Why doesn't Cindy Sheehan protest repukes?

[cynatnite]

I know I'll probably get flamed and I'm prepared for that, but this is a serious question I'm asking. She and others protested a dem news conference not long after the elections and today she was at Conyers' office where she was arrested.

Why not the repukes? Shouldn't she go there, get the spotlight put on them and make them explain their support of the war to her face in front of the cameras? Why not sit in at a repuke office?

I've heard it said by a lot of dems they need repuke support to do more to end the war and it seems to me that Cindy Sheehan can do a lot on that end by showing up at every repuke door and making them accountable. Maybe some repuke votes could get swung in the right direction.

What do you think?

[JI7]

1. not just repukes but some of the conservative leaning Dems also

protesting Conyers and Pelosi just makes her lose credibility.

[zehnkatzen]

37. I was confused by the fights she's choosing...

Well, not exactly confused by her criticism of Pelosi. I'm still a Pelosi fan, but I think she could be prosecuting the important problems better. They have accomplish an awful lot in the House, but avoiding sometimes looking like the 'go along to get along' type has apparently not been high on the leadership's priorities.

But occupying Conyers' office? I just don't get that. Conyers has been loud, undeniably opinionated, and on the right side from the beginning–from documenting the Ohio atrocity to having a hearing which couldn't be called a hearing in a room that was essentially a broom closet in the basement on it.

I still believe in Cindy, but she needs to choose her fights a little more carefully. Conyers is on her side, and has been one of the most unafraid–and unmuzzled–critics the unnamed administration has. I just don't get it.

[struggle4progress]

90. Exactly: pick somebody whose attitude needs adjustment.

[speakclearly]

107. The Republicans won't

respond to her. There is no "man bites dog" in the sotry if she attacks Republicans, so the news doesn't carry it. Its "same ol', same ol'". But by attacking Democrats, she can get the attention she has become so addicted to. Remember, she retired from protesting and called libersl and progressives "back-stabbers" and "self-interested". That's all of us here on this weblog. You are a back-stabber and a self-interested, self-promoter who doesn't really care about the issue. Her retirement lasted about 2 months, and she found she missed being in the limelight. So now she has "resurected" herself and is back on page one. Hooray for Cindy! Makes me feel a lot better, how about you?

[moodforaday]

129. No. Know what a self-interested backstabber is?

A self-interested backstabber is someone who will support their party rather than supporting peace. Someone who will support the party, even if the party leaders are sponsored by the likes of Rupert Murdoch. Someone who will support the party at the expense of everything that the party was supposed to represent.

[_Wayne_]

2. You won't get flamed from me.

I completely agree.

[babylonsister]

3. Because the Dems have the power, especially with Conyers; he wants what she

wants, but can't say that - yet. It's going to happen really soon.
And per Botany, it's going to be a freight train that will overtake us.

I'm game!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1413576&mesg_id=1413603

[Cleita]

70. I think Conyers is in on it.

He and Cindy know each other better than just being in the same space at the same time type of knowing each other. It's theater I believe to highlight issues and it's a safer venue for Cindy than attacking the Repukes. Look what they did to her at the State of the Union address. She could end up in Gitmo or something equally unsavory and dangerous if the Republican she attacks is nasty about it. It's safer for her to do it this way and still get her point across the aisle, which is what she's doing. I know many of us are confused about her tactics, but I think that's what's going on.

[Virginia Dare]

103. Sometimes protesters have to face the unsavory or the dangerous..

Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks did.

[Cleita]

111. Cindy has done so in the past and it almost ate her up.

Unfortunately, she doesn't really have the fortitude displayed by King, Parks, Mandela and Ghandi, but she is an important figure nonetheless because no one else is leading a movement that is pointing out our abusurdities and institutionalized malfaeance. This Cindy is doing very well. More of us should try it and I challenge anyone who is attacking her stance to come up to the plate and do it better. Who among "the Cindy is a traitor to Democrats" bellowers are willing to stage civil disobedience and sit in protests in Congress and the White house as they suggest she does? I'll bet all those chickenhawks fade back into the woodwork quickly when push comes to shove.

[Marrah_G]

106. I am sure Conyers is just thrilled

I am sure he is just waiting to have a big hug fest with people who scream "shame on you" and then publish articles stating that his close friend would be so ashamed of him that she would drop dead, except that she is already dead. How convenient that she isn't here to tell these asses to stop using her name to harm her friend.

I'm watching you and others scrambling to say "Oh nooooo, they weren't really attacking Conyers, it's all part of a super secret master plan you just don't know yet." You know what? She doesn't like the Dems, her boy David doesn't like the Dems either. I am inclined to take them at their word when they spend the day attacking a Dem leader and then head hope to write incredibly insulting articles about the same Dem leader.

[Cleita]

110. The fact is that you are making assumptions as I was, so your

point is no more valid than mine. We will see who is right once all the facts are out. To tell the truth I'm not liking Dems these days either. Look at which corporate sponsored front runners are ahead in the primaries, yet every straw poll that pops up seems to point to a populist Dennis Kucinich instead, a real Democrat, as the choice of the people, not the ones who are running the show these days. I will still vote for a Democrat including Nancy Pelosi or Dianne Feinstein if they are the candidate, but my bank account is closed until there is some internal housekeeping investigation of corruption.

[Virginia Dare]

112. What straw polls are you talking about...

Moveon just did a straw poll and Edwards won it. I think Kucinich got 2 percent, which really did shock me.

[Cleita]

113. Actually, Thom Hartmann runs one every week and Gore usually

comes out on top with Kucinich second and sometimes Edwards, but more often Kucinich. But since Gore isn't running he doesn't count right now. Also, various other random polls I have run across have similar results although I don't remember where I saw them off hand. Also Sam Seder ran one a couple of Sundays ago and Kucinich won, so it seems the corporate favorites are not the populist favorites.

Also, Dennis Kucinich was leading with DU donations until Edwards passed him. It seems Edwards got some fat checks there. Apparently we Kucinich supporters can't spare the fat donations. Dennis has gotten 29 donations and Edwards 56 from DUers, the most donations that any of the candidates have received from DUers. I consider DU a good cross section of the left side vote.

http://www.actblue.com/page/du-presidential

It makes you wonder about the front runners not being that popular at DU and whom is actually supporting them?

[thereismore]

4. She started with Shrub, remember? Now she is pushing where she thinks

is the least resistance and greatest potential gain. The party in power. I don't hold it against her.

[babylonsister]

6. She really started when her son died, and hasn't given up.

IMO, she's entitled to complain, and we're all more aware.

[moodforaday]

130. This is a very good point

Also, who is more dangerous: the enemy or someone who pretends to be on your side, then turns their back on you and enables the enemy?

[NanceGreggs]

5. Agreed.

I have a lot of respect for Sheehan, on many levels. But I think her recent efforts have been misguided.

If she has a beef with the Dems for not doing enough, or doing it fast enough, that's her prerogative. But banging on Conyers' door doesn't help her case.

She still has the spotlight; why not shine it on the Republicans who are digging their heels in while soldiers die?

[SeattleGirl]

12. My thoughts exactly, Nance. I have no problem with her going

after the Dems, but I think she should ALSO go after the Republicans. They are part of the government too, and are obstructing many things that a lot of us think are important.

[aquart]

7. That would be my question.

My guess is that she feels personally betrayed by these people because they ARE on her side, but haven't done what she feels they promised. I'm not much impressed by her actions of late. (Although one lady wore a t-shirt I adored: Business before pleasure. Impeach Cheney first.)

[mmonk]

8. She did.

[SeattleGirl]

15. Besides Bush, what Republicans has she gone after?

I'm not snarking you. It's an honest questions. Perhaps I missed something somewhere along the way.

[mmonk]

23. I have not tracked her. But to answer the OP's question,

she is protesting the democrats because they have a majority in the House and will not act on that majority to impeach. Naturally, the Speaker's position and the Judiciary chair are natural targets if they have the power to do so but have chosen not to. Is she only right if she protests republicans on this issue?

[Swamp Rat]

Because we already know where they stand?

I doubt if any refucklican would swing our way because of a Cindy Sheehan protest, though I don't entirely disagree with your point.

The refucklicans need to be shamed, humiliated, and slammed hardcore, not because they will change their votes, but because some of their constituents might force them to change.

[tularetom]

9. Well she DID spend a couple of summers in Crawford TX

trying to confront the boy king for an explanation of why her kid died.

If she wants to run against Pelosi, fine, it's a free country.

Conyers, I'm not so sure about. He seems to be one of the few Dems that's actually trying to do something about this cartel.

[Nutmegger]

10. Who's in charge right now? [n\t]

[TwilightGardener]

11. PROTEST them? I read that she was on CNN praising Ron Paul.

on edit--granted, he is anti-war, but I'm not sure he's more of a hero than Democrats like Kennedy, Byrd, Feingold, Kucinich, etc.

[mmonk]

13. And why is that?

[TwilightGardener]

18. Why was she singling out Paul for praise? I guess because she

seems to now hate Democrats. Why is Paul not that much of a hero on the war? For me, it's because he's just an all-around isolationist. He wouldn't intervene ANYWHERE--it's just his policy. As opposed to good Dems who wrestled with the threat of Saddam and WMD's, and still decided not to authorize war because there wasn't enough intelligence to do so.

[mmonk]

28. So you are against praise for Ron Paul when he states

his opposition to the war and bush's power grabs?

[TwilightGardener]

57. No--but why promote a Republican, when pretty much all Dem candidates

and those in Congress are anti-war and taking steps to end it? Nope, instead she calls the Democratic party the party of war and slavery, for God's sake--as if Dems aren't worthy of praise at all. Seems to me, and I could be wrong here (didn't see the interview), that she was elevating Paul over the Dems in terms of leadership in ending the war. That's the gist of what I read. That rankles, if true.

[mmonk]

19. She won't protest Kucinich.

Why would she protest someone who is against the war, has tried to defund it, and has introduced articles of impeachment since those are her positions?

[Lilith Velkor]

68. Yet.

I'm sure her sycophants will think up something.

[sniffa]

94. oh Lord

you peopLe kiLL me. :eyes:

[lvx35]

14. That's the million dollar question.

Maybe she's sick of the incredible heat and wants a foe whose safe to harass. Whatever the reason, It makes no sense. The Republicans are still in charge at so many levels, and if she wants that to end, she needs to be active in building us up, not tearing us down.

[BuyingThyme]

16. You're right. She should go and camp on their fucking driveways!

This is just ridiculous! Holding Democrats accountable. Ridiculous!

[Drum]

17. More points value in haranguing the others?

:shrug: In other words, I don't know or understand.

Personally, I feel that more skill/gift in politics would involve changing the minds most opposed to your own philosophy...that would seem (to me) to indicate more talent in politics or persuasive speaking.

But maybe Left-on-Left is "playing" better these days...I really don't know.

[wtmusic]

20. Because she's realistic nt

[TwilightGardener]

Oh, yes, Republicans are just TOO FORMIDABLE and SCARY!!

Gotta pick on those weak teabag Dems, see if we can't work THEM over, even though they are taking active steps to investigate the Chimp and end the war.

[EFerrari]

29. No, they just don't chair the right House committee. Geezus.

[TwilightGardener]

59. Last October, they were the majority. Did she stage sit-ins in Boehner's

office? McConnell's? How many Repub Congressmen and Senators has she taken on?

[EFerrari]

72. The anti war movement has been all over Congress

on both sides of the aisle.

That ditch in Crawford had no Democrats in it, iirc.

[wtmusic]

108. Possible outcomes:

1) Cindy goes after Republicans, Republicans lock the door, their constituency hates Cindy even more, they love their rep even more for ignoring Cindy.
2) Cindy goes after Dems
a) If Dem ignores her, they risk losing voters on the left
b) If Dem listens to her follows up with action, we stand a chance of bringing troops home.

Realistic.

[Captain Angry]

21. My guess is that she has higher expectations of Democrats.

We all expect Republicans to lie and screw up on a regular basis.

So, if Democrats are really that much better, they should be prodded into living up to their ideals.

[EFerrari]

22. Because none of them is the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee

How many times does this question have to get answered? I'll be here all week. Try the veal!

[nevergiveup]

24. Very simple answer to this

She gets more press attacking Democrats.

[Elwood P Dowd]

32. Bingo! She gets more attention and more press, plus it helps the repukes

deflect the war disaster from their side to our side.

[EFerrari]

40. What utter cr@p! What Republican could she go to who could

start impeachment proceedings in the House?

[Major Hogwash]

55. I agree.

There is no doubt in my mind that Cindy has lost it now.
Protesting the Democrats is not going to help her one bit at all.

I thought she said she was going to go home.
I thought she said she was going to go home and raise her other children.

[melody]

25. Very good question

One that has caused me to seriously reconsider my support for her.

[EFerrari]

27. It's not a good question. This has been answered 25 times today

alone.

Because no Republican is the Chair of the one committee that can begin impeachment proceedings. It's that simple. And the OP either knows that and is just stirring the pot or hasn't been actually reading DU.

[cynatnite]

31. Well, I haven't been around much for the last week or so...

Got on after watching the debates and read up on Cindy Sheehan. I didn't see the other threads asking the question.

[Selatius]

35. The short answer is the Dems control the committee chairs in both the Senate and House now

If you want to end the war, it makes less sense to protest the party out of power than the one in power.

[cynatnite]

38. Well, I don't recall her doing the same to Bill Frist or Hastert...

when the repukes had the power. Just seems to me that if they want to get the votes, Sheehan might be better off using those same tactics at the doors of repukes whose arms could be twisted in that direction.

[Selatius]

80. She didn't have to. She protested Bush himself. He didn't listen to her.

Why would she waste her time with Fat Ass Hastert and Frist after discovering Bush's response? Is it in the hope that they would actually do something? The Repubs and several Dems were rubber stamps. It was Bush who pushed the war. With 2006, I guess she felt putting pressure on the Dems would be more productive than putting pressure on Bush and his toadies in Congress, since Dems now had the power of the purse and a fair number of Dems in the House/Senate didn't vote for the IWR.

[EFerrari]

36. I better log off, because I'm getting rude.

The one, single reason they went to Mr.Conyers is because he's the Chair of the one committee that could start impeachment proceedings.

If it was Hunter, they've have gone there. It's not about Mr. Conyers or picking on Dems. It's simply about the way the House works.

/ack

[melody]

44. It's an excellent question -- and it hasn't truly been answered yet

I want to know why she's verbally attacking Democrats, but not Republicans. Why she seems
bent on destroying Democrats.

I think the OP is rephrasing the question because the Cindy-sympathetic answerers aren't seeing
the broader question.

[EFerrari]

45. A group of activists today went to the Chairman of the committee

that can start impeachment proceedings. They didn't go to the Chair of Armed Services or of Ethics.

THEY WENT TO THE CHAIR OF THE ONE COMMITTEE THAT CAN DO WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR.

Maybe they should have gone to fifty impotent Republicans' offices but, noooooooooo, they had to go straight to the one person in the House that can make impeachment happen.

That person is a Democrat. It wouldn't matter if he was a Blue Meanie, they would have gone to the Chair's office anyway. Geezus.

[melody]

91. I'm concerned with Sheehan's actions, not the activists'

I'm worried about her recent invective. I think the anti-war folk have been very clear about distinguishing
themselves from Sheehan.

[TheWraith]

26. Kicked and recommended.

I don't know what the hell Cindy is thinking. If she really thinks that it's the Democrats that are refusing to stop the war, she's completely off base. She'd do better to glue herself to every Republican senator who's up for reelection next year. That would swing some votes, and get something moving.

I'm afraid--and this is one of the reasons I never entirely jumped on the Cindy bandwagon--that she's in a mindset where it's more about the act of protesting than it is about getting anything done. There's times when that works, but there's also a lot more times when it's just spinning the wheels.

[ComerPerro]

30. she does from time to time, but it is much easier to protest Dems

better access, less likelihood of resistance

[Diane R]

33. I've been wondering the same thing....she's lost my support.

[emilyg]

42. Mine, too.

[1932]

34. Because JD Hayworth will never do the right thing. But Pelosi and Conyers might.

[blondeatlast]

96. JD Hayworth was defeated. Just sayin'. nt

[Madspirit]

39. Why On Earth Would She Go to the Republicans

Actually she has but I guess she's learned you cannot negotiate with or persuade Evil. "Hi, I'm a mother who lost a son to your lie" just doesn't seem to move them that much.

She can possibly light a fire under the Democrats. That's who she can influence.

Lee

[EFerrari]

41. There is no Republican who can do what John Conyers can do.

This was no random action. He chairs the committee that can make this happen.

[eggman67]

101. "you cannot negotiate with or persuade Evil."

Wow. That's exactly what they say about the terrorists. I guess they're right after all....

[Madspirit]

124. Oh Yeah Right

It's really comparable. Right. :rofl:

Lee

[LSK]

43. uh she did that for 2 years

It does not work.

[cynatnite]

48. She did sit-ins and protested repukes at their office until she got arrested?

I didn't know that. Who? When?

[EFerrari]

49. You're question has been thoroughly answered

and this is just flame bait.

[LSK]

50. Camp Casey?

:shrug:

Also did you watch the all night Senate session last week? Did you learn that the Repukes REFUSE TO CHANGE COURSE from that lesson???

[cynatnite]

54. Was Cindy Sheehan at the senate during that session?

Sure, there is Camp Casey, but I'm wondering why she hasn't done the same thing to repukes that she's done to dems? She wants the dems held accountable, but why isn't she holding the repukes' feet to the same fire?

[EFerrari]

61. Because no Republican can initiate impeachment.

As you've been told repeatedly this evening.

[LSK]

73. or will

Remember who was chair of the Judiciary Committee before Conyers? James "turn off the mics" Sensonbrenner.

[cynatnite]

77. It's not just about initiating the impeachment...

Sure, the dems can do that by why start it if the votes aren't there? If she's serious about impeaching and convicting she should arm-twist, sit-in and protest the repuke offices to get the needed votes. At least make an honest attempt of it.

You mentioned the all-night session debating the Iraq war. Where was she? Why wasn't she there? Couldn't she have protested the repukes who continued to cheerlead the war? Maybe she could have changed a few votes. We don't know if it would have done any good because no attempt was made.

There is a hell of a lot Cindy Sheehan could have done without alienating one of her greatest allies.

[EFerrari]

82. What evidence do you have that Sheehan or any of the other activists

in attendance today alienated Mr. Conyers?

What is it about democracy that is so abhorrent to you?

Today, citizens asked for redress. That was their right.

Where were you during the filibuster?

[cynatnite]

86. I can imagine Conyers wasn't too happy....

since it was he who had the capital cops called on them.

[EFerrari]

115. We don't know if he was happy or not, or where that decision

originated. We know the police were called. Maybe Mr. Conyers will make a statement to the activists he has been supporting all these years.

[Virginia Dare]

104. That's incorrect..

any member of the House can bring up impeachment charges on the floor.

[LSK]

63. because Repukes wear fireproof shoes

They will never change. Karl Rove controls the GOP machine and the Repuke Senators rely on that machine to stay in office. Therefore they do not dare cross the boss.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

46. REPUBLICAN "OFFICE PACKING" WOULD WORK

ON A GRAND SCALE... 20 OR 30 PEOPLE PER OFFICE.... AND AT THEIR HOME OFFICES, TOO.

WHAT WILL WORK IS A MOVEMENT
WHAT WILL WORK IS A MOVEMENT
WHAT WILL WORK IS A MOVEMENT
WHAT WILL WORK IS A MOVEMENT
WHAT WILL WORK IS A MOVEMENT
WHAT WILL WORK IS A MOVEMENT
WHAT WILL WORK IS A MOVEMENT
WHAT WILL WORK IS A MOVEMENT
WHAT WILL WORK IS A MOVEMENT
WHAT WILL WORK IS A MOVEMENT


LET IT BE NOW

[snot]

47. Also, Repubs don't care what she thinks;

they know none of her ilk will ever give them a dime. If anything, her camping in their offices would just inspire their constituents to give them more.

[KharmaTrain]

51. Whatever Happened To Ending The Iraq Madness???

Sorry...sitting in John Conyers office and screaming for a political impeachment doesn't bring this war one day closer to an end. It doesn't convince the 6 fence-sitting Repugnicans from breaking the McConnell fillibuster that would open up the gates to defunding this war for profit and bringing our troops home sooner rather than later.

If you listen to the morons like David Brooks...and sadly many people do...it's Reid and Conyers and the "far left" that is forcing Repugnicans to rally behind booosh and mcconnell. :crazy:

Unfortunately Sheehan has lost touch with the question she posed several summers ago in the Texas heat that drew me and many others to support her. That question went to only one person and the question was just one word "why"? We haven't gotten any answer yet and picketing John Conyers isn't gonna get that answer. Diverting attention away from the suffering of not just Sheehan but the thousands of other families that have been afflicted by this ugly war delays the answers to those questions and creates animosity among the people who should be your allies.

Unfortunately frustration runs deep and it's being mis-directed. There should be protests outside of Voinovich or Sunnunu or Lugar's office...double-talkers who claim they have reservations on this invasion and the way its handled, but stand in the way of a true debate and up or down votes that would really force booshie's hand. There should be constant questions put to Normie Coleman as to when he'll start voting in line with his constituents rather than his special interests. This is where the action should be.

[Yukari Yakumo]

58. I'm thinking the same thing

If Chimpy goes away, we'll have President Darth Cheney w/ someone like the Ghoul or Mitt as Veep. That solves nothing.

If Cheney goes away, Chimpy will still be President and someone like the Ghoul or Mitt will be installed as Veep. That solves nothing.

Trying to get rid of both at the same time... Dream on, forget about it.

Cindy, why? Not only does impeachment solve nothing about Iraq, why the Hell is she targeting those who would support her the most. It's like the dog biting the hand that feeds it.

[KharmaTrain]

74. This Truly Hurts

I was a longtime Cindy supporter. I still donate regularly to Gold Star Mothers for Peace and will continue to do so...but I think Cindy's fallen to some very bad advice that has made her lose focus on what brought us all together. Rosa Park didn't attempt to sit in cause the Civil Right movement didn't move fast enough...she remained a symbol of defiance. Sheehan served a purpose as a symbol of the suffering this invasion has brought to individuals and families...when she speaks out about Hugo Chavez or attacking Democrats for starting all the wars..she's gone outside of her cause...she goes from being a symbol into a politician....and by distracting attention (which the corporate media loves to seize) it hurts the many voices she originally spoke for...many who suffer in silence and don't have the prominence Sheehan has.

The sad fact is an impeachment without an acquital will be seen as an exoneration for this regime. The Clinton inquisition didn't stop him from launching the military action in Kosovo...do these people think that a failed impeachment would keep boooshie from attacking Iran? The only way that happens is by keeping this bastard on the defensive and forcing his hand on the funding and authorization to continue this war for profit. And right now the best way to accomplish that is to force up or down votes in the Senate...people are sitting in on the wrong side of the Capitol.

[EFerrari]

66. It's interesting that DU focuses so much on Cindy and then turns

around and calls her an attention whore.

Who else was in attendance in Mr. Conyers' office today? A cadre of activists -- Ray McGovern, Medea Benjamin, David Swanson. Whose names should ring at least a bell or two.

:)

And, most of us know that Mr. Coleman can't begin an impeachment proceeding.

The action is exactly where it needs to be, uncomfortable as it may be for all concerned.

[KharmaTrain]

83. Let's End The Iraq Madness

Here's the rub...we both want this war for profit to end...and we want those responsible to be held accountable. I want the war ended first...and it's the most possible and achievable. 6 Senate Repugnicans stand in the way of the up or down votes that will force booshies hand and could mean either him agreeing to start withdrawing troops or see his funding go into limbo. I don't see how pushing for impeachment in Conyers office makes this happen.

If impeachment were the best rememdy to our current mess, I'd be on the phones as much as you were today in pushing...but I do't see this as being very productive in ending the Iraq mess. Yes, let's impeach to hold these goons...ALL of them...responsible and I won't rest, and I know you won't either, as long as any of these criminals...including those in the corporate media are brought to baer the responsibility of their greed and arrogance.

As you said earlier, September will be a very interesting month...and this regime is sure to kick the Iraq can well into next year to give cover for the primaries...the line must be drawn before that happens and it must be on the 6 votes that are preventing the majority from prevailing on the most important issue of our lifetime. Let's end the war first...then go for the scalps later. That's all I'm sayin'...

:D:

[EFerrari]

85. Sure. And I think the threat of the I word can help us end the war.

Let's tie them up in knots. :)

[KharmaTrain]

87. Amen...

I have no problems with the "I" word...and if that gets results...I'm all for it! I'd rather be proven wrong than dead right...I'm not that proud.

You hit 'em high, I'll hit 'em low.

:toast:

[Yukari Yakumo]

52. She's a attention mongering, self-absorbed lunatic.

She wants the spotlight, the attention. The message has become a distant second to her. (And I'm wondering if that's what it always has been.) I thought she was about getting the getting the soldiers home. What the Hell is she doing with the impeachment movement?

If she really wanted progress, she'd pressure the Repukes who are stonewalling the issue. Particularly those with elections coming up in '08.

[EFerrari]

53. Totally! She should go to the offices of Republicans who can't start

impeachment proceedings as Mr. Conyers can and show them!!!!!111

[Yukari Yakumo]

60. You're missing one key detail

Their votes.

If we want things like impeachment or ending the war to succeed, we need Repuke votes.

[EFerrari]

62. No, I'm not missing anything.

No Republican can initiate impeachment in the House.

[Yukari Yakumo]

64. But it's their votes we need to make impeachment succeed.

What good is an indictment without a conviction? Answer me that.

[EFerrari]

67. You don't know how many votes we have.

How many votes did we need to get rid of Mr. Nixon?

[Yukari Yakumo]

71. That answer should be really obvious after Reid's slumber party.

Now, I think I'll hammer you until you answer my question. Because I think I got you on the ropes.

What good is an indictment without a conviction?

[EFerrari]

76. And you're avoiding my response.

You'll "hammer" me?

lol

I presume you're not part of the peace movement.

[Yukari Yakumo]

88. The reason Nixon quit.

Because Barry Goldwater told Nixon he was doomed. He told Nixon that impeachment and conviction were certain at that point. A mere 50 votes were going to be against impeachment in the House, and less than 1/3 will be against conviction in the Senate. Among those who were against conviction, was not Barry Goldwater.

Oh and if Tricky Dick were impeached and convicted, he would lose his pension and his security detail to begin with.

Back to the present.

Impeachment in the House is hardly certain. The Red Dogs may turn against it if the case isn't rock solid. And there is no way any of the 50 Senate Repukes (this includes UnHoly Joe) will vote to convict.

[ComerPerro]

75. you think someone with such a track record of arrogance as Bush's is gonna resign?

[brentspeak]

98. What year is this again?

:eyes:

[U4ikLefty]

78. An impeachment is the beginning of a long process.

It should be started now. The future is TBD by those who dare.

[brentspeak]

99. You seem to be missing the parts about "not enough votes to convict"

[Virginia Dare]

105. Check your facts...

any member of the House can present a resolution of impeachment.

[EFerrari]

116. And where will that resolution be presented?

[Virginia Dare]

117. On the House floor...n/t

[EFerrari]

119. You got me. I don't have my facts straight and Sheehan hates

Conyers. Let's a rope.

[Virginia Dare]

127. I don't presume to know what the motivation is..

but it's not because he's the only one who can initiate impeachment. Any member of the House can present a resolution of impeachment, it would then be turned over to the Judiciary Committee (of which Conyers is the Chairman) who would decide whether the charges should be recommended to the full house for a floor vote.

[Blue_In_AK]

84. She is free to protest to whomever she wants,

as are you and the rest of us. I will not condemn her for exercising her rights of free speech and petitioning the government for redress of grievances. More of us need to do it.

[Gelliebeans]

56. none from me cynatnite

[Hidden Stillness]

65. Because Democrats are the "Party of Slavery," According to Her

I started to get sick of these current, clueless anti-war protesters many months ago, when one of them had a hidden camera and microphone, chased and taunted Representative David Obey, until Obey finally exploded, and then pranced off to put the encounter on the internet, when Obey didn't even know it was being recorded. The corporate Republican media played the embarrassment over and over and over. On DU, many anti-war posters attacked Obey, like a brain-dead cult, cheered the immoral fraud of the surrepticious "spying," and attacked anyone who supported Obey, on anything. Recently, another thread that referred to Sheehan's attacks on Democrats, but never Republicans, got some replies about Sheehan's recent, bizarre libertarian pronouncements, about taxes and some other crap, if anyone wants to research it, connected with her rich new boyfriend, or whatever. She is far too stupid and uninteresting to spend this much time on.

During the Viet Nam era, they protested against Pres. Johnson, who was a great President domestically but a tragedy with this war, drove Johnson out, then they protested against Nixon after that. The President is the Commander in Chief, and only the President can declare or end a war--not the Congress, which only controls funding. Why they are not protesting against the President and Vice-President who started this, baffles me too. As I have posted on other threads, they are obviously afraid of Republicans, and can't confront them. Supposedly, the rest of us have not suffered the deaths of loved ones either, according to this crowd; only they have.

[EFerrari]

69. I don't think we're reading the same Constitution. n/t

[conscious evolution]

93. "Party of slavery"

Great talking point.
Who sent that one out?Rove?Limpballs?
Just curious.

[NoPasaran]

95. That was St Cindy herself

http://www.mcblogger.com/archives/2007/07/look_at_me_look_1.html

[LostInAnomie]

79. Because she's essentially Ron Paul in a pink t-shirt.

Against the war, against Democrats, against income taxes, against the federal reserve, cult of personality, etc.

Only difference is that Ron Paul's followers care about more than one issue.

[Drum]

81. lol!

nt

[Sanctified]

89. She protested them already which helped get us get into power.

But after we got into power we ignored her requests so she is now protesting Democrats.

[Recursion]

92. They don't run Congress anymore

Duh.

[brentspeak]

97. Because she's not very bright.

[NotGivingUp]

100. Because it's a very rude awakening when you see THE BIG PICTURE!!

Why...aren't...dems...impeaching...??

[Freddie Stubbs]

102. Because she is running for office against a Democrat, not a Republican

[Jersey Devil]

109. Because Cindy follows the "Dems must walk on water Rule"

You see, in order to be a true progressive, it not necessary to say much about right wingers except that you don't like them. However, when discussing Democrats, unless they can walk on water, turn loaves into fishes and instantly heal the sick you have to heap as much bile on them as you possibly can and rip their guts out until they do absolutely everything you want them to do without exception. In other cultures this is called cannibalism.

[NotGivingUp]

128. i don't think upholding the constitution is asking too much...do you? n/t

[Breeze54]

114. Many rethugs offices have been protested and not just by CS!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1417353&mesg_id=1417353">Rethugs who's offices were occupied by antiwar protestors

Just because Ms. Sheehan makes the news, doesn't mean that there haven't been actions across the country!

The MSM doesn't want you to know!!

How many times do you have to be reminded about that? :shrug:

You have to be willing to research and find out the whole picture!

Not just sit there; waiting for it to be spoon fed to you.

http://www.stopbigmedia.com/

http://www.freepress.net/

http://www.mediageek.org/btm/2003/

http://www.alternet.org/about/
The right-wing media machine: Virtually everyone who has a stake in our political future agrees that when compared to the radical conservatives and the religious fundamentalists, the progressive sector lacks media capacity. The scope of conservative media is vast, including Fox News, Sinclair, major right-wing talk radio market penetration, many newspapers, a fast-growing religious broadcasting system, and sophisticated use of the Internet and new technologies. The ability of the right-wing media apparatus to dominate public discourse is at the expense of liberal and progressive values and represents a fundamental transformation in American politics. This is what we are fighting against.

[WolverineDG]

118. Ever hear of Camp Casey?

The Dems campaigned on the trail she blazed against the Iraq War & then turned around & caved to Commander AWOL once in power.

dg

[warren pease]

120. Because they're beyond hope, because Conyers has the power, because Dems...

...ran in '06 promising to a) get out of Iraq SOON, and b) put the brakes on BushCo's reign of domestic repression.

So what do the fucking hypocrites and liars do? Give Bushie all the money he wants for Iraq, then buy the administration's newest bullshit re Iran's alleged intervention in Iraqi affairs -- a country notably free from foreign intervention at the moment, unless you count a couple hundred thousand US troop, mercs, bombers and such.

And instead of taking the side of the Constitution, they chose once again to enable BushCo's outrageous domestic power grab, preferring apparently to participate in the birth of the Fourth Reich rather than take any meaningful action to prevent it.

Here's what I think about Cindy Sheehan vs. Nancy Pelosi and other "mainstream" democrats (from a May 29 post):


I would suggest that she's (Sheehan) done more to put a human face on the anti-war movement, and on the ultimate cost of war to those left holding the pathetically trivial folded flags, and to place the blame exactly -- EXACTLY -- where it belongs...

Her presence in the public conscience is worth that of 100 Nancy Pelosis, who wouldn't know political courage if it bit her in the ass.


The long version is here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/warren%20pease/38


And there's more on the subject here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/warren%20pease/35


Other essays and posts on Sheehan, as well as her stance on impeachment and democratic efforts to subvert the process, are archived in my journal, so if you really want to know what I think...


wp

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

121. Why don't you?

[WoodrowFan]

122. not as many cameras?? (NT)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

123. Why isn't Cindy Sheehan whining on an internet message board?

Why does she continue to marginalize herself by getting out there and doing something?

Doesn't she want to be effective?

[smiley_glad_hands]

125. Its called divide and conquer, part of the gop playbook.

Divide the left, promote the right. Go Cindy!

Insert bad name.

[NashVegas]

126. She Did That Already

And eventually stopped getting headlines.

[lala_rawraw]

131. because the dems control the committees

[UTUSN]

132. Because she would EMBARRASS the Rethugs who would put her in Gitmo n/t

[pschoeb]

133. She just did on July 18, at Howard Coble's Office in NC

There were protests at every member of the House Judiciary Committee. She was personally at the July 18th protest at Howard Colbe's Office, as she was also involved in an anti-war and pro-impeachment march from Texas to Washington DC, the fact that most DUers don't seem to know this is fairly telling.

So just as little as 6 days ago she was personally protesting a Republican.

[robinlynne]

134. let's see she bought land in crawford texas to protest whom....

[autorank]

135. No flames here. She protested that noted Repuke Bush in Texas

That was intense.

She should be protesting against the Republicans. They're the stalwarts.

Equal opportunity protester focused on the real trouble causers.