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 (news, bio, voting record) (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 mystery of the memo’s origin had roiled the Capitol, with Republicans accusing Democrats of concocting the document as a dirty trick, and Democrats accusing Republicans of trying to duck responsibility for exploiting the dying days of an incapacitated woman.
Conservative Web logs have challenged the authenticity of the memo, in some cases likening it to the discredited documents about Bush’s National Guard service that CBS News reported last fall.
The staff of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, at the request of a Democrat, spent a week trying to determine the memo’s origin and had come up empty, said an official involved in the investigation.
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.”
I think the one thing that makes this not newsworthy is that what he said in the memo is basically true. All he did was put the obvious on paper and send it out. That was the political mistake.
Of course it IS newsworthy because tactics like that are dispicable…but that’s the state of politics these days. Someone has been spiking the water with Ethics-B-Gone.
“All is fair in love and war” must have been said by someone that wasn’t married nor a politician.
I think the one thing that makes this not newsworthy is that what he said in the memo is basically true. That's debatable. It may actually work the other way than the author of the memo thinks it will.
Quote I think the one thing that makes this not newsworthy is that what he said in the memo is basically true.
That's debatable. It may actually work the other way than the author of the memo thinks it will.
I agree, but for it to have a reverse effect there will have to be a lot of folks that see it is despicable, and because of the emotion of the whole thing I have a feeling that many folks won't allow themselves to believe anyone would stoop so low as to use this for political gain. Of course, many will, but will it be enough to make a difference?
And, many will see "anything the other side says and does" (either/both sides)as being strictly politically motivated, and when those folks yell about it most don't listen to then anymore.
Anything a politician does can be viewed as being for political gain when put in the right context, or out of context if that's what it takes. For example, I say Bill Clinton in Rome yesterday -- the commentators was talking about the Bushes and Clintons being religious people. Yes, he's there to honor the Pope and maybe he is religious, but the very first thing that I thought of was that there's no way he's be going to church every week if he didn't need to because he was a public figure, and even as a ploy for political gain from way back in early Arkansas days. Regardless of everything - in spite of everything - I just don't see the Clintons (either one) as being religious except for political gain reasons. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. I use that as an example, but it carries over to how I view most politicians.
One huge problem is that a few of those that I do believe are truly religious are using in wrong and dangerous ways, but that's another related debate.
I know what you mean - I saw the Clinton interview also. I think Bush, Delay, Frist et al. are truly religious in the fundamentalist/evangelical sense, i.e., they are proud that they are they are. But that’s my problem with them, i.e., they let religion dictate what they do and where they come down on public policy. I have real problems with that.
I think the Clinton’s are religious in their own way but there’s been so much crap pasted on them, and Bill has sinned so much, that he looks alittle phoney.
and Bill has sinned so much, that he looks alittle phoney.
In my personal opinion, (which I know ain't worth much except to me ).... THAT is what cost Gore AND Kerry. I have to admit ol' Bill was a pretty good operator. If he'd only kept his pistol in his pocket................
Nah, TG, what cost Kerry was a whole lot of things, not least the republican political machine’s lies.
Just wait till they are able to get rid of filibusters and can appoint whoever they like to the judiciary. These people are destroying a system that emobidies centuries worth of experience and wisdom. Evil, evil, evil!
