BlognonyBITS: Cindy...Please Stay Out Of It
Make your challenge if you must, but when the election finally does roll around, please stay out of it.
Don't make the mistake of believing that San Francisco's frustration with Pelosi--our referendums in favor of impeachment--will translate into votes for you. This district's electorate is complex and fickle. You won't succeed in unseating Pelosi, but you will be just enough of a distraction to put a stake through the heart of any serious challenge.
There's no question that Pelosi has to go, but unfortunately Ms. Sheehan, you are not the one to make that happen.
The reasons that Pelosi has to go are more complex than just impeachment, and even I have waffled a bit on this issue, but in the end, she's proven to be a tepid and ineffectual leader. Caving on the war resolutions; refusing to push the Appropriations
Committee to withhold war funding (or the whole Defense Appropriation's bill); other issues.
In short, she's had a long run, but CA-8 needs a new representative.
Having said that, if Bush and Cheney are NOT impeached, then the next President and Vice President will have unprecedented, unchecked, and near absolute powers. Congress will be so weak as to be even more ineffective than the current iteration. It's not just about Bush and Cheney anymore, it is about the future of our Republic.
Losing Pelosi would be a blow to San Francisco from a seniority standpoint, no question. But the time has still come.
Suzie-Q... Perhaps, but given the nature Babylon by the Bay's voters, even a symbolic campaign could ruin the chances of a determined candidate. Remember that we're talking about the primary here. The Democrat is going to win the general, no matter who it is.
Diva... That's a good point, but I think that slamming the door on the war would be very effective there. Just refuse to pass a Defense Appropriations bill this year, and the war is over.
Okay, well, reasonable minds can differ on those, I think, but they are certainly make more sense than the impeachment. I mean, don't get me wrong; a perp walk for (at least) Cheney would ensure that I die with a smile on my face even a jackhammer couldn't remove. The only problem is, it's NEVER going to happen. EVER. Even if every single Democrat voted for it, it's NEVER going to happen. Cheney and Dubya will slither out of town in a cloud of pardons on January 20, 2009, and makes tons of money in the private sector. Sadly, they will never be called to account (at least in this world) for their crimes. The best we can hope for is to hold them up as a cautionary tale of what happens when shallow contemptible extremist hacks are given too much power.
This is why I am registered Green and am quite content to stay that way. The only discernible difference between Democrats and Republicans is the corporate logos they are loyal to...
CultureGhost... It's quite a stretch to infer, from someone's assessment of the realpolitik of attempting to unseat Nancy Pelosi, that they support an oligarchy.
Cindy Sheehan, from the perspective of voters in CA-8, might as well be a carpetbagger. Does she live here? No. Will she move here? Not likely. Does she have the foggiest notion of what our issues are? Emphatically...not!
Just because anyone can run, doesn't mean that just anyone should.
I second the comments of my Right Honourable Amphibian Friend. Winning isn't the most important thing in electoral politics; it's the only thing. If you can't win, you shouldn't run, except maybe to wear down an incumbent to convince them to retire, and you especially shouldn't run if, oh say, your narcissistic kamikazee run of a candidacy results in the election of the single worst president in the last 100 years. Theoretically speaking.
"The only discernible difference between Democrats and Republicans is the corporate logos they are loyal to... "
Right, clearly Al Gore (or John Kerry) would've started a disastrous war, subverted the Constitution, turned the US into an international pariah, endorsed torture and generally worked diligently toward the creation of a police state.
'll stay out of your family squabbles.
CultureGhost... Oh sure... You buzz the fly in front of the frog so to speak... :-)
Remember if she ran and won, she would not be Majority whip.
I concur with DivaJood, "the next President and Vice President will have unprecedented, unchecked, and near absolute powers."
All this because this President has placed a stop sign over the White House.
We had a chance to stop this by voting more Democrats in the Senate, but because we couldn't or didn't, there's not much that we can actually do to this President.
As for as impeachment, we can't do that because we dont have the votes in the Senate.
Hope you guys work it out soon while we still have a world left!
1) Rep. Pelosi promised us that she would work diligently to have all legislation clear of pork and last-minute changes, requiring that any revisions, earmarks or add-ons be posted publicly at least 48 hours before the vote. She has done a 180 on this and is now covering up as much as anyone. Boo. Hiss.
2) Rep. Pelosi has decided that the the Merkan people do not understand what is "Earmark" spending and so she has renamed it "legislatively directed spending", rather than eliminated it. She has also eliminated her planned requirement that all such earmarks be clearly identified as to WHO suggested them, WHO is lobbying for/against them and WHO introduces them.
As for Ms. Sheehan - she really needs to go home, cry for a few days and then STFU. She's more of a liability to the Democratic party than even Sen. Clinton.
Maybe you should ought to edumacate yourself before talking out your .... umm....
Rep. Pelosi is a Congressional Representative - not a Senator.
Cartledge... Normally I'm with you on that. But there is no 'consciousness raising' that Sheehan can do for the people of San Francisco. In fact, she has no interest in the City of San Francisco whatsoever. Her campaign would amount to posturing on the national stage, little more.
Let's Talk... Interestingly even a failed attempt at impeachment would have major repercussions. That we can do. It only requires the House to bring the charges.
Being from Down Under, I find all of this a bit mystifying but not as mystifying as George still being in office.
You and me both. :-)
Sumo... I've been in a continual state of "mystification" for two election cycles now.
Sewmouse... Excellent points. As I said, Pelosi is a tepid and ineffectual leader. We need new blood in CA-8.
Cultureghost is absolutely correct. Why can't she run and why shouldn't she run? I was of the impression that this was a country where anyone with the druthers could run for office?
Are you really so worried that Ms. Sheehan is going to ruin your precious Democratic Party, a party that has completely failed the working class in this country?
Maybe it's just me. I mean, I have a job that I have to go to every day to make a living. I doubt that I'd ever become some wealthy tycoon but I suppose that if that day ever comes, I'll be running to the polls to vote for ALL of the DemoPublicans so they can protect all of my vast wealth.
And on that day, I'll be thanking people like you for "leaving no billionaire behind" in your quest to protect a party that can only be counted on to misrepresent their constituents.
Just saying. :)
...thanking people like you for "leaving no billionaire behind" in your quest to protect a party that can only be counted on to misrepresent their constituents.
What absolute nonsense. How can advocating defeat for Pelosi be construed as protection for the Democratic party? I specifically said that I hoped for a qualified candidate to oppose Pelosi. Moreover, I did not say that Sheehan could not run. I said that she should not run. And why? Again...right there for all to read: Because she has no interest in representing San Francisco. Her interest is in making a statement-- San Francisco be damned.
But please...tell me exactly how a Vacaville protest mom would make a good representative for us? Or at the very least a better representative than a Mark Leno, an Aaron Peskin, or even a Matt Gonzales (not even a Democrat, BTW)?
I think the whole system needs to be turned up on its ear. If a few "career politicians" don't get elected along the way, I certainly won't lose any sleep over it. She's making a statement that needs to be made.
I voted for the Libertarian candidate. Miller easily kept his office. In fact I don't think he even campaigned at all.
What is it that makes her not "qualified"? Is it because she hasn't been a life-long politician?
PT... Not at all, but I would say that it is the fact that she does not now and does not intend to live here.
No, we can't. There aren't enough Democrats in the House, assuming every single one of them voted for impeachment.