• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Jeb Bush have a Terri Schiavo Problem?

Does Jeb Bush Have a Schiavo Problem?


  • Total voters
    23
[emphasis added by bubba]

oh hell yes
i stand for a lot of things
among them:
the national anthem
while sitting and seeing approaching ladies prior to shaking hands
and great performances

i also stand for voting for the best candidate
and between jeb and hillary, hillary ain't it
despite multiple opportunities to convince me otherwise, you have proven unable to do so

and i don't care enough about you to dislike you; however, your inability to defend your position that began this debate has certainly proven to be a disappointing display of 'advocacy'

I can't help it if you consider GW Bush the sequel to be preferable to another Clinton Whitehouse. I noticed you don't need to ask what Jeb stands for because we already lived it for 8 long years from 2000 to 2008. Either you have a poor memory or you are among the 22% who still approved of GW when he left office. Either way you are hopeless.... almost as hopeless as Jeb's chances at winning the Whitehouse
 
Last edited:
One of Bushes greatest risks to the GOP is that he is socially liberal. Face it...this is simply a bull**** 'cause'. And theres going to be a whooooooole lot more of them. Meanwhile...the guy currently occupying the WH has expanded greatly the 'authoritarian' powers of the fed and that ruckus we are hearing about rejecting of 'authoritarianism'? Yeah...its nonexistent.

Jeb's a compassionate conservative just like his brother. In fact he is impossible to tell from GW in everything from immigration reform, pandering to evangelists to his neocon foreign policy. So what's not to like?
 
One of Bushes greatest risks to the GOP is that he is socially liberal. Face it...this is simply a bull**** 'cause'. And theres going to be a whooooooole lot more of them. Meanwhile...the guy currently occupying the WH has expanded greatly the 'authoritarian' powers of the fed and that ruckus we are hearing about rejecting of 'authoritarianism'? Yeah...its nonexistent.

What is Jeb socially liberal on? He is strongly pro-life. He is anti-same sex marriage. Hell back when he first ran for governor he said LGBT protections were "tantamount to elevating sodomy." He is pro war on drugs. He is anti-hate crimes. The only social issue you can describe him as even moderate on is immigration. Jeb is the kind of Republican that is fairly moderate in his tone but is just as conservative on social issues as the typical Republican is.
 
no law authorized Jeb to intervene in any way until the Florida appeals court ordered the case closed and the feeding tube removed, in the span of one day the Florida legislature passed a law giving Jeb the right to intervene, and the next day Florida state troopers were pulling what had previously been Terri Shaivo out of the hospice and took her to another hospital to have the tube reinserted.

it was a law created at his request for a specific cause celebe.

The fact that a strong supporter of Jeb's has to deny that Jeb led the effort to keep Schiavo alive suggests that Jeb's actual role could be a problem for him.
 
What is Jeb socially liberal on? He is strongly pro-life. He is anti-same sex marriage. Hell back when he first ran for governor he said LGBT protections were "tantamount to elevating sodomy." He is pro war on drugs. He is anti-hate crimes. The only social issue you can describe him as even moderate on is immigration. Jeb is the kind of Republican that is fairly moderate in his tone but is just as conservative on social issues as the typical Republican is.

It demonstrates the problem the modern GOP has. Jeb is perceived as a "liberal" Republican (ie RINO) simply because he doesn't compare homosexuals to pedophiles and immigrants to rabid disease infected animals. If a republican doesn't make wingnutty comments on a regular basis, they lose the "base" and if they do, they lose everyone else.
 
It demonstrates the problem the modern GOP has. Jeb is perceived as a "liberal" Republican (ie RINO) simply because he doesn't compare homosexuals to pedophiles and immigrants to rabid disease infected animals. If a republican doesn't make wingnutty comments on a regular basis, they lose the "base" and if they do, they lose everyone else.

Yep, flog the culture war whipping post or your a RINO.
 
What is Jeb socially liberal on? He is strongly pro-life. He is anti-same sex marriage. Hell back when he first ran for governor he said LGBT protections were "tantamount to elevating sodomy." He is pro war on drugs. He is anti-hate crimes. The only social issue you can describe him as even moderate on is immigration. Jeb is the kind of Republican that is fairly moderate in his tone but is just as conservative on social issues as the typical Republican is.

You shouldn't repeat what you read on left wing websites, and you shouldn't move quotation marks to suit your purposes. He said no such thing. If you would like to know what he actually said, you can read it below.

The Miami Herald
June 22, 1994 — Wednesday

JEB BUSH: NO SPECIAL LEGAL STATUS FOR GAYS

Re the June 20 Herald editorial Bigotry and its mouthpieces about the gubernatorial candidates’ position on homosexuality and special legal rights for homosexuals: Homosexuality is wrong, but it is also wrong to discriminate against homosexuals in employment, housing, etc., solely on the basis of sexual preference. I have employed homosexuals and continue to do so. Therefore, I take vigorous exception to your characterization of me as a bigot.

However, I do not believe that government should create a new class of citizens with special legal rights.

It is disingenuous of you to write that “the governor must stand up for and represent all the people of the Sunshine State on all matters.” You imply that discrimination is always wrong, yet government and individual Floridians discriminate every day in innumerable ways. Government discriminates against bank robbers, drug dealers, litterbugs, and homeowners who repair their seawall without a permit, just to name a few. Yours is not a reasoned argument reflecting reality.

The governor — and the government — do not defend the conduct of every Floridian with equal verve and enthusiasm. Polluters, pedophiles, pornographers, drunk drivers, and developers without proper permits receive — and deserve — precious little representation or defense from their governor. The statement that the governor must stand up for all people on all matters is just silly.

The public policy question is whether homosexuals deserve special legal protection from otherwise legal, private acts of discrimination, which protections are not available to smokers, drinkers, children, redheads, Midwesterners, Democrats, veterans, nudists, etc. Or, to put it another way, should sodomy be elevated to the same constitutional status as race and religion? My answer is No. We have enough special categories, enough victims, without creating even more.

Jeb Bush


http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/jeb-bush-in-94-sodomy-shouldnt-be-given-same-protections-as#.laQDjzN5BO
 
You shouldn't repeat what you read on left wing websites, and you shouldn't move quotation marks to suit your purposes. He said no such thing. If you would like to know what he actually said, you can read it below.

The Miami Herald
June 22, 1994 — Wednesday

JEB BUSH: NO SPECIAL LEGAL STATUS FOR GAYS

Re the June 20 Herald editorial Bigotry and its mouthpieces about the gubernatorial candidates’ position on homosexuality and special legal rights for homosexuals: Homosexuality is wrong, but it is also wrong to discriminate against homosexuals in employment, housing, etc., solely on the basis of sexual preference. I have employed homosexuals and continue to do so. Therefore, I take vigorous exception to your characterization of me as a bigot.

However, I do not believe that government should create a new class of citizens with special legal rights.

It is disingenuous of you to write that “the governor must stand up for and represent all the people of the Sunshine State on all matters.” You imply that discrimination is always wrong, yet government and individual Floridians discriminate every day in innumerable ways. Government discriminates against bank robbers, drug dealers, litterbugs, and homeowners who repair their seawall without a permit, just to name a few. Yours is not a reasoned argument reflecting reality.

The governor — and the government — do not defend the conduct of every Floridian with equal verve and enthusiasm. Polluters, pedophiles, pornographers, drunk drivers, and developers without proper permits receive — and deserve — precious little representation or defense from their governor. The statement that the governor must stand up for all people on all matters is just silly.

The public policy question is whether homosexuals deserve special legal protection from otherwise legal, private acts of discrimination, which protections are not available to smokers, drinkers, children, redheads, Midwesterners, Democrats, veterans, nudists, etc. Or, to put it another way, should sodomy be elevated to the same constitutional status as race and religion? My answer is No. We have enough special categories, enough victims, without creating even more.

Jeb Bush


http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/jeb-bush-in-94-sodomy-shouldnt-be-given-same-protections-as#.laQDjzN5BO

How on earth is that any better? That may as well be a press release from a Religious Right organization.
 
How on earth is that any better? That may as well be a press release from a Religious Right organization.

Thank you for acknowledging that he never said what you claimed he did.

My suggestion is that you don't vote for him in the primary and he won't ever get the nomination.
 
It demonstrates the problem the modern GOP has. Jeb is perceived as a "liberal" Republican (ie RINO) simply because he doesn't compare homosexuals to pedophiles and immigrants to rabid disease infected animals. If a republican doesn't make wingnutty comments on a regular basis, they lose the "base" and if they do, they lose everyone else.
Both parties suffer from this, though the Reps suffer from it more, at least the last dozen or so years. Hence the need for candidates to "run to the right/left" during the primaries just so they can get nominated, then "run to the middle" during the general election so they can get elected.
 
The polls say differently. I believe she will run on a platform similar to her husbands who will help immensely in her election. The fact that Bill will be in the Whitehouse with her will help with those that are still weak kneed about a female leader. Meanwhile Jeb will run as GW II. I wouldn't rule out GW even campaigning with him. Jeb is his brothers biggest cheerleader.

You mean Hillary is going to run on Gingrich's Contract with America, welfare reform, and hope for a tech bubble too?
 
Both parties suffer from this, though the Reps suffer from it more, at least the last dozen or so years. Hence the need for candidates to "run to the right/left" during the primaries just so they can get nominated, then "run to the middle" during the general election so they can get elected.

Yes, in fact *all* parties have such a problem. There's always conflict between the hard-core and the more moderate factions. But lately, the GOP is in danger of splitting over the differences, and even if they don't (and they probably will not ever split) there's a good chance that enough f them to throw the election will stay home on election day.

IOW, there's similarities but they're not the same and the differences are significant. You're not going to hear any Dem primary candidates say things like "We have to disband the DoD" or "We have to ban all guns", or "We have to nationalize oil companies/banks/etc" just to please the more extreme factions within the DNC
 
Yes, in fact *all* parties have such a problem. There's always conflict between the hard-core and the more moderate factions. But lately, the GOP is in danger of splitting over the differences, and even if they don't (and they probably will not ever split) there's a good chance that enough f them to throw the election will stay home on election day.

IOW, there's similarities but they're not the same and the differences are significant. You're not going to hear any Dem primary candidates say things like "We have to disband the DoD" or "We have to ban all guns", or "We have to nationalize oil companies/banks/etc" just to please the more extreme factions within the DNC
Right. There are ebbs and flows for each party over time, but lately the Reps seem to be at a critical juncture. They seem to be bent on purposely magnifying this. I feel like that if they do lose the Presidency in 2016 it'll be their own fault.
 
Right. There are ebbs and flows for each party over time, but lately the Reps seem to be at a critical juncture. They seem to be bent on purposely magnifying this. I feel like that if they do lose the Presidency in 2016 it'll be their own fault.

Yes, that is my point

With an incumbent president with somewhat low approval #'s, and the cyclical voter fatigue with the party in power, an "establishment Republican" who doesn't have a reputation for wingnuttery should have an excellent chance at winning and in most situations, would very likely win. But because such a large portion of potential republican voters are both extreme in their views and so unwilling to compromise, the possibility of Jeb winning are called into question.
 
Oh, Yes, this little story is sure to come back and bite his ass.

Don’t trust Jeb Bush with the power of the presidency

I was disappointed by Michael Putney’s Feb. 6 Other Views column about the legacy of Jeb Bush (First round goes to Jeb, Feb. 4). Putney writes that it was “doctrinaire liberals” who opposed Bush’s involvement in the tragic case of Terri Schiavo — my then-wife.

Who is Putney referring to as the “doctrinaire liberals” who were horrified by the former governor’s intervention in my family’s trauma? The Republican Attorney General Charlie Crist, who refused to take up the governor’s crusade? Republican Senate President Jim King, who fought Bush on passage of “Terri’s Law?” Pinellas County Judge George Greer, a Republican and Southern Baptist, who looked at the evidence of my wife’s case before having his rulings tossed aside by a governor who never met her?


Does he mean me, a registered Republican?


The truth about Jeb Bush is that he used my wife for his own personal political gain. You don’t have to be a doctrinaire liberal to be angry about that. In fact many conservatives were also horrified by Bush’s zealous intervention.


Read more here: Don’t trust Jeb Bush with the power of the presidency
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article9637031.html#storylink=cpy

Jen Bush acted cowardly by backing down.
 
Back
Top Bottom