GOP's Schiavo Talking Points Revealed In Full

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 12:28:17 PM EST

For a copy of the GOP's talking points on Schiavo that garnered so much attention over the weekend, go to DC's Inside Scoop.

Rumor has it that Santorum's office wrote and circulated them... What's Santorum doing sending out talking points about Nelson when he's got his own ass to protect?

Update: Not too surprisingly, Santorum's office is telling the PA conservative grassroots that he did not circulate nor has knowledge of any "GOP" talking points regarding Terri Schiavo.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

  • 19 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

19 Comments

Shadow_head_small
loaded language
you should have heard the shit pat buchanan was spewing on hardball sunday night.  the transcript isn't posted yet, otherwise i'd share his exact words.  let's just say it was the most inflammatory thing i've heard in months.
by annatopia 2005-03-21 11:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: loaded language

They've seen the negative poll numbers now and they are reacting as mandated.  Every Republican I've seen on the air today begins his diatribe by stating this legislation was bi-partisan.

They are taking cover.

Novak was just praising the Democrats who voted "yea" this morning, and you wouldn't believe the words he put into their anonymous mouths-- pure Republican spin.

I truly fear the next few years.

by bellarose 2005-03-21 12:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: loaded language
worst offender:  randall terry on msnbc's primetimes news show tonight (whatever it is that comes on after joe dead intern in my office scarborough).  randall terry - antiabortion martyr - was almost frothing at the mouth - saying crap like "starve a dog, go to jail"... ug!  the reporter lady actually had to shut him down a few times; you could tell she thought he was outrageous (and he was).  i mean really, terry was frothing, spit flying... he really embarassed himself.
by annatopia 2005-03-21 08:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Schiavo
Where were the Democrats? They no longer stand for anything. Their gutlessness is as dangerous as the Republican thuggishness.
by reeselloyd 2005-03-21 12:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Schiavo
A few of them were quite brave yesterday.   Sadly, the others have giving the Republicans more fuel.  

I don't know what it's going to take for Dems to learn "bi-partisan" means "you guys take the blame."

by bellarose 2005-03-21 12:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
what he forgot to say...
"This is a tough question for the Democrats" because the vast majority of the American people, and even a majority of evangelicals, are against the GOP's stance on this issue.
by QrazyQat 2005-03-21 12:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Who cares what hacks spew?
Office rats will conjure up stuff like this all the time. Jerome, could you explain to me how invoking states rights and federalism vis-a-vis Schiavo isn't the same "playing into their frame" that you lament day after day? Isn't there a humanist, liberal case for taking care of the needy and vulnerable of all persuasions? It seems as if the "other side" layed a crucial gift at your door step, and you reactively slammed the door! After all don't they "invoke your frames" when they talk about life, etc?

To me this would have been a perfect opportunity for top Dems to say "Of course we are going to take care of Terry" to reinforce the idea that we are going to take care of everyone AS A MATTER OF COURSE. Framing, as I understand it means that your arguments enters the debate as the default position. Isn't that the goal vis-a-vis health care and socialism generally?

by Paul Goodman 2005-03-21 01:09PM | 0 recs
4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal
Re: Who cares what hacks spew?
Your points are correct about framing, but the frame here that we are presenting is that the GOP is reckless and out of control, without ethics, and willing to intervene into anyones lives in order to kowtow to a fanatical interpretation of "life", and DeLay has played right into it.

But there's another issue here at work. As I see it, the Republicans have taken their very strong brand of "life" that's worked very well for anti-abortion, and cross-branded it in order to serve as an opposition to having the right to die.

They've just made a huge mistake. You don't screw with brands that work, especially this way. That's why here and there, people are saying that this is all about abortion. It's not, or course, its way bigger than that issue. But the republicans took three decades to hone in a fine-tuned wedgeful frame of being anti-abortion. Now, they've taken that brand and wedged it against the right to die, and in doing so, taken 4 steps back.

by Jerome Armstrong 2005-03-21 02:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Who cares what hacks spew?
Your points are correct about framing, but the frame here that we are presenting is that the GOP is reckless and out of control, without ethics, and willing to intervene into anyones lives in order to kowtow to a fanatical interpretation of "life", and DeLay has played right into it.

We tried to portray the GOP as reckless in 2004.

How'd that turn out?

These people don't care about reality or consequences, they just believe. The principle is more important than the results, which is why they will vote for a person who promises to make abortion illegal, even as his policies make abortion rates rise.

by wayward 2005-03-21 03:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
"tried to portray the GOP as reckless"
Really? I only remember a couple of Dem candidates in 2004 who were willing to call the GOP reckless, out of control, and without ethics -- and they were either ignored as marginal or politically assassinated by the Reep and Dem establishments alike. Then we were left with Senator John "I would have invaded, but differently" Kerry.

Poo.

by catastrophile 2005-03-21 04:08PM | 0 recs
4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal
Re: Who cares what hacks spew?
Ah jeez, I can't believe that anything was tried with the muster of repitition and force it takes to be effective, in 2004, or any recent election by the Democrats, since 1992.
by Jerome Armstrong 2005-03-21 06:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Who cares what hacks spew?
Interesting points.

In this case the Senate failed us. As Tim Russert on Hardball just said that not a single Senator rose up last night to speak compassionately and in an understanding way say that this is unconstitutional. Usually we look up to the Senate for their clear and wise decisions to be made and to quell the radicalness of the House. I think that Barney Frank did a great job. If only the Senate Dems could have stepped up. Where was Harry leading the minority opinion?

This was not about Terry it was political so that the President could be on the Trail able to say that "tough decisions had to be made last night" - no duh! "and it was important to err on the side of Life"  There it was his chance to align himself with Life.

by neolib 2005-03-21 02:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
republicans setting Jeb up for 2008
this whole politicking of Schiavo smells to me like republicans have chosen Jeb to be the default '08 candidate - this whole case falls neatly into his realm. I can't imagine Giuliani or McCain (or Rice) using the right-to-life-at-whatever-cost issue to their advantage. If we aren't getting our hearfulls of this now, we'll hear it all over again in 2008.

From a mind like Rove, right-to-life might push Jeb to the nomination. Jeb nominated might solidify FL and the South's electoral votes.

by zigzig 2005-03-21 03:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: republicans setting Jeb up for 2008
I wondered the samething... it smells like a Rove job and Jeb would do fine... as good a sock puppet as his brother.
by dryfly 2005-03-21 03:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: republicans setting Jeb up for 2008
Jeb seems like the candidate for 2008.

Bush has two daughters, which means he has no male heirs. Therefore, the line of succession would go to his oldest brother.

by wayward 2005-03-21 04:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The Backlash
The poll numbers are baring out the truth. People have no taste for this type of activistic dare I say liberal, over the top behavior on the part of a handful of right wing loony toonies. The numbers I saw today even show self-proclimed evangelicals split here. March 21, 2005 will go down in history as the day the GOP realligned itself and departed from the libertarian, state's rights crowd who in the end was the real base of the GOP. Of course the House Dems hadn't seen this poll so their vote on this reflects a creepy division and indecisiveness. Their only saving grace is that the GOP finally bet the wrong way. First Social security, now this. The GOP is loosing their mojo, the only question is, is there anyone around smart enough to take advantage of it.

One final observation. After fifteen years of debate and countless official proceedings it was finally decided that action was necessary. Am I talking about A) Terry Schiavo or B) Saddam Hussein. And yet, the GOP have used the word "rush" and the phrase "lack of certainty" time and time again over the weekend. Too bad the GOP couldn't be as prudent with the lives of 150,000 troops as they are for one woman.    

by Welsh 2005-03-21 03:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: The Backlash
There was a rush.

They had to get the issue on the frontburner in time for Easter.

by Curt Matlock 2005-03-22 05:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Senate Vote
How does 3 or 4 Senators voting on the Schiavo matter constitute a unanimous vote? I'd day they are about 96 bricks short of a full load!
by Hiram615 2005-03-21 05:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
DeLay says Schiavo mulling run in '06
Okay, it's a joke -- but so is the Republican ghoul squad.

Here's a joke news story I just posted to Agitprops.org that takes the GOP's exploitation Schiavo to it's logical conclusion.

DeLay says Schiavo mulling run in '06
http://www.agitprops.org/schiavo06.jpg

by agitprops 2005-03-21 07:33PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------