News-Record.com

But why should he listen to Cindy Sheehan? Simply because she raised the biggest stink?

Sheehan has had more than her fair share of "15 minutes." The media (and bloggers) reveal their anti-Bush bias by covering her for as long as they did.

There is no need for President Bush to meet with Ms. Sheehan. In fact, it may be dangerous to him to do so.
He met with her once, and she was laudatory in her praise for his compassion and sincerity.
So what has changed?
Ms. Sheehan is no longer a grieving mother, but a strident agent of the political left. Now she has a political agenda, either her own or one co-opted by the anti-war/anti-Bush faction of the liberal left. This is not about her son, but about confronting a political opponent in the public venue. For this reason, a public spectacle is not sensible.
In 1972 a singer in the Ray Coniff band confronted President Nixon at a White House performance, unfurling a banner that said, “Stop The Killing.” I believe the current anti-Bush crowd would love a media moment like this, and are hanging their hopes on Ms. Sheehan, using her as the point of the spear in their media-fueled attacks.
I doubt that President Bush is ignorant of who Ms. Sheehan is, or the message she seeks to deliver. So what purpose would be served in hearing it directly from her? None, it’s been the #1 news story for weeks, and he knows exactly what she wants to say to him.
The anti-Bush crowd innocently implores for President Bush to meet with Ms. Sheehan as a “wonderful gesture of compassion.” What they really want is an opportunity for one of their own to publicly berate and embarrass our President in a distasteful show of their contempt, and have that image beamed across the world in furtherance of their political agenda.
Ms. Sheehan has publicly cursed and berated the President and his policies at appearances in the past. She has demonstrated hateful actions towards President Bush. Her mental stability should surely be an issue were the Secret Service to consider a face-to-face meeting. I think this security aspect is enough to preclude putting President Bush in possible danger by allowing Ms. Sheehan to confront him on an issue that is a volatile flashpoint for her.

Well, this is just my $.02, now I’m broke.

"all the president had to do was meet with Sheehan for a second time" C'mon, Alan, most people would love to just be able to see the President in person, much less meet him. I wasn't a fan of Clinton, but I would have jumped at the opportunity to meet the man because he was the President of the United States. Now you criticize Bush for not meeting with her TWICE?

A little research would have revealed that Bush has met with many of the families of Iraqi soldiers living and deceased. He can't meet with all of them, much less two times.

This woman publicly did a 180 on the president by completely changing her story about what happened at their first meeting and claiming he didn't take it seriously when at first she said the complete opposite. Why on earth would he want to give her another opportunity to flip-flop and stab him in the back? It is a tragedy that her son died in Iraq, and I mean that sincerely. However, he did not have to meet with her in the first place, so pulling a Squeaky Fromme like protest is a bit too much. This was about publicity, period. Otherwise, why camp out and make a spectacle of your disagreement (or does she really disagree? She didn't the first time- the whole thing reeks of behind the scenes political exploitation)?

A second meeting by Bush would not have "taken the starch out of a growing protest movement" as you claim, because they will never be satisfied with Bush. Most of them have hated him since the 2000 recount, and I suspect they are more anti-Bush than anti-war. I doubt their fervor would be the same if Clinton had gone to war in Iraq (Where were they when Clinton invaded Haiti, sent troops to Kosovo, and bombed Iraq?) What is the logic? Bush meets with a woman for a second time, and now we have nothing more to protest? No, they would have considered it a victory and only increased the protests. I also suspect again that no matter what Bush would say to Ms. Sheehan the second time, it would not have satisfied her. She probably would have gone straight to the press, called him some names again, and then demand a third meeting.

The message would be that all you had to do was show up in Crawford and Bush would meet with you. Soon, other interest groups would camp outside the Bush ranch, and when Bush refused to meet with them, he would be accused of being insensitive to their cause. ("He met with THEM, but not with US").

I supported Bush, but I've had my differences with him. However, it is the extremists on both sides that need to cool out. Bush is not the second coming, nor is he Lucifer rising. Apparently, if you're not against him, you're for him, and we can't have anymore of that in this Red state, can we? (all our snobby intellectual liberal friends in New York and in Chapel Hill will think we're still backwards rednecks).

Sheehan and the Aruba story. Just two things to make the MSM appear busy and to take the eyes of the people off real issues such as our borders, and lack of a real alternative to energy.
If the MSM wants to do their job, they will ignore, "eye candy", and catch phrases and start looking at real problems.

All I heard from this lady is ME ME ME ME, and flip, floping Bs. She was invited to the NO SPIN ZONE and refused. Seems she more at home with the Bush bashing LIBERALS. Mr Johnson I have a question for you.You always have the answers whats wrong with Bush.(every thing) Why do you not solve some of the states problems. Civil Rights Museum,Jamestown, Homestead, misuse of taxpayers money by the B@B boys,our education problem, our child death rate, Bill Faison high speed internet SHAM.Of course these things may not be a problem with the liberals. Just away of doing business. I am not a Bush fan, I meet him in Raleigh this spring, not bad for a democrat. Yes I was humbled. No matter who is president, I have a great respect for them.They have a hellish job.I save my bashing for the locals.I love to see a story tommorow about Basnight and Black misusing our tax $,of course I don't expect a foot of snow tonight either. Well I off to the golf course, Mr Johnson if you are working today, maybe you would like to go to the Civil Rights Museum and watch YOUR tax $ disapear,maybe take a few pictures of Jamestown and Homestead.

Doug, we have written about all of those subjects frequently and will continue to do so.
You may recall, in fact, that the News & Record has driven coverage and commentary on those issues over the past two years.

Allen, sorry I spelled your name wrong above...it happens.

No problem, Sam.

mrproduce wrote:

"Sheehan and the Aruba story. Just two things to make the MSM appear busy and to take the eyes of the people off real issues such as our borders, and lack of a real alternative to energy.
If the MSM wants to do their job, they will ignore, 'eye candy', and catch phrases and start looking at real problems."

mrproduce, perhaps not in every detail, but overall I must agree with you. One of the problems with the MSM, particularly television, is that coverage of sensational news "events" (even if they aren't) seems to improve ratings. So at least some viewers (again, this is mostly television news I'm referencing) respond to this kind of pap.

Which is why more and more of us, regardless of our political persuasions, are turning to other news sources, particularly the "new media" (such as our good friend Allen's blog), in order to gather the information we need to make up our own minds about things rather than simply letting the television news subtly tell us what to think by controlling what we learn through "information filters."

Whew, didn't mean this one to be this long, sorry.

Regards,
Tony

I agree. There is a lot of mindless junk on tv. How much Natalee Holloway can one take? The Sheehan story was no exception. It just goes to show how much a slow news cycle can elevate minor stories and tabloid garbage to center stage. It all started with O.J. When CNN went all OJ all the time in 1995, a bad precedent was set.

However, I read today that CNN criticized FOX for running too much non-news garbage. This is a fair criticism as Greta Van Susteran's show has been a running tabloid story of the month saga. They went from Lacy to Natalee. What's next when the Holloway story is resolved?

The 24 hour news media has created it's own niche market, and it is very competitive.
Each network has to latch onto the latest scandal, murder, shocking crime story, etc., and run it for all it's worth until they've drained it dry. They're all competing for the unusual angle, the "exclusive" or the missing piece of the puzzle that will solve the issue.
When one story line goes cold, they pick up the next one that looks promising and the battle of the networks begins again.
I sort of miss the old days when you got the major news at 6:30PM and it wasn't beaten to death 24/7.