There she is – Again! Cindy Sheehan, who apparently only loves herself! Even when the “evil” George Bush isn’t around to “dump on”, Ms. Sheehan takes on her Democratic buddies and shouts them off the platform. Look for yourself at this video clip and see if you don’t agree – It’s all about Cindy Sheehan. Enough!
#1 by Byron on January 4th, 2007
Quote
Partisonship isn’t the point. Cindy Sheehan opposes the war; George Bush and the Republicans do not, neither do the Democrats (I’m generalizing a bit here, but it’s clear that the Dems are pro-war in that they all voted for it and continue to vote for money to continue it). The fact that she’s shouting down members of her (supposed?) party demonstrates this. As far as the war in Iraq goes Cindy Sheehan isn’t a Republican or Democrat, she’s simply against it and any member of Congress on the other side of the line becomes a target. Simple as that. You’re the one making this a partison issue, not her.
#2 by craigand on January 4th, 2007
Quote
Fair enough point Byron. My point really wasn’t partisanship although as I re-read the post I see where you are coming from. Ms. Sheehan, however, is at a minimum a media creation. I think you would agree with that. What standing does she have? She is no different then any other mother who has lost a child in the war? Shouting folks down? Where exactly does that get us? She is and was a pawn used to advance a point of view. I appreciate your comment.
#3 by Byron on January 4th, 2007
Quote
I don’t consider her a creation of the media. As far as I know she wasn’t contacted by any media outlet and told, “Since your son was killed in Iraq, how would you like to go protest at the president’s ranch?” I assume she expected the media to report her story, and they’ve definitely taken advantage of her outspokenness and willingness to get arrested to turn her into a figurehead for the anti-war movement. As far as I can tell that’s indisputable. However, I don’t think they created her, they just got lucky. What standing does she have? Good question, I don’t know and, frankly, don’t really care. I know where I stand on the issue and don’t need to hear her talk about it to make up my mind. She’s clearly against the war but only she can articulate what she feels is the best way to turn the situation around. Maybe she has a plan, maybe she doesn’t. Maybe the Bush administration has a plan, maybe it doesn’t. As far as her tactics, I can definitely understand why she finds in necessary to escalate her fight a little bit. What has she accomplished so far? The war that killed her son is still raging – we’ve passed the 3000 mark, for christ’s sake. Protesting at the Bush ranch hasn’t worked, getting arrested hasn’t worked, making public appearances at anti-war rallies hasn’t worked, petitioning our government hasn’t worked. Nothing she’s done has gotten anywhere close to her ultimate goal of ending the war. Why continue to play by their rules when it just sets her up to fail? Maybe she’s thinking she can only wait so long for those in power to finally heed the will of the people who elected them. I don’t presume to speak for her, or even know what she’s thinking in the first place, but it makes sense to me. Personal opinions of the war aside, we’re still in Iraq despite growing public opposition. Why should she show respect to these politicians who aren’t respecting their constituents?
#4 by craigand on January 4th, 2007
Quote
Good points Byron. My only additional comment would be this: 50+% of the electorate is opposed to the war (well known to the politicians of both parties), the election was widely considered a referendum on the Iraq issue – The question for you and me is this – “What gives Cindy Sheehan the right to “shout down” leadership” – Is there no respect? One person (or a group for that matter) does not have the right to deny 200+ million of their fellow citizens the right to listen to the points being made by others, whatever their political persuasion. Her behavior was unacceptable from my point of view – not gracious, not considerate, not respectful, and not American!
#5 by libhomo on January 4th, 2007
Quote
Cindy Sheehan’s behavior was not only acceptable. It was highly admirable. While the politicians in both major parties fiddle, Iraq burns and our troops are dying in a senseless war.
The voters made it clear that they want the war over, yet Bush wants to send in more troops and the Democrats are avoiding the subject as much as possible. What really is “not American” is when politicians give the voters the middle finger on such an important issue.
#6 by craigand on January 5th, 2007
Quote
Thanks for the post Libhomo. Having nothing to do with her politics, I just respectfully disagree with the notion that the behavior is “admirable”. As for the politicians, the election was just a few short weeks ago and the Democrats did not assume majority power until yesterday, lets see what happens.
#7 by Byron on January 6th, 2007
Quote
Here’s the thing. Whether Cindy Sheehan shouts down an elected representative or not, they’ll still have the chance to make their points, even if they just wait until after lunch or until the following day. Hell, they don’t even have to have a press conference, they can just issue a press release. Your average citizen, on the other hand, does not have access to the same forums as leadership. Imagine it wasn’t Cindy Sheehan who disrupted the press conference – imagine it was you or me. What impact can we expect to make when all other options have failed? At some point you have to say, “This is not working. What can I do to put this issue in the forefront where it belongs?” For all we know the only reason she did what she did was to generate discussions like this one. She certainly couldn’t have expected to end the war…
#8 by craigand on January 7th, 2007
Quote
Thanks again for the comment Byron…If you and I pulled this stunt “out of the blue”, I suspect we might be enjoying bread and water for a few hours.
#9 by Byron on January 8th, 2007
Quote
My point exactly.