i think the Instapundit admitted that the republicans did the wrong thing.
i nearly fell off my fucking chair.
you’d think a man who claims to be a libertarian wouldnt have a hard time acknowledging when this administration fucks up, but as we know, if the worlds most popular blogger has a fault, it’s that.
sunday prof. reynolds claimed that he had no opinion regarding the controversial and curious meddling of congress and the president regarding the young woman in florida who has been living on life support for the last 15 years.
i think everyone realizes that it must be pretty hard for a law professor to scrounge up an opinion about something as unprecidented as a late night powerplay that the chicago tribune called “an extrodinary day of political drama“. and opinions are tough to elucidate when the only sensible one, particularily for a libertarian, who, one would assume, would be violently against the federal government sticking their little cocks into the lives of a legally married couple who have been suffering for so long.
today however he says that he thinks that fellow tennesseeian bill hobbs is right when he blogged today that he didnt know what the right decision was or if ms. schavio’s husband was trying to kill her “but I do know that the Congress did the wrong thing, intervened where it had no Constitutional right, and solved nothing.”
the professor writes: Read the whole thing. I think he’s right.
quite a stand, bro.
and this in light of the fact that an overwhelming majority of americans, and even some respected conservatives have no problem being crystal clear in their objection to BushCo getting involved in affairs of the brain damaged woman’s alleged wish to be allowed to die.
on larry king last night her husband’s lawyer said that Terry Schiavo told her husband and two others, “I don’t want to be kept alive artificially. No tubes for me. I want to go when my time comes. If I ever had to be dependent upon anyone, I wouldn’t want to live that way.”
despite what issues I may have with other bloggers regarding their writing style, what they choose to cover and what they choose to ignore, if mr. reynolds was in a similiar tragic situation of having to explain to the world what he and his wife discussed regarding as serious a matter as this, i would be hard pressed not to believe his word.
and the last thing that a libertarian would want is the government holding special sessions and the president flying from texas to washington for the sole purpose of signing a bill and thus meddling into that couple’s beeswax.
speaking of trusting one man’s word, does the instapundit have an opinion on the president’s word? in his defense of signing the bill mr bush said, “This is a complex case with serious issues. But in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to err on the side of life.”
the war in iraq wasnt a complex case with serious issues and extrodinary circumstances? was it not wise to err on the side of life in that matter instead of invade a country because of their alleged weapons of mass destruction which turned out not to be there?
or what about the time that Gov. Dubya Bush executed a mentally disabled man? is that erring on the side of life?
or how about the other 151 executions that he oversaw as governor (two deaths a month)? haven’t we seen that it’s far more likely for someone to be found not guilty of a capital crime in this age of DNA discovery than it is for a woman to snap out of a 15-year coma?
obviously the president is inconsistant when he chooses to err on the side of life, some would say hypocritically so.
the biggest blogger in the world *thinks* the president and the conservative congress did the wrong thing by poking their noses where it didnt belong?
i think he’s right.