Stephen Latham: Has "Schiavo Backlash" Begun?
In 2005, Senator Joe Lieberman went on "Meet the Press" and told Tim Russert that "though the Congress' involvement [in the Terri Schiavo case] was awkward, unconventional, it was justified to give this woman, more than her parents or husband, the opportunity for one more chance before her life was terminated by an act which was sanctioned by a court, by the state...." Last night--just in case you hadn't heard--Lieberman, a three-term Senator and his party's most recent candidate for Vice President, lost the Connecticut democratic primary by a narrow margin to poitical newcomer Ned Lamont. Was "Schiavo backlash" a factor in the Lamont victory?Clearly, Lamont's major issue, and the driving reason for his victory over Lieberman, was Lieberman's support of the President's conduct of the war in Iraq. But Lamont has often said that the Schiavo affair was one of the first events that drove him to consider running. And his standard stump-speech--the one he delivered at house parties and rallies all around the state--revolved around "a villain, a victim and a hero." The "villain" was Alaska Congressman Don Young (of "Bridge to Nowhere" pork-finding fame); the "hero" was Rep. Jack Murtha, for reversing his position on the Iraq war. The "victim" was Terri Schiavo.
Michael Schiavo--now chair of TerriPAC, a political action group aimed at defeating those who favored the federal intervention in the Schiavo case--came to Connecticut last week to campaign for Lamont. (Some of his comments on Lieberman appear here. And the Schiavo issue is mentioned in today's coverage of the primary result by the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the LA Times, NPR, and many of the wires.
In sum: "Schiavo backlash" probably made a difference in this race--a small difference, to be sure, but then again, Lamont's margin of victory was under 4%.
- Stephen Latham
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
What odd views Lamont must have--presumably he didn't believe that there was any Terri there, yet there was enough Terri there to victimize, and she was victimized not by attempts to starve her to death, but by attempts to stop her starvation.
- by Thomas on Aug 10, 2006 at 2:47 AM | link
Correction: the word "second" should have appeared before "most recent candidate." Apologies to Sen. Edwards for the typo.
- by Steve Latham on Aug 10, 2006 at 12:43 PM | link
I'm not sure that's an inconsistent view, Thomas - I'd be more worried if Lamont thought she was being victimized and in pain because they were attempting to remove her feeding tube. The idea that there was an injustice done (the concept behind victimization, right?) doesn't rely on there being an actual, conscious being in the bed, does there? Can't you victimize an idea? A concept? Or, in this case, the memory?
Just because a third party steps back and says "nothing there" doesn't mean there's nothing there for, say, Michael Schiavo - for him, the body is the link between the conscious Terri and shell-body Terri; for him, injustice can still be done because of the threads of continuity.
...just thinking aloud. I should probably finish my coffee and wander off.
- by Kelly on Aug 11, 2006 at 11:06 AM | link