Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

August 16, 2005

Is Cindy Sheehan's divorce off-limits?

When it came out recently that the New York Times was investigating the adoption of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' two children, Conservative bloggers were outraged, and the NYT's backed down quickly.

The latest buzz on the right side of the Blogosphere are reports that Cindy Sheehan's husband has filed for divorce.

From The Smoking Gun...

The next well-wisher approaching Cindy Sheehan at her tent encampment outside President George W. Bush's Texas vacation home may actually be a process server. That's because the California woman's husband--in a curious bit of timing--filed for divorce Friday afternoon (below you'll find a copy of Patrick Sheehan's complaint, lodged August 12 in Solano County District Court). With Sheehan, 48, entering a second week outside Bush's Crawford retreat, her husband's divorce petition cites "irreconcilable differences" for the demise of the couple's 28-year marriage (the Sheehans, the document states, have been separated since June 1). Along with a Vacaville home, Patrick Sheehan listed other "community assets" as "any and all benefits payable as a result of son's death," including a Prudential insurance policy and "benefits from the U.S. Government."

While the MSM is also reporting it, others are criticizing Conservatives bloggers as hypocrites, claiming a double standard since we voiced objection over the NYT's investigation of Roberts.

So is it the same?

First of all Roberts' adoption has nothing to do with his qualifications as a Supreme Court Justice, and the investigation involved small children. Cindy Sheehan and her estranged husband are adults, and the legitimacy of the letter written by her family, opposing her activities has been  questioned by some bloggers. The fact that her husband has filed for divorce after a separation caused, according to Cindy Sheehan herself, by her activities, makes it a legitimate story to report. Sheehan's claim to sympathy is based on her status of the mother of a fallen soldier, but even her own family are rejecting her actions, and this latest action from her estranged husband is certainly a noteworthy event.

It seems to me the double standard is coming from those who are whining about reporting the Sheehan divorce, but had no objection to the NYT's sleazy investigation of small children.

I also find it odd that while Cindy Sheehan herself likes to drag Bush's daughters into her screaming rants, she now is having a fit because people have noticed that her husband is dumping her. She has the gall to screech, “The people who are dragging my family through the mud need to grow up and look at themselves. The Christ said: ‘He who is without sin, cast the first stone.’” And what exactly are you doing in Crawford, Texas, Cindy, watering the plants?

Oh, and Cindy, the phrase is “..it's between my husband and me” not “...it's between my husband and I” (Sorry, a pet peeve of mine)

Coverage: Michelle Malkin, Outside the Beltway, Angry in the Great White North (also here), Independent Sources

Posted by Danny Carlton at August 16, 2005 09:33 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/1865

Comments

Of course it is news, per se. Her separation has been known for months.

What is nasty are the attempts to speculate 'why they are divorcing,' or to seize upon the news as if it is proof of something.

The woman's statements are fodder enough. Did you see her on Hardball last night? Cripes.

And, for the record, I thought the NY Times was out of line even doing a cursory background check on the adoptions.

Posted by: John Cole at August 16, 2005 09:44 AM

"Cindy treated it [the Quartarolo letter] with a shrug. Her husband will send out a more detailed response soon. In the meantime, Cindy says the letter is to be treated as little more than bad, dumb noise."

The more detailed response was released.

Posted by: A Person at August 16, 2005 12:37 PM

John, do you not see a big difference between this reaction and this reaction? (and I tried to find your most stern post on the Roberts adoption thing)

Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 16, 2005 02:30 PM

When Cindy Sheehan injected herself into politics she made her life in season. She can't expect to make a big stink and then have no one criticize her for it. I sympathize with her losing her son but have no respect for the way she has dishonored his good name. Great blog by the way!

Posted by: Ken Bingham at August 16, 2005 09:29 PM

Well, Ken, I'd hesitate to make such a sweeping inclusion of topics open for criticism as "her life" simply because someone has placed themselves in the political spotlight. But her involvement stems from her familial relationships, therefore other familial relationship would certainly be noteworthy.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 17, 2005 04:15 AM

Well, her credibility is in question now. She needs to keep her story straight. Does/Did her soon to be ex-husband support her?

http://darksyde.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/1/2161/52638

CS: I have lost almost every friend that I had before Casey died. My husband and I are separated, because he doesn't support my activities, although he knows the war is a lie.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/18/crawford.protest/index.html
Sheehan told reporters Tuesday that she and her husband, Patrick, decided to divorce before she came to Crawford and that he supports her efforts.

Another things is that I would not ask another person on what another person thinks. I'd go straight to the source.

Posted by: Phil G. at August 19, 2005 10:06 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.