Michael Barone has a nice explanation of why he doesn't think that Congress's actions on Terri Schiavo was a partisan ploy, despite how the media is portraying it.
A cynical partisan ploy by Republicans? Not really. It is possible that Democrats, if in control, might not have summoned a special session. But this was not a purely partisan issue. Democrats did vote for the bill and made its passage possible. Proceedings in the Senate could have been stopped by a single objection to a unanimous-consent request. No senator objected. Minority Leader Harry Reid cooperated fully with Republicans. In the House, enough Democrats returned from recess to provide the necessary quorum, and 46 Democrats voted for the bill, while 53 voted against.
Were all these Democrats and Republicans acting cynically? I don't think so. Take Sen. Tom Harkin, a liberal Democrat who worked for the measure. Harkin's interest arose from his long concern for the disabled -- he was a chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act -- and his desire to protect the rights of the incapacitated. Were his views informed by his Roman Catholic faith? I don't know, but what if they were? Legislators are under no obligation to have moral principles entirely divorced from religious beliefs. I can't answer for every member who voted for the bill or against it. But the quality of the debate suggests to me that large majorities on both sides were acting out of reasoned moral conviction more than political calculation.
It's strange how the media portrays this all as a GOP action and seems to ignore how the Democrats voted for this. In a way, it is the media that is striving to portray it along political lines. Maybe that is because they are most comfortable with looking at events through a political prism instead of any other way to look at an event. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:14 AM
0 comments
Comments:
Michael Barone has a nice explanation of why he doesn't think that Congress's actions on Terri Schiavo was a partisan ploy, despite how the media is portraying it.
A cynical partisan ploy by Republicans? Not really. It is possible that Democrats, if in control, might not have summoned a special session. But this was not a purely partisan issue. Democrats did vote for the bill and made its passage possible. Proceedings in the Senate could have been stopped by a single objection to a unanimous-consent request. No senator objected. Minority Leader Harry Reid cooperated fully with Republicans. In the House, enough Democrats returned from recess to provide the necessary quorum, and 46 Democrats voted for the bill, while 53 voted against.
Were all these Democrats and Republicans acting cynically? I don't think so. Take Sen. Tom Harkin, a liberal Democrat who worked for the measure. Harkin's interest arose from his long concern for the disabled -- he was a chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act -- and his desire to protect the rights of the incapacitated. Were his views informed by his Roman Catholic faith? I don't know, but what if they were? Legislators are under no obligation to have moral principles entirely divorced from religious beliefs. I can't answer for every member who voted for the bill or against it. But the quality of the debate suggests to me that large majorities on both sides were acting out of reasoned moral conviction more than political calculation.
It's strange how the media portrays this all as a GOP action and seems to ignore how the Democrats voted for this. In a way, it is the media that is striving to portray it along political lines. Maybe that is because they are most comfortable with looking at events through a political prism instead of any other way to look at an event. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:14 AM
0 comments
