Matt’s earlier post on the Brownback endorsement by Terry Schiavo’s brother reminded me of this gem from Peggy Noonan’s March 18, 2005 Wall Street Journal column:
So politically this is a struggle between many serious people who really mean it and one, just one, strange-o. And the few bearded and depressed-looking academics he’s drawn to his side.
See! She even said “serious people!” She’s one step away from opening the a bi-partisan Schiavo study center and blue ribbon commission.
Just a reminder of how well received the Schiavo intervention was with the American public and all those “serious people” that Noonan referred to, from a March 21, 2005 ABC News Poll:
March 21, 2005 — Americans broadly and strongly disapprove of federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, with sizable majorities saying Congress is overstepping its bounds for political gain.
The public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case. Congress passed such legislation and President Bush signed it early today.
That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more — 70 percent — call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.
[. . .]
Included among the 63 percent who support removing the feeding tube are 42 percent who “strongly” support it — twice as many as strongly oppose it. And among the 70 percent who call congressional intervention inappropriate are 58 percent who hold that view strongly — an especially high level of strong opinion.
This Brownback announcement highlights one of the main reasons why the Republican field is in such disarray right now. The only way that candidate’s like Brownback can get traction is by reminding Republican primary voters that he supported something that 70 percent of the country was opposed to. Thus the dilemma presented to the Republican base by the current crop of GOP presidential candidates, as reflected in the latest CBS/NYT poll:
ASKED OF REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS ONLY: Are you generally satisfied with the candidates now running for the Republican nomination for President, or do you wish there were more choices?
Satisfied 40
More choices 57
Dems poll almost the exact opposite, 57/39. And lets all remember one of the reasons why we’re not getting this email from Bill Frist for President 2008:
[ev type="youtube" data="FBYk4F164Hk"][/ev]
8 Responses to “Brownback and the “serious people” Schiavo Vote”
If Brownbeck opposes death of the disabled by starvation and dehydration (which is, by the way, illegal if administered to puppies), I am voting for Brownbeck.
Count me as one of the “serious” people.
A helpful hint for the future: Spelling your candidate’s name right.
“The only way that candidate’s like Brownback can get traction”
Do you correct everyone’s errors or just those whose opinions you dislike?
I don’t blame you. It is much easier to correct errors that to have discussions.
Something to say?
[...] Brownback and the “serious people” Schiavo Vote [...]
Left by The Right’s Field » Republicans In Disarray
March 13, 2007 at 10:44am