MR. RUSSERT: I mentioned Terri Schiavo. I want to talk about a comment you made: "We're going to use Terri Schiavo later on. This is going to be an issue in 2006 and it's going to be an issue in 2008, because we're going to have an ad with a picture of Tom DeLay saying, `Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not, or is that going to be up to your loved ones?'” [Which, again, is completely baseless. Reread about separation of powers and checks & balances, Mr. Dean.]
Why didn't one Democratic senator stand up in the U.S. Senate and stop the legislation regarding Terri Schiavo if the party feels so strongly about it?
DR. DEAN: Well, you know, I didn't say anything about it. [H.D., 5/22/05: “Our problem in this party is we didn't stand up early enough and fight back against folks like that who thought they were going to push us around and bully us, and we're not going to do it anymore … [W]e are going to be tough as nails … Democrats have strong moral values.”] Now, you talked about message discipline earlier on, and I have had people complain to us how come we didn't do anything about it at the time? That really was in the middle of the Social Security fight [so you can’t debate two issues, especially when you’ve made zero SS proposals?], and I do think in general it is true that Tom DeLay has now become a huge issue, not because we made him one; it was because the papers made him one. [As if you’re different.] There were all these other things that have now come to light that he's doing, and think it's fair to comment on it and it's certainly something that differentiates our position on good government and clean government and the other side.
[Reminder: The question was, “Why didn't one Democratic senator stand up in the U.S. Senate and stop the legislation regarding Terri Schiavo if the party feels so strongly about it?”]
On the Terri Schiavo case [AKA, the question asked], first of all we have to remember these arehuman beings. [How very Republican of you.] This is a terrible, terrible case, but it's something that almost every American can relate to. You know, a lot of Americans can't relate to abortion. They don't think they know anybody that's ever had one or ever had to take – be in that position. It turns out that's not true. A lot of people – most people don't talk about it. But in the case of living and dying, every American family – this is everybody's nightmare, and believe me, as a doctor, I can't tell you how many times I had to face this.
The reason I didn't say anything about it at the time – and leaving the senators aside, as the chairman didn't say anything about it at the time – is because we are on a roll with Social Security. [WOW. So not one Democratic senator stopped the Shiavo legislation because Democrats were “on a roll with Social Security?” This makes no sense and it makes Democratic senators look spineless, which is still better than heartless.] The Democrats, one of our biggest faults is that we want to tell you everything. [Or a whole bunch of nothing, considering you still haven’t explained your answer.] We want to tell you every last detail about everything we know. [Instead of what’s relevant, which fogs your connection with most Americans, which is largely why you lose elections, yes.] And one of the things I do admire about President Bush is his political ability. I don't admire his policy, but he's good at politics. He gets on, he says a quick message, 20 seconds, repeats it four times a day, for 100 days in a row. We've got to learn to do that. [How about just answering the question and explaining the rationale behind it?] So in the middle of a huge Social Security fight where the future of, I think, people's livelihood and seniors' security is at stake, I didn't want to get dragged into that. [Didn’t want to get dragged into a life-or-death issue that will shape future American policy? Didn’t want to address the issue while a defenseless woman starved to death for two weeks?] But – and maybe we should have. You know, maybe we should have said "No, this is outrageous," because the public obviously agreed with us. [According to what? Polls? Because judging by elected representatives, the public strongly disagreed with you.] But I didn't realize at the time what the impact of what they were trying to do was. Part of it was because 14 court decisions in a row and then the backlash was "We don't like the court decisions, the hell with them, we're going do it our way and we're going to impeach them, impeach them..."
[AKA: Dean and the current Democratic senators/future Democratic presidential nominees didn’t want to look bad politically (to moderates), so they sat on their hands until the issue was no longer a top story.]
MR. RUSSERT: But the sense was, Governor, that the Democrats thought that the election in 2004 may have turned on cultural and moral values, and they were afraid to stand up and be seen taking a stance against, quote...
DR. DEAN: Well, I wasn't afraid of that. I mean, I said at the time – people did ask me about it – I said personally at the time I thought it was terrible, because I think that's a deeply personal choice. [In hindsight, you now have a stance? Again, why didn’t you have one at the time? Because you were busy with Social Security or because no one asked you what you thought?] I can't speak for Democrats in the Senate. We didn't confer. It came up very fast. [It was brewing for weeks on a national level.] Look, I'm not making excuses for this. [Then stop making excuses for it.] In retrospect, probably at the time we should have said, "No, this is a terrible thing." But I myself, who thought it was a terrible thing [Congress doing their job? Checks and balances, which you defended earlier?], did say so but didn't have a press conference and grandstand about it in a big way is because we need to stay on message on Social Security. [Despite still having no counter-proposals.] As it turns out the Schiavo case will probably be the turning point about our ability to make our case to Americans about the incredible invasiveness of Republicans when it comes to making personal private decisions. [So while she was starving to death for two weeks, you ignored her – but come future elections, you’ll proudly “use” her for your own political gain? Stupendous ethics, Doc.]
In places like Arizona, for example, where there's a huge ethic almost – libertarianism about individualism, and this is the action of the Republicans that will undo them [despite having two Republican senators] and any claim that they prefer to allow individuals to make up their own mind. [Terri made up her own mind? What about her family’s desperate, public pleas for help? Republicans in Congress didn’t knock on their door.] This is the case that ultimately, I think, is going to galvanize Democrats into being the party of individual freedom and individual and personal responsibility. [If that’s true, why didn’t it do that when it mattered – AKA, while it was actually happening?]
No comments:
Post a Comment