Cindy Sheehan: "Challenge the Status Quo"

Fresh from being arrested on Capitol Hill, along with 45 other activists demanding that Congress get about the business of impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney, Cindy Sheehan has determined that she can no longer count on others to stop the war in Iraq or hold a lawless administration to account.

So she has announced that she will, indeed, challenge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bid for reelection next year.

It is a bold gesture, rooted in the deep frustration of the nation's most prominent anti-war activist with Pelosi's hyper-cautious approach to her duties as both the leader of the congressional opposition to an unpopular president and as a sworn defender of the Constitution.

This is the context in which Sheehan proposes to challenge Pelosi. "At the end of this day, Speaker Pelosi has not supported impeachment and has not upheld her oath of office to 'protect and defend' the Constitution," says the challenger.

Sheehan's bid, presumably on an independent line, will be uphill all the way. Pelosi has all the advantages of incumbency -- and more. Closely tied for decades to the Democratic political establishment of San Francisco, Pelosi and her campaign team know just about everything there is to know about winning elections there. And, as the Speaker of the House, she has the ability to deliver both on the practical and egotistical needs of the city by the bay. Additionally, she has the ability to raise and spend more money than any opponent.

With all of this said, however, Sheehan has standing.

It is not just that she enjoys her own prominence, and a measure of sympathy and respect, as the mother of slain soldier Casey Sheehan who turned her personal grief into a powerful call for accountability from President Bush and those who were responsible for the illegal and immoral war that claimed Casey's life.

What makes Sheehan a potentially credible challenger is the fact that, by any reasonable measure, she is more in touch with the true passions of San Francisco's voters than Pelosi. Pelosi is a war critic, but she has never gone to the mat on the issue. San Franciscans, on the other hand, have voted overwhelmingly for immediate withdrawal. Similarly, Pelosi says that impeachment is "off the table," despite the fact that San Franciscans voted by a 3-2 margin last fall in favor of holding the president and vice president to account.

For Sheehan, it is Pelosi's determination to protect Bush and Cheney from demands for accountability that tipped the balance in favor of making the race against the Speaker.

And it is Sheehan's faith that Bush and Cheney must be held to account -- not just to constrain them but to constrain the excesses of future presidents and vice presidents -- that will define her challenge to Pelosi. There is no question that the war in Iraq is an issue, but the deeper concern is with the political compromises that made possible that war and that have allowed for its continuation.

"If anybody would dare think that I am not serious, I would hope that they would look back at the last three years of my life and everything that I have sacrificed to restore our nation to one that obeys the rule of law and can be looked up to with respect once again in the international community and not as the hated laughingstock on the block," says Sheehan. "I am committed to challenging a two party system that has kept us in a state of constant warfare for the last 60 years and has become more and more beholden to special interests and has forgotten the faces of the people whom it represents."

Sheehan continues, "I am committed to using our strength as a country to wage peace and to elevate the status of every citizen in our country by converting the enduring war economy to a prosperous one with lasting peace."

If that sounds like a campaign speech, it is. And as someone who has appeared on dozens of platforms with Sheehan over the past few years, I can confirm that she is able to deliver a stemwinder in the best old populist sense.

Good speeches do not always translate to electoral success, however, as the Rev. Jesse Jackson learned in 1984 and again in 1988, when he mounted a pair of articulate but ultimately unsuccessful bids for the Democratic presidential nod.

Nothing about challenging Nancy Pelosi will be easy. Victory is unlikely. But, as George Bush will confirm, Cindy Sheehan has shaken the political establishment before. And she is determined to do so again -- not just as one "Peace Mom" running for Congress but as part of a political upheaval that she dares to dream might involve a lot more than a spirited contest in San Francisco.

"Someone needs to step up to the plate to do this and I challenge other Americans to do the same," says Sheehan. "Challenge the status quo, because the status quo is no good. We need to become plugged into our government once again as active participants not just passive voters."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (49)

1. I do not respect what Cindy Sheehan is doing, and I do not understand why I should. She announced her retirement because people on message boards were being rude to her. Backbiters of the left are never going to be satisfied with anyone, let alone a self described "Republican who voted for Bush", and it makes me mad that anyone wants to divide the left. Why doesnt she go and run for someone else's seat. Whereas Nancy Pelosi is in there, and alot of people are happy with her. Its Gonzales they need to impeach first anyway.

   Posted by conshame at 07/24/2007 @ 5:15pm

2. Nice move from Campaign Matters over to the Beat.

   Here's an excerpt from Dave Lindorf at Counterpunch.org:

   Overcoming John Conyers By DAVE LINDORFF

   Rep. John Conyers, venerable member of Congress, finally chair of the House Judiciary Committee,is a man who worked with Rosa Parks in Alabama and who hired her on his staff after he won election to Congress in Detroit. Years in Washington DC change a man. Yesterday Conyers had 48 impeachment activists, including Gold Star Families for Peace founder Cindy Sheehan, Iraq Veteran Against the War activist Lennox Yearwood and Intelligence Veterans for Sanity founder Ray McGovern, arrested for conducting a sit-in in his office in the Rayburn House Office Building....

   But as in the case of Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights movement, arrests and fines will not stop the national grassroots drive to impeach this president and vice president. With polls showing that a majority of the country now favors impeachment, and with Conyers, Pelosi, and the Democratic Congress sinking deeper and deeper into disfavor even as the president continues to add to his list of Constitutional crimes, something's gotta give. After all, the Founders, in writing impeachment into the Constitution, did not say the test was whether Congress had the votes to impeach. They wrote that if the president abused his power, or committed other high crimes and misdemeanors, bribery or treason, Congress "shall" impeach.

   An entire nation's future is potentially riding on the outcome. Let's hope for the right one.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/24/2007 @ 5:17pm

3. The Anti-war voter in San francisco is not going to be fooled by Pelosisms!

   She is going to have to explain why her fellow Democrats are backing down from impeachment of Cheney and giving Bush whatever he wants in Iraq!

   Good luck, Nancy!

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 5:25pm

4. While I think Sheehan is a stooge and a loon, I do appreciate her willingness to challenge Pelosi on a congressional level...and I believe SF is the one place where she can drum up more than a few votes..and for obvious reasons....

   My problem with her is that she is a one issue candidate and hasn't taken the time to examine the other side ...she seems to view govt as a one size fits all and works for everything...If she were a president or a national leader in charge of protecting a nation, and I were a forgien power with designs on hurting that nation...I would fund her candicy and attack...she would never respond with anything other than scream at the invader or attacker about the immoratilty, illegality and he lied, of his actions right up until his sword pierces her.. and us..

   as for today..it seems she gives CONSHAMED AGAIN the willies, so,

   RUN, CINDY, RUN!

   Posted by john maasch at 07/24/2007 @ 5:34pm

5. whether she wins is meaningless. just lighting a fire under ms pelosi's tush is good.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/24/2007 @ 5:43pm

6. Pelosi will also have to explain why she is allowing Rahm Emmanuel to lobby Democrats to support the surge and back off from impeaching Cheney and still maintain his leadership position?

   And how she can do that without mentioning AIPAC will be VERY interesting!

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 5:46pm

7. I doubt anybody thinks she's got a shot. But hopefully, her attempt will get through to the thoroughly useless Pelosi.

   Pelosi is either stupid, incompetent or a neo-con collaborator. I'm not sure who the fuck she thinks she is, taking OUR (my) constitutional provision off of the table.

   If she won't do her job, replace her. I fail to see how Cindy (one issue) Sheehan cannot be a suitable replacement for a useless peice of flesh, who has failed to act on the "one issue" she was elected on.

   Until we get control over our govt. there is only one issue. Without a veto-overiding majority, Dems will accomplsh nothing. And they refuse to do the one thing, they took an oath to do. Follow the constitution.

   NANCY PELOSI, DO YOUR FUCKING JOB!

   A monkey, would be a suitable replacement right now. Any other agenda, she might have, is irrelevant, because it is going nowhere til 2009 or until she does her job.

   Eric

   Posted by Malcontent at 07/24/2007 @ 6:09pm

8. Pelosi will be re elected without any difficulty.Few people will pay much attention to this and Pelosi knows it.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 07/24/2007 @ 6:11pm

9. Pelosi will be re elected without any difficulty.Few people will pay much attention to this and Pelosi knows it.

   San Francisco politics is quirky and NOT subject to the same influences of the mainstream press and money as other congressional races.

   Publicly, Pelosi may dismiss the Sheenan challenge, but privately she has to be concerned knowing that anti-war San Francisco is tired of the bullshit, and could care less about right wing AIPAC Democrats and their war-mongering agenda!

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 6:38pm

10. NICHOLS: .....Sheehan has standing.....It is not just that she enjoys her own prominence, and a measure of sympathy and respect,...

    Having been in the news more than Paris Hilton these past few years, she is quite obviously addicted to "her own prominence"!

    IF she is to have a chance against Nancy, still a long shot, Cindy needs to study how Joe Lieberman was able to draw GOP votes, as well as some Dem votes. Of course, not quite the same since Joe was Pro-War. Still, GOP votes in Pelosi's district would be wasted ordinarily.....but many could be motivated to cast Anti-Pelosi votes and vote Crazy Cindy IN...of course, as an Indiependent! IF she could raise the money, it would be a `fun' strategy to peel off the hard Left and get a majority of GOP votes!

    Posted by Happy at 07/24/2007 @ 6:45pm

11. Mette-The things that we are protesting against today are many of the same things we were protesting back in the 60s and 70s before AIPAC came into existence.You are trying to blame the new kid on the block for old problems in the neighborhood.Your need to post AIPAC with virtually every post is bordering on insane as is your paranoia.This isn't Germany in the 1930s.Repeating AIPAC isn't going to get you what you want.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/24/2007 @ 6:47pm

12. Posted by I'M NOBODY 07/24/2007 @ 6:47pm

    NOBODY, I enjoy your mid-brow, everyman attacks on Mette! Very readable and laid back!

    I see a NOBODY vs. Mette bitchery blossoming! Like MASK vs. HSUB (+ several others), MAASCH vs. Empty, HAPPY vs. UNHAPPY...LOL.....:-)

    Posted by Happy at 07/24/2007 @ 7:02pm

13. Repeating AIPAC isn't going to get you what you want.

    If you can't talk about the problem, it won't be fixed!

    The plain fact is that AIPAC has taken the Democrats far to the right in support of wars in Iraq and now Iran.

    The Democratic party can not afford this because the wars use up all of our tax dollars and there are NONE left over for social programs and other progressive agenda items that can uplift the quality of life FOR THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS.

    If you want to continue to live in a country that primarily benefits the top 1% of the income bracket, then continue to ignore AIPAC and support their wars. But for those of us that want to get back to a truly progressive agenda, purging AIPAC from the Democratic Party should be our top priority!

    And again, this is not about MY views of AIPAC, but the REALITY of their corrupting influence on our party.

    For a well researched and documented study of AIPAC influence in America using Jewish and AIPAC sources, written by tow top flight professors, one of which is Jewish, go here [antiwar.com]

    After reading the ENTIRE article, come back to this board and tell me if AIPAC is not the number one threat to progress in America!

    And, no, I am NOT going to stop blogging against AIPAC until the Democratic Party takes the necessary steps (stop taking their money) to curb their influence!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 8:05pm

14. Mette-The things that we are protesting against today are many of the same things we were protesting back in the 60s and 70s before AIPAC came into existence.You are trying to blame the new kid on the block for old problems in the neighborhood.

    In the 60s and 70s, we only had to worry about the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), which is still a major drain on our tax dollars. Except for some notable exceptions like former Senator Sam Nunn, the MIC mainly lobbied Republicans to get us into mischief.

    With this NEW AIPAC-MIC alliance, the Democrats are now buying into this unnecessary war crap because of AIPAC, and the Republican are doing what they have always done in delivering for the MIC.

    WE NEED TO BREAK THIS ALLIANCE!!!

    Since we have no control over the Republicans, the best chance for breaking the alliance is by refusing to vote for ANY Democrat that takes money from AIPAC.

    This is becoming more tricky because AIPAC attempts to disguise a lot of its contributions by having their top donors donate 'directly' to candidates, but if we have to vote out any Democratic candidate with 'influential percentages' (more than 5%) of Jewish money to defeat these stealth tactics of AIPAC, then that is what we must do!

    The stakes are too high to do anything less!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 8:30pm

15. As I said before the Comments were wiped....heheh-

    Pelosi doesn't fear Sheehan. And what Mr Nichols is BLATENTLY leaving out is Cindy's meeting with John Conyers.

    Now why is that? Simple...because Conyers is the Chair of the House Judiciary where bills of impeachment must start and he told Ms Sheehan "our only recourse is elections"...i.e. no impeachments.

    And John Nichols does nothing if not try to "keep hope alive" amongst the Impeachers and the truth and facts in this case...don't do that.

    Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 8:32pm

16. The SCOTUS's Buckley decision equating money with free speech was a severe blow to those of us who at the time were actively involved in "Common Cause's" efforts at serious and transforming campaign finance reform which makes prostitutes of the best candidates and duplicitous criminals of the worst of them.

    I'm glad Cindy is running and bringing attention to this sorry state of affairs, as well as adding a hopeful alternative avenue for the more aware (like us!).

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/24/2007 @ 9:27pm

17. Excuse me. Of course I meant to say the CURRENT system is shunning and bastardizing our best candidates and merely affording nefarious opportunism to the war profiteers and self- and other blinded bourgeoise; "piggies" is the euphemism George Harrison used.

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/24/2007 @ 9:33pm

18. I really don't think Pelosi is a bad person, but she is a leader of convenience for those who have power in the Democratic party. If she really had power of her own, she would be able to stand down corrupt war-mongers like Rahm Emmanuel, strip them of their chairs, and force them to either get on board with the American people or get out!

    By being weak, she is actually highlighting the corruption of the Democrats. You simply can't govern for too long when 72% of the people want you to get out of Iraq and you do just the opposite.

    Sheenan will gain much currency with SF voters if she sticks to the "what good is being Speaker of the House if you can't stop the war" line, or "what good is being liberal on other issues if all of our money is going to the war in Iraq". This undercuts Pelosi's "I have power so I can take care of you", or "I am one of you" sort of retort.

    Not only do SF voters oppose the war, they are 'active' in their opposition, because it is one of the most important issues for them. This makes Pelosi's public dismissal of Sheenan rather stupid, as war activists have much more in common with Sheenan than Pelosi, and there just isn't enough Pacific Heights, Nob Hill, Twin Peaks Democrats to overcome the mainstream San Francisco voter.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/24/2007 @ 10:04pm

19. Mette-Don't shout.It's very rude.We are having the same problems that we had back in the sixties and seventies because of the way the system works and not because of some new PAC.Whining non stop about this one PAC will change nothing and won't create a progressive society.Don't be referring to yourself as someone who wants a progressive society.What you want is hardly progressive.It's going backwards and I won't go backwards with you to Germany in the 1930s.There have always been pro war Democrats.Ever hear of Viet Nam,by chance?Sorry,but your claim that war mongering Democrats are new and created by AIPAC is pure bull tacos.You can exist in your paranoid world,but I'd like to see some of these problems solved and blaming some new PAC for old problems solves nothing.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/24/2007 @ 10:18pm

20. Posted by HAPPY 07/24/2007 @ 7:02pm

    Now, HAPPY...you KNOW I take on Empty Spence, the "I don't vote to legitimize the system, but I want DC residents to have the right to vote, because it's important for them to legitimize the system"....and Minister Louis METTEYA, disciple of Honorable Elijah Muhammed ...as well as HSUB!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 10:48pm

21. Posted by LEWWELGE 07/24/2007 @ 9:27pm

    LEW, you're the nicest guy on this blog....or the biggest ass-kisser.

    haven't figured out which....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/24/2007 @ 10:49pm

22. I find it invigorating when I hear someone is willing to challenge the two party, which I believe does not truly exist. I do not see any discernible differences between democrats and republicans. ccroke

    Posted by ccroke at 07/25/2007 @ 09:51am

23. Never say never. I saw her yesterday, in the blazing sun, surrounded by jack-booted thugs, Viet Nam veterans motorcycle club--very scary bunch, bullying and harassing her--and she stood her ground. The odds against her are enormous but she has one steely will--though she can be quite vulnerable and soft-spoken. Godspeed to you, Cindy--I will always link arms in your defense, while others cower at the helm of power.

    Posted by Lil at 07/25/2007 @ 09:57am

24. As much as I dislike attributing perspicacity to the deceased segregationist third-party candidate Alabaman George Wallace, it was he who, in '68 said "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" the Dems and the Repubs. Sorry to have to repeat it, and yet now I perceive its association with John D. Rockefeller's habit of doling out Mercury dimes to waifs. It's called pandering and isn't that condescending to otherwise intelligent folk like us? My point? We've the opportunity of fostering real change, and in my opinion, it will require social activists like Sheehan willing to sacrifice much of their time and effort, even to the point of figurative, if not literal martyrdom.

    Geez, I figured I'm a radical, but I refuse to succumb to the temptations, implied above, of giving succor to the "jihadists."

    Where's the middle of the road NOW, fellow readers and writers?

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 10:08am

25. Thank you, Lil. You're a courageous patriot for demonstrating solidarity in the face of bitter biker nationalist reactionaries.

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 10:11am

26. I came to this thread expecting to see all the nutters jerking themselves into a frothy mess over their favorite grief-whore nutcase, and have been pleasantly surprised at the near-total lack of such diatribes. That's encouraging.

    Ms. Sheehan's campaign is quixotic at best, but I'm all for highlighting the contrast between the public's disapproval of the war and our "representatives'" gutless political calculus.

    You go, girl...

    Posted by drhammer at 07/25/2007 @ 10:21am

27. Best joke I've heard since the last Letterman show.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/25/2007 @ 10:28am

28. Please identify the "chip" on your shoulder, Thornton.

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2007 @ 10:50am

29. Lew, I see none

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/25/2007 @ 11:54am

30. Whining non stop about this one PAC will change nothing and won't create a progressive society.Don't be referring to yourself as someone who wants a progressive society.What you want is hardly progressive

    How can we pursue a progressive agenda while spending half a trillion dollars in Iraq?

    And since it is AIPAC that is causing the Democratic party to support this war, then AIPAC is the problem.

    Did you read the Mearsheimer article like I asked you to?

    Well here is another article about your AIPAC pal Rahm Emmanuel and how he punished anti-war prospective candidates and favored pro-war Democrats:

    How Rahm Emanuel Has Rigged a Pro-War Congress Election 2006: The Fix is Already In

    By JOHN WALSH

    "In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the population into concentration camps and turn the country into a wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do that. Let ME do it.'"

    Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost Authority."

    "Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops; In Close Races, Most Reject Rapid Pullout," the headline atop page one of the Sunday Washington Post informed us as the election season got underway (8/27). Stories like this abound these days, and they should all be prefaced with the single word, "betrayal." Only 17% of rank and file Democrats are for "staying the course," 53% want immediate withdrawal and another 25% are for gradual withdrawal. Among all voters, only 30% want to stay the course, 37% want immediate withdrawal and 26% a "gradual withdrawal (Gallup poll - 9/24/06). According to recent Pew Polls, 52% of voters want a timetable for withdrawal while only 41% oppose setting a timetable.

    In contrast to voters' sentiment, 64% of the Democratic candidates in the 45 closely contested House Congressional races oppose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Note carefully: not only do these Democrat worthies oppose the Murtha or McGovern bills for rapid withdrawal or defunding the war; they oppose so much as a timetable. (The number of Dem candidates supporting the Murtha or McGovern proposals is vanishingly small.) The position of these Dem candidates is indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush. How did this betrayal of the Democratic rank and file come about? Who chose these Democratic candidates that oppose rank and file Dems on the number one question on voters' minds, the war on Iraq? How could such candidates get elected in the primaries? Two primary campaigns, now largely forgotten, give us the answer. They are near perfect case studies, and they deserve some reflection although the Dem establishment would dearly like us to forget them.

    The first case is the Democratic primary race between Christine Cegelis and Tammy Duckworth in Illinois's 6th CD, a Republican District, which has elected the disgusting Henry Hyde from time immemorial. Then in 2004 Christine Cegelis, who is only mildly antiwar (1), ran as the Democrat with a grass roots campaign and polled a remarkable 44% against the hideous Hyde in her first run. It was not too long before Hyde decided to retire, and the field seemed to be open for Cegelis in 2006.

    Enter Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who dug up a pro-war candidate, Tammy Duckworth. Although she had both her legs blown off in Iraq, she has remained committed to "staying the course" in Iraq (2). Duckworth had no political experience and did not live in the 6th District, but Rahm Emanuel raised a million dollars for her and brought in Dem heavyweights Joe Lieberman, Barak Obama, John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to support her. Despite all this help and with the Cegelis campaign virtually penniless, Duckworth barely managed to eke out a victory by a measly four percentage points. According to a recent Cook Report, Duckworth is not the smashing success that Rahm Emanuel had dreamed of; she remains tied at 41% of the vote with her rookie Republican Rival, Peter Roskam, the same percentage that Cegelis had against the entrenched Hyde in 2004! Recently (9/30), Duckworth was pushed onto the national scene to help her campaign, providing the "rebuttal" to Bush's weekly Saturday radio address. AP, in its story on the exchange where Duckworth was supposed to differ with W on Iraq, concluded thus: "She offered no proposal for an immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal."

    But in one case, and sadly in only one of the 22 districts, which Emanuel selected for intervention, he did not prevail; but that is also instructive. The second case study is CA's 11th CD Dem primary where Emanuel poured in money, much of it apparently coming from his own district in Illinois, to bankroll Steve Filson, essentially a political unknown, who opposed immediate withdrawal from Iraq. But in this primary battle the grass roots prevailed and the strongly antiwar candidate, Jerry McNemey, who supports the Murtha bill for immediate withdrawal, defeated Emanuel's minion, Filson. It is noteworthy that McNemey, strongly antiwar, won, whereas Cegelis, weakly antiwar, lost. Now in the general election McNemey is pulling ahead of his pro-war Republican opponent by 48 to 46% in the most recent poll even though his opponent has outspent him by $1.6 million to $303,000! McNemey has raised a total of only $452,000 to his opponent's $2.5 million. Some cash from Rahm would ensure McNemey's victory it would appear, but it is not forthcoming. It seems that Rahm Emanuel is stanching the influx of money in this very competitive race.

    Meanwhile, even though Duckworth has been the recipient of Rahm's largesse, to the tune of $1.8 million, the same amount as her Republican opponent, her campaign has not taken wing. You get the picture. If you toe the line for Rahm on the war, the money rains on you like manna from heaven and you are elevated to national celebrity status. But if you are anti-war, Rahm cuts you off at the wallet. Note that in each of these two cases Emanuel did not pick candidates based on a proven ability to raise money. Nor did he pick them for their ability to win. In Duckworth's case she damned near lost despite the cash infusion, and McNirney did win despite the money that Emanuel funneled to his opponent. Emanuel is not choosing proven fundraisers or winning candidates; he is choosing pro-war candidates.

    Rahm Emanuel's Stable.

    To win the House, the Dems must win 15 seats from the Republicans. Here are the 22 candidates hand picked by Emanuel to run in open districts or districts with Republican incumbents, according to The Hill (4/27/06): Darcy Burner (WA), Phyllis Busansky (FL), Francine Busby (CA), Joe Courtney (CT), John Cranley (OH), Jill Derby (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Brad Ellsworth (IN), Diane Farrell (CT), Steve Filson (CA) ­ defeated in primary by Jerry McNirney (see above), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Tessa Hafen (NV), Baron Hill (IN), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Ron Klein (FL), Ken Lucas (KY), Patsy Madrid (NM), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Chris Murphy (CT), Lois Murphy (PA), Heath Shuler (NC), Peter Welch (VT).

    If we group these 22 candidates by their positions, it is much worse than one might have imagined. Here it is:

    U.S, must "win" in Iraq (9): John Cranely(OH); Jill Derby (NV); Tammy Duckworth (IL); Brad Ellsworth (IN): Teresa Hafen (NV); Baron Hill (IN);Ken Lucas (KY); Lois Murphy (PA); Heath Schuler (NC).

    More troops should be deployed in Iraq. (1): Diane Farrell (CT);

    Bush (or Congress or Bush and Congress or someone other than the candidate) must develop a plan or timetable for exit. This means that the candidate does not offer a timetable or other withdrawal plan and amounts only to a partisan criticism of Bush without a plan offered by the candidate. (6): Francine Busby (CA); Joe Courtney (CT); Kirsten Gillibrand (NY); Mary Jo Kilroy (OH); Patricia Madrid (NM); Harry Mitchell (AZ).

    Biden's 3-state solution. (1): Phyllis Busansky (FL).

    No position. (1): Chris Murphy (CT).

    Not for immediate withdrawal (3): Steve Filson (CA) (He lost Dem primary. See above.); Ron Klein (FL); Harry Mitchell (AZ);

    Withdrawal in 2006. (1): Peter Welch (VT). (In VT, you could probably not get elected dog catcher without calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Still it is a bit mysterious why Rahm is backing Welch who for that reason probably deserves a bit of scrutiny. Perhaps something "worse" like a Green is waiting in the wings.)

    So only one of Rahm's candidates is for prompt withdrawal from Iraq. And it is notweworthy that Rahm found prowar candidates in both red states and blue, like CT and CA. Check out these candidates for yourself. If you live in their districts, pressure them to change their positions and do so publicly with letters to the editor, withholding of funds and most importantly support for third party antiwar candidates where they are to be found ­ no matter how slight the establishment media regards their prospects. Ask what UFPJ, The Nation and other branches of the peace and justice complex are doing to expose Emanuel's candidates.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/25/2007 @ 12:49pm

31. Mette-You don't want a progressive society.Your views are consistent with the views of neo nazis,the KU Klux Klan and right wing Islamic religious fundamentalists.You're desperately trying to blame a new cause for an old problem because you are driven by hatred and bigotry.You're,also,a raging hypocrite who refuses to get off of land stolen from Native Americans.Many Democrats voted against funding and you have provided not one shred of evidence that even suggests that the Dems are controlled by AIPAC.You have made up polls and made claims that have been debunked,but provided no facts.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/25/2007 @ 12:59pm

32. you have provided not one shred of evidence that even suggests that the Dems are controlled by AIPAC.

    I gave you two articles to read that have ample evidence: Mearsheimer and Walt's "The Israeli Lobby and Foreign Policy", and the article in my above post about Rahm Emmanuel, written by John Walsh.

    Instead of dealing with the evidence in these two articles, you resort to 'name calling' strategies that are calculated by AIPAC to silence debate and criticism.

    Well here is a shout for you Mr. I'M Nobody: I will NEVER be bullied by AIPAC!

    Did you get that?....NEVER!!!

    So you can quit this name-calling strategy because it will NOT result in silencing me or preventing me from informing my fellow Democrats of the serious danger they are in by allowing this right-wing bunch of thugs to continue to run our party!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/25/2007 @ 1:18pm

33. Mette-I haven't used a name calling strategy.I have simply stated facts unlike you who makes things up or resorts to speculation.I'm not going to be bullied by AIPAC or any other PAC so your statement of bravery was lame.You're hiding behind a computer.I have no desire to silence you.It's very important that people see your bigotry in order to fight against your ilk.Your views are consistent with the views of right wing thugs so you have no moral high ground there just as you have no moral high ground when it comes to the Israel/Palestinian situation.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/25/2007 @ 1:28pm

34. I have simply stated facts unlike you who makes things up or resorts to speculation

    Mr. I'm Nobody,

    If you are to have any credibility with us progressives, then you must address the evidence in the two articles I asked you to read.

    If you can't do that, then you are part of the problem!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/25/2007 @ 1:34pm

35. Mette-I don't want to have any credibility with your type of regressive progressive.If I want to have credibility with your kind then I'll join the KU Klux Klan or become a Muslim fundamentalist.I prefer being just me.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/25/2007 @ 1:40pm

36. So is John Walsh who authored the above article about Rahm Emmanuel a KKK or Muslim fundamentalist? i guess in your mind if you have been anti-war your entire life, then you must be a member of the KKK, right?

    How about Mearsheimer? I'm sure he would like to hear how a Jew could be considered a Muslim fundamentalist?

    Mr. Nobody, your name calling is absolutely ridiculous and has no logic whatsoever save this 'calculation' that is discussed in the Mearsheimer article in which AIPAC uses name calling to try to escape scrutiny of their corrupt influence on our political process.

    When people like you and Mask use this 'anti-Semite' slur so recklessly it demeans the very real discrimination and oppression faced by many Jews today.

    Lets reserve racial slurs for true racists who bomb synagogues or refuse to allow their daughters to marry a Jew, and not willy-nilly call anybody an anti-Semite who simply wants to get us out of Iraq, keep us from getting into Iran, and wants the representatives in this great nation to simply reflect the sentiment of the voter rather than the sentiments of groups like AIPAC that are funding their campaigns!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/25/2007 @ 1:53pm

37. Democracy In Action has an interesting utility which allows the user to determine the percentage of pro-withdrawal sentiment in any given congressional district, and forward it to their representative.

    Check it out:

    http://tinyurl.com/yq39xj

    Peace

    Posted by drhammer at 07/25/2007 @ 2:02pm

38. Mette-I have read your bigoted posts so don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining.I have been anti war for my entire life.I'm an old hippie so I'm afraid that you'll never out progressive me.I haven't called you any names so you can stop that whine.By the way,AIPAC doesn't need to bully you.You weenies can't even get a good anti war demonstration going let alone actually do something besides whine on the internet and get Republicans elected.You do more to help the GOP than hurt them.I think some of you like having them in power so you can whine about them.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/25/2007 @ 2:07pm

39. From Wikipedia:

    AIPAC has been connected to some controversial events.

    In 1992, AIPAC president David Steiner had to resign when he was tape recorded boasting about his political influence in obtaining aid for Israel. Steiner claimed that he had "met with (then Bush U.S. Secretary of State) Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear ... Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about." Steiner also claimed to be "negotiating" with the incoming Clinton administration over who Clinton would appoint as Secretary of State and Secretary of the National Security Agency. Steiner stated that AIPAC had "a dozen people in [the Clinton] campaign, in the headquarters ... in Little Rock, and they're all going to get big jobs."

    Haim Katz told the Washington Times that he taped the conversation because "as someone Jewish, I am concerned when a small group has a disproportionate power. I think that hurts everyone, including Jews. If David Steiner wants to talk about the incredible, disproportionate clout AIPAC has, the public should know about it."

    A Zogby poll conducted in 2004 found that 61% of respondents "strongy or somewhat agree" that AIPAC should be asked to register as a foreign agent and lose its tax exempt status, while only 12% strongly or somewhat disagree that it should.

    I forwarded Walsh's piece to some Democrat friends, and they expressed the same chill I felt when I read it.

    Mearsheimer's work is equally enthralling, and is generally well regarded by all but those with zionist leanings.

    Those unfamiliar with the scale of this PAC money could get their eyes opened with some simple Googling; opensecrets.org is a good place to start.

    It can not be stated enough that a discomfort with zionism is not the same thing as anti-semitism. The conflation of the two has apparently become a propaganda tool for zionists, playing upon the PC fears of liberals not wishing to appear racist.

    It is in every American's interest to educate themselves about the distinction.

    Peace.

    Posted by drhammer at 07/25/2007 @ 2:23pm

40. Dr.Hammer-This is the first person who has mentioned AIPAC that anyone has accused of being a bigot.I've put down AIPAC myself.There must be something different about this person that separates them from others who put down AIPAC.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/25/2007 @ 2:41pm

41. There must be something different about this person that separates them from others who put down AIPAC.

    The only difference is that I am willing to keep the discussion alive because AIPAC 'continues' to be thorn in the side of the Democrats as we try to extricate ourselves from Iraq, prevent an invasion of Iran, or impeach Cheney.

    Posters like you fail to see the 'continuing' problem of AIPAC and how this is preventing us from doing what the voter wants us to do!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/25/2007 @ 2:53pm

42. Mette-Posters like me have known about the sort of problem that groups like AIPAC present for over 40 years now and have been fighting against it.The difference is that you threaten all Jews with wrath if AIPAC isn't stopped,and you post about Jewish plots in the media,and you side with Hamas and sing their praises,and you blame just this one group for everything,etc. Your true beliefs come out now and again despite your best efforts to hide them.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/25/2007 @ 3:01pm

43. Mette-Others keep the AIPAC discussion alive,but aren't seen as bigots.Only you are seen as a bigot.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/25/2007 @ 3:10pm

44. Mette-Let me correct that.The justification for murdering Native Americans and stealing their land would put Zero in the bigot column with you.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/25/2007 @ 3:13pm

45. you threaten all Jews with wrath if AIPAC isn't stopped,and you post about Jewish plots in the media,and you side with Hamas and sing their praises

    If you had read the Mearsheimer article I asked you to read, these are 'his' conclusions as well as my own.

    If Jews don't step up and challenge AIPAC, then "all" Jews will suffer as more non-Jews get into the act to displace this corrupt right-wing group.

    Plots in the media? Again, if you had read Mearsheimer's article, he has RECORDED QUOTES from the 'editor and chief' of the New York Times who admits that he wrote and edited stories from a pro-Israel point of view.

    And even Colin Powell says we should talk to Hamas, so are you saying that he is a Muslim fundamentalist as well?

    If you check your assumptions and think more deeply about what you are saying and do 'a lot' more reading by 'serious' Jewish scholars on this subject, you will see that concern about AIPAC is not some wild-eyed conspiracy theory but acknowledgment of a real threat to our Democracy and progressive values.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/25/2007 @ 3:18pm

46. Only you are seen as a bigot.

    You must of missed the post where I asked 'all' posters whether they thought my AIPAC posts were bigoted, and only Mask responded in the affirmative.

    Again, read Mearsheimer, and it will be clear to you that this "bigot" accusation is a 'tactic' of AIPAC to try to escape scrutiny.

    And who at the Nation or on these threads has kept the discussion of AIPAC corruption alive? I have not encountered 'anyone'; so again, I think you are making assumptions without any factual support.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/25/2007 @ 3:23pm

47. Mette-Why would I need to read this guys article to know that I'm not pro AIPAC and not calling you a bigot because AIPAC is making me do that as part of their tactic? That made no sense at all.Your lack of reading comprehension skills makes me question your interpretations of the articles you mentioned.I have stated multitudes of times that I'm concerned about influence peddlers and have protested against them for the last 40 years and you respond by telling me that I need to read this stuff so I'll become concerned about influence peddlers.My guess is that I've been concerned about them longer than you've been alive.All I have told you is that getting rid of this one influence peddler isn't going to change anything.We got into Viet Nam because other influence peddlers had their way.AIPAC had nothing to do with it.Before that there were other influence peddlers.Influence peddlers come and go,but the problem stays the same and we get into the same messes.You have not provided one fact to disprove that.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/25/2007 @ 4:05pm

48. Mette-I see people mentioning AIPAC on here fairly regularly.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/25/2007 @ 4:06pm

49. Do not underestimate the underdog. Somebody needs to shake things up to put impeachment back on the table and Cindy can do it. If I lived in her district, she would have my vote!

    Posted by smiley92407 at 07/29/2007 @ 12:41pm