Blog swarms are usually exciting and always tiring. Doing round-ups is often less taxing and sometimes just as valuable as original reporting. I’m playing catch-up today on a swarm that began last Sunday about a memo supposedly distributed at a meeting of Republican senators. It’s purported to show that Republicans viewed the Terri Schiavo case as politically beneficial. According to a story in last Sunday’s Washington Post (March 20):
In a memo distributed only to Republican senators, the Schiavo case was characterized as “a great political issue” that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives, whose support is essential in midterm elections such as those coming up in 2006.Schiavo, 41, spent a full day off of nourishment and fluids yesterday at a hospice in the Gulf Coast suburb of Pinellas Park, Fla. Her feeding tube was removed Friday afternoon after a state judge ignored subpoenas from Congress and enforced a deadline that lawmakers had thought they could thwart by declaring her a witness who must be protected for a future hearing they would conduct at her bedside. Late Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, denied an emergency request from the House committee that had issued the subpoenas.
Conservative bloggers tried to track down a copy of the memo, to no avail. On Monday, March 21, Power Line’s John Hinderaker wrote:
This memo, obviously, ties in with the Democrats’ talking point that the Republicans don’t really care about a disabled woman who is being starved to death, but are seeking political advantage. (Simultaneously, they point out poll data suggesting that an overwhelming majority of Americans are on their side. Consistency is never required of Democrats.) But I have to wonder: is the memo genuine, or is it a Democratic dirty trick?I haven’t seen a complete copy of the memo, and to my knowledge, none is available online. The most complete characterization of the memo I’ve seen is on this liberal site. But what I really want to see is a copy of the memo itself. It is described as “unsigned.” What does this mean? Most Senate and House memos are written on letterhead that show whose office they came from. Is this memo on such letterhead? Apparently not. As best I can tell, it is anonymous. Is it simply a one-page memo on blank white paper that purports to come from a Republican? If so, is there any reason to assume that it is genuine? How does the Senate’s mail system work? Can anyone write an anonymous memo, and send it to 55 Republican Senators, with a copy to ABC News?
Despite the memo’s authenticity problems, the media continued to make references to it. Joshua Claybourn, who’s been all over the story, contacted ABC News (which broke the story) to track down the source of the memo. On March 23, this is what he found out:
I’ve just spoken with news sources who argue ABC News only reported the memo was circulated on the Senate floor, and that ABC News never suggested it was of Senate Republican origins. However the headline for the memo posted online reads, “GOP Talking Points on Terri Schiavo.” If they weren’t authored by Republicans, why call them GOP Talking Points? Even more was suggested when the story was reported on TV.
Yesterday Joshua spoke with Senate staffers who claim that an aide to Democratic senator Harry Reid distributed to memo. Read his latest post and Michelle Malkin’s response.
Michelle’s also closely followed developments. In a March 23 post, she provided links to several newspapers that cited the memo. The prolific blogger also notes that mainstream media are ignoring the hoax angle. What could be more newsworthy than newspapers relying on a phony memo? The burning desire for dirt on Republicans regardless of the source is how Dan Rather got into trouble. Michelle also chastises media critic Howard Kurtz for downplaying the scandal. In this post, she links to other newspapers and sites that continue to reference the memo, despite its unknown origins.
Have you written about the scandal? Trackback to this post, and I’ll include you in the round-up.
Other bloggers: Air Force Voices, The Cassandra Page, Expertise, JackLewis.net…
Saturday Morning Detective Work.
Ugh. I swear I checked In The Agora before I went to bed last night, but I suppose I was too sleepy to see this little gem.
Trackback by Expertise's Politics and Sports Blog — 03.26.05 @ 11:27 am
This memo was presented on the Sunday talking head shows. It was presented on Fox and Meet the Press.
Not one Republican denied the memo or questioned it’s authenticity.
And Tom Delay has been recorded giving an interview or a speech where he appears to be pulling partisan politics into this.
“Hoax”?
I could be missing something but it seems that Republicans politicos would have been screaming up a storm at the first mention of the memo as well as the RNC.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.26.05 @ 11:36 am
I don’t know anything about it, DS, which is why I included a question mark in the post title. And I guess you missed this nugget from one of Michelle’s posts I linked to:
In an update to his original post at Power Line, John Hinderaker points out that “most of the text of the memo is copied (typo and all) from this post at the Traditional Values Coalition site.” Given that, it seems quite possible that someone at the TVC was responsible for drafting the memo, not Republican Party operatives.
If that’s the case, a conservative organization may have been responsible for the memo. If so, it’s still problematic for the media to imply that Republican senators drafted the thing.
Comment by La Shawn — 03.26.05 @ 11:40 am
Who cares. The anti-tubers are still murdering that woman.
Comment by Carlos — 03.26.05 @ 12:00 pm
Not one Republican denied the memo or questioned it’s authenticity.
This is simply not true. Every GOP Senator asked about the memo has denied involvement, including Frist and Santorum. No Republican claims any connection, so I don’t buy the line that their non-denial is evidence. They have denied it.
Comment by Joshua Claybourn — 03.26.05 @ 12:02 pm
This seems like a fair summary. The bottom line is merely lazy/biased reporting, not a scheme/media play a la “Rathergate”.
If this sort of hoax worked it would be happening all the time.
But another bottom line is whether or not there are in fact pols using Schaivo as merely political play. On that question 82% of the polled public believes yes. And this unbiased observer agrees.
Comment by Undertoad — 03.26.05 @ 12:04 pm
Old Media Tricks
Thomas Lifson of The American Thinker has a great post regarding old media
Trackback by Air Force Voices — 03.26.05 @ 12:04 pm
After being active in the Republican [in Minnesota Independent-Republican] party for forty years now, I am certain that Republicans are not perfect. What we need is a strong, HONEST, Democratic party to so we can look over each other’s shoulder. Right now so much of what the MSM/Liberals come out with seem to be downright lies. And they don’t seem to care. Truth is always better than fiction.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 03.26.05 @ 12:20 pm
Right now so much of what the MSM/Liberals come out with seem to be downright lies. And they don’t seem to care. Truth is always better than fiction.
this is a generous comment to say the least, I believe the LLL’s would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than to stand on the ground and tell the truth.
Comment by Tom — 03.26.05 @ 12:30 pm
As a reader, I read blogs for the great writing/analysis.
I don’t expect the Great Bloggers/LaShawn to be Document Verification Specialists, or expend precious time and resources running a Notary Service.
At some point I would think a leap of faith, intuition, common sense, should be applied.
Anything more than that is taking time away from doing what LaShawn does best: Great writing !!!!
Comment by Glamchild — 03.26.05 @ 1:03 pm
Another MSM/DNC lie - Terri Schiavo memo
I think the Terri Schiavo fake memo story finally merits inclusion in the list of MSM lies of 2005. [This one is number 17].
Trackback by The Cassandra Page — 03.26.05 @ 1:12 pm
Tom,
Define MSM/liberals…does this imply that there are MSM/conservatives? If MSM is all that you’re implying, then give me several specific news sources that I can go to to get totally unbiased, unvarnished truth in news…not analysis…straight news.
Comment by stan — 03.26.05 @ 1:31 pm
The Bill Burkett of Memoquitick are the democratic Senate stafffers. The New York Time reported witnessing democratic staffers distributing the memo. They have no reports of any repulicans circulating the memo.
David
Comment by David L — 03.26.05 @ 5:59 pm
I can’t think of any reason why Republicans would circulate a memo to other Republicans under the heading of GOP Talking Points. That’s the terminology opponents usually use to dismiss some point as mere rhetoric and not an argument. Why would someone use the term to describe their own points? That in itself suggests that this is a hoax, never mind the other suspcious elements.
Comment by Jeremy Pierce — 03.26.05 @ 6:05 pm
Terri Schiavo Roundup: The Nightmarish Land of Oz
The Heartless Judiciary: Dean’s World, Blogs for Terri, bLogicus The Cowardly Executive Branch: Dean’s World, Blogs for Terri, GOPInsight, bLogicus,…
Trackback by JackLewis.net — 03.26.05 @ 6:58 pm
The MSM has learned from the Rathergate debacle. This has all the earmarks of a new and improved Rathergate hoax.
First, the document differs in important respects from authentic documents of the same type. However, the “memo” original is not released, so document experts can’t examine it.
The reporters who “broke” or made up the story insist they can’t identify their sources, but describe them as reliable, just like Bill Burkett.
Next, when authenticity of the document is questioned, the media organizations which generated the story start lying about it. ABC now claims it didn’t say the document was “Republican” after it clearly had said so on its website and in its original on-air story.
While the blogs, and particularly La Shawn, have done a good job of exposing this apparent hoax, unless the radio talk shows and Fox News start hitting this harder, the MSM and their Democratic allies will get away with this one.
The failure of Fox, in particular, to focus on this is inexplicable. This could be to ABC what Rathergate was to CBS - a smoking gun showing media collusion with the Democratic Party to perpetrate a political fraud. There is no question this memo is being used by the Dems for partisan political purposes.
Everyone who cares about this should email Fox, Rush, and anyone else who can shine a spotlight on this “memo” to ask them to go after this in a big way.
Comment by Nick — 03.26.05 @ 7:30 pm
On “The Capital Gang” this afternoon Mark Shields referred again to it as from “Republicans” so dems are still getting mileage out of it. I’m disappointed in Mark Shields.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 03.26.05 @ 8:06 pm
My big question to everyone is why has this turned into a Republican vs. Democrat issue? Conservative vs. Liberal Issue?
Why don’t we all treat it for what it really is.
A human issue and take the politics out of it.
Comment by Dean — 03.26.05 @ 9:02 pm
DS,
Tom Delay did deny on ABC.
You are incorrect again.
Comment by Baklava — 03.27.05 @ 3:35 am
Dean,
I don’t know how it turned into a political issue either other than we are in an age of an information war. Slowly, ever so slowly people are really coming to see how the dominant press is badly misinforming them and mischaracterizing and accusing and alleging and getting facts wrong, etc.
Unfortunately, Those who are the conveyors of the dominant news don’t quite either realize it or are playing the any means to an end game. Maybe it’s some of both.
I mean when Dan Rather was questioned about the memo he stated that he still believed the story was true. That’s an example of not realizing how badly they are biased and of ill contempt for conservatives and the other point of view from theirs.
Half of the Democrats in Congress voted for the Shaivo bill and yet Maureen Dowd and others talked about “conservatives” turning this country into a theocracy.
For all that I’ve written about Terri, to me it wasn’t about religion, abortion or Democrat vs. Republican. To me it is about the facts as I see them:
There was no living will stating Terri’s desire
1) Terry doesn’t seem to actually be in PVS
2) Michael doesn’t OWN Terri
3) People can’t not feed their own dogs without being arrested
4) Judge Greer didn’t look at much evidence from the Schindler’s
5) There are people that want to take complete physical and financial responsibility of Terri
6) Not much rehab has been allowed
7) Much rehab and tests have been disallowed and ordered by Michael to stop
9) Given an uncertain will situation and loving parents, why the rush to kill and why not ERROR on the side of life?
Comment by Baklava — 03.27.05 @ 3:45 am
I posted about this a few days ago, http://badhairblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/fake-but-accurate-again-via-captains.html, and will post on it later this upcoming week.
It’s absurd that an anonymous memo is called a “GOP memo” by the MSM.
Comment by Fausta — 03.27.05 @ 7:54 am
Baklava,
Power Line has decent overview of the case. The nine observations seem both accurate and pertinent. Sadly they seem legally irrelevant.
Judge George Greer made the decision to accept Micheal Schiavo’s hear-say evidence as to Terri’s desire as the legal truth. Once Greer made the finding that Terri wanted to die, that has been the presumption of the judicial system. Evidence counter to Greer’s finding is simply not viewed as relevant.
Mr. Schiavo was been truely persistent in efforts to have life wife legally killed by the state.
Comment by David L — 03.27.05 @ 9:10 am
This is simply not true. Every GOP Senator asked about the memo has denied involvement, including Frist and Santorum.
GOP congress criters were asked on Fox and Meet the Press. They didn’t deny.
Here is what I originally wrote:
This memo was presented on the Sunday talking head shows. It was presented on Fox and Meet the Press.
Not one Republican denied the memo or questioned it’s authenticity.
Now comes Baklava with this:
Tom Delay did deny on ABC.
You are incorrect again.
Reading comprehension 101. I wrote Fox and Meet the Press and then wrote not one Republican denied the memo or questioned it.
Meet the Press isn’t ABC, is it?
So, again, you appear to have a reading comprehension problem.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.27.05 @ 8:08 pm
Blame Tricky Dick Nixon. I have followed politics since I was a mere lad and have found that scoundrels abound on both sides of the aisle. I wish I could be surprised that the GOP is accused of producing such a memo, but I am not. I just wouldn’t be surprised if it was their handiwork. No intellectually honest person can absolve either major political party of throwing rocks and hiding their hands in the hopes of swaying the public. If politicians in general weren’t so callous, maybe these kinds of allegations wouldn’t grow such strong legs so quickly. I don’t know if it is a hoax or not. I simply don’t trust Republicans enough to doubt it. Especially not the ethically challenged Tom Delay.
Comment by Rafael Daniel — 03.27.05 @ 8:20 pm
of course they did
Michelle Malkin asks, “DID THE MSM LEARN NOTHING FROM RATHERGATE?”. The answer is: of course they did. Actually, I think they learned something from a combination of Rathergate and draftgate.
Trackback by Doc Rampage — 03.28.05 @ 12:50 am
Hi, LaShawn!
Good to see you have joined us in persuing this matter! The more people who know about it, the better!
I, too, have been following this story. I have added a link to this post of yours in my latest update, but, alas, I cannot trackback because Blogspot.com does not permit it! How positively stoneage of them!
Anyway, here are the links:
I Suppose Karl Rove Wrote THIS, Too!
The Schiavo Memo Scandal Continues…
Thanks! And keep up the great work,
Mr. Right
Comment by Mr. Right — 03.28.05 @ 3:53 am
So what’s your point DS?
Again trying to setup something for your readers of your posts that make people BELIEVE something that isn’t all because of a 1% argument.
I love/dislike your 1% arguments.
They do NOTHING for the debate.
–Someone somewhere mentions something about SS and you go on as if it exists when I’ve never heard of such strategy and have been active in politics for 14 years.
–No republican denied a memo on 2 specific shows and you go on as if the memo is valid, shows the character of the republicans in general, or whatever awful accusation you like to keep making in EVERY situation.
It doesn’t add to the debate.
And I’ll be here to point out your 1% arguments every time.
Comment by Baklava — 03.28.05 @ 10:58 am
How about talking about what YOU think based on these facts:
1) Terri doesn’t seem to actually be in PVS (or at least her status is in dispute - not understood by Judge Greer)
There was no living will stating Terri’s desire
2) Michael doesn’t OWN Terri (Men don’t OWN women and shouldn’t have the power to put them down to the objections of loved ones who want to care for them physically and financially)
3) People can’t not feed their own dogs without being arrested (we’ve all seen the stories of people with 100 cats who were arrested and charged with animal cruelty because they were starving and what not)
4) Judge Greer didn’t look at much evidence from the Schindler’s (the Schindler’s tried to show evidence of Terri’s being alive and awake and responsive and opinions of doctors that rehab could produce results - Greer excluded that evidence and the other 19 courts that looked at the case didn’t take up that evidence either)
5) There are people that want to take complete physical and financial responsibility of Terri (living with and having children with another woman would give immediate grounds for a divorce but Greer carries on as if only Michael can speak for Terri and YET there is dispute from other people who believe that Terri would want to live)
6) Not much rehab has been allowed (even anti-rehab has been going on - Michael has disallowed people giving Terri ice chips and he has been keeping the blinds closed)
7) Much rehab and tests have been disallowed and ordered by Michael to stop
9) Given an uncertain will situation and loving parents, why the rush to kill and why not ERROR on the side of life?
But you go on as if NON of this information should matter and lawmakers shouldn’t be concerned with the situation (abusive judge) and if the only reason why the Terri bill passed Congress was political when half of the Democrats voted YES on the bill.
Again. 1% (fairly irrelevant argument).
Action was almost forced on people because death was imminent.
Comment by Baklava — 03.28.05 @ 12:21 pm
Selective Restraint
Liberals cheered when Janet Reno defied the courts to seize Elian Gonzalez.
article by John Fund
Includes the following paragraphs:
—
On Thursday, April 20, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals–the same court that rejected the pleas of Terri Schiavo’s parents last week–turned down the Justice Department’s request to order Elian removed from the home of his Miami relatives. Moreover, the court expressed serious doubts about the Justice Department’s reading of both the law and its own regulations, adding that Elian had made a “substantial case on the merits” of his claim. It further established a record that Elain, “although a young child, has expressed a wish that he not be returned to Cuba.”
The Reno Justice Department acted the next day to short-circuit a legal process that was clearly going against it. On Good Friday evening, after all courts had closed for the day, the department obtained a “search” warrant from a night-duty magistrate who was not familiar with the case, submitting a supporting affidavit that seriously distorted the facts. Armed with that dubious warrant, the INS’s helmeted officers, assault rifles at the ready, burst into the home of Elian’s relatives and snatched the screaming boy from a bedroom closet. Many local bystanders were tear-gassed even though they did nothing to block the raid. Elian was quickly returned to Cuba; because he was never able to meet with his lawyers a scheduled May 11 asylum hearing on his case in Atlanta became moot.
———–
So what’s the point? Liberals seem to be on whatever side it takes to try to make a point, but they have one consistent pattern…. and that is against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It isn’t for anyone else to decide Terri’s quality of life, and the do-goodism that I’ve seen in these posts talking about how Terri should be spared the pain and be allowed to die does not speak for her nor does it reflect the videos that I’ve seen of her that show her as responsive and not in PAIN.
Comment by Baklava — 03.28.05 @ 12:35 pm
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:
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.”
The full text of the memo was finally reported on March 21, when ABC News posted online “an exact, full copy of the document.” 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. 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, 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:
As tensions festered among Republicans, Democratic aides passed out an unsigned one-page memorandum that they said had been distributed to Senate Republicans. [emphasis added]
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. 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. 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 and Ellen Goodman have seized on the memo to berate Republicans and the “religious right.” Clift leads her column in the current Newsweek:
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.”
Goodman, who writes for the Washington Post, the paper which won’t tell us what evidence it has for the memo’s authenticity, says:
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.”
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.
Comment by Baklava — 03.28.05 @ 12:48 pm
Again trying to setup something for your readers of your posts that make people BELIEVE something that isn’t all because of a 1% argument.
Don’t put words on my keyboard and I won’t put words to your keyboard, is that a deal?
They do NOTHING for the debate.
LB pointed out some information. I gave some additional information. I don’t know what the deal is, whether it was a real memo or a dirty trick. But all relevent information should be put forth to try to determine what’s going on.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Someone somewhere mentions something about SS and you go on as if it exists when I’ve never heard of such strategy and have been active in politics for 14 years.
1. Notice that you brought SS up.
2. You notice that when I do reference it, I bring up Black and white Republican politicians or Republican partisans who acknowledge the existence of it.
No republican denied a memo on 2 specific shows and you go on as if the memo is valid, shows the character of the republicans in general, or whatever awful accusation you like to keep making in EVERY situation.
Read what I write for a change instead of trying to read into what I wrote.
I never wrote the memo was valid. I’m “plain written” and write what I intend to write. I don’t do implications on the ‘net because it leads to endless back and forth.
So, is this a deal? Yes or no?
Comment by DarkStar — 03.28.05 @ 4:23 pm
How about talking about what YOU think based on these facts:
Sigh
Short answer: As I’ve writtten before, I consider this to be murder.
If you want to keep reading, do so:
1) Terri doesn’t seem to actually be in PVS (or at least her status is in dispute - not understood by Judge Greer)
Yep
2) Michael doesn’t OWN Terri
Correct, but by law, the spouse has a lot of power, separated or not.
3) People can’t not feed their own dogs without being arrested
Correct. But having witnessed this first hand, disconnecting life support is not a rare event.
4) Judge Greer didn’t look at much evidence from the Schindler’s
As I understand it, correct.
5) There are people that want to take complete physical and financial responsibility of Terri (living with and having children with another woman would give immediate grounds for a divorce but Greer carries on as if only Michael can speak for Terri and YET there is dispute from other people who believe that Terri would want to live)
Correct. And I don’t understand why he would continue, unless she “really did say it.” His having a common law wife is very problematic.
6) Not much rehab has been allowed
Correct. There is a disagreement with nurses and doctors in my family as to what rehab means in her case. It’s based on conflicting information.
True. But by law, the spouse, together or separated has a lot of power. I have horror sotries of men and women who did not get a divorce, to later die, and have the separated spouse have all legal rights, and “mess over” the family of the dead spouse.
9) Given an uncertain will situation and loving parents, why the rush to kill and why not ERROR on the side of life?
Agreed.
But you go on as if NON of this information should matter and lawmakers shouldn’t be concerned with the situation (abusive judge) and if the only reason why the Terri bill passed Congress was political when half of the Democrats voted YES on the bill.
I guess you forgot that I said early on that this was murder.
But then, this entry isn’t about her, it’s about the memo.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.28.05 @ 4:36 pm
Baklava, check out the comments on “Terri Schiavo’s Life Spared Temporarily”.
You will see a quick comment I made.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.28.05 @ 4:43 pm
For the life of me, I am trying to figure out how the Schiavo case turned into a democrate versus republican issue…
When I first heard of it, I didn’t even consider it from that paradigm…
Comment by hirez — 03.28.05 @ 5:13 pm
For the life of me, I am trying to figure out how the Schiavo case turned into a democrate versus republican issue…
I’ll co-sign that one.
Cummings voted with the majority to allow the fed courts to enter the mess.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.28.05 @ 7:03 pm
Darkstar, I looked at what you had to say. And by the way thank you for taking the time you took on your response. I appreciate it.
You wrote, “For me because there are strong requests for congress to intervene in some death penalty cases but they don’t.
For example, in Texas the state courts have ruled that it’s legitimate to execute a person whose lawyer feel asleep during the trial.”
I am not a lawyer. But I do not think based on what I’ve read and heard that Congress acted illegally or unconstitutionally or inappropriately. There are hundreds of things that Congress does for individuals any given year. Thier bills are not always global and only based on policy. The Congress has the power to shape the courts, hold hearings, remove or insert judges, affect pending court cases (such as the cases against gun manufacturers by trial lawyers).
There are claims that Congress abused their power by people that I just don’t trust, don’t believe and find hypocratical at best due to their message in the past about Bush abusing his power and on and on and on. It would be helpful if the people leveling accusations had some track record of credibility. Know what I mean?
Comment by Baklava — 03.28.05 @ 7:05 pm
Darkstar,
Your entire post that I’m quibbling with is:
This memo was presented on the Sunday talking head shows. It was presented on Fox and Meet the Press.
Not one Republican denied the memo or questioned it’s authenticity.
And Tom Delay has been recorded giving an interview or a speech where he appears to be pulling partisan politics into this.
“Hoax”?
I could be missing something but it seems that Republicans politicos would have been screaming up a storm at the first mention of the memo as well as the RNC.
Darkstar,
You have a first paragraph and other paragraphs and a last paragraph. I’m not sure where you think I’m reading something you didn’t say, but suffice to say you seem to put more validity on the “Talking Points Memo” than I do. …..
…. SO I outlined why I think it was a 1% argument and I presented a few posts full of information that tore the “Talking Points Memo” theory that it was Republican strategy to shreds.
About SS…. I brought it up because you believe it and spend time with the 1% arguments trying to bolster your claim as if it should be a widespread theory of truth. It isn’t. It’s old news. To the extent there was an SS it was before I was born and dispensed with before Ronald Reagan.
I tried to ask why conservative values and thoughts can’t be debated a few times and got no engagement on that topic. Instead you referred me to a post of yours that tried to tear up Ward Connerly’s credibility due to some money trail.
Why not talk about the ideas. Either you agree with the ideas or not.
Same thing with the Terri Shiavo case. Either you agree with people trying to save Terri or not.
Either way there are middle grounds and I appreciate hearing your point of view. I seem to rarely get the points of view but hear accusations by you leveled at Republicans instead.
If I’m honestly mis-hearing you, I do apologize. I’m an oversensitive, defensive guy who will defend people that I think are wrongly being accused of something undeservedly. I’m sure you’ve noticed.
Comment by Baklava — 03.28.05 @ 7:16 pm
Fishkite Exclusive - GOP accusation “completely ridiculous”
In an earlier ITA Exclusive, Joshua Claybourn reported:
On Friday four staffers accused a renegade aide to Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) of distributing forged “talking points” to members of the media and claiming Republican authorship. In the Agora’s e…
Trackback by Fishkite: The Blog Between Church and State — 03.28.05 @ 7:25 pm
I am not a lawyer. But I do not think based on what I’ve read and heard that Congress acted illegally or unconstitutionally or inappropriately.
I’m not a lawyer either. I don’t think they acted illegally or unconstitutionally. I have a question on the last one only because there are many other situations like this where they do nothing.
The family did an excellent job of media relations.
It would be helpful if the people leveling accusations had some track record of credibility. Know what I mean?
I know what you mean but I think most politicans have no credibility. I’ll go further to say that most politicans are ammoral at best and probably immoral.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.28.05 @ 8:11 pm
You have a first paragraph and other paragraphs and a last paragraph. I’m not sure where you think I’m reading something you didn’t say, but suffice to say you seem to put more validity on the “Talking Points Memo” than I do. …
If it’s true, I wouldn’t be surprised. If it’s a hoax, I wouldn’t be surprised. I don’t know and don’t care to tell you the truth. What’s going on now is, in some circles, it has become a Republican vs. Democrat thing.
About SS - I brought it up because you believe it and spend time with the 1% arguments trying to bolster your claim as if it should be a widespread theory of truth. It isn’t. It’s old news. To the extent there was an SS it was before I was born and dispensed with before Ronald Reagan.
You don’t believe it, fine. You falsely believe it ended before Reagan, fine. But I’ve given links and credible sources of Republicans and Republican partisans, Black and white, who have stated otherwise.
It’s one thing to say it doesn’t exist if no evidence is given, it’s another to deny its existence when credible evidence is given to support the claim.
I tried to ask why conservative values and thoughts can’t be debated a few times and got no engagement on that topic. Instead you referred me to a post of yours that tried to tear up Ward Connerly’s credibility due to some money trail.
I explained to you a few times that the post was questioning the Democrat’s so-called support of Blacks. The last time I broke it down for you in detail, even pointing out where I said that it was wrong for Blacks to consider Democrats to be friendly.
Why not talk about the ideas. Either you agree with the ideas or not.
In that same comment thread, I did a post where I showed points of agreement with the hostess and even tried to show where I think the points of agreement get derailed because I present other information that may go against your “worldview”.
Same thing with the Terri Shiavo case. Either you agree with people trying to save Terri or not.
What is so hard about understanding when I wrote that I think she’s being murdered? Just because I think she’s being murdered, and stated so, doesn’t mean that I shut my brain and/or my eyes to other things in this sad situation that bothers me.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.28.05 @ 8:30 pm
That’s just it.
SS being used by .0000001% of Republicans during Reagans term doesn’t bother me. I disagree with Republicans if they don’t have a message of equal opportunity for all Americans. Equal opportunity for all americans is the principled message that conservatives believe in and to the extent that Republicans aren’t falling in line with that conservative message, I disagree with those single Republicans.
That’s just it.
The Terry Shiavo “Talking points memo” doesn’t bother me. I don’t know who wrote it. I’ll defend generalizations by leftist leaning accusers and allegors. I’ll show people the evidence that it wasn’t a memo that came from a Senator or thier office.
And maybe that’s the difference between us Darkstar. You stated, “but I think most politicans have no credibility. I’ll go further to say that most politicans are ammoral at best and probably immoral.
If you give SS and the “Terri talking points memo” so much credibility, it may be what contributes to your feeling that politicians have “no credibility”.
I just think they have different ideas mostly. George Allen for instance (I’ve shaken his hand and heard him give speeches) and Tom McClintock (here in CA who I’ve attended lunches with….. have different ideas than pick a liberal Democrat. There are only a FEW politicians who have taken their quest for power (in my view) to unethical and illegal ends.
I give Tom McClintock, George Allen, Ward Connerly , and plenty others lots of respect and credibility. I do not question their motives like liberals do. Liberals and the media will question conservatives and/or Republicans motives for just trying to SLOW the increase in spending by the government.
Time and time again, I find out the facts and I see the liberals and dominant press’s ideas of what’s right and wrong led them to judge and report about conservatives and/or Republicans inaccurately and incorrectly.
We are in a new age. An information war age. You’ve been at this a long time. So have I. We come at this from diffent angles. I hope you understand. Maybe I’m naive. I just don’t believe so.
Comment by Baklava — 03.28.05 @ 10:19 pm
If you give SS and the “Terri talking points memo” so much credibility,
When Republicans give it credibility, why should I not give it credibilty? A nationally respected Republican backer, Tony Snow, writes about it and not one criticizes the man. He said it on Rush Limbaugh’s show when he used to substitute host for Rush Limbaugh and no one criticized him. Mary Matalin said it on talking head shows and her radio show, when she had it, and no one critizes her. A Black Republican who headed the African American outreach campaign states it on a regular basis and no one criticizes it.
You want to ignore it, fine, your choice.
I just think they have different ideas mostly.
Of course they do.
George Allen for instance
I’ve heard some of his speeches. I consider him ammoral at best.
There are only a FEW politicians who have taken their quest for power (in my view) to unethical and illegal ends.
Then you don’t pay attention.
I do not question their motives like liberals do.
Then you are ripe for a set up and fall. It will come. You are putting your faith in men/women who are on the national stage and seek to be on the national stage. By defintion, they have an inflated self-ego and don’t suffer criticism well.
Liberals and the media will question conservatives and/or Republicans motives for just trying to SLOW the increase in spending by the government.
So, when did conservatives in congress slow the growth of gov’t in, say, the past 4 years. Why did conservative Republicans support the milk subsidies? Why have conservative Republicans not pushed for the elimination of the AMT which key Democrats have said needs to be done away with?
We come at this from diffent angles.
Correct. You are partisan and I’m not. And that’s the crux of the problem.
I hope you understand. Maybe I�m naive. I just don�t believe so.
You trust politicans of “your stripe”. Yes, you are naive.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.29.05 @ 8:29 am
There you go. The true liberal comes out Darkstar.
You digressed the conversation. You’ll insist that I’m naive. You’ll insist that I only trust the politicians of my stripe when that isn’t true (for instance I trusted Douglas Wilder). You’ll insist that I’m not paying attention.
You just can’t come to face the facts that people SEE THINGS different from you and people don’t believe you see things very well either.
You want to judge people harshly and incorrectly based on your immersion into whatever judgmental way of life you have. And why not just talk about ideas and policy and whatnot? Why do you have to sink to the level of judging people like you do (especially incorrectly).
It doesn’t WIN people to your philosopy.
What IS your philosophy? Why not just say, George Allen believes such and such and I disagree with him. You can even say what he believes is WRONG. But you continually almost every post you do digress into a name calling judgmental way of wording things.
I honestly hope you learn from MY PERSPECTIVE of what you do.
Comment by Baklava — 03.29.05 @ 11:22 am
Also,
You want to believe that SS is some widespread general way of operating when I didn’t hear about it for 14 years until a LIBERAL mentioned it then fine. YOu continue to be that way.
Instead of looking at my perspective that I’ve been active in politics and realizing, “My Gosh, here’s a guy who has been active in politics and hasn’t run across anyone talking about SS. That must be how LITTLE influence SS has today. I guess it’s OVER and has been over for awhile. I guess those Wepublicans were referencing something in the PAST maybe”.
But you don’t realize. You continue to take something that existed to some extent in 1964 and extend it to a HUGE judgemental way of living for you today.
I think you should be judged as harshly as you judge others…..
Comment by Baklava — 03.29.05 @ 11:27 am
Did you do anything wrong in 1964?
Comment by Baklava — 03.29.05 @ 12:06 pm
It’s pretty sad folks when if you search google for this text string:
“Southern Strategy” “Tony Snow”
the 4th web site that comes up is La Shawn’s and DS’s and my discussion about it.
For you folks who haven’t been turned off yet. Tony Snow’s article (I’ve mentioned this to DS - but he don’t care) talked about 1964 not anything in the present.
This text in the article “In other words, they have repudiated Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” which wrote off black voters in a quest to turn the Solid South into a Republican redoubt. While that strategy worked for Nixon, it cost the GOP dearly in the long run.” shows clearly that Tony Snow was referencing a strategy of Nixon and not of present.
As long as I’ve been interested in politics (since 1991) and as long as I’ve been born alive basically the CONSERVATIVE message has been a principled message aimed at ALL americans.
Unfortunately today as La Shawn has pointed out, Republicans are starting to pander to specific groups and not fall in line with what the conservative message should be.
As I’ve said before, Republicans are to the LEFT of center (just not as far to the left as Democrats).
Conservatives are just a little to the right and or centrists like me. I believe in a frozen amount of expenditures by the government for ten years while the government reprioritizes what it spends on. Let the private sector do things like stem cell research or many other things. Let the government do what it was tasked with doing. Unfortunately Republicans are to the right of that position because the BUDGET grows every year for over 60 years no matter who is in office (Democrats or Republicans). Yet there are some who think that Republicans are extreme right and Democrats are to the left). Libertarians are to the extremem right (they want an 80% cut in government). Anarchists are to the extreme right (they want no government - very few of these people).
Comment by Baklava — 03.29.05 @ 12:25 pm
DarkStar,
Awesome work…I’m learning a lot from you.
Comment by stan — 03.29.05 @ 1:30 pm
You’ll insist that I only trust the politicians of my stripe
No, I wrote you trust politicans of your stripe. That doesn’t mean you don’t trust politicans not of your type.
I like oranges. It doesn’t mean I don’t like apples.
You just can’t come to face the facts that people SEE THINGS different from you
That would not be true. That’s what you assume, but you are definitely wrong. I asked you to not put words to my keyboard.
And why not just talk about ideas and policy and whatnot?
I do and I have.
Why do you have to sink to the level of judging people like you do
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You apply the “liberal” label to me and go off on your tanget assuming I think a certain way when I don’t. I’ve gone to some lengths to demonstrate where I agree with LaShawn.
What IS your philosophy?
I can’t classify it because I believe it covers the spectrum. When ever I’ve stated that, you and others have told me I’m liberal.
But you continually almost every post you do digress into a name calling judgmental way of wording things.
That would be wrong.
Saying politicians are ammoral at best and probably immoral is not name calling. It is a belief that I have come up with after years of watching politicians, dealing with politicians when I’ve called or written them, and listening to politicians who have left the realm of politics. Dick Armey’s last year in office allowed him to speak freely about the system. Armey showed contempt for the political body that he was leaving.
On Gov. Allen, during his term he got passed changes in the Virginia judicial system that made it harder for defendents to get a fair trial. He pushed for, and got, a stream lining of death row appeals. Virginia is now at the point where Virginia politicians are looking at the death penalty process because a number of cases have been successfully appealled. For example, Virginia wanted to destroy evidence to prevent DNA testing. A judge seized the evidence and had it tested. It turned out that the DNA did not come from the person on death row. He was released.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.29.05 @ 9:14 pm
Instead of looking at my perspective that I’ve been active in politics and realizing, “My Gosh, here’s a guy who has been active in politics and hasn’t run across anyone talking about SS. That must be how LITTLE influence SS has today. I guess it’s OVER and has been over for awhile. I guess those Wepublicans were referencing something in the PAST maybe”.
I’ve presented information that demonstrates it was in use until around 2000. I’ve said as much. You keep saying 1964. I’ve shown it after that. Who is not seeing whose side?
Comment by DarkStar — 03.29.05 @ 9:21 pm
Tony Snow’s article (I’ve mentioned this to DS - but he don’t care) talked about 1964 not anything in the present.
Context is everything. You are plain wrong. Here’s the quote you provided in context of the 2000 Republican convention:
After years in the political hinterlands, Republicans finally have discovered they can’t win elections without appealing to hearts and they can’t woo undecided voters unless they put forward a face that looks like a cola commercial — filled with men and women, whites, blacks, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, you name it.
In other words, they have repudiated Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” which wrote off black voters in a quest to turn the Solid South into a Republican redoubt. While that strategy worked for Nixon, it cost the GOP dearly in the long run. Racial separatism may have enjoyed a quiet vogue as recently as the ’70s, but no more — and Powell was on the mark when he warned that Republicans have a long way to go before they assemble a credible and durable Rainbow Coalition of their own.
The next move falls to George W. Bush. He not only must pursue Powell-esque outreach; he also needs to push aside convention-hall cant and translate the smile-button alliteration of “compassionate conservatism” into something not merely concrete — he has developed the policy blueprint — but easy to grasp and understand.
You didn’t provide enough of a quote.
And in my search, it was the 2nd link in Google.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/tony/snow080200.asp
Comment by DarkStar — 03.29.05 @ 9:25 pm
Accusors always learn how to accuse better from each other. Sweet. You guys won’t learn and you’ll KEEP LOSING ELECTIONS.
Muhahahaha!
Comment by Baklava — 03.29.05 @ 10:46 pm
Whose strategy was it?
Stated in context “Richard Nixon’s strategy”.
Who else’s strategy did Snow say it was?
Nobody elses. That my friend is the truth. Can you place a name on who elses strategy it was besides Nixon’s or some other Republican in that era? No. You can’t. You haven’t.
You failed to show reasonableness again.
You continued to make allegations again.
Yes. In my search our discussion was the 4th web site. Pretty bad when us lowlifes are 4th on the list on a non-relevant discussion about what Tony Snow referenced about SS in the past by Nixon and repudiation of that strategy today.
Comment by Baklava — 03.29.05 @ 11:03 pm
After years in the political hinterlands, Republicans finally have discovered they can’t win elections without appealing to hearts and they can’t woo undecided voters unless they put forward a face that looks like a cola commercial - filled with men and women, whites, blacks, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, you name it.
In other words, they have repudiated Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” which wrote off black voters in a quest to turn the Solid South into a Republican redoubt. While that strategy worked for Nixon, it cost the GOP dearly in the long run.
If it were only Nixon’s, then why would only “his strategy” harm the entire GOP? Why is it that the GOP still went after the Jewish vote, who voted 80-85% for Democrats while ignoring the Black vote?
Comment by DarkStar — 03.30.05 @ 9:08 am
in case you really cared ….
Last update: April 6, 2005 at 11:57 PM
Senator’s aide was author of Schiavo memo
Mike Allen, Washington Post
April 7, 2005 MEMO0407
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., admitted that he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the senator said in an interview Wednesday.
Brian Darling, 39, a former lobbyist for the Alexander Strategy Group on gun rights and other issues, offered his resignation Wednesday and it was immediately accepted, Martinez said.
He said he had been assured by aides that his office had nothing to do with producing the memo. “I never did an investigation, as such,” Martinez, the GOP’s Senate front man on the issue, said. “I just took it for granted that we wouldn’t be that stupid. It was never my intention to in any way politicize this issue.”
Martinez, a freshman who was secretary of Housing and Urban Development for most of President Bush’s first term, said he had not read the one-page memo. He said he inadvertently passed it to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who had worked with him on the issue. After that, officials gave the memo to reporters for ABC News and the Washington Post.
Harkin said in an interview that Martinez handed him the memo on the Senate floor, in hopes of gaining his support for the bill giving federal courts jurisdiction in the Florida right-to-die case. “He said these were talking points — something that we’re working on here,” Harkin said.
The case centered on the fight between Schiavo’s husband and her parents over removing her feeding tube 15 years after she suffered severe brain damage that left her brain dead. Schiavo, 41, died last Thursday in a Florida hospice, 13 days after the feeding tube was removed. During the interim, federal courts repeatedly rejected what Republicans said was the intent of the bill: to have the tube reinserted and prolong Schiavo’s life.
The mystery of the memo’s origin had roiled the Capitol. Republicans accused Democrats of concocting the document as a dirty trick; Democrats accused Republicans of trying to duck responsibility for exploiting the dying days of an incapacitated woman.
Conservative Web logs have challenged the authenticity of the unsigned memo that includes eight talking points in support of the bill and calls the controversy “a great political issue.”
The document was provided to ABC News on March 18 and to the Post on March 19 and was included in news reports about congressional intervention in the case. Bush returned from an Easter holiday in Texas and signed the bill shortly after 1 a.m. on March 21.
Martinez said he also had apologized to Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who faces reelection in 2006 and was cited in the memo because he had declined to become a sponsor of the bill.
Darling had no comment Wednesday night.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Comment by Mike D — 04.07.05 @ 1:29 am
turns out it was all true…
“Yesterday Joshua spoke with Senate staffers who claim that an aide to Democratic senator Harry Reid distributed to memo.”
OOPS.
Credebility issues?
Comment by romablog — 04.07.05 @ 8:07 pm