1
   

Hypocrite Tom DeLay's Own Tragic Crossroads

 
 
Reply Sun 27 Mar, 2005 08:24 am
The hypocricy of Tom DeLay in the Terri Schiavo case as well as his crusade for tort reform exposed. --- BBB

Doctors advised that he would "basically be a vegetable," said the congressman's aunt, JoAnne DeLay.

When his father's kidneys failed, the DeLay family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. "Extraordinary measures to prolong life were not initiated," said his medical report, citing "agreement with the family's wishes." His bedside chart carried the instruction: "Do not resuscitate."

On Dec. 14, 1988, the DeLay patriarch "expired with his family in attendance."

"The situation faced by the congressman's family was entirely different than Terri Schiavo's," said a spokesman for the majority leader, who declined requests for an interview.

"The only thing keeping her alive is the food and water we all need to survive. His father was on a ventilator and other machines to sustain him," said Dan Allen, DeLay's press aide.

There were also these similarities: Both stricken patients were severely brain-damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared from being kept alive by artificial means. And neither of them had a living will.The DeLay family litigation sought unspecified compensation for, among other things, the dead father's "physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and trauma," and the mother's grief, sorrow and loss of companionship.

Their lawsuit also alleged violations of the Texas product liability law.


The DeLay case moved slowly through the Texas judicial system, accumulating more than 500 pages of motions, affidavits and disclosures over nearly three years. Among the affidavits was one filed by the congressman, but family members said he had little direct involvement in the lawsuit, leaving that to his brother Randall, an attorney.

Rep. DeLay, who since has taken a leading role promoting tort reform, wants to rein in trial lawyers to protect American businesses from what he calls "frivolous, parasitic lawsuits" that raise insurance premiums and "kill jobs."

Last September, he expressed less than warm sentiment for attorneys when he took the floor of the House to condemn trial lawyers who, he said, "get fat off the pain" of plaintiffs and off "the hard work" of defendants.

Aides for DeLay defended his role as a plaintiff in the family lawsuit, saying he did not follow the legal case and was not aware of its final outcome.

The case was resolved in 1993 with payment of an undisclosed sum, said to be about $250,000, according to sources familiar with the out-of-court settlement. DeLay signed over his share of any proceeds to his mother, said his aides.

Three years later, DeLay cosponsored a bill specifically designed to override state laws on product liability such as the one cited in his family's lawsuit. The legislation provided sweeping exemptions for product sellers.

The 1996 bill was vetoed by President Clinton, who said he objected to the DeLay-backed measure because it "tilts against American families and would deprive them of the ability to recover fully when they are injured by a defective product."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After her husband's death, Maxine DeLay scrapped the mangled tram at the bottom of the hill and sold the family's lake house.

Today, she lives alone in a Houston senior citizen residence. Like much of the country, she is following news developments in the Schiavo case and her son's prominent role.

She acknowledged questions comparing her family's decision in 1988 to the Schiavo conflict with a slight smile. "It's certainly interesting, isn't it?"

She had a new hairdo for Easter and puffed on a cigarette outside her assisted-living residence as she sat back comparing the cases.

Like her son, she believed there might be hope for Terri Schiavo's recovery. That's what made her family's experience different, she said. Charles had no hope.

"There was no chance he was ever coming back," she said.
---------------------------------------------------

Verhovek reported from Canyon Lake, Texas; Roche reported from Washington. Also contributing to this report were Times researchers Lianne Hart in San Antonio and Nona Yates in Los Angeles.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,494 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 04:37 pm
There is a large difference in his case the Terry's case. There was total family agreement to end the life of his father and in Terry's case there isn't. I wouldn't call it hypocrisy in the least. Only those with an axe to grind would find one.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 04:54 pm
I noted the same thing in another thread and got roundly booed...go figure.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 05:17 pm
Let me see if I get the distinction here: If Terry Schiavo's parents agreed with her husband, then it would be OK to withdraw the feeding tube?

I thought the issue was her right to life...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 05:28 pm
The issue is whatever is most convienent to the argument at the time, D...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 06:25 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Let me see if I get the distinction here: If Terry Schiavo's parents agreed with her husband, then it would be OK to withdraw the feeding tube?

I thought the issue was her right to life...


The main issue is because of the difference between what the parents want vs. what the husband wants. Do you really think if there was a difference of opinion between the 2 parties that this would have made national news? It only made national news because of the parents and their wish to see their daughter (who died 15 years ago) live longer.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 07:12 am
No comparison and a cheap shot at Delay.

The ONLY issue with Schiavo was WHO should make the decision, not WHAT the decision should be.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 07:41 am
Shocked Shocked Shocked

Clean your houses!!!!

I agree with Baldimo and woiyo that that should have been the issue.

The right to lifers don't see it that way, but who cares? Christ will surely return any moment now that we have agreed.

I don't suppose we would also agree that it should have been left to the courts and not Congress and the Pres.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:10 am
Baldimo wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
Let me see if I get the distinction here: If Terry Schiavo's parents agreed with her husband, then it would be OK to withdraw the feeding tube?

I thought the issue was her right to life...


The main issue is because of the difference between what the parents want vs. what the husband wants. Do you really think if there was a difference of opinion between the 2 parties that this would have made national news? It only made national news because of the parents and their wish to see their daughter (who died 15 years ago) live longer.


I do agree that it wouldn't have made national (or even local) news if the parents and husband had agreed. But DeLay et al have tried to make political hay over the controversy. And they have turned this into a Right to Life issue, in case you hadn't noticed.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:21 am
BBB
I hope everyone will not overlook the other main point of this post. That Tom DeLay, after his father's accidental death, he participated in the very type of lawsuit that he and his republicans successfully legislated against in their phony tort reform law.

BBB
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:23 am
BBB
I hope everyone will not overlook the other main point of this post. That Tom DeLay, after his father's accidental death, he participated in the very type of lawsuit that he and his republicans successfully legislated against in their phony tort reform law.

BBB

0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:31 am
This has always been about right to life and abortion control.
And fie on Delay for being an opportunist.
But I maintain...as to the thread title...there is not enough evidence that he is a hypocrite considering these two cases.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 10:38 am
I have no comment on the tort reform issue, and, in general, I am strongly opposed to tort reform. However, this case has many differences from the Schiavo case. She was healthy, except that tests years ago had shown that she couldn't feed herself. DeLay's father couldn't breath on his own, and he also had kidney failure, which is extraordinarily serious, since the kidneys remove toxins from the blood. Having a ventillator or tracheostomy tube down your throat is a very unpleasant way to live, as far as I can see, and I have seen both close up. Furthermore, it would be very instructive to know how clearly his father had expressed his wishes regarding this type of medical situation, as opposed to TS, whose wishes were not well documented, and to the extent they were were contradictory.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 05:36 pm
"It's not for any one of us to decide what her quality of life should be," he said. "It's not any one of us to decide whether she should live or die." Congress, DeLay explained, was intervening against Schiavo's husband "to protect her constitutional right to live."

In the absence of a living will, DeLay argued, Schiavo's spouse couldn't legally vouch for her wishes, as DeLay's mother had done -- on less apparent basis -- for DeLay's father. When a reporter noted that "Terri Schiavo's husband has said that she expressed a verbal desire that she not continue in this sort of state," DeLay replied, "The sanctity of life overshadows the sanctity of marriage. I don't know what transpired between Terri and her husband. All I know is Terri is alive... And unless she had specifically written instructions in her hand and with her signature, I don't care what her husband says."

A day later, DeLay told reporters that Congress had to intervene rather than "take it from just a few people that have decided whether she lives or dies. For one person in one state court to make this decision is too heavy. That's why it does take all of us to think this through, think about the Constitution and its protection of life."

DeLay hasn't confined his condemnation to the principles on which his family acted. He has condemned the character of people who now apply or defend those principles. On March 18, he charged, "Senators Boxer, Wyden, and Levin have put Mrs. Schiavo's life at risk to prove a point; an unprecedented profile in cowardice." A day later, he said of Schiavo's husband, "I don't have a whole lot of respect for a man that has treated this woman in this way. ... My question is: What kind of man is he?"

Why the difference between then and now? Maybe because DeLay saw his father as a human being. He speaks of Schiavo as something more -- and less. "It's more than just Terri Schiavo," DeLay told the Family Research Council on March 18. "It is a critical issue for people in this position, and it is also a critical issue to fight the fight for life, whether it be euthanasia or abortion. And I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, one thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to elevate the visibility of what's going on in America."

This is what happens when you approach a tragedy as a politician rather than as a family member. You see quality of life as a slippery-slope abstraction, not as a reality affecting someone you love. You find it easy to impose a standard of documentation that would have forced your family to break the law. You second-guess a spouse in a way you would never second-guess your own mother. You challenge people's competence and impugn their character. You perceive the afflicted person more as God's tool than as God's child.

The hypocrisy never ends. See, it's not wrong if Republicans do it, and that includes "frivolous" lawsuits and the "sanctity" of marriage.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Mar, 2005 09:07 pm
Good post Diddie...pretty damning.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 08:45 am
PDiddie
Thanks, PDiddie, for a great post that focuses on the point of this thread.

BBB Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Hypocrite Tom DeLay's Own Tragic Crossroads
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 01:13:12