Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: Rainsford
This thread (and the zillions of other wasted bytes spent talking about Cindy Sheehan) represents exactly what I hate about politics. Rather than forming intelligent opinions and debating the actual issues, pro-war people latch on to Sheehan like she's the elected leader of all "anti-war" folks everywhere, and then attack them by proxy.
She is the frontman for all that is anti-war at the moment.
The Republicans that attack her are not at fault for tearing her a new one, they did not put her on this pedastal so that she could speak her 2 cents in the limelight. She is responsible for that as are the people who put her in that limelight.
The fact is, once you willingly become a front a center political figure you will be attacked by one side or another. It is simply the way things are. If you do not want that type of attention and ridicule then you shouldn't be speaking in front of cameras.
Her freedom of speech right to say her opinions are no greater than my freedom of speech rights to say that she is a partisan hack using her son's death to back up her politics.
Subtle and otherwise (ahem, zendari), the message is that since Sheehan is wrong, clearly the entire anti-war movement, indeed, the entire Democratic party and all liberals everywhere, must be wrong as well. Sheehan is only interesting in that she is getting a lot of media coverage, something that has been explained rather well already (and it's not "liberal bias"). As far as broad ideological support, conservatives like Ann Coulter are far more supported by their side, and I doubt most conservatives would find arguing against the right by proxy through Ann to be very amusing (and I agree with them).
I disagree to be honest.
Cindy Sheehan has been given alot more airplay than Ann Coulter ever has. Sure Sheehan will eventually fall by the wayside while Ann Coulter will still hang around. But, Ann Coulter has never been given this much airplay newpapers, the internet, and television throughout the nation.
The point is, you are associated by the company you keep. Alot of Republicans will listen and read Rush, Coulter, and others because they are lunatics. However, the mainstream segment of the party realizes that having Rush or Coulter as the mouthpiece for the party is not a good idea. To be honest they don't even want them to be seen.
Democrats are likened to Michael Moore for example because he sat alongside Clinton and Carter at the Democratic National Convention. If you want to stop being associated with wackos then stop hanging out with wackos. Those wackos won't win you elections.
It's really quite silly, Cindy Sheehan is a random, grieving mother. The only reason the right keeps attacking her is because it's easier than rationally discussing the issues involved. She's a pretty easy target, and it gives the talking heads an easy way to attack the anti-war movement without actually needing real arguments.
I think you are looking at this ass backwards to be honest. I'm always up for an intellectual discussion on the current war and anything else. However, the left wing brought up Cindy Sheehan to promote their agenda regarding this war. They brought her up because they didn't want to prove their point intellectually, they wanted to pull at people's emotional strings.
This is the equivalent of pro-life Republicans showing pictures of dead babies in an attempt to gain support to ban abortions. They are not trying to have intellectual discussion, they are trying to play on people's emotions.
