Did you read RTFirefly’s post #326 above?
Is not fully in touch with reality.
OK-if that’s your reasoning, could you provide examples of how she’s out of touch with reality?
She’s very aware that her son died, that the reasons given for our invasion of Iraq have been proven false, that both Americans and Iraqs will continue to die if the war continues, and that the current administration has failed to provide us with an exit strategy.
And she is hardly alone in these beliefs or the belief that the Bush administration is corrupt and entirely self-serving.
I’m starting to suspect that some of you believe, **John Mace ** included, that rocking the boat or making a stand for what you passionately believe in, makes you a defacto Loony.
And while I am in no way comparing Cindy Shaheen with either MLK or Gandhi, by that definition, they were ‘loonies’ too.
As is anyone else that stands up for what they deeply believe in.
I never said her views on Iraq were loony. You just assumed I was thinking that. Her looniness comes to the surface, for example, when she starts thinking she can successfully run against Diane Feinstein for the Senate-- she believes her own media image. As I said earlier, Feinstein could crush her with her little toe.
I disagree with her views on Iraq. I’d only call them “loony”, though, if she claimed that Iraq would be a peaceful place if only we would leave.
From statements released by Cindy, she is trying to put pressure on Diane Feinstein.
I don’t think she expects to win, personally.
But even if she did, why would challenging a politician in an election whose views you disagree with be proof of lunacy.
Oddly enough, I thought that what we citizens were supposed to do.
Well, your whole position here turns on the assumptions that she actually believes that she would win. She could be well aware that she would get trounced, but also believe that making a stand is worthwhile if only to raise consciousness about the issue and force Feinstein and other Democrats to deal with the issue in a more direct and forceful manner.
All democracies have a long history of “protest” candidates who realize that they’re never going to get elected, but who want to be part of the Democratic process and make their views known. Do you think the Libertarian candidate who runs in each Presidential election is a loony? I don’t, even though i don’t support the LP platform, and even though that candidate will never likely get more than 1 or 2 percent of the vote.
Hell, our own matt_mcl, who recently ran for office in the Canadian elections, probably knew that the likelihood of an NDP candidate winning that particular seat was pretty damn slim. Doesn’t make him a loony. His candidacy allowed him to push issues important to him and his party into the public debate, and may also have been part of a long-term strategy to bring voters around to the NDP viewpoint.
Not really. My whole position turns on just a subjective observation of her behavior. I’ll admit it’s just IMO, so I’m not really going to try and convince you one way or the other. If you don’t thnk she’s loony, fine. But she isn’t even going to influence the Democratic party except in the opposite way she wants. If anything, Feinstein will stiffen her resolve in order not to appear to be on Sheehan’s side. Only one or two Democrats wants anything to do wtih her, in part because she is loony.
BTW, I do consider a lot of members of the LP to be loony, too. And that’s one reason I’m happy to call myself a libertarian or “libertarian leaning”, but not a Libertarian. 
Where this started from (more or less) was jlzania’s statement in post 334 that:
IOW, they’re trying to turn her into a pariah, an untouchable.
So, getting away from your subjective observation that she’s a loonie, is there any concrete reason why she should be regarded as beyond the pale, someone it’s unwise to associate with - excepting, of course, the miasma of untouchability that the wingnuts are weaving around her?
Fair enough then, as you’re admitting you have no concrete examples of Cindy’s looniness but are basing your opinions on entirely subject feeling.
And I’m sure that the impassioned, those willing to make a stand for what they’re truly believe is right often strick others as loons.
There are plenty of concrete examples, like here standing shoulder to shoulder with Chavez and calling the President the biggest terrorist in the world.
RTF: Given the above, I think your blaming the mean ol’ Republicans for why the Dems won’t assoiciate with her is just laughable. She has made herself a pariah… she didn’t need any right wingnuts to do that. You really think that someone like Murtha or Feinstein is going to assoicate with her after that? Puh-leeez!!!
Then you’d better (a) remind me of why Chavez is so bad, and (b) explain why Bush isn’t arguably the biggest terrorist in the world, given the number of civilian deaths in Iraq. In the latter case, I can’t see why that isn’t a simple matter of speaking truth to power.
Hell, even if we forget Iraqis: another year and as many Americans will have been killed by Bush’s War as were killed by al-Qaeda on September 11.
As far as the “mean ol’ Republicans” bit goes, let me just note that vilifying political opponents is part of their SOP. Michael Moore, Moveon.org, and DailyKos are frequently held up by conservative SDMB posters as examples of wild-eyed leftists that Dems should stay away from if they want to maintain any credibility; reasons are generally not provided.
I’m not trying to garner sympathy; I’m just noting that a particular recurring tactic seems to be in play here, and I’m trying to raise the question, “aside from the effective use of this tactic, is there a concrete reason why Sheehan’s so bad?”
Which reminds me: is Sheehan’s association with Chavez any worse than Cheney’s going on Rush Limbaugh’s show to be interviewed by him? I mean, our leaders hang around with all sorts of toads (Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Limbaugh, Abramoff); are we holding Sheehan to a substantially higher standard than we’re holding them to?
Look, we’ve had plenty of threads abotu this and I’m not going to rehash them here. But if you’re suggesting that serious Democrats would be more than happy to cuddle up with Chavez and Sheehan and would be happy to call Bush the biggest terrorist in the world, if it jsut weren’t for right wingnut pundints, then you’re even more loony than Sheehan is.
As for Cheney going on Limbaugh… if that’s so horrible, than release the left wingnuts on him. Is it only the Dems who tremble at the mere thought of the opposite party’s wingnuts? Why is that, then? Or, maybe you’re just full of shit on this subject, RTF.
Cry Havoc! and let slip the left wingnuts of war.
IOW, you don’t have any cards to show. Dems shouldn’t hang around with Sheehan because she’s a loon. Why is she a loon? Because she hangs around with Chavez, and Chavez is bad. Why is Chavez bad? I’m not sayin’. Better or worse than the guys the GOPers make a habit of hanging out with? Depends on whose propaganda machine is better, apparently. Wow.
I don’t care about propaganda, other than to define and exclude it; this is the freakin’ Straight Dope, and I’m asking if you have any. Apparently not.
See, you just don’t get it. I’m not saying Dems shouldn’t hang around with her. They can do whatever they want. I’m saying the DON’T hang around with her. Why do you think that is? Most pols will do almost anything to get media attention, and Sheehan is a media magnet.
I don’t give a shit whether you think she’s a loon or not. But when you claim that the reason Dems don’t embrace her is because of their fear of Limbaugh, et al, then I’m going to call Bullshit. They avoid her because of comments she makes like calling Bush the biggest terrorist in the world, and that puts her outside the mainstream of political discourse in the US.
OK, never mind. I confused your position with Sam’s.
Mainstream Republicans get away with lumping the Democratic Party with al-Qaeda, and that puts them within the mainstream of their party’s political discourse in the U.S., without any political consequences.
You think that just might have something to do with the differing effectiveness levels of the propaganda machines of the parties and their affiliated movements?
And some Democrats equate Republicans with Hitler or Nazis, and they’re still in the mainstream of their party. So, what does that tell us?
I’m certainly not going to argue that the Republicans don’t have the better extra-party propaganda machine, especially in talk radio. But I’m not about to give any pol a pass just because he or she might get slammed by Rush or Hannity. If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen. If you think we should get out of Iraq now, but are too afraid to say so, then move over and let someone with an actual backbone take the reigns.
Freudian slip there?
Equate? I doubt that. Invoking comparisons doesn’t mean equating. To say that Bush has done bad things that resemble some bad things that Hitler has done is not to say that he is as bad as Hitler was.