![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eggwardsYour son dies in a war you didn't support, or right wing pundits call you names and challenge the reason for your protest, what could be worse?
Well, of course it's the loss of a son. It's hard for me to know, but I would expect that after that it's pretty hard to break someone's resolve. Cindy Sheehan, a california mother has been enduring the slings and arrows of many of our countries media talking heads, bloggers and columnists. These people have been the attack dogs for the Bush administration who have, for the most part ignored Sheehan's repeated request to meet President Bush while he spends his vacation in Crawford, Texas.
I don't fault the Bush administration for not giving in to Sheehan's demands for a meeting. Bush has thousands of protesters who would like his time and he manages to ignore them. A President should listen to the people, and it's true that this one has been much poorer about listening to opposing views than any I can recall since Nixon, often isolating himself in handpicked forums and appearances. While we may lament that one person can't get access to the president unless you have money, or political influence, one must admit that the president can't be answering every request for an audience.
Still, this is where others could come into play. why aren't their other members of the Administration who could assist or hold audience with Sheehan? Have they done this and I haven't heard? Of course I've heard the report that Sheehan has spoken with the president some time before, but that could have been just a quick meet and greet with several grieving parents, and not the one-on-one that Sheehan craves.
So why is Sheehan doing this in Crawford and not in Washington DC? There's a couple of reasons, first, it's easier to get closer to the president as he goes by on the road to his ranch than in the far more secure world of Washington, where until a week ago she would have been joined by several other protesters, and would have been unnoticed. Secondly is the fact that the media is in Crawford with little to do but listen to Bush give stump speeches.
For each year of his presidency Bush has used the month of August to take the Washington press out of their element and into the Texas Hill country where he delivers a daily message. With the correspondents away from the rest of Washington and Congress on recess, there's little other political news in America but the Bush Administration's daily talking points and the occasional bush trip out to a factory or school. The messages he gives rarely see much opposition because no one's there to say anything. It was a good strategy, especially with sagging poll rankings, until a new story cropped up.
The accusation on whether this was planned by organizations rather than by Sheehan herself is a big part of the case made against her. Frothing interviewees on the Fox News channel continue to state that Sheehan is involved with groups like MoveOn.org, and people like Michael Moore in trying to show that she is being controlled. Wether she came up with the idea or not, you have to admit the timing is quite well done, and has gotten the attention of everyone.
Still, the bigger purpose of trying to associate Sheehan with groups that might be considered radical, liberal or non-patriotic is simply to smear and discredit Sheehan. This will be much more difficult to do than they thing. A grieving mother might turn to many organizations, but she will certainly be a sympathetic victim in most people's eyes, no matter what side of the argument. Many will state that she's unpatriotic, wanting an end to the war, but with a son that fought in the war, it's hard to make that argument without de-valuing many other families that have made the sacrifices for this battle.
Many have said that she's just seeking publicity. Of course she is. If she wasn't, if she didn't feel like this was worth fighting for, she would have gone home already, or she would have stayed home in the first place. She's trying to drive publicity for the end of the war. When people state such things, their arguments only look stupid, as if they are grasping at straws in order to protect their man.
While Sheehans' protest is bad for Bush's summertime publicity machine, it gets even worse as his attach dogs continue to pound away for him. While Bush somewhat wisely stays above the fray, only making one mention of Sheehan when asked in a press conference, it's the continuing jabbering of people like Michele Malkin, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, people who you'd hope would know something about family values, that can't stop trying to stop on the protesting mom.
It's unknown if the Bush administration is using the right wing as their attack dogs, or if it just happened naturally. Bushes base is so loyal, and feeling so much like the wounded dog as the numbers look worse and worse, that the talk seems to be getting more shrill. Often times as they try to promote their cause, they don't see how ugly their attacks have gotten, or at least that's what I'm trying to believe.
Still Sheehan has emboldened several other protesters to come out to Crawford, creating a small city of protesters, and a problem for what was to be an easy vacation for the president. Camp Casey, named after Sheehan's son has moved from off the road onto a sympathetic neighbor's ranch, and tonight is inspiring several candlelight vigils against the war.
The war hawks say that the peace movement is demoralizing to the troops and doesn't support them, but Sheehan says she's just doing it to bring troops home before more can be killed, certainly a reasonable wish from a grieving mother, right? It seems very hard to go against her argument.
Well, of course it's the loss of a son. It's hard for me to know, but I would expect that after that it's pretty hard to break someone's resolve. Cindy Sheehan, a california mother has been enduring the slings and arrows of many of our countries media talking heads, bloggers and columnists. These people have been the attack dogs for the Bush administration who have, for the most part ignored Sheehan's repeated request to meet President Bush while he spends his vacation in Crawford, Texas.
I don't fault the Bush administration for not giving in to Sheehan's demands for a meeting. Bush has thousands of protesters who would like his time and he manages to ignore them. A President should listen to the people, and it's true that this one has been much poorer about listening to opposing views than any I can recall since Nixon, often isolating himself in handpicked forums and appearances. While we may lament that one person can't get access to the president unless you have money, or political influence, one must admit that the president can't be answering every request for an audience.
Still, this is where others could come into play. why aren't their other members of the Administration who could assist or hold audience with Sheehan? Have they done this and I haven't heard? Of course I've heard the report that Sheehan has spoken with the president some time before, but that could have been just a quick meet and greet with several grieving parents, and not the one-on-one that Sheehan craves.
So why is Sheehan doing this in Crawford and not in Washington DC? There's a couple of reasons, first, it's easier to get closer to the president as he goes by on the road to his ranch than in the far more secure world of Washington, where until a week ago she would have been joined by several other protesters, and would have been unnoticed. Secondly is the fact that the media is in Crawford with little to do but listen to Bush give stump speeches.
For each year of his presidency Bush has used the month of August to take the Washington press out of their element and into the Texas Hill country where he delivers a daily message. With the correspondents away from the rest of Washington and Congress on recess, there's little other political news in America but the Bush Administration's daily talking points and the occasional bush trip out to a factory or school. The messages he gives rarely see much opposition because no one's there to say anything. It was a good strategy, especially with sagging poll rankings, until a new story cropped up.
The accusation on whether this was planned by organizations rather than by Sheehan herself is a big part of the case made against her. Frothing interviewees on the Fox News channel continue to state that Sheehan is involved with groups like MoveOn.org, and people like Michael Moore in trying to show that she is being controlled. Wether she came up with the idea or not, you have to admit the timing is quite well done, and has gotten the attention of everyone.
Still, the bigger purpose of trying to associate Sheehan with groups that might be considered radical, liberal or non-patriotic is simply to smear and discredit Sheehan. This will be much more difficult to do than they thing. A grieving mother might turn to many organizations, but she will certainly be a sympathetic victim in most people's eyes, no matter what side of the argument. Many will state that she's unpatriotic, wanting an end to the war, but with a son that fought in the war, it's hard to make that argument without de-valuing many other families that have made the sacrifices for this battle.
Many have said that she's just seeking publicity. Of course she is. If she wasn't, if she didn't feel like this was worth fighting for, she would have gone home already, or she would have stayed home in the first place. She's trying to drive publicity for the end of the war. When people state such things, their arguments only look stupid, as if they are grasping at straws in order to protect their man.
While Sheehans' protest is bad for Bush's summertime publicity machine, it gets even worse as his attach dogs continue to pound away for him. While Bush somewhat wisely stays above the fray, only making one mention of Sheehan when asked in a press conference, it's the continuing jabbering of people like Michele Malkin, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, people who you'd hope would know something about family values, that can't stop trying to stop on the protesting mom.
It's unknown if the Bush administration is using the right wing as their attack dogs, or if it just happened naturally. Bushes base is so loyal, and feeling so much like the wounded dog as the numbers look worse and worse, that the talk seems to be getting more shrill. Often times as they try to promote their cause, they don't see how ugly their attacks have gotten, or at least that's what I'm trying to believe.
Still Sheehan has emboldened several other protesters to come out to Crawford, creating a small city of protesters, and a problem for what was to be an easy vacation for the president. Camp Casey, named after Sheehan's son has moved from off the road onto a sympathetic neighbor's ranch, and tonight is inspiring several candlelight vigils against the war.
The war hawks say that the peace movement is demoralizing to the troops and doesn't support them, but Sheehan says she's just doing it to bring troops home before more can be killed, certainly a reasonable wish from a grieving mother, right? It seems very hard to go against her argument.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:06 am (UTC)From what i know, he made some mention about how hard it was to lose a loved one like an aunt or cousin, but never mentioned son. Nor did he even mention her sons name. He also appeared almost jovial, according to descrpitions. Either he goofed, or his handlers did. At the time she was upset about the meeting but shaken becuase she had just lost her son.
She is quoted as to have said that the best thing about the meeitng was that she got to meet other parents of lost sodliers which is how the whole gold star moms thing started.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:21 am (UTC)I doubt that Bush isn't involved in the smear campaign (or at least Rove). They also need something to detract people from Rove's blatant treason that was putting too much heat their way.
I pray for the day that Bush and his cronies are tried and convicted of high treason and shot in the back, like the filthy, diseased vermin they are.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 03:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 01:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 01:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 01:12 pm (UTC)I do agree that it is the same tactic as they used with Kerry, but it's different when you do it with a mom than with another politician, and it shows.
I'm glad you brought up Rove, everyone should keep Rove in the public consciousness. Allowing Rove to slip away into the shadows for what he did would be a crime, indeed.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 01:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-18 09:35 pm (UTC)Mad King George doesn't have to lift a finger, all his has to do is mention Sheehan once in a speech and his well trained comando squad of rotweiler pissants do all the shreddng and tearing for him. They are all to happy to be thrown a bone to gnaw on - especially one as undefended as a (financially) poor grieving mother who has noted recently that the emperor doesn't have pants on.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-19 02:15 am (UTC)In the past, the general public tended to leave the president's home as solemn. When he's there, he's off the clock, so to speak.
But Bush violated that trust with a lot of Americans and I fully expect that he will go down in history as one of the worst presidents in history and his inability to take care of what was going on and instead picking his own path no matter how completely irrelevant it is to everyone else.
I loved the quote from him about how he needed "to get on with [his] life" in regards to Cindy's protest. It shows that he has no interest in other's [lives].