Sheehan to challenge Pelosi if no impeachment sought

[irishgrl]

Sheehan considers challenge to Pelosi

By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press Writer 24 minutes ago

CRAWFORD, Texas - Cindy Sheehan, the soldier's mother who galvanized the anti-war movement, said Sunday that she plans to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.

Sheehan said she will run against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush. That's when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting next week from the group's war protest site near Bush's Crawford ranch.

"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "We hired them to bring an end to the war. I'm not too far from San Francisco, so it wouldn't be too big of a move for me. I would give her a run for her money."

Messages left with Pelosi's staff were not immediately returned. The White House declined to comment on Sheehan's plans.

She plans her official candidacy announcement Tuesday. Sunday wrapped up what is expected to be her final weekend at the 5-acre Crawford lot that she sold to California radio talk show host Bree Walker, who plans to keep it open to protesters.

Sheehan announced in late May that she was leaving the anti-war movement. She said that she felt her efforts had been in vain and that she had endured smear tactics and hatred from the left, as well as the right. She said she wanted to change course.

She first came to Crawford in August 2005 during a Bush vacation, demanding to talk to him about the war that killed her son Casey in 2004. She became the face of the anti-war movement during her 26-day roadside vigil, which was joined by thousands. But it also drew counter-protests by Bush supporters, many who said she was hurting troop morale.

Sheehan, who has never held political office, recently said that she was leaving the Democratic Party because it "caved" in to the president. Last week, she announced her caravan to Washington, an undertaking she calls the "people's accountability movement."

"I didn't expect to be back so soon, but the focus is different than it was before," Sheehan said Sunday. "Instead of talking and making accusations, we're going into communities and talking to the people who've been hurt by the Bush regime. We're finding out how we can help people."

Sheehan, who will turn 50 on Tuesday, said Bush should be impeached because she believes he misled the public about the reasons for going to war, violated the Geneva Convention by torturing detainees, and crossed the line by commuting the prison sentence of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. She said other grounds for impeachment are the domestic spying program and the "inadequate and tragic" response to Hurricane Katrina.

Libby was convicted of lying and obstructing justice in an investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's identity.

Sheehan said she hopes Pelosi files the articles of impeachment so Sheehan can move onto her next projects, including overseas trips for humanitarian work. But if not, Sheehan said she is ready to run for office.

"I'm doing it to encourage other people to run against Congress members who aren't doing their jobs, who are beholden to special interests," Sheehan said. "She (Pelosi) let the people down who worked hard to put Democrats back in power, who we thought were our hope for change."

Pelosi was elected to the House in 1987 and became the first female speaker in January.

Sheehan said she lives in a Sacramento suburb but declined to disclose which city, citing safety reasons. The area is outside Pelosi's district, but there are no residency requirements for congressional members, according to the California secretary of state's office.

well, well!!! interesting indeed :nod:

[BlackWidow]

I love it!!!

[gldstwmn]

Also word on the street is Steny Hoyer and Nancy are not getting along. Hoyer is for the effort to impeach Cheney. Nancy however is not. Source:
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/07/real-washington.html

[Rickypt]

The area is outside Pelosi's district, but there are no residency requirements for congressional members, according to the California secretary of state's office.

I'm shocked to learn this. A member of Congress doesn't have to live in his/her own district?

If Sheehan wants to take Pelosi's seat, she needs to become a San Franciscan. Otherwise she can run for Congress in her own district.

[irishgrl]

I'm shocked to learn this. A member of Congress doesn't have to live in his/her own district?

If Sheehan wants to take Pelosi's seat, she needs to become a San Franciscan. Otherwise she can run for Congress in her own district.
according to the article, Sheehan has no problem with that. She doesnt have to move very far after all, and I think she's got the support behind her...plus she's right. many Dems and Americans in general are unhappy with the Dem record since the takeover.

[gldstwmn]

according to the article, Sheehan has no problem with that. She doesnt have to move very far after all, and I think she's got the support behind her...plus she's right. many Dems and Americans in general are unhappy with the Dem record since the takeover.

To be fair though, we're only 1/4 of the way through their term.

[irishgrl]

true, but people are frustrated so even small delays seem large :shrug:

I'd vote for Sheehan. anyone else?

[BlackWidow]

true, but people are frustrated so even small delays seem large :shrug:

I'd vote for Sheehan. anyone else?

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[KarmaContestant]

How exciting! I think we live in a very important era...and history is being made every day. I have been very disappointed in the Dems since they took office. If they don't get their act together, I fear that they'll lose ground in the next election.

Go Cindy!

[Rickypt]

true, but people are frustrated so even small delays seem large :shrug:

I'd vote for Sheehan. anyone else?

It's very doubtful that I would, and it's my district. I'm not ready to toss out a tireless champion for many progressive causes and the first woman Speaker of the House for a carpetbagger.

As Chris said, it has only been 1/4 of the Congress. The Senate has been the main problem in getting stuff done. There is also the reality that the Dems have a slim majority in the House, an extremely slim majority in the Senate and Bush is still President.

I'm not happy with everything Pelosi has done. I think she should have kept sending the war funding bill with timeline for withdrawal over and over again to Bush. I also think she should allow for impeachment hearings. If things don't improve on this by the end of this year, then I'd be more supportive of a challenge to her. Not sure it has to be Sheehan, though.

[irishgrl]

It's very doubtful that I would, and it's my district. I'm not ready to toss out a tireless champion for many progressive causes and the first woman Speaker of the House for a carpetbagger.

As Chris said, it has only been 1/4 of the Congress. The Senate has been the main problem in getting stuff done. There is also the reality that the Dems have a slim majority in the House, an extremely slim majority in the Senate and Bush is still President.

I'm not happy with everything Pelosi has done. I think she should have kept sending the war funding bill with timeline for withdrawal over and over again to Bush. I also think she should allow for impeachment hearings. If things don't improve on this by the end of this year, then I'd be more supportive of a challenge to her. Not sure it has to be Sheehan, though.
she gets the big thumbs DOWN from me for saying "no impeachment". Why the hell NOT???? :mad:

and Sheehan has name recognition and already a support base. Not too shabby...

[Musicman408]

I love it!!!

I do too. :nod:

[gldstwmn]

It's very doubtful that I would, and it's my district. I'm not ready to toss out a tireless champion for many progressive causes and the first woman Speaker of the House for a carpetbagger.

As Chris said, it has only been 1/4 of the Congress. The Senate has been the main problem in getting stuff done. There is also the reality that the Dems have a slim majority in the House, an extremely slim majority in the Senate and Bush is still President.

I'm not happy with everything Pelosi has done. I think she should have kept sending the war funding bill with timeline for withdrawal over and over again to Bush. I also think she should allow for impeachment hearings. If things don't improve on this by the end of this year, then I'd be more supportive of a challenge to her. Not sure it has to be Sheehan, though.

If I were able to vote in that particular race, what I would do is vote for Mrs. Sheehan in the primary to send a message to Nancy Pelosi that she has to do more in regards to a withdrawal from Iraq. And she must consider her stance on impeachment, at the very least with regards to Vice President Cheney.
Also, you are correct about our slim majority in both houses of Congress. We do not have the votes to override a presidential veto. And since the next election is a year and a half out, we're stuck. We can only hope to win it all in '08 or at least pick up enough seats to restore some type of checks and balances to the system.

[DeeGeMe]

Pelosi and company are claiming they don't have enough votes for impeachment. The polls show that only 30% of the country supports Bush. Do you mean to tell me that if the public pressed their reps on this that they wouldn't vote for it? Jesus, they impeached Bill for a blow-job! I just think that Pelosi and company have been a giant disappointment. That whole exercise last week in the all-night fillibuster on the war, knowing full well they didn't have the votes, not even within their own party was nothing but a bone they threw to the party-faithful. It was an empty gesture. Well I'm sick of empty gestures. I'm not about to vote for a Republican but at this point, I can't find a single Democrat I believe in or trust either.

P.S. The latest polls show that something like 25% of the country supports Congress! what does that tell you? I'm not alone in my distaste and distrust of them ALL!

I say we throw them all out in '08!

[strandinthewind]

^^

Apparently not seeing as how even with those low numbers, 95% of the R's still support W and the war in Iraq. I think that is pathetic, but thems the facts. However, support for W is breaking within the R party.

I think the general thought is an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would lead to a fiasco that will lead to a collapse in the Middle East. I also think that the person who organizes a staged withdrawal, which I submit will begin in November, will walk on water if it works.

[strandinthewind]

Thus, my point (emphasis supplied) :

Sen. Feingold proposes censuring Bush 21 minutes ago

Liberal Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold said Sunday he wants Congress to censure President Bush for his management of the Iraq war and his "assault" against the Constitution.

But Feingold's own party leader in the Senate showed little interest in the idea. An attempt in 2006 by Feingold to censure Bush over the warrantless spying program attracted only three co-sponsors.

Feingold, a prominent war critic, said he soon plans to offer two censure resolutions — measures that would amount to a formal condemnation of the Republican president.

The first would seek to reprimand Bush for, as Feingold described it, getting the nation into war without adequate military preparation and for issuing misleading public statements. The resolution also would cite Vice President Dick Cheney and perhaps other administration officials.

The second measure would seek to censure Bush for what the Democrat called a continuous assault against the rule of law through such efforts as the warrantless surveillance program against suspected terrorists, Feingold said. It would also ask for a reprimand of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and maybe others.

"This is an opportunity for people to say, let's at least reflect on the record that something terrible has happened here," said Feingold, D-Wis. "This administration has weakened America in a way that is frightful."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Feingold's proposals showed the nation's frustration. But Reid said he would not go along with them and said the Senate needs to focus on finishing spending bills on defense and homeland security.

"We have a lot of work to do," Reid said. "The president already has the mark of the American people — he's the worst president we ever had. I don't think we need a censure resolution in the Senate to prove that."

As for the Senate's top Republican, "I think it's safe to say Russ Feingold is not a fan of George Bush. I think that's the best way to sum that up," said Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Feingold spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press." Reid appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS, while McConnell was on "Late Edition" on CNN.


www.yahoo.com

[irishgrl]

I read that but I cant understand the Dem reluctance :shrug: After all, Censure is not the same as Impeachment...Reid is a coward in my book.

If this is typical of Russ Feingold, I'd like to see him run for something higher up. soon.

[gldstwmn]

I just think that Pelosi and company have been a giant disappointment. That whole exercise last week in the all-night fillibuster on the war, knowing full well they didn't have the votes, not even within their own party was nothing but a bone they threw to the party-faithful. It was an empty gesture.

It wasn't Pelosi who did the filibustering, it was the Republicans forced into it by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I fell asleep to Olympia Snowe speaking and woke with my morning coffee to watch them take the final vote for cloture ( a term that refers to the senators going on record with a yes or no vote). The Dems got 52 votes and what it boiled down to was they needed 60. Four Republicans ( Snowe, Collins, Hagel and someone else I can't recall) actually had the balls to vote to invoke cloture. Senator Fuc...I mean Lieberman (former Dem, now Independent because of a primary loss to Democratic candidate Ned Lamont) voted no. :( What came next though, was the most interesting part. Reid tabled all bills that were to be voted on in upcoming sessions that had anything to do with the future funding of Bush's war. It was really a pretty cool thing to watch. So either the Republicans are going to have to go on record to their constituencies as supporting a war that at least 75% of Americans disagree with or just as they did with Vietnam, Congress will stop the war by simply refusing to fund it any further.
So really, what I'm trying to say is while it looked like grandstanding and the mainstream media was happy to report it as such, I didn't see it that way at all. I'm sure you're shocked by that. :laugh:
With things heating up in the Harriet Miers deal and this going on, I think we can look forward to a very interesting session of Congress after the summer break.

[irishgrl]

Thanks for the heads up Chris. I dont watch tv so I dont stay up on that stuff, but Im interested nonetheless.

[gldstwmn]

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/18/iraq_and_the_defense_bill_a_post_mortem_guide_for_the_perplexed

Iraq and the Defense Bill: A Post-Mortem Guide for the Perplexed
By Spencer Ackerman | bio
So Harry Reid (D-NV) withdrew the defense authorization bill this morning after the Democrats weren't able to break the GOP filibuster.

The indignation spilled out across the aisle, with Republicans bemoaning Reid's all-night session as a political stunt, and Democrats warning the GOP that they'll pay a hefty political price for their obstruction.

But the whole mess remains complex. What actually just happened? What are the procedural and political nuances? What comes next for the Dems? Does yanking the Defense authorization bill have a prayer of forcing Republicans to stop blocking redeployment? Is this a political winner or loser for Dems in the long run?

To answer those questions, Election Central has put together a massive guide to what happened today that we hope will prove useful as a road map for following the debate as it unfolds over the coming weeks.

1. Procedurally, what's next for Reid? What various options does he have?

The problem for Reid right now is this: How can he get the Reed-Levin proposal on redeployment, his chosen way of ending the war, to a vote, now that it's been revealed yet again that the GOP has the votes necessary to block it? What legislative vehicles are available to him?

At the Dems' post-vote press conference, Reid said that he's "not tipping my mitt" by answering the question. But leadership staffers acknowledge that there are really only three courses of action open to Reid going forward:

A) Keep them attached to the defense authorization bill. Reid voted against the bill today in order to reserve the right to bring defense authorization to the floor again later. But obviously, as a senior leadership aide conceded to me, this course would just replay today's blocked cloture vote unless the GOP agreed not to block it again, which is an open question.

B) Attach the amendment to the upcoming defense appropriations bill, and reintroduce it that way. The GOP might filibuster again, and the same game would start. This time, each side would try and blame the other for blocking the year's half-trillion-dollars of Pentagon funding.

C) Introduce the amendment as a free-standing bill. This would be a potentially even tougher road to follow, because there's no larger Defense-funding measure to accuse Republicans of opposing. Furthermore, Democrats uncomfortable with a mandated timeline for redeployment, like Nebraska's Ben Nelson, could balk for the same reason.

Reid indicated at the presser that the most likely vehicle for Levin-Reed is going to stay with the defense authorization. "There are two things that I want to accomplish," he said. "One is to pass a defense authorization bill, but with a deadline dealing with Iraq."

While Reid may not want to be hemmed in by his statement, it's a fair indicator of his intent. Sticking with the defense authorization may be the best course politically for the Dems. That's because it has the political upshot of not tying the Dems' Iraq effort to a bill supplying actual money to the Pentagon, which would be the case with the Defense appropriations bill. And that means Dems won't be opened up to the charge that they're willing to defund the Pentagon in order to stop the war.

2. Will pulling the defense authorization bill really succeed in ratcheting up pressure on the GOP?

Reid, for one, thinks this is a virtual certainty. "It's a politically untenable position for the GOP," says the senior leadership aide. "They cannot possibly hold out much longer. A change is around the corner."

The thinking goes that the public, exhausted with the war and knowing that President Bush won't end it, is going to hold the GOP increasingly responsible for the war the longer the U.S. remains in Iraq. Reid thinks he's actually succeeded in darkening the GOP's political fortunes by yanking the defense authorization bill. That's because he thinks he'll also be able to blame the GOP for not just the continuation of the war, but for the total lack of Congressional action on it, which he thinks will further inflame voters and increase the pressure on Republicans even more.

There's a lot of post-hoc rationalization here. The Democrats gambled incorrectly that ten GOP Senators would be nervous enough in July about the war's cost that they would break with their leadership. It could similarly be the case that Reid is misjudging Republican tolerance for constituents' antiwar pressure, and that the August recess won't bring enough of a change to get more GOPers to break ranks by the time Petraeus throws his stars into the ring.

3. What will Reid do if the GOP continues to refuse up-or-down votes on the Iraq amendments?

Totally unclear. The leadership aide says he "won't speculate" on this question. But this is the ballgame: If the Democrats are incorrect about the level of public pressure that Republicans can withstand over the war, they won't have any additional mechanism to compel its end.

The other available options are far more extreme than the ones Dems have been willing to risk so far. After all, Democrats have so far rejected defunding the war, in order to avoid the charge of cutting funding for the troops in the midst of the fight. If the GOP is able to prevent defections even after the summer, then Democrats may find themselves with fewer legislative options to stop the war than they think.

4. What are the prospects for the Dems succeeding in breaking the GOP filibuster?

They're actually better now that the softer Iraq amendments can't get passed. That's yanking the bill rules out the introduction of other, nonbinding amendments that nervous Republicans were inclined to support. Without the option of supporting such amendments, Republicans can't plausibly claim to constituents to have done anything to stop the war. In turn, that increases the pressure on them to support the only available option left -- i.e., a binding measure mandating withdrawal, such as the one favored by Dems.

That's probably the real reason why Republicans are furious with Reid today for removing the bill and all its amendments. (Well, that and sleepiness.) Case in point: Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). In his floor statement right after the cloture vote failed, a visibly angry Specter inveighed against the Senate's lack of debate on the most prominent GOP amendment -- John Warner and Richard Lugar's toothless proposal for Bush to submit a post-surge strategy to Congress after Petraeus's report. Specter, clearly, wanted the option of supporting Warner-Lugar, an option Reid has taken away.

As a result, when debate eventually resumes, Specter will have to choose between either staying with the surge or mandated redeployment. Even for a moderate GOP Senator not up for reelection next year, stark choices are not pleasant ones. Get ready to see more waverers -- though, as Greg has been pointing out, not all waverers actually vote their wavering consciences.

The wild card here for the WINOs is the September Petraeus report. No matter how nuanced a picture of Iraq Petraeus paints to Congress, the White House will use it as a rallying cry for continuing the war. How much support that can give to a GOP Senator whose constituents loudly hate the war is one of the big unknowns.

One thing that could conceivably cause more Republicans to defect, ironically, would be President Bush portraying Petraeus's report as more optimistic than it in reality. The same could happen if Petraeus's report itself is more optimistic than Iraq seems to warrant. Either of those could diminish whatever credibility on Petraeus' part the White House is out to exploit, leaving the GOP caucus set to fracture ahead of the next election.

5. Stop this equivocating! Who won?

The GOP won -- today, at least. Sen. Mitch McConnell prevented the crucial ten Republican defections. Much of the media is portraying the Democrats as either obstructionists -- which must rankle them, since they weren't the ones filibustering the defense bill -- or as losers. And since the Dems didn't break the filibuster, that last part is true enough.

Looking beyond the day's vote, however, reveals a more complicated picture. After the Democrats lost the Iraq battle over the supplemental appropriation in the spring and didn't launch another fight against the war, many on the left were disillusioned with the Democrats. Antiwar liberals appear much more energized now, so clearly today's events had one positive effect for Reid: It appeared to shore up his support on the left again.

More importantly, by raising the Iraq debate in the summer, the Democrats have created something of a public expectation that September is the beginning of the end for the war. Even Fred Barnes's summation piece for the Weekly Standard is titled "McConnell Holds The Line; At Least Until September." The benefit for the Democrats of the July push, even the unsuccessful one, has been to redefine the debate over the war.

By forcing the discussion now, Dems forced Republicans into the fall-back position of saying, "The war should begin to end not now, but in September." That means it will be tougher for Republicans to continue to back the war come September -- Petraeus report or no.

Two weeks ago, it was hardly clear that September would be the beginning of the end, as opposed to a potential rallying point for Republicans when Petraeus comes to Washington. But thanks to how the July debate unfolded, come September the GOP's victory today could look like a Pyrrhic one.

[Rickypt]

I am frustrated with the Democrats also, but some of this stuff has to be put in the context of reality. The biggest reality is you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill. And you need 67 votes to be veto-proof.

The other reality is that it is going to take a bipartisan efforts to end this war. And just when a few Republican senators start speaking out about the need to end the war, Feingold does something really dumb and gets into a partisan fight over a useless "censure" measure. That is just going to unite the Republicans and will do nothing to end this war.

I really like Cindy Sheehan, and she gave a great interview on "Hardball" recently. But it is far easier for her to be an activist and do things like threaten to run against Pelosi than it is for Pelosi to hold together the Dems and bring in Republicans so that we can end the war.

Sheehan keeps talking about all these people who want to move to Pelosi's district to get her elected. I don't particularly want a bunch of carpetbaggers coming to my city to determine who represents me in Congress. San Francisco has plenty of antiwar people who already live here and understand the district. Sheehan should run for Congress in her own district.

[gldstwmn]

Sheehan should run for Congress in her own district.

Who is the Congressperson is Sheehan's current district?

[Rickypt]

^^I don't know where Sheehan lives.

[DavidMn]

If I remember she lives near Sacramento. In that case her representative is a woman named Doris Matsui.

[gldstwmn]

If I remember she lives near Sacramento. In that case her representative is a woman named Doris Matsui.

Republican or Democrat?

[Rickypt]

^^Matsui is a Dem, as are almost all Northern California Dems. I understand why Sheehan wants to take on Pelosi rather than run for her own district's seat, but it doesn't sit well with me to have a bunch of people swoop into my city and use our congressional seat to make a national political statement. Sheehan should be organizing people around the country to run for Congress in their own districts on an antiwar platform.

Also, Sheehan made a bunch of noise about running against Feinstein for senate and never followed through. So I'm guessing much of this is just to put pressure on Pelosi, which is good.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/sheehan.impeachment.ap/index.html

Sheehan arrested while calling for Bush, Cheney impeachmentStory Highlights
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan says she'll run against Speaker Pelosi

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Monday at the Capitol for disorderly conduct, shortly after saying she would run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the California Democrat's refusal to try to impeach President Bush.


Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan says "Impeachment is not a fringe movement."

Sheehan was taken into custody inside Rep. John Conyers' office, where she had spent an hour imploring him to launch impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Conyers, D-Michigan, chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where any impeachment effort would have to begin.

"The Democrats will not hold this administration accountable, so we have to hold the Democrats accountable," Sheehan said outside Conyers' office after the meeting. "And I for one am going to step up to the plate and run against Nancy Pelosi."

Sheehan and about 200 other protesters had walked to Conyers' office from Arlington National Cemetery. She said Conyers told her there weren't enough votes for impeachment to move forward on the issue.

Forty-five of Sheehan's fellow protesters also were arrested. Capitol Police spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said that after they are processed, the arrested activists could each pay a $50 fine to be released.

"Impeachment is not a fringe movement, it is mandated in our Constitution. Nancy Pelosi had no authority to take it off the table," Sheehan told her group of orange-clad activists before they began their march from the national cemetery.

Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Iraq, has been saying for two weeks that she would seek to oust Pelosi from office by running against her as an independent in her San Francisco district if Pelosi didn't change her mind by July 23 on trying to impeach Bush.

Conyers introduced a bill last term calling on Congress to determine whether there are grounds for impeaching Bush. Pelosi has steadfastly dismissed any talk of impeachment, saying Democrats should focus their efforts on ending the war in Iraq.

[gldstwmn]

Also, Sheehan made a bunch of noise about running against Feinstein for senate and never followed through.

I'd never heard that she was considering a run against DiFi. That would be futile. Running for the House of Representatives is one thing (and no cake walk) but running for the Senate is quite another.

[irishgrl]

and Sheehan already said she'd move to S.F. so then it WOULD be her district.

If Hilary (or is it Hillary?) can do it, so can Sheehan.

[Rickypt]

^^I didn't say she couldn't, I said I didn't like it.

[gldstwmn]

Peace activist Sheehan announces candidacy for House

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.”
Sheehan's 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Iraq in 2004. Since then, she has gained international notoriety by setting up camp outside President Bush's Texas ranch and demanding to meet with the president.

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.

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.

Daniel Ellsberg, who was arrested twice with other protesters outside Bush's Texas ranch, showed his support for Sheehan.

“At the moment, facing a well-funded, powerful incumbent without party support, the odds against Cindy appear insuperable,” Ellsberg said. “But we plan to change that.”

Ellsberg is the former high-level Pentagon analyst who in 1969 leaked the Pentagon Papers to Congress and the media.

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

[irishgrl]

this should be interesting :nod:

[BlackWidow]

^^

God Bless Her!!

[skcin]

I really like Cindy Sheehan, and she gave a great interview on "Hardball" recently. But it is far easier for her to be an activist and do things like threaten to run against Pelosi than it is for Pelosi to hold together the Dems and bring in Republicans so that we can end the war.


I agree. And I too am frustrated with the Dems so far. I do think it's good to shake things up, have someone who's not already jaded/biased by the system running for office. However, Sheehan has no political experience. None. Zip. Zilch. Yes, she is well known. Yes, she stands up for what she believes in. But I don't know if I'd vote for her, even though I like her. I guess I'd feel more comfortable if she had some experience in government, or in things other than the war.

[Musicman408]

I agree. And I too am frustrated with the Dems so far. I do think it's good to shake things up, have someone who's not already jaded/biased by the system running for office. However, Sheehan has no political experience. None. Zip. Zilch. Yes, she is well known. Yes, she stands up for what she believes in. But I don't know if I'd vote for her, even though I like her. I guess I'd feel more comfortable if she had some experience in government, or in things other than the war.

Yeah, but it sure makes things interesting.

I for one am not particularly happy with the Dems at the moment, ALTHOUGH they have tried to get stuff passed, and Moron Bush..... I mean President Bush has vetoed all of it.

[strandinthewind]

I agree. And I too am frustrated with the Dems so far. I do think it's good to shake things up, have someone who's not already jaded/biased by the system running for office. However, Sheehan has no political experience. None. Zip. Zilch. Yes, she is well known. Yes, she stands up for what she believes in. But I don't know if I'd vote for her, even though I like her. I guess I'd feel more comfortable if she had some experience in government, or in things other than the war.

Her eis what will happen if she is elected, wich, BTW, will never happen, not even in the land of the crazies known as SFCA :laugh" -- she will go to DC and be completely ineffective. Not one person will work with her for two reasons:

1. She is widely perceived as a nutcase. True, it is sad that her don died, but the vast majority of people likely see that as he knew that chance existed when re-enlisted. SO, who is she to second guess his conscious thought.

2. Even if she is seen as a nutcase, she could command respect if she had an inkling of power. But, she has none whatsoever and her power of the press will not help her in the slightest. After all, what have all her rantings in the press actually gained her in terms of what she sought?

So, CA and ther D's are much better off not electing her.

I do note, however, that I am all for getting rid of almost all the R's and about 75% of the D's, as I view them as ineffective and money and power hungry, with little care or interest in the welfare of the American people at all socioeconomic levels. I just do not see the grossly inexperienced and powerless CS as a vehicle to implement this change, much less as a capretbagger.

[irishgrl]

I agree. And I too am frustrated with the Dems so far. I do think it's good to shake things up, have someone who's not already jaded/biased by the system running for office. However, Sheehan has no political experience. None. Zip. Zilch. Yes, she is well known. Yes, she stands up for what she believes in. But I don't know if I'd vote for her, even though I like her. I guess I'd feel more comfortable if she had some experience in government, or in things other than the war.
what this country desperately NEEDS is folks in politics who arent POLITICIANS! I'd vote for her, even though I like Pelosi well enuff, because she's beholden to no one. thats BIG these days.

[irishgrl]

Her eis what will happen if she is elected, wich, BTW, will never happen, not even in the land of the crazies known as SFCA :laugh" -- she will go to DC and be completely ineffective. Not one person will work with her for two reasons:

1. She is widely perceived as a nutcase. True, it is sad that her don died, but the vast majority of people likely see that as he knew that chance existed when re-enlisted. SO, who is she to second guess his conscious thought.

2. Even if she is seen as a nutcase, she could command respect if she had an inkling of power. But, she has none whatsoever and her power of the press will not help her in the slightest. After all, what have all her rantings in the press actually gained her in terms of what she sought?

So, CA and ther D's are much better off not electing her.

I do note, however, that I am all for getting rid of almost all the R's and about 75% of the D's, as I view them as ineffective and money and power hungry, with little care or interest in the welfare of the American people at all socioeconomic levels. I just do not see the grossly inexperienced and powerless CS as a vehicle to implement this change, much less as a capretbagger.
might I remind you that this nation was founded by "nutcases." nuff said.

[strandinthewind]

might I remind you that this nation was founded by "nutcases." nuff said.

Yers, but they had some political experience and we are hardly under a quasi feudal system paying all of our income to King George without representation :shrug:

In the end and though I wish it would change and have no clue how to change it - I do think electing this woman is not the answer to our problems. What does she know about building a highway, Social Security, etc. I suggest she knows nothing of any relevant value. But, it is your vote :shrug:

[BlackWidow]

Yers, but they had some political experience and we are hardly under a quasi feudal system paying all of our income to King George without representation :shrug:

In the end and though I wish it would change and have no clue how to change it - I do think electing this woman is not the answer to our problems. What does she know about building a highway, Social Security, etc. I suggest she knows nothing of any relevant value. But, it is your vote :shrug:

..gotta start somewhere to prove a point. :shrug: :nod:

[strandinthewind]

..gotta start somewhere to prove a point. :shrug: :nod:

True - but there are far better, but perhaps less controversial, candidates. I suggest B. Obama or even John Edwards would be a vast improvement over Billary, though I will vote for her over any R I see in the race now.

[BlackWidow]

True - but there are far better, but perhaps less controversial, candidates. I suggest B. Obama or even John Edwards would be a vast improvement over Billary, though I will vote for her over any R I see in the race now.

:xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

:xoxo: :xoxo: :xoxo:

and, mind you, I think both Clinton's are lying and slimy. But, I suppose it is better to be burned with a fire less hot :shrug:

[BlackWidow]

and, mind you, I think both Clinton's are lying and slimy. But, I suppose it is better to be burned with a fire less hot :shrug:

good point..you still get a kiss...:xoxo:

[irishgrl]

Yers, but they had some political experience and we are hardly under a quasi feudal system paying all of our income to King George without representation :shrug:

In the end and though I wish it would change and have no clue how to change it - I do think electing this woman is not the answer to our problems. What does she know about building a highway, Social Security, etc. I suggest she knows nothing of any relevant value. But, it is your vote :shrug:
no, they were landowners and merchants. Puh LEEZ. This Nation works best when run by people who are outside the mainstream. sorry but true.

[irishgrl]

Yers, but they had some political experience and we are hardly under a quasi feudal system paying all of our income to King George without representation :shrug:

In the end and though I wish it would change and have no clue how to change it - I do think electing this woman is not the answer to our problems. What does she know about building a highway, Social Security, etc. I suggest she knows nothing of any relevant value. But, it is your vote :shrug:
no, they were landowners and merchants. Puh LEEZ. This Nation works best when run by people who are outside the mainstream. sorry but true.

[irishgrl]

good point..you still get a kiss...:xoxo:
you just want him, you WHORE!

thats ok, most people do! (except me, Im immune to Jason's considerable charm......however, I WOULD like to fix him up with my gay friend...)

[strandinthewind]

no, they were landowners and merchants. Puh LEEZ. This Nation works best when run by people who are outside the mainstream. sorry but true.

My point is they had experience with running things, were leaders of society, and so on as evidenced here:

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_founding_fathers.html

-- as opposed to Sheehan who, as of this date, has run only her mouth :shrug:

[irishgrl]

My point is they had experience with running things, were leaders of society, and so on as evidenced here:

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_founding_fathers.html

-- as opposed to Sheehan who, as of this date, has run only her mouth :shrug:
well, if thats the case, any housewife could run this country. give me a break.

The point is, its revolutionaries that really effect change. Sheehan is a revolutionary. like it or not. I hope she succeeds and I hope she inspires others to join her.

[strandinthewind]

well, if thats the case, any housewife could run this country. give me a break.

The point is, its revolutionaries that really effect change. Sheehan is a revolutionary. like it or not. I hope she succeeds and I hope she inspires others to join her.

What has she done other than go on talk shows and stage sit ins and the like. Comparatively, she has not organized colonies into a Const. Convention, defied a foreign government, brought 13 colonies together in an act of treason, etc.

I suppose she does inspire people, but I think people generally look at her as a poor woman who lost her son and went a little nuts. Again, her son re enlisted with the knowledge that he was going to Iraq. Who is she to question his decision he obvioulsy thought it was worth it, regardless of what she and others may think :shrug: So, I think people do not take her seriously and have only pity for her - though the far right has contempt and that, to me, is horrid.

Anyway, this discussion is silly because there is no way in hell SFCA is going to oust the most powerful woman in the House to put this no name in to represent them.

[irishgrl]

What has she done other than go on talk shows and stage sit ins and the like. Comparatively, she has not organized colonies into a Const. Convention, defied a foreign government, brought 13 colonies together in an act of treason, etc.

I suppose she does inspire people, but I think people generally look at her as a poor woman who lost her son and went a little nuts. Again, her son re enlisted with the knowledge that he was going to Iraq. Who is she to question his decision he obvioulsy thought it was worth it, regardless of what she and others may think :shrug: So, I think people do not take her seriously and have only pity for her - though the far right has contempt and that, to me, is horrid.

Anyway, this discussion is silly because there is no way in hell SFCA is going to oust the most powerful woman in the House to put this no name in to represent them.
you are SO missing the point. you poor unfortunate soul...........(Little Mermaid anyone??)

Not everyone sees her as a "crazy". many see her as a rallying point. a lodestone if you will. she REPRESENTS a cause that UNDERSCORES a FLAGRANT FLAW in current politics. May she LIVE LONG AND PROSPER.

PS: she wasnt questioning her son's choice, she was questioning the rationale that led to a false war that took her son's life....her son is a HERO for choosing to die for his country. Our President is a fraud for choosing to lie to a Nation about its reasons for going to war which took that boy's life.

COME ON JASON, YOU AREN'T THAT NAIVE.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I submit less than 10 percent of Americans see her as a rallying point. Do not mistake disagreeing with the way the war is going in Iraq (which more than 1/2 of Americans now do) with support for this woman. They are not the same thing.

I suggest you do some reading of editorials from all sources regarding this woman. I read many of them and I think people pity her and use her craziness to sell their column. But, her notariety and public pity is not the same as support for a political office.

[BlackWidow]

you just want him, you WHORE!

thats ok, most people do! (except me, Im immune to Jason's considerable charm......however, I WOULD like to fix him up with my gay friend...)

..it's the accent....;)

[Rickypt]

Anyway, this discussion is silly because there is no way in hell SFCA is going to oust the most powerful woman in the House to put this no name in to represent them.

You are right about that.

[skcin]

what this country desperately NEEDS is folks in politics who arent POLITICIANS! I'd vote for her, even though I like Pelosi well enuff, because she's beholden to no one. thats BIG these days.

I don't disagree with your statement in theory. I just don't think it works well in reality.

[Rickypt]

^^Speaking of reality, if Sheehan knocks out Pelosi, then the new House Speaker (assuming Dems retain control) would be Steny Hoyer. Unlike Pelosi, Hoyer voted for the Iraq war.

[strandinthewind]

^^Speaking of reality, if Sheehan knocks out Pelosi, then the new House Speaker (assuming Dems retain control) would be Steny Hoyer. Unlike Pelosi, Hoyer voted for the Iraq war.

I am not really opposed to anyone who voted for the Iraq war because I think the sequence of events that lead up to it made that choice an acceptbale one. Remember, they voted for the use of military power on October 11, 2002 and the inspections ensued until the war began on March 20, 2003. Moreover, the reason for the inspections jived with the D's screaming about SH's WMD for the past decade and the unanimous UN declarations for the last decade holding SH in breach. So, I can live with a vote to continue the inspections and use military force if SH balked. I do, however, fault, the politicians who since do not say, well, we made a mistake, which we clearly did.

Again, I was all for the inspections to continue under the threat of military power if SH refused. I do think, however, that W's actions immediately before the war in stopping the inspections and the utter lack of a coherent plan to keep the peace is an autrocity.