Dems hit Sheehan candidacy

[Gman]

Source: Whittier Daily News

A local Democratic Club has criticized the decision by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"If you continue with this threat to embarrass the speaker, it is very possible that the voters will turn against the Democratic leadership in Congress and return the Republicans to the majority," stated a letter written by J. Paton Marshall, corresponding secretary for the Robert F. Kennedy Democratic Club.

"If that happens, all investigations will cease and justice for Bush and Cheney will be impossible," the letter stated.
,
,
,
Instead of attacking other Democrats, progressives should be attacking Republicans who have blocked efforts to pull American forces out of Iraq, Smith said.

Read more: http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_6595255

---

I wonder sometimes just what motivates some "progressives" to attack Democrats over the war when it's the Republicans that have successfully blocked anything the Democrats try to do to get us out. The other thing progressives don't want to understand seems to be the fact that probably the worst of all legislation that was going to be pushed through in Bush's last 2 years was stopped cold when the Democrats took Congress. That alone stands for a helluva lot. The next step is to elect a Democrat President next year. Then we can start doing something.

[midnight]

1. Very interesting letter that J. Paton Marshall wrote. I can't help

but wonder if he owns stock in the War machine. My next thought is why is Cindy's voice being threated? She is embarrassing the Speaker? How juvenile. We have 18 year olds bearing the brunt of a war that was manufactured. I continue to applaud those who use their courage to help those whose voice has been silenced. If yourself or Mr. Marshall has a loved one fighting this war they understand that these soldiers count on us to defend them too.

[humbled_opinion]

2. Shush... Alternative viewpoints are not allowed... The state is listening my friend... N/T

[mbperrin]

31. Interesting that this is from Nixon's home town. Last time I looked,

this country was waging a war that could be defunded by simple majority vote, or by a repeal of the War Powers Act by the same. We hold a simple majority. We are not acting to end the war immediately (or at all, as far as I can see). If someone speaking up in a public way will help end this, and I think it will, then please, go for it.

I will never criticize Sheehan for anything. The price she has paid with losing her son, with taking the attacks from the Pub slime machine, and now from Dems, makes me wonder how she has the strength. End this war now, by any means. Impeach, indict, imprison these war criminals. Now.

[knight_of_the_star]

151. We have a simple majority on paper

But if you look at the vote on the wiretapping if we force the issue its entirely likely the Blue Dogs and some of the New Dems will break ranks and vote with the GOP thus making us look like a bunch of boobs. We have a majority on paper and that majority gives us control of the agenda and chairmanships, but it doesn't give us control of the VOTES in said majority and when our majority of 23 seats can be compromised by a faction of 45 Dems we have to walk softly until we can either bully, buy, or blackmail those 45 into staying loyal to the people or replace them.

ON EDIT:

That doesn't even address our paper-thin margin in the Senate that hinges on Joe Loserman's most recent temper tantrum making things even more dicey there.

[Alexander]

99. Yes, anyone who disagrees with Cindy is part of the big evil war machine.

It's a CONSPIRACY, man!!!

:eyes: :crazy:

[JTFrog]

3. The speaker

is doing fine embarrassing herself.

[ohio2007]

4. Is she running as a dem? She should claim herself "independant"

so attacks on her would be more 'focused' and 'united' along the rank and file

/sarc
imo, competition is good.It helps to redifine goals

[John Kerry VonErich]

6. She is running as an independant

so she is a lock in the general election if she gets her paperwork done.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. Since the Repos terrify the Dems into passing whatever bush wants, it's

not surprising that they are also afraid of Cindy Sheehan.

Fear of everyone and everything seems to be the Dems campaign strategy.

Like what good is an investigation? They don't go anywhere, except to give the people investigated more power.

Since the Dems can't or won't enforce their own subpoenas it's all just a joke, really.

Cindy apparently appeals to the fringe element out there who would rather fight than cave.

[Cha]

116. Zing.. John Q!

Again I find myself in "The Fringe".

Proud member of the 2001 10%er Club. How much % does this club have..anyone know?

[jody]

7. Sheehan said she was running as an independent. Lieberman did the same after being rejected by Dems.

[saigon68]

15. Yes and the DLC is still sucking up to Draft Dodger Joementum

[IndianaGreen]

43. Don't forget that Reid rewarded Lieberman with the Chair for Homeland Security Committee

which is the moral equivalent of making Ralph Nader the head of DNC.

[onehandle]

18. When was she rejected as a Democratic candidate?

I must have missed that.

[MODemocrat]

45. Shehan denounced the Democratic Party several weeks ago

She hasn't been kicked out of the party; that was her choice; Several of my relatives live in her
district; and they tell me that either she runs as a democrat, or she will not get their vote.
Working against the Democratic Party at such a periless time in this country, spells disaster IMHO.
:dem:

[knight_of_the_star]

152. Exactly

Her comments about the Democrats being the party of slavery and every war in the 20th century will go over like a lead balloon in San Francisco.

[mopinko]

162. sure, kick cindy out of the party. at least we know it can be done.

then give the blue dogs a nice meaty bone, and a place by the fire. hmmm....

[EST]

72. Using both names in the same sentence does nothing to connect

the two. The cases are not parallel-not even similar.

[jody]

81. Sheehan and Lieberman are both former Democrats who chose to run as independents against Democratic

candidates.

IMO that's enough to discuss the two together.

[CreekDog]

87. Lieberman has more courage than Sheehan, at least he ran in the primary

She chickened out.

And that's the nicest thing you will ever hear me say about Lieberman. Now I have to go wash my hands.

[Cha]

120. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiigt....

lieman is a little pissant warmonger who isn't fit to lick anyone's sandals.

[Cha]

119. That's my reaction,

too. Non sequi-TUR!

[iamjoy]

8. I Think It's Foolish

but not because it's "embarrassing" or anything like that. Let's say Sheehan beats Pelosi in the primary. And let's say she wins. Sheehan does not get to be Speaker of the House. The Democrats in Congress will vote on new Speaker. It will probably be Steny Hoyer - who is really no "better" than Pelosi.

If we are truly interested in real change a smarter strategy would be to build a Progressive coalition to identify DINOs and identify a real progressive to run against them. Although Pelosi has been disappointing in some areas, she is no DINO. Or look at districts where there is no good Democratic/Progressive candidate and field one there (perhaps a district the DCCC is ignoring). We can then build a strong progressive caucus in Congress.

I'm not sure what Sheehan hopes to accomplish by running against Pelosi. It seems to be a publicity stunt. Mind you, I don't always think publicity stunts are bad things - especially when some one is saying something that needs to be said.

[Danger Mouse]

57. 'Publicity Stunt' sounds about right.

:hi:

[roody]

68. Sheehan cannot beat Pelosi in the primary because

Sheehan is not running as a Democrat. We should invite an antiwar Democrat to challenge Pelosi in the primary.

[ProudDad]

75. What part of keeping the illegal, immoral Iraq War

on the front burner don't you understand???

Fuckin' Pelosi ain't gonna do it. She's bailed on the war.

Not surprising, she's among the richest of the rich in the House. It's in her interests to profit from the war...war is always good for business...

[Buck Rabbit]

96. Fuckin' Pelosi? hmmm let me post as ignorantly as you, looks like fun.

Fuckin' Sheehan has been bought by the oil companies and is working to split the left so a Republican will win the Presidency and to continue the war at least through 2013.

If Sheehan isn't working for the big oil why does she only attack progressives who are against the war. Why does she work to try to divert attention away from the War and towards the Republican goal of the Democrats pursuing an impossible impeachment attempt that at best will do nothing and at worse tear the Democrats apart setting the stage for at least 4 more years of Republican control.

[ProudDad]

104. The difference is that my statements are true

Pelosi and the Dem leadership have bailed on the war. They did so when they passed the supplemental that gave * everything he wanted.

You got your statement "Sheehan has been bought by the oil companies and is working to split the left so a Republican will win the Presidency and to continue the war at least through 2013." From the same dark place that limp-balls and o'liely get theirs...

[Buck Rabbit]

107. Your statement is true?

That Nancy Pilosi is supporting the war for her personal profit, is simply ignorant beyond belief.

She doesn't support the war in the least. Her voting record is among the very best and has been since the start. When she speaks as head of the party in the house she is speaking for the goals established by the caucus as a whole, even those that don't always represent her own personal views.

The progressives within the Democratic party of which Pilosi is, are a minority. The number of Blue Dogs and New Dems excluding dual membership is virtually the same as the number of progressives in the low 70s with the rest falling in between.

Even with Pilosi personally voting against the supplemental there were only 142 votes against. The fact is a huge majority in Congress oppose any attempt to end a war via defunding.

[ProudDad]

109. True!

"Pelosi and the Dem leadership have bailed on the war. They did so when they passed the supplemental that gave * everything he wanted."

Absolutely true...

Prove that your ridiculous statement IS also true...


On Edit: Is she a "leader" or a follower? Is she rich or ain't she? She's the freakin' BOSS. If she doesn't want legislation to reach the floor, it don't reach the floor.

This is no excuse: "she is speaking for the goals established by the caucus as a whole, even those that don't always represent her own personal views." <-- This would be a first and Speaker Sam is spinning in his grave...

[Buck Rabbit]

110. Self Deleted - Post I was responding to was edited as I posted.

[Buck Rabbit]

118. The difference between our ridiculous statements is

I stated I was going to post a ridiculous supposition of motive to explain actions like you did.

No I don't believe Sheehan is taking money from the oil companies. Do you actually believe your assertion Pilosi has become a war supporter for self enrichment?

She is a leader of a Democratic caucus that is heavily split and she has a serious intra-party rival in Hoyer. Do you think a party with a slim majority and a caucus that is split down the middle is going to allow a heavy handed Speaker disregard the will of the majority in the Caucus? Do you think having Hoyer as Speaker would be better?

There are 72 Blue Dogs and/or New Dems in the Democratic caucus, within one or two of the number in the Progressive Caucus. Few if any Speakers in history have had to deal with such a divide within their own party.

[divineorder]

161. Amen

Don "Quixote" Sheehan will not end the war, or sit in Congress before 2009. So pressuring Pelosi will do nothing about the war. There aren't enough Democratic votes to override a lock-step Republican support for Bush, so Congress just can't force the issue. We should be pressuring the Republicans and reminding them that they can be replaced by Democrats if they don't end the war now and take it off the table. Indeed, you would think that Republicans would rather end the war than have Democrats bring it up next year. Indeed, ending the war is one reason why many people will vote for a Democrat next year. They know that Republicans have decided to follow the mirage of an impossible "win" in Iraq no matter how much it cost the U.S elsewhere.

[knight_of_the_star]

153. I think this publicity stunt is of the bad kind

This reeks of an ego play to me and not of someone who really knows what is going on.

[Bitwit1234]

9. Somebody explain to me

how if, and she sure doesn't have much of a chance getting anywhere, Sheenan gets into congress she is going to single handedly, stop the war in Iraq.

If she wants to do something to help, why doesn't she pick a republican representative and run against them. Then she will have the democratic house to work with. IF and thats a big IF, she wins against Pelosi, she will be sitting alone.

[JTFrog]

11. I would think as an Independant

she runs against both the Dem and Repub rep, no?

[EST]

12. She told Nancy if Nancy did not put impuachment back on the

table, she would run for the seat. Now I laike Nancy Pelosi and certainly admire her guts and frotitude, but Cindy Sheehan is free to do whatever she wishes and that's the way it works.

[Danger Mouse]

58. But but...

she is speaking truth to power! She is holding their feet to the fire!
sigh...

[coalition_unwilling]

84. The constituents in Pelosi and Sheehan's congressional district

are overwhelmingly against the war and want it stopped immediately. Voters in the district need to decide who will better represent their views on ending the war immediately, Sheehan or Pelosi. Thus far, my money's on Sheehan for ending the war immediately. Pelosi still seems to think there's such a thing as an honorable exit. Sorry, that possibility ended in March 2003 and now it's merely a matter of how many more U.S. soldiers, mercenaries and Iraqi civilians will die or be wounded.

[Vidar]

92. Well said.

[Buck Rabbit]

125. What vote would Representative Sheehan have made that Pilosi

wouldn't have in the last 5 years?

Of the over 400 members of Congress does Pilosi have one of the worse voting records on the war or tied for 2nd best behind Dennis Kucinich?

With respect to the honorable exit thing, Pelosi is actually with Murtha's quickly as safely possible approach, the fastest exit of the many being proposed in Congress, would Sheehan support something different?

As an Independant openly hostile and unwelcome to caucus with either party, would she have any committee position or have the ability to get any bill before consideration?

She would be the least influential member of the entire house with no voice and no power other than to cast one vote among over 400.

How does Steny Hoyer or worse a Republican becoming Speaker of the House, speed the cause of ending the war as soon as possible. If I recall correctly neither Hoyer or any Republican in line for Speaker supports Murtha's quick withdraw proposal.


(Edited to correct Hoyer's first name)

[coalition_unwilling]

175. Pelosi took impeachment "off the table" before the Judiciary

Committee even held hearings. Talk about the "fix being in"!

[liberalnurse]

10. It is my opinion that Cindy has been poorly advised....

She has been marginalized and diminished by her irrational actions. She can't sell Casey's death any more due to her always making everything about Casey....reasonable or not...she has cried out too much and without goal or intention.....Impulsive behavior is reckless.

I am fuming mad at these so called friends of Cindy's who have lead her to take point on their position while loosing site of her true mission.

Wasteful. She needs to come and stay with real friends and regroup.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluedog]

35. Our troops need those funds

......... they could play with the rules of Congress to somehow force a withdrawal bill through both houses, but it will then be vetoed, and they can't very well amend the constitution to make a veto overide easier.


Are they supposed to do this again and again? The fact is that a bill to force the withdrawal from Iraq will not make it through Congress, much less President Bush, and there isn't much Nancy Pelosi can do about it.

That leaves you with cutting off funding.

Outside of a few Senators and Reps, no one wants to cut off funding.

Our troops need those funds, or does Ms. Sheehan want more tragedies to hit other families like hers because the money doesn't exist for body or vehicle armour?

.........do we allow the necessary funding to keep the troops safe during the withdrawal? perhaps that could work. ........, what happens next election cycle when the republican machine casts every democrat who voted to cut off funding as a traitor or unpatriotic.

Don't place too much faith in "the people," to see through that propaganda.

Those same "people" voted President Bush in for a second term.

[JAbuchan08]

46. "Our troops need those funds"

The only reason "our troops need those funds" is too keep them in Iraq. If they were not in Iraq they would not need the funds ergo cutting off funds for the Iraq war is not cutting off funds for "our troops."

If we cut off funds for the Iraq war and Bush kept the troops in Iraq I GUARANTEE the American people would see him as the bad guy for keeping the troops in harms way without funding.

The flip side to having a larger anti-war movement is having a dumber anti-war movement.

[Fovea]

138. a couple quick points

The current admin has a pretty abysmal record getting funds to the actual troops. Halliburton, not so much.

The money has existed for body armor, vehical armor, etc. But it was better to fund the mercs and the support services first, our boys and girls second, or maybe third.

I don't believe that Bush got a majority of electoral votes in 2004, had Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, etc not been stolen.

[Miss Chybil]

54. How dare you call it the "Pelosi War!"

How dare you let George Bush off the hook for the carnage and mayhem HE has imposed on this planet. George Bush and his REPUBLICAN cabal. Put the blame where it belongs. And, perhaps you will want to reread Skinner's thread about not using DU to campaign for Cindy Sheehan. Read the name of this site. Lesson to Liberalgirl788, it's called "Democratic Underground," not "Independent Underground."

[Gman]

17. It's more like manic behavior

I believe Sheehan is bipolar and is in a long and continuous manic phase. This is not uncommon for the illness. One complete up and down cycle can be strung out for years. I believe Sheehan is in a years long manic phase and Casey's death was the "trigger" that started the manic phase. She will go into the depression phase. That's a certainty. I worried that she may have started in the depression phase when she "retired". If she did, that was short-lived. I remain concerned because when she goes into a full depression phase it will be as low and as long as her current high and that's not a good thing.

This isn't a slur. Bipolar Disorder is a known illness and can be devastating to the individual and the family. 90% of marriages where one individual is bipolar ends in divorce. Sheehan is already divorced. She's now in the middle of destroying the rest of her life. As she continues her tirade against the Democratic party, she's well on the way to helping the Republicans destroy the rest of the country.

[arikara]

86. Getting divorced doesn't mean that someone is bipolar

Without bothering to looking up statistics, I also know that when a child is killed the parents often wind up divorced. It happened to my parents after my brother was killed, and to others that I know. None of them are bipolar.

Calling someone mentally ill without any evidence whatsoever is just plain wrong. Equating Cindy's passion for her cause with bipolar behaviour is another nasty dig because she doesn't kowtow to this spineless useless bunch of dems in power at this time or in general behave the way you think she should.

[Gman]

114. No evidence?

Running around and acting like Sheehan is acting is classic bipolar disorder. I don't know her and never been around her but I'll bet her temper can go off like in an instant.

[arikara]

150. Sorry, still don't get it

Running around and acting like what?

:shrug:

[EST]

13. My, oh my. I'm starting to get disgusted.

" "If you continue with this threat to embarrass the speaker, it is very possible that the voters will turn against the Democratic leadership in Congress and return the Republicans to the majority," stated a letter written by J. Paton Marshall, corresponding secretary for the Robert F. Kennedy Democratic Club.

"If that happens, all investigations will cease and justice for Bush and Cheney will be impossible," the letter stated. "

Not that I'm supposed to notice, but this sounds like somebody's been studying at the knee of KKKarl RRove.
This patent malarkey is not a way to win arguments.

[creeksneakers2]

40. That's how it works

Sheehan wants to take away as many votes from Democrats nationwide as she can. The more votes she takes away, the more likely a GOP win is. Cindy is helping Republicans.

[EST]

71. Would you care to show your supporting arguments?

I would love to see how you reached that conclusion. I can't manage to dope it out.

[creeksneakers2]

77. Sheehan quotes

"The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th century, except the other Bush debacle. The Federal Reserve, permanent federal income taxes, not one but two World Wars, Japanese concentration camps, and not one but two atom bombs dropped on the innocent citizens of Japan – all brought to us via the Democrats."

"I will run as an independent because I find the corruption in both parties unhealthy, and I believe we need to have more allegiance to humans than to a political party," she added.

Since there are only two viable parties and the party with the highest number of votes wins, anybody who takes away votes from one party
helps the other. That's just logic.

[arikara]

90. There will always only be a 1 or aka "2" party system then

each of these parties has the same goals (eg. war, globalization, eradication of the useless middle class, riches for the deserving rich, corporate rule etc.) their difference is merely a little different way of reaching these goals.

But heaven help anyone who should dare to offer a different way... and in fact the same way that most people say they want; exactly what 1 or(2)same parties won't put "on the table"... then for some crazy reason this messenger and third way is called down, blamed and ridiculed.

Nothing will ever change until the population wakes up AND has the courage to make it change. The repukes sure arent going to change, and the dems... wahahaha. Not in our lifetime. Impeachement off the table... more war funding... fisa... etc. etc. Yep, working hard for their constituents... er corporate masters.

[creeksneakers2]

112. The Democrats aren't corporatists

Some of the stuff Democrats are working on this year:

(1)$16 billion to $29 billion in new taxes for oil companies.

(2)3% tax rise for the wealthiest Americans.

(3)Raise taxes on hedge fund managers from 15% to 35%.

(4)Make pharmaceutical companies negotiate lower prices on prescription drugs for medicare recipients.

(5)Eliminating privatized medicare.

(6)Forcing utilities to use 15% renewable energy by 2020

(7)Taking student loan subsidies away from banks and big lending companies and returning that money to the borrowers.

(8)Expansion of children's' health care

"But heaven help anyone who should dare to offer a different way..."
Who exactly is doing what exactly to anyone who is offering a different way, other than disagreeing? Neither party wants to eliminate the middle class. Enriching the rich and and corporate control are goals of the GOP. Both parties have protectionist wings and larger free trade wings.

Nothing will ever change as long as we have majority rules. If one side goes after 51% of the vote, the other side has to either do the same or lose. Throwing away the Democrats now just helps Republicans.

[Exiled in America]

170. How's that coming along?

Yeah... that's what I thought.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

123. The troops are still in Iraq. Democrats funded the surge, and gave * his wiretap law.

Is anyone really surprised that true progressives are getting upset?
Maybe instead of opening another investigation, we ought to badger the representatives WE elected to start doing their jobs!

How could we have won in 2006, and in 2007 the re-thugs are STILL calling the shots?!!

Maybe instead of condemning Cindy, we ought to call our senators and reps and tell them, I WILL RUN AGAINST YOU if you don't start doing your job!

[creeksneakers2]

130. Republicans are calling the shots

because they control the executive branch.

[JAbuchan08]

168. and because the Dems let them. n/t

[robinlynne]

88. Maybe if the speaker gets embarrassed we can return congress to DEMOCRATIC rule.

as in, end the war, as in NO to warrantless spying on Americans. Right now we have effective republican rule, even though we SHOULD have dem rule.

[NoodleyAppendage]

16. Must not speak ill of the party bullsh*t. Typical head-in-the-sand approach. n/t

J

[Zorro]

19. Sheehan has assumed a Nader mindset

If she wanted to help her cause, she could have registered to run as the Republican candidate. There's where the work needs to be done.

She has successfully ensured her own marginalization by this act. Certainly she's entitled to do what she wants, but she has hurt her own cause.

IMHO this act only serves a Republican agenda; it won't get the troops home any sooner, and allows Cindy to be their Pelosi-basher.

[bluedog]

21. she'll be the GOP poster child....n/t

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onehandle]

25. Good point.

She could have run for either party.

Instead she's running as a Nader.

[Xipe Totec]

34. Yup, Sheehan is running as an independeja

a loose cannon that does more damage to friends than foes.

[libodem]

69. yep, she's been 'Naderized'

[jtrockville]

20. "All investigations will cease"? I'd like that.

What's the point of investigating? It seems it's NOT to bring Bush and Cheney to justice, since the remedy - impeachment - has been ruled out. So frankly, I think it's a good idea to cease investigations and focus on something productive.

[brentspeak]

30. Since when do Congressional investigations have to result in impeachment hearings?

:eyes:

That would be news to Senate judiciary committees throughout American history.

[JAbuchan08]

48. There should be some sanction for violating the oath of office

otherwise its just an intellectual exercise to satisfy the base while fundamentally doing NOTHING. That is the problem with the Dems, they think that governance is an intellectual exercise, certainly one has to know what they are doing, but there has to be action following debate and discussion.

[CreekDog]

154. I'm sure Karl Rove would agree with you that Pelosi should be sanctioned

Give him a call to offer your support to knock off more Democrats.

[JAbuchan08]

166. I meant the Dems need to sanction the Bush administration

or else investigations are simply an intellectual exercise - perhaps you would have understood that if you weren't so eager to compare me with Karl Rove. By the way it is rich that you say *I'm* doing the work of Karl Rove when our "leadership" consistently sells out the country in order to compromise with the Bushies.
They allow the Bushies the benefit of their arguments beyond the point of reasonable doubt. They certainly need to continue their investigations, but those investigations need to mean something.
The Dems need to act to create their own reality rather than simply responding to the "facts on the ground" which the Republicans establish.

[jtrockville]

148. How many crimes have been uncovered so far?

What actions have resulted from these investigations?

If no one plans to take any "next steps", the investigations are nothing more than political entertainment. Frankly, I'd rather not know the extend of the crimes we're enabling this adminstration to commit. Stop the investigations and get on with business.

[JAbuchan08]

176. You're right. It's not a crime until someone with authority defines it as such

if you let the guilty party define the process even a murderer would get off scott-free.

[Maribelle]

32. Wouldn't the next president need to know the depth of Bush's corruption????

The investigations now in progress will help the next president.

It appears, the first challenging job for the next president will be to completely undo the corrupt partisan patronage in every agency of the Bush/Cheney government. Bush’s corruption drills deep, travels from one edge of the executive branch to the other edge, spilling over the edge emulating an infinity pool, where his servile and slavish followers stand with mouths agape praying to catch drips.

It seems Hillary is ready to lead, and will take the oath of office with a clearly designed grid with her control electrode for dispersing the required power to cleanse the executive branch of Bush‘s corrupt influences.

Those "black tie and boots" are disgracefully soiled, fragmented and deformed. The good guys with the white hats and silver bullets are riding into town - - straightforward solutions with reasonable yet extreme effectiveness.

[TreasonousBastard]

22. Why is there even discussion about this?

Sheehan's run is doomed, misguided, counterproductive and just plain stupid.

When compared to past Speakers, Pelosi's record so far is up there with any of them, and ridiculous ultimatums over impeachmenmt, war defunding, and other close to impossible things are not worthy of debate or discussion.

It's too bad that Sheehan, after the good work of Camp Casey, has to over the edge with this, but this is a bad thing she is doing, and too many other people are falling into the trap.

[ohio2007]

26. Sheehan's run is doomed, misguided, counterproductive and just plain stupid ?

Those words would have got you banned a year or two ago when camp Casey was all the rage. Makes me wonder who funded that expidition in the first place

[Buck Rabbit]

70. When Sheehan was at Camp Casey it would be true.

When she was an apolitical gold star mother challenging Bush she had an audience with the center of American politics who could be moved against the war. She was an effective voice in the movement able to tap audiences that would dismiss the same messages if spoken by a someone associated with liberal politics.

When she met with Hugo Chavez (whom I am a supporter of by the way) she lost her voice as an apolitical spokesperson against the war. At that point her only credibility was with the left who were already against the war. When she embraced Libertarian anti-progressive talking points she even lost support among many on the left.

As it stands now the only thing that Sheehan is effective at is being a divisive force in the Anti-War movement. She will get tons of money from the GOP and will never realize that she is tool for continuing the war until 2013.

Cindy Sheehan made a terrific contribution to the anti-war movement at Camp Casey. I thank her for that.

[Danger Mouse]

59. There are many who worship the ground she walks on...

and would never dare to criticize a thing she does.

[onehandle]

23. I agree. If Sheehan truly wanted to make a difference she'd fight from the inside.

She wants to create controversy. Mission accomplished, Nader.

Want to be taken seriously? Run as a Democrat. Not as a Nader.

And maybe not against the head of the party. Hmm? Nader?

[ejbr]

27. Nancy needs to impeach or she will share responsibility in the destruction of our constitution

I think the voters will go back to the GOP anyway, with or without Cindy, since impeachment was taken off the table.

[bluedog]

28. thats Bullcrap!!

this election is not a :1: issue campaign....theres more at stake than impeachment......

[IndianaGreen]

38. Our freedoms are the number one issue--it trumps all others!

America's freedoms are enshrined in the Constitution, now torn to shreds by the Bush regime with considerable help from Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

The Democratic Congress failed to defend America when it gave Gonzo the power to spy on all of us without any restraints or oversight. That was the last straw in a long series of Democratic cave-ins to the Bush regime.

Pelosi made Bush a dictator!

[ejbr]

41. "more at stake than impeachment"????

or should you say, "more at stake than the constitution" which is the bedrock of our country without which our laws mean nothing.

The staggering myopia of the "no impeachment is ok" crowd never ceases to amaze me. Have fun explaining to your grandchildren how Nancy helped bring down the rule of law and how you supported her perspective on "more important issues"

[Maribelle]

29. The "articles of impeachment" would first need to be drawn up by the House Judiciary Committee

This nausiating rag on Nancy merely shows off how uneducated one is regarding how the process would work.

The CURRENT members of the U.S. House of Represnetatives Committee on the Judiciary , those that would have this responsibility, are as follows:

http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx

[onehandle]

33. Exactly. nt

[ejbr]

39. the nauseating defense of Ms. "Impeachment is off the table" is pathetic. n/t

[Gregorian]

83. I'd like to know why the Judiciary Committee hasn't begun impeachment.

I'm reading the posts. I've watched the hearings. The Committee is primarily Dems.

I am missing the big picture.

[robinlynne]

89. No you're not missing the big picture. They are.

[Gregorian]

91. This is an important discussion.

Even if it's basic basics. I've been focused on Ms. Pelosi. I thank you for helping me understand the truth of this.

I worry that the typical citizen has absolutely no idea what is going on.

[robinlynne]

105. I for one kept thinking, there must be reasons they're doing it this way and

that way, until it got to a point where there are NO POSSIBLE GOOD reasons anymore. Fisa. no good reason. Funding the war. no good reason. ....

[Buck Rabbit]

124. Are you referring to impeachment against Bush or HR333 against Cheney?

Representative Barbra Lee, anti-war progressive, stated in an interview that in private discussions between House members that there are around 50 votes for impeachment of Bush, and it would go nowhere even if Pelosi threw her full support behind it. If that ratio of 1 in 4 Dems supporting impeachment of Bush carries over to members of the Judiciary Committee it would be easy to see it would be a nonstarter. Even if Pelosi could rally the Progressive and moderate Dems in the committee I believe the last time I looked 4 or 5 members of the committee were Blue Dogs or New Dems and judging how they voted on the last supplemental ....

With respect to HR333, this one has some real problems. You would think that with Darth Cheney you should be able to make a great case against he who shoots old men in the face. But the fact is since the Vice President has so few official duties, and most of what we suspect he has done requires an informant that hasn't and probably never will step forward they wrote HR333 based on his public statements. None of these statements were made under oath. On HR333 you could substitute the name "John Edwards" for "Dick Cheney", or scores of others whose votes you would need, on both key charges. That is going to be a tough sell. For me HR333 was a disappointing read. Even if you could impeach Bush, without impeaching Cheney what would be the point? And if you did impeach Cheney who would Bush appoint to replace him? Gingrich, Thompson, Romney?

[Gregorian]

141. Thanks.

You have filled in some major blanks for me. Blue Dogs. The significance of that slipped my mind.

Shoot. Having not read HR333 I had no idea of it's limiting factor. That really sucks, for lack of a better word. When I compare this to 1996, it's hard to believe that when we need impeachment it's not there. Yet.

I'm not sure where we go now.

[CreekDog]

85. Yeah, well Nancy actually cannot impeach, she has 1 vote

And even if she put a gun to House members heads to get an impeachment vote, that won't actually result in removal from office.

So, Nancy doesn't "got to" do something that she cannot do.

[ejbr]

173. You're right, she does not "got to" to do anything.

However, she is the voice of the opposition party and for her to dismiss impeachment as if the country can withstand future presidents using this one as precedent is near treasonous. She needn't force anyone to do anything, but she should at least be on the right side of history and voice what many already know: impeachment needs to be put BACK on the table.

You should also remember that voters don't "got to" vote for someonee who finds Bush's actions tolerable enough not to impeach and who believes that "other" things are more important than the fundamental fabric of this country. Historians will conclude that she is a dumb bitch who helped, by her tacit approval, the country spiral downward. Deal with it.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Because of Pelosi, I don't trust Democrats to protect America!

Harry Reid may have a good excuse because the Democratic majority in the Senate depends on kissing the ass of the fascist Joe Lieberman. Pelosi has no such excuse. The Speaker has the power to prevent legislation from even going to committee.

The power that Pelosi exercised to keep impeachment "off the table," she failed to use in defending America against further attacks on the Constitution.

The Constitution does matter!

Until Pelosi puts impeachment "back on the table," such as telling John Conyers to begin action and hearings on H Res 333, the Cheney impeachment, she deserves nothing but our scorn and utter contempt.

[bluedog]

37. read post 30 n/t

[IndianaGreen]

42. A pathetic apology defending the indefensible. H Res 333 is languishing in the Judiciary Committee

John Conyers owes his job to Speaker Pelosi. He won't lift a finger on H Res 333, the Cheney impeachment, for as long as Pelosi has impeachment "off the table."

Pelosi is tougher on the defenders of America and her Constitution than she is on those that have betrayed the Republic and torn the Constitution to shreds.

[Maribelle]

47. You're totally wrong.

The Speaker appoints committee members. The Speaker does not tell the committee members what is on OR not on their agenda. They create their own agenda. Once appointed, each committee is authorized at any time to conduct investigations and studies as it may consider necessary or appropriate in the exercise of its responsibilities.


http://www.rules.house.gov/comm_procs.htm

[Seabiscuit]

53. As Speaker of the House Pelosi has enormous persuasive power

to use on any committee - she can simply let them know that she will use that power to twist arms before any bill comes to a vote on the House floor to defeat any position taken by a majority in the committee and guess what happens? The committee decides it needs her backing before it will do anything, and goes along with her.

Sometimes such persuasive power is a lot more powerful than some mere procedural power of the kind you're referencing. As the party leader in the House, nothing happens there without her stamp of approval. She undoubtedly did her arm-twisting and vote-counting on the impeachment issue long ago and has used the consensus she achieved against impeachment as leverage against the judiciary committee members as a whole and against John Conyers personally.

She openly boasted about her diligence and abilities in that respect when she stated to the press that she knew what the outcome would be before the vote on first bill respecting Iraq Supplemental Spending last spring (you know, the one with the unenforceable and meaningless timetables for withdrawal that passed with the exact number of votes she predicted). Yeah, that one - the one Bush vetoed before she led the march to completely cave in to Bush's demands and give him all the money he wanted and more - while later defending that butt-kissing as if it were some great accomplishment on the road to ending the war. That last speech of hers was so irrational on its face it made me want to puke.

Maybe you need to wake up to the realities of how Congress really works behind the scenes before condescendingly lecturing people on procedural rules which you falsely assume we're unaware of.

[Maribelle]

63. So you throw in the word "persuasive" and throw out pure speculation, and you think your smart?

You haven't a clue as to why hr 333, Kucinich's bill on impeaching Cheney, has not been acted on.

[Seabiscuit]

64. Ah, more empty pompous rantings.

Wake up, Clarabelle, and smell the coffee.

[Maribelle]

66. Try some facts. Show us proof regarding your pomp on HR333.

This would be a wonderful start - - talk about facts not your ranting speculations.

[Seabiscuit]

67. I've already presented the facts about Pelosi's power as Speaker of the House.

You just refuse to consider those facts. Why? Because all you're interested in is insulting people personally when you're not just insulting their intelligence.

Your antics here are no different than those of FOX Noise stooges who refer to anyone criticizing the pResident as a "Bush Hater".

Take a bath. You're posts are smelling up the place.

[Seabiscuit]

44. I'm with you on all the points you've made, IndianaGreen.

You've taken virtually all the words out of my mouth and left me speechless.

All Pelosi has to do to end this stupid war is prevent any funding bill from coming out of committee. If she really wanted to end the war that's what she'd do. Since she hasn't, well, that makes her a Bush enabler.

And the FISA thing was the last straw for me too, making her a cohort in Bush's impeachable crimes. Bye-bye, checks and balances. Bye-bye to the country made of laws and not men. Bye-bye Fourth Amendment. All Bush had to do is enage in another "terra terra" fear-mongering speech and Pelosi caved in to him.

And refusing to even discuss impeachment undermines the Constitution's check on dictatorial administrative power.

Pelosi has become a walking disaster. By now her head shold be bowed in shame (if she had any).

[Name removed]

50. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vidar]

93. Exactly. Pelosi has done nothing but squander the good will &

voter approval that returned the majority to the Democrats.

[Seabiscuit]

94. I'm with you.

She has betrayed her oath of office as far as I'm concerned, by turning her back on the U.S. Constitution and the American people and giving Bush a get-out-of-jail free pass on Iraq, FISA, and impeachment.

Any Pelosi apologists left around here can just kiss the American people's collective arse.

[CreekDog]

97. Oh, so I take it you represent the American People as a whole

[Seabiscuit]

157. Well,

aren't you "special".

As a matter of fact, I speak for the majority of Americans.

[Vidar]

172. "Isn't that special? Who could it be? Let me see....SATAN!!!." I miss

the church lady.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluedog]

56. not surprized.he advises her! quite bias on the matter

[KingFlorez]

51. "return the Republicans to the majority"

After the right-wing tirade she posted on Kos, I think that's what she wants to happen. I find it very strange that a lot of people place no fault on the Republicans for anything, while blaming the Democrats for everything.

[Danger Mouse]

61. But the Democrats are the party of slavery! And they started every war in the 20th

century except the gulf war! And they're evil and drink the blood of brittle boned babies!
Again...sigh.

[CreekDog]

80. That would be even funnier if the Dianetics guy said it

:)

[Danger Mouse]

106. The dianetics guy said stuff that was much funnier..

and much crazier...
and sadly, lots of people bought it :P

[CreekDog]

108. Literally 'bought' it

;)

[The Magistrate]

52. The Corresponding Secretary Of The Robert F. Kennedy Club, Sir

Over-states matters considerably. Ms. Sheehan's gesture here will have no discernible effect either in the district or nationally. If it has any effect, it will probably be one of some small benefit to Democratic Party candidates in courting middle of the road voters, by providing a series of 'Sister Souljah' moments they will appreciate....

[ConservativeDemocrat]

82. I completely agree...

Quite frankly, Ms. Sheehan couldn't have done us a greater favor by running against Speaker Pelosi. She's lost so much credibility at this point, that having her as an opponent is the best option.

But speaking of "Sister Souljah" moments, I read this Kennedy Club memo as exactly that. So of course, the rhetoric overstates matters. That's the point.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Alexander]

102. I can't believe I agree with you, Magistrate.

But I do.

[uppityperson]

55. Anyone can run, holding the Dem's feet to the fire is good.

Making our Democratic representatives represent us and challenging them when they don't seems fine to me.

[defendandprotect]

60. More 'fear-based" politics . . . . . from frightened Democrats --- !!!

Pelosi and Reid have been at this now for nine months . . .

and they have refunded Iraq and given Bush/Cheney new and improved ways to wiretap Americans --

and what looks like a closed trail of investigations with the White House Mafia refusing to

respond to subpeonas -- !!!!


As for this . . .
QUOTE: Instead of attacking other Democrats, progressives should be attacking Republicans who have blocked efforts to pull American forces out of Iraq. UNQUOTE

I would suggest that Democrats pay more attention to what actually happens in Congress:
When the Democrats are in the majority somehow the GOP still rules the USHR and Senate --
When the Demcorats are in the minority somehow they are unable to offer resistance --
In other words, the GOP can always block, the Democrats can never block.
Watch how it works --
And, I'll tell you from personal observation, when George Mitchell was the Democratic MAJORITY
leader, he simply turned the Senate over to Bob Dole the MINORITY leader.

Wake up, foks!

[Danger Mouse]

62. I don't agree with Sheehan's idea to run against Pelosi.

At best it is misguided and counterproductive, at worst it is selfish and foolhardy.
I don't know if I totally agree with the stuff in the article, either, but I certainly think that Sheehan has made it clear that she is hostile to the Democratic party.

[Cameron27]

65. Well I think they give her campaign more credibility

than it deserves. She won't get enough votes to cause any damage to the Democratic leadership.

[ProudDad]

73. Correction to your last statement

"I wonder sometimes just what motivates some "progressives" to attack Democrats over the war when it's the Republicans that have successfully blocked anything the Democrats try to do to get us out."

I don't know if you've been paying attention or not but THE DEMOCRATS hold the majority in the House and Senate.

your statement SHOULD HAVE BEEN:

"I wonder sometimes just what motivates some "progressives" to attack Democrats over the war when it's the <DEMOCRATIC 'LEADERSHIP'> that have successfully blocked anything the Democrats try to do to get us out."

There, now that statement reflects the truth of the situation...

They have the votes to cut off funding by NOT passing suplementals...they won't...

The FUCKING pentagon has plenty enough money to evacuate the troops from Iraq, they don't need no more fucking money...

The Dem "leadership" are a pack of cowards... :grr:

[NotGivingUp]

143. They are not cowards. They are complicit. n/t

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

79. Hubert Humphrey, LBJ and McGovern were not Dixiecrats

So, maybe the Dixiecrat label didn't apply to all Democrats.

[kenfrequed]

76. It is a good thing

If it weren't for Sheehan then there wouldn't be anyone for the more "moderate" or conservative democrats to get all angry about.

A pity that Sheehan ran into too many of these tools, it might explain a lot. Too many democrats spent far too long talking moderately about the war, now that a lot of them are starting to talk sense cindy has already moved on towards the independents and greens who were right about this war from the start.

It really is a shame.

The solution is not to treat with her inflammatory remarks just latch on to the things she was right about-you know like pulling out of Iraq and running with it.

[creeksneakers2]

131. Independents and Greens weren't the only

ones who were against the war from the start. The war wouldn't even have happened if it wasn't for the Greens.

[kenfrequed]

136. Ah the typical answer

Somehow it is all the Greens fault that Al Gore decided to run hard to the centrist-DLC middle?

He made thousands of mistakes as a candidate in terms of strategy and positioning. He allowed himself to be captured by the professional caste of advisors that have been ruining good potential candidates for the last dozen years or so.

Take note that the democrats that bucked the DLC and the middle-conservative leaning positions tended to win in the great blue wave. Harold Ford did not win.

[creeksneakers2]

140. Same bogus finger pointing from the Greens

I've yet to see a Green answer for what THEY did. Just blame somebody else. Al Gore is a liberal. He always has been a liberal. There was nothing wrong with Al Gore. The Greens made him lose anyway. It had nothing to do with the DLC.

I was there. The Greens said before the election that they WANTED Gore to lose. They said it would teach Democrats a lesson about taking money from corporations. Greens said a GOP win wouldn't make any difference.

If it weren't for Greens, George Bush and this war wouldn't have happened.

Both conservative and liberal Democrats won in 2006. I don't think you can draw any conclusions from that other than the Democrats do better when the Greens stay out of it.

[Buck Rabbit]

144. The Greens realized the diaster of 2000 and acted not to repeat it in 2004.

The Greens disavowed Nader in 2004 and encouraged their voters to vote for Kerry in all states up for contention. They realized they blew it in 2000 in underestimating the difference between Nader and Gore. I was wrong about it myself and almost voted for Nader in 2000. In the last couple of days though I arranged a vote swap with an internet buddy in New York and voted for Gore in what turned out to be a very close race here in Oregon.

It sounds like the Greens may have forgotten though for 2008. This amazes me as I can't understand how they cant see the difference between even a Centrist like Bill Clinton as being infinitely better than the Republicans who are still war-mongers despite 70% public disapproval, with just a handful of defections.

By the way, I vote for Greens locally when they aren't running as spoilers as an affirmation of my progressive principals. But I am a Kucinch voting leftist that abhors counter-productive strategies either in politics or running my business. I see impeachment as a poor bet with astronomical odds against achieving a true victory, fair odds of achieving a minor moral victory, and a small but real chance of it blowing up in our faces and being a tipping point resulting in 4 more years of Republican rule.

[JAbuchan08]

169. Well, have the Dems learned their lesson

apparently not, they are more than happy to repeat their mistakes.

[JAbuchan08]

167. It's also the greens fault that Daschle and Co caved on Iraq

and then lost the mid-term elections. If we just let the Dem "centrists" do what they wanted we NEVER would have ended up in Iraq, because if there is anything the centrists have been correct on its Iraq (not!).

[CreekDog]

78. Sheehan down by 59% in liberal, antiwar San Francisco

Is Sheehan helping or hurting the antiwar effort by running and barely scoring an asterisk?

[knowledgeispwr]

121. They can't argue lack of name-recognition...

to explain those poll numbers, that's for sure!

[JAbuchan08]

177. Poll numbers are a self fulfilling philosophy

it is stupid to support someone with low poll numbers.

er... I meant prophecy

[Warren Stupidity]

95. Wow I didn't realize Cindy was that powerful!

Her third party campaign in one overwhelmingly Democratic house district is going to turn out 30 or so Democrats across the country? Odd that, as it is unlikely she will even manage to turn Pelosi out. But I'm sure the local Democratic Party committee in Pelosi's district knows better, which implies that the voters in her district are MIGHTY PISSED OFF by Pelosi's craven complicity in advancing the neocon war programs.

p.s. investigations have run into a stone wall and are in full retreat.

[creeksneakers2]

132. The Sheehan and Green types are going nationwide

If they can pry 3% off the Democratic vote that translates into losing lots of races.

[Warren Stupidity]

134. Do you have any evidence of that?

This is the first I've heard that the Green Party is about to run a nationwide credible campaign for the House. Please provide some links for that astounding assertion.

[creeksneakers2]

137. Here's one

http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_06_06.shtml

All you have to do is look at what Greens say on the net too. They bash Democrats 1000 times for every time they bash Republicans.

[Warren Stupidity]

139. no that is the green party wishing that they could

run a credible nationwide congressional campaign. That is not evidence that they are doing so.

[creeksneakers2]

142. Go anywhere on the net

Greens and like minded folks are all over the place. They can go nationwide now because of the Net.

[Warren Stupidity]

159. In other words you have no evidence to back up your assertion

that the Green Party represents a credible threat to the Democratic Party's efforts to retain control of the House. Thanks.

[goforit]

98. roflmao!!!.....Let her have it Cindy.

[mitchum]

100. How dare Sheehan challenge the oligarchy!

[NotGivingUp]

163. Yes, what a fool she is. She's making the power pigs look bad. Shame! n/t

[Alexander]

101. Sheehan should have kept it apolitical. She'd have more support.

Instead, as other DUers are pointing out, she's alienating just about everybody.

[Warren Stupidity]

113. Yeah 'cause this mess we are in has nothing to do with politics.

:sarcasm:

[Alexander]

117. Yeah, 'cause the Democrats got us in Iraq in the first place.

:sarcasm:

Think before you type next time.

[Warren Stupidity]

126. Actually they certainly went along with it back in 2002-2003

and our leaders in congress made sure that the war party agenda sailed through congress this term as well. So what exactly is your point?


My point was that this war is a huge political issue. So why should the anti-war movement be apolitical?

[Patchuli]

103. I smell a DINO

and he's from O.C., I understand.

[Fovea]

111. Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Bolton,

the PATRIOT act, the Military Commissions act...

I saw my party fold on all those issues, when the constitution was on the line.

I am wondering if we are ready yet to lead. I think maybe not with this gang of bozos in command.

Get some more real progressive Dems in Congress, and maybe there would be a point to a Dem majority.

[Cha]

115. "Embarassing"? Hmmmmmmmmm?

Are any of the repukes going to EMBARRASS bushit? Or be EMBARRASSED by bushit?

So Robert F Kennedy endorses this?

If you're a real Dem you don't march in lockstep..that's for real.

[proud2BlibKansan]

122. So instead of the worst of all legislation if the repukes had held Congress,

we got FISA. Sorry but I can't imagine much worse than that.

[Warren Stupidity]

127. Hey we also got a blood soaked miserly increase in the min wage!

It wasn't all bad.

[ManWroteTheBible]

128. You know...

if Nancy would have left impeachment on the table, and actually pursued it, Cindy wouldn't be a threat. The fact that the DLC Local # 405 felt the need to try to further marginalize her speaks volumes as to whether or not she can or cannot unseat Madame Speaker. The bottom line is our congress - the one we elected last year has failed us. They are simply running the clock out on the nightmare that Shrub and Co. have created. I believe the Dems will sweep next year. I believe they would sweep even bigger if they simply stopped letting Rove control the message and grow friggin' spines! This is why Cindy Sheehan and the like scare them... and why PATRIOTS like her have to be marginalized. She has the potential to upset the status quo. The Dems want the status quo so that they can enjoy the same carte blanch that Shrub does. That includes Sens. Clinton, Obama, & Biden. The only candidate for the people it seems is Kucinich - and I've supported both Obama and Clinton. We're not being heard, obviously, so I for one applaud Cindy Sheehan!

[Buck Rabbit]

135. You got your DLC meme backwards.

If Cindy Sheehan wins then either Steny Hoyer (DLC - Maryland) or a Republican becomes Speaker of the House. Nancy Pilosi's rock solid progressive voting record would be out to pasture.

The biggest threat to the Democratic sweep you envision is a split in the Party on a wedge issue. Just as the immigration issue has caused a split in the GOP and sapped the energy from their base.

Lastly, if Pilosi had stated impeachment would be a policy goal of the Democratic party and then it fell on its ass (Rep Barbra Lee says there are around than 50 votes for impeachment and Pilosi's support would make no difference) she and the hope of having a Progressive as Speaker when we hopefully take control of the White House and Congress in 2009 would be history.


(edited spelling)

[EndElectoral]

129. At least with Sheehan, impeachment is NOT off the table!

[bluedog]

133. it won't be an issue ..

she will have no chance to try to impeach because his term will be up.....so if the point of running is to impeach.then she just lost

[CreekDog]

146. Sheehan can't put impeachment on the table

Regardless of whether she makes it into congress or not.

It's the people that will vote against impeachment that are holding it back and that includes the blue dog Democrats.

Sheehan is aiming her fire in a place least likely to change that equation.

[PittPoliSci]

145. i'm not familiar with this district...

what are the odds that a republican could sail to victory with a divided democratic vote?

[CreekDog]

147. Probably none (Rep. registration around 12%)

But there is also no chance that Cindy could win or come close either especially when you consider her statements about the Democratic Party and taxes. Cindy effectively undermined her own liberal support by coming out as a libertarian.

With the perfect candidate, it would be nearly impossible to beat Pelosi in this district. Sheehan was not the perfect candidate to start with and is not consolidating support among the antiwar vote, but is alienating them by taking positions that many in the antiwar movement would not want to support.

Sheehan should be sued by the antiwar movement for political malpractice.

[rocktivity]

149. If the speaker wants to hold on to her job security

she should be encouraged to stop embarrassing HERSELF.

:headbang:
rocknation

[lakeguy]

155. this is the one thing i can't stand about progressives...

we actually go after our own if we feel they haven't done the job. this can be a strength in many ways, but it can also be a major weakness...especially when a republic wins a seat because the left vote gets split (happened in 06 for gov in MN). the rebuplics will go lock step with each other through almost anything and that can be a strength, except when you have the complete failure who now inhabits the white house.

but, i really feel cindy is in the wrong here.

how is it going to look if pelosi is calling for impeachment of bush and cheney? you really can't just go for bush, unless we want cheney to be 'officially' in charge. if pelosi pushes it, it will look like a power grab (which it will be if she then became president) and the corporate media will make damn well sure that most everyone feels that way about it. sure, i don't think she should have said what she did about not pursuing impeachment, but she can't be the one pushing for it, at least not publicly.

so, instead of running against a republic candidate, she picks a dem. never mind that the republics were in charge and got us into the iraq mess. she picks the highest profile dem, who hasn't done THAT bad of a job, and goes after her. why not go after the major evil instead of the lesser of two evils, as cindy sees it anyway? what will happen when cindy runs and the republics poor a ton of money with a marginal to decent candidate in the next election?

[EST]

158. Have you read what you wrote?

It's wrong of us to go after one of our own when we feel they've done a lousy or incompetent, or dishonest job? But it's wrong of the republicans not to go after their own when they've done a lousy, incompetent or dishonest job?

Thinking like an organization instead of like a human being can become an unexpected bomb. We are not "democrats;" we are humans who have ideas about how the country should be run to bring about the changes we feel are important.
We want to "do what's right" and we find out pretty quickly that, as individual voices, we can achieve little. So we band together and we choose a name, or we join up with an already existing bunch of like minded people.

Cindy is doing what she thinks is right, to put pressure whatever areas she can, to bring about the conditions in the world she finds important. Grousing about her choice of targets is fine, but maligning her character, as so many in this thread have done, is not.

[NotGivingUp]

164. because they're both evil...and the one that pretends to be your friend is the worst. n/t

[NuttyFluffers]

156. all citizens have a right to patriotically attempt to serve us as a people.

trying to deny them legitimacy of participating in a (ideally) real and open process through scare tactics is quite petty.

that said, this is politics. it's ugly and pretty much anything goes.

i don't get to vote in that seat, so i really don't have to bother with my say. so best of luck everybody. :hug:

[leaninglib]

160. Can you blame them?

Sheehan's 15 minutes are up.

[GeorgeGist]

165. If memory serves ...

Democrats do control the purse strings, and they haven't come up short of funding the regression.

[depakid]

171. "the voters will turn against the Democratic leadership in Congress"

And this is whose fault?

When the so called "leadership" continually rolls over for Bush- despite public opinion to the contrary, what else should they expect?

[RBInMaine]

174. They have not "continually" rolled over! Support the DEMS!!

This Democratic Congress has done more investigation and oversight of the Bush admin. in 6 months than what we saw under the R's in 6 YEARS!
They have pressured like hell for a timetable to get out of Iraq. They have passed and sent him NUMEROUS bills from their election agenda, many even with a lot of R congressional support (i.e. minimum wage, lobbyist reform, 9/11 commission recommendations, ...). They have been trying hard and deserve one hell of a lot of credit if people would look at the detail and the complete picture. Reid and Pelosi have done a hell of good job!!! The problem has been a razor thin majority in the Senate and not enough of a majority in the House so they can't override the Bush vetoes or get passed the ReThuglican procedural roadblocks in the Senate.
Want more done????? Then damn well elect a Dem President AND more Dems to Congress!!!!