. the entire thing was a despicable display of political theatre and should not be used as a strong point for either party (especially the republicans). Just a sad display.

4:22 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

If there aren't republicans who believe Democrats want abortion on demand, then why do they keep using that term?

Why suggest, like Rick Santorum does, that allowing gay marriage means allowing marriage between humans and animals (he said that on the Senate floor)? Why suggest, like Santorum and others have, that Democrats want "partial-birth" abortions to be a "choice," when they know that not only would no doctor perform such an abortion as a "lifestyle decision" of the mother, but no doctor on record HAS performed such an abortion?

Is Santorum a "fringe Republican"? If he is, fine. But he's the one using this kind of incorrect, inflammatory language to describe an entire party -- not to describe the fringe of that party.

And hey, what about all those things that you hear on conservative talk radio. Are those statements by "fringe" Republicans? Is liberalism truly a "mental distorder," as Michael Savage and his supporters say? Is Howard Dean mentally troubled, as suggested by Charles Krauthammer (who always drops that he's a licensed psychiatrist)? Are liberals more dangerous than terrorists, as Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Ann Coulter suggest?

I'm sorry for the rant, but let's not play dumb here. There's a whole industry that's been created by people grossly stereotyping liberals and Democrats as being anti-American, unethical, secular, abortion-loving, pro-France, anti-troop, anti-marriage, pro-gay, weak-kneed wussies.

4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i agree that there is an industry created to do what you say. the other half of the industry does exactly the opposite...takes apart all the republicans as if they are the lunatics. ever listen to air now have the offset to michael savage who i find despicable. all i am saying is the river flows both directions. the sad thing is that the more centrist and reasonable views are often lost in the hysteria of the lunatic left and right that have taken center stage in recent years. it is shifting back though, slowly but surely. you see hillary moving center, dean being isolated by more centrist (didnt dean make disparaging comments about republicans grouping them all together much in the way you dont like the right doing so.), even see some centrist republicans like mccain taking the stage again. frist delay, santorum--these people have looked bad recently. i am hoping this trend toward the center continues.

but lets be fair--just because you happen to agree with one side of every story doesnt mean the lies and exagerations and shoutfests dont go both directions.

12:02 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares