My Only Real Question Regarding Cindy And Her Interruption Today.

Has she attempted at all recently to go through proper channels in a non-confrontational manner to seek the ears of leading Democrats? Has she tried taking the path of civility with hands outstretched in an attempt to open up real dialogue without the use of heavy rhetoric? Has she exhausted her means of diplomatic communication to the Dem Leadership and been flatly denied any face time, such as * denied her while she was in crawford, so that her only option left was to interrupt the Dems today during an important press conference (there are other issues we need to address besides the war, for the record)?

I'm just curious. Because I have supported Cindy with much heart in the past, but have been feeling disenfranchised by her actions lately. I'm just being honest. If she's taken every avenue to seek diplomatic and communicative face time with the Dems and has been flatly denied with all indications that they will not in any time going forward give her time to speak with them, then I can understand more her actions today. But if she hasn't, and just simply jumped right into the last resort type action like she did today, then I can't agree with it and will consider it misguided.

The Dems have not yet even begun. I think they deserve a chance to go down their own path first and see if they can't figure some things out for themselves. I absolutely support Cindy's passion for ending the war and would support her trying to diplomatically convince our leadership to see things her way. If she hasn't exhausted her options to go that route yet, and just did what she did in the absence of such attempts, then I would have to think that it is becoming more of a media spectacle thing for her than actual genuine attempts at driving change. There's a right way and a wrong way to do things. I know she means well with all her heart and I know the suffering she's been through. She has as much right as anybody to speak up about this and drive for change. I just find myself wishing she'd go about it in what I consider to be more productive ways first. Only after those avenues have run their course would I then fully understand such actions as what happened today. This is my dilemma right now in this situation, as it is very hard to not support someone who has been through so much, done so much and sacrificed so much.

But I'm hoping I'm wrong. I'm not aware of her being flatly denied now or in the soon future any face time with the Dems or her truly trying the diplomatic route to achieve such. But I must admit, I don't know for certain. That is why I request this information from you all, to help assist in my confusion. Has she exhausted all diplomatic options with the Dems already? Have they flat out refused to hear her, such as was evident with bush in crawford? I need to know if this was a last resort or a jumping the gun unnecessarily.

Thanks in advance for your input,

OMC

lol

:)

don't know her methods. It seems so many are after the dems to do something yesterday and they don't take office till tomorrow.
I wonder if Cindy is being ill used by some people or if she is being confrontational with everyone.
I thought she was great but, lately, I've too wondered about her. I do hope she learns that you go heavy after you try other means.

is a much better strategy than always being in the position of reacting to an action you don't agree with.

And, from the email I get anyway, much of the pressure on Nancy isn't hostile. It is insistent and assertive but not hostile. I'm with Cindy all the way AND thrilled Nancy is Speaker. There needn't be dissonance between those two positions.

Tension, well, life is tension. :)

of us out there holding the Dems feet to the fire.

There are already too many noises out there that the Dems really can't do anything about Bush increasing troops and that they won't cut funding for the troops. So, where does that leave us?
Another 2 years on DU saying "when we get the WH...."When Bush get impeached...., when, when when?

She is being used by her bleating sycophants and has become a caricature, a self-parody.

I will always have a heavy heart for her loss, and I am beyond sick of the fucking war like everyone else. But the notoriety of these past few difficult years have gone to, and over, her head.

So I respectfully say to Cindy: Shuddafuccup!

Some people never give a woman credit for having an original thought of her own.

Just like all those college campus protests against the Vietnam War mustabeen caused by "outside Commie agitators" :sarcasm:


She's already answered that question. She was asked if she was being used by anybody and she said no.

Her denial of her sorry state is about as credible.

You are honestly comparing Cindy Sheehan to Richard Nixon?
You are less credible than she is at the moment IMO.

We all know how much you hate women! You're jealous! Yeah, that's it! We all know Cindy can do absolutely no wrong! :sarcasm:

If someone working for change and doing good makes a mistake, does that mean all they have done, and they themselves, should be discounted? Does it have to be hero worship Cindy can do no wrong vs you did something wrong/embarrassing so shutthefuckup? Why?

i`d like to know more about who is running the show and their motives. i`m all for holding the democrats feet to the fire cause they were the enemies in the 60`s so i`m not going to give them over a nano second to do something constructive. i`m not sure if she should shut up but who ever is guiding her should pick their timing a bit better..

Is there a hidden agenda that is somehow different from Ms. Sheehan's public position? If not, I don't see what makes her a "pawn."

This is one smart woman surrounded by smart women and together, they are keeping this crime of a "war" in the news.

If you think Cindy or any of the rest of us will shut up, well, that could be a disappointing position for ya, ZombyWoof.

I have met these people. They are real and their commitment level puts most of us to shame.

So no, we won't shddafuccup. YOU get your head out of whatever dark place it's stuck in and give us a hand here. People are dying here, for nothing.

peace
Beth

without someone trying to block them from communicating with us?

Her actions today are at odds with her message of peace and freedom.

so will someone please explain what Cindy did today that has everyone in an uproar. Thank you!!!

even if they were open, are easy to ignore. This wasn't.

More power to her.

Meeting with them then reporting back about what they said? Clinton didn't do so well, if I recall, and Kerry got pretty good marks. Is that still up somewhere. I think it was a mothers for peace thing.

of months and this was a heavy duty way to get it back on our televisions

and because fuckhead is talking about this surge in troops i'm sure cindy and others are considering this a moral imperative. because of that there is no time for small talk now, no time to sit down and have a conversation w/the dems while they are busy trying to pass ethics reform & etc. in the first 100 hours.

by the time she got an appointment with one of these dems we'll be shipping 20,000 more people into iraq.

day by day this is becoming even more of a moral imperative.

(what is emmanuel's take on the war anyway? is he all for withdrawing troops now? somehow i don't think so...)

what we've sent them to DC to do.

I see no harm in that.

Dems have majority. I give the dems a little more credit than you do. I actually think they're smart enough to know they can be voted out of office just like the repukes were.

Going after dems before they even got out of the starting gate was a foolish thing to do, IMO.

I give our Dems a whole lot of credit. A tractor trailer load of credit. But I don't think that they're above being reminded about what it is that we want. It's more than politics. It's life and death.

but I don't think it needs to be before they're out of the starting gate. We've got some terrific dems who many of us have supported through the last several years. I'm going to give them a chance to follow through.

Right back at ya :loveya: :yourock:

today. I wholeheartedly agree with your statements. recommended

ANSWER: That will not serve your purpose.

And there was a website somewhere that was reporting back how each one was reacting. Kerry did pretty good, but I think Hillary diappointed her.

Do you remember that, and do you know where I can find the link?

but when I go there now, it's not there. There was an honor roll, and a list of shame.

http://tinyurl.com/ygwzop

(fixed link)

It's alittle crippled, but that's what I was referring to, and is an answer for OperationMindCrime's question.

It should be quite easy for you to pick up.

Course, if your mind was closed from the get go and you have lost the ability to be objective, then that would explain your lack of being able to have seen it.

It's classic distressed and concerned.

Whether you choose to ignore its well written, genuine and sincere nature is up to you. But you're still wrong if you say it isn't.

I think the world of Cindy and am thankful to her for so many things. The fact that your resolve towards her is so fragile that you would get so defensive and attacking merely because someone inquires about one of her actions that may not have been agreed with, is quite sad.

People don't have to agree with other people 100% of the time. In fact, it is an extreme rarity that anyone SHOULD be agreed with 100% of the time. If you find yourself agreeing with someone 100% of the time, the chances are you've lost your objectivity. Excuse me for maintaining mine.

Off to bed now. See ya. :hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3034200&mesg_id=3035197

I think it's quite apparent I wasn't pleased with her actions today. I posted that earlier. Since then, I've thought about it more (and have posted such, course, your search button must've conveniently 'omitted' that one) and started feeling guilty about not supporting her. So I rationalized it in my head objectively and figured I'd ask the sincere questions in THIS thread, to help me make my decision.

Course, since all you've done is provide attempts at attack and smear, you have contributed nothing to this cause. Instead of empty knee jerk response it would suit you better to actually address the concerns in the OP. Otherwise, your words in the context of this thread are meaningless since it's premise is a sincere request for information in order to make a better judgment.

Goodnight. :hi:

You simply pasted one of my earlier reactions prior to my inner debate. That post is now moot and has nothing to do with this conversation.

The fact is, BT, that you are refusing to answer the concerns of the OP because you might not like having to admit certain things. That's ok. Nobody's perfect.

Wrapped up by #63.

If politicians cannot deal with "the people", then they ought to find another profession.

We'd have loved it if these people were protesting a Republican - let's not overlook our double standard here else we are accused of hypocrisy.

If there is another issue as important as the war, I'm not aware of it.

:rofl:

National Exit Polls -- Corruption at Top of Voters' Minds

For the first time today, we have some actual data on the composition of the national electorate.

As reported by CNN, exit polling has begun to trickle out and -- at least in partial returns -- the data suggests corruption may be a bigger issue on voters' minds than previously imagined.

Asked what issues were "extremely important" in casting their ballots, 42 percent of voters cited corruption while 40 percent said terrorism. The economy was cited by 39 percent, and 37 percent mentioned the war in Iraq, according to the CNN report.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/11/national_...


Why couldn't she have let them finish what they were saying? Then question them, chant, cuss them, whatever?

I agree. We have a right to hear our representatives speak. Just as much right as protestors have to chant.

I think there is room for both.

Hey, guys, could we please keep the responses relevant, for the sake of those who are interested in OMC's question?

I can't find anything online, so this is about as good as it gets.

If you really have to weigh in with something OT, start a brand new thread.

Why should we insist that she keep her mouth shut until she's "exhausted all her options" re: getting formal sit-downs with every Dem in congress? Why should we insist on that? If this were ERA or gay marriage or some other "social" issue I might buy that argument. But this is a life and death, blood being spilled, people facing carnage kind of crisis. This is much more immediate.

Kids are dying every day.

Has nothing to do with the original question.

A person should be able to ask "what did she do in advance of today's events" and have it answered forthrightly.

In the meantime, the OP is hardly insisting here that she should have kept her mouth shut. Like I said, worthy post, but in another thread.

What is it that you want addressed?

He specifically asked "has she exhausted all options?"

I don't understand your point.

Bingo. What's the scoop? Has she exhausted all options available to her?

No one is interested in answering OMC's question, but dammit, everyone has an opinion they just have to talk about in any Sheehan posts today, relevant or not.

Here's how I'm approaching OMC's OP: People cannot discuss things as completely as possible unless all available facts are known. And so, his/her request for information--devoid of opinion.

I see this as an information-gathering request from the OP, and that is all.

Sorry if that's still vague; it's the best I can do right now.

Cheers.

questions in public forums. This kind of thing should be done behind closed doors.

:sarcasm:

There's a difference between speaking up or speaking out, and crashing an important democratic press conference the day before they take the majority and before they've even begun anything. Huge difference. Monumental difference. It is the extreme level of speaking out that she did today that bothered me, not her speaking out in general. I hope you can see the difference.

"I'm just being honest."



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

.

and you'll get the joke.

I have readily stated that there are times lately that I haven't supported her 100%. But I have many times given her my wholehearted support.

I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is and show otherwise. If you can't, then please refrain from the false dishonest rhetoric.

Thanks.

"false dishonest rhetoric"

:RFOL: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl:

for you to just go away.

:rofl: esp. when you post hilarious nonsense :rfol:

civil discussion then you should just refrain from posting at all.

:puke:


All right, last kick :kick:
















I know you are but what are you?

:rofl:

Get over yourself. We have.

:thumbsdown:

...you first logged on.


:rofl:

Your attacks are baseless.

Not to mention a very rare exception of my posts are nonsense, and lord knows I'd run circles around you. But I digress.

Care to actually address the OP? Or are you going to only continue with the empty attack. I fail to see any post of yours in this thread actually responding to the context of the OP. Let's see what you got.

I am afraid of you and your all caps nomenclature.

"Lord knows" you run circles around all of us.

Cindy speaks for herself and should speak out at
every available opportunity.



"Not to mention a very rare exception of my posts are nonsense" (Whatever THAT means)

That was your answer to the OP? That she should speak at every opportunity?

That doesn't even BEGIN to address the questions raised in the OP.

I never said she shouldn't speak out. I implied that taking the extreme measure of dramatically interrupting an important democratic press conference might've been a bit ill advised. There's a big difference.

Burn her!

Can't have women interrupting conferences!

Let's send Mother Jones back to the kitchen while we're at it.

SO inconvenient. NEVER waited her turn. Spoke so HARSHLY.

:crazy:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Knee jerk animosity does not help this community whatsoever, especially when there are sincere and legitimate questions raised. I find your attitude towards such things to be pretty sad, and a testament to why it is almost impossible to have serious discussions on sensitive topics here sometimes.

Let me ask you plainly: Are you capable of discussing things like an adult or can you only deflect in response? If the former, it would be refreshing to see you do so.

When have you supported Cindy in the past? How, in what way? It's a very simple question. If you can't answer it, then the premise of your OP is moot.

But in the 24-hour news cycle, she's too easily caricatured.

They get a lot more press if they don't and that equates to a lot more Americans hearing her message.

BTW, the message is ending the "war" in case you forgot. So what if someone creates a "media spectacle", isn't that better than human beings being blown to pieces everyday? Oh, and what a horror if she hasn't let "those avenues run their course"?

People are being slaughtered, diplomacy has been exhausted, it is a daily "media spectacle" that is exactly what is needed to get American's attention and to keep us from getting even more accustomed to the constant barrage of propaganda lies.

If Sheehan hadn't done what she did today, all of the country's news would have been filled with the "surge" bullcrap.

Not sure from your post, but it seems like you are saying she didn't try the diplomatic route and went straight for the 'media spectacle'. Just want to confirm your message.

I need closure, dammit! :-) MKJ

I pretty blatantly stated what my opinion would be depending on the factual and thoughtful information I receive in this thread. Unfortunately, many are choosing to be childish rather than actually answer the questions in the OP, so I'm left with an impression that the questions in the OP were good ones of which the answers wouldn't go their way, so instead of answering them sincerely they can only resort to personal smear etc instead.

But I still don't know. I'm hoping some real people answer the OP and provide some more genuine insight.

I think that Cindy operates mostly from her feelings. She presents as very intelligent with generally excellent instincts about most situations in which she participates.

However, I believe that those instincts, coupled with unimaginable grief, may very occasionally lead her astray. And, I think that's entirely understandable. She's doing the heavy lifting for all of us.

I was in Crawford with her, three days after she arrived, August 2005. I was inspired by her willingness to bear the slings and arrows of the RW noise machine directed at her. I was inspired because what she spoke was the truth, and she did it unflinchingly.

I hugged her and spoke with her. I am not the most objective person, by a long shot. I am still in of awe of her being willing to relive the awful day she received the news of Casey's death. Only once in the time I was there. But, she put it out there...and, I believe that, ultimately, she doesn't want to see another parent experience the pain she is suffering, the specific pain of seeing one's own government take advantage of the goodness of our young people who want to serve their country.

And seeing those same young people lose their lives, to the lies and deception of the cabal.

Cindy ultimately does what she believes she needs to do. And, her actions are constant, her question never changes. "Mr. Bush, for what cause did my son die?"

And, I applaud her for not taking "diplomatic" channels. Put the pressure on now and keep applying...MKJ

you\'re coming from.

You got it all wrong, as I expected you would.

The other person in this thread got it right, it's not like it was difficult. You Cindy-bashers enjoy all the praise she got yesterday here on DU? Imagine that, a dem activist who's liked by dems, that's really hard for you to understand huh?

nothing if not persistent. And, consistent. :-) MKJ

K & R, for the thoughtful OP by the ever provocative OMC. :hi: MKJ

When did you do that, and in what way? I'm curious.

I just think at a point it started going overboard, such as when she challenged Fienstein (didn't support that) and took the picture with Chavez (didn't support that either). But I wholeheartedly stood behind her during many other times. I just didn't like what I saw today and it was bothering me. I know she means well and has every right to be passionate, but I just am leaning towards her beginning to go too far. If people would actually genuinely answer the questions in the OP, rather than providing nothing more than childish knee jerk attack as some have, then I may be able to gain some greater insight into the situation.

Can you do so? Or is this pseudo attack of false insinuation going to be all I should expect?

I'm just asking you when you supported Cindy, and how? Did you send money, did you go to Camp Casey, did you write a blog piece, join a protest? When did you support her? In what action? How did you support her? Which "other times?" Please be specific.

:eyes:

I'm asking you, what is the basis of your claim that you've supported Cindy in the past? Because I know Cindy, I've spent time with Cindy - I've supported her work and she's supported ours, the NY peace activists. I just saw Cindy a few weeks ago at a Christmas party. She was crying because her family will never have a happy Christmas again, without her son Casey. So I'd like to know, since you say that you used to support her but now you don't, HOW did you support her? When? In what way? Can't you answer such a simple question?

Hooray for you for your close ties with her. Not all of us have the ability to do such things. If you think for a second that supporting her consists of doing such things, then you are totally misguided.

I don't need to defend myself to you when I say I support her. I have and in many ways continue to. Just because I didn't go to a Christmas party with her doesn't mean I haven't supported her. If that's the ridiculous tone and premise you're going to take in this discussion, then no, I feel no need to discuss anything with you in sincerity.

Did you send money? Write a blog post? Send her an email? What is so difficult about the question? You're telling us you used to support her and now you don't. I'm asking you what you did to support her. Why can't you answer?

Or you will receive the post of doom.

"Your Melodramatic Response Proves You Have Nothing To Add To This Discussion. Bye Now."

And it WILL hurt!

Doomish? Doomnable?

If you aren't going to respond to the context, then your words ring hollow and are worthless to the thread. DU would be better served if instead of knee jerk animosity, you actually engaged in civil contextual discussion of legitimate concerns raised. I haven't seen you do so yet, and I'm wondering if you have the ability to.

I Am Asking You To Show Me How You Used To Support Her. You Seem To Find This Impossible, So I Am Not Inclined To Address Your Purported Change Of Heart.

If that sort of ridiculous tone and premise is how you are going to continue to choose to engage in discussion, then I am not going to converse with you in a sincere manner. If you are going to abuse somebody and imply that if they didn't write in a blog or send an email, they they didn't support somebody, then I'm not going to take you seriously. The premise is absurd.

Under your guidelines, 80% of DU or more wouldn't have supported Cindy. And that's blatantly absurd.

(And I am actually pretty sure I sent money to the peace house effort once upon a time. I've sent so many donations for so many different causes this past year I'm not even certain which ones I did or didn't anymore. But I'm pretty confident I did. Regardless, even that is meaningless in whether or not you support someone or not. I'm sure there are TONS of DU'ers who did not send money or write in a blog, that wholeheartedly support her. To imply that they don't support her is really quite disingenuous and misguided. Goodnight now.)

I would certainly remember doing something like that. You don't remember if you've written a blog, or a post here at DU, or anywhere else, in support of her? You sound like Reagan in the Iran-Contra years - "I do not recall." Under my guidelines, 80% of DU would certainly have a post to point to here where they've voiced their support of Cindy's actions. I'd really like to see one of yours.

Seriously. It's hard not to laugh a bit at it.

I have absolutely posted support for Cindy and your insinuation that I said I don't remember writing a blog or posting support for her is as twistingly disingenuous of a sentiment I've ever seen. Don't get so angry and bitter at your fellow DU'ers merely because they God forbid have an instance where they potentially disagree with the actions of another. It comes off really silly and unproductive.

A lot of people have supported her in the past. Just because it's not the way you define 'support' doesn't mean it ain't so. Nice litmus test you've got going there.

But the poster can't provide any at all. I find that rather curious. The question seems to have stumped him.

What are you looking for? Canceled checks? credit card statements? While you're at it, why don't you ask him for his Democrat Decoder Ring and to post pics of the secret DU handshake?

:eyes:

Anything. Anything at all. But he will not answer me.

And, clue phone, it's the Democratic Decoder Ring. No wonder yours never arrived in the mail.

No, it's democrat decoder ring. Democratic is a process. Democrat is what I am and I got an original :)

Democrat is a noun, or, when deliberately used improperly, a ham-handed pejorative.

G'nite! :boring:

So I'm supposed to waste God knows how much time searching my 10,000 posts for the ones in which I've voiced support for Cindy, just so I could prove to some resentful and rude poster that I've supporter her? Your serious? Would you do such a thing? I don't think anyone in their right mind would, and I think it's a sign of huge arrogance and ego on your part to think for a second that I should invest such effort into caring that Stephanie wants to inaccurately think that I don't support Cindy. What a hoot!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

She will bring this vision into focus more clearly for those who lose it. The comfort that our elected officials live with is out of focus. She is just had the hearbreaking job of helping us see more clearly. Bless you Cindy.

It's time to get nasty. 4 years in, no end in sight. Some of those jerks even voted for the IWR. F*ck proper channels. All they'd do is smile and patronize her and then go back to business as usual. At least now, they were called out in front of Americans and they understand that we mean business!

Althought the news only mentions Sheehan, there were over 70 people also there yelling: bring the troops home now !!!. What else are we suppose to do when there are still Democrats who believe we have to add more troops and more money to this occupation. Tell me the last time CNN, MSNBC, FOX news.. had on any members of Gold Star Families for Peace, Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak out, or Iraqi Vets Against the War ?? As vigils were held all across this nation after teh 3000 troop was killed, what News station gave more the a 2 minute sound bite ?????????
There are many more than Cindy Sheehan out there who have loved ones killed in Iraq.. demanding our troops come home, cut the funding, and hold these criminals in office accountable. stop attacking Sheehan and put your energy to the really irritaing people.. like those in office or the media.

Oooohhh! BAD Cindy, she INTERRUPTED!

Damn PEACENIK! We should all just
listen to the AEI like GOOD germans, er
I mean citizens.

A time and a place for everything.

File a 27B/6 or something. In triplicate.

Yeah, that'll get us out! NOT!!!

This is a matter of great concern.

Thank you. Recommended.

Alone, (no matter how many support her) she all but begs to be dismissed as an hysterical woman. Especially given that those she is up against have rather dated opinions of the female of the species in the first place, to put it kindly. And yet all I ever see, is Cindy this, and Cindy that.

Hell there is a damned good acronym waiting for her and those in the same position.

MOOT - Mothers Of Our Troops.

But Cindy stands alone when there are three thousand plus mothers in precisely the same boat as her and hundreds of thousands who's stomachs must churn every waking hour in fear that they will join her.

I can understand her anger. I can understand her grief. But her decision to head-butt a brick wall when a wrecking ball stands idle to one side defies comprehension.

here is something:
http://pdamerica.org/articles/campaigns/cegelis-sheehan.php

Its somewhat old but I am guessing thats where she is coming from:
March 3, 2006--I am beginning to wonder what it is that such "Democrats" like Rahm Emanuel (Illinois), Chuck Schumer (NY), and Nancy Pelosi (CA) are protecting in Iraq.

What is it that they have at stake in keeping the occupation of Iraq going?

Their constituents in every case are solidly anti-war and anti-Bush. They all come from the bluest of states and/or districts.

Yet when faced with the chance to defend and promote antiwar candidates who agree with the majority of Americans that it's time to get out of Iraq this year, they go into overdrive to try to destroy their candidacies. Take the case of Christine Cegelis .

She might also be disappointed by this kind of stuff-I don't see a thing about Iraq in there-they could at least have addressed it (I am disappointed as an environmentalist who doesn't see a SINGLE thing about the environment in that initial agenda):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1982370,00.html

But then while I am a Democrat, I am not a strong one (I am a Green at heart-the real Greens-not ones who take contributions from Repugs) and being a Dem is my grudging concession to "sensible, practical centrism"-but I am a Dem for all that. I also think there is nothing wrong with beating up on elected officials from "go"-they are here to do our bidding, not the other way round. Some accuse others here of "idolizing" Sheehan here. I don't idolise her, but I would support her any day over blind support of a bunch of weak-kneed, yet to be proven Dems who haven't really made a single position on Iraq or the environment (significant, scientific steps) clear. Even Jon Stewart admitted 2006 was a more a loss for Bush than any rush of admiration for the Dems- I don't say that as a Freep/Green with a hidden agenda. I say that as someone who thinks that party officials should have their feet held to the fire and not be coddled and "given time" etc. Nag them, cajole them, pester them...do whatever works I say....

Here is Rob Parry (whom I very much respect) on the same thing:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/010307.html


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.

The issues included raising the minimum wage, financing stem-cell research, revising the Medicare prescription drug program and stiffening ethics rules. The only national security issue on the list was the implementation of all the remaining – but unspecified – recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

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.

and they're attacked. I don't understand that. Why not see if they follow through with what they've said over the years when the repukes held the majority?

I really can't figure out what people expect when the dems haven't even started yet.

I would have liked to have seen something about the environment and Iraq in that stated agenda of theirs. Is that too much to ask?

Two of the biggest issues around and this is all they say?

The proposed legislation from the Democrats includes:

· Ethics reform, with a ban on gifts from lobbyists to congressmen and other controls;

· A rise in the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour;

· An end to the Bush administration's restrictions on stem cell research;

· Implementation of the recommendations of the commission on the 9/11 terror attacks;

· A plan for the federal government to negotiate cheaper prices for prescription drugs;

· And the halving of interest rates on student loans.


I was looking for the rest of it to see if they even throw us enviros a bone and couldn't find anything. If anyone can find stuff I wouldn't mind hearing about it (other than that Boxer-Feinstein committee which just had some sound-bites last I saw). I will grant you this-they probably will not accelerate the pace of rush to disaster the way Repukes do. Right now thats about the only reason I am Democrat. I will not be a Green while the prospect of Repug rule is this scary because I can't vote my conscience if it means ultimately more dead children and extinction around the globe, but a few more years of shuffling and indecision from the Dems and I will at least understand why people get frustrated enough to vote Green...

http://news.google.com/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&q=Iraq%20hearings

A quick search brought up all this.

I did see those and wasn't particularly impressed-I mean they may do something with that I fervently hope. But, the thing is I don't want to just sit back and trust them and hope everything is ok.
Thats what some Dems did during the Clinton years. I am cynical about all politicians. We need an active involved citizenry that breathes down their necks and makes them do their job-which would be whatever the majority of the electorate wants. I know what I want and I am not going to sit back and hope they do it.

Honestly, there is no other job in America where people seem to get as much rope as in this one. I can imagine what would happen to me if I went into my lab and told my advisor "Hey, I am gonna do all this research you want but ya know check back in 2 years and see if I have done my part". Most people I know in academia, industry etc. have to turn in weekly reports at the minimum to our bosses.
We are their bosses and I know I am gonna act like one.

But I'm not ready to jump on them before they started the first day of work either. I do hope we see some real change and progress on those things that matter. That's what's in that list you put in your previous post. Those things along with the war should be at the top of their agenda.

One of my favorites is the minimum wage increase. That's going to make a real difference in people's lives. The repukes could care less.

I'm hopeful, but keeping my eye on them. :)

Kerry has been in Iraq recently gathering information, and I would hope that after Bush announces his plan for Iraq, the Dems will start playing offense. If the Dems continue to focus on raising the minimum wage, etc., I will be very disappointed.

Why the hell does she even need face time with them??? They should be out there promoting the same ideals all on their own.

The fact that they aren't says volumes already.

I want the war to end as well. Maybe what she did today was the right thing to do. I'm conflicted with it. I just think she should allow our Dems a chance to do anything first, now that they are in the majority. I don't think it's fair to already be attacking them before even their first day. But I also can't tell you that they shouldn't be more passionate themselves about the issue. We all know they should be.

I gotta head to bed. My wife's gonna friggin kill me when I climb in. But I'll discuss this more tomorrow afternoon, if applicable.

There but for the grace of dog go you or I

lost a child in this war.

Are you out there risking your reputation?
Or anything?
She is.
I'm not. Are you?

I was talking about the OP's next post on the subject, which I won't bother reading, since he is on my ignore list now.

Are we to assume because the Dems gained back power that the Dems will in fact deliver all what they campaigned about?!! I'm pleased she's keeping a watch on exactly what the Dems will be doing.

with their promises. They haven't even started yet. Disrupting a press conference isn't keeping an eye on them....it's disrupting a press conference.

My Only Real Question Regarding Cindy And Her Interruption Today.

Frankly I don't give a damn how Cindy makes her case as long as she doesn't resort to cowardice.

congress people on both sides of the aisle and had been rebuffed. How they had not responded to her and had avoided her. I believe she has tried and has brought her case to the people, an appropriate action since it is the people who must right this injustice.

apparently people DEMS are listening. But she shut them down on the first time out.

Oh HELL NO! We elected them and they answer to us. They'll damn well go down the path we tell them to go down, and they are NOT going to ignore Iraq and get away with it. It is the single most important issue out there and NONE OF THEM have the balls to even bring it up during the first 100 hours "celebration." Don't quit, Cindy!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The OP is not flamebait.

If you have nothing to add to this discussion whatsoever but your personal and undeserved attack, it might be better to just avoid this thread altogether.

The OP is a sincere request for information and insight. If you have some, great. If you don\'t, and only seek to provoke some mini-flamewar with me, then it isn\'t productive for anybody.

Do you have any feedback towards the context of the OP, as opposed to mocking or attacking me? If so, you\'re welcome of course to express it.

Thanks.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The comment was not addressed to you and was not an "attack"

It would be hard to believe that post #80 would be the right post you are referencing as one lacking attack and addressing the context of the OP. I looked again through the thread and couldn\'t find a comment of yours that did in fact address the context, so I\'m not sure what you could\'ve possibly been referencing.

No biggie. Bye.

:evilgrin:

liberally applied

It's like a tornado ripped through.

:hi:

I asked the mods to delete the dupes, but I see only the one was deleted even though it says 'deleted subthread'. Kinda odd...

They kicked me off DU for a short while.

If you notice some of the other posts I made during work today, like a few below I think, you'll see that the proxy put a slash before every apostrophe. What the hell's that all about? LOL

I don't even know what a proxy is.

And So Very Cleverly Disguised

I'm also brilliant, objective, logical, fair, friendly, mentally strong and immensely wise.

But I fail to see the relevance of your post, or the intent in it. Since I'm always completely upfront, forward and brutally honest, therefore I by nature would never disguise anything. The only real disguising I see is your true intent behind your words above.

I say we engage in fair, civil, and open discussion. How bout it? Elaborate openly and freely about your intent of the post. It's ok, I'll read it objectively. :hi:

I am sure you are against the drug war. We should work to end it. It may not be the priority for rich, educated white men (the current ruling class), but I think that it is important.

I will shout down any rat worm dem that supports the drug war. I am sure that a pro drug war dem would be better then a pro drug war puke, but that is not good enough for me.

I have a great deal of respect for those that believe in things; even if they believe that the dems should never be opposed. To each his own.

How dare this so called Cindy Sheehan petition the government, express her political opinions, and attempt to influence the tone and content of public debate, on this day, of all days, when the people's body assembles to represent us. The Constitution says Congress represents the People, not these so called... um... people...

what was my point?

Who Do You Think You Are?

n/t

on edit: I need to learn to proof read my stuff :)

I\'m not sure I can say she\'s not really right for speaking out as she is, but I can\'t totally say I\'m not right for taking a bit of an issue with how she went about it yesterday either. I guess in the end each side of this is damned if hey do, damned if they don\'t. That\'s why I\'ll leave it with a \"though I\'m not sure I agree fully with how she went about things yesterday, God bless her for her efforts and sacrifice anyway\".

Rahm Emmanuel.

Cindy can do wrong! Clearly, you must be some kind of a freeper infiltrator posting flamebait. TRUE liberals agree with EVERYTHING Cindy does without question.

She said that there were only a few members of congress who would meet with her. Many refused to see her. It didn't sound as though Rahm Emmanuel was one of those who met with her.

Did she give any particulars as to who the ones were that refused to meet with her? That would be interesting to know.

I missed the very beginning of the interview, so I cannot say for sure. It sounded like there were very few legislators who would see her and a large number who turned down her requests for a meeting.

Of course, Cindy's past actions have not been that successful in bringing the war to an end, either. But then again, no one's actions have been successful.

I see her efforts as evidence of a continuing frustration - why is it it that so many talk about their lack of support for this war, and then nothing ever changes? So many of us have written to our representatives, and heavens knows that DU is filled to the brim with posts that call for an end to the war. In spite of this verbal dissing, the war wages on.

Sometimes I wonder why she continues. Not because I want her to go away... not in the slightest. But because her opinion, and the opinion of many Americans regarding this war is no secret. No surprise to the elected government bodies. She is not saying anything that has not been discussed ad nauseum.

I don't know. I'm not a political strategist. Not a political scientist. All I know is that a number of the elected Dems have been silent about this issue for the past four years. I sense the excitement within my friends, and here on DU, that things are going to change radically. But I am just not so sure. I get that the Dems had their thumbs in a vice... no majority to take the lead on what they proposed to believe in. But I also noted few strong and loud voices of dissent from within the elected Dem ranks. Cindy mentioned today that few Dems would meet with her. I'm not surprised. And, knowing that, I'm also not surprised by her decision to publicly address the Dems. She could call for a meeting, sure. Would it help? I'm not so confident that it would. I suppose, when all else fails, being a thorn in the side is better than sitting at home, awash in irritation.

The thing about the war is that there is no NEW way to voice displeasure. It's simply a rinse and repeat of what has been said and done for many years now. That Cindy's actions are repetitive is not the tiring part - finding ourselves walking around the same circle year after year after year is.