Ahm, Cindy Sheehan is not a Democrat

[TayTay]

She has never done any of her advocacy work as a Democrat and she does not solicit funds as a Democrat or use the Democratic Party on her literature at Gold Star Mothers for Peace.

She is under no obligation to be nice to the Democrats just as she was under no obligation to be nice to the Republicans. She is not advocating as a member of the Democratic Party and never has. She is an independant who works for her own goals and occasionally finds friends in the Democratic Party, but that doesn't make her a Democrat.

She will do whatever furthers the aims she has clearly stated in her own organization. I fail to understand why that comes a surprise or why people think that they can dicatate what she does as a Democrat. She is not a Democrat. She has her own agenda and has very, very clearly told people that.

I wouldn't stop her from using her 1st Amendment rights before a Republican, I won't stop her from using them in front of Democrats. (nor does it matter whether I like it or not. Cindy Sheehan does not answer to me as a Democrat. She never has. She has been totally clear on that.)

I think we have a lot of people who are unclear on the concept here. This woman is advocating to stop a huge wrong and to stop people from dying. That is her cause. She is free to do this as she sees fit and to pay the legal consequences if she engages in civil disobedience. What does this have to do with the Democrats? She is an influence on the Party, but she is not of the Democratic Party.

[bluerum]

1. Good point. She is exercising her right to free speech as an

American citizen - not on behalf of any political party.

[patrice]

Is it legally possible that the Democratic Party has told her that she may not

refer to them?

[TayTay]

14. They don't have to. I don't think she does refer to them

I haven't seen her reference herself as a Democrat. At all. She is part of an advocacy group. She has many friends in the Democratic Party, such as Rep. John Conyers, who invited her to testify before a Democratic policy committee two years ago.

You don't have to be a registered Democrat or Republican in order to testify before Congress. You have to have a story to tell. She did.

The problem with free speech is that everybody thinks they have it. LOL!

[solara]

2. Well said and I couldn't agree more

k&r

[madfloridian]

3. But we have a right to criticize those tactics.

.

[solara]

4. Would you criticize her tactics if that had been a rethug press conference? n/t

[madfloridian]

6. Probably not.

Because they were so corrupt.

I hear they passed the ethics bill today. Maybe now I can learn more about it, since that was the topic of the press conference she shut down and took over.

[AZBlue]

76. Yup

eom

[TayTay]

7. Absolutely! Completely!

I could not agree more. However, Cindy Sheehan is not a Democrat. The criticism is that of someone outside of the party who is disrupting Democratic events.

We, as Democrats, can't stop her from doing this. She is not a Democrat. She is utilizing her rights as a citizen to speak up. There are rights every citizen has.

But, her actions are not amenable to what suits or does not suit the Democrats. She is NOT a Democrat. She follows her own agenda and her own path.

She has NEVER been a Democrat. NEVER.

You are correct to claim the right to criticize her. As she is right to claim the right to criticize what she thinks is wrong and to 'petition the government for a redress of grievances,' whether that government be controlled by Democrats or Republicans.

[madfloridian]

11. I wanted to know more about the ethics legislation....

Let's pretend a minute that I was eagerly awaiting the press conference. I think they passed the legislation today, and Tom Oliphant said it was pretty tough stuff. I would have liked to hear about it, but I couldn't hear yesterday.

My point is not so much that Cindy did not have a right to do it. I don't think I ever said that.

Her supporters here tried:
1.To shut down dissent

2. Accused me of being DLC over and over again, which anyone here knows is laughable. I am their worst enemy.

3. Acted like any of us who did not approve of that action were not activists.

I don't care what party she is or isn't. I fight back when people do those 3 things.

[bluedog]

27. I also wanted to hear him speak

couldn't she have waited until AFTER the outline of the bill?

[TayTay]

33. I don't blame you. I would too.

Free speech is messy. There is no way around that. I have been to speeches that were disrupted.

I don't think you are any of those things. (And the DLC charge is ludicrious, I agree.) However, this was public ground. She has the right to do this. Just as the Dems have the right to seek a change of venue for their press conference.

Or propose a change in the rules so that no one is allowed to protest during talks by Congressional leaders. However, I don't see the Dems proposing that change to the laws governing the physical grounds of the Congress at this time. Short of that, how do you handle the occasional disruption of protestors?

[madfloridian]

39. We disagree, and we say so. That's how we handle it.

Hubby and I go to war protests and peace rallies almost weekly. But we don't yell at people and we don't disrupt things that others care about.

If others do it, then I have a right to say so.

I am very tired of the way people here get treated for disagreeing.

[TayTay]

55. I agree with that.

I think calling people's motives into question because they may or may not have found the actions taken by Cindy Sheehan disagreeable is wrong.

Totally wrong. It is very possible to be sympathetic to her cause and not like what she did. There is no litmus test that says if you like Cindy and her actions then you are anti-war and if what she did bothered you that you are pro-war (or any other name-calling term.) There is no correlation between one and the other at all. That is needlessly divisive.

I would not question your beliefs, credentials or standing as a Democrat or as a person opposed to the Iraq War based on how you think a press conference went. That is silly and really pointless. The people who do that are making causal relationships that are simply not there.

I agree with you. Liking or not liking that action does not equate support or non-support for the War.

[mopinko]

79. i am shocked at you mad.

seriously.

[cassiepriam]

5. I don't care who she steps on to stop the war.

Everyone is fair game if they are in her way.

[still_one]

8. An interesting note that the protests during the Viet Nam War

were directed at both Democrats and republicans, by people who were Democratic, republican, and not affiliated with either party

My only point is that protest has always been part of the fabric of our country. It touched the conscience of the people during the civil rights movement, and the Viet Nam war. The difference today is that the MSM avoids covering demonstrations as they did in the past

The only thing that has kept information flowing is the internet

I do NOT like the term MSM, (main stream media), because they hardly represent the main stream. Today the main stream is represented with all points of view through the internet

[ellenfl]

9. personally, i applaud her action . . . and not just because i

consider rahm emanuel dem lite. we all have to hold feet to fire. our job didn't end on election day, it began.

ellen fl

[demnan]

10. I applaud Cindy Sheehan and the work she does

and all the Veterans for peace. The previous poster was right. During Vietnam the protests were aimed at a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress by people of both parties. I don't think that a peace protest has to necessarily be composed of Democrats. A larger majority oppose this war than are Democrats, some Republicans are very against it now too.

[beachmom]

12. She has been labeled as part of the "Left", however

Personally, I think she blew it. She started out with many in the country behind her, and then she started doing silly lefty things that leave most people not impressed with her. That was unfortunate.

We may want to separate her from us, but that's not possible. Just like we will always associate far right wingers with the Republicans, she will always be associated with the Democrats, true or not true.

I agree that she has her first amendment right to speak out. I will always defend her right to do that. But I no longer find her particularly helpful to the greater cause of stopping the war. People have stopped listening to her, and think of her as only a kook, true or not true.

We need someone else to lead in the anti-war movement. She's become a poster child for the Right to demonize. I will always defend her in terms of what happened to her son, but I will automatically distance myself from her and her unfortunate stances like opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan and meeting with Chavez.

[TayTay]

16. She did that on her own.

She is not a Democrat. She may be of The Left in this country, but the last I heard, you don't fill out paperwork and register in order to become associated with The Left. Anyone is free to do this and to align themselves with a political movement on the left or the right of the political spectrum.

Ms. Sheehan answers to her own group and her own cause. I agree with her and with the tactics she uses, in many instances, in order to call attention to that great and worthy cause. I don't always agree with who she associates with but I'm not sure that matters. I can't think of anyone that I have ever agreed with 100% on anything and every person I have ever worked for, supported, sent checks to and advocated for has, at one time or another, pissed me off with some action they took. So it is with Ms. Sheehan. I still support her and her goals.

And she is still not a Democrat. The Democratic Party has no say over what she does or doesn't do. She advocates as a private citizen. That is her Constitutional right as a free citizen in this nation.

[beachmom]

21. Bill O'Reilly is also not a Republican (remember -- he's an Independent)

Yet I associate him with the GOP. And that guy Hal Turner who called for the assassination of Democrats -- he's a far right winger, yet he was on the front pages of dailykos and du. We associate him with the GOP.

Sadly, we only have two political parties in this country -- the GOP (Right) and the Democratic party (Left). And most Democrats are against this war, and many like Cindy Sheehan. So she will always get lumped in with us. Surely you're not suggesting we "Sister Souljah" her? As an individual, I don't care for her tactics but I would never want her shouted down by Dems, so maybe I'm part of the problem, too.

I think that's a good mantra in conversation: Cindy Sheehan is not a Democrat. But the fact is a lot of Democrats admire her . . . .

[TayTay]

28. That is the truth.

I admire her. I think she is a courageous woman. She has the right to advocate for what she believes in and I have the right to evaluate what she says and decide if I want to support her, ignore her or advocate against her and any steps in between. She is still not a Democrat though.

We do have 2 political parties. We also have thousands of advocacy groups in this country. They are not formally aligned with any political party and are free to choose how they pursue their course. They can influence the established political parties without become part of them. That is how the system works.

[rman]

49. "most people not impressed with her" - Where did you get that idea?

[xiamiam]

13. how anyone can criticize her at all is beyond me....2 years ago mmm called her whacko

but she has done as much if not more to keep the disgrace of this war in front of all of us than almost any lone citizen...she didnt have a platform or political support..she had only the conviction of her own conscience and a grief beyond explanation...before cindy, i was ready to leave this country...a lot has changed including the pundits and so called journalists who bootlicked before....cindy has a place in the history of our great nation because she exercised her right to dissent...cindy and katrina are the two forces which exposed the * administration to the multitude of asleep sheep...she has been in jail, in a ditch, in the hospital, berated by almost everyone including some here on du...she has earned my deepest admiration and respect..and the bottom line is that i trust whatever she does because of the moral ground from which she operates...i can say that about a handful of our elected representatives...

[earth mom]

98. I agree 100% Couldn't have said it any better myself!

Your post deserves it's own thread!!! :applause:

[cali]

15. I never gave whether or not she's a dem, a thought.

Of course she's free to do as she sees fit. But her actions lately are not such that her influence on the party and individual dems in Congress, is anything but negligable.

[TayTay]

19. That is also part of the freedom of speech.

Sometimes your speech is heard. People evaluate it and decide if you are worth listening to or not. People listen and decide based on their own viewpoints, morals and backgrounds. So it is with her.

This is an argument on the merits of her position, something that is quite worthwhile in it's own right. But she still has the right of any citizen to seek a 'redress of greivances' from her government, whether that government be Democratic or Republican controlled.

If you think she has 'jumped the shark,' then that is your right.

BTW, Congress is still the property of the American people and the people are free to petition for a 'redress of greivances' in that place. If Mr. Emmanuel had wanted a press conference where he could not have been interrupted, then he could have held such a press conference on private property, at say DNC headquarters. He would then not have been interrupted. He chose to have his press conference on public ground, where the rules of free speech apply. There is also that.

[ruggerson]

17. She (and others with her) took it upon herself

to decide for US that we couldn't hear Rahm talk to us about ethics reform and other issues.

Rahm has freedom of speech, as well. He had every right to speak to his constituents, on the historic day before we took power.

Cindy decided preemptively that she didn't want any of us to hear what Rahm had to say.

I didn't vote for Cindy, and, as you say, she is not an elected Democrat.

But she took it upon herself to ensure that I could not hear a leader in the party that I voted for, hence symbolically disenfranchising me, and others, who care about the Democratic party and where it can lead us.

What she did, quite frankly, was not only strategically stupid, but by denying people the right to hear from their elected representatives, tragically undemocratic.

[TayTay]

23. The rooms and offices that Rahm used are public property

and are open to the free speech rights of Americans.

Do you wish to outlaw protest at the US Capitol and have rules that state that only public officials can speak on tax-payer funded grounds and in tax-payer funded buildings?

Rahm could also have had his press conference at private, Democratic Party owned property. Then Ms. Sheehan would not have to right to interrupt a private proceeding. There was also that option.

This is not what happened. I agree that free speech is sometimes uncomfortable and people wish it was more orderly and mannered. But it isn't. Ms. Sheehan did nothing illegal. She was using her free speech rights on public property that is tax-payer supported and subject to open-meeting laws. I assume that Rahm knows about this part of the law.

[Captain Hilts]

18. She should still know which side her bread is buttered on. nt

[madfloridian]

20. They passed the ethics bill today.

That is what Steny and Rahm were going to talk about. So it kept some into from getting aired.

Here is more about the bill.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20070104_ethics_bill_passes_by_huge_margin/

So what she shut down had something to do with the war after all....ethics.

:shrug:

[TayTay]

26. There were other ways of having that press conference

The Democrats have other meeting halls and other venues that they control and can speak from. They could have moved the press conference there and continued without interruptions.

They chose to shut down the press conference because there were protestors. They had other options. The alternative to this is to make the Halls of Congress a place where only the chosen can speak. Is that really something that we want to support?

[madfloridian]

31. Don't put down my dissent.

I never said she didn't have a right. I said I did not like what she did. I said I am tired to death of being attacked because I differed.

Don't you remember last year? I do. Sadly.

[TayTay]

38. You never said she had no right to protest.

We were discussing how that right plays out, not whether or not the right itself exists. It does exist. You did not disclaim it.

There is a discussion of worth here that talks about protest and about free speech. Obviously, there are strong feelings on both sides. There are people who wanted to hear Rahm speak and talk about the DEmocratic agenda. There are people who were proud of Cindy Sheehan and what she did.

The discussion is about how you get to 'hear both sides.' I don't think that you are trying to do anything bad to anyone's free speech rights. I don't think you ever said anything like that. I am not implying that you did. I am asking for a clarification about how we accomodate all that and a clarification about Cindy Sheehan's political affiliation.

I am not interested in denigrating you or anyone else who disagrees with what Cindy Sheehan did. You also have the right to epress yourself. However, this type of protest will come up again, and it will probably interrupt Democrats again. What is the preferred course? Not how can we shut down free speech for someone, but how can we get all parties to have free speech? How can Rahm and Cindy both speak and how does that work before the law.

[Cameron27]

45. Cindy was not respecting Rahm's right to free speech

or she would have let him complete his statement, and THEN challenged him. Free speech is a two way street, and she effectively shut him down.

[TayTay]

47. He could have continued.

He chose to stop speaking. He controlled the podium. He could have tried to go on with the press conference.

'Effectively stopping a speech' is not the same thing as preventing someone from speaking.

[Cameron27]

53. Did you hear it?

No one could speak over the chanting and there was no end in sight. Effectively stopping a speech is exactly the same thing as preventing someone from speaking.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. Rahm could have loudly pontificated about the Declaration of Independence and still not have been heard over the protest.

[TayTay]

58. I was making 2 points

1: Cindy Sheehan is not a Democrat. She is not beholden to the Democratic Party. She serves her own cause and her own agenda. Democrats should not feel betrayed by her or expect her to not protest at Democratic events. She is not a Democrat, not an elected official and has never said that she would defer from protesting at Democratic Party events.

2: There are going to be protests. They are going to get louder, more disruptive and more confrontational than what happened yesterday. The Democrats should take that under advisement and decide how they want to give these press conferences, how to restrict protest at public events (if they want to do that at all) and decide how they want to get their message out in a venue that allows free speech. Mr. Emmaneul is a very smart man. He should be able to handle this. He has other halls and other options open to him. I bet he uses them in the future.

[ProudDad]

100. He's part of the "governing apparatus"

and therefore is part of the "government" that we must petition for regress of our grievances.

Cindy represents the majority of the American people who want to END THIS FUCKING WAR!

Mr. Emanuel tends to represent the corporate war machine that perpetuates the war for their own profit more than the majority of us who want it ended and the war profiteers and bush admin. prosecuted.

If he doesn't want to run the risk of being petitioned, he should hold his "press conferences" in private instead of on the People's property...

[madfloridian]

48. Then her supporters can not demand total loyalty and love from Democrats.

Bottom line.

If she is not a Democrat, but she has every right to disrupt any Democratic process she wishes.....then her supporters must not come here and demand we love it or be bad people.

She has her rights, I have mine.

[TayTay]

54. I agree.

I am one of her supporters. I have sent money to her group.

I am not saying that you or anyone else who was annoyed, irritated, pissed off or what have you, by her actions yesterday are wrong to feel that way. You have a right to what you felt. There are two sides to the debate. I am a Democrat and I would like to hear what the Democrats have to say. I like hearing Cindy Sheehan and I like her 'take no prisoners' attitude to advocating for an end to this Iraq War. How do you reconcile these two competing interests?

It is sad and unfortunate that we have these mini-wars over these positions. I like people that I disagree with on a regular basis. That doesn't make me special, them bad or anything in between. I don't dislike you or anyone else for voicing your annoyance with what happened. You are perfectly entitled to feel what you felt.

I am a Democrat. I have been to events where I specifically spoke as a Democrat. Cindy Sheehan was not speaking as a Democrat yesterday. She was speaking as an independent advocate.

[Cameron27]

32. I agree with you madfloridian,

I'm no fan of Rahm, but I wanted to hear what he had to say about ethics.

It's unfortunate that this bill didn't get the air time it deserved. Most of us worked like hell to get this new Democratic majority elected, so we would have appreciated letting them get sworn in before protesting.

edited: spelling

[ProudDad]

101. Again, that was emanuel's decision

he had the "power" in that little scene. If he couldn't wait for the protest to subside and "order" to be restored then that was his decision. That's what usually happens in these situations...the "protesters" are removed and the set-piece event continues...

His choice...

[rhett o rick]

22. Bravo Cindy, a true American

She is an American citizen that is focused on one issue and I support her 1000%.

All other issues may be mute if we can’t reestablish stability in this Country.

The Iraq War is tearing this Country apart. The republicans are using it to undo our Democracy.

The issues of the “first 100 days” are important, but not as important as fixing the Iraq War mess.

The Democrats in Congress vowed to investigate, but how many more troops and innocent Iraqis will die while we “investigate”.

The Democratic controlled Congress needs to give the mad fuhrer a clear message that we need a time-table for exit.

[madfloridian]

24. I am a true American also

Our Democrats who voted for the ethics bill today are true Americans also.

[rhett o rick]

29. I agree but if fuhrer bush pushes us into WW III, that ethics bill won't

amount to stuff. It appears that some Democrats in Congress are ignoring the most important problem facing this Country.

[madfloridian]

34. Ok Details, please. How do they stop him? Details.

He is the bossman. He is in control. He is the decider. He can do whatever he wants.

Forget it.

[ProudDad]

102. They can cut off his funds...

Which they may (I hope) do...

[wyldwolf]

25. Ahm. she has "always been a Democrat."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8972147/

[TayTay]

30. Her organization is not a part of the Democratic Party

She was not speaking as a Democrat at that press conference. She was not there as a Democrat. She was there as a citizen.

She has the right to do that.

[Cameron27]

35. She has the right to speak out

but it's parsing it to say that she wasn't speaking as a Democrat if that's what she is.

[TayTay]

40. She was there as part of Gold Star Mothers for Peace

Here is the website: http://www.gsfp.org/

There is not affliation there with the Democratic Party. She was not speaking as a Democrat, but as a private citizen.

[wyldwolf]

57. no, fortunately for us. But you did say she isn't a Democrat. She claims she is

[TayTay]

60. Did she say yesterday that she was a Democrat?

Was she attracting attention as a Democrat, a Democratic candidate for public office, as someone who takes funds or funding from the Democratic Party or someone who has been publicly endorsed as a Democrat by other Democrats or the Democratic Party?

[wyldwolf]

61. has she recanted her claim that she is?

[TayTay]

63. Is that relevent?

Anyone can declare themselves a Democrat and then vote for Republicans, Independents or stay home and do nothing.

What part of the Democratic Party did she represent yesterday? Who in the Democratic Party authorized her to be there? Was she getting funding from the Party and therefore has incurred an obligation to defer to the Democrats in the Congress?

[wyldwolf]

64. of course it is. You claim she is not. She claims she is. Your only defense seems to be...

she didn't say she was a Democrat yesterday. Must one claim to be a Democrat everyday to be a Democrat?

[TayTay]

65. Yes.

This argument is about her actions yesterday as a private citizen. She disrupted a Democratic press conference. She did so as a private citizen and as a member of an advocacy group.

What obligation does she owe the Democratic Party? In what way is how she is registered to vote, in any way relevent to her actions yesterday?

Was she officially representing the Democratic Party yesterday? Does the average voter who shows up at a protest event obligated to 'act as a Democrat' and defer to Democratic Party leaders or are they free to act as private citizens?

[wyldwolf]

67. So, your contention is one must declare themselves a Dem everyday to be one? LOL LOL LOL!

[TayTay]

68. What happened yesterday

And who was a Democrat there and acting as such.

Who was not?

[wyldwolf]

69. Now THAT is an irrelevant question. Your OP set this all up. So tell us...

...unless you've had a secret conversation with Sheehan or you're some psychic, did she or did she not say she was Democrats contrary to your OP?

[TayTay]

70. There was no secret conversation

She did not say yesterday that she was a Democrat. She did not appear there as a Democrat. She appeared there as an anti-war protestor and as a member of an anti-war group.

That one was easy. She made no claims on or to the Democratic Party yesterday.

Please state where you heard otherwise.

[wyldwolf]

74. so you're a pyschic! I didn't appear at Burger King today as a Democrat...

But I'm sure as shits a Democrat.

[TayTay]

75. I see that you are a psychic

You have another post up that says that Cindy Sheehan is part of the international Communist menace.

What a busy girl. Democrat, communist, Burger King patron. What a life!

[wyldwolf]

77. I see that you are, 1. Avoiding the subject and, 2. Misrepresenting my post

But that is expected.

[sampsonblk]

36. Well she's doing a great job now!

More Dem than a lot of long-timers I would say.

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. Being nice is a two way street

If she isn't nice to Democrats, she should not expect us to be nice to her.

[TayTay]

42. Agreed. Free speech has consequences

That's why it's so powerful. People can listen and decide if you are a person worthy of being listened to. Many here have stated that they don't consider Ms. Sheehan worthy of being listened to anymore. A lot find her disruption of the press conference annoying and have decided not to listen to her anymore.

That is a consequence of free speech. Sometimes people hear you and like what they hear. Sometimes they get bored and decide to ignore you. Sometimes you piss them off. Free speech is messy that way.

[bluedog]

41. she was going to run as a Democrat

so does that not make her one?........

[TayTay]

43. Was she at this protest as a Democrat?

No. She was there as a private citizen and a member of her own advocacy group. She was not there as a Democrat.

[bluedog]

44. just saying...when media covers her......they assert

she is speaking as a Democratic protester...........

[TayTay]

50. With all due respect, the media gets a lot wrong.

She gets her support from The Left of the political spectrum. I agree with that. However, there are a great many groups and people on The Left who have no association with the Democratic Party.

The media employs shorthand and assigns people roles they don't claim for themselves. That still doesn't make it so. The media can call a horse a duck if they want, but that doesn't make it so.

[paulk]

78. that's a weak argument

She has said in the past that she's a Democrat.

Trying to draw some kind of distinction between being a registered Democrat interrupting a Democratic press conference and a private citizen representing an advocacy group doing the same may win you some points for nuance, but the majority of people are going to see it as little more than sophistry.

[ScreamingMeemie]

56. No, it does not.

Two of our sitting council members are Republicans who registered as Dems in the months before the election in my small town. It's semantics.

[Tom Joad]

46. Rahm Emanuel is not opposed to the war. Anyone more worthy to interrupt than that?

What kind of "ethics" can you expect from a war supporter?

[TayTay]

51. That might be what Cindy Sheehan was thinking.

She is advocating for her own agenda and her own goals. She might not think that Rahm Emmanuel is in line with her goals. So, she made those views known, vocally.

[rman]

52. Doesn't take an anti-war stance, favored pro-war candidates

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3037811&mesg_id=3037811

Questions about Rahm Emanuel, the man Cindy interrupted.

Much about what Cindy did, and there are questions about her politeness. I want to ask questions about Rahm, the man she interrupted. His website says he wants a higher minimum wage. Wants to fund stem cell research. and says nothing that i can see about the Iraq war.

Why? Is it because he does not see it as an issue? Not important enough? A $400 billion govt program, costing hundreds of thousands of lives, and he has little or nothing to say?
He does find time to say something about Polish American Heritage Month. He does say something about possible corruption in the Iraq reconstruction. But does he have anything to say about the wisdom of keeping troops in Iraq?

I am perplexed.

http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh10242006.html
This article says that Rahm, the man charged by the party with recruiting candidates, mostly favored pro-war candidates (and also recruited anti-abortion candidates). I know people are going to say that Counterpunch is just too Left. But what evidence do we have that Rahm is anything other than a pro-war congressperson?

I would like to see what people can tell me about Rahm's position on the war. Maybe there is more here than i can see. If someone lives in his district maybe that would be the best source of information. Does Rahm want the troops to stay in Iraq "until the job is done", or does he favor a quick withdrawal from this illegal, immoral, insane war of aggression?

If he favors the war, isn't it Rahm who is hurting the Democratic party, and hurting our planet?

[Cameron27]

59. But SANE gives him a 100% rating

God, I can't believe I'm defending Rahm here, because he's one of my least favorite Democrats, but here's the link:

http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Rahm_Emanuel.htm#War_+_Peace

[wyldwolf]

62. oops. Coretta King, Cynthia McKinney... Rahm Emanuel

[Tom Joad]

66. That may be because Peace Action gives grades based on votes

and the Iraq war did not come to a vote in the last congress.
But i think supporting a war of aggression should be cause to flunk him.

[Cameron27]

71. He voted NO

on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date.

June 12, 2006

Bill HRES 861

[wisteria]

72. The media needs to be told this fact over and over again. n/t

[NeoGreen]

73. In the NYS Governor race she endorsed...

the Green Party candidate (McCourt) and not the Dem (Spitzer).

[shance]

80. Get your facts straight TayTay. Cindy Sheehan is as much a Democrat as you or I am.

What bothers me is your attack without facts on a woman who is creating so much good AND WHO HAS ALWAYS BEEN A DEMOCRAT.

The least you can do is know the facts before you claim she's not a Democrat when she is.

[shance]

81. CINDY SHEEHAN IS A DEMOCRAT. Stop automatically believing everything you read

She's a Democrat.

Shame on Taytay for creating a fire where there is none, especially about someone is a hundred more times a Democrat than Rahm Emmanuel and his Armani suits will ever be.

[snowbear]

89. If I had to guess, I'd say she's a Greenie..

Or maybe an Independent.

I think she WAS a registered member of the Democratic Party, but the way she's spoken about the party in the past few years.. I'll bet she's switched to Green or no affiliation.

Just a hunch ~ :shrug:

[shance]

90. You know, I think we all could be cast as "mutts" when it comes to party affiliation

Don't you think?

There are things that I could take from every classification and/or party affiliation.

Its like religion, the more you look at the small print, the more you will find how alike they all are.

That's my thought.

I think what upset me about this thread was the misinformation. Taytay may not have meant to do it, but we have enough lies coming from our own good ole boy media.

[dailykoff]

82. Good point.

She is wise to steer clear of partisan politics.

:thumbsup:

[LittleClarkie]

83. True. But just as with Ralph Nader's approach

I would hope that she wouldn't target Democrat's MORE than she targets Republicans.

[welshTerrier2]

84. "target"

actually, i would hope she DOES "target" Democrats more than she targets republicans ... if anyone is ever going to respond to her message, it will be the Democratic Party ... sure, there might be a handful of republicans sensitive to her position on the war, but her main audience should be Democrats ...

also, Dems now control the Congress and its agenda ... not much point "targeting" the minority party ...

[LittleClarkie]

85. Could have waited til they took their seats and revealed their intentions

as evidenced by this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3042898&mesg_id=3042898

I don't think this was a direct result of the protest. It had probably been written before. Hence, don't protest folks and mention them by name (Pelosi) when you don't know what their intentions are yet.

[welshTerrier2]

86. only responding to "targeting"

i was not responding to the specifics of that one protest but rather, in response to your post, was stating that the Dems are the better party to "target" with anti-war demonstrations ... as for the details of the specific demonstration that just occurred, I generally don't like demonstrations that prevent others from speaking ... EVERYONE, including the protesters and those who called the news conference, deserves to be heard ... I blame all who were present for not honoring EVERYONE'S right to be heard ...

the bottom line: legislators should not expect the public to remain silent when they hold PUBLIC press conferences ...

the Democratic Party should know that those of us who put stopping bush and stopping his insane war as JOB ONE have little or no patience left for delays ... I am strongly supportive of many of the "first 100 hours" reforms but people are dying TODAY and it sends a fuzzy message to not put addressing IRAQ right on top of the agenda ... the Democratic Party is already straining along its fault lines ... it's like we're all pretending everything will just work out ... the anger and frustration at the war is peaking and Democrats will be held responsible if they don't do all they can as soon as they can to address the situation ...

mumblings from Democrats about "maybe if the "surge" is attached to conditions blah blah blah" are not helpful ... STOP THE WAR NOW!!!

[LittleClarkie]

87. That's cool. And I agree about letting ALL be heard

Someone mentioned yesterday that Kerry was pretty good at letting protesters be heard, stopping his supporters from heckling them, listening to them, then addressing their concerns (in that case AIDS protesters). Sounds like he handled such things better than Rahm.

Thank you for your reply.

[dailykoff]

96. Nader would have done it BEFORE the election, and in a swing state.

Where is Mr. GM-made-me-rich, anyway?

[ProudDad]

103. In case you haven't noticed

the repukes are not in charge any more...

Now we have to target the Dems and make sure they do the right things...

Ending the war is the MOST RIGHT THING they can do right now. Pelosi and Reid's letter to * today was a good start.

I do understand the pragmatic theater that's going on now though. The Dems hit on a great PR trick of passing a flurry of legislation and some House rules that the people (and the majority of Dems) can agree on easily -- "ethics" (although without Public Financing of elections whatever they do won't be enough), Minimum Wage, etc. Good PR, good idea...build up a train of success and try to force *'s hand -- a couple of vetos would make the bastard look pretty bad...

Since the "ethics" thing was too little too late and still a forgone conclusion I doubt that Cindy's protest had any effect on that...

[faithnotgreed]

88. well said taytay - i applaud cindy for taking on the corporate power

and they come in all shapes and labels

[Poll_Blind]

91. I remember a similar confusion with MoveOn.Org. There were...

...many people who were (and probably are) confused and angered that MoveOn, which has sponsored some of the biggest anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War rallies in the United States, was sometimes critical of the Democratic party. The level of upset went so far that some members and moderators went out of their way to trash the organization and even the concept of organized protests, entirely.

  I wish I'd saved the links, the threads are all searchable in the archives, and I am referring to the threads which started about a week before the protest, the earliest messages about the protest on DU.

  Anyway, there are quite a few members here who genuinely believe that if an organization or individual does not toe the Democratic party line, even though they share some of the same goals, that they are as contemptable as those who work hard to defeat Democrats. I think it's loony or, more charitably, a very narrow view.

  I don't see the behavior changing anytime soon but I would suspect that those who so fervently attack other individuals and groups (as described above) do not understand as much as they should about politics, where coalitions build strength and divisiveness, weakness.

PB

[RiverStone]

92. Echo K&R - gawd folks, give Cindy a break!

Well said TayTay!

I cannot fathom the depth of the pain she feels - not only losing a child to war, but losing him to an unjust war.

Beyond the politics and folks offering critique of Cindy's method, she has every right to vent her feelings anyway she choses - via 1st Amendment.

I'd be saddened to think she reads (or hears about) some of the criticism that has been directed her way. I'd give Cindy some grace and respect as a grieving parent who even if it's in an imperfect way - is expressing her grief and rage.

I doubt she gives a damn about political sides considering all she's going through.

[loupe-garou]

93. She is a heart-broken mother who is not paralyzed and silenced

I heard Cindy speak in Syracuse...she was very smart,full of insight, without hatred, but with anger at how our country has been taken over with such heartbreaking consequences such as the deaths of MANY INNOCENTS....in other words, she is like all of us with more spunk and a larger audience.........I have nothing but sympathy and respect for her-SHE LOVES HER COUNTRY AND SHE LOVED HER SON! She calls herself AN AMERICAN! She is sincere and effective, and she is holding Democratic feet to the fire, something I should be doing more of myself! Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Usually I'm lurking and enjoying the debate. Happy New Year, all!

[MasonJar]

94. In my book Rahm had his free speech rights abridged when he

attacked Howard Dean in the middle of the most important election in my life time (except of course 2000 and 2004.) I do NOT like him, but even if I did it would have nothing to do with Cindy's cause. I back her in her pursuit to bring the troops home 100%.

[welshTerrier2]

95. excellent, TayTay!

thank you ... very well said ...

[JNelson6563]

97. A party of one, like someone else I know

No "I" in team so screw that team business.

Julie

[cui bono]

99. So what if she were a Dem, she's still free to do what she wants.

[LeftishBrit]

104. I agree with you

She isn't a Democrat, and she isn't a politician. She's an anti-war activist. I think she's had a great influence in this respect. She sounds as though she may not be diplomatic enough to be a successful elected politician; but that's not her job, or what she wishes to be.