Here’s something pointless to get excited about:
Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan qualified Friday for a November showdown with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, collecting the signatures needed to get on the ballot as an independent candidate for Congress.
“We’re very excited,” said Sheehan, 51, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who is well-known for her protest outside President Bush’s Texas ranch. “Now we have to get organized and regroup.”
Republican Dana Walsh and Libertarian Philip Berg will join Pelosi and Sheehan on the Nov. 4 ballot.
If there is a dividing line for a Democrat, this is it. I’d proudly vote for Pelosi. But I know most of my readers probably disagree. And I will enjoy the theatre.
With her ballot spot guaranteed, Sheehan can focus on the fall campaign, where she will challenge Pelosi from the left, slamming the speaker for refusing to start impeachment proceedings against President Bush and not taking a stronger stance against the war in Iraq.
“The next part is going to be exciting,” she said. “I want at least one debate with all four candidates so that Nancy Pelosi has to answer for her record.”
That’s great and I’m all for it. Make Pelosi feel little pain. It’ll probably feel like a mosquito bite but, hey, those are annoying. Go Cindy.
via Huffpost:
Why the Media Badly Needs a History Lesson – a five point lead in popular vote translates into a landslide –
but we’re in different times…we could be impacted by the Bradley effect.
I’m not sure if I am reading this accurately.
At what point does “pragmatic” become “complicit?”
hey, I’m not saying its a bad idea. I’m just saying that Pelosi will crush her like a bug. I’m also saying that despite misgivings about some of Pelosi’s moves, I support her and think she’s the most progressive speaker in the history of the House. I’d vote for her over Cindy Sheehan. Part of that has to do with Cindy Sheehan more than the issues Sheehan is espousing, but I don’t like to criticize her so I’ll leave it at that.
I don’t think I would vote for Pelosi, but we will be lucky if Sheehan’s candidacy is even as irritating as a mosquito bite. Incredibly, there seem to be some people out there who actually believe Cindy could win!
And with all respect for her energy and commitment for her cause, the woman is completely unqualified to do the job of Congress member. Cindy Sheehan making a serious bid for Congress reminds me of a dog chasing cars – what on earth would she do with it if she caught one?
I am curious as to what you would define as “qualifications.”
Considering the current Congress and having learned more U.S. history, I think I would now list as primary:
Those qualifications might be useful for a social worker or nurse, or attendant in a rest home, but they hadnrdly qualify one for a job as a U.S. Congress member.
What do you consider adequate qualifications for a member of Congress?
Doesn’t the Constitution say age 25 and US Citizenship?
Did the Founding Father’s establish some kind of Cursus Honorum and my Civics teacher forgot to mention it?
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution sets forth three qualifications for representatives: each representative must be at least twenty-five years old, must have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years, and must be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent.
No, Cursus Honorum – though from your link, there are some similarities with the make-up of the current Congress (thinking of Pelosi’s and my rep’s family connections) : “In Rome, there was nothing resembling the modern political party. Candidates were elected based on their familial and personal reputations.
Forgot about the seven years. Regarding Roman politics, other sources say there were two blocs, the Populares who championed the common people and the Optimates (“Best People”) who represented the old blueblood elite. Sound familiar? Unfortunately, at the end of the Republic, both Parties were really interested only in seizing dictatorial power. Damn! It still sounds familiar.
Which is one reason I wouldn’t mind an Augustus showing up as much as most.
And yeah, I’d support Shaheen.
Well, we’ve already had Caligula.
I think Cindy’s resume compares very favorably to Pelosi’s own before taking office.
And being a sleazy, back-room dealing on-the-take lawyer or former bugman are qualifications?
Very poor argument, Isis. It is not an either/or question. Being a bereaved-mother-turned-anti-war-activist does not qualify one for the job of Congress member, nor does being a “sleazy, back-room dealing on-the-take lawyer or former bugman”.
Tampopo asked you above what you consider adequate qualifications for public office. Can you answer that question instead of criticizing those who disagree with you about Sheehan’s qualifications?
As far as I’m concerned her high moral compass and absolute tenacity are all the qualification she needs in her first and likely not last foray into the gutter of American politics. Perhaps some of her integrity will rub off on a few of the tainted sewer rats who infest Washington right now. Perhaps not. But at least she is using the tools available to her as an American citizen to attempt to take back her government. Win or lose that is reason for high praise, not negative dkos style dismissal.
I have nothing good to say about Pelosi at this point. Nothing.
That said, I know she’s going to squash sheehan, but the annoyance to Pelosi is reason enough to support this quixotic campaign. Also it will draw at least some attention to the fact that pelosi has been a letdown to progressives, just in terms of media coverage (cus you know the media’s going to jump on this stunt like flies on a cowpie).
i support Cindy Sheehan 100%. I don’t think she’ll win but I love how she’s afflicting the comfortable.
brendan – you often have a turn of phrase that I just have to pause and admire. Phrase du jour:
“afflicting the comfortable”
i wish that was mine actually. source: I believe it refers to what the role of journalism should be.
Popcorn! PASS THE POPCORN!!
I’m glad to see Cindy Sheehan run, because after evicting the Republicans from the White House and the Congress, our next job is going to be to push the Democratic Party in a better direction, and we need some people out there on the left flank making some noise and raising issues.
I’m not sure what to think of Pelosi– I can’t decide whether she is a mushy centrist at heart, or a realistic politician who is commited to accomplishing what is possible, given that she has to work with a President and a Congress who are just godawful. If she is the former, then I don’t have much good to say about her. But if she is a progressive Democrat who is just doing her best under difficult circumstances, then she deserves support.
Looking strictly at her voting record, OnTheIssues labels Pelosi a hard-core liberal.
Though I appreciate a score like that, I wonder about some of the leadership issues since 2006 gave us a house majority. I mean, WTF about FISA? This one will certainly be interesting to watch.
Draft of Democratic party platform completed
-united behind a commitment that every American man, woman and child be guaranteed to have affordable, comprehensive health care.
-“complete redeployment within 16 months” from Iraq, closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and
-“tough, practical, and humane immigration reform in the first year of the next administration.”
“‘complete redeployment within 16 months’ from Iraq“
This is a bit misleading. It sounds like the Democratic platform calls for a “complete redeployment”, implying getting out completely. But that is not quite it, is it? According to the referenced WSJ article, it says “On Iraq, the platform states that Democrats ‘expect to complete redeployment within 16 months’“. First, with the use of the phrase “expect to” it is not exactly unequivocal, and allows considerable “wiggle room”, including not redeploying any troops at all. In addition, it does not specify what it means to “complete redeployment”. Redeployment of what? It could be anywhere from one troop to tens of thousands. Given that Obama does not and never has intended to redeploy completely, but rather to reconfigure the occupation with a smaller force (most likely about 1/2 of the number of troops at the height of The Surge<sup>TM</sup>), it is virtually out of the question that to “complete redeployment” in this context means an end to the occupation. In fact if you look at the specifics Obama has laid out, despite his repeated declarations, there is no way he could even withdraw all combat troops unless he is planning to send cooks and mechanics on combat missions, since several of the “missions” he has enumerated for his “residual force” are clearly combat missions.
So, Iraqis are screwed and Americans are screwed when it comes to Iraq no matter who gets elected.
It should’ve been Matt Gonzalez. He actually could have won.