Cindy Sheehan: Using more than her son's name
Cindy Sheehan is going to start taking on paid speaking engagements. Why?
Because she has almost finished running through Casey Sheehan's life insurance!
Before the event, Sheehan met with reporters to discuss her plans for the future. She said she didn't think her contract with Speaking Matters LLC will distract from her message."This is a society where people make money doing what they do and I have to pay my bills, too," she told Cybercast News Service.
"I love doing this and I do it for free," Sheehan continued. She said she has been spending her own money to travel around the country in recent weeks to rally opposition to the war in Iraq.
Sheehan previously told Cybercast News Service that she was not taking money from organizations like MoveOn.org or private financiers like George Soros but that her recent 51-city bus tour was funded by "grassroots fundraising."
She said her contract with Speaking Matters, which has not yet disclosed how much a Sheehan appearance will cost, will help her "finally make some money ...'cause Casey's insurance money's going to run out pretty soon."
Casey left behind a brother, two sisters, and a father as well. But it sounds like Cindy Sheehan took his insurance money and used it to pay her way, and presumably some of the expenses of her "fellow travelers".
How much money? We don't know for sure, but we can guess. From the US Army:
The Serviceman's Group Life Insurance, better known as SGLI, is group term life insurance currently available to all members of the US Army. SGLI is a group life insurance policy purchased by the VA from a commercial life insurance company, and is partially subsidized by the federal government.Servicemembers on active duty, active duty for training or inactive duty for training and members of the Reserves are automatically covered for $250,000, the maximum amount of coverage, unless they opt out in writing. A soldier can elect lower coverage or no coverage by completing VA Form SGLV-8286. Basic SGLI premiums are currently $.065 per $1,000 of insurance, regardless of the member's age. View rates for different coverage amounts.
Some people were asked if their opinion of her changed now that she'll be taking money for speaking engagements:
[University of Maryland student] Megan Hanford said it makes sense that Sheehan would start charging for appearances. "She can't work while she's traveling the country," Hanford said, "and she's lost any income that her son might have brought her."
Her son was an adult. Her husband had a job. So did she. Casey would not have brought any income to Cindy Sheehan, under normal circumstances (read the Anchoress for more on this facet).
If Cindy Sheehan was the sole beneficiary, then she had every right to take the money and do what she wanted with it. We don't know who Casey named as beneficiary, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was just his mother -- before I got married, I routinely named my dad as my beneficiary on insurance forms, fully expecting that in the event of my demise, the money would be going to both my parents, and to rest of my immediate family, as required.
Did any of the insurance money go to paying off family debts? The mortgage on the house? The car loans? The college bills for the other kids?
What other family resources did Cindy Sheehan squander? Is this part of the reason for the divorce proceedings, including the Patrick Sheehan's demands that Cindy Sheehan pay for the cost of the divorce, and pay some sort of support back to Patrick. Is Patrick Sheehan trying to recover the lost insurance money?
Many have been disturbed by the way Cindy Sheehan has used Casey's name to promote her own agenda. Apparently she was using far more than just his name.
I will try to find out more...
Update: Got more. Much more...
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Wow Angry, good catch there. That's low even for an anti-war Liberal eh? Or possibly as I've thought for a while now, the woman is demented.
Either way word on this gets out, look out Cindy!
Posted by: The Phantom at September 29, 2005 10:16 AM
Of course the woman is not seeing things clearly. She lost a son after all. Her aim seems to be to make as much of a monument to her son as she possibly can
To do that effectively she has to campaign on the wrong side of the fence. Question is, did she believe in what her son decided to support and protect, the freedom of the western world, when he was following his life vision?
We have a student who is a right thinker and surprising. Not an average student by any means. I wish I had been on the ball at her age. I would be in very highly paid politics by now.
Http://YoungConsrvative.Blog.ca
She has Dingwall nailed eh?
What a kid! Leave a comment, I want her on our side. 73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at September 29, 2005 12:42 PM
Angry, I see you've taken Karl Rove's best strategy to heart: attack the messenger, not the message. This might be win you some support among people who already disagree with the message, but it is wholly unconvincing and unpersuasive to those who are willing to listen to what people have to say regardless of whether or not they are perfect individuals.
Sheehan represents just one of the many Americans - in fact, the majority of Americans - who think that going to war in Iraq was a mistake. Some of those Americans are no doubt pure in every way, but others will certainly have their flaws and foibles: but who cares? They are citizens who deserve to have a say in the policy of their government.
Sheehan, after all, is not a politician. She is a grieving mom who has taken on an activist role. This has put her in the public eye, and so some scrutiny is warranted. But speculating about how she supports herself while completing ignoring the indictment of Tom DeLay, (former) leader of the Republican Congress on conspiracy charges, for example, tells me you have blinders on.
Posted by: Ade at September 29, 2005 12:58 PM
Ade, first time here? Angry has written about all of the things you accuse him of not mentionning. I am sure he awaits your apology.
Posted by: Greg at September 29, 2005 03:03 PM
What message, Ade?
Leftists, socialists, professional race-baiters, and trust-funders are your friends and America sucks?
Been hearing that since the 60's....
If the Cirque du Cindy has a new message, I have not heard it.
Posted by: jcrue at September 29, 2005 04:27 PM
and BTW, Ade....
If you would like to discuss Tom Delay, please by all means explain your understanding of the charge against him in relation to current campaign laws and how you understand them.
It doesn't take a lawyer to see the shallowness of the first successful attempt to indict DeLay out of seven tries....
Looking forward to your astute reply.
Posted by: jcrue at September 29, 2005 05:43 PM
"Of course the woman is not seeing things clearly. She lost a son after all. Her aim seems to be to make as much of a monument to her son as she possibly can"
That being the case, the least she could do is purchase and place a headstone for her son... This is one thing that she has not yet done as far as I understand...
Posted by: Richard Evans at September 29, 2005 10:33 PM
Greg, perhaps you can post a link to where Angry discusses DeLay's indictment. The indictment was yesterday and I don't see any posts about it whatsoever here, even though it's quite evident Angry posts practically up-to-the-minute. You'd think that if the resignation of the guy who runs the Canadian mint (printing money, wish I had that job) is big news, the indictment of one of the most powerful Republicans in the US (in fact, one of the most powerful men in the world) on criminal conspiracy charges would be important. But not if you have blinders on. Take them off, Greg - they must chafe.
jcrue, I don't really see the need to paraphrase, when I can just quote:
"Tom DeLay was indicted on a single conspiracy charge tied to illegal fundraising activities in Texas. The indictment accuses him and two alleged co-conspirators, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis, in engaging in a scheme to launder $190,000 in corporate donations through the Republican National Committee for distribution to Republican candidates for the Texas legislature. The money was funneled to the RNC from Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, or TRMPAC, which was created by DeLay and associates for the 2002 state elections. Texas law generally prohibits corporate money from being used for campaign activities."
As reported by Juan Gonzalez.
From the Washington Post:
----------
The House ethics committee admonished him on three separate occasions last year and a Senate panel is pursuing his ties to Jack Abramoff, a high-powered Republican lobbyist and fundraiser under investigation for his lobbying activities on behalf of Indian tribes and his role in paying for overseas trips for DeLay. DeLay has denied knowing Abramoff paid the expenses.
----------
And from the New York Times:
----------
Moreover, the string of ethical issues so close together - including the indictment and continuing investigation of the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was close to Mr. DeLay, and the arrest of David H. Safavian, a former White House budget official who was charged with lying to investigators and obstructing a federal inquiry involving Mr. Abramoff - is a source of anxiety in Republican circles.
"Even though DeLay has nothing to do with Frist, and Frist has nothing to do with Abramoff, how does it look? Not good," said William Kristol, a key conservative strategist and editor of The Weekly Standard.
At the same time, the White House is grappling with a criminal investigation into whether anyone leaked the name of a C.I.A. operative, an inquiry that has brought both Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, before a grand jury.
----------
Posted by: Ade at September 29, 2005 10:56 PM
Hilarious Onion article:
Nagin et al messed up enormously in NO, but even the most ardent bush-supporter will laugh at this:
"Bush Braces as Cindy Sheehan's Other Son Drowns in New Orleans"
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40764
Posted by: SJD at September 30, 2005 10:07 AM
ADE - anyone can cut and paste.
I'm looking for some original thought, and your understanding of the issue. If all you know is based on newspaper articles, I feel sorry for you and your sense of pride.
Nice try at a deflection though.
Posted by: jcrue at September 30, 2005 10:12 AM
 
|
|
