August 19, 2005

Sheehan Motivating the Media

Absolutely positively my last post on Cindy Sheehan.

A good chunk of the media and basically all of the "usual suspects" are calling the game from the same playbook. Cindy Sheehan is a grieving mother who's selfless dedication arises from a deeply held belief that the war in Iraq is wrong, the administration is totally inept and our boys are dying in an ill concieved endeavor.

They are sparing no effort in the attempt to characterize Ms. Sheehan as the personification of the American Mother who has lost a child to war, America's mom so to speak. They further attempt to promote the perception that Ms. Sheehan represents a sunstantial number if not a decided majority of the Soldier Moms in this country; "If only they had a voice they'd be saying the same thing as Cindy" and other such pajorative speculation. They are even referring to her now as "Mother" Sheehan in an effort to perpetuate this belief. The marketing campaign has been professional albeit not all that convincing, somehere between the launching of a new $125.00 an ounce Chanel fragrance and an infomercial for steak knives.

Any criticism of this fine women is labelled as a vicious right wing attack on the very institution of motherhood itself. ( Bill Johnson Rocky Mountain News "The influential and powerful in this country feel free to attack and belittle a woman who lost a son in the war and now refuses to remain silent in her grief, pretty much tells you everything you need to know of 2005 America".) They rationalize the cheerleading because it is after all for mother, country and apple pie.

It's pie alright, steaming cowpie and it's nothing about substance and everything about smoke and mirrors. Ms. Sheehans persona is a spectre created in the fertile minds of the far left pacifist peaceniks, MoveOn .Org and the media. In Cindy Sheehan they have created a caricature of their collective selves.

Ms. Sheehan is anything but a "typical" mother. She has been active in far left fringe organizations since well before the invasion of Iraq was a glint in George Bush's eye. She now aligns herself with such "mainstream" organizations as TrueMajority and Democracy for America, MoveOn.Org, Code Pink Women for Peace, United for Peace and Justice, Veterans for Peace, Michael Moore, etc etc.

Some of her more notable statements:

1. This country is not worth dying for.

2. Yes, he (Casey Sheehan) was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.

3. When asked if she would feel any different if Casey had died in Afghanistan, she replied: I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing...... we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

4. After their meeting she commented "I now know he's [Bush] sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith.". Subsequently, she has said that Bush treated her callously during the meeting and acted as if it was a party atmospere.

5. "The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush."

6. "I want to meet with the President to ask him why he killed my son"

7. Sheehan says she considers Lynne Stewart her Atticus Finch

8. "It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It’s not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!“

There's plenty more, but I believe the point is made. Other than maybe 5% or so of the population that could use serious psychiatric help, nobody honestly believes that Ms. Sheehan is anything close to representative of a typical American mother, grieving or not. I do believe that certain people on the right went a bit far pontificating on her divorce and tax payment defaults. That smacks of smear and it's not needed. Ms. Sheehan has poked enough holes in her own boat.

Contrary to the prevailing media talking points, the fact that she has had a terrible loss and is grieving by no means immunizes her from scrutiny or constructive criticism nor should it. Ms. Sheehan chose to exploit her present situation to highlight her ideology and further her agenda.
If she insists on sparring in the public arena of politically weighty issues, she better expect to get nailed with a few jabs. God forbid we should use her own words against her.

The media somehow feels that Ms. Sheehan's opinion should carry more weight than the average American. Somehow, because of her loss she is eminantly qualified to make social commentary on the legitimacy of the Iraq war. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's because of her loss that her judgment and rational are skewed by strong emotion making her opinions particularly suspect and unreliable.

Ms. Sheehan has proven through her statements and actions that she is an enigma, the miniscule exception rather than the rule. What her motivations are I don't know nor do I particularly care. She couldn't be any more wrong regardless of how noble or despicable her motivations may be.

The motivations of the Entrenched Media, however are known and predictable. They needed a poster child for the antiwar movement and found one in Cindy Sheehan. A useful idiot with the added bonus of being a true believer. You can alomost hear them muttering, "Holy Crap, these stories just seem to write themselves". Expect them to hold onto her like grim death.

Companion OpiniPundit
posted by traderrob at 11:05 AM Comment (0) | Trackback

Posted by: Traderrob at 05:28 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 971 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Rusty...did you see the Rasmussen poll?

Posted by: Jim Rose at August 19, 2005 05:41 PM (IFM6E)

2 dude, your website is going the route of peter jennings..a fast painful death this new format sucks, and the material is bush league compared to the days of old

Posted by: seany boy at August 20, 2005 01:00 AM (/5JqK)

3 seany boy, your opinion is vastly superior to the rest of us and I'm sure Rusty will take your advice to heart and immediately change everything to suit your delicate sensibilities. Can you suggest some different, more pleasing colors or a better format? Better yet, perhaps you can get Chomsky or Churchill to do a guest post for us. That would be exciting.

Posted by: Oyster at August 20, 2005 08:52 AM (YudAC)

4 You are so self contradictory! You see it troubling that any criticism of Sheehan is "is labelled as a vicious right wing attack," but then you go on to claim that "Ms. Sheehans persona is a spectre created in the fertile minds of the far left pacifist peaceniks, MoveOn .Org and the media." Let's replace one ridiculous conspiracy theory with another ridiculous conspiracy theory. Surely you can think in a more nuanced fashion than the repetitive whining about "liberal media" and "the left."

Posted by: Jdog at August 20, 2005 01:16 PM (Rm85L)

5 You can't deny that the media has given over 21,000 reports on Sheehan while giving little or no coverage to mothers who have lost children who have a totally different view, or that moveon.org, Code Pink and various other extreme left wing organizations have taken up her cause, given her a strong, internet-based platform and even placed a PR firm at her disposal. I mean, really. C'mon, Jdog. That's not conspiracy. It's right in everyone's face. If the far left can say "I support the Troops" without supporting their cause (which makes no sense to me, personally) then surely the right can say "We understand her grief" but do not support her agenda.

Posted by: Oyster at August 20, 2005 01:42 PM (YudAC)

6 I don't know where your figures are coming from, but in print papers there seem to have been 410 articles (Lexis Nexis). If you count web print, 8740 (Google News). Magazines 38 (Lexis Nexis). News transcripts 197 (Lexis Nexis). Wire services 348 (Lexis Nexis). That seems very shy of 21,000. And trust me letters/opinions/editorials printed in the daily papers show a greater amount of negative opinions, from questioning her motives, to calling it "dishonor" to her son. So much for "liberal" media bias. Only some papers have included responses to these conservative or pro-war criticisms of Sheehan. What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that many of these pieces were penned by the very women you say are not getting coverage: mothers and wives of fallen soldiers, who do not support (nor understand) Sheehan. Supporting the troops, not the war seems more a liberal perspective, than the "far left." The far left can no longer see great differences between democrats and republicans anyway. Yet, isn't that the point in this blog? To collapse democrats and Marxists into one neat category = "left." It is a shame that once a leftist protest actually gets covered, moveon comes in and appropriates it.

Posted by: jdog at August 20, 2005 10:06 PM (Rm85L)

7 It is a shame that once a leftist protest actually gets covered, moveon comes in and appropriates it. MoveOn is a subset of the Left but guess what? It's man is in the chair of the DNC. Its talking points get picked up quickly by the MSM. IIRC it was a MoveOn type that claimed ownership to the Democratic Party. Get used to it or fight it. Your original note Jdog is interesting. Surely you understand the statement made by Harry Truman? If you can't stand the heat to get out of the kitchen? Cindy didn't walk into the kitchen she stormed into it. Maybe she did not start out with MoveOn and CodePink et al (Cindy and the two groups mentioned prior are also adamantly opposed to what went down in Afghanistan despite direct connections to 9/11 and broad international support) but she is not kicking them out and their language is very close match. When the MSM points out Cindy's comments about the Joooooossss and how she hates America (hey, then why not leave? Surely she will be welcomed into Palestine) as well as her demands to meet the President then we can talk about balance. Hey, did you know David Duke is in her corner? She is a priestess marrying the ideals of David Duke and Michael Moore. That is grotesque. If there are typos most likely they are due to the fact this post is coming from a Mickeysoft system at another house. I miss my linux!

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at August 20, 2005 11:09 PM (4rhYe)

8 Bullshit: David Duke says he doesn't know who the bitch is.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 21, 2005 07:13 AM (linwh)

9 Jdog: I'm not going to argue with you on how many reports there were. She has been mentioned on TV news a lot more than 197 times in the past (over) two weeks. The last I'd heard was over 21,000 times. I don't care how many "transcripts" there have been written. If I can watch one news channel for a little over an hour and see three separate mentions of her by different people I can only wonder how many there are on all the news channels 24/7. "So much for liberal media bias"? You ARE kidding right? For every conservative-biased point brought up in the media, not including the internet, there are considerably more liberal-biased reports. Any time one conservative message goes out I hear the same thing - "So much for liberal media bias!" Without a doubt, the liberal media overwhelms the conservative every day.

Posted by: Oyster at August 21, 2005 09:17 AM (YudAC)

10 Sheenan has a big akin to DADID DUKE and HANIO JANE

Posted by: sandpiper at August 23, 2005 08:05 PM (Suq7y)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
28kb generated in CPU 0.063, elapsed 0.1759 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.165 seconds, 259 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.