April 7, 2005
What's The Matter With This, Kansas?
With
apologies to Thomas Franks, the good citizens of the great state of
Kansas now have numerous opportunities to reflect their strongly held
faith,values and ethics.
Item 1:
Counsel to GOP Senator Wrote Memo On Schiavo
Martinez Aide Who Cited Upside For Party Resigns
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 7, 2005; Page A01
The legal counsel to Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) admitted yesterday that
he was the author of a memo citing the political advantage to
Republicans of intervening in the case of Terri Schiavo, the senator
said in an interview last night.
Brian H. Darling, 39, a former lobbyist for the Alexander Strategy
Group on gun rights and other issues, offered his resignation and it
was immediately accepted, Martinez said.
Martinez, the GOP's Senate point man on the issue, said he earlier had
been assured by aides that his office had nothing to do with producing
the memo. "I never did an investigation, as such," he said. "I just
took it for granted that we wouldn't be that stupid. It was never my
intention to in any way politicize this issue."
Martinez, a freshman who was secretary of housing and urban development
for most of President Bush's first term, said he had not read the
one-page memo. He said he inadvertently passed it to Sen. Tom Harkin
(D-Iowa), who had worked with him on the issue. After that, officials
gave the memo to reporters for ABC News and The Washington Post.
Harkin said in an interview that Martinez handed him the memo on the
Senate floor, in hopes of gaining his support for the bill giving
federal courts jurisdiction in the Florida case in an effort to restore
the brain-damaged Florida woman's feeding tube. "He said these were
talking points--something that we're working on here," Harkin said...
...The unsigned memo--which initially misspells Schiavo's first name and
gives the wrong number for the pending bill--includes eight talking
points in support of the legislation and calls the controversy "a great
political issue."
Full story here.
Mike Allen's article goes on to say that
rightwing bloggers had been challenging the authenticity of the memo,
linking it to Democratic dirty tricks. I imagine apologies will be
emblazoned all across the front page of these blogs today.
Right.
So Kansans, does this reflect your your faith, values and ethics?
Let's now head over to Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum
and his current strong push for tort reform. This is a change to limit
the monetary sums awarded by juries to those injured due to
professional malpractice. Here is a story from 1999:
Item 2:
Sen. Santorum's wife wins lawsuit
Saturday, December 11, 1999
By Jack Torry, Post-Gazette National Bureau
WASHINGTON -- A Virginia jury last night awarded the wife of Sen. Rick
Santorum $350,000 in damages after she charged in a lawsuit that a
Virginia chiropracter's negligence caused her permanent back pain.
Deliberating more then six hours after a four-day trial in which
Santorum, R-Pa., testified, the Fairfax County Circuit Court jury
unanimously ruled for Karen Santorum. She had sought $500,000 against
Dr. David Dolberg of Virginia, because of pain from his 1996 treatment
of her.
"Mrs. Santorum has been vindicated," said her Pittsburgh attorney
Heather Heidelbaugh. "She was injured permanently through the actions
of a chiropractor who acted negligently."
Heidelbaugh, with the Pittsburgh law firm of Burns, White &
Hickton, said Mrs. Santorum has "permanent back pain" and "permanent
numbness" in one leg.
Throughout the trial, Santorum aides declined to provide details.
Yesterday, they issued a brief statement from the senator saying: "The
court proceedings are a personal family matter. I will not be offering
any further public comments, other than that I am not a party to the
suit. But I am fully supportive of my wife."
But Roll Call, a newspaper that covers Capitol Hill, reported that
Santorum testified Monday that his wife might not be able to actively
campaign for his re-election next year because of her pain. "She has
always been intricately involved in my campaigns," he testified.
Full story here.
Check these excerpts from Emily Gottlieb's May 8, 2001, article "The Hypocrites of Tort Reform"
"In 1994, Santorum sponsored the Comprehensive Family Health Access and
Savings Act that would have capped non-economic damages at $250,000. In
a 1995 floor speech supporting damages caps, Santorum said, "We have a
much too costly legal system. It is one that makes us uncompetitive and
inefficient, and one that is not fair to society as a whole. While we
may have people, individuals, who hit the jackpot and win the lottery
in some cases, that is not exactly what our legal system should be
designed to do..."
...After the verdict, Santorum refused to answer phone calls asking what
impact the case had on his views of "tort reform." According to his
spokesman Robert Traynham, "Senator Santorum is of the belief that the
verdict decided upon by the jury during last week's court case of his
wife is strictly a private matter."
It appears Mr. Santorum must have changed his mind
on this subject. Or, as happens far too often with members of Congress,
there are laws for them and laws for the rest of us.
So Kansans, does this reflect your your faith, values and ethics?
The person you in the Sunflower State overwhelmingly voted for in the
recent presidential election seems to have a peculiar sense of what's
good for the country versus what's good for his family. In the same
Emily Gottlieb article:
"...However, when it comes to solving problems involving his own family,
Bush heads straight to court. In 1999, Bush sued Enterprise Rent-A-Car
over a minor fender-bender involving one of his daughters in which no
one was hurt. Although his insurance would have covered the repair
costs, making a lawsuit unnecessary, Bush sought additional money from
Enterprise, which had rented a car to someone with a suspended license.
In this case, Bush seemed to understand one of the most important
functions of civil lawsuits -- to deter further wrongdoing. The case
settled for $2,000 to $2,500..."
This after becoming chummy-chummy with Texas Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse and denouncing unnecessary lawsuits.
As President Bush says, you may not agree with him but you know where
he stands. But that seems to depend on whether it's a member of your
family or his.
So Kansans, does this reflect your your faith, values and ethics?
Item 3:
Now we have Texas Senator John Cornyn hypothesizing that the recent
killings in this country of various judges, their families and court
personnel is due to the judiciary taking an activist role. Here
is an excerpt from one article on this :
April 4, 2005
Senator links violence, judges
Cornyn suggests 'political decisions' may be a factor in recent incidents at courthouses
By GEBE MARTINEZ
Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - In an eyebrow-raising
speech on the Senate floor Monday, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn suggested a
connection between "political decisions" by some judges and incidents
of courthouse violence across the nation.
The remarks by Republican Cornyn, a former justice on the Texas Supreme Court, prompted immediate criticism from Democrats.
Cornyn, citing recent cases of
violence against judges, said he wondered "whether there may be some
connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions
where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to
the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point
where some people ... engage in violence."
The violence is unjustified, Cornyn said, but is "a concern that I have that I wanted to share."
Has this guy been in for a medical check-up recently?
In Chicago, a female judge's mother and husband were recently murdered
by an individual who was upset that his malpractice case had been
dismissed, a ruling upheld by a federal appeals court. In Atlanta, a
rape suspect, overpowered a deputy, wounded her and then killed a
judge, court reporter and a federal agent.
The judiciary 'making political decisions' caused these tragedies?
John Cornyn, you owe an apology to the families of these victims. To
bound these horrific events into a political cause is despicable.
So Kansans, does this reflect your your faith, values and ethics?
top
RSS feed
|