A site dedicated to the discussion of world politics, international relations, and anything else that crosses my mind

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Frist-flopper

This is beginning to get infuriating. Back in March during the whole Schiavo debacle Sen. Frist went on to the floor of the Senate and essentially provided his own diagnosis of Schiavo's medical condition. He made this diagnosis by watching a few video tapes. Now, a day after an official autopsy has proven Schiavo's doctors (you know, the ones who actually spent time with her and examined her for over a decade) correct--she had irreversible brain damage and did not have the capacity to be stimulated visually since the visual centers of her brain were dead--Frist is refusing to take it like a man and admit he was wrong (both in his diagnosis and in his political judgment). Instead of admitting that he was wrong professionally and that he made a mistake Frist is flip-flopping (wait, I thought only Democrats did that....). Today, Frist said "I never made the diagnosis, I wouldn't even attempt to make a diagnosis from a videotape." Here is the transcript from Frist's March Senate remarks:

"I question it [the diagnosis] based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

The line in bold says it all. Unless Frist is "doing nuance" (again, something I thought only Democrats liked to do...), he is essentially questioning the diagnosis of Schiavo's medical team. And unless I am mistaken, one can either respond or not respond to visual stimuli--he is clearly making a diagnosis (or passing his opinion as a "Dr." off as diagnosis) based on a home movie. Way to go doc, and way to weasel out of standing up and admitting you were wrong, not mistaken, wrong, dead wrong. You have got be kidding me that this guy thinks he is going to be President come January 2009. The Republicans can do much better, and his initials are J.M.

Filed as:,

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Such passion spoken almost like a Democrat:)

What was JM's position on the Schiavo matter and using the legislative branch in such a unfortunate manner. Did he vote or speak against it?

Is JM the Republican that Democrats would vote for and Republicans would not. I quite like his moxie but I don't know about regulating the spend on elections (anti democratic and resulting in even more circumvention) and his support for the maintenance of the filibuster in the Senate. The record of its use is to the shame of the U.S. and nor do I know any modern national legislature that has such an outmoded and undemocratic practice. If the Senate wants a super majority for judicial appointments then the standing orders should be amended to provide for it. That would be the rational approach to getting a broad consensus on such appointments surely.

9:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looking for information and found it at this great site... » »

6:04 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home