0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 05:25 am
Ticomaya wrote:
I was just made aware of the below blog entry, and while I've no idea if this guy was really on the fence and pushed over by Ms. Sheehan, I'd like to believe the nonsense of the anti-war crowd could cause this kind of reaction in many more Democrats ....

I doubt it. If I abandoned my political commitments every time I find lots of egocentric, dishonest fools on my side, I would have turned entirely apolitical by now. But on close reading, my posts will reveal that I still have some political opinions. From this experience, Tico, I can't give you much hope about "many more" Democrts turning into Republicans. At least not for this reason.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 05:36 am
Quote:
FAQ: Cindy Sheehan, 'Peace Mom'
By Will Durst, AlterNet
Posted on August 18, 2005, Printed on August 20, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/24312/
Q. So who exactly is this Peace Mom woman anyway?

A. Cindy Sheehan is a 48 year old from Vacaville, California, who, in response to losing her son Casey in Iraq is selfishly attempting to horde the honor of being a gold star mother all to herself.

Q. What?

A. She's against the war.

Q. Oh, okay, so why the hell is she hunkered down in a ditch outside the Texas White House bothering the President during his vacation?

A. Vacation? 35 days is not a vacation. 35 days is a sabbatical. 35 days is a retreat. Its five weeks. Thirty-six hours short of a tenth of a year. Longer than the gestation period of most mammals. Where's my 35 day vacation? Where's your 35 day vacation? Where's the American public's 35 day vacation?

Q. Good point, but that wasn't the question.

A. I'm sorry, got a bit worked up there. What was the question again?

Q. What's she doing there?

A. She's camped outside the President's ranch to to meet with him and she vows to stay until he tells her exactly what noble cause her son died for. And she doesn't want to hear "Operation 2 Bucks A Gallon."

Q. Wouldn't you think a President this media savvy would just invite her inside for some cookies and lemonade and get it over with?

A. My theory is he's spent too much time grilling cheese sandwiches on the hood of his pickup and might be suffering from heat stroke. Besides, what kind of a man takes his family to Crawford Texas for a vacation?

Q. Are you saying West Texas in August is not what you call your garden spot?

A. I'm saying it's real similar to hell and that's assuming hell has winged insects the size of footstools.

Q. How has the conservative media responded?

A. You mean the right wing smear machine?

Q. Whatever.

A. Bill O'Reilly jumped on Ms Sheehan like an irritable gorilla stomping the air out of an inflatable life raft in order to fit in the back of an overstuffed Cadillac Escalade.

Q. Any specific accusations?

A. You could say that. You could also say porcupine pelts make substandard day care pillows. Cindy Sheehan has been accused of everything from unpaid parking tickets to the ultimate treasonous act -- association with Michael Moore. Won't be long before rumors of a lesbian relationship with Hillary Clinton emerge.

Q. What about the claims that Ms Sheehan has become a tool of the left?

A. A tool of the left. That's a laugh. Fox News calling Cindy Sheehan a political tool. A lot like a rattlesnake calling a scorpion noxious. Or a White House official complaining about the smearing of Karl Rove. You can't make stuff up like this.

Q. Any comment on the criticisms that the protest has morphed from a lonely vigil into pretty much just another gathering of the usual suspects?

A. Last I looked, Jesse Jackson hadn't yet made an appearance.

Q. Any other notables expected to appear?

A. With gas approaching three bucks a gallon, its only a matter of time before a parading convoy of SUV owners pitching gravel into each other's windshields join the protests outside Bush's ranch.


Political comic Will Durst wonders if Crawford, Texas has any decent barbecue. And if they deliver.

© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 06:59 am
kelticwizard wrote:
Lash wrote:
Not everyone gives political affiliation a great deal of thought. Many of them just allow themselves to get caught in a current.

They can't answer ONE question about issues--just parrot empty rhetoric. So, their roots aren't deep. Think swing voter.


So let me get this straight.. This presumably nonpolitical fellow, who simply chose his party affiliation on a whim, finds his way onto Blogworld, (the home of political junkies), in order to write a 792 word essay on why he no longer considers himself a Democrat. But politics mean nothing to him, he just chose a ppltical party which was convenient at the time.

Rolling Eyes Hoo boy.


Have you even taken the time to look at any of his prior blog entries?

Not a ton in the "political" category, but the handful there include rants against KARL ROVE and BILL FRIST. Not your typical Republican positions, wouldn't you agree?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 07:17 am
Lash writes
Quote:
Not everyone gives political affiliation a great deal of thought. Many of them just allow themselves to get caught in a current. Like Cher. (LOL)

They can't answer ONE question about issues--just parrot empty rhetoric. So, their roots aren't deep. Think swing voter.


Just look at the opinion pieces from radical media lefties, from the radical lefties in Congress who can find a microphone anywhere, the rhetoric from some on the Left on A2K. You don't see them talking about the good things Democrats are proposing or great bills the Democrats are offering. You don't see them laying out left wing values and defining its virtues. Their whole focus is on hatred of George W. Bush or some other Republican, on making extreme negative comments against anything they perceive to be conservative values.

They are applauded and given enthusiastic accolades by their comrades--you see right On! Good post! Way to go! right on cue.

But I think most people, including those 'swing voters', get tired of angry, idiotic empty rhetoric and I can believe some are driven away from at least the extreme Left Wing because of it.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 08:33 am
She Does Not Speak for Me
My son died in Iraq--and it was not in vain.

BY RONALD R. GRIFFIN
Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:01 a.m.

I lost a son in Iraq and Cindy Sheehan does not speak for me. I grieve with Mrs. Sheehan, for all too well I know the full measure of the agony she is forever going to endure. I honor her son for his service and sacrifice. However, I abhor all that she represents and those who would cast her as the symbol for parents of our fallen soldiers.

The fallen heroes, until now, have enjoyed virtually no individuality. They have been treated as a monolith, a mere number. Now Mrs. Sheehan, with adept public relations tactics, has succeeded in elevating herself above the rest of us. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida declared that Mrs. Sheehan is now the symbol for all parents who have lost children in Iraq. Sorry, senator. Not for me.

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times portrays Mrs. Sheehan as a distraught mom standing heroically outside the guarded gates of the most powerful and inhumane man on earth, President Bush. Ms. Dowd is so moved by Mrs. Sheehan's plight that she bestowed upon her and all grieving parents the title of "absolute moral authority." That characterization epitomizes the arrogance and condescension of anyone who would presume to understand and speak for all of us. How can we all possess "absolute moral authority" when we hold so many different perspectives?

I don't want that title. I haven't earned that title.

Although we all walk the same sad road of sorrow and agony, we walk it as individuals with all the refreshing uniqueness of our own thoughts shaped in large measure by the life and death of our own fallen hero. Over the past few days I have reached out to other parents and loved ones of fallen heroes in an attempt to find out their reactions to all the attention Mrs. Sheehan has attracted. What emerges from those conversations is an empathy for Mrs. Sheehan's suffering but a fundamental disagreement with her politics.Ann and Dale Hampton lost their only child, Capt. Kimberly Hampton, on Jan. 2, 2004, while she was flying her Kiowa helicopter. She was a member of the 82nd Airborne and the company commander. She had already served in Afghanistan before being deployed to Iraq. Ann Hampton wrote, "My grief sometimes seems unbearable, but I cannot add the additional baggage of anger. Mrs. Sheehan has every right to protest . . . but I cannot do that. I would be protesting the very thing that Kimberly believed in and died for."

Marine Capt. Benjamin Sammis was Stacey Sammis's husband. Ben died on April 4, 2003, while flying his Super Cobra helicopter. Listen to Stacey and she will tell you that she is just beginning to understand the enormousness of the character of soldiers who knowingly put their lives at risk to defend our country. She will tell you that one of her deepest regrets is that the world did not have the honor of experiencing for a much longer time this outstanding Marine she so deeply loved.

Speak to Joan Curtin, whose son, Cpl. Michael Curtin, was an infantryman with the 2-7th 3rd ID, and her words are passionately ambivalent. She says she has no room for bitterness. She has a life to lead and a family to nurture. She spoke of that part of her that never heals, for that is where Michael resides. She can go on, always knowing there will be that pain.

Karen Long is the mother of Spc. Zachariah Long, who died with my son Kyle on May 30, 2003. Zack and Kyle were inseparable friends as only soldiers can be, and Karen and I have become inseparable friends since their deaths. Karen's view is that what Mrs. Sheehan is doing she has every right to do, but she is dishonoring all soldiers, including Karen's son, Zack. Karen cannot comprehend why Mrs. Sheehan cannot seem to come to grips with the idea that her own son, Casey, was a soldier like Zack who had a mission to complete. Karen will tell you over and over again that Zack is not here and no one, but no one will dishonor her son.

My wife, Robin, has a different take on Mrs. Sheehan. She told me, "I don't care what she says or does. She is no more important than any other mother."

By all accounts Spc. Casey Sheehan, Mrs. Sheehan's son, was a soldier by choice and by the strength of his character. I did not have the honor of knowing him, but I have read that he attended community college for three years and then chose to join the Army. In August 2003, five months into Operation Iraqi Freedom and after three years of service, Casey Sheehan re-enlisted in the Army with the full knowledge there was a war going on, and with the high probability he would be assigned to a combat area. Mrs. Sheehan frequently speaks of her son in religious terms, even saying that she thought that some day Casey would be a priest. Like so many of the individuals who have given their lives in service to our country, Casey was a very special young man. How do you decry that which someone has chosen to do with his life? How does a mother dishonor the sacrifice of her own son?Mrs. Sheehan has become the poster child for all the negativity surrounding the war in Iraq. In a way it heartens me to have all this attention paid to her, because that means others in her position now have the chance to be heard. Give equal time to other loved ones of fallen heroes. Feel the intensity of their love, their pride and the sorrow.

To many loved ones, there are few if any "what ifs." They, like their fallen heroes before them, live in the world as it is and not what it was or could have been. Think of the sacrifices that have brought us to this day. We as a country made a collective decision. We must now live up to our decision and not deviate until the mission is complete.

Thirty-five years ago, a president faced a similar dilemma in Vietnam. He gave in and we got "peace with honor." To this day, I am still searching for that honor. Today, those who defend our freedom every day do so as volunteers with a clear and certain purpose. Today, they have in their commander in chief someone who will not allow us to sink into self-pity. I will not allow him to. The amazing part about talking to the people left behind is that I did not want them to stop. After speaking to so many I have come away with the certainty of their conviction that in a large measure it's because of the deeds and sacrifices of their fallen heroes that this is a better and safer world we now live in.

Those who lost their lives believed in the mission. To honor their memory, and because it's right, we must believe in the mission, too.

We refuse to allow Cindy Sheehan to speak for all of us. Instead, we ask you to learn the individual stories. They are glorious. Honor their memories.

Honor their service. Never dishonor them by giving in. They never did.

Mr. Griffin is the father of Spc. Kyle Andrew Griffin, a recipient of the Army Commendation Medal, Army Meritorious Service Medal and the Bronze Star, who was killed in a truck accident on a road between Mosul and Tikrit on May 30, 2003.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007122
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 09:24 am
Ticomaya wrote:

Have you even taken the time to look at any of his prior blog entries?

That would have been difficult, considering that until the above post, you never even bothered to let us know which blog you were talking about or what the poster's name was.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 09:27 am
kelticwizard wrote:
Lash wrote:
Not everyone gives political affiliation a great deal of thought. Many of them just allow themselves to get caught in a current.

They can't answer ONE question about issues--just parrot empty rhetoric. So, their roots aren't deep. Think swing voter.


So let me get this straight.. This presumably nonpolitical fellow, who simply chose his party affiliation on a whim, finds his way onto Blogworld, (the home of political junkies), in order to write a 792 word essay on why he no longer considers himself a Democrat. But politics mean nothing to him, he just chose a ppltical party which was convenient at the time.

Rolling Eyes Hoo boy.

Certainly doesn't apply to ALL people who switch--but, it is one accurate explanation. As I said, and as Fox explained so much better-- there are a lot of so-called Democrats who do go about parroting the nasty insults frowarded by the Democrat party, who couldn't tell you much at all about Democrat positions on anything other than anti-Bush /anti-war. If that's all the Democrat party boils down to--and many could argue it is--then, those parrots are genuine Democrats.

I should also say my previous negative characterization of swing voters is not universal--but accurate of a percentage of swing voters.

I'm proud that the silent majority of mothers are speaking out. Thanks for that article, JW.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 09:34 am
Lash wrote:

I'm proud that the silent majority of mothers are speaking out. Thanks for that article, JW.


You noticed this by what exactly?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 09:35 am
Speak about "swing voters," most of the republicans ready to run again in 2006 are pissing in their pants because more Americans are realizing the high cost of this war. Bush's approval rating on the war is now in the low thirties; not a good thing for "swing voters."
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 09:59 am
Wouldn't be if BUSH WAS RUNNING.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 10:10 am
I heard an interesting analysis on that the other day. The way most of questions on the opinion polls are phrased are: Do you approve of the way George Bush is doing his job? The options for answers are usually yes or no with little qualification in between. This question comes after something like: "Do you approve of George Bush's prosecution of the Iraq war?" or something to that effect.

When you allow these same people to explain their answers, however, many will say they like the President and like most of what he is doing, but he drives them to distraction on a particular issue such as the war or our porous borders, etc. So given limited options, they don't give him a high approval on the theory he needs to clean up his act on that particular issue while overall they would give him high marks.

The commentary went on to say that people largle support the troops and the war effort, but they think the president is trying to be too 'humane' and is pulling his punches and not allowing the troops to do their job. They would give him high marks if he would be more aggressive and get in there and get it done.

I have no data to back this up, but my gut feelingis that the commentary is right on. I think George Bush would be elected to a third term if he could run and did.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 10:56 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I think George Bush would be elected to a third term if he could run and did.


Quote:
APPROVAL RATING FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH (Released 08/16/05)
Weighted Average: Approve 41% Disapprove: 55%
Net Approval 08/05: -14%
('Weighted Average' means each state is weighted proportionally to its share of USA population. For example, California, the most populated state, is given 71 times the weight of WY the least populated state, in a weighted avg.)


Source: Survey USA
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 11:19 am
Now Walter, please analyze every single one of those polls using the criteria or issues I included in my post. Smile
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 11:29 am
kelticwizard wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:

Have you even taken the time to look at any of his prior blog entries?

That would have been difficult, considering that until the above post, you never even bothered to let us know which blog you were talking about or what the poster's name was.


Next time, just click on the title in my POST. It will hyperlink you to the article. Keen, huh?


I didn't realize you didn't know that.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 12:00 pm
Tico even taught me how to do that. Smile
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 12:17 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Now Walter, please analyze every single one of those polls using the criteria or issues I included in my post. Smile


Well, I'll do that between Christmas and New Year's eve, when I've time :wink:

Honestly, which such criteria/issues no poll of whatever subject can withstand.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 12:29 pm
Walter writes
Quote:
Well, I'll do that between Christmas and New Year's eve, when I've time

Honestly, which such criteria/issues no poll of whatever subject can withstand.


Okay, just tuck your findings into my Christmas card and save postage. Smile

And on your second comment, you're right. Which is why I don't entirely trust the polls on this stuff.

I may be entirely wrong, but my gut tells me all those polls reflect something people don't like about what George Bush is doing. For instance, if the poll was regarding protection of our borders or curbing runaway Congressional spending, I would give the president a near zero on that score. If the question was on Iraq, I would join with those who think the president is pulling his punches too much, and depending on how the questions were worded, might give him a less than satisfactoryh rating on the war.

See the problem here? Does a low approval rating mean that they don't like what he is doing? Or does it mean they don't think he is doing enough of what he is doing? There's no way to tell from most of the poll results.

Overall, I give GWB pretty high marks as a president so far. I'm guessing a majority of other Americans would do that as well. And that's why I think if a third term was allowed and he ran, he would win.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 12:38 pm
If you don't mind, I'll remind you about this when you yourself quote any poll :wink:
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 12:40 pm
I like this thread. A place of remorse for the bush supporters. Some of you aren't done with denial yet though. It's o.k. if you don't come around the rest of the country will for you. Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 12:43 pm
It's interesting that after Bush recently admitted things may not work out in Iraq, all the neocons are still saying something different. Don't they listen to their leader? LOL
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 04:41:32