As I’ve said in a Pit thread, the Schaivo controversy has caused some pretty deep schisms on both sides of the aisle. Ralph Nader and Rush Limbaugh agree. Jesse Jackson shares at least part of an opinion with Randall Terry. Conservative/Republican bloggers are becoming increasingly frustrated by former allies turning against them, saying that they “have a problem with conservatism” or “you were probably happy when your grandmother died” over this issue.
How do you think politics will proceed from this? Has any side learned anything? Will any side take anything with them? At least one conservative blogger half-jokingly proposed to reach out to Democrats and form a third party. I know for sure that in certain circles, both liberal and conservative, the feelings of former true believers have changed forever. BUT, in the bigger scheme of things, is this a political flash in the pan?
Well, I certainly think there’s room in the middle currently for a third party. Hilliary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, Linc Chaffee could all team up and dominate the middle of the Senate if they wanted. It could easily become the ‘king maker’ in the Senate and control discussion for a while.
Plus it would make a great story. Woot!
As for the Schiavo thing? I think a few reps and senators will be able to make some hay from it in the mid-terms but not too many. I just don’t think this thing has legs. As soon as she dies the whole world be happily heave a sigh of relief and move on to the next flavor of the week.
Let me put it this way: how many people do you know who changed party alliance over the Elian Gonzalez business? That case, like this one, was a pseudo-event, something that the Republicans insisted on creating hype about for the sake of creating hype. You’ll note that since the Republicans ordered the media to switch to an all-Schiavo-all-the-time format, you haven’t heard much talk about the bankruptcy bill or the social security mess. People have forgotten the bankruptcy outrage, and the privatization of social security will probably be allowed to die quietly. That’s what they were hoping to achieve. Mission accomplished. Now the Republicans will soon order the media to switch to their next priority, whatever that turns out to be.
Didn’t alot of Dems jump on the Terry Schiavo’s parents’ bandwagon? And aren’t Blacks on that bandwagon (Black Caucus)?
I’m a Republican, and I feel that many Republicans are regretting jumping on the Terry Schiavo Must Live No Matter What bandwagon. It’s not that popular a thing.
As long as the Democrats keep the image of being anti-gunners, over regulators, heavy taxers, and anti - national defence, they’re doomed. Social security and starting another war in Iran might screw the Republicans next election cycle, but the Terry Schiavo nonsense won’t.
Oh yeah, I’m sure the leadership of the DNC is huddling in a darkened room as we speak, thinking of more stupid stereotypes to trot out on Fox News in order to impede their own political future. :rolleyes:
I think Kevin Drum was mostly right when he said that the Schiavo case doesn’t really involve or threaten any core principles of liberalism either way you fall on the line. Liberals don’t have a strong opinion about defending federalism per se. They don’t have any set position on right-to-die, other than being vaugely in favor of personal wishes. They don’t have any particular reason to stir up hatred against judges.
That’s why Dems are all over the map on this one: there aren’t common core principles on this that draw them one way or the other in particular. Republicans, on the other hand, have been in alliance with pro-life movement for so long that it had become unavoidable and habitual to support them. But the Congressional action was not consistent with conventional conservative positions on things like Roe v. Wade, and the pretty transparent and nonsensical attacks on “activist judges” aren’t impressing everyone on the right.