My feelings on Cindy Sheehan

[jackbourassa]

I've been thinking about this these past couple of days, i'm just trying to figure out what possible good Cindy Sheehan's attacks on the Democrats will bring her and her cause. To be honest, it's been very difficult for me understand her reasoning.

In politics it's important to have allies. I don't know of any political figure who can accomplish anything without allies. Cindy is already universally despised among the conservatives and the Republicans. She'll receive no comfort there. Now she has also had a small group of Democrats who just wished she'd go away. But for the most part Democrats, including myself, have been sympathetic to her plight and her mission. But this time she's gone too far. Her actions this week is destroying whatever credibility she has left.

You've heard the saying 'don't bite the hand that feeds you' right? If Cindy should antagonize the only group that still supports her - US - then what good will she be to anyone? Then she will essentially become what Republicans have always accused her of being: an attention seeking troublemaker. Even worse, a mother who is exploiting the death of her son to attain media attention for herself.

She went after Nancy Pelosi - the most liberal Speaker we have had for decades (I don't think she stands a chance against Pelosi in the election by the way, so I'm not worried about that). Now she's going after Conyers? She has made petty and stupid attacks against the Democratic Party as a whole (we are the party of slavery; we started every war of the twentieth century). I mean this doesn't make any sense to me. She is destroying herself. The latest poll from Rasmussen seems to be showing this as well. According to the poll, Cindy is viewed favorably by only 22% of Americans a drop from 31% in September 2005. She is viewed unfavorably by 50%, a rise from 39% in 2005. Only 8% view her very favorably, and an incredible 32% view her very unfavorably. She is running the risk of becoming a national joke. I say this with a heavy heart because I consider myself a liberal. I strongly support her goals of ending the war and impeaching George W. Bush. But what few supporters she has left here don't realize is that her selfish actions are undermining those two very things. That, in my opinion, is unforgivable. It's unforgivable because no one person is bigger than the cause of ending the war. I'm not interested in cults of personality. I'm interested in ending this destructive and stupid war and Cindy Sheehan, like it or not, is putting that in peril by her actions.

If she becomes a national joke what good will she do any of us? The reason her numbers are dropping are pretty simple, because the Democrats are now abandoning her. If she has no allies left, then all she will be is what some people have always accused her of being: someone more interested in getting attention then ending the war.

That's a sad thing for me to admit.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Ah another bash cindy thread.

Thanks for sharing.

What are you doing to end the war?

[jackbourassa]

4. I'm being honest...

I guess we should all follow her lead and let the Republicans win elections in perpetuity. Because you know what? That'll end the war.

Thanks for refuting my argument.

Wait a minute, you didn't.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. "let the Republicans win elections in perpetuity"

What a preposterous leap of logic that is. Cindy is responsible for Republican election successes? Past? Future? What the fuck?

But once again and with tedious consistency, when challenged the Cindy Bashers cannot come up with any suggestions of what should be done, nor can they state what they are doing to end the war. At least lie: make some shit up, prove me wrong.

[jackbourassa]

7. What am I doing?

I'm supporting the party that wants to end the war. I'm supporting the people within the party who want to end it.

You?

I find it funny that a supporter of Conyers would be supporting Sheehan so blindly. I'm hardly a "basher" as you put it. I just find her actions inexplicable. I'm not as interested in cults of personality as you seem to be. I had always supported Cindy, until now. For the reasons I stated.

Re-read my original post.

[MrMickeysMom]

12. I'll tell you what you're doing

You're judging her march to sit in Conyers office as going to far. You're assuming that the action lessens the credibility of the Democratic party.

Why do you assume that result of this action?

[LittleClarkie]

22. It's called having an opinion. They're common on discussion boards

where people freely discuss such things.

[MrMickeysMom]

23. That was not answering the question, come on

I know how to have a discussion, for crying out loud. I'm asking a question (you know, like you do in discussions?)

Sheesh...

[LittleClarkie]

27. Sorry, I shouldn't be so flippant

You were being civil enough and not calling the OP a basher. Got caught up in the moment. Sorry about that.

[MrMickeysMom]

32. No harm, no foul...

;-)

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Sadly my icon is left over from when Conyers was

down in a basement holding rump hearings about crimes committed by the administration that merited impeachment. Now that he has real authority to hold real hearings on the same issue he is constrained by his loyalty to a leadership that has taken impeachment off the table. I most certainly support Cindy's efforts to bring this odd discrepancy to Mr. Conyer's attention, as perhaps he is not aware of how it looks to us outside the beltway.

[xultar]

8. Please point out the actual BASHES as you call them. I'd like to see what you call a BASH.

[jackbourassa]

10. Thanks xultar

I clearly am not a Cindy-hater. I have never written a bad thing about her before. I'm not interested in removing "her kind" from within the party. I'm just pointing something out.

I didn't want to participate in some of the more negative anti-Cindy posts, because again that's not my intent. I just wanted to point out how she is hurting herself and us by doing what she's doing. I thought I had done so in a thoughtful, and non-provocative way.

I was just expressing my opinion.

[ronnykmarshall]

13. You ARE being honest.

It seems that anyone that is critical of dis-agress with Cindy Sheehan is being labled a "basher". Can't wait for the "war monger" slurs to be thrown.

I for one love and admire Cindy Sheehan. I don't agree with everything she does, but I do love her.

I'm also not happy with the things she has said the past few weeks, but that doesn't take away how respect her.

[LittleClarkie]

17. It's okay dude. It's getting kind of binary in here as of late

If you say a negative word you are a hater and a basher.

Reminds me of right wingers who ask "Why do you hate the president? Why are you a hater?" whenever you try to criticize the man?

As if you'd have to lose a child to earn the right to open your mouth. I know that's harsh, but enough people ask if the person making the criticism has lost a child or knows the pain that it seems Cindy is supposed to be sacred and above reproach, regardless of what she is doing. I'm not unsympathetic, but when people try to limit debate in that way, it makes my teeth itch.

[Virginia Dare]

11. It's the all dish, no take brigade...n/t

[LittleClarkie]

21. I don't think I've heard that phrase before

what the heck does that mean? Thanks.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Oh the bashes came right out into the open.

"I guess we should all follow her lead and let the Republicans win elections in perpetuity"

BASH

Thanks for asking.

[LittleClarkie]

14. Now, you see, even when people are criticizing Kerry I know the difference between

a civilly stated negative opinion and a "bash"

"Cindy is a clown and a media whore" = bash

"I don't see what good she can do and I'm sorry to say I can't support her in this endeavor" = a civilly stated opinion.

Just because you're opinion differs does not make this a bash.

This is a discussion board. It's called having a discussion.

[Perry Logan]

2. Sadly, many liberals reflexively attack their own people when they're under stress.

It just seems to be an unfortunate part of the liberal nature.

For example, the criticisms of Democrats here at DU are the harshest I've seen. If I had a quarter for every time I've heard Democrats called "cowards" at this place, I'd be a billionaire.

[cassiepriam]

3. This isn't about politics, that is what no one understands.

This is about doing the right thing.
About stopping the killing, maiming, torture.

If the Dems won't stop the killing, Cindy will
find an other way to do it.

[jackbourassa]

5. Ya she'll invent the magic wand...

I'm not sure how she can do anything at this point.

[ClintonTyree]

9. I think you're correct....

in your assumption that Ms. Sheehan is further marginalizing herself. Who does she think her supporters have been since she started her one woman crusade? I didn't see any Republicans at Camp Casey. They were too busy running over American flags with their pick-up trucks.

I think she's sincere in wanting to end the war but I'm not sure if she's doing all of this to just to grab attention. I was under the impression that she was going into a self imposed "retirement" from the anti-war movement, that she was tired and wanted to spend more time with her family, but that didn't seem to last long. Now she's challenging Ms. Pelosi and a political campaign will sap her energies and time even more. :shrug: So maybe I'm wrong about the "attention thing" after all.

I sincerely think she needs that rest she's been talking about but she seems to be her own worst enemy when it comes to that. She looks worn and tired (who wouldn't be in her position?) and I hope she just takes a breather for a while. She looks like she's at the end of her rope and many people in that position do irrational things.

[LittleClarkie]

15. When someone enters the political realm, it is about politics

and I think what some are saying is that she is NOT doing, or saying, the right things lately and that her actions might be counterproductive to the stopping of the killing, maiming and torture.

And Cindy would seem to be more interesting in impeachment and accountability than stopping the war. Legislation is being introduced in the House this week to end the war, and near as I can tell Cindy hasn't even noticed.

Does she want to stop the war? Or does she want impeachment. It's like a bait and switch. Progress is being made on more than one level to hold this administration accountable. Has she noticed what's happening to Gonzalez? Will she acknowledge the aforementioned anti-war legislation if it is introduced in the House?

Or will she run for Congress and stage a sit-in of a hardworking Congressman who have been working to make things right?

[jackbourassa]

16. Thanks for everyones support...

I hate it when Democrats attack Democrats. It lets Republicans off the hook. I know I'm just as guilty as the next guy and don't want to point fingers. There is a primary race going on after all.

But I see her attacks (which I would define as needless bashing) on Pelosi and the Democratic Party as unnecessary and self-destructive.

[paulk]

18. well said

[Larkspur]

19. Here's the LTTE I sent to The New London Day today about Sheehan

It was in response to another letter writer who bashed her.

Sheehan's Behavior Dishonors Son's Legacy

Cindy Sheehan's latest announcement that she is coming out of activist retirement to challenge House Speaker's Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat if she does not commence impeachment proceedings against the president is the final insult to her son's legacy.

Her anti-Bush, anti-American rants dishonor her son's life and death by suggesting he was incapable of independent thought, couldn't have had his own ideals of honor, patriotism, duty and simply wasted his life by submitting to the command of George Bush, the Alpha and Omega (in her view) of all evil.

She's right, I can't imagine the depth of her loss but it's not about her, it's about her son. Her son entering the armed forces was not a mistake caused by Ms. Sheehan's perception of George Bush's lunacy, it was her son's will. I refuse to believe he was a mindless lemming without personal conviction and simply joined a volunteer military force because he was bored.

Ms. Sheehan's pain cannot erase his great bravery and selfless execution of duty under his commander in chief. Ms. Sheehan should honor her son by acknowledging his conviction of purpose, courage, devotion to duty, subordination to his superiors and paying the ultimate sacrifice. Her fringe-lunatic politics are contrary to everything he apparently stood for and leave her with little credibility.

My response

Contrary to what the writer of letter title “Sheehan's Behavior Dishonors Son's Legacy”, July 12, 2007, says, Cindy Sheehan is the living incarnation of that old woman in Jesus’ parable who nagged the corrupt judge for justice. Jesus’s old woman won her battle against the corrupt judge with the courage of her convictions and constantly reminding the corrupt judge to honor the oath he took to uphold the laws, the laws that protected her rights.

Back in August 2005, Cindy Sheehan and a few others started a vigil outside President Bush’s Crawford, TX compound. As a citizen of this United States and mother of a fallen United States soldier, Cindy demanded that President Bush explain what is the noble cause that her son died for. President Bush has yet to answer that question, but the actions of Bush and Vice-President Cheney show that Casey Sheehan and his fellow soldiers are treated like cannon fodder for the Neo-conservative delusions and greed.

History will regard President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Sen. Joe Lieberman and their allies as war criminals because they pushed our nation into a war against and a protracted occupation of Iraq based upon deceit and hubris. Future historians will ask why those with power, like House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, failed to hold the Bush Administration accountable, and why only a few, like private citizen Cindy Sheehan, had the courage to stand up to these madmen, who have squandered our nation’s moral authority and power.

[noamnety]

36. Wow, the letter you responded to was nasty

I don't even have words for the contempt I feel toward the author of that. Accusing her of dishonoring her son is pathetic, although in line with the tendency I see to attack her on a personal, rather than political level.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to it.

[welshTerrier2]

20. well, i just couldn't resist this thread

where to begin? first, let's put away any of this attacking you business. I think your post is thoughtful and well intended. Anyone who reads more into my disagreement with some of what you expressed is just plain wrong.

I like Nancy Pelosi. I really like John Conyers. I also don't think Cindy Sheehan is a particularly good "politician." I have tremendous respect for her anyway. She is a fine example of a heroic citizen. I don't expect the same kind of media savvy I expect from those in the Congress. Would I be more polished in the national spotlight? Would you? I have no idea. She's already there under very trying circumstances and I commend her for all she does.

Cindy Sheehan is NOT jeopardizing efforts to end the war. That's just an absurd point to make. Many Americans can't even name the VP. Do you think they're going to change their view of the war and occupation because of Cindy Sheehan holding a demonstration? It just doesn't make any sense.

I don't see her protest in Conyers' office as "attacking" Conyers at all. She has every right to protest. I would hope Conyers comes out to speak to the demonstrators and that he discusses the issues they're raising with them. I wouldn't be surprised if he does. That's how democracy should work. If they don't agree with him, that's fine. If he doesn't agree with them, that's fine too. I applaud this as citizens giving a damn and speaking out to those in power.

The most important point, however, goes beyond just this one protest or just Cindy Sheehan or just impeachment. I think that this is one of the most divisive issues that divides both Democrats and DU'ers. I guess the closest statement you made to leading into my point was: "In politics it's important to have allies."

There's a difference, in my view, between the various roles played by different "actors" in the political process. Your argument speaks to only one of these roles. To be sure, at some point alliances must be formed. Compromises must be worked out even with adversaries. Something practical has to occur. I think that's the perspective your post comes from.

But there are other actors with other roles. They are not about building "compromised coalitions." through a give and take dialog. They are about staking out the margins. Their goal, or at least their expectation, is not always to gain a full acceptance of their end point or to have others adopt their tone. They know they are staking out a polar extreme. They are setting a direction and not a destination for many who empathize with them. We often disagree with their tactics and would not employ them ourselves for the very reasons you cited. But they are nevertheless the vanguard.

I often see this in the Iraq debates. I might take a position that says we should leave by tomorrow. Others say three months or six months or one year or whatever. What if, knowing the realities of the politics, the anti-war movement just said we should leave in no more than three years. That would be crazy, right? The point is, that public discourse is a negotiation. Sometimes it's best to have some stake out an unattainable bargaining position. It leaves the worker bees with an opportunity to show how they've moved toward the center away from the extremists. Absent those extremists, the center would just move further and further to the right.

This isn't meant to condone every little thing Sheehan has said or done. She's made some big mistakes like all of us would have in her position. She's trying to move something that refuses to move and I'm sure she gets overcome with frustration and goes too far at times. But I wouldn't want to silence her. I don't see her as threatening all the good work that's gone into stopping the war. Maybe if everyone of us spent a few days a month protesting in the Congress, the war would have ended sooner. Who knows. We sure as hell haven't been more effective than Sheehan has been. She helped a nation stand up to bush at our darkest hour. I'll cut her a couple of miles of slack for that.

[bling bling]

35. Good post, very thoughtful.

Very objective, as if you've managed to judge it from a distance where emotion and bias isn't filtering the view. That's a good place to make judgments from, I think. I just wish I could do it more often.

[rabies1]

24. Please know the Dems came at her first.

Now just let it go.
If you call her a national joke it serves no one any good.
Let's save this stuff for Ann Coulter.

[LittleClarkie]

25. How did the Dems come at her first?

.

[rabies1]

28. That's why she quit this past Memorial day.

You'd have to go back to May 28th and see the video where she explains why she left the movement after being attacked by the Democrats. She said she was not partisan anyway but was shocked and hurt by what Democrats had to say. She wrote a letter stating that she was exhausted and that the remarks from the Democrats was the last straw. I wish I could remember more specifically for you. I hope at least the date helps you in your search.

[LittleClarkie]

29. Thanks. I'd have to see what was going on exactly then. I would imagine

the Dems wouldn't come out of the blue, that it must have been in response to something that was going on, whether Cindy thought the reaction was justified or not.

I wonder about "remarks from the Democrats". I'd like to know which ones and what they said in particular.

There must be a chain of events.

Meanwhile, if she runs for Congress, she's going to have to develop a thicker skin. People will not be nice in politics, regardless.

[rabies1]

38. To make you feel even better...

I don't think Cindy is really planning on running. It seems to be more of a threat that if Pelosi doesn't put impeachment on the table - she'll run. I believe that if Nancy does consider impeachment Cindy will not run. I think it's just to push her into action.

[knowledgeispwr]

26. Good post

Thanks for such a thoughtful post. Out of many inflammatory posts and comments on the subject, you've posted rational and calm ideas. You have highlighted a fear that I have -- that Ms. Sheehan may be undermining her own desire to help end the war and hold Bushco accountable by her latest actions.

[NotGivingUp]

30. she DOES have allies...those of us who see it's one corporate party

that has control over our country. 'Selfish actions???' I think not!!! If only 10% of us would give as much as Cindy has, we could take this country back. Quit hiding behind party lines. Can't you see where it's gotten us???

[illinoisprogressive]

31. I have mixed feelings about Sheehan. I'm not a Sheehan is perfect nor

am I a Sheehan is crazy. I agree with alot of the post in that it seems she is working against herself and her cause by turning on the democrats and hooking up with the gop. They will destroy her. She is lashing out without reason to.
I honestly think it's part of the grief which she has never totally worked thru.

[jackbourassa]

37. Again...thanks...

We need to stand together. It's one thing to have people divide up into different camps for the primary. It's another thing to accuse Democrats of being "the party of slavery" and "starting every war in the twentieth century."

Slavery was abolished 144 years ago. The Democrats have more than made up for it with their advocacy of the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. That's probably why 90%+ of African Americans now support the Democratic Party.

The Republicans started two wars in the 20th century: The Spanish-American War (which I suppose technically started in the 19th century - 1898 - but continued in the Philippines well into the 20th; and The First Gulf War (1991).

The Democrats "started" three: World War I (1917-1918), Korea (1950-1953) and Vietnam (some might say that it actually "started" during the Eisenhower Administration in 1957).

I'd say the Nazis and Japanese "started" World War II. What should we have done, ignored Pearl Harbor?

Her attacks were vitriolic and nothing more. Nothing positive was intended by her saying these things.