Bush, Churchill, and Goldfish Voters

Jim Geraghty of The Kerry Spot on National Review has a roundup of opinions regarding some of the Right's extreme reactions to the Schiavo case. (Side note: I used to wonder when they would change their name, but since John Kerry is still running for president, keeping the name makes sense...)

In it, he makes the comment:

(The Bush approval rating leaves me scratching my head. This is the
lowest moment of the Bush presidency? Not Abu Ghraib? Not the worst moments of the Iraqi insurgency? Not the time of the Enron scandals, or the post-9/11 business slump? Or does Bush's low poll numbers reflect that as things seem to be improving in Iraq, it lessens the 'we're at war, we have to rally-around the flag' effect?)

I emailed him with the following comment:

    

Even though the GWoT is certainly not over, is the blooming of democracy in the Middle East and an improved Iraq situation prompting a "peacetime Winston Churchill" effect?

Jim's response to me:

I think you're on to something here... but it still leaves me shaking my head. We've just seen the first inklings of real progress on the war on terror, of really moving the ball in our direction, and a good chunk of the American people are ready to say, "Okay, that's done, let's go home?"

It reminds me of how close that election was...

There's a saying I heard once, which I'll paraphrase, based on the myth that a goldfish only has a 3-second memory span: Therefore, when a goldfish is swimming, it's been swimming all it's life. When it's eating, it's been eating all it's life. When it's hungry, it's been hungry all it's life. When it's dying, it's been dying all it's life...

It seems to me that voters (or pundits, for that matter) have a goldfish memory in that sense. In terms of the "conservative crackup" being bandied about by the MSM, that's a good thing... the emotion of the Schiavo case will quickly fade after it's inevitably tragic conclusion, and the so-called "crackup" will essentially heal... frankly, with the Democrat's shift to hard left, moderates and conservatives have no where else to go, and it won't be long before another extreme move from the left will remind them of that, and a constructive dialogue can begin on repairing differences.

But in terms of war and security, this is a bad thing... because there's more positive news coming from the middle east now, people have relaxed, thinking the worst is over and turn their attention to internal petty political squabbles for which they have a much less personal stake: elections effect everyone, the GWoT affects everyone. The Terri Schiavo case? Tragic yes, but the only people here who really have a personal stake are the Schindlers and the Schiavos.

Frankly, petty internal political squabbles was where the American political mindset was in 9/10/01. I don't think it's safe to consider us in the clear. If news is positive out of the ME, that means it's time to start the serious overhaul of security at home. Armed pilots, secure ports, refineries, nuclear facilities, national monuments, etc.

This is no time to squabble.

---

Update: Jason weighs in.

Comments

[Richard Smith]

Hello, just a few thoughts. Terri Schaivo began her sad odessey following a cardiac arrest that she was responsible for herself. Bulemia causes severe electrolyte imbalences which do frequently result in cardiac anomalies and death. It was the result of severe self destructive behavior which had not been adequately managed by psychiatrists prior to her cardiac insultthat caused this terrible situation in the first place.I would ask,though, who paid for the fifteen years of round the clock care for this young woman?

She has had many, many years to display recovery if it was ever going to happen. Photographs of her, post arrest and prior to her death show enormous deterioration and grunts and noises are not, nor should they be mistaken for or construed by the uneducated and uninformed, to be speech although the ever-hopeful do.

As a neuroanatomist by training (McGill University), I can assure you that animals can have enormous amounts of their brain removed and still appear awake and resposive even though they no longer possess any cortical function. Terri Schaivo had little or no cortical function and her posturing showed obvious decerebrate signs and further and more worrisome were the signs of being, in fact,decorticate. After so many years she was never, ever going to recover and it was only unfortunate that her cardiac and respiratory centers, though damaged initially, did recover enough for her to be maintained of a respirator. Brain damaged individuals are "allowed" to die in her condition every day following vacular insults and trauma. Sadly, heroic means were instituted in the hope that the damage had not been as severe as it ultimately proved to be.

Her legacy is that we should ALL have living wills and be aware that there are states between life as we know it and death and that given the choice we would not want to live like that. At least we now have no excuse to fail to have prepared our loved ones should another situation like this ever occur.
Richard Smith

[Kevin B.]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your comments. The Terri Schiavo story is a sad tale from start to finish. Thank you for the medical insight you provided. I do not doubt your knowledge or the competency of your medical training-- I am sure your accounts of decorticate animals are entirely informed and correct. Moreover, I greatly respect the time, money and effort expended to gain your expertise, and I'm sure that you are very good at what you do.
Neither could I be so arrogant as to diagnose Terri myself (with or without medical training) since I have never examined her.
But it's highly unlikely that you have ever personally examined her either, so we are frankly on similar footing when it comes to assessing what her true condition was. We both have hearsay to rely on exactly what the damage was, so I would humbly submit that your conclusion of what the damage "proved to be" is as debatable as mine or anyone else's assessment who did not examine her. In addition, my understanding is that some medically trained individuals have stated that the fact Terri never had a MRI or PET scan to more conclusively evaluate her state is bordering on criminal negligence on the parts of those who DID examine her.
But again, I'm not qualified to debate what her medical condition was, so I won't do so.

However, assuming your 2nd hand diagnosis is correct, and her condition was so obviously irrepairable, it raises important questions:
1) Why then did Michael Schiavo file and was awarded a law suit of over $1 Million BASED IMPLICITLY on the assumption that the bulk of the monies would be used for her recovery?
2) Why was the money allowed to be retained and used (for legal fees, NOT for Terri's medical care, since Felos/Greer arranged for Medicaid to pay for that) when Michael began his efforts to end Terri's life shortly after receiving the money?

So the short answer to your question about who paid for the 15 years of round the clock care, is that you and I paid for it, via Medicaid. In light of the fact that the hospice in question owes the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services some $14.8 Million in fraudulent Medicaid claims from as far back as 1997, and the fact that the form admitting her to the Hospice which certified her as terminally ill had NO doctor's signature, I find the use of Medicaid funds for her care just a wee bit suspect... but maybe that's just me.

Secondly, the long answer is that the majority of those 15 yrs were spent in an institution that DID NOT technically provide medical treatment, as it was a hospice for the terminally ill. Given that the form submitted upon her entry to the hospice (the one without a Dr's signature) stated that the terms for admission was that the patient be terminally ill with an estimated 6 months or less to live, one can easily see how many heroic efforts were made for her recovery from a medical standpoint. They provide little beyond rest and comfort (i.e. a bed and narcotics) for the dying. That is the bulk of the "care" Terri was provided for "all those years" so one might begin to understand that an environment planning for death is poorly suited to enable one towards recovery. (Yes, I'm aware Michael did take her to a specialist in California at the very beginning, but shortly thereafter, he began to refuse most treatment or therapy.)

Nervertheless, your point is well made regarding living wills and establishing a documented expression of one's personal preference in the event of debilitation. Thanks again for your thoughts.