Debbie Wasserman Schultz
She is the enthused, if not enraged, advocate for Michael Schiavo, which means she is the advocate for Terri Schavo's death. I suspect that, as a new member of Congress, she is trying to make a name for herself by appearing on as many talk shows as possible discussing the "outrage" of Congress asking the courts to review the case one more time.
It's hard to express the revulsion Schultz generates in me. Not only did she fall off the ugly tree (hitting pretty much every branch on the way down and landing directly on her face when she hit the ground), she also manages to use, in my rough estimate, maybe a can of hairspray a day to keep her mane looking nice and crystally and static and plastered firmly against her upper forehead. I was under the impression that this hairstyle died a quiet death somewhere in early 1991 along with shoulderpads in womens' suits, but Ms. Schultz must not have received that memo.
I'm not sure how she was elected to Congress, but I doubt it was political acumen that garnered her the seat. For starters, look at the public's reaction to the case: the flawed ABC poll badly misjudged the public sentiment, which is why Congress overwhelmingly passed the law asking for a judicial review. Ms. Schultz, early in her career, has thus already managed to be on the wrong side of public opinion - which is fine, if you can accomplish the feat quietly, but is not fine when your face is plastered across Scarborough, Meet the Press, Face the Nation, etc. and your demeanor is one of blustering indignation.
Secondly, her outrage is seems to be misplaced. What Congress did (the merits of which I agree with) was NOT to order Terri's tube to be reattached, but instead commanded the federal courts to review the merits of the case: a "de novo" review, I believe. What is the harm in that? From all indications, this was badly needed when one takes into account that her husband, whose position as next-of-kin resides from that title, is really not much of a husband anymore, having moved in and fathered children with another woman who he intends to marry. Couple that with the varying medical opinions of Terri's condition and recovery, and the other damning facts that have leaked out (a post on Powerline makes the case that the parents were simply outlawyered), and I have no idea how someone could oppose the review (the federalism statute is a different discussion, in my opinion, from whether the case does indeed merit a review). If Terri's wishes were to be removed from the tube, as Michael and Ms. Schultz contend, then shouldn't a review of the case bear out that decision?
At any rate, I think we can look forward to seeing Schultz joining the ranks of Cynthia McKinney as one of the embarassments of our federal government.