Remember when we were all pissed at Cindy et al for protesting at Conyers' Office?

[Warren Stupidity]

Perhaps she had a point, huh?

At what point do we stop lying back and taking it from our party leadership? When they give Bush another 50B for this bullshit war, will your outrage spur you to action?

Perhaps she had a point.

[bananas]

1. I wasn't pissed at her

I was pissed at some other people...

[noamnety]

2. Conyers addressed this at the townhall this week.

He said "I love and respect Cindy."

That was NOT qualified with any "buts." He was speaking, by the way, with Ann Wright, who he said he also loves. She was arrested in his office within the last few weeks as well. They joked about that on stage.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Conyers says a lot of things.

He doesn't appear to do very much.

[cali]

4. He has a long and distinguished and very liberal

career. He's holding important investigations. But because he's not impeaching, you discard all of that.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. It isn't just Conyers.

But yes his decision to go along with Pelosi on impeachment was unforgivable. Conyers is just one example. More to the point, the leaders in the House and Senate are despicable. Watch as they fail to use the AG appointment to their advantage. Watch as they vote another 50B for war. Watch as they continue to support every part of the War Party agenda while making the occasional token gesture toward the base to keep the mob distracted.

[cali]

7. Gross generalizations

unforgivable? To YOU. I don't find anything he's done unforgivable. Disappointing? Sure. Unforgivable. Not so much.

All the leaders in the the House and Senate are despicable? Again, I don't agree. And we'll see if the dems vote for the extra 50 billion. I'm not going to condemn them unless, and until, they do so.

Frankly, nothing my Senators or rep have done, engenders rage and loathing in me. In fact, I'm proud to be represented by them.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. Why are you even involved in politics?

Maybe you should try a different hobby. Perhaps civil war reenactment.

[cali]

11. self-delete

[crikkett]

13. LOL

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

36. Heh.

:evilgrin:

[Cameron27]

37. !

:spray:

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Did I personally insult you?

[Truth2Tell]

78. It's all they have to say

Warren. Welcome to kindergarden politics. You are up against hero worship here. Common sense is simply a wasted effort.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Warren Stupidity]

56. Wow, such a low blow.

Conyers is symbolic of the failure of the progressive wing of our Democratic delegation in Congress to DO ANYTHING AT ALL this session.

[nini]

59. So. the numbers of Dem vs Repub in the Senate and House mean nothing?

Until the Republicans go along with things we're screwed. The number don't add up.


sucks but it's true.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. "sucks but it's true."

Usually after you call somebody an idiot the conversation is over. I'll refrain from returning the favor. Instead I will point out what did get accomplished this session, as you seem to have recently awoken from a coma.

The escalation of our occupation of Iraq sailed through both houses of congress.

Investigations into the activities of the cabal stalled when the white house told Congress to 'fuck off' and Congress promptly did just that.

Oh, but before they left they legalized executive branch spying on US citizens without benefit of warrant and without judicial oversight.

They are about to throw another 50B onto the Iraq bonfire because otherwise they wouldn't be sportindatroops.

Sucks but its true.

[jgraz]

69. Nailed it

:thumbsup:

[Tesha]

9. Great times demand great actions.

Where are the great Democrats?

Tesha

[cali]

12. Let me name some for you:

Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Barbara Boxer.

[Tesha]

15. Ahh -- that must explain why the war is over and we all have health care.

And, oh yeah, Bush, Cheney, and all their cronies are in jail.

Tesha

[cali]

16. That's fucking logical???

Yeah, because if they only waved their magic wands that would happen.

Yikes, scary to see this kind of "thinking".

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. Indeed.

I just got accused of spreading "DLC talking points" in another thread for pointing out the obvious - that a failed impeachment attempt would be a strategic disaster for us. Apparently acknowledging reality makes one a DLC shill these days. Two weeks ago in another thread I had someone tell me that the political center was a fictitious creation of the right wing. :crazy:

[Tesha]

21. Oddly enough, after the Republicans *FAILED* at impeachment, they *WON* everything else.

> that a failed impeachment attempt would be a strategic disaster for us.

Oddly enough, after the Republicans *FAILED* at impeaching Clinton,
they *WON* everything else including the Presidency. Yes, they took
a small hit in 1998, but they sure came roaring back in 2000.*

Cowardice is recognized by the electorate, and our current crop
of Democrats are all cowards.

Tesha



* And don't hand me any whiny-ass bullshit about "Oh, but
that election was stolen!!!" They're in the Oval Office,
we're not, and that has made all the difference.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. I don't consider the scenario to be like the Clinton impeachment at all.

For one thing, the GOP in Congress was much stronger under Clinton than we are under Bush, and what slim majority we now hold is dependent upon a number of moderate and conservative leaning Democrats in districts that I do not think would react well to impeachment proceedings. Impeaching Bush would be a far more divisive issue within the Democratic party than impeaching Clinton was for the Republicans, and I think it would effectively shatter any notion we might have of maintaining a vaguely united front within the Party for 2008. It's all really a moot point anyway, as impeachment isn't going to happen unless the situation changes radically from where we are today, so we'll probably never know whether I'm right or wrong.

[Tesha]

27. If you think we're united, you're in for a surprise in 2008.

And a lack of action on impeachment (or even investigation)
is a big reason why we're not united.

Tesha

[JVS]

39. You think that impeaching a widely disapproved of president is riskier...

than impeaching a popular one at the height of a very prosperous time?

And on party unity, not being willing to even threaten impeachment, let alone do it, is far more damaging to both party credibility and unity that a "we gave it our best shot, but those SOB's thwarted us" attempt (think of GOP state legislatures that ban abortion and/or flag burning, knowing all the while that they'll be struck down by the courts)

[shimmergal]

40. Two coup attempts; they failed at the first

(the Clinton impeachment) and succeeded, thanks to one or five persons' vote on the Supreme Court, at the second.

I'm not crazy enough to say it made no difference, just that both were coup set-ups, not legitimate politics. Do we have plans for a coup well in hand, should an impeachment fail to dislodge Bush/Cheney and a Repub. win the 2008 election?

I didn't think so.

[DancingBear]

74. Stop this!

This sort of factual thought process DOES NOT fit within the party guidelines.

You will be attacked by a bunch of people all wearing blue suits who claim they are "different" if you keep this up and continue to color outside the lines.

You have been warned.

[PBass]

47. Pointing out the obvious? Heh....

A "failed impeachment attempt" would not be a political disaster. Any attempt at impeachment would positively ignite the Democratic base (as well as loads of independants who are sick of Bush). History would show that the Democratic party TRIED to stop Bush. And even a failed impeachment attempt would be a deterrant to future presidents, from breaking the law.

No impeachment = No consequences for Bush trampling over the law

Democrats must TRY. Excuses for not trying because "somebody might get mad" or "gee, what impact will this have on my own personal career (I might lose some votes)" are beneath contempt.

[Tesha]

22. I'm just wondering what all those "powerful" Democrats are doing.

They do have a majority in the House and Senate, by the way,
and the war could be ended *WITH NO RISK OF FILLIBUSTER*
simply by voting "no" on the funding.

Maybe there's a power shortage?

Tesha

[emulatorloo]

42. The Dem Majority in the senate isONE vote, and that includes LIEberman -- they will have to get more

Repubs on board. So far that is not happening, so write your repub senator.

[saracat]

46. Really? They do not have a super majority and without one they can't do much but set the agenda.

learn about how government operates please.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. Oddly enough they can't even do that.

Nor can they obstruct the War Party agenda, as we have seen. We've all seen how our party operates. When it is in the minority it is too weak to block any legislation or appointments. When it is in the majorty it is too weak to enact any legislation or to block the major legislative initiatives of the minority party.

[jgraz]

68. Really? Can't Pelosi keep a funding bill off the House floor forever?

That's what setting the agenda is all about. The Rethugs did it all the time when they controlled Congress.

[Tesha]

71. At what point during the Clinton Presidency did the Republicans have a Veto-proof majority?

A lot of the Republican's program got passed during the
Clinton Presidency -- At what point did the Republicans
have a veto-proof majority in the Senate?

Don't lecture me about learning how my government works.
I know perfectly well that *IF THE DEMOCRATS WANTED TO
STOP THE WAR, ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS TO VOTE DOWN THE
FUNDING BILLS IN THE HOUSE*. And that action can't be
vetoed; all it takes is a simple majority of Democrats
actually willing to do something to stop the war.

Tesha

[timtom]

79. Why do we always leave Kucinich out of the equation?

I can see marginalization from the MSM, but here? On DU?

He is one of the truly great Democrats and Americans.

[nini]

54. Why are you at DU if you really believe that?

seriously :shrug:

Does Kucinich qualify?

[Tesha]

72. Vote for him and see.

At least Dennis is willing to express *DEMOCRATIC IDEALS*.
This is a far cry from Hillary's pablum.

I'm here because Democrats used to stand for what was
right and not be afraid to say it. Civil Rights, for
example. And I'm hopeful that one day, they may be
willing to do that again.

Dennis is doing it today -- why not join him?

Tesha

[robinlynne]

45. more than anyone of us has ever done....

Don't get me wrong, I'm pisssed off at my party. at pelosi, at most dems in senate and congress. furious. But not Conyers.

[defendandprotect]

33. I felt the same outrage that Cindy felt when they gave new funds for the war --

If we had anything left of a "free press" it would take about 10 minutes to toss this administration out --

[JNelson6563]

67. He was a class act, in spite of her behavior

misguided as it is sometimes.

We have a first-hand report from a DUer in the Michigan forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=159x10733

Before the event began, I had a chance to talk the Chairman Conyers. I asked him if we're going to be hearing "inherent contempt" when Congress is back in session. He basically said there's a good chance it could happen, and he referred to it later in his speech.

Conyers, of course, was the highlight of the evening. He opened up by saying, in response to all of the "IMPEACH" signs around the auditorium, that he has no reluctance to impeachment in general when it is appropriate.

He respects and loves Cindy Sheehan and he respects all of the people there in that room.

He defended Nancy Pelosi's statement that impeachment is off her table, but then he stated that it is not off of his table and that she can't prevent him from bringing articles of impeachment if he decides it's the right thing to do.

He spoke about all of the Republicans leaving a sinking ship and rattled off a partial list: Scooter Libby, Monica Goodling, Karl Rove, Don Rumsfeld, Scott Jennings, and a number of others and, finally, Alberto Gonzales (cheers all around).

There's a link to a video of the forum in SharonRB's post too, I hope many DUers will check it out. It's great stuff!

:toast: :toast:

Julie

[noamnety]

80. Nothing he said was "in spite of" her behavior.

I'm guessing he wouldn't appreciate you putting that sort of spin on his words - implying that he had something other than love AND respect for Cindy, but is just to classy to say so.

He didn't bring her up because someone asked his opinion about her, incidentally. He put that in his speech unprovoked, because it was something he wanted known. And that is also a first-hand report (you'll see my name referenced in the post you linked).

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. No...

Should I remember? Was I not around for that particular Hate Week?

[crikkett]

14. Last week of July I think

just before recess.

d

[sendero]

17. Oh I see...

.... we're supposed to hate the warmongers, but not those who COULD stop them but choose not to.

Just so we're clear, mmm'k?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. I'd rather not...

...spend time figuring out who I should or should not hate.

[sendero]

24. Awww...

.. he's finding the high ground. Call it hate or whatever you want, holding leaders to account is not wrong, not holding them is.

[Virginia Dare]

44. The source of the outrage was primarily..

David Lindorff's subsequent trashing of John Conyers.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/lindorff/003

[MethuenProgressive]

8. "we were all pissed"? Not me, my friend.

[cooolandrew]

19. Cindy is the main hero out of the last 6 years. Wouldn't bash her for a second.

[Tom Joad]

30. Fannie Lou Hammer of the new century.

[defendandprotect]

34. Gawd how I loved her -- !!! The totally powerless speaking to the powerful --

and she was so moving they had to get her off TV -- !!!!

She was a speaker who could entrance and hypnotize you --

"This little light of mine" -- an unbelievable singing voice.

[bigtree]

20. the (false) premise behind her protest is that Conyers is capable of more than he's already doing

I happen to think he's doing an outstanding job in his committee. The problem with the lack of support in Congress for impeachment should not be laid at his door. He recognizes the lack of support and is moving forward on a different track to hold the administration accountable (investigative hearings) instead of just sitting on his hands and satisfying himself that he supports a remedy which has almost no chance of being put into effect.

He doesn't deserve ANY protest.

[rodeodance]

25. I was not ticked of and had hoped she would make a difference. and probably

she did in her own way---along with many others

[Mutineer]

28. I wasn't pissed off at her at all. I thought it was a great idea.

Still do. I, and a lot of other people, want answers from Conyers and Pelosi on a lot of issues. We pay them. They deserve to give us those answers instead of bullshit rhetoric.

[Tom Joad]

29. Quiet. Dems are supporting Bush while he prepares to attack Iran.

are you on the side of the terrorists? :sarcasm:

For those who don't think that's true, just listen to the response to Bush speech of this last weekend.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=304665&mesg_id=304667

not to mention their refusal to vote for an amendment requiring bushboy to come to congress before he commences any attack against Iran.

[IndianaJones]

31. Truth. nt.

[Javaman]

32. What's this "we" crap? nt

[Hissyspit]

35. Um, we? You mean some?

I wasn't pissed at her at all. Have never been.

[EFerrari]

38. Of course she did. And it wasn't only Cindy, remember?

It was Ray McGovern and a bunch of other people, too.

edit: to add

[NotGivingUp]

41. Damn straight she had a point! I was never pissed at her. n/t

[mdmc]

43. God Bless Her

Conyers too

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Yes of course 'we' is hyperbole.

Please pardon my excess. I think the point was clear.

I keep trying to rephrase my outrage hoping that there is some magic combination of words, some magical pattern of bits, that will actually effect change. It is a foolish idea.

[stirlingsliver]

50. Umm...Not "All Of Us" Were Pissed.

Not all of us were pissed at Cindy.

Some of us thought that she was doing the right thing.

[porphyrian]

51. We weren't all pissed at her. Some were. - n/t

[sniffa]

55. who's we?

:shrug:

[paulk]

57. she had no more of a point than you do

why don't you wait and see what happens with the 50B before the chicken little routine?

[BlooInBloo]

58. I was only pissed at her for saying I belonged to the party of slavery...

.... and then cravenly running away from that statement.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. yes that was stupid.

Of course it is also an historical fact. But she does run off at the mouth sometimes.

[BlooInBloo]

63. It's thoroughly deceitful race-baiting.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. The Democratic Party

was the party of segregation. It was also the party of slavery - the anti-abolition party - prior to that. The split of the segregationist wing out of the party did not begin until after FDR's death, and was not complete until LBJ drove a nail into that coffin with the civil rights act of 1964.

What Cindy said was stupid politcally, but not entirely deceitful.

[BlooInBloo]

66. And you're carrying on the deciet. It was a different party of the same name....

... And everyone knows it.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. No it was not a different party

You really need to do some research. "The Solid South" was solidly Democratic because of the racial politics of the Democratic Party. The end of reconstruction and the disenfrachisement of the black population of the south was engineered by our Democratic Party, the same one we support today. FDR's Grand Coalition merged the segregationist southern wing of the party with the emerging urban progressive union-based northern branch into an unbeatable political force, but it did so by allowing the segregationists to continue their apartheid system. It was an uneasy alliance but it held together until the first spilt under Truman in 48 and the final split under LBJ in 64. After that all the southern racists went over to the GOP (after a brief flirtation with Wallace) bringing us into the current situation.

We are still struggling inside the party with the aftermath of the collapse of FDR's coalition under LBJ. Claiming that we can ignore our party history because it was 'a different party of the same name' is a pathetic argument.

Here, read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party#Civil_War.2C_Reconstruction.2C_and_the_Gilded_Age:_1854-1896

[cali]

75. Bullshit.

Comparing the dem party today with the dem party of 150 years ago is deceitful, disgusting and race baiting, but I'm glad she did it: She's marginalizing herself further, and that's more than fine with me.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. How about the Democratic Party of 1963? 1947?

When exactly did the Democratic Party become not the Democratic Party? What year demarcates the two separate parties?

[ConfidentialStatus]

62. Oh no... not another Cindy thread

The day I support Cindy is when it hits 100 Trillion... and 50,000 of our loved ones are dead.:sarcasm:

[LittleClarkie]

65. We? You mean if I look back at those threads I'll find a pissed off you?

Or no.

[Vidar]

70. I agreed with her then and now. Conyers gave us a lot of brave

words between 2004 2006, but now that he has the power to back them up, he goes into "McCainspeak"--lots of talk, no delivery.

[bryant69]

77. Actually I remember you and others defending her

and attacking anybody who criticized the Sainted Cindy.

Maybe my memory is faulty.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com