So, Cindy Sheehan proved, once again, that liberals often have no media savvy. She was invited to the State of the Union by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and took her seat. However, she was forcibly removed by the police because she was wearing an anti-war t-shirt, and apparently "such displays" are not permitted in the House chamber. Land of the free, my ass. But if that's the rule, then the trick is to work with it. She should not have worn the t-shirt, but instead sat there. Believe me, the TV cameras would have found her. Had she broken into tears at the right moment, she would have completely upstaged the president. Instead, she chose to be arrested, missing her opportunity. Every time I see protesters with their oversized puppet shows and such, I realize how little media savvy they have. This isn't the 1960s - they won't make big public arrests and give good footage. You have to be more creative. If Cindy Sheehan had stayed in the chamber, and not given the cops the excuse to throw her out, it would have been front page news everywhere. Instead, just a blip. Too bad. Elections are won and lost on such things.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
That doesn't surprise me. This surprises me. Maybe there's just a strict dress code for the SOTU?
(Acronym put in just to annoy LTG)
// posted by Bell Curve
strange wording in your post.
i didnt know we had lost 1st amendment rights also.
but then i understand now exactly what we have lost.
i admire cindy and applaud her efforts.
it is stupid people that ignore her.
i am also old enough to remember other crises the world faced such as cuban crises.
i was 11 and felt it very forcefully as my father was stationed at roosevelt roads puerto rico.
when an 11 year old notices that all greens are covered with tents and equipment it is fearful times indeed.
kind of keeps me with a wide perspective.
go cindy
br3n
// posted by brenda banks
When I was teaching, I had students who would refuse to take off their baseball caps in class. I told them that my classroom was a place of higher learning, a place where you show respect. If they couldn't abide, they could leave. In the end, they all removed their caps. Doing so was a acknowledgement of respect for me as a teach, for the class as fellow learners, and for the institution as a place where we better ourselves.
Our halls of government are no different. You show respect for the institution by your actions. One the keys to having 1st Amendment rights is knowing how and when to use them so that everyone can hear what you have to say. There is a time to sit quiet and a time to yell. Cindy made a media error that prevented her message, which she is definitely allowed to exercise under the 1st Amendment from resonating. The same holds true with the woman wearing the "support our troops" message. The House Chamber is not a place for tee shirts. It is a place where, ideally, our government would be functioning to protect 1st amendment rights and thus, should be treated with some reverence. You don't chew gum in church and keep your hat on and you don't dress inappropriately in the House, Senate, US Supreme Court or any other hall of government.
// posted by USwest
I think Shehan had every right to wear whatever she wanted. As long as she behaved herself and it wasn't indecent. I hope she makes this into a case.
And for PR, she's been let off the hook by the Congressman claiming with glaring double standard that his wife should not have been ejected for her more nationalist display.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
As the story has developed, it appears that the Capitol Police Chief agrees with RbR and Brenda Banks above. The fact that she was arrested doesn't imply "that's the rule", and neither of the women can really be blamed for not adhering to an imaginary dress code.
I'm not over there, so I don't know what the coverage is like, but from someone who gets his American news solely from the web, the event seems to be more than "just a blip". Although that seems as much due to Rep. Young's hysteria as anything else. The effort to equate his wife's being asked to leave with Sheehan's arrest is amusing in its willful blindness. And his denigrating tone ("I just called for the chief of police and asked him to get his little tail over here,...") shows more disrespect than any t-shirt could.
// posted by Bob
My point, RBR, is that it would have been much more of a "case" if she had worn a nice gray suit and looked hurt for two hours, with tears in her eyes every time Bush mentioned Iraq, and shaking her head dejectedly at each lie he told. She could have held a picture of her son (taken it out of her nice suit pocket) and cried a bit. Seriously. The cameras would have eaten it up. Totally upstaged the idiot W who refused to meet with her, although he ordered her son's death (yes, that's what it means to start a war, folks, he ordered her son into danger, where he died. She's entitled to express her grief.).
Now she just gets a futile protest over whether a loudmouth can wear an ugly T-shirt to a State of the Union, which nobody cares about except us lefties.
// posted by LTG
LTG says it would have been better if Sheehan, "had worn a nice gray suit and looked hurt for two hours" (was it really two hours long? sure seemed like it...) and USWest essentially agrees. RxR, on the other hand, thinks it's better this way. Although--believe me--I fully understand what LTG and USWest are talking about, I think I agree with RxR.
I do not believe Cindy Sheehan is playing the "passive resistance" role--she's a provocateur. If she can make a court case about it, she should. It's good to have her out there making noise about bringing all the troops home now; liberal Democrats can play the MLK to her Malcolm X and hopefully get the troops home at least somewhat sooner. Besides, getting arrested worked better for Mrs. Sheehan anyhow. This way she didn't actually have to sit through Bush's whole litany of lies.
This is a slight deviation from the topic, but I just can't believe the party of Jackie Kennedy feels that T-shirts are appropriate fashion *or* political statements.
Like it or not, the way women in the public eye choose to dress has a big impact on their credibility. As a quick example, I have to say that some of the Margaret Thatcher "Iron Lady" rhetoric had something to do with the guns-butter-business suits and the hair that looked on tempests and was never shaken (she was the best dressed at the Regan funeral, but I digress).
And as much as it pains me to say it, I think the Republican women are winning on this one for the moment (Justice Jones' wife and the GOP T-shirt lady excepted).
Laura Bush wears a lot of Carolina Herrera and St. John, rather classic American designers that manage to look current without being silly. And I don't think it's any accident that the Bush twins and Condoleeza Rice have wound up in carefully arranged photo shoots for Vogue. If memory serves (and I am too lazy to go through my files of old Vogues) at least one of the Bush twins was in an Oscar de la Renta gown (American designer) and I think the other was in Calvin Klein (American designer, classic American success story).
Expensive clothing, out of reach of the general public, you say? Of course. But it's the appearance of both elegance and accesibility that bolsters their public image far better than headbands (Hillary Clinton) or T-shirts.
Eagerly awaitng my appointment as UN High Commissioner for Fashion,
Seventh Sister
// posted by Anonymous
Post a Comment