That’s the interesting point NewsBusters makes about Sheehan’s announcement.
It’s been a full 48 hours since antiwar icon Cindy Sheehan publicly announced that she was leaving the Democrat Party due to Thursday’s bipartisan agreement on an Iraq war funding bill.
Yet, Google News and LexisNexis searches have identified that not one major media outlet has covered her announcement.
Not one.
Given the media’s fascination with this woman since she traveled to Crawford, Texas, in August 2005 to picket near President Bush’s ranch, one must wonder why they have abandoned her now?
The obvious answer is that they don’t want to cover Sheehan when she isn’t bashing President Bush. But if Sheehan is newsworthy camping out in Crawford, why isn’t her announcement that she is quitting the Democratic Party over Congress’ war funding bill news? It couldn’t be…bias, could it?
Cross-posted at Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels.
Through Google it was listed on the Daily Kos as Cindy being Irrelevent.
Her piece on Daily KOS is interesting reading. She is basically burned out and disillusioned, which isn’t surprising. True believers are more likely to suffer both.
[...] As my compadres at Common Sense Political Thought have pointed out: Did you hear Cindy Sheehan left the Democratic Party? Neither did I! [...]
Through Google it was listed on the Daily Kos as Cindy being Irrelevent.
I must correct myself: It was Drudge, not Google.
When you capture the high ground, right or wrong, you must fend off all non-believers. Cindy at first had lots of back-up, unfortunately they kept backing up while the other horde moved forward.
Actually, what it tells me is that the mainstream media has realized that Mrs Sheehan’s fifteen minutes are up.
Besides, our friends in the MSM have already found Mrs Sheehan’s replacement, in Andrew J. Bacevich, who wrote an op-ed piece in Sunday’s Washington Post: I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty.
A professor of international relations at Boston University, his message is the same as Mrs Sheehan’s, but more rationally expressed; his son was killed in action on May 13th.
I haven’t been a fan of the Democratic party since…
Well, never.
Though, I have to say that, when it comes down to it, I will never vote for the party that idolizes Reagan, for my own reasons, which, to enumerate here, seems to be uncooth.
Democrats do seem to, for the most part, say they espouse certain principles, yet when they get elected, that all goes to Hades, almost like they had a meeting with someone upon election who said “Nyuh-uh” and then, they have to follow the standard party line.
Which is why I have no understanding of party politics, as I personally believe in ethical principles that can be justified given an ethical theory, and, upon learning which personal ethics a person espouses, one chooses accordingly.
Naive, I know, to think that politicians would EVER hold to ethics, but I cannot see how that is not the American public’s fault. They vote for demagogues and wonder why their so-called leaders are scum. Well, I should not judge, I guess, but then again, I run nothing.
As to Sheehan, speaking out against a bereaved mother who has espoused a political bent to her grief is problematic, but I have to say, she takes the ethical course here. Whether she takes the ethical course at all times is questionable, since she does saddle up to figures she believes will give her more influence, tyrants like Hugo Chavez, for example. Again, I’m not a fan of unethical people, and NO ONE can say Chavez is ethical in his governmental actions.
Though, I am not Cindy Sheehan, and to lose a son to an unethical war is not something I have experienced. One would be wise to consider that aspect before one judges.
Sheehan made herself a target of abuse through her in-your-face tactics and publicity-seeking. This has nothing to do with grieving for her son. Lots of people grieve for their fallen soldier children without the circus that was Cindy Sheehan.
The interesting part of Sheehan’s screed is that she apparently actually thought there were no politics involved in the anti-war movement (i.e., this person wouldn’t come if that person came, etc., etc.). This is hopelessly naive and Sheehan is way too old to be believed on this front. There are always politics–personal or otherwise–in any group or committee, whether you are talking about the church rummage sale, city zoning committee, PTA fundraisers, or youth soccer league.
Ms. Sheehan was no mother who was driven to radicalism after the loss of her son. Quite a few folks take an irrational course after a personal tragedy. She was a hard leftie long before her son enlisted.
Her exploitation of his death to further her muddled agenda seems not to have endeared her to her family but made her an expendable member of the freak show that seems to be a growing adjunct of tne New Democrat Party.
She just is going a bit deeper into irrelevance with her latest move.
Mrs Sheehan isn’t exactly pleased with the responses she received to announcing that she was leaving the Democratic Party:
There’s more of her Daily Kos diary at the link. But it seems that Mrs Sheehan has finally realized that she has been used by people who don’t really have all that much respect for her.
Winston Churchill said it best: “When you sup with the Devil, bring a long fork”
It’s the Ralph Nader syndrome. Claim to be standing on “principle”, and the Left will pretend to love you. Right up till the point where your “principles” interfere with their schemes for power. Then you’re toast.
That’s being kind! The truth is, she’s being tossed aside like a used rubber. If she was an “attention whore”, what did that make her enablers, pimps?
[...] Sharon had an interesting article on her site concerning the essay of Andrew Bacevich, the Boston University professor, who wrote in The Washington Post that his son had died in a war he opposes. I had read Dr Bacevich’s article, and even commented that he was the kinder, gentler Cindy Sheehan, someone the left could more comfortably embrace. [...]
Great point Eric. Couldn’t have said it better other than you may be giving “pimps”, (degenerate capitalist) a bad rap compared to her enablers.
Now I hope Mrs. Sheehan goes home and finds some peace unto herself.
without the circus that was Cindy Sheehan
I thought that she was the side show.
[...] Cindys’ bailing http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=1614 [...]