Will Cindy cost Dems another presidential election?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
Will Cindy cost Dems another presidential election?

By GEORGE WILL

WASHINGTON - Sad yet riveting, like a wreck by the side of the road, Cindy Sheehan, a plaything of her own sincerities and other peoples’ opportunisms, has already been largely erased from the national memory by new waves of media fickleness in the service of the public’s summer ennui. But before she becomes fully relegated to the role of opening act for more durable luminaries at anti-war rallies, prudent Democrats - those political snail darters, the emblematic endangered species of American politics - should consider the possibility that, although she was a burr under the president’s saddle for several weeks, she is symptomatic of something that in 2008 could cause the Democratic Party a sixth loss in eight presidential elections. That something is a shrillness unlike anything heard, in living memory, from a major tendency within a major party.

Many warmhearted and mildly-attentive Americans say the president should have invited Sheehan to his kitchen table in Crawford for a cup of coffee and a serving of that low-calorie staple of democratic sentimentality - “dialogue.” Well.

Since her first meeting with the president, she has called him a “lying bastard,” “filth spewer,” “evil maniac,” “fuehrer” and the world’s “biggest terrorist” who is committing “blatant genocide” and “waging a nuclear war” in Iraq. Even leaving aside her not entirely persuasive contention that someone else concocted the obviously anti-Israel and inferentially anti-Semitic elements of one of her recent e-mails - elements of a sort nowadays often found woven into ferocious left-wing rhetoric - it is difficult to imagine how the dialogue would get going.

He: “Cream and sugar?”

She: “Yes, please, filth spewer.”

Read the rest timesrepublican.com/columns/story/0824202005_colcol.asp

(Excerpt) Read more at timesrepublican.com …
 
It’s 2005…election is in 2008. A lot can happen between now and then, and the electorate has an incredibly short memory. She could however have an effect on the 2006 mid-term elections.

Robert
 
I find it unfair to label her the “face of democrats” If this is gonna be, then whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Wouldnt it be fair then to say Pat Robertson is the face of the RNC? Makes more sense to me.

Hes a guy who actually ran for President. Hes a leader of a group of Christians who help elect the President. He has the ear of the White House right now. Hes a powerful man who owns his own network, therefore what this man says publicly must logically carry more weight than a grieving mother speaking in extremes regardless of whom she is hanging with, right? Seems logical to me.
So since he calls for another humans assassination, whom by the way is not a communist but a socialist who is a duly elected president not to mention a practicing Roman Catholic. So isnt it fair to label Pat the face of the Republicans more so than Cindy Sheehan the face of the Democrats? I mean c’mon, if we’re gonna play the demonize game lets be “fair & balanced” about it shall we? 😉

Of course I dont think he should really. He’s a fruitcake and doesnt speak for (hopefully) none of the RNC, just like Cindy isnt the face for ALL Democrats Just attempting to point out a great double standard here and bring some honest perspective to the matter in light of Mr Roberstons statements and the fact he is much more than a mere citizen than Ms Sheehan. 😉

Peace.
 
40.png
Cathlicrat:
I find it unfair to label her the “face of democrats” If this is gonna be, then whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Wouldnt it be fair then to say Pat Robertson is the face of the RNC? Makes more sense to me.

Hes a guy who actually ran for President. Hes a leader of a group of Christians who help elect the President. He has the ear of the White House right now. Hes a powerful man who owns his own network, therefore what this man says publicly must logically carry more weight than a grieving mother speaking in extremes regardless of whom she is hanging with, right? Seems logical to me.
So since he calls for another humans assassination, whom by the way is not a communist but a socialist who is a duly elected president not to mention a practicing Roman Catholic. So isnt it fair to label Pat the face of the Republicans more so than Cindy Sheehan the face of the Democrats? I mean c’mon, if we’re gonna play the demonize game lets be “fair & balanced” about it shall we? 😉

Of course I dont think he should really. He’s a fruitcake and doesnt speak for (hopefully) none of the RNC, just like Cindy isnt the face for ALL Democrats Just attempting to point out a great double standard here and bring some honest perspective to the matter in light of Mr Roberstons statements and the fact he is much more than a mere citizen than Ms Sheehan. 😉

Peace.
Huh??
 
40.png
gilliam:
Will Cindy cost Dems another presidential election?

By GEORGE WILL

WASHINGTON - Sad yet riveting, like a wreck by the side of the road, Cindy Sheehan, a plaything of her own sincerities and other peoples’ opportunisms, has already been largely erased from the national memory by new waves of media fickleness in the service of the public’s summer ennui. But before she becomes fully relegated to the role of opening act for more durable luminaries at anti-war rallies, prudent Democrats - those political snail darters, the emblematic endangered species of American politics - should consider the possibility that, although she was a burr under the president’s saddle for several weeks, she is symptomatic of something that in 2008 could cause the Democratic Party a sixth loss in eight presidential elections. That something is a shrillness unlike anything heard, in living memory, from a major tendency within a major party.

Many warmhearted and mildly-attentive Americans say the president should have invited Sheehan to his kitchen table in Crawford for a cup of coffee and a serving of that low-calorie staple of democratic sentimentality - “dialogue.” Well.

Since her first meeting with the president, she has called him a “lying bastard,” “filth spewer,” “evil maniac,” “fuehrer” and the world’s “biggest terrorist” who is committing “blatant genocide” and “waging a nuclear war” in Iraq. Even leaving aside her not entirely persuasive contention that someone else concocted the obviously anti-Israel and inferentially anti-Semitic elements of one of her recent e-mails - elements of a sort nowadays often found woven into ferocious left-wing rhetoric - it is difficult to imagine how the dialogue would get going.

He: “Cream and sugar?”

She: “Yes, please, filth spewer.”

Read the rest timesrepublican.com/columns/story/0824202005_colcol.asp

(Excerpt) Read more at timesrepublican.com …
The DNC doesn’t need any help. They already have the best spoiler at the helm of the party.
 
40.png
Cathlicrat:
I find it unfair to label her the “face of democrats” If this is gonna be, then whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Wouldnt it be fair then to say Pat Robertson is the face of the RNC? Makes more sense to me.

Hes a guy who actually ran for President. Hes a leader of a group of Christians who help elect the President. He has the ear of the White House right now. Hes a powerful man who owns his own network, therefore what this man says publicly must logically carry more weight than a grieving mother speaking in extremes regardless of whom she is hanging with, right? Seems logical to me.
So since he calls for another humans assassination, whom by the way is not a communist but a socialist who is a duly elected president not to mention a practicing Roman Catholic. So isnt it fair to label Pat the face of the Republicans more so than Cindy Sheehan the face of the Democrats? I mean c’mon, if we’re gonna play the demonize game lets be “fair & balanced” about it shall we? 😉

Of course I dont think he should really. He’s a fruitcake and doesnt speak for (hopefully) none of the RNC, just like Cindy isnt the face for ALL Democrats Just attempting to point out a great double standard here and bring some honest perspective to the matter in light of Mr Roberstons statements and the fact he is much more than a mere citizen than Ms Sheehan. 😉

Peace.
Help me here. I’m not making the connection. Conservatives are distancing themselves from Pat Robertson as fast as they can. Cindy Sheehan, on the other hand, is being covered 24/7 by the MSM (who conveniently leave out such interesting facts such as the President already met with her, her son served in an all-volunteer Army, other gold-star families do not share her sentiments, etc. but why quibble?).

The left is DYING to make an issue of Pat Robertson because they desperately need to make conservatives look bad. Why? Because they don’t have an agenda. They don’t have anything to add that will bring this country back from the abyss that has become our culture where, just for example, 1 in 3 babies is born without a father and where child abuse is commonplace yet we can’t get effective laws passed because we are reluctant to pass laws that restrict any form of sexuality.

Maybe if the left had something to offer other than abortion and gay marriage, Americans would return to that party.
 
Will Cindy cost Dems another presidential election?
Unless the Democrats can cast themselves as an effective opposition party, my answer is that she won’t have any effect one way or the other.

The Democrats have all but collapsed as an antiwar opposition thanks to their near total abandonment of principle. Too many of their leaders voted for the war in the Congressional authorization out of political calculation and cowardice.

Mrs Sheehan at this moment appears to be a falling star. She’s aligned herself with and allowed herself to be used by the militant America-hating fringe left.

A healthy, principled Democratic Party would give her mainstream support and, therefore, credibility.

Of course, the War Party remains in full attack mode as the laptop bombardiers (some of whom inhabit these forums) continue to fire away at Mrs. Sheehan.

The growing but still amorphous antiwar movement will need another rallying point. People like myself who oppose the war on moral and practical grounds can still look to the message of our Catholic bishops and Pope Benedict XVI for hope.
 
40.png
condan:
Maybe if the left had something to offer other than abortion and gay marriage, Americans would return to that party.
That is the way I see it too.
 
40.png
Cathlicrat:
not to mention a practicing Roman Catholic.
WOW! I mean really WOOOOOOW!
You MUST be joking right? Please tell me you are! Hugo Chavez a “practicing Roman Catholic” I just can´t believe you actually wrote that.
With all due respect you have no idea what you´re talking about
 
40.png
gnjsdad:
Of course, the War Party remains in full attack mode as the laptop bombardiers (some of whom inhabit these forums) continue to fire away at Mrs. Sheehan.
I don’t think anyone here calls themselves members of a war party. I must be reading different posts than you are. Many times I feel as if our forums are invaded by the extreme left, and I report them for they usually break a rule or two.
 
Someone sure have called Fidel Castro a “practicing Catholic” before Pope excommunicated him.
 
I read accusations hurled back and forth. Chavez is accused of being a dictator, the facts state otherwise. The Bishops were good at accusing him of things but cited no evidence or facts to back that up (this would help to convince me) He is a duly elected Democratic President of which the Carter Foundation went down to oversee those elections and everything was above board. If Carter is going to be attacked as not being fair minded in that election, then we have no further discussion here.
Chavez calls Bishops Devils and Bandits (is he that far in what we have seen in some of them? I have seen more proof of that then in real crimes committed by Chavez so far) and I read a Cardinal actually denouncing the man and saying he needs an Exorcism! :eek: I’d hardly call that Christian while giving a statement. So ultimately those from both sides. I am open for facts however if they exist. But they do not in those 2 links.
 
40.png
Cathlicrat:
He is a duly elected Democratic President of which the Carter Foundation went down to oversee those elections and everything was above board. If Carter is going to be attacked as not being fair minded in that election, then we have no further discussion here.
Well I guess the discussion is over then. The fact is the Carter Foundation and the OEA (Organización de Estados Americanos) presided by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and by former Colombia President Cesar Gaviria to oversee that election, were both used and tricked by the regime and out of ignorance and fear they disgrace themselves by certifying the results.

Jimmy Carter even left Venezuela the very next morning of the election because he had an event in Atlanta 😦
You implied on your post the Carter Foundation is this grand entity incapable of doing ever anything wrong. Reminds me of what many people think about the UN
 
40.png
Cathlicrat:
He is a duly elected Democratic President of which the Carter Foundation went down to oversee those elections and everything was above board. If Carter is going to be attacked as not being fair minded in that election, then we have no further discussion here.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Please, do you recall what Jimmy Carter’s presidency was like? I believe he means well, but come on, he was arguably the least effective president in US history. Gas lines, enabeling the Iranian Revolution (because he decided to withdraw support for and attack the Shah thus leaving Iran ripe for the taking by Khomeini), Failing to rescue the hostages… Lets be honest the man is not God’s gift to foreign policy. He was completley blown out of the water his second term (he only won six states and lost the Senate to the Republicans for the first time in 25 years) because he mismanaged this country so badly. I sincerely doubt he is capable enough and aggresive enough to ensure a fair election. And lets be honest, he is a bit buddy buddy with communists like Fidel Castro so I am not sure his objectivety is without question either. But that aside what in Carter’s resume leads you to believe he could manage anything effectively? He probably thinks the Iranian elections were fair and democratic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top