Peace activist Sheehan announces candidacy for House

[Joanie Baloney]

Source: Associated Press

1:56 p.m. August 9, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO – Citing her son as inspiration, a tearful Cindy Sheehan announced her candidacy Thursday for the U.S. House of Representatives. The anti-war activist is running as an independent against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has represented San Francisco in Congress since 1987.

“The country is ripe for a change,” said Sheehan, who spoke at a podium with her son's photograph attached to it. “It's going to start right here and right now.”

-snip-

Last month, she announced her intention to run against Pelosi if the speaker didn't move to impeach Bush by July 23. On Thursday, she said Pelosi had “protected the status quo” of the corporate elite and had lost touch with people in her district, most of whom, she said, want American troops out of Iraq.

Calls to Pelosi's office seeking comment were not immediately returned


Read more: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070809-1356-ca-cindysheehan-pelosi.html

---

Hadn't seen this posted yet....now Cindy has Daniel Ellsberg on her side. Should make for interesting comments.

(Don't shoot the messenger, please!)

JB

[dailykoff]

1. Pelosi had her chance

and she blew it.

[bluestateguy]

2. And if she wins, she probably thinks she'll get to be Speaker of the House

And she'll have a whole 17 days left to pursue the only the issue that got her elected.

[Gman]

8. I really do think she thinks she'll get to be Speaker

The poor woman's gone 'round the bend.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. Again, what are you basing this on?

When did she ever say anything about being speaker? Cindy understands the way Congress runs, probably better than most people here. After all, she has actually BEEN there lobbying, while her average critic has been . . . well who knows, but certainly not working at ending the war.

[Maribelle]

249. If she understands the way Congress runs, then she would know there are not enough votes

for impeachment.

It seems to me there probably is this impenetrable wall of unbridled emotion blocking reality.

[robinlynne]

253. But there certainly were enough votes to block FISA, and yet?

[Maribelle]

257. You might have that backwards. There were not enough to block FISA.

In both the House and the Senate.

[robinlynne]

260. If the dems had voted like dems there were enough!

[Maribelle]

262. Do you mean in lock-step with jack boots on as Republicans have always done?

Why that's one of the thing highly hated about Republicans.

[robinlynne]

270. would you hate it if our constitution were protected last friday?

[Ken Burch]

290. You will admit no good came of not trying, I hope

You will admit that no good ever comes of our leaders choosing NOT to make a stand against Bush.

Why not admit submission equals failure?

[FiveGoodMen]

302. Suppose there were an effort to legalize murder

Would you expect everyone to vote "in lock-step with jack boots" against that or not?

You don't have to be a fascist to know that some things are just wrong.

[Ken Burch]

291. There were enough to filibuster it to death

Everytime we DON'T fight injustice, we weaken ourselves as a party. This was just as stupid and pointless as Truman imposing the Loyalty Oath.

Tactical retreat NEVER works in politics. Only fighting like hell on all issues does.

Why do you defend surrender and failure?

There was NOTHING at all more important tnan impeachment, stopping the war and stopping FISA. Everything else was a meaningless side issue, and there was never any point in trying to pass something the Dub would sign. Got it?

[thereismore]

216. You can see into her head, that's remarkable! nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. What makes you say that?

When has Cindy EVER said that? Or do you just like making shit up?

[orleans]

65. fyi--she was interviewed on randi's show and made it clear she

knew she wouldn't be speaker of the house.

[msongs]

3. she is now an anti-democrat or un-democrat like Joe Lieberman

so how many on du will support her against the democrat, especially one that was loved endlessly for becoming the first woman speaker of the house?

so will it now be verboten to advocate for sheehan now that she is no longer a democrat or a supporter of the party?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[bonito]

5. Lieberman? please

I'm sure many will be supporting Cindy even though not advocating it here.

[ooglymoogly]

36. I agree....wish she was challenging Diane Feinstein though and as a dem.

Just can't get the fact that DF is a member of the Tr!lateral commission out of my craw and if you know who they are you would be very worried about DF as well.

[defendandprotect]

39. I agree -- I think this is a bit of a waste -- she should win a seat -- !!!

[Raksha]

127. I wish she was challenging Nancy Pelosi as a Democrat.

She'd have a much better chance that way...might even pull it off!

[jgraz]

140. In this case, it really doesn't matter

In a district with historically closer votes, you'd be right. In a 14% Repig district, it may actually be good strategy to run in the general as an independent. After all, it's not like Cindy's going to caucus with the Rethugs if she wins.

[redqueen]

169. You're right... we need someone to challenge Feinstein...

but they'd have a hell of a fight on their hands. I bet Feinstein's illiberal positions make her war chest that much fatter.

[jgraz]

187. Barbara Lee!!!

Or Maxine Waters...but I think Lee's Berkeley seat is safe in the Dem column if she decides to go after DiFi.

[redqueen]

188. Oh, man...

That'd be fantastic!

:bounce:

[jgraz]

189. She'd need to be pushed into it

But we've (sadly) got a few years to work on her.

[robinlynne]

255. Feinstein is not acting like a liberal at all.

[yojon]

284. DiFi is in for 6 years

wont be up for a long time... sigh..

[Mrspeeker]

256. Thats exactly what i was thinking

I HATE DF! she is so not democratic its insane that she is in the democratic party.

[ooglymoogly]

305. I have one answer for the above posts......google

The Trilateral Commission and see who DiFi's friends are....its a shocker

[saracat]

6. Many do.It is disgusting.Cindy has become a Ko Koo!

It is too bad as she makes some good points.She just goes about it the wrong way.

[Bonobo]

21. "Making good points in a bad way" makes her insane? Please explain.

I would love to hear some substantive argument from you rather than a reckless charge like being "ko koo" (whatever that means).

Yeah, I know, you don't have to tell me, who the hell am I...

or

some other lame reason for not making a real and valid case that she is unhinged.

[Dragonfli]

43. Truth to Power Cindy or Cower to Power Nancy ... hmmmm..

Very hard decision to make - if you prefer a King-like President I suppose.

I personally would prefer a peace patriot interested in challenging unchecked power junkies over a politician too busy taking vacation to protect the constitution she took an oath to.

But then again I like Cindy for "Person of The Year" as well. I must be too fundamentally misguided to understand what a Ko Koo she and I must be.

I don't get how we are "unhinged" either - I must be irrelevant and perhaps stupid as well.

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. What are you? Two?

Such a mature vocabulary you got there.

Yes she does make some good points but no, she is NOT "Ko Koo". :rofl:

[jgraz]

233. She's not two, she's "To Too"

:rofl:

[orleans]

64. what's a "ko koo"?

[wordpix]

177. She has a right to throw her hat in the ring. Why not? She's dissatisfied with her representation

and she has every right to run.

[harun]

275. Her son gave his life in the line of duty. Any mother who has done

that deserves our respect. Don't call her names.

[sallyseven]

7. I am sorry that she is doing this. This is no time to be grandstanding

she will only make it possible for a repuke to win the seat. She is really being shameful now and not at all a sympathetic Now she is being bratty and obnoxious. Too bad.

[bananas]

54. A repuke won't win - but Cindy might.

Here are the 2006 election results:
Nancy Pelosi (Dem) 148,435 80.4 %
Mike DeNunzio (Rep) 19,800 10.8 %
Kristine Keefer (Grn) 13,653 7.4 %
Philip Z. Berg (Lib) 2,751 1.4 %
http://www.vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/usrep/0800.htm


Over 1,000 protesters spell out 'IMPEACH!' on beach in Pelosi's district
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Over_1000_protestors_spell_out_IMPEACH_0107.html

[barb162]

88. By showing those figures I think you're showing Pelosi will win again.

[shaniqua6392]

11. If you are on DU....

you can not support her at all. DU is to support Democratic candidates ONLY. It would be against the rules on DU to promote anyone running as an independent. Just to let you know because this was discussed by DU mods a while back when she announced that she would be running.

[jgraz]

15. OK, who had 36 minutes until someone posted the DU rules?

Everybody else, pay up!

[uppityperson]

18. Not quite right, DUers can support her, just not promoting or supporting on DU

We can do whatever, support whomever we want.

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. So if we support Cindy, we have to leave DU?

Gee last time I checked we still had a first amendment and I can support whomever I want. I can't do it here on this board, but DU certainly can't dictate what I do with my time in the real world.

And you know, if all the DUers who do support Cindy were forced to leave here, this place would shut down.

[barb162]

81. Not. A. Chance. In. Hell. DU would shut down over Sheehan.

You're vastly overestimating the support for Sheehan around here.

[proud2BlibKansan]

109. Her haters are just louder

[barb162]

115. I think there are tons of people who don't hate her at all.

Those same people wouldn't vote for her though. What can a party of one bring to that District when that District now has the Speaker as its Rep?
As to the hate issue, I recall when she made the statements about the hate. I think it's possibly nonexistent now except for fringe, extremist types and most people just feel sorry for her as a parent who lost her son.

[ClintonTyree]

227. I don't hate her.....

but I don't see what her rabid supporters see in her. They've invested time and money on her cause and don't want to see it end, they don't want to see their investment in Ms. Sheehan pass without bearing fruit. And she's hooked on the attention, her supporters' adoration and the publicity. She doesn't want that to end either. She's an attention junkie now. SHE HAS TO HAVE IT!

A few weeks ago she said she was tired of the limelight and just wanted to go home and get some rest. Now she decides to run for Congress, as an Independent? Yeah, THAT will give her the rest she said she so badly needs. :eyes:

She's a political dilettante and will get her butt handed to her on a platter. Will all of her supporters be happy when the woman is in a rubber room somewhere suffering from severe mental meltdown? Because I sincerely think that's where she's headed.

Go home, Ms. Sheehan. Get some rest. Your supporters are making you the "Ziggy Stardust" of politics.

[lame54]

264. she will ask tough questions

to those who work hard to avoid tough questions

do you think kucinich is an attention junkie?
he knows he has no chance of winning the nomination - but he is there to draw attention to subjects that would otherwise be overlooked

the only difference is - cindy has a better chance of actually winning

look for casey sheehan in this vid

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tMACzBomDK4

[Divine Discontent]

272. RABID supporters?

how about just, "biggest supporters". And there are quite a few supporter of Cindy, as a speaker against the war and Nancy's call that "impeachment is off the table".

So, who do you RABIDLY support like a dog! :sarcasm:

[asthmaticeog]

258. DU doesn't *intend* to dictate what we do in the real world.

I have this friend who doesn't like it when people put drinks on his tables without coasters, so when I'm over there I use coasters. Because it's his house. The first amendment doesn't enter into it.

Since it's in the rules we all read when we signed up and checked "I AGREE" to DU's TOS that we can't use DU to support non-Dem candidates that are trying to unseat Democrats, I won't use DU to support Cindy Sheehan's campaign against Nancy Pelosi. Because it's Skinner's house. And I agreed to his rules. And so did you. That's not to say I can't support it. Just not on DU.

[Seabiscuit]

70. Don't equate "promote" with "support".

Skinner didn't bar people from "supporting" Sheehan's candidacy. We can all do that on our own time, and we can also discuss our support of Sheehan on DU. What Skinner says we can't do on DU is to actively advocate support (attempt to change people's opinions), meaning "promote" her candidacy on DU because she's not running as a Democrat.

It's an important distinction, and one that's so obviously simple it shouldn't be so difficult for anyone to understand, so why do you falsely conflate the two?

[ClintonTyree]

229. The mere mention of her "campaign".....

and all those who are atwitter with glee that she's running is, in itself, support and promotion. To use your own words, "that is so obviously simple it shouldn't be so difficult for anyone to understand". Right? Your interpretation of Skinner's dictum, in my opinion, is not correct. Discussing your support is to actively advocate support for Ms. Sheehan. Period.

I sincerely hope that she establishes some sort of web-site where her adoring fans can fawn over her and leave DU to those who support and promote Democrats.

[Name removed]

265. Deleted message

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

[Cameron27]

287. The DU police are called mods

and they won't appreciate working overtime trying to stamp out support for Sheehan's campaign.

[ClintonTyree]

296. Since you're relatively new here.....

perhaps you haven't found the time to read through the DU rules yet. http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

It is a violation of DU rules to actively campaign for anyone other than a Democrat. Period. I sincerely hope that the Admins will come forth with a clarification of the rules concerning the discussion and promotion of Ms. Sheehan's campaign to defeat a sitting Democrat. This "Sheehan, Sheehan, Sheehan" stuff is really starting to annoy me.

I am in no way "the du police", as you so sophomorically describe me. I am a Democrat. Are you?

Lastly, you're trying your best to live up to your screen name, aren't you? Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Seabiscuit]

279. You're still falsely conflating "support" and "promote". Hence

all points that flow from that ill-conceived conflation are equally false.

I, for one, am not "all atwitter with glee", as you put it, that Cindy's running.

But I am glad someone's challenging Pelosi, and making public noise about it this early because at this point in time Pelosi has recently trashed our Constitution, our system of checks and balances, and bent over to lick Der Fuhrer's arse over Iraq spending, and deserves this noisy slap upside the face from someone like Sheehan.

[ClintonTyree]

297. Whatever.....

this is a child's argument. "I know you are but what am I" kind of stuff.

I sincerely hope there will be some clarification on this issue forthcoming from the Admins. It's already becoming too divisive.

[Seabiscuit]

303. I don't understand why it bothers you so much.

Unless it's some personal thing you have against Cindy Sheehan.

She's just a bereaved mother who did something very brave when she camped outside Bush's compound in Crawford two years ago to confront him for killing her son. As for what has happened to her since, I for one think she got a bit too caught up in all the media exposure and all those who flocked to her side wanting her to speak out on one pet issue or another, and has attempted to become the focus of attention for a lot of things she knows little about and in the process has made some rather ludicrous public pronouncements (e.g. "the Dems started all the wars in the 20th Century"), which, sadly, has made her a bit of a laughing stock in some quarters.

As for the kind of posts/threads Skinner doesn't want to see on DU, why not just leave it up to him and his mods? It's his forum. In time, I'm sure their practice of erasing certain post and locking certain threads will help make his position very clear. Apparently this thread doesn't bother him.

[FiveGoodMen]

12. While the rules of DU forbid campaigning against Democratic candidates

Trashing Cindy for trying to stop this war and this corrupt administration seems inappropriate.

I would certainly hope that DUers' first loyalty was to Democracy, the Constitution, and honest government.

That's really much more important than party loyalty, isn't it?

Isn't it?

[earthlover]

26. Nader is trashed. Bush is trashed. If you are anti Democratic Party expect it

I didn't think it was against protocol for us to state our disagreements with people like Bush and Sheehan, who are against us.

Sorry, but I blame nader's arrogance for Florida and Bush. Even though before his ego mastocised he was progressive.

[John Q. Citizen]

172. It's not, scape goat away. While both major parties whine about

independant or 3rd party challenges that may effect thier own fortunes, at the same time both major parties have worked together to insure that:

1. 3rd party and independant runs are usually politically irrelevant.

2. Relagted to a spoiler role, and doomed to exert no significant influence because they can be scapegoated for acting as spoilers.

My opinion is that as long as the two parties effectively shut out opposing parties by organizing elections by rules they impose, such as no fusion voting, no instant run-off, no legal and effective means for third parties to funcion in a democratically and politically expiedient fashion, then the accusation that 3rd party and independant candidtes are somehow resonsible for a negative outcome is questionable.

The blame rest with both parties. Any fool sees that when things get messed up enough a lot of voters would love to be able to vote for an alternative. And when they do, they always get attacked for being spoilers.

It doesn't have to be like that, but the Repos and the Dems have consistently blocked democracy reform. So I guess what goes around comes around. Go figure.

[Virginia Dare]

208. For better or for worse..

the Founding Fathers never intended for our government to be parliamentary or coalition based. Clearly, it's not the way they set it up, so unless we significantly alter the Constitution, that's the way it will remain.

[John Q. Citizen]

280. No need to alter the constitution. Fusion voting was widespread and common, until

the Repo/Domocratic coalition outlawed it most places.

New York has fusion voting still.

Restricting democratic choices by common party fiat has nothing to do with the constitution.

[Ken Burch]

294. Actually, from all I've heard, they never intended us to have political PARTIES at all

Their conception of governance was, I believe, an executive and a legislative wing dominated by independents. We didnt' even have party nominees for the presidency until 1800(the third presidential election).

Just sayin'.

[redqueen]

170. You'd think. n/t

[Zhade]

203. HA! So many DUers are cheerleaders for winning over ethics it's not funny.

Witness all those who think it's okay to ignore the Constitutional imperative to impeach this criminal administration.

[ClintonTyree]

235. We're not......

"trashing Cindy for trying to stop this war and this corrupt administration"....


We're saying that she IS NOT A DEMOCRAT and, as such, supporting and promoting her campaign as an Independent, opposing a siting Democrat, should not be a topic of discussion on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.

Am I wrong here? :shrug:

Perhaps someone should start an INDEPENDENT UNDERGROUND for those who support candidates opposing Democrats. Just a thought.

[FiveGoodMen]

251. I can understand the usefulness of a rule against campaigning

for other parties. After all, either a Dem or a Republican is going to win and it had better not be a Republican.

On the other hand, it had better not be a Republican in Dem's clothing! And some of the D's seem to be just that.

So the rule about not supporting the competition makes some sense, but the 'She's an embarrassment, she's just awful, blah, blah, blah...' that's been ricocheting off so many walls on DU lately seems to ignore the fact that she is still fighting for the things that (I hope) we're fighting for.

Her idea that we have to keep the pressure on Congress to do the right thing shouldn't be trampled in the rush to remind ourselves that she's given up on the Democratic Party's willingness to step up.

[lame54]

268. of course it should

she is running against a democrat - and ignoring her is not going to make her go away

[Amonester]

60. the endless love ended

and this post is not a promotion of any candidacy

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[CreekDog]

75. And Sheehan is better with her "taxes are unconstitutional..."

And Democratic Party is the party of slavery, etc.?

Seems you have two standards, one easy one for Sheehan and another one, much higher, for Pelosi, who has consistently voted to end the war.

[Seabiscuit]

Why are you getting personal and turning me into a strawman?

Simply because I expressed an opinion that differs from yours?

I have no such double standards.

I disapprove of many of the things Sheehan has said, which merely display her ignorance about a lot of stuff and which hurt her candidacy, but such things will have absolutely no effect on the House of Representatives if she's elected. Her antiwar stance, however could make a difference.

Pelosi, OTOH, has actively promoted three horrific things, which HAVE had a clear and presently dangerous effect on our country. She led the effort to sell out to Bush on the Iraq Supplemental Spending bill, she sold out our system of checks and balances by doing nothing to organize any opposition to Bush's enhanced illegal eavesdropping demands, and she has sold our Constitution down the river by keeping impeachment "off the table".

You can't compare that kind of harm to the harmless simpleton remarks Sheehan has made to the press, some of which you've called attention to. None of them undermine our Constitution. Pelosi's actions and inactions as Speaker of the House, OTOH, have directly undermined our Constitution.

I'll take someone with heart and courage and a drive to do what's right who also happens to be very naive and say some stupid things about some insignificant tangential issues any day over someone who has already consistently demonstrated that she is willing to sell us out to the most corrupt and criminal administration this country has ever known.

[Name removed]

238. Deleted message

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

[midnight]

73. I hope it won't be verboten to advocate for American citizen's

who are trying to wake the comfortable, and bring the troops home. Because the sacrifice of her son is greater than any Joe Lieberman made I hope that comparison well be looked at differently. Joe Lieberman and his wife are well taken care of be the cooperate people ie. insurance industry. Cindy is taken care of by a nation of people who understand her son's sacrifice and hopefully will not let it be for nothing. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been given an amazing opportunity to turn around the carelessness that is at the forefront of this war. While the speaker was clear on the fact that she knew her 110th congress would be the one that was expected to change direction, and she failed. Her beloved moment is gone like so many of our soldiers.

[thereismore]

218. Lieberman? I take it you are joking. nt

[Name removed]

271. Deleted message

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

[RamboLiberal]

4. While Cindy has good intentions she's made too much of a fool

of herself IMHO. She's going to get trounced.

[barb162]

86. I agree.

though I feel sad for her as a parent. Nuff said.

[salib]

9. This is where party politics gets tricky (and messy)

If one cannot get the party's candidate to change, then change the party's candidate. I.e, run in the primary. That is how the party approached Lieberman. Did not turn out so well, which means that a cult of personality can be more powerful than party.

However, note that if one CANNOT change the party's candidate, e.g., running against Hillary and losing, or in this case, running against the Speaker of the House, whom the Democrats would be "crazy" to let go of, then what does one do? That is difficult.

Remember, many of the Founders of this republic felt that parties were a mistake. I do not think that they are, per se. However, I wish we did not have to simply "throw in with the inevitable" (i.e., work hard for, let alone vote for, Nancy Pelosi) in cases like the one Cindy is facing.

Anyway, I see no more patriotic action than to run for office on a platform that you believe in.

edited for grammar

[redqueen]

171. A parlialmentary system would be better... the two-party system screws us all. n/t

[Virginia Dare]

210. Parliamentary systems aren't perfect either..

clearly the Founding Fathers had specific reasons for not setting our system up that way.

[redqueen]

217. Sure they did... to keep the poor from having too much access to the reigns of power.

And yeah, there's no such thing as a perfect anything... so... um, duh.

[Virginia Dare]

220. Yes, and in the 18th century..

poor = uneducated. They didn't trust the rabble to make decisions about how the government would operate. In a sense, they had a point. If you had put things like desegregation or suffrage before a general election vote, what do you think the chances of getting them passed would be? If you put an issue like civil unions before a general election vote, what do you think the outcome would be? Representational government is good, the problem is with our elections, not our form of government.

[redqueen]

221. Yes... like I said, the two party system is screwing us over. n/t

[Virginia Dare]

247. So, we go to four parties..

we establish a far far left party, and a far far right party, you still have to find common ground to make it work. It's been tried before, and it didn't work. Our government is based on compromise, always has been and always will be. For those who are crying give the government back to the people, you have to remember, "the people" aren't just the liberal enlightened ones. No, we're in a very small minority. "The people" also include the ignorant freepers, 46 million of whom voted for George Bush, and it's best to keep the government out of their hands.

[redqueen]

254. It doesn't work? So... England is broken? Canada and Ireland too?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[knight_of_the_star]

13. Not shooting the messenger

But I will have to say thank you Cindy for serving as one of the many monkeywrenches in the effort in Congress to keep Bush in check. You've done a great job carrying ammo for the GOP.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lame54]

269. hey knight of the star

that's right blame cindy for our troubles - but you left out michael moore -
and clinton
be sure to blame bill clinton
always blame clinton
cindy, michael and bill - the roots of all our problems

[bluedog]

14. is she qualified to run?..does she know government

policies and laws?......and what will she do FOR the people of her district,,,,,,,,,,

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vanboggie]

22. Anyone who has read the Constitution

Would be a great improvement on the Congress we have now.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

102. Sheehan thinks income taxes are unconstitutional

Are you sure that Sheehan has read the constitution?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Is Pelosi?

:rofl:

[jgraz]

45. DING

I'm just gonna pretend I wrote this response. :applause:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

122. And what does qualification matter...

...when her purpose is simply to protect the status quo? No push to defund the war, or to impeach, or to challenge BushCo in any other meaningful way. Supporting Dem leaders like Pelosi in hopes of getting our country back is like putting leeches all over the body of an anemic patient to make them well -- won't work.

[Joanie Baloney]

82. According to the article at the link

she says:

"Sheehan admitted she has no funds for a campaign, but planned to immediately get started raising money. Without giving further specifics, Sheehan said she wouldn't accept money from corporations and would run on a platform of universal health care. Sheehan said she also wants to make college affordable and improve ethics in the legislative and executive branches.

She also said the money being spent on the war in Iraq should be used to help the country's shrinking middle class."

JB

[Freddie Stubbs]

196. Isn't her dead son enough of a qualification?

:shrug:

[truedelphi]

219. If every Congress critter was actively against the war

To the extent that Sheehan is, the districts of ALL congress critters would see more money available.

[WCGreen]

19. She needs a shitload of signatures....

All I can think about now is One Tin Soldier Walks Away...

Billy Jack in drag...

[onehandle]

20. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground.

Run as a Democrat, Cindy.

Want things to change, then fight from the inside.

[proud2BlibKansan]

77. She spent years fighting from the inside

And where did that get her? Where did it get any of us? Eight months into the Dem majority, the war rages on, impeachment is off the table and the president can now legally spy on us.

Yep, fighting from the inside is such an effective strategy. :eyes:

[onehandle]

117. So she ran or served as a Democrat previously?

I must have missed that.

[rodeodance]

183. i do not think one needs to be an elected official to 'serve"

[onehandle]

301. Actually, you do.

Otherwise you're just a voice of one.

[Zhade]

204. She was, until recently, a registered Dem.

But you knew that.

[onehandle]

300. But she's never run for office as a Democrat.

Why go straight from a registered Dem to an Independent?

[Harper_is_Bush]

23. She's officially now turned herself into a sideshow.

A lot of people who respected and appreciated her (like me) are now thinking :wtf:

[harun]

276. It is publicity for her cause, which is honorable and her right

what is so hard to figure out?

I don't care if people support her or not but the level of disrespect here towards someone who lost a child serving our country is despicable. It is almost as bad as seeing people at the Republican Convention wearing Jim Kerry purple heart band aids. Disrespecting his service to this country.

I don't care what their political beliefs or positions are, every person who has served this country and every family that has had to make that sacrifice deserves our respect.

[localroger]

25. I can't support her in this.

I came very close to going to Crawford myself during her original vigil, and probably would have if it hadn't been not so much for overwhelming family and job responsibilities. I admired her for taking that stand and I admire everyone who actually did go out and support her. And I still support her crusade against the war.

But this run against Pelosi is over the top. As annoying as it is that our new narrow Dem majority isn't getting stuff reversed, the fact is it is a very narrow majority, very subject to obstruction. They have at least slowed the train wreck that has been going on and this being a rather high stakes game of poker, it is very possible they are sitting on cards we don't know they are holding. In any case trying to take down one of the most powerful members of the party that is actually trying to help you is an extremely short sighted and not very bright thing to do. It's not going to work, and is only going to get Cindy marginalized among many of the people who once supported her wholeheartedly -- including myself.

[bluedog]

27. well stated n/t

[emilyg]

34. Good post.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue_Roses]

57. ...

:applause:

[The Wielding Truth]

61. It's a move made to focus all of us on stopping the war in Iraq.

In order to be socially visual sometimes you have to be politically defiant and that is what I think Cindy has decided to do. It is "ugly and messy" and visible. It splashes down right at the feet of the third most powerful individual in what's left of our democracy,Nancy P.

Cindy is a form of an american Gandhi and she has to choose the path she thinks she must walk.

[Maddy McCall]

126. American Gandhi?

Good lord, you can't truly believe that.

[The Wielding Truth]

281. You see anyone else standing up and putting themselves

on the line as one person separate and apart in a peaceful protest? Of course she is not even close to Gandhi in many ways, but she is using herself as her resistance weapon as great leaders do just because that is how they work.

[Yukari Yakumo]

90. Don't forget

Our narrow majority is ultimately subject to the centrist-conservative Blue Dogs and Red State Senators.

[Raksha]

136. And that makes it a de facto Republican majority...

the Blue Dogs and the DLC types who vote with the Repukes as often as not. I was actually under the illusion for a short time that we had a Democratic majority. Not any more.

[Zhade]

206. Don't forget that the Dem leadership sets the agenda. These bills didn't have to get to the floor.

They allowed them to.

Why?

[Maddy McCall]

125. I was on the way to Crawford to meet her when my car broke down.

My car broke down on the outskirts of Dallas, and I had to call a family member to tow me back to Mississippi. I was sooo sad that I was so close (within 100 miles) and had to turn back. My son was with me...we were very excited about meeting Cindy. She had caught the attention and the sympathy of the nation. She had widespread support.

About six months ago, my sentiments about her began to change. Now I see her in such a different light than I saw her in July and August 2005.

I agree with everything you said...she once had my full support.

It's sad to post this...it's the first time I've spoken about this on DU, since 2005.

[Zhade]

205. Why spread false impressions? Pelosi and Reid can block any bill from coming to the floor.

They control the agenda.

You can't excuse that fact away.

[earthlover]

29. Cindy is running against US!

It's not that Cindy is running just against Pelosi. Nothing could be further from the truth. She is running against US! She is running against the Democratic Party. She is saying the Dem Party is the party of slavery. She is saying the Democratic Party is responsible for all the wars in the 20th Century. Taking on Pelosi is just the means she is using to attack our party.

So are we supposed to applaud her for trying to destroy the party that is also the party of the civil rights movement?

PS, if she thinks we are the party that started World War II, in spite of the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor, well so be it. Then, if that is the case, we are also the party that defeated Tojo, Mussolini and Hitler! I never quite thought of it that way. I always thought fighting that war was a national effort and it wasn't about politics, that it wasn't Roosevelt's or Truman's victory any more than those who died. But I guess there are some out there who are into the blame game, if it means blaming us Democrats, then ignoring history is alright and Sheehan can turn all the deaths of World War II into a partisan thing. I beg to differ with Sheehan.

[NotGivingUp]

55. YOU are choosing to ignore history. There's something wrong with people

who are not willing to see the problems in their own party...even when that party has gone along with destroying the constitution. There's something definitely wrong with that.

[earthlover]

158. Cindy's statement is ignorant of history

For one, it is slanted. Trying to play the "blame game".

IT is also inaccurate.

The 20th Century began under Roosevelt's "big stick" foreign policy. American armed forces were sent into action in several places in the world. Roosevelt was a Republican.

World War I began during Wilson's term, but Wilson tried to keep us out of the war. In 1916 he even campaigned on the slogan "he kept us out of war". Not even the sinking of the Lusitania led to us entering the war. It wasn't until 1917 that we were dragged into the war.

To imply that Wilson got us into the war is deceptive, because he spent years trying to keep us out.

Furthermore, after the war was over, Wilson saw the horrors of it and wanted to make the peace treaty one which would prevent future wars. He was an idealist. He came up with the Fourteen Points which were designed to prevent future wars. Unfortunately, Europe pretty much ignored Wilson's pleas and made a highly punitive treaty on Germany...and it was the REPUBLICAN SENATE that failed to ratify the Treaty because it included Wilson's pet idea the League of Nations, which the US refused to join even though it was Wilson's idea.

Our entry into World War II was caused by the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor and aggression by Hitler. So, it was not started by the Democratic Party.

The first military advisors to Vietnam, if you want to get picky, were sent there under Eisenhower.

And don't forget there were other military actions during the 20th Century, not to mention the first Gulf War.

And also don't forget Carter's working for peace in the Middle East.


So, all in all, to make the blanket statement that all the wars of the 20th Century were started under Democrats is decidedly ignorant of history, and extreemely slanted. It ignores a lot.

[NotGivingUp]

160. No, here's the truth about Wilson and World War I.

Here's my 2 cents first: It's time to stop the murdering of millions of innocent people NO MATTER WHICH PARTY you want to blame. Here is a fact: THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME when it comes to building an empire for the elite. You know, we've been led to believe that the dems are our friends. THAT'S why Cindy was so utterly dismayed. That's why I have been also.

(Woodrow Wilson comes in after the part WHAT CAN I DO? But the whole thing is so worth the read.)

War Is the Health of the State
excerpted from a
People's History of the United States
by Howard Zinn


"War is the health of the state," the radical writer Randolph Bourne said, in the midst of the First World War. Indeed, as the nations of Europe went to war in 1914, the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of trenches.
In the United States, not yet in the war, there was worry about the health of the state. Socialism was growing. The IWW seemed to be everywhere. Class conflict was intense. In the summer of 1916, during a Preparedness Day parade in San Francisco, a bomb exploded, killing nine people, two local radicals, Tom Mooney and Warren Billings, were arrested and would spend twenty years in prison. Shortly after that Senator James Wadsworth of New York suggested compulsory military training for all males to avert the danger that "these people of ours shall be divided into classes." Rather: "We must let our young men know that they owe some responsibility to this country."
The supreme fulfillment of that responsibility was taking place in Europe. Ten million were to die on the battlefield; 20 million were to die of hunger and disease related to the war. And no one since that day has been able to show that the war brought any gain for humanity that would be worth one human life. The rhetoric of the socialists, that it was an "imperialist war," now seems moderate and hardly arguable. The advanced capitalist countries of Europe were fighting over boundaries, colonies, spheres of influence; they were competing for Alsace-Lorraine, the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East.
The war came shortly after the opening of the twentieth century, in the midst of exultation (perhaps only among the elite in the Western world) about progress and modernization. One day after the English declared war, Henry James wrote to a friend: "The plunge of civilization into this abyss of blood and darkness . . . is a thing that so gives away the whole long age during which we have supposed the world to be . . . gradually bettering." In the first Battle of the Marne, the British and French succeeded in blocking the German advance on Paris. Each side had 500,000 casualties. The killing started very fast, and on a large scale. In August 1914, a volunteer for the British army had to be 5 feet 8 inches to enlist. By October, the requirement was lowered to 5 feet 5 inches. That month there were thirty thousand casualties, and then one could be 5 feet 3. In the first three months of war, almost the entire original British army was wiped out.
For three years the battle lines remained virtually stationary in France. Each side would push forward, then back, then forward again- for a few yards, a few miles, while the corpses piled up. In 1916 the Germans tried to break through at Verdun; the British and French counterattacked along the Seine, moved forward a few miles, and lost 600,000 men. One day, the 9th Battalion of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry launched an attack with eight hundred men. Twenty four hours later, there were eighty-four left.
Back home, the British were not told of the slaughter. One English writer recalled: "The most bloody defeat in the history of Britain . . . might occur . . . and our Press come out bland and copious and graphic with nothing to show that we had not had quite a good day-a victory really...." The same thing was happening on the German side; as Erich Maria Remarque wrote in his great novel, on days when men by the thousands were being blown apart by machine guns and shells, the official dispatches announced "All Quiet on the Western Front."
In July 1916, British General Douglas Haig ordered eleven divisions of English soldiers to climb out of their trenches and move toward the German lines. The six German divisions opened up with their ma chine guns. Of the 110,000 who attacked, 20,000 were killed, 40,000 more wounded-all those bodies strewn on no man's land, the ghostly territory between the contending trenches. On January 1, 1917, Haig was promoted to field marshal. What happened that summer is described tersely in William Langer's An Encyclopedia of World History:
Despite the opposition of Lloyd George and the skepticism of some of his subordinates, Haig proceeded hopefully to the main offensive. The third battle of Ypres was a senes of 8 heavy attacks, carried through in driving rain and fought over ground water-logged and muddy. No break-through was effected, and the total gain was about 5 miles of territory, which made the Ypres salient more inconvenient than ever and cost the British about 400,000 men.
The people of France and Britain were not told the extent of the casualties. When, in the last year of the war, the Germans attacked ferociously on the Somme, and left 300,000 British soldiers dead or wounded, London newspapers printed the following, we learn from Paul Fussell's The Great War and Modern Memory:

WHAT CAN I DO?
How the Civilian May Help in this Crisis.
Be cheerful....
Write encouragingly to friends at the front....
Don't repeat foolish gossip.
Don't listen to idle rumors.
Don't think you know better than Haig.

Into this pit of death and deception came the United States, in the spring of 1917. Mutinies were beginning to occur in the French army. Soon, out of 112 divisions, 68 would have mutinies; 629 men would be tried and condemned, 50 shot by firing squads. American troops were badly needed.
President Woodrow Wilson had promised that the United States would stay neutral in the war: "There is such a thing as a nation being too proud to fight." But in April of 1917, the Germans had announced they would have their submarines sink any ship bringing supplies to their enemies; and they had sunk a number of merchant vessels. Wilson now said he must stand by the right of Americans to travel on merchant ships in the war zone. "I cannot consent to any abridgement of the rights of American citizens in any respect...."
As Richard Hofstadter points out (The American Political Tradition): "This was rationalization of the flimsiest sort...." The British had also been intruding on the rights of American citizens on the high seas, but Wilson was not suggesting we go to war with them. Hofstadter says Wilson "was forced to find legal reasons for policies that were based not upon law but upon the balance of power and economic necessities."
It was unrealistic to expect that the Germans should treat the United States as neutral in the war when the U.S. had been shipping great amounts of war materials to Germany's enemies. In early 1915, the British liner Lusitania was torpedoed and sunk t,; a German submarine. She sank in eighteen minutes, and 1,198 people died, including 124 Americans. The United States claimed the Lusitania carried an innocent cargo, and therefore the torpedoing was a monstrous German atrocity. Actually, the Lusitania was heavily armed: it carried 1,248 cases of 3-inch shells, 4,927 boxes of cartridges (1,000 rounds in each box), and 2,000 more cases of small-arms ammunition. Her manifests were falsified to hide this fact, and the British and American governments lied about the cargo.
Hofstadter wrote of "economic necessities" behind Wilson's war policy. In 1914 a serious recession had begun in the United States. J. P. Morgan later testified: "The war opened during a period of hard times.... Business throughout the country was depressed, farm prices were deflated, unemployment was serious, the heavy industries were working far below capacity and bank clearings were off." But by 1915, war orders for the Allies (mostly England) had stimulated the economy, and by April 1917 more than $2 billion worth of goods had been sold to the Allies. As Hofstadter says: "America became bound up with the Allies in a fateful union of war and prosperity."
Prosperity depended much on foreign markets, it was believed by the leaders of the country. In 1897, the private foreign investments of the United States amounted to $700 million dollars. By 1914 they were $3~ billion. Wilson's Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, while a believer in neutrality in the war, also believed that the United States needed overseas markets; in May of 1914 he praised the President as one who had "opened the doors of all the weaker countries to an invasion of American capital and American enterprise."
Back in 1907, Woodrow Wilson had said in a lecture at Columbia University: "Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process.... the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down." In his 1912 campaign he said: "Our domestic markets no longer suffice, we need foreign markets." In a memo to Bryan he described his aim as "an open door to the world," and in 1914 he said he supported "the righteous conquest of foreign markets."
With World War I, England became more and more a market for American goods and for loans at interest. J. P. Morgan and Company acted as agents for the Allies, and when, in 1915, Wilson lifted the ban on private bank loans to the Allies, Morgan could now begin lending money in such great amounts as to both make great profit and tie American finance closely to the interest of a British victory in the war against Germany.
The industrialists and the political leaders talked of prosperity as if it were classless, as if everyone gained from Morgan's loans. True, the war meant more production, more employment, but did the workers in the steel plants gain as much as U.S. Steel, which made $348 million in profit in 1916 alone? When the United States entered the war, it was the rich who took even more direct charge of the economy. Financier Bernard Baruch headed the War Industries Board, the most powerful of the wartime government agencies. Bankers, railroad men, and industrialists dominated these agencies.
A remarkably perceptive article on the nature of the First World War appeared in May 1915 in the Atlantic Monthly. Written by W. E. B. Du Bois, it was titled "The African Roots of War." It was a war for empire, of which the struggle between Germany and the Allies over Africa was both symbol and reality: ". . . in a very real sense Africa is a prime cause of this terrible overturning of civilization which we have lived to see." Africa, Du Bois said, is "the Land of the Twentieth Century," because of the gold and diamonds of South Africa, the cocoa of Angola and Nigeria, the rubber and ivory of the Congo, the palm oil of the West Coast.
Du Bois saw more than that. He was writing several years before Lenin's Imperialism, which noted the new possibility of giving the working class of the imperial country a share of the loot. He pointed to the paradox of greater "democracy" in America alongside "increased aristocracy and hatred toward darker races." He explained the paradox by the fact that "the white workingman has been asked to share the spoil of exploiting 'chinks and niggers.'" Yes, the average citizen of England, France, Germany, the United States, had a higher standard of living than before. But: "Whence comes this new wealth? . . . It comes primarily from the darker nations of the world-Asia and Africa, South and Central America, the West Indies, and the islands of the South Seas."
Du Bois saw the ingenuity of capitalism in uniting exploiter and exploited-creating a safety valve for explosive class conflict. "It is no longer simply the merchant prince, or the aristocratic monopoly, or even the employing class, that is exploiting the world: it is the nation, a new democratic nation composed of united capital and labor."
The United States fitted that idea of Du Bois. American capitalism needed international rivalry-and periodic war-to create an artificial community of interest between rich and poor, supplanting the genuine community of interest among the poor that showed itself in sporadic movements. How conscious of this were individual entrepreneurs and statesmen? That is hard to know. But their actions, even if half-conscious, instinctive drives to survive, matched such a scheme. And in 1917 this demanded a national consensus for war.
The government quickly succeeded in creating such a consensus, according to the traditional histories. Woodrow Wilson's biographer Arthur Link wrote: "In the final analysis American policy was determined by the President and public opinion." In fact, there is no way of measuring public opinion at that time, and there is no persuasive evidence that the public wanted war. The government had to work hard to create its consensus. That there was no spontaneous urge to fight is suggested by the strong measures taken: a draft of young men, an elaborate propaganda campaign throughout the country, and harsh punishment for those who refused to get in line. Despite the rousing words of Wilson about a war "to end all wars" and "to make the world safe for democracy," Americans did not rush to enlist. A million men were needed, but in the first six weeks after the declaration of war only 73,000 volunteered. Congress voted overwhelmingly for a draft. George Creel, a veteran newspaperman, became the government's official propagandist for the war; he set up a Committee on Public Information to persuade Americans the war was right. It sponsored 75,000 speakers, who gave 750,000 four-minute speeches in five thousand American cities and towns. It was a massive effort to excite a reluctant public.
*****
Congress passed, and Wilson signed, in June of 1917, the Espionage Act. From its title one would suppose it was an act against spying. However, it had a clause that provided penalties up to twenty years in prison for "Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the U.S...." Unless one had a theory about the nature of governments, it was not clear how the Espionage Act would be used. It even had a clause that said "nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict . . . any discussion, comment, or criticism of the acts or policies of the Government...." But its double-talk concealed a singleness of purpose. The Espionage Act was used to imprison Americans who spoke or wrote against the war.
Two months after the law passed, a Socialist named Charles Schenck was arrested in Philadelphia for printing and distributing fifteen thousand leaflets that denounced the draft law and the war. The leaflet recited the Thirteenth Amendment provision against "involuntary servitude" and said the Conscription Act violated this. Conscription, it said, was "a monstrous deed against humanity in the interests of the financiers of Wall Street." And: "Do not submit to intimidation." Schenck was indicted, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to six months in jail for violating the Espionage Act. (It turned out to be one of the shortest sentences given in such cases.) Schenck appealed, arguing that the Act, by prosecuting speech and writing, violated the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...."
The Supreme Court's decision was unanimous and was written by its most famous liberal, Oliver Wendell Holmes. He summarized the contents of the leaflet and said it was undoubtedly intended to "obstruct" the carrying out of the draft law. Was Schenck protected by the First Amendment? Holmes said:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
Holmes's analogy was clever and attractive. Few people would think free speech should be conferred on someone shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. But did that example fit criticism of the war? Zechariah Chafee, a Harvard law school professor, wrote later (Free Speech in the United States) that a more apt analogy for Schenck was someone getting up between the acts at a theater and declaring that there were not enough fire exits. To play further with the example: was not Schenck's act more like someone shouting, not falsely, but truly, to people about to buy tickets and enter a theater, that there was a fire raging inside?
Perhaps free speech could not be tolerated by any reasonable person if it constituted a "clear and present danger" to life and liberty; after all, free speech must compete with other vital rights. But was not the war itself a "clear and present danger," indeed, more clear and more present and more dangerous to life than any argument against it? Did citizens not have a right to object to war, a right to be a danger to dangerous policies?
(The Espionage Act, thus approved by the Supreme Court, has remained on the books all these years since World War I, and although it is supposed to apply only in wartime, it has been constantly in force since 1950, because the United States has legally been in a "state of emergency" since the Korean war. In 1963, the Kennedy administration pushed a bill to apply the Espionage Act to statements uttered by Americans abroad, it was concerned in the words of a cable from Secretary of State Rusk to Ambassador Lodge in Vietnam, about journalists in Vietnam writing "critical articles ... on Diem and his government" that were "likely to impede the war effort.")
The case of Eugene Debs soon came before the Supreme Court. In June of 1918, Debs visited three Socialists who were in prison for opposing the draft, and then spoke, across the street from the jail, to an audience he kept enthralled for two hours. He was one of the country's great orators, and was interrupted again and again by laughter and applause. "Why, the other day, by a vote of five-to-four-a kind of craps game, come seven, come eleven-they declared the child labor law unconstitutional." He spoke of his comrades in jail. He dealt with the charges that Socialists were pro-German. "I hate, I loathe, I despise Junkers and Junkerdom. I have no earthly use for the Junkers of Germany, and not one particle more use for the Junkers in the United States." (Thunderous applause and cheers.)
They tell us that we live in a great free republic; that our institutions are democratic; that we are a free and self-governing people. That is too much, even for a joke....
Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder.... And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles....
Debs was arrested for violating the Espionage Act. There were draft-age youths in his audience, and his words would "obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service."
His words were intended to do much more than that:
"Yes, in good time we are going to sweep into power in this nation and throughout the world. We are going to destroy all enslaving and degrading capitalist institutions and re-create them as free and humanizing institutions. The world is daily changing before our eyes. The sun of capitalism is setting; the sun of Socialism is rising.... In due time the hour will strike and this great cause triumphant . . . will proclaim the emancipation of the working class and the brotherhood of all mankind. " (Thunderous and prolonged applause.)
Debs refused at his trial to take the stand in his defense, or to call a witness on his behalf. He denied nothing about what he said. But before the jury began its deliberations, he spoke to them:
I have been accused of obstructing the war. I admit it. Gentlemen, I abhor war. I would oppose war if I stood alone.... I have sympathy with the suffering, struggling people everywhere. It does not make any difference under what flag they were born, or where they live....
The jury found him guilty of violating the Espionage Act. Debs ad dressed the judge before sentencing:
Your honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
The judge denounced those "who would strike the sword from the hand of this nation while she is engaged in defending herself against a foreign and brutal power." He sentenced Debs to ten years in prison.
Debs's appeal was not heard by the Supreme Court until 1919. The war was over. Oliver Wendell Holmes, for a unanimous court, affirmed Debs's guilt. Holmes discussed Debs's speech: "He then ex pressed opposition to Prussian militarism in a way that naturally might have been thought to be intended to include the mode of proceeding in the United States." Holmes said Debs made "the usual contrasts between capitalists and laboring men . . . with the implication running through it all that the working men are not concerned in the war." Thus, Holmes said, the "natural and intended effect" of Debs's speech would be to obstruct recruiting.
Debs was locked up in the West Virginia state penitentiary, and then in the Atlanta federal penitentiary, where he spent thirty-two months until, at the age of sixty-six, he was released by President Harding in 1921.
*****
The war ended in November 1918. Fifty thousand American soldiers had died, and it did not take long, even in the case of patriots, for bitterness and disillusionment to spread through the country.
*****
With all the wartime jailings, the intimidation, the drive for national unity, when the war was over, the Establishment still feared socialism. There seemed to be a need again for the twin tactics of control in the face of revolutionary challenge: reform and repression.
The first was suggested by George L. Record, one of Wilson's friends, who wrote to him in early 1919 that something would have to be done for economic democracy, "to meet this menace of socialism." He said: "You should become the real leader of the radical forces in America, and present to the country a constructive program of fundamental reform, which shall be an alternative to the program presented by the socialists, and the Bolsheviki...."
That summer of 1919, Wilson's adviser Joseph Tumulty reminded him that the conflict between the Republicans and Democrats was unimportant compared with that which threatened them both:
What happened in Washington last night in the attempt upon the Attorney General's life is but a symptom of the terrible unrest that is stalking about the country.... As a Democrat I would be disappointed to see the Republican Party regain power. That is not what depresses one so much as to see growing steadily from day to day, under our very eyes, a movement that, if it is not checked, is bound to express itself in attack upon everything we hold dear. In this era of industrial and social unrest both parties are in disrepute with the average man....
"What happened in Washington last night" was the explosion of a bomb in front of the home of Wilson's Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer. Six months after that bomb exploded, Palmer carried out the first of his mass raids on aliens-immigrants who were not citizens. A law passed by Congress near the end of the war provided for the deportation of aliens who opposed organized government or advocated the destruction of property. Palmer's men, on December 21,1919, picked Up 249 aliens of Russian birth (including Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman), put them on a transport, and deported them to what had become Soviet Russia. The Constitution gave no right to Congress to deport aliens, but the Supreme Court had said, back in 1892, in affirming the right of Congress to exclude Chinese, that as a matter of self-preservation, this was a natural right of the government.
In January 1920, four thousand persons were rounded up all over the country, held in seclusion for long periods of time, brought into secret hearings, and ordered deported. In Boston, Department of Justice agents, aided by local police, arrested six hundred people by raiding meeting halls or by invading their homes in the early morning. A troubled federal judge described the process:
"Pains were taken to give spectacular publicity to the raid, and to make it appear that there was great and imminent public danger.... The arrested aliens, in most instances perfectly quiet and harmless working people, many of them not long ago Russian peasants, were handcuffed in pairs, and then, for the purposes of transfer on trains and through the streets of Boston, chained together... "
In the spring of 1920, a typesetter and anarchist named Andrea Salsedo was arrested in New York by FBI agents and held for eight weeks in the FBI offices on the fourteenth floor of the Park Row Building, not allowed to contact family or friends or lawyers. Then his crushed body was found on the pavement below the building and the FBI said he had committed suicide by jumping from the fourteenth floor window.
Two friends of Salsedo, anarchists and workingmen in the Boston area, having just learned of his death, began carrying guns. They were arrested on a streetcar in Brockton, Massachusetts, and charged with a holdup and murder that had taken place two weeks before at a shoe factory. These were Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti. They went on trial, were found guilty, and spent seven years in jail while appeals went on, and while all over the country and the world, people became involved in their case. The trial record and the surrounding circumstances suggested that Sacco and Vanzetti were sentenced to death because they were anarchists and foreigners. In August 1927, as police broke up marches and picket lines with arrests and beatings, and troops surrounded the prison, they were electrocuted.
Sacco's last message to his son Dante, in his painfully learned English was a message to millions of others in the years to come:
"So, Son, instead of crying, be strong, so as to be able to comfort your mother . . . take her for a long walk in the quiet country, gathering wild flowers here and there.... But remember always, Dante, in the play of happiness, don't you use all for yourself only.... help the persecuted and the victim because they are your better friends.... In this struggle of life you will find more and love and you will be loved."
There had been reforms. The patriotic fervor of war had been invoked. The courts and jails had been used to reinforce the idea that certain ideas, certain kinds of resistance, could not be tolerated. And still, even from the cells of the condemned, the message was going out: the class war was still on in that supposedly classless society, the United States. Through the twenties and the thirties, it was still on.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Greatest_Generation.html

[earthlover]

289. Congrats on the lengthy cut and paste....

But none of it refuted, and in fact your post supported my point that 1) Wilson tried to keep neutrality instead of jumping into WWI, 2) We did not go to war after the Lusitania, 3) Wilson was an idealist and wanted to prevent future wars like this one, 4) Wilson proposed the Fourteen Points, 5) the Republican SEnate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and its main objection was Wilson's pet peace idea, the League of Nations, an organization that lacked strength because the US did not join because of the Republican Senate.

Cindy's trotting out the claim that all wars started under Democrats is inaccurate, but it really distorts what happened with Wilson. Particularly because Wilson tried to build a framework to provide peace and prevent future wars, and it was the Republicans who fought it tooth and nail. In fact, most of the Allied Powers refused to follow Wilson's suggestions about the 14 Points and instead devised a very punitive settlement on the defeated, particularly Germany. Historians point to the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles as one key factor leading to the rise of Hitler's national socialism in Germany. If only they had listened to Wilson, World War II might not have happened.

Nobody is saying the Dem Party is perfect and has never participated in bad policies. However to paint it as respnsible for all the wars of the 20th Century is historically inaccurate. It simple is incorrect. And it feeds propaganda that not even the Republicans today spread. If you want to see far far far right wing propaganda such as this, you have to look no further than Cindy Sheehan. Most of the right wing propagandists are even embarrassed to spread this nonsense. Thanks, Cindy! And meanwhile she is ranting about the income tax.

[madrchsod]

69. oh... don`t bring that up here

i thought the democratic party was shit during the Vietnam war but i never left the party...

[barb162]

110. Sheehan, sadly, has become a real drama queen.

She could run against some Republican who has supported Bush on everything. But no, she chooses to run against a Democrat. I say to hell with Sheehan already, ever since she wrote her letter dissing the Democrats a few months ago.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ComerPerro]

120. she would run against a Repig only if she wanted to make real change

[jgraz]

128. Really? How would one more Dem in the House bring about real change?

The FISA bill would have passed by one less vote. Is that what you count as change?

[ComerPerro]

133. well, imagine if she used her legions of sycophants to support Dem candidates

talk about an energetic, mobilized group ready to travel and work for her......

It is obvious by all of her loyalists here on DU that she has captivated many, her cult of personality is powerful. Imagine if all these people were working to support Dems to run against sitting Repigs.

[jgraz]

138. You've never been within 100 yards of an anti-war rally, have you?

If you had, you'd know that most of the people involved are committed to the cause, not any one person. People support Cindy because she's working to end the war. Why do you support Pelosi?

[ComerPerro]

143. well, for starters, she is a Dem House Speaker with strong support in her district

add to that the fact that, unlike Cindy, Pelosi has actually had to be held accountable for her words and actions.

For the record, I haven't been to one of these rallys. I can't afford to travel around the country whenever the hell I feel like it. And I probably wouldn't go to one anyhow. Empty rhetoric in large groups makes me want to puke, and a bunch of people standing around with anti-Bush signs is about as meaningless to me as a bunch of freepers hiding behind American flags.

Moreover, I was against this president and against this war long before Sheehan even had a clue what was going on, and way before she was elevated to godlike status. I've also spread information as a volunteer for a US Rep and given support to an effort to fight a bigoted anti-gay marriage law (the bigots won, but its Kansas, no suprises).

Running as a complete novice against a well-respected and longstanding Representative, especially Speaker of the House, in a district you do not live in, all while spreading attacks and outrageous lies against that party, is quite frankly just pathetic.

She doesn't have a chance in hell of winning, and she won't be able to split the vote enough to let the Repig win.

As someone else pointed out, she claims a "suburb of Sacramento". So why not run against a Repig there as a Democrat?

[jgraz]

148. Well then, how nice of you to tell us activists how we think from behind your keyboard

I'm amazed that you managed to form such a strong opinion of the anti-war movement without ever having had any personal experience with it. Tell me, how does one do that? Is it some form of clairvoyance? It's a pretty cool trick, I'll tell you.

Well, I'm off to bed. You don't really need me for this conversation anyway. You just imagine what I would have said and fill in your part.

[ComerPerro]

180. ironic thing for you to say, since what you wrote had nothing to do with my post

I list how I have actually been involved with political figures, not just waving a stupid sign at a rally, and you pull that "you talk big from behind a keyboard" bullshit. Nice.

You asked why I support Pelosi, I told you. She actually has a chance in hell of getting things done, REAL things. Cindy is just a hollow shell of empty rhetoric, and I am starting to think you are too if you are naive enough to believe that crusing around the country with a "PEACE NOW" sign is actually gonna change a god damned thing.

[jgraz]

224. Please, tell me more about how the peace movement works

It's so enlightening to benefit from your wealth of experience. :eyes:

[ComerPerro]

234. its simple to explain how it works: All talk, all hype, no real action

showing up at John Conyers' office and throwing a fit accomplishes nothing, aside from getting a lot of attention. But once you have the attention, its best to actually use the energy and spotlight to set and accomplish tangible goals. That's why Cindy isn't a leader. She is fantastic with empty and tired rhetoric, but when it comes to practical application of her rhetoric, she hasn't a clue.

For example, the movement behind her wants to end the war now. Great, so do I. So what do they do? Do they lobby Dem Congressmen to try and come up with a proposal, and protest and challenge Republicans who want to continue this war? Hell no. Instead they insist on cutting all future funding (like that would somehow make Bush end the war) and attack rather than work with Dems.

The fascinating thing is that all the energy and hype in her cult doesn't really get much done. So where is the energy going?

[jgraz]

236. I'm sure it does seem simple to you

Just keep digging...this is getting quite entertaining.

[ComerPerro]

237. fine. Why do you list some of her cult's most notable accomplishments

[jgraz]

239. Naw. Why cloud your beautiful mind with actual information?

That might get in the way of your opinions.

[ComerPerro]

240. you don't have it. If you do, I am sincerely interested in seeing it.

[jgraz]

242. Sure you are

For you to even ask the question shows how seriously out of touch you are. I could tell you how Cindy's leadership brought people into the peace movement, got people to volunteer for phone banks and motivated people to get to the polls, but you simply won't accept it. Anyone who has already formed such strong opinions based simply on your own prejudices has already proven to be beyond the reach of actual facts and information.

[ComerPerro]

245. She has managed to cancel out those very minor accomplishments

for every person she has "energized" into joining the peace movement, she has probably managed to turn one or two or three people off of the peace movement.

You would be very hard pressed to find people who were motivated to vote only because of her, who wouldn't have voted if not for her.

And you are right about her getting people to make calls. Problem is, they are making those calls to harass Dems in Congress, and that's all.

[jgraz]

246. Once again, your grasp of the nonexistent is astounding

What the hell were you doing during the 2006 election? I was on a phone bank staffed mostly by people in Sheehan's "cult". We were calling registered Democrats and asking them to get out and vote. For Democrats.

We were working to take down people like Richard Pombo (you may have noticed he's not in Congress anymore). If Jack Kingston goes down in 2008, it will be largely due to work of Sheehan's "cult".

Please, step outside your bubble and educate yourself a little. It really is a bit embarrassing to have to counter such ignorance on a supposedly progressive forum.

[ComerPerro]

248. Cindy Sheehan is not a progressive. Give it up

she is just a woman who didn't really give a fuck about how wrong the war was until her son was unfortunately killed.

I've never heard her say a damn thing about progressive issues. Just childish nonsense about demanding a meeting with Bush and turning on Dems for not manifesting immediate results.

She knows nothing about political process, and probably doesn't share the progressive values that many of her supporters claim to embrace.

[Name removed]

250. Deleted message

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

[Virginia Dare]

214. How does replacing Nancy Pelosi with Cindy Sheehan..

bring about real change, how would that have effected the FISA bill?..:shrug:

[ComerPerro]

232. got that right

[Truth2Tell]

241. US? Got a mouse in your pocket?

She's not running against me, and I'm a lifelong Democrat. She may, however, be running against you.

And that darn "blame game." At least the Dem leadership isn't lowering themselves to playing it with Bush. They are sooo above that.

[rodeodance]

30. I am glad to see her do what she believes in.

[progressoid]

31. ...

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. Daniel Ellsberg has been on Cindy's 'side' since she became an activist

They are very good friends.

[defendandprotect]

41. Ellsberg helped break one myth -- Maybe Cindy will break a few other myths . . . .

I think whenever we have an independent run, there is a greater opportunity for truth.

Stop all the fearmongering and let's see what happens.

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. One of my greatest life experiences was meeting Daniel Ellsberg.

I spent a week with him at Camp Casey. Wow. what an awesome man. One day I overheard him doing a radio interview. The reporter asked
'When you turned over the Pentagon Papers, did you expect to get arrested?'

Ellsberg replied: Yes

Reporter: Did you think you would go to prison?

Ellsberg: Yes

Reporter: How long did you think you would have to spend in prison?

Ellsberg: Well, for the rest of my life, of course.

[William769]

42. Well, at least it's official now.

[tinrobot]

44. Carpetbagger.

Running for office means representing you constituents. She has no interest in the people of San Francisco. She doesn't even live there.

[proud2BlibKansan]

79. Do you even know WHERE she lives?

Do you know the residency requirements for California congress reps?

Guess not.

[CreekDog]

84. proud: he didn't argue that she didn't have a legal right to run

He argued that she wouldn't be a good representative because she doesn't live in the district and likely doesn't know its specific needs.

Why don't you criticize what he actually said.

[proud2BlibKansan]

91. Okay I will repeat

He obviously doesn't know WHERE she lives.

[CreekDog]

98. Nobody knows where Sheehan lives

She won't tell us except to say it's a "suburb" of Sacramento.

She could run against a Republican up there and probably people like me would actually support her.

But that's not her goal.

[Yukari Yakumo]

104. "But that's not her goal."

You only target the biggest game for following purposes only; to grandstand and to put attention on yourself.

Pelosi will ignore her and rightfully so. However, someone should call her out and ask her why she's targeting Pelosi instead of Matsui. Or a Chickenhawk Rethug. I know why, anyone with a clue knows why. She is doing this is not for the message. It's about ego.

_______________

[proud2BlibKansan]

107. I know

You didn't think of that, did you? :)

[Zhade]

207. I think it's hilarious that people say that about Sheehan, but ignore that Clinton did it too.

NT!

[Raine]

46. I'm sure Pelosi is quaking

like a leaf...NOT! :rofl: Pelosi will beat Cindy like a drum! :bounce: :evilgrin:

[Amonester]

62. arrogance is not a good attitude - eom

[Raine]

149. Not being arrogant, just being real ...

plus being happy about it. :D

[Zhade]

209. That's arrogance.

NT!

[Divine Discontent]

273. you have it right Zhade

it's arrogance. :)

[LiberalFighter]

47. Running as an Independent? Not a wise move IMO.

Why? What pull will she have if she were to get elected? Not much unless she is the swing vote. She would have a better chance at being the swing vote in the Senate then the House.

If things work out right the margin in both chambers will be wider.

[Seabiscuit]

76. She's running as an Independent because

trying to challenge Pelosi and the Democratic party machinery in a primary contest as a Democrat would absolutely guarantee failure. Her only chance at all is to challenge Pelosi in the general election as an Independent. I would think that would be obvious to anyone. And look at Bernie Sanders. What she is attempting is most certainly NOT impossible.

[CreekDog]

231. I don't see that as an excuse

If Cindy won't run as a Democrat in the primary because she can't win, well, that should tell her something about the viability of her candidacy. And if she can't win in the primary among Democrats, her odds of winning are only going to decrease in the general election.

But Cindy's not a detail type person; at least that's the impression she's giving.

[Seabiscuit]

278. I mentioned in another post

that the reason she can't win in the democratic primary is obvious: Both the DNC and the DSCC, but especially the latter, count progress and victory by the number of seats filled by Congresspeople with the word "Democrat" attached to it. Therefore, when a sitting Democrat like Pelosi runs for re-election, they give all their money and all their publicity and all their feet-on-the-ground support to that incumbent. A Democratic challenger gets totally shunned by those organizations as well as the local chapters of the Democratic party. There is no way in hell anyone can run on a Democratic ticket to challenge even a controversial Democratic incumbent, unless they're a multimillionaire like Lamont in Connecticut and can finance their own campaign entirely by themselves. Last I heard, Cindy's not laughing all the way to the bank these days.

For a non-Republican to unseat Pelosi, anyone challenging her has absolutely no choice but to run as an Independent in the general election to stand any realistic chance of winning.

And don't rule that out - it's not impossible - just look at people like Bernie Sanders (I).

Cindy may be naive about a lot of things, but I think she got some coaching about this.

[CreekDog]

282. I grew up in that district and I am in it everyday

Sheehan's run is totally unrealistic, whether as an Independent or contender in the Democratic primary. If anything, Sheehan's best chance of support is in the Democratic primary, who will be more liberal and more anti-war than the general electorate in November.

If you think it the contest will be close, perhaps but because of what voters will do, Nancy will win even if Sheehan gets close, here's why:

1) the "independent label" run against a sitting Democratic representative who is progressive and liberal and has run many times, winning by huge margins will automatically be a big drag on Sheehan's attempt to get votes from Democrats and Democratic leaners, who make up around 75% of the voters. A sizable chunk of these voters resent Nader for his independent run which hurt Gore --they will not be voting for Sheehan.

2) union voters: with Sheehan's statements about tax policies and her lack of membership in the Democratic party means that she is at a disadvantage among union members and their families who will vote and encourage their friends and colleagues to vote the powerful candidate that is good on labor issues. Big advantage to Pelosi.

3) African-American voters: For some reason that I cannot fully explain, these voters on balance are much less enamored of 3rd party runs against Democrats. For instance in 2000, Nader proportionally got only a third of the votes from African-Americans as he did among white voters. What that means is that their vote is likely to come almost in a solid block in favor of Pelosi and Sheehan has no similar sized group that will vote in a block to counter it. Further, it's African-American voters voting for Newsom that won the election for Gavin Newsom against Green Party member and opponent Matt Gonzales.

4) Republican voters: Yes, they are out there and a lot will vote for Pelosi, especially against Sheehan. Republican voters in SF are used to voting for the liberal candidate that they prefer. For instance they voted for Gavin Newsom and Willie Brown when those candidates were faced with more liberal challengers, Matt Gonzales (Green Party) and Tom Ammiano.

And those are not only reasons that Pelosi will win, but likely stomp Sheehan. She is frankly a terrible fit for the district, her antiwar position is not very distinct from Pelosi's antiwar position.

[Seabiscuit]

304. Those may well be the factors which will keep Pelosi in office...

unless the Democratic voters in S.F. who have given her 80% of the vote in the past turn out to be more liberal in principle than loyal to the Democratic party. I've lived and worked in S.F. myself and am familiar with how staunchly liberal as well as how staunchly Democratic the district is (I worked on Moscone's successful campaign against Feinstein for Mayor back in 1975-76. The liberal Moscone easily trounced the more conservative Feinstein, in part because the Democratic Party machinery, labor unions, and even Willie Brown himself were behind him).

I happen to disagree that Pelosi's "antiwar position is not very distinct from Pelosi's antiwar position". Pelosi demonstrated repeatedly during the recent Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill fiasco that her pro-war deeds simply don't match her rather ludicrous by now anti-war words. And with her lack of leadership on the recent FISA fiasco, I suspect that the voters in S.F. may have had enough of Pelosi's Bush-enabling and hypocrisy by now. I certainly have. If I were still living there I'd vote for almost anyone to unseat her.

[TheCowsCameHome]

49. She'll get nowhere.

[barb162]

111. And that's exactly what she deserves to get.

Let her run in a conservative Republican district somewhere.

[Divine Discontent]

274. at least she's putting pressure on Pelosi

Pelosi has caved in to the PATRIOTIC b*sh family, because she thinks georgie boy is a NICE PERSON


He's a war criminal - and the words above are what she actually said about him & his criminal family.


you speak crap about Cindy when she's not calling georgie boy a nice person who comes from a PATRIOTIC family.

[Catchawave]

50. Are we supporting 3rd Party Candidates now?

I guess I'd feel better about this if Cindy was challenging Nancy in a Dem primary, but WTF?

[Oldenuff]

51. What does it cost

to rent an apartment in Pelosi's district?I might be willing to take up residency,and cast a vote for Cindy,in protest to Pelosi if nothing else.

[NotGivingUp]

52. Take that Pelosi! We want impeachment and we want it NOW! n/t

[19jet54]

53. Good luck Cindy!!!

The American Way - Learn from your political defeat :) Surround yourself with good people, with all kinds of different views, listen & learn from your mistakes... and the people will love you more than ever - if you listen rather than impose just your own views.

"What is the secret to Politics Mr. Kennedy?" - Young Politician wanna be asked.

"That you honestly care about the people; They will forgive everything else, but never that." - Joseph Kennedy Sr.

BTW - Since you are an Independent & We are democrats (DU) here, I hope you loose big time!

[proud2BlibKansan]

80. Um I think you mean 'lose'

:eyes:

[David Zephyr]

56. Misguided.

I admire Cindy greatly and will still after she loses to Pelosi, but this is a misguided, but understandable effort.

[ComerPerro]

58. not nearly enough people in Pelosi's district are dumb enough to vote for Cindy

Give up the Speaker of the House for a complete novice with no political experience and even less credibility?

No way. Not gonna happen.

And unfortunately for Cindy, she isn't gonna impact the election enough to split the vote so a Republican wins, which is probably her goal.

[rodeodance]

184. no, but she will be nipping on Nancy's heel-----maybe enough to force her

a bit to the LEFT???

[ComerPerro]

186. probably won't make an impact. Not many people take Cindy seriously

[Conscious Confucius]

59. Hopefully she'll have a bit more substance than Patty Wetterling

One issue candidates don't win offices anymore.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

68. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proud2BlibKansan]

83. Welcome to DU!

I love your post!! Speaking truth to power.

:hi:

[CreekDog]

89. speaking opinion to a bunch of website readers

please get over yourself.

[proud2BlibKansan]

94. How about posting some substance instead of name calling and insults?

[CreekDog]

99. if you want to cheerlead for Sheehan

Don't expect me to give you credit and be quiet about it.

You certainly aren't quiet when you disagree on this thread and elsewhere and you aren't shy about insults either.

[proud2BlibKansan]

108. Alert is your friend

And as for your credit, I can get by just fine without it. :hi:

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[Yukari Yakumo]

93. Problem with that is

No one has ignored her, she brought the ridicule upon herself recently, and she's the one starting the fights.

[madrchsod]

67. good luck cindy

you`ll need it....

[unkachuck]

71. Cindy running....

....a serious challenge might force Nancy to pay more attention to us, the people....Nancy has been distant and unresponsive to us regarding the war, impeachment, etc....maybe she's lost her focus, maybe she is need of some political therapy....

....but being every mindful of the DU rules, I will not say, Go Cindy Go!!

....I will not remind people that the operative word for the '08 election is 'change' and that very few Dems represent it....

....I wouldn't prematurely laugh at Cindy either; notice how wall street tanked again today?....November '08 is a political lifetime away....

[saltpoint]

72. I predict Nancy Pelosi will hold her seat in the 111th Congress by a very

comfortable -- and very justifiable -- margin.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

121. O my. Thou speaks of nothing.

I've been one of her constituents.

I'd vote for her again in a heartbeat.

Cindy Sheehan has every right to run against Nancy Pelosi.

I have every right to hope Pelosi holds that seat, and as noted above I think it won't be much of a contest.

[derby378]

74. Here's one of my big concerns with Cindy running as an independent

Let's say that Cindy wins the election and unseats Pelosi, and now it's Day One for her at Capitol Hill. Who does Congresswoman Sheehan, as an independent, caucus with?

Does she caucus with the Republicans? She just spent over two years denouncing them as cowardly war profiteers and enablers of corruption and torture. Practically all of them are furious with Cindy for upsetting their little war party. There's no way.

Or does she caucus with the Democrats? She just unseated the first-ever female Speaker of the House in our nation's history - and she just happened to be a Democrat. And she's got a lot of friends on the Hill who will be pissed off at Cindy.

So what you have is a novice Congresswoman who is politically isolated, who is brimming over with great ideas but having the hardest time getting any of her colleagues to listen to her.

If Cindy ran as a Democrat, sure, you'd have a lot of pissed-off Democrats on the Hill, but after a while they'd get over it and realize that the Democratic voters of that district have indeed spoken, and it's time for all Democrats to hold hands and move forward in a new direction and blah-blah-blah. But since she's running as an independent against a Democrat, rather than trying to change the Democratic Party from the ground up, the equation changes completely.

[jgraz]

114. Are you kidding?

Not that she's gonna even come close to winning, but just imagine IF a political novice without party support managed to knock off the Speaker of the House by running as a far-left anti-war candidate. Can you imagine the earthquake that would hit establishment D.C. politics?

The remaining Dems would be lining up to kiss her ring.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[proud2BlibKansan]

87. Welcome to DU!!

:hi:

[ButterflyBlood]

85. I endorse the Democrat in this race

Not the woman who has turned into the laughingstock of the anti-war movement.

[proud2BlibKansan]

92. Are you even in the anti-war movement?

I doubt it cause she is not a laughing stock to me or anyone else I know who actually are involved, with our feet on the ground, as part of the anti-war movement.

[SSpeedracer]

96. Believe it or not there

are people, regardless of party affiliation, that listen (hook, line & Sinker) to FOX news. Cindy doesnt hide behind a keyboard and bitch about whats wrong with this world, she goes out and tries to change it!

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[Alexander]

173. Dumbest post ever.

Pelosi voted against the IWR.

Oh right, facts don't matter to the Cindy fanatics. :eyes:

[nebula]

192. That's fine and all,

but what has Pelosi done LATELY to put a stop to the ever escalating madness in Iraq??

Oh that's right, Pelosi has done NOTHING about it.

Nothing but cater to Bush's every whim that is.

[Name removed]

266. Deleted message

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

[ButterflyBlood]

176. Pelosi voted against the war authorization

She voted for a timetable for withdrawal, and voted against war funding.

Pelosi is not pro-war.

[Zhade]

211. Interesting fact - that war funding bill never had to come to the floor.

Yet Pelosi allowed it to. Why?

[Marrah_G]

181. Yes because Ms Pelosi is pro-war?

What a completely moronic statement.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[SSpeedracer]

101. Why harder to achieve?

Perhaps because Pelosi is not doing HER duty to defend OUR constitution.

[Rainscents]

103. Exactly!!!

From now to Nov, 2008 is long way and anything can happen... People are waking up and they're NOT going to take it no more!

[Yukari Yakumo]

105. And how *exactly* do you expect her to do that? {nt}

[SSpeedracer]

106. IMPEACHMENT simple enough for the

house majority leader heh? It took far less to impeach Bill.

Off the Table = Grab your ankles

If the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee suggests Impeaching the president, and the majority leader says "its off the table" you've got to decide who is right. I researched and decided. Have you?

[Yukari Yakumo]

137. Riiight.

And just what good does impeachment do when it's destined to fail, among with a dozen or so very, very nasty things that will makes things look very, very bad for the party (and all the causes we claim to support).

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

112. Right, she's only Speaker of the friggin House of Representatives

She's practically powerless!

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[calteacherguy]

118. Even odds she'll break 1% of the vote. nt

[nebula]

123. That's because the media will ignore/ridicule and or demonize Sheehan

It also helps to be one of the richest members of Congress
and have a personal net worth of over $25 million, such as Pelosi does.

In the American political system, that kind of money will virtually guarantee your victory.

[barb162]

129. Maybe. Money always helps in a campaign.

Does it make you wonder why she'd run against a powerful and extremely popular Democratic House member if she could run against an unpopular, not so rich Republican? I think the drama queen thing is going way too far and she believes her own hype.

[nebula]

135. "Extremely popular Democratic House member"

I don't see much evidence of Nancy's alleged popularity on DU or anywhere else.

Have you seen the latest approval ratings of the majority Democratic Congress?

They make even Dick Cheney look good.

[barb162]

141. You might want to take a look at Pelosi's numbers in the last race

She got a gigantic % of the vote in her District. I'm well aware of the last poll on Congress. Not pretty.
Even saying that, I'm still voting for my Senators again on their next runs because I am pretty happy with them.

[calteacherguy]

131. No, it's because she has said some very stupid things and made a fool of herself. nt

[Maddy McCall]

130. I pity her.

[calteacherguy]

132. I do too, it's really pathetic. Sad. nt

[Maddy McCall]

134. Yes.

I hope she finds peace in herself.

[Yukari Yakumo]

139. It is indeed sad.

She's still using her dead son as a crutch to further her own goals. Having a relative killed in combat does not one an expert in anything. It's an excuse. A sad, pathetic one at that. It denegrates the honorable dead who cannot speak for themselves. Anyone who uses the dead as a crutch for their own agenda is beyond shameless.

[barb162]

146. When she first announced she was thinking of running

against Pelosi which was soon after she said she was going to take a long rest and be a mother to her other kids, I thought, what the hell is that woman doing now? And I absolutely agree, having a child die doesn't make her an expert, except, very sadly, at grief.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

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

[Yukari Yakumo]

154. Name one BushCo bill Pelosi actually voted for. {nt}

[Zhade]

213. Name one b*s*co bill Pelosi's blocked from coming to the floor, which is in her power to do.

NT!

[jgraz]

244. Bingo. Anyone who doesn't see the Dem leadership's complicity is being scammed

How many bills came to the floor in the Rethug-controlled House that did not have the approval of Hastert and DeLay? How many came to the floor that didn't have the approval of the majority of rank-and-file Repigs?

The minority in the House is a fucking hangnail. They can be completely steamrolled, as we saw during the first 6 years of Chimpy DecideyPants. In order for these bills to get a vote, the Democrats have to WANT them to get a vote.

[David__77]

175. Did you think so when she was camped outside Bush's ranch?

What you said is exactly what the right-wingers were saying then.

[barb162]

142. I defintely feel sorry for her.

[High Plains]

145. I feel sorry for people who rag on this woman out of nothing more...

...than partisanship.

If Sheehan mounts a serious campaign, she will lose. But she has every right to challenge Pelosi from the left...without being insulted by keyboard commandos.

[barb162]

147. She certainly has just as much of a right

to eun as "keyboard commandos" have a right to express their opinions within the rules of this forum.

[Yukari Yakumo]

155. When she says things like this...

When she says things like this:



She leaves herself wide open to criticism. And probably all of it completely deserved.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[saracat]

151. Per Du rules.Can'r advocate for a non Dem against a seated Dem! Sorry!

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

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

[Alexander]

152. Great idea, run against the ANTI-WAR Speaker of the House...

When the single issue that made you famous has to do with the Iraq War.

I feel sorry for her at this point. Her handlers need to go.

[nebula]

153. If Pelosi is anti-war

then I'm the Queen of England.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

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

[nebula]

190. Hell NO it ain't enough

As the most powerful member of Congress, Pelosi could have done far more to put a stop to the war.

But instead she chose to allow Bush to continue and escalate the war unhindered without a shred of meaningful opposition.

[nebula]

191. Pelosi, what have you done for me LATELY?

Give me one good reason why Pelosi deserves to be re-elected?

As the most powerful member of Congress, what has Pelosi done
LATELY to put a stop to the ever escalating madness in Iraq??

Oh that's right. NOTHING.

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

215. You know, these bills never had to come to the floor.

Pelosi (and Reid) could have blocked them.

Excuse THAT away (oh, right, you can't).

[Alexander]

267. She got a majority in Congress to vote against the war several times.

If that's not enough for you, nothing will ever be enough.

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

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

[nebula]

195. You mean this timetable??

Democrats Relent On Pullout Timetable

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
May 23, 2007

Democrats gave up their demand for troop-withdrawal deadlines in an Iraq war spending package yesterday, abandoning their top goal of bringing U.S. troops home and handing President Bush a victory in a debate that has roiled Congress for months.

Washington Post

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

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

[nodehopper]

309. WORD.

[NuttyFluffers]

157. good! makes me lover her more!

being involved in our governmental process in support of the constitution and USA citizens is a patriotic thing to do and should be encouraged! everyone, join a primary, if you can! :7

[Anita Garcia]

159. Raise your hand if you have run for any office.

Any office?
Anyone?
It's like men telling me I can't have an abortion.
It's like rich people telling me to work and pick up my child from school.
It's like white people telling me I'm a n-lover for being in the NAACP.
It's like people over 18 who are not in the service telling me being in Iraq in a good thing.
It's like virtual people telling me that protests and rallies don't change a thing.
It's like cowards who complain about the phrase "speaking truth to power".
If you have never run for office, your opinion about someone running for office means nothing!

[EFerrari]

163. I ran for yearbook editor in 7th grade but lost.

lol

[Anita Garcia]

179. I would have voted for you!

But, the important thing is that you ran.
Probably away, but still, you ran!

[jgraz]

225. Let me guess -- Nader ran against you as an independent

That fucking guy screws up everything!

[EFerrari]

226. LOL! Damn him!

:rofl:

[Vidar]

161. Bravo Cindy!

[BigDDem]

162. Cindy Sheehan-Romney will beat Nancy Pelosi right after....

Hell freezes over.
Donkeys fly.
Pope endorses gay marriage.
Dennis K gets the Democratic nomination.

Guess what folks, ain't a gonna happen.

[Tesha]

165. Then you have nothing to worry about, right?

No problem if she challenges Pelosi.

Tesha

[BigDDem]

166. Exactly!

Should be good for a few laughs.

[Tesha]

168. War deaths often are...

> Should be good for a few laughs.

War deaths often are, if you're "that" sort of person.

Tesha

[BigDDem]

185. I dont think war deaths are funny

those are your words, not mine.
If you think that's funny, that's your opinion I guess.

[Marrah_G]

200. I think her running is amusing and I certainly don't think war deaths are funny

Your implication that that is what the poster said is disgusting and insulting.

I don't support Ms Sheehan and I have "skin in the game"

Geesh you people never give up the pathetic attacks on anyone who doesn't worship your hero.

Go cheerlead on a pro-Cindy site so we don't have to hear your crap.

[Tesha]

228. Sometimes, the truth hurts.

Sometimes, the truth hurts.

And Pelosi has been completely ineffective at the
two main goals that the people of the United States
hired the Democrats to accomplish:

o Hold Bush and his cronies accountable, and

o End the war.

Tesha

[Ken Burch]

293. Cindy Sheehan-Romney? That's a completely unjustified slur

Cindy can't be compared at all to the Former HairHead of Massachusetts.

[followthemoney]

164. It's the people's house. Cindy is one of the people.

Do you have some kind of bias against the people?

[nini]

167. Just wondering .. does she have to pay taxes on campaign contributions?

Good way to get income to fly around to her current events I'd say.

[ComerPerro]

243. I was thinking it is mostly a fundraising scam

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

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

[Freddie Stubbs]

198. Real Democrats run as Democrats

Why is she afraid of facing Democratic voters in the primary? :shrug:

[Marrah_G]

199. I am sure you can find other sites to cheerlead for her

You just can't do it here. If you don't like the rules, oh well.

[Gravel2008]

222. Oh but I have no problem with the rules.

As I read them I'm not breaking them though. But I digress. And I won't argue about it. Cindy will have lots of support for her run from other sites, you are correct about that.

[Marrah_G]

223. Thinly disguising yours posts by not specifically stating "vote for Cindy".....

...really doesn't change the meaning of the post. You make it very clear what you mean and that you aren't saying it in specific terms because of the rules. A duck is a duck.

[Gravel2008]

285. A duck is a duck and Cindy is a pariah on DU.

Sad.

[rodeodance]

182. "Peace activist"------I like that. Hope it sticks

[The Stranger]

201. Nancy Pelosi, please put impeachment back on the table.

The planet is asking you. It isn't that hard. It really isn't.

[jgraz]

230. But, but, but....doesn't she need a veto-proof majority to do anything?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

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

[Stinky The Clown]

252. I will wager right now that Speaker Pelosi will never have to even acknowlege her

That fact may not set well with some and may be cheered by others, but I think it is a fair prediction.

[dailykoff]

259. Won't make any difference either way.

Right now I'd guess that Sheehan has at least as much name recognition in Pelosi's district as Pelosi and that she'll attract all the media attention she can handle with or without Pelosi's acknowledgment.

[ConfidentialStatus]

261. I won't shoot the messenger

However, I am a newbie and now I've been shot and barely alive. Geez!

[K8-EEE]

295. Welcome to DU!

Hot button issue I guess....

:hi:

I love newbies!

[tammywammy]

263. So what's Cindy going to do after she loses?

[bluedog]

306. try to mend the relationship with her children n/t

[tammywammy]

307. I'd hope so

Though didn't I read that her daughter supports her. :shrug: I hope that she does actually get a chance to really grieve, I feel that she hasn't yet.

[NoodleyAppendage]

277. Truth is...Cindy stood by her convictions and is DOING SOMETHING to make change. How 'bout you?

People can bitch and moan about how Cindy is a "sideshow" or a distraction. Or, that "she doesn't stand a chance."

But, you cannot deny that she has the courage of her convictions. I only wish I could say the same of our Dem leadership.

Nuff' said,
J

[CreekDog]

283. And Pelosi is doing something to make change as well

It's not the same thing Sheehan is doing, but Pelosi is certainly standing by her consistent opposition to the war combined with support of the troops in the field.

[Ken Burch]

292. You aren't opposed to the war if you aren't trying to put stopping it first.

The blood of all who died this summer is on OUR party's hands. We could have made a stand.

Not fighting against evil never works. Tactical retreat never works.

[CreekDog]

299. Don't tell me or anyone else what we support or oppose

Speak for yourself.

[Ken Burch]

308. I was talking about Pelosi and Reid. They've given up and you know it.

If we defend them we're agreeing to lose. Not fighting from day one means not fighting at all. No delays ever work, no strategic retreats or compromises ever work. Got it?

Pelosi and Reid obviously don't want to hold Congress, or they'd fight Bush as equals.

[NoodleyAppendage]

298. Blah, blah, blah. Please point to where Pelosi has forced a substantial change?

She's terrified to throw her weight around to prompt a pull out or to curb the Dictator in Chief's power grab. I see her working on social and ethics issues, but what of the most important issues of the war and civil liberties.

J

[ButterflyBlood]

286. Pelosi is doing a hell of a lot more for change than Cindy

That's for sure.

[HuffleClaw]

288. and who is gonna piss away their money by funding this ?

better them than me