Sheehan followers threaten Conyers office sit in

[creeksneakers2]

On July 23rd, Cindy Sheehan will lead a march from Arlington Cemetery to John Conyers' office. There, those in attendance will lobby John Conyers to support impeachment. The followers say that depending on how things go, they plan to occupy the office, read the Constitution continuously, and stay until they are arrested. I guess the demonstrators want a big embarrassment for Conyers.

AfterDowningStreet.org is promoting the event. There is not one elected person in Washington who has done more to promote the issues net lefties and the folks at DU have been concerned about. In fact, when nobody else would pay attention to the Downing Street minutes, John Conyers set up minority party Congressional hearings and bent over backwards to help. Now After Downing Street Dot Org goes after Conyers? What an outrageous act of unreasonability

I think Karl Rove is behind all this. Conyers and Pelosi are the two greatest threats Bush has. The Senate needs 60 votes to even file contempt charges. Any action would have to come from the House. Since right wing attacks against Conyers and Pelosi wouldn't work, Rove would provoke left wing attacks.

The righties are excited about Cindy already. They had her on Scarborough Country last night and gave her favorable coverage on Rash Limbaugh today. Also, if Pelosi or Conyers ever do go for impeachment or even contempt, the White House will get away with spinning it as caving in to the kook fringe.

Maybe Rove isn't behind it but I know one thing for sure. I've seen lots of Sheehan followers complain here that Democrats demand blind obedience. Seeing how Sheehan followers stab John Conyers in the back for not going along this one time, I'd say the Sheehan followers are the ones demanding blind obedience.

[Gman]

1. And Sheehan goes right along with the RW letting them use her

She knows full well what they're doing and why yet she goes along with them. I'm getting real suspicious of Sheehan now.

[monmouth]

5. I find her an annoying distraction. She likes that "face time." eom

[saracat]

9. I hadn't considered that until today.Reminds me of Bev and BBV.Same stunts.

[Gman]

79. Yup... same thing. We've seen it before

I don't like the thought of DU and other places being considered full of useful idiots by some.

[defendandprotect]

16. Conyers does support impeachment ; Pelosi told him to stop investigation - -

Pelosi is the one protecting Bush from impeachment --

and the one who told Conyers to stop his investigation and impeachment agenda --

By any chance, would Rove be looking to right-wing Democrats to stop impeachment -- ????

[creeksneakers2]

53. How do you know that

Conyers wanted impeachment and Pelosi told him to stop his investigations?

[defendandprotect]

139. That's what I've read --

Do you see Pelosi encouraging Conyers?

Conyers did begin with a view to impeach --

[Robson]

23. Actually the RW is using Pelosi and others

The really IMPORTANT question /issue is should Bush/Cheney be impeached? I happen to believe it is needed to purge our system of trash and corruption and give us a fresh start.

The issue and bottom line is not how Cindy Sheehan goes about it. That's what professional politicians always fret about and look at.....the method not the issue.

The second issue is that some noted Democrats took impeachment off the table. They need held accountable..or disciplined.

[uppityperson]

37. I'd like a link to the announcement so I can decide.

I'd like a link to whatever the OP is talking about.

[shireen]

64. link

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sit

[NoPasaran]

2. I don't think Rove is behind this

I don't think that Rove is behind a lot of things that are attributed to him. He's just a man, not a James Bond-style supervillian. But Rove is very good at seizing on whatever comes his way and using it to his advantage.

[saracat]

3. John Conyers???? Why thre F***ck doesn't she go after the GOP or conservative Dems

(if she must protest Dems? or Lieberman????I find it really odd she never persues those who are contrary to anti-war or impeachement interests but she always protests those on the right side of the issue.

[mzmolly]

6. I've heard she's friendly with a noted Libertarian, I wonder if he's advising?

:shrug:

[maximusveritas]

15. That would explain some the views she's expressed recently

Especially the nonsense about taxes being unconstitutional.

[mzmolly]

17. Sheesh, I hadn't hear that one!

Good Lord.

[uppityperson]

18. "he never persues those who are contrary to anti-war or impeachement interests"? Are you series?

We need all sorts of people protesting and demanding all sorts of things. "She never persues those who are contrary to anti-war or impeachement interests", bwahahahahahahahahahaha.

[saracat]

30. I am "series" ! Why doesn't she confront Lieberman or the GOP?

She has to always go after those who are doing the best they can within a system she doesn't understand.Going after Conyers of all people is outside of enough.Why doesn't she boycott Cheney?

[uppityperson]

33. I think she is boycotting Cheney. She has gone after mrbush too.

Pressuring democrats, top dems, who supposedly hold the majority, to do what they should do, rather than giving in and pandering to mrbush seems ok to me.

I find MrUP looking at me strangely when I ask "are you series" and UPJr gets mad when I say the "internets". DUisms have crept into my everyday language.

[Telly Savalas]

89. Was Camp Casey located outside Russ Feingold's home in Wisconsin?

I have a really poor memory. Somebody help me out here.

[defendandprotect]

21. Because the Democrats are in control of the House . . . supposedly!!!

[Robson]

49. Don't IMPEACHMENT proceedings start in the HOUSE ...controlled by Democrats?

Sheehan going after the Repubs doesn't mean a thing. The IMPEACHMENT Process begins in the HOUSE of Representatives which the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi controls.

[catgirl]

124. Probably because he's the best chance they have

Because he has courage. Because he's the most likely to listen. I have to
say, I was really pissed off when Nancy Pelosi ruled out impeachment
immediately after the elections. She didn't get our message apparently.

[mzmolly]

4. "The righties are excited about Cindy already."

It appears that way?

Maybe Rove isn't behind it but I know one thing for sure. I've seen lots of Sheehan followers complain here that Democrats demand blind obedience. Seeing how Sheehan followers stab John Conyers in the back for not going along this one time, I'd say the Sheehan followers are the ones demanding blind obedience.

I've heard she's a Libertarian now? I wonder if that's the case, if it would color the views of Cindy by some of her "followers?"

[TomInTib]

7. This is getting ridiculous.

If this doesn't stop, a lot of fence-sitting 'pubs are gonna fall back into the wrong corral.

Whar we need is more critical thinking and less junior-high school histrionics.

[Chipster]

105. Excellent point if I ever heard one!

Thanks for keeping your feet planted on terra firma. This pic said a lot to me.

[ruggerson]

8. This woman needs to FUCK OFF

she's getting more than tiresome. Let John Conyers do his job.

What a frigging loon she is.

[derby378]

57. WTF?!? Like it or not, we owe Cindy all our political bling...

She got the ball rolling when too many Democrats on the Hill were rolling on their backs and pissing themselves before Herr Decider's feet.

Nobody's saying you have to agree with Cindy or even like her. But telling her to fuck off makes us look no better than the FReepers.

You're out of line, man - check yourself.

[ruggerson]

58. I don't owe her Jack

I don't agree with her insanities now, I didn't agree with her two years ago.

There were plenty of anti war, responsible voices who got the ball rolling.

She is nothing but one, self hyped media figure who has desperately, over and over, tried to stretch her fifteen minutes of fame into something more lasting.

The anti war movement would be exactly where it is right now, with or without Cindy Sheehan. The vast majority of the country is anti this obscene war and also anti this ridiculous woman. The two positions are not mutually exclusive.

[Decruiter]

103. Taking issue here Derby. We here in North Texas owe Cindy no "BLING"!

The peace movement in North Texas was strong long before Cindy ever came along. She was a spark that lit a fire, but please, Cindy did not start the anti-war movement. I really don't know enough right now to comment on what she is doing in regards to what I've read about Conyers.

I really have no complaints with her challenging Pelosi to stand up or else. Will I support Cindy in her run for whatever office is open in California? NO. We have too much to take care of here in Texas. I stand with what I posted a day or two or so ago about Cindy. I hope she takes time to spend with her family and that she returns rested, renewed and rejuvenated, ready to affect a positive change when she returns.

(At first glance this positive change may appear not to be happening. Cindy's return seems to be marred with controversy. Let us all give it time, what else do we have left?)

Peace

[derby378]

115. Oh, no, no...

By no means am I saying Cindy started the anti-war movement. Believe me, I was at some of the 2003-2004 protests in Dallas, myself - there were a lot of people involved back then, and I appreciate them all (including you, of course).

:hi:

[MrMickeysMom]

84. How is this more than tiresome? HOW?

Explain yourself. For all we know, this is exactly how he can effectively DO his job.

Don't "we" the people have the duty to do what we can to bridge the gap between the people and the legislative branch. I do not understand your attitude or ohers with similar comments on DU.

[TwilightGardener]

10. Oh, fer Chrissakes--Why?

Conyers is doing his job! Why is she CONSTANTLY wasting her energies attacking the people on OUR side??? Please, Cindy fans, explain this latest planned stunt.

[Obamarama]

11. Cindy is becoming a caricature...and an annoying one at that.

The woman needs a serious reality check. And she's going to run against Nancy Pelosi....riiiiggghhhhhhht, uh-huh.

I was 100% behind Cindy when she was hounding Bush. Now, she has morphed into some sort of sad creature that nobody really takes seriously.

[defendandprotect]

20. These kinds of messages are "caricatures" -- and annoying --

What is it that so scares you about political activity???

Cindy Sheehan is only a threat to people who are pro-war and anti-impeachment --

Are you either?

It's not much different from Bush advocating duct tape for everyone --

[LittleClarkie]

27. Or to people who want serious action

are you one of those?

[fishwax]

109. i guess that explains why they're going after Conyers's office

Cindy Sheehan is only a threat to people who are pro-war and anti-impeachment --

[adadem]

12. I've supported Cindy until now

This a stunt against the man who has shown courage in standing up to the bush/cheney/rove cabal.

Pure bs....

she has gone too, too far.

[sellitman]

14. I agree. Conyers is one of the good guys.

Let her sit in at Pelosi's HQ.

That I'd support.

[ChazII]

13. Cindy marches to her own drummer.

She needs to take a good break like she said and get well emotionally.

[knowledgeispwr]

19. Disappointing

Conyers has been and continues to be one of the most vocal voices for the investigation and prosecution of the Bush administration in the House. Through his work and his hearings, he has given voice to many on the left and supporters on the web. It's really disappointing.

It's their right to protest and lobby if they want, but I think the move is very misguided.

Kicked and recommended.

[bluedog]

22. shes getting to be a pain in the ass!

[leftshoe]

24. Good christ...

She has become a Ralph Nader type figure these days, a counter-productive obstructionist. Why doesn't she take this to the Republican elected officials? Why disturb an effective senator who is on the right side of the isle. Let me guess, "B-b-but, both parties are the same! Democrats are just as evil!!". Yeah, I'm sure Gore and Kerry would have been just as horrible. </sarcasm>

[LittleClarkie]

25. What happened to Cindy the war protester?

Does she have anything to say about this week's legislation in the House to bring the troops home?

[noamnety]

34. Message to Cindy:

DUers would like you to restrict yourself to one issue at a time.

DU, in the meantime, will continue to address multiple issues because we know how to multitask. And congress can address multiple issues at once. And all presidential candidates can address more than one issue.

You, however, and you alone, are restricted to one topic for the remainder of your life.

Respectfully,

DU

:sarcasm:

[LittleClarkie]

41. But her mojo comes from being the mom of a dead soldier

And that's how she entered the world's stage. She was just a simple mom looking for answers.

And yes, I do think the scattergun approach diffuses one's effectiveness.

[noamnety]

45. That's why the media noticed her, sure.

She's not under any obligation to stay within the narrow constraints of what the media, or anyone else, has decided her role should be.

Free speech doesn't mean you're allowed to talk freely about one topic, and one topic only, and I'm a little shocked to see people advocating that activists may only be active on one topic, for years at a time.

"Her mojo comes from being the mom of a dead soldier" sounds like an attempt to portray her as a one-dimensional character, and oddly enough there is outrage when she doesn't oblige.

[LittleClarkie]

55. Oh she can talk about other issues. But it's not where her power was.

And my only outrage comes from her insulting me and mine. The Party of slavery, eh Cindy? Well, girlfriend, you can kiss my grits.

[noamnety]

59. Well, that's just historical fact.

Facts aren't insults.

Wilson ordered the segregation of government workers
At one point the democratic national convention voted down an amendment condemning the KKK
Truman was the equivalent of today's DLC, a guy who thought dropping the atomic bomb would be a good idea. He started the cold war, and spent a fair amount of time playing along with McCarthyism. He took us into the Korean war, without approval from Congress.

It would make more sense to argue the relevance of all that today than to take it as a personal insult.

I took Cindy's statements to mean that - in a historical context - the democratic party has not been infallible. They've been anything but. There's no reason to act like they are infallible now, or that criticizing them is sacrilegious in some way.

[Alexander]

61. A 140-year-old historical fact that is completely irrelevant.

For the past 60 years - certainly covering the time in which Ms. Sheehan has been alive - the Democratic party has been the party of civil rights.

[noamnety]

96. Well, that's not entirely true.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with a majority Dem congress and a democrat in the White House - but it passed with considerably wider margins by Republicans than Democrats in both the House and the Senate. And it was Robert F Kennedy, as attorney general, who directed the FBI to track MLK, Jr., and the wiretapping of him went on with JFK's knowledge and approval.

So you need to adjust that 60 year estimate down a bit, and we'll just disregard the erroneous statement that it covers the time she's been alive.

[Alexander]

117. Yes, it is.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with a majority Dem congress and a democrat in the White House - but it passed with considerably wider margins by Republicans than Democrats in both the House and the Senate."

Guess what happened to Democrats who were against this? They fled the party and became Republicans. :eyes:

"And it was Robert F Kennedy, as attorney general, who directed the FBI to track MLK, Jr., and the wiretapping of him went on with JFK's knowledge and approval."

And it was JFK who bailed Dr. King out of jail in October 1960, and King who declared he was changing his vote from Nixon to Kennedy.

"So you need to adjust that 60 year estimate down a bit, and we'll just disregard the erroneous statement that it covers the time she's been alive."

No I don't. You need a history lesson.

Hubert Humphrey's speech endorsing a civil rights plank was in 1948. When did the Democratic Party first adopt a platform of civil rights? 1948.

2007 - 1948 = 59 years.

Cindy Sheehan is 50.

You are wrong.

[noamnety]

121. The fact remains, a wider margin of republicans supported the civil rights act.

The only interpretation of that is that the republicans, in 1964, were more supportive of the civil rights act.

Now if democrats subsequently became republicans, that's a separate issue. But at the time of that vote, in 1964, the republicans had the right to call themselves the party of civil rights.

You can attempt some revisionist history if you like, by claiming those democrats that voted against it turned out later to be DINOs, so they don't count - but that doesn't change the facts of which party supported civil rights in that year.

2007 - 1964 = 43 years. Cindy Sheehan is 50. I stand by my words.

[Alexander]

143. Civil rights has been in the Democratic Party's platform since 1948. Try again.

"The only interpretation of that is that the republicans, in 1964, were more supportive of the civil rights act.

Now if democrats subsequently became republicans, that's a separate issue. But at the time of that vote, in 1964, the republicans had the right to call themselves the party of civil rights."

The Democratic party's platform included civil rights in 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960 and 1964. The Republican party platform had no such plank.

I don't care what a majority of Senators supported. The party platform and the opinions of the nominees reflect the party agenda, not the composition of the US Senate.

Truman supported civil rights in 1948. Stevenson supported it in 1952 and 1956, and Kennedy in 1960.

Eisenhower was always lukewarm about civil rights, Nixon tacitly supported it and Goldwater in 1964 was opposed to the Civil Rights Act, just like the party's platform.

So the Republicans, by putting such a plank in their platform and nominating Goldwater, had no right to consider themselves the party of civil rights.


"You can attempt some revisionist history if you like, by claiming those democrats that voted against it turned out later to be DINOs, so they don't count - but that doesn't change the facts of which party supported civil rights in that year."

The only one revising history is you. Need I remind you the Democratic Party has officially supported civil rights since Hubert Humphrey's speech in 1948?

"2007 - 1964 = 43 years. Cindy Sheehan is 50. I stand by my words."

2007 - 1948 = 59 years. Cindy's 50. Game over.

[noamnety]

146. Actions vs. Words

They can write whatever they want in the platform, but at the end of the day, it's the votes that matter. A platform doesn't create laws. Votes do.

In 1964, the republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act in greater numbers than the democrats.


You can dance around that fact all you like, but it isn't going to change.

[beaconess]

65. And Lincoln freed the slaves. Does that make today's Republicans the party of civil rights?

[charlyvi]

138. I did not take her words to mean "in historical context"

that the Democratic party has not been infallible. No one thinks any political party has been infallible, ever. I took them as a bile-filled, angry, somewhat inaccurate tirade against the Dem party because it doesn't do what she wants it to. What she said was not meant as constructive criticism. It was meant as a condemnation, complete with right wing talking points. And whatever she thinks of Dems, they're the only party in town that can possibly prevail in '08. Pelosi included. Those are the facts we have to work with, and Sheehan reading the Constitution in the office of the one person who fought the hardest to uncover shrub's crimes isn't going to win her any followers. I'd bet my house Conyers knows the Constitution far better than she does. He's worked with it every day for years. And the right wing will have a field day with this, putting Conyers through more hell as though he hasn't been in enough for the past six years. Holding hearings in basements, getting to the bottom of voter disenfranchisement in Ohio, keeping the Plame leak alive, investigating no bid contracts, etc.

We need Republican support for impeachment. If she seriously wants bush gone, she needs to start reading the Constitution in Boehner's office, or Hastert's, or any number of other Republicans that would definitely block impeachment now. If enough Repubs say impeach, the articles will be written.

I was neutral toward Sheehan until I read the OP. I didn't even care that she posted her screed on Kos. But going after Conyers? Please. He's the best friend the progressive movement has.

[noamnety]

140. "If enough Repubs say impeach"

Tactically speaking, if we're hoping to change mass opinion, we do better by starting with those who are already somewhat close to us in philosophy.

Imagine we have a rope lying on the ground. We want to get all the people on the far side of the rope over to our side. The easiest way to do that is to begin by slipping it under the feet of the folks closest to us, not the ones furthest away.

It's poor tactics to spend our efforts trying to win over the most extreme opponents to our position, when the ones who are closest aren't there yet.

[fujiyama]

106. And we're under no obligation

to respect her authority on other topics.

She's in way above her head and she's proving her ignorance while she's at it.

[creeksneakers2]

54. Cindy is the one demanding obedience

She gave Nancy Pelosi a deadline, for Christ's sakes.

[noamnety]

60. Cindy's using her free speech

I support that.

[Alexander]

90. Yes, using it to LIE about the history of the Democratic Party.

"Democrats started every war in the 20th century" is so unbelievably absurd that Ms. Sheehan has put me off of her cause forever.

[noamnety]

99. I took it to mean were involved in instigating our involvement in US wars.

Because the democrats didn't cause all the civil wars in the entire world, obviously - there's a lot that happened among other countries that we never did get involved in. Was that your complaint?

Or was there a specific war the US fought that you don't think the democrats were involved in dragging us into?

[Alexander]

118. Yes, justifiable US wars.

I'm sure Hitler and Tojo were just misunderstood. :eyes:

And don't get me started on Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Panama....

[Cameron27]

131. The complaint is the fact that it sounds like a rant from

one of those nutty libertarian, isolationists. Does she find fault with our involvement in WWII? That and her non-progressive pitch about the income tax being unconstitutional sounded very strange.

[bigwillq]

26. Now this is a little extreme

I love ya Cindy but I don't love this latest move on your part.

[Echotrail]

142. Cindy and Rep Conyers have seen eye to eye for years

Conyers wanted to go after Bush over a year ago. Leadership prevented it.



Cindy Sheehan's Speech At The DSM Hearings (Didn't anyone here watch the famous "basement hearings?)"
Friday, 17 June 2005, 3:19 pm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0506/S00280.htm

Phone call from John Conyers to Cindy in Texas in August 2005 (Didn't anyone here know that Conyers was the first legislator to show support for Cindy when she went to Crawford?)
http://www.johnconyers.com/node/32

And John Conyers backed off impeachment for several months (because the leadership ordered it) but he talked about it again on July 8, 2007:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/08/conyers-impeachment

I think John Conyers will be happy to have Cindy sit in.

Wish more people had some guts and independent thought. The OP doesn't have the history or facts but I'm surprised so many people piled on.

[tammywammy]

28. Very strange that she'd go after Conyers

I wonder who's advising her, she's made quite a few strange statements lately.

[shireen]

63. i'm puzzled as well. Something odd about all this.

I found the original notice at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sit -- got to it from the New Zealand newspaper article that someone posted here. But I could not find an obvious link from afterdowningstreet.org. (There's a thumbnail about it but clicking on it takes you to a generic activism page.)

I emailed David Swanson from the "Contact Us" link, asking him to explain the motivation for that announcement, asked him to post the explanation on his website because, I told him, many people are upset about it.

I have two questions:
1) why?
2) does Cindy know about it?

[knowledgeispwr]

69. It's on the activism page

It's under a heading about July 23rd. You may have to scroll down a bit. Then if you click that you find all the information. There are links to the exact page down-thread.

[uppityperson]

29. LINK? What are you talking about? Please give link so we can see and decide on more info than this.

[ChazII]

32. I did a Google search

and this is what I found.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0707/S00086.htm

[uppityperson]

35. hm, a newzealand story. I would like the OP to give a link so we know what is being talked about.

Sometimes people jump to inaccurate conclusions based on partial information and all. Good to double check.

[bluedog]

39. also.soundsike other fooices will be targeted

Turn off your TVs, kiss your pets goodbye, bring the
kids and flock to the federal seat of corruption, or
join us on our walk there, for a People's
Accountability Movement to be in the face of the
Criminal BushCo and the Complicit Congress for the
last week of session before they go on their
undeserved vacations (why do they get vacations when
the Iraqi parliamentarians don’t?)


http://www.thecampcaseypeaceinstitute.org/

[creeksneakers2]

36. More to follow

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sit

[uppityperson]

46. Thanks, from that link. I wish people would post info, not just a rant.

We Will Sit In for Impeachment
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-07-05 18:45. Activism | Cindy Sheehan | Impeachment | Nonviolent Resistance

On the 5th Anniversary of the Downing Street Meeting and the same day as a Dem Prez candidates debate in the evening on CNN, Youtube, and Google, July 23, 2007, Cindy Sheehan plans to lead a delegation to Congressman John Conyers' office in DC to demand impeachment. We will be willing to risk arrest. We'll meet at 10 a.m. at Arlington National Cemetery and march from there. Let's bring a crowd!

This is part of a march that Cindy and others are making from Texas to New York. The march may make stops at the district offices of other House Judiciary Committee Members, such as Rick Boucher, Mel Watt, and Bobby Scott.

You can organize a meeting, protest, honk-a-thon, or sit-in at your Congress Member's office. One way to get organized is with this system. You can find events and create them here. And you can meet people in Facebook.

We need a nonviolent revolution to compel our Congress Members to revive our Constitution. Sitting in their offices and reading the Constitution out loud, if enough of us do it, may save our democracy.

[shireen]

66. agreed. i'd like to know more about this too. nt

[saracat]

42. from afterdowingstreet.org as mentioned in the OP

This July 23rd, a Monday, Cindy Sheehan will lead a march from Arlington National Cemetery (gather there at 10 a.m.) to Capitol Hill, to the office of Congressman John Conyers to ask him to move forward with impeachment. We will wear orange that day, a color that has come to stand for nonviolent revolution. We encourage as many people as possible to join us, and if you cannot, to phone Congressman Conyers' office that day asking him to move forward on impeachment: [phone].

[knowledgeispwr]

44. From Afterdowningstreet.org

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/24450

This July 23rd, a Monday, Cindy Sheehan will lead a march from Arlington National Cemetery (gather there at 10 a.m.) to Capitol Hill, to the office of Congressman John Conyers to ask him to move forward with impeachment. We will wear orange that day, a color that has come to stand for nonviolent revolution. We encourage as many people as possible to join us, and if you cannot, to phone Congressman Conyers' office that day asking him to move forward on impeachment: [phone].

Depending on how things go that day, some of us may choose to remain sitting in Conyers' office reading aloud the U.S. Constitution even at the risk of being arrested. Those not wishing to risk arrest will be able to leave at that point and should not be concerned about taking part.

Looks like the original poster got it right to me. There is more information at the link.

[creeksneakers2]

48. Circulating E-mail

(NOTE LIE ABOUT WHAT JOHN CONYERS SAID IN ABC INTERVIEW LAST SUNDAY. Conyers mentioned impeachment, the when Stephanopolous tried to lure him out, Conyers joked that if he said he was for impeachment he'd be on next Sunday. That's all that happened. This piece says John Conyers told Stephanopolous: "Conyers cited the recent poll showing public support for impeachment as a reason why the White House should start complying with subpoenas, and then assured ABC (and anyone at the White House who may have been watching) that he did not intend to impeach anyone." These are the kind of lies Karl Rove makes up.

E-MAIL BELOW

Orange Revolution
Start Impeachment - Stop the Occupation





Can you join us on July 23rd? - Can you wear orange? - Can you post this graphic?


The impeachment movement is gaining traction, and now - over the next two weeks - is the time to push it all the way to success. Over the weekend, supporters of impeachment made "Impeach Cheney" the number 1 video on Youtube. On Friday, for the first time, a polling company asked Americans if they want Cheney impeached. A majority of 54% said Yes, and the poll was reported in the media. Congressman John Conyers even cited it on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday.

On July 4, the day of throwing off King Georges, an Impeach Bush and Cheney petition passed 100,000 signatures! So now we're raising the bar to 1 million: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/petition Also on July 4, Los Angeles opened an Impeachment Center, and on July 5 Philadelphia held an impeachment forum (here's the video).

But the date to keep in mind is July 23, 2007. That will be the fifth anniversary of the Downing Street Meeting, the meeting at Number 10 Downing Street at which the head of British intelligence reported that Bush and Cheney were intent on invading Iraq and were going to "fix the intelligence and facts around the policy." The meeting was recorded in the Downing Street Minutes which were leaked in May 2005. It was then that we launched a coalition and a website at AfterDowningStreet.org in order to move the Congress and the media toward impeachment.

This July 23rd, a Monday, Cindy Sheehan will lead a march from Arlington National Cemetery (gather there at 10 a.m.) to Capitol Hill, to the office of Congressman John Conyers to ask him to move forward with impeachment. We will wear orange that day, a color that has come to stand for nonviolent revolution. We encourage as many people as possible to join us, and if you cannot, to phone Congressman Conyers' office that day asking him to move forward on impeachment: [phone].

Depending on how things go that day, some of us may choose to remain sitting in Conyers' office reading aloud the U.S. Constitution even at the risk of being arrested. Those not wishing to risk arrest will be able to leave at that point and should not be concerned about taking part. But those willing to go to jail for justice should come and join us in an act of civil disobedience, or stage a sit-in at your congress member's district office: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sit

The White House continues to announce its refusal to comply with a growing stack of subpoenas (http://www.democrats.com/subpoenas ), even going so far now as to try to block the testimony of former staffers who claim to be willing to testify. ABC asked Conyers about this Sunday morning, and his reply was (I don't know any other way to say this) delusional. Conyers cited the recent poll showing public support for impeachment as a reason why the White House should start complying with subpoenas, and then assured ABC (and anyone at the White House who may have been watching) that he did not intend to impeach anyone.

Here's the problem with that, Chairman Conyers: When you announce that you're bluffing, the bluff doesn't work. Impeachment has often worked as a bluff. Nixon left before he was impeached. The Supreme Court reined in Truman before he was impeached. But when you announce ahead of time that you won't really go all the way to impeachment, nothing short of impeachment has any teeth to it. Remember when you rigged the Iran Contra hearings to avoid impeachment? You got ineffective hearings, a massive cover-up, and electoral defeat. Right now you're repeating two out of three of those results, and Democratic prospects for November 2008 are looking gloomier by the day. Imagine a labor union announcing that it will never strike. It's not that you have to strike every week, but when you announce that you never will, you lose all bargaining power. As surely as the sun rises and night falls, Bush and Cheney will not comply with your subpoenas.

On July 23rd, Cindy Sheehan plans to announce her candidacy for Congress, challenging Speaker Nancy Pelosi to represent the 8th District of California. Sheehan's candidacy is motivated by Pelosi's actively blocking the impeachment of Cheney and Bush. Sheehan will not run if between now and the 23rd Pelosi backs off and allows her colleagues to make up their own minds on impeachment.

The 23rd in DC is part of a march from Texas to New York. Cindy Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, and others are leading a march/drive from Crawford, Texas, to New York City. The march will include stops at the district offices of House Judiciary Committee Members Mel Watt, and Bobby Scott to push them to support impeachment. Their Judiciary Committee colleagues Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, and Keith Ellison have cosponsored Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment against Cheney, H Res 333.

Below is the route of Cindy's march and a link for more information and to get involved. Now is the time to get involved in our democracy. Use it or lose it.

July 10 Crawford Tx Houston Tx
July 11 Houston Tx. New Orleans La.
July 12 New Orleans La. Montgomery Al.
July 13 Montgomery Al. Ft. Benning Ga
July 14 Ft. Benning Ga Atlanta Ga.
July 15 Atlanta Ga. Gainsville Ga.
July 16 Ganisville Ga. Clemson SC
July 17 Clemson SC Charlotte NC
July 18 Charlotte NC Greensboro NC
July 19 Greensboro NC Lynchburg VA
July 20 Lynchburg VA Charlottesville VA (rally at 6 p.m.)
July 21 Charlottesville VA Richmond VA
July 22 Richmond VA Arlington VA
July 23 Arlington Cemetery - White House / Capitol
July 23 Washington DC Philadelphia PA
July 24 Philadelphia PA Allentown PA
July 25 Allentown PA New York City NY
July 26 United Nations Action
July 27 Begin to Gather at Central Park
July 28 TBA
July 29 Gathering of Hearts Fest Central Park
http://www.thecampcaseypeaceinstitute.org

[Cameron27]

51. They're telling lies about Conyers ???

[brentspeak]

31. Good grief.

Talk about barking up the wrong trees.

[Diane R]

38. She's had my support in the past, but I'm about done. Why can't she protest Republicans????

[maximusveritas]

40. Another example of Cindy needing to learn her history

John Conyers is one of the greatest public servants this nation has ever had.
He's been one of the most liberal voices in Congress for over 40 years. He was one of the founders of the CBC. He was on Nixon's enemies list. He had Rosa Parks on his staff for years. He was one of the earliest politicians to understand and interact with the blogosphere. For them to hold a sit-in and lecture him on the Constitution is outrageous.

[shireen]

72. i'm pro-impeachment but understand why Conyers is being coy about it.

he's the head of the Judiciary Committee. He has to tread carefully on this. He has to systematically collect indisputable mountains of evidence, has to maintain some level of fairness. If he openly advocated impeachment at this stage, he'd be accused by the thugs of shaping the evidence to support his beliefs. Of course he would not do it, he's too ethical and honest for it, but the spin machine will work overtime to make it seem that way.

Maybe I've misunderstood something about what afterdowningstreet.org is doing, and if so, I hope they provide a clearer explanation. But from what I've read on their website, it appears that they're showing remarkable short-sightedness in this strategy. They're shooting themselves in the foot.

I love Cindy, she's an incredible woman. But I don't have to agree with everything she does. Some of the venom expressed on DU towards her is upsetting.

[IndianaGreen]

76. By not acting on H Res 333, Conyers is enabling Cheney's crimes

The Constitution and the Republic is more important than partisan considerations, and their legions of political advisors that are more interested in their personal careers than they are abour our freedoms.

[MiserableFailure]

82. Nice try IndianaGreen

But Conyers is in one of the safests districts in the country. Even if he screamed about impeachment for 24 hours a day, he'd still be in no danger of losing his congressional seat.

He doesn't do it because he chooses(correctly) to put his effort into more worthwhile causes, like trying to get universal health coverage for our citizens and universal prekindergarten for our children. I don't see you post about those issues much. I've also seen you push libertarians. Do you not care about our children, IndianaGreen? See, I'm using the same logic as you. Don't like it much, do you??

[shireen]

102. i don't think Conyers is going to let them get away with it

I believe he's methodically pulling together what he needs to make the case for impeachment. When he strikes, they won't know what hit them.

[Chipster]

107. That's very plausible...

because what we keep hearing is that they have other tasks to accomplish. It makes sense that Conyers would make a tight case to minimize disruption by making the case as irrefutable as possible. Quicker the impeachments are done, the quicker the Congress can get on with the rest of the people's business.

[noamnety]

43. Conyers' stance, PDA's stance

In his Detroit appearance Tuesday, Conyers declined to offer the full support of his position atop the Judiciary Committee to the impeachment push.

(snip)

Before the Democratic takeover, Conyers had raised the possibility of impeachment, but he has been less bullish on the possibility since last year's elections.

(snip)

"There is a groundswell here," said Tim Carpenter, director of Progressive Democrats of America, in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers published Tuesday. "Pelosi says it's off the table. It's our role to put it on the table."

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/House_Judiciary_chairman_supportive_of_impeachment_0530.html

[ChazII]

47. This also came up on a Google search

We Will Sit In for Impeachment
Scoop.co.nz, New Zealand - Jul 9, 2007

... Youtube, and Google, July 23, 2007, Cindy Sheehan plans to lead a delegation to Congressman John Conyers' office in DC to demand impeachment. ...

Has anyone seen anything on Youtube regarding this??

[Colobo]

50. Conyers is one of the good guys. One of the best guys we have out there.

[EFerrari]

52. This is theater and she probably has Mr. Conyers' blessing.

For pete's sake.

[ripple]

93. That was my initial thought, too

I mean, doesn't the office have to be freakin' open for someone to hold a sit-in?

Since she's parted ways with the dem party, though, perhaps she's putting Conyers on the spot, knowing that he's the most likely to allow her to use a congressional office to gain publicity. If that's the deal, I hope he calls her bluff.

I like Cindy, I hate that she lost Casey, and I appreciate her anti-war efforts, but some of her actions over the past couple of years have been erratic and self-gratuitous, in my view. She already made the dramatic, well-publicized gesture of leaving the democratic party, so I don't know why in the hell any dem legislator would welcome her into their office to stage a protest. If Conyers is allowing it, I respect his decision, but I hope that isn't the case.

[progressoid]

56. Oy.

[Alexander]

62. So, how many of her supporters are left here at DU?

I predict they will have dwindled down to zero by the end of the year.

[illinoisprogressive]

67. she seems to take things to the extreem all the time.

[supernova]

68. Why would she want to sit-in Conyers?

He's already well on the path.

Seems like she would want to sit-in someone's office who is not on board yet. This is stupid.

[knowledgeispwr]

70. Political theatre?

Some have suggested on the GD thread that this is 'political theatre' to bring attention to impeachment and probably has Conyer's blessing. I have a hard time envisioning that scenario, because setting up shop in Conyer's office to read the constitution aloud seems like a disruption that could distract the office from working.

[Cameron27]

75. If Conyers wanted to bring attention to impeachment

he wouldn't need Cindy's "political theatre." The man isn't shy. Sounds like a stretch.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[supernova]

78. Knock it off, IG

Defending Cheney my ass. I'm not proving my liberal bona fides to you or anybody else.

I was asking a question, which according to your post is the ultimate betrayal. Oh bad, supernova.

I invite you to put me on ignore if you find me upsetting.



.

[MiserableFailure]

83. Don't mind IG

She is the queen bee of straw men and dozens of other logical fallacies.

Her logic is, if a representative does not push impeachment, they are defending Cheney. That is absolutely terrible logic and very few people agree with her(thankfully)

[unkachuck]

85. thank you....

"This is not a Sheehan issue, or even a Democratic vs. Republican issue. The Constitution is at stake. The Republic is in peril. Our liberties are on the line!"

....exactly!

....Cindy is demanding action and so are we. There is no more time for bullshit and worthless talk. Deliever, or get out of the way. Cindy is a strong, determined, progressive leader willing to lead the way. Why cut her off at the knees? Or do some of you like corporate ass-sucking leaders?

....lay off Cindy, she has more balls than most of you....

[Alexander]

91. Why are you creating strawmen?

I mean, really. :eyes:

[MrMickeysMom]

86. You know, maybe he isn't well on the path

WE THE PEOPLE (including whoever damn well decides to become an activist, which is exactly what she had decided) have the DUTY to be patriotic and demand from OUR LEADERS a steadfast course.

We're not playing games with the objective in Conyers duties, or Pelosi's duty, we (she or anyone) are guiding them, as I believe our founding framers of this democracy meant for us to do.

It is not stupid.

[supernova]

88. Disagree

I honestly don't know what Conyers is thinking. Hell, I'm not a mind reader. But I do know that you have to build a case (regardless of what those of us on the Web already think) to say "OK we're ready to impeach" IOW, you can't just, seemingly out of the blue, impeach an office holder. Even as I say that, I firmly believe we will have impeachment hearings, regardless of what Speaker Pelosi is saying right now. There is too much of an uproar coming from too many places -- including DU --, regardless of what Cindi does.

If Cindi wants to have an argument w Conyers about it that's fine. I don't think disrupting his office is the way to accomplish that. I'm saying that as someone who has seen congressional offices work up close and personal. There's barely room for staffers who live there as it is.

[MrMickeysMom]

95. You are assuming this is an argumentative situation!

As you said, you're not a mind reader.

This is a time where her statement will be added. This is a build to a movement. I can't think of another way to push it in the rigiht direction. If you think the staffers can't function around that action, you are underestimating his office.

[IndianaGreen]

71. This is not a Sheehan issue. Conyers is sitting on H Res 333, the Cheney impeachment resolution

that was introduced by Dennis Kucinich.

Now, let's not you all party apparatchiks go in lockstep in taking Dick Cheney's side, instead of pressuring Pelosi and Conyers in moving forward on impeachment!

The Constitution and the Republic, indeed our liberties, are more important than the Democratic Party or any other political party. And if you don't know that, then you deserve to live under a dictatorship.

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.

<snip>

The careful system of checks and balances, so carefully constructed in our Constitution, and so jealously guarded by elected officials throughout our history has been eviscerated by signing statements, secrecy, and lies. The de facto dictatorship of the executive has been enshrined in the theory of the “unitary executive.”

This has all been done under cover of a never-ending “war” which this President and Vice-president lied the country into. Indeed, to this day, they cannot articulate a real reason for embarking on this war. The President has proffered no less than twenty-two separate justifications for it, and none has survived scrutiny. Iraq has become the ultimate - and ultimately tragic - tautology: we are there because we are there. But now, as the clarifying lens of history brings this catastrophe into sharper focus, the full cynicism and criminality of this administration’s Iraq policy is emerging: we are there because of oil interests, and the political clout a war president can wield.

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

[Vidar]

110. Thank you. Glad that someone in this thread brought up the real issue.

[LostInAnomie]

73. Maybe they think that's where their clown car is located.

I wonder if Conyers knows he's a member of the Party of Slavery?

[ProudDad]

77. GAK, you people!!!

What part of "petition your government for redress of grievances" don't you understand???

So a group of American Citizens are going to publicly lobby the ONE MAN who can for sure introduce Articles of Impeachment in the House...

Get real!!!!!

I'm sure that John Conyers will welcome their support and the publicity their appearance in his office may provide...

Too bad so many self-styled "Democrats" here don't understand grass roots politics or the Constitution of the United States...

Last Sunday on ABC:

"This morning on ABC’s This Week, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) highlighted the new American Research Group poll showing that nearly half of Americans want the House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush, and 54 percent favor impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney.

"ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Conyers today about new reports that the White House will refuse new congressional requests for documents about the U.S. Attorney firings.

"Conyers decried the administration’s stonewalling, adding, “We’re hoping that as the cries for the removal of both Cheney and Bush now reach 46 percent and 58 percent , respectively, for impeachment that we could begin to become a little bit more cooperative, if not amicable, in trying to get to the truth of these matters.”

"Stephanopoulos responded, “I’m surprised you put impeachment on the table there. Are you open to pursuing that?” Conyers said he was not putting it “on the table,” merely pointing out the views of the American people."


So we have to help him "put it on the table". Our representatives have to be able to point to a majority putting pressure on them for them to act... Politics 101...

[MrMickeysMom]

87. You put it a hell of a lot better than I've been trying to say here

I would be surpirsed if Conyers would not welcome the actions of "the people" within the framework of what we must push forward now (agressively).

It's our patriotic duty to peition to government.

:patriot:v

[welshTerrier2]

132. great post!!!

i have to apologize to you. I posted the exact same theme below before I saw your post.

"petition the government for a redress of grievances" and all the liberals think the protestors are "attacking" Conyers ... I wonder whether Conyers himself holds such un-democratic views of citizen activism. I doubt it.

[MiserableFailure]

80. How can anyone respect Cindy now?

I demand an explanation from her supporters on here

John Conyers is like one of the most liberal and best Democrats in Congress. He's been right on 99% of the issues, but because he won't waste effort on a futile impeachment process he is to be assaulted by Cindy and her followers? Ridiculous.

[MrMickeysMom]

92. Look, just read the post above my last one above.

I believe this is anything but an "assult" on John Conyers. In fact, it is the patriotic duty of those who would save a democracy in these times.Do you not see the wisdom of pushing this, regardless of what is said? Have you never heard of positions being changed by the people? This is why the phrase, "by the people" is included with "for the people".

Get it? No one person is right on 99% of this issues. Not in the legislative branch of government. And no one person can transcend a futile effort for impeachment into a certainty.

[MiserableFailure]

94. Look, I don't mind lobbying Conyers for impeachment.

A lot of Americans do support it according to polls. What I do mind is staging a sit-in in his office.

[MrMickeysMom]

97. Look, what in the world is the difference?

between a lobbying effort and a sit in. Are you thinking Height Ashbury sit-in with incense and pepermints? Do you understand that when you have no deep K street pockets, then you take the alternate route to make news. This is a call to action, which is what EVERY citizen should be doing.

It's not that difficult to understand.

[MiserableFailure]

98. Look at the history of sit-ins

I've read books on sit-ins. They should be sitting-in in the offices of vulnerable Republican congressman, not Conyers. Conyers has no incentive to support impeachment, because even if people protest in his office, he can still hold that congressional seat for as long as he wants.

[MrMickeysMom]

100. The only way to respond to your prediction is to see what happens

and file it with the books you've read. I base my understanding on experience as a 53 year old activist.

I'm willing to admit if I'm reading this action as wrong, naturally, but you need to keep following this with an open mind of the far reaching objective. It is not limited to going to the party in the othe isle to "lobby"/"sit in" or otherwise create a public outcry.

[MiserableFailure]

101. I'm not exactly a kid, MrMickeysMom

I'm 41 years old and was politically active until I graduated from West Point and then I picked up political activism again when I left the service in 1999.

As for my prediction, I am assuming you are referring to my prediction that Conyers has a very safe seat and has nothing to worry about. I will personally transfer you $250 on Paypal if Conyers loses in either the primary or general election next year(if he doesn't run again, no payment). If he wins, you owe me nothing. That's how confident I am. You need to look at the data for his district. He won with 85% of the vote in 2006. He wins by similarly huge margins every time around. I don't think a primary opponent would get more than 20% of the vote against him, and they'd really have to work to get even that much.

[MrMickeysMom]

113. The prediction has nothing to do with Conyers' winning his seat again, MF

It has to do with his reaction to Sheehan's lobby sitting in his office and the ultimate support it give the impeachment movement.

No question he'd re-win his District. Keep your money.

[noamnety]

104. BRAVO!!!

And I also want to know how anyone ever respected Alice Paul!!!1111!!

What kinda woman thinks she can run around changing the world by holding hunger strikes and carrying banners? She should have just stayed home, for her own good. And she was harassing a democratic president! It's no wonder she ended up in the psychiatric ward.

*snicker*

[zulchzulu]

81. No better way to turn off moderates that might consider impeachment than to...

...have Cindy Sheehan pull off a sideshow that actually distracts one of the people who is trying within legal means and with a clear strategy to set the stage for impeachment.

No better way to make impeachment NOT HAPPEN than to have the wrong spokesperson under the glaring media headlamps. I can see it now. "Do you want impeachment like that crazy lady who also hates Democrats too?"

Cindy...you said you were taking a rest. Please do that for the good of Democrats, who you don't care about anyway.

[calteacherguy]

108. This is so sad. So very, very, very sad. K&R. nt

[cassiepriam]

111. Keep up the pressure on all of them Cindy, Never stop til the war is over.

People are dying every day in Iraq.

[rosesaylavee]

112. A couple thoughts...

Firstly. Conyers is a very strong individual and I think he will know that this is political theater. He will survive. I admire what he has done so far for this country and the issues he has insisted on bringing to light despite incredibly strong opposition from the Right.

Secondly. I can't think of any time in my own life that my opinion or position on an issue has changed appreciably because of a threat. I don't think Cindy's 'camping out' in either Pelosi's or Conyer's office will get the effect she desires. She will get publicity though for the anti-war movement but they will continue to work as they have done in the past prior to the sit-in... imo.

I feel very sad that she has said the Democrats are not her party any longer.

[MrMickeysMom]

114. Your "guess" the deonstrators want a b ig embarrassment is wrong

This July 23rd sit in possible ultimate removal of Cindy Sheehan, et al at Conyers office (who knows) I believe is once again intended to call attention to our state of constitutional crises, not to embarrass Conyers. He's a stateman and a patriot and a leading voice for anyone with an IQ over one standard deviation from the norm!

I'm pretty sure people posting here have a good understanding of the important work John Conyers has done. As one who hasn't many posts, but takes in DU's content often in thought, I would think the majority of "DU'ers" would have a mind of their own, not be part of a cheerleading squad for whoever makes the national news. What, we're supposed to be followers because we are supportive in our posts?

Then, Karl Rove is behind... what? Then, Sheehan followers (do you mean those who follow national news and then post here?) follow her with blind obedience?

(sigh) Maybe I should find another forum that doesn't try to drown view points not lined up with their vision of what Democrats are. Maybe you shouldn't summarize opinion as automatically falling into some clique. I don't know about you, but I've been out of high school for a LONG time!

[creeksneakers2]

134. I used "Sheehan followers" because

I don't have a better name for her movement. Its impossible to discuss a patern of opinion without labeling it. Conservative? It means something, but doesn't mean everybody who is a conservative is a certain way. I don't think its high school to criticize "conservatives."

I don't know if you have been following what Cindy has been up to lately. She's trying to drive a wedge between the left and the Democratic Party. I'm sure if Conyers doesn't oblige her she'll try to lead as many people as possible to abandon Conyers, who has a great national draw. Cindy already went after Nancy Pelosi. It looks to me like Conyers is next.

Democrats are whatever we all decide to be together. Its not about Cindy's views on the war or impeachment. Its about Cindy working against the party altogether. We need a majority to do anything in America, so that means over 50%. That means there can only be two sides, so long as the other side shoots for 50%.Its a zero sum game. Whatever Cindy does to wedge lefties away from the party helps Republicans.

I respect not only your right to have your own opinion but your opinion itself. Sorry you might leave.

[John Kerry VonErich]

116. Is it true some states are giving harsher sentences to protesters?

nt

[CreekDog]

119. Sheehan has found the real enemy...

It's Pelosi and Conyers.

Funny, I thought it was some other guys in that other party.

Way to go Cindy. Let me know if it gets easier to impeach and defund the war with fewer rather than more Democrats as part of the effort.

[rabies1]

120. Maybe he's the only one who will listen.

Love her or hate her.
Who cares? 

She's at least doing something, taking some action to change
this disaster.
If only a million people joined her, all the senators and
congressmen would be scared into
having to actually listen to us and take action. 

I plan on joining her on July 23rd. 
It's better than waiting around hoping something good will
happen. 

[CreekDog]

128. If the something in "doing something" sets us back

Then the "do something" (meaning anything) is not good advice.

I would not cast my lot with her, she is not helping.

[rabies1]

129. She's at least off her couch making news that no one can ignore.

How can ANY publicity on impeachment or ending the war, be not good? Even the asleep at the wheel media can't ignore this event and I think it will make people feel stronger knowing that something is physically happening. How, by the way, can things get any worse?

[CreekDog]

130. If it splits the anti-war movement or the Democrats

It makes impeachment and ending the war less likely.

That's how it can get worse.

"Do something" is only a good idea if the something is helpful.

[MickeyVA]

122. Political Theater?

What politician wants to appear to have caved to a sit-in? What credibility does impeachment have if it appears to be done for political self-interest? Why would Conyers want to push forward with impeachment because of Cindy Sheehan rather than his own personal convictions?

I have a hard time believing Conyers welcomes this, but if it's political theater, it's simply a stupid move. You do these types of things to people who don't agree with you--when they end up doing what you want because they want to keep their jobs, you look strong and they look weak and they are tainted by that. Don't do this to people who already agree and make them look weak because you made them do it. I guess it's not so stupid, though, if your goal is really all about making yourself look strong and not so much about the actual issues.

[ProudDad]

123. As Scoop Nitzger used to say

"If you don't like the news, go make some of your own!"

[Robson]

136. Good synopsis

It explains why I'd never want to be a politician. Someone is always looking at your motives...and likely because politicians tend to have motives that are based more on self interests, re-election AND obscuring the clear cut right or wrong.

My gut impression is that Cindy Sheehan has not graduated to the level of political maneuvering that those who have spent multiple terms in Congress.

[welshTerrier2]

125. I have no problem with the demonstration: an alternate perspective

Why do some see holding a public demonstration in Conyers' office as attacking him? They are there to "petition the government for redress of their grievances." Frankly, I expect Conyers would be the most receptive to their protest and to their ideas. Seems like an excellent place to start.

Also, and I'm assuming Conyers won't just change his mind and yield to the protesters, why shouldn't they take their case to the person in charge of the Judiciary Committee? Would their protest be better suited to the Agriculture Committee?

It's interesting that so called liberal DU'ers react to sit-ins and protests as an attack on someone. I honor their activism. I have deep, very deep respect for Conyers. He, perhaps more than anyone, might well have the deepest respect for those who protest and petition the government for change. Conservative DU'ers and party hacks apparently see it differently. This is some "underground" we have here.

[JNelson6563]

126. Yes, go after one of the bravest critics of Team Bush.

I've got a piece of advice for Cindy and those who think this is a good idea. Go here: www.ClueStore.com and buy a clue, will ya?

Julie

[CreekDog]

127. Cindy is splitting the anti-war movement

You can see that right here at DU.

People who are antiwar but support Pelosi are arguing with people who are antiwar but support Sheehan.

Cindy really is doing a disservice to a cause she supports. She may mean well, but this is political malpractice.

[Robson]

133. We need 300 million Americans who will question the establishment...including Pelosi

No..... she is saying Bush needs impeached. Upon that most of us agree.

I find it somewhat odd that Democrats would prefer that her right to free speech be squelched in the name of keeping the political currents smooth. Some even think she should be muzzled.

Either we support the right to free speech, and her right to criticize current politicians such as Nancy Pelosi or we don't. There are no but ifs or but only BS.

I'm not a Cindy Sheehan fan but I am always fan of those willing to question and criticize the establishment. We need far more of them.....about 300 million.

Should we give the Democratic Party leaders diplomatic immunity to criticism? Sorry this member doesn't think so.

[rabies1]

135. Then being antiwar is an opinion we could all agree on.

So lets talk about it. Then we can just VOTE for Pelosi or Sheehan.
At least Sheehan has taken steps to draw attention to this issue.

[followthemoney]

137. Message to Conyers and Pelosi: Bring impeachment or send back the...

money you begged out of me.

[Echotrail]

141. Wow. So many people with short-term memory loss!

Cindy Sheehan and Rep. Conyers have seen eye to eye for years.


Cindy Sheehan's Speech At The DSM Hearings

Friday, 17 June 2005, 3:19 pm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0506/S00280.htm

Phone call from John Conyers to Cindy in Texas in August 2005
http://www.johnconyers.com/node/32

And just so you are up to date, John Conyers backed off impeachment for several months (because the leadership ordered it )but he talked about it again on July 8, 2007:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/08/conyers-impeachment

Get a grip, people. Stop listening to the Republican pundits. Cindy is not the enemy of Conyers or any other honest politician. Conyers will welcome Cindy, as he always has.

Why all this knee-jerk trash talk? You call yourselves Democrats and progressives? Some of the posts on this thread look like they were written by hate-filled Rush babies. ICK.

[snappyturtle]

144. Some here have said that pelosi is holding conyers back.....Conyers

is a big boy and can think for himself. I think you're wrong about Cindy....she is helping to keep people focused on ending the war and impeachment....I say whatever it takes....after all we've been more than patient...maybe too patient! Enough is enough. The Dems have been in "control" long enough to do what needs to be done;the hearings and investigations drop as soon as they are over. imho

[Melynn]

145. Cindy isn't a Democrat anymore

So she doesn't have a problem criticizing Democrats. It's that simple. I don't agree with her but it's her choice.