Sunday, June 19, 2005
Brooks' Honesty Quota
David Brooks must have a clause in his contract that requires him to tell the truth a few times a year. His piece today on Bill Frist says, in a nice way, what we here have felt about the Senate Majority leader for a while: that he's let his political ambitions supplant his better judgement.
Brooks says:
Now, making compromises for political gain is what politicians do; you can't complain too loudly about it. But in the Schiavo matter Frist must also be charged with monumentally bad judgement, which is more serious.
Why? Because as a doctor he knew the truth, and therefor knew how that sad affair would inevitably end. And yet he plunged into "the wrong side of the autopsy report" anyway.
Perhaps Jeb Bush, with the problem sitting in his lap, decided that groveling to the religious right in a losing cause was worth it. Perhaps Tom DeLay truly believed that Terri Schiavo would suddenly jump out of bed and start speaking in tongues. But Bill Frist knows how to read an MRI, and he knows what it means when a neurologist says someone's brain has "zero electrical activity."
He knew. He knew not only what her condition and prognosis was, but he knew how it would inevitably end and what the autopsy would say. And yet he decided to jump in on behalf of a misguided vocal minority in his party.
Frist should have declined to get involved in the Schiavo matter--no matter what pressure was brought to bear on him--citing his conservative views on family privacy. Yes, he would have taken heat at the time; but once the autopsy report came out he would have been vindicated. Think how much respect people would have had for him once they realized that he'd used a combination of medical insight and common sense.
Instead he gained nothing from the consituency he was trying to please, and looks like a fool to everyone else.
Brooks says:
...because he is behaving in ways that don't seem entirely authentic, he is often trying just a bit too hard, striking the notes more forcefully than they need to be struck.Well, actually, of course it was. What else do you call it when someone "betrays" "the core of his being" "to please a key constituency group"?
That is what happened during the Terri Schiavo affair. It's not quite fair to say that Frist diagnosed Schiavo from a TV screen, but he did put himself on the wrong side of the autopsy that came out last week. He did betray his medical training, which is the core of his being, to please a key constituency group.
And it wasn't a case of cynical opportunism.
Now, making compromises for political gain is what politicians do; you can't complain too loudly about it. But in the Schiavo matter Frist must also be charged with monumentally bad judgement, which is more serious.
Why? Because as a doctor he knew the truth, and therefor knew how that sad affair would inevitably end. And yet he plunged into "the wrong side of the autopsy report" anyway.
Perhaps Jeb Bush, with the problem sitting in his lap, decided that groveling to the religious right in a losing cause was worth it. Perhaps Tom DeLay truly believed that Terri Schiavo would suddenly jump out of bed and start speaking in tongues. But Bill Frist knows how to read an MRI, and he knows what it means when a neurologist says someone's brain has "zero electrical activity."
He knew. He knew not only what her condition and prognosis was, but he knew how it would inevitably end and what the autopsy would say. And yet he decided to jump in on behalf of a misguided vocal minority in his party.
Frist should have declined to get involved in the Schiavo matter--no matter what pressure was brought to bear on him--citing his conservative views on family privacy. Yes, he would have taken heat at the time; but once the autopsy report came out he would have been vindicated. Think how much respect people would have had for him once they realized that he'd used a combination of medical insight and common sense.
Instead he gained nothing from the consituency he was trying to please, and looks like a fool to everyone else.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
This pure opportunism on Jeb's part. While everyone else in his party is running away, or changing the subject, Jeb is going to carry one more cup of water up Mount Sanctimony. And that's how he will be remembered when his party starts casting about for a Presidential candidate. He has little to lose for his efforts. Jeb is popular in Florida, and he has enough political capital to take a hit on this. Plus, he's term limited in Florida - he can't run for governor again, so what the hell.
Gee lets err on the side of life on this one. Terri Schiavo is dead and the incident is 15 years old. What about the 500 kids the Florida DCF lost? Do they matter? Or is it more important to try and convict Michael Schiavo to pander a very small group of certifible fools?
I just don't understand why there isn't a GOP backlash. Isn't this the party of get the government off my back? You can't get much more on your back than this.
I just don't understand why there isn't a GOP backlash. Isn't this the party of get the government off my back? You can't get much more on your back than this.
# posted by
:
9:58 PM, June 19, 2005
:
9:58 PM, June 19, 2005
Great points all.
The answer to this one: is it more important to try and convict Michael Schiavo to pander a very small group of certifible fools? is YES, obviously. The core principle at work there is the one at the heart of the Republican party these days.
The last point, that true conservatives hade trouble with the Schiavo meddling--which they did--is what we're driving at with Frist. A little political fortitide in this would have served him well on both sides of the aisle. Conservatives would have appreciated both his respect for privacy and his judgement, and everyone else would have appreciated his sanity.
He can't be such a fool--or such a bad doctor--that he actually felt he was doing the right thing. He must have been pressured.
The answer to this one: is it more important to try and convict Michael Schiavo to pander a very small group of certifible fools? is YES, obviously. The core principle at work there is the one at the heart of the Republican party these days.
The last point, that true conservatives hade trouble with the Schiavo meddling--which they did--is what we're driving at with Frist. A little political fortitide in this would have served him well on both sides of the aisle. Conservatives would have appreciated both his respect for privacy and his judgement, and everyone else would have appreciated his sanity.
He can't be such a fool--or such a bad doctor--that he actually felt he was doing the right thing. He must have been pressured.
Apart from the unrepentant Frist, et al., what really made me sick was how the right wing talkers like Sean Hannity and Michael Graham turned the whole autopsy report on its head -- by claiming it had "vindicated" their position! Hannity said that, because the autopsy proved facts that were unknown during the Sciavo fiasco, the report therefore demonstrated that no one was in a position to know with medical certainty that she was in a persistent vegetative state. These people have neither shame nor logic.
Wow. We don't watch Fox or listen to right-wing radio so we missed their reactions to the autopsy. They're claiming it "demonstrated that no one was in a position to know with medical certainty that she was in a persistent vegetative state"?
So much for all those X-rays, MRI's, electrical brain scans, reflex and response tests, and all that expert medical testimony. As long as you can find someone to contradict them--no matter how ludicrous--it's all uncertain.
By those standards we don't know for certain the earth is round and rotates around the sun. Or how old it is. Or how life evolved on it.
Or...
So much for all those X-rays, MRI's, electrical brain scans, reflex and response tests, and all that expert medical testimony. As long as you can find someone to contradict them--no matter how ludicrous--it's all uncertain.
By those standards we don't know for certain the earth is round and rotates around the sun. Or how old it is. Or how life evolved on it.
Or...
I force myself to watch/listen. Once I get past the impulse to reach through my radio and grab the talker by the neck, it's kind of entertaining. Plus, I get bored only consuming media I agree with. My blood needs to boil, every now and then. But yeah, Hannity really did say that. (He's the guy who had the nurses on his show who swore they saw Michael abuse Teri in the hospital.) Personally, I think Michael Schiavo has an excellent slander suit.
Ok one last thing: Hammesfahr has come out and disputed the autopsy. It is quoted in this blog http://news.bostonherald.com/talkBack/index.php?topic=17170.0
This guy is a quack no more or less. The fact that tissue was "largely intact" does not mean it was living! He uses this little twist of logic to claim the opposite of the medical examiner's conclusions. This is really a bridge too far. If you don't like the facts, twist them or make them up. This report is circulating all over the pro-life websites now. Hammesfahr (I can't bear to call him Dr.) likes to say that he was nominated for a nobel prize. His nomination came from a florida senator as an unsolicited input. This man has a certain standing in the medical community by being placed on the quack list.
Post a Comment
This guy is a quack no more or less. The fact that tissue was "largely intact" does not mean it was living! He uses this little twist of logic to claim the opposite of the medical examiner's conclusions. This is really a bridge too far. If you don't like the facts, twist them or make them up. This report is circulating all over the pro-life websites now. Hammesfahr (I can't bear to call him Dr.) likes to say that he was nominated for a nobel prize. His nomination came from a florida senator as an unsolicited input. This man has a certain standing in the medical community by being placed on the quack list.
# posted by
:
6:45 AM, June 21, 2005
:
6:45 AM, June 21, 2005
Links to this post:
<< Home
