The Left’s Terri Schiavo
By Michael Totten | Related entries in Media, War
I didn’t want to write about Cindy Sheehan for the same reason I didn’t want to write about Terri Schiavo. Each woman’s story is tragic. Each woman’s story is painful to think about, let alone write and opine about. Both women are (or in Terri’s case, were) emotional lightning rods for polarizing politics. Each became poster children for one partisan viewpoint or another. Each of these most public of controversies ripped families apart; Michael Schiavo’s vicious dispute with his in-laws, followed by Cindy Sheehan’s split from her husband.
There is something ugly and degrading about every news junky in the country turning into a rubbernecking voyeur who gawks at and mouths off about a family’s personal trauma. But once these tragedies turned into politicized media circuses there was no getting around it.
Some people think Cindy Sheehan should not be publicly criticized. I sympathize with this, even though I don’t quite agree with it. Chris Bertram at Crooked Timber put it this way:
I guess there are two views on this kind of thing. There’s the view that citizens, whatever their background, are fair game for personal attack as soon as they open their mouths and should be treated in the same hardball manner as any machine politician or professional pundit. And there’s the view that grieving mothers should be shown consideration, kindness and respect.
Grieving mothers should be shown consideration, kindness, and respect. It bothers me that Sheehan isn’t getting this consideration. But it’s her own fault she’s not getting it. Really, it is. She made herself into a controversial public figure by choice. Criticism is part of the package. If she expected not to be criticized for her polarizing political theatrics she is painfully naïve.
If she had remained a private citizen, or was thrust into a media circus against her will, then she should have remained off limits from criticism no matter how batty her political opinions might be. Most people, I think, can agree with that much at least. But she voluntarily ended that unofficial social agreement.
I still feel bad for her, though, even though I think she’s wrong about the war. (She opposes military intervention in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq.) I didn’t agree with Terri Schiavo’s parents and their political hangers on either. But I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for both the Sheehan and the Schiavo families. No pain in this world is worse than burying your own child.
I’m embarrassed for them, too, when moral and political cretins like Michael Moore and Randall Terry step in as cheerleaders and spokesmen. No one forced them to use the likes of Terry and Moore, or — and perhaps it is better to put it this way — to be used by them. It’s still gruesome to see, like watching someone slam their own hand in a car door at a funeral.
The story is not about Cindy Sheehan’s son. Nor is it about the war. It’s all about her now. The whole country is putting this woman on trial. The left defends. The right prosecutes. Her moderate supporters are put in the awkward position of defending a political figure whose views crazily diverge from their own. Her hawkish antagonists are put in the awkward position of arguing with a woman whose son was killed in a war they support. Everyone who touches this sordid affair is cheapened by it one way or another.
Two people can pull the plug on this at any time. The first is Cindy Sheehan, yet she has invested too much to back down. The second is George W. Bush.
Yes, I know, he’s busy even while he’s “on vacation.� Yes, I know, he already met with her once. No, he is not obligated to talk to every citizen who demands a meeting with him. She’s entitled to her opinion and she’s entitled to protest, but she is not entitled to see the president whenever she wants. So what? She’s just down the road at the end of his driveway, and he can spare fifteen minutes.
Perhaps he’s afraid he’ll lose face if he meets her again. And perhaps he will. The cameras will roll, after all. But he also has an opportunity to be the big Mr. Reasonable while being hounded and possibly screamed at.
In the meantime, every day he ignores her makes him, her, and everyone else look more and more like an ass. Just go down for a couple of minutes, George. Do it for yourself, for Cindy, for all of us. It’s the off season in politics, but we have to do better than this.
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 18th, 2005 and is filed under Media, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 18th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Good thoughts on this.
I think there is a huge difference between attacking the woman and attacking her views on Iraq.
There is undeniably a right-wing machine that revs up in these situations; the first instinct is to destroy the person. That’s what they did with Plame.
That is what is happening now. All over the right-wing thought channels, the attacks are becoming personal, as they always do. The valid response would be to effectively and consistently reiterate why her son’s death may have been a sacrifice worth something, without calling her a traitor, or a left wing tool (even if there is some truth to that), etc. Why not stick to the subject? Why not deal with the substance? Why didn’t Rove concentrate on explaining why Joe Wilson’s analysis is off base? Because he has realized its effective to destroy people, more so than ideas.
The message from the right should be: a mother’s grief is the worst in the world, and we don’t begrudge her for her views. But we respectfully disagree. Here is why: blah blah blah. This is essentially what Bush did, but of course it is indisputable that his modus operandi is having others do his dirty work. He knows the right wing echo chamber will do the nasty job of attacking this woman.
But the right won’t do it, because there is a decided lack of decency these days. Howard Dean listen up as well, although the right wing has perfected the art of personal destruction to a degree unseen before.
Of course, there is another problem: the old tired rationales for Iraq are being rejected by the public. They know people arent buying it anymore. So, where debating the substance will certainly fail, then it becomes:
“Bitch is a traitor.”
August 18th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
During Schiavo, I don’t remember liberal blogs calling her mother a “whore”, or liberal pundits on Fox News calling her parents a “kook.”
I don’t remember flashing headlines on Daily Kos proclaiming Schiavo’s parents to be unhinged, calling her parents liars.
Liberals were nasty about those who were using Terry for their own political ends; just as right-wingers may justifiably be upset that Cindy is being used some fringe leftists.
But the vitriol poured on this woman by the right makes your analogy fall apart. If anything, it shows that for the right-wing establishment (again, not some fringe right-wing group, but the Establishment), a grieving mother is fair game is she disagrees with your political view.
August 18th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
Mama Sheehan vs Terri Schiavo?
Why would you compare Terri Schiavo– who was deaf dumb and mute– to Cindy Sheehan who is a raving moonbat?
I see no comparison in the two people/causes, nor can you compare how both women should have been treated. Terri Schiavo’s mom didn’t go around attacking Leftwingers, yet the vitriol on Lefty blogs was bizarrely poisonous against her. But when Mama Sheehan makes statements like “these men [Bush and Cheney] must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure” etc etc. she’s begs for every dart the rightwing “machine” throws at her. She’s no longer a grieving mother but a little puppet on a string for her Leftwing handlers. They’re hiding behind her, just like palestinian gunmen used to hide behind children and then scream about Israelis who shot back at “innocent” children. Same thing.
August 18th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
>>>So what? She’s just down the road at the end of his driveway, and he can spare fifteen minutes.
Sheehan let slip in an interview with Keith Oberman that she secretly doesn’t really want to meet with Bush (again) because that would kill the “momentum” the anti-war movement is gaining. She’s a manipulative hag.
August 18th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
I guess all media circuses around tragic figures do have some things in common. I agree with much of what you say; however, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion about what Bush should do. To cave in to what amounts to emotional blackmail by a person who would not be open to anything he would do at this point, however kindly and humane, would constitute positive reinforcement for Ms. Sheehan’s psychodrama, and would open himself up to all sorts of similar pressure in the future.
I myself have a great deal of sympathy for Sheehan’s loss. But I feel there are also a great many psychological, historical, and even generational underpinnings to this story that I tried to explore here.
August 18th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
I tend to see this as the anti-war movement finding a teflon spokesmodel, and finding it in the form of a mother of a brave man who died fighting in the war. They maybe didn’t know they needed her until they found her.
The mother holds and articulates the views of Moveon.org and the similar groups. She’s willing to undertake the destructive mission, and you can’t touch her because she’s a grieving gold star mother. At least, that was the intention. Any attack on her automatically backfires on the attacker. And her message is so interwoven with her narrative and her life that you can only separate the two with great rhetorical dexterity.
I suspect this is the result of the movement seeing one candidate after another knocked off the pedestal. In Michael Moore they had an articulate image-maker, but the rest of America was revolted by his excesses. In John Kerry, they had a war hero. Not good enough, because his enemies undercut his story, and his own actions after the war damaged it, too.
Now the anti-war movement has been handed its magic bullet. You can’t question this. Her son is dead, in Iraq. And she wants to talk to the president (again).
Like Maureen Dowd wrote, her moral authority is absolute. I think that’s a silly statement (if having a son dead in Iraq = moral authority, thousands of Kurdish women outrank Mrs. S.). But I think it gives away the game. That’s what the movement was after.
There’s also an element of the chickenhawk meme in that. Anti-war movements have to deal with the fact that, regardless of how the public feels about any given war, it always seems to be more fond of the soldiers who do their duty in the name of the nation than the protesters who stay safe at home and carp about the government, excercising free speech that was bought in times past by soldiers’ blood.
The chickenhawk meme is an attempt to wrestle out from under that disability. So is the business of wrapping the anti-war movement in the figure of a gold star mother.
I also think this is the generation gap reborn. I looked at dozens of pictures from the pro-Cindy rallies around the nation yesterday. Because they were so dispersed, “big crowd” shots were almost impossible to get. The photographers, following their natural inclinations, then went for the symbolic shot (one hand holding a candle) or the cute shot (young girl, child). But I came away with the impression that the demographics of the attendees skewed toward the age 50-70 generation.
Those were the ones who imbibed their experience of America during the Vietname war. Yet their sons go off to the military, or to Iraq, as a form of honorable, patriotic service. I’ve seen it in families you don’t know, and we all saw it with Nick Berg. That dissonance is as great as the retired Marine in 1965 watching his daughter go off to a flower child anti-war be-in. It’s just reversed.
I think he should meet her, unannounced, and be humble and patient. She won’t be. Especially if she’s got her backers with her. She’ll be demanding that he send his own daughters into battle and that sort of shrill thing. Let the cameras show it all.
August 18th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
I agree with you. I’m shocked that the President’s PR people haven’t realized before now that the President’s apparent cold shoulder is empowering his opponents. A meeting would indeed defuse the momentum.
August 18th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
Michael,
Bush definitely should not cave. He met with the woman once. That’s a lot more than the majority of Americans have gotten. That’s significantly more than any Iraqi or Afghan mother whose child was killed by Islamic terrorists or innocently caught in a battle between insurgents and US troops is going to get.
But this is no longer about Sheehan’s son. And it’s no longer about Sheehan, just like what happened with Terri Shiavo. Sheehan’s now the symbol of anti-war self-righteousness. However, unlike the Republican battle for Shiavo, the public might actually latch onto this one.
If Sheehan gets the support of a group of Senators to go with them to speak to Bush, then perhaps he should meet with her. But her personal needs have already been met to the extent that the President can cope with them.
August 18th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Contra Big Gay Al’s claim that nobody denounced the Schindlers for media-whoring (note the term “media”, which Al omitted), I give you this link to Shakespeare’s Sister.
Consider yourself doubly-busted, Al.
August 18th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
lebanon.profile is living proof that there is hope for the middle east.
August 18th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
Cindy Sheehan lost immunity from criticism when she chose to turn her private personal tragedy into a public political battlefield.
The fact that she chose to reveal herself as a maniacal, anti-Semitic, moral equivocating conspiracy theorist only shows that she didn’t think her battle plans all the way through.
She picked a fight. That’s what “Cindy’s Sit-In” is about - not about getting answers, not about getting a more heartfelt apology than the last one. She wants to get her message out. She wants to change the policies that the rest of this country gave their support for when they voted last November.
We know she doesn’t support the war. And she may feel cheated because she lost a son for something she didn’t believe in, regardless of whether or not he did. But she picked a fight, and she should be prepared to be hit back.
Those of us who believe this country’s battles should be won, not abandoned when things get hard, cannot stand by and let Cindy destroy what her son died for. If Cindy thinks retreat is the answer to life’s problems, she should pull down the circus tents before more people find out what “Mother Sheehan” really believes in.
August 18th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
Most of my sympathy goes to Casey Sheehan. I doubt that he ever wanted his name to be used this way.
Cindy Sheehan reminds me of the members of “Peaceful Tomorrows”, a group founded to use the names of the Victims of 9/11 to promote a political agenda. Like the Terry Schiavo case, this issue makes me want to amend my will.
I have a lot of friends and relatives who are pacifists, and I’ve always worried that if I happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, they’ll use my name to promote political causes that they know I don’t agree with. Since I’m just a civilian, the chances of that happening are pretty slim, but so are the possibilities that anyone would be in Terry Schiavo’s situation. That doesn’t stop them from writing up a living will.
I’d like to add a ‘not in my name’ clause, stating that my death and my name can’t be used to promote any political cause.
If this can’t legally be done, all I can do is promise that if they don’t respect my wishes, I’ll haunt them ’till the day they die.
August 18th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
this link to Shakespeare’s Sister.
So, with all of your investigative skills, you come up with one obscure liberal blog and compare that to a coordinated smear machine that includes the top right-wing bloggers (Drudge, Malkin, Redstate.org, etc.) and the top right-wing media personalities (Rush, Hannity, etc.).
Try again.
August 18th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
The absolute worst thing the President could do would be to meet with her. Regardless of the outcome, that would then immediately become the new modus operandi for those suffering from the derangement syndrome. Moveon.org would find other parents/spouses/children of the casualties and put them in the spotlight in the same way, demanding that the president meet with them.
August 18th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
I think he is afraid he’ll get asked a bunch of loaded questions that can’t be answered.
‘why did you kill my son [for lies]?’ and such.
He can’t meet with her.
August 18th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
My brother Josh and I have both let our mom know
August 18th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
don’t remember flashing headlines on Daily Kos proclaiming Schiavo’s parents to be unhinged, calling her parents liars.
OTOH, no one on the Right is calling for Cindy Sheehan to be put to death, despite her clear lack of brain function. So it kind of balances out.
August 18th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
TallDave, save your insults for somewhere else.
Besides, she’s leaving.
August 18th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Come on, admit it, you thought it was funny.
August 18th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
You know, joking aside, all of the “attacks” on Cindy Sheehan really come down to basically quoting her own words, which demonstrate a poorly-thought-out extremist agenda. She says things even Michael Moore wouldn’t say.
Honestly, I think Karl Rove is drooling over the idea of Cindy Sheehan representing the Dmeocratic Party. The GOP couldn’t have picked a better anti-war icon if they tried.
August 18th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
I do agree with Michael, tho: Bush should definitely meet with her, with all the cameras rolling.
Nothing discredits Cindy better than her own words.
August 18th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
Justin, why tell TallDave to lay off the insults but not Big Gay Al or Chris Williams, who are basically passing off blanket insults that Republicans are all evil and despicable human beings?
And Big Gay Al, I don’t read Kos often, but whenever I do, all I see are obscenity laced tirades against anyone to his right. And don’t forget his public cheerleading for Iraqi insurgents. (Or have you forgotten [i.e., selectively ignored] the whole “Screw ‘em” controversy?)
And as for coordinated smear campaigns, what about the DNC Chairman going around saying that ALL Republicans are thieves and liars, and then basically having the Dem Party leadership go, “Yeah, what he said!”
Or perhaps you would prefer the NARAL ad claiming the John Roberts supported bombing abortion clinics?
So quit shoveling the crap that only Republicans use smear campaigns.
Oh, or do those not count as insults or smear campaigns because one can do or say anything you like about anyone to the Right of the World Workers Party? (And now THAT is an insult!)
It’s a good thing this site is devoted to finding a Center in American politics. Else things could get nasty!
August 18th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
If she was genuine, I would agree that a meet would be appropriate. But she’s not. She’s not there to meet the President, she’s there to get media attention. If she really wanted to meet the President, she should talk to her Representative. If she wanted media attention, she should go to Crawford and sit in a ditch and get on every camera she can.
August 18th, 2005 at 6:56 pm
Cindy Sheehan is a traitor.
Traitors deserve death.
Nothing more needs be said.
August 18th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
I sympathize with you, Michael, but can’t agree about the President talking to her. In my opinion, that woud dignify an otherwise absurd request. As you pointed out, she already met with him once. If she wanted to read him the riot act, she should have done it then. At this point, no confrontation between the two could be productive.
I’ll also say that I don’t for a minute believe Cindy Sheehan really wants a meeting with the President (as has alreayd been mentioned, she herself has admitted that such an encounter would be counterproductive for her cause). What’s she going to do? Demand that the troops be brought home (the most asinine of all positions anyone can take at this point, whether they originally supported the war or not)? She’s already done that. It won’t - and shouldn’t - happen.
August 18th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
For the sake of nipping this in the bud the president should meet with Sheehan. Once done the movement might stop. HOwever, since the president seems incapable of honestly answering unscripted questions that he has been prepared for in advance, that’s unthinkable. So, perhaps he could send in Dick Cheney, who unlike Bush might have a chance of thinking on his feet. However, Dick Cheney might not be the best choice since he has all the warmth and compassion of a corpse and he is the person who said months ago that the Iraq insurgency was in its final throes. So, if not Bush and if not, Cheney then Maybe Rice??? As long as Cindy Sheehan doesn’t ask an uncomfortable question like: “How would the smoking gun show up as a mushroom cloud if Iraq didn’t have ANY nuclear capability?”. Tough one. Perhaps it IS better to sit in the Crawford ranch and watch reruns of Gilligan.
August 18th, 2005 at 9:03 pm
Lady, this war– like any war– is bigger than any one person, so why don’t you get back home to your family and stop making a total ass out of yourself.
August 19th, 2005 at 12:04 am
Michael,
Another great post, as usual. I too see the similarities between Ms. Sheehan and Terri Schiavo’s plight. For the anti-war hard Left, Sheehan is the new face of the anti-war moment. For the pro-war right, she is an unhinged moonbat, embarassing her son’s name. For the rest of us, (at least for me), she is a grieving mother who has some whacked out views.
I think its legitimate to oppose her views, but not attack her personally. I feel sympathy for her loss. As far as the criticism goes, part of me wonders if she wasn’t already prepared for this? Perhaps she’s more savvy than we realize? If that’s the case, then this has indeed become a circus, that she herself has a chief hand in making.
Media sideshows and political controversies like this bring out the most opportunistic types. Michael Moore and MoveOn.org in the Sheehan affair, and Randall Terrry and Tom DeLay in the Schiavo affair. It’s tragic all around.
He won’t, but I’ll say again that Bush should meet her. He doesn’t have to, and she may not even want to at this point, but he should.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:00 am
Blogger Chris Nolan echoes the Cindy Sheehan = Terri Schiavo meme. [Actually a more accurate analogy would be of Casey to Terri Schiavo, and Cindy to the Schindlers (Terri's parents), but who asked me?]
Anyway, why would Bush or the Republicans even want this anti-war circus to end? In the long run, it could well play right into their hands. The longer Ms. Sheehan et al continue to make fools of themselves, the more they also discredit the anti-war position and the left in general. (Nolan makes this same point in his blog entry, calling this another example of the Left “proving itself to be its own worst enemy.”)
If anyone, it’s the Democrats who should be concerned about how damaging to their image (read: their election prospects in ‘06 and ‘08) this whole thing could become, and strongly encourage Ms. Sheehan to call it a day.
August 19th, 2005 at 10:09 am
I don’t know if the President should meet with Cindy Sheehan or not but I dreamed that he did meet her - he held out his arms and she walked to him, he gave her a hug, held her and she cried. It was all over.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:44 am
Joshua, sounds like another clear connection to Schiavo… the longer that circus went on, the more damage was done to the republicans…
August 19th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
Jim,
“HOwever, since the president seems incapable of honestly answering unscripted questions that he has been prepared for in advance, that’s unthinkable. So, perhaps he could send in Dick Cheney, who unlike Bush might have a chance of thinking on his feet. However, Dick Cheney might not be the best choice since he has all the warmth and compassion of a corpse and he is the person who said months ago that the Iraq insurgency was in its final throes. So, if not Bush and if not, Cheney then Maybe Rice??? As long as Cindy Sheehan doesn’t ask an uncomfortable question like: “How would the smoking gun show up as a mushroom cloud if Iraq didn’t have ANY nuclear capability?â€Â?. Tough one. Perhaps it IS better to sit in the Crawford ranch and watch reruns of Gilligan. ”
Does mommy know you are playing on her computer?????
Grow up, come back and have an adult conversation.
August 19th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Interesting sidenote: Rasmussen has a poll on Cindy Sheehan:
33% favorable, 38% unfavorable. The demographic split is exactly what you would expect.
August 19th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
Oops, 35-38
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
August 19th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
“In the meantime, every day he ignores her makes him, her, and everyone else look more and more like an ass. Just go down for a couple of minutes, George. Do it for yourself, for Cindy, for all of us. It’s the off season in politics, but we have to do better than this.”
First answer the question posed by another couple who lost a son in Iraq. By what right does Mrs. Sheehan and her supporters demand the President meet with her a SECOND time when so many families, theirs included have never had the chance to meet with him for a first time?
I don’t see much sympathy in the media for instance for the Mother who asked that HER son’s name be taken off of one of the crosses in displays by Veterans For Peace and at Crawford, her photo is not being flashed over the waves.
I find it odd that Mrs Sheehan could speak so glowingly about her meeting with Bush last year and so differently now.
No I do not think events warrant a second meeting for her, neither do I think she wants one.
And if she DID get one? It would be a slap in the face for every family who lost someone in Iraq and has never had the chance to meet with President Bush.
Never a good Idea to give into Blackmail Michael.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Debbie Argel Bastian watched her son, Capt. Derek Argel, killed in Iraq, be buried at Arlington National Cemetery and is upset that a cross bearing his name has been erected by Veterans for Peace at Santa Barbara’s Arlington West memorial and a display outside President Bush’s Texas ranch, where Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan continues to protest against President Bush.
Ms. Bastian has asked VFP to remove her son’s name from their displays, but they refused.
August 20th, 2005 at 1:34 am
debsays
Does mommy know you are playing on her computer?????
Grow up, come back and have an adult conversation.
That was your contribution and YOU are telling ME to grow up? What exacltly did you contribute that was so mature?
I was pointing out in a semi-humorous (if it weren’t so sad) way that the people who should come talk to Sheehan are not in a real position to answer her questions in good faith and will simply have to resort to the half-truths and pollyanna type answers that we have grown accustomed to.
August 20th, 2005 at 9:16 am
Of course there should be no meeting, no meeting whatsoever.
When a woman completely changes her account of an earlier meeting, when she was on permanent record with her former account, she has no justification for asking for a second meeting.
Those using Ms. Sheehan’s grief for their political shilling are despicable.
August 24th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
The similarity between Schiavo and Sheehan is striking in the sense that each tragedy has been mangled into an agenda driven crusade by those interested in promoting conflict between two extreme points of view. The media is complicit in fanning the flames of such polarizing events.
In Ms. Sheehan, I see, grief, frustration and a sense powerlessness as the driving force behind her initial stand? If so, her resulting empowerment must be of some solace to her.
Of course the source of her power is the resolute refusal by our president to have simply sent out an agent to invite her to lunch at the ranch, perhaps in the company of some similarly grieving parents who do not share her point of view.
Seems to me the administration made a monumental p/r blunder which ironically will result in the very sense of purpose which eluded Ms Sheehan prior to her “sit-in�. She will find a sense of satisfaction and closure while our Country again suffers anew a resurgence of the wound initially inflicted during the Schiavo debacle. Meanwhile the media will seek more scabs to pick.
August 24th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
More than a year has passed and she has shown the depth of her loathing for this country. She has gone to foriegn countries and urged American soldiers to desert. She charges $2,500.00 to talk about her dead son and her hatred for the President.
Just say Mooooooooo
See it all at Cindy Sheehan Watch or just google “Crazy Cindy”