Cindy Sheehan announces her candidacy for Congress

[Shapley]

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292801,00.html]Anti-War Activist Cindy Sheehan Announces Candidacy Against Rep. Nancy Pelosi
[/url]

Sheehan said she had no funds for a campaign but planned to immediately start raising money. She said she wouldn't accept money from corporations.

It's good that she won't accept money from corporations - since it's illegal to do so. I think it would weaken her anti-corruption credentials if she did.

I saw her on one of the news talk shows a couple of weeks ago. She's quite ignorant of the law and of how government works. She doesn't seem to have a clue about the difference between the States' responsibilities and the Federal government's. The interview left me wondering if she has ever read the Constitution...

...But, since she's running against Pelosi, they'll probably be pretty evenly matched in that regard.

V/R
Shapley

[analog]

You didn't say who she'd be running against. Perhaps, as the less competent of two dangers, Cindy would get my vote.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Even here, in the land of fruits, nuts, and flakes, Cindy is an outstanding flake. I don't expect to hear from her except, perhaps, as an interest item on a slow news day. I don't think Pelosi's all that worried about the competition.

[Shapley]

You didn't say who she'd be running against.

I wouldn't think it would matter, but for argument's sake, we'll assume she's running against the incumbent.

I have voted for the 'lesser of two evils' in the past, but I don't think it's good policy. There are some people I simply can't pull myself to vote for, regardless of who they are challenging. I will simply refuse to vote for either in such cases. I believe Ms. Sheehan is one such candidate.

V/R
Shapley

[piqaboo]

Oh dear. I guess 'getting her life back' didnt provide the adrenalin she's become used to. Poor lady. She needs to go cold turkey long enough to give normal life a chance again.

[Shapley]

Oh dear. I guess 'getting her life back' didnt provide the adrenalin she's become used to. Poor lady. She needs to go cold turkey long enough to give normal life a chance again.

She is certainly a pitiable figure, but pity is not a sound basis for voting for someone. She is unhappy with the politicians in Washington, but who isn't.

I encourage anyone who wants change in Washington to step up and get involved. But I also encourage them them to understand the Constitution as well as the electoral process and the workings of government. I do not believe she has done her homework.

But, who knows, perhaps she'll be a quick study and make a good candidate in the long run. I've seen nothing so far that indicates that that will happen, but you never know.

Who would've expected the late Sonny Bono to make the cut? He turned out to be a good campaigner, a good politician, and a good conservative. Too bad his life and career were cut short by a skiing accident.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

She has a perfect right to run for any office she chooses. But she's really a pathetic person with no chance of getting into office. Too bad she simply did not stay "retired". She's a total flake

[barfle]

Poor Cindy. I really do feel sorry for her. Losing a son in a war bust be hard, and losing one in a war that you feel is wrong must be far worse.

Unfortunately, I think it's made her unstable. If making a statement about not accepting contributions from coporations is any indication of her qualifications, she's in for another crushing blow. Of course, her remarks about "occupied New Orleans" pretty much sealed her fate as far as I'm concerned.

Come on, Cindy. Surprise me and be a reasonable candidate.

[GreatCarouser]

...I saw her on one of the news talk shows a couple of weeks ago. She's quite ignorant of the law and of how government works. She doesn't seem to have a clue about the difference between the States' responsibilities and the Federal government's. The interview left me wondering if she has ever read the Constitution...

Obviously the Republicans' candidate...

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Obviously the Republicans' candidate...

No way! Perish the thought!

[GreatCarouser]

Obviously the Republicans' candidate...

Now that I've gotten the 'joke' out of my system a little more serious rumination.

I'm reminded of Capra's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. How many of us would elect Smith if he ran in the condition and state of knowledge he had when appointed in the film? Many of us seem to want a 'premade' candidate. Someone who knows the system's ins and outs and can navigate them. We then complain about the system's real and perceived evils being perpetuated. I can't use ignorance of the system as a primary reason to elect or not elect. Fresh ideas, unfettered by "Oh you can't do thats" which only perpetuate the status quo, are the keys to accentuating what is good about our system as well as finding ways and means to improve it.

This post should in no way be taken as my saying Ms. Sheehan is a candidate who has good, fresh ideas. I have no idea whether she would be a good legislator or not. I have no idea whether she has any good ideas or plans. I'm only saying rejecting someone's candidacy based upon ignorance of what the technical aspects are is akin to saying someone is incapable of learning or surrounding themselves with people who can navigate the technical shoals.

Perhaps we need a few more people who don't 'know' what they can't do?

[Shapley]

I don't expect a new candidate to know everything about the system, I'm sure few, if any of them, do. I certainly didn't. But you do need to know the law. And you really ought to have a decent platform to run on. Right now her platform is the 'impeach Bush' platform. However, since she is running in 2008, she would assume office just in time to see Mr. Bush's backside as he heads out the door. Kind of makes the whole thing pointless, IMHO. So far as know, you can't impeach a President retroactively, although the Constitution seems to be mum on that point. I suppose it never occured to the founding fathers that someone might to remove someone from office who isn't actually in office, so they left that part out. :confused:

There's nothing wrong with her running in the legal sense. We've certainly had worse candidates, from both parties, in the past, and some of them have gotten elected. Personally, I'm all in favour of getting rid of quite a few of the professional politicians and electing a few "Mr. Smith's". I will, however, expect them to know the law and the Constitution before I'll vote for them, and I hope they go there with ideas and a vision for a better America. I haven't seen any of that from Ms. Sheehan at this point but, as I said, there is hope that she will be a quick study. If not, she's setting herself up for more dissapointment, delusion, and probably a mental breakdown.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

Perhaps we need a few more people who don't 'know' what they can't do?

No. That's really the biggest problem in Washington. The Constitution spells out quite clearly what the Congress can't do, Constitutionally at least. Ttoo many Congressmen don't know about those limitations, so we get congressional action on every facet of our lives. We need more people who do know what they can't, or rather aren't supposed to, do.

It wouldn't hurt if we had more citizens who knew what Congress can't do, from a constitutional standpoint, as well. Unfortunately, far too many of us seek Federal answers to all our ills.

V/R
Shapley

[BigJon@Work]

Other than the facts surrounding her son's death, this whole thing makes me