Posted on 08/30/2007 11:59:00 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A few weeks ago, I wrote a post saying Cindy Sheehan would probably not do very well against Nancy Pelosi, and therefore I was sorry she had decided to run. I said she was more valuable to the antiwar movement as an activist. I said leftists waste a lot of time on futile electoral contests, and cited examples of such contests. These remarks, which were couched in terms of deepest respect for Cindy Sheehan, have evoked much bile and wrath in this blog's comment section and elsewhere in the blogosphere. So much fun are commenters having discussing what a traitor and reactionary I am, few seem to have noticed that, in a followup, I wrote that my comments were actually as much about electoral protest politics in general as about this particular race and "if Cindy Sheehan wants to make an anti-war gesture, running against Nancy Pelosi is one way to do it, so good luck to her."
She's going to need it. Her outraged and self-righteous response to my mild and polite posts make me wonder how she will withstand the rigors of political campaigning. Because I express doubt that she will make much impression on the ballot box, and think that likelihood and its implications are worth discussing frankly, Sheehan accuses me of "stridently" (nice --does anyone EVER use that word for a man?) defending the Democratic Party's "complicity" in the war and of not caring about the sufferings of Iraqis the way she does.
I'm sorry, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Even if I was the reprehensible character she claims -- yellowdog Dem indifferent to the horrors of war, willing to say anything to keep Nancy Pelosi in power -- I could still be right about Sheehan's own electoral prospects and about whether such runs are the best use of the antiwar/progressive movements energies. Shouldn't a serious candidate be trying to show the hundreds of thousands of people who visit this website that I am wrong? Sheehan doesn't address any of the points I raise, or that Gary Younge raises in his excellent column on the same issues. All she does is malign my motives and my personality, attack The Nation for supposedly exploiting her fame, and accuse anyone who questions her judgment of supporting the war.
If a lot of people who cheered you last year think you're making a mistake this year, there may be something to it. I'm just saying.
Deal with it, you’re nothing but fascist neocon warmongers at The Nation.
Go Mother Sheehan Go!
I think the poster makes a significant connection here. Maybe “the Nation” has grasped something that might make them want to consider their stance a bit.
One of the most odious tactics of “radicals” is to take one element of conventional morality (in this case “peace”), blow it up out of all proportion, and then use it to steamroller everyone who disagrees with them. Everyone wants to be at peace. Nobody in their right minds WANTS to fight a war, its something you do when you have to. War is bad, but most sane people also realise its not the worst thing. But radicals can conveniantly sidestep any criticsim by latching onto this war=bad emotion. It’s intellectually very lazy (and dishonest).
Thus, Cindy Sheehan is an antiwar activist. She is best known as being an antiwar activist. Therefore, if you disagree with her, about ANYTHING, it follows you must be a warmonger! That is the logic she employs. If you were to tell her that her top didnt go with her hat she would accuse you of being a neocon. I’d be interested to see her doing housework - she’d probably be accusing the dishwasher of working for the CIA.
Sorry Cindy, it doesnt work like that. As a “representative of the people” you would occasionally have to do other things other than complain about war in Iraq. What “the Nation” is saying (and actually what most of the US is saying) is that you shouldn’t run not because you are anti war but because you’re an inexperienced one-issue harridan who’d be crap at the job.
How dare she have an independent thought of her own! The central authority did NOT approve of it...
When you play with the fires of fascism, you're going to get burned.
When Cindy Moonbat looks ridiculous even to leftists at “The Nation” then you know she is off in Never-Never Land.....
“Sorry Cindy, it doesnt work like that. As a “representative of the people” you would occasionally have to do other things other than complain about war in Iraq.”
EXACTLY. When she first came out (after her three week QUIT) and she said she was running everyone started wondering about her platform.
I thought the only thing she even cares about is getting Bush out of office. Does she even have another agenda? NOT LIKELY. She, by no means, intends to represent anyone else.
Please note too that her Cindy for whatever site is not even up and running yet!!!! If you were serious about running wouldn’t you jump start that the minute you made the announcement???
She’s a joke.
Priceless. You really can't make this stuff up.
Leftist attacking leftist - the history of the progressive movement since the publication of “The Communist Manifesto.” Cindy Sheehan, in my opinion, is best described by the Leninist term “useful idiot,” since she has done good work for the left without realizing that she is among the first to be liquidated once the movement gains real power.
Ironically enough, the staff at “The Nation” also fits that description.
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.