Sheehan considers challenge to Pelosi

[babsbunny]

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fap%2F20070708%2Fap_on_el_ho%2Fcindy_sheehan_pelosi

CRAWFORD, Texas - Six weeks after announcing her departure from the peace movement, Cindy Sheehan said Sunday that she plans to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.


Sheehan said she will run against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush. That's when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting next week from the group's war protest site near Bush's Crawford ranch.

"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "We hired them to bring an end to the war. I'm not too far from San Francisco, so it wouldn't be too big of a move for me. I would give her a run for her money."

[calteacherguy]

1. Sheehan has become a really pathetic figure. This is so sad. nt

[IndianaGreen]

3. Pelosi is the one that is pathetic. She is the one that put impeachment "off the table."

Pelosi is an enabler of Bush and Cheney's crimes because she is blocking Dennis Kucinich's HR 333 from getting a hearing on the House. The impeachment of Cheney is paramount!

I hope we get a real San Francisco liberal to challenge Pelosi in the Democratic primary next year.

[beyurslf]

23. It is one thing to challenge her in the primary. It is another to publicly leave the Dem party

and then challenge her as an Independent. I support the DEMOCRAT.

[IndianaGreen]

26. I support the Constitution

which obviously Pelosi doesn't care about it anymore than Bush and Cheney do.

[LittleClarkie]

37. Well, if this happens, it's going to be hard on the Sheehan supporters

when they get the same deal as the Lieberman supporters. In other words, this is the DEMOCRATIC Underground, and campaigning for the independant while fighting against the Democrat in that race will likely not be tolerated.

[Heath Hatcher]

50. Yes your correct this is Democratic Underground

And we do support Democrats(although that has been the case in a while)but if you haven't looked around that board in a while everyone on this board is absolutely disgusted for Nancy Pelosi and hatred for her is at a all time high and everyone is ablsolutely ga-ga for Cindy, she's basically like a rock star here so I wouldn't be suprised if the admin and the mods allow pro-Cindy election threads that critize Pelosi to high ends to be posted here because of Sheehan popularity here.

[LittleClarkie]

64. Which would be hypocritical

There are rules on the board, and they shouldn't be arbitrated by a popularity contest.

I would expect them to enforce the rules as they always have, regardless of who we all love and who we all hate, or the rules are a farce. Proper moderation is not done with the subjectivity that you're suggesting. Even if it breaks their heart to do it, I expect them to react the exact same way they did when the independant was Lieberman, whom not many DUers liked.

[depakid]

41. Given the Democrats' performance

over the past 7 years- and ESPECIALLY the last 6 months, I suspect we're going to see a lot more of this- and a lot more people unwilling to support the status quo.

[question everything]

51. Agree. This is what I said when she "left"

last month.

The woman needs help. She has desperately sought attention, some activity to divert her sorrow of her son - at least, I will give her the benefit of the doubt that this was the driving force.

I hope that we, Democrats, are the first to not support a one issue candidate.

[noamnety]

67. I'm guessing you haven't spent much time with her.

"one issue candidate"

Not displaying the best understanding of her political views, there.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Good for her!

I am of the firm opinion that Ms Pelosi needs to develop some spine...

And start Impeachment proceedings against *.

And if she won't....then she needs to be replaced, IMHO...

[IndianaGreen]

6. Cheney's impeachment is very doable, lots of evidence against him!

Pelosi needs to stop protecting Bush and start protecting the Republic by allowing hearings on HR 333, the Cheney impeachment resolution.

Pelosi should be defeated in the primary if she fails to put impeachment back on the table.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. I am completely with you on this...

I am beyond tired of our leaders who tell us "impeachment is off the table."

:grr:

[Totally Committed]

22. Do you really think Cheney will allow himself to be impeached?

He'll pull a Ken Lay, and "die" of a heart attack, and Lynne can join him wherever he is hiding after a decent period of "mourning".

Don't you think?

That having been said, it would be worth trying, imo. I'd love to see them try it!

TC

[NYCGirl]

9. The person who stands to become president if Bush and Cheney are impeached

CANNOT start impeachment proceedings.

[IndianaGreen]

10. HR 333 is the Cheney impeachment resolution. Cheney must be impeached like Agnew was.

It is the House that starts impeachment hearings. Pelosi is merely blocking HR 333 from moving forward.

[NYCGirl]

11. How is she blocking it? Can't Kucinich bring it up? How many co-sponsors has he?

[IndianaGreen]

13. Speaker has the power to keep legislation from being heard or assigned a committee

Pelosi could have used her power to keep a war funding bill from ever being considered, but she didn't. Pelosi only used her power to protect Cheney and Bush!

[NYCGirl]

19. So Kucinich has said his bill was blocked by Pelosi? NT

[IndianaGreen]

27. No, Pelosi said that impeachment is "off the table."

She controls the House. No bill is considered or assigned a committee unless Pelosi allows it. All the committee chairs serve at her pleasure. She is the obstacle to impeachment!

[NYCGirl]

28. So has Kucinich tried? NT

[IndianaGreen]

31. Kucinich introduced H Res 333. The next move is up to the Speaker

Had she not said that impeachment was "off the table," H Res 333 would have gone on the legislative calendar and assigned a committee.

[ISUGRADIA]

43. It was assigned to the Judicary Committee on May 4th

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE00333:@@@C

[MonkeyFunk]

56. whoops!

There goes another lie down the toilet.

[IndianaGreen]

57. No hearings are scheduled, nor will be scheduled, because of Pelosi

As long as Pelosi says that impeachment is "off the table," nothing will be done.

That's why it is important for the American people to put pressure on the Speaker and force her to do what she doesn't want to do: impeach Cheney!

[MonkeyFunk]

58. You keep changing your story

before, Pelosi prevented it from being assigned to a committee. Then it was shown that it WAS assigned to a committee.

Do you have evidence that Pelosi is preventing hearings? Does she control committee hearings? Are you saying Conyers wants to have hearings, but Pelosi is stopping him? What's your evidence? Is it as good as your evidence that Spiro Agnew was impeached?

[Hippo_Tron]

63. Actually it's up to Conyers at this point

It's very true that Pelosi is exerting pressure on him to keep him from moving on the resolution, but that doesn't mean he has to listen. She could hold it up further in the Rules Committee if it passes the Judiciary Committee, but the bottom line is that if Conyers were to even consider the impeachment resolution, the media would jump on it like a hungry dog who hasn't eaten in weeks would jump on a steak. This would shake things up and force Pelosi to make some tough decisions.

[ISUGRADIA]

68. Conyers could bring this up if he wanted to and give it a hearing

as Chairman.

[MonkeyFunk]

53. Agnew wasn't impeached

where do people get these ideas?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

12. So I'm not up on who can start those proceedings...

Nonetheless, it needs to be done...

And she did say it was off the table...

She needs to provide some positive leadership in this area...

That's all..

[TheDebbieDee]

25. Not trying to be a smartass, but where did you hear

about this?

[NYCGirl]

29. Thom Hartmann. NT

[calimary]

39. Couldn't agree more. Are you with us or against us, Nancy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1267038

[LittleClarkie]

40. But Sheehan would not replace her as Speaker

Someone else would, and that someone might be someone you'd like even less.

[Hippo_Tron]

65. I'd certainly like Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn, or Rahm Emmanuel less than Pelosi

[rhombus]

4. I thought she said she had "retired".

:eyes: What gives?

[LoZoccolo]

34. Yeah, even the mainstream media gave her a lot of attention when she did that. n/t

[kimmerspixelated]

5. I sure like Cindy's gumption!

I hope it works!

[IndianaGreen]

7. I think Maxine Waters should challenge Pelosi for the Speaker's chair

We would have been better off with a Speaker Waters, than with a white elitist and out of touch Pelosi, whose only achievement has been to block impeachment.

[goodhue]

14. So she is going to move residence to San Fran?

I like Cindy Sheehan a lot and I'm all for impeachment, but surely there are peace candidates who would not be carbetbaggers.

[Heath Hatcher]

46. I don't thinks she needs to move to San Francisco

Sheehan lives in a town near Sacramento and in the article I read about her possiblly challengeing Pelosi it stated California Law that a person technically dosen't need to live in the district to run in that specific. Look i'm not that keen on Sheehan challengeing cause of all the respect I have towards Nancy, but this is a democracy and we have open primary races and if she wants to challenge the Speaker then I will respect that because there is no rule stating she can't. Hell this could be one intrestring race.

[Progressive Friend]

15. I'd definitely vote for Sheehan

But I don't live in that district.

[Heath Hatcher]

16. Great that's all this party needs

A lunatic challengeing our great speaker, luckally i'm not too worried because Pelosi and 8th District will shrug this primary challenge off like it nothing. You can run Cindy but you sure as hell can't win.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Your "great Speaker" caved-in to Bush on defunding the war

Had Gingrich been Speaker, and Iraq been Clinton's quagmire, I assure you that the troops would be home by now, the war defunded, just as a Republican Congress defunded the Somalia operation.

Why can't Pelosi exercise the same power the Speaker has, as Gingrich did, or for that matter as past Democratic Speakers have done (you know, when Democrats were real Democrats, not regurgitated versions of GOP-Lite).

[Heath Hatcher]

44. She didn't cave on anything

She didn't even for for the funding bill and Pelosi is a real Democrat, not GOP lite(before becoming Speaker she was a member of the House Progressive Caucus), your just angry because Pelosi didn't cut off funds(something the american people outside the liberal blogosphere dosen't support). This war will end, your just not patient enough. And Indiana Green what makes you think I support cutting off funding for the war? what exactly gives you clues that I support fubds being cut off?

And Pelosi dosen't act like Newt Gingrich for one reason SHE'S NOT NEWT GINGRICH and thank god for that. And quite frankly I don't agree withwhat you think Indiana Green and I never will, Pelosi is a terrific Speaker and i'm proud to see my party in office, you want to put back in the Repukes because your angry on one issue be my guest but i'm proud of my party and will bust my hump come next year to keep them in the majority because of it.

[Rowdyboy]

17. She lost me when it stopped being about the war and started being about Cindy....

Those past few weeks out of the media spotlight must have been sheer torture!

[AJH032]

18. why not challenge a Republican?

instead of focusing so hard on defeating Democrats because they are not "left enough"?

[CK_John]

20. In my family clan "public speaking" was parent code for bs when the wee ones were around. n/t

[sampsonblk]

21. Good!

Maybe this will wake some people up in Washington.

[Arugula Latte]

24. Good.

Democrats like Pelosi think they can have it both ways...Act like a liberal and then fold when the Repukes look at them sideways.

I'm sick of it.

[sleipnir]

32. Humm...this makes for an interesting read, seems that some DU'ers were right a few months back.

They hit her future and her desire straight on the head.

[wyldwolf]

33. well, on the very small chance she won... say hello to...

Speaker Hoyer or Speaker Emanuel! :)

[LittleClarkie]

38. Now there's a point

What makes Cindy think she'd get the speakership? Or doesn't she. Maybe she just wants Nancy out as a punishment, and it doesn't matter to her that she might get something she might consider worse.

[rinsd]

35. While it should be an interesting primary, there is no way Sheehan beats Pelosi

While Pelosi's national approval numbers haven't been so hot she was re-elected with 80% not even 7 months ago.

[hooraydems06]

47. I wish you would tell that to the people...

... who think that Sheehan will be helping a Republican take the district. Even if Sheehan got 39.5% and Pelosi won w/40.5%, who actually thinks that a Republican will ever get even close enough to being able to "split the vote" enough to somehow come in first place in a hypothetical three way -- at least anyone who's actually halfway familiar with that district and its electoral composition?

[Heath Hatcher]

48. There's no way a Republican could ever win CA-8

The district is way too Democratic to do that. What's funny about this district that if you ever look at the past election results in the 8th 3rd parties and Independents actually gartner more votes then the Republican running in the district.

[LittleClarkie]

36. Ya ever seen someone on the internet pull out a "Goodbye cruel world" post...

And then never actually leave?

Thought she had retired. Guess not.

But hey, knock yourself out Mrs. Sheehan. I don't think you'll even be a blip on Nancy's radar, but if that floats your boat, go for it.

[ShortnFiery]

42. I've lost a great deal of confidence in our Democratic Leadership. A 23- 27% approval rating

reveals that I'm far from alone. :shrug:

http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

[Heath Hatcher]

45. That's weird

Just a week ago CNN relased a poll showing Congress has a approval rating of 42 percent.

[ShortnFiery]

49. Here's the site, but it doesn't include CNN's data.

http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

[Heath Hatcher]

52. Thanks for the link

Also I saw on the situtation rool on CNN, they relased a poll stating thst 57 percent of people polled think Democrats running Congress would be better for America than Republicans.

[Heath Hatcher]

54. Before we continueing debateing

I would like to say something, over the past week if anyone have been reading my posts here at DU, i've been alittle abrasive towards everyone here when there critizing Congress on the war and Impeachment(you can definetly see that by reading my posts on this thread) and I would like to apologize for everything. It's just that i'm obsessed with politics, I really am I guess that's what happens when you have high functioning autism you pick something you like and you literally grow on it and that's how I am with politics and the Democratic Party and when I see stuff on here that's Anti-Democrat it gets me angry and really scared/nervous at the same time because there very people that post here put the Democrats can take them out in a heartbeat and put the GOP back in power out of spite and that scares me to high end because of the bad bills that could be brought to Congress and how much they like to bend the rules to favor them like how they had a habit of keeping votes over till 5am and keeping Democrats out of committees and calling the cops on us.
With Congress having low approval ratings I had to start smoking to calm my nerves which is terrible because I don't smoke and i'm 19 years old, no kid like me should have this much stress.

With that in mind I would like to announce that I am leaving DU for a while, not fo good but just until the
heat dies down, but I shouldn't get pissed because of posts I read that are unfavorable to the party, that's your opinion and I just have to respect, I can't make you all see it my way. It's just i'm such a optimistic person and all I want to see and do it make the party grow and strive that's all. I won't be gone forever and when I get back I hope to engage in some more arousing debates with all of you progressives here.

Thank You

Sincerely,
Heath Hatcher(D-PA)
DU Member

[ShortnFiery]

55. I'm sorry to hear that.

As a woman of almost 49 :blush: I don't want to jade your optimism.

I hope you come back soon ... please don't take all these antics here seriously - many folks are playing many roles and not all of them are genuine.

Best Wishes, SnF

[Vidar]

59. Bravo Cindy! Pelosi has led the democrats on one long retreat

after we finally won an elction.

[snowbear]

60. The one time that I honestly thought Sheehan was "out there" was when....

...she was discussing the war in Iraq on MSNBC, and telling them why she was so against it. I was fine with everything she said.

But then they asked her, but you did agree that after we were attacked on 9/11, that it was appropriate to go into Afghanistan, didn't you?'

And she said NO! NO, we have no business being there either.

I thought.. Wow..

If she wants to run for Congress, she should go for it.. but while dissing Democrats, she needs to remember there's another party she can also address her anger too.

If she's only down on Pelosi and stays quiet about the r-thugs, that's not good -


I think she should stay in retirement and enjoy her life-

[Hippo_Tron]

61. Cindy certainly has a right to run, that's what primaries are for, but she wouldn't get my vote

Pelosi is about the best we are going to get when she has to herd 230 cats, many of whom are freshmen from red districts and scared shitless about their re-election.

[cleveramerican]

62. I worry about her

I don't think a congressional seat would be good for her well-being.I fear we are seeing her come un-done.

[IndianaGreen]

66. An Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi

Published on Sunday, July 8, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

An Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi

by John Atcheson

Madam Speaker:

It is time to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney.

We all know the case for doing so: the litany of this administration’s offenses is long and tragic, the damage they have wrought to our nation and the principles it was founded upon profound.

And yet many of us understood - even if we did not agree - when you said “impeachment is off the table.” Your case was credible, if not persuasive. The proceedings would have been disruptive, making progress in other areas difficult, and the fact that three of the last six presidents would have been impeached by the opposition party could have damaged the presidency and sank this nation into a permanent partisan war. It could have fed the notion that impeachment proceedings were simply another political maneuver to be used by partisans to cripple their opponents, much as partisan Republicans did with Clinton. And with two years remaining, this did seem a high price to pay for getting rid of George Bush and his partners in crime. Taking the high road had a certain nobility, even if it didn’t satisfy a hunger for justice many of us felt.

But now - with scarcely eighteen months left - you have no choice but to impeach Bush and Cheney regardless of the cost, because it has become increasingly clear that the very foundations of this nation have been assaulted as never before in our history, and to let that record stand would be an act of cowardice on your part and a dangerous precedent to future presidents.

Others have laid out the specific charges, and they are legion. But it is the nature and character of the offenses which leave you no choice. This administration has not simply broken specific provisions of arcane laws, or committed “misdemeanors.” They have sought to fundamentally rewrite the Constitution in a manner that is more to their liking. They have systematically put the interest of a political party over the interests of the nation, committing serious crimes in the process.

The commitment to basic civil rights inherent in Bill of Rights has been violated with a cavalier arrogance unprecedented in our Nation’s history. Both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment have been compromised. Indeed, had it not been for the Supreme Court, these cherished provisions would have been all but consigned to history’s trash heap. But we can no longer rely on them to safeguard our rights. The new Court has exhibited a reckless disregard for precedent, and a certain randomness in their interpretation of the Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights in particular.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/08/2381/