I’m not terribly comfortable saying Cindy Sheehan should get an automatic meeting with the President, but I also don’t think one has to be angry with her for protesting the President. Jim Leach does a good job making the point about the loud conservative response to Sheehan
Let’s compare and contrast the treatment of this mother of a dead soldier with another story in the news today. Rich Miller at Capitol Fax blog has the latest on the plans by the hideous Fred Phelps and his group to demonstrate at a military funeral in East Peoria. Disgusting, and yet how does it — the exploitation of a family’s grief for his own twisted political agenda — truly differ from what the right is doing to Cindy Sheehan?
Does Sheehan have a ‘political agenda’–well yeah, getting out of a war (a position I don’t really agree with in terms of immediate withdrawal). Has she said some contradictory things. Sure. So what? Does that change her grief? No. If you don’t like Cindy Sheehan you can ignore her, but I don’t understand why anyone should be angry with her.
Or as Jim ably puts it:
George W. Bush should be able to handle one grieving mother on his own without the right-wing echo chamber ganging up on her.
It’s very difficult to not agree. I think the Administration has handled her with dignity she deserves. Sheehan has the right to grieve in the manner she chooses and we need to respect that.
I know its August and there is little to talk about, but c’mon. Kate O’beirne wants to go out and get mothers of those KIA who support the effort to get out and defend the Administration. Please. That’s exactly what we need, more people on moral high horses.
Yeah, and pretty much–why bother those other families–I’m sure if they want to do that–they can do it as well on their own.
Reduce the spectacle people…
Ms. Sheehan’s is changing the focus of the political agenda. The Left Coaster has a post on Dr. Feldman’s speculation that Ms. Sheehan has moved the discussion and framing about the Iraq war away from how Iraq relates to the war on terrorism and towards how the war and by extension George W. Bush?s foreign policies are a threat to the American family.
She’s an angrey mother. Get mom angrey, & she’ll give you grief every time. Yes, Ms. Sheehan has become quite significant.
Not sure if it was Kos or one of the Irregulars (or maybe just someone at DKos) but the other day they had a maxim for why the radical right was going all out against a grieving mother…
The vast right-wing media hegemony has only two modes: off or full-on vitriol-filled slash-and-burn attack. They’re going after anything and everything their investigators can dig up on her and then screaming it through their mikes — they have no subtlety so it’s all they can do once they turn the hate factory on.
The attack machine is in full-force because they know W can’t answer the simple question she is asking:
What noble cause did my son die for?
Any attempt to talk with Cindy will only make W look bad. His ratings are bad enough.
I mean, come on, to say over the weekend that he can’t talk to Cindy cuz he’s got to get on with his life…it’s a slap in the face. His only course of action has to be the one he has taken repeatedly:
run away and let someone else take care of it….
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2005/08/14/20050814wacbushprotest.html
“President Bush, noting that lots of people want to talk to the president and ??it’s also important for me to go on with my life,” on Saturday defended his decision not to meet with the grieving mom of a soldier killed in Iraq.”
The anger comes from the same place all partisan anger comes from. And I think partisans of every stripe would do much better if they could control their anger better.
Personally, I’m not angry with her since as a free country can stand out in the Texas heat and say whatever she wants for as long as she wants. However, I’m not happy about the coverage – like a fairly long article in our favorite newspaper, the Post, which I’m sure was an AP report, that went on at great length about how President Bush didn’t meet with her. Why should he? And how is this news? He didn’t meet with Putin, Singh, or any other world leader either, but I don’t recall seeing that in a news story.
Of course, this being a free country, that means everybody else is entitled to put forth their opinions on Ms. Sheehan too. (Whether they should or not is different).
Frankly, I see the allies of Ms. Sheehan exploiting her grief for their own twisted agenda, not “the right” in its response (by and large — as always there are outliers). Would Ms. Sheehan get any notice if her son hadn’t been killed in Iraq? No doubt the “treatment” of Ms. Sheehan by “the right” is seen by the right as a counterbalance, the fuller picture, to what’s put out by the media. But as odious Fred Phelps is, he doesn’t generate much support of coverage.
I agree with the basic angle of your post, Uber-Pundit Sir, and also with the comment above that the administration has handled this situation (mostly) with dignity.
I wish I could say the same for the fringes of both the right AND the left. Some right-wingers’ attacks on this woman while she is exercising her right to speak out about her child’s death is politically stupid and–depending on how it is done–morally suspect. Some left-wingers’ attempts to use her grief for political gain, methinks, is the same.
If this sad episode goes on, I will be compelled to use my blog to mock, per my usual satirical style, the ass-clowns who are manipulating this. Thanks for the brain food.
d.a.