If the "peace" movement holds a protest and no one in the press covers it, does it still exist? If Americans are sick of the war, they’re also sick of the "anti-war." Even the media have grown anti-war-weary. Rallies on October 27 drew only perfunctory news mentions.
The peaceniks have now become a bipartisan political problem, now that the Democrats who control Congress haven’t dared to placate the radicals by cutting off money for the troops. Cindy Sheehan is threatening to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But suddenly – surprise, surprise – the media aren’t interested in Sheehan’s new crusade. Crusades only have a point when it’s an anti-Republican point. Camping out against Bush during his Texas vacation was news, fun news, important news. But running against Speaker Pelosi is not news. It’s a sign your fifteen minutes of fame are all used up.
So they’re getting desperate. The radical group named "Code Pink" drew some ink by getting right in the Secretary of State’s face during a congressional hearing. The ugly Pink lady charged forward with blood on her hands to charge Condi Rice with being responsible for mass killing. NBC’s Matt Lauer tried to prod Rice into condemning this crude publicity stunt. To her credit, Rice simply rolled her eyes at the pink protester.
Others continue to jump-start the Sixties. In Washington’s National Cathedral, a "peace" concert starring some retirement-age hippies, David Crosby and Graham Nash, was followed by a sympathetic tour through the liberal 24-hour news networks. These aren’t Code Pink crazies, but in their own way they’re equally out of sync.
On MSNBC’s "Hardball," Crosby lamented how our soldiers are – to borrow an old phrase – poor, uneducated, and easy to command types. "You know, on the one hand you've got a young kid who is patriotic, who loves his country, believes in it and he's being told, ‘Yeah this is the truth and we've gotta go in there to protect your mother and your sister.’ And he goes over and he finds out the job is killing somebody else's mother and sister."
"Where have all the flowers gone...?"
Our commanders are urging the troops to fire on innocent Iraqi women and children? Chris Matthews should have been outraged. Instead, he could only manage to say supportively "Yeah, yeah." Crosby, perhaps hearing himself trashing the troops, tried to reel it back in: "We can't be wasting some of the best young people we have sending them over there to be killed and then, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis at the same time." They’re the "best young people we have," but they slaughter innocent women and children at the drop of an officer’s hat.
MSNBC is at best a wobbly-kneed "news" network when hackneyed left-wing rock stars unspool crazy talk against our troops. Here’s what Matthews should have said: "Boys and girls, this is your brain on drugs." If he wasn’t going to demand an apology, he could at least he could warn children of the danger of pharmaceuticals.
Over on CNN, reporter Carol Costello said Crosby and Nash were complaining the power of protest was ebbing because of Bush’s "brainwashing." Out came the Bush the Dictator lines. Nash: "It’s the administration controlling the populace." Crosby: "You can watch all of these same moves out of any other dictatorship or junta," to which Nash blurted out: "Emperor."
After hearing all this loony banter about the Bush Reich, it’s amazing these men are still thrilling tie-dyed audiences with the song "Teach Your Children Well." Their political theories prove they haven’t learned anything since the acid trips of the late Sixties. Even these factually-challenged "news" segments feel like the networks are going through the motions. Not even they are buying it.
The "peace" protesters face a real crisis here. Under the loaded rules of protest media coverage, the cameras are almost required to show up whenever 150, or 50, or four people gather on behalf of a "progressive" cause. (By contrast, conservatives can turn out 80,000 at pro-life marches and their coverage is zilch.) Leftist protests never seem like a "pseudo-event" – an event staged solely for the cameras – when the reporters arrive to sell breathlessly the continental shift of the American people that the protesters allegedly represent.
But the people today are sour. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have lower approval ratings than President Bush. Right now, the "peace" movement looks passe. They have no energy, and nothing original to say, and with the change in Congress, they have no more public-relations magic. They better not stand in front of a banner reading "Mission Accomplished."















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
I think the Peace Movement
October 30, 2007 - 18:01 ET by motherbeltI think the Peace Movement as it was, is passe. Which is why they have to start ratcheting up the rhetoric, and get more in-your-face, like Desiree whats-her-name, to get the attention they want.
Al Bundy's of Peace
October 30, 2007 - 18:05 ET by allanfSome people just can't ever get over their old high school days. The anti-war movement is full of grizzled "grandmothers" who just want to relive those exciting days of the sixties.
Unfortunately, no one cares any longer.
Different dance- same tune
October 30, 2007 - 18:26 ET by woolIt will be fun to watch the dems in the next year. I wonder how long it will take them to figure out that Bush isn't actually a candidate. He seems to be the prime source of their protests.
The biggest difference between the participation in current protests, as opposed to those during Vietnam, seems to be that most Americans recognize that we are facing an enemy that can, and has, hurt us. No one thought that the Vietnamese were going to come here, but the radical muslims have and continue to try.
In the end, Hillary, Obama and Edwards telling the populace that we have nothing to fear will strike no good chords for them, imo. People see, daily, headlines showcasing the determination of our enemy and they will not blindly follow a candidate, or aging musician, that assures them that sand is a great place to bury your heads.
Will all the hippies just go to the nursing home already?
October 30, 2007 - 18:27 ET by niner-four-whiskeyI was born just at or just after the tail end of the baby boom. I was little when "Joy to the World" and "Popcorn" played on the radio. I remember when one of the neighbor's teenage girls died from speed and another jumped off a roof on an LSD trip. Didn't really understand it all then. I remember watching Art Linkletter movies in school warning about drugs.
As a teen in the late 70's and early 80's, I watched the ex-hippies turn into the disco people, I saw drugs absolutely proliferate in the schools and the quality of education decline. I watched the "anything goes" mentality of now parent hippies turn out a generation of self-absorbed, drug-addled losers.
Now in the 90's and the 2000's they're in the left political arena, still protesting Vietnam. They keep trying as hard as possible to wish the 60's back in so they can feel relevant again.
It's like a high school party gone bad, they made a mess, they won't clean it up, "man" and they won't go home even when the cops come.
I can't even get away from 40 year old rock songs on the radio. It is the generation that killed rock and roll music by loving their own version of it so much they left little room for anything new.
You're Killing Me
October 31, 2007 - 13:02 ET by KillgraveFirstly, acid doesn't "make" anyone do anything. Kids don't jump off of buildings, and don't burn their eyes out looking at the sun. Don't get your information off of old Quincy episodes and Reefer Madness.
Plus, I notice the word "whiskey" in your name. Countless people have done incredibly stupid and deadly things while drunk, even as we speak.
Secondly, the 60s saw some incredible music, from the Stones, Jimi Hendrix, The Who, and, yes, The Grateful Dead.
I'm perfectly okay with these guys singing. It's the talking that is a problem.
Acid did plenty of damage
October 31, 2007 - 19:11 ET by BDAcid did plenty of damage mon frer....
Does the term "Gateway drug" ring a bell?
Grateful dead good music? C'mon, be real.
Casey Jones and Truckin are bubblegum for the acid set....
It's a cover
October 30, 2007 - 18:39 ET by ArcherBThe problem with the modern day "peace movement" is that it is not a peace movement at all. It's merely an excuse. Remember Bush's first innauguration? They protested that and we were not at war. The "peace protests" are protesting Bush and they are using the war as an excuse. They hate Bush because he won the election. They hate him more because it was so close.
If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell
It goes back even further than that
October 30, 2007 - 19:31 ET by greenfairieThe professional protest scene got a shot in the arm in the 1990s. All of those aged Vietnam-era hippies and people left adrift after the whole nuclear disarmament thing fell apart (curse you, Reagan!) found a new cause in "anti-globalization." They and their new young friends, the weirdos who enjoy smashing up Starbucks, had their first big party in Seattle, 1999. When Bush won in 2000, it became the "anti-Bush" movement. After the WOT began in 2001, it became the "anti-war" movement.
Blacklisted Filmmakers
October 30, 2007 - 20:36 ET by mastersofdeceitA little OT but tonight it's "Blacklisted Filmmaker" night on TCM.
http://www.tcm.com/t...
If Americans are sick of
October 30, 2007 - 23:19 ET by MidAmericaIf Americans are sick of the war, they’re also sick of the "anti-war."
Exactly.
It was like that back in the sixties. Your normal everyday citizen who knows what good manners are does not want to associate with the crude bullying tactics of the anti-war crowd. This code pink example above turns people away from support of anti-war groups even if they don't like the war.
Is it just me?
October 31, 2007 - 08:34 ET by Sua Sponte 75Or is being a member of a "peace" movement more of an avenue for those of questionable physical appearance an access to mainstream society? Not that I'm a believer that how a person looks makes who they are, just throwing it out there. I mean these are not movers and shakers of any sort, outside of their little group. All I can picture is fifteen or twenty people sitting around feeling snubbed by society for whatever reason and only see this as a way to inject themsleves into the world. Just my $0.02 worth....I remember being stationed at Benning and always looking forward to the protesters at the front gate who would show to protest the School of the Americas. I think the most I ever saw was maybe twenty and at least five of those were priests or nuns, the rest I believe were collecting social security checks. I don't even think it's made the papers anywhere outside of Columbus for quite some time. Anyhow, if this is what makes someone feel worthwhile so be it, but it's a rarity when you don't see one of these clowns protesting for "peace" being the aggressor. For the most part they might as well be holding signs that say "peace---or I'll hit you".....
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
There have always been
October 31, 2007 - 11:14 ET by mattm...those who oppose any military action. But the modern anti-war activist (since the 1960s) is an anti-American seditious agent; as is demonstrated by their tactics.
If they simply operated according to the constitutional method of persuasion and redress and petition and debate and vote, etc. I'd be able to at least respect them. But as it is now, to me they're just a bunch of ignorant ne'er-do-wells who ought to be shunned by all.