• 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
GW Bush left office with an approval of 22%. I think that may mean a lot of people regretted voting for him and won't make the same mistake again. Clinton left office with a RECORD 66% approval so Hillary won't have the same problem.

but we are not voting for dubya or bill. their approval ratings from seven plus years prior will be meaningless
we will have to choose between hillary or jeb
if we are fortunate, hillary will bow out and we can elect Elizabeth Warren
 
A vote is your sacred franchise, I suppose to the one casting it, it's never stupid. And there's lots of single issue voters.

Single issue voting is fine. I almost always end up voting for the person I think will do the best job with the economy. I'm not talking about single issue voters. I'm talking about voting for a candidate because you think you won't have to worry about putting gas in your car again, or because he's hot and a rock star, or because she's a woman, or because you don't like the Indian guy, etc. are all stupid reasons to cast a vote for the most powerful person in the world.
 
Single issue voting is fine. I almost always end up voting for the person I think will do the best job with the economy. I'm not talking about single issue voters. I'm talking about voting for a candidate because you think you won't have to worry about putting gas in your car again, or because he's hot and a rock star, or because she's a woman, or because you don't like the Indian guy, etc. are all stupid reasons to cast a vote for the most powerful person in the world.

In that case we're in complete agreement.
 
Actually its EXTRAORDINARILY relevant to the case. There are a lot of people that are in her position or worse. She had parents that were willing to love her and care for her. She contributed to a quality of life. To the husband...she was merely inconvenient.

Pick an argument and stick with it. Is your argument about eliminating the brain dead or are you really twisted because Jeb Bush intervened between a husband and a family?

1. The question is not what her parents wanted. It is what she wanted as was communicated to her spouse. If I am ever brain dead I do not want to be kept on life support simply for the benefit of my parents. Instead I would want any settlements related to my condition and subsequent death to go to my wife and kids.

2. The problem is indeed that Jeb Bush intervened in a personal medical issue that should have been left to the spouse, parents, and in their case the courts as well.
 
Are you sharing this with me because you want my approval, or because you think this is what's being discussed? The topic of this thread is how this will impact Jeb Bush politically, not how you would react if Terri Schiavo were your daughter.

You and others brought into the discussion the motivation of the parents. I certainly can understand the motivations of the parents as I am a parent as well. However, its an abuse of office for a governor or congress to get involved in a personal medical issue that should was settled in the courts.
 
You don't think there will be some TV ads helping the average American voter remember?

I really don't think those ads would be that effective.

Ads bringing up Benghazi and Obamacare didn't work for Romney, Ads about Skull and Bones and Bush going AWOL didn't work for Kerry, Whitewater and numerous sexual allegations didn't hurt Clinton, Iran Contra did no lasting damage to Reagan or his legacy, right on down the line. people simply don't give a s*** about things like this. right or wrong. this will be a one week commercial and then off to the next controversy
 
You don't think there will be some TV ads helping the average American voter remember?

I very much hope there are such ads. Dems will be hooted down for exploiting a family tragedy for political gain.
 
You and others brought into the discussion the motivation of the parents. I certainly can understand the motivations of the parents as I am a parent as well. However, its an abuse of office for a governor or congress to get involved in a personal medical issue that should was settled in the courts.

Because the link in the OP, if you remember reading it, presented a single side to the story - her husband's - and used that as a "Jeb Bush is bad for the Presidency" claim. There was another side to the story - her parents'. This wasn't as simple as the OP laid it out to be.
 
I can't say I see this as personal to Bush so much as taking action as a Governor, applying the law in his state as it existed, but I don't know all the details and based on some of the comments here in this thread I don't know if many of us really do know all the details - seems pretty contentious from both sides.

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.
 
I very much hope there are such ads. Dems will be hooted down for exploiting a family tragedy for political gain.

How did he Democrats exploit the family tragedy?
 
Good afternoon Lady P - enjoying our frosty February??

I can't imagine Obama doing anything to help anyone else electorally. He is strictly, solely, interested in himself. As such, he couldn't care less what the fallout may be from anything he does so long as he has notoriety, good or bad.

As for living a certain lifestyle after leaving office, for reasons related to him personally and reasons beyond his control, I fully expect that the costs to the US Treasury in protecting and traveling with the Obamas will be the most expensive after Presidency bills ever paid and he'll make the Clintons look like pikers on the speaking tours. There'll be no tag days for the Obamas, guaranteed.

:agree: Vacations for the POTUS and his family are paid for by the taxpayers, but after 2016 he will no longer be POTUS, so it will be interesting to see how that will be handled as far as cost of travel and lodging are concerned. I just can't see him standing in line waiting to board a plane at some airport, nor checking in at some motel. :lol: The cost of flying Air Force One is roughly $181,000 per hour. There is also the cost of the second plane that accompanies AF One. Salaries of the personnel assigned to protect those on board are not included in the $181,000, to my knowledge, but I'm not sure of that.

Of course there will be a new POTUS using the plane in 2017, so those costs will continue. But all ex-Presidents and their families are protected for life by the Secret Service, so nothing new there. Campaign organizations supposedly reimburse the Treasury for any political trips on AF One by the POTUS to make speeches, etc, but not for Ex-Presidents flying on a private plane, since any fees for speaking are paid directly to him.

Therefore, I won't be surprised to see some changes requested by him in the next two years on how his future travel expenses are handled [when he is no longer POTUS], but I do expect to see some.

And for the record, as far as the weather is concerned, I am very close to hiding out in Houston for a few months - or even going further South to some country like Australia or , New Zealand, where it's Summertime now. It's in the high 70s in Brisbane! Nuts to waking up to -6 degrees on the thermometer here! :shock:
 
Yes, and irrelevant to the story at hand.

No, not irrelevant because look at the issue with Kerry and the swift boat, it was became possibly relevant. And if some smart democratic strategist and one or more PAC's start attacking Bush with internet video's that would never make it on TV, that would make a possible problem for Bush.

I do not think it will happen, but if can happen and if done successfully it may damage his chances with people who disagreed with the governmental overreach of the Schiavo case. The new media can help spread that story through internet video's, mass emails to voters, etc. etc.

Because in the time of Nixon there were no super-pacs to spread this message out over the internet. There were no internet newspapers, liberal websites, conservative websites, etc. etc. etc.

The new media has become a game changer and it could happen in this case. I do not think it will become a big issue but with a concerted campaign it could become an issue. For example if such a media campaign starts and Bush (which I do not think he will) gives out a mea culpa and says he made a mistake getting involved in this case, hard core republican pro-life candidates would come out of the woodwork saying that Bush is not to be trusted to protect the lives of the innocents and that they would never stand for such a thing.

Or if Bush goes all hardcore and defends his overreach into the life of a citizen of the United States then democratic PAC's and democratic candidates can attack him on his willingness to interfere in the civil rights of people and that Bush cannot be trusted.

Just because it is a generalized statement and that I personally do not think it will become an issue, does not change the fact that it can become an issue. And IMHO it will become an issue much faster in this day and age with the internet, emails, pacs, youtube, etc. etc. than that it would have become an issue in the Nixon, Reagan or even Bush 1's time.
 
I don't think so.

I think for something to rock a campaign it has to has some sort of "newness" to it. It can't be something that was talked about constantly for months in the national news.
 
Future tense. If they run such ads they will be doing just that.
I think you're forgetting the ads that would run during the Republican primary. Those would be run by Republicans.
 
I think you're forgetting the ads that would run during the Republican primary. Those would be run by Republicans.

You think his primary challengers are going to run ads blasting him for the Terri Schiavo situation?

Srsly?
 
I voted for GW Bush twice and while I was disappointed in him, I don't regret voting for him.

I also know a vote for his brother wouldn't mean another vote for him, just like I didn't think I was voting for his father again, as I had in 1988, when I voted for him.

If people are stupid enough to vote for Hillary because they think they're casting a 3rd vote for her husband, then that's just pathetic, but no surprise actually. The number of clueless voters in this country shouldn't surprise anyone.

So you support Bush's invasion of Iraq too? Jeb is the same as his brother on foreign policy. He will get us into more quagmires that make us less safe.
 
GWB handed off a victory in Iraq. BHO threw it away. Unemployment under BHO has only in recent months achieved what was the average level under GWB.

GW had the worst job creation in modern history and his invasion of Iraq is deemed a mistake by most Americans. You can't put lipstick on a pig.
 
So you support Bush's invasion of Iraq too? Jeb is the same as his brother on foreign policy. He will get us into more quagmires that make us less safe.

what causes you to be so certain of this
unlike dubya, jeb will not have darth cheney whispering into jeb's ear encouraging him to do what his father did not: topple saddam
why do you believe jeb is a clone of his intellectually unchallenged brother ... especially regarding foreign policy
 
but we are not voting for dubya or bill. their approval ratings from seven plus years prior will be meaningless
we will have to choose between hillary or jeb
if we are fortunate, hillary will bow out and we can elect Elizabeth Warren

Hillary has a much better chance at being the 1st women President. Warren can be the 2nd though.
 
That's true of some, but your suggesting that because of that, there's a significant number of conservatives that would pull the lever for Hillary, when they largely believe her husband was an epic failure and that she lied us into a war??

Clinton left with 65% approval ratings despite a scandal plagued presidency. I don't think people will disqualify Hillary because of her husband. She was pretty close to winning the nomination in 08.
 
what causes you to be so certain of this
unlike dubya, jeb will not have darth cheney whispering into jeb's ear encouraging him to do what his father did not: topple saddam
why do you believe jeb is a clone of his intellectually unchallenged brother ... especially regarding foreign policy

Don't be so sure about Jeb. He is running around talking just like a neocon as we speak.

Although he rarely comments on foreign policy, Bush has appeared particularly unwilling to push back against the neoconservatives who supported his brother's administration, at times echoing their complaints about the Obama administration's foreign policy. In February 2010, for example, Bush told Newsmax that he didn't think "the military option should ever be taken off the table" with respect to Iran, adding in November that the Obama administration's policies toward the country had "empower[ed] bad behavior in Tehran." Bush also mused that "sheer ineptitude and incompetency and corruption will bring down the [Hugo] Chavez regime" in Venezuela, "but we can't sit back passively and let this happen naturally." Instead, Bush advocated offering U.S. support to "elements of Venezuelan society that are fighting back against" the democratically elected Chavez, who eventually died of cancer in early 2013 after being resoundingly reelected.[15] Bush has also stood by his support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, telling CNN in March 2013: "A lot of things in history change over time. I think people will respect the resolve that my brother showed, both in defending the country and the war in Iraq."[16] At one point in the late 1990s, Bush seemed to have been considered a potentially more influential political ally than his brother by the neoconservatives who founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Commenting on the signatories to PNAC's 1997 founding statement of principles, Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn wrote, "Ironically, virtually the only signatory who has not played a leading role since the letter was released has been Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who in 1997 apparently looked to [William] Kristol and [Robert] Kagan more presidential than his brother George."[17] -
See more at: Jeb Bush - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies
 
Back
Top Bottom