Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What's Wrong with Democratic activists?

  1. Apr 6, 2005 #1
    Why would they offer de novo hearings to murderers but not an innocent like Terri Schiavo? I have but one simple explanation. Political considerations trump any insincere concern for Terri's life, and to that end the Democrats have made a terrible miscalculation. They assumed that the White House and Congressional Republicans would take a hit over intervening in Schiavo's case. They haven't. They assumed that Americans would remain solidly of the opinion that Schiavo should be starved to death because some guy in a black robe said that's what she wanted. They haven't. The smarter ones were swift enough to stay silent.

    Americans believed by a nearly sixty point margin that George Bush's Supreme Court nominees would make abortion illegal, but they put him back in office with an even larger conservative margin in the Senate. Exactly what made the Democrats think that a showdown on "end of life" issues would break their way?

    Rev Prez
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 6, 2005 #2

    kat

    User Avatar

    How many more must die before Kofi quits?
    I've been wondering where the "Real" left is myself.....
    I think they've been usurped by the fanatical self interest groups.....
     
  4. Apr 6, 2005 #3
    Did you see this?

    Code (Text):

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the job the Republican leaders in Congress are doing?"

    .
            Approve     Disap-
    prove   Unsure     
            %   %   %      
    3/17-21/05   39      44      17        
        2/04    41  42  17     
        1/03    48  37  15     
        6/02    50  34  16     
        5/02    49  34  17
     
    How can you present this as valid data? There is a one+ year gap in the reporting. What were the polling numbers last month?

    Your second link CLEARLY shows your assertion to be wrong, wrong, wrong... Here, read this: http://www.pollingreport.com/news.htm

    Code (Text):

    "If you were in Terri Schiavo's place, what would you want your guardian to do? Would you have your guardian remove the feeding tube or keep the feeding tube inserted?"
                           

    .
            Remove  Keep    Unsure     
            %   %   %      
        3/29-30/05  61  24  15     
        3/1-2/05    74  15  11     
        10/28-29/03     74  16  10
     
    Code (Text):

    "Do you agree or disagree with the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube?"
                           

    .
            Agree   Disagree    Unsure     
            %   %   %      
        3/29-30/05  42  38  20  
     
    Well, read the polls yourself. Most of the respondents sided with the husband.

    So, what is wrong with the Dems? You havn't given any substance relating to your thread title; moreover, you've presented weakly researched data that actually counters your claim in one instance and useless in another. Your third point is a strawman as well because you've presented an assertion that a margin of the country believes abortion would be made illegal under Bush you've not presented data showing how many Americans support the idea of making abortion illegal.

    [edit] You might want to take some time and read through one of the Terri Schiavo threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=67115
    Why start a new thread about a subject when the old one is onle 10 links down?
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2005
  5. Apr 6, 2005 #4

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    We dont live in a true democracy, faust, so citing polls and what 1000+ people thought is not relevant. We elect representatives, and then hope those representatives are as intelligent as they are sneaky, and when it comes to making the right decisions for those who put them in power - we hope they make the right call.

    Sometimes, and read this as all the time, people dont know what is best for them. But some people know when they see a good leader who understands whats best - and there are a lot in Congress who dont know what they are doing
     
  6. Apr 6, 2005 #5
    Oh, I realize this; however, when one presents data (polling of 1000 people can be made statistically valid BTW) one should take the time to ensure said data supports one's claim. The good reverend did not do that.
     
  7. Apr 6, 2005 #6

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm not sure he is a reverend.. But in any case - I guess it depends who are those 1000 people - if they represent all the groups and minorities in all the proportions and with all religions and with all classes included - then I guess its a micro version of the entire populus. I somehow doubt thats what those statistics represent
     
  8. Apr 6, 2005 #7
    I know, he preaches to the quire like one though. Forgive my little quip. I'm not going to argue statistics though. You can look into this yourself and see that 1000+ opinion polls are mostly valid if good opinion polling strategies are used.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2005
  9. Apr 6, 2005 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    How would Terri Schiavo have gone about requesting such a thing and on what legal grounds could it be done?
     
  10. Apr 6, 2005 #9

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Wow, looks like a clean sweep to me. Maybe people should have minded their own business and let the family and courts decide it.

    I think there are some debatable issues in regards to cases similar to Terri Schiavo's. Namely, with divorce rate around 50%, should the spouse automatically be given legal authority to make life or death decisions for their spouse. In Colorado, it's a consensus of closely related family members - I wonder just how well that works in situations like Schiavo's. In any event, someone eventually has to be given authority to make a decision.

    In Schiavo's case, the fact that it had gone through so many different judges is enough to convince me that the right choice was made in this case.
     
  11. Apr 6, 2005 #10
    Code (Text):
      FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. March 29-30, 2005. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
                           

    .

    "Do you agree or disagree with the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube?"
                           



    .
            Agree   Disagree    Unsure     
            %   %   %      
        3/29-30/05  42  38  20

    "If it were up to you, who would you put in control of Terri Schiavo's care as her legal guardian: her spouse or her parents?"
                           

    .
            Spouse  Parents     Neither
    (vol.)  Unsure  
            %   %   %   %  
        3/29-30/05  46  43  4   8  
                           

    .
    "Do you believe Terri Schiavo told her husband she would not want to be kept alive under these types of circumstances?"
                           

    .
            Yes     No  Unsure     
            %   %   %      
        3/29-30/05  43  25  32     
                           

    .

    "Do you think the actions Republicans took in the Terri Schiavo case will help them or hurt them in the next election?"
                           

    .
            Help    Hurt    Neither
    (vol.)  Unsure  
            %   %   %   %  
        3/29-30/05  16  37  25  22  
                           

     
    Furthermore

    Code (Text):
    "If you were in Terri Schiavo's place, what would you want your guardian to do? Would you have your guardian remove the feeding tube or keep the feeding tube inserted?"
                           

    .
            Remove  Keep    Unsure     
            %   %   %      
        3/29-30/05  61  24  15     
        3/1-2/05    74  15  11     
        10/28-29/03     74  16  10
    After one month, the number of people who said they would give up authority to end their lives to others dropped 13 points. There's been little shift whatsoever in the job approval ratings of the President or Congressional Republicans in the matter, but the Schiavo case has definitely generated momentum for the pro-life case.

    Rev Prez
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2005
  12. Apr 6, 2005 #11
    So what, 61>>24 last time I checked. Now, what is the margin of error for that poll? It's probably pretty high because its a new question with little historical data to allow for proper respondent weighting.

    As for the approval shift, the data you presented was out of date--thus useless. You cannot look at data from 2/04 and compare that to 3/05 and say "See no change!" What were the numbers last month? Additionally, last I looked El Presidente's numbers have been on a slow decling since 1/20/05.

    So Rev, what is wrong with Dem activists?
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2005
  13. Apr 6, 2005 #12
    First, what percent of Americans are pro-choice? Are the Americans who believe Bush would nominate Supreme Court Justices to make abortion illegal also in favor of Bush nominating Supreme Court Justices who will make abortion illegal? Did all those who put Bush back in office do so because of right-to-life issues?

    Those who know Bush is Messianic supposedly "get it." Those who know Bush isn't Messianic are the ones who really "get it," and the more out-of-touch Bush has been, the more people "get it" that he's not Messianic and is out-of-touch, including the Christian right.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2005
  14. Apr 6, 2005 #13
    :confused:
     
  15. Apr 6, 2005 #14
    That's the point. Bush was put in office despite the fact that a majority of Americans favor upholding Roe v. Wade. The difference is we have a better understanding of the correlating structure underlying American opinion on the abortion issue than where it concerns the end of life. It's difficult to rally around the pro-choice banner when most Americans are open to restrictions on abortion; a dynamic similar to what we see in the (limited) Schiavo polling.

    Rev Prez
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2005
  16. Apr 6, 2005 #15
    So, now that the data has been show to not support your stance it suddenly becomes "limited" thus somehow minimizing its importance?

    I'm sorry, but the data you've supplied thus far does not really support many of the ideas you've put forth. Which leads me to my next question:

    "What do you find troublesome with Democratic Activism?" Thus far, you have bantered about Terri Schiavo, and abortion but as of yet you have not addressed activism itself(though that is the title of the thread). I see activism as alive and well these days personally. I saw ppl outside of a hospice trying to influence a democracy to suit their will over the will of the woman in question. I saw that form of activism get a bill signed into law. I saw a good man slandered by the likes of Karl Rove in 2000 using a Push-Poll in South Carolina. A little bit of activism there got Bush on the GOP ticket now didn't it?

    So, what is wrong with activism to the point of dedicating a thread to said topic? Do you have anything in particular to discuss, or just more "Terri Schiavo was murdered and we let baby killers live" banter?
     
  17. Apr 6, 2005 #16
    Ahhh!!!! I found the perfect example of Democratic activism. Here's how it works, you become a political heavy weight. You set up a PAC. You then have your PAC pay your family members for political fundraising... Now that's some activism for ya. But, who would do something that brazen? I don't know ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/p...&en=f4d1a399b234e303&ei=5094&partner=homepage ) but I'm sure the GOP does.
     
  18. Apr 6, 2005 #17

    kat

    User Avatar

    For a sec I thought you were gonna really show democratic activism...mebbe a link to something in regards to Berger....now that's some excellent Dem activism for ya.




    Zogby poll details release...just FYI:

    http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=982
    Do you agree or disagree…?
    Agree
    Disagree
    Not sure

    It is proper for the federal government to intervene when basic civil rights are being denied?
    74
    19
    8

    The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to minorities?
    57
    33
    10

    Michael Schiavo should turn guardianship of Terri over to her parents, considering he has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her?
    56
    35
    9

    The law should provide exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as the guardian for his or her incapacitated spouse?
    46
    39
    15

    It is proper for the federal government to intervene when disabled people are denied food and water by a state court judge’s order?
    44
    43
    13

    The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to the disabled?
    42
    48
    10

    Elected officials should intervene to protect a disabled person’s right to live if there is conflicting testimony concerning removing a feeding tube?
    38
    54
    8

    Hearsay be allowed as evidence in the case of determining if a feeding tube should be removed?
    31
    57
    12


    Likely voters in the survey are closely divided on a number of other issues, including whether it is proper for the federal government to intervene in a case similar to Schiavo’s. When asked if it is proper for federal officials to intervene when disabled people are denied food and water by a state court judge, respondents were deadlocked, with 44% favoring such intervention, and 43% opposed.

    The survey did find overwhelming consensus, however, when the question turned to government intervention in cases where basic civil rights were being denied. Three-quarters (74%) of likely voters say that it is proper for the federal government to intervene in such a case; just one-in-five (19%) disagree.
     
  19. Apr 6, 2005 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm a Republican, but that's a horribly right-biased poll, kat. Most of the questions are simultaneously self-evident and meaningless.
     
  20. Apr 6, 2005 #19

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Change "disabled" in that poll to "persistently vegetative" or "without higher brain function" and I wonder how the results would differ.
     
  21. Apr 6, 2005 #20
    I agree, the federal government should intervein when basic civil rights are being trampeled upon. The right to vote, the right to a fair and equal education, the right to not be interned, the right to sit at a counter and enjoy a piece of pie, the right to not be fired for being 'old' all should be protected. For the most part, Zogby's poll questions extend well beyond the Schiavo case, so much so as to make it irrelevent to that case. The only questions which link it to the Schiavo case are the third and last ones. The rest are no-brainers.

    Should the law make exceptions? Yes--I wouldn't want my drug addict wife of two days who I met in Vegas a day and a half before making a decision like that(that's my hypothetical wife BTW my real life wife is great).

    Should the government step in to hepl disabled people? Yes! Withholding food and water was used to help control retarded people at one point in time. Is that right--no. Should it be allowed--no. Does it apply to this case--no.

    It's funny though that the public doesn't support intervention in cases where there is a disagreement though don't you think? I guess people said "You know they were together for 6 years. Mr Schiavo probably had this discussion with her. The 19 judges probably got it right in this case."

    Also, note that the public also felt it was appropriate that the sworn statements of people other than the husband attesting to TERRI'S wishes be allowed as evidence...

    Should someone be presumed to want to live? Probably; however, in this case the overwhelming evidence was that Terri didn't want to be in that condition. If Joe or Jane Doe drop in the street tomorrow with no written instructens then their wish to live should be presumed (Texas allows for doctors to remove these people from life support with or without the next of kin's concurrence). If I keeled over tomorrow without a living will and my wife said "We discussed this and he wouldn't want to be in that condition." then my wifes word should be good enough. We're married and have been long enough for her to make these decisions.

    All in all your poll doesn't show anything except what you want it to. The questions were worded in such a way as to bolster your beliefs because initially they all appear to say Terri should have been allowed to live. The fact is though that most people who felt Terri had the right to die would have answered the questions as Zogby reports. That doesn't mean the questions support keeping the feeding tube though. Quite the contrary, if you read most scientiffic polls where the questiuon "Does Terri Schiavo have the right to die" or something along those lines you'd see most people said YES.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: What's Wrong with Democratic activists?
  1. What IF agw is wrong? (Replies: 138)

Loading...