Cindy Sheehan, The Daily Kos, impeachment, and ideological purity

Here's to Being Pragmatic (0.00 / 0)

Jay Stevens: I agree with you on the first point. The mission statement of the Daily Kos blog is clear. Party first and foremost. That is the blog owner's right. Also, yes Cindy Sheehan could and would certainly be successful if she started her own blog. No argument there either.

Well there ends our agreement though. It is interesting that what you find most offensive about Sheehan is her refusal to compromise and act reasonably and within the etiquette of politics. She should just accept the status quo and ask politely for change?

The reason you and many other perfectly normal and well educated people remain stuck in this illusion is because no one in the entire world is really taught about the people's struggles for civil rights and peace.* Was Martin Luther King considered reasonable? Were the peaceful marchers of the 60s not beaten by the police? Did segregation end because of people played ball with the politicians of the time or because they stood up and said we want this now because it's the right thing to do and we won't back down until we get it?

The problem isn't really that Cindy Sheehan isn't allowed to speak on a blog that previously embraced her. It's that so many people like yourself still don't get it. That at this point Democrats are only better than Republicans because Republicans have gotten so extreme. They are on the Far Right and the Democrats are at their furthest left constituting the Middle. Only then can you explain the labeling of John Kerry and Barrack-I-am-not-saying-I-wouldn't-nuke-Iran-Obama as 'liberals.'

Your beloved Democrats have been in power for months now in Congress and they have done none of the things that the people have voted them to do. They deserve to be criticized for that. If the politicians that we elect aren't doing what We The People want them to do we should just sit back and shut up and take it? Give them the space they need to bomb the hell out of some more innocent people, to benefit their corporate masters?

Also I find it bizarre for you to suggest Cindy Sheehan's some extremist for running as an Independent. She's running for office, not calling for a revolution. She's working within the system. Obviously we can't all be like her and put ourselves out there to be ridiculed and name-called for what is ultimately the good of others. But at least we can respect and recognize what she's doing.

And lastly, to be suggesting that because something seems near impossible means it's not worth fighting for is an insult to anyone who's ever fought for anything worth having. Including the right to write your opinions freely.

*See, A People's History of the United States, and the documentary "Eyes on The Prize" for some samples of what I'm talking about. Oh, the latter is hard to find you say? Hm... I wonder why...

---

by: kate @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:05:49 AM UTC

thanks, kate (4.00 / 1)

Thanks, Kate.

Where do I begin with this?

First, I have seen "Eyes on the Prize," and have read Taylor Branch's book, "Parting the Waters," on the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. Your criticism of my calls for patience obviously echoes King's "letter from a Birmingham jail," only you left out some salient facts: (1) King never ran for office; (2) the Iraq War has been going on for 6 years, not 300; (3) the Democrats currently do not have the power to end the war or successfully pursue impeachment. To end the war you need 40 committed Senators to block defense appropriations. To impeach the president you need 66 Senate votes. In other words

Second, the fault of the Democrats inability to implement any of the legislation they've promised is, pure and simple, Republican obstructionism in the Senate. Steve Benen has an fantastic post explaining how the GOP has used the filibuster to obstruct Democratic legislation. In other words, you're regurgitating right-wing spin on this issue.

Third, I whole-heartedly support Sheehan's bid for office. Only I think she should do so as a Democrat. Run against Pelosi in a primary! As an independent, she's threatening to split the vote and get a Republican elected into Pelosi's seat. Call me crazy, but I think it's destructive to remove our first female Speaker with a strong liberal track record to replace her with a conservative. That's how we got into this mess in the first place, with the GOP in charge. And how quickly do you think a Republican Congress with impeach Bush? Plus I need health insurance.

Fourth, MLK never used his power to destroy any one individual's political career. Did MLK aggressively threaten sitting Congressional representatives? Did MLK threaten anybody? His tactic was to bring attention to his ideas, to pressure politicians by creating a mass movement, a bloc of constituents who swayed Congress to act. Sheehan's skipping the people part. And the peaceful part.

Fifth, no one's suggesting easing up on our Democratic representatives. If you read this blog, you'll know that.

Basically Sheehan's setting off a bomb. She's pulling her supporters and the anti-war, liberal wing of the party to her and turning it against someone who's not even the problem. It smacks of blind selfishness and complete ignorance of the political situation. If Sheehan wanted to make a difference -- a real difference, instead of starting a futile internecine battle -- she'd go after Republican Senators.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 16:58:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unicorns! (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for replying and glad you had the chance to see the documentary I was talking about. I really wish you hadn't blamed me for 'right-wing spin' though. That wasn't very nice, especially since I refrained from calling you on that old 'splitting the vote' Republican favorite, which I sadly see reproduced in others' comments now too. That was a good tactic, deflecting from the whole stolen election by blaming Nader for ruining it. And it worked too, when people's emotions were running high, but of course it was a lie. Gore never lost the election, but people had someone to blame, an Independent which only in this country is such a lowly thing to be.

As for your other points:

Yes Democrats will get all the power with your help and will make EVERYTHING better. Health care, world peace, you name it. These aren't the guys who voted FOR the war or signed off on billions of dollars for it AFTER the last election.

The woman card: Nice. Extra points for that. Yes, gender is something I look for in a candidate. I wish Condi Rice would take me shoe shopping.

"Not for 300 years": Tell that to the people of Iraq, or the families of the soldiers. It will make them feel warm and happy. Crimes are now judged for how long they last?

Yes. MLK was never a threat to anyone. In fact I have it on good authority that he was greeted with hugs and puppies everywhere he went. The FBI didn't have him under surveillance and he lived happily ever after playing bridge at the old country club with the good old politician boys that loved him.

Unless you meant to say that Cindy Sheehan actually threatened the well-being of Nancy Pelosi? She said she might RUN against her? Omg! Yes Sheehan is just being silly. She should go through the proper channels of the Democratic Party that will surely embrace her and say come, run against one of our strongest. We'll back you up. Now if you don't mind meeting with a few -insert choice of evil- lobbyists?

What you still fail to see is that I was talking about coming from a place of heart and integrity and being compelled to do good and move others to right things that are blatantly wrong and you are talking about calculated, calm, rational reactions. You know who else was mostly calm and rational while their president was busy invading countries abroad and eroding civil liberties at home.

"IF YOU REALLY GRASP WHAT IS GOING ON, IN SOME SORT OF WAY, YOU SHOULD FEEL SOME DESPERATION"

---

by: kate @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 21:52:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

peace pipe (0.00 / 0)

Okay, I understand your frustration. I share it. I'm not questioning Sheehan's motivation -- or yours -- just her judgement.

I believe that change towards progressive goals lies through the Democratic party, because it's not going to happen through Republicans or an independent third party. I never said it was going to be easy or instantaneous, but I think it's possible.

My question still hangs in the air, what goal is Sheehan pushing for by asking for impeachment proceedings? Until we get 66 votes in the Senate, it ain't going to happen.

Coincidentally, as I write this, I'm watching Bill Moyers' show on impeachment...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 03:12:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

66 senators (0.00 / 0)

And! another! thing!

Considering this president still enjoys a 62 percent approval among self-identified Republicans, that means finding 17 GOP Senators who put principle above politics, risking reelection to convict Bush.

Do you think that's going to happen, short of Bush disembowelling a baby on the front lawn of the White House?

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 03:19:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just gonna ask ... (0.00 / 0)

How does anyone really know what kind of support a Sheehan candidacy will get?  Cindy seems to think that it will be huge.  Manny who argue for Democratic unity think it will be significant as well.  But seriously, lots of folk on our leftward side of the aisle tend to think of her as a tragic joke.  Aren't there any numbers we can put this menace?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 21:20:49 PM UTC

I think this is wrong... (0.00 / 0)

Jay, I am pretty sure that no one told Cindy she couldn't post there, just that she couldn't campaign there. There is a difference here.

---

by: Shane C. Mason @ Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 20:32:38 PM UTC

argh! (0.00 / 0)

Tarnish this discussion with facts, do you?

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 20:47:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]