Jump to content

Cindy Sheehan: Endorsing Chavez?


Recommended Posts

As a moderate conservative, I often find common ground with some people on the left. I felt bad for Cindy Sheehan and even, at one point, thought maybe she should have a meeting with Bush.

But now this... :ph34r:

Does the American left really want to be associated with Chavez? This could be political gold for the Republicans, as Chavez is openly and proudly anti-American.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060124/en_af...al_060124235441

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am probably more of a moderate Democrat, but being from Massachusetts that makes me a flaming liberal on the national spectrum of politics ;) but it isn't fair to say that "the American left" wants to be associated with Chavez any more than saying that the American right wants to be associated with the Saudi royal family. There are definitely people within each camp who do want that association. Harry Belafonte, for example, recently praised Chavez -- much to my dismay... the Bush family has practically offered up themselves as vassals to the House of Saud. So is it fair to say that you, as a self-proclaimed conservative, want to be associated with the House of Saud -- and all that entails from Wahabism to denial of equal status for women to wink-and-a-nod support of terror groups outside its borders -- just because someone on your end of the political spectrum has that connection?

Sheehan, while certainly against the Iraq war and a very vocal advocate of that position -- to the point of bordering on lunacy -- has not to my knowledge ever been annointed official spokesperson for everyone who stands to the left of center. She certainly does not speak for me on any issue, not even the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am probably more of a moderate Democrat, but being from Massachusetts that makes me a flaming liberal on the national spectrum of politics ;) but it isn't fair to say that "the American left" wants to be associated with Chavez any more than saying that the American right wants to be associated with the Saudi royal family. There are definitely people within each camp who do want that association. Harry Belafonte, for example, recently praised Chavez -- much to my dismay... the Bush family has practically offered up themselves as vassals to the House of Saud. So is it fair to say that you, as a self-proclaimed conservative, want to be associated with the House of Saud -- and all that entails from Wahabism to denial of equal status for women to wink-and-a-nod support of terror groups outside its borders -- just because someone on your end of the political spectrum has that connection?

Sheehan, while certainly against the Iraq war and a very vocal advocate of that position -- to the point of bordering on lunacy -- has not to my knowledge ever been annointed official spokesperson for everyone who stands to the left of center. She certainly does not speak for me on any issue, not even the war.

Liam,

I didn't mean to say that Cindy Sheehan was the official spokeswoman for the average American liberal. However, she was an inspiration to many American liberals and I don't think this is a wise tactical move by her. By going to Caracas and saying she is behind Chavez, etc., she is playing into the neo-con Republican's hands...that is not me either, being a moderate.

I just think she should chose her company more wisely, because if your average American moderate is deciding who to vote for and they know Chavez is anti-American and they see Sheehan, a symbol of the American left, with him, it gives credence to American conservatives who say the "left hates America" and things like that, which I know are untrue. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides getting the national conversation about the war started, what has Cindy Sheehan done wisely? I mean, some of her declaration have practically permanently placed her on the list of political crackpots.

I agree. I am not saying that Cindy Sheehan speaks for the American left, I am only saying that she needs to be careful people centrists don't start associating her with the leadership of the American left, as it could backfire on what you guys are trying to accomplish down there (I am taking you side here...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides getting the national conversation about the war started, what has Cindy Sheehan done wisely? I mean, some of her declaration have practically permanently placed her on the list of political crackpots.

I agree. I am not saying that Cindy Sheehan speaks for the American left, I am only saying that she needs to be careful people centrists don't start associating her with the leadership of the American left, as it could backfire on what you guys are trying to accomplish down there (I am taking you side here...)

The mothers/wives/girlfriends/sisters/cousins/aunts of dead soldiers very rarely are friends of the military afterwards. Ive seen it many many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides getting the national conversation about the war started, what has Cindy Sheehan done wisely? I mean, some of her declaration have practically permanently placed her on the list of political crackpots.

I agree. I am not saying that Cindy Sheehan speaks for the American left, I am only saying that she needs to be careful people centrists don't start associating her with the leadership of the American left, as it could backfire on what you guys are trying to accomplish down there (I am taking you side here...)

The mothers/wives/girlfriends/sisters/cousins/aunts of dead soldiers very rarely are friends of the military afterwards. Ive seen it many many times.

I find that disappointing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheehan arrested at SOTU

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address.

According to a blog post on Michael Moore's Web site attributed to Sheehan, the T-shirt said, "2,245 Dead. How many more?" -- a reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq.

Also interesting...

On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Bill Young, R-Florida, spoke on the House floor saying his wife, Beverly, had been "ordered to leave" the gallery during the speech for wearing a shirt that said, "Support Our Troops."

If you're with the T-shirts, you're with the terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheehan arrested at SOTU
Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address.

According to a blog post on Michael Moore's Web site attributed to Sheehan, the T-shirt said, "2,245 Dead. How many more?" -- a reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq.

Also interesting...

On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Bill Young, R-Florida, spoke on the House floor saying his wife, Beverly, had been "ordered to leave" the gallery during the speech for wearing a shirt that said, "Support Our Troops."

If you're with the T-shirts, you're with the terrorists.

Maybe there is a policy against wearing T-shirts in the gallery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe there is a policy against wearing T-shirts in the gallery.

Apparently, there's a rule that bars demonstrations in the galleries. However, apparently Capitol Police regulations specify that "demonstration activity" does not include merely wearing "Tee shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message."

I also have to ask why , if wearing a T-shirt is bad, then why does having grown men waving ink stained fingers (see: 2005 SOTU), or trotting out weeping military widows and "liberated" Afghan women not constitute "demonstration activity"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe there is a policy against wearing T-shirts in the gallery.

Apparently, there's a rule that bars demonstrations in the galleries. However, apparently Capitol Police regulations specify that "demonstration activity" does not include merely wearing "Tee shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message."

I also have to ask why , if wearing a T-shirt is bad, then why does having grown men waving ink stained fingers (see: 2005 SOTU), or trotting out weeping military widows and "liberated" Afghan women not constitute "demonstration activity"?

Well if someone from the left (T-Shirt...how many more dead?) and from the right (Support Our Troops) was thrown out, how can one complain? If civil rights were violated, then I'd have a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a libertarian who opposed the war from the beginning. I'm not really "left" or "right."

And I think Sheehan is a mole hired by Karl Rove to make all people opposed to the war look like drooling, blithering anti-semitic knee-jerk morons.

YankAbroad,

I never thought of myself as a libertarian before but after reading your posts I do wonder why I didn't consider myself one before... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, take the world's smallest political quiz and see where you fall! It takes literally 10 seconds.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

I score well within the Libertarian quadrant.

ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,

The political description that

fits you best is...

.

LIBERTARIAN

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and

economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one

that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose

government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate

diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I'll buy you two beers when you come to Montreal... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if someone from the left (T-Shirt...how many more dead?) and from the right (Support Our Troops) was thrown out, how can one complain? If civil rights were violated, then I'd have a problem.

The problem is a political establishment that brooks no dissent, regardless of what side of the political spectrum its coming from. As Bush has taken to saying lately, the administration welcomes dissent so long as it agrees with his position.

Charges dropped against Sheehan; Capitol Police apologize

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if someone from the left (T-Shirt...how many more dead?) and from the right (Support Our Troops) was thrown out, how can one complain? If civil rights were violated, then I'd have a problem.

The problem is a political establishment that brooks no dissent, regardless of what side of the political spectrum its coming from. As Bush has taken to saying lately, the administration welcomes dissent so long as it agrees with his position.

Charges dropped against Sheehan; Capitol Police apologize

You have no idea what your talking about. There were protest outside, nobody had an issue with the them. It is Senate rule that they don't allow protesters on the Senate floor. A guy was booted when Clinton was in office for the the very same thing (wearing a t-shirt with a message on it).

And please give me 1 example of bushing saying "his administration welcomes dissent so long as it agrees with his position".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gallery of Congress in an invitation-only event is not an appropriate protest venue, sorry. Especially when Ms. Sheehan screamed several times and attempted to interrupt the speech.

I've seen no reference to such an occurance in any of the accounts of the arrest. Where are you getting that information from?

Also: if Congress is not an appropriate venue for protests or "demonstrations", does that apply to the President and members of Congress as well?

You have no idea what your talking about. There were protest outside, nobody had an issue with the them. It is Senate rule that they don't allow protesters on the Senate floor. A guy was booted when Clinton was in office for the the very same thing (wearing a t-shirt with a message on it).

They don't allow "demonstrations" which, as I have shown, does not include wearing T-Shirts. If it happened during Clinton (cite?) then it is just as wrong (but somehow, i suspect you're not giving us the whole story).

And please give me 1 example of bushing saying "his administration welcomes dissent so long as it agrees with his position".

Ok:

"Yet there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy.

With so much in the balance, those of us in public office have a duty to speak with candor. A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison, put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country and show that a pledge from America means little. Members of Congress: however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our Nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American military in its vital mission."

So, to recap: those in "public office" should speak with "candor". But that duty does not extend to challenging any of the President's policies or assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, speaking of moron Sheehan, did anyone hear her latest rant? She stated that President Bush is 10 times the terrorist that Osama Bin Laden is. It also doesn't suprise me that she's cozying up to Chavez. I also read that Chavez is inviting members of Hamas and the Iranian Government to Venezuala. Your friends say alot about who you are. Moron Sheehan is in pretty bad shape then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen no reference to such an occurance in any of the accounts of the arrest

You've seen none because they are inconvenient to the Tweedledee Party's partisans who are seeking to nail the Tweedledum Party with charges of "censorship."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6013101521.html

Unfortunately, Ms. Sheehan's demand for free speech doesn't extend to having the courtesy to not disrupt the speech of the President during an invitation-only event mandated by law:

Sheehan, who was apparently given a gallery ticket by a member of Congress, began to attract notice about 30 minutes to an hour before President Bush's State of the Union speech.

Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, opened her jacket to reveal a T-shirt that, according to a supporter, gave the number of U.S. war dead and asked, "How many more?"

She was also vocal, said U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer, and after she ignored instructions to close her jacket and quiet down, she was led out and arrested. Demonstrating in the House gallery is prohibited.

The House gallery prior to a joint session of Congress for a state of the union address isn't the time or place to rip off your jacket and start screaming slogans "vocally."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've seen none because they are inconvenient to the Tweedledee Party's partisans who are seeking to nail the Tweedledum Party with charges of "censorship."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6013101521.html

Unfortunately, Ms. Sheehan's demand for free speech doesn't extend to having the courtesy to not disrupt the speech of the President during an invitation-only event mandated by law:

1. "Vocal" doesn't mean "screaming". Sorry, I'm not about to buy some "liberal media bias" rationale for the omission of that salient detail.

2. Sheehan was invited to the SOTU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Vocalizing" is not permitted in the House Gallery -- not even applause.

And think of the inverse -- imagine if Paula Jones wore a low-cut red top with "RAPIST!" printed in bright white letters across her chest and shouted abuse at President Clinton for "sexually abusing" her during a SOTU address. Are you telling me it would be wrong for her to be escorted out before she could disrupt the State of the Union address? A violation of her free speech rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,698
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    IPEM Group of Institutions
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ethan Wylde earned a badge
      First Post
    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...