| Revision as of 15:10, 7 December 2021 editThe Grid (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers22,204 edits proposing merge← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:42, 24 February 2022 edit undoCitation bot (talk | contribs)Bots5,406,601 edits Alter: template type. Add: newspaper. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Whoop whoop pull up | Category:Terri Schiavo case | #UCB_Category 12/14Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{merge to|Terri Schiavo case|discuss=Talk:Schiavo memo#Merger proposal|date=December 2021}} | {{merge to|Terri Schiavo case|discuss=Talk:Schiavo memo#Merger proposal|date=December 2021}} | ||
| {{Terri Schiavo}} | {{Terri Schiavo}} | ||
| During the ] in March 2005, a ]s memo on the controversy was written by ], the legal counsel to ] Senator ] of ].<ref name="autogenerated1">{{Cite web|date=April 6, 2005|title=Senator's office produced Schiavo memo|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7412110|publisher=Associated Press|via=NBC News}}</ref> The memo suggested the Schiavo case offered "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's ] (core supporters) and could be used against Senator ], a ] from ] who was up for ], because he had refused to co-sponsor the bill which came to be known as the ].<ref>{{Cite |
During the ] in March 2005, a ]s memo on the controversy was written by ], the legal counsel to ] Senator ] of ].<ref name="autogenerated1">{{Cite web|date=April 6, 2005|title=Senator's office produced Schiavo memo|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7412110|publisher=Associated Press|via=NBC News}}</ref> The memo suggested the Schiavo case offered "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's ] (core supporters) and could be used against Senator ], a ] from ] who was up for ], because he had refused to co-sponsor the bill which came to be known as the ].<ref>{{Cite news|date=April 4, 2005|title=The Seattle Times: Nation & World: GOP memo says issue offers political rewards<!-- Bot generated title -->|url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002213728_memo20.html|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070127110336/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002213728_memo20.html|archive-date=January 27, 2007|newspaper=The Washington Post|via=The Seattle Times}}</ref> Bill Nelson was nevertheless reelected as Senator on November 7, 2006 with 60% of the vote. | ||
| Martinez stated that he had not read the memo before he inadvertently passed it to ] Senator ], a Democratic supporter of the ] legislation which gave ] ] to review the Terri Schiavo case.<ref name=autogenerated1 /> Then it became public knowledge. | Martinez stated that he had not read the memo before he inadvertently passed it to ] Senator ], a Democratic supporter of the ] legislation which gave ] ] to review the Terri Schiavo case.<ref name=autogenerated1 /> Then it became public knowledge. | ||
| After the existence of the memo was reported by ] and '']'', Senate Majority Leader ] denounced the memo and asserted that the Republican Party's interest in the case was solely based on moral grounds. Darling remained silent about his authorship of the memo as commentators from the conservative magazine '']'' and other publications questioned its authenticity.<ref>{{Cite magazine|last=Barnes|first=Fred|date=April 4, 2005|title=The ABCs of Media Bias|url=https://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/406istku.asp|magazine=]|volume=10|issue=27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051219144050/https://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/406istku.asp|archive-date=December 19, 2005}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Hinderaker|first=John|date=March 27, 2005|title=Fake but Accurate Again?<!-- Bot generated title -->|url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/416virea.asp|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120401164354/http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/416virea.asp|archive-date=April 1, 2012|website=The Weekly Standard}}</ref> The source of the memo had not been disclosed by either ABC News or ''The Washington Post''. ''The Washington Post'' says that it neither implied that the memo originated from a Republican source nor that it was circulated by Republicans, though it did in fact make these assertions when it published the story by reporters Mike Allen and Manuel Roig-Franzia on its wire service on March 19, 2005. The authorship claim was removed before publication of the print version on March 20, 2005.<ref>{{Cite |
After the existence of the memo was reported by ] and '']'', Senate Majority Leader ] denounced the memo and asserted that the Republican Party's interest in the case was solely based on moral grounds. Darling remained silent about his authorship of the memo as commentators from the conservative magazine '']'' and other publications questioned its authenticity.<ref>{{Cite magazine|last=Barnes|first=Fred|date=April 4, 2005|title=The ABCs of Media Bias|url=https://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/406istku.asp|magazine=]|volume=10|issue=27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051219144050/https://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/406istku.asp|archive-date=December 19, 2005}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Hinderaker|first=John|date=March 27, 2005|title=Fake but Accurate Again?<!-- Bot generated title -->|url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/416virea.asp|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120401164354/http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/416virea.asp|archive-date=April 1, 2012|website=The Weekly Standard}}</ref> The source of the memo had not been disclosed by either ABC News or ''The Washington Post''. ''The Washington Post'' says that it neither implied that the memo originated from a Republican source nor that it was circulated by Republicans, though it did in fact make these assertions when it published the story by reporters Mike Allen and Manuel Roig-Franzia on its wire service on March 19, 2005. The authorship claim was removed before publication of the print version on March 20, 2005.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Kurtz|first=Howard|date=March 30, 2005|title=Doubts Raised On Schiavo Memo|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11250-2005Mar29.html|newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Kurtz|first=Howard|date=April 4, 2005|title=Leaving the Anchor Desk, Its Greatest Generation|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24015-2005Apr3.html|newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref> On April 6, 2005, Darling admitted to writing the memo, and resigned his position as legal counsel to Senator Martinez.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Allen|first=Mike|date=April 7, 2005|title=Counsel to GOP Senator Wrote Memo On Schiavo|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32554-2005Apr6.html|newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref> | ||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 03:42, 24 February 2022
 | It has been suggested that this article be merged into Terri Schiavo case. (Discuss) Proposed since December 2021. |
| Articles relating to the |
| Terri Schiavo case |
|---|
| Others involved |
|
 Category |
During the Terri Schiavo controversy in March 2005, a talking points memo on the controversy was written by Brian Darling, the legal counsel to Republican Senator Mel Martinez of Florida. The memo suggested the Schiavo case offered "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's base (core supporters) and could be used against Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat from Florida who was up for reelection in 2006, because he had refused to co-sponsor the bill which came to be known as the Palm Sunday Compromise. Bill Nelson was nevertheless reelected as Senator on November 7, 2006 with 60% of the vote.
Martinez stated that he had not read the memo before he inadvertently passed it to Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a Democratic supporter of the Palm Sunday Compromise legislation which gave federal courts jurisdiction to review the Terri Schiavo case. Then it became public knowledge.
After the existence of the memo was reported by ABC News and The Washington Post, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist denounced the memo and asserted that the Republican Party's interest in the case was solely based on moral grounds. Darling remained silent about his authorship of the memo as commentators from the conservative magazine Weekly Standard and other publications questioned its authenticity. The source of the memo had not been disclosed by either ABC News or The Washington Post. The Washington Post says that it neither implied that the memo originated from a Republican source nor that it was circulated by Republicans, though it did in fact make these assertions when it published the story by reporters Mike Allen and Manuel Roig-Franzia on its wire service on March 19, 2005. The authorship claim was removed before publication of the print version on March 20, 2005. On April 6, 2005, Darling admitted to writing the memo, and resigned his position as legal counsel to Senator Martinez.
References
- ^ "Senator's office produced Schiavo memo". Associated Press. April 6, 2005 – via NBC News.
- "The Seattle Times: Nation & World: GOP memo says issue offers political rewards". The Washington Post. April 4, 2005. Archived from the original on January 27, 2007 – via The Seattle Times.
- Barnes, Fred (April 4, 2005). "The ABCs of Media Bias". The Weekly Standard. Vol. 10, no. 27. Archived from the original on December 19, 2005.
- Hinderaker, John (March 27, 2005). "Fake but Accurate Again?". The Weekly Standard. Archived from the original on April 1, 2012.
- Kurtz, Howard (March 30, 2005). "Doubts Raised On Schiavo Memo". The Washington Post.
- Kurtz, Howard (April 4, 2005). "Leaving the Anchor Desk, Its Greatest Generation". The Washington Post.
- Allen, Mike (April 7, 2005). "Counsel to GOP Senator Wrote Memo On Schiavo". The Washington Post.