Cindy Sheehan breaks up a Dem press conference...Why?

[cynatnite]

I don't recall her doing to the repuke ones. The Dems haven't even started yet and she's protesting them before they even get out of the gate. What's up with that?

I honestly don't get the purpose of this protest. Someone please enlighten me.

[cali]

1. Now, you're in for it.

Never get in the way of a DU cult of personality. Never say anything remotely critical of a DU idol. Never suggest that heros have clay feet.

[ScreamingMeemie]

35. An "idol"??? I wouldn't say that. A person I respect? You bet.

We can, and often times do, have differing opinions. Because my opinions differ from yours makes neither one of us members of a so called "cult of Personality". I love how honest disagreement brings this out of people.

cali, it's called debate.

[Poll_Blind]

90. But whether the cult is for Cindy or the particular Democrats is a...

...matter of perspective. Either way, perspectives are skewed which, I guess, is their nature.

PB

[Kahuna]

91. You forgot your...

:popcorn:


:evilgrin:

[question everything]

103. LOL. I cannot remember a single time when anyone

dared question anything that Sheehan did and was not attacked, perhaps even locked as "flame bait."

[dogday]

175. Never get in the way of people who are

trying to save other people's lives...

[SaveElmer]

2. I agree...

She's apparently decided publicity is what she wants, and it doesn't matter to her how she gets it. She has passed her period of relevency.

[cyclezealot]

55. polls show Americans want the Iraq war stopped.

She is just reminding us what we all voted for. She is no Democratic loyalist, nor should she be. The war goes on and on, it will turn into a Democratic war as well as Bush's.

[SaveElmer]

70. She is becoming irrelevent...

In danger of "Naderizing" herself!

[NoPasaran]

142. I think that ship has already sailed

Back about the time she got all kissy face with Chavez.

[cyclezealot]

146. chavez became our supposed enemy when

Bush tried to overthrow his government. And, raises Venezuelan fees on their own oil. Shame the US has to unfriend figures that become hero figures to the third world. He may not have become our supposed enemy, had we not made him such. Overthrowing a government is not a friendly act. Causes enemies in the end.

[rman]

157. That's what many on the Right and a few on DU keep saying - nt

[roguevalley]

145. I don't know. She's relevent to me. Reminding our formerly quizling

party members- who could revert given time- that people are dying is nothing to apologize for. They have all stood around pooh-poohing this and that. She reminded them as only a gold star mom can that they have to be bigger than the moment. I don't trust emmanuel to do the right thing.

[Cooley Hurd]

3. She crashed Rahm Emmanuel's Lobbying/Ethics reform press conf...

...she was calling for the defunding of the war. Did she get the press conferences mixed up and meant to go to one relevant to the Iraq War?:shrug:

[jgraz]

5. She went after one of the main pro-war Dems in Congress?

Good for her! Emanuel should be explaining why he still supports this insane war.

[Cooley Hurd]

8. Well, there's that...

;)

[leftchick]

13. I am glad some get it

The same thing happened during the Vietnam war. The pro-war dems had to be publicly called to count before change ever happened. Let's hope it does not take nearly as long as it did back then.

[cali]

60. Only he's not one of the main pro-war dems in Congress.

In fact, SANE gives him a 100% rating.
http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Rahm_Emanuel.htm#War_+_Peace

[dogday]

176. Great! What does his website say about the Iraq War?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Seeing as how the war is certainly unethical, it seems apt.

[derby378]

4. As of Thursday, who controls the purse strings in Congress?

I don't have to agree with everyting Cindy Sheehan says or does - getting her picture taken with Hugo Chavez was not the greatest idea. But she's hounding the Democratic leadership because starting tomorrow, for better or worse, they are in charge.

I think we're going to see dramatic changes in how Congress handles the occupation of Iraq. Nothing wrong with "We, the People" reminding our elected representatives what we really want.

[Bake]

6. When did ONE PERSON become "We The People?"

Sheehan seems to have arrogated that title to herself ... strange, I thought "We The People" was PLURAL.

Bake

[monktonman]

7. I agree

[jgraz]

19. Some people are more equal than others

Maybe after one of your kids gets killed in this insane war you can start telling Cindy how to behave.

[cynatnite]

28. What does that mean?

'some people are more equal than others'

I've read people expressing their opinions about Cindy Sheehan...nothing more. Are they not allowed to disagree with her or her tactics?

[jgraz]

39. What it means is

that the woman has earned the right to say whatever she wants wherever she wants. Characterizing her actions as "arrogating" the title of "We the People" is not disagreement, it's silliness.

Especially when "We the People" don't seem to be doing all that much to keep the heat on the Dems about this war.

[cynatnite]

42. 'We the People' threw the repukes out of power...

I thought that sent a strong message.

[jgraz]

44. Obviously not strong enough

If Rahm is talking about ethics while Bush plans to escalate his personal war.

[cynatnite]

50. Ethics is one of the Dems' issues....

Iraq is another. You know the dems can walk and chew gum at the same time, don't you?

[jgraz]

Dems can do many things at once

but they won't unless we make them. Cindy's work is necessary as long as this war continues.

[cynatnite]

76. The dems know why the repukes got voted out...

they know what they have to do. If they don't, they'll get voted out and someone will be put in their place to do the job.

I don't agree with her tactics, but I do support her cause.

[Buck Rabbit]

148. Pelosi has already stated she will not do that job.

She has taken cutting the purse strings off the table.

The Democrats apparently believe that all they have to do about Iraq for the next two years is bitch and moan about it but do nothing to actually try to stop it. They have stated they will fund it as long as Bush stations troops there.

Do you agree with this "all talk no walk" approach the Democratic leadership has publicly laid out? Sheehan apparently disagrees and told them what you just did in this your own post. Do the job or get voted out. She just said it louder than you did.

I think she did them a big favor because I think their do nothing plan will put the Republicans back in power in 2008. Fortunately we saw with Reid on the support of the surge that the Democratic leadership is very easily influenced by highly vocal protest.

[NJCher]

164. I missed that

Will you fill me in?

Fortunately we saw with Reid on the support of the surge that the Democratic leadership is very easily influenced by highly vocal protest.

I knew about Reid's remarks but I didn't know he'd acknowledged protest. Oh, do tell!



Cher

[Reterr]

45. Yeah-after 6 years of Bush

Yayyyyy for us...:sarcasm:
Americans are mostly lazy, ignorant and self-involved. Thank God for the few who take a stand...

"We the people" don't really behave too much like we care nowadays.As long as we have shiny pretty things we don't care mostly. Thank God for the few who are trying to start something.

[cynatnite]

56. They were slow about it, but they got the job done at the ballot box...

That's one of the ways this country works.

The pressure will continue to build. Most Americans are against the war and most of the troops are. The election sent a message. End the war or get voted out of office.

[jgraz]

66. And that clearly was all that was needed

That's why all the troops were home by Nov 8th.

[Reterr]

80. heh heh heh

:yourock:

[bdamomma]

123. all we need is some disgruntled servicemen coming home

and spilling the beans about this stinking and destructive war.

[cynatnite]

128. There already are...

Quite a few of them were elected last november.

[bdamomma]

121. that throwing out of repukes was only the tip of the iceberg

we have a long way to go before we get our country back again.

[cyclezealot]

147. not if the Democrats don't challenge the Repukes.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

84. "Earned the right"? No need ...

Last I heard, the right to say what you want was still part of the Bill of Rights. Whether you earn it or not.

I think she's annoying, pushing in front of every camera she sees. But it's good to have a wacko magpie who's not going to let the war drop from the table, when the minutia of the first 100 hours gets technical and tedious.

Lest the Democratic leadership forgets what got them a majority.

[LittleClarkie]

130. Have freeper mothers who've lost their children earned the same right?

?

[Cameron27]

137. Good point. n/t

[Bake]

158. Sheehan earlier stated "We The People" Demand Impeachment

When "we the people" have done no such thing. That's where I get the term "arrogating the title."

Bake

[Bake]

30. Where in the Constitution do you find THAT gem?

That is, that some people are more equal than others? I'll be waiting for chapter and verse -- or Article and Section. I sympathize with Sheehan for her loss; that doesn't mean that she has more right to speak than anyone else. Nor does it mean that she is immune to criticism if she does something stupid. Like the Chavez thing. Or like, say, TODAY.

Bake

[jgraz]

48. It's a moral argument, not a legal one

You have a legal right to say whatever you want. That doesn't mean that your arguments should be given equal weight with a dedicated peace activist whose son died in this war.

[cynatnite]

52. The constitution says otherwise...

call it legal, moral or whatever. I've always considered the constitution very moral and no one person's opinion is less important than other.

[Bake]

53. Your morality, perhaps.

That's why I prefer to stick with the Constitution.

Bake

[jgraz]

63. Do you really not know the difference between legality and morality

Or just plain politeness? I can't believe I need to explain this, but the constitution is document about the powers and limitations of government. The Bill of Rights says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech", not "spew whatever crap comes into your head and we all have to listen to it."

[Cameron27]

136. I'm not quite sure what you're saying,

but If we use the death of a family member as grounds for moral superiority, then one could argue that the family of a murder victim has a morally superior position in seeking the death penalty.

I feel great sympathy for Cindy’s loss, and I've supported her protests against the war since the beginning, but I don’t consider her opinion morally superior.

I think protesting the Democrats on the eve of our taking a majority in Congress for the first time in a decade, is counter productive.


edited: spelling

[NJCher]

167. hang in there

You might not get through to a few, but you're getting through to many.

:)



Cher

[Bake]

34. I have a son of draft age.

And there's no way I'm giving him up to this war. Does that qualify?

What's YOUR family situation? Do you have any, as they say, "skin in the game?"

Bake

[jgraz]

40. I'm not the one telling a grieving mother how to behave

And no, your draft-age son doesn't qualify you, any more than my draft-age self does.

[Reterr]

47. !

:thumbsup:

[NaturalHigh]

180. I won't presume to tell her how to behave...

but I don't have to condone her behavior. I'm pretty sure that I'm free to criticize it as well even if I'm not as "equal" as her.

[cyclezealot]

59. she only represents herself and Code Pink.

Why should you think otherwise. Glad someone thinks life can be more involved than just emailing.

[Skidmore]

61. Well, do "we" think "we" need to escalate war in Iraq and stay

until some unspecified point Godknowsfarinthefuture?

I agree with Cindy.

[noamnety]

68. She is acting on her conscience.

If the media is focusing all their attention on her, that's a complaint about the media. But to expect her to sit home now and keep her little mouth shut rather than taking part in effecting change is insulting.

You want a louder voice in our history? Go out there and make it happen.

I don't understand the resentment here. Anyone who gets press is faulted for claiming the title "we the people" for themself? What are you hoping for - NOBODY getting press? Equal press for the other activists that are quite often working with her but ignored? If it's that last one, voice your opinion to the media. Or better yet, be the media.

[Orsino]

152. We The People may be plural, but We are ignored.

Sheehan was not. Point to Sheehan.

[MADem]

23. She should be talking to Charlie Rangel, then--he's Ways and Means

HE controls the purse strings, in essence.

But then, he's for a draft....!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Golly. Did she hurt their tender feelings?

We wouldn't want politicians to be questioned about their plans or doings it might embarrass them.

Citizens are supposed to confront politicians. If they're doing the right thing then they should have no fear of the public and the questions asked of them.

It's called democracy.

[cynatnite]

14. It would have been nice if she'd questioned the repukes...

when they were in power rather than waiting until the dems took over. This is just odd to me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. I seem to recall some vigils and protests outside a Republican's "ranch".

Did you miss those?

[cynatnite]

22. But that wasn't breaking up a repuke press conference...

calling them criminals and all that. The ones at bush's ranch was for her demand to have bush meet with er.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. So?

Are Republican politicians the only ones that should be confronted about their plans and policies? I'm sure that LBJ and his band of thugs would agree with you if he were still around.

[cynatnite]

38. The dems haven't even started running the show yet...

and she's protesting them. She didn't do this with a repuke press conference. I question that.

[Telly Savalas]

115. My guess is that Sheehan & Co. realize that holding the Dem's feet to the fire

is much more likely to get results than doing so for the Republicans.

If it were my call though, I'd at least wait and see if the Democratic majority is going to dick around with the issue before becoming confrontational about it.

[peace13]

36. She's been out there you haven't noticed.

The fact that they are ramping up the peace effort is a plus for all of us. I am sure that you will see more of this. It is now or never so to speak!!! Peace, Kim

[earthside]

51. Last Year's SOTU

I seem to recall Cindy being 'arrested' at Republican George Bush's State of the Union speech last year for wearing an anti-war t-shirt.

The point is that the Democrats basically promised us a new direction, a way out of the Iraq war in the last election.

Sheehan is letting them know that the pressure is on ... they better figure out a way to bring the troops home.

And many of the statements from the Democrat "leadership" since the election have not been particularly encouraging.

So, way to go Cindy.

I am surprised to see how quickly some DUers have become so protective of their Congressmembers. For the sake of 'the party' -- peace is now supposed to take a back seat?

Bush, Cheney, Gates, Pelosi, Reid, Rahm and all of them ... STOP THIS WAR!

[peace13]

64. You got it.

We don't have time for the same ol' sh*t. These congress members better grow some balls fast and get on with it. It isn't as though we haven't watched the Dems of the past preach on CSPAN and then turn around and vote against the issue! They need to get on with it. Time is life and we have people dieing day and night over this war issue. We can play nice when they show us that they can be trusted!! Peace, Kim

[cynatnite]

65. My problem is the Dems haven't even started...

and she's protesting them. I don't understand this. Why not wait and see if they do what the American people mandated them do? If the dems don't follow through, then protest, write letters or whatever. I don't understand it myself.

[NJCher]

166. OK, let me see if I can explain

Why not wait and see if they do what the American people mandated them do?.

If you've ever played in the political arena, a show of power is essential to show you mean business. Cindy has power. She has built up a huge grassroots movement. She has high name recognition and can command media attention. There is nothing that lights the fire under the feet of legislators so much as a room full of angry constituents.

This is not a gentlemanly exchange of ideas. We are talking about a country whose representation has been usurped by a huge military complex. The Dems only have power because they are a LESS evil option than the openly corrupt and anti-American people republicans.

We literally are talking one mom (who represents thousands of others who have lost loved ones in this insane war) who is against an establishment that doles out untold billions in sales (and thus profits) to an industry. That is what Cindy Sheehan is up against. When you're up against that kind of power, this is what you have to do.







Cher

[MADem]

163. A republican wife was arrested too. Both received apologies for being removed.

The only disruption was the overzealous asshole who ordered the removal. She didn't disrupt that event at all.

Cindy needs to realize that the Dems HAVE to work with the GOP to get anything done. They'll need a few aisle-crossers if they expect to override any vetoes.

And without overrides, Chimpy can maintain the status quo. Those Democrats CANNOT stop this war without GOP help...but many here don't seem to 'get' that. They want to screech at the new leadership before they've even found their seats.

There's no quid without quo...the GOP aren't going to help us simply out of the goodness of their hearts, they need to be shown how they can benefit from voting with us. That doesn't happen in a day or two, like it or not.

[Cameron27]

169. All the "Dimocrats" ????

Earthside Comments: "If you vote for a Dimocrat, you might as well elect a Republican."

Edited: forgot my smilie----->:puke:

[noamnety]

73. Why aren't YOU breaking up their press conferences?

Why is that HER job? Not that she hasn't been doing it, questioning the republicans, but I think it's backwards for YOU to be typing on a message board complaining that SHE hasn't coordinated the type of actions YOU want.

[cynatnite]

81. Hmm...so I can't disagree with her tactics on a message board?

I'm not exactly living in an area where I can easily travel to DC to break up press conferences nor do I have the funds to do so. Personally, I disagree with breaking up press conferences. I don't see the benefit of shouting down the political party who were mostly elected over this issue.

[noamnety]

85. It's not exactly convenient for her, you know.

You've chosen not to dedicate your life to the cause. That's fine. I'm in the same boat. I've got family, a job, I'm chosing to keep them, and I'm more of a weekend protestor.

She, on the other hand, has given up her normal life to try to keep other people from being killed. She's not independently wealthy either, you know. But she's doing what she feels she has to do.

The reason she's shouting down the political party who was most elected over this issue is that that same political party has been supporting the war - but the public can't seem to get that through their head. "We like the war, just not the way it was fought." "We don't like the war, but now we have to continue it indefinitely." There are large numbers of them that - despite the public voting to end the war - have no intention of ending it.

It's not acceptable to just let them continue to fund the war, because, hey, they are democrats. And the message that funding the war is unacceptable, that message needs to be in their faces now, not a year from now.

[LittleClarkie]

140. Apparently Cindy has earned that right.

Or so it's been said on the boards tonight. I reckon that's why it's her job. And why some feel she is untouchable, criticism wise.

[dogday]

178. Remember when she was escorted from

The last Presidental State Of The Union Speech? For just wearing the number dead on her shirt? Seems she popped up here and there.. At the gates of the White House where I believe she was arrested....

[Kerry fan]

17. Yes, but,

Couldn't she have waited until they were in office, and see what they plan to do? Why turn the people who may agree with your cause against you? Why make them look bad in the media, in front of the whole country?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. They're going to turn against the "cause" because Cindy used her freedom of speech?

My, my, they DO have tender feelings.

[Kerry fan]

26. NOT her cause,

HER.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. I'm sure that she has grown a thick skin when dealing with politicians.

Unlike the politicians who get upset when confronted by the citizenry.

[Kerry fan]

71. Thick skin has NOTHING to do with it.

Republicans will be working very hard to make Democrats look bad. I just think that we who are against the war should not help them, unnecessarily. At least, not unless the Democrats, as a whole, start backing Bush's war or his escalation.

We need to allow the Democrats to be as professional and diplomatic as possible. That is how we keep the citizens of the country on our side.

Knee jerk, feel good sensationalism will only turn the country against the anti war people, just the same way it did during Nam.

I believe Democrats WILL fight against this war. We need to watch them. If they don't, then more drastic measures may be in order.

Until then, IMO, we are only hurting our cause if we give Republicans help in demonizing Democrats.

We already have their attention. Democrats know that the CONs were voted out, in large part, because the citizenry is sick of the war and want it stopped. Once they are in office, if they don't follow up, THEN, we can emphatically let them know they are NOT doing what we sent them to Congrss to do.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

110. You think that we shouldn't act because the Republicans might say bad things?

The reactionaries said bad things about almost every left wing movement in the country's history. From abolitionists to
uppity women suffragettes, to the labor movement, to the civil rights movement, to the anti-war movement in the '60s.

Hell, Abraham Lincoln was receiving flak from the abolitionists to free the slaves who railed against him for the gaps in the Emancipation Proclamation - for good reason.

Politicians don't lead, they follow.

[AZBlue]

79. Ding, ding, ding!! Exactly!!

I support the cause but not her (anymore) because I think she's now hurting that very cause.

[Kerry fan]

88. I think she is, too.

And, what she did today could hurt even more.

For instance, the Democrats promised openness.


Excerpts:

Emanuel finally gave up trying to be heard over the chants, and retreated to a caucus room where Democrats were meeting.

Sheehan says she has nothing against lobbying reform, but she and her fellow anti-war activists want Democrats to know they will keep pressuring Congress to end the war in Iraq.

http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2007/01/01/daily13.html?from_rss=1


Okay, how do the Republicans make this look?

Example of possible Republican distortion and propaganda:

"The Democrats promised oppeness but they held their ethics committee conference in "a caucus room where Democrats were meeting"." Why didn't they hold this in public, in the open? They promised oppeness but hid in a caucus room."

That's only the general idea. Rove can do a better job of that sort of thing than I can, AND HE WILL, COUNT ON IT!

Thanks, Cindy.

Help give the Republicans opportunity to distort and propagandize what the the Democrats are doing.

Why do we have to continue to fall into the trap and help them with their distortions?

Wake up, folks. Cindy is working for a great cause, but, imo, she needs to start using some common sense. After 6 years of observing how well the Rove slime and slander tactics work, it wouldn't hurt to be a little careful about handing it to them on a silver platter.

[AZBlue]

134. I couldn't agree more.

With everything you said. Dems have enough of a bad habit of playing right into the GOP's evil hands without Cindy's help (and although she's not officially linked with the Dem Party, to the general public she is). She's not only handing them the wood for the fire they'd like to build, she's putting up the stakes as well!

And, she's alienating many (like me) who agree with what she's saying but don't agree with her method. IMO she's lessening the ranks of the anti-war movement, not increasing it, and making those who are against the war in Iraq look hysterical and irrational.

I've said it before: like it or not, we have to play the spin game and beat them at it. That doesn't mean we have to lower ourselves to their level - we can be honest and moral and still play. But that does mean we have to think ahead before we speak and before we act and not give them the ammunition to use against us.

I can't imagine the horror of losing a 21 year old son in a useless war. I feel for Cindy and what she's gone through and wonder if maybe her grief isn't clouding her judgment? But I do wish she'd take a step back and look logically at her own actions - I think if she did that, she'd even see there was a better way to go about it.

[madfloridian]

11. She went overboard on this.

If she starts doing this at every conference, I will lose all respect for her.

There is a time to let the Democrats get themselves situated.

[cynatnite]

15. Today really surprised me. n/t

[MADem]

31. I agree with your assessment. It's headline-grabbing for its own sake, not for any purpose

other than to suggest that her issue is the only issue, and to hell with anyone else who says otherwise. I think she'd catch a few more flies with a little honey every now and then--being continuously combative and strident gets old, and makes her look like a one-noter. She needs to display a little nuance.

That said, I agree with her essential point, that we should get the hell out of Iraq, but I think she's alienating people who support her goals. She's crapping on the people we finally have placed in charge before they even have a shot at organizing their committees and formulating their agendas.

[Orsino]

153. It suggests that she feels that "her" issue is the biggest one...

...or should be. I think that she's right about "her" issue, and am not offended by a single protestor, or group, that continues to shout about it.

I think that the war is far from being "her" issue.

[MADem]

159. Well, go on ahead and parse so as to obfuscate my real meaning

If that works for you.

And go ahead and ignore the nuance in my opinion. That clearly works for you, too.

My mileage varies on the approach she is taking, not the goal.

[Orsino]

161. Hmm. How did you conclude that her protest was "without purpose"...

...and was simply "headline-grabbing"?

Personally, I think that headline-grabbing is itself a piece of a valid purpose: getting legislative attention. Did you find this inconsistent with trying to end our involvement in *'s war?

[MADem]

162. You are parsing again, and taking phrases out of context. Reread. I am not going to argue with an

inaccurate description of what I said.

One more time, for you and anyone else who doesn't seem to get the nuance: her view of the war is valid, correct, just. However, in my opinion and that of most of the Democrats happily watching the run up events to the change in power, her methodology serves to alienate those who support her cause. She wasn't going to allow Democrats to have any celebration before she began demanding.

No one is talking about her war stance today, except maybe here, and if anyone mentions her at all, albeit briefly, they're talking about how she disrupted a presser on the eve of the end of 12 years of minority suffering by the D's.

Keep this in mind, too -- you need Republicans to override a Chimp veto. Nothing gets done without some bipartisan work, like it or not. The Dems have enough clout to put paper on the Monkey's desk, but they don't have enough to override him if he refuses to sign it.

And all of the shouting, hectoring, insisting, and denigrating in the world isn't going to change that.

[Orsino]

168. Then you meant "counterproductive" rather than "without purpose"?

Could be. We'll see. However, I think that attention drawn to the issue is productive, almost by definition, and don't see that Ms. Sheehan screwed it up.

[MADem]

170. No. And I did not use the phrase "without" purpose, ever.

Read the full sentence in the original post where the word purpose occurs in the subject line, and take care to read the words that come AFTER that word, starting with 'save...' The context you are trying to suggest was not ever my meaning.

I've been flipping round the dial, and she's not getting any traction in this news cycle, either. She got half a news cycle, if that, for her efforts of the other day, and the focus was on disruption of the press conference, not the war. Her message was lost and not transmitted, even with the chanting.

[Orsino]

171. Conflict.

You said she had no purpose other than to claim that the war was the only issue, and yet you agree with her "essential" point, which I presume is ending the war. There was indeed another purpose, as you've said.

Sure, we could infer that Ms. Sheehan feels that the war is the most important issue, but I think it unfair to assume that she can see no other. Her essential message--stop the war--was not lost. Not any more than usual, anyway, and I don't believe that we can reasonably blame her tactics for that.

[MADem]

172. Unfair to assume she can see no other issue?

I dunno, crapping on a Democratic victory on the eve of our taking power in a bid to overtake the news cycle makes me feel that she can see no other. Her message, IMO, WAS lost. She's not being painted in the media coverage (which has passed, for the most part) as an antiwar protestor, she's being painted as a disruptor. There was some mention that she "lost a son in Iraq" but that's where they leave it. She's being portrayed more as a grieving mother who wants to take her grief out on everyone else rather than a person with a war-ending agenda. Now that's clearly not her goal, but that is how she is being portrayed. Her efforts are not effective.

That is my opinion, it's the opinion of everyone I've spoken to in the past couple of days, and there isn't a one in my informal poll who disagrees with her goal and who wants the war to continue.

People here are getting mad as hell at me for calling it like I see it, but I maintain that my view is shared by more people than the "Go Cindy, wasn't that just GREAT!" crowd. She's starting to look like a crank--she isn't one, but she's being covered that way, and her choices in terms of civil disobedience/protest aren't helping that impression.

[Orsino]

173. I don't understand the anger, either.

If you believe that she has done more harm than good, you are right to complain about it. I'm of the grab-almost-any-headline-you-can(-peacefully) school, and also feel that most politicians' press conferences are unimportant. I see little real opportunity for harm in her actions.

A peaceful protest against the war is exactly the sort of thing an antiwar citizen should be doing--unless other good work were seriously impaired.

[MADem]

174. Here's the funny thing, though--while I disagree with her methods, I am not interested in

compelling her to cease and desist. Also, I really don't think she did any harm at all, except to herself and her own reputation. And the long-view result of that is that the antiwar effort has one less credible voice.

I just wish she'd see that she's not as effective as she could be. She is a good speaker--not especially eloquent, but direct and plain-spoken in a way that keeps attention focused on her. Yet, she rarely speaks nowadays. Instead, she does "stunts" like chaining herself to fences and this chanting/drowning out business.

Who can forget that heart-wrenching television ad she did? It was a masterpiece. Some of the interviews she gave down in Crawford were fantastic. She should harness her ability to connect at a basic level and use THAT to her advantage, not persist in these theatrics--they really do make her look like a spacey, 'she's lost it,' dipshit (and some may not like that straightforward assessment, but it's not just my view). Her advisors apparently prefer theatrics, and don't put much stock in articulate speeches or stoic dignity, and that's a pity. She might also consider foregoing the "national media" spotlight and doing targeted events that local media outlets might cover. Chip away at the tough communities, the red state Bush enclaves that still support the war. It's way too easy to hijack a press conference on the Hill, it's another thing altogether to take your protests to smaller venues and speak personally to voters, real people, who might not agree with you. It's a long process to change hearts and minds. Thirty seconds on a newscast isn't going to do it.

I think she's getting bad advice from people who are closer to the fringe than the mainstream, frankly. It's unfortunate, because their counsel is lessening her effectiveness--no matter how frantically a small element of diehards insist otherwise.

[PassingFair]

105. I'm SURE she won't be "doing this" at EVERY conference, Mad.

...and you KNOW I agree with you on almost EVERYTHING!

There is no time like the present as far as I am concerned for getting
the message across to our new "democratic" congress that We the People
want OUT of this illegal Anglo-American Invasion of Iraq.

If Cindy has to shout it out from the balcony or where-ever, so be it.





"If she starts doing this at every conference, I will lose all respect for her."

I wouldn't lose any sleep worrying about this if I were you! :)

[Cameron27]

107. Yes, I agree, this is counter productive;

let the Dems get started before pouncing on them.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Shark... Jump... n/t

[xchrom]

16. at a time when we're talking about a troop surge -- twenty thousand? --

she is letting everyone concerned know that she is still there -- that her agenda getting the troops home hasn't changed.

rahm has always had a notion of supporting this war.

letting him know the anti-war people mean business and that they helped put them in the position they're in today is fine with me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Where'd I put my tiny violin?

Oh, here it is.

:nopity:

[jgraz]

24. The real question is: where the hell were the rest of us??

Don't asume that just because someone's got a D next to their name that they're on your side. Rahm has done NOTHING to oppose this war. We should all be asking why he's having an ethics photo-op while B*sh is sending 20k more troops into the meat grinder.

[peace13]

27. Exactly!!! n/t

[peace13]

25. Say what you will

but now is the time for people to get up off of their dead *sses and do something. We had a peace vigil last Friday and 16 people showed up. Standing on the corner just isn't cutting it. You be the judge of what it is going to take to get this war stopped and reclaim our country. I don't always agree with Cindy but she is walking the walk! There is a good chance that this Congress is going to be more of the same, much as I hope that that is not the case. We have to be prepared for that, and if so just what will each of us be willing to do? Peace on earth, kim

[cynatnite]

33. I find this odd...

she breaks up a Dem press conferenc when the Dems haven't even started, but hasn't done the same at a repukes press conference. I don't get that.

[peace13]

41. You can't live in the past. Today is where we are

and we can't afford to many yesterdays or our troops are going to be sitting ducks for what may come. What have you done today to get this war stopped?

[cynatnite]

46. Oh, please...

:eyes:

I found her behavior odd since she didn't do the same thing when it was the repukes who have rubberstamped bush's wishes. The dems haven't even gotten out of the starting gate. To me, it's better to wait and see what they do. If they don't hold hearings, subpoena or anything else...yes, let's protest, make calls, write letters and so on. But why do it before they've done a thing? Why not wait and see if they'll do what the American people have mandated them to do?

[peace13]

57. You have your view and are welcome to it.

I don't happen to agree. Cindy and her group are out doing what all of us need to be doing. I will not judge the path she chooses. Obviously I was at work today too stupefied to walk out and go to DC to help these people that are so desperately trying to get this war stopped. Who am I to judge? Who are you to judge? Our democracy is so far down the toilet that one crashed press conference is not even a blip on the screen for me. peace, Kim

[MADem]

177. Here's why I think she is afraid to directly mess with the GOP

They still own the intelligence/homeland security agencies. Yes, I know those outfits belong to "the people" but we know damned well whose political appointees are running the show. She probably figures she'll get even more scrutiny than the usual FBI dossier if she goes after the GOP politicians up-close and personal. And camping outside the presidential homes isn't up-close or personal....what she did the other day was, though.

Going after Democrats isn't gonna get the Chertoff crew on her ass, is it?

That said, I think she's blowing her hard-earned credibility, and if she doesn't take a new tack soon, she might never get it back.

[wildbilln864]

43. well said kim!

Stop the illegal war now!
911=MIHOP!

[spanone]

37. She is pointing out that the democrats got elected to counter this bush* war.

...and she's right you know.

[WI_DEM]

49. maybe she'll disrupt a GOP press conference next week or Chimpy's SOTU speech?

[peace13]

58. Good point.

Wasn't it last year that she got thrown out ! A tee shirt incident?

[cynatnite]

62. That was kind of dumb...

not on her part, but I think they were looking for any excuse to get her out. If I remember right, the shirt was allowable, but the capital stooges jumped the gun.

[peace13]

69. Either way, I don't think she cares Dem or Pug

she is just trying to get the job done.

[cynatnite]

72. You're probably right about that...

I do disagree with her timing on this. However it happens, I hope the troops are brought home soon. :hi:

[peace13]

75. I hear that!!

It can't happen too soon. Peace, kim

[noamnety]

77. I like her timing.

You seem to be under the impression that she ought to be more concerned with serving the political needs of democrats than with ending the war. I think you've misunderstood her completely.

[cynatnite]

82. No, I just disagree with her on this...

They haven't even started yet so the purpose of this protest is lost on me. The dems know what they were mandated to do. I think they should be given a chance to do it first. If they don't, we'll show them the door via the ballot box, write letters, make calls, protest and so on.

[noamnety]

86. They knew what they were mandated to do 2 years ago.

And they continued to vote to fund the war.

I don't know why we wouldn't protest that. They've been having chances, over and over again.

Show them the door via the ballot box? You mean after the war's gone on ANOTHER 2 years? Write letters?

That's the kind of crap I would say if I was apathetic about ending the war, not something I would say if I felt a sense of urgency about it.

[cynatnite]

Hmm...so letters, voting, phone calls and so on is crap...

Even though the repukes have LOST power due to their inaction, incompetence, corruption and support of the war.

It seems to me that what you call crap has worked. The Dems can call the shots and it's time for us to see if they do the job the voters want them to do.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that even democracy working wouldn't be good enough for some.

[noamnety]

98. It's crap IF ...

... you try to replace direct action with writing some letters, rather than supplementing it with that.

Advocating that we hold our tongues, wait two years, and then express our opinions at the ballot box ... that part is unmitigated crap.

The goal is to make the folks that just got elected responsive to our demands, now, and let them know we mean business, and WILL disrupt their activities if they aren't responsive. The goal ain't to let them screw around doing more of the same in Iraq for a few more years.

[cynatnite]

104. If by direct action you mean disrupt press conferences...

I disagreed with Cindy Sheehan's action in that regard. There have been plenty of protests, letter writing, phone calls and the ballot box as well.

I'm not saying we should hold our tongues. I'm saying I plan on waiting to see what the Dems do with their new power. Will they work to bring our troops home or will they play the disgusting politics that the repukes have for the last six years?

Will the dems hold the repukes and bush accountable? Will we see hearings, subpeonas and investigations?

The dems saw what happened to the repukes in this last election cycle. I have no doubt they get the fact that if they fall down on the job they'll get voted out of office just like the repukes did.

Good Dems like Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, Feingold, Kennedy and many others are calling the shots now. I prefer to give them a chance.

[noamnety]

106. We don't need to "wait and see". They've announced their plans.

Democrats vow to continue funding Iraq war
12 December 2006

As Tom Curry of MSNBC commented bluntly, “Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had a message Tuesday for voters who elected a Democratic Congress last month hoping it would force President Bush to bring US troops home from Iraq. ‘We will not cut off funding for the troops,’ Pelosi said. ‘Absolutely not,’ she said.”

(snip)

She went on, “Let me remove all doubt in anyone’s mind; as long as our troops are in harm’s way, Democrats will be there to support them, but ... we will have oversight over that funding.”

The new Democratic majority leader, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, declared, “None of us want to fail; none of us want to see Iraq as a failure.”

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has already signaled his willingness to go along with Bush’s next massive supplemental-budget request, expected to amount to $160 billion. “We’ll see if there’s any fluff in it and make sure there’s no pet projects,” he said recently. “But if it’s legitimate, I think we’ll have to go along with it.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/dems-d12.shtml

[cynatnite]

109. You forgot about the hearings...

I think Biden's on the Iraq war starts either this week or next.

I do think the funding should be cut in order to get them home, but I know the Dems won't do that and it's no surprise. In fact, it's understandable, IMO.

As I said, the Dems are calling the shots now. There is a hell of a lot of work to do after the repukes screwed everything up. I'm going to wait and see rather than jump the gun before they get out of the starting gate.

[noamnety]

111. "I know the Dems won't do that"

And so does Cindy. And so do I.

So why go through the BS of "waiting and seeing"?


Emanuel “said the bill will impose conditions which Bush will be forced to accept if he wants the money, such as a commission to investigate funds unaccounted for or allegedly wasted in Iraq."

Emmanuel doesn't get it. The new democratic leadership doesn't get it. I'm not sure you get it.

When we say "stop the goddam war," we don't mean "let's keep shipping troops to Iraq - and hey, let's find out where that missing money went."

[cynatnite]

113. I'm sorry you think waiting is BS

If bush wants money he's got to play nicely with the Dems and that means doing it their way.

I look at it this way. The repukes have been unethical, dishonest and outright criminal. Oversight will do more than just put a stop to it. It'll expose them even more and that gets us one step closer to impeachment. Finding out where the money went is step one of many.

The war will end, but not on any timetable you or I want. Even if bush says tonight he's bringing the troops home tonight that doesn't mean they'll be sitting in their living rooms by next Monday. That means a year to eighteen month time period is what it'll take.

I get it and I understand how it works. I'm realistic enough to not expect results right away since the Dems have just taken power.

We've got some great Dems. I'm a gal that's willing to see if they follow through with what they've been saying for the last few years or so.

[noamnety]

120. The concern is that they WILL follow through.

That's the part I think you don't get. You want us to wait and see ... if they do what they claim they're going to do, which is to continue to fund the war.

Continuing to fund the war costs more than the amount of money you want to investigate. More importantly, it's criminal.

If someone abducts and brutally rapes me, giving me AIDS and getting me pregnant in the process, and then the guy that rescues me says he's gonna rape me, but not to worry - he'll wear a condom while he does it - I'm not really interested in waiting to see if he follows through with what he says he's gonna do.

[cynatnite]

129. That is probably the strangest comparison I've ever read...

I don't see how it relates at all. The only thing I can say is that I'm not as cynical as some are when it comes to the dems. I voted them into office and have supported them these last several years. I've cheered them on, along with many others, when they stood up to the likes of DeLay and Frist. Now, that some of these assholes are gone and Dems will be calling the shots, they are getting a chance from me.

Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy, Feingold, Conyers and many other great dems are there who are going to do the job. They are more than worthy of getting a chance to begin setting this country back on the path it was meant to be on.

[noamnety]

135. It's directly related.

Throwing another buncha billions of dollars into the hands of halliburton and friends to rape yet more Iraqis - figuratively and literally - is the rape part. Raping the Iraqi people, the military, the people in the US that can't afford either to pay to fund the war or to have our social services stripped of that portion of our budget when some of our own people literally need it to survive - that's the rape part. Meet the new rapist, using the same missionary position as the old rapist.

Promising to conduct audits and run investigations is like the condom part.

[cynatnite]

143. Hmm...I guess I don't view the dems and the repukes as one in the same...

Never looked at Conyers, Pelosi and the others like that at all. I doubt I will, too.

[cynatnite]

97. oops...dupe n/t

[judaspriestess]

54. would they even allow her into a repuke conference?

I say NO. the Dems are not completely innocent in the war department. She is protesting the war and the deaths of American soldiers.

THE TIME IS NEVER RIGHT, so protesting there now or later what is the difference.?

[NashVegas]

67. Because Repubs Would Have Had Her Thrown Out in Seconds

And she wouldn't get any media attention for it.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

74. She did good.

rethugs can't be talked to, they are brain dead.

dems are supposed to be able to listen, but they are politicans. they have to be held by the "nuts" and not let go of, until they do what they are voted into office for.

bringing the troops home, bringing them home now.

[Imagevision]

78. Nothing wrong with letting the Dems know they're being observed!!!

checks & balances - oversight, we don't have it - the ems need to know why they were elected... Go Cindy, we can never forget or rest because the Dems are in charge, actions speak, common words we've been hearing for six years!!

[LoZoccolo]

83. Two words.

The first is "attention".

[DemoDemoCratCrat]

87. One-note Jane

Sheehan's intersection with the Democratic Party at most consists of one issue. She is showing that she is willing, even wanting, to sabotage the rest of the agenda over her one issue. She is only likely to become more destructive if things aren't done her way. It is time for the party to distance itself from Cindy Sheehan.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

89. What a pile of steaming rotting horseshit.

The War is the number one issue facing this country right now.
Hooray for her.

[DemoDemoCratCrat]

95. Oh, really?

Let's see which Congressman invites her in for a photo op. Political suicide.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

96. That's your measure of courage & telling truth to power? A photo-op?

Nothing but horseshit.

[DemoDemoCratCrat]

116. Courage has nothing to do with it.

You seem to have taken my comment as criticism of Sheehan, which it is not.
If she thinks it's best to shout down everybody in government, that's her call.
But she proved today that she is not on the Democratic Party's side; she's on her own side.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

119. Try reading your own words: "One-note Jane."

Not criticizing Sheehan?
No Sale on your bullshit.
It's the war, ------.

[DemoDemoCratCrat]

127. it fits.

Does Cindy S. represent anything other than withdrawing from Iraq at once? If so, I missed it.
That would be one course of action on one issue to be addressed before anything else, per her demands.
"One-note Jane" fits, at least in the political context.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

114. You consider the war "one issue"?

It goes to the overweening power of the executive branch to distort intelligence and wage war.

It goes to civil-liberties abolished under the "Patriot Act".

It goes to the use of torture and false imprisonment.

It goes to blatant corruption in defense spending.

It goes to the basic freedoms of speech and assembly.

It goes to the possible reinstitution of the draft.

It goes to the collusion between the defense department and the defense industry.

It goes to treatment of veterans.

It goes to squandered public funds used to pursue an illegal war.

It goes to international relations.

To name a few things embodied in that "one issue".

[NaturalHigh]

179. "She is only likely to become more destructive...

if things aren't done her way."

Um...who says her way is the right way? Was she elected to some office that I hadn't heard about? Is she considered omnipotent for some reason?

Why is criticism of Cindy Sheehan seen as treason by so many people here on DU? I certainly can't think of one single thing she has done to help the Democratic party.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

92. When I Heard About It I Was Disgusted.

That's how I know I no longer align myself closely with her as I once would have. I think for some time now her rhetoric and actions have been way too over the top and I officially regard her now as a detriment to our cause not an ally of it.

I will always sympathize with her for her loss and appreciate her commitments to our cause. But I can no longer respect nor support the levels of which she is now taking it.

[Warren Stupidity]

138. "as I once would have"

Did you ever?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

141. Of Course. Stupid Question Really.

[hiaasenrocks]

93. She needs counseling.

She's going about the grieving process in a way that is not going to be beneficial to her long-term psychological health. And she's being encouraged by people who use her as a puppet for their political agenda. It's really sad.

[Individualist]

94. Bullshit!

[noamnety]

101. correction -

condescending paternalistic bullshit.

I have never heard that line of bull directed at a man, by the way. Only at women who don't stay home, have some tea, take time to themselves after experiencing a trauma. Guys are expected to get angry, sink their teeth into an issue, and not let go.

Have you ever heard ONE person tell Michael J. Fox that fighting for stem cell research was an unhealthy way for him to mentally cope with his illness? Or heard anyone complain that he was "hogging the spotlight" and it's time for him to go home now, he's made his point, why can't he just shut up already?

It's the way society views men and women - women are supposed to behave, know their place, not make waves.

[Individualist]

102. I stand corrected

You've phrased it better than I did. The "be a good little girl" attitude stinks to the high heavens. Cindy is a woman of integrity, and that's why I admire her so much. Here's to Woman Power and true patriots like Cindy! :toast:

[Heewack]

122. She does need some help.

IMO she is making a mockery of the position.

[citizen snips]

99. I though it was a bit rude

because she did not let Emanuel finish his speech.

[Geek_Girl]

100. I like Sheehan

But I think this is a mistake. The Dems do not control the military. The democrats are pretty powerless in regard to the war in Iraq.

[Garbo 2004]

108. How does the military get funding for the war? Through the legislative process, i.e. Congress. n/t

[Tom Joad]

112. Rahm Emanuel was instrumental in recruiting war supporters to run on the Dem ticket.

and she hurt his feelings. Terrible.

[bettyellen]

124. and he totally miscalculated how important ending the war is to the voters....

he fucked up bigger than dean ever did, getting on the wrong side of the #1 issue to the voters in november.
and cindy knew, as we did the war is not part of their first 100 day plan. that's an insult to the people who elected them, and thank god cindy is calling them on it.
good on her. showing em what integrity looks like.

[LostInAnomie]

117. I think we all know the purpose...

... and it had very little to do with bringing attention to the war.

[LittleClarkie]

118. A good many here don't know that

They see her as being quite sincere. So I would say no, we do not all know the purpose.

Would you like to break it down for the peeps?

[LostInAnomie]

132. Alright

What did she actually accomplish today?

Did she convince any congressmen that an immediate withdrawl is a good idea? Nope, in fact she probably only strengthened moderates' hands because now they will be able to say they stood up to the "radical left".

Did she convince the public that withdrawl is a good idea? Nope, the majority is already convinced so that would be preaching to the choir, and those undecideds surely aren't going to be convinced by such an abrasive act.

Are her actions going to get people to put pressure on the Dems? Probably not, since the majority of the country couldn't tell you who Cindy Sheehan is, besides being "that lady who was screaming on the news."

So what did she actually accomplish today? Well, she got to be on TV again. Just like when she went on her hunger strike (how's that going, by the way?), was arrested in front of the WH, arrested at the State of the Union, visited Hugo Chavez, etc. Just another one of her repeated publicity stunts.

[LittleClarkie]

133. It ended. Was a fast, actually. She ate health shakes.

Others did a true hunger strike, like the woman from Code Pink (can't think of her name now). Cindy's was more symbolic.

Thanks for adding to the discourse.

I think she's sincere, but her returns are diminishing as you say. She will never have as much impact, or be as powerful, as she was at the Crawford protest.

[bridgit]

125. so now dems are seen less as coalescing like rainwater...

than scattering like mercury on a kitchen floor...sad imo

[Jim Sagle]

126. ralf nadir in a dress.

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:

[GeorgeGist]

131. Perhaps to prove...

that they would run away? Which they did.

[Tellurian]

139. Probably because of this...

Some Democrats could support Bush troop increase, NYT to report

read here to find out who these Dems are:


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Some_Democrats_could_support_Bush_troop_0103.html

[cynatnite]

144. I read this, too...

Democrats promise action on ethics, Iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_go_co/congress_rdp

Their first hundred hours looks pretty good. Check it out.

[Tellurian]

150. Cindy needs to focus on...

Lieberman, Reid and Reyes.

And become their worst Gingrichian nightmare.

[cyclezealot]

149. IF Cindy does not apply heat on the Dems

IT will become a Democrat war and they will share equal blame in o8.

[Orsino]

151. Because the Dems are insufficiently responsive to her greatest concerns.

I don't see them itching to end the war, either. Sheehan is right to keep the pressure on. Left to their own devices, the new Congress would probably prefer to ignore the carnage in Iraq, because all but the most dedicated pacifists must still fear the "weakness" that a withdrawal will show, and how those in charge will be roasted for it.

It's tough to admit mistakes, and our new Democratic leadership is hardly immune.

[dogday]

154. Cindy has always protested to end the War... Since

the war is not over, and in fact more are being sent, she will protest those with the power to effect change whether anyone approves or not... She is protesting to the end, the very end of this war...

Why is that so hard to see? The war is not over, in fact we are ratcheting it up a notch... So she protest the ones in power, always has.. Did you think it would stop because the Democrats have the power? It won't as long as they put this war on the back-burner....

[GreenPartyVoter]

155. I think she is right to hold their feet to the fire. Honestly, weigh

"it was rude" vs "kids are dying" and doublecheck to see which one is more important.

As for it being the Dems she interrupted, had they been far more vocal about the war from day one, really been an advocate for her and others like her, then she wouldn't need to be out there in the first place.

[rman]

156. Because it is already clear that there is a significant pro-war force

within the Dem party.

see
Questions about Rahm Emanuel, the man Cindy interrupted.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3037811&mesg_id=3037811

[Faryn Balyncd]

160. Cindy Sheeham speaks TRUTH..... We need to send Robert Parry's essay to EVERY DEMOCRAT in Congress..

Why does it take a Cindy Sheehan demonstration to focus our "leadership" on the truth?

Why can't our Congressional "leadership" commit --- on their own --- to the REAL PRIORITIES?

Why does it take constant reminders by Cindy Sheehan and Robert Parry for our "leadership" to realize that if we don't address the Iraq War and reign in the Bush regime, the support of the public will be transient:

ROBERT PARRY:"Dems, We're Citizens, Not Consumers"


As the Democrats regain control of Congress for the first time in 12 years, the party leaders still don't seem to understand the forces that sent them into the wilderness in 1994 or the reasons they were summoned back in 2006......Typical of their cluelessness was a "100 Hours Survey" distributed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in mid-December. The survey asked Democratic contributors to rank nine priority issues in order of importance for the new Congress.....

No reference was made to ending the Iraq War, launching investigative hearings on President George W. Bush's actions, reasserting checks and balances on the Executive, or restoring constitutional safeguards that have been overridden during the "war on terror," such as the habeas corpus right to a fair trial.

Though many issues on the DCCC's priority list surely have merit, what's missing is any commitment to the larger purpose of the American Republic. ....... The Democratic leaders have yet to grasp that the transcendent principles of democracy were a major factor in the national rejection of Bush and the Republican congressional majority on Nov. 7.....

The Democratic leaders don't even seem capable of mounting a spirited fight against Bush's plan to escalate the Iraq War despite the clear will of the voters, the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and the advice of Bush's own military commanders.......The Democrats just can't kick their old habit of treating Americans like consumers, rather than citizens.........If the congressional Democrats don't change their ways soon, they will have alienated not only much of their own base but many of the independents and traditional conservatives who hoped the Democrats could rise above their old-fashioned interest-group politics...... A promising opportunity for a new national unity - derived from the founding principles of the nation - will have been squandered.

We need to FOCUS on MORE than the DCCC's priority list..... We need to support Feingold and Murtha.

As Parry points out, some Democratic "leaders" think that the lesson to be learned from the Republican self-destruction is to "avoid partisanship" and only address consensus issues.

As Parry points out, they've got the message exactly backwards. if we fail to get behind Feingold and Murtha, if we fail to address the BIG ISSUES, our majority will be as doomed as the Republicans.

We need to SEND ROBERT PARRY'S ESSAY TO EVERY DEMOCRAT IN CONGRESS !

[ellisonz]

165. Tasty.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: