Daily Kos: Framing Cindy Sheehan - we are making errors

Framing Cindy Sheehan - we are making errors

by dataguy

Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 06:56:05 AM PDT

We are making errors with references to Cindy Sheehan.

What are we trying to accomplish with promoting her?

Emphasizing her sacrifice.
Emphasizing her stating truth to power.
Emphasizing her plain speaking, clear statements.
Relate her vigil over her dead son to universal archtypes of all vigils over dead children killed by dictatorial rulers throughout all history.

My suggestions below:

dataguy's diary :: ::

We should call her "Mother Sheehan". We should never call her Cindy; I don't know her. "Mother Sheehan" is her title, and expresses her ceremonial status as a bereaved mother, calling forth over the dead body of her son. She is not a person now, she is a mother, which is not an expression of her individuality, but rather the expression of her eternal character: the mother, the bringer of life who has been wronged by state power.
We should use the word "sacrifice". She has sacrificed the most precious thing a mother has, the life and promise of her child.
We should use the word "useless" frequently. The death of her son is a useless sacrifise, done for the vanity of the ruler.
We should not use the name of her son. Her son is a symbol of all sons who have been sacrificed for this useless and criminal war.
The term "vigil" should be used to describe the persons and their patient petition to the dictatorial ruler. It is a vigil over the body of the dead son, killed by the ruler for his own purposes.
The right will try to INDIVIDUALIZE and SPECIALIZE her complaint. We must try to make her cry the UNIVERSAL and ETERNAL cry of all mothers whose children have died at the whim of the tyrannical and dictatorial ruler, who has made the decision to push children to the front of the army for his own, useless purposes. We must seek to make this like funeral vigils over all time. This is not Mother Sheehan's vigil, this is a vigil over the dead son, killed by the ruler for his own selfish reasons.
If there are any persons who are theatre professionals at the Sheenan vigil, they should arrange things much more theatrically.
If I was there, I would not let Mother Sheehan talk to the press, but I would have her talk only through a spokesperson. In particular, I would not allow her to argue with critics, and would allow no critics to approach her. Her dignity must be preserved. If lesser emissaries from the ruler arrive (C Rice, etc), these should not be allowed to speak to Mother Sheehan.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Enough with the framing already. (3.94 / 17)

Not everything is a pr event to be managed and advertised. Let this unfold as it will--one of the strengths of it is that it is not a planned, orchestrated event.

...the White House will be adorned by a downright moron...H.L. Mencken

by bibble on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 06:58:41 AM PDT
- ah (none / 0)
  
  but it is whether you like it to be or not. obviously, the reason we are talking about Mother Sheehan and not another mother who hates this war and what it has done to her children is because it is a PR event. Denying that is silly. These are necessary, although frustrating at times, discussions.
  
  by seamus on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:01:57 AM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - Empathy is the most powerful (none / 0)
    
    Framing is more than just words with a goal.
    Effective framing takes advantage of the mind's mental shorthand for integrating new information or concepts using the familiar.
    The closer you can get to empathy with your framing, the better. As such, Cindy and Casey are much more effective than Mother Sheehan and her son, because people can empathize much better with Cindy than they can with an abstract archetypal mother.
    Archetypes have the most power when they are expressed as the stories about real people with whom others can empathize.
    As an example, the Joad familiy in Grapes of Wrath are archetypal characters, but the book would have been boring and lame if it had actively painted them as archetypes rather than letting the archetypes emerge out of the empathetic human characters it portrayed. It garners its power from the "that could be me" effect of empathy.
    Cindy herself is the best, most effective, form of framing there is. Adding a layer of abstraction dissipates that power.
    
    Dump Steny Hoyer
    
    by mataliandy on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 09:13:17 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
- Are you employed (none / 0)
  
  There is nothing in life, not a job interview, not a discussion with your wife, not a conversation with your child, that would not benefit from thoughtful consideration.
  That is what framing is about.
  It is not PR. It is deciding, with careful thought, what the purpose of something is, and what message it is supposed to convey.
  I believe that Gold Star Mother Cindy Sheehan (I modify my title) will have more moral authority if she does work on the message of her campout.
  
  "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
  
  by dataguy on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:10:00 AM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - No. (4.00 / 2)
    
    She needs no framing. She's not a PR event. She's a pissed off mother who's somehow managing to be incredibly sane and reasonable and yet completely unmoveable, completely determined, to stay right where she is until something changes.
    She's perfect.
    We're just here supporting her.
    Republicans are using her. We stand beside her, ready to do anything we can to help and encourage her.
    
    by teresahill on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:54:54 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
  - Seriously... (none / 1)
    
    the 'mother' stuff is creepy. Your framing the debate to make her sound like the head of a cult. Why not 'Exalted Visionary' Sheehan. Mother is good when referring to nuns, not so much when referring to a grieving mom. Father George Bush and Brother Richard Perle think it would be most wise to invade Iraq.
    
    by calabazas on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 03:37:22 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
- On "frames".... (none / 1)
  
  When did it become necessary to put a "FRAME" around TRUTH???
  Cindy Sheehan is not framble! I find the whole concept of framing disgusting. Either a thing is powerful enough to resonate with the people, or it is not.
  Truth is unmistakable in its power, in its purity, it goes to the very heart of the matter.
  The very thing that makes Sheehan so important is that she is absolutely w/o guile. To attempt to put her in a box is obscene. She needs no help from those that would attempt to make a grotesque, artificial high drama out of her stand.
  The "Mother Sheehan" thing is simply repulsive to me and I'm more than certain it would be to Cindy. She a stand up, straight on human being.
  
  by Annalize5 on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:20:48 AM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
And "Mother Sheehan" is (4.00 / 5)

dreadful--makes her sound like an ancient crone in a nursery rhyme.

...the White House will be adorned by a downright moron...H.L. Mencken

by bibble on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 06:59:51 AM PDT
- My identity is more than "mother" (4.00 / 4)
  
  and so is Cindy's. Though she has come to this place because of her son, she is more than a mother - she is a caring citizen, a woman, a patriot, a dissenter. "Mother" anything is limiting and furthermore it is condescending. You may note as well, she was offended when the person who now lives in the WH called her "Mom."
  
  Democrats, Make it Work. You have until November to bring your electorate in.
  
  by xanthe on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:04:48 AM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - Thank you! (none / 0)
    
    I adore my son, but referred to as "Mother" or worse "Mom" by people who aren't my son has irritated me since his preschool days. I've tried to explain this to friends who had kids and they never got it. They thought it was "cute."
    I believe what makes CINDY'S story so compelling is that it is not framed. The diarist should have more faith in her.
    
    by anotherCt Dem on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:47:54 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - Glad I'm not the only one (none / 1)
      
      Everyone here calls me "Mama" and I detest it. I know my name can be hard to pronounce, but these are my friggin' friends. When I saw "Mother Sheehan", my skin crawled. Not only for the rudeness factor, but I had images of The Stand and Mother Abigail in that story.
      
      Outta here, I don't deal well with sites that condone racism.
      
      by fabooj on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:59:45 AM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
- It is a title (none / 0)
  
  A title, like "Dr." or "Mr", defines a person in relation to universal archetypes.
  She is a mother, not a person, and only then will she have the power and moral authority to challenge the ruler. As a person, she is nothing. As a mother, she has the moral authority of all mothers through the ages.
  
  "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
  
  by dataguy on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:05:14 AM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - Is she a nun? (none / 1)
    
    That's what I thought when you said "Mother Sheehan."
    The only other time I can use "Mother" in a title and not have it sound weird is "Mother Earth."
    -Fred
    
    Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz
    
    by FredFred on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:36:36 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
  - Huh???? (none / 1)
    
    "As a person she is nothing." You can't be serious.
    If she is to be called Mother Sheehan, then is her husband Father Sheehan, and Casey's siblings are to be referred to as Brother Sheehan and Sister Sheehan?
    I don't think that anyone alive who is aware of this story doesn't know that she is a mother.
    
    by Finn on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:59:21 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
  - lay off the Jungian Kool-aid (none / 1)
    
    She's a person, not a "universal archetype". And that's a major source of her symbolic power.
    Ironically, even the most powerful human archetype (at least for Jung, as I recall) had a name, and also drew her symbolic power from her ordinariness and sacrifice: Mary.
    "Mother Sheehan" is just awful. Given what she's been through, sounds like a creepy nursery rhyme penned by Brecht.
    
    how can i turn italics off in my signature?
    
    by fightcentristbias on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:07:56 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - It would be phony and calculated (4.00 / 2)
      
      I am a therapist with strong Jungian leanings and a strong interest in archetypal psychology, AND a theater professional, and I have to say ...
      I completely agree with the above poster. This is intellectualised watered-down Jungian kool-aid, not the real thing.
      As another poster noted, you can be an archetype AND an individual at the same time. Individuals and situations that have true archetypal power arise naturally and organically. They aren't thought out and planned. I believe the reason Cindy IS having so much effect is that people ARE responding to the archetypal significance of what she's doing. (It just astounds me that dataguy suggests she isn't having an effect. I've been seeing this all over the media for the past week.)
      To layer on a lot of calculated "archetypal power" theatrics would simply be phony artifice and that phoniness would destroy the genuine archetypal power going on already. When people try to intellectually manufacture archetypal power, more often than not it comes across as insincere, heavy-handed, and alienating. That is exactly how the suggestions above strike me.
      Let Cindy be real. The power of archetypes is in their basic TRUTH, and that is the power Cindy has already -- her simple truth.
      
      by niemann on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:59:40 AM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
    - Actually, she has become a universal archetype; (none / 1)
      
      (and a person, as the previous poster said) it's just not obvious. And this is okay since it could be construed by those who don't understand metaphors that what I'm saying is blasphemous.
      Still, Cindy is the grieving every-mother in the Pieta, holding every-woman's dead son. The twist in her story is she's demanding an explanation from Pontius Pilot.
      And Pontius Pilot still hides in the palace, washing his hands after the fact. Like the original Pontius Pilot, he takes no responsibility for the death of that woman's son or for any of the other dead children whether or not the mothers accept their deaths in the name of freedom.
      These are powerful archetypes and they're seeping into the American consciousness. It wasn't planned and that makes this all the more powerful. This is why the story grows and grows and why the opposition attempts to smear her are puny at best, and way beyond contempt.
      They can't help but speak to at least some of the Religious Right since these are Christian images. And all because our president is unable to face anyone who might say something unpleasant to him.
      
      It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. - Mother Teresa
      
      by paluxy1945 on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 10:24:28 AM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
- Gold Star Mother Cindy Sheehan (4.00 / 3)
  
  is more tolerable to me, but I have to agree that the PR people and political hacks should not take over.
  I met Cindy Sheehan. One of her motivations is to save other mothers from her grief.
  It is not to become 'Mother Sheehan'.
  LL
  
  "No AMERICAN requires authorization to do the right thing."
  
  by LeftyLimblog on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:05:28 AM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - That's why she is having no effect (none / 1)
    
    She is not effective, because she is one person.
    As a universal archetype, she has power.
    As an individual, she has nothing.
    
    "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
    
    by dataguy on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:06:56 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - huh? (none / 1)
      
      She is not effective
      
      Where the hell have you been this past week? Did you just tune in today?
      
      by tomVA on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:10:59 AM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
    - Effective (4.00 / 5)
      
      She is effective.
      Interesting thing yesterday listening to Laura Flanders. She had someone call in from Crawford and give the latest news on the ground. This caller was a mother whose son was waiting to be deployed to Iraq. The caller described the people coming to Crawford as "mostly veterans and a lot of families."
      If Mrs. Sheehan is reaching veterans, military wives and military families, she is reaching the right people.
      
      Welcome to the Great Foreclosure.
      
      by bink on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:11:41 AM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
    - what do you mean-- she's having no effect (4.00 / 3)
      
      she is having a powerful effect.
      In her witnessing to her grief and rage she has become a symbol, a symbol of everything that is wrong with the Bushies and right with America.
      And it is all the more powerful for her unmanaged artless, spontaneity.
      Were she to propitate the spinmeisters with the right "frames" and "soundbites"- she would them be spun herself by the right-wing smear machine.
      The reason Limbaugh and Hannity and O'lielly are beside themselves is that she doesn't follow their script and leaves them no opening to attack.
      More power to her!
      
      Necessity is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-- Wm.Pitt the Younger
      
      by JeffSCinNY on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:18:43 AM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
    - Not effective? (none / 0)
      
      1,410 new articles listed on Google news regarding Cindy from sources around the World. The bulk of them pointing out the questions regarding the war in Iraq and recent one's lead with the president's snubbing of the families there. Having said that I am concerned that not enough press coverage is extending to the other families there who have lost children. Randi Rhodes interviewed a mother yesterday that had a powerful and moving story that brought sharp focus to the human cost of this war. I wish MSM would carry more of those stories as well.
      
      YES, We Can!
      
      by leeroy on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:50:11 AM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
She can be (none / 0)

an individual and an archetype at the same time.

"You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor." -Bob Dylan

by tryptamine on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:11:39 AM PDT
- But she gains strength and (none / 0)
  
  power by emphasizing her character as UNIVERSAL ARCHETYPE.
  In this world, individuals are less powerful than symbols.
  She can be an individual, but she has no moral authority. Who cares about Cindy Sheehan?
  Her authority, her moral force, comes from her clear relations to universal truths.
  
  "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
  
  by dataguy on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:13:45 AM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - no-- (4.00 / 6)
    
    she loses strength when she becomes an ARCHTYPE
    her strength is her ordinariness, she is just a mom, maybe living next door, driving a car or SUV, shopping at the Albertson's ( or Safeway, or Hannaford's). and she is fed up and pissed.
    
    Necessity is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-- Wm.Pitt the Younger
    
    by JeffSCinNY on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:24:24 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
Mother Sheehan (4.00 / 3)

is a religious title, like Mother Teresa.
It's a bad frame.
And I agree with other posters, this is a natural evolving process. If we try to manipulate it, it will backfire.
Here is the frame (as defined by Cindy Sheehan).
We went to war based on WMD (there were none)
We went to war based on ties to Al Qaida (There were none)
1,800 American military have died, and continue to die.
WHY? What is the noble cause?

For years, Republicans have stated that Government is incompetent. Now they are in charge, and proving it.

by B Rubble on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:13:52 AM PDT
- Wow! (none / 1)
  
  What's wrong with a religious frame?
  That's the powerful frame that will give her moral authority.
  I would get a minister from her faith as her spokesperson.
  
  "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
  
  by dataguy on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:15:07 AM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - she is a prophet (none / 0)
    
    but I think you err is supposing the prophets all had long beards and flowing white robes and looked the part.
    The message is the key not the costume.
    
    Necessity is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-- Wm.Pitt the Younger
    
    by JeffSCinNY on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:28:04 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
  - And it would be phony. (4.00 / 2)
    
    If Ms. Sheehan wants to have a minister there, let her decide that. Authenticity and integrity trump "framing" in this situation--and should. I don't buy corporate America's line that ever single thing in life is a commodity, to be advertised, bought, and sold. (Add "expertise" and "experience" to the authenticity and integrity, and works in the job market as well, at least for any job worth having. Yes, I'm very employed, and love my work).
    
    ...the White House will be adorned by a downright moron...H.L. Mencken
    
    by bibble on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:28:25 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
  - wtf? (none / 0)
    
    I would get a minister from her faith as her spokesperson.
    
    Have you been listening? One thing Cindy Sheehan does not need is a spokesperson.
    
    how can i turn italics off in my signature?
    
    by fightcentristbias on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:09:54 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
  - Moral authority needs no imaginary friend. (none / 0)
    
    Thanks, but Cindy Sheehan doesn't need to be associated with huckster televangelists, pedophile priests, Christian fundies, or any other god peddler who mistakes their religion for morality.
    Moral authority doesn't need an imaginary friend -- and Cindy's simple message works best by staying true, genuine, and reality-based.
    
    by KathleenM1 on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 11:18:53 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
  - I'm having a lot of lot of trouble here (none / 1)
    
    first you say she is "a mother, not a person" and then you think someone else needs to grant her moral authority.
    just for your information, mothers are, in fact, persons, as are women.
    and Cindy Sheehan has her own moral authority and excersises it.
    this trying to make her something she is not and trying to saddle her with issues that are not hers will not stand. she is powerful because she is who she is and her message is her own.
    
    by TravnTexas on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:32:46 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
Agree in Part (none / 1)

I agree with some of your points-
Especially one- she is talking too much, and coming off as TOO political; she should talk a little bit less and appear more above the frey- her mere presence and determination, sometimes through spokesman, would be more effective.
I dont like the Mother Sheehan name
Also, Cindy- stop saying the war was for oil; its not really accurate, and sounds was to partisan and shrill-
The war really was for Bush's own vanity and hubris- he wanted to start a war and be the wartime president.

by fas on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:14:54 AM PDT
- too late (none / 0)
  
  Considering she is surrounded by handlers who limit access to her and advise her what to say, the liberal anti war groups have moved in and taken her cause for their own.
  Regardless of any merits of ehr issues or protest, she is now just a cog in the democrat machine.
  
  by guitarplayr on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 09:32:41 PM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
Cindy Sheehan (4.00 / 8)

is a human being.
If you try and manipulate her or her message, you will be making a mistake.
Cindy Sheehan is authentic.
Her message is simple and from her heart.
She is battling the lack of authenticity, the lies, of the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq that led to her son's death with the truth.
This isn't about p.r.

by Patricia Taylor on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:16:32 AM PDT
- Thank You for saying that...n/t (none / 0)
  
  To give real service you must add something which cannot be bought or measured with money, and that is sincerity and integrity. -Douglas Adams
  
  by jigsaw68 on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:54:33 AM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
A Why Fix What's Not Broke? Moment (4.00 / 2)

What's occuring is seizing up the entire Rapublican Noise Machine, from grassroots on up.
Republicans attacking America's Finest Moms is as bad (morally and politically) as their crawling into the deathbed with Terri Schiavo uninvited.
This is hurting Republicans. They are crying "ouch!" on account the truth, for the first time in a long while, is touching their skin, and they have become allergic to it.
And the reaction of Republicans from the grassroots on up is to pick up rocks to throw at one of America's Finest Moms.
Wow. First they attack Baseball, then they attack Mom.
What banner year the GOP is having.

What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)

by cskendrick on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:20:09 AM PDT
- Dean, meet Cindy. Cindy, Dean (none / 0)
  
  "This is hurting Republicans. They are crying "ouch!" on account the truth, for the first time in a long while, is touching their skin, and they have become allergic to it."
  If Cindy is your "finest mom", then Dean is your "finest dad".
  I still remember when the left was telling me that I was just "scared of Dean".
  Similiarly, Cindy is about two days away from self-destructing in her own misplaced anger and conspiracy theories.
  -John
  
  by ChicagoJohn on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 01:22:06 PM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - Hi, John (none / 0)
    
    Do you think the Republican attack on America's Finest Mom's is working...
    ...and if so, is attacking America's Finest Moms a good thing for America?
    79% of Republicans approve of George W. Bush.
    That's twice Bush's approval rating among Independents
    Conclusion
    I don't think the GOP perspective on, well, pretty much anything is a good thing to go on anymore. :)
    
    What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)
    
    by cskendrick on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 01:27:13 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - She's not Americas finest mom. That's the point. (none / 0)
      
      "Do you think the Republican attack on America's Finest Mom's is working..."
      I don't think that the "Republican attack" on Cindy has even started yet. Are there people like me pointing out the times when she's inconsistent and nutty? Yeah. But the reaction/momentum from our side hasn't even started.
      "...and if so, is attacking America's Finest Moms a good thing for America?"
      Only if you actually think she's one of American's finest moms, and not a bit of a nutjob who is living in a ditch outside of someone's home demanding to speak to them (again.)
      I think its best to call things as they are. Cindy is all about defending her rights to free speech, while getting a little edgy about people who are calling her nuts.
      Lemme give you some samples from her essay on the Gold Star Families website:
      "For my effort in trying to awaken America to the dirty tricks and fraud of our government and for trying to call attention to the fact that thousands of people are dying and in harm's way in Iraq for the lies, I am often called a traitor, terrorist supporter, Jane Fonda, unpatriotic, etc. I am called names that contain words that good Christian supporters of George should not even know, let alone use. I am accused of not supporting the troops, and people tell me that Casey would be spinning in his grave on which I am alternately: spitting, pissing, or s*itting on.
      ...Why do people feel free to castigate the mother of a "war hero" for exercising her freedom of speech and why does our leadership feel free to lie to mothers of "war heroes"?
      Get it? Cindy can call GWB a liar who started a war for oil, and she thinks that fine. But when we call her a nut job (and yeah, I've used the Jane Fonda comparison) we can't do that?
      She's a hypocrit.
      She also wrote:
      "When will the rest of America finally come out of its coma? When, God forbid, the jack-booted thugs come pounding on their door some midnight?"
      Which makes her a nut.
      "79% of Republicans approve of George W. Bush.
      That's twice Bush's approval rating among Independents
      Conclusion
      I don't think the GOP perspective on, well, pretty much anything is a good thing to go on anymore. :)"
      I don't get your point.
      Are you saying that because %100 of Republicans don't agree with GWB, that is a bad thing???
      Or are you saying that 80% of us agreeing with him isn't a high number?
      -John
      
      by ChicagoJohn on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 01:39:03 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - Ah! A rant! Awesome! (3.80 / 5)
        
        I don't think that the "Republican attack" on Cindy has even started yet
        I'm not sure how the GOP grassroots, netroots, party rank and file, hate radio jocks, hate television shows, and elected and appointed officials could attack America's Finest Moms any more efficiently...
        ...but Republicans have a way of amazing me with their ability to innovate and implement new and improved ways to attack their fellow Americans.
        Are there people like me pointing out the times when she's inconsistent and nutty?
        Cindy Sheehan's straight up. Bush offended her when they first met, reported as such right away despite GOP lies about a flip-flop, and has been on message all along -- Casey Sheehan and over 1,840 other American soldiers died for a lie.
        There were no WMDs in Iraq, and Bush lied and manipulated evidence to get his war. And Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaida, and Iraq is not becoming free; it's becoming anarchy.
        But the reaction/momentum from our side hasn't even started.
        Does the Republican party really think that bringing the heavy lumber against the mother of a deceased combat veteran is going to give them more -- or less -- party points that jumping into Terri Schiavo's deathbed uninvited?
        Only if you actually think she's one of American's finest moms, and not a bit of a nutjob who is living in a ditch outside of someone's home demanding to speak to them (again.)
        The president works for the American people. If he can hold himself above account to one of America's Finest Moms, he can hold himself beyond reproach to any of us. Even other Republicans.
        Oh, you don't think you have actual influence with this president, do you?
        But that's just it -- you are owed that opportunity to hold those who represent the American people to account, and not merely by your participation in the voting process every four years.
        Cindy Sheehan ante'd up a son on behalf of America, which is as much as any Republican has done, and far more than most.
        Bush gave her the brush-off the first go-around. That's not acceptable, or accountable.
        I think its best to call things as they are. Cindy is all about defending her rights to free speech, while getting a little edgy about people who are calling her nuts.
        Nothing of the sort. Cindy has been civil and fair even in the face of massive Republican provocation, even to the point of setting estranged relatives (who hardly knew Casey, and yet claim ownership of him) against her.
        And getting so worked up about a private individual that you cannot possibly know seems a bit...over the top. Your thoughts on your own emotional well-being, please?
        The quotes you offer up
        
        "For my effort in trying to awaken America to the dirty tricks and fraud of our government and for trying to call attention to the fact that thousands of people are dying and in harm's way in Iraq for the lies, I am often called a traitor, terrorist supporter, Jane Fonda, unpatriotic, etc. I am called names that contain words that good Christian supporters of George should not even know, let alone use. I am accused of not supporting the troops, and people tell me that Casey would be spinning in his grave on which I am alternately: spitting, pissing, or s*itting on.
        ...Why do people feel free to castigate the mother of a "war hero" for exercising her freedom of speech and why does our leadership feel free to lie to mothers of "war heroes"?
        A full and accurate rendition of the comments of hateful Republicans who cannot abide a woman who speaks truth to power, when it's they who hold power. Was there something indicative of mental instability in this truthful, accurate account of Republican mean-spiritedness?
        Cindy can call GWB a liar who started a war for oil, and she thinks that fine.
        I'm not sure if she singles out oil. Cindy's focus is on the fact that Bush lied to get his war, which is a pretty broad consensus these days.
        But when we call her a nut job (and yeah, I've used the Jane Fonda comparison) we can't do that?
        Cindy just reports that this characterization is being made for the purpose of hating and hurting her. That is why you are using it, correct?
        Another quote:
        
        "When will the rest of America finally come out of its coma? When, God forbid, the jack-booted thugs come pounding on their door some midnight?"
        Mrs. Sheehan is saying that it would be unfortunate, if that is what it took for Americans to realize that they have gone much too far down a very dangerous road.
        The good news is that by my estimates, the majority of the country is awake, and ready to clean house...and that's good news for America, and bad news for a GOP that chose to stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Tom DeLay, Karl Rove and, yes, George W. Bush.
        These are not people to be too close too, when the hour of judgment comes.
        Conclusion
        One woman, one small voice, one small request has seized up the entire GOP noise machine.
        This happened back in late March over Terri Schiavo.
        The difference is that this time, the woman in question actually is alive and aware, and clearly does not need Republicans to speak on her behalf....
        ...and in fact has things to say that the GOP cannot bear to hear, or tolerate others hearing: the truth.
        But people develop hunger for that which they lack, and the Bush Years have been famine years for truth.
        Most Americans hear what Cindy Sheehan has to say, and quietly and firmly nod their heads in agreement.
        Your day is done, Republicans. Get your affairs in order, for your political life is over.
        
        What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)
        
        by cskendrick on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 02:11:22 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        She already had a meeting with the president (none / 1)
        
        "...but Republicans have a way of amazing me with their ability to innovate and implement new and improved ways to attack their fellow Americans."
        Oh, gimme a break!
        The Cindy Sheehan media blitz against GWB is a complete example of how the left attacks Republicans!
        Start with "MeetwithCindy.org". Its run by David Swanson, who also runs "afterdowningstreet" and "Lets Try Democracy", two far left wing rant pages that do nothing every day but rail against Republicans.
        THIS VERY BLOG is dedicated to smearing and attacking Republicans, or as you like to call them in your butterfly post, your "fellow Americans".
        "Cindy Sheehan's straight up. Bush offended her when they first met, reported as such right away despite GOP lies about a flip-flop,..."
        Are you sure you want to speak that quickly?
        Tell me: why do you think her and her hubby are separated shortly after she jumped on board this anti-Bush movement, stating that her husband agrees with her?
        "Does the Republican party really think that bringing the heavy lumber against the mother of a deceased combat veteran is going to give them more -- or less -- party points that jumping into Terri Schiavo's deathbed uninvited?"
        Terri Shaivo couldn't speak.
        Cindy can, and its not pretty. Of the two, I'd rather watch videos of Terri. It was much less offensive.
        If you honestly think that Cindy is going to galvanize people to your side by saying "YES, lets get out of Iraq NOW, because Bush is a liar and the downstreetmemos prove it, and we still don't know what happened on 9/11!!" then you are waaaay too close to Cindy's mentality.
        "The president works for the American people. If he can hold himself above account to one of America's Finest Moms, he can hold himself beyond reproach to any of us."
        This is completely funny coming from the party that didn't want Paula Jones to have her day in court.
        From the exact same party that dissed Juanita Broaddrick when she said that Clinton had raped her.
        Holding the president accountable? Yeah... right. Call me when you believe in that.
        "Even other Republicans.
        Oh, you don't think you have actual influence with this president, do you? "
        I have much more influence with the president then you, because I:
        
        voted for him
        
        like him. and
        
        don't spend my days trying to get him out of office
        
        Here's a secret: GWB isn't going to listen to the opinion of those who want to impeach him, and who have been gunning for him to be impeached since the day he was elected.
        If you were president, would you invite in people who want to get you out of office? Would you listen to them?
        "But that's just it -- you are owed that opportunity to hold those who represent the American people to account, and not merely by your participation in the voting process every four years."
        Cindy Sheehan had more opportunity then most.
        She actually met the most powerful person in the world. And guess what? She decided that it wasn't that important then.
        The president can't meet with everyone each and every time they change their minds.
        "Cindy Sheehan ante'd up a son on behalf of America, which is as much as any Republican has done, and far more than most."
        Pardon my language, but it wasn't Cindy's fucking decision to make.
        It was her sons.
        And HE RE-ENLISTED.
        HE chose his path, not her. As far as I can tell, she's been a peace-nik all of her life. -And now she's using her son's death for political capital. I think that's pretty gross.
        "Bush gave her the brush-off the first go-around. That's not acceptable, or accountable."
        First off, let's pretend like the original article was completely wrong. According to other people, she wasn't brushed off.
        http://www.thereporter.com/sheehan/ci_2936045
        "Jim Krause said president expressed sorrow when he and Cindy Sheehan saw him last June."
        Secondly, how about HER fucking accountability???
        She had her time with the president. According to the article in the reporter:
        >>>> ""We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.
        Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.
        "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."<<<<
        She may very well have changed her opinion since then. But she had her face time with the president, AFTER her son had died.
        Your suggestion that Bush brushed her off is without merit, both of facts (he was there) and on second hand opinion (others who were there.)
        "Cindy has been civil and fair even in the face of massive Republican provocation..."
        Okay. Either you haven't read her writing on Gold Star Families, or your concept of being civil and fair are completely different then mine.
        "And getting so worked up about a private individual that you cannot possibly know seems a bit...over the top."
        Again, I've read this blog.
        Its not like I haven't seen the rants against GWB.
        "Your thoughts on your own emotional well-being, please?"
        Feeling fine. I just had some great pasta, and I'm considering some ice cream before I clean the apartment.
        Yourself? Still angry over the 2000 election?
        "A full and accurate rendition of the comments of hateful Republicans who cannot abide a woman who speaks truth to power,"
        Yawn!
        Cindy being a woman has nothing to do with her being a nut. If you (the left) really believed that the powerful should be held to account for one woman, you wouldn't have been so silly about Paula Jones.
        >> Cindy can call GWB a liar who started a war for oil, and she thinks that fine.<<<
        "I'm not sure if she singles out oil."
        She does write it in her writings. She also talks about how we don't "know the full truth" about 9/11 yet.
        She is a nut.
        "Cindy's focus is on the fact that Bush lied to get his war, which is a pretty broad consensus these days."
        By the left. Its always been the consensus of the left. The left was yelling "Bush lied" before he ever got into office.
        "Cindy just reports that this characterization is being made for the purpose of hating and hurting her. That is why you are using it, correct?"
        Not correct.
        I told you already, I like to call 'em as I see 'em. Cindy had a chance to give Bush her piece of mind. She didn't.
        Now she's doing her best Jane Fonda impersonation and trying to make absolutely sure that we don't succeed in Iraq. She wants us to leave. Now.
        She's called the elections in Iraq "a sham".
        That too, makes her a nut.
        >>> When will the rest of America finally come out of its coma? When, God forbid, the jack-booted thugs come pounding on their door some midnight? <<
        "Mrs. Sheehan is saying that it would be unfortunate, if that is what it took for Americans to realize..."
        She said "WHEN". Not "IF", but "WHEN".
        "The good news is that by my estimates, the majority of the country is awake, and ready to clean house..."
        This sounds familiar. When did I last hear this?
        Oh yeah, 2004.
        You guys put up a war veteran, even while trying to say that we had a "wrong war" going on.
        "a GOP that chose to stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Tom DeLay, Karl Rove and, yes, George W. Bush. These are not people to be too close too, when the hour of judgment comes."
        What in the world are you talking about?
        When judgement comes?
        And they call US the religious nuts?
        "One woman, one small voice, one small request has seized up the entire GOP noise machine."
        Correction:
        she's become the new poster girl for the left, and has taken the last remnants of the Valerie Plame, oh, I mean Valerie Wilson, affair, out of the MSM.
        "This happened back in late March over Terri Schiavo.
        The difference is that this time, the woman in question actually is alive and aware, and clearly does not need Republicans to speak on her behalf..."
        Ironically, you see this as an advantage.
        In Cindy's case, I think she'd be much more sympathetic if she couldn't speak. She comes off as angry and vile.
        And the thought isn't lost on me that the left wanted Terri to die.
        "...and in fact has things to say that the GOP cannot bear to hear, or tolerate others hearing: the truth."
        Yeah.
        That's why YOU keep addressing the fact that she ALREADY SAW the president, and that OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE say that the president was respectiful and sorrowful.
        Right?
        Do you REALLY, in your heart of hearts, think that Cindy's current version of events is TRUTHFUL?
        That Bush treated the event like a party??
        C'mon, you're not being straight here.
        "But people develop hunger for that which they lack, and the Bush Years have been famine years for truth."
        Whereas the Clinton years...???
        "Most Americans hear what Cindy Sheehan has to say, and quietly and firmly nod their heads in agreement."
        The Doctor is IN!
        Remember that line?
        Remember how you firmly believed that everyone was with you?
        Remember that?
        "Your day is done, Republicans. Get your affairs in order, for your political life is over."
        Ahem:
        "We're going to Washington, we're going to Virginia, we're going...
        Yeaaaagh!!!"
        -John
        
        by ChicagoJohn on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 06:53:59 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Choice quotes, all. (none / 1)
        
        I'll just home in the new material, if that's okay.
        Terri Schiavo versus Cindy Sheehan
        
        Terri Shaivo couldn't speak. Cindy can, and its not pretty. Of the two, I'd rather watch videos of Terri. It was much less offensive.
        Stunned to silence
        Ignoring Dissenting Views is Bush's Right, and It's Right
        
        Here's a secret: GWB isn't going to listen to the opinion of those who want to impeach him, and who have been gunning for him to be impeached since the day he was elected.
        If you were president, would you invite in people who want to get you out of office? Would you listen to them?
        Kings used to behave like that. That's why we ditched the last one that reigned over America. His name was George, too.
        Cindy Had Her Audience; No Repeat Customers
        
        Cindy Sheehan had more opportunity then most.
        She actually met the most powerful person in the world. And guess what? She decided that it wasn't that important then.
        The president can't meet with everyone each and every time they change their minds.
        Not that it happened that way -- It most certainly did not!
        But when did it become scandalous for Americans to change their minds about elected officials? People voted overwhelmingly for Nixon. Two years later, they kicked his sorry Republican butt to the curb. By FoxNews talking points, Nixon's ouster was an outrage. How dare the American people betray their sovereign!
        On Casey Sheehan's choice to serve
        
        Pardon my language, but it wasn't Cindy's fucking decision to make.
        It was her sons.
        And HE RE-ENLISTED.
        HE chose his path, not her. As far as I can tell, she's been a peace-nik all of her life. -And now she's using her son's death for political capital. I think that's pretty gross.
        "As far as you can tell" and a ham sandwich will get you ham sandwich.
        Cindy Sheehan grieves for her son, but she is furious with his dying not in the War on Terror against the enemies of America, but in the Republicans dangerous distraction from keeping America safe -- the Bush War in Iraq.
        And a lot of Americans concur. Far more at last count than disagree.
        
        What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)
        
        by cskendrick on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:21:59 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        What pol meets with those who want them impeached? (none / 0)
        
        Cool... I understand that you can't respond to the whole thing, and neither can I.
        "Stunned to silence"
        That's your first lie. If you really were stunned into silence, you wouldn't have the rest of your post. But you did.
        "Kings used to behave like that."
        Every politician ignores those who want to impeach them.
        It would be completely stupid to try to address the "concerns" of those who drive an "impeach Bush" bus around. And thats Cindy Sheehan!
        "Not that it happened that way -- It most certainly did not!"
        According to this article:
        http://www.thereporter.com/sheehan/ci_2936045
        "Jim Krause said president expressed sorrow when he and Cindy Sheehan saw him last June."
        Now combine that with the first article, which said:
        "We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.
        Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.
        "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." /
        If you want to deny Cindy's words, fine. Just keep in mind that another family member from another family was there too.
        "But when did it become scandalous for Americans to change their minds about elected officials? "
        They can change their minds anytime they want to.
        They just can't ask for an audience with the president /every time they do.
        "How dare the American people betray their sovereign!"
        Again, lame words coming from the left who kept saying that Paula Jones shouldn't have her day in court.
        ""As far as you can tell" and a ham sandwich will get you ham sandwich."
        Pardon, but you suggested, yourself, that she had been a peacenik before meeting with the president. So why is it wrong when I say it?
        Talk about being reflexively defensive.
        "Cindy Sheehan grieves for her son, but she is furious with his dying not in the War on Terror against the enemies of America, but in the Republicans dangerous distraction from keeping America safe -- the Bush War in Iraq."
        This is the thing that drives me nuts about the left: its not just George W. Bush who wants to be in Iraq.
        I do too.
        So do the majority of Republicans, some independents, and two or three liberals.
        Believe it or not, we've heard all of your rants about "war for oil", and we've read the Downing Street memos.
        The "War for Oil" doesn't hold up, because if we wanted Iraq's oil, we could have just lifted the embargo that we put on Iraqi oil.
        The Downing Street memos prove that we were really worried about WMD. (They actually speculate on how public reaction will be if our soldiers get attacked by WMD on the first day of the war.)
        Its not just GWB.
        The vast majority of Iraqis are cool with us being there. Now how did that happen???
        -John
        
        by ChicagoJohn on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:45:15 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        The vast majority of Iraqis love us being there (none / 0)
        
        Is that why it's safer for Westerners to walk the streets of Teheran than the streets of Baghdad?
        You mean that vast majority?
        On a lighter topic
        The only reason the Kossacks have suffered your presence this long is that I have made an explicit request for your presence to be tolerated.
        Calling people liars is ad hominem, and that is grounds for banning, no matter what your ideological persuasion is.
        To all third party observers
        ChicagoJohn's all yours. Rate him as you please.
        
        What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)
        
        by cskendrick on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 09:26:24 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        A guy is camped in front of your house. Stalker?? (none / 0)
        
        >> Is that why it's safer for Westerners to walk the streets of Teheran than the streets of Baghdad? <<
        By remote control devices?
        Ask yourself this: why have the (cough) "insurgents" started targeting Iraqi civilians instead of US personel?
        Are ya there yet?
        If Iraqis hate us so much, then why are the insurgents targeting them?
        "The only reason the Kossacks have suffered your presence this long is that I have made an explicit request for your presence to be tolerated."
        Oh, brother.
        That's cool. If you don't want me around here, fine. We both know that this has very little to do with:
        "Calling people liars is ad hominem, and that is grounds for banning,..."
        Great.
        When you said "I'm stunned into silence", clearly, you were.
        I was wrong.
        How's that? Can I join Cindy in your eyes, now? Do you believe me, too?
        "To all third party observers
        ChicagoJohn's all yours. Rate him as you please."
        Uh oh. The people on the Daily Kos are going to rate me poorly???
        Yeah, and that won't be based on ideology at all.
        You still haven't addressed this one. Care to?
        http://www.thereporter.com/sheehan/ci_2936045
        "Jim Krause said president expressed sorrow when he and Cindy Sheehan saw him last June."
        Compare that to what Cindy says now.
        Then tell me what it will take for you to believe that she might be nuts.
        -John
        
        by ChicagoJohn on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 11:47:31 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Being angry (none / 0)
        
        Cindy lost a son due to a lie.
        What are you so angry about?
        
        What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)
        
        by cskendrick on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 04:49:12 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        "A lie" (none / 0)
        
        "Cindy lost a son due to a lie.
        What are you so angry about?"
        
        Her taking advantage of her dead son to push a political cause that- as you've agreed with me- she was pushing before he died.
        
        People like her calling a war a lie when she knows differently. Or maybe she's just extremely stupid. I really can't stand the willingly stupid. Those who were born with mental deficiencies, or who try to learn, I'm okay with. But those who clearly will not get any brighter because of their inability to see anything that doesn't correspond with their tie-dye-shirt mentality... those people genuninely upset me with their lack of ability to learn.
        
        The people in this forum taking advantage of Cindy to push their political cause. It doesn't take a genuis to figure out that she's a whack job. Whether that is caused by her hatred of GWB, the loss of her son, or whether she was just born that way... who knows. But its clear that she's not operating on all cylinders.
        
        I said it before and I'll say it again: if the rad left had their say during WWII, even more Jews would have been sent to death camps. After all, how was Germany threatening us? It was their own people that they killed. They were (my "favorite" phrase) a sovereign nation.
        There are people in Iraq who are fighting and dying to make sure that the people of Iraq have a simple constitution. The people doing the fighting are overwhelmingly pro-GWB. If you truly supported those people, then you'd listen to what they have to say.
        Not one of their moms, but what they say.
        -John
        
        by ChicagoJohn on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 02:54:16 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Supporting the troops equalling supporting GW (none / 0)
        
        I very much doubt it. The troops overwhelming support America, and America them, but they are not vassals of George W. Bush, and most certainly do not owe that man any oath of allegiance; their oath is to the Constitution.
        I find it shocking that you maintain such a thing; it's the sort of thing that a Saddam would insist upon...and we all know how well that attitude went with the Iraqi people that Republicans pretend to be so concerned about.
        I say -- if you want the Iraqi people to be free, then enough words; leave.
        Let's say the Bushies really wanted to free Iraq.
        The best way to liberate countries is to liberate them. You kick the tyrant to the curb, then you give the locals the keys to their own country. It is cowardly, cruel and just plain wrong to pretend that one's own form of occupation is freedom, because the chains are lighter and the manacles less tight.
        In the former Soviet sphere, the only countries that are still free (some of them now NATO and EU countries!) are those that went full-bore to freedom. The only ones that aren't, or are sliding back to tyranny, are those where half-measures were attempted, half-heartedly.
        In 9 out of 9 starts, a former Soviet-sphere country that began with full democracy still had it 10 years later.
        In 4 out of 18 starts (22.2% of the time), a former Soviet-sphere country that began with partial freedom had full freedom 10 years later.
        In 6 out of 18 starts (33.3% of the time), a former Soviet-sphere country that began with partial freedom had returned to tyranny 10 years later.
        The other 8 (44.4% frequency) had mulled about in semi-freedom.
        In 2 of 2 instances, countries beginning in nonfree conditions (Georgia and Bosnia) had attained partial freedom.
        The experience of the rest of the world bears this out. The statistics are impeccable, being based on almost 5,000 country-year cases: the only way to be free, or to be made free, is to be thrown into the deep end of the pool.
        Here are the percentages:
        1 year forward: If you're free right away, your chances of being free a year later are 96.9%. If you're partly free? Your chances of being free are 4.7%. And if you swap one form of nondemocracy for another? 0.2%.
        5 years forward: Start out fully free, you're still free 90.2% of the time. Start out partly free, your chances of full freedom are 15.8%. And if you just changed the brand name of your chains: 3.3%.
        10 years forward: Free (86.1%), Partly Free (22.1%), New version of NonFree (8.4%)
        15 years forward: Free (82.7%), Partly Free (26.2%), New version of NonFree (15.7%)
        20 years forward: Free (80.6), Partly Free (30.1%), New version of NonFree (20.4%).
        Applying this to the Iraq experience
        At the most optiistic, Iraq has enjoyed two years of Partly Free status; based on the persistency table, Iraq's presumably fully free, untampered January elections have an 8.3% chance of sticking this year, based on the 4962 2-year cases available to me. But there's good news: 10 years down the road, there's a 22% chance of success. That's what managed transition to freedom is good for, based on the 3358 available 10-year cases.
        But say you consider the Coalition Provisional Authority to have been a military dictatorship from afar -- in other words, that Iraq for most of the year 2003 was Not Free.
        If so, the chances of freedom ringing in Iraq in the year 2005 are, oh, 0.9%. Not too good. But, hey, no problemo -- the odds are 20% that freedom will prevail in post-occupied Iraq...in about the year 2022.
        But say we just throw our hands up, right now, and step back to Kuwait, ready to return at the drop of a hat to help freedom. Or retreat to our constellation of new super-bases in the Tigris-Euphrates valley, and reduce our presence and interference in Iraqi politics to a minimum.
        There's no reason we can't reset on the fast track, and see freedom in Iraq right away.
        Anything else is not just bad; it's crazy, that is , if the stated objective of liberating the Iraqi people is sincere.
        
        What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)
        
        by cskendrick on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 05:30:42 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        "Vassals of George W. Bush" What? (none / 0)
        
        "I very much doubt it. The troops overwhelming support America, and America them, but they are not vassals of George W. Bush, and most certainly do not owe that man any oath of allegiance; their oath is to the Constitution."
        What in the world are you talking about???
        Are you guys putting my words through a translator that makes my words say things I didn't say???
        I said that the people fighting in Iraq are overwhelmingly Bush supporters. They vote Bush. They like Bush.
        I know that's hard for the left to accept, but it makes a lot of sense when you think about it.
        Wait: let me put it in terms that you can easily understand:
        These are guys (and girls)who shoot guns, drive big gas-guzzling vehicles, and fly planes that gulp oil. And they LOVE doing it. They are usually pro-death penalty, because they kill people for a living.
        Now do you get it? They are over-whelmingly pro-Bush. They don't like people like yourselves who hold peace-rallies and who want to take guns away from them.
        This isn't about them taking some kind of strange loyalty oath.
        This is about soldiers, US soldiers, who eat red meat and are known to occasionally pollute the environment, though normally not on purpose.
        Get it?
        Its not very likely that they are reading about Cindy Sheehan and saying- "You go girl!"
        Sheesh!
        -John
        
        by ChicagoJohn on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 12:41:32 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Here's what I think (none / 0)
        
        I've just attempted to deal with our conflicts in a constructive fashion.
        You are talking more to a GOP-drawn cartoon, than to me.
        This is not very productive.
        Regarding lifestyle
        I grew up in South Carolina, learned how to drive with my mechanic father's pickup truck, grew up on dragstrips and racecourse, my grandfather's grading company helped build Charlotte (now Lowe's) motor speedway, and have actually fired a semiautomatic rifle and struck the target...albeit at modest range (it was an Uzi).
        Forgot to mention I'm a member of PETA -- People for the Eating of Tasty Animals. :)
        I'm not especially impressed with the Red state Real Man caricature...since that's me.
        I just have the courage to do my own thinking, which lots of the real tough guys your words fawn over do, as well.
        I know many soldiers and veterans who are Republicans, and yet have serious qualms about this president.
        If you really feel the military is overwhelmingly pro-Bush...do what you please. The troops will surely back you.
        
        What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)
        
        by cskendrick on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 06:49:52 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Yay! You read my post! (none / 0)
        
        "I'm not especially impressed with the Red state Real Man caricature...since that's me."
        Awesome.
        If that really is you, then why do you argue with the suggestion that the soldiers in Iraq are anti-Bush?
        "I just have the courage to do my own thinking, which lots of the real tough guys your words fawn over do, as well."
        What? Did you actually say "do my own thinking"???
        You suggest, strongly, that anyone who thinks differently from you doesn't do their own thinking.
        "I know many soldiers and veterans who are Republicans, and yet have serious qualms about this president."
        I live in Chicago.
        Every racist I've met/know is a Democrat.
        That doesn't mean that all racists are Democrat, nor does it mean that Democrats tend to be racists.
        "If you really feel the military is overwhelmingly pro-Bush...do what you please. The troops will surely back you."
        They already do.
        Moreover, they support GWB.
        This is something I'll never understand: how the left thinks that they have the support of the troops, even though its clear that they don't like the military.
        -John
        
        by ChicagoJohn on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 10:43:30 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        The approval of military and their families (none / 0)
        
        Oh, I think the stop-loss and backdoor draft policies of the Bush administration have done significant damage to whatever Republican bias the military ever had.
        
        What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)
        
        by cskendrick on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 10:48:10 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        The troops hate Bush? Then is Cindy lying now? (none / 0)
        
        "The approval of military and their families
        Oh, I think the stop-loss and backdoor draft policies of the Bush administration have done significant damage to whatever Republican bias the military ever had."
        Which do you think is wrong... you or Cindy?
        "CS: I have lost almost every friend that I had before Casey died. My husband and I are separated, because he doesn't support my activities, although he knows the war is a lie.
        DS: Is it because your community is mostly Republican or they support the war or what exactly in your opinion? Have any of them explained why they feel this way about your role and if so, what do they say?
        CS: We live near an Air Force base and our economy depends on war. It is a very conservative, republican community. White upper-middle class.
        They believe that Bush is keeping our country safe and that I am a traitor for speaking out against a President during time of war."
        From:
        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/1/2161/52638
        Oh, that was just plain fun.
        -John
        
        by ChicagoJohn on Tue Aug 16, 2005 at 11:54:12 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Right in front of the house (none / 0)
        
        I was under the impression that the protesters were camped out some number of miles away, in a place dictated to them by local law enforcement.
        Hardly stalking.
        Oh -- and the President of the United States is answerable to the people, not his partisans.
        If he doesn't want to acknowledge that responsibility to an ascendant majority of Americans, well, there are many ways to remedy that situation...
        ...of which peaceful protest is far and away the least damaging to our civlization.
        I'd not look a gift horse in the mouth, sir.
        Conservatives often despise liberals who eschew the Second Amendment.
        But how secure would you feel, if the left decided that guns were a really good idea after all?
        There are countries where the left was heavily armed. So was the right.
        They're prone to very nasty, deadly, drawn-out civil wars.
        Maybe you shouldn't get so upset about Cindy Sheehan, after all.
        
        What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)
        
        by cskendrick on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 05:02:58 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Its not stalking. Then what is it? (none / 0)
        
        "I was under the impression that the protesters were camped out some number of miles away, in a place dictated to them by local law enforcement.
        Hardly stalking."
        Awesome.
        If that's how you feel, you've just removed all right of you to get upset- when a group protests at the designated distance set by police- near an abortion clinic.
        Oh, and if someone ever does stalk you? You've just removed your right to claim that they are really stalking you, as long as they are at the end of your driveway being watched by police.
        I'm just picturing some loser yelling "TALK TO ME" at the end of your driveway, and you deciding that its okay because he's being watched by the police.
        -John
        
        by ChicagoJohn on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 02:58:21 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        If we have arrived at the point (none / 0)
        
        Where the choice is partisan hostility in conversation, or in silence. And both are very bad choices.
        In earlier posts, you have maintained that there is no reason for Bush to talk with persons who strongly disagree with him.
        You have maintained that demonstrators should be treated as stalkers and trespassers and crazy people, and use this sort of language over and over again. And asserted that they are very scary and frightening and that people have a right to protect themselves, it being open-ended how much force they use to do just that.
        Now, if Bush feels threatened under Texas ir U.S. law, let him apply the law as he sees fit in defense of his own person or property, and let the the law of the land sort it out.
        Or, if Bush feels that the law is not protecting his life or property, or that of others, let him take his chances with the existence of the United States as one nation, under God, and deal with the protesters in that fashion.
        I think, ChicagoJohn, that your words speak of feeling threatened, of being outraged at an unwanted intrusion, and increasingly desperate to make the threat and the intrusion go away, and are gathering resources and resolve to do something about it -- or applaud anyone and everyone who does so on your behalf.
        And you are hardly alone.
        This is what a country feels like when it starts down the path of civil war, when every contradiction is a gunshot, every crisis an artillery barrage, every sighting of a rival partisan an engagement with the enemy.
        I will openly say it; I'm not sure if I even like the idea of Republicans being my countrymen, not under the current iteration. I get the impression from hate radio, hate TV and conservative online commentary that they don't have much use for me, either.
        Taking a step back, Cindy Sheehan's just one woman at the end of the driveway, speaking from an increasingly-limited public space, seeking redress of a grievance which is her Constitutional right, so long as she stays on her side of the property line.
        But if we have reached a point where the left really feels it has no voice, and the right feels that it should give what the left says no heed, we are in a very, very dangerous place on the road of history.
        Is this where we, meaning all Americans, want to be? Toeing the property line, getting shotgun shells loaded, staring and not talking to one another?
        
        What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)
        
        by cskendrick on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 04:48:04 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Can't anyone read my posts? (none / 0)
        
        "In earlier posts, you have maintained that there is no reason for Bush to talk with persons who strongly disagree with him."
        No.
        I have maintained that Bush (or any other politician) shouldn't meet with people who want them impeached, repeatedly call them bastards and liars, and in general really don't want to take part in a true dialogue.
        "You have maintained that demonstrators should be treated as stalkers and trespassers and crazy people,.."
        No. I've asserted that CINDY is crazy. The people who follow Cindy I'd have to assess on a person-to-person basis.
        "...and use this sort of language over and over again."
        If it walks like a quack and speaks like a quack, its not a duck. I'm not into being shy about my opinion either.
        What's interesting is that you see Cindy's ability to repeat key phrases as her strength, and my ability to repeat key phrases as some kind of a wrong-headed attack.
        "And asserted that they are very scary and frightening and that people have a right to protect themselves, it being open-ended how much force they use to do just that."
        IF a person feels threatened, then yeah.
        I never said that Bush should feel threatened. I only said that Cindy is behaving like a stalker. That doesn't make her a physical threat to the Prez.
        "I think, ChicagoJohn, that your words speak of feeling threatened,..."
        cskendrick: its so interesting to read your interpretations of my words, rather then my actual words.
        Feeling threatened? When did I say that?
        "This is what a country feels like when it starts down the path of civil war, when every contradiction is a gunshot,..."
        This is what happens when people don't read another person's posts, and put their own baggage on them.
        I never threatened Cindy's life, nor did I suggest anyone else should.
        I just said that she was behaving like a stalker and that Bush had no reason to meet with every stalker who sits on his driveway.
        Especially when he's already met with them.
        "I will openly say it; I'm not sure if I even like the idea of Republicans being my countrymen, not under the current iteration."
        Gee, I never would have guessed.
        Not from your posts in this forum. You seem to be even-handed in your responses.
        "I get the impression from hate radio, hate TV..."
        Considering that you got some form of threat out of what I wrote, of some form of implied force, I don't doubt for a second that you see "threats" of "force" everywhere in "hate radio".
        "Taking a step back, Cindy Sheehan's just one woman at the end of the driveway,..."
        Joined by 100 of her supporters, who also feel a need to protest Israel...
        "...seeking redress of a grievance which is her Constitutional right, so long as she stays on her side of the property line."
        Again, I ask: did you feel the same way about the abortion protestors?
        "But if we have reached a point where the left really feels it has no voice, and the right feels that it should give what the left says no heed, we are in a very, very dangerous place on the road of history."
        How is that?
        Is the left going to pick up a gun? But wait, you can't, because you voted to ban them. And having a war over a peace protest would be silly, wouldn't it?
        I understand that the left feels it has no voice. But considering that the MSM keeps repeating this story, and occasionally forgets to mention that she ALREADY met with Bush, its not like you don't have a voice.
        Its that we really aren't even pretending to listen to you anymore.
        You've (the left, not you in particular) have annoyed us into ignoring you.
        "Is this where we, meaning all Americans, want to be? Toeing the property line, getting shotgun shells loaded, staring and not talking to one another?"
        When was the last time you seriously listened to a member of the right?
        Your post, this one here, proves that you didn't read through any of my posts.
        Either that, or I imply force merely through the power of my words.
        -John
        
        by ChicagoJohn on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 01:03:00 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        The not listening (none / 0)
        
        I would appear to be the only other person in the room willing to address you as a person.
        You, however, appear to be talking more to a GOP cartoon of what a Democrat is, as to me.
        Just one example -- I am quite sure that I never voted to ban guns, or have any patience with those who do. Your saying that I have is absurd.
        However, I do think that registrations and background checks are a very good idea. We do it with cars, and they are statistically much more dangerous and useful in a far wider variety of crimes than guns ever will be.
        And on that topic -- I actively lobby my fellow Democrats to not only accept but vigorously assert their Second Amendment rights, on the theory that a country cannot remain half-disarmed and half-armed to the teeth, and not ultimately have those who
        think they have all the guns ultimately deciding elections with them.
        It's happened in other countries, and when it comes down to it I just don't trust the principled self-restraint of Republicans enough for them not to subvert the Constitution.
        You guys need a leash. That's where the 2nd Amendment comes in.
        
        What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)
        
        by cskendrick on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 06:57:42 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        What, exactly, do you think is going on in Iraq? (none / 0)
        
        "You, however, appear to be talking more to a GOP cartoon of what a Democrat is, as to me."
        I'll try to be more specific next time and say "the left" instead of "you."
        If you do own a gun, then you know it is the left who has consistently tried to narrow the 2nd amendment.
        "However, I do think that registrations and background checks are a very good idea. We do it with cars, and they are statistically much more dangerous and useful in a far wider variety of crimes than guns ever will be."
        Its nice to see that someone has done their homework on this issue. I do appreciate that.
        "...on the theory that a country cannot remain half-disarmed and half-armed to the teeth, and not ultimately have those who think they have all the guns ultimately deciding elections with them."
        You have my word on this: if my fellow Republicans ever felt that we should take the right to vote away from the left, no matter how strange I think the left is, I will defend your right to vote. With my life, if needed.
        "It's happened in other countries..."
        This is the part that puzzles me.
        You apparently realize that other coutries (uhm... Iraq) don't share our democratic ideal.
        You apparently are aware that in those countries, people have been subjugated by a gun. (As Saddam did with his people in Iraq.)
        Yet, in Iraq, you are worried about... us?
        You think we need to get out of Iraq right now, thus leaving it to the people with the most guns?
        Or do I have your opinion wrong?
        "You guys need a leash."
        Which is your worst misunderstanding.
        We don't want to use our guns to assault the constitution. We want to use them to defend the idea of freedom.
        Even in Iraq.
        -John
        
        by ChicagoJohn on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 10:59:27 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        As long as you're not banned yet... (none / 0)
        
        ...let's keep this going some more. :)
        Observations
        Cindy Sheehan as posted a series of diaries here. Have you perused any of them?
        Had the courage to tell one of America's Finest Moms to her face your harsh opinion of her?
        Go for it, dude, while you can.
        Tell you what -- I'll let everybody know where to find your posts, so nobody (not even Cindy) misses a word.
        In my observation, Republicans are vulnerable most of all to the bright light of publicity.
        I am willing to bet that you lack the courage to tell Cindy to her face, even cybernetically, what you think of her.
        It's more difficult to kill a person's character, when you have to look them in the eye.
        I think you just might be too good a person to do commit such acts openly, fortrightly, for God and all the world to see.
        
        What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)
        
        by cskendrick on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 09:32:12 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Like confronting Cindy with her own statements? (none / 0)
        
        "Cindy Sheehan as posted a series of diaries here. Have you perused any of them?"
        I dropped by her website (meetwithcindy.org) and several other websites (gsfp.org) and thats how I got my opinion of Cindy.
        I did my research first.
        I love the photo of her in front of the impeachment bus.
        I also love the photo of her and Bush that she removed from her website:
        http://images.google.com/images?q=%22cindy%22+%22president%22+%22janey%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=e n
        Why do you think she removed the photo of the president kissing her on the cheek?
        "Had the courage to tell one of America's Finest Moms to her face your harsh opinion of her?"
        Are you kidding?
        I'd love to meet her. I'd love to ask her all of the harsh questions in general, and see her eyes go blank.
        You can tell by her blow-dried statements that she's been spoon-fed propaganda lines by people like David Swanson. All she would need is one or two well placed questions, and she would be down for the count.
        "Tell you what -- I'll let everybody know where to find your posts, so nobody (not even Cindy) misses a word."
        And this hurts me how?
        By letting people know her previous statements?
        "You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy.'
        Cuz, we're not freer. You're taking away our freedoms. The Iraqi people aren't freer, they're much worse off than before you meddled in their country. "
        And...
        "If he gave the real answer...that it was to make his buddies rich, that it was about oil...""
        There's also the one (I can't find it now) where she says that we still don't know what happened on 9/11.
        "In my observation, Republicans are vulnerable most of all to the bright light of publicity."
        Uhhh... so is Cindy.
        The more public she becomes, the more people are going to ask "why didn't you say something to him before, instead of saying:
        ""I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.""
        "I am willing to bet that you lack the courage to tell Cindy to her face, even cybernetically, what you think of her."
        I think it would easier for me to get in touch with the president then it would be to get in touch with Cindy. But if you want to send her a copy of this, feel free.
        Personally, I hope she tours in my area. I'd love to visit one of her impeachment tours and see if she's as thin-skinned in person as she is in blog-ville.
        "It's more difficult to kill a person's character, when you have to look them in the eye."
        Not when they are asking for it.
        There are some people in this world who seriously need to be confronted by a contrary opinion. She's one of them.
        "I think you just might be too good a person to do commit such acts openly, fortrightly, for God and all the world to see."
        Mam/sir; it is exactly because I am a good person that I would confront her personally.
        I hate her personal brand of dishonesty. I despise those who would use the death of a loved one to forward their own political pet causes. I detest those who say "all I want is someone else to do my bidding"
        Confronting such a person is the only true test of character.
        -John
        
        by ChicagoJohn on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:14:07 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        She's right here (none / 0)
        
        Go on and talk to her.
        Don't tell me about how good and honest and brave you are.
        By your deeds we shall know you.
        
        What kind of traitor puts the Constitution first and the candidate second? :)
        
        by cskendrick on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 04:46:44 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        She's right here? Where? (none / 0)
        
        "She's right here.
        Go on and talk to her."
        If she's here, then didn't I just tell her???
        "Don't tell me about how good and honest and brave you are."
        I never said that it was a brave thing.
        I said it was a mark of character.
        Speaking your mind isn't necessarily a measure of bravery. Many a foolish person have been shot or fired doing such.
        But calling people out for being idiotic is, in my opinion, a mark of good character.
        By the way, I went to the diary you pointed me to... and it wasn't Cindy's.
        Now how did you get that wrong?
        I'd love to confront Cindy, and I'd prefer to do it in person. Not hiding behind an anonymous keyboard, but the next time she's in my area at a Q&A. I think it would be fun to challenge her notions of Israel, 9/11, and Iraq.
        Its hard to figure out what question to ask her first, but I have a few ideas.
        -John
        
        by ChicagoJohn on Mon Aug 15, 2005 at 01:14:14 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        She's just posted a diary. (none / 0)
        
        Go respond to it.
        
        Conservatism is Dead!
        
        by Eternal Hope on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 05:43:52 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        I guess we are getting (none / 0)
        
        all the archtypes tonight
        Sleeping beauty as Terri Shaivo? You'd rather watch videos of her than a vibrant, self-confidant woman who has a point to make?
        or, to be blunt about it, you'd rather watch videos of a dead woman than interact with a living one.
        
        by TravnTexas on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:38:09 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Vibrant and self-confident??? (none / 0)
        
        "Sleeping beauty as Terri Shaivo? You'd rather watch videos of her than a vibrant, self-confidant woman who has a point to make?"
        I'd much rather watch an poor invalid woman drool because she's incapable of moving...
        ...then watch an angry, nutty, deranged (and conscious?) hippy drool on about how we still don't know the truth about 9/11.
        You can defend Cindy as vibrant and self-confident, but the deranged often are.
        Terri had a great excuse for being in her condition.
        As far as I can tell, legally speaking, Cindy still has her cortex attached.
        Beyond that, how she got from:
        "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
        ...to her current characterization of the meeting,
        isn't clear.
        -John
        
        by ChicagoJohn on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 08:54:47 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        i don't need to defend Cindy (none / 0)
        
        and I'm not
        there is nothing to defend.
        My point had more to do with your view of women and I thank you for exanding it so handily
        oh, but you did forget a few labels, so let me supply them for you
        shrill
        radical feminist
        bitter
        man-hater
        bitch
        and that all time favorite! ba da boom
        bra-burner
        have a nice day
        
        by TravnTexas on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 09:02:27 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Now *that's* interesting... (none / 0)
        
        You said:
        "My point had more to do with your view of women and I thank you for exanding it so handily"
        You think that's my point of view of "women"???
        TravnTexas; I gave you my opinion of one person. Not a woman, but a person.
        If you interpret that as my opinion of "women" in general, that says a heck of a lot more about your personal baggage then about mine.
        Until I say something bad about women, I'd love it if you'd keep your Freud to yourself.
        -John
        
        by ChicagoJohn on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 12:22:24 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Well (none / 0)
        
        not to nit pick, but your opinion on two women, er, persons. Or one woman and one not-woman, er, person. Just not sure about your categories.....
        Terri Shaivo, who you would rather watch on a video, and Cindy Sheehan, who you would not.
        "Until I say something bad about women, I'd love it if you'd keep your Freud to yourself."
        The irony of this statement just made my morning. Like you and everyone else on this board, I will post my opinion as I see fit.
        
        by TravnTexas on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 08:59:54 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Uhhh... where is my hidden anti-woman message??? (none / 0)
        
        "not to nit pick, but your opinion on two women, er, persons."
        You are nitpicking, and I only gave my opinion of Cindy. It would be hard for me to form an opinion of Terri, since the first I heard of her, she was not with us in mind.
        Furthermore, I'm not the one who bought Terri into this conversation. Someone else did.
        I've suggested it before, and I'll state it again: you are bringing baggage into this conversation. Re-read my statements, and you won't find some kind of anti-woman statement.
        -And I think I've made it clear by now that I don't shy away from giving my opinion.
        "Terri Shaivo, who you would rather watch on a video, and Cindy Sheehan, who you would not."
        You don't quite have it right.
        If I had to watch one of the two, I would choose Terri. Like I said before, Cindy is taking advantage of her dead son, while Terri isn't doing harm to anyone.
        That doesn't mean that I'd love to watch video of Terri, or any other invalid.
        >>> Until I say something bad about women, I'd love it if you'd keep your Freud to yourself. <<
        "The irony of this statement just made my morning. Like you and everyone else on this board, I will post my opinion as I see fit."
        Feel free. I just told you what I'd love, not what you have to do.
        I also strongly suggested, and will repeat, that if you saw some kind of anti-woman stance in my statements, its your baggage. Not mine.
        -John
        
        by ChicagoJohn on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 03:14:25 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
      - The problem is she's telling the truth. (none / 0)
        
        George Bush is a liar who started the war to control oil resources. The Downing Street Minutes prove that he fixed facts around the case. And the Niger-Iraq connection was shown to be a forgery. So, Bush WAS lying.
        On the other hand, you and other Bush apologists are throwing names at Sheehan without any regard for whether they are true or not. Big difference.
        
        Conservatism is Dead!
        
        by Eternal Hope on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 05:41:41 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
  - Then: (none / 0)
    
    Give me links and evidence debunking something she said.
    
    Conservatism is Dead!
    
    by Eternal Hope on Sun Aug 14, 2005 at 05:42:42 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
Cindy Sheehan is not Mother Courage (none / 1)

That's Dick Cheney's role.

I won't let you spoil my war for me. Destroys the weak, does it? Well, what does peace do for'em, huh? War feeds its people better.
http://www.sparknotes.com/drama/mothercourage/quotes.html
Bertolt Brecht was inspired by the German invasion of Poland to write Mother Courage and he successfully produced the play in Berlin in 1948 although he wrote it in 1941.
http://www.sparknotes.com/drama/mothercourage/context.html

Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

by Fabian on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:22:48 AM PDT
What do you mean (4.00 / 2)

we shouldn't recognize her son's name? IF you don't do that he just becomes another combat casualty. Would you want someone to forget your son's name after he sacrificed a healthy life for his country? Every military family that has arrived here in Crawford has been recognized and personal stories have been shared. That is the beauty of this event. people are discovering each other and themselves.

by Japhet on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:27:07 AM PDT
Cindy's doing fine (4.00 / 2)

Our one frame should be the question she is raising:
"Mr. Bush, what is the noble cause?"
He either cannot or will not answer this simple question with honesty.

-6.00/-7.18

by TarheelDem on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:37:24 AM PDT
What makes Cindy Sheehan powerful (none / 0)

is that she is an individual that other individuals can identify with.
I agree with others, the idea of calling her "Mother Sheehan" seems contrived, phoney and fakey religious.
Perhaps "framing" is OK when there are a group of like minded people coming together and want to decide how best to express a purpose or mission that they all agree upon. To force framing in this situation is all wrong. Cindy responded spontaneously, at a grass roots level. It was deeply felt and to impose someone's idea of "correct framing" is ludicrous.
Trying to arrange things more theatrically,?
I think there is enough inherent drama in a woman camping out on Bush's back door. She is getting hundreds of interviews. I think this is theatrical enough.

by jiffykeen on Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 07:40:55 AM PDT
I think that a lot of people are misundertanding (none / 1)

what dataguy has said.
As always, we need need to think more deeply.
Conscience: "the internal recognition of right and wrong as regards to one's actions and motives."
We need to express the horrors of a war with no purpose in the most profound way possible.
It's really not "manipulation" or really even "framing."
When the IRA was fighting the British occupation of Northern Ireland, it was the hunger strikers who really caught the public's attention and put pressure on the Empire.
They used an old Irish t

Framing Cindy Sheehan - we are making errors

by dataguy

Sat Aug 13, 2005 at 06:56:05 AM PDT

Daily Kos Help

Enough with the framing already. (3.94 / 17)

ah (none / 0)

Empathy is the most powerful (none / 0)

Are you employed (none / 0)

No. (4.00 / 2)

Seriously... (none / 1)

On "frames".... (none / 1)

And "Mother Sheehan" is (4.00 / 5)

My identity is more than "mother" (4.00 / 4)

Thank you! (none / 0)

Glad I'm not the only one (none / 1)

It is a title (none / 0)

Is she a nun? (none / 1)

Huh???? (none / 1)

lay off the Jungian Kool-aid (none / 1)

It would be phony and calculated (4.00 / 2)

Actually, she has become a universal archetype; (none / 1)

Gold Star Mother Cindy Sheehan (4.00 / 3)

That's why she is having no effect (none / 1)

huh? (none / 1)

Effective (4.00 / 5)

what do you mean-- she's having no effect (4.00 / 3)

Not effective? (none / 0)

She can be (none / 0)

But she gains strength and (none / 0)

no-- (4.00 / 6)

Mother Sheehan (4.00 / 3)

Wow! (none / 1)

she is a prophet (none / 0)

And it would be phony. (4.00 / 2)

wtf? (none / 0)

Moral authority needs no imaginary friend. (none / 0)

I'm having a lot of lot of trouble here (none / 1)

Agree in Part (none / 1)

too late (none / 0)

Cindy Sheehan (4.00 / 8)

Thank You for saying that...n/t (none / 0)

A Why Fix What's Not Broke? Moment (4.00 / 2)

Dean, meet Cindy. Cindy, Dean (none / 0)

Hi, John (none / 0)

She's not Americas finest mom. That's the point. (none / 0)

Ah! A rant! Awesome! (3.80 / 5)

She already had a meeting with the president (none / 1)

Choice quotes, all. (none / 1)

What pol meets with those who want them impeached? (none / 0)

The vast majority of Iraqis love us being there (none / 0)

A guy is camped in front of your house. Stalker?? (none / 0)

Being angry (none / 0)

"A lie" (none / 0)

Supporting the troops equalling supporting GW (none / 0)

"Vassals of George W. Bush" What? (none / 0)

Here's what I think (none / 0)

Yay! You read my post! (none / 0)

The approval of military and their families (none / 0)

The troops hate Bush? Then is Cindy lying now? (none / 0)

Right in front of the house (none / 0)

Its not stalking. Then what is it? (none / 0)

If we have arrived at the point (none / 0)

Can't anyone read my posts? (none / 0)

The not listening (none / 0)

What, exactly, do you think is going on in Iraq? (none / 0)

As long as you're not banned yet... (none / 0)

Like confronting Cindy with her own statements? (none / 0)

She's right here (none / 0)

She's right here? Where? (none / 0)

She's just posted a diary. (none / 0)

I guess we are getting (none / 0)

Vibrant and self-confident??? (none / 0)

i don't need to defend Cindy (none / 0)

Now *that's* interesting... (none / 0)

Well (none / 0)

Uhhh... where is my hidden anti-woman message??? (none / 0)

The problem is she's telling the truth. (none / 0)

Then: (none / 0)

Cindy Sheehan is not Mother Courage (none / 1)

What do you mean (4.00 / 2)

Now that's interesting... (none / 0)