Maybe Bush should follow Nixon’s lead

August 11, 2005

The political world has justifiably turned its attention towards Cindy Sheehan, who continues to wait for the opportunity to ask her president about the war that killed her son. It’s unlikely, but truthout’s William Rivers Pitt noted yesterday that Bush, who’s already followed Richard Nixon’s example in a variety of other ways, could follow his lead in dealing with Sheehan and the other protestors who’ve gathered in Crawford.

In May of 1970, right after the Kent State shootings, when civil unrest across the nation had reached a fever pitch and opposition to the war had roared again to the forefront, Nixon woke his personal valet in the middle of the night. He grabbed a few Secret Service agents and set off for the Lincoln Memorial. There, he spent an hour talking with a large gathering of war protesters encamped around the monument.

The Time Magazine article from May 18, 1970, recalls the scene this way: “When the conversation turned to the war, Nixon told the students: ‘I know you think we are a bunch of so and so’s.'” Before he left, Nixon said: ‘I know you want to get the war over. Sure you came here to demonstrate and shout your slogans on the ellipse. That’s all right. Just keep it peaceful. Have a good time in Washington, and don’t go away bitter.’ The singular odyssey went on. Nixon and his small contingent wandered through the capital, then drove to the Mayflower Hotel for a breakfast of corned beef hash and eggs — his first restaurant meal in Washington since he assumed power. Then he withdrew to his study in the Executive Office Building to sit out the day of protest.”

I’m trying hard to even imagine Bush leaving his bubble long enough to engage Sheehan for an hour, talking about the war. It just doesn’t seem possible. I hope he proves me wrong, but there’s no reason to believe he will.

For what it’s worth, if the president did decide to speak with Sheehan, there can be little doubt that he’d get the candid opinions of an articulate woman. Consider, for example, Sheehan’s response this morning to Michelle Malkin’s suggestion that Casey Sheehan, Cindy’s son killed in Iraq, would disapprove of his mother’s efforts.

“I didn’t know Casey knew Michelle Malkin… I’m Casey’s mother and I knew him better than anybody else in the world… I can’t bring Casey back, but I wonder how often Michelle Malkin sobbed on his grave. Did she go to his funeral? Did she sit up with him when he was sick when he was a baby?”

Bush isn’t afraid of setting a bad precedent by talking to a protestor; he’s afraid of looking ridiculous by discussing his failure with someone who’s vastly more articulate than he is.

In my humble opinion, I can’t think of anyone right now who is more deserving of the Presidential Medal of Freedom than Cindy Sheehan. Three cheers!!

  • The scary thing about the time we live in is that, as your post
    shows, it makes Nixon look good. Nixon may have been
    paranoid, power hungry and ruthless, but as he has shown
    with his writing (no ghost writer for Nixon), he was not stupid
    or shallow.

    And I remember the Nixon years (“Don’t switch Dicks in the
    middle of a screw, vote for Nixon in ’72”).

  • This just in from the AP:

    “I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan,” Bush said. “She feels strongly about her position, and she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has a right to her position, and I thought long and hard about her position. I’ve heard her position from others, which is: Get out of Iraq now. And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so.”

    So, what do you think? Is this enough? Should Bush meet
    with her or not? What’s the right thing to do? I honestly
    don’t know. I do think Bush’s statement is a reasonable
    response. Overdue, but as much as you could ask at
    this time. It is the prevailing opinion, that pulling out now
    would be a disaster. So what else should he say?

  • Mrs. Sheehan wants to know why her son died for no reason, in a war based totally on lies. That’s the question Bush won’t answer, and never will.

  • ” This is America. She has a right to her position.”

    Tell that to Joe Wilson or any of the people his administration has tried to screw for voicing their dissent.

  • Poster #4 has it exactly right! He is doing what he did in debates and interviews last year. Answering the wrong question. AAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHHH it is so frustrating! Mrs. Sheehan is fantastic, but perhaps he question should be framed more in terms of why are we there in the first place rather than why can’t we leave.

    Does anyone know how to send food or a note to her where she is?

  • Reminds me:

    How is Bush coming along on his response
    to Conyers’ letter, signed by over 100
    Congressmen, and half a million Americans,
    on the Downing Street memo?

  • I remember Nixon’s visit. It was very impressive (even though it amounted to little more than what a con artist would “cooling out the mark”).

    Our CB group often overstates the effectiveness of Bush’s handlers, imho. I think this could have been handled very easily. They could have sent Laura out to invite Cindy in for lunch or tea or something, a gracious move which would also remove her all the cameras. If she accepted, protest is over; if she didn’t, she’s a publicity hound (as hate radio is saying). Whole thing would be over in a matter of minutes.

    I do hope his very ineffective handlers are not reading this.

  • I think Cindy really wants to see the president,
    and isn’t into this holding teas or baking cookies
    thing. So she would have refused. I don’t think
    reasonable people would hold that against her.

    Incidentally, among the 500,000+ signers of
    the letter on the Downing Street memo, quite
    a few, statistically, have got to be family of the dead
    and wounded in Iraq. And in actuality, quite a
    few more than just simple proportion would
    predict.

  • “I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan,” Bush said.

    That’s bushit of course. You don’t give a damn about her opinion or anyone else who disagrees with you. You are incapable of allowing rational arguments to sway you. You’ve said in so many words: You are either with Bush or you are against Bush, you either share my values or you are the enemy. That’s the way you ran your father’s campaign; that’s the way you’ve run your adminstration. So shup up with the sympathy line. It is just another one of your “rich white boy” lies.

    “She feels strongly about her position, and she has every right in the world to say what she believes. This is America. She has a right to her position, ”

    Yeah right. Your administration has worked long hard hours to label dissenters with the traitor label. Now, for the sake of bushit… you claim to respect dissent. Hypocrite. You’ve crapped your pants again little boy. You need to have somebody beat your ass because daddy never did.

    “I thought long and hard about her position. I’ve heard her position from others, which is: Get out of Iraq now. And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so.”

    Get out of Iraq now. It is not your country. Furthermore it is a country that has NEVER threatened your country. Those people have every right in the world to blow the fuck out of the invaders. Would that it was YOU that was you getting your ugly white face blown off…instead of the poor slobs which you have sent there to do your dirty work. Get out of Iraq ugly american… get out of Iraq.

  • “blockquote cite= hark “So, what do you think? Is this enough? Should Bush meet
    with her or not? What’s the right thing to do? I honestly
    don’t know. I do think Bush’s statement is a reasonable
    response. Overdue, but as much as you could ask at
    this time. It is the prevailing opinion, that pulling out now
    would be a disaster. So what else should he say?”

    How about saying “I’m sorry” and meaning it with sympathy while looking her in the eye.

    Unfortunately he is incapable of it. Its why when he tries to sensative he comes across as a jerk. He is insensative in the alloof way that desenstizes and divorces himself from any emotion. Which is why he can’t relate to her, and is incapable of being sympathetic.

    Look how he charcterizes her grief and anger: its a position and not an emotion. Its easier to brush it off that way. Its his way of rationalizing his behavior and he can easily explain to himself that its all right.

    Otherwise he would come across as cuddly and vulnerable and we know that his base won’t relate to that.

  • I don’t know… you relent and visit one protester, next thing you know you have armies camped out all expecting the same treatment – and all not always for the best or noblest of goals. I don’t agree with Bush’s position re the war in the slightest, but I think we also have to be able to look at it from the POV of the public figure (and, of course, his handlers) and what he/she expect the consequences (intended or otherwise) to be and whether they will be able to control the consequences. I don’t think the Bush people have handled this well at all – the absence at military funerals, the whole bit – Clinton would have handled this much differently – but I’m trying to understand the WHY of why they’re doing it.

  • Andy, just because the president throws the ball out at an early baseball game doesn’t mean he has to do that for every game in every park. Nixon didn’t have to meet with other protesters. Ther reason they don’t let Bush out of his bubble is because it would be a PR disaster. The man’s brain is fried; he’s a spoiled child; he’s utterly no damned good on his own.

  • As CB said at the end of the post; and Ed says above-Bush is incapable of dealing one-on-one with someone as articulate and as focused as Cindy Sheehan is. And he knows it!!! It would be a PR disaster for him!!!

  • Personally, I’m very, very happy with the way Bush is handling Cindy Sheehan. As always, he’s absolutely wrong, clumsy and infuriatingly out of touch with reality. I really think and hope that this woman can finally bring the bastard down. She is attracting the kind of attention that makes even Republicans think and only the most right wing or hopeless can’t have sympathy for her, at least. She is making people THINK about what’s happening in Iraq. And in the absence of bringing back the draft, that’s something that really hasn’t happened in an emotionally compelling way. We’ve been too content to let our “volunteers” take the brunt of it while we’ve looked away and let the Bush administration go on their criminal way. (So, yes, Ed–no more good suggestions. Let Bush be Bush–it’s our only hope of ever getting rid of him.) And koreyel, please, I share your outrage and you make good points. But please leave the racial part out of it. Bush is white, Condi’s black, Gonzales is Hispanic–let’s all move beyond this.

  • Same rules apply as breaking up with someone…you don’t phone it in (if you have any class), you don’t send a message in a speech out of earshot. You go and talk.

    This is an excellent point that was brought up here. in perspective, Nixon was an SOB, but at least he had enough of a conscience, and even could understand an opposing viewpoint enough to want to try a little discourse.

    I wouldn’t say he had class, but it was at least one classy action on his part. Bush has none. Zilch. Nada. And on top of that he is not brave enough to stand on his own and do the right thing.

    • Comments are closed.