Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Rush Limbaugh Loves Cindy Sheehan
The New York Observer ^ | July 24, 2007 | Niall Stanage

Posted on 07/27/2007 7:57:14 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Having provoked Rush Limbaugh to come to the defense of antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan last week, I’m now thinking that perhaps I should ask Condoleezza Rice to appoint me her Middle East envoy.

If Mr. Limbaugh and Ms. Sheehan can be brought together, after all, delivering peace to the world’s most bitterly divided region would surely be a cinch.

Last Wednesday, a column I had written was posted on the Web site of the London Guardian.

In it, I criticized Ms. Sheehan for what I considered her ardor for self-promotion, her presumptuous and callous disparagement of other bereaved parents who happened to disagree with her about the war in Iraq and the hubris that finds its latest manifestation in her quest to unseat Nancy Pelosi from the House of Representatives.

The column was headlined “The Epic Narcissism of Cindy Sheehan.” The next day, Ms. Sheehan’s unlikeliest defender stepped forward.

“Look at this headline.… This is from The Guardian, the U.K. Guardian,” Mr. Limbaugh told his listeners. “You know, the people on the left who are getting tired of Cindy Sheehan, the epic narcissism, they created her. I think this is an example, folks … of the cruelty these people can exude.”

Mr. Limbaugh added, by way of summing up: “Cindy Sheehan, when all is said and done, is a sympathetic and pathetic figure.”

Perhaps Mr. Limbaugh’s compassion for Ms. Sheehan is genuine. But that seems a tad unlikely, given his insistence at the height of her 2005 protest that “her story is nothing more than forged documents. There’s nothing about it that’s real.”

(The reference to forged documents was part of a rather strained comparison of Ms. Sheehan with Bill Burkett of Texas Air National Guard and 60 Minutes infamy.)

Mr. Limbaugh might, just possibly, have another agenda here besides a chivalrous desire to stand up for the antiwar movement’s most uncompromising face. After all, at this point Cindy Sheehan’s words and actions ultimately serve to benefit Mr. Limbaugh’s fellow conservatives rather more than mainstream liberals.

“The Democrats are the party of slavery,” Ms. Sheehan wrote on the Daily Kos earlier this month.

Set aside for a moment the curious behavior, ranging from an unseemly Vanity Fair photo shoot on her son’s grave to an absurdly brief “retirement,” by which Ms. Sheehan has gradually depleted the well of sympathy from which she could once draw.

Here is the bigger picture: American liberals suffered years of dominance by the Bush administration before the tide began to move in their direction. The war’s unpopularity, compounded by a host of other blunders emanating from the White House, has finally moved the center of political gravity leftward.

Republicans are in disarray, and the likelihood of a Democrat taking possession of the White House at the 2008 election seems to increase by the day.

Those opposed to the current administration have at long last gotten their hands on a sizable store of political capital. And what do Ms. Sheehan and her ilk suggest that capital be spent upon? Making loud but impotent gestures and forming circular firing squads.

It was only on Monday, shortly before she was arrested for disorderly conduct in Washington, D.C., that Ms. Sheehan finally confirmed that she would challenge Ms. Pelosi for her seat.

Ms. Sheehan’s beef with Ms. Pelosi centers on the latter’s disinclination to bring articles of impeachment against the president.

Ms. Pelosi’s position is much more sensible than Ms. Sheehan’s—at least for anyone concerned about enacting real change rather than simply hearing the sound of their own voice.

There is no possibility of Mr. Bush being removed from office, however much the segment of the left that adores Ms. Sheehan might like to think otherwise. The votes simply aren’t there.

A Democratic leadership that decided to move forward with articles of impeachment would not merely risk overplaying its hand as Congressional Republicans did during the Clinton administration. It would also further alienate those GOP members whose support the Democrats desperately need if they are to create the legislative pressure to bring the war to an end.

Earlier this month, as the Democrats sought and failed to pass a troop withdrawal plan—a questionable enterprise, in my opinion, but one undoubtedly favored by the overwhelming majority of liberals—a moderate GOP senator, George Voinovich of Ohio, lamented, “You wonder if they are more interested in politics than dealing with the substance of this.”

The battle lines in Congress would be drawn in even starker colors if an impeachment process were to begin. The possibility of bipartisan progress on any issue would be all but expunged. Presumably that is among the reasons why Ms. Pelosi has no interest in spoiling for that fight.

Senator Russ Feingold on Sunday announced his intention to seek a more modest goal—the censure of Mr. Bush. One of the administration’s harshest critics, Mr. Feingold said of impeachment that he did “not believe it is the right course of action right now.”

But even Mr. Feingold’s plan would serve as more of a distraction than anything else. Declining to proffer his support, Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid noted:

“The president already has the mark of the American people—he’s the worst president we ever had. I don’t think we need a censure resolution in the Senate to prove that.”

The problem here is not really Ms. Sheehan or Mr. Feingold. It is the strand of political activism of which she, in particular, is an exemplar. Ms. Sheehan represents a constituency that prefers to lose while glorying in its own ideological purity rather than sully itself in the battle for incremental victories.

Like political dogmatists of all stripes, the Sheehanite left remains, in Winston Churchill’s old phrase, so enraptured by “the integrity of their quarrel” that it has little interest in political reality.

Because of that very fact—and because it displays such a willingness to abjure the middle ground and to alienate the mainstream—it far too often becomes a net asset to those who diametrically oppose its every goal.

Ms. Sheehan should ponder whose interests are really served by her challenge to Ms. Pelosi. If she did so, she might also realize why Mr. Limbaugh is so keen to take her into his tender embrace.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: Missouri; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush; cindysheehan; cutandrun; defeatocrats; democrats; dhimmicrats; gatheringofeagles; georgebush; goe; gop; harryreid; hippies; impeachment; iraq; moonbats; nancypelosi; nutroots; peacecreeps; republicans; rushlimbaugh; russfeingold; sheehanpaul2008; talkradio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: 2ndDivisionVet
"Ms. Pelosi’s position is much more sensible than Ms. Sheehan’s—at least for anyone concerned about enacting real change rather than simply hearing the sound of their own voice."

This is questionable. What has Pelosi actually enacted that is "real change"? An increase in the minimum wage. Earmark reform? Gone. Most ethical Congress ever. Laughable. What else did they run on? Republicans are evil and George Bush is incompetent. Pelosi has no influence on either of these items. So, we're left with what?

Pelosi and Sheehan are birds of a feather, malignant narcissists.

21 posted on 07/27/2007 9:15:28 PM PDT by Jabba the Nutt (Just laugh at them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Tell Niall to go on Rush’s show and debate him directly. She won’t do that. Afraid of being humiliated and exposed.

I’ll make it easy for her/him/it...come debate me/us online.

22 posted on 07/27/2007 9:16:35 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal should be a convenience store.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: operation clinton cleanup
Calling Cindy sympathetic and pathetic does not=love in my book.

Mr Limbaugh refers to himself as a "lovable little fuzz ball". I consider myself a fair judge of certain persons. Rush Limbaugh is essentially and behind his incredible satire- a kind man.

I find that the essence of left wing liberal satirists, is that many of them are cruel, vicious, or plain nasty. Ah, give me a conservative any day. (laughs).

23 posted on 07/27/2007 9:19:34 PM PDT by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

If you check the the last election...Pelosi won with 80 percent...and the Republican dude barely got ten percent. Its almost a total waste to run a Republican. But I’m guessing the right person of Cindy’s virture...talking character rather than DC-chit-chat...might carve out half of Pelosi’s group...and the Republicans should not run anyone in the election period.

24 posted on 07/27/2007 9:26:35 PM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“Republicans are in disarray, and the likelihood of a Democrat taking possession of the White House at the 2008 election seems to increase by the day.”

I disagree. Conservatives are humble and speak with their votes.

25 posted on 07/27/2007 9:26:58 PM PDT by 80skid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Cindy is a wacko and Rush was not really defending her. In fact, I agree with the Guardian healdine.

But go Cindy. I hope she puts a major dent in Pelousy.

26 posted on 07/27/2007 9:31:07 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
If Cindy Shaheen were elected to Congress, she would be an embarrassment to her own party and a publicity boon to conservatives.

One more reason I'd rather have her in Congress than Pelousy.

27 posted on 07/27/2007 9:32:23 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
Rush’s reference to the “cruelty” of the left is absolutely true and consistent.

Yes, it is. Taht creulty is a cornerstone of liberalism. That's why it's a mental disorder -- or rather, several disorders rolled into one.

Liberal compassion is an oxymoron.

28 posted on 07/27/2007 9:34:25 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Much rather send ol' Fidel a "care package"...

29 posted on 07/27/2007 9:34:58 PM PDT by RasterMaster (Rudy McRomneyson = KENNEDY wing of the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I thought the exact same thing. This one statement ruins this idiot’s credibility for any other analysis or fact based statements.

30 posted on 07/27/2007 9:37:28 PM PDT by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Peter Libra

Good points. As much as I have hated and disdained what Sheehan has done and said I see her as a woman who never allowed herself to grieve. She helped turn the grief to anger which she has still not gotten over. She is one hurting woman who has lost a young son and she needs help.

31 posted on 07/27/2007 9:57:42 PM PDT by jwh_Denver (In the Rise and Fall of United States I hope the Fall part is more than one chapter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Republicans are in disarray, and the likelihood of a Democrat taking possession of the White House at the 2008 election seems to increase by the day.

Sounds like something Baghdad Bob would say.

Yes it does. But in this case, at this point in time, it seems to be fairly accurate. But that hardly makes it certain the the situation will remain this way or progress even further to the benefit of the Dems. Politics and the moods of the public are very mercurial.

What the current political situation does say clearly is this, that the Dems are not winning, but that the Pubbies are losing. That is a real and significant distinction, because it says that if the Republicans start using their brains a little and move in a more consistent assertive manner, the pendulum will start swinging the other way. Will they? I'm not seeing any evidence thus far.
Introduce a dynamic and even mildly conservative candidate into the mix and the dynamics of the national political scene will change a lot in a hurry.

Unfortunately, a lot of the momentum needed by Republicans should be originating from leadership and example coming from the White House. It isn't there and hasn't been. The President pissed away huge amounts of political capital with his amnesty bill and, with the stupid things he has been saying in public on the subject since then he is making it worse, not better.

The Republican party leadership needs to wake up to the fact that CBS forged documents and related tactics on the part of the press in 04 are playground stuff in comparison to the kind of sleazy advocacy for the Clinton candidacy they will be doing this time. It is going to be unbelievably ugly this time. Is the party going to fart around and wait for a group like the Swift Boat Vets to win this election? I believe that is exactly what the game plan is at this point.

32 posted on 07/27/2007 10:00:02 PM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
"Republicans are in disarray, praise the DNC. Voters will roast their possession of the White House in hell at the hands of Democrats."

These villains, and in particular the villain Bush, make certain the Democrats will be taking possession of the White House at the 2008 election . Not only will they be disappointed, I think they will be hysterical."
33 posted on 07/27/2007 10:19:01 PM PDT by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Doogle

I listen to Rush regularly. He’s never been nasty towards Sheehan. He’s always seemed to mention her as an unstable woman being used by the left, and always said they would dump her when she didn’t serve their purpose anymore.

34 posted on 07/27/2007 10:42:47 PM PDT by I still care ("Remember... for it is the doom of men that they forget" - Merlin, from Excalibur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Personally, I think Rush read my blog:

The Defense of Cindy Sheehan

I’m going to try to hold the bile down as I write this. I might not have any luck and have to end this early though.

That said, ideologically Cindy Sheehan is wrong. I’m not going to sit here and apologize first because her son died. She loves to wave around the death of Casey. She brings it up in EVERY SINGLE PUBLIC STATEMENT SHE MAKES. How does the death of her son prove that taxes need to be raised? How does the death of her son prove that the government should be in charge of health care? How does the death of her son make her right on any stupid issue she’s come out in favor of? The death of her son doesn’t even prove that the war in Iraq is wrong.

Okay - I’m sorry you’re wrong (and not smart enough to see it.)

But just because this woman is an idiot that doesn’t mean it’s okay for the left to take advantage of the woman (which is exactly what they did.) According to the biographies I’m reading, the woman was born in 1957 and her life started in 2004 with the death of her son. How strange that a modern day figure has absolutely no notes on her past anywhere. Although it’s not noted anywhere I can find, I do believe that Sheehan was featured in Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9-11”. A very strange credit in the Internet Movie Database would seem to confirm this. Although it gives a short bio of Sheehan there, it lists no acting credits at all.

Thus Sheehan just emerged out of thin air. She walks around talking about how her son died in war in Iraq - but so what? Thousands of mothers and fathers have lost their kids Iraq. Why did Sheehan rise to the top to become a celebrity?

The short answer is that she’s a left wing construct. Libs saw a woman who is obviously insane with grief and instead of dropping the money to get the woman a shrink, they spent it giving her a platform to make a circus of herself. How in the hell does a woman who lists her occupation as “Housewife” have millions of dollars to organize protests, buy five acres of land in Texas for thousands of dollars and party with Movie Stars? How does a nobody get a book deal, her own stage play and a movie deal?

Answer: she’s a useful idiot. Much like that girl in high school that all the football players had sex with - she wasn’t popular, they just knew they could put her on display and she’d go along with it.

And thus is Cindy Sheehan. As long as the left had someone out there willing to embarrass themselves life was good - especially since the left was out of power. Someone had to go out there and say the things libs think but would never dare say (like the war in Iraq is really a war for Israel.)

But now there’s a problem: Democrats and Libs are back in power. Now instead of being a face of the movement, Sheehan is more like the embarrassing aunt. They don’t want Sheehan to say what they all think anymore (lest it ruin their chances in the next election.)

Case and point: on July 3, 2007 Sheehan announced that if Pelosi doesn’t draw up articles of impeachment by the end of July, she would run against her in the next election.

And the firestorm began. So far, Sheehan has been “Warned” about posting on the lefty site DailyKos. Apparently Kos is (now) a Democrat Hack site that only supports Dems. Funny, cause I remember Lieberman about this time last year, was Kos’ public enemy #1 since he supported the war. It seems like I also remember the Kossacks supporting Sheehan’s speeches to the Communists, the Socialists, the Venezuelans who support Hugo Chavez, etc. Frankenstein’s monster is free to rampage the peasant village, just don’t let her back in when she runs back to the castle.

So the moral of the story is “Threaten OUR power and you’re out.” I can’t help but feel sorry for the woman. She’s too intellectually vacant to see what they were doing. This makes even madder at the left. But I’m not surprised. Their power means everything to them - and people are just tools to an end like any other rotten movement.

The Nazis had their “Night of the Long Knives” where they massacred all their radicals. Seems that the left is having theirs as well.

35 posted on 07/27/2007 11:22:38 PM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dragonspirit
2008 is our election to win so long as we stay united.

This country will never elect anyone named Hillary or Obama, unless one of them happens to run against someone named Rudy.

36 posted on 07/27/2007 11:45:18 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for SSgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
So Rush had a kind word for a woman the Left used and then threw away? He doesn't need to be lectured to on ethics by people who think treating people decently is beneath them. We're not endorsing Cindy Sheehan's wacko views, mind you. We're just taking note of a deeply disturbed woman who was turned into headline fodder against Bush. The moment she questioned the Democrats, it was "adios." These people have created their own Frankenstein and now its turning on them.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

37 posted on 07/27/2007 11:54:03 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Duke Nukum

Gingrich called that part of the Republican party

“The Perfectionist Caucus.”

38 posted on 07/28/2007 3:00:42 AM PDT by Finalapproach29er (Dems will impeach Bush in 2008; mark my words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Cindy Sheehan is repeating what she has heard elsewhere, but it is true:

The Democrats ARE the Party of Slavery (POS).

They were the POS before the Civil War.
They were the POS during the Civil War.
They were the POS after the Civil War.
They were the POS with Jim Crow.
They were the POS opposing civil rights.
They were the POS with George Wallace.
They are the POS advocating the slavery of welfare dependence.

39 posted on 07/28/2007 3:23:06 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
"The problem here is not really Ms. Sheehan or Mr. Feingold. It is the strand of political activism of which she, in particular, is an exemplar. Ms. Sheehan represents a constituency that prefers to lose while glorying in its own ideological purity rather than sully itself in the battle for incremental victories."

Sheehan doesn't represent a "brand", she has never had a clue how the government works, that's how the left was able to use her and why she is morphing her position as see learns more.

40 posted on 07/28/2007 3:30:43 AM PDT by Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson