August 31, 2005
-
She’s Full Of Herself
Arrogant Peace Mom Had No Effect…
“A woman who led an anti-war protest for nearly a month near President Bush’s ranch said Tuesday that she’s glad Bush never showed up to discuss her son’s death in Iraq, saying the president’s absence “galvanized the peace movement.”
“Cindy Sheehan’s comments came as war protesters packed up their campsite near the ranch and prepared to leave Tuesday for a three-week bus tour.”
“I look back on it, and I am very, very, very grateful he did not meet with me….”
With the damage from Katrina still settling in with the American people, the lib media has no choice but to tone down on this Sheehan story. But not here. Cindy Sheehan’s mission was a failure. She did not get her meeting with the President, she did not sway any American minds, and she did not “galvanize the peace movement” She’s talking in lib code language everybody. When Sheehan says ” peace movement’ she means “anti-war movement”. This is where she’s wrong. The anti-war movement has been galvanized for years now. Does she really think she is the reason why these radical libs have been spewing their hatred towards this administration on a daily basis? Does she honestly believe she is the reason why liberal bloggers across the country have compared this President to people like Hitler? She’s full of herself! She didn’t sway one mind on this issue, not one. Because the American people understand the term “voluntary”, the American people understand the meaning of the word “choice”. We understand that there was no draft, that single point dismisses her whole case. As I predicted, this Sheehan story didn’t turn out well for the libs. But then again….what has?
Morrison
Comments (28)
so she is glad the entire purpose of her protest never came to be…..what a dumb puppet she is. You could see the strings. Oh glory a bus tour, nothing says originality like a bus tour. Haha I love when leftists claim victory when they lose. It’s fun yet pathetic. Fun cause they look absolutley retarded yet pathetic becuase there are actually people that will buy into it.
As I predicted, this Sheehan story didn’t turn out well for the libs. But then again….what has?
The civil rights movement?
another great post Morrison! Neo, more republicans voted for that Act than democrats… so get your facts straight…
But Morrison, Im going to have to disagree with you on the new add-ons for Classic users though… lol..
liberal and democrat aren’t synonymous, especially in the context of the 50s and 60s
First things first, Morrison’s amazing predictions falls in line with a majority of the pundit predictions that Sheehan would accomplish very little… she did sway some support but nothing near what she has boasted…
Secondly, if there is one thing I get a little tired of is hearing from those on right that the “radical libs” are spewing hate towards the administration… guess what, tossing barbs and spewing hatred toward the executive office isn’t new… this is one of the reasons for the polarization of this country in which rhetoric preaching know nothings try to state that it is always the other side… the other side does this… the other side does that… in reality neither side has that exclusive since both sides do it quite well…
Next we hit RY for a little fact check… now here comes a shocker for you but you are wrong… The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was voted accordingly…
Senate- Y N
Democrat 46 22
Republican 27 6
House Y N
Democrat 153 91
Republican 136 35
As you can see, pure numbers wise more Democrats (199) voted for the Civil Rights Bill than Republicans (163)… however if you are talking strictly percentages of the party votes:
Senate Y N
Democrat 67% 33%
Republican 82% 18%
House Y N
Democrat 63% 37%
Republican 80% 20%
You can see that percentage wise (80% v. 64%) the Republicans (163 of 204) had a bigger YES percentage than the Democrats (199 of 312) even though your statement did not have anything to do with percentages…
Even though you did not bring this up it is amiss not to do so, so now let’s look at voting according to region?
NORTH
Senate Y N
Democrat 46 1
Republican 27 5
SOUTH
Senate Y N
Democrat 1 21
Republican 0 1
NORTH
House Y N
Democrat 145 4
Republican 136 25
SOUTH
House Y N
Democrat 7 87
Republican 0 10
Why is region important in this? Simple, the South was the by far the largest group against the Civil Rights Bill and you will see that roughly 119 of the 154 NO votes came from the South in which we see 93% (108 of 116) of Democrats from the South vote NO and 100% (11 of 11) Republicans vote NO… in the North it was a different picture with 3% (5 of 196)of Democrats voting NO and 16% (30 of 193) of Republicans voting NO… it is pretty safe to assume that if the Republicans held the South like the Democrats did during this time period, you would see at least the Southern numbers flip-flopped…
for some reason I messed the columns up on the North Senate so here it is again…
NORTH
Senate Y N
Democrat 46 1
Republican 27 5
Sheehan is on the same level as a circus freak at this point, but has no idea. The only people who take her seriously are people who are looking for excuses to bitch.
Why couldn’t GW just simply talk to her???
He isn’t a king appointed by God, and he is certainly not a dictator…
He is a democratically elected president
So whats the problem here?
I believe that what she meant when she said “galvanized the peace movement” was that she gave the left an icon to stand behind, which she did. Furthermore, I personally know two people who were swayed by the president’s refusal to meet with her.
Thank you for your post, AltShiftDelete; now I don’t have to look shit up.
Also, Morrison, didn’t you hear Newt Gingrich admit that it was the Northern Democratic Party that ended segregation? The democratic party was, at that point divided into northern democrats and southern democrats, or “dixiecrats.” Although the Republicans voted for Civil Rights in force, it was the northern democrats that were able to bring about the end of segregation.
Snake Charmer_X
Why couldn’t GW just simply talk to her???
- Apparently you’ve forgotten that Bush43 has ALREADY talked with Sheehan?
- why doesn’t he just talk to you? or me? Why doesn’t he make an appointment with every single American?
-NOt only that, I would hope you would be willing to admit that even at a week after she started camping out that there would be ZERO gain for him to meeting with her. Or are you so brainwashed that you would believe otherwise?
– Do you honestly believe that she would have come away from the meeting espousing anything positive came from the Man or their meeting?
He is a democratically elected president
So whats the problem here?
- In the history of our country, how many “democratically elected presidents” have met with people who camped out in front of their lawns?
- Why is Sheehan the one who sets the debate terms here? And not someone else?
- This argument of yours is so hollow for so many reasons, it’s an annoyance just typing about it.
Aniar -
I believe that what she meant when she said “galvanized the peace movement” was that she gave the left an icon to stand behind, which she did.
- The media gave that Icon to the left.
- The “unbiased media”, like moveondotorg and Michael Moore have been using Sheehan.
- She was just a puppet and you know it.
- She did their bidding.
- She didn’t galvanize, the left leaning press did.
- She is simply another loudmouth who claimes Bush43 to be a murderer and terrorist and other visceral and hatefull nonsense, like her anti-lew positions.
- She is an icon ONLY because of the actions of the press, and her handlers. They could have used any sap who fitted their requirements…
you’re all so aganst mrs Sheehan but do you know the answers to the questions she is asking?
Mike, you asked what has turned out for the libs, and I say apparently nothing.
Good points, Sends!
” peace movement’ she means “anti-war movement”
and the difrence is?
The difference is what side you’re on. No real difference, really, but I think it certainly affects peoples’ perceptions… ie
Pro Life or Anti Abortion?
Pro Choice or Pro Abortion/Abortionist?
Peace or Anti War?
Terrorist or Insurgent… or Freedom Fighter?
I think these are all just matters of perspective
Cindy Sheehan doesn’t have a clue as to what she is talking about. Her idea of “peace rally” is to demand a meeting with the President, so that when he doesn’t show she can bash him and call him a terrorist. Yeah, that’s really holding sway over me…
And I’m glad Bush didn’t meet with Sheehan, too. That’d be a serious waste of a half an hour. What did she plan on saying, again? Bring the troops home, that’s right.
Wait a second there, that sounds familiar….
Oh yes, if I recall correctly Ted (hiccup) Kennedy beat you to that one, Cindy. Too bad, maybe you can find another soapbox amid the unceasing barrage from leftist media.
While I have some disagreements with Sends on a few of his thoughts concerning Sheehan, of which I am not going to go in to since Sheehan is sooo last week… I will agree with him that after about a week or so of coverage, it would not have helped Bush 43 one bit to meet with her…
The major problem I had with this whole thing was the smear campaign that was established against her… outside of that, I think that it was well known that she would not meet Bush 43 before she went down there… it would have taken wind out of her sail…
BTW- WSR another one is pro-war or pro-freedom/pro-troops
She may have changed some minds. I heard the poll said 79% were not swayed in their opinion. What the poll did not say is of those who’s opinion was swayed, which way was it swayed? I contend there were a lot of people who figured her to be a crack pot and moved the other way. Whataya think?
another one is pro-war or pro-freedom/pro-troops
feedom for who?
Yorel…
Polls-
should Bush meet with Sheehan 52% yes and 46% no
support for what Sheehan is doing 53% yes and 42% no
Now to the poll you cited… roughly 80% said that Sheehan has not swayed their opinion while roughly 10% says it has swayed them to support the war more and roughly 10% said it has swayed them to support the war less… basically a wash…
as always, good point. if sheehan wants to be taken seriously, she should have approched this in a more graceful way. instead of running around like a crazed woman throwing tantrums because she hasn’t gotten her way…
Hey babes, thanks. You have always had brilliant banners. I need to do some more practice with photoshop or PSP and make some good ones like you do. I borrowed my banner from another Christian’s site.
Check this out… http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=zenzic
Nice Job, eh?
Morrison criticizes arrogence, conservitive hypocrisy at its best.
It’s amazing to me how the left pulls out that totally idiotic arguments for their positions. Awesome site!
Although you are obviously not suffering in great need of comments I must admit I have been remiss in previously overlooking your site. I am daily impressed with today’s youth and your continued efforts will not go unnoticed. I hope you will remain strong as you press on in your attempt to spread truth. “Our willingness to speak for freedom is no bargaining chip. It is an integral part of our foreign policy. Without timely expression and emphatic endorsement, our own belief in the principles of human freedom and representative government must eventually atrophy and wither. This must never happen. We must stand for our beliefs and our values and, in doing so, inagurate a forward strategy for freedom.” -July 1982. Cindy’s son understood the importance of standing for American values and we can only pray that she will eventually come to fully appreciate the sacrifice he choose to make for his country.
Whats so good about being an neocon? is it the fact that you have to be rich? is it becase you have to be better than anyone else? is it becase you see it as a right to do whatever you want? do you enjoy makeing people live in fear? Do you enjoy watching other people suffer in poverty why you sit and have plenty?
Just read on Torgoe and you will see how the right also pulls out totally idiotic arguments for their positions…
I can’t wait until the next congressional election. The chickens will come home to roost for the libs!