I just heard on the radio that Cindy Sheenan, the anti-war activist who camped outside the Crawford ranch for way, way to long, is intending to run against Nancy Pelosi in her district.
Two words:
Attention whore.
Two words:
Attention whore.
She has every right to run. The ones in there aren't doing shit.
You have the right to run as well.
But she's going to run against Pelosi. So....do you think she's going to win?
Or perhaps she's running for a different reason?
But she's going to run against Pelosi. So....do you think she's going to win?
Or perhaps she's running for a different reason?
2 reasons to run, take away the vote from someone you want to lose OR actually win.Pug wrote:
You have the right to run as well.
But she's going to run against Pelosi. So....do you think she's going to win?
Or perhaps she's running for a different reason?
I think Pelosi deserves to hang out on the unemployment line since her "Impeachment is off the table" speech, which basically said "We're willing to be complicit in whatever Bush does now and everything in the past is forgiven."
Cindy sounds like she just now discovered the conspiracy sites in her latest speaches, so we'll see whether she can crank down the paranoia a bit later and actually makes sense.
No I don't think she'll win. I think she'll say some interesting things any other candidate wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. It will be interesting.
That's pretty much my point...attention whore.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
No I don't think she'll win. I think she'll say some interesting things any other candidate wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. It will be interesting.
k. Whats the debate then?Pug wrote:
That's pretty much my point...attention whore.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
No I don't think she'll win. I think she'll say some interesting things any other candidate wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. It will be interesting.
So Sheenan picks a battle there is absolutely no way she can win. And she knows this.
Assuming she actually goes thru with it, isn't she kind of abusing the campaign system?
Someone has to help pay for her campaign. Do you feel that the message she is carrying is worth the cost? Don't you think that the message she is carrying isn't already being broadcasted everywhere?
I believe it's a waste. Sheenan could use the funds she raises for a better purpose besides blowing it on a campaign.
Why this forum? Pelosi is pretty much unbeatable right now. Why would she pick Pelosi's district and not someone else's? It's like she is saying "I want to make a difference. I want to be in Congress...as long as I don't get elected".
How do you feel if she got elected? She's had some nice press on the fact she was chummy with Venezula's Chavez, a pseudo-enemy of the US. And how about someone who's crazy enough to camp out forever. And besides a self-formed opinion on Iraq...what else is she an expert on?
Assuming she actually goes thru with it, isn't she kind of abusing the campaign system?
Someone has to help pay for her campaign. Do you feel that the message she is carrying is worth the cost? Don't you think that the message she is carrying isn't already being broadcasted everywhere?
I believe it's a waste. Sheenan could use the funds she raises for a better purpose besides blowing it on a campaign.
Why this forum? Pelosi is pretty much unbeatable right now. Why would she pick Pelosi's district and not someone else's? It's like she is saying "I want to make a difference. I want to be in Congress...as long as I don't get elected".
How do you feel if she got elected? She's had some nice press on the fact she was chummy with Venezula's Chavez, a pseudo-enemy of the US. And how about someone who's crazy enough to camp out forever. And besides a self-formed opinion on Iraq...what else is she an expert on?
Last edited by Pug (2007-08-10 12:29:26)
What's making me hate her is that she's doing it NOT to be a real congresswoman, and make real decisions or use any political know how...she's doing it to simply spite Pelosi... A real solution would be to find a real candidate in Pelosi's district and support such a candidate that follows her narrow and unrealistic political thoughts. Not to say Pelosi doesn't suck, she does. And not to say I'm not pissed at the weak democratic party showing in doing what their constituents want, but there really is no way to get a veto proof bill passed against the war like we all want. And hammering pelosi for it is just stupid.
Sheehan "retired" from the protesting trails...she needs to chill the hell out and stick to what she knows...earning favor for her just cause, not stir up things she knows nothing about. Seriously..imagine her blathering on the house floor about stem cell bills or immigration topics... She's good at being a heart broken mom, demanding to speak to Bush and demanding an end to the war..>THAT'S IT!
Sheehan "retired" from the protesting trails...she needs to chill the hell out and stick to what she knows...earning favor for her just cause, not stir up things she knows nothing about. Seriously..imagine her blathering on the house floor about stem cell bills or immigration topics... She's good at being a heart broken mom, demanding to speak to Bush and demanding an end to the war..>THAT'S IT!
Mark the date - I agree with Chef.
she may be an attention whore, but she has her beliefs and she sticks by them...Pug wrote:
How do you feel if she got elected? She's had some nice press on the fact she was chummy with Venezula's Chavez, a pseudo-enemy of the US. And how about someone who's crazy enough to camp out forever. And besides a self-formed opinion on Iraq...what else is she an expert on?
we could use more of that in our various offices....none of this "you scratch our back, we scratch yours" crap.
*im not saying shes a good candidate or stands a chance....but im saying i like seeing someone who is very vocal and firm in ideals
Last edited by Schwarzelungen (2007-08-10 12:47:24)
Wow. She's using her son to further her own political gains. Manchurian Candidate much? I do sympathize with her loss (I've lost friends), but ffs. "Ms. Sheenan, what about the allegations...." "My son died over there, and you're going to tarnish his memory by accusing me of such and such?" "Oh dear, we can't vote against her. That would be unamerican.!"
Oh, and here's a link to an article with proof of her running
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1 … html?wh=wh
Oh, and here's a link to an article with proof of her running
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1 … html?wh=wh
True, but she's only doing the main course. I want buffalo wings, a side salad, some sourdough bread, and desert with that.Schwarzelungen wrote:
she may be an attention whore, but she has her beliefs and she sticks by them...
we could use more of that in our various offices....none of this "you scratch our back, we scratch yours" crap.
See, that's the thing. She IS completely vulnerable to influence be it monetary and ideological. To illustrate this, I remember when she first got started..before she went to Crawford the first time. She had a pure ideology based on her own experience of loss and without ANY other influence. But as she gained headlines (not whoring it or asking for it), the psychos on the left, and some of the less psychotic groups all huddled around her, showed her how to get more press, showed her how to be more effective, and obviously changed her once pure motives into political agendas. It was like night and day the difference in her messages. I read Mike Moore's site regularly and he's got a designated section of it for Sheehan. Reading her tirades over the years has become tiresome as she has changed into a text book [enter your typical liberal epithet here].Schwarzelungen wrote:
she may be an attention whore, but she has her beliefs and she sticks by them...
we could use more of that in our various offices....none of this "you scratch our back, we scratch yours" crap.
*im not saying shes a good candidate or stands a chance....but im saying i like seeing someone who is very vocal and firm in ideals
If she took office, the lobbies of her district (SF) would surely continue to influence her and cash would flow like any other politician and constituents would be ignored more..despite her coming from a non-political background.
My mother in Montana is noticing this from their new senator who was truly a good, honest, hard working low income farmer...and he's now showing signs of lobby-based voting and tampering. Sure he went in with good intentions...but money talks. Senator Webb in Virginia is said to be succumbing to this as well based on some liberal blogs I've read once supporting him, now questioning him.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2007-08-10 13:21:43)
Actually, she's transformed into an Alex Jones worshipping right-wing libertarian conspiracy nut. Most of the mainstream liberal groups have since disowned her. Last time I saw her online, she was ranting about Clinton's evils and international banking conspiracies. It won't be the first loon that factions of the left have tried to help and got burned, and it won't be the last. What she really needs to do is take a long long vacation and chew on some Chomsky.IRONCHEF wrote:
See, that's the thing. She IS completely vulnerable to influence be it monetary and ideological. To illustrate this, I remember when she first got started..before she went to Crawford the first time. She had a pure ideology based on her own experience of loss and without ANY other influence. But as she gained headlines (not whoring it or asking for it), the psychos on the left, and some of the less psychotic groups all huddled around her, showed her how to get more press, showed her how to be more effective, and obviously changed her once pure motives into political agendas. It was like night and day the difference in her messages. I read Mike Moore's site regularly and he's got a designated section of it for Sheehan. Reading her tirades over the years has become tiresome as she has changed into a text book [enter your typical liberal epithet here].Schwarzelungen wrote:
she may be an attention whore, but she has her beliefs and she sticks by them...
we could use more of that in our various offices....none of this "you scratch our back, we scratch yours" crap.
*im not saying shes a good candidate or stands a chance....but im saying i like seeing someone who is very vocal and firm in ideals
If she took office, the lobbies of her district (SF) would surely continue to influence her and cash would flow like any other politician and constituents would be ignored more..despite her coming from a non-political background.
My mother in Montana is noticing this from their new senator who was truly a good, honest, hard working low income farmer...and he's now showing signs of lobby-based voting and tampering. Sure he went in with good intentions...but money talks. Senator Webb in Virginia is said to be succumbing to this as well based on some liberal blogs I've read once supporting him, now questioning him.
As far as the "Conservative Democrats" go, the "blue dogs" as they're known, I've always been adamant on that they would end up biting the hand that fed them. You simply can't override the lockstep authoritarian mentality. This last vote on FISA was a big wake-up call that showed the Dems that the blue dogs couldn't be trusted safeguarding the party's platform. Mix that with weak ass centrist Dems, and you have just an illusion of a majority in the House and Senate.
Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2007-08-10 16:01:32)
Sheehan /Pelosi - pff - sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.
Considering that Pelosi won her district in 2006 by 80% of the vote and that 75% was the lowest amount she had in an election for a Congressional position, I'd say she has nothing to worry about. She could lose 20% of her constituents to Sheehan and still win by a large margin.
It's San Francisco, what do you expect?
It's San Francisco, what do you expect?
she doesn't have a chance
she makes michael moore look like michael savage, even the liberals won't vote for her, and the conservatives would rather not have a lunatic in office...
she makes michael moore look like michael savage, even the liberals won't vote for her, and the conservatives would rather not have a lunatic in office...
Damn it! Don't you get it? Both sides are catering to extremist views. If there were more "weak ass centrist Dems" the Democratic party could nearly sweep congress. Why doesn't either party get the fact that moderates can turn the table in their favor?GorillaTicTacs wrote:
As far as the "Conservative Democrats" go, the "blue dogs" as they're known, I've always been adamant on that they would end up biting the hand that fed them. You simply can't override the lockstep authoritarian mentality. This last vote on FISA was a big wake-up call that showed the Dems that the blue dogs couldn't be trusted safeguarding the party's platform. Mix that with weak ass centrist Dems, and you have just an illusion of a majority in the House and Senate.
[/off topic rant]
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2007-08-10 19:20:48)
Two words: mud wrestling.