2016: Battle of the Dynasties?

I've got two words for you: Terry Schiavo. I thing everyone among us, not just the liberals, should well and truly hate Jeb for that fiasco. Jeb is a horrible, awful, no good human being. He went to court to keep a corpse breathing and then directed his attorney general to harass and investigate a widower based on the most lunatic of conspiracy theories.

I'd sooner see a third term of George than see President Jeb; at least everyone acknowledges that GWB is an incompetent boob and expects him to accidentally stomp his own balls every time he tries to be important. Having to listen to people praise Jeb's smarts and savvy will be torture enough in the campaign and there's absolutely no need for it to continue past that.

So who was I thinking of?

It was more a question of Meg Whitman being evil. But you go right ahead and vote for her. She's a whole nine years younger than Hillary (who's only six years older than Jeb).

Then convince me you didn't vote for McCain (who was 72 when he ran).

Your double standard remains.

Picking someone from the opposing party would've been far stranger than picking a dead person, although a dead Democrat running mate might have drawn a significant cross-over vote in certain urban areas like Philly, Chicago, and St. Louis.

I am beginning to think you are not just playing stupid but that you really are stupid. You claimed all I care about is if there is a d or a r after someone's name and that is clearly not the case, you weaselly little toad.

Well there you go. She's connected to business, so she must be evil.

I didn't vote for McCain. He was too old and too flaky.

She's counting about 28,000 liberals whose heads spontaneously exploded while watching cable news.

I'll have to look that up, as I was pretty young and didn't pay much attention to that where Jeb was involved. But I do remember some accusing the husband of just wanting her life insurance. Seems shitty he'd go gunning for the guy on assumptions.

That's all.?

Lots of people found the husbands conduct loathsome as while his wife was in a coma he got a girlfriend and had two children by her.

If he wanted to move on with his life (and I couldn't blame him) why didn't he just divorce her? I think even the Catholic Church would make an exception in a terrible situation like that.

There was perhaps some legal reason why he couldn't. Like I said, the particulars are vague to me.

Regardless of his behavior, keeping her alive by a technicality did no one a favor, least of all Terry Shivo.

He probably didn't divorce her because he knew the parents were looney tunes, and didn't want them to be her legal guardians.

How were the parents "looney"? You can't blame them for wanting to hang on to their daughter.

I think once you start having kids with another woman, a mans commitment to his wife is more than questionable.

It was a complicated situation, and people could line up on either side of the issue, and the case touched some deep chords. Back in 2005 some people quoted this piece:

***

Terri Shiavo's fate rests not with the judgment of man, but with G-d's wondrous workings through man and mankind. If he has a higher purpose for her life and death then let us bow to his wisdom. He is testing us; weighing, separating wheat from chaff for all to see. Bush and our Congress have moved heaven and earth to help Terri while standing firm on our Constitutional protections, dear to us all. Yes, they have involved themselves in the case, and alarmingly so to some. Yet what man or woman need worry at night in a country where the highest, most powerful men in the nation hop wearily onto a red-eye flight to save one poor girl who can't even speak, and just because they have doubts about the measure of justice heretofore delivered?

As Bush said, when there is doubt we must choose life. They case now rests in the hands of judges, as is both fitting and proper when deciding between two disputed outcomes. There will come a judgment, and when that final judgment is heard we will rejoice or mourn, cry tears of joy or sorrow. If the judgment doesn't favor life then will come more sorrow into our lives as we sit there, knowing yet waiting, blank as we watch a network anchor relate the sad word that always marks the end of a tragic life.

When all is said and done we have stood on principle; stood for life, stood for justice, redemption, second chances - chances for recovery and chances for miracles - those miracles which happen all too often and all too rarely with brain injuries. We may win or lose this case, but we stand to be judged by the side we chose; how we played this game and how we stood up to the grimmest of reapers, his prey only partially taken that long ago day. By such a measure we did not fight in vain, nor was Terri's fight in vain, whatever the final judgment; spurring or stalling a final outcome to which we all are finally and wisely subject. When you strip away the hysteria, histrionics, and hyperbole, we stood for the protection of life within the protections of the Constitution; we have said that a wife is not a man's to dispose of however he sees fit; we have said that parents' and sisters' love must be considered before we become complicit in letting their beloved slip into that great beyond. We have said nothing which we are not ashamed to say to man or G-d, and everyone can both see and judge us on that stance.

We stand as we are; ready to face the charges of being emotional. We ask those who lack that trait to face us as accusers and themselves be judged. If we have done wrong then let us answer for it, because if erring on the side of Life is wrong then we are happy to be thus wrong. If this girl is such a burden out of the 35,000 or so people being so fed, then we will let her go, but mark our opposition to it. There are times to let go the one you love and times when the state shouldn't break your unshakable embrace. Hard cases make bad law but they also show true hearts. If death has gained allies in this case then we accept the arrows flung by those swayed to serve as allies of death and we will continue to engage them in debate. We may be criticized on many grounds, but on our preference for life, weighing the two options, we will not be moved.

We do what we think is right, with the highest of regards given to the Constitution and its spirit. See us, behold us, judge us, for it is nothing compared to that great judgment day that we all will someday face. If our facts are in error our heart is not, and it is the heart of a man that is judged, not his depth of accumulation of trivia and legalisms. Terri may live but will certainly die, now or later as will we all, but when we follow her we would like to say to St. Peter, "I was a friend of Terri Shiavo's, and I am standing to face G-d's judgment. We may have delayed her arrival, but with you as my witness I confess that we would not act to hasten it."

Political dynasties as a hinderance to meritocracy and democracy are a problem, but an abstract problem. If those in power execute good policy, it's really all that matters in the medium-term.

George HW Bush left a solid legacy of a well-executed, limited war and moderation in his domestic policies. Terri Schiavo aside, Jeb Bush successfully governed one of the largest states in the Union as a pragmatic moderate. As the spectacle of Dubya fades into history, it's easier to consider the larger picture of the Bush brand.

Total casualties, including the wounded. Like that student of yours.

It's one thing to wait a week or two; it's another thing after two years or more to expect a miracle to happen. I feel bad for them, but they were only hurting themselves and more importantly their daughter.

Clinton is "shrill" and Ann Richards was a "shrew," but there's no misogyny here. No, sir.

The last Clinton to serve as president left office with an approval rating of 66 percent, higher than anyone in the last 50 years, including Reagan.

The last Bush to serve as president left office with an approval rating of 34 percent, higher than ... Richard Nixon. His father fared better.

Nope. They are, or were in the case of Richards, shrill and shrew. Nice girls can't stand them.

Islanders over Canadiens.

Nobody's scared of women in power. We just don't want the "What difference at this point does it maaaaaaaaaake!" creature in power. Nobody that irresponsible should ever be handed the reins.

They all wanted to go. Including Luke.

You don't know that. And between your constant talk of "acceptable casualties" and the fact that you're afraid to walk in the rain, your opinion is of no value.

I'm not sure.

Richards was a character, for sure. I disagreed with her politics, but loved her as a person.

I'm not talking about Bill, I'm talking about Hillary. Her run as Secretary of State was horrible and since we are condemning whole family names, the Clinton name is tarnished as well. We don't need more Bush, but also don't need more Clinton.

I think we could all use more Bush.

Must you always think in clichés? The way she treated her employees was the evil part.

Don't forget the "broomstick"comment in Post #16. gturner would say exactly the same thing about a male candidate he disliked for being male.

If we had any doubt that certain Righties find the loss of American troops in a war for no damn reason hee-la-rious, here we have it folks.

I do know that EVERY person who served in Iraq or Afghanistan volunteered too serve Garamet. Nobody made them.

and the vast majority who served in either either enlisted or reenlisted AFTER the U.S. invaded Iraq.

And as for my opinion having no value, it obviously has enough value that you take the time to reply to it.