Cindy Sheehan threatens to run against Pelosi if no impeachment action
In light of OlyMark's recent "Goodbye DailyKos" blog post here at Green Commons, I thought I'd let you know that this morning Cindy Sheehan posted a Diary at the Big Orange saying she would challenge Pelosi in CA-08 if the Speaker didn't get impeachment back on "the table".
Cindy's post was riddled with harsh invectives of the Democratic Party, and, as you might imagine, all hell broke loose in the comments below Cindy's post and in other followup diaries by other users. Some are even calling for Cindy to be banned from the site altogether, since she's sworn off the Democrats, and is now actively plotting against them (Cindy, you're welcome here anytime, hon).
Yes Nader and the Green Party were mentioned a few times, why do you ask?
Technorati Tags: 
The case against Pelosi
I was only able to catch a glance at the front page headline today, but my first reaction was "Ms. Sheehan, why not Prez, and why as an independent?" I have waxed poetic about the value of a Sheehan run for President as a Green here and elsewhere. While she must do what her heart tells her to do, I seriously hope she'll reconsider.
First of all, while her announcement made front page news even here in the "small markets", the same may not be true once an actual campaign begins. If Ms. Sheehan runs against Pelosi she will be able to expect to impact the debate in her district, those close by, and perhaps even across her state.
A run for President would put her, and her values (our values) before the entire nation for the next year and a half, at least.
As to running as an independent, the value of such a campaign is diminished, whether it's she who's running, or Nader. Ms. Sheehan has supported and endorsed Greens, including Howie Hawkins, the Green Teamster who ran against Senator Clinton. Her feelings of disappointment, anger, frustration and of being deceived by the Democratic Party mirror the feelings of most of us who call ourselves Green.
By running for President as a Green Ms. Sheehan would allow all of us to build stronger locals, more potent campaigns, and amass the sort of media attention at the local level which will pay dividends for years to come.
As a "citizen" of Green Commons, I can only hope that Ms. Sheehan will see the benefit in commoner's invitation to post here, and accept it. If she does, I hope all of us will help her see the value of her voice to we Greens, and engage her in supportive conversation. I'm not saying all of us would have to sign on the dotted line because she joined the dialog here, but I am saying that we Greens can, and should, show her how a civil debate is done online.
M. Feinstein from California posited this possibility to Greens on the NC dx list:
"My understanding is that unfortunately according to California law, she was registered Democrat too late to run as a Green in 2008.
California has the most draconian law in the country as far as when you can join a party to run as a partisan candidate for it.
See the page below:
http://www.cagreens.org/elections/when_register_green_to_run.php
Answer, part one: The California Elections Code establishes the answer to this question, under Section §8001(a) Party Affiliation of Candidates for Partisan Office:
"No candidate shall file a declaration of candidacy for a partisan state
constitutional or legislative office unless:
(1) at the time of presentation of the declaration and continuously for not less than three months immediately prior to that time, or for as long as he/she has been eligible to register to vote in the state, the candidate is shown by his/her affidavit of registration to be affiliated with the political party whose nomination he/she seeks, and
(2) within 12 months immediately prior to the filing of the declaration, the candidate has not been registered with a qualified political party other than that political party whose nomination he/she seeks. "
- Answer, part two: The California Elections Code establishes the date for declaration of candidacy (E-113 or 113 days before the Primary election), under Section §8020(b):
"The forms shall first be available on the 113th day prior to the direct
primary election...""
This just reaffirms our need to challenge electoral laws across the nation whether its the regressive ballot access laws in Georgia and some states or the registration catch-22s for candidates in other states. Writing here preaches to the choir but we've got to take the best of these arguments on the road to the public by writing op-eds to local newspapers and blogs of broader interest. Not that I am endorsing DailyKos, b/c I am not, but maybe subject matter blogs. Are there unbiased blogs addressing electoral reform? There existed some for a while after the election fiascos of 2000 and 2002 and 2004 but conversation either died out or got 'man-handled' by Democrats. Ballot Access News is one good source for Ballot Access but is there a broader such blog / conversation point?
Hope to see some of you in Reading, PA later this week.
There are reasons to address the converted, as we do here and others do at other blogs. As Ms. Garrett points out, we can use this space, and similar ones, to hone our arguments. It's also not unheard of for the general public to "stumble across" this and other blogs.
To do actual outreach, something the GNC has created yet another committee to do, we must go to those who agree with us, but don't know it. I don't believe that effort made at blogs like Red State or DKO are as effective as those made at more broadly based blogs.
While family health issues have kept me from participating as much as I would like, I have frequently blogged, or commented, at my local newspaper blog, as well as The State blog. Both are owned by the McClatchy Group, which also owns the largest circulation newspapers in Sacramento, CA, the Twin Cities, MN, and both the North and South Carolina state capitals, Raleigh and Columbia.
Finally, I have written at both American Chronicle and OpEdNews, as have some other Greens.
That said, Ms. Garrett's point applies, perhaps, to Sheehan running for Congress. A Presidential run would not face these same obstacles.
She could run as a write-in in the Green primary and easily win and be on the ballot in November as a Green.
However, some problems. She is not a resident of D8. She doesn't have to be to run, but some folks like me have a problem with her carpetbagging into this district and with the hysteria no thought going into the effect on important local races in terms of resource drain. No one is objectively assessing her strengths and possible weaknesses as a political candidate.
I have asked it before and I'm asking it again. Why do people have this fetish about running somebody for president?
I say:
Cindy Sheehan for Congress? Yes!
Cindy Sheehan for President? No!
Check out this interesting diary on The DailyKos:
Sheehan v Pelosi: Some Initial Thoughts
Just for the heck of it I looked up the figures. In the 2000 election, George W. Bush got 16% of the vote in San Francisco County. When we talk about attacking Pelosi from the left in San Francisco, we ain't talking about some "symbolic" stuff.
This is my point. If Cindy runs for president she will end up squandering her energy, time, and money, running around arguing about farm subsidies in Iowa, Fidel Castro in Florida, and her views on abortion and gay marriage in South Carolina. If she runs for Congress from California's 8th District, she can stay at home and argue about the war in Iraq... and WIN... and maybe bring in a few other independents and Greens on her coattails.
That would be a great thing for us here in California and "firing" the Speaker of the Hacks would send one helluva message across the nation.
I'll grant you that I don't know the congressional district, but wanting the best candidate we can get for President is not a fetish. One can argue about what qualifies as the best we can get, and one can argue that we should run no one, but running our best possible candidate is not indefensible.
First of all, there are states where ballot access depends on a certain percent of the vote in the Presidential race. Our best candidate is most likely to reach those thresholds.
Secondly, there is the chance, although admittedly a small chance, that the "right candidate" can bring in more than 5% of the vote, resulting in federal funds in the next presidential race.
As to which choice Ms. Sheehan should make, I think we may both be looking out for what would maximize local success. For me, she's a huge help to the growth of the Green Party here in York County, SC. For you, she's a huge help to the growth of the Green Party in San Francisco and CA. I think both positions are legitimate.
One should not forget however that the Democratic Party spared no effort at beating Lawyer Gonzalez in his run for Mayor of San Francisco. Both CA senators, Pelosi, both Clintons, and every other national level Democrat you can point to made the trek to the City by the Bay just to be assured that a Democrat and not a Green would win the officially non-partisan race. I would expect that the corporate machine behind the Democratic Party would spare no expense to beat Ms. Sheehan, and even if those rich folks sat on their wallets, Pelosi has enough personal wealth to fund a very costly campaign.
In the final analysis however, the choice is hers to make. I am sure I'd support her regardless of which office she seeks.
Greens, I think we need to build our membership to the point where we have millions of people in our Green Party in order for us to have a candidate for President. Membership has been dropping in the GPCA to 138,000 and I have not seen a figure of our membership nationwide. Do we know of anyone elected President who did not win elections prior to seeking the presidency?
Alex I think you distracted from this good point by the sentence construction of your line "I have asked it before and I'm asking it again. Why do people have this fetish about running somebody for president? "
I think what you meant was that we Greens do seem to want to crown any Green hero that comes along and run them for president whether they are suitable for the role or not. I do not think you meant that Greens participating in the presidential race was somehow an unworthy endeavor.
Technorati Profile