Skip to main content

So it's out with the old polls and in with the new...

Zogby Poll: Americans Not in Favor of Starving Terri Schiavo

Polls leading up to the death of Terri Schiavo made it appear Americans had formed a consensus in favor of ending her life. However, a new Zogby poll with fairer questions shows the nation clearly supporting Terri and her parents and wanting to protect the lives of other disabled patients.

The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case, 43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.

Another Zogby question his directly on Terri's circumstances.

"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.

A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.

So what about all our gloating?

We have spent the last three weeks proclaiming the death of the Republican Party based on polls that indicated the public was disgusted by their hypocritical grand standing.

Now here come the new polls saying it's the death cult Democrats that are out of touch.

Surprise, Surprise.
[editor's note, by AnonymousArmy] I agree this polls questions are slanted. Will that matter is the question? I was also trying to highlight the folly of gloating in the past few days with little success. This diary was a polite I told you so. I wish I was a bigger person I'm sorry ;( I agree this polls questions are slanted. Will that matter is the question? I also was trying to highlight the folly of gloating in the past few days with little success. This diary was a polite I told you so. I wish I was a bigger person I'm sorry ;(

Originally posted to AnonymousArmy on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:39 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  But this poll isn't the Schiavo case (4.00)
    Well uh... this poll presumes no one has any idea what the person's wishes would be.

    In the real world we had the testimony of her husband, as well as two other family members, who said she had indicated a wish not to live in that condition.

    If someone is incapacitated and we honestly have no idea whether they would want to live or die, I have no problem erring on the side of preserving their life.  What's so surprising about these poll results?

    •  Hannity was spewing this garbage. (1.71)
      So I went and checked google news and found this article on zogby's site.

      The validity of the poll doesn't really matter because this will be the spin.

      What you and I believe is unimportant.

      The old polls are part of the liberal media conspiracy and have now been effective replaced by the thought police.

      •  it matters in how you present it (4.00)
        It would be one thing if you said, here's a load of sh*t poll that the Repubs will spin against us; it's another thing to do what you did--which was to present the poll without acknowledging its glaring errors, and seem to call kossacks out for their "gloating."
        •  you were so quick to gloat (4.00)
          that you didn't even pay attention to what you were citing -- what you cite from Zogby's website is their citation to a report by "Steven Ertelt, Life News"

          And WTF is that?  


 is an independent news agency specifically devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community. With a team of experienced journalists and reporters, reaches more than 150,000 pro-life advocates each week via its web site, email news reports, and weekday radio program.

 also acts as a service provider to furnish news content to media that share the pro-life perspective. The topics covered by include abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia, bioethics issues such as human cloning and stem cell research, campaigns and elections, and legal and legislative issues.

          Formerly the Pro-Life Infonet, has been harnessing the power of the Intenet since 1992 to bring pro-life news to the pro-life community. We've developed a reputation for fairness, accuracy and timliness in our twelve years of service.

          So you basically spammed dkos with a pro-life press release.


          •  just posted the same info below (4.00)
            You type much faster than I do!
          •  Ok keep your head in the sand (2.00)
            Hannity was spewing...

            "New Zogby poll...."

            He didn't say "New wacko anti abortion poll..."

            Keep calling this stuff spam at your own peril.

            •  um - as opposed to where your head is? (4.00)
              You want to write a diary about Hannity spewing this crap, fine--but identify its origin, note its bias, and present your analysis of what its effect might be.

              But if you fail to do that--as you did here--you just become part of their spin.

              •  By using... (none)
                By using the title of the article and linking to the original I am not disclosing the source?
                •  how 'bout this (4.00)
                  Pro-life "news" site says:  "Americans Not in Favor of Starving Terri Schiavo"

                  There's no reason for a dkos reader to know that the headline of your diary was written by a bunch of pro-life nut jobs, rather than by you.

                  Your diary provides a link to the quoted material, but doesn't identify its author--which was NOT Zogby (as your headline implies), but said pro-life nut jobs, who wrote the slanted questions.

                  The problem is that you're presenting as news their attempt to make news.

            •  Hannity can spew all he wants. (4.00)
              The media spew doesn't seem to have affected people's views.  Hannity was spewing before this deceptive poll came out.  It didn't affect people's views.
            •  Get a clue (4.00)
              Have you been watching the GOP for the past 10 years, or have you been willfully blind. They spin and lie about everything, regardless of the truth. Maybe you missed that whole swift liar episode. That was where a war hero was a traitor to his country and a deserter was Patton.

              You act as if you are worried about spin, yet you come here and push Republican spin. Am I at the circus looking at the two faced man?

            •  Schindler Family Commissioned the Zogby Poll (4.00)
              Their Lawyer refered to "coming" information from their Zogby poll to refute comments on all of the other poll numbers.
      •  Are you gleeful about this? (4.00)
        Or is it just me? The tone of your last paragraph reads like you COULDNT WAIT to tell Democrats that they are wrong wrong wrong!

        Your motives here seem unclear....

        In the midst of life we are in debt, etc.

        by ablington on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:52:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The spin is false (4.00)
        The spin here is that a liberal leaning pollster came up with the results.  It is a clear attempt to mislead.

        The poll was conducted on behalf of Life News, and the questions were not chosen by Zogby.

        It is as important to know who is selecting the questions as what the answers are.

        And Hannity spewing the info should have been a big enough tip to you to look into the matter.

        •  You are so missing the point. (1.00)
          Next you'll be telling me that I should stop listening to Hannity.

          Ignoring their spin is what they want you to do.

          It's not meant for us. It's meant to make people hate us.

          •  Unfortunately (4.00)
            The spin is apparently working on you.  If it wasn't, you would have taken the time to think about the contradicting inforamtion he was providing, then done some research.  If you still wanted to post a diary on it, it would have been far more inforamtive if you'd approached it with something like:

            Hannity claiming pro-life push poll proves majority against removing life support.

            Then you could have sited the poll, discussed the right wing pro-life source and the slant of the questions.  Perhaps even discussed how or why the questions resulted in such results.

            Instead you acted like it was a nuetral poll, and used inflamitory phrases like "Dem culture of Death".

            If you can't sift through the falsehoods on Hannity, then you should consider turning him off, or not reposting his misinformation on Kos.

          •  The spin does matter all that much (4.00)
            First of all, a very few people listen to Hannity.  Second, most people already know the facts of the Schiavo case -- at least, enough to know they disapproved of what Congress did, and to support the removal of her feeding tube.

            This is one slanted poll by a pro-life group being touted by a nutjob commentator who has an audience less than 2% of the U.S. population.

            So no, I wouldn't be too concerned about it.

          •  ahem (none)

            "i have forgotten your face since i never hear your voice." (my mom)

            by dadanation on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 04:00:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  So? (none)
        Well of course the Republicans are going to try and spin this in their favor, just like they do with everything else.  Did anyone really expect them to come out and say, "Wow, you guys are right, I guess we really do represent only a small constituency of religious nuts?"

        I, for one, am not going to curl up into a fetal position and say "oh no! we lose again!" just because the other side has found some ridiculous way to claim a mandate.  They always claim a mandate!

        Listen, they are busy fooling themselves, don't stop them!  They have gone so crazy thinking their 51% of the vote represents a "permanent conservative majority" that they take every opportunity to belittle the remaining 49% and ensure that none of them will ever vote Republican.  If they want to convince themselves that they did the right thing in this case, and therefore they should keep on behaving like this, LET THEM DO IT!

      •  I rated this comment up.. (none)
        It was definitely not worth a "1".

        The diary (and the title) are misguided, but he has a point about the spin they're trying to put on it.

        •  Thank you (none)
          The title of the diary came from the article.

          The story could go like this.....

          DeLay: I've asked the vice president to consider that new polling suggests the judiciary no longer represents the will of the people. Their utter contempt of congress allowed a beautiful vibrant American woman to die a most cruel death. A woman most Americans wanted to live. The congress should act to avoid such abuse with hast before another travesty like this occurs.

          So what do we say then...The polls are slanted the American people didn't want her to live...

          We are not the party of death YOU ARE.

          Why doesn't Hannity have protesters outside his studio everyday?

          Do any of you know who Hannity is?

      •  Don't you have Google? (none)
      •  Hannity spewing garbage... (none) fool the brain-dead. So what else is new.

        Just so WE are clear on this: Terri died of dehydration - not starvation. I know that you know but still.........

    •  Yes (none)
      It's true enough that her husband, his sister, and his brother testified that Terri had indicated she wouldn't want to live in such a state, but Terri's mother and her friend testified to the contrary.  How does that mean the "clear and convicing" standard required by Guardianship of Browning, and how does that make Terri's case any difference from the hypothetical in the Zogby poll?

      No, I'm not a FReeper. Thanks.

      by JamesInPDX on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:05:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: (4.00)
        It's clear and convincing evidence because the judge who actually listened to the testimony of these witnesses evaluated their credibility and found that it rose to the level of clear and convincing evidence.  You have to actually listen to what witnesses say, you don't just tally up how many are for and how many are against.

        What basically happened in this case is that a bunch of people who never saw the evidence, but simply heard one side's old allegations regurgitated on CNN said, "Wait! Maybe the judge was convinced, but I'm not convinced yet!"

        Courts aren't always right but I have a real problem with relitigating their findings based upon sensationalist coverage on cable TV.  Not only did the judge find the evidence was clear and convincing, but numerous appellate courts confirmed that the judge was well within his rights to draw that conclusion, even though the dissenting witnesses were part of the record.  If it really were the case that you can never have "clear and convincing evidence" where a couple of witnesses testify to the contrary, then I'm sure one of the many appellate courts would have reversed the ruling long ago.

        •  That's not exactly true (none)
          First, I've read the transcripts, and I've read Judge Greer's finding of fact.  It did not rise to the "clear and convincing" standard.  I link to his Feb. 2000 opinion below.  I hope you'll read it and let me know whether you personally believe it rises to a "clear and convincing" standard of proof.

          In Greer's Feb. 2000 opinion, he discounted the testimony of Terri's mother and friend.  Setting their testimony aside was the only way the standard under Browning could be met.  (And, certainly, without the testimony from Terri's mother and friend, the standard is met).

          Terri's mother and friend gave testimony on two separate conversations they had with Terri regarding the case of Karen Ann Quinlan.  Karen Ann Quinlan was in a very similar situation as Terri -- she was in a PVS and her father wanted to remove life support.  This was a national media story.  Karen Ann Quinlan's life support was removed in 1975.  Importantly, Terri's mother and friend related their conversations in the present tense, purportedly as occurring in 1982.  Judge Greer was "mystified" at how the witnesses could have used the present tense, even under cross-examination, "six years after the death of Karen Ann Quinlan."  Thus, Judge Greer determined Terri must have been only 11 or 12 years old at the time of her comments.

          Here's the Feb 2000 Finding of Fact:

          There's just one problem with that timeline: Karen Ann Quinlan did not die in 1975.  In a twist of fate, Karen Ann Quinlan began breathing on her own in 1975 when her respirator was removed.  She went on to live for another 10 years, dying in 1985.

          This pretty much obliterates Judge Greer's entire opinion.

          This fact has not been reviewed by dozens of courts, as Michael Schiavo and right-to-die supporters (of whom I am one) often claim.  Findings of fact are not reviewed upon appeal -- only findings of law are.  Only two courts have ever reviewed the findings of fact, and only one court -- the trial court, under Judge Greer -- performed a complete review of the evidence.

          This is why it was so important that Congress specified that the Federal Courts should perform de novo review of the underlying findings of fact.  These facts had categorically not been reviewed by other appellate courts.  Only findings of law, dealing with rights under Florida statutues, the Florida Constitution and the U.S. Constitution had been reviewed.

          I haven't followed this case on cable TV, nor do I have a particular emotional investment in it.  I strongly support the right to die.  I voted for Oregon's Death with Dignity act.  I don't have any religious motivations.  I think only two things:

          1. There are self-evident conflicts of interest in this case, and it is thusly appropriate for courts to intervene, and

          2. The trial court judge in this case has been biased, wrong, and irrational, and his underlyings findings of fact -- in which I believe he has erred -- have gone (mostly) unreviewed.

          It is not without precedent for Federal Courts to perform de novo review of state court findings.  As a safeguard against wrongful execution, Federal Courts always performed de novo review in capital punishment cases, until the wrong-headed Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act changed the protocol.

          I don't claim to know what Terri would have wanted, but I do think courts should always err on the side of caution, and I don't believe the courts in this case have.

          No, I'm not a FReeper. Thanks.

          by JamesInPDX on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:02:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: (none)
            Speaking as a lawyer, I think it is virtually impossible to say one way or the other whether live testimony rises to the level of "clear and convincing evidence," without actually sitting there and watching it.

            But in any event, this business regarding Karen Ann Quinlan's date of death was analyzed in detail by the court, after the Schindlers brought it up for the first time in March 2005.  Now let me tell you, if I waited 5 years to bring that kind of factual discrepancy to a court's attention, they would never give me the time of day, and I would probably get sued for malpractice.  In this case, given the stakes involved, the courts repeatedly bent over backwards to ignore such procedural requirements and make sure all such arguments were reviewed on the merits.  Anyway, the court cited very sound reasons, in my estimation, for concluding that this discrepancy in the date of death made no difference.

            The court has reviewed the transcript of the testimony of Diane Meyer that was attached to the motion and assessed the potential impact of this new evidence of Karen Ann Quinlan's death date upon the evidence and testimony that the court considered at the initial trial.  See In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800 So.2d 640, 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (Schiavo III).  Her applicable testimony regarding the conversations about Karen Ann Quinlan was in the present tense.  Since the subject was the removal of the life support that occurred in the 1970s, her testimony that the conversations occurred in 1982 was not credible.  The fact that Karen Ann Quinlan did not die until 1985 does not change the impact of her testimony.  Moreover, although the witness appeared credible at first, as her testimony progressed it became clear to the court that she was not an unbiased witness as now argued by Mr. Gibbs.  Also, as noted in the February 11, 2000 Order, the witness lost credibility due to her regaining memory between her deposition and trial.  The court gave less weight to conversations Terri Schiavo had regarding what others would do, such as in the Karen Ann Quinlan case.  Based on this review, the error regarding Karen Ann Quinlan's death date does not change the court's conclusion that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting its decision on what Theresa Marie Schiavo would have chosen and that Respondents have failed to present a colorable claim for entitlement to relief from the judgment.

            I do think this case had an extraordinary amount of due process - more than any of my clients have ever received, to be sure, and probably more than I would ever expect to receive, were it my life on the line.  Whether you think the courts ultimately got it right or wrong, I personally am gladdened by the amount of attention the courts paid to trying to get this wrenching case right.

            You have the right to believe that the trial judge got it wrong, but I don't understand how you can claim he was either irrational or, in particular, biased.

            I don't think you are right, by the way, that the federal courts historically reviewed findings of fact de novo in connection with habeas corpus petitions from death row prisoners.  Certainly questions of law were reviewed de novo, as well as certain mixed questions of fact and constitutional law.  But obviously you are aware that prisoners never received a brand-new hearing in federal court, with a new opportunity to present evidence.  And where the trial court's decision is based on a determination that certain witnesses were credible, and other witnesses were not credible, how is a reviewing court supposed to overturn that finding, without bringing the witnesses into court to testify again?

            •  Analyzed in detail by which court? (none)
              It was analyzed by Judge Greer, in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County.  Terri has certainly seen a full and complete due process -- but it's been entirely peripheral, touching on well-settled matters of law.  Over a million dollars in legal banter for the benefit of the cameras.

              It wasn't just Judge Greer's Feb. 11 2000 finding of fact which I disagree with.  It's so many of his orders: denying swallowing therapy to Terri based on a few tests which supposedly showed she wouldn't be a strong candidate, consistently denying motions to provide new evidence, etc.  From where I sit, Judge Greer has from the very beginning been in a hurry to fulfill the same wishes which it took Michael Schiavo years to ascribe to Terri.  (And recall: this is not the first, nor the second, but the third time the feeding tube has been ordered removed).

              It's simply not plausible for Judge Greer to give so much weight to the Karen Ann Quinlan timeline in the original opinion, and then turn around and claim it's irrelevant when the timeline is found to have been wrong.

              As for de novo review in capital cases: prior to Clinton-signed AEDPA, there were a large number of conditions which could trigger new evidentiary hearings at the Federal appellate level.  It wasn't even necessary for the appellate court to believe the appellant had been prejudiced.

              Under AEDPA, federal review of habeas petitions is effectively useless.  It's become a dog and pony show for the benefit of Amnesty International.  If the trial court did not violate "clearly established" Federal law, as defined by the Supreme Court, the courts are basically powerless to grant relief.  How often does a trial court violate "clearly established" Federal law?  On the other hand, how often do trial courts fail to adequately establish the facts of a case?

              The parallels between AEDPA review and Guardianship of Schiavo are in some ways striking: If you dare to suggest to a death penalty supporter that death row inmates facing execution could possibly be innocent, they will go nuts.  Absolutely ape shit.  They'll insist up-and-down that these inmates have seen endless appeals, that every possible scenario has been reviewed thoroughly, that the inmate was convicted by a jury of his peers.  But it's not so much the quantity of the review which we should be interested in as it is the quality of review, especially in cases of life or death.

              No, I'm not a FReeper. Thanks.

              by JamesInPDX on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 06:57:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: (none)
                I am with you on habeas issues.  There is another parallel in that criminal defendants often get lousy representation in their trial, and then find themselves fighting an uphill battle all the way through the appellate courts trying to undo what that incompetent counsel has wrought.  Similarly, it doesn't seem like the Schindlers had great representation at any stage - not even when Congress gave them this final bite at the apple.

                The difference, mind you, is that I really think the courts went out of their way to give the Schindlers additional tries, even years after the fact.  You may think Judge Greer made his decisions in haste, but it seems to me he was just really convinced by what he saw at the first trial.  In any case where you have appeal after appeal and motion after motion, the record will look a lot like this one.  It's not like each new motion is a coin flip where you'd expect the Schindlers to win one or two if the coin were fair.

                •  Exactly (none)
                  Yet more AEDPA bashing: see Echols v. Harris, Warden in Arkansas.  Damien Echols was one of the "West Memphis Three," the subject of an HBO documentary called Paradise Lost.  Echols was convicted of triple murder in 1994 and sentenced to death.  AEDPA was passed in 1995 and came into force in 1996 -- retroactively.

                  It's incredible the hoops Echols must jump through under the AEDPA-defined habeas statute of limitations.  Echols is faced with two options: file for habeas relief now, prior to exhausting his options at the state level, or risk the loss of habeas review altogether.

                  I can't decide whether the result is funny or depressing: appellants like Echols file for habeas before they're ready, but ask the court to hold the petition in abeyance.  SCOTUS granted certiorari six months ago, and approved of the stay-and-abeyance procedure just a few days ago in a similar case, Rhines v. Weber, Warden.

                  So nothing has functionally changed.  Appeals still take the same amount of time.  Instead of filing when you're ready, you file when you're not ready, and ask the court to hold the petition until you're prepared. The only difference is that those most at-risk -- inmates with less than adequate counsel -- end up getting bitten by the habeas tolling, while those least at-risk do not.

                  No, I'm not a FReeper. Thanks.

                  by JamesInPDX on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:07:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Well, for one thing... (4.00)
        Terri's family indicated they wouldn't have respected her wish to die, even had it been filed in written form.  To me, that says they have a vested interest in promoting a certain point-of-view on the matter, and are not thinking of her wishes, regardless.  Rather, they were thinking of only theirs.

        On the other hand, Michael Schiavo spent years fighting for Terri Schiavo's life, and had nothing personal to gain with ending her life now.

        So, between the two, I'd find the husband's position far more believable.  Evidently, the courts agreed.

        •  The standard (none)
 "clear and convincing."  If we're going to inspect the credibility of the witnesses, we're opening a whole can of worms.  At the time, Michael Schiavo stood to inherit $700,000 if Terri died.  That money -- which would have earned $56,000/year at 8% a year -- was depleted by legal expenses incurred by Michael Schiavo, with the consent of the trial court jurist, Judge Greer.

          I honestly don't know the context of the Schindler's comments about ignoring Terri's wishes even if they were in writing -- but I do know they were recent, well-after Judge Greer's Feb. 2000 opinion.  You can't now offer than as ex-post facto evidence of their unreliability.

          No, I'm not a FReeper. Thanks.

          by JamesInPDX on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 03:09:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Meeting that standard... (none)
   "clear and convincing."  If we're going to inspect the credibility of the witnesses, we're opening a whole can of worms.  At the time, Michael Schiavo stood to inherit $700,000 if Terri died.

            Although no one seems to know for sure, I find that doubtful.  Ordinary nursing home care can run more than $40,000/year in inexpensive parts of the country, and we know that Michael Schiavo tried several expensive treatments to cure his wife.  By the time Judge Greer ruled (more than 7 years after Michael Schiavo received the settlement), it is reasonable to assume much of the $700,000 had been depleted already.

            That money -- which would have earned $56,000/year at 8% a year -- was depleted by legal expenses incurred by Michael Schiavo, with the consent of the trial court jurist, Judge Greer.

            Eight percent is a little ambitious, unless you think the money was put into something better than a savings account.  We have no way of knowing that -- unless you have a reference?

            I honestly don't know the context of the Schindler's comments about ignoring Terri's wishes even if they were in writing -- but I do know they were recent, well-after Judge Greer's Feb. 2000 opinion.  You can't now offer than as ex-post facto evidence of their unreliability.

            The comments were made in 2003 testimony:


            You're right about the applicability to the original 1998-2000 trial.  And I can't speak to your statements regarding "clear and convincing" -- I'm not a lawyer, and you are, right?

            However, I will simply note that every court who has seen this case -- every one -- has found the same way.  They have all agreed with Judge Greer's findings.  Perhaps they're all mistaken, but I think the weight of legal opinion seems to be in favor of the notion that whatever standards needed to be met were, in fact, met.

    •  The Schindler Family Lawyer (none)
      The lawyer referenced this poll last week on Larry King - he indicted that they commissioned it.
    •  Many people I knew (none)
      thought she should be able to end her life as she was brain dead and they also didn't like the idea of a long withdrawal of water and food.  

       How do you reconsile this?  Assisted Suicide, euthenasia, that's how.  I think the public is starting to realize this may be a way to reduce discomfort in the "body" that remains.

        If it were a respirator removed it would be less conflicting because it's so fast, minutes instead of days.

  •  A fairer question? (4.00)
    It mentions all the factors likely to make one choose to continue feeding and left out
    "and the patients spouse asserts the patient declined life support verbally and the patient has liquid brain where her cerebellum used to be."

    Not fair, not cool.

    I knew Ted Hitler. Ted Hitler was a friend of mine. Ted Hitler ate my panda. You're no Ted Hitler.

    by nightsweat on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:36:41 PM PDT

  •  slanted (4.00)
    ah, the questions are just slanted the other way now.

    ask them if they had no quality of life and the ony thing that could keep them alive was a machine, would they want to be kept alive.

    it would go completely the other direction again.

    Politology.US - Politics and Technology in the United States

    by tunesmith on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:36:47 PM PDT

  •  These Questions Are a Joke (4.00)
    These poll questions do not deal with the fact that there was clear and convincing evidence (at least as determined by a court) that Terri Schiavo would not want a feeding tube.  Phrase the question that way, and the vast majority of Americans probably agree again with the result.  If someone does not have a living will and there is no other evidence indicating that they would not want a feeding tube, I think most Americans would want to keep the tube in.  This was apparently not the case with Terri Schiavo though.
  •  His poll is worthless. (4.00)
    He failed to explain Schiavo's condition, which most Americans happen to know:  that she had no brain.   The situation he set up was artificial, and was not directly relevant to teh condition of Schiavo's body.
  •  Disabled? (4.00)
    The poll is deceptive. Terri Schaivo was not "disabled", she was brain-dead. Despite the Zogby site claiming that it asked "fairer" questions, they were biased, not fair.

    Go ahead and shake in you boots if it makes you happy.

    •  Whose poll? (4.00)
      Also, the quote about "fairer" questions came from an article form something called 'Life news', whatever that is.  The question is, who commissioned this poll?  Zogby does polls for whover pays him, and he'll ask whatever they want asked.
      •  This poll could have been paid for.. (none)
        by Hannity himself just so he could repeat it for the next 6 months.
      •  Pardon my typos (none)
        I meant 'from', not 'form', and 'whoever', not 'whover'...
      •  Good point. (none)
        Finding out who commissioned this poll is the key. I bet it's someone on the "culture of life" side who wants to make themselves look good. I mean.. these questions are just too slanted.
      •  Life News (4.00)
        "Life News" is an anti-abortion website.  Zogby, of course, will ask whatever questions that they are paid to ask.  I don't think it is appropriate, for Zogby to post someone else's article using the polling results.  It gives the impression that Zogby itself is claiming that these questions are "fairer".  It's not until you scroll down that you find that the article wasn't written by Zogby, but by a third party.

        The public knows the difference between disabled and brain dead.

        •  Yup. Now that I think about it (none)
          the people who paid Zogby for the poll probably asked for that question to be included.  

          People/groups who pay for polls routinely do that to get a desired result, and that result is what is released to the public.

          "Minimize our defensive posture, maximize our offensive posture."--Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)

          by Newsie8200 on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 04:49:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  they slide "disabled" (4.00)
      in under the radar.  I've noticed that more often now, that they refer to Mrs. Schiavo as she has MS or is mentally retarded.  This is a shameless attempt to scare people who are truly disabled that they might be "killed" next if someone judges their life to be suboptimal.

      ..."no, but I have a sticky Warhead in my pocket."

      by getmeoutofdixie on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:50:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Riiiight. (4.00)
    When the Zogby polls uses the medical term "persistent vegitative state", then I will deem its questions "fairer".

    Those questions (especially the second) make it sound like the law wants to starve someone in a wheelchair.

    I'm not buying the questions.


  •  From the dictionary (4.00)
    life support

    n 1: equipment that makes life possible in otherwise deadly environmental conditions; "the astronauts relied on their life-support systems" [syn: life-support system] 2: medical equipment that assists or replaces important bodily functions and so enables a patient to live who otherwise might not survive; "the patient is on life support" [syn: life-support system]

    If she wasn't on life support, as the question seems to claim (along with many supporters), why'd taking her off the machines kill her?

    In Afghanistan, they call them the Taliban. Here, we call them Republicans

    by ragnark on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:39:25 PM PDT

    •  Have a 4, AND a "hear, hear" (4.00)
      I absolutely fail to see how a feeding tube is not life support.

      We require nourishment as we require air.

      A respirator provides air.  A feeding tube provides nourishment.

      QED, right?  WTF am I missing???

      Two-step, lockstep, goosestep: Herr Busch's three-step plan to a righter tomorrow.

      by The Termite on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:43:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  from Florida State and Federal Law as well (4.00)
      A feeding tube is defined as life support.  There is no question there, except for those who have no respect for the law.
      •  Thanks for the legal back-up (none)
        although I'm sure Tom DeLay is working his damndest to redact those passages and retroactively punish anyone who's ever called a feeding tube "life support"

        In Afghanistan, they call them the Taliban. Here, we call them Republicans

        by ragnark on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:49:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What pisses me off so much is.. (4.00)
    ...the concept of giving her a few CC's of morphine to end her misery instead of taking away the feeding tube was never even considered. People don't like taking away feeding tubs, fine, let's be like the civilized world and give people something to let them go quickly to sleep. Why is this concept just beyond do many people?
    •  I agree n/t (none)

      "The trouble with Communism is the Communists, just as the trouble with Christianity is the Christians." - H.L Mencken

      by herooftheday on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:45:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  because (none)
      giving her "something" like morphine will ACTIVELY lead to the patient's death.
      Taking away life support (i.e. feeding tube) PASSIVELY allows the patient to pass away.
      There is a big distinction there ethically, even if it is not clear in the minds of some.
      •  I don't see it.. (none)
        It is letting a person die either way. The second way is faster and the person feels no pain. Active/passive assistance? Who cares, the second way seems a lot more dingified to me. That's how they do it in much of Europe.
  •  Geez (4.00)
    It could have nothing to do with the wording of that poll, right?

    "If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water,"  

    I would also answer that question the same way as the 79%, they should not be denied food and water, as the question is phrased.  That description does not describe Terri Schaivo case in any accurate way. She was not "disabled", her brain was essentially destroyed and she lacked conciousness for 15yrs.  That is quite different than what I would understand that question to mean if I were taking the poll.  If that isn't a poll designed to get a desired result, I don't know what is.

  •  Terri Schiavo Wasn't Merely 'Disabled' (4.00)
    She was in a permanent vegatative state.  A great deal of her brain had witherered away, and spinal fluid had seemed into it.  "Deny her food and water" suggests that she was capable of eating and drinking.  She was not.  Nourishment could only be gotten into her body through a feeding tube.  

    This poll is worded in a ludicrous fashion.  

    "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

    by JJB on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:41:16 PM PDT

  •  Notice that the question does not say (4.00)
    a person in a persistent vegetative state, nor does it say there is no hope of revival.  If you are to read this question, you'd assume this person is conscious.  Try a real poll.  This was is obviously made to show a point of view.
    •  Not to mention the obvious (4.00)
      bias of the diarist with "gloating" and "death cult Democrats".  Go back to "spin alley".  I don't mind an intelligent discussion based on the facts, but you sir (or ma'm) are a HACK.
  •  This question: (4.00)
    "If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked. definitely slanted. It has no relation to the Schiavo case, even. It is ridiculous to claim so. The question paints the picture of someone who is simply ill, and is basically "If someone is ill, do you want to starve them to death?". Well, guess what most people answer. Duhhh.

  •  Huh?? (none)
    Another Zogby question his directly on Terri's circumstances.

    "If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.

    Does this question bear "directly" on Terri Schiavo's circumstances?

    I would really like to have that explained, for  the entertainment value anyway.

    My mind is aglow with whirling transient nodes of thought careening through a cosmic vapor of invention.--Hedley Lamarr

    by angry blue planet on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:41:57 PM PDT

  •  Not Suprised At All (none)
    Terri Schiavo did express her wishes... that is exactly what the court cases were about.

    She did not want to be a zombie, nor do most others.

    Some very devout elderly Christians I know personally were motivated (actually scared shitless) by the Terri Schiavo freakshow into filling out advance directives to prevent the zombie-makers from getting their hands on them.  

    I looked at the way the questions were phrased and I am not suprised at the results.

    I am also not suprised at the 'Even though the poor woman has found her rest, I just can NOT let her go' attitude of your post.

    Finally, if you represent an army why are you anonymous?


    Lefty Limblog - It is time to WIN instead of "Appease and Cringe". Fight the Rethugs!

    by LeftyLimblog on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:42:25 PM PDT

  •  We should have put Schiavo to sleep (none)
    all the rightie pundits are out there screaming "you wouldn't let a dog starve to death, why Terri?"

    That kinda made me mad too.  Why not just give Terri a huge amount of Morphine, and then a lethal injection.  No sense starving the poor woman, end it quickly.

    I don't see why waging class warfare isn't a winning political issue. There are a helluva lot more poor folks than rich.

    by pacified on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:42:37 PM PDT

    •  A leathal injection... (none)
      of morphine is illegal, yes? That would make it assisted suicide...and whoever gives the injection would be arrested for murder.

      The laws, thanks to some who think that assisted suicide is a bad thing, made it illegal to do so.

      •  i know. (none)
        and i think that is a dumb law.  I really wonder why suicide is illegal.

        Not that I want people to kill themselves, but, geez, seems like that's a decision between me and myself.

        I don't see why waging class warfare isn't a winning political issue. There are a helluva lot more poor folks than rich.

        by pacified on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 06:42:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It may be a dumb law... (none)
          but it's still the law. And any who break the law get to go to jail.

          So we wound up with what we got. And we wound up with a bunch of yahoos out there saying "We don't let our pets die like this" without pointing out  "Hey you. You're right. But you're the folks who said that assisted suicide is murder and a sin. So guess what? We're stuck. Thanks very much."

  •  that poll is a load of horsehi*t (4.00)
    "[F]airer questions," huh?  

    How is misrepresenting the facts of the case "fairer"?  The question in the Schiavo case was whether Terri Schiavo had, despite the absence of a living will, expressed the intention NOT to be maintained in a condition like her PVS.  The courts, through years of litigation, found that she had.

    That undermines the premise of the question in the 2d quoted paragraph, and indeed of all those questions, which seem to be that the removal of food and water is being done absent knowledge of, or despite, the person's intention.


    •  It's the same thing (none)
      as when DeLay said he wanted "impartial" judges and doctors to review her condition. As if 19 Florida judges and a bunch of doctors all had a vested interest in watching her die. It's all about framing the language.


      "The trouble with Communism is the Communists, just as the trouble with Christianity is the Christians." - H.L Mencken

      by herooftheday on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:48:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Do we trust Zogby anymore or not? (none)
    I trusted him before the election because he came closest in 2000.

    Is he or is he not accurate and or fair.

    I don't know if I trust his results like I used to.

    Remember when there were 10 polls and 10 different results. That's what this feels like now.


  •  Good Grief (none)
    Give me a break, since when is someone in a PVS with a liquefied brain cortex merely "disabled"? Call me cold-hearted, but if this is what the disabled advocacy groups are promoting as new definition of disabled, I'm now tilting in favor of rationing health care towards those that have a greater probability of a good outcome.

    This isn't going to get any play anyways, the 24/7 bread and circus parade has moved onto the pope's death. Terri who? Thank goodness ...

  •  you distort the questions! (4.00)
    Neither of the factual scenarios referenced in the poll questions deals with intervention in the Schiavo case.  

    The first poll question says that the person has not expressed their preference for medical treatment.  This is not Schiavo's situation.  The court found that Terri had expressed her preference.  

    The second question, reasonably understood, says "do disabled people have a right to food and water?"  Of course people answered yes to that question!  While Terri possibly falls within that broadly defined group, so does any person with a disability of any kind!  Also, note there is no reference to food and water being administered by a feeding tube--in fact the question says the person is not being kept alive on life support, whereas receiving artificial nutrition by tube IS life support.

    The polling data cited in the last several weeks about Schiavo's situation was recently reconfirmed in the polls in sugar land texas, where an overwhelming majority of people in De Lay's district opposed his intervention in the Schiavo case.

    Zogby's questions weren't reasonably related to the Schiavo case, and this explains the different results.

    move along.  there's nothing here.

  •  As so many others have said (none)
    the questions are crap.  Terri was not merely "disabled" but in a PVS.  Additionally, courts found   she did NOT want to live like that.  Regardless, I have yet to find one person I know (conservative, libertarian, liberal, moderate) who looked at Terri and went "Boy! I want to live in that state forever!"  Not one.  

    There's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated...insensitivity is standard and faith is being fancied over reason.-NoFx

    by SairaLV on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:47:35 PM PDT

  •  And Kerry won the election too right? (none)

    I don't have to sell my soul. He's already in me.

    by spot on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:48:09 PM PDT

    •  I couldn't resist that bit of snark (any reputable (none)
      pollster that underperforms "psychic" Syvlia Browne in their election predictions deserves to be slapped around a bit), but I think the wording of the question is paramount here, and people I know in the news media have fairly consistently told me that their mail on the Schiavo case has come down 50/50 - mirroring the deep cultural division in the country. I've written ad nauseum here about the fact that I believe we're now entering a spooky authoritarian populist era in American history (not unlike the new deal era 1932-1968 and the civil war/reconstruction era 1860-1896) where the federal government will abuse its powers writ large with respect to individual liberties (and also that we're seeing a party realignment, with the Democrats becoming libertarian federalists [like the GOP from 1896-2000] and the GOP becoming strong state populists) and I'm not inclined to do so again here, but just be forewarned that there's probably more support for this shit than you think in the country now, and that the worst is not over yet.

      I don't have to sell my soul. He's already in me.

      by spot on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:04:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The poll neglected to mention (none)
    the fact that her skull was mostly filled with spinal fluid. The autopsy results pending...
  •  The polls (none)
    are always great when they validate our opinions, and always inaccurate when they don't.  I agree that Terry shouldn't have been starved even if she wouldn't have suffered.  I think she should have been kept on a feeding tube until she died.  A feeding tube is for people who can't swallow.  

    OK half her brain was mush, and she was a shell of who she was, but she was human, and alive.  That matters more than anything else

    •  No. (none)
      What matters more than anything else is the fact that several courts upheld that Terri Schiavo did not wish to live that way.

      For God's sake, we have beaten this horse to death, haven't we?

      ..."no, but I have a sticky Warhead in my pocket."

      by getmeoutofdixie on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 01:59:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Brain death (4.00)
      Polls are inaccurate when the questions asked do not reflect the reality of the situation.  She was not disabled, she was brain dead.  The public understands the difference between disabled and brain dead, that is why there is the difference between these polls.

      Is it your position that people who are brain-dead should be kept alive indefinately?  It would seem by your reasoning that the plug could never be pulled on anyone.

      •  SHe could not swallow (none)
        She wasn't on life support, not on a respirator.  She had a deeding tube, like folks with esophagal cancer.  If she were on life support then that's another questioin.  She couldn't swallow.  SHe couldn't do much, but she could breath and she could have lived with a tube.  What happened to her wasn't cruel per se, she didn't suffer, but she certainly was killed.
        •  Actually, the feeding tube is life support. (none)
          Go ask a doctor.

          Not only is Zogby's question medically inaccurate, but it's very slanted.  

          I expect more from Zogby.

          "Minimize our defensive posture, maximize our offensive posture."--Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)

          by Newsie8200 on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 04:47:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  killed? (none)
          She was dead already, her body just didn't know it.  Her neocortex, the thing that makes us humans, was dead.  A salamander has greater ability to form intent than did the breathing corpse of Ms. Schiavo.

          A hundred years ago, her family would have rather quickly said their good byes, let her body come to rest, and buried her.  Just because science makes something possible doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.  

    •  Who would you have pay for that? (none)
      Lets say for 14 more years?

      Thats one thing Randal Terry never mentioned.

      Good thing he wasn't asked.

  •  The "Living Will Poll" (4.00)
    I work in a law office and witness living wills week in and week out. Do you know I have NEVER witnessed a living will that DIDN'T authorize the person's agent to deny them life support "including food and water" in circumstances where they cannot recover? NEVER.

    When it comes to real life, people choose not to be kept alive in a persistent vegatative state - in my experience, unanimously. If starvation is the only escape from being kept alive in that state, then people choose starvation. I will bet they understand intuitively that this kind of starvation bears no resemblance whatsoever to the starvation of a healthy, functioning person.

  •  It takes about two seconds to debunk this poll. (4.00)
    It appears to have been commissioned by "Life News".

    Click on the link, go to the bottom of the results and it finishes with a sign off of 4/01/05 Steven Ertett, Life News.

    A quick google on Steven Ertet brings up the following (amongst thousands of others):  

    Catholic Online - Catholic PRWire - Brings Original ...
    ... Helena, MT -- Veteran pro-life news provider Steven Ertelt has put together
    a pro-life newswire service,, that will bypass the mainstream ... - 32k - Cached - Similar pages

    Town Hall: Chat Archive: Steven Ertelt
    ... MODERATOR: Everyone, please welcome Steven Ertelt, executive director of Women
    ... We also host a daily pro-life news and information service read by ... - 66k - Cached - Similar pages

    Pro-life Infonet - 03/18/2002
    ... Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <> ... The Pro-Life Infonet is
    a daily compilation of pro-life news and information. ... - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

    ADF Alliance Alert
    ... Life News, Steven Ertelt, 3.31.2005. Terri Schiavo Torture and Execution ...
    Life News, Steven Ertelt, 3.18.2005. Ban on State-Funded Human Cloning ... - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

    ADF Alliance Alert
    ... Life News, Steven Ertelt, 3.30.2005. Autopsy on Terri Schiavo Planned Before
    Michael's Decision Life News, Steven Ertelt, 3.30.2005 ... - 31k - Cached - Similar pages
    [ More results from ]

    ... of thousands of pro-life advocates with timely, accurate pro-life news. ... (formerly the Pro-Life Infonet), Steven Ertelt has provided the ... - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

    ... of the Intenet since 1992 to bring pro-life news to the pro-life community.
    ... As the founder and Editor of, Steven Ertelt has provided ... - 15k - Apr 3, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

    Life News
    Life News, Mar. 30, 2005 ... By Steven Ertelt Editor March 29, 2005
    Reprinted with permission Did You Know? There are basically three kinds of ... pl?displayContent&releaseID=4681&categoryID=40 - 54k - Cached - Similar pages

    This is clearly a poll commissioned by a very right wing Pro-Life group.

    I find it creepy though that Ertelt has sought out a more liberal leaning pollster to do the poll.  I suspect that freepers are going to be crowing something along the lines of "see, if Zogby has numbers like this, than it must be even worse..."

    Please do a little more research before posting something inflamitory like this, particularly when it goes against all previous numbers.

    •  They've done it before. (none)
      If you search for "zogby", you'll see that they have used his services for their "polls" before.

      I guess Zogby doesn't care, he's just a business man. If they pay him to ask these questions, he'll do it.

      •  Zogby in the News (4.00)
        I don't object to Zogby asking whatever they are paid to ask, that's their job.  But I do object to the "Zogby in the News" section.  The way it works is, you pay Zogby to conduct a poll, then you use the results in a story on your web page, and Zogby then prints that story in their "Zogby in the News" section. It gives the appearance that this story -and the conclusion that it makes - is from Zogby.

        Imagine this:  I commission Zogby to do a poll.  I have them ask the question "Would you eat a maggoty chocolate bar?"  When I get the results back, I write a story for my web page entitled "America hates chocolate".  Then Zogby puts the story on their web page.  Zogby isn't claiming Americans hate chocolate, but it looks like it.

  •  A useless poll commissioned by pro-lifers. (4.00)
    If you google for "Life News" and "Steven Ertelt", you will find that Life News is this: is an independent news agency specifically devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community. With a team of experienced journalists and reporters, reaches more than 150,000 pro-life advocates each week via its web site, email news reports, and weekday radio program.

    Ok, it's a site for pro-lifers. Big surprise there. As for Mr. Ertelt himself:

    As the founder and Editor of, Steven Ertelt has provided the pro-life community with news and information via the Internet for more than twelve years. Previously, Mr. Ertelt served as the executive director of Montana Right to Life. Prior to that, he was the public affairs director for Indiana Citizens for Life, where he served as the lobbyist and media representative. Mr. Ertelt holds a bachelor's degree in politics from Hendrix College in Arkansas.

    Ok, it's obvious what kind of people we're dealing with here.

    The original article referring to the poll they commissioned is here.

    For fun, here is a chat with Mr. Ertelt on right-wing website

    Move along folks, nothing to see here.

  •  What the hell are you talking about? (4.00)
    The poll that Dems were supposedly "gloating" about had to do with the Republican intervention into the Schiavo incident.  The point is, regardless of your opinion on right to die issues or Terri Schiavo specifically, Congress and the President should have stayed out of it.

    This issue is about the Republicans' pandering to extremists and over-reaching for political gain.  So spare me your "told you so" moment.

  •  Zogby's poll questions are brain dead (none)
    And considering that virtually every poll out there other than his showed an opposite result, I'll go with the other polls.  It's not as if Zogby has been all that accurate lately.  

    Reality is just... a point of view - Philip K. Dick; Beautiful thing, the destruction of words. (from Orwell's 1984)

    by LionelEHutz on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:04:37 PM PDT

  •  Witness the power of the media (4.00)
    If -- IF -- these poll numbers are correct (and yes I understand they are skewed by the language of the questions) it is the result of more than a week of constant pounding on every freakin' cable talk program from ONE POINT OF VIEW.  Here is yet another example of what happens when you don't take advantage of a situation.  No Democrat spoke out on this, and I'm guessing this is the price.  Keeping one's mouth shut and not moving forward with an advantage almost always results in the loss of that advantage.  We may well have blown a golden opportunity.  

    Again, I realize these are bullshit poll questions, but the lack of a Democratic offensive on this is going to cost us what would likely have been one hell of a vantage point.  

    There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right with America. -- Bill Clinton

    by ThirstyGator on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:05:42 PM PDT

  •  This is a ridiculous poll (3.50)
    First of all, the law in Florida already did err on the side of life--which is what most reasonable people would agree with.  That was not the Schiavo case, and therefore, it's a meaningless result.

    Better would have been a poll asking if the Americans approved of the way the courts handled this.  If yes, then we have every right to gloat since we were supporting the rule of law--not encouraging people to yank others feeding tubes.

    Secondly, this poll has nothing to do with whether or not the people want Congress and the Governor to intervene, which they clearly did not.

  •  oh fer goodness sake (4.00)
    why's this being dignified?

    Sausage (T)rolls

    Work quickly with phyllo to make these savory rolls. Serve with green salad and ripe olives. Also good as a buffet item.

    1 pound bulk sausage
    1/4 cup finely chopped onion
    1 (10-ounce) package frozen chopped spinach, thawed & drained
    1/4 pound feta cheese, crumbled
    1/4 cup finely chopped parsley
    1/8 teaspoon white pepper
    1 egg, beaten
    10 sheets frozen phyllo dough (17 x 13-inch rectangles), thawed
    1/2 cup butter or margarine, melted

    In a large skillet cook sausage and onion over medium-high heat till sausage is done and onion is tender, stirring occasionally. Drain.

    Stir in spinach, feta cheese, parsley, white pepper and egg. Set aside.

    Unfold the phyllo dough. Spread 1 sheet flat; top with another sheet of phyllo. Gently brush with some of the melted butter. Top with the remaining sheets of phyllo, brushing each with butter. Reserve 1 tablespoon butter for top of pastry.

    Spread sausage-spinach mixture lengthwise over bottom third of layered phyllo dough to within 2 inches of ends. Fold ends over. Carefully roll up the phyllo. Place the roll, seam side down, on a lightly greased baking sheet; brush with the 1 tablespoon butter.

    Bake in a 350 degree oven for 30-35 minutes or till golden.

    "Elsewhere, ... Dick Cheney said that he would not run for president in 2008, denying a report that appeared in the Book of Revelation." --Borowitz Report

    by JRowan on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:10:57 PM PDT

  •  If the polls are correct (none)
    then one would have to assume that those millions of people who ran out and made living wills did so to voice their wishes to live the way Ms. Schiavo did for 15 years.

    The media lied to the people.  They chose to ignore that there was sufficient evidence that Ms. Schiavo voiced her desire not to be maintained on life support when there was no hope for substantial recovery.

    •  This is an important point (none)
      which many seem to have missed.  Why all the fuss from the GOP?  Almost no one believes that a person shouldn't be allowed to choose their own medical treatment.  So the issue was-- despite years of testimony, expert witnesses, etc.-- that Terri could have recovered and would want to be kept alive.  And now the courts (and a conservative Republican judge) are being vilified for daring to adhere to the principles of logic and the rule of law.

      This is just one more example where conservative ideology trumps reason.

  •  Title change. (none)
    I'd suggest editing the title of your diary.. it's misleading now that the details of this "poll" have come out.
  •  Big deal. (none)
    This poll was commissioned by a rabid anti-abortion group and shows selection bias. All these numbers tell me is that the results depend on who is doing the questioning. If an anti-abortion group is doing the questioning, of course the responses will be stacked in their favor.

    All of the objective polls have shown the exact opposite -- most Americans supported her right to die with dignity.

    by Eternal Hope on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:18:01 PM PDT

  •  2 things (none)
    1. I also watched John Zogby virtually guarantee a Kerry win.

    In reference to:

    The Zogby poll found that, if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment, as in Terri's case,

    2. The entire fucking court case was built upon the fact that Terri HAD EXPRESSED HER PREFERENCE TO HER HUSBAND, and it was that SHE DID NOT WANT TO BE KEPT ALIVE BY ARTIFICIAL MEANS.

    Whoever wrote this needs a date with the Pope hammer..

    I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this anymore!

    by MarkinNC on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:21:24 PM PDT

    •  Which makes you wonder why the (none)
      Right was so up-in-arms about this case.  If the parents had agreed that Terri would not have wanted to live in a pvs, the plug would have been pulled years ago with no fanfare.

      The conservative "argument" is: If there's a question/doubt, we should choose life.  Or in other words, if we can create a doubt (whether in regards to Creationism, abortion, etc.) then we win.

      Well, fuck you GOP. A conservative judge looked at THE FACTS and decided that you LOSE.  Terri was the real winner because she was finally allowed to rest in peace.    

  •  Poll = Piece of shit (4.00)
    Same for the diary. "Death cult Democrats" is not polite.  

    Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

    by johnny rotten on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:36:49 PM PDT

  •  Terri Schiavo WAS BEING KEPT ALIVE (4.00)
    ON LIFE SUPPORT!!!!!!! She was NEVER being given "food and water" and thus was NEVER denied food and water. Basic nutrients and hydration were being delivered via an abdominal feeding tube, which is artificial life support in a patient with no consciousness.

    The question in this poll does not at all relate to Terri Schiavo. The question in this poll relates to someone whose sandwich and milk were taken away.

    The public wants what the public gets, but I don't get what this society wants -- Paul Weller

    by jamfan on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 02:47:32 PM PDT

  •  You haven't been paying attention (none)
    if you think dkos was "gloating" about the withdrawal of the feeding tube. There was plenty of analysis on here about what we were happy about, and that was that the involvement of government, specifically Congress and Bushes involvement was rejected  by the rest of the country as much as it was by us.  It was unconstitutional and the country agreed with that.

    The hypocritical aspect was that they have historically professed to be the party of less govt. involvement,and state rights. Yet they turn around and dive head first into all that they profess to be against.  

    In fact there was hypocracy steeped in hypocracy in this case having nothing to do with believing that Terri Schiavo should be "starved".  You didn't even have to concentrate on the main issue of the feeding tube being withdrawn and you could still spend the rest of your life "gloating" about the Repubs hypocracy in all the peripheral issues from here to eternity.

    The use of the word disabled should clue any thinking person in that this poll was bogus.  Most "thinking "people can tell the difference between a person with a disability and a person whose brain has actually been physically damaged to the point hers was.  Which also leads to the claim that she was healthy and had nothing wrong with her.  Skip the fact that one of her major organs was extremely physically damaged to the point that it was partly dead and gone.  Does a person with a heart that is 1/2 the size as a normal heart with 1/2 of their heart consisting of dead tissue still have a healthy heart and body?  You know the answer.

    This poll is so full of code words used by the right it's pitiful.  So Zogby is now prostituting himself out to anyone who will pay him and we are supposed to sit up straight and be ashamed of ourselves because of something he says.  


  •  I see (none)
    the thought police have been to this diary,

    by diane101 on Mon Apr 04, 2005 at 09:32:56 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site