In the “West Wing” episode “Inauguration,” scriptwriter Aaron Sorkin has his characters quoting–I believe–Margaret Mead in saying, “”Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does.”
So now we’re seeing this taking hold in Crawford, Texas, as Cindy Sheehan puts exactly what the White House has never wanted onto the losses in Iraq: A human face.
I have to admit, I think it’s absurd when I read the contention that her son joined the army some years back but never thought he’d actually have to GO anywhere. Ma’am, he joined the ARMY. Did he think it was all Sergeant Bilko or Gomer Pyle? I mean, sure, there were those eight reviled years of peace and prosperity, but there was no guarantee it was going to last.
Nevertheless, when the time came, her son did what he signed up to do. Did what he had to do. And now she’s doing what she has to do–getting in the President’s face. And the President is doing what he has to do–hide in his ranch and wait for this to go away.
She’s demanding accountability from her president.. Now we see just how much building rage there is in this country in terms of others likewise demanding it.
PAD
UPDATE–I really like this notion, as mentioned below: “Wouldn’t it be interesting if some of the other moms who lost their sons in Iraq decided to join that one-woman protest, so that it continued to grow in size…and grow…and grow…”
It’d be like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, except it’s Mothers Opposing Bush. MOB. “Yes, there’s a MOB scene here in Crawford.” “MOB rule has broken out outside the White House…”
Interesting thought.
• 
Posted by Del
It’s fun how the media likes to show her demanding a meeting, and ignore the fact that he’s already met with her. Why tell the whole story when half of it will do?
Well, most of the stories i’ve read DO mention it.
Some go into more detail than others, but, in case you missed the details, it was a meeting alng with a whole bunch of other families of dead soldiers/marines.etyc., and the President basically spouted the same slogans he always does and neither responded constructively to any questions nor actually really seemed to really connect to the idea of who they were or why they were there.
In short, either you took the quote out of context or the source you used did, and came to a fairly different and IMO dishonest interpretation.
I have to disagree. Ms. Sheehan has been characterizing her previous meeting with Bush in the harshest possible light, as a transparently political affair with a distant, uninvolved president. Her earlier statements are the exact opposite and the bit about “the gift the president gave us” just reinforces how positive the meeting was–at least when she first was quoted about it.
I’m going to disagree right back. She has said, and the reporters from the paper who originally quoted her have said, that “the gift the president gave us” is referring to togetherness with her family and the unexpected respite the whole trip was, NOT to the meeting itself.
Here’s a link to the original paper, not to Media Matters:
http://www.thereporter.com/news/ci_2925925
Now, Is she lying? Is the original reporter lying? Or did dear ol’ Drudge decide to stretch the truth and let every single right-wing blogger have a simultaneous orgasm in the bargain?
I know which one I’m picking. Your mileage, of course, may vary, but it’s frankly disappointing to see you working so hard to present this woman as insincere and insane. As you say elsewhere, it would be nice if both sides were to remain above that.
On this we agree–at least with the part about HAVING to respect a president, any president, just because they have the job. I recall when Clinton was president and handing out diplomas at some college, some students refused to shake his hand. That was certainly their right. Personally I would have shaken it, despite the low opinion I had of him, just for the fact that he was there to congratulate the students and shaking his hand was in no way an endorsement. But that’s me.
I’d have shaken Reagan’s, or Bush I’s. Not this one.
[Asimov once shook the hand of Wernher von Braun, if my memory of his autobiography is accurate, and then felt very disquieted later that evening when he realized he’d shaken a hand that had itself shaken Hitler’s.]
There was, until the media decided Dean was “too unstable” to be the Democratic nominee.
No, that was the Democrat voters who did that.
I’d go back and look at the timing if I were you, Bill.
Dean gives a speech where he discusses undoing a lot of media deregulation.
One day later, the media coverage of his campaign changes dramatically. Suddenly, instead of fiery he’s borderline nuts; instead of passionate he’s a loose cannon.
Dean didn’t run the best campaign, sure — but to deny any sort of media influence in helping to take him down (well before the infamous “scream”) is to ignore reality.
As a point of courtesy, BTW, could I ask you in general to refer to “Democratic” voters and politicians rather than “Democrat voters”? Saying the latter gives me images of Bob Dole on a bender, and I really doubt that’s how you’re trying to be perceived. (Even if it is, I’d prefer that you use the label we tend to self-identify with.) Thanks.
I think that Dean recognizes this as well, that he could never win. Look at how quickly he took himself out of the 2008 race.
Sure, he could never win — now. Even ignoring the media influence, the Democrats have been eating their primary losers for breakfast for decades, which I think is a big mistake.
TWL
Interesting study in contrasts: google “Randy Shugart” Clinton and compare the number of results to “Cindy Sheehan” Bush.
I hadn’t heard of Shugart — thanks for the information.
The latter gets more results, true — possibly because Clinton actually let the dad talk to him (and tell him off pretty good, from what I read), thus rendering it a less enchanting media story.
No media conspiracy needed there — just common sense.
TWL
Posted by Jonathan (the other one)
As for Randy, I’m reminded of something Spider Robinson wrote once:
“You know, those roughnecks who stomped on my head while chanting ‘America! Love it or leave it!’ back in the sixties didn’t have a bad slogan – it’s just that they got to define ‘love of America’, which they defined as ‘blind worship of America’. And they got to define ‘America’ as ‘the guy in the White House’.”
I don’t know if it was original with Harlan Ellison or not, but i always liked his response to That Slogan: America — Change it or lose it.”
Posted by: indestructibleman
on the other hand we have largely Iraqi insurgents who seem to resent the invasion that has turned their home into a warzone for foreign terrorists.
And for suicide bombers fighting the foreign terorists, too.
Posted by: Mark L
My point is simply that he is the President. That is worth some respect, and that DOES tell me something that you reject the judgement of the American people.
You mean the people of whom less that 50% think that he’s doing a good job in general, and of whom 42% (and dropping) think that his war is a good thing?
it’s frankly disappointing to see you working so hard to present this woman as insincere and insane. As you say elsewhere, it would be nice if both sides were to remain above that.
I’ll have to challenge you on that. Please show me where I have presented her as insincere and insane. I have stated that her opinions of the meeting with the president (are you aware that there are now supposed to be pictures of her posing with Bush, even getting a kiss?) have changed. I think anyone who reads the first account and compares it to what she says now would agree. I have also said that this change of opinion was “Fine.” I stated to one poster (you) who said she had simply had more time to process her thoughts that “That’s a perfectly valid opinion.” I stated “Her version of Bush’s attitude and how she felt seem to me to have undergone a major shift. Nothing wrong with that but it’s disingenuous of Brock to pretend that it hasn’t happened.”
I then quoted her.
I disagree with much of what she says but that in and of itself is not evidence of my believing her to be insincere and insane. I don’t doubt for a moment that she believes them. So much for insincere. Her apparent views on the influence of Jews on foreign policy strike me as wrong but being wrong is not the same thing as insanity. I know that many have a compulsion to believe that anyone who dares to disagree with them or espouse a different opinion must be insincere and/or insane. I’m not one of them.
My statement about Bush wanting to give her the microphone reflects my opinion that she many of the opinions I have seen attributed to her are out of the mainstream and will win her no support. Again, that is not the same as being insincere or insane. Just so we’re clear.
As a point of courtesy, BTW, could I ask you in general to refer to “Democratic” voters and politicians rather than “Democrat voters”? Saying the latter gives me images of Bob Dole on a bender, and I really doubt that’s how you’re trying to be perceived. (Even if it is, I’d prefer that you use the label we tend to self-identify with.) Thanks.
I’ll try to remember that and if I forget it is not intentional–I like to refer to serious parties by the way they wish to be called–“pro-life” “pro-choice”–even if I personally don’t agree with the total validity of the term. Um, does this mean that I’m supposed to use “Democratics” as a plural? “I walked by the headquarters of the Democratic Party and was chased down the street by 4 angry Democratics.”
I hadn’t heard of Shugart — thanks for the information.
The latter gets more results, true — possibly because Clinton actually let the dad talk to him (and tell him off pretty good, from what I read), thus rendering it a less enchanting media story.
No media conspiracy needed there — just common sense.
Hmmm, perhaps…if a parent tells off Bush to his face do you suppose it will get the same same almost nonexistent level of reportage?
Who knows? Just like we’ll never know if I’m right about this one_ if this were Clinton, Gore or Kerry in office, some of the same folks lionizing Ms. Sheehan would be castigating her as a tool of right wing partisans who were exploiting her tragedy for political gain. Some of the right wingers now critisizing her would be egging her on. And the number of news stories about it would be considerably less than what we are seeing. Although Ms Sheehan herslf thinks that “the mainstream news media have not paid enough attention to her cause” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001929.html
Interesting study in contrasts: google “Randy Shugart” Clinton and compare the number of results to “Cindy Sheehan” Bush.
I draw no conclusions but it’s interesting.
It is interesting. The one conclusion I find myself drawing is how much the internet (and especially blogs) affects news coverage nowadays and vice versa.
Another curious bit. I was reading Bob Dornan’s speech anouncing his candidacy for President (against Clinton in ’96) and came across this passage:
I asked Randy Shugart’s dad, Herb why he refused to shake Clinton’s hand at the White House Medal Of Honor ceremony. Clinton told Mr. [Herb] Shugart he didn’t even know the about the operation in which Randy was killed. . . that he didn’t know Addid had been flown by a US Army aircraft to Addis Ababa. And Herb Shugart, the father of a Medal of Honor winner, told me, “Mr. President, you’re not worthy to be Commander-in-Chief. I have nothing else to say to you.” [applause] I know what is entailed with the Commander-in-Chiefs job. It’s disgraceful Bill Clinton doesn’t even have a clue.
I’ll close on this. One of my adversaries in the press-and brother, do they love their adversarial role-said ‘;Congressman, your passion in the Well, is that too strong for the White House? Might you not get us involved in a conflict” I pointed out to him that warriors or those trained to be combat ready warriors do not endanger the precious lives of their brothers and sisters in uniform unless, if all other means are exhausted, we can look their parents, their brother and sisters, their widows, their children in the eyes and tell them why their young heroes was asked to risk their young lives. Clinton cannot do that because he doesn’t understand the careful, moral use of the power entrusted in the presidency. If you want to see tragic American history unfold be fore your reading eyes in one heartbreaking chapter after another about evil civilian leadership, I suggest you read Robert Strange MacNamara’s rotten book, as I’m doing. Never again, will a war criminal like MacNamara soil our nation’s honor.
I wonder if Mr. Dornan holds the same opinion of the current occupier of the Oval Office. If he doesn’t . . . well I don’t think the English language has a word that accurately conveys the depth of sheer bald-faced hypocrisy that would require.
And for suicide bombers fighting the foreign terorists, too.
I don’t get it–are you saying that the US soldiers are foreign terrorists? Don’t want to accuse you of anything, just a clarification if I misunderstood.
Bill,
Maybe. Maybe not.
I posted the link to the media matters site rather then other links because, removing the editorial aspect of the posting, it was the best source for links to the original 2004 news story, the Reporter’s new stories and statements about this subject and the article about this whole shebang from the writer and editor involved in this from the beginning. Reading and taking all of that into account does tend to lean, to me, towards her not making a drastic change in her personal views of Bush. It still reads to me as a slow burn that grew into a whole lotta rage.
But even if you take everything away except the original 2004 piece you can still see the early seeds of her stance now. Several points in the 2004 piece that are kind to Bush are quotes from her husband and her and not her alone. There’s also a bit where she states that she wanted to ask Bush several questions like the ones she wants asked now (only slightly less venomously worded) but didn’t because **she and her husband** decided not to do so. Throw in the fact the the “gift” line reported by so many to be about Bush wasn’t and that she viewed meeting Bush as an almost secondary aspect about the trip and you have a printed story that really can be seen either way.
There have been any number of occasions where my wife and I have been in situations that, for better or for worse, one of us has talked the other into biting our tongues about a situation and playing nice because of the situation at hand. Thing is, like some of her printed comments from the 2004 piece, the odd statement comes out that betrays what we might actually be wanting to say more fully. Maybe it’s my past experiences, including meeting with politicians and having to be somewhat political myself at times, but I just see a different meaning in some of the comments and attitudes from the first article then you do. I can see her having bit her tongue a bit then, with the odd slip, and then getting more and more ticked with Bush as time went by.
My thing with this is that I don’t support her stand at all. I think she’s acting like an overly grieving mother at best and a total loose screw at worse. I think she’s the absolute wrong person to be the “human face” on the deaths in Iraq. And she’s making almost anyone in the anti-Bush camp look like a loon along with her. But, dámņ, there’s enough stupidity coming out of her mouth to bury her and people want to attack her on the incredibly weak notion that she has made a complete 180 on Bush and has somehow been subverted or mind controlled by the evil Libs and their minions in the vast and all powerful media empire. Just let her blather on and look like a nut and she’ll be written off as a nut or a grief stricken mother who is no longer in her right mind about Bush or her sons death and soon forgotten.
Plus, I really don’t see her sideshow act down in Texas changing one person’s mind. Her act is so over the top and so out there that it will only serve, in the end, to strengthen Bush’s supporters views of him as a noble war leader being attacked viscously by the evil Lib press while strengthening the Bush opponents’ views of him as a careless, feelingless warmonger who hasn’t the guts to face a critic or have an event that’s not staged and managed down to the last word. It really is the most pointless sideshow in the Iraq/Bush good or bad saga to come along in quite some time now.
*************************************************************
Sandy Berger, the “wall” and the 9/11 commission and the latest conservative conspiracy theory…….
The idiot brigade is out in force. The story being put forward (mostly by Rush and Hannity and then picked up elsewhere) is that the wall was created under Clinton and stopped all communications between agencies that could have averted 9/11. Oh, and Berger got rid of the evidence so the Commission stocked with Clinton guys could could ignore it.
Don’t make me laugh. The “wall” that is being talked about as stopping the information from being shared wouldn’t have restricted all the information being discussed. It also wasn’t put in place by the Clinton White House. It was merely continued under Clinton as it had been under Bush 1 and was again renewed in early 2001 by Ashcroft’s Justice Department. This has been such a nut job week for these guys.
How serious should this theory be taken? Not very. Once you remove the lies and omissions from it you have very little left of it. Add in the fact the the loudest voices behind this theory are the same ones who were voicing the conservative conspiracy theory that the evil E.P.A. and its evil regulations caused the last space shuttle explosion and you can see that you’ve pretty much crossed into territory so fat out there that even Oliver Stone wouldn’t touch it.
To listen to all of you liberals and conservatives argue I really believe this country is doomed. Corruption and stupidity run rampant everywhere. I can’t believe a word that comes out of anyone’s mouth because it’s all self-serving BS. God it’s just like OSU vs. Michigan. Everybody picks a side and then fight it out to the end no matter what. Somebody give me hope.
the Wallace and Gromit movie will absolutely work.
umm. i’m slightly inebriated (my roommate is having a party, i’ve had a few cheap beers, a rusty nail, and a Jameson’s).
the former should read “the Wallace and Grommit movie will absolutely rock.”
“You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine”
I’m only half-way through the thread, but in reading the transcript of Mrs. Sheehan’s statement, one thing becomes clear: There is at least a hint (being kind) of anti-semitism here.
How the two scenarios she speaks of are connected escapes me.
Remember folks, when all else fails “Blame the Jews”.
Joe,
I’m in the Big XII, so I’m pretty lukewarm on Big 10 schools all the way around. OSU-Michigan just doesn’t do a lot for me. Does that give you hope?
🙂
Now, OU-Texas on the other hand…..
There is at least a hint (being kind) of anti-semitism here.
That’s not true. For one thing, criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic.
For another, there is an obvious comparison in the situations. (Just like the Irish/English troubles too) Any country which is occupying foreign territories will be attacked by the indiginous peoples. You want to stop the terrorism? Stop getting involved in other peoples countries. Get out, get the army out, and stay out.
That goes for America in Iraq (and other countries), Israel in Gaza/West Bank, and many other comparable situations.
You may disagree, fair enough, that’s fine. But don’t try to label her fair comment as somehow anti-semitic.
“To listen to all of you liberals and conservatives argue I really believe this country is doomed”
Arguing about politics isn’t really a sign of impending doom. Places where it isn’t allowed–now THERE’S a place you might want to avoid.
At any rate, go to the library and pick up some old issues of TIME or NEWSWEEK from the late 60s. Reading those we are currently in a comparatively tranquile Eden.
Jerry,
I agree that the story of her “conversion” has been overblown–my complaint has been on how the media simply glossed it over. I recall hearing plenty about how Kathleen Willey’s story had changed. But as I said before, I think they had a story they wanted to tell and left out anything that didn’t jibe with it.
I don’t think Ms. Sheehan is the nut youthink she is (though apparently I’ve given that impression to Tim) but her views on many issues are definitely out of the mainstream.
“You may disagree, fair enough, that’s fine. But don’t try to label her fair comment as somehow anti-semitic.”
I guess it sort of depends on your definition of Palestine. Some want the Israelis gone. Out of there. By any means necessary.
Coupled with he apparent statements that Jews are responsible for the war, one is certainly allowed to wonder. There are about 27,000 reporters down there, maybe someone could ask her.
Bill,
Fair enough.
Since I’ve been critical of the press for ignoring aspects of the story, I should mention when they get it right. From today’s Washington Post:
After the meeting, [Cindy Sheehan] was quoted by the newspaper in her hometown of Vacaville, Calif., as saying that the president seemed sympathetic. Subsequently, she has said that Bush treated her callously during the meeting.
There, that wasn’t so hard.
Bill,
I’ll have to challenge you on that. Please show me where I have presented her as insincere and insane.
Fine — “inconsistent” and “possessed of opinions most people would find loony.” I figured the phrases I used were close enough; apparently you don’t.
Most of the time, when people say they’re presenting evidence that someone’s “opinions have undergone a major shift,” the implicit message is that either the original or the new opinion is an opinion of convenience and not a deeply held view. Lord knows Kerry got that enough (sometimes fairly, sometimes not).
You’re bright enough that you had to know people would be taking that message away from what you had to say — thus, “insincere.”
I don’t even know why I’m bothering at this point, as nobody’s listening. You seem content in your self-appointed role as Calm Not-At-All-Partisan Guide To Reality.
Um, does this mean that I’m supposed to use “Democratics” as a plural?
Cute.
No. “Democratic” is the adjective, “Democrat” is the noun.
[Shugart]
if a parent tells off Bush to his face do you suppose it will get the same same almost nonexistent level of reportage?
Depends on the situation and what’s gone before, same as pretty much always. It’s certainly less likely now, given how much attention this particular parent is getting.
Done here, I think — way too many other things are going on for me to keep beating my head on this particular wall. Let me know when you feel like having an actual conversation again.
TWL
” Of course, since he was a Clinton guy, no one on this board gives a dámņ that Sandy Berger stole top secret documents (hidden in his underwear, no less) and destroyed them. I bet most of the posters here think he should be applauded. Liberalism=Blind Rage.”
You know the difference between Democrats and GOP Neocons? Democrats become outraged at wrong-doing. GOP Neocons become outraged at Democratic wrong-doing.
Democrats became angry at wrong-doing by Clinton. Neocons form a blockade around Bush and accuse anyone who doesn’t share their uniformity of being unpatriotic.
Democrats tell people what they themselves think. Neocons tell people what everyone should think and get abusive when they don’t.
Conservatism=Blind Ignorance.
PAD
I would’ve gotten involved in this thread sooner, as there are alot of interesting points and comments being made, but I spent most of yesterday resurrecting my personal computer from a hard drive that decided to die.
Apparently my Dell PC came with a Hitachi “DeathStar, version 2” (as opposed to version 1, which caused a still-ongoing class action lawsuit against IBM).
“As usual, Ted gets it wrong.”
James Carter –
True dat. In his own, special way, he is as nutty as Ann Coulter. We could really use a few less schizophrenic squirrels in the Op/Ed pages.
I think you’re both nutty. Rall, unlike our administration, Coulter, and most other right-wingers, has been to some of these countries and seen things for himself, first hand.
And, unlike most liberals, he has balls. Which might explain his distain for many of his “fellow” liberals as well.
Apparently honesty and facts from a liberal means ‘nutty’ as well these days.
Joe Nazzaro –
I wonder if we would use that same argument to the thousands of National Guardsmen who also got a lot more than they bargained for.
There was a story on the news the other night about how the governor of Wyoming (iirc) wants some of the state’s NG troops brought home to help fight wildfires in the state.
But the government won’t do it. So, instead of using the National Guard as intended – to do things within our country – they’re being sent overseas.
Bobb –
Anyone taking bets on whether Bush will stop by, or even waive, to Mrs. Sheehan on his way to his Meeeleon dollar fundraiser this afternoon at the next ranch over
He didn’t.
Randy –
This utter lack of respect for the office of the President is unconscionable.
Right. The Republicans haven’t had respect for the office since Clinton was inaugerated, and it continued with the monkey getting “elected”.
Jonathan (the other one) –
(yes, they do have minimum standards!).
Standards that they not only keep lowering, but have frequently ignored just so they could get bodies in the door.
Londo –
I like the idea, but I don’t like the idea of a president changing his policies over a one-person protest, or even a thousand person protest.
Well, it must be comforting to know then that Bush completely ignored the protests of MILLIONS around the world before invading Iraq.
Mark L –
That is worth some respect, and that DOES tell me something that you reject the judgement of the American people.
And what does it say when Bush himself rejects the judgement of the American people?
The funny thing is, is that if you went and told somebody like, say, Ann Coulter, that she has to have similar respect for Clinton as you’re telling us we must have for Bush, she’d probably turn into Satan and bite your head off.
Jerry C –
Do any of them know the family?
I’d love to know if any of them have had to even deal with what she’s going through. Bush won’t. Nobody else in his Administration will.
James Carter –
Especially as he is ON VACATION so its not like he is dictating affairs of state.
Is he ever dictating affairs of state? Bush has no officially taken the most vacation time of any president in history.
And when he is at the Oval Office, he’s sleeping on the job.
Bill Mulligan –
Hmmm, perhaps…if a parent tells off Bush to his face do you suppose it will get the same same almost nonexistent level of reportage?
I didn’t read that article from during the Clinton administration, but we all know that things have changed drastically, even since Bush first came into office.
Yes, the internet was there during the Clinton years, but the proliferation of news sites and blogs was not. FoxNews was not (or at least not as it is now).
The scene has changed to the point that, if the next president is a Democrat, they’re going to have to deal with the same stuff Bush has.
Joe Kraicinski –
God it’s just like OSU vs. Michigan.
Being an Iowa Hawkeyes fan, I guess this means I truly am an Independent. 🙂
A local fundamentalist “Christian” statist radio talk-show host called her a knucklehead last night.
I called, getting as far as “You called a Gold Star Mother a knucklehead. That’s low, even for you –” before he cut me off the air and proceded to rip her all the more.
This is the same jerk who cut me off the air last week when I challenged his false witness in which he claimed there were no instances in the Old Testament of Jehovah killing or ordering the killing of babies and small children.
Posted by Bill Mulligan
And for suicide bombers fighting the foreign terorists, too.
I don’t get it–are you saying that the US soldiers are foreign terrorists? Don’t want to accuse you of anything, just a clarification if I misunderstood.
No — i’m saying that almost certainly a large percentage of those fighting them perceive them that way.
And i’m implying that from an outside viewpoint, our troops in Iraq (of whom my set-son-in-law has been one since May, who has already been blown up once in his APC, luckily non-fatally) may look a lot like those Warsaw Pact troops that rolled into Prague.
So, I was just reading an opinion piece from Arianna Huffington.
I don’t watch much tv these days, and I don’t visit Faux News’s website, so I was unaware of how far the right-wingers had already taken this, and how badly they’re treating Mrs. Sheehan.
From the article:
“The lowlights included Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin tag-teaming up to push the idea that Sheehan’s “story hasn’t checked out”. O’Reilly also claimed Sheehan “is in bed with the radical left”, and, later suggested “this kind of behavior borders on treasonous”… and, for bad measure, tried to slime Sheehan by linking her with “people who hate this government, hate their country”.”
I mean, seriously people: how many times can Republicans cry wolf against people that dislike Bush’s policies? to accuse anybody in disagreement of being traitors?
And, of course, pìššìņg on liberals along the way.
Man, this country needs to wake the hëll up already.
“I think you’re both nutty”
“Apparently honesty and facts from a liberal means ‘nutty’ as well these days.”
Just cause he went there really has nothing to do with his column and/or cartoons, especially since his last four columns have been about: Online advertising hurting printed newspapers, comparing the insurgents in Iraq to “Red Dawn,” Abortion/John Roberts, and Karl Rove’s being more loyal to Bush than America. Of those four columns (all of which can be found on yahoo by the way) only one could have anything to do with how much of those other countries he had seen. I stick by the fact that he is too radical.
We (meaning liberals) are quick to jump on Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and their ilk. And rightly so. However, we are less quick to jump on our own radicals, such as Michael Moore and Al Franken. Lets face it, ultra-radicalism of any kind is despicable, and serves nothing more than to provide hot button issues that we can harp on come election time. And, to put it bluntly, all it does is provide fodder for the other side. You will, I hope, pardon me for not wanting my politics to be represented by a former “Saturday Night Live” writer and a reject from “The Biggest Loser.”
Maybe I am nutty, Craig. Insanity is often defined as a large deviation, mentally, from the norm. If the norm is polarized, partisan BS, then I suppose someone like me, who would like a little REAL debate on REAL issues is, without a doubt, insane.
You know what? I can live with that.
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/081205.asp
do you really think you can compare Al Franken to Michael Moore? Franken is very moderate (or at least he was when i was listening to his show, and in the books of his that i’ve read).
now, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Janeane Garofalo, those people are out there (Rhodes seems like a moderate from what i’ve heard, but she’s nutty and incoherent).
even if Franken were far left, he certainly hasn’t engaged in gross misinforming or hate-mongering like Coulter et al. i really don’t see how he’s a radical. i mean, he’s a big fan of Bill Clinton, the greatest Republican President since Eisenhower.
“Franken is very moderate (or at least he was when i was listening to his show, and in the books of his that i’ve read).”
Really? He struck me as a radical when I was first exposed. O’course, I was exposed to him back in those dark days when I was still…brrrr….a consrvative. 🙂 I haven’t read much of his lately, so I may be wrong. Anyway, I still don’r like a SNL writer being one of the faces of the liberal party, but lets forget him. Anyway, my original point (that we are quick to jump on conservative radicals, while ignoring our own, thus making us a wee bit hipocritical.) still stands.
“even if Franken were far left, he certainly hasn’t engaged in gross misinforming or hate-mongering like Coulter et al.”
I don’t know, some of the attacks on Limbaugh and co at the end of his books (the Vietnam parodies) were a little vicious. And the point is, is that liberals like to claim the high ground, and be known for being nicer, for not running dirty campaigns, et cetera. We cannot, then, afford to even come near the shadow of Coulter’s or limbaugh’s actions.
In the end,radicalism solves nothing. All it does is get everyone worked up, and real issues are lost in the crossfire of hotbutton topics. I like to think of myself as a mostly middle of the road, if slightly liberal, guy. Issues are important things: School vouchers, abortion, War, Poverty, the economy, Social Security. All these are issues. The war in Iraq? Issue. Gay rights? not issue. Liberals are just as capable of bringing up non-issues as conservatives are, and it is the kind of behavior we cannot afford.
Of those four columns (all of which can be found on yahoo by the way) only one could have anything to do with how much of those other countries he had seen.
Wow, you judge his life by four columns. Give yourself a cookie.
Maybe you could start with this piece, if it’s not too much effort.
So, I stand by my comments. I’ll take the opinions of our soldiers of how the war is going (as conflicting as they are) over the politicians and pundits of the Republican party.
All these are issues.
That nobody in this country seems to give a dámņ about.
Or am I mistaken in the thought that people didn’t vote on gay marriage bans… err… “moral values”… in the last election?
ok. “Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot” is pretty much all below-the-belt jabs, but that’s the point. the book is meant as a parody on the politics of personal destruction.
anyway, that aside, i think radicalism is important. it’s a vital part of political discourse. radicalism helps the spread of ideas.
unfortunately, because radicalism tends to be louder than moderation, it gets far more than it’s fair share of press coverage and does tend to distract from very important, less flashy issues. like labor. i think Unions are a really important issue that tends to get lost.
i’m not sure i’d agree that gay rights isn’t an issue. society has a long way to go towards acceptance. it shouldn’t be an issue in this day and age, but sadly, with all the gay marriage bans last election, it clearly is.
You’re bright enough that you had to know people would be taking that message away from what you had to say — thus, “insincere.”
I don’t even know why I’m bothering at this point, as nobody’s listening. You seem content in your self-appointed role as Calm Not-At-All-Partisan Guide To Reality.
Since I’ve said–and I believe–that Ms. Sheehan is sincere, I guess I’m not as smart as you think I am.
Since I like you and have enjoyed our conversations, let’s just agree to disagree before this gets, um, disagreeable. I know what’s in my mind but if somewhat wants to think I’m being dishinest about that there isn’t a whole lot I can do about it.
Apparently honesty and facts from a liberal means ‘nutty’ as well these days.
Rall’s the right wing’s favorite kook. He makes them look good in comparison and is useful as a tool with which to tar all liberals (unfairly) as sharing his extremism.
The scene has changed to the point that, if the next president is a Democrat, they’re going to have to deal with the same stuff Bush has.
That’s a good point that sevral of you have made. The internet and bloggers have radically changed how stories get reported or not reported. The Air America/Boys and Girls Club story is just the latest in a series of events that would have slipped through thecracks if it weren’t for regular people practically forcing news organizations to do their job. Ultimately this will be good for all of us (though I suppose potentially we may end up with so many stories that nothing lasts long enough to register. Could a story like Watergate, which took so long to gestate, have the same impact today?
Mike,
Ok, I’m glad that for once I didn’t jump to conclusions. I hope your son in law stays safe.
So, I stand by my comments. I’ll take the opinions of our soldiers of how the war is going (as conflicting as they are) over the politicians and pundits of the Republican party.
the ones who voted overwhelmingly for Bush?
Rall’s the right wing’s favorite kook. He makes them look good in comparison and is useful as a tool with which to tar all liberals (unfairly) as sharing his extremism.
Funny, I don’t find him to be that extreme.
I find him to be nothing more than brutally honest. And, to chalk up him a point, he’s willing to admit he’s wrong when he’s wrong.
But then, anyone left of Coulter is moderate by comparison.
the ones who voted overwhelmingly for Bush?
I was referring to the situation in Iraq and other countries. Some of those places which Rall has visited, while said politicians and pundits haven’t.
I find the situation (and Rall’s comments) with Krgyzstan to be particularly interesting – a democracy with no oil.
And no US support.
“i think radicalism is important. it’s a vital part of political discourse. radicalism helps the spread of ideas.”
So do I. Hëll, I enjoy being radical (see my comments on dancing on Bush’s grave.) However it is like cake. You can only take so much before it makes you sick. Radicalism was instrumental in the formation of America. If Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton hadn’t been so radical, they might not have gotten nearly as much done. The problem with radicalism is that it clouds the real issue. With yet another historical analogy….look at the pre civil war period. The issue was slavery, but it was clouded by the hot button topics of Admitting states to the union. eventually, the emnity got so hot that the members of congress would refuse to vote on on legislation proposed by the opposing party. If you look at the Civil war, a lot of non-war related legislation was passed, primarily because it could be passed.
I could see a similar situation happening in our congress today. Radicalism should rarely be indulged in. It is all to easy to fall into the trap of being ONLY radical. Then you get problems.
“Wow, you judge his life by four columns.”
Nope. I am a regular reader of his column and his cartoon. Those were the four most easily availible for example. And, actually, they seemed pretty typical to me. at most, 1/4 of his columns have to do with the middle east. This is not to mention his…..inflammatory….. cartoons.
“I’ll take the opinions of our soldiers of how the war is going (as conflicting as they are) over the politicians and pundits of the Republican party.”
Wow, great either/or, Craig! The almost entirely republican military, or their bosses! Give your self a cookie, Craig. You deserve it. Why don’t you try consulting someone who isn’t a radical? Like, say, dig out some of what Colin Powell and wesley clark have to say.
“That nobody in this country seems to give a dámņ about.”
Don’t care about? Or weren’t TOLD about? I really didn’t hear a whole lot of issues coming from either side of the aisle. Or was the democrats plan to fix schools buried deep inside the Memos “proving” Bush went AWOL? Give the people a race with issues, and you will get issues. The entire conservative party doesn’t consist of ann coulter clones. Look at it this way. Bush was elected with a 51% (or so) majority. Polls have his approval rate down in the forties. Clearly, about 6-10% of republicans are thinking about switching. So, you can meet them half-way, and put a democrat in the white house, and probably sew up the house and senate too, or you can retreat behind radical retoric, and probably lose again.
“let’s just agree to disagree before this gets, um, disagreeable.”
I think it may be a little to late for that. I was hoping that, with the dearth of trolls on this page lately, we could have civilized discussions.
Wow, great either/or, Craig! The almost entirely republican military, or their bosses! Give your self a cookie, Craig. You deserve it.
Good to see you ignored my response to Bill’s same inquiry.
Was it intentional, or just dumb luck on your part?
I have a certain amount of sympathy for Cindy Sheehan, as I would for the kin of any coalition soldier, American or otherwise. However, grief and politics are a dangerous combination. Grief is an emotion, and emotions are by definition irrational, even if grief is more understandable than most emotions. And I think the last thing we need in politics is more irrationality, especially of the knee-jerk, emotionally crippled variety. Trace a line back from any number of legislative efforts regarding drug use, alcohol consumption, gun use, consumer protection, whatever, and I suspect you’ll find a grieving mother or wife driving the crusade. Exactly why the personal pain of one person or a small subset of people should trump the freedoms of other is beyond me. But let them grieve, by all means. Just don’t take their political aims seriously.
-Dave O’Connell
I have a certain amount of sympathy for Cindy Sheehan, as I would for the kin of any coalition soldier, American or otherwise. However, grief and politics are a dangerous combination. Grief is an emotion, and emotions are by definition irrational, even if grief is more understandable than most emotions. And I think the last thing we need in politics is more irrationality, especially of the knee-jerk, emotionally crippled variety. Trace a line back from any number of legislative efforts regarding drug use, alcohol consumption, gun use, consumer protection, whatever, and I suspect you’ll find a grieving mother or wife driving the crusade. Exactly why the personal pain of one person or a small subset of people should trump the freedoms of other is beyond me. But let them grieve, by all means. Just don’t take their political aims seriously.
-Dave O’Connell
I have a certain amount of sympathy for Cindy Sheehan, as I would for the kin of any coalition soldier, American or otherwise. However, grief and politics are a dangerous combination. Grief is an emotion, and emotions are by definition irrational, even if grief is more understandable than most emotions. And I think the last thing we need in politics is more irrationality, especially of the knee-jerk, emotionally crippled variety. Trace a line back from any number of legislative efforts regarding drug use, alcohol consumption, gun use, consumer protection, whatever, and I suspect you’ll find a grieving mother or wife driving the crusade. Exactly why the personal pain of one person or a small subset of people should trump the freedoms of other is beyond me. But let them grieve, by all means. Just don’t take their political aims seriously.
-Dave O’Connell
Yes, it’s those dámņ irrational women who screw things up every time…
I’ll give you the benifit of the doubt, and assume that *perhaps* this wasn’t the message you meant to put across, Dave?
Part of the reason bush won’t meet with her is he “wants to go on with his life”
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=7606
Also, shots have been fired at Camp Casey.
http://198.65.14.85/News/2005/31-40/32news21.htm
“Was it intentional, or just dumb luck on your part?”
neither. It was a conincidence I was typing my post at the same time as you were typing yours, so I missed your response. I see what you are saying about Rall, but I still disagree. I really don’t think that we are going to convince each other of anything, so we should simply agree to disagree.
“And I think the last thing we need in politics is more irrationality”
I would disagree here. I think that a lot of the really important changes were made by irrational decisions. Look at the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat was irrational. Black college kids letting themselves get beat up for sitting at a lunch counter is really irrational. Is Cindy Sheehan a bit irrational? Perhaps, but she is getting attention, and thats what counts. she is drawing the attention of millions of more rational people to her cause.
neither. It was a conincidence I was typing my post at the same time as you were typing yours, so I missed your response.
Ok. That makes sense.
It’s also why I check for other new posts after posting one of my own. 🙂
Craig,
A little bit puzzled. Rall states regarding Krgyzstan that “Now Central Asia’s only democracy is history.”
The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4150084.stm) reports that “Kurmanbek Bakiev has been officially inaugurated as president of Kyrgyzstan, a month after winning the Central Asian state’s elections.”
Granted, Rall’s piece was from March…it’s just amazing that you picked that one on the very same day that the BBC had their article. Was it intentional or just dumb luck on your part?
Granted, Rall’s piece was from March…it’s just amazing that you picked that one on the very same day that the BBC had their article. Was it intentional or just dumb luck on your part?
Dumb luck, as I had never seen that article.
The “exile” of Akayev was, in a nutshell, a coup by fundamentalists.
As for the “election”, would you call Iran a democracy after their recent presidential election?
I wouldn’t.
I think the Gold/Brie comment says a lot.
Lincoln would have met with her. He would have walked out the front door and listened to what she had to say. The very first day. No news, no publicity. Just honest, human compassion.
I tried posting this earlier, but it got mucked up, and then I saw that someone had “stolen” it from me, so I’ll jump on here with the chance to say…
but, I LIKE brie…can’t we use some OTHER comparisson that doesn’t have us equating Bush with that gooey, tasty, cracker-topping cheese?
How about American cheese, the blandest cheese of them all?
Hmm, bland but inexplicably well-liked. That’s not half bad.
There’s always Limburger, which has the additional benefit of making everyone think you’re about to make a Rush reference…
TWL
After having a mostly cheese-less 4 month diet (it’s the cholesterol) this once cheese snob would contemplate murder for a real cheeseburger…even topped with American (ah, but nothing melts quite like American…)