Cindy Sheehan’s Newsworthy Divorce
John Cole is not amused by Michelle Malkin’s thinly-veiled glee over Cindy Sheehan’s failing marriage. John writes:
Who f-ing cares? Sheehan’s marriage is irrelevant- married, single, gay, straight, she is still Casey’s mother, and no amount of discussions regarding what her husband believes, or why she is divorced, or any other personal details change that. Stick to her statements about the war, stick to her actions, and stick to the groups promoting her. But stay the hell out of her marriage, or her failing marriage. Or get a job with the National Enquirer.
Me, I don’t know. I’m all for quaint concepts like privacy and all that fun stuff, but then again, divorces are public records, Sheehan has made herself into a public figure, and news is news, particular when it goes to a person’s credibility. When I first heard of Cindy Sheehan, I was wowed by her superior intellect. No, really, that woman is amazing. Who else can derive the gift of happiness, of being together from a meeting with a person who is completely totally disconnected from humanity and reality? Then I learned that she knew more about Iraq than all of her grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins put together, and was more impressed still. I thought, my God, that Sheehan chick is just the bomb. From that point on, I was just dying to hear her take on every issue under the sun, from income tax liability to the role of the Joos in U.S. foreign policy [UPDATE: or maybe not? FURTHER UPDATE: Yup, she said it all right - then lied to cover it up.], who attacked us on September 11, 2001, the legitimacy of last fall’s election, quote-unquote, and last but not least, whether it is or isn’t approproate to brand someone as unpatriotic just because she thinks her country isn’t worth dying for. And hey, when you think about the murderous liar she’s up against, can you really blame her if she hates him just a wee bit more than she loves her son or even her surviving children? It’s all in a day’s work for the next Rosa Parks, whom even the original Rosa Parks’s arch-enemy David DuKKKe has found something nice to say about.
Then, without warning, my bubble was burst. Now that I hear she’s getting a divorce, however, suddenly ol’ Rosa Parks II’s ideas don’t seem so profound anymore. But that’s just me.
August 15th, 2005 at 10:13 pm
It’s just a shame she wasn’t married to Michael Schiavo…
August 15th, 2005 at 11:28 pm
I found this comment by Cole telling:
I don’t give a shit what even the nastiest folks on the left say about Malkin anymore. She brings this shit on herself, with vicious bullshit like this.
His link to “the nastiest folks” is to TBogg, who (along with his commenters) mocks Malkin’s appearance. Once of his commenters mocks her ancestry.
Cole seems to be saying that if somebody says nasty things about a public figure, then they are asking for others to make nasty comments about their personal lives — and we shouldn’t care if that happens.
Hasn’t Cindy Sheehan said nasty things about the President? At least as nasty as anything Michelle Malkin has said about Sheehan? Does that mean that she “brings on this shit herself”?
I’m not sure Cole is being entirely consistent here.
August 16th, 2005 at 12:05 am
“divorces are public records”
So what? I think the point is the hay Malkin is trying to make out of it. It’s the worst kind of ad hominem nonsense — as if because she is getting divorced, or maybe isn’t in synch with other family members over what she is doing, then this somehow discredits her views and actions. Which like I said is nonsense.
Michelle Malkin has done some good work on the illegal immigration issue, but some of her ravings about the Iraq thing are pretty sick IMO.
August 16th, 2005 at 5:14 am
Can I just say it right here? I like reading conservatives who have a legit beef with the Republican party from time to time. And it doesn’t even have to be “principled”, either. But folks like Cole, the Commissar, and others, who revel in their “RINO” or “Maverick” status, really urinate me off. I mean, it’s one thing to say, “Look, I’m a Republican, and I generally vote that way, but I don’t necessarily believe X.” It’s another to say, “hey guyz look at me im a rebel rush is fat ‘n malkin is a ch*** santorum is prolly gay i luv davidscottanderson the ENTIRE FUTURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DEPENDS ON THE CENTER VIVA CHE MCCAIN! LOLZ.”
Hey Cole, if you’re reading this, and I know you probably are, stop sucking. I’d tell you WHAT to stop sucking, but unlike you, I don’t believe that folks who say nasty things about others automatically deserve to have nasty things said about them.
Oh, and spare me that half-hearted update in which you defend her against “racist garbage.” You said she brought it on herself, so why should you care who says it on your site? After all, it’s her fault, right?
Moron. Sorry. No other name for it.
August 16th, 2005 at 7:11 am
I don’t think the RINOs (since I am one) revel in being mavericks as much as they have some serious concerns about the current party line.
August 16th, 2005 at 9:03 am
Cindy Sheehan does not need to speak to the President. She needs to speak to a therapist.
August 16th, 2005 at 10:32 am
XRLQ,
As I protested on Balloon Juice, I don’t see what John and, apparently, you, feel is Malkin’s “glee” in noting the marriage crisis.
Just a straightforward noting of the filing.
Yes, John is a hothead, and I agree with a good portion of the Chadster’s comment. The nice language parts. Mainly, that Mr. Cole can be quite infatuated with his version of “maverick.” Plays to it constantly, but that does get readers from the sinistersphere.
Cordially…
August 16th, 2005 at 11:35 am
I guess the question is, why did she think it newsworthy at all? Sheehan’s stupidity speaks for itself. Keep the focus there.
August 16th, 2005 at 11:43 am
…why did she think it newsworthy at all?
A public record about a publicity seeking “sackcloth and ashes” persona showing a, well, gee…nuanced facet to the supposed righteous indignation and grief.
As I stated, no glee was shown by Malkin. But John Cole got soooo hot, that even-temperedness by contrast seemed yuck-it-up. Thus his regrettable post.
Cordially…
August 16th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
This is the second time you brought up Cole’s tone, which I’m not here to defend [UPDATE: and for which Cole himself has subsequently had the decency to apologize. ]. What I am saying is that a divorce, which is a common occurrence among parents who have lost a son or daughter, doesn’t provide any “nuance” to Sheehan’s argument or rebut anything she said in any way. All it does do is what Sheehan herself and her handlers probably hope it will do: convince her detractors to make asses of themselves by taking cheap shots at her personally rather than responding to the substance of her arguments.
This is not to say a factoid like a divorce could never be newsworthy. Obviously it could be in the case of clergy, or for anyone who holds himself out as an expert on marriage (e.g., Frisco Mayor Gavin Newsom). It could be in Sheehan’s case, too, if anything surfaced in the divorce proceedings that tended to undermine any of her claims, e.g., if we learned that Patrick Sheehan wants a divorce because Cindy Sheehan is acting like a jerk in Crawford, that she was lying to say he opposed the war when he really supports it, or what have you. None of that has happened, though, at least not yet. The most we can infer about Patrick Sheehan’s views is that he either supports the war in Iraq, is neutral toward it, or opposes it less rabidly than his now-estranged wife does. Big whoop.
Obviously, you disagree, so perhaps you’d care to explain why Sheehan’s divorce is news. What part of her message do you think is significantly strengthened, weakened, refuted outright or in any way affected by the fact she is going through a divorce?
August 16th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
…you’d care to explain why Sheehan’s divorce is news. What part of her message do you think is significantly strengthened, weakened, refuted outright or in any way affected by the fact she is going through a divorce?
Xrlq,
The simple fact of her going through this process while trading on relations to give her her purported (my MoDo, among usual goofwits) “moral authority.”
And that is the *sum* of the newsworthiness. I don’t suggest the item be embroidered with speculation, and thumb-sucking analysis. Malkin didn’t comment further, but to read the stack-blowing comments of John Cole, and the tut-tutting of Michele at A Small Victory, you’d think Michelle Malkin was waving a bloody shirt.
She waved nothing, and limited herself very much to a minimal item. IOW, make of it what you will, or make nothing of it. It is simply an event in what is now, by choice, a public life.
Cordially…
August 16th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Rick’s right. For someone so concerned about certain members of the family, Sheehan sure doesn’t seem to care about those who can’t help her media career. I don’t know if she’s doing this by choice or coercion, but it’s nothing if not extremely sad.
As for Cole, his apology helps my image of him somewhat, but he still has a ways to go in addressing the root problem I have with him. Maybe it’s a bit off-topic, but I WILL be perturbed with the loudmouths leading the “moderate” side of the scale. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. If you think you are totally principled and fair on everything, you’re kidding yourself. Everyone is a mindless zealot on some things, it’s just human nature. And some people are very zealous of their maverick label, to the point of overblown superiority. Like Cole.
(DISCLAIMER: I would like to be the first to say that I’m probably the biggest loudmouth zealot on practically every topic that you’ll find. No apologies there.)
SayUncle, I wasn’t talking about RINOs in general. I was just talking about those who revel in the status just to disguise their utter disgust for everyone who is not them. Newsflash: parties exist so that different people with some common goals and ideas can get their messages across in government. And yes, because we are dealing with individuals, nobody is going to think the same on every issue, no matter how many times you scream “GROUPTHINK!” So actually having a lot of different ideas away from the perceived “party line” makes you no more special in the party than the janitor guy who cleans up after the Convention, ideal-wise.
In short, all of these unfortunate things can be avoided if people would just get over themselves. And in those unfortunates, I include Mrs. Sheehan.
August 16th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
By the way, it is for the same reason that I have all but stopped reading the likes of Joseph Farah, too. There’s a reason that man hardly ever supports a political candidate, they are not him.
August 16th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
Personally, I don’t really see the relevance of the divorce, at least as of yet. The AP did, for some reason. Cole was way over the top, but he’s apologized.
August 16th, 2005 at 7:35 pm
Cole is a sad joke dcrying those who show Sheehan for what she is and then allying himself with the bigots who crucify a woman because she’s Asian. All should read his blog to get an idea of his bigotry. especially against hristians. Apparently Cole thinks he has the sole right to determine what is correct or not. All Hail Cole!
August 16th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
Personally, I don’t really see the relevance of the divorce, at least as of yet.
Martyr factor, perhaps? One thing when relatives make a press release. Another thing entirely when your husband files for divorce. Now that her marriage is on the line, she’s going to be “risking everything” for her “cause.” Remember, we’re not talking about some zitty teen with a sign and a bad beard. We’re talking about the next Rosa Parks.
It’s speculation, but I think the divorce may well be playing into her image. No such thing as bad publicity. Me? I see it as another sign that this lady is either a lunatic or a pawn in a very sad game in which one side has absolutely no shame. I don’t doubt that she’s grieving, but I wouldn’t be surprised that she’s being exploited, somehow.
If she is, I’d save my wrath for those behind the exploitation.
August 17th, 2005 at 3:16 am
“Sheehan’s stupidity”
Which is evidenced by exactly what?
At least she probably pronounces “nuclear” correctly.
August 17th, 2005 at 4:26 am
“relevance”
For those having trouble seeing the relevance of the fact her husband has filed for divorce, let me help: it has none.
Except to those who want to divert attention.
So you can stop looking for the relevance.
“another sign”
You nailed it: nearly every woman whose husband files for divorce is a “lunatic”.
“exploitation”
Yeah, that must be it: she’s being exploited. In fact, probably her son isn’t even DEAD. And they really did find WMDs in Iraq. Yes, it’s all a mean trick to make Saint Bush look bad.
As if he needed any help with that project.
Actually, since as I understand it she’s already met (not in the Godfather sense, unfortunately, some might quip) with Bush once, and that didn’t seem to go very well, perhaps she’s just decided to give him another chance to make a good impression.
Bless her heart.
But here’s something that may be ‘relevant’:
1. Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace*
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression*
(*Not relevant if you win.)
Recognize them? They’re the first two counts in the Nuremberg indictments.
There’s always a damn asterisk.
August 17th, 2005 at 6:54 am
Eric:
Did you even read this entry? I gave plenty of examples. Is it your position that she really doesn’t owe any income tax for the year 2004, the November 2004 election was rigged, or that the U.S. government was behind 9-11? Or that there’s nothing unpatriotic about saying your country isn’t worth dying for?
Or perhaps you’re just talking out of your ass. The first meeting went fine, if you believe the statements she made about it at the time. Now she’s saying all kinds of crazy stuff that contradicts what she said then. And you really wonder why President Bush isn’t champing at the bit to meet this moron a second time?
August 17th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
about the divorce: I think anyone like Sheehan who makes a national spectacle of themselves with the President of the U.S. is fooling themselves if they think that the story is limited to their desired issue. In this case Ms. Sheehan has made her family relationship the story. How can she now decide that anything about her life should be kept secret? She sought attention and now she is getting attention. To pretend that she is some sort of victim of publicity is ridiculous. The fact is that Ms. Sheehan is a propagandist of some talent, able to twist facts to her liking, leaving out facts that are inconvenient and making up facts which suit her point of view. Obviously her husband of many years has had a bellyfull of this charmless fanatic.
August 18th, 2005 at 8:08 am
[...] 4. And now, for your daily Cindy Sheehan update. [...]
August 18th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
Cindy definitely needs some psychological help–
August 19th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Isn’t Sheehan always spouting off about how her whole family is behind her on this? That is the reason that I see this (and the press release by her relatives) to be newsworthy. Her stories are not consistant, and this is another element of that.