« smoke gets in your mind | Main | it's this rug I have »

on leeches, shame and humanity

I swore I wasn't going to do this. But I've never been one to heed my own warnings.

Let me start by saying that I do not agree with most of what Cindy Sheehan is saying. I agree with her right to say it, however, and I am not going to judge her because I've never had to deal with the grief of losing a child. Everyone grieves in their own way; perhaps this is Mrs. Sheehan's way of dealing with her loss.

What's making me sick about this whole public is mess is the way the zealots on either side are fighting over Sheehan's words and publicity like vultures on a meaty carcass.

The flesh-eating leeches of the left have glommed onto Sheehan's grief as if it were some magic potion that would miraculously make all their dreams of getting Bush out of the White House come true. She's their panacea, the be-all and end-all of publicity stunts, an icon ready made for media and the furthering of agendas. Sheehan is the savior of the anti-war cause. The only problem with being a savior is the likelihood that you'll end up dying on the cross they nailed you to. The anti-war drones are giving her the microphones and keyboards and public airwaves and you can bet that when the hoopla dies down and the situation's no longer the hot media story, Sheehan will be left hanging on that cross wondering where the hell her followers went. Why, they went to the Next Big Thing, Cindy. But thanks for pushing their plight to the forefront, for getting in your digs at Israel, for bandying about the "I" word (impeachment), for being a useful tool of the left wing propaganda machine.

And what about the right? Not content to sit back and let this just play itself out, not satisfied with letting the left do their own damage by making themselves out to be blood sucking leeches, the right wingers have to get in on the act, too. And they couldn't just attack the messages (get out of Iraq, get out of Israel, you killed my son, I sacrificed my son) - no, they had to attack Cindy Sheehan herself. I guess none of them ever stopped to think about the appearance of civility or how it looks to have your cause being furthered by also taking a woman's grief and using it to your advantage.

Is it really necessary to splash her divorce papers all over the internet? Is this anybody's business? No, her personal life is NOT fair game. Her family is not fair game. And as much as it takes enormous balls of steel for Sheehan herself to pen a diary at Kos entitled Leave My Family Alone when she's the one who brought this into the public eye, it takes a person with no semblance of common decency to start gloating over Sheehan's divorce as this proves something, somehow. Do you know how common it is for couples who have suffered the loss of a child to separate? Do you think this is some win on your part, something to high five each other about? Woohooo, a family is falling apart, another point for our side! That's sick. SICK. You're just another kind of leech.

I can't believe what I'm reading lately. From those who compare Sheehan to Rosa Parks, to those who are trying desperately to dig up sordid details of her family life; from those who don’t give an ounce of shit about Sheehan or her dead son except what they can do for the cause to those who dare to tell Sheehan how to - or how not to - express her grief and oh, those who show up to oppose Sheehan by holding up pictures of her son (talk about exploitation) and those who have in the past ridiculed soldiers and are now holding up Casey Sheehan as some kind of icon. My GOD. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

The war, the election, Schiavo; I thought all those things were going to be the event to break the chasm between left and right wide open. The past week or so has made me think that no, it's going to be this one woman and her dead son that does it. And then I have second thoughts about that, too. Maybe the Sheehan story and the resulting freak show of a circus that evolved from it will be the thing that makes people disavow the wingnuts on either side. Maybe it will make the more honest, the more sincere, the more intelligent among us disassociate ourselves from the fanatic fringes, from the zealots who think that everything is justified when it comes to furthering an agenda.

This rant is not about the war and I don't want to hear or read your responses if they are going to talk about an unjustified war. Nor is it about Israel or about Bush. It's about US. It's about bloggers and political followers and the media. It's about people with seemingly noble causes, people with voices who just want to be heard. That's all well and good. That's America, a place where Cindy Sheehan can say whatever the hell she wants and where you are free to refute her. And honestly, I'd rather listen to a thousand Cindy Sheehans rant about Israel and impeachment than not be allowed to listen to her at all. But look at how we are doing this. Look at where we've ended up.

Where the hell has our humanity gone?

Comments

Welcome back, F the trolls in the A who cares about them anyway?

Tell it all sister, tell it all. Right on the mark that we've reduced discourse to shouting outrageous talking points past each other, while looking for the next juicy tidbits to grind the sausage maker that is the politics of personal destruction.

Feh, and a pox upon them.

There's caring about, and having opinions on current events and issues, then there's going off the deep end in some sort of deranged primal scream mode.

Only the latter grabs headlines or notice any more - the only things that break through the static of everyday life.

A two headed monster. Those willing to engage in such antics, and their helpers, but also the rest of us - not really paying attention until something comes along that rises above the din, and in the inattention, susceptable to the parcelled and parsed message, whatever it may be, flung like so much poo.

Fuck it. Let's talk baseball.

See, the problem is, humanity doesn't spend worth a damn. Or get you face time on cable. That shit is boring, you gotta push the boundaries, no argument is too silly.

Wind Rider's right. Let's talk baseball.

Skillzy is a potzer.

I hear ya, the whole damn thing is disgusting. It seems like the blogosphere has become the sheehansphere as of late, and it's all garbage. Yeesh.

Its all a ruse to keep us from thinking about the important issues,like his
http://gofugyourself.typepad.com/

I'm not a potzer! I haven't smoked the stuff in years.

Michele,

Before you ask "Where the hell has our humanity gone?" you need to ask "What do I mean by 'humanity?'" As the Schiavo case illustrated, different people have different definitions. :)

I havn't seen a hell of a lot of right-attacks on Sheehan but it's been a long time since I've been over to nicedoggie.net. :) The folks at The Corner, Power Line and Wizbang have been pretty much "poor woman, she's crazy and the media is using her" but maybe I missed the nasty entries.

I strongly doubt Cindy Sheehan will "break the chasm between left and right wide open." I think it's already blown wide open, and has been since Bill Clinton was president.

Not content to sit back and let this just play itself out you say?

I don't disagree that their are vultures on both sides, but their is no comparison to the exploitation game going on between the political camps. You have become fairly restrained on your WOT commentary and I respect that choice, but I am sure you don't expect everyone to follow such ways. The right did not drudge up family information about her husband filing for divorce, and other events going on in her family the Associated Press and MSM did.

I feel very sorry for this women but she is being exploited by the left for over the top publicity, the opposition is natural and the target she is making herself to be is obvious. The nastiness you ascribe to the right is fairly mild and the minimum one could expect in such an environment. The real crime as you eluded to is the left's willingness to sacrifice a woman who has already sacrificed much, but Michelle her sacrifices do not make her immune to the opposition she is challenging. It would be rediculous for this to go unchallenged.

Would you still be taking the stand you now take post 9/11? Some of us still feel more as we did post 9/11 and are not as conficted as you have become, niether makes one exploitive.

Am I to assume your words to be exploitation on behave of those who wish we would all just shutup, especially concerning politics? No! Do you expect those of us less passive types to follow your more passive ways of late. Expecting this to play itself out without opposition is expecting the WOT to do the same.

I'm not following you, Joseph. Especially this part:

Would you still be taking the stand you now take post 9/11? Some of us still feel more as we did post 9/11 and are not as conficted as you have become, niether makes one exploitive.

Uhh..it IS post 9/11.

I share your sentiments entirely, Michele. I was on vacation last week, so I was caught a bit by surprise by the way this media stunt has set the blogs ablaze. Certainly not everyone on the Right has behaved badly, but there do seem to be some significant people just going way over the line here (I haven't even bothered to take in the full reek of the Left on this).

Grief does strange things to people. In Mrs. Sheehan's case, she's latched on to moonbat-crazy political opinions. The decent thing to do would be to avert our eyes, really. But it's August, and August is a slow news month.

Where the hell has our humanity gone?

Actually, it is our humanity that is allowing this to go on soooo long. If this woman's son had not died in Iraq, we would see her as just a nutty lady and dismiss her without much thought. She has an air of one of those cat ladies, you know the strange lady down the street with 17 cats. But it is our decency that respects the sacrifice and prevents us from ripping into her. Most of the criticism from the right has the feeling of pulling the punches. Fairly tame and bowing somewhat to respect the sadness of her situation. On the other hand it is the leeches here that deserve utter contempt. For they are taking advantage of the right’s big weakness to exploit this situation. That is, they know the right would not attack a mom with a dead son that died in “the right’s war”. They know that for the most part the people who support the war are too decent for that and that allows this to be a dream situation for them. Well that is disgusting. Do you think that if she did not have a dead son that those supporting her on this protest campout would even have given her the time of day. I see no moral equivalency on the left and right on this one.

Well, skillzy, since you're a rednecked potzer, lemme explain "potzer": see "yahoo; rube; good natured but still baitable schmuck; Red Sox fan."

Remember, we're talking baseball. I have no idea or interest in what these other folks are droning on about.

the right wingers […] had to attack Cindy Sheehan herself.

Uh, yeah; namely because the extreme nature of Sheehan’s asshattery warrants attack, even obligates it.

Personal grief—no matter how deep—gives only so much of a pass for personal conduct. At some point we have to recognize Sheehan’s actions for what they are—sheer opportunism and the sickening whoring of her dead child for fifteen minutes of fame.

Her tirades against Israel are proof positive that this is not about a bereaved mother raging over her son’s body, but about pandering to the hallowed pillars of the American left (anti-war, anti-Semitism, et al) that has made her today's darling of the mainstream media. Now that she’s passionately advocated against the war and against Israel, all she’s neglected to do to complete the leftist trifecta is wave a coat hanger in the air while screaming “Hands off my womb, Mr. President!” Clearly, she needs a better agent.

Insofar as her divorce proceedings, her personal conduct before the cameras is of itself so vile that no question of her marital status could do much to further impeach her character. As Michele Malkin notes—however—Sheehan’s recent claims of family solidarity make the news of her familial estrangement a relevant refutation of her assertions.

The divorce, do you not find the timing suspicious? The husband making his statement, not the blogs jumping on her over it?

The leftist-MSM is to blame here, the whole sordid tale is being played by them for their own Bush bash agenda -- pitiful wretched sight.

I sympathize with the woman, but she is in need of real help, not a political soapbox.

I'd send her a pie if it would shut her the fuck up.

"I'd send her a pie if it would shut her the fuck up."

vs.

"That's America, a place where Cindy Sheehan can say whatever the hell she wants and where you are free to refute her. And honestly, I'd rather listen to a thousand Cindy Sheehans rant about Israel and impeachment than not be allowed to listen to her at all. But look at how we are doing this. Look at where we've ended up. "

You know, some parts of the left are acting a bit scummy. But the right takes the absolute cake here. Reading the unrestrained glee of many on the right about her divorce made me apoplectic; no need to reiterate about couples divorcing after the death of a child.

As always, Michele, well put. Much better than my own tirade at my OND.

As they say over at Fark.

"FLAME ON"

Is it just me, or is this painfully similar to the Terri and Michael Schiavo show?

I can't believe you commented on this mess either.

It's no win, it's all no win. As many things as one thing can hurl at the other they see coming back their way.

As a new years resolution I swore off of politics and know what the neat thing is (for me at least) is that reading your post on this today is the first I've heard about it, because I don't watch news, I don't read pundit heavy blogs anymore (which is why I read yours still because you had the brains to quit taking the stupid fight public) and I excuse myself from political conversation.

It's hard to escape. I still watch the Daily Show and I still check the headlines from time to time, but I usually tune out during the political mumbo jumbo because it gets us nowhere.

And what a great year its been. The bottom line is no matter how much we read in the news, mainstream or otherwise, no matter how much punditry we take in, no matter how much we try to stay informed, we rarely, if ever, know the full story on anything. And neither do the people telling us all about it. There in is a major part of the problem. Either the whole story doesn't fit their agenda so they don't want to know, or they just don't bother to listen/learn enough before they want to be heard (and in defense the "news/opinion NOW!" society we live in doesn't really allow for it).

So anyway, David Lee Roth is best for VH. Sammy was okay without the band, but David was the perfect guy for the band.

"As Michele Malkin notes..."

If Malkin told me 2+2=4, I'd whip out my calculator to double check. Every time I find myself agreeing with her on an issue, I feel a need to take a shower.

Err that second line should read "as many things as one SIDE can hurl at the other...."

Bad writing is a perfect excuse for the preview button. But who has the time?

And by the way, I love you and its been a long time.

Clark:

Uh, yeah; namely because the extreme nature of Sheehan’s asshattery warrants attack, even obligates it.

I don't even know how to respond to that. Obligate attack? How so? You're a Christian, Clark. What happened to turn the other cheek?

As Michele Malkin notes—however—Sheehan’s recent claims of family solidarity make the news of her familial estrangement a relevant refutation of her assertions.

First of all, part of this rant is directed at Malkin herself and her gleeful handclapping over the divorce. Also, from what I hear, a divorce had been in the works before Sheehan became a media darling.

As for the family solidarity, her husband might very well be on the same side as her on this issue; a divorce doesn't mean he opposes her stance on this. To think that is to be grasping at straws.

do you not find the timing suspicious?

Gee, that sounds so familiar.

See, Keith's talking baseball.

Unabrewer": your example is math. 2+2 does equal 4. Re-aligne your argument. Potzer.

She has the right to say what she wants, and we have the right to reply. It's that simple. She waited for over a year after her first meeting with Bush to launch this stunt. This is not a 'heat of the moment' deal here. She'd had to expect some criticism.

But since she's a mother everyone in the media seems to cede the moral high ground to her. What you see in the blogs is people pointing out that her actions don't warrent such treatment.

Michele --

I've argued that Sheehan's politicization of her personal tragedy demands a political response. As I've been one of the more widely linked wingers on this controversy, I'm eager to hear your response. See the bottom of this post, for particulars. See also this post.

The divorce issue is relevant because Cindy claimed to have the support of her family; never mind that her two daughters are in Europe, her son is back in Vacaville and her husband is incommunicado and initiating a divorce. I have seen nobody giving high fives over the news of the divorce; mostly they've noted it and noted why it matters.

Which is why USA Today, the NY Times, AP, AFP, CBS and ABC News and other outlets have covered it.

Just because they are getting divorced and just because the family is scattered around the globe, doesn't mean they aren't in solidarity with her on this issue. Sheesh. How hard is that to figure out?

Was that sarcasm? I couldn't tell.

Where's my Beer?

Reasonable point on the "solidarity" issue. I'm finding that the really disgusting stuff is coming from the moonbats responding to anybody who dares criticize Saint Cindy. YRMV.

MIchelle,

I respectfully disagree. She is now, by her own actions, a public figure. And the divorce is a public record, open to anyone. In her case, it seems to underscore the rift in her own family. I don't get over to the 'lefty' blogs, but it seems to me that, from their perspective, this would only add to her "moral authority" because her stand has cost her even more. But it is no longer out of bounds, becauise she has chosen to make herself a public figure. And with choices come consequences.

As I've said on my own blog, I think her impending divorce and whether or not her family supports her in this endeavor is irrelevant. Even if she had the full support of her family and they all joined her in Crawford, it would not lend any credence whatsoever to her outrageous claims about the war or her ideas to resolve the War on Terror.

The ideas and opinions in her head are certainly fair game. But no matter how far to the fringe she goes, she has every right to privacy regarding any and all family matters.

As Michele Malkin notes—however—Sheehan’s recent claims of family solidarity make the news of her familial estrangement a relevant refutation of her assertions.

First of all, part of this rant is directed at Malkin herself and her gleeful handclapping over the divorce. Also, from what I hear, a divorce had been in the works before Sheehan became a media darling.

Michele,

Sorry, but this bullshit is getting reaalllly annoying. You and John Cole must have some super-sensitive "glee" detector, but Malkin expressed none whatsover, and didn't put her hands together, either.

She's just following Rove's orders, of course. Malkin noted the divorce filing, and made no snippy comment about it. It's her critics that are reading worlds into it.

Get a grip, please.

Cordially...

Wasn't the original publication of the divorce filing in an Associated Press story, anyway?

I don't understand the vitriol directed at this woman. By all means, attack her position if you disagree but why must it become an attack on her person? Her personal life isn't the issue and I don't really care if she is a Satanic dominatrix with an iPod filled with Wham!

Is she using the attention she is geeting to promote her views to as large an audience as possible? Fuck yeah. Why not. She believes in what she is saying and is convinced that she can effect change. Good for her. What she is doing is no different than what the woman who founded MADD did -- they each took a personal tragedy and made an attempt at preventing it from happening to another family. I may not agree with Sheehan but her motives are obvious. Anyway, whether or not I agree with her is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not she believes it and by all indications she does.

The Sheehan camp is doing nothing different from the pro-war protestors across the street from her. Regardless of my personal feelings they are both entitled to express themselves and BOTH sides would be better served if they did a little less yelling and a little more listening.

Al: "...and I don't really care if she is a Satanic dominatrix with an iPod filled with Wham!"

See, I could work with.

And what about the right? Not content to sit back and let this just play itself out, not satisfied with letting the left do their own damage by making themselves out to be blood sucking leeches, the right wingers have to get in on the act, too.

I cannot believe you're suggesting that the right has behaved as badly here as the left. This fucking nut goes down to Texas, makes a metaphorical soapbox of her son's coffin, spews propaganda worthy of Hamas, yet insists disingenuously that all she wants is a chance to ask Bush some questions. Leftists respond by falling to their knees in rapture, arguing about which beatific martyr from history she most resembles, and calling people like Jeff Goldstein cocksuckers for daring to challenge her politics.

But some people on the right brought up her divorce, so that balances it all out, huh?

Let me tell you why the divorce is relevant. Sheehan's moral authority, which the left regards as absolute, stems entirely from the fact that she's a parent of a dead soldier. She's essentially positioned herself as Casey Sheehan's voice from the grave. Well and good. But if a parent's authority to speak for their dead child is absolute, what do we make of the fact that Casey's father, while allegedly in sync with his mother politically, thinks she's gone too far? Does that mean Casey would too? If not, why not?

The divorce should be irrelevant, but the fucking left wanted to turn this into a game of "my blood relative trumps your foreign policy argument." So, fair enough; let's play. If Casey's dad objects to his wife's antics so strenuously that he'd want to end his marriage because of it, that would tend to undermine his mother's moral authority, would it not? I admit, this is an inference; we don't know for sure that her political activity is a factor in his wanting to divorce her. But if someone objects to that inference, they'll have to explain to me why it's any less objectionable to infer that Casey Sheehan, who enlisted voluntarily in 2000 and reenlisted in 2003, would agree with his mother's anti-war stance. Enlighten me, my scumbag leftist brethren.

Allah, the article you cite only says, "[Patrick Sheehan] disagreed with the intensity of her anti-war activities." Nowhere have I seen a reference to his position on the war in Iraq.

This leftist 'scumbag' (way to go with the whole civility thing) doesn't think that Ms. Sheehan has any particular moral authority. Or, at least, no more moral authority than you, I, or any other US citizen has. However, she feels very strongly about this and due to circumstances is in a position to get her opinion out to the general public. I fail to see the wrong in this and not knowing her husband I have no idea what he thinks. Nor, as you admit, do you.

Why not take her words at face value, evaluate them and either agree or disagree? This would be so much more productive than spewing profanity and calling anyone who doesn't agree with you names. Most people don't split every issue into left and right and acknowledge that it is entirely possible for someone on the 'other' side to be correct on occasion. Most of the world is able to see millions and millions of colors,even a few thousand shades of grey, it is only webloggers who only see black and white.

You just wrote several vitriolic grafs condemning the left for doing the exact same thing you just did yourself. Can't you see this?

I don't even know how to respond to that. Obligate attack? How so?

I don't know how much plainer I can put it:

[It is] the extreme nature of Sheehan’s asshattery [that] warrants attack, even obligates it.

She has acted in a manner of character so despicable as to demand derision not only of her actions, but of the character of her person as reflected in her actions. What's so hard to understand about that?

I grant this concept would be easier to grasp if we were talking about more patently notorious individuals such as David Duke or Louis Farrakhan. Be that as it may, the same principle applies (or should apply) when talking about the likes of Cindy Sheehan.

Having said all this, Sheehan's impending divorce has no relevance beyond disproving her claims that her crusade enjoys rock-solid support from her family.

Sheehan's divorce is not something to revel in, nor do I think it is fair to describe Michelle Malkin as engaging in "gleeful handclapping" about it. I've read Malkin's article, and the charge of "gleeful handclapping" is simply not supported in the text.

What happened to turn the other cheek?

Christ’s admonition to “turn the other cheek” in response to personal offense does not mean that believers should have nothing to say regarding public issues such as the one here discussed.

I went back and read the relevant Malkin postings. It was the mainstream media that broke the divorce story in the first place, right? And Michelle has a right to post on it. And I'm looking real hard, but I can't figure out where it is in her posts where she's gloating or rubbing her hands or chuckling diabolically. I do think she may be making too much of a leap of logic to assume that this divorce is evidence of a difference of opinion over the war or her handling of their son's death.

I read a lot of conservative weblogs, and on the whole I think the handling of Cindy Sheehan has been remarkably restrained. Personally, when she started blathering on about how the war was all about oil and Israel, THAT was what flipped me from reserved sympathy over to barely-concealed contempt. I am so sick of that crap.

I grant this concept would be easier to grasp if we were talking about more patently notorious individuals such as David Duke or Louis Farrakhan.

Or James Dobson, Rick Santorum or Tom DeLay. But, you'll notice that doesn't happen.

Take Dobson. This maniac compared stem cell research to Nazi medical experiments. The very next day, Claude Allen, a Bush domestic advisor on the federal payroll appears on his show.

One would almost think that character was only an issue when it is the character of someone who disagrees with you in question.

Big surprise, the right-wingers see the "really disgusting" stuff coming from the left, and the left-wingers see it coming from the right.

I'm sick and tired of all these people on both extremes who lack the emotional maturity of an average five year-old. These people simply have WAY too much influence in today's political process. I think we're going to have no choice but to look at ways to reduce the impact of interest groups of all political persuasions. The founding fathers never meant for our system to be set in stone, and the time has come to make some changes.

Having to choose between a far-left candidate and a far-right one in every election is NOT the way our democracy is supposed to function. There will always be moonbats on both sides, but it's insane to allow these people to run the friggin' show.

What [Sheehan] is doing is no different than what the woman who founded MADD did -- they each took a personal tragedy and made an attempt at preventing it from happening to another family.

Rarely have I seen such a piss-poor analogy.

I quit reading those bloggers in question ages ago for this very reason. I could write their screeds for them...on both sides.

It got old a long time ago and there are more interesting and thoughtful folks to read.

Clark, I stand by it.

I see two women who suffered a loss and patrlayed their personal grief into a public position with goal of effecting change.

I am not passing judgement on either woman and know far fewer (actually, I can't think of a single person in favor of drunk driving, except maybe my ex brother-in-law but he lost his voting priviledges after his fourth DUI) people in favor of drunk driving than in favor of the war, but both women view their respective causes as preventable.

Clark, I stand by it.

When I see Cindy Sheehan, I most decidedly do not see a Candy Lightner [founder of MADD]. Rachael Corrie is a far better fit for Sheehan than Lightner is.

Yes, Cindy Sheehan and Candy Lightner are both women who championed causes. Beyond that all obvious similarities end.

Corrie was a follower... she didn't champion much of anything besides stupidity. She went to another country to try and change their policy. I'm not about to touch the Israel thing here. Frankly, I find the Gaza withdrawal terrifying on a great many levels.

That is quite different from staying at home and trying to change the policies of your own country. One is admirable and is an example of working within the system and using ones Constitutionally guaranteed rights to sway public opinion, the other is the mistake of a child whose innate feeling of invulnerability convinces her brain that her body is stronger than a D-9 Cat.

Or James Dobson, Rick Santorum or Tom DeLay.

Decent social conservatives such as the ones cited above seem to have a unique ability to drive social liberals bat-**** crazy, just as the well-documented illness referred to as ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’ has on the American Left. In either case it is an embarrassment to behold.

I don't think I've seen anyone refer to James Dobson or Tom DeLay as "decent" before.

Okey-dokey... we're done here. I'm thinking that the chances of a productive dialogue with anyone who refers to those charming fellows as 'decent' is pretty much nil.

Thanks for playing.

If I were Bush's advisor, I would tell him to announce that he is inviting all the bereaved sometime in October (perhaps Veteran's Day weekend), rent the convention center for a day and have a Q&A with them all live on TeeVee and re-explain his reasons for the war, invite Abizad, Rumsfeld, Rice. Bring in Brokaw to moderate and Graham to say a benediction or something.

And invite Ms. Sheehan to apply for a ticket just like everyone else.

I don't think I've seen anyone refer to James Dobson or Tom DeLay as "decent" before.

Tom DeLay is a decent tool for lobbyists. Happy?

Yes. Thank you.

Hello...?

I don't think I've seen anyone refer to James Dobson or Tom DeLay as "decent" before.

If that is the case, it points to an insularity and blindness equitable to the Kos kids, who have just as surely never heard of Karl Rove referred to as “decent.”

The two most intelligent comments so far:

Big surprise, the right-wingers see the "really disgusting" stuff coming from the left, and the left-wingers see it coming from the right.

To sum:
To thine own self be true:
remember, your shit stinks, too.

And what a great year its been. The bottom line is no matter how much we read in the news, mainstream or otherwise, no matter how much punditry we take in, no matter how much we try to stay informed, we rarely, if ever, know the full story on anything. And neither do the people telling us all about it. There in is a major part of the problem. Either the whole story doesn't fit their agenda so they don't want to know, or they just don't bother to listen/learn enough before they want to be heard (and in defense the "news/opinion NOW!" society we live in doesn't really allow for it).

Truer words were never spoke. I can't make a funny poem out of that one; it's too profound, humbling, and terrifying.

If that is the case, it points to an insularity and blindness equitable to the Kos kids, who have just as surely never heard of Karl Rove referred to as “decent.”

I guarantee you that if I took a poll of right wing blogs, the majority would vote in favor of not calling Dobson or DeLay "decent" - not too sure about Santorum.

I had sympathy for her until she revealed herself as judenhass scum.

I had sympathy for her until she revealed herself as judenhass scum.

And I'm betting you learned about that from an investigative piece in the New York Times, right...?

TCF sees it now,

When the 24-hour cable media driven political circus is benefiting the Right (Swift Boat Vets) or appeasing the powerful Evangelical wing nuts (Schiavo), I fail to recall any similar outrage over the immoral feeding frenzy.

Yet now, when the same tactics are being intentionally (or unintentionally) used to press accountability of this administration and smear a dead soldier's mom, we've suddenly crossed a line.

The woman is condemed by her own rhetoric. I had sympathy for her and her protest (thought I disagree), like Sloan, but when I started reading what she has been consistently saying it went.