The Cindy Sheehan Story

The Cindy Sheehan story has been overblown by the anti-war/anti-Bush side, but despite that fact the story has still served a purpose. As an objective observer the Democratic pundits and bloggers have shown that their bias has clearly clouded their judgment in assessing the magnitude of the story. However, the Republicans have shown themselves to be in a whole other league with their hypocrisy. Now, we all know politicians are partisan, and therefore, by definition, they must be hypocritical in some instances. You can't expect a politician to just openly admit that they're party is wrong and the other is right. But, the level that the Republican Party has gone to is embarrassing, and it really shows their true mean-spirited and immoral nature and the difference between the two parties.

As stated, those who are too supportive of Cindy Sheehan are biased in their support. They either refuse to acknowledge or they diminish the importance of the fact that Bush did meet with Cindy Sheehan after her son died, and this fact overwhelmingly diminishes the credibility of their cause. This would've been a great story for their side if Bush never met with this woman. Imagine it: a grieving mother of a fallen soldier who only wants a chance to meet the president and make sense of her sacrifice and confront him on questions about the war that took her son's life. How could he refuse to grant this small request of this woman? If he only didn't meet with her a year ago - oh, what a story it would be; but the Democratic pundits aren't going to let that wrinkle mess up their cause. They are blindly reporting on the story as they wish it was, and we all know that they would not/could not treat the story the same if there were a Democratic president in the same situation. That's just human nature. Only the tried and true independent might have the ability to treat each circumstance the same regardless of which party was on a certain side of the issue.

This is an example of how the Democrats show their bias and their hypocrisy. But, what the Republicans have done is ten times worse and clearly shows the pathological lying they will go through to support their party and smear their opponents. Cindy Sheehan may be misguided and unrealistic in some of her views, but that's because of the incomprehensible pain that she's in after losing a child. And, considering the questionable nature of this war it is only understandable that this can only add to her pain. So, she is extremely emotional and therefore not making the most logical decisions. She should really just make her protest an anti-war protest and it would make more sense and have more legitimacy. Think of John Kerry leading an anti-war protest after the Vietnam War - he was a Vietnam Veteran fighting to end the war, but he didn't confuse or weaken his stance by demanding a meeting with the president - let alone a 2nd meeting. His cause stood on its own, and all the Cindy Sheehan supporters should recognize the difference.

In saying that, one must then turn to look at the Republicans. If they were merely being overly supportive of Bush and dismissive of Cindy Sheehan that would be analogous to the biased ness of the Democrats and it would after all be understandable from their point of view. Again, it's human nature, and this would be a natural reaction from someone who really believes in Bush and in the war (why one would do so is another subject). However, the Republicans aren't just leaning towards Bush as the Democrats would do if the roles were reversed. They are showing their true colors which they do time and time again. Many on the right are engaging in a ruthless smear campaign of Cindy Sheehan which is inexcusable. Pointing out that her views are inconsistent is one thing, but they paint her as a lying crackpot whose behavior is almost treasonous. There's no sensitivity to the fact that she's a grieving mother.

Now, compare this situation to the recent Terry Schiavo media circus. In that controversy the Democrats didn't smear the parents of Terry Schiavo who were similarly being unrealistic in their views because that was understandable to everyone. They were grieving parents after all and so no one expected them to be totally logical about the situation. Many people disagreed with their view, but there was no smear campaign against them. There was however a smear campaign against Michael Schiavo who was attacked and made to be the bad guy in that situation - it was said that he didn't love Terry, he was looking to make money, and there were even slight rumblings that he may have had something to do with her coma.

Do you see a pattern emerging here? The Democrats do not viciously smear their opponents with baseless and insensitive attacks and the Republicans do. The Democrats will of course be very harsh on Bush, as the Republicans were very harsh on Clinton. But, that's where the similarities stop. Only one side would viciously attack a grieving mother. Only one side would viciously attack a grieving husband. Both sides had the opportunity to do this, but only the Republicans engaged in these tactics. What does this say about them? How is it possible that this is the party that desperately tries to prop itself up as the "moral values" party? And, how down right scary is it that there are that many people out there that are blind enough to believe them simply because they mention Jesus more than the Democrats do?