Democrats: Why have you forsaken Cindy Sheehan?

Question

Cindy Sheehan is giving up the fight for peace, on account of a once supportive democratic party not standing up to Bush to end this war. She has warned of blind party loyalism. Will you heed those warnings? or will you continue to pander to the right wing? Who should we peace supporters vote for in 2008?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_on_re_us/cindy_sheehan

yes, a conservative I am...did you happen to know where my party went? NO? Me either, guess i will remain independent and vote for conservative candidates, instead of parties. BTW, did you have an answer for my question? This is Yahoo!Answers, not Yahoo!Lame insults...

cvq, I can';t shake the feeling that the GOp will blame the dems for not ending the war...they already have, and they have also blamed going itno Iraq on the dems too...for voting for it. SO, the dems need to step up, and who cares what the right says or does, they should operate on CONSCIENCE. And they haven't. They also backed down on a timeline, so it is no longer an issue of 'now or later', it is an issue of giving in to the GOP.

Answer 1

Shes absolutely right. I dont consider myself a Democrat, although I am registered as one.

The Democrats in Congress are deliberately prolonging this war so they can use it against the Republicans in the next election. Just look at the bullsh*t coming out of Clinton's mouth on a daily basis. "If this President doesnt get us out of Iraq, when I'm President, I will". What the hell is that? She doesnt give a good God damn about the soldiers and Iraqis dying for nothing, she sees a guaranteed political win in all this carnage, and I think thats despicable.

Congress is the only body with the power to declare war, and implicit in that power is the power to end war. If any of them really cared about the carnage in Iraq, they would be working their asses off to end it, but no. Once again political calculations have trumped morality, and I find that despicable. First they jump on the pro-war bandwagon because it was popular in the hopes of winning the mid-term elections, and they didnt. And now, theyre deliberately keeping this going. The best they can do is these pathetic non-binding resolutions that they know are going to be ignored?? Please. I know better. Back in 1971, my candidate for President, Mike Gravel, did a one-man filibuster in the Senate for 5 months and forced the end of the draft. Thats the kind of tough tactics in the name of whats right that they need to be using. But no, theyre going to keep it going and blame Bush for it, because they think they can win the Presidency by doing that. Its disgusting and despicable.

I'm supporting Mike Gravel, because hes an old-school Democrat. One with the guts to stand for what he believes is right no matter what. I'm sick to death of these cold, calculating vote-whores who call themselves Democrats. I dont care what his chances of winning are, I'm going to give him everything I've got anyway. If nothing else at least his voice will be heard! Gravel just recently released his Withdrawal from Iraq Act, which is a tough law that would require tough tactics to pass, but no one in Congress is going anywhere near it because it doesnt have a place in their political calculations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfVW8jNqHfY (Video of the press conference where Gravel released and explained the Withdrawal from Iraq Act)


http://www.Gravel2008.us (Gravel's campaign website)

Answer 2

I STRONGLY disagree with her point of view and her tactics, but I give her respect for being consistent.

Being loyal to one's principles rather than to politicians is called sincerity. I would like to see more of it.

Oddly enough, the Democrats voting for continued funding of the war gives them LESS responsibility for it, not more, in a strange way. Perhaps speaking too politically, I would say that if the Democrats had rejected funding (all it would have taken would have been to NOT propose a fuunding bill), they would have been lining themselves up for a share of blame for any defeat.

By giving Bush what he wanted, they also give him full "ownership" of Iraq and whatever happens there.

I hate looking at it from a "political strategist" point of view, but they have given Bush what he asked for, and also gave him the responsibility. The excuse that the Democrats cut his legs out from under him is blunted, to a substantial degree.

I generally support Bush's policies, although he has made many mistakes. Sometimes I am more zealous (rude!) here than other times. I hope we succeed in iraq - I think it is important.

But I gotta call 'em as I see 'em.

Oh, did you have a question? Maybe I should try to answer. It's possible that the Democrats will say something like "we gave Bush everything he wanted, and now it is time to close the chapter. We can't afford another four years of this." Signs are that, rightly or wrongly, some Republicans are coming around to that position too.

I don't think any major party will pull out quickly, all at once. But they are all moving in that direction, it seems.

So it will be the usual choice of half a loaf vs one-quarter of a loaf.

There's an honest answer to an honest question, a discussion between two people who each, I think, feel a bit betrayed by the party they wanted to support.

PS You might find this book on Goldwater interesting - I skimmed it this weekend:

http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6972

No, I don't remember this contest. I remember bits of the '68 election, though! I was more into watching The Monkees. :)

PPS Interesting - thanks for response! Yes, some criticize the Democrats for voting for the war then changing course. I'm sure I have mentioned it too. But I think that rightly or wrongly this will be pretty split on party lines, in terms of responsibility.

Even Bush (or someone in the administration) floated a "draw down" of troops over the weekend. I'm not even sure the public knows with certainty where they want this to come out - what they hope for vs what they feel is possible.

Sounds like a slow pullout is coming, by fall. "Why not now?" is a good question. Politically it seems we have one more chance for success, and I hope it works. The odds are long, I know.

Answer 3

The Democrats finally gave up on Cindy Sheehan because she is an embarrassing mess of a woman, whose obvious lack of intelligence and poor judgment shines through no matter how many people patiently coach her.

Let me prove to you that Cindy Sheehan is one of the dumbest people on earth. ......... Ready???

In a letter from Al-Zarkawi to his followers, the master terrorist implored his followers to hang on just a little longer. Although their cause seemed hopeless against such overwhelming firepower and determination from the U.S., inevitably stupid, naive "anti-war" demonstrators would derail support for continued military support of the Iraqi government, and the insurgents would win by default.

Now, think about this: Liberals read the Al Zarkawi letter. The letter plainly states the only way the insurgents can win is if stupid people protest the war; otherwise, they will not be able to prevail. The only reason the insurgency can get new recruits is that our vacillation gives them hope. New terrorists are recruited because they realize that any month now, the naive Liberals will start cutting funding for the American troops.

When you point out to the Liberal they are playing into the terrorists' hands, they mumble some inarticulate nonense (ala Cindy Sheehan), and say they don't agree. Don't agree? What is wrong with these cretinous knucke-draggers? They just read a letter in which the head of the terrorist movement clearly said he and his ilk could only prevail if the U.S. loses its resolve.

The Democrats may not always have the best ideas (or any ideas) regarding foreign policy, but at the highest party levels they are not dumb enough to align themselves with that idiot Cindy.

Answer 4

Cindy Sheehan is not anti war, she's anti everything. Her Ego is out of control. She is a nut. She doesn't have clue one about how impeachment proceedings are conducted. You would think that she would at least look it up if that was the cause she intended to take on. The democrats may be dumb but, they are not stupid. They don't want to hitch their wagon to an escaped mental patient. Even her husband of 28 years is bailing.

Answer 5

Sadly i have no idea given the situation. You have a country that is engulfed in ethnic and secular violence coupled with terrorist insurgence that all threaten to plunge the country into a civil war if it losses most forms of outside aid. Personally I feel there is no clear cut win or lose, however it would be a humanitarian nightmare for the US to do a mass withdrawal until the government can support itself.
I read the article also, and though i don't agree with everything she states i do agree that the pandering to party lines is hurting the overall system of government and stopping ideas that will serve "the people's ideals" behind to much red tape and back door dealings

Answer 6

You know, I used too... But as I've left the silly notions of both parties behind and realized that I'm not a locked step conservative, I've come to realize that those on the extreme right have a lot more in common with the far left than they'd like to admit. As a conservative libertarian I think back at all the conspiracies being spoken of by the right during Clintons escapades. Now I compare it to the far left conspiracies concerning WTC and 9-11 in general.
Here's the funny part...As we align ourselves to any group, we take on that groups view and lose our own. So we blindly follow, even when there is evidence available to question that allegience. Pretty sad we can't think for ourselves anymore.

Answer 7

Cindy Sheehan was an example of an unrealistic, nirvana driven, utopia searcher, IE Loony Liberal.

Yes, they all have lovely ideals and hopes for mankind. No war. Healthcare for all. No Bush and mean Republicans. Then there is the reality we have to live in, and they differ. Greatly.

Even the socialist Democrats in Congress know we can't just pull out of Iraq.

Answer 8

Cindy wanted an immediate end to the war a couple years ago. Wouldn't it have been better if she'd got her wish then?
The alternative to an immediate end is no end in sight.

The Democratic Party needs to pick a whole bunch of new congressional candidates in their primary. Too many incumbent congressmen in both parties are shills for the military-industrial complex. I would also like to see the Republican Party pick a whole new slate of anti-war congressional candidates in their primary, but I don't think that will happen.

Answer 9

She wanted an immediate end to the war, which would have resulted in millions of Iraqis being slaughtered. I hate the war too, but am not willing to live with people being slaughtered so we can get our guys home. We need a gradual withdrawal. Her ideas were impossible to meet in the real world. While I agree the war is wrong, you can't just pull out without a humanitarian disaster ensuing.

Answer 10

b/c Cindy stopped being useful to the Dems after they used her to win the mid-term elections.

Dems never believed her "pitch" - they only saw her as one more TOOL in the anti-Bush arsenal.