Why do we circle the wagons so quickly in regards to Cindy Sheehan?

[MessiahRp]

We sure seem eager to pounce on and denounce her here.

Look, I agree what she said was wrong. There were many factual inaccuracies in her KOS Diary.

-She labeled us as the party of slavery and while true in name only, it shortsightedly fails to account for the fact that this Democratic party is quite a bit different since the Civil Rights movement and I would say that the Republicans became the anti-minority party

-She blamed us for starting every war in the past century. WW I and II were not started by us, we just intervened and helped against Germany. Vietnam is our biggest mistake but Nixon kept that thing running far beyond it's usefulness.

-She slammed the concept of federal income taxes. Apparently she is unaware of the neccesity of public funding.

But let's face the facts here people. Her son was killed in a war of choice waged by a raving lunatic. She tried to take him on and was demeaned and stonewalled for it.

Her only choice was to try to work for change in 2006 and bring in the alternative party that had promised to stop the war. They got in and didn't do a whole lot.

Sure we don't have the votes to break a Bush veto but the Iraq War cave in was pathetic and most of us here at DU were pretty pissed with our party as well.

Pelosi made a foolish calculated move to take impeachment off the table before the 2006 elections as if that would somehow have driven the Republican base that for the most part is indifferent to Bush, to the polls to defend him. She has not backed off that stance and Bush knows it which is why he doesn't care what laws he breaks. He is not accountable to anybody.

So after losing her son and having her one last hope, the Democrats, cave on war funding and cave on impeachment... of course she is going to be raving mad.

I believe we as Democrats should be more understanding and back off our personal attacks on her. She wants what we all want in the end of this fucking war. She has gone through a lot of personal struggle and deserves a shot to be angry at the power structure that is refusing to make a move on the one issue Americans are clearly united on.

Republicans play the bash your opponent game, let's be above that.

One of the greatest moments in Democratic politics came when JFK talked to the Soviets and got them to end the Cuban Missle Crisis. He didn't just use threats or bash them or curse them out. He used his head and empathized with them. He tried to put himself in Khrushchev's place and asked himself what he really wanted and why he wanted it.

We must remember that lesson always and empathize with those who are adversarial to us.

Cindy is a grieving Mother who feels she has no recourse to undo the wrong done onto her son and her family.

Let's back off attacking her, understanding that.

We can know that what she says is wrong and still be bigger people to not trash her in return.

And it wouldn't hurt us to force our current leaders to listen to us either. Forcing their beltway loving, lobbyist loaded hands with some progressive challenges in their primaries would shake the status quo's foundations a bit. And just might help us get our party back.

Rp

[IEatskMeKucinich]

1. No comment

I'm waiting to see what happens. Don't really have any opinion on this, but if she can gain inertia, then bless her for her good works.

[OlderButWiser]

2. I think it's this-

"Cindy is a grieving Mother" and we all sympathize with that situation but we also realize that some people in that position lose a little touch with reality because of it.

[philosophie_en_rose]

3. If Republicans "attack" their enemies and Cindy Sheehan says . . .

Hmmm....

[buddhamama]

4. i respect her

but i would/will not vote for her. i want Impeachment and an end to the war too, (i have been adamantly opposed to this war since BushCo named Iraq as part of the Axis of Evil) but our agreement on the war/impeachment alone is not reason enough for me to vote for her.

i do however support her right to run for elected office and will not bash her for considering it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I Respect Her Loss And Would Never Attack Her Personally- I'll Leave That To The Freepers

but I don't think she's every effective nor do some of her pronouncements and observations make sense...

[MessiahRp]

7. Unfortunately part of anger is incoherence

She is angry at the system and a select few people in it that keep the status quo going but she isn't politically trained and doesn't even know where to fire her anger at.

I know she's not politically trained and I know her anger is fueled by a real life loss of her son so I expect her to fire off these charges of her dissatisfaction and because of the anger involved I fully expect irrational statements to be made.

It is the nature of the beast when grief and loss are involved.

Rp

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. That's Why I Wouldn't Attack Her Personally

To me her loss pretty much immunizes her from criticism...

[rodeodance]

8. Nicely said.

[rodeodance]

6. She put 'anti-war" into the consciousness of the American people.

[Marrah_G]

10. You know

These are not people jumping up and down bashing the poor mother of a dead soldier. She has long become something far removed from that. She has inserted herself on the national and international scene. She slings insults at parties and people at the same time using the "you can't yell at me back because my son died" shield.

Do I empathize with her loss? Sure I do. I have sons of my own. My brother is sitting in that sand filled hell right now with his wife due to give birth this week.

But losing her son does not make her right. Losing her son does not give her the immunity to say whatever she wants and still have people backing her. As long as she continues like this I suspect she will lose more and more support.

[MessiahRp]

14. I didn't say we had to support her...

In fact I said I believed what she said was wrong. Supporting her is your own political decision. What I am saying is her rationale for attacking Pelosi is understandable and from the place she's coming from it's to be expected.

Many if not most of us made similar degrading comments about her and our Democratic Majority after the Iraq cave in so I don't think we have too stable a place to stand in and bash her.

If you disagree with her you don't have to be a Cindy supporter but we don't need to vehemently attack someone just because they called out our inactive Democratic Party. Lord knows we do it enough on our own.

And yes, I think people who have lost loved ones in a situation do have the right to speak out against it.

Think of your comment:
"Losing her son does not give her the immunity to say whatever she wants and still have people backing her."

Doesn't that sound similar to what Ann Coulter said about the 9/11 Widows?

Rp

[Marrah_G]

16. There is a difference between critisism and attacking

Unfortunately there are many who fail to realize the difference.

And about this:

"Losing her son does not give her the immunity to say whatever she wants and still have people backing her."

Let me ask you this: How respectful are the Sheehan people to Mothers who have lost sons and aren't part of the peace movement. The ones that buy into the "he died so we can be free BS"? How about THOSE moms? Or is the grieving mother status only applicable when they are on our side?

You know, my mom would probably be one of those to fall back on her Catholic faith and patriotism to mentally deal with the loss of her son. Somehow I doubt HER words would carry any weight here.

Again you seem to think that criticizing is attacking and come back with a comparison to Coulter, which is just bullshit and you know it.

Losing her son does not give immunity for her actions. The 911 widows also do not have immunity. They are responsible for their words and if those words were to drive drive people away instead of towards them then they would not last long in the public arena.

[MessiahRp]

17. No it is not criticism, I urge you to actually open some of these threads and read them

These are not just disagreements or criticisms, they are out and out attacks. And yes your comment sounded very much like the comments Coulter made about the 9/11 widows.

She deserves to have a voice and considering the inaction of our party our elected officials have earned all the flack they get.

Rp

[Marrah_G]

23. We will have to agree to disagree then

And if you can't see the difference between Coulter and my comments about there being consequences to the words you choose then we have ZERO left to talk about.

I wish you well

[DeeDeeNY]

26. I know how respectful Cindy is

While I can't generalize whether the "Cindy people" on DU are tolerant or not of mothers who have lost sons but aren't part of the peace movement, I did see first hand how respectful Cindy is -- There was an angry mother who came to Cindy's book signing in my area last year who had lost a son in Afghanistan. She basically screamed at Cindy -- how dare she protect the terrorists who want only to chop off our heads, how dare she foment trouble, she is a traitor, etc., etc. Cindy was extremely respectful of this person. She softly said she understood the woman's pain, and later said that everyone grieves in their own way.
Whether you agree with Cindy or not, it is obvious to all who meet her that her activism is her way of mentally dealing with the shock in finding out that her son died needlessly for a lie.

[annabanana]

29. "She is far removed" from being the mother of a dead soldier?

How is that possible? Would you ever become "far removed"? Would your mother?

I wish a speedy and safe return for your brother.

[LoZoccolo]

11. She's been doing this sort of stuff for a while, actually. n/t

[KittyWampus]

12. Sheehan isn' just a 'grieving mother' she's got some people around her egging her on

and they aren't doing her any favors.

The paper plates sent to Pelosi with 'put impeachment back on the table' was an exceptionally good idea, IMO.

The circle who've leeched onto Sheehan and who probably think they're being supportive mostly don't help.

[MessiahRp]

15. She isn't politically trained and it's obvious

Unfortunately I don't doubt she's getting bad advice, probably from some anti-establishment folks.

Rp

[KittyWampus]

18. My point, not well made, was Camp Casey seemed authentic in a way some of Sheehan's

other actions and pronouncments do not.

Authentic meaning stemming from her own inner being.

[Virginia Dare]

20. absolute leeches, disgusting...n/t

[Virginia Dare]

19. Agreed, it's the people who are using her who are despicable..

she is obviously in a deep state of grief and anguish and she needs to get some help. If they cared about her, they would help get her some.

[babylonsister]

13. She's getting that impeachment idea out there in a big way; I do think

that was her intent as she's realistic enough to know she won't replace Pelosi. But what she's doing is of benefit to us all, and she has the media paying attention for a change.

[Virginia Dare]

22. People will start writing her off as a lunatic,

the media almost treats her like a train wreck at this point. That doesn't help her cause at all.

[babylonsister]

25. Call me a lunatic then; her cause is my cause. I'm not about to

criticize what methods Cindy uses if she's getting the airtime that's so critical.

[shadowknows69]

31. I second that

My name is Shadow and I'm a lunatic.

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. My name is proud and I am a lunatic too

Nice to meet you Shadow! :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

49. It's time for a lunatic party!!

The funny thing to me about this whole lunatic idea is that NO ONE tells Cindy what to do. She is as stubborn as anyone I have ever known. And I consider that one of her greatest strengths. Cindy Sheehan marches to her own drummer and welcomes those of us who choose to follow her. But she certainly doesn't follow anyone's lead.

So it is downright comical to read here that we who follow Cindy are lunatics for all these things we are supposedly forcing her to do. :rofl:

[Virginia Dare]

51. I didn't call you or anyone else a lunatic..

I'm commenting on public perception and how the media is framing her. I also don't think anybody is forcing her to do anything, but I do think she's getting very bad advice, which she apparently chooses to follow.

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. CIndy doesn't take advice or ask for it

But I guess since we have run out of reasons to bash her, it's time to bash her supporters. And who cares if the criticism is based on fact?

[ComerPerro]

21. well, I think the lies that you listed are reason enough.

[hiaasenrocks]

24. I went to that first candle-light vigil in my city and held "I stand with Cindy" sign...

but she later proved to be a joke.

I stand against the war, NOT with any particular individual, especially one who is going to use the fame that was assisted by my support, to make the rest of "our side" look like a joke.

She can go home and never show her face again; we lose nothing with her absence.

[Heidi]

27. Well, what fun would it be to kick someone when they're UP?

:sarcasm:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. She's Become An Extremist, Whether By Her Own Doing Or The Prodding Of Others.

I don't feel like I'm attacking her personally for saying so, since it is an accurate depiction of her current methods.

I feel no need to attack her as a person. As a person, I think she's wonderful, brave and sincere. I appreciate her many efforts in trying to bring this war to an end and bring it to the forefront of the minds of millions of people. But for some time now she's gone off the deep end of the reasoning plane. She now sounds just like other irrational far left extremists and her message and mission are now hopelessly dismissed by most due to that. You just can't take her seriously any longer.

I hope those types of statements aren't what you are considering attacks on her. It is a completely legitimate critique of her current and recent actions and words. Though I feel for her, sympathize with her pain and want nothing but peace for her; while also appreciating her past efforts and sacrifices; I just simply no longer believe she's doing the right thing. She's jumped the shark, so to speak.

[shadowknows69]

30. I think she should run as a Democratic primary challenger.

I agree with her motivations but obviously if she runs Independent then we can't support her here, and I for one would like to.

[woo me with science]

32. You might want to look up "circle the wagons."

It means the opposite of what you seem to be saying here.

[MessiahRp]

35. I mean circle the wagons in regard to protecting Democrats

That seems consistent with the terminology.

Rp

[The Stranger]

33. Maybe because WE OPPOSE THE WAR.

[BlooInBloo]

34. She made her own bed by declaring Dems to be the party of slavery...

... Which is intentionally misleading in the extreme.


EDIT: Before those remarks of hers, I was on the record as being of the opinion that Sheehan running doesn't make one whit of difference. Now she can just fucking go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

[JerseygirlCT]

36. I'm not interested in personal attacks on her, either. I can't

imagine the depths of her grief. She's got every right to speak her mind, and if she has an audience for that, good for her.

I'm also not interested in her as a political leader, though.

[LWolf]

37. Gang mentality. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. I think her point is, the democratic party's been wrong before.

And the leadership's wrong now.

[MessiahRp]

41. I agree and people seem eager to attack her on those points

Even if they are correct in basic principle.

Rp

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. It reminds me of people who attack Al Gore...

for claiming he invented the internet.

[leftofthedial]

39. the DLC centrist-wing-of-the-GOP "democrats" fear a galvanizing progressive leader

more than anything. Their mission is to funnel progressive Democratic votes into support of a corporate and oligarchical agenda. A true progressive movement would destroy them.

They know that DU is a powerful progressive community, so these "democrats" have made sure they are well organized and strongly represented here.

[MessiahRp]

40. I am totally in tune with that you are saying...

I've been preaching this for quite some time.

Rp

[Individualist]

45. Absolutely! More people need to be aware of this

as well as be aware of DLC's subversive agenda. DLC's supporters will rarely, if ever, admit that's what they are, but their talking points make them fairly transparent.

[defendandprotect]

47. The DLC is the "conservative" wing of the Party --

and was founded by Gore and Clinton -- !!!

Why would it possibly exist in a supposedly progressive/liberal party . . .
except as a corporatate corner?

[librechik]

42. You speak as if we all walk in lockstep. We actually couldn't circle a lightbulb

without developing at least 5 distinct ideological stances on the issue. And one to scre in the bulb.

There are just so many of us that it sometimes seems as if we all are of one mind, like Republicans. For better or worse, that could never happen with us, believe me. We are all a bunch of kooks, but unique kooks. Lots of whom are very supportive of Cindy.

[MessiahRp]

44. I like that response. :)

n/t

[defendandprotect]

46. Because you're scared -- And so is Cindy --

And we're all scared --
Let me tell you it's a pretty scary thing when you have to begin thinking of turning to third parties and then come to understand how the system is engineered to keep the two private parties in place.

What if Democrats really ever have to turn to a third party?
Do they understand how the system has been rigged to keep legitimate third parties from rising?

Do they understand how the Democratic Party works with the GOP to do this?

Do they understand that the Green Party was co-opted by the Democrats and probably still is?

If you want to regain your government one day, I wouldn't go throwing away any of the tools.

Meanwhile, we have a private corporation in charge of our "debates" . . .
We have two business parties now . . .
We have a corporate-fascist Supreme Court . . .
We have right-wing control of our "press" . . .

And you have all the candidates out now SELLING themselves and our government to the wealthy.

We need IRV voting . . .
We need to get rid of black box voting and return to paper ballots -- and COUNT THEM!!!

And if we have another situation as obvious as 2000, perhaps we want to give some thought as to how we should have reacted.

[LittleClarkie]

50. I believe we as Democrats should be more understanding and back off our personal attacks on her.

I can't. Sorry. My party started every war in the 20 Century. I belong to the party of slavery. I am therefore incapable of giving her a break, as I am apparently too evil.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go and do my part to start another war. Loyal Democrat, doncha know.