Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan considers run against Sen. Feinstein

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Ernesto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:16 AM
Original message
Peace activist Cindy Sheehan considers run against Sen. Feinstein
Edited on Sat Jan-28-06 11:26 AM by Ernesto
I'm sure DiFi is terrified........
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, said she was considering running for office against Sen. Diane Feinstein while she waited for the California lawmaker to back a filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.


http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/14124864p-14953903c.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. Diane apparently got the message. She announced for the filibuster
yesterday.

There has been some confusion about this (Cindy running). Mike Malloy said she was (yeserday) but then quickly came on with a correction, that Cindy is backing the Green candidate. So, right now, I'm not sure we can know what's true about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. ack! bad reporting...
She just threatened to run against Feinstein if she didn't back the Fillibuster. I think it was just a spontaneous comment, everybody took it and ran with it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
26. sounds like a ONE OFF COMMENT people
sorry for the yell, but please take this comment as it was intended and not to start complaining about Cindy's motives, etc (not in response to you Viva, but others below). It was a good comment, but just a spontaneous comment that people will use for their own purposes. I'm glad Feinstein is backing filibuster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neuvocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Good thing.
I was going to vote against her if she didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
39. That should help get a whacko Repuke elected
I'm sure the Green Party will get lots more Puke money for this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. Sweet!
She's got my vote!:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. Where will she get her campaign funding?
Edited on Sat Jan-28-06 11:33 AM by Coastie for Truth
*Steve Poizner - The Texas Millionaire in Palo Alto
*Tom Campbell
*Darrel Issa
*"Duke" Cunningham
*Tom McClintock
*Duncan Hunter
*Dan Lungren
*Perfesser Condi Rice of the Hoover Institution

Who are our two most famous republicans in California?
Ronald Reagan and Dick Nixon.

What do California Republicans stand for?
Cooper-Jarvis Prop XIII at all costs.
Reign the UCB Students and Faculty
Protect the Institution of Marriage
Repeal the Stem Cell Research Prop
English is the Official Language of the State
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fiendish Thingy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I think she meant run against DiFi in the Dem primary... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. See my append #8.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrPrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Just curious...
why haven't the democrats thrown their arms around this lady from day one as a possible star candidate in the House, perhaps?

1) she's very anti-Bush
2) very anti-Iraq war
3) very popular among democrat supporters
4) has had an astounding amount of media coverage
5) very articulate
6) strong base and organization

I am really really curious as to why the Dem's big tent can accommodate folks like Miller, Lieberman and Bayh...but no room for her?

Now the best you can come up with is the notion that people like Issa or McLintock would actually back her given her anti-Bush activities? Or that given her already considerable support domestically or internationally, why should would bother with their greenbacks anyhow.

Worrying about Sheehan seems like small potatoes given the fallout over the filibuster issue at this point...

very curious...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. You asked
Now the best you can come up with is the notion that people like Issa or McLintock would actually back her given her anti-Bush activities?


The GOP would throw money into her campaign to make DiFi spend money, and to create the kind of bitter, ad hominem, personal rifts and intra-party grudges that we Dems are so good at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Your point
?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. I'll bite.. here's why..
Edited on Sat Jan-28-06 01:27 PM by progressivebydesign
Because she's a loose cannon. Unlike Howard Dean, who was critized unfairly for saying things that were divisive and outrageous, she is unpolished, and comes off now.. after her initial grief.. as a publicity hound. Whether that is how those around her see her, that is what she has become to those not in her inner fan circle. She's a Ralph Nader pretty much, in that respect.

ON EDIT.. just noticed that Cindy said she's backing a Green candidate. Sounds like I was right on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ernesto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #18
45. You nailed it, p....
She would be rove-bait for sure............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. That is a good question, she certainly has many supporters here.
One thought is that she may be leaning 3rd party as many progressives here. Many are all fed up with the dem "leadership" that seems dysfunctional at best and corporation whorish at worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneold1-4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. HIGH FIVE HERE
If the Dems. stay in the same old mold, then I have had enough mold for a lifetime!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flordehinojos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
10. cindy sheehan will revolutionize the senate if she runs and gets in.
she ought to do it. her run will show the bushiite boy what a grass root america is all about.
however, the diebold machine will put in whomsoever the bushes want in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hyernel Donating Member (665 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
14. How stupid. She's diluting her effectiveness by saying stuff like this.
Stick to being a magnet for protest of the Chimp, Cindy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneold1-4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Taking one small step
is where we are going to find the brave and the courageous to make change as quickly as possible.
The same old arena just isn't going to do more than go around in the same old circles!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. On the contrary.
She is pointing out that far too many of our elected officials care more about themselves and their corporate buddies than they do about the people. :puke:

I wish she would run and KICK SOME BUTT! :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hyernel Donating Member (665 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #22
38. Anyone can point that out. I point it out all the time...
...Doesn't mean I'm qualified to be a Senator. (although I am)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #38
47. We need more people in office that have high ethical standards...
since far too many of our elected officials have more money and connections than they have ethics! Most of em are no more qualified than the average Joe or Jane, save their money and connections. :puke:

Cindy is HIGHLY qualified IMO. :applause:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #14
41. TOTALLY agree
she's making herself look like an opportunist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. Sorry...
I agree with what you said, in addition I THINK it makes her look like an opportunist. Those are MY WORDS no spin intended plus I thought it was against the rules to call someone a freeper. :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hyernel Donating Member (665 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. It is? I didn't know.
I don't read rules.

I know, I know...perhaps I should.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
17. Oh god... say it ain't so.
Edited on Sat Jan-28-06 01:23 PM by progressivebydesign
I know that some have cannonized Cindy Sheehan here.. but for the life of me, I can't understand why she'd be considering something like this. I supported her in her grief over her son. I stopped supporting her when she started to come off like she's all about Cindy Sheehan, inc. I find I agree with her less and less as she continues to say divisive things that only hurt our chances in 2008. Glad i don't live in California anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rayofreason Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
19. A relevant WaPo article...
Take a look at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701505.html

"The bloggers and online donors represent an important resource for the party, but they are not representative of the majority you need to win elections," said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic lobbyist who advised Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "The trick will be to harness their energy and their money without looking like you are a captive of the activist left."


Now boys and girls, can you say "hypocrite"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fudge stripe cookays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
49. Yeah...Elmendorf.
Now a GOP-whore. What a fucker. "Bi-partisan" my ASS!

fsc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
20. I don't get this idea that a truly representative candidate like Cindy
Sheehan--representative of the great American majority that has opposed Bush's war from the beginning (58% opposed, Feb. 03, before the invasion)--running for the Democratic nomination for an office, in a primary, is "divisive," "a circular firing squad," or promoting of "bitter, ad hominem, personal rifts and intra-party grudges that we Dems are so good at"--criticisms I often hear at DU when any vetting of potential candidates arises. We NEED to vet candidates. We NEED to fight for those we most agree with. And the Democratic Party DOES need to get more representative, both of the party membership (something like 90% of which opposes the war) and the great majority in this country (60% to 70%).

What is wrong with opposing someone who voted for this horrible war, and often votes against the interests and views of the majority of the party and the country?

Are we, too, to suffer a fascistic political party where dissent is not permitted, and we are required to march in lockstep with whatever the "Democratic" Roman Curia dictates to us?

We can address the problem of Diane Feinstein--and whether or not we can stomach supporting her--AFTER the primary when we see if there is someone running who DOES better represent our views and our interests.

In the meantime, I see nothing wrong with vetting candidates--and indeed I see it as healthy and a requisite of democracy--and if we have harsh things to say, let's say them--NOW, when we can influence candidates and party policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #20
42. Excellent post!
:thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
21. Sounds like Cindy Wants Change
like the rest of us :bounce:

GO CINDY! :toast:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
23. Oh good grief
Other than being an anti-war activist what qualifications does Cindy Sheehan have to be a US Senator?

She has strong opinions but that doesn't make her qualified. I have strong opinions too, but there is no way that I believe that qualifies me for the Senate.

Mz Pip
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qazplm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. exactly
this is part of the problem the republicans have, they vote for those who are ideologically "pure" but dont have any real qualifications for running.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Why? Politicians aren't exactly the brightest bulbs on the Christmas
tree of humanity. Most have a high amount of charisma and a very modest IQ. Sort of like talking heads on TV. Mostly they have enough money to get themselves into position to make more money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Which is probably
why were in the mess we're in. I don't see why the Deomcrats have to follow in the footsteps of the Republicans and support candidates of little expertise who reflect a particular ideological perspective.

Mz Pip
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. True,but expertise is an acquired attribute by almost anybody. Few
have real courage to face the over-whelming odds. This is why I like Cindy so much. Expertise can always be acquired, personal courage must be there to start. Frankly, the more of Cindy, the more I like and admire her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maryallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #23
34. What "qualifications" did George W. have?
Edited on Sat Jan-28-06 10:48 PM by maryallen
AWOL
Ex-drunk
Ex-addict
Liar
Good exerciser
Great baseball fan
Poor reader
Poor speaker
Poor student/slow learner/probable learning disability
Lousy temperament
Total lack of curiosity

Yeah, I see why you are so concerned about Cindy's "qualifications."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. George Bush
is a RW mistake. He has no business being in the White House. He did, however satisfy the qualifications of the RW base. Religious, dogmatic, easily manipulated and with name recognition.

While Cindy lacks the same "qualifications" she is still unqualified. She may fire up a certain segment of the Democratic base, but that does not make her a good senate candidate.

Apples and oranges.

Mz Pip
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
High Plains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
52. What, you mean she isn't a millionaire?
That seems to be the primary qualification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
24. Go Cindy! One woman with courage is worth 100 with "polish"!!! nt
Edited on Sat Jan-28-06 02:37 PM by VegasWolf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueStater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
29. Sorry, but between this and her Clinton comment, my support for her is...
...dwindling.

She should stick to being a voice for the anti-war crowd and stay out of politics. She's hurting her credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Why exactly do you think that? Why do you think she should be muzzled?
She has gained her credibility by speaking out against Bush. Don't you think we need more of that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joefree1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
32. Hey, Cindy should run as a Green Party candidate
You know, the party of scorched earth politics, i.e., we democrats are as just as bad as the rethuglicans.

Most of us in California learned our lessons with the un-politicians like Nader and the Gropenator. Give me a slick willy anyday.

When Cindy is anti-Bush I support her but when she's anti-Democrats I don't.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
33. God bless her.
I hope she follows her heart. If her heart says the right way is
to challenge Diane, then i trust Cindy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
35. I would gladly vote for her.
Feinstein WILL NOT get my vote unless she's only a few points ahead, which will not happen. Voting progressive is important. A Feinstein vote when she's guaranteed reelection is not progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-28-06 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
36. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
40. erm, what QUALIFICATIONS does she have?
other than being a protestor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MsKandice01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. What "qualifications" are necessary to be a Senator?
Former politician? Doctor? Attorney? Oil company exec? What? I really don't get this "qualifications" thing at all. That's why we're in the mess we're in now, continuing to elect career politicians who don't give a damn about anything other than furthering
their political aspirations. Senators are supposed to be public servants, people who represent the interests of the average citizens in their constituency. There are many veterans who are running as Democratic in 2006 and they are getting the full support of most DUers. What kind of "qualifications" do they have, other than serving in the military?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Puglover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. I agree....exactly what are the "qualifications" you people
are all bleeting about? Not one of you have said anything of substance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalGuy000 Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. don't criticize
Yesterday those of us who made discouraging comments about Sheehan's possible run for Senate had our comments deleted.

I'll repeat what I said yesterday: I think that with her grassroots, activist persona, she's be much better suited to a run for the House of Representatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff Fisher Berkley Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
48. Jeff Fisher will help-I helped the St. Patrick Four in September 2005
I already have already contacted the Democratic House Judiciary Committee and told them I would take a lie detector test regarding the information I didn't give them on December 8, 2004.

Therefore I am going to post the letter I sent out last week with revisions that has people in Washington D.C. nervous.

My name is Jeff Fisher. I am the Democrat that obtained election fraud information on September 27, 2004 from Sean Lennon regarding Bay Point School in 1999, 2000 and 2002. I also obtained hard copy information on individuals who were involved in the financing, programming and manipulation of Elections in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

The information I did obtained contained among other things, an offshore bank account that linked payment to sabotaging a plane with a very important U.S. Senator on board with his family.

Many people are wondering why I didn't reveal this information back in 2004.

Well I was going to until I received a threatening phone call on Dec. 8th, 2004 prior to the public comment after the Ohio Judiciary Hearing regarding the mishaps in Ohio on Election Day throughout many black communities.

The threat was very real. I was told (via a blocked phone call to my cell, this is additional information that I didn't explain earlier last week. I humbly apologize to all of those who read my message and wondered who ordered me to follow their directions or else) to exit the room and stand out in the hallway.

Then I was told to look at a white man dressed in a suit. That man opened up his right side of his coat jacket to reveal he had three firearms.

At that moment the caller began to name off names of individuals who would be harmed. (That male caller said "harmed, terminated, our choice"). (Again I apologize for not putting that in the original message) within the next week if I revealed any damaging information to the Committee or if I were to give them a statement afterwards.

That is why I was acting in such a bad manner when I finally spoke.

If you remembered I screamed at Congressman John Conyers and Congressman Barney Frank.

What's ironic is that both of these men endorsed me in my congressional race. (Again I apologize for not putting that in the original message)

The first person he, (the caller) named off was my traveling companion, whom I never told this about.

I instead had to live a life of hiding a threatening and possibly fatal secret for the next 13 months where she and the nineteen others were not aware of this situation. You see, I fell deeply in love with this person and in the process was blacklisted from getting any form of employment which lead to that person leaving me for another man.

IF I HAD TO DO IT OVER AGAIN,I WOULD DO THE SAME THING.

Her life and the nineteen others took precedent over anything else.

The next two people he named were part of Verified Voting, and then he named three people on my campaign staff.

The list also contained the name of my daughter, whom I miss dearly but I can not jeopardize her life either.

I will not give out any more information on the rest because it took a year to alienate myself from them, to create bitterness toward me so they could live out their lives in peace.

Back to my true friend, that I withheld information from for their protection, I am now telling more about how our own government treats its own citizens. (I can never be in touch with her again, her life is in jeopardy if I do so. I love her as if she was Mother Nature herself.) This is not a tangent. I am posting my message because this Administration will destroy, damage, harm anyone who opposes it, big or small.

New information: I never told my friend about being confronted on December 14, 2004 by two FBI agents in a bookstore in Georgetown. These agents showed me their badges and informed me that I said things at the protest in Lafayette Park that were not acceptable to the Administration. They also informed me that they knew I withheld information from Jeff Fativa in the West Palm Beach FBI office the previous month. They then gave me a stern warning that I should remain quiet and not talk anymore, especially to anyone in the Party.

Well, I didn’t take their advice. I did talk to DNC General Counsel, Joe Sandler and had a drink with him. The following day I was rushed to George Washington Hospital because I couldn’t move anything on my left side of my body. They diagnosed me with experiencing Todd’s Paralysis. It took three days to recuperate.

I couldn’t say anything to my friend or Joe Sandler or anyone on my campaign staff because of the threats I received. More importantly, while I was in the emergency room, a stranger (male) came into the room and told me quietly that I should keep quiet or my friend (he said her name) would have acid thrown on her face. I was on my side and unable to see the individual, all I could hear was his deep voice and smell garlic from his breath. If you are asking where was she? She was out in the hallway (I found this out later) talking to some ill person and giving them comfort.


Many people on the net want me to come out with the information all at once. (Additional note: Some people have contacted me from the media and told me that my personal life needs to be kept private. Well, I ran my congressional race in 2004 by being transparent so the people could know the real man and what America and the people he wanted to represent were all about. I wear my heart and soul on my sleeve.)(A Congressman represents his District, his State and his Country)(Again another apology to those who received my letter earlier last week)

Some of the people who claim to be fighting for Election Reform on the Internet are not really patriots. One of them poses as one but has been know for bombing federal facilities. I know who that person is. I met him on December 8th in the hall an hour before I received my life changing phone call.

Additional note: The bomber has contacted me via another person and then directly, both via email stating that he wasn’t the bomber. I smoked him out, yet he prevails on the Internet. He continues to play both sides and is a grave danger to all Americans who want to see Justice prevail. This man even gave me vital information about how they were going to discredit me, specifically because they had turned my original campaign web-site into a pornographic site. I investigated that and contacted the company that managed it, they are in San Francisco, ironic that I ended up in the Bay area. I must have a true higher power, I am not like George Bush, so get it straight, Democrats can believe in God too.

Back to the point of the matter, I spent one hour on my cell phone with this company informing them that my name was being slandered and libeled and that because I was a federal candidate in 2004, I would be in contact with the FBI. I also told them that my phone is being constantly monitored by the Secret Service.

They shut down the pathway within the hour so it can no longer be directed toward that pornographic nonsense.

The pressure of knowing this information has taken its toll on me. My year has been great at times and horrible at times, but the main constant denominator is that I only want America to know the truth and have our Constitution obeyed, respected and loved by those that we vote to represent us.

I have not and will not take money for this cause. I am about the law of the land, not the greed that has temporarily kidnapped the law and her lawmakers.

Sincerely,
Jeff Fisher
An American who will fight and defend the Constitution till my last breath

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-29-06 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
54. There's a conflict of interest now. When she attacks DiFi, seems electoral
schtick, rather than principle. I wonder now: was she planning to run against Hillary when attacking her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC