Why isn't Cindy Sheehan protesting members of the GOP?

[knight_of_the_star]

And before we get any canned responses about them having no pull, they have the biggest pull of all:

They have the votes to block attempts at impeachment or ending the war. They are the people in the way, not the Dems in Congress.

What she is doing makes me visualize something along the lines of where you have soldiers stuck in a firefight. Enemy troops on the other side of the line are dug in hard and are not going to be shifted just by the infantry in the trenches alone, but instead of raining down heavy fire on the enemy troops, the artillery crews fire on their own soldiers for not fighting hard enough. That won't get anything done except kill a lot of friendly troops, and what Sheehan is doing strikes me as the same thing: counter-productive and reeking of friendly fire when she could be putting the heat on the REAL enemy.

[xultar]

1. THAT'S A FUCKIN GOOD QUESTION! anyone know?

[walldude]

45. Yeah, actually I know exactly why

Because they are cold hearted bastards who are making money hand over fist on the blood of the innocent. Cindy is appealing to people she assumed would actually give a shit. She's trying to make them understand the pain their inaction is causing, the pain they will never understand because they aren't willing to put their own kids in the line of fire. Too bad she's finding that many of the Dems don't want to understand that pain either.

[knight_of_the_star]

52. But she can appeal to the people who vote for GOP members

And she can get them to tell the GOP to fuck off if they don't end the war by drawing attention to THEIR obstructionism.

[walldude]

84. The only GOP voters left are the sheep who

couldn't grasp the severity of this issue with a front loader. No help there. She's going where she thinks someone might listen, of course she's getting the same thing from them as she does from the other side. Scorn and indifference.

[jarnocan]

74. true- she is OF COURSE anti-BU**SH**repugs- but trying to find those who give a ..nt

[salinen]

77. Imagine Cindy

trying to appeal to Jon Kyl? Or Lieberman? A colossal waste of time that would be.

[speakclearly]

88. Actually, that's no quite true........

Cindy is protesting Dems because they control Congress. And the Republicans are unlikely to respond to her message and impeach their President. Her only hope is to force the hand of the Democrats, and they have been unwilling to support her or her message. Rarely do any Democratic Congresspresons attend her demonstrations or "events". You never know what she might say that will then reflect on the Democrats (like saying Bush is worse than Hitler). She wants Dem Congresspersons to "folow her lead" and they simply refuse to do that. They have their own plans and agenda that they developed in the Democratic caucus, and won't cede the platform to her and her Code Pink supporters.

[Breeze54]

53. That has already been answered many, many times.

Rethugs Offices that were Occupied by Anti-War/Impeach Activists.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1417353&mesg_id=1417353

The MSM single's her out when she's with a group of protestors.

There are many, all across the country, that are against the war on Iraq and for Impeachment.

She wasn't alone at Conyers office and he isn't the only elected official that has been protested at his office.

Many rethugs have also been protested at thier offices.

[knight_of_the_star]

57. You just made my point

First, has SHE done it, and second if she did it would get attention because its Cindy Sheehan. Instead she's going after Dems.

[Breeze54]

70. All the anti-war activists are pleading with the Dems and Rethugs...

to stop the war on Iraq. That's been going on since 2001.

[knight_of_the_star]

94. And the pressure needs to be properly applied

Most of the Dems with the exception of some of the conservative ones are in our corner, its those guys and the GOP we should be going after.

[Breeze54]

98. Protests are messy, just as war is...

You can't have it all nice and wrapped up in pretty paper.

This isn't a friggin' game! People are dying as I type this!

Screaming is acceptable! Whatever it takes to end it!

[EFerrari]

81. Sure. It's not true.

lol

[pschoeb]

102. She just did, on July 18 at Howard Coble's office in North Carolina

There were protests at every member of the House Judiciary Committee. She was personally at the July 18th protest at Howard Colbe's Office, as she was also involved in an anti-war and pro-impeachment march from Texas to Washington DC, the fact that most DUers don't seem to know this is fairly telling.

So just as little as 6 days ago she was personally protesting a Republican.

[Breeze54]

103. Facts don't matter!

Didn't you know? :sarcasm:

They'd rather just keep on denigrating a person who's accomplised
more to end the war than they've done in all their years here bitchin'.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Why aren't you?

[knight_of_the_star]

6. Who says I'm not?

Oh wait, I guess its easier to shove words in people's mouths, paint with a broad brush, and make disparaging assumptions than actually address the issue.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. LOL

So you're protesting the GOP but Cindy isn't?

:rofl:

[knight_of_the_star]

10. So when were Pelosi and Conyers part of the GOP?

Why isn't she doing sit-ins at the offices of prominent Congresscritters in the GOP? When was the last time she did since Camp Casey?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Is this thread protesting the GOP?

[knight_of_the_star]

47. Nice strawman

How about addressing the issues for a change?

[LSK]

3. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1421358

[cynatnite]

4. I asked, too...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1416504&mesg_id=1416504

[TahitiNut]

5. Indeed. They'd sure be eager to have her support and her vote. Yup.

:eyes:

[knight_of_the_star]

7. It's not that she has her vote to offer

Its that she would be drawing attention and pressure to them and making things hotter for the GOP and making it more likely for the war to be ended sooner.

[Guaranteed]

12. It would bring more effective attention to the issue. nt

[Kagemusha]

9. Bet you it's because Dems might be swayed and Reps won't be

In other words, she's going after the people she has the greater potential influence with, in order to rally support that those people will listen to, rather than waste her "ammo" on targets hardened against it, against which her potshots will be ineffective. This is of no comfort to you because it's your ox being gored.

This is a general principle of activism and nothing personal to Cindy Sheehan. That's because she doesn't have the artillery; Pelosi does. Sheehan firing at the other side will accomplish nothing. Pelosi firing at the other side will accomplish, at absolute minimum, far greater noise, but Sheehan's popgun stands a greater chance of influencing Pelosi than the Republicans (even if this chance is still so remote as to be functionally insignificant).

[knight_of_the_star]

11. Except she's hurting the side that would help her most

The Dems are the ones who are on her side already, its the GOP that is standing in the way of getting ANYTHING accomplished and by going after the Dems she isn't helping the situation any.

[zonmoy]

14. how are the republicans blocking a vote for impeachment

in a congress controlled by the democrats.

[knight_of_the_star]

17. Simple

How many REPUBLICAN Senators would we need to convict? That also assumes that the Conservative Dems would vote for impeachment, they could easily go with the GOP unless the people to the right of them are under fire for opposing impeachment.

[zonmoy]

20. bring bushes crimes out into the open and paint anybody who

votes against impeachment as aiding and abetting in his crimes. basically if they try to stop it it should destroy the republican party and show it as a criminal organization.

[knight_of_the_star]

23. I don't want to just do that

I want to make damn sure if we impeach we WILL remove him from office. That will make things harder for the GOP that stood in the way for so long and fought so hard for him especially if we get them to flip. We only get ONE shot at impeachment, we have to make it count.

[zonmoy]

26. I want to not only get bush and the cabal out of office but destroy

the republinazi party.

[knight_of_the_star]

28. They're already destroying themselves

If we succeed in removing Bush and Cheney then we can use that as a club in 2008 against the GOP.

[zonmoy]

31. agreed

[Zodiak]

75. The problem is: we are not going to get a shot under the present paradigm n/t

[zonmoy]

79. then I stand by my view of funeral time for democracy.

[Kagemusha]

89. Christ, using impeachment to destroy a political party, that's democracy then?

I realize people are staring at a lot of unpleasant things around here but that's a bit much.

[zonmoy]

96. so you are saying that the republicans should continue to exist

and never pay for their crimes. also such things have been done before to similar parties to the republicans.

[salinen]

85. Is she hurting the anti-war cause?

I don't see it.

[Forkboy]

13. Thanks for saving me the typing time.

It's very simple to understand.Apply pressure where it has at least a chance of having an effect.

[knight_of_the_star]

15. Apply pressure to where it will have a point of being there

Applying pressure on the people already trying to do the job will just make them mad. Its kind of like whipping a race horse that's already going at a full gallop for not going faster.

[zonmoy]

16. once again the republicans aren't the ones that took impeachment off the table.

[knight_of_the_star]

18. But they can block conviction

Which matters even more than impeachment does, what precedent would it set if we impeach and fail to convict Bush for his crimes?

[zonmoy]

19. I figure they have to at least make the attempt

simply to get his crimes out in the open and on record. also to stop him from committing more crimes and covering them up.

[knight_of_the_star]

22. I fear moving without certainty of success will make things worse

Consider this:

Until we remove his ass from the White House, he still has command of the armed forces and the nuclear football. If we back him into a corner he might just decide to start his war with Iran or something similarly disastrous, and he might do worse if he doesn't think he'll get in trouble for what he's doing.

That and if we impeach and fail to convict attempting to do the same thing again later will be certain to fail. We only get ONE shot at this, and we have to make certain that shot doesn't miss AND it kills.

[zonmoy]

24. and if we don't

his party will probably either rig the next election so that they win or if they don't think that is possible they will set off a false flag terror attack, declare martial law, and kiss democracy goodbye while starting world war three.

[knight_of_the_star]

27. So if we impeach and fail

That will stop all that from happening?

[zonmoy]

29. but if we don't impeach I have no doubt that will happen

basically we either impeach and win or democracy dies. it is that simple.

[knight_of_the_star]

32. How would that work out?

Tell me, what evidence do you have to back your conclusion that if we impeach and fail to remove Bush/Cheney that it will somehow stop WWIII and a police state?

[zonmoy]

38. I am saying that the only answer is to impeach and win.

at this point any other option leads to the death of democracy. even if we lose at least we will have made a last stand against tyranny that may be the best we will get.

[Virginia Dare]

40. Then we'll need help from the Republicans..

and we don't have that right now.

[zonmoy]

43. I have no doubt that once the evidence of their crimes and plans

are exposed the republicans will flock to our side simply to keep from being exposed as fascist war criminals.

[knight_of_the_star]

44. Would have to be pretty damning evidence indeed

Like something along the lines of Bush raping and killing a baby in the Oval Office on camera considering how loyal they have been so far.

[zonmoy]

60. My view is that if they stand with him they will fall with him.

[Bake]

63. What? They're going to start doing the RIGHT THING?

That's worked out so well in the past. Impeach a Puke and they'll close ranks faster than a speeding bullet.

Sadly, there are no more Goldwaters in the GOP. No statesmen.

Bake

[zonmoy]

67. that might happen

then they will stand together as the republicans are exposed and will fall with bush. even if bush beats impeachment the exposure of their corruption and fascistic agenda will destroy the party.

[Bake]

76. They will stand together and MAYBE the public will get the real message

But I'm not so sure, given who controls the MSM/message.

Bake

[zonmoy]

78. Then we must make them get the message.

if we have to take over all the media temporarily to expose this rot.

[Bake]

91. And how do we "take over all the media temporarily?"

Short of armed insurrection? Because networks and cable studios usually have armed guards there to guard all the nifty toys.

Bake

[zonmoy]

97. if there needs to be armed insurrection then that needs to be done.

[Bake]

107. Should that time ever come, I'll be standing at the barricades.

But that time is not now, and I think it's unwise to talk in those terms at this point.

I don't know about you, but I was around in the 60s (maybe you were too). An awful lot of vocal DUers weren't around then, so they have precious little historical context for the current state of affairs. Things were pretty bad in the 60s, too, but we -- America -- survived without armed insurrection. Yeah, there were some riots, but not an armed revolution, and I don't think that's called for now.

Bake

[zonmoy]

111. at what point will it be called for

after martial law is declared and democracy is dead.

[Bake]

58. It's like the mafia boss who goes to trial and beats the rap

After that he's pretty much "bulletproof" (figuratively speaking). BushCo beats the rap in the Senate? He knows he can do whatever the hell he wants, because he's already beaten the worst threat Congress has.

Bake

[knight_of_the_star]

64. Exactly

That's why mob prosecutions don't happen overnight, and its how we should approach this impeachment.

[zonmoy]

65. If that is the case everybody who still cares should go to the

nearest cemetary and have a funeral service for democracy.

[Virginia Dare]

39. Even if impeachment succeeds..

what's the end game. I assume you would impeach Cheney first, or else we'd be dealing with President Cheney. Presumably, you've got to get through two impeachment proceedings and two confirmation hearings for replacements. All of this is supposed to get done in 18 months? Get real.

[zonmoy]

41. impeach both at once.

don't worry about replacing them with the election so close. just be glad that there is an election.

[Virginia Dare]

106. I'll have to check..

but I'm pretty sure the consititution would not allow that scenario. Again, pipe dreams.

[salinen]

86. So Conyers will become so annoyed

that he'll become pro-war?

[salinen]

82. Well said

[QC]

21. There's no cheap publicity in that.

Much more productive to validate the corporate media meme that the left is a bunch of loons divided hopelessly against each other.

[Madspirit]

25. Quoting Myself

As this is EXACTLY the same as all the other threads asking why she isn't going after Republicans, why not just use my EXACT same answer:

Actually she has but I guess she's learned you cannot negotiate with or persuade Evil. "Hi, I'm a mother who lost a son to your lie" just doesn't seem to move them that much.

She can possibly light a fire under the Democrats. That's who she can influence.

Lee

[knight_of_the_star]

30. But the Dems she's going after are the ones who would be on her side

Why isn't she going after the GOP and the conservative Dems who are in the way instead of the ones who would be on her side?

[Guaranteed]

42. Man, don't bother.

The sense in this left long ago.

[Tatiana]

34. She really needs to be camped outside of Mitch McConnell's office! n/t

[dorkulon]

35. Why aren't liberals protesting against Kim Jong Il?

Simple--because we have no hope of affecting his policies. Same with Sheehan and the GOP.

[knight_of_the_star]

48. False analogy

The GOP is not Kim Jong Il, not by a long shot, and they can be forced to flip if we can get the pressure on them and Cindy is NOT helping.

[dorkulon]

59. You really think we can get Republicans to impeach?

Not bloody likely. I'm not a big fan of Cindy's, especially since her sad-ass "hunger strike"/liquid diet, but it only makes sense that she'd apply pressure to Democrats to impeach, since they're much more likely to respond.

[knight_of_the_star]

68. I think it is likely

If we can get them to fear the wrath of their constituents at the ballot box for obstructing justice.

[dorkulon]

73. The wrath of their constituents is exactly why they WON'T

Hard to believe, but Bush still enjoys a 63% approval rating among Republicans. Not to mention that Cindy Sheehan is loathed and reviled by them. The idea that she could pressure Republicans to impeach is laughable.

[knight_of_the_star]

95. Which poll shows that?

And Republicans aren't the only people who vote.

[dorkulon]

101. This one.

CBS News/New York Times. July 20-22, 2007. N=889 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). LV = likely voters

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

approve disapp. unsure
ALL adults 30 62 8
Republicans 63 30 7
Democrats 9 89 2
Independents 26 61 13


And Republicans are pretty much the only ones who vote--for Republicans.

[judaspriestess]

36. Maybe this is the only way she can get attention to her cause?

Its a double edged sword. If she protest the repukes, will the MSM show it?

Personally, I don't think so. Does it meant its wrong or right? It all subjective to what you feel.

[knight_of_the_star]

49. Its counterproductive

And if she's making the calculation purely on getting attention then I have to wonder if she's really in it for the cause or herself.

[Beelzebud]

37. Because the responsibility resides with the Majority Party. Thats us....

With power comes responsibility.

[knight_of_the_star]

46. But we don't have all the power we need

We need to get a lot of Republicans to flip to get impeachment, Republicans we don't have on our side to pull it off.

[Beelzebud]

51. The battlecry of the perpetual loser.

We have the damn majority, but for some, we don't have enough of a majority.

Meanwhile the republican minority stands their ground and gets their way on mostly everything.

Why?

Because they stand their ground, and we sit around whining and crying about how having the majority just isn't enough.

Give me a fucking break...

[knight_of_the_star]

54. Red herring and ad hominem

Neither of which address the issue and avoids the facts.

[Beelzebud]

56. Whining about not having enough of a majority won't win any votes.

[knight_of_the_star]

61. So going after the people who are already going to vote for you does?

How about going after the people whose votes we need and getting them to fear for the possibility of losing their jobs?

[zonmoy]

72. how about going after both parties

and get both of them fearful of being exposed as corrupt and fascistic.

[Bake]

71. Given that the objective requires a SUPERMAJORITY

No, we don't have it. We do have the majority to do, or rather NOT to do, some things, like appropriate money for Bush's War (TM). We do have that power and we need to use it.

Bake

[salinen]

87. And there's no guarantee

that we'll have a greater majority soon.

[leftofthedial]

50. the majority, not the minority, controls the legislative agenda in the House

She wants the House to push forward with impeachment and with ending the illegal occupation of Iraq. The majority "democrats" have unilaterally taken impeachment off the table. They have made only token, half-measure attempts to slow the neocon-war-profiteer agenda in Iraq.

Also, she has protested Republicans. She camped at Crawford TX, not at Kerry's summer home, wherever that is. She criticized the Senate repukes for defeating cloture during Reid's "slumber party."

[knight_of_the_star]

55. They've been blocked by the GOP

Last time I checked we don't have the 2/3rds we need to override Bush's veto pen or to impeach.

[leftofthedial]

62. that has Zero to do with anything.

[knight_of_the_star]

66. How is that so?

Where is your evidence that what I just said is irrelevant?

[leftofthedial]

93. "evidence"?

I already gave evidence. The repukes impeached Clinton with 228 votes in the House. There currently are 233 "democrats" in the House. 218 votes are required to impeach in the House.

The Senate is a different discussion.

[Major Hogwash]

108. If we had 60 Democrat Senators, we'd be pulling out of Iraq already.

How's that for evidence?

[WinkyDink]

69. They never promised her a Rose Garden (as it were).

[mikelgb]

80. are you serious?

John Conyers doesn't live in Crawford, Texas

[JVS]

83. Because it is more effective to try to change the actions of those...

who actually sympathize with the goal of peace yet are waging war, than it is to try to convince those who think war is the right thing. She's doing what politicians always do, go for the swinging middle. Besides, she already spent a long time protesting Bush and the people she is protesting now didn't seem to follow the lead.

[Disturbed]

90. The Impeachment of Cheney would force him to bring forth

the Documents that he is refusing to reveal. Dems for the most part are blocking this. That the majority of Senate Repugs would vote Not Guilty is not a sure conclusion. Even if they that happened, at the very least the info regarding Cheney's actions of the past six years would be somewhat exposed to more of the American Public and the rest of the World. That in itself would be worth the exercise. Ms. Sheehan and her group are proceeding on the correct path even though many Dems aren't pleased because she has denounced the Dem Party and gone Independent. I don't blame her one bit for doing so. I wish that she would have challenged Sen. Feinstein instead because Feinstein is a for real DINO.

[JVS]

92. If there is good reason for impeachment and the republicans all vote against it...

it will be possible to hammer them with the crimes that they overlooked when the 2008 election comes along. Look how much the republicans have in large part distanced themselves from Bush, there is an excellent chance that they would jump ship rather than defend him.

[pat_k]

99. In the fight to impeach, Impeachophobic Dems are the Opposition.

The battle to impeach is a battle to restore the principle of consent. It is the battle to restore the USA as a force against the inhumanity of torture. It is a battle to defend the principles embodied in the dictates of our Constitution.

If your house was knocked off it' foundation in an earthquake, you'd be crazy to ignore the damage and start an addition. Our foundation has been destroyed by the bushcheney earthquake. Pretending we can just move forward and work on "issues" is every bit as crazy.

Only impeachment can unequivocally reject bushcheneyism. Only impeachment can rebuild our foundation. Only impeachment can force Members of the House and Senate to choose sides -- fascist principle or American principle.

It's NOT the GOP that is currently blocking impeachment. It is the http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/23">impeachophobic Democrats who are submitting to Pelosi's "off the table" edict. Until we conquer impeachophobia within the Democratic Party, the GOP is irrelevant.

[Bjorn Against]

100. I seem to remember her camping outside Bush's ranch, have you forgotten?

[Evoman]

104. I think it may be because she it too busy eating babies and puppies.

But at this point, that is just an unconfirmed rumour.

[LostInAnomie]

105. Because she's Mrs. Ron Paul.

Hates democrats, hates the Iraq war, hates income taxes, hates the federal reserve, rabid followers, etc.

Cindy = Ron Paul

[Puregonzo1188]

109. I believe she did protest members of the GOP it wasn't until after

the last election she changed her focus.

[BlooInBloo]

110. because TRUE progressives rip on Democrats. Duh.