On Special Report, Barnes misstated Lieberman's views on Terri Schiavo case
SUMMARY: On Fox News' Special Report, Fred Barnes misrepresented Sen. Joseph Lieberman's position on legislation that allowed the federal government to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. Barnes claimed that Lieberman said only that "he would have allowed her to keep ... the feeding tube in." But on Meet the Press in 2005, Lieberman couched the issue in terms of what the law required, not what he would personally do if put in a situation similar to Schiavo's family: Congress' involvement in the case "was justified" because "as a matter of law, if you go -- particularly to the 14th Amendment, [a person] can't be denied due process, have your life or liberty taken without due process of law."
On the August 9 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes misrepresented the public position taken by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (CT) on last year's Republican-initiated congressional legislation that allowed the federal government to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. Barnes claimed that Lieberman said only that "if it were left up to him, he would have allowed her to keep ... the feeding tube in." In fact, while appearing on the March 27, 2005, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Lieberman went beyond simply expressing the view that he would have "allowed her to keep ... the feeding tube in," couching the issue in terms of what the law required, not what he would personally do if put in a situation similar to Schiavo's family and defending the bill passed by Congress to give the courts jurisdiction: Congress' involvement in the case "was justified" because "as a matter of law, if you go -- particularly to the 14th Amendment, [a person] can't be denied due process, have your life or liberty taken without due process of law."
Reporting on the passage of legislation allowing the federal courts to hear the Schiavo case, The New York Times noted the leadership of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) in the effort. The Times article also quoted DeLay urging Congress to approve the legislation, saying: "Every hour is incredibly important for Terri Schiavo." On Meet the Press in March 2005, Lieberman echoed DeLay, asserting that Congress offered Schiavo an "opportunity for one more chance before her life was terminated by an act which was sanctioned by a court, by the state," adding that "the family member who wants to sustain her life ought to have that right because the judge really doesn't know, though he heard the facts, one judge, what Terri Schiavo wanted. He made a best guess based on the evidence before him. That's not enough when you're talking about aggressively removing food and water to end someone's life."
From the August 9 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
CHRIS WALLACE (guest host): Does Lamont's victory push Democrats across the country to the left on the war on Iraq, and is that, in fact, such a bad posture for the party to be in come November?
BARNES: Well, I think -- it's not so much pushing them as it is indicating where they're going. And it is very indicative, particularly dumping Joe Lieberman. I mean, he's not just any Democrat. You know, he was the vice-presidential running mate to Al Gore in 2000. Why was he brought on the ticket? One of the reasons was that he's a hawkish, pro-Israel Democrat. That -- that's what was deemed in -- only six years ago to help the ticket. Now that's regarded as something Democrats want to get rid of. He really is, as he described himself, the last remnant of this whole FDR, [late Sen.] Henry Jackson [D-WA], JFK, you know, hawkish Democrats on national security, that whole tradition. He's the last one. Democrats have rejected it. And particularly this guy who is the number one Democrat, probably the foremost pro-Israel Democrat among other things, and they've tossed him aside. That is very meaningful. It tells you where the party is.
WILLIAMS: I think -- wait a second. I think you're rewriting history.
BARNES: No, I'm not.
WILLIAMS: The reason that he was brought on that Gore ticket was because he had been critical of, guess who, Bill Clinton, a fellow Democrat.
BARNES: I don't think that was it.
WILLIAMS: Yes, it was. It was exactly right. It was to insulate Gore and to say, "You know what? We're moving in a different direction of this man that was caught in scandal." And you also have to remember that Joe Lieberman, much as we all admire him, was a guy who sided with the Republican leadership on Terri Schiavo. You know, Joe Lieberman --
BARNES: No, no, what he said was that if it were left up to him, he would have allowed her to keep -- kept the feeding tube in. He didn't endorse the rest of that.
From the March 27, 2005, edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: Senator Lieberman, your Republican colleague from Connecticut in the House, Christopher Shays, had this to say. "This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy. ... There are going to be repercussions from this vote [on Schiavo's constitutional rights]. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."
You agree with that?
LIEBERMAN: I don't. But that's a very credible and respectable opinion for Chris to take. See, I think -- and Chris was there on the floor of the House, so maybe he heard in the debate some things that I didn't hear following it from a distance. The fact is that, though I know a lot of people's attitude toward the Schiavo case and other matters is affected by their faith and their sense of what religion tells them about morality, ultimately as members of Congress, as judges, as members of the Florida state Legislature, this is a matter of law. And the law exists to express our values.
I have been saying this in speeches to students about why getting involved in government is so important, I always say the law is where we define the beginning of life and the end of life, and that's exactly what was going on here. And I think as a matter of law, if you go -- particularly to the 14th Amendment, can't be denied due process, have your life or liberty taken without due process of law, that though the Congress' involvement here was awkward, unconventional, it was justified to give this woman, more than her parents or husband, the opportunity for one more chance before her life was terminated by an act which was sanctioned by a court, by the state.
These are very difficult decisions, but -- of course, if you ask me what I would do if I was the Florida Legislature or any state legislature, I'd say that if somebody doesn't have a living will and the next of kin disagree on whether the person should be kept alive or that is whether food and water should be taken away and her life ended that really the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to life. And the family member who wants to sustain her life ought to have that right because the judge really doesn't know, though he heard the facts, one judge, what Terri Schiavo wanted. He made a best guess based on the evidence before him. That's not enough when you're talking about aggressively removing food and water to end someone's life.
RUSSERT: You would have kept the tube in?
LIEBERMAN: I would have kept the tube in.
the famous Chiavo case, where politicians overreached for the sake of religion and voters to take away the rights of her husband and the right of the courts (which at the time was her legal gardian, not Michael). The whole case was one shameless lie from her family and other religious right supporters, including those in the government, and we could see the religious right and GOP noise machine (which are in my opinion one and the same) working at full speed to let people believe there are no facts, just opinion and that Terry was just a big adult braindead fetus who was condemt to death by liberals.
That case?
The whole case was only about money. But nobody called either party on it. In any case, denying the family a funeral just shows what a great husband Michael really was.
And political gain. Where are the apologies from all the right wing nuts who claimed they knew she wasn't a vegetable. The bottom line is this, where were these concerned politcos and talking heads the previous decade? Michael not allowing her parents to have a funeral was also a personal decision, not one for the public. I don't care if he's the biggest jerk in the world, he and his wife were exploited. What money are you reffering to? There was no book deal or big pay off? But Sean Hannity may have got a ratings boost by parking outside her hospice to do his show. Right wing vultures exploiting someone's personal tragedy and affecting the rights of others just to score political points, it's disgusting. Bush cut his vacation short for Terri Schaivo. Can't say the same for the people trapped in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. Give me a break. Republicans have become the lowest of the gutter dwellers. Conservatism is dead.
it was senator and doctor bill frist offering a medical diagnosis from the senate floor based on ten seconds of film.
I forgot that he cut his vacation short to come back to sign the Schiavo Legislation. Isn't it starnge how Bush will quickly leave his vacation hot spot to score political points with the crazy far right nut bags but couldn't be bothered by a PDB titled "Bin Lade Determined to Attack in US" given to him on his vacation. Priorities!!!!!!
Out of all that Shiavo disaster, you came away with the opinion that Michael Shiavo didn't get demonized enough?
Wow. Just... wow.
and as for allowing the schiavos a funeral, they probably would have turned that into more of the hate michael fest it already was.
Your in-laws have been calling you Satan for ten years. They're now being followed around by a roving band of abortion clinic bombers and people who are lying about you on national TV. Michael Schiavo bent over backwards for his in-laws, in fact. In her last minutes, he allowed them into the room. And then he had the funeral the way he wanted. Can you imagine the two camps at the same funeral, probably yelling and screaming that he was a murderer? Stop it with the slanders of the busband who did everything he could for a woman who was, in fact, dead very shortly after her collapse ten years earlier.
" In any case, denying the family a funeral just shows what a great husband Michael really was. "
Amen, brother. It truely showed that "who supported who" were definately all on one side or the other. It appears that many more liberals supported Michael than Terry. And, IMHO, that is why she was allowed to inhumanely starve and dehydrate to death. Amazing how killing a murderer using painreducing drugs is unforgivable in the minds of liberals, but to painfully dehydrate and starve to death an innocent human being is perfectly acceptable. Shows how the mind of a liberal works!
At least to the extent it was split among the left/right divide which it wasnt. The majority of both sides supported leaving it up to TERRI. SHE WON, her wishes were granted. The rightwing put their pious moralizing above what TERRI wanted. Her wishes were what it was all about. YOU guys just dont think Terri, or the State of Florida ought to make decisions you dont like. YOU guys think we ought to do away with the court system and just allow YOU to make the decisions for all of us. Terri expressed her wishes on what should be done in the sort of situation she found herself in and YOU guys thought YOU , not she ought to make that decision. The law, her wishes, NOTHING was on your side and you keep trying to reframe the issue. Lets not forget every single poll taken shows you guys were far out of the mainstream on that issue. If YOU want to be kept alive that way fine. To demand SHE be kept alive that way wasnt your call get over it. I would try to haunt you from the other side if you kept ME alive that way.
" I would try to haunt you from the other side if you kept ME alive that way. "
So, YOU would like to dehydrate and live for 2 weeks while your organs dry out and crack until they start failing one by one?? YOU consider that humane?? If YOUR going to KILL her, at least do it humanely and do it painfree. Much like you liberals DEMAND during the excecution of any murderer. What about her "rights" do die with dignity? Don't you liberals give a hoot about personal rights any more? Or are you only concerned about the husband's rights when he "claims" something was said years before she "falls". So much for your cries of "rights for all" you only care about rights for those who matter to you.
And you know this HOW? Conversational with many spirits are you?
" I would try to haunt you from the other side if you kept ME alive that way. " So, YOU would like to dehydrate and live for 2 weeks while your organs dry out and crack until they start failing one by one?? YOU consider that humane?? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Exactly why would I care. Since being in a persistent vegetative state I would be incapable of feeling any pain or discomfort. That is what the Association of Neurology says. Sure, stave me dehydrate me, feed me to the dogs. I couldn’t care less NO AWARENESS. I would definitely want to move on. Yes I consider it humane certainly more humane that propping me up like I was still alive like Granpa at the head of the table like in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. At any rate it is what SHE had decided she wanted. The only thing you wing nuts cared about was YOUR opportunity to piously moralize, you didn’t care one WHIT what Terri wanted then have the NERVE to pretend you were on HER side.
If YOUR going to KILL her, at least do it humanely and do it painfree. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I wouldn’t have a problem with that but you would have to change the law. As it was Terri’s case followed Florida law right down the line.
Much like you liberals DEMAND during the excecution of any murderer. What about her "rights" do die with dignity? Don't you liberals give a hoot about personal rights any more? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
HER rights were exactly what was upheld. Above YOUR attempt to demand the right to make HER decision for HER.
Or are you only concerned about the husband's rights when he "claims" something was said years before she "falls". So much for your cries of "rights for all" you only care about rights for those who matter to you. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The CLAIMS came from three people, the claims were what the court decisions were all about. Again. HER RIGHTS WERE WHAT WERE UPHELD, what part of HER RIGHTS WERE upheld are you congenitally unable to understand. HER rights were at issue. HER rights were what the court were deciding on. Her husband was out of it once he put it in the courts hands.
" Evil Spirits Do The Haunting, Not Good Ones " " And you know this HOW? Conversational with many spirits are you? "
I read and believe the Bible. You should try it sometime. You know, that silly book that has all those "rules" that you liberals hate so much. Gosh, it must be hard to read a book and claim to follow it when it has so many rules you just seem to ignore. I guess you consider it a dictionary..."there are thousands of words, why learn them all?".
Perhaps you can cough up exactly WHERE it says evil spirits are responsible for haunting. I am a christian, I dont hate the bible and I feel sorry for morons like you that cant respond with facts so when you have been shredded like above you fall back on this silly Liberals hate christians or the bible or religion canard. Its so weak and pathetic. Its plain that the only things you really KNOW are the things Limbaugh, Hannity and the other rightwing screech monkeys TELL you that you know.
Where did you get your medical degree?
I thought that conservatives were all for states rights?
The State of Florida ruled several times in favor of Mr. Schiavo.
I thought that conservatives were all for the sanctity of marriage. Mrs. Schiavo had told her husband that her wish was to be allowed to die with dignity.
One thing TomDelay said was accurate. Somebody is going to pay for their behavior during this very personal tragedy. That would be the bush brothers, Tom Delay himself and especially the good Doctor Frist who has his eye on the White House. Their political careers are OVER!
Who the hell do you think you are trying to come between a husband and a wife? You should be ashamed of yourself.
" I thought that conservatives were all for the sanctity of marriage. Mrs. Schiavo had told her husband that her wish was to be allowed to die with dignity. "
You sure put you foot in your mouth this time. Since WHEN is starving and dehydrating "dieing with dignity"?? Please explain that one. I'll never..ever understand WHY liberals are so pleased a husband could force his wife to starve and dehydrate his wife to death. Liberals are sick people. At least put her down humanely like us conservatives want done with the murderers but liberals now say that is inhumane!
Very interesting, excecution by lethal injection of painless medicines is gorey and inhumane to liberals, but extended painful dehydration and starvation is an acceptable form of execution of the marraige vows.
I think not. You may be able to sit there and give an opinion on what you think is the right thing to do. You're opinion comes from listening to right-wing despots and religious charlatans who have never had to make the kind of decision that Mr. Schiavo had to make. Hopefully, you'll never be in that position.
On the other hand. I have been through the same ordeal. I have had to make the decision to allow my wife to die with dignity after more than twenty five years of marriage. My wife had never written anything down, but we had discussed the "what ifs" on many occaisions. We had told each other of our wishes. I too, had met resistance from some. But ultimately, the decision was not theirs to make. The decision was not to be made by the government. The decision was not to be made by any religious leader. It was, legally and morally, MY DECISION. No one else's. Our children supported me and I asked their advice before making the decision. Each one of them told me that they wanted to remove life support before I told them of MY DECISION. They were 100 % supportive of MY DECISION. Since that day, I've NEVER, once, regretted anything that I did. Everyone who had misgivings about MY DECISION, has become very supportive of MY DECISION.
I'd suggest that you find some other battle to fight. Maybe you should do some volunteer work at a hospice, or get involved with Palliative/EOL care and see what these people and their families go through. I have a list of organizations that could use your help. I could post it, or you could do some research for yourself.
Thankfully, not all of these case become the media circus that the Schiavo case became. Mr. Schiavo was the legal spouse of his wife, Terry. They had discussed what they would like to happen in a case like this. He respected her wishes. Please, if you are ever in this situation, don't think of yourself, don't think of your religion, think of your loved one, and act by respecting their final wish.
I am sorry for your loss and am proud of how you handled it.
The Schaivo case is DIFFERENT! There was NO plug to pull. They starved her and would NOT let her drink water. Did you follow the story at all? It took her two weeks to die of dehydration!!! Sure, let the husband have his wishes. But, how in the world can you compare what you went through and what Michael went through? You "humanely" let your wife die without artificial means of sustaining life. Michael murdered his wife by refusing to feed her and refusing to give her water. TWO WEEKS!!!
The whole argument for the case and whether they could remove the tubes was that she was in a permanent vegetative state and was incapable of any cognative thought. The religious right trotted out a line of quacks (including "Dr." Frist) to try and refute that but the autopsy proved the real doctors right.
I might also point out that what you seem to be avocating is assisted suicide, which the right wingers fight tooth and nail whenever it comes up. They could not euthenise her, as you advocate, because it is not legal to do so in Florida. In this case, Terry had no idea one way or the other, but it would have been much easier for the family if she could have been euthenised, as apparently were her wishes.
" In this case, Terry had no idea one way or the other, but it would have been much easier for the family if she could have been euthenised, as apparently were her wishes. "
Don't say that too loud, it seems all here are saying Terry wanted to be dehydrated and starved. It would go totally against the liberal belief, that everyone shares here, if we were to find out that Terry's wishes were to be euthenised. Perhaps the liberals are just ignoring that part of the case in order to justify their position. Which is a common liberal practice.
" By Florida law that type of feeding tube is considered life support by artificial means. "
Then what was the big deal about Michael saying he "refuses" to let anyone feed her by hand. Even after it was shown that she would eat simple foods. Michael claimed the right to disconnect the tubes and florida law allowed it, then Michael refused to let medical staff feed her by hand. How is that "not" refusing Terry her right to life? Are you saying it is OK to not feed a person who can't feed themselves?? Wait, that IS what you're saying, isn't it? This is just another liberal shot at trying to create a "perfect race" filled with perfect babies (all the others have been aborted) and perfect grown ups (all the others have been starved to death). Now, I understand the fervent liberal support of killing Terry.
"It would go totally against the liberal belief, that everyone shares here, if we were to find out that Terry's wishes were to be euthenised."
You're conflating two different things. The desire to die with some dignity is not the same as being specifically "euthenised". If removing the food and water tubes were the only way of going about it, then it conformed with her wish not to live indefinitely as a vegetable. That's her choice. Is the argument that she should live forever because dehydration is not "dignified"? Like living on a tube without a brain is?
"How is that "not" refusing Terry her right to life?"
What life? See, this is where the pro-life arguments go horribly awry. They take any technical signs of life and hold that sacred, even if there's no brain activity, even if the person wouldn't want to live in that awful and pathetic condition. Even if she herself didn't want to live like that, she has a "right to life" that transcends even her own wishes not to live it. More of a "duty TO any life", really. As if God is watching this and getting angry that a vegetable is being taken off life support, when she herself would have wanted it. If he doesn't like it, he can send her to hell. If that's the way you believe God operates, good luck with your faith!
Think about it. God allows her accident to happen - if she isn't found within a certain amount of time, she dies anyway, right? So she is found and taken to the hospital and they can't do anything for her. So now, they have to keep her alive forever, at great expense, or God will be angry because she has a "right to life". Hearing this story, I would have to have second thoughts about trying to save someone who's had a serious accident or episode. What an awful punishment, to have to see a loved one in that state forever as a result. That's hell on earth.
This is a perfect example of how moral absolutism confuses people. Look at it from a societal viewpoint and notice how simple this case is. She's a vegetable. She didn't want to live like this. The costs are outrageous. There's no value to her staying alive. How does keeping her on a feeding tube help anyone? How is this good for society? It's not. If there's no hope, and the person wanted to end it, let it end. It's much healthier for everyone to have cloture and begin the healing process than to drag it on for years and years.
"This is just another liberal shot at trying to create a "perfect race" filled with perfect babies (all the others have been aborted) and perfect grown ups (all the others have been starved to death). Now, I understand the fervent liberal support of killing Terry."
This is from the same guy who told Worrier that he "put his foot in his mouth". Trying to equate a person's right to NOT live indefinitely in a condition like that and some sort of ethnic cleansing. "Perfect race"?
You need psychological help, buddy. Fast.
By Florida law that type of feeding tube is considered life support by artificial means.
about keeping "alive" a woman who is blind and has had half her brain matter turn into fluid? you people have this obsessive fetish with the "sanctity" of life.
What is humane about keeping you alive? She had NO machine KEEPING her alive. She was only being fed and given water. HOW is that "keeping" her alive any different from what keeps YOU alive? I'd like to see you TRY to go 2 days without drinking water. Get back with me if you EVER try that and let me know how painfree that was. She went 2 weeks without water! Not because she wanted to, because her husband forced her to. What would happen in any household if the husband forced his wife to not drink water for 2 weeks? Do ya think he may be jailed or his wife leave him? Maybe that's why liberals don't see anything wrong with marraige relationships these days.
of people who were in comas or vegatative states who woke up after many years and thought they were living in a permanent nighmare. schiavo never even had that hope of waking. there were also doctor's statements given to the court, not the court of limbaugh, a real one, that said after a few days she would simply slip into an unconcious state. and if you don't see a difference between this and a guy withholding water from his healthy wife, you must be missing half your brain.
A coma is NOT a vegatative state they are completely different. There is still awarness in a coma. No one has EVER in recorded history woken up after more than two years in a vegatative state. NONE after showing the sort of damage Schiavo had suffered where her cerebral cortex had been replaced by spinal fluid.
I misread your post. You of course have it just right. I need to go to bed when I get this tired.
Personally I have about 25 court decisions to back up my contention that it IS what she wanted back when she was capable of WANTING. And YOUR evidence it ISNT what she wanted is WHAT AGAIN? Oh nothing? Imagine my suprise
Where we have a politician who sanctimoniously pontificates on the sanctity of life while condoning the murder of innocents in another country invaded and occupied under false pretenses.
Ajozz, unless you know Michael Shiavo personally, you really have no business making that kind of judgment. And neither does Lieberman. You can both sign living wills that state that you WANT your OWN feeding tubes kept in indefinitely while your brains liquify.
Nicely put. You are correct. Schiavo was a vegetable emoting rudimentary neural responses that were over-interpreted by her 'saviours'. The whole issue is a debacle.
Lieberman is a shill... an opportunist to the nth degree. Ineffectual and cowardly. The very fact that a guy from FOX news claims "...and you know how muc we admire him around here..." That says it all right there. Fair and balanced.
I am just gonna wait for the usual people to come out and defend politicians that keep a woman alive that is brain dead for their own political purposes.
The Schiavo case actually lets us examine bizarro world for a second. What if liberals used the same tactics of cons to marginalize what they perceive as enemies? Can you imagine talking head liberals saying the following about Schiavo?
"People go on and on about Terry this and Terry that. Well, I'm tired of it. This is a woman that used to make herself puke. How pathetic is that. She doesn't deserve our sympathy. She was white trash anyway."
"Schiavo is letting herself be used by the conservatives. She's a conservative puppet. And those Schindlers should just shut their ugly pie holes. They are just a bunch of whiners."
This is the type of rhetoric that spews from the bilious mouths of right-wing pundits all day long. They vilify. They distort. They exaggerate. And yes they lie. We don't do that. We win.
with the rest of the bad 'ol boys that constituents, like public resources, are their property to be disposed of at will, like our soldiers, our land/air/water. Then there was 'ol Jeb who threatened criminal charges against Michael Schiavo. Lieberman's most telling statement: "and the law exists to express our values". We know whose values you were talking about, Joe.
I first heard about this at Bartcop.com. Brill's "Content" once looked at pundits' predictions and compared them to the random guesses of a chimp:
[link to www.pbs.org]
Chimpy got about half right by guessing, but that was better than Fred Barnes. It's no wonder he gets so many things wrong - he's not as smart as a chimp.
Why doesn't Roger Ailes fire Barnes and replace him with a monkey? It'll cost less (bananas are pretty cheap), the monkey will be more accurate, and it'll probably be more telegenic than old Fred.
Monkeys are occaisionally capable of independant thought.