What underlying shady reason does Cindy Sheehan have for running against Nancy Pelosi?

[LoZoccolo]

Cindy Sheehan has said:

There must be an underlying shady reason that Speaker Pelosi took impeachment off the table.

Now that Ms. Sheehan has made it fair game to fabricate other peoples' intentions wholesale, or even just suspect that they must not be good, what do you think Cindy Sheehan's sordid intentions are? After all, it doesn't make any sense that Ms. Sheehan would be running to impeach a president who will be out of office by the first available time she would make it to Congress.

So what do you think the underlying shady reason is?

Do you think it might be similar to Bev Harris tactics?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Obviously she hates America.

What's Pelosi's reason? I've never heard a good one, so I'm going to have to agree with Sheehan here.

Is it because she wants Bush to remain office to make Dems look that much better in 2008? Because I think that's the reason she's stalling the end of the war too.

[wtmusic]

7. It's reverse psychology

By saying it's off the table, she really means it's ON the table *wink, wink*

[aquart]

8. No, she hates her own impotence.

And I feel for her, but this is now completely counterproductive.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Pelosi?

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

[Hobarticus]

46. Yes, Pelosi can click her ruby slippers together, and end the war today at 3 EST

...if she really, really wanted to.

Hoo boy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. Or, she could have cut the funding.

Ain't responsibility a hassle?

[Hobarticus]

74. She wanted to, and didn't have the votes.

Math is hard.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

93. No, she did have the votes.

She didn't really want to.

Paying attention is easy. Too bad people choose not to.

[Hobarticus]

99. Well, there's reality, and there's the land of flying unicorns.

Where some choose to pay said attention is up to them.

[Virginia Dare]

107. Wow, if Nancy Pelosi..

is willfully warping reality to keep the war going then we ARE in trouble..:wtf:

***PLONK****

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

122. She needed a simple majority, Dave.

That's reality.

[Hosnon]

123. Of BOTH houses and then Bush had to sign it.

She needed veto proof majorities in BOTH houses...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

125. You're confused.

I'm not talking about passing a bill, and then having a veto proof majority.

I'm talking about just not sending the legislation through to beging with.

[Hosnon]

129. Perhaps. But, if so, it's not entirely my fault.

You did respond up-thread that "she could have cut off the funding", right? Seems to be the direction the conversation was going, i.e., actually cutting off the funding. She cannot do that without majorities in both houses and Bush's signature or, in the alternative, veto proof majorities in both houses.

Edit: Content.

Edit: After reviewing the subthread, it seems likely that you are confused. You said that she could have cut off the funding. Then a response noted that she didn't have the votes to cut off the funding. You responded that she did have the votes to cut off the funding and she only needed a majority vote. Your assertion is not accurate.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

130. I don't see why this is so hard to follow.

If the house hadn't voted for the funding, that would have cut the funding.

[Hosnon]

131. I see what you mean now and I agree (to an extent).

Even if she had come out against a defense bill, I do not agree that the Democratic majority would have likely killed it.

And you could have attempted a bit more clarity.

Edit: Content.

[conscious evolution]

139. She did not need the votes

They could have cut the funding by NOT introducing a funding bill.No bill,no funding.

[wryter2000]

84. self delete

Said something stupid the other day because I didn't check first.

[jgraz]

2. Cindy's part of a nefarious conspiracy to actually hold our elected officials accountable

SHE MUST BE STOPPED!

[helderheid]

10. !

:rofl:
:yourock:

[Mark Twain Girl]

82. I second that... !! n/t

[MuseRider]

36. BRAVO! n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

37. Imagine if it were to spread, what the consequenses might be?

[zonmoy]

3. destroying the corporate kleptomaniacs that controls both parties.

[Drum]

4. I just think she's getting (and taking) bad advice. nt

[crikkett]

5. An overwhelming desire for justice and to be of service to her fellow citizens?

Or, a desire to end the war that took her son and hundreds of thousands of other human beings?

[Beelzebud]

6. Thanks to Cindy Sheehan we lost Florida in 2000.

[jgraz]

45. Keyboard...coffee...your fault

:spray:

[mmonk]

9. Where's the proof of fabrication?

If you have it lay it out for her.

[LoZoccolo]

12. Um...there is no proof...that's why it's fabrication.

She just says "there must be". Well, there must be an underlying shady reason why Cindy Sheehan is acting this way, because I say so.

[mmonk]

19. Where's the proof behind Nancy's claims?

So far, we've funded an escalation of war and troop levels. The minimum wage increase (which many states have already exceeded on their own)?

[LoZoccolo]

22. What?

I don't think Nancy made a claim.

[mmonk]

24. I must be mistaken.

She didn't say she is for ending this war? And why take impeachment off the table before you take office? Has that ever been done before in US history?

[brentspeak]

49. You just made an all-time disingenuous statement.

You said: "And why take impeachment off the table before you take office? Has that ever been done before in US history?"

1) Pelosi was already in office when she declared that "impeachment was off the table".

2) She campaigned for reelection with that statement having already been made. The voters of her district knew perfectly well where Pelosi stood on the topic of impeachment before they reelected her.

[mmonk]

54. She was Speaker before the election?

I thought she was minority leader. Did she actually wait until after?

[brentspeak]

63. Again...

You said "office" the first time around, not "Speaker". And you're deliberately omitting the fact, in your posts here, that Pelosi made her intentions perfectly clear before she was reelected this past November.

[mmonk]

76. You're looking further than my intent.

My intent was that she took it off the table before her election, reelection or whatever we might want to call it. She was also known to be the leading candidate to fill the Speaker's job since she was minority leader previous. She made the statement before she assumed that office. That is the entirety of the intent as well as it being unprecedented in my awareness.

[mmonk]

62. I may make mistakes here or there but I don't

try my hand at being disingenuous. I'm a consistent and persistent sob.

[EFerrari]

29. Nancy has been plugging away at ethics reform and doing

a goood job of that. We still have the problem of bundling but she's make real inroads in other ways Congress critters get bought -- like gifts and travel. And that's been an uphill battle for her.

[mmonk]

40. She has had some legislative successes, that's true.

However, she claims she is for ending the war and drawing down troop levels but we've gotten the opposite on both. And the impeachment is off the table thing is in direct contradiction to her duties. It's these areas that there are serious questions which need honest and forthright responses or no one would be trying to run against her except the republicans.

[EFerrari]

53. We sure do live in "interesting" times.

:)

[mmonk]

61. I'm in agreement.

;)

[19jet54]

13. She lost her son...

... and is mad at the world? Her obsession drove her husband away, is stalking POTUS and now attacking the DU and the first ever woman speaker of the house (third in line for POTUS) - Obsessive Compulsive Behavior and post traumatic stress at the loss of her son? She wants everyone to be a miserable as she is, but not really somehow - just irrational behavior really!

[philosophie_en_rose]

14. Delusions of grandeur and financial necessity.

[rocktivity]

15. She's furious with Nancy, of course

which I why I hate the idea of her picketing John Conyers' office. Aside from that, maybe she just wants to do a little good. What would really make me happy is if she ran agains Rahm Emanuel!

:headbang:
rocknation

[AndyA]

16. I have no idea what the underlying shady reason is.

But ask yourself this: Why would anyone, having not been in a position to KNOW FOR A FACT that high crimes and misdemeanors had NOT been committed, make a statement that one of the legal remedies for dealing with such things was "off the table?"

Pelosi made that comment before she was Speaker of the House. She, along with most other Dems, had been shut out by the GOP, so they were in no position to make such a determination.

So why would she make such a statement? It makes no sense. And now that the majority of the American people want impeachment, she hasn't retracted it or further explained it.

Perhaps someday we'll know why Pelosi made such a statement, but it's pretty obvious to me she was way out of line by doing so. She was not in a position at the time to have made that determination.

[HughMoran]

17. I think she's determined to make a difference and quite naive

Maybe naive is good, maybe it's bad, but I highly doubt that her reasons go beyond putting public pressure on Pelosi.

[LoZoccolo]

20. There must be an underlying shady reason. n/t

[HughMoran]

23. lol

Perhaps I missed a tongue-in-cheek somewhere :D

[robcon]

18. The underlying reason is not shady.

Cindy is just not smart enough to figure out what to do. She's good at generating publicity. But she's not so swift when it come to logic, and figuring out what her next steps should be.

[EFerrari]

21. Because she's with the terrorists. n/t

[niceypoo]

25. I am curious why the author of this thread has started so many "I hate Sheehan" threads

Just curious...

[LoZoccolo]

26. For reasons that are similar to those why I say...

FUCK NADER!

[19jet54]

28. A differnt world under Gore...

... I agree - Fuck Nader!

[EFerrari]

30. Nader reads DU? n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

47. No, but scapegoats are a time tested means of diverting people from the real issues,

such as why so many Dems are apparently so comfortable with manipulated elections.

[EFerrari]

55. Yep. It's the woods for the trees problem. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. Me too

[NavyDavy]

71. should be more....

[Marrah_G]

90. Maybe because he doesn't like Sheehan?

:shrug:

Just a wild guess

[churchofreality]

27. Its funny how many of you think everything can be solved by 3rd party

Its bullshit. We have to work within the system we have. Pelosi knows goddamn well if they impeach, they will create sympathy for W albeit maybe only enough to fuck with our chances in 2008. Same with the Iraq pullout. There is only so much we can do without having the Main Stream Media put out headlines like "Democrats refuse to fund our troops!" etc. We need to have patience and work within the framework of the system. We can work to change it but what is the point of fucking ourselves in 2008. Besides, we can't override a veto.

[EFerrari]

35. I haven't seen anyone on this thread say everything can be solved

by third party although, historically, that's were progressive social movements have begun for the most part.

And the presstitutes run those headlines anyway. Just the other day, some idiot in the WSJ was chastising The Left for misrepresenting the success of the escalation -- when that escalation is a miserable failure, too. The press doesn't actually need an event to occur in shared reality to run those headlines, lol.

[Puglover]

31. Why haven't you heard

she is alligned with those filthy spies Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale and they are all working for Fearless Leader who is running it all from Pottsylvannia.

:eyes:

What a useless asinine post. Typical.

[LoZoccolo]

32. Would that make Cindy's comment asinine as well? n/t

[laststeamtrain]

69. Yep.

[swimboy]

80. Dahlink

Must get Moose and Squir-rill!

[MadHound]

33. Yes, darn it

Peace in our time and holding our elected leaders responsible for their actions is so "shady":eyes:

Geez LZ, you are reaching more and more with every thread that you start.

[LoZoccolo]

38. Those are her stated reasons, not the underlying shady ones.

Which are there. They must be.

[MadHound]

48. Projection perhaps? Or maybe you've just been dealing in politics too long

And lord knows, politicians have underlying reasons for most everything that they do.

Cindy isn't a politician, in fact quite the opposite, she's very open and honest, you would know that if you knew her.

However I understand, Cindy has dared to stand up and speak truth to Democratic power *gasp*. Sorry, but Dems are far from faultless, as we've seen from their initial and ongoing support for this illegal, immoral war. Cindy is simply demanding two things from her rep, action and accountability. Damn, our government would run a hell of a lot better if we all did the same, don'tcha think?

[LoZoccolo]

50. This is not projection.

This is just because I say so. Which was good enough for Cindy Sheehan.

[MadHound]

59. LOL!

The problem is when you say so, you sound like a small child pouting. When Cindy wants answers, she sounds like an intelligent adult questioning our government. Big difference.

[Marrah_G]

95. I guess it matters where you are coming from.

You think he sounds like a pouting child and I think Ms. Sheehan does, neither of us are wrong. Just depends on which side of the fence you are sitting on.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. Her "sordid intentions" are to save her country

And she has made that very clear. It is also obvious that impeachment starts NOW, not in 2009.

And comparing her to Bev Harris is just so incredibly ignorant I don't know what to comment.

[IChing]

41. A DLC flamewaring Hillaryite scared of little old Cindy

disgusting thread.

[LoZoccolo]

43. Hillaryite?

I've actually been more in support of Obama. Nor have I ever been a member of the DLC.

[tjwash]

51. Are you now, or have you ever, been a member of the...

oops...wrong thread.

:yoiks:

[brentspeak]

57. You're the same person who accused me of being a "DLCer", as well

I responded to your bizarre accusations with links to my own posts which blasted the DLC, and then you still kept up with the "you're a DLCer!" routine.

[NaturalHigh]

42. I personally think she's crazy...

and that she can't get enough attention. If they would just give her a talk show or make her a regular on the Jerry Springer Show or something, she would probably be satisfied.

[bluedog]

44. she's hit sometalk shows.....

like Morning Joe...watch for her to been more.....and the Freeper board just loves whats shes doing......

[NaturalHigh]

58. I'll bet they do...

She makes a good caricature. Republicans couldn't write this kind of propaganda that she gives for free.

[EFerrari]

60. Because they're too stupid to understand what she's doing.

Like it or not, she's forced Junior to backpeddle on camera and she's making MSM anchos say "impeachment". She doesn't get the Tact Award, but she is forcing those things to happen.

[Individualist]

52. What underlying shady reason do you have for trashing Cindy?

...as if we didn't know.

[MiniMe]

64. The question I have is, Cindy is running because she wants impeachment

back on the table. But if she were to win, Chimpy would be out of office, or would be within 3 weeks. So what does it accomplish? I'm not trashing anybody here, it is a real question.

[bluedog]

70. no answers to your question?

I want to know also.bush will be out....what will cindys election do FOR the people of that district?...what are her policies?.......what are her platform issues?.........can't be impeachment.that will be moot!

[Hobarticus]

79. It's a valid question, one no one answers...

Except with tirades aginst Pelosi and Dems in Congress, and backhanded swipes against people who'd ask the question by those swept up in the cult of personality.

[IChing]

97. Guerilla theater

the dramatization of political and social issues as a means of protest or propaganda.

[Cameron27]

98. Excellent question.

[buddhamama]

65. i know...

she had the gall to read the Constitution and mistakenly believe that as a citizen it applied to her too. :eyes:

[EFerrari]

66. Posters to this board already made it necessary for Skinner

to issue an apology. Are we going for #2? It's embarrassing already.

It's possible to disagree with and oppose what Cindy Sheehan is doing without these scurrilous, sulfurous attacks.

[LoZoccolo]

72. I have not made any accusations against Cindy Sheehan in this post...

...that she didn't make against someone herself.

[EFerrari]

77. Aim low.

:)

[seemslikeadream]

67. Maybe Cindy even likes Greg Palast

now there's a scary thought, or even Cynthia McKinny? :sarcasm:

[fishnfla]

68. Cindy supporters need to be careful

Hell has no fury like a grieving mother. She will use, or turn her back on, or attack anyone....I know I feel betrayed, having sent money to the Crawford Peace House back before Katrina when I could afford such things. Now I find out as a Dem, I support slavery, according to Cindy. Great, thanks

From personal experience, after the death of my bro this past year my mom's bitterness has been beyond consolation to the detriment of all personal relationships. It is all consuming and without consort. Its understandable, one of those things that unless it has happened to you, there's no way of comprehending. Perhaps they view the others who have not gone thru it as naive.

I wonder, how much money was raised here by DUers? She attacked us for one post.

[Forkboy]

73. I heard she's been holding secret meetings with Nader under bridges.

I know,I'm stunned too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. She gets a monthly check from the Kremlin..or, Havana,...or, Caracas.

That's IT!!! From Hugo, the other arch villain of the "moderates".

[Yukari Yakumo]

134. Her checks come from Faux Noise Channel

When you really think about it, whose agenda does she better serve than theirs?

[Forkboy]

136. Please.

That Fox News can't wait for the war to end. :eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

137. They're probably lost in the mail..like the ones we didn't get when we protested LBJ's war.

And, heard the same kind of pure crappola.

[davidwparker]

78. Cindy Sheehan running has really upset your apple cart. How many

anti-Cindy posts do you put out a day?

Anybody can run for any office in this country. It helps provide accountability to the public.

[NaturalHigh]

81. I agree that anyone can run for office.

I've consistently defended Nader's runs for office, even though I would personally never vote for him. However, that doesn't make them immune from criticism. If Cindy Sheehan wants to take on the Democratic incumbent, she had better be ready to have her views and actions under a microscope.

[Hobarticus]

86. If she can't hack scrutiny, then she can't hack public office...

Having supported her in the past and for the most part respecting her today, you bet damn skippy I have every right to ask, "what the hell? Why are you saying these things? Was I a useful idiot, a means to an end?"

Come to think of it, she sounds like a politician, after all.

[davidwparker]

108. It's not the criticism. I was noticing that the poster had several comments

yesterday and then I noticed it again today. Even that's fine. No complaint. Just pointing out to the poster that it's a bit noticeable.

[LoZoccolo]

109. In case you haven't noticed, I have a strong dislike for third parties.

Or left-wing third parties, rather.

[mzmolly]

83. "Bev Harris"

Interesting analogy. One that occurred to me yesterday in fact. :(

[LoZoccolo]

87. The sad thing is that at a deep level, I feel very sorry for her.

I think she's a very hurt person who lost a son, and did some constructive things with her grief, but the people surrounding her and supporting her financially have started to use her in provoking her to do some unconstructive things, and I think that she doesn't see that and won't get the help she needs to get back to doing good for the soldiers still fighting and get them back home.

[mzmolly]

92. I agree. She's lost focus. And there appears to be a cult like mentality

effecting/surrounding her? She's such a smart passionate woman, but I fear she's inching away from reality and the end goal "end the war."

[Gregorian]

85. I think she genuinely wants to stop the dying.

Don't ask me how this is supposed to stop the dying. I don't know. But it's at least SOMETHING. And it's obviously what she's doing. No more dead kids. She's doing whatever is in her means, including sleeping in a ditch as Chimpy's limo drives by.

[AndreaCG]

88. If Sheehan wants to run, let her do so in the Democratic primary

Third party candidacies in the current political era are pissing in the wind, with the notable exception of Lieberman and he was an incumbent Senator. The Republicans abandoned thir party's nominee to support him, since his positions were closely aligned with theirs.

If Sheehan manages to come out on top in the Democratic primary, it will show a tipping point in politics. Pelosi is unlikely to pull a Lieberman and run as an independent.

[Madspirit]

89. What Underlying Shady Reason Do You Have For Attacking Cindy?

Even if you don't agree with her, what is the point of this demonizing thread?
Lee

[LoZoccolo]

91. To point out that it's not nice to talk like that. n/t

[Forkboy]

94. Says the guy with a "Fuck Nader" av.

Remove the log from your own eye there before harping on someone else for not talking nice.

[LoZoccolo]

96. Nader has threatened the lives of millions of people every four years since 1996. n/t

[Forkboy]

100. And like the Repubs you find a reason why your behavior is ok while criticizing it in others.

When does act 2 start?

[Turn CO Blue]

101. Cindy Sheehan would not be running as a Democrat

and this board supports Democrats and the Democratic Party.

Cindy Sheehan has expressed views that seem to be libertarian. Her advisor is a Libertarian. She has made it clear that she is running on a third party.

She is not a progressive except for her pacifism.

Is impeachment the only issue that Democrats and progressives are concerned about? Hell no! The war is certainly an atrocity and a travesty, and BushCo all need to be impeached (or otherwise held accountable) but there are many people who feel that the war is NOT the most important political or moral issue of the times.

Many people on this board feel that the climate crisis the most important issue in 1000 years. There are other people who feel that upholding Roe is the most important women's issue in 50 years. There are others who think that the fairness doctrine would reinstate the "fourth estate" and that that would do more to empower the citizenry than anything one future Congresswoman like Cindy could EVER do.

And for those who want to vote for her and support her, there are MANY, MANY other issues that she should be questioned about! What is her FULL platform?

Is she merely a one or two-issue candidate? Only the war and impeachment? Since she could not take office before January of 2009 (and Bush/Cheney will be out by then) what will she spend her time doing if she were fortunate enough to gain Pelosi's seat?

Is Cindy pro-choice?
Does she support universal healthcare or single pay health insurance?
What is her platform on Social Security?
Since she thinks the income tax is illegal, what is her solution for funding the US government?
What is her platform on the climate crisis?
What is she doing to influence net neutrality?
What is her position on labor unions?
What is her position on campaign finance reform?
What is her position on separation of church and state?
Who would be her advisors and staff? More libertarians?
What committees would she want to be on?
Does she know how to run a formal full hearing, how to meet with foreign dignitaries, how to host any meeting without

I doubt she would answer these questions, because she is a one issue woman and hasn't even considered the ramifications of the other issues of governing. Which means she is not qualified to hold the position of Congresswoman.

[bluedog]

102. Bravo...............well written.....

[EFerrari]

105. DU attacks Cindy no matter what. When she expresses an opinion

an anything other than ending the war, she's "lost her focus". If she doesn't, she's a "one issue woman". And unless you're Kreskin (and I suspect you're not), you don't know what she has or has not considered.

Edit: punc

[Turn CO Blue]

112. Not just DU. Markos himself troll-rated Cindy on DKos

Why is that? Because DKos, just like DU, is dedicated to supporting Dem candidates and the Democratic party. Her diary on DKos was in DIRECT VIOLATION of the terms of posting diaries on DKos and she has gone off the deep end on that whole Democratic-party bashing theme. 100's and 100's of DKos posters troll-rated her diary and want her banned.

And so you can blame it on the Democratic Undergrounders here -- but what about the other 300K people who never heard of DU that have turned hard against her? There are other blogs and forums out there where the anti-Cindy sentiment makes what is happening here on DU look MILD in comparison. So ask yourself that? Why? Why are so many progressive posters (on DU, DKos and elsewhere) turning against Cindy?

Because she turned against us first. Look at this sentence in her latest tirade:

The democratic blogosphere has predictably lined up against me and must be very frightened because they are repeating the scandalous lies of the right. Wow, the right and left are finding common ground over slandering me. I must be a uniter.

What a petulent and ridiculous statement to make! The democratic blogosphere has predictably lined up against her? what. the. hell? The democratic blogosphere GAVE her a microphone and an outlet these two years! The democratic blogosphere MADE her a leading voice! And sent her literally TONS of supplies and support when she founded Camp Casey.

I am NOT supporting a Libertarian PERIOD no matter her views on the war or on impeachment or that she lost her son. I don't support Libertarians. Period.

I don't support people who DARE to compare Conyers and those Repuke chicken hawks in the same breath. Period.

[Cameron27]

113. Thank you.

I will NEVER support a Libertarian or anyone spouting Libertarian BS. I'm here to get progressive Democrats elected.

"I don't support people who DARE to compare Conyers and those Repuke chicken hawks in the same breath. Period."


:applause: :applause: :applause:

[EFerrari]

115. Could you please post a link where Cindy called Mr. Conyers

a chicken hawk? Because I must have missed that. :)

[Cameron27]

118. When she spewed her Libertarian, isolationist bs

that suggested that the Democrats belong to a party that is (not past tense) pro-slavery, was warmongering, and supported an unconstitutional income tax, she dumped on all of us, Mr. Conyers included. She protests that both parties are the same ----> chickenhawk Republicans=chickenhawk Democrats.

[EFerrari]

119. Sorry, I must have missed the link in all that venom.

:)

[Cameron27]

120. I'm sorry that you feel that way. It's not venom, it's

disappointment. But I don't want to argue with you or get flippant sfexpat. I think you're one of the best DUers around, so I'll just leave it with a disagreement over Cindy's methods.

Peace

[EFerrari]

121. I don't want to offend you. Did Cindy call Mr. Conyers a chickenhawk

or not? That's really all I'm trying to determine.

[Cameron27]

124. Why is it so difficult for you to see that

when Cindy, like Nader, suggests that the Republicans and Democrats are the same, then every insult that's used against them can be used against us. No, there's no link to her specifically calling Conyers a chickenhawk, there's no need for one when someone issues a blanket broadbrush attact against the entire party.

I expect you'll disagree, but I'm finished with this particular conversation.

[EFerrari]

127. Okay!

[EFerrari]

114. Kos has rules. That's fine. So does DU .

And no one has compared John Conyers to chicken hawks except in your imagination. :shrug:

[Turn CO Blue]

116. If she isn't singling out Conyers then why is she

going to be in HIS face? She should go to sBoehner's office or to Lieberman's office. Those are the ones still supporting the occupation in Iraq and giving interviews spouting their stay-the-course message!

And Conyers has been collecting a mountain of evidence against the entire Administration just like a good lawyer and investigator would do. Why does HE of all Congressmen, deserve to be embarrassed and harrassed by her? He is the one holding hearing after hearing after hearing. I'm surprised he's had time to sleep, he's been so methodical and active in pursuing the thousands of crimes of BushCO.

And now Conyers going after Miers for Contempt of Congress. That is fantastic news! This sets up the Constitutional crisis we've all been waiting for... Does Cindy really want to distract and dilute the issues and detract from this new development by harrassing Conyers?

Cindy should go back to harrassing Bush. It just made more sense.

[EFerrari]

117. Can you provide a link where Mr. Conyers, the House member

that would be charged with bringing impreachment, was called a chicken hawk?

/spellin'

[Turn CO Blue]

126. I am not following you

or something. I wrote that the Repubs were chicken hawks - I never wrote that Cindy said that conyers or the Repubs were chicken hawks. I usually write "Repuke chicken hawk" as one word description of Repubs in my OWN contempt of Repubs. Didn't mean to imply she said that or wrote it.

What she did do though --Cindy is targeting Conyers and she is seemingly saying that Democrats and Republicans are the same thing now -- so much so that she feels that she has to abandon Dems and join a third party. She said that the Democrats were the party of slavery and so she wasn't going to be a Democrat anymore.

[EFerrari]

128. Your #112 on this thread:

"I don't support people who DARE to compare Conyers and those Repuke chicken hawks in the same breath. Period. "

Am I misreading that?

Because I know for a fact that Cindy and Mr. Conyers have worked together on several occasions and that she is petitioning him, not attacking him in any way. :shrug:

[Turn CO Blue]

138. I will

give you that she is planning to petition him, perhaps I shouldn't read that as an "attack". But she definitely has been attacking his Party by name and attacking his supposed lack of action. And she is attacking Pelosi. So which one of them is the one who is singlehandedly obstructing the impeachment proceedings? She can't blame everyone together and singly.

And she is still singling HIM out for her petition...why is that? She did write that she was puzzled by Conyer's "rhetoric" (a rude word) and has denounced him as having "two minds", being the "two Conyers", etc. Perhaps not ad hominem attacks, but still referring to all the Dems as Congressional midgets and in the same letter saying that no one is a "giant" in Congress anymore. I do feel that Conyers HAS been a giant. She is by inference saying that he is a "congressional midget" (her word).

How many hearings has he called now since becoming Chair? And they are all tackling corruption and obstruction by the Administration.

Then she wrote her open letter to Congress about how she was leaving the Dem party. So does she want it both ways - both being invited to their hearings and being recognized by them and then being able to bash them whenever she wants when she won't recognize them or their positive moves forward in collecting evidence?


By Cindy's logic -- the the war is all Conyer's fault because he hasn't impeached (yet) -- as if impeachment alone would remove anyone from office. As if impeachment alone would ensure that Bush or Cheney goes to prison (it doesn't -- it only removes them from office if convicted). As if impeachment alone would suddenly end the war. It all is illogical. Impeachment does not equal the end of the war. Only the commander in chief (along with the Joint Chiefs of staff) can give the order to deploy or move out.

[EFerrari]

142. By Cindy's logic you petition John Conyers because HE IS THE CHAIR

of the right House committee. Oh, geeze.

[Turn CO Blue]

141. She compares Dems to Repubs all the time since last Oct

How can she continue to make the old Nader-ite "Democrats = Repubs" argument in all seriousness? Is she serious?

Are the Dems equally accountable for not stopping the war just because they haven't impeached yet? As written above, it's preposterous to pretend that Pelosi could end the war and bring the troops home in time for dinner if ONLY she'd get up and click her Ruby Slippers 3 times!

Cindy is scathing in her opinion of Dems in her open letter where she wrote why she was leaving the Democratic party and she is scathing of Pelosi in her statement about why she is running against her, and she is now scathing of the "liberal blogs" and the "democratic blogosphere" in her latest responses about the reaction she received the other day on Daily Kos where she was troll-rated by Markos (and 100s of others) and very nearly banned.

And she has singled Conyers out for her apparent scorn as if he alone can bring impeachment. Ha ha ha!

As if impeachment equals stopping the war.

As if impeachment would mean that anyone would go to jail.

I'd be more sympathetic if Cindy's purity test for action was for de-funding instead of calling for impeachment.

Impeachment does NOT mean that they would be removed from office or that they would go to jail or that they would have to stop the war. As if. As if. As if. Only the commander in Chief (such as the state of that post is today...sigh) can give the order to move out.

[EFerrari]

143. No, she approached John Conyers because he is the Chair

of the House Judiciary Committee.

[Yukari Yakumo]

140. My question is, why hasn't Skinner done the same? {nt}

[BlooInBloo]

135. Links to where she's been accused of having "lost her focus"? I haven't heard that...

... It seems odd, though, to not be interested in a national candidate's views on a wide range of topics.

[EFerrari]

144. There are posts like that right in this thread. So, upthread,

I don't want to piss anyone else off today. lol

[sniffa]

103. you disappoint me

this isn't in poLL form.

[LoZoccolo]

104. My polls are typically simple yes/no questions.

This one would warrant possibly several choices, and run the risk of not including important ones. I prefer the two-choice ones because that way they can be free of push-polling tendency.

[sniffa]

110. if it's one thing you don't do, it's push poLLing

[BuyingThyme]

106. Politics and power over the law of the land. That's as slimy as it gets.

Thanks for clarifying Pelosi's sliminess.

[mainegreen]

111. Gee LoZoccolo, I don't know. Maybe because she's doing it because she's secretly republican?

That's usually your theory on these things isn't it?

[Jamastiene]

132. Cindy's Revenge on DU for bashing her so much:

Say just about anything and watch DU'ers form a circular firing squad so she can laugh her ass off. :P

[BlooInBloo]

133. Obviously she's fighting against the party of slavery. Duh.

[devilgrrl]

145. To piss you off...

obviously it's working :evilgrin: