Questions to all those pro-Sheehan people on here

[knight_of_the_star]

The ones who are cheering on her wanting to run against the Speaker. I have two questions for you:

1.) Do you really think that she'll somehow take Pelosi's place as the Speaker of the House?

2.) Considering she wouldn't be in until 2008 if she somehow pulled a win out of nowhere, how is she going to be able to do anything about Bush considering he'll be OUT OF OFFICE?

[Taverner]

1. I support Speaker Pelosi 100%

I respect Cindy, but shes doing more harm than Medea Benjamin here...

[Madspirit]

5. How Exactly?

How exactly is she HARMING anyone or anything? Do tell.
Lee

[Taverner]

22. She's going to split the vote, and get a Repub in

God I hope my fellow San Franciscans don't buy it.

[Speck Tater]

55. Maybe getting the vote split and getting kicked out of DC...

... is exactly what these Dem politicos need to shake them out of their inattentive stupor.

[Taverner]

78. That's what some people said in 2000

And we can see how well that worked...

[EFerrari]

83. Oh, come on. None of those folks was on the Supreme Court.

They were going to insert Junior no matter what and on the backs of black voters.

[Taverner]

85. It should never have been that close

Face it, Nader helped the Republicans

[EFerrari]

96. I don't owe anything to Nader but objectively speaking, it doesn't

matter how "close" it was or not when you have so many votes spoiled or uncounted, does it? Blame Nader or don't, the lesson to be learned is we need to mind election integrity.

We don't know how "close" it was because the election was dirty. :shrug:

[Taverner]

106. This is true - but in the end Nader did get a margin that would have swung the election

Whether that was orchestrated jointly by the Dems and Repubs is not open to speculation until we have evidence. I wouldn't put it past them, but that doesn't make it so either.

But spoiler candidates like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader (and possibly Cindy Sheehan) are playing right into the opposition's hands. The only reason the GOP is even taking on the "get out of Iraq" position is because we hold the majority. If we didn't, you'd see more and more talks to "Stay tough" and "stay the course."

If Cindy's goal is to get out of Iraq sooner than later, then she needs to work with true anti-war Democrats like Pelosi, Murtha and Conyers rather than against them.

When would this happen? Impeachment will take too long. Sure, start on it, and I'm all for impeaching the bastards, but it would be unrealistic to think anything would come out of it until Bush is out of office and in his new safe compound in Paraguay. If we get a Democrat in the White House, and it's the right Democrat (and this is open to speculation) then we could see the war end as soon as January 2009. That's a best case scenario.

[EFerrari]

108. I see what you're saying. But I'm in favor of any reserve of menace

we can muster to get our co-opted reps to LISTEN.

[Taverner]

109. If any of the Dem Candidates win in 2008, the war will be over in 2009

Clinton has promised it would be her first official action. She'll be held to that, and she's no dumbass - she'll take us out. All of the other candidates, upon hearing this, pledged similar promises.

That's why I'm not sweating this issue. It's literally the soonest that something could happen. Unless we have massive recall elections accross the country in red-senator and red-rep states...

[EFerrari]

112. Imo, Democrats will win massively in 2008. The bad news is

that a lot of people will get dead before then.

[John Q. Citizen]

124. The war is already over. But the occupation with still be ongoing. Clinton

never pledged to pull out all the troops, to leave Iraq.

Write her a letter and ask her. Ask if she pledged to have all American troops out of Iraq by 2009.

She didn't.

Have you read HR1234? It's the only detailed plan I've read that would actually accomplish this. Google it and read it. It's a pretty good plan.

[Taverner]

136. Well, someone has to provide the cover while Blackwater packs up and goes

Sucks, I know, but that may be the only way to get out quickly...

[John Q. Citizen]

143. Have you read HR1234?

Hillary basically wants to lower the profile of troops for political reasons but she still want the US to run Iraq and she wants bases in Iraq.

The war is and was about resources (oil being prominant) and bases. She hasn't disavowed this policy in the slightest.

Read HR1234 and get back to me. Thanks.

[kenfrequed]

118. You know

This is the kind of thinking that let the Repub-niks walk in in 1994. Whether you like Sheehan or not, pooh poohing impeachment is stupid.

When Clinton was elected he dropped the Iran Contra thing deciding to play nice and Bipartisan and IGNORING a gross and disgusting crime against the constitution. And what do we get for that?

Reagan: successfully cannonized and deified.

Bush: let off the hook and allowing his name to be worth something

Message?: easily changed by Newt and his Gopac clones.

Contragate crew: Back in office for Bush 2: The revenge.

And instead of investigating actual crimes like Inslaw and Iran Contra we have a neverending inquisition into a presidents sex life.

Now we have to impeach. The crimes are too great, if we do not do this right this time then we will be paying for it down the road. A history of lawlessness at the top only enables it again and again.

[EFerrari]

120. Exactly. The felons just get more skilled with practice. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

125. Spending the honeymoon period investigating the previous administration's crimes is unprecedented

If people had really given a shit about Iran-Contra, they would've elected Dukakis in '88. Furthermore Poppy pardoned all of the important guys on his way out of office. Clinton was elected because people wanted the government to help solve their problems. Newt galvanized the GOP base over gays in the military and liberals stayed home because they were pissed that healthcare reform failed. That's how Newt walked in in 1994.

[EFerrari]

127. I think most people didn't know enough about Iran Contra

to be outraged because by that time, the media was being swallowed up. I did because I worked as a translator. Without that experience, I'd probably be as clueless as most working people, who are between their stressful lives and the kleptocrats.

[kenfrequed]

141. There is no honeymoon for doing the right thing.

The only time you get a honeymoon is when you are either doing nothing, or doing things that the corporate establishment approves of.

The media failed us with regard to Iran Contra. Pure and simple. They bought that 80's cold war-get tough-Ronald Regan crap.

But you know what, the people still cared. The crime was so odious that it forced Ronnie Reagan to have to say "I do not recall" dozens and dozens of times. If the people did not care, he would not have had to lie about it. IF the people did not care he would never have had to make a tortured and convoluted apology for things that might have happened that he claimed ignorance of. If the people did not care they would not have had a PR blitz to try to doll up the contras image. They also wouldn't have had Maranatha perform phony pro contra campus demonstrations in colleges all over America.

Had the media investigated, fact checked, or did some real journalism it would all have completely unraveled.

As to 1994 the republicans ran dirty and sleezy and dishonestly as they could.

The media didn't call them on any of it. The media facilitated their rise to power because they feared how a large peacetime/post-coldwar swing to the left might interfere with corporate dominance of the press so owners and CEOs leaned on editors who leaned on Journalists, all the while the right wing screamed "Liberal Media" constantly to rough up the ump.

Ultimately the 1994 "Republican revolution" was numeric hogwash. Yes they took the house but if you look at nationwide numbers for votes for republicans vs votes for democrats the numbers were not so bad. (and nowhere near as "revolutionary" as the 'great blue wave' of 2006)

And here is where I really get upset:

Ok so we don't impeach now?? ok.

So if we do take power are we going to do the same 'look the other way' thing again because it is 'unprecedented to waste the honeymoon on investigating the last administration'? So when will there be justice? When will there be anything done about it?

[hiphopnation]

a repbulican representing SF in the HOUSE?

are you serious??? not bloody likely...

[Taverner]

111. If Sheehan splits the vote it could happen

Look at it this way, The GOP is the "worse than death by a thousand cuts" party and the Dems are the "slightly better than a thousand cuts" party.

I would like things slightly better than worse personally.

[Jed Dilligan]

132. No, it couldn't.

http://vote2004.sos.ca.gov/Returns/usrep/0800.htm

Nancy Pelosi Democratic 224,017 84.7
Jennifer Depalma Republican 31,074 11.7
Leilani D. Dowell Peace & Freedom 9,527 3.6

Even if Cindy splits off 49% of the vote, Nancy stays in DC. More than that, Cindy goes. What's the risk here?

[Jed Dilligan]

131. Gimme a break.

Even if Cindy does split the vote, SF still won't send a pug to Washington.

[Taverner]

134. Don't bet on it - stranger things have happened

[Tesha]

110. I understand there's a *YELLOW* ribbon you can buy. ;-) (NT)

[Taverner]

133. ,

[Cleita]

13. If Pelosi is secure in her policies she shouldn't feel threatened

by any Democrat challenging the incumbent. It's their Democratic right or have we thrown out the Constitution with this too?

[dchill]

"I support Speaker Pelosi 100%"...

Uh - why, exactly? At this point, the best I can do is about 49%.

[Taverner]

135. She's a good liberal woman doing the best she can

Remember, she has to corral all of the other Dems to do anything - just because she's speaker doesn't mean she's omnipotent.

She wants to end the war, and she wants the fastest way to do it.

Unfortunately, at this point, the only way to do it is to wait until 2009

[Lerkfish]

2. um lemme ask a question back

do you believe she does not have the right to run against Pelosi?

if not, why not?

[BlooInBloo]

6. She certainly does. She also has the legal right to say Democrats are the party of slavery...

... All of these things are well within her legal rights. So good of you to clarify just what her legal rights are.

EDIT: Subject typo.

[Lerkfish]

32. that's me, just reminding people we live in a democracy

:shrug:

I guess that makes me a bad person.

[BlooInBloo]

43. Nah - it just makes you a person asking a question whose answer nobody ever denied.

[Lerkfish]

50. someone answered my question before i asked it?

:shrug:

then what is the intent of the OP, exactly?

[knight_of_the_star]

8. First, answer my questions

I don't rise to strawmen.

[iconoclastic cat]

21. I'll try: A. No, but so what?

B: See Response A.

[knight_of_the_star]

23. Then I repeat

I don't rise to strawmen and don't appreciate people trying to put words in my mouth.

[iconoclastic cat]

34. Technically, your second point is a strawman, being theoretical. nt

[knight_of_the_star]

39. No its not

A strawman is by definition an argument that is only vaguely connected to the issue and easy to beat up on. Something being theoretical is NOT a strawman and I think it is quite relevant to ask what she could do about what Bush has been doing considering that by the time she's in Congress he'll already be out.

[Lerkfish]

40. really? me asking you a question is putting words in your mouth?

:shrug:

[knight_of_the_star]

56. Asking a question in such a way

That implies that I was saying such a thing is. And your question still is a strawman.

[Lerkfish]

64. ok, then...what was the intent of your OP?

howz that for a more germaine question.


if you still refuse to answer that, lemme take a stab at it:

the whole intent of this thread is flamebaiting people who support Sheehan.

a kind of intentional salt-rubbing in the eye sort of thing.

or are you going to claim you really were interested in answers to your rhetorical questions?

[knight_of_the_star]

73. I am looking for answers

And so far I've only gotten ONE poster who has really answered either question instead of responding with flames, spin, and strawmen.

And your question about her having the right to run is only vaguely related to mine because it involves Sheehan, nothing more.

[Lerkfish]

74. um, actually, I disagree

I don't think that's your intent at all: you're hopelessly transparent.

the first question is chide and an insult " do you ACTUALLY think...." blah blah blah. this does not require an answer and is constructed to "nicely" put down an entire group as ignorant.

[knight_of_the_star]

Fine then

Keep putting words in my mouth and playing with your strawmen, because both questions are things that will have to be discussed if she really decides to run.

[Lerkfish]

82. my, my aren't you a pleasant person?

reread the post, I was editing it as you replied.

You're accusing me of the crimes you're commiting here: putting words in people's mouths and generating strawman arguments.
Project much?

[knight_of_the_star]

90. Says the poster avoiding the questions raised

Who is still trying to avoid the issues brought up.

[Lerkfish]

95. Again, I've no reason to avoid the questions, as I'm NOT in the group you're castigating.

I could answer them, but since I'm not your target, what's the point?

[Lerkfish]

35. sorry, but you've set your parameters in such a way that I cannot

I don't belong strictly in the group you specified.

[Lerkfish]

70. but, apparently you're not above flamebaiting with rhetorical pedantics.

:shrug:

[rinsd]

15. Of course she has the right to run.

But how would a freshman Congresswoman that will get very few committee assignments go about impeaching a President who has already left office?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I'm neutral on the subject

but I would think that everyone here would know that a freshman congressperson is not elected Speaker of the House.

I think the whole point of what Cindy is doing is really to put pressure on the Speaker to act before Bush is out of office. I don't know that she is really serious about running against Pelosi. That being said, if nothing is done in regards to this Administration and the war, I could see Sheehan joining or starting a third party.

[asthmaticeog]

4. Recommended.

I have nothing against Sheehan, but DU seems to be constantly scanning the horizon for a fucking messiah or something...

[redqueen]

9. Follow the shoe!

:rofl:

don't follow leaders

[meegbear]

14. BWAH-HAHAHHAHAHA!!

:spank:

[asthmaticeog]

24. Follow the Gourd! The Holy Gourd of Jerusalem!

[redqueen]

31. Hold up the sandal, as he has commanded us!

It's a shoe!

[Madspirit]

10. Actually

Actually, I've only heard people say she has a right to run. I haven't seen anyone bowing at her feet. "Respect" and "Honor" are not "scanning the horizon for a fucking messiah or something..."
Lee

[asthmaticeog]

20. You must have a huge ignore list or something. nt

[Madspirit]

27. I don't have ONE person on ignore actually...

I just think you are exaggerating...massively and turning respect and honor into something ugly and dirty... I support her. I bow to NO ONE.
Lee

[asthmaticeog]

41. I'm not exaggerating.

The willingness of a great many DUers to place far too much hope for redemption in any given individual hero of the day/week/month/whatever is widespread and obvious. If you don't see it, perhaps you should rub the sleep out of your eyes, it's all over the GDs.

Furthermore, I respect and honor Sheehan and her right to run for any office she chooses. I don't believe I suggested that you bow to anyone, Lee, but thanks anyway for letting me know that you don't.

[enigmatic]

51. Cult Of Personality

It's pretty fucking scary, no matter where the idealogical/party lines lie.

[redqueen]

7. Shouldn't this be discussed by Pelosi's constituents?

Isn't any other discussion about it pretty much meaningless? I mean, considering it'll be they that will decide which one they want representing them?

[knight_of_the_star]

18. Technically I'm one of them

And will cast my ballot for Pelosi when the time comes. My biggest issues with Sheehan running is that she is demonstrating both ignorance of the way Congress works and that she lives in Vacaville out in the Central Valley, about as far politically in NorthCal as you can get from San Francisco. She might think she represents the anti-war crowd, but she sure as hell does not represent me being one of those people and she in no way represents San Francisco.

[redqueen]

26. Good on ya then...

:hi:

[iconoclastic cat]

30. You're probably the only one on this thread who can vote for her,

so why the hell does it matter what any of us think?

[robinlynne]

45. oh no, there are many of us.

[knight_of_the_star]

48. I'm curious about justifications here

Considering so many on here are so quick to jump to Sheehan's cause I want to know what people think about those two VERY relevant issues involved in the issue.

That and even if you can't VOTE for her doesn't mean that people outside the district can't raise money or do phone-banking. I'm well aware that people would be able to do that.

[damntexdem]

11. The point is to try to push Pelosi now.

It would be far preferable for Pelosi to become proactive on ending the war. Recent events have even made that less politically risky. If she won't act, then she should be opposed in the primaries. The Bay Area is a strange place (wonderfully so) -- Sheehan might even pull it off. But as I say, the preferable thing would be for Pelosi to act.

In fact, Pelosi should act not just on the war but also on impeachment of Cheney and Dubya. Not that it will happen, but I would far prefer to a Pelosi loss to Sheehan rather a President Pelosi. ;-)

[iconoclastic cat]

12. Yeah, living in a representative democracy really sucks that way.

I mean, if we let people run for my House seat, how will I be able to keep from justifying my positions? Damn shame.

[redqueen]

36. Yes, this is good for democracy, is it not?

People who pay attention will learn something... a lot of things, hopefully... and hopefully our situation will improve, as a result.

I'm such an optimist. :)

[iconoclastic cat]

44. An optimist with sharp teeth! nt

[robinlynne]

47. hear hear!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. 1. No.

2. If Pelosi won't impeach, maybe she doesn't deserve the office.

[knight_of_the_star]

29. Ok here's another one

Do you think it's Pelosi's fault that when the vote for the war funding bill came up Hoyer and Emmanuel stabbed her in the back and compromised with the GOP and undercut her?

Or how about this, would you blame her for failing to impeach knowing full well if she did it would lose in the Senate anyway?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. If she can't lead she needs to get out of the way.

She was cheerleading for that "compromise" even as she was voting against it. Just a load of spin.

"Or how about this, would you blame her for failing to impeach knowing full well if she did it would lose in the Senate anyway?"

It doesn't matter if it fails in the Senate, if Nancy fails to put it on the table. I also think that there's no "knowing full well" that it'd fail in the Senate.

This is just a load of spin and strawmen. I thought you said you didn't rise to that kind of thing.

[knight_of_the_star]

59. What is worse

"She was cheerleading for that "compromise" even as she was voting against it. Just a load of spin."

Let's have a link backing that up then shall we?



Failing to impeach the bastard or trying and watching him walk away? Knowing the GOP impeachment in the Senate will come down to a party line vote and the GOP will NOT vote to impeach Bush, at least not enough of them will. Consider the precedent it would set that with all of what Bush has done and if he is impeached and not removed it would say for all intents and purposes that impeachment doesn't do squat and there is no point. That and it is entirely possible enough Blue Dogs will not vote to impeach making the whole thing look like an utter embarrassment. The Democratic Party is NOT the GOP, it does not work lockstep we do as our leaders tell us, not even close, and to assume that because she is the Speaker she can snap her fingers is to live in a fantasy world.

[atreides1]

62. Is Pelosi in charge or not?

No it wasn't her fault, but if that's what happened then perhaps their constituents need to be given the facts about their actions, and how they were instrumental in helping the GOP to continue to keep the military in harms way.

If the House were to impeach, that is only the beginning of the process. Once the articles of impeachment have passed, they start the investigation, which could take some time considering all of the crimes that this administration might have committed.

Nothing says that the Senate portion of impeachment has to occur immediately. They could even keep it going until after the 2008 elections, when the Democrats may have enough votes in the Senate to convict.

Besides, with an impeachment investigation BushCo will be spending most of their time spinning, and most Republicans running for re-election won't want anything to do with a tainted WH.

I don't reside in her district or her state.

[The_Casual_Observer]

17. Hope Cindy kicks some pastel suited ass.

They all deserve it after letting jr have his way with all of us.

[Virginia Dare]

19. the Speaker of the House is elected by the majority party in the House..

the people have no say whatsoever over who the Speaker of the House is. Pelosi's constituency could of course vote her out.

[emilyg]

25. I am NOT one of those supporters

[BuyingThyme]

28. 1. I don't know, but it's worth it. Even if she doesn't win, we'll get a real debate for once.

2. It's Pelosi's war now. It's not all about Bush anymore.

Thanks for asking.

[knight_of_the_star]

33. How is it Pelosi's war

She didn't vote for the war funding bill and she came out in opposition of the "compromise" engineered by the Blue Dogs.

[BuyingThyme]

52. She's responsible for the blank check, whether she voted for it or not.

This crap about there being a choice between A and B is effective, but it's nonsense. The possibilities were endless, but Nancy chose the easiest path available.

[knight_of_the_star]

63. How is she reponsible for it?

When she worked for the first bill that was vetoed then was undercut by members of her own party?

[BuyingThyme]

71. She has the power to determine which bills will make it to the floor.

She determines which bills will be assigned to which committees and who will sit on those committees. She negotiates with Senate leaders to determine which bills to pursue. Don't be fooled by here vote; this was here doing.

[KharmaTrain]

88. She Doesn't Control The Senate

The House voted out an Iraq supplemental that had timetables...it never even got a hearing in the Senate. She's also passed the 9/11 Commission recommendations, raise in the minimum wage, a major change in the prescription drug program, aid to college students...and you know where all of these bills have gone????? Nada, Nowhere! There are 10 Repugnicans (including Liebermann) in the House who pick party over country, right over wrong, the privilidged over the majority.

If Sheehan wants to end this war, she should run for Senate...that'd also make the impeachment orgasm happen as well.

[BuyingThyme]

92. She isn't controlled by the Senate either. In theory.

[knight_of_the_star]

94. In theory

Prosecutors aren't controlled by juries, but they also won't prosecute a case against a dangerous felon if they don't have the evidence to pull it off or feel that they couldn't get a jury that would do their duty as opposed to letting the criminal go free.

[BuyingThyme]

101. Not a very good analogy for off-the-table lady.

She's trying to give the criminal a pardon. Too busy for prosecution.

[KharmaTrain]

98. And???

[BuyingThyme]

99. Exactly.

[polichick]

37. The point is putting impeachment on the table NOW...

Cindy knows how to make the media use words that need to be heard.

[lazer47]

38. Cindy started out with a grand idea of trying to stop B***

she got caught up in something she had no control over and became a sounding board for every left wing cause that can be named,,I think what she started out to do was wonderful and it brought attention to her sons memory,, but what happened after that was pathetic, she got caught up in her own importance and in doing so lost most,, if not all of her base support, Her down grading the Democrat Party is beginning to upset a lot of people, if it were not for the Democratic party and DU she would just be another lost cause in the Repug book of quacks, I hope she doesn't turn out to be that..

[Cleita]

46. To answer your questions first and give my opinion second,

She will only take Pelosi's seat in Congress and a new speaker will be voted on and it won't be a freshman congressperson, but one with experience. It's not a matter of getting Bush out of office but getting in a Congress in the next term that might actually challenge the entrenched Washington lobbyists who are dictating much of these coocoo actions we are witnessing.

My opinion is that many of those Congressepeople, buried in Washingtonian politics on both sides of the aisle, need to be challenged more often by new candidates from their own parties especially the ones who have grown fat and comfortable with the status quo.

[knight_of_the_star]

53. In reponse to that

First, thank you for realistically addressing the first question, there's a lot of people on here who seem to think she would somehow magically become the new Speaker.

Second, I think the ones who really need to be challenged are the Republicans and Conservative Dems who are still enabling Bush by supporting his bullshit. I think the Dems who need to be targeted for removal are those who voted for the "compromise" on the war funding bill, not the ones who voted against it and worked to actually do something about the war. That and while Pelosi isn't supporting impeachment actively, she also isn't actively working against it either, last time I checked hearings for a Cheney impeachment are on the congressional calendar. I think the best kind of challenge is to REMOVE those who are the real facilitators, not the ones who are the easy targets for rage but are not the ones who are responsible for such things happening. As powerful as the Speaker is, the Speaker can't force people to vote the way she wants them to.

[Cleita]

58. I don't know why Cindy targeted Pelosi, but I suspect it's

a publicity stunt and that she doesn't expect to be elected. She's just trying to highlight a problem with this Congress and since Nancy is the Speaker she's an appropriate target. She's welcome to come down the road two hundred miles and run in my Republican controlled district. I think she would have a better chance than any other Democrat here in getting elected and overthrowing what has turned out to be a Republican fiefdom here.

[knight_of_the_star]

65. That's what I think she should do

That and it doesn't waste energy or draw focus away from the real issue that it's not the people on the left that are helping this bastard but the ones who sit in the middle and feel an urge to compromise for their political survival.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. It would probably be Steny Hoyer or Rahm Emmanuel replacing Pelosi

[knight_of_the_star]

54. Both of whom would be much worse

[BuyingThyme]

61. Nobody could be worse than Nancy Pelosi.

What she engineered will go down in history as one of the greatest victories ever bestowed on the Republican Party.

Impeachment off the table, followed by a blank check for Iraq, topped off with an immigration bill which was perceived as nothing less than an assault on the American people.

Really. Try to come up with a better way of destroying everything we gained in 2006. It's impossible.

[knight_of_the_star]

66. Try imagining Speaker Emmanuel then

Like how knowing him the first war funding bill wouldn't have even happened.

[BuyingThyme]

80. That's easy to imagine because the outcome would be the same.

But I'm no defender of Rahm. I would trash him just as well.

How 'bout Lynn Woolsey?

[Hippo_Tron]

129. She's not in the leadership and wouldn't get the top job

It would go to Hoyer, Rahm, or possibly Clyburn, although unlikely. None of the people that most DUers would like to see become Speaker would have much of a chance. They haven't spent their careers climbing the ladder.

[Hippo_Tron]

126. The immigration bill was set up for failure as a political move...

And it worked like a charm. Polls show Hispanic voters leaving the GOP in droves because of their xenophobia and the GOP is split between the cheap labor conservatives and the xenophobes.

[BuyingThyme]

142. I see. Good thinkin'.

[Blue-Jay]

57. Sure, if you're assuming that she'd lose her seat to Sheehan.

Which she won't. Not in a million years.

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. I agree, but it is fun to show Sheehan supporters what they would likely get

if she were successful.

[EFerrari]

121. There is nothing fun about any of this. n/t

[hiphopnation]

67. i reject both of your questions on their face

because, as i've stated consistently, I think that this is a tactic on the part of Sheehan to keep pressure on the party establishment by keeping the "I" word in the ears, eyes and mouths of the MSM and the general public. She understands how far-reaching her message can be, how many people she reaches when she makes such a bold, garish statement. Personally, I really don't think that she will launch a campaign against Pelosi I think that this is a tactic to rattle cages. Effective so far!

[knight_of_the_star]

69. I think the questions are relevant and necessary

Especially since as I see it if she's threatening to run she should be ready to put her money where her mouth is, if she backs off in two weeks even if nothing changes then as far as I'm concerned she's nothing but a bag of hot wind.

[Lerkfish]

72. no, the questions are flamebait and inflammatory

at least be honest.

[knight_of_the_star]

76. They are to you

Because you are not addressing them at all and both are realities of what would be involved in her running for office.

[Lerkfish]

84. no, actually, flamebait threads rub me the wrong way, even if I'm not the one targeted

and this thread is not really targeting me, as I'm not supporting her run against Pelosi.
But I find your rhetorical device insulting and pathetic, so I'm going to call you on it.

[hiphopnation]

81. well that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it

another way to look at it, however, is that she's attempting to do two things:

1) keep pressure on the party establishment
2) keep the word -- JUST THE WORD -- "impeach" in the general milieu of public discourse (MSM punditry, chat boards, blogs, etc.)

On these basis', the questions are both irrelevant and unnecessary. Furthermore, if the tactic is effective -- and I grant you, that's a big if -- then she has proven herself much more than a "bag of hot wind" as you so eloquently put it.

Curious that you use this descriptor, one that I would reserve for the likes of Rush or Carville or others far more befitting it.

[knight_of_the_star]

97. There's a reason I use the term

And its because, like Carville and Rush, if she makes all this noise about possibly running then two weeks pass and she doesn't run as far as I'm concerned that's all she will be because all she will have done is made a lot of noise but not be willing to actually back those words up with real action. If what she is doing works, then more power to her, but if it doesn't and she doesn't back up her words with action then she is only words, not action.

[hiphopnation]

107. lumping Sheehan in with Carville and Rush

yikes, I'm at a loss for words here.

You have concluded that it is indeed her sincere desire here to run against Pelosi, and there seems to be no possibility in your mind that this may be a tactic to reach some other important end-goal which tells me that you're not one who pays attention to subtlety. On the basis of these obvious intentions - as you see them - you have tried and convicted her as bag of hot wind and enabler of all things contrary to the progressive cause, and you have lumped her in with the likes of media pundits whose job it is to spew forth words sans action. It's as though you give her no benefit of doubt, no credit for her past deeds, no leeway that she may have a good understanding of the current workings of our political machinery. It's as though you are daring her. It's as though you want her to fail. To this I say, pitiful.

[knight_of_the_star]

115. Wow that's a big spoon

You seem to have missed the whole if then involved in my reasoning of IF she's making all this noise and nothing happens according to her demands AND she doesn't run THEN as far as I'm concerned she's a bag of hot air.

Please don't shove words in my mouth, I don't like people who lie about me or impugn my name. If you're going to talk about me, you may as well speak the truth instead of fabricating a lie that's easier for you to attack if you wish to do so with honor and dignity, not using the guttersnipe tactics that Rove employs of making something up that's easier to hit.

And by the way, you were the first one to bring up Rush and Carville, not me.

[Lerkfish]

119. for someone who starts a flamebait thread, you're awfully touchy.

get over yourself, eh?
I thought the other poster calmly and rationally explained their point of view. Something which is lacking in your posts here.

[hiphopnation]

122. It's a stretch, my friend, to call what you're doing here "reasoning"

Again, your hypothetical may well be erroneous on its face, i.e., "if she's making all this noise and nothing happens". Well, that's painting with an awfully large brush. What I am saying is that she may be making all of this noise for something to happen, just not exactly what she is saying will happen. It's a complex tactic, yes, but one that I would think people of a progressive community might retain as a possibility especially given her track record as an activist, agitator of the status quo, and one who has stood up to treasonous bastards.

You keep jumping to all these preconceived hypothetical conclusions to her actions based on your original "if" (that is, if she wins will she become speaker and what good would it do since GWB will be out of office, which, by the way, ignores a whole host of other big "ifs" that would need to occur in order for her to reach that goal, e.g., launching a campaign, winning the election, etc.), not the least of which includes calling her a "bag of hot air", which is, in case you forgot, why I brought up Rush and Carville in the first place. I see this as erroneous reasoning and will continue calling error. At the least, I will ask that this woman be given the befit of doubt.

And hey, I may very well be wrong here and if I am, and Cindy Sheehan does indeed run against Nancy Pelosi and splits the vote and gets a Republican elected to the SF seat (hard to even say that with a straight face), I will gladly stand corrected.

Until then, however, I'm giving her the benefit of doubt that I think she deserves.

edit: grammar, missing word

[EFerrari]

68. 1) No. and 2) This is about the consequences of ignoring

a constituency, which itself is a subset of holding that felon accountable.

[knight_of_the_star]

75. But running for Congress is also about representing one's constituents

Do you think that Sheehan really represents San Francisco?

[EFerrari]

77. San Francisco has passed resolutions to end the war and to impeach.

So, yes.

She doesn't, however, represent the corporate interests here, obviously.

[knight_of_the_star]

87. How about she's not even from San Francisco

Vacaville is NOT San Francisco, not even close, and San Francisco isn't JUST about resolutions for impeachment and ending the war unless you only like those two issues. And in what world did Pelosi vote for the war? In what world is she actively working to keep impeachment from happening? Last time I checked the impeachment of Cheney is on the committee calendar, she easily has the power to block that and didn't.

Her running reeks of carpetbagging when she could make an issue of it by running in her district, incidentally her Congressman in her district is opposed to the war.

[EFerrari]

91. Please let's not do the carpetbagger thing because then we'll

have to work backward from Hillary Clinton, right?

It's fine by me if you think Cindy is making a mistake. :)

And Pelosi obviously harnessed Conyers on impeachment. :shrug:

And Pelosi managed to keep funding the war. :shrug:

Cindy has a lot of support in the Bay Area. We're the anti war, impeachment demanding freaks, remember? :)

[knight_of_the_star]

100. I stand by the carpetbagger thing

Because I think if someone is going to represent the people of a state or district then they should live there and actually BE one of those people. Anyone who is going to pick and choose somewhere to run to advance their political career or position as opposed to actually representing the wishes of the place they are running in is pretty dirty in my opinion.

To be consistent, people on DU were slinging the same stuff at Santorum for the same reason that he's from Virginia not Pennsylvania, if something is an issue it should be consistently applied not just when you like it.

"And Pelosi obviously harnessed Conyers on impeachment. "

How did she do that? Her actions haven't stopped Conyers from holding hearings that are gathering evidence. Best way to catch and put a crook away is if they don't think they're under investigation with intent to be charged cause then they aren't watching the mess they leave behind. She hasn't stopped Conyers from investigating or gathering evidence that can be used for impeachment. She hasn't actively said its for impeachment, that doesn't mean it CAN'T be used for impeachment.

"And Pelosi managed to keep funding the war."

But she voted against the bill to keep the funding going.

"Cindy has a lot of support in the Bay Area. We're the anti war, impeachment demanding freaks, remember? :)"

Yeah we are, but I don't think her support runs that deep, especially not if you consider other things she's been saying recently like calling income tax unconstitutional. She has a lot of support in the anti-war movement, but I don't think there's enough support on just one issue alone to put her in office, its not like she's running in San Diego where one could run on nothing but illegal immigration and win.

[EFerrari]

103. How far away is Vacaville from San Francisco?

And Nancy Pelosi muzzled Conyers and gave him talking points that I heard him repeat on DemocracyNow! Such as "Bush will be impeached at the polls" when Mr. Conyers knows better than most people how corrupt our federal elections are.

Nancy's vote doesn't obviate the fact that her bill had no mechanism to bring our troops home or to close Bush's bases in Iraq. I sat in meetings with her people here and I'm sorry to say, there was no substance to that bill. It was a giveaway -- and made me suspect the Democrats want this issue to run on in 2008, although I don't like harboring those suspicions. :(

I honestly don't know how she'll do. But she will split the vote here because the progressive community is furious with Nancy. That seems a shame to me.

[knight_of_the_star]

114. One thing not to worry about so much though

"I honestly don't know how she'll do. But she will split the vote here because the progressive community is furious with Nancy. That seems a shame to me."

At least a Republican would have at best a snowball's chance in hell of being elected in San Francisco.

"Nancy's vote doesn't obviate the fact that her bill had no mechanism to bring our troops home or to close Bush's bases in Iraq. I sat in meetings with her people here and I'm sorry to say, there was no substance to that bill. It was a giveaway -- and made me suspect the Democrats want this issue to run on in 2008, although I don't like harboring those suspicions. :("

Is this the bill that was vetoed or the bill that was passed, I thought there were strings in the bill that there would have to be set benchmarks and specific limits as well as saying when the troops would come home.

[EFerrari]

117. Afaik, Nancy was trying to use Bush's benchmarks against him

and that seems like a good strategy.

But, the problem with that was, there was no mechanism in the bill to determine if Junior's benchmarks had been met other than his word that the Iraquis were doing a heck of a job. I sat with her senior rep here in the city and he, while cordial, didn't actually disagree with this assessment.

So, those "strings" depended upon a fiction, i.e., Bush. This was the bill that was vetoed.

[LWolf]

79. Answers.

1. No. That's not the point.

2. No. That's not the point.

The point, for me, is to send Pelosi home, and replace her with a better speaker.

Whether she is defeated by a Democrat or by someone else.

Of course, that's all academic, in my case. I won't be voting. It's up to the voters in Pelosi's district to decide whether or not she ought to be replaced.

I support CS in her opposition to complicit Democrats. If running against one is what it takes to bring that opposition to the forefront, so be it.

[knight_of_the_star]

89. You know who would most likely be the next Speaker?

Either Steny Hoyer, certainly no progressive there, or Rahm Emmanuel, definitely not a progressive by any stretch of the imagination. Would you be ok with winning a small win by unseating Pelosi only to get someone who would be less likely to support progressive causes?

[LWolf]

140. I'm ok with holding every last

Democrat in Congress accountable for their vote for speaker. Has someone been polling them to see who they'd be likely to vote for?

I'm also just fine with holding Pelosi accountable for dropping the ball.

If her replacement is no better, they can also be voted out.

I'm just fine with cleaning house, pun intended.

Edited to repeat:

I am not in Pelosi's district. While I support CS in spirit, I believe it is up to the voters in the district to decide if they are satisfied with Pelosi's record in the House, or not. My opinion isn't relevant.

[MyNameGoesHere]

86. well

1 no she wouldn't be senior enough silly.
2 no silly he will be out of office. you answered your own question.


But i do support her to speak out against anyone that enables, supports, or ignores this war. Pelosi is more or less supporting *'s war by not doing anything. Anyone that "takes impeachment" off the table, when it is NOT HER TABLE to begin with deserves scrutiny and possible replacement by her constituents.

[mzmolly]

93. Rec #3. I support Cindy's desire to run against Nancy P if..

she does so as a Dem in the primaries.

[Cameron27]

102. Well after reading her rant, I'm not sure

how progressive her views are on anything except being anti-bush/anti-war. I want to know her complete platform before I'd ever support her as an actual political candidate. (oh and if I lived in San Francisco lol)

[mzmolly]

104. Oh I agree. I don't support HER as a candidate, but I will support her candidacy

if she runs as a Democrat, make sense? :crazy: I will not support her desire to run as an Inde against Pelosi under any circumstances.

[Cameron27]

105. Gotcha

Thanks :-)

[GeorgeGist]

113. She's a good person ...

doing something.

[kenfrequed]

116. Impeach Bush!

The only appropriate response to this thread is a non-sequitor.

So, once more:

IMPEACH BUSH

[Vidar]

123. Winning is not the point. Pressuring Pelosi is.

[hiphopnation]

128. you would think more people here would understand this

you would be wrong :(

[EFerrari]

130. People seem to get very protective, forgetting where their interests lie

or forgetting, they ARE the party.

[Vidar]

139. You are so right. Way too much black and white thinking here.

[GeorgeGist]

137. ignore

[cassiepriam]

138. She is putting everything on the line to stop the killing, not just pounding a keyboard like us.

Go Cindy. Godspeed with your work.