Cindy Sheehan is a puppet and a nut

[UConn James]

<gasp> You mean she tricked the media?

412309[/snapback]

 

<Gasp> You mean, she put her time and effort into something she believes in? You don't get more un-American than that!!!

 

Disagree with her for her ideas, I do, but why are you people ragging on her for not wanting to fail? She has just as much right to spew as everyone else... in fact, moreso.

[erynthered]

<Gasp> You mean, she put her time and effort into something she believes in? You don't get more un-American than that!!!   

 

Disagree with her for her ideas, I do, but why are you people ragging on her for not wanting to fail? She has just as much right to spew as everyone else... in fact, moreso.

412327[/snapback]

 

 

You took my sarcasm wrong. I think she should protest, good for her. Its the exploitation of her that sickens me. And if you think she has not been explotated, I've got some ocean front property to sell you in North Dakota.

[Reuben Gant]

You took my sarcasm wrong. I think she should protest, good for her. Its the exploitation of her that sickens me. And if you think she has not been explotated, I've got some ocean front property to sell you in North Dakota.

412342[/snapback]

I heard the Canadian Ocean is lovely this time of year.

[UConn James]

You took my sarcasm wrong. I think she should protest, good for her. Its the exploitation of her that sickens me. And if you think she has not been explotated, I've got some ocean front property to sell you in North Dakota.

412342[/snapback]

 

What you look at as her being exploited by certain parties, you could also say she is exploiting them for her own purpose -- more effectively getting her message out. It's symbiosis/mutual parasitism (not to imply a negative connotation).

 

Wasn't targeting you in my statement... A lot of people are sounding positively pissed that she didn't set herself up to fail. So she hired a PR person. Whoopdy-doo.

Edited August 19, 2005 by UConn James

[Reuben Gant]

What you look at as her being exploited by certain parties, you could also say she is exploiting [/i]them[/i] for her own purpose -- more effectively getting her message out. It's symbiosis/mutual parasitism (not to imply a negative connotation).

412360[/snapback]

Yes. I think you are right.

[erynthered]

What you look at as her being exploited by certain parties, you could also say she is exploiting [/i]them[/i] for her own purpose -- more effectively getting her message out. It's symbiosis/mutual parasitism (not to imply a negative connotation).

412360[/snapback]

 

 

Ok, maybe at first. Though she lost any control she may have had about the second day into it. I would suspect she is getting pushed to come back hard by the fringe groups. Hell they're probably telling her its GB fault her mother had a stroke.

[Terry Tate]

That she has become such a lightning rod even if a short lived one,  I think, is indicative of something larger.  She is seen as a pretty major threat given the reaction all around.

- A pretty major threat - The left believes it's own hype, that's some funny stuff.

[Mickey]

- A pretty major threat -  The left believes it's own hype, that's some funny stuff.

412450[/snapback]

If you follow my posts on this issue, I don't think she is a threat but that the right does hence the "all hacks on deck" response with every one from Limbaugh to Coulter to Hannity etc, etc. trying to destroy this woman. Do try and keep up.

[Reuben Gant]

Hey even Pat Buchanan is taking notice:

 

(I can't believe I am linking to WND but here goes)

Pat Buchanan's take

[Mickey]

She is just a pawn in this, unfortunately. The main problem is the left-wing machine behind her. That is why the right is working so hard on his. There are key elections next year and the war (and its perception in the public's eye) will be crucial in the campaigning.

411951[/snapback]

Considering the latest polls, I can see why the right is getting jittery over the war and the potential effect it can have on the next election cycle. Against that backdrop, in comes Cindy Sheehan. I don't think that the worries reflected in those polls are going to be effected by what happens with this story. I think they are wasting ammunition on her. The steady bad news out of Iraq is the problem, not Sheehan. It has the feel of sideshow.

[RkFast]

<Gasp> You mean, she put her time and effort into something she believes in? You don't get more un-American than that!!!   

 

Disagree with her for her ideas, I do, but why are you people ragging on her for not wanting to fail? She has just as much right to spew as everyone else... in fact, moreso.

412327[/snapback]

 

Because shes full of sh--, thats why.

 

She's portraying herself as "poor mom" but she's anything but. If she presented herself say as the founder of United for Peace and Justice does, whose name escapes me at the moment, thats fine. That woman says who she is, who and what she represents and who she is affiliated with before she says one word on-point. Sheehan's whole image is choreographed act....a fraud. She comes up, again with the straw hat and the shirt and pleads like "poor mom" who just heard the news about her son from her tomato garden. But in reality she is and HAS been a major player in the anti-war movement for a while, and is backed by billionaires, movie makers and major political players.

 

She is NOT who she says she is....THAT is the problem.

[erynthered]

If you follow my posts on this issue, I don't think she is a threat but that the right does hence the "all hacks on deck" response with every one from Limbaugh to Coulter to Hannity etc, etc. trying to destroy this woman.  Do try and keep up.

412484[/snapback]

 

 

Not saying I agree with them, but if you're in a boxing match, you better fight back. Wouldnt you say that her life is being directed by other people right now? Or at least was?

[Mickey]

Hey even Pat Buchanan is taking notice:

 

(I can't believe I am linking to WND but here goes)

Pat Buchanan's take

412487[/snapback]

Thanks for the link, that was an interesting piece. This was an especially well made point"

 

"As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" is President Bush's exit strategy. But how can the Iraqis the U.S. Army is training defeat an enemy the U.S. Army has itself been unable to defeat in two years?

 

Buchanan asks an excellent question.

[Mickey]

Not saying I agree with them, but if you're in a boxing match, you better fight back. Wouldnt you say that her life is being directed by other people right now? Or at least was?

412507[/snapback]

No idea. Look, if you are the heavy weight champion of the world and some 98 pound poindexter jumps in the ring, flips you the bird and says "Its go time", your best response is to walk away not jump in to the ring and beat him to bloody pulp. No one is going to applaud your having pounded the guy though some will deplore such an unfair fight even if the wimp asked for it. Walk away and you steal his limelight and soon, any audience present will just laugh at the goof's foolishness. All this beating up of Cindy Sheehan is gaining her opponents nothing.

 

Not the best analogy but it is friday and even I am getting tired of Cindy Sheehan.

[erynthered]

No idea.  Look, if you are the heavy weight champion of the world and some 98 pound poindexter jumps in the ring, flips you the bird and says "Its go time", your best response is to walk away not jump in to the ring and beat him to bloody pulp.  No one is going to applaud your having pounded the guy though some will deplore such an unfair fight even if the wimp asked for it.  Walk away and you steal his limelight and soon, any audience present will just laugh at the goof's foolishness.  All this beating up of Cindy Sheehan is gaining her opponents nothing.

 

Not the best analogy but it is friday and even I am getting tired of Cindy Sheehan.

412521[/snapback]

 

Your analogy is worse than mine. Giving her a couple of back hands is what she got. Then the movon.org lemmings steped into the ring, the three ring circus ring.

 

She'll be back, you'll see, and with her little dog ToTo too.

[SilverNRed]

No idea.  Look, if you are the heavy weight champion of the world and some 98 pound poindexter jumps in the ring

412521[/snapback]

Stop right there.

 

Again, this isn't some "nobody." This is the fringe left's latest "heavyweight prospect" (can't believe we're staying with the boxing analogy). This isn't Cindy Sheehan who was out in Crawford, it was Cindy Sheehan backed by many rich, powerful people and groups out in Crawford.

 

Is anyone not sick of her at this point?

[Chilly]

Stop right there.

 

Again, this isn't some "nobody."  This is the fringe left's latest "heavyweight prospect" (can't believe we're staying with the boxing analogy).  This isn't Cindy Sheehan who was out in Crawford, it was Cindy Sheehan backed by many rich, powerful people and groups out in Crawford.

 

Is anyone not sick of her at this point?

412653[/snapback]

 

Jesus isn't. Apparently he loves everone.

[Wacka]

The left alwats falls back to the same old tired tactic. Use their own words to show what they really are, and they accuse you of picking on them or being mean spirtied.

 

 

Again nothing new.

[Terry Tate]

If you follow my posts on this issue, I don't think she is a threat but that the right does hence the "all hacks on deck" response with every one from Limbaugh to Coulter to Hannity etc, etc. trying to destroy this woman.  Do try and keep up.

Oh, I keep up just fine. You've as much as admitted she's a pawn thrust forward and being funded and used by the left, paraded daily for all to see for on every station, a circus on display - but when the chattering class on the right responds with like venom, it's a sign!

[BadDad]

She is just a pawn in this, unfortunately. The main problem is the left-wing machine behind her. That is why the right is working so hard on his. There are key elections next year and the war (and its perception in the public's eye) will be crucial in the campaigning.

411951[/snapback]

 

Moreso than Terry Schaivo was with the right wing machine behind them? Mr. Frist seems to be already realizing that if his Presidential asperations are to be realized, he must separate himself from the right wing cabal that is presently in power. This house of cards is going to fall soon.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Moreso than Terry Schaivo was with the right wing machine behind them?

412788[/snapback]

 

Less so, obviously. Even if her choice was ultimately co-opted by the vast left-wing propaganda machine, Sheehan did make a choice. Schiavo never even had that much of an opportunity; here choice wasn't co-opted by the vast right-wing propaganda machine, it was made for her.

 

Bottom line: they're both disgusting situations. They're also both situations that, when it comes to the politically minded exploiting people for their own purposes, are par for the course.

[BadDad]

I wasn't refering to Terry herself, I was comparing how her family was co-opted by the right. We will never know what Terry's reaction would have been to the circus that was her last days. The same can be said for Casey, but the way in which their families have been exploited is comparable. That was my point.

 

Less so, obviously.  Even if her choice was ultimately co-opted by the vast left-wing propaganda machine, Sheehan did make a choice.  Schiavo never even had that much of an opportunity; here choice wasn't co-opted by the vast right-wing propaganda machine, it was made for her.

 

Bottom line: they're both disgusting situations.  They're also both situations that, when it comes to the politically minded exploiting people for their own purposes, are par for the course.

412825[/snapback]

[KRC]

Moreso than Terry Schaivo was with the right wing machine behind them?

412788[/snapback]

 

I can't say more or less. Nobody can.

 

Both are/were used for political gains. Both are/were shameless acts of politics clouding the real issues. Both are/were disgusting in the way that they used a single person to "champion" the agendas of political organizations/politicians.

[KRC]

Considering the latest polls, I can see why the right is getting jittery over the war and the potential effect it can have on the next election cycle.  Against that backdrop, in comes Cindy Sheehan.  I don't think that the worries reflected in those polls are going to be effected by what happens with this story.  I think they are wasting ammunition on her.  The steady bad news out of Iraq is the problem, not Sheehan.  It has the feel of sideshow.

412495[/snapback]

 

The problem I have with the polls is this: they say that Bush is losing approval over the way that he is condicting the war. Of course, you do not see the questions being used to generate these numbers. The left automatically assumes that it means that people are against the war and want the troops removed immediately. What is left out is the following: people who disapprove of Bush's handling of the war because he is not aggressive enough. You see it on this board. People want to just carpet-bomb the entire region. People are getting pissed at the PC/lawyerly approach to the war. They want to just go in and kick azz to get this situation finished.

 

The steady, bad news is a problem. Of course, what are the chances of getting the full story of what is actually happening? Couple that with the chances of actual perspective of the situation and its regional/global implications.

[Wacka]

Rarely see any news about the 3100 schools we have built, that water and electricity are more plentiful than any time during Saddam's dictatorship, that the vast majority of people are very very grateful we are there and say please, please don't leave. We are restoring the wetlands that Saddam drained in the delta region of the fertile crescent. Saddam drained it and it destroyed the ecology and the livelyhood of the area because they had participated in the civil war after Gulf War !.

 

No wonder the MSP is rated as low as used car salesmen and lawyers. All negative, all the time.

Sean Hannity had at least a half dozen parents of dead soldiers call him yesterday. He asked if the MSP had contacted them. They said yes, but when they told them they supported the war and what their kids had sacrificed their lives for, the MSP didn't want to talk to them any more.

[SilverNRed]

The problem I have with the polls is this: they say that Bush is losing approval over the way that he is condicting the war. Of course, you do not see the questions being used to generate these numbers.

412888[/snapback]

We also don't know who's being asked the questions. If they're doing polls by calling people who are home in the middle of the day on a Wednesday then maybe they should say that "60% of Americans who are home in the middle of the day on a Wednesday do not approve of Bush's handling of Iraq." People with jobs and busy lives don't talk to pollsters.

 

Also, given that there are over 300 million Americans and they interview maybe a thousand for a poll, the results are, well, statistically useless.

 

Also statistically useless is when they say the President's approval rating "drops" from 51% to 49% - because a change of 2% is well within the margin of error. Reporters treat the 50% approval rating mark in polls like it's something that actually exists.

[Terry Tate]

I wasn't refering to Terry herself, I was comparing how her family was co-opted by the right. We will never know what Terry's reaction would have been to the circus that was her last days. The same can be said for Casey, but the way in which their families have been exploited is comparable. That was my point.

And in that regard, it's spot on. I haven't watched any of this on TV; I'm assuming if Mrs. Sheehan has family members who knew Casey personally and disagree with her, they have already been on TV. If not, the ambulance chasing TV producers on the right are falling down on the job.

 

"Mr x, you went to school with a close friend of Casey's uncle on his father's side - do you think he would have approved of his mother's activism? Isn't she a disgrace to his memory?"

 

I could write for TV, if I didn't have a conscience.

 

Outside of breaking news or entertainment programming (sports/movies/shows), I have no reason to watch TV. TV news incorporates too much of the entertainment angle into their news programming, attempting to generate ratings by providing a hook. As seen here, it causes the discussion to veer onto the hook, rather than what facts the story may provide. At that point, it becomes a self-licking ice cream cone. Which is good for a follow-up story, an exclusive interview with a family member, and in-depth analysis of what effect the hook has on this party or that.

[Chilly]

The problem I have with the polls is this: they say that Bush is losing approval over the way that he is condicting the war. Of course, you do not see the questions being used to generate these numbers. The left automatically assumes that it means that people are against the war and want the troops removed immediately. What is left out is the following: people who disapprove of Bush's handling of the war because he is not aggressive enough. You see it on this board. People want to just carpet-bomb the entire region. People are getting pissed at the PC/lawyerly approach to the war. They want to just go in and kick azz to get this situation finished.

 

The steady, bad news is a problem. Of course, what are the chances of getting the full story of what is actually happening? Couple that with the chances of actual perspective of the situation and its regional/global implications.

412888[/snapback]

 

 

We also don't know who's being asked the questions.  If they're doing polls by calling people who are home in the middle of the day on a Wednesday then maybe they should say that "60% of Americans who are home in the middle of the day on a Wednesday do not approve of Bush's handling of Iraq."  People with jobs and busy lives don't talk to pollsters.

 

Also, given that there are over 300 million Americans and they interview maybe a thousand for a poll, the results are, well, statistically useless.

 

Also statistically useless is when they say the President's approval rating "drops" from 51% to 49% - because a change of 2% is well within the margin of error.  Reporters treat the 50% approval rating mark in polls like it's something that actually exists.

412920[/snapback]

 

 

Which is why places like the Pew Research Center, and reports like http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=251 are so important.