2007/07/17

BlognonyBITS: Cindy...Please Stay Out Of It

Ever since Cindy Sheehan announced that she would challenge Nancy Pelosi for CA-8 if the Speaker fails to put impeachment back on the table, I've struggled for a response. But lacking further inspiration, I'm left with my original feelings on the subject:

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.

Labels: , , , ,

34 Comments:

Whaaaaaah? Because Pelosi won't push for an impeachment that will never, ever, ever, in a hundred million billion years succeed,she "has to go"? Seriously?
LC... Sorry, in repeating Ms. Sheehan's perspective I didn't really take pains to include my own.

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.
Even if Sheehan does win doesn't guarantee that the DLC will make her House Speaker. They're more likely to nominate someone else deep in Aipac's pockets, and impeachment will still be off the table. Besides, isn't the next election (short of a recall) in 2008, when Bush/Cheney are on their way out anyway?
I don't take Sheehan seriously on this. I think it's only an awareness campaign!
I'm in a wait and see mode. Just because Nancy said Impeachment isn't on the table, doesn't mean she can't get a new set of dishes.
I agree with Suzie-q. I think Cindy is really trying to shake voters up to the ineffectual nature of Ms. Pelosi.

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.
Lew... Make Sheehan House Speaker? Not in a million years.

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.
Peacechick... I don't want to wait. I really want Sheehan to give this up now before she does any damage.

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.
"Caving on the war resolutions; refusing to push the Appropriations Committee to withhold war funding (or the whole Defense Appropriation's bill)"

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.
Gee and here all this time I thought part of our "glorious freedoms" was the right for anyone to run for office. I guess one really has to be one of the anointed from birth, groomed and carefully crafted to be that special fit for office in this country. So we really should be calling by its rightful name: an oligarchy.

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...
LC... No disagreement there. Impeachment is, unfortunately, a non-starter.

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.
"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.
Hey it's your Democratic party not mine. I'll stay out of your family squabbles.
LC... Now I'm getting all misty about the notion of a Gore presidency. Don't tempt me man!

'll stay out of your family squabbles.

CultureGhost... Oh sure... You buzz the fly in front of the frog so to speak... :-)
I go with the positive of an activist campaign, but it only really works if someone comes up behind to capitalise with some real value.
Things are very strange right now, we have Pelosi not ready to do what Americans has asked and Sheehan willing, maybe to take her job as a Senator.

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.
Being from Down Under, I find all of this a bit mystifying but not as mystifying as George still being in office.

Hope you guys work it out soon while we still have a world left!
Mystifying is a good start!
There are two things that I have heard that Rep. Pelosi has done/notdone that annoy me even worse than the impeachment thing - which was impossible from the start, considering there is NO sufficient majority in either house of Congress to do so...

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.
Hey, "Lets Talk"?????

Maybe you should ought to edumacate yourself before talking out your .... umm....

Rep. Pelosi is a Congressional Representative - not a Senator.
I go with the positive of an activist campaign...

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.
Daniel...

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.
Wow, i wish I had caught this post sooner. This is a rare moment, but I couldn't disagree with you more, Froggy.

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. :)
PT... Like the CultureGhost you're making a whole raft of assumptions about why I don't want Sheehan to run, none of which are supported by any statement that I've made thus far. For example:

...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)?
However, San Francisco is famous for making statements, so why not this one?
What is it that makes her not "qualified"? Is it because she hasn't been a life-long politician?
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.
Hell, last Spring ('06) I was entertaining running for George Miller's seat in Congress out here in Contra Costa County. Now Miller is a bastion of Democratic Liberalism-he's also held this office since 1972 or '74, which is a tad too long in my opinion. He is so entrenched as a fixture in this office that the Republicans didn't even field a candidate against him. What kind of shit is that? I was considering running as a Green and see if I could shake up the district a little. I regret I didn't follow through on it. And just what the hell are my credentials for elective office? Pretty much zero. I'm a freakin' artist with a dead-end day job at a community college.

I voted for the Libertarian candidate. Miller easily kept his office. In fact I don't think he even campaigned at all.
CultureGhost... I like political statements as much as the next person, but not when they hurt my city. You're case is different from Sheehan. You presumably live in the district and have a keen and vested interest in what happens there right? Sheehan has no such interest in San Francisco.

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.
I do not have and vested interest in the district; I wanted to create some political turmoil.
I guess that leaves out Ed Jew.
Hey Culture Ghost - You should try running for a small office, like school board. It worked for Orange County's Steve Rocco. I think the guy is an Andy Kaufmanesque performance artist.
I'd like the City of Concord to create the position of Town Fool. I am eminently qualified for such an office.
Wow, Froggie, did you stir up a hornets' nest. In a poll at my place, Cindy out-polled Nancy by 15%. I don't necessarily think Nancy needs to be defeated, but just replaced as majority leader. People who make effective minority leaders, which Nancy did, rarely have the skill set required to excel as majority leaders. Perhaps Henry Waxman or John Conyers.
"Interestingly even a failed attempt at impeachment would have major repercussions. That we can do. It only requires the House to bring the charges."

No, we can't. There aren't enough Democrats in the House, assuming every single one of them voted for impeachment.

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link