Sheehan has her "road to Damascus" moment - better late than never I suppose Posted by: McQ
on Monday, July 23, 2007
The "conversion" of Cindy Sheehan, from Democrat and peace activist to just plain peace activist has been alternately funny and, well, something, I'm not sure yet.
Sheehan, if nothing else, has shown us how the media can create a personality out of just about anyone. Given, Cindy Sheehan's son's death is not a laughing or joking matter, nor is her grief over it. However it is hard to claim she hasn't exploited his death as a means for her to push her agenda. And while that may have been acceptable when it seemed her aim was to end the war in which her son died, it has, since then, gone into areas well outside what anyone would nominally claim would be appropriate in that regard. One example of that point would be her visits in support of dictators and enemies of the US, such as Hugo Chavez.
In fact, what has happened to Sheehan is she has evolved from a grieving mother to an irritating activist with an obsession about George Bush. Because of her son and her grief most people were fairly willing to look past the growing obsession. At least for a while. Until, that is, it became more of a political millstone than a boon. That's part of why she feels ostracized and abandoned by the Democrats. She went from being a mother with the full metal jacket of "full moral authority" to a harpy screeching incessantly about impeachment and hanging out with dictators.
Now I don't mean this to be a post about excusing the Democrats and their exploitation of Sheehan. Boy did they ever exploit her. In every way, shape and form they could imagine. And they did it knowingly and ruthlessly. In the parlance, she was a 'useful idiot'. Wind her up, pump her full of good rhetoric and point her at a camera and watch the fun begin. But as she began to change and become more obsessed and more shrill, Democrats seemed to find more and more reasons to be elsewhere when she found a camera.
And when she began being photographed with people with whom the Dems weren't particularly excited about being associated, the crowd and the support began to thin even more. In fact, it thinned so much that Cindy was left standing pretty much alone. Suddenly phone calls to those who'd told her they supported her and were there for her went unanswered. Messages were ignored. Finally, after all these years, it dawned on Sheehan (who I think may be one taco short of a combination plate anyway) what had happened. Her usefulness was ended and with it, her support and her access. Last week, DailyKos cut her off.
Just another bit of political trash, she was left at the curb.
We've already seen the single-mindedness she can exhibit. All one need to do is follow the trail from Camp Casey to now to easily recognize an obsessive personality. You don't even have to be a psychiatric professional to figure it out.
Her obsessions build constantly. What has happened since the Dems said adios to her is she's added a new obsession on top of her old one. Her Bush obsession says that Bush is evil incarnate and the source of all problems in the world. Her new obsession says that her old party, which once claimed to share her Bush obsession and planned, with her help, to do something about it, has abandoned her and the cause. So they now fall into a similar category as Bush.
I was a lifelong Democrat only because the choices were limited. The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th century, except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal income taxes, not one but two World Wars, Japanese concentration camps, and not one but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan — all brought to us via the Democrats.
Don't tell me the Democrats are our "saviors" because I am not buying it — especially after they bought more caskets and more devastating pain when they financed and co-facilitated more of President Bush's abysmal occupation. The Democrats also are allowing a meltdown of our republic by allowing the evils of the executive branch to continue unrestrained by their silent complicity.
Now anyone with the IQ of a paving stone knows that much of her history is a bit revisionist. For instance I don't believe any of us would blame "starting" the World Wars on Democrats, although it is an interesting list she's compiled. And a majority of this country would never agree the first Gulf War was a "debacle". Some Iraqis might, but not Americans. But it shows the level of delusion to which she's able to commit herself when obsessed. It doesn't take much to justify herself to herself.
She is single-mindedly determined to find a way to impeach George Bush, and, ironically, she feels that if you're not with her, as the Democrats now seem not to be, then you're against her.
All this to say the entertainment value of her psychosis should be something, at least, that might break up the stultifying boredom we'll probably experience many times during this elections season.
Oh, and keep this in mind as well:
The feedback I have been receiving since I announced that I would challenge U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, for her House seat — unless she gives impeachment the go-ahead — has been running about 3-to-1 positive.
You know it may have been better for her to go out in a field and scream to eternity? Then we would not have had to hear from all those pundits and bloggers, who just know what was best for her to and how she should get thru her grief. She may have truly believe that she could have made some difference and not getting her fifteen minutes of fame off her dead son. It was really inspiring when those bloggers would say she had already saw the President twice. Like his presence was the same as being touched by god. Now continue to play god and require penance.
I believe it. She’s so far out on the fringe now that the only people she can hear (and likely the only people still bothering to talk to her) are the ones out there with her. Everybody else is too busy rolling their eyes, snickering, or both.
I feel sorry for her; she lost her son, is angered by it and a war she honestly believes (and I’d say with a lot of justification) should not have been started, and she tried to speak up. American politics these days is rough; people attack personally and try to manipulate the situation. It got to her. She got angrier, more upset, and I think a lot of her growing radicalism was a response to the personal attacks levied against her by those playing gutter politics. You can say she brought it on herself, but no matter how much I disagree with someone I’d never be so heartless to treat someone who has gone through what she did with such disrespect and insensitivity. But that’s just me.
All that said, we had an interesting day on campus last semester. March was "Afghanistan month," focusing on country and it’s background, and only a bit on the war. Campus activists (which I am not a part of, by the way) organized a teach in and Cindy Sheehan was supposed to be the keynote speaker. We had another speaker that day, Sally Goodrich, whose son was killed in Afghanistan and she had started a foundation to help Afghan children get an education. I was involved in the Goodrich visit and would not have seen Sheehan if she had come, since I’d have been at dinner with the Goodrich group. But I reflected on how the two mothers approached it differently; one with anger, and one with a sense of turning a negative into something positive. I blogged about it on March 22, 2007 "The Power of Good" (low tech blog, you have to scroll down to the 27th). I feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan, and believe a lot of people use her as a punching bag in a way I find unethical, but ultimately I respect Sally Goodrich’s approach more; it’s personally more fulfilling and I suspect it will do more in the long run.
You can approach a tragedy with anger and hatred or you can approach it with good will in your heart to make the tragedy count for something. Cindy Sheehan tried to take the second path but from all appearances she has been stuck on the first.
You can say she brought it on herself, but no matter how much I disagree with someone I’d never be so heartless to treat someone who has gone through what she did with such disrespect and insensitivity.
In the beginning, she was treated with the respect and dignity her grief deserved. She met with President Bush and spoke glowingly of his words to her and the other relatives in attendance. But then she changed and morphed into something that became the characature of a grieving mother. When other mothers who had also lost sons tried to talk to her, she gave them the cold shoulder or worse. She did this knowingly and purposefully.
She revelled in the adoration of the left and now cannot believe she is being kicked to the curb by them. My one thought about her in this whole process is:
When you lie down with dogs, don’t be surprised when you get fleas.
Tried? Yeah, I know, silenced by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, etc.
" It got to her. She got angrier, more upset, and I think a lot of her growing radicalism was a response to the personal attacks levied against her..."
Yep, just another victim of the machine. It couldn’t possibly be her fault, could it? She wants to be St. Joan, but the English refuse to lose. Frustrating. Evidently stronger methods are necessary. Next she will form an organization called the "Weathermen". Plus ca change...
Timactual and SShiell, you do realize that the gist of my post was that Cindy Sheehan dealt with her anger in a way that was essentially negative, and I gave an example of a better, more effective way to handle it.
And you do realize, don’t you, that I began my comment with:
You can approach a tragedy with anger and hatred or you can approach it with good will in your heart to make the tragedy count for something. Cindy Sheehan tried to take the second path but from all appearances she has been stuck on the first.
So, it doesn’t really matter which way would have been more effective. She chose her path - willingly! Nobody pushed her down that path - and she got and is getting what she deserved for making the choice she did. She should have remembered that age-old Irish prayer:
God, if you can’t give me what I want, please see it in your heart to give me what I need. But, please dear lord, whatever you do, do not give me what I deserve!
SShiell, I understand your point. Yet given what she’s gone through, I still feel sorry for her and really think the kind of mockery and derision heaped upon her by some is unnecessary. But perhaps, slowly, she’s learning to handle it. BTW, to complete that story above, she never made it the teach in event because of some kind of shoulder problem.
It is interesting that while Cindy took the political path (rather than Erb’s Ms. Goodrich humanitarian route) that she fell into the ultimate truth of it.
As Tom Clany’s Hunt for Red October stated it ..
"I’m a politician .. which makes me a liar. I’m either kissing babies or trying to steal their lollipops"
American politics these days is rough; people attack personally and try to manipulate the situation. It got to her. She got angrier, more upset, and I think a lot of her growing radicalism was a response to the personal attacks levied against her by those playing gutter politics.
I know it was a while ago, and I was not really paying too much attention to her, but when did the attacks start? When she came out, she was treated with a measure of respect, then something changed. What was it?
Scott - what was the atmosphere like at this event? What do you expect it would have been if she had shown up?
Also Soctt -
Yet given what she’s gone through, I still feel sorry for her
I feel sorry for the mother who lost a son. I’m not sure Cindy is that person anymore, other than in name. Now THAT is sad.
Meagain: I was at the dinner for Sally Goodrich so I didn’t attend the event. I think they had someone from Veterans for Peace talk. I think the atmosphere was pretty calm, I don’t remember hearing anything but "the speaker was good/interesting" the next day.
It seems to me as soon as Sheehan spoke out strongly she got a lot of public criticism, but I wasn’t paying much attention. In general I’m not an activist type so I don’t follow that world too closely.
I’m sorry, I only answered part of your question, and didn’t say what I think would have happened had she come. I know there was concern about the kind of crowd/media attention she’d bring. Our students, both right and left, are really, really respectful of guest speakers (and usually of each other) so I doubt there’d have been much disruption. I think there was a counter-demonstration planned, I’m not sure if that took place. People were more concerned about the crowd that might show up from off campus.
I remember the attacks began when she was sitting outside Bush’s ranch.
I wonder how any of you would deal with the death of a child under any circumstances and could you say honestly, there would not be any anger.
I don’t understand is why you still have to continously deride her. You all that do this are just like old busybodies waggin their fingers, saying "I told you so."
