San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders is a voice for reason in an area where political discourse is particularly strident and extreme.
Today, Saunders says some things I agree with and one I don’t. Let’s take a look:
I feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan. She lost her beloved son, Casey, in the Iraq war, and for that she has my sympathy.Woolsey and Stark help make my point about “strident” and “extreme” political discourse. Saunders goes on to report:
But losing your son in a war doesn't give you license to violate House decorum, as she did by wearing a t-shirt (reading: "2,245 Dead. How many more?") before President Bush's State of the Union speech Tuesday night.
It also doesn't grant you special wisdom on foreign relations in South America. If it did, Sheehan would not have let herself be embraced by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. (After which Sheehan praised Chavez. - JinC)
While supporters say Sheehan's loss gives her credibility, I don't see antiwar types changing their tune after listening to parents of slain vets who support the war. So her words don't change my mind, not when she talks like a little girl.
Worse, Sheehan feeds the conceit of many Bay Area war protesters -- that they are brave warriors risking their safety and the wrath of the Bushies as they protest the war.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., obviously buys into that conceit. Woolsey, who invited Sheehan to the address, issued a statement Wednesday that asked, "Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the president?"
Ditto Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who told The San Francisco Chronicle, "I'm still trying to find out why the president's Gestapo had to arrest Cindy Sheehan in the gallery."
…
It is clear that the Capitol Police were not acting as pro-war censors, as they also invited Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., to leave because she was wearing a t-shirt that read, ''Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom.''…Saunders makes Sheehan an offer I’m sure she’ll refuse:
If Sheehan wants to fight for First Amendment rights, she might want to stand up for The Respect Life Ministry of the Oakland Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church.Liberals and leftists usually have a hard time understanding that others are supposed to have a little freedom, too. Recall that during the 2004 Republican convention in New York demonstrators marched to Fox News' offices carrying “Shut the Fox up” banners. Did any of the liberal news organizations editorialize on "this latest chilling effort to silence the news media?”
The group paid to put up billboards on BART that ask the question, "Abortion: Have we gone too far?" Abortion-rights activists defaced and tore down billboards -- squelching the message of a dissenting voice in the Bay Area. Suzanne ''Sam'' Joi, a member of Code Pink, which has hosted many Sheehan events, told The Chronicle: ''I couldn't believe BART would allow something like this. Why are they doing this?''
Saunders ends with this:
Personally, I wish the Capitol Police had allowed Sheehan to stay for the speech in her t-shirt. I think she would have chased a few moderate voters into the pro-Bush column. But that could happen anyway. Americans have to notice when a friend of Hugo Chavez bemoans that she was denied free speech -- when she never seems to stop talking.I’m glad the police removed Sheehan. I think SOTU shouldn’t become an opportunity for every extremist member of congress to hand tickets to other extremists who will disrupt the speech.
There are times and places for most everything; and times and places when certain things shouldn't be allowed.
SOTU is not the time and place for screaming reckless charges at the President and government. We ought to observe ourselves and demand from others a certain amount of respect and decorum in dealing with our political leaders and our government. Isn't that something Dallas and Oklahoma City were supposed to have taught us?
Saunders column is here.
Hat Tip: Realclearpolitics.com
15 comments:
I wish there was a way to know if she had plans to disrupt the speech in some way.
The msm cameras, of course, would have been on her during the president's talk of the war... probably a split-screen... Cindy and the President.
Chris,
Re: "The msm cameras, of course, would have been on her during the president's talk of the war... probably a split-screen... Cindy and the President."
You're right.
Perhaps next year liberal MSM and the Cindy Sheehan types will do the split screen setup the way they do now with sports coverage. We see the girl friend screaming, Mom and Dad hugging, etc.
So why not Cindy Sheehan rolling her eyes, pointing to her Castro tee shirt and mouthing, "He's my man."
Thank you for commenting.
John
So, I've read a number of comments about the Sheehan/Young t-shirt ejections, and I can't help but notice that the "right" leaning commentators can't seen to mention Cindy Sheehan without also mentioning Hugo Chavez. For the life of me, I cannot see the relevance of invoking Hugo Chavez's name (which Saunders did four times!) in their commentaries. What possible relevance does a South Amernican politician have to the the issue of appropriateness of the expression of free speech in the gallery of the United States Congress? Is Mr. Chavez's mere existence any more relevant than, say, that the vast majority of Congressman Bill Young's political contributions come from defense contractors like BAE Systems North America, which might be seen as being far more relevant to his wife's fashion choices? I think not.
It's time for the right to stop this all-too-obvious McCarthyist rhetoric of "guilt by association" personal attacks, because we in the American heartland can see right through it and we're getting pretty sick of it.
Stick to the issues and quit the personal slurs.
Faboofour, I think you miss the point. The point is that Sheehan has aligned herself with an avowed enemy of the United States.
If you cannot see the relevance of that perhaps it say much about you that would have better served you if kept private.
That's our John, fanning the flames of "strident and extreme" political discourse (see practically any of his content-free posts lambasting the Raleigh newspaper), while angelically decrying the same. John remains ever unaware of his contribution to the problem.
"Faboofour, I think you miss the point. The point is that Sheehan has aligned herself with an avowed enemy of the United States."
And another thing the right needs to learn: simply repeating a statement over and over does not make a statement any more or less true.
I fail to see how Ms. Sheehan allignment with anyone is relevant to the free speech issues raised by her and Mrs. Young's removal from the Congressional gallery. If you feel there is some connection, then please do enlighten us, especially as how it pertains to Ms. Young's removal.
"If you cannot see the relevance of that perhaps it say much about you that would have better served you if kept private."
Nice "Amos 'n' Andy" dialect you got there, straigntarrow, but that's neither here nor there (and a pretty cheap shot, if I say so myself). But it does make my point: Rather than address the issue or advance any sort of argument whatsoever, you seem to think that parrot and attack equates to enlightment and civil discourse.
Wrong on both counts.
Faboofour, you just can't seem to grasp a point. My response was to only one tiny part of your statement. That being why Chavez's name was invoked in reporting on Sheehan. It gives the reader some indication of the politics of Ms. Sheehan, and the likely philosophical repository of her political affections.
As for Ms. Young, that is exactly the same reason it was reported what was on her shirt, and who her husband was and what office he held and his party affiliation.
It is called reporting.
Neither of these has any relevance to me, as to whether they should have been ejected. I do not believe they should have, so long as their active conduct was not outside the bounds of comportment in polite company. As a conservative I think they have the rights guaranteed under the first amendment. Wearing a t-shirt that depicts such is not,in my opinion, any more than that, just so long as their comportment does not infringe on the rights of others. I find it no more offensive or non-offensive than the partisan applause or standing ovations or refusal to engage in same.
"Nice "Amos 'n' Andy" dialect you got there, straigntarrow, but that's neither here nor there (and a pretty cheap shot, if I say so myself)."-faboofour
Since we're being churlish, shame on you! Here's your damn "s". All better now? Talk about cheapshots, you mispelled my name. Or is the "n" a Freudian slip based on your "Amos and Andy" crack?
Like that? No? Well guess what? I seem to be nicer than you. I realize that my missing "s" and,.....and.......... AND, your substituting "n" are just typographical errors. What a shock!
You are correct in that I didn't advance an argument. I didn't have an argument with you. Were it up to me I would have left them both in the chamber as long as their behavior was acceptable. We, of course, will never know if it would have been, because the Capitol Police screwed up. But it behooves us as free people to assume it would have been until such time as proven wrong.
You could probably use some of your own advice. "Stick to the issues and quit the personal slurs." Just a thought, or you could take mine and keep some of your vitriol and contempt for others under wraps. It is unbecoming and probably alienates people that even agree with you,including me.
How the demons scream, when you call them by name. Good work, Fabooour.
Anon, don't you know that you missed the right liberal response when challenged?
Don't call someone a demon (that's the Islamofascist playbook, silly), call them Hitler/Nazi.
Come on, you're an underemployed liberal arts major, you have free time to get it right!
-AC
A recent “anonymous” says:
"That's our John, fanning the flames of "strident and extreme" political discourse (see practically any of his content-free posts lambasting the Raleigh newspaper), while angelically decrying the same."
It’s great that the Internet lets people look at what we’ve said.
Everyone can read above in Saunders' column about a Dem congressman talking about “Bush’s Gestapo;” and then people can read my question asking whether Dallas and Oklahoma City taught us anything?
Then we can all read “anonymous’” reactions and thoughts.
Also, with the Internet everyone can look in JinC's archives and decide for themselves just what I’ve said about The N&O.
To make that a little easier for everyone, I’ll repost this weekend some of my past N&O posts.
I think fair-minded people will agree they’re fact-based.
With a new and growing readership, I should have re-posted at least most of my N&O posts from, say, last July to the end of November, 2005.
I’m sorry I didn’t. Anonymous' comments serve as a useful reminder.
Tomorrow, I’ll let The N&O’s executive editor for news, Melanie Sill, and its public editor, Ted Vaden, know I’ll be reposting.
Melanie and Ted know about the past posts, most of which included invitations to them to respond to my posts.
I’ve told them verbally and written them often, what I’ll say again now: I’ll post at JinC their responses in full to my posts.
Come to think of it, this comment will make a good FYI post.
I'll do that tomorrow.
John
Fabooour.
Re your: "Nice "Amos 'n' Andy" dialect you got there, straigntarrow, but that's neither here nor there (and a pretty cheap shot, if I say so myself)."
I don't see, as you put it, any "Amos 'n' Andy" dialect in straightarrow's comment.
And more important, you don't cite any of what you call "Amos 'n' Andy" dialect in straightarrow's comments.
I don't always agree with straightarrow. If you scroll back through some of his past comments you'll see he's sometimes been very critical of me and my views.
That's OK. He's always made his criticisms within the bounds of fair debate and civility.
I’ve never seen any cheap shots.
I hope like straightarrow you contribute to stong and fair debate here of public issues.
Thank you for commenting.
John
JinC, not critical of you. You and I are not going to agree on every issue, which makes us critical of each other's views in a specific instant. However, I have found no reason to criticize you as a person.
That you hold your views through reasoned thought process and personal principle does not guarantee my agreement on the issue (I have reason and principle,also and of course I will think mine are correct or I would hold different opinions), but it does guarantee my respect for you.
When we are in disagreement I always find something in your view that requires examination if I were to remain honest. Does not always change my mind, but may make me shine a light in a corner I hadn't considered.
straight A,
I can see where a fair minded person would think I was saying you've criticized me personally.
I'm sorry. I should have taken more care with my words.
You've never come at me as a person; it's always been about ideas.
Truth to tell, we often agree.
I'll say it again: You've added a lot to this blog. Thank you.
BTW - did you get my last two comments on other threads responding to the matter of what to call you and your disclosure of your health situation?
Please comment.
I'm going to bed now but I'll look in the morning.
John
Yes JWM, I got them and I answered all three now, don't know where they keep disappearing to. On this thread I had answered,but do not see it in the comments will try again.
If it is easier just call me SA, some do, I don't mind.
Post a Comment