Do you believe John Conyers' treatment of ...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

...Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern, Reverend Lennox Yearwood, and some 50 others at is office Tuesday was clearly unjustified?

And secondly, do you believe the John Conyers of late has been is a little long on grandstanding and little short on substance?

--------------------------------------------------

---SNIP---

Conyers, on the other hand, was dripping with pretense as he met with Sheehan, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, and me yesterday in his office in the Rayburn building. I have seldom been so disappointed with someone I had previously held in high esteem. And before leaving, I told him so. Throwing salt in our wounds, he had us, and some fifty others in his anteroom arrested and taken out of action as the Capitol Police "processed" us for the next six hours.

Source: http://counterpunch.com/mcgovern07252007.html

[HCE SuiGeneris]

1. I don't have enough (trusted) information to draw a conclusion

either way.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. I trust Ray McGovern to give an accurate account. nt.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

6. My gut/instinct/feeling is that there is much more

behind Conyer's reaction than we know. :tinfoilhat:

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. Yep me too.

[la la]

24. me too n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. So do I

[Forkboy]

2. No and yes.

[mzmolly]

4. No and No.

NO. :hi:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. I hear you...

...Thanks for participating. :hi:

[Oeditpus Rex]

7. No, no

and push polls suck.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

11. Asking for feedback about Conyers' actions...

...at that meeting in the form of a poll violates your sense of fair play? Or is it the particular wording of my question(s)? If so, how would you have worded them?

[Oeditpus Rex]

22. There's nothing at all wrong with posting this poll

A legitimate pollster, however, would've worded the questions something like...

Do you agree with Rep. John Conyers' reaction to Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern, Reverend Lennox Yearwood and some 50 other protestors in his office Tuesday?

(I thought it was 30, but I could be wrong.)

Do you think Rep. Conyers' recent efforts to hold Bush aides accountable to Congress have been in America's best interests or his own?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

34. I don't see that much difference between your

...questions and mine -- I certainly don't agree that mine are illegitimate.

Consider the first question reworded like this:

Do you believe John Conyers' attempt to silence/intimidate the peaceful gathering of proponents for impeachment at his office Tuesday by siccing Capitol Police on them was clearly unjustified?

Or

Do you believe the unruly mob of impeachment fanatics outside John Conyers' office Tuesday got exactly what they deserved?

I think your criticisms could be rightly applied to either of these questions as they are both loaded with very strong rhetorical bias.

That said, I don't try to hide/eliminate any hint of my personal bias when constructing poll questions and I don't think this delegitimizes them at all.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. He bailed one of those activists out of jail in May

Then he had that same activist arrested Monday.

Hello??

I think he is senile.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. He Was 100% Justified. God Bless The REAL Patriot, The Honorable John Conyers.

The others can go fuck themselves for their bullyish and misguided extremism. They've lost their minds.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

14. Ray McGovern an extremist? Lost his mind?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. I'm Disappointed As Well. I Had The World Of Respect For Him.

But after these last few days, it is clear he has lost his sense of reasoning. Hopefully, it is temporary and he will come back to the land of sanity.

Here's to hoping!

:toast:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[mmonk]

21. !

:rofl:

[LittleClarkie]

39. Aren't you sweet.

Suggesting a fellow DUer will be employed by a concentration camp detaining Mr. McGovern later is just beyond the pale.

Is this what people get for merely disagreeing?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

41. Did you read his posts?

..."beyond the pale" describes them perfectly.

[LittleClarkie]

42. He's perfectly welcome to his opinion. You, on the other hand

and not welcome to insult him and basically call him a freeper or worse.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

44. I think my response was pretty mild considering...

...the content of posts. However, if you're so bothered by it take it up with a Mod -- you know where the alert button is.

[LittleClarkie]

48. Indeed I do.

.

[mmonk]

25. I don't see how those pushing for impeachment

aren't patriots also. Especially McGovern. You may disagree with his tactic or position, but you're off base if you think he isn't.

[Swamp Rat]

13. I hope John Conyers

has a supercalafragiclisticexpialadoshic stratagem.


:)

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

15. Me too.

[cynatnite]

16. John Conyers was justified and continues to be the same man he's always been...

one with integrity.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

17. I agree that he is much the same man he's always been...

...and I believe he has integrity, but I also think he has become very much the smooth talker politician over the years. I think it happens to a lot of them after many years inside the Beltway.

[cynatnite]

18. I also think he's very adept when it comes to working within the system...

he knows what they can and can't do. I also think he's one of those rare politicians who speek truth to power regardless of what the majority of the rest do.

[emilyg]

33. Thank you.

[LittleClarkie]

23. Oh, Counterpunch. Swell.

The publication that brought us "dime's worth a difference". The only candidate they liked in 20004 was Dennis, and only just barely.

Nice push poll, btw.

No, and no.

They came to be arrested. They were.

Meanwhile, Conyers is still a good man.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

26. Was there something in Ray McGovern's piece...

...in particular you'd like to take issue with? Did you even read it? Here it is from another site if you have an aversion to Counterpunch.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/24/2736/

As to the poll, please see my post #11 and feel free to answer those questions if you're so inclined.

How do you know it was their intent to be arrested? -- that doesn't sound like Ray McGovern.

I agree that Conyers is a good man, I think he acted wrongly in this case however.

[LittleClarkie]

31. His overall tone

Pretty much the whole smug and self-righteous tone of the thing make my teeth itch, as thing printed in Counterpunch often do.

As for them knowing they'd get arrested, surely that was the point "Today there will be dozens of us who will sit-in Congressman Conyer's office until he agrees to do the right thing and we will risk arrest if he doesn't."

That's the purpose of a protest, isn't it? If you're occupying someone else's space, you generally get removed.

Answering your questions in post 11:

I would have taken out the word "clearly" in the first question and reworded the second so that you weren't describing your own feeling toward Conyers.

In general, a poll should as an objective question, not show the bias of the poll taker. It would be like a pollster asking "Do you believe that George Bush is clearly the greatest president ever and do you think that liberals as of late have shown themselves to be treasonous"

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

37. Your criticism of McGovern's piece...

...lacks substance -- "...smug self-righteous tone of the thing." What specifically did he say that you're taking issue with. He's giving his account of what happened and expressing his disappointment at what Conyers chose to do. He and others had a meeting with Mr. Conyers and ended up spending 6 hours being processed by the Capitol Police for their trouble. What do you think he/they did to deserve that?

Were they there unlawfully? Were they destructive or threatening to anybody? These would be legitimate reasons for removal, and perhaps a brief detention. I would disagree with your suggestion that the purpose of a protest is to end up being physically removed. I can't say with any certainty, however, whether some attending this gathering went there with that intention.

I do not agree that it's important to attempt to remove any hint of bias from a poll question, in fact I'm not sure this is even possible. I think the pollster should basically just try to make questions generally clear and avoid loading them with excessive rhetoric. With hindsight, I think the removal of the word "clearly" from the first question is not a bad suggestion, but I don't think its inclusion amounts to excessive bias. As to the second question, I would acknowledge that it's not difficult to guess my opinion from it, but again, I don't try to sterilize my poll questions with bland, indescript verbiage designed to conceal my viewpoint.

[LittleClarkie]

40. I gave my opinion. You asked for a reason for my reaction. I gave it

Mr. McGovern does not treat Mr. Conyers with even a minimum of respect. I doubt he went into the man's office with any in the first place. Phrases like "dripping with pretense" show that he didn't go in there looking for a meaningful debate. He went in there to antagonize. And antagonize he did.

As for the sit in, they said essentially that either Conyers did exactly what they wanted RIGHT then or they were staying in his office until he did. Unless Rep. Conyers was ready to sublet his office space to these people, I reckon things were always going to end the way they did.

The idea was to make a scene, and make the news. Nevermind that Rep. Conyers is working on going after Gonzalez, a worthy target. Nevermind that Rep. Conyers has always been one of the good guys. Nevermind that Mr. McGovern thinks he can aim dead civil rights leaders at Rep. Conyers as if he spoke for these people, the height of arrogance.

And with that, I'm done. If my comments aren't "substantial" enough for you at this point, oh well.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

43. You're attempting to villify...

...good people who simply wish to be heard and are trying to do what they can to get Congress to do its job and impeach these criminals in the White House before they start WWIII. This, of course, is the standard treatment you dole out when anyone dares to criticize or challenge your beloved Dem leadership in any meaningful way.

I see from your profile comment you write:

I will go down with this ship. And I won't put my hands up and surrender.

Why not pressure Congress to take the necessary steps (impeachment) to keep the ship from sinking? Does that not sound better than going down with the ship? It does to me.

I know, I know, we'll vote them out in '08, win back the White House, and retain both House and Senate, and then you'll see -- we're really gonna show'em then. Keep dreaming, Little Clarkie.

[LittleClarkie]

46. But if Mr. McGovern attempts to vility Rep. Conyers, that's just fine.

I see.

And if you decide to vilify a fellow DUer, suggesting they'd make a good prison camp guard, that is likewise just fine.

Alright then.

I do not attempt to vilify anyone. I gave my opinion.

Btw, that quote has to do with Kerry in 2004. I didn't turn on the man when he lost. I did not surrender my respect for the man.

Do not pretend to know me and what I do or do not dream of. Likewise I rather doubt that you've noticed my posts much. Hence I doubt you really know what "standard treatment" I dole out. Generally, I try to stand up for the rights of both sides to offer their criticisms civilly.

And I don't believe in turning on a good man over one issue that some people want to happen NOW, NOW, RIGHT NOW! I'm not against criticism of these people. But I lose patience with the roller coaster of opinion that some ride. "He's great, he sucks, he's great, he sucks."

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

49. McGovern merely expressed his disappointment...

...with Conyers, that's all.

You come out of the woodwork anytime you see criticism of Dem leadership to vilify, rant, make silly demands, mischaracterize, and ridicule -- none of which passes for reasoned argument.

You're all blow and no substance.

[EFerrari]

50. I agree that when someone who is usually as careful and measured

as Ray is issues such a press release, we're in trouble.

[EFerrari]

27. . . .

AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Conyers, after the Democrats gained control of both houses in the November elections, you wrote the following in a letter to supporters, quote, "As many of you also know, I have agreed with Speaker-to-be Pelosi that impeachment is off the table. Instead, we agree that oversight, accountability and checks and balances, which have been sorely lacking for the past six years, must occur. I have nothing but respect for those who might disagree, but that’s where I come out.” That’s what you wrote, but on January 27, you addressed that mass demonstration against war on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., and had this to say regarding President Bush.

REP. JOHN CONYERS: George Bush has the habit of firing military leaders who tells him the Iraq war is failing. But let me tell you something. He can't fire you. He can't fire us. But we can fire him! We can fire him!

AMY GOODMAN: That was Congressmember Conyers in Washington, D.C. Are you calling for President Bush's impeachment, Congressmember Conyers?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

28. I'd say he's grandstanding, but that's just my opinion. nt.

[EFerrari]

32. Does that sound like Mr. Conyers to you?

:shrug:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

35. Sounds like it could be -- but I don't know if he actually did say ...

...those exact words as represented there.

[EFerrari]

36. Imho, he's been given talking points by Pelosi.

And, imho, that's not sinister or anything, that's just trying to be smart.

But, he doesn't sound like himself, or alternately, he does and then has to issue a correction.

I don't know what's going on but I do know that Mr. Conyers is in an even worse spot than the Speaker is because she never backed the anti war and impeachment movement as he did. :(

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

38. You may be right -- he may be getting pressure. nt.

[orleans]

29. hey....how does it end? what is the answer? or was this amy just

kind of asking a hypothetical?
or was she talking to him?

[EFerrari]

30. That was a bit of the great speech he gave at the Jan DC march

It was a quote of the text of his speech. He got the whole crowd chanting "Impeach!"

There's something screwy here. :(

I think this is the link to the right transcript.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/16/1548232&mode=thread&tid=25

[Breeze54]

45. Are you still beating your wife? -- Yes or No?!

You can't ask two questions, on one poll.

What a load of crap! Your poll sucks.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

47. That's very compelling. Thanks for dropping by. nt.