Time Kaine sounds like Dilbert's Boss. Cindy Sheehan, on the other hand, evokes Bill the Cat.
The latter is arguably a more effective cartoon character.

"Isolationist gadfly"... that's a very kind way of putting it. I prefer "fascist supporter and nutcase" myself.

Glen, I had not considered that dimension, though my vote for Bill the Cat would be Kos. Sheehan is more like the sorceress Yzma from The Emperor's New Groove, minus the softening effect of Gronk.

Despite the best efforts of some, I think we face a cartoon gap. Even Chimpy Theocrat McHitler (or is that Chimpy Theocrat Halliburton McHitler, I bever can remember...) can't match up in the cartoon sweepstakes, though he does a decent Woody from Toy Story every now and again.

Some day our Buzz Lightyear will come....

Why does Cindy Sheehan think she can speak on behalf of her son?

her son was mature enough to decide what he wanted and it is disgusting how she lets far left groups exploit the death of her own son.

Conclusion: She doesnt even care about her son! All she cares is how to bash Pres. Bush more.

It is outrageous. Some body gotta get her some medicines

Winston, it's worse than that. She has cheered the very people who were trying to murder her son, and supports them.

The inescapable conclusion is that her son doesn't matter to her. Maybe he never mattered to her.

hey winston,would you be perturbed if the mother of a dead solder was praising the admin/war? i never hear the J freaks saying the other parents(pro-war) ought to keep quiet and not speak for their children.hmmmm,why might that be?

and joe,
"The inescapable conclusion is that her son doesn't matter to her."
damn dude,,and you know the woman how?or are you using the right wing/jesus-taliban logic?

hey,dislike sheean,or war protesters,,, but comming to assinine conclusions based on politics and no facts,,,, seems well,,, just like a religious pro-(fake) war nut would do.

It's obvious that the right faces a comma gap unless we embark on an emergency comma relocation program.

" All she cares is how to bash Pres. Bush more."

She carries the entire waterboy brigade of the democrat party. There is no doubt about it, she is the public face of the democrat party.

Their actions at the SOTU utterly prove it. The t-shirt she wore names it.

The sad truth is Zell and Lieberman are the "old democrats" and the new democrats are the George Sorros open society/ Peter Lewis Moveon crew of the SHADOW PARTY TAKEOVER.

That is how the left got their billionaire lurchwhore and his sextamillion legalboy for their last stand at the cry gulch.

Since Bush is what they USED TO BE, and what they have become is gangplanked portside, pure envious hatred is the result. We see it everyday. They fume from what they clearly feel is outright theft of their very being, and they cannot therefore agree with Bush on any matter whatsoever, because then they would know how far they have fallen to the thief.

The answer to that problem is radical smart aleck lying to assert some difference for the still remembering, and outright serious usurpation of party by the incoming insane replacement.

Cindy is the icon, and Murtha is the reflection. Ramsey Clark is the inner soul and Michael Moore is the outward manifestation.

Truman, JFK, LBJ, and other real Democrats would bolt from their sight as if accosted by a strange unknown living breathing fungus.

They cannot ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, as the elements attempt to repaint the skyline with some newfangled lying line.

What did Bush know and when did he know it, is coming dangerously close to; We know Bush did it and won't please someone show it.

They cannot ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK.

They no longer love the Big Apple, instead they took the bite and are now friends of the snake charmer towelhead, as the last tape repeats again all their song and dance in it's entirety.

We need look no farther than our shores to know our enemy. There is a fungus among us.

Roystr, we know through her actions. When you call the people trying to kill your son "freedom fighters" and support their cause, it pretty hard to argue with a straight face that your son's welfare is uppermost in your mind. Let alone the source of your supposed legitimacy, as you use his death for personal attention and political profit.

Abusive parents will say the "love" their kids. The rest of us don't have to examine their minds, we can look to their actions and know something doesn't add up.

Actually, Ms. Sheehan is even more despicable than a child molester. An abused child, exploited for the personal satisfaction of their supposed guardian's twisted desires, may still hope for justice and redress. Her son, being dead, cannot hope for this as his decisions are ignored and his death exploited for his mother's personal satisfaction in ways that he clearly (as a volunteer for the military and an adult of sound mind) would not have consented to. And her exploitation of him without the slightest acknowledgement of his choices and moral agency DEPENDS precisely on the fact that he CANNOT seek redress. Again, all as she explicitly supports the very people who were trying to kill him and his friends.

Parents who expressed regret at the loss of their child, or even those using it as a reason to oppose a war, may do so free from blame so long as they also acknowledge their child's right to make their own choices. Ms. Sheehan clearly does not. More to the point, once you openly support the very enemies who sought your chid's death, another, bigger line has clearly been crossed.

The comments about removing US troops from "occupied New Orleans" were likewise indicative of Ms. Sheehan's deranged mindset, but do not speak to her utter lack of morals in the same way.

The fact that left-liberals like yourself continue to shill for a person like this says a great deal about you.

and why is it that folks like George Will rip Bush for talking about oil addiction? Couldnt be that theyre putting their loyalty to certain economic interests ahead of both support for bush AND the countrys security interests, now could it?

Members of my family have met Tim Kaine, and Ive heard a lot about him.

He'll be remembered when Sheehan is forgotten.

"and why is it that folks like George Will rip Bush for talking about oil addiction? Couldnt be that theyre putting their loyalty to certain economic interests ahead of both support for bush AND the countrys security interests, now could it?"

No, not unless you can show some documents saying that George Will has a lot of money invested in oil. Otherwise I would advise you to stop poisoning the well and deal with his actual arguments.

Liberalhawk,

[Tim Kaine will] be remembered when Sheehan is forgotten.

I certainly hope so, but if it happens that way it will be no thanks to the media!

from liberalhawk on February 3, 2006 06:36 PM
"and why is it that folks like George Will rip Bush for talking about oil addiction? Couldnt be that theyre putting their loyalty to certain economic interests ahead of both support for bush AND the countrys security interests, now could it? "

I had to go read "George Will"http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2006/02/02/184902.html to find out.

*The president's headline-grabbing assertion that America is ``addicted'' to oil is wonderfully useless. If it means only -- and what else can it mean? -- that for the foreseeable future we will urgently need a lot of oil, it is banal. The amusingly discordant word ``addicted'' couched censoriousness -- the president as national scold: our consumption of oil is somehow irresponsible -- in the vocabulary of addiction, which is the therapeutic language of Oprah Nation, where no one is responsible for anything bad because bad behavior is medicalized.

Not to worry. The president says that by 2025 America will ``replace'' -- a certain ambiguity there -- ``more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East.'' Replace with what? Other oil? Never mind. Such recurring goals, located safely over the horizon, resemble Soviet agricultural quotas...*

Well, it seems he finds it scolding and ridiculous as an actual stance.Not to mention he points out noone is held responsible because addiction is "medical".
So it appears he indicates the result will be no accountability, and therefore no change.
True enough he didn't say whom should be held accountable or how the problem should be solved,
but we do see his opinion. He's been around since the days of Jimmy Carter or more hasn't he, so one could easily see him going with the 30+ year status quo.
Pessimistic, not supportive of his oil buddies.

Perhaps even challenging. Rich Lowry commented on C-span in the "aftermath" of the SOTU, and said I believe it was 10 billion having gone into alternative research and little if nothing coming out of it over the past decades. Then characterized the current initiatives as government subsidies, which we all realize they clearly are.

Personally, nuclear power is the biggest portion of an answer we have. Then coal, and additionally massive recycling. Nuclear and coal electricity can power electric vehicles with high amperage fast recharge. All plastics and other oil products should be recycled when oil runs low, and isn't that, in that case, likely to happen ?
The future may consist of digging up plastics from landfills.

Aside from that actually allowing drilling and methods of taking the shale/sand oil deposits from Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, as well as building new refineries and relaxing mixes while improving Cafe standards and more drilling around the USA seems quite bright.
In fact it seems the only solutions additional to stickgrass and solar and wind, which we know cannot produce enough to even keep up with demand increases.

Is George Will merely being a realist. It sure seems so.

I cannot help but blame the democrats myself, who seem to want a magic bean to grow our energy production. They block new oil, new refineries, new wind, solar because of heavy metals and processing wastes, clean burning coal, and nuclear.

Gosh I wish dark matter and some Scotty Beam me up antimatter could do her, with a back to the future flux capacitor vehicle fleet, but somehow that isn't in the alternative production lines.

Since we already have the great new energy source called Nuclear Power and the left has destroyed more production of that for 30 some years,I'm clearly not on their side.

It's not George Will and the evil Oil Bushies, it's the realities of the massive amounts needed, and the lefts constance blocking of increases in productions of every kind.

No proving me wrong about that. It's a big secret, though, isn't it.