So I'm curious just how Speaker of the House Steny Hoyer is an improvement in ending the war

[Wetzelbill]

as opposed to Nancy Pelosi. That's what I don't understand about the Cindy Sheehan candidacy, if she is actually serious about winning, it will most likely put in a new Speaker, who will be much more difficult to work with on ending the war than Pelosi had ever been. Not to mention, that if Cindy did win, Dem congressmen would practically run away from working with Cindy on Iraq War legislation. Dem congressmen are fearful creatures, frightened of being associated with anything that could get them labeled "weak on security" or any other shallow GOP euphemism.

Now whether that strategy would ever work or not, Dems will still run from her. The GOP will make Cindy the kiss of death for anybody working with her on Iraq legislation. Dems will be scared of being demonized by proxy. I mean, honestly, we know these people. They are like frightened baby chipmunks, when faced with GOP lies and labels. Then Cindy in her isolation, working only with the very few brave people in congress like Dennis Kucinich, will then lash out at the Steny Hoyer-ish Dems in the party, pretty much like how she has been. She'll become isolated further. And since she's mainly a one-issue activist, who really knows how good she'll be on other issues? She's become so sporadic, it's difficult to tell.

I like her, I respect her, but, even if she wins I see nothing good coming out of it. Not unless a Dem president wins, and, in that case, it also opens up more options for Pelosi, if she were to still be Speaker. But Steny Hoyer as Speaker, and Cindy Sheehan as a rookie congresswoman is not a trade off I would want. He's that bad, and she'd be that ineffective.

I think we're stuck with the status quo until Bush is gone. Unless impeachment gets traction. But Bush has made up his mind to stay, and Dems have remained fearful of rocking the boat and being labeled weak on security or whatever else they are frightened of being hit with.

It's a bad spot for sure, but Bush has made up his mind to pass Iraq on to the next president. Petraeus isn't likely to change anything either. He coauthored a strategy of staying in Iraq until mid 2009, at least.

All we can do is fight, and hope something gives, but I think the inevitable troop withdrawal will be slogged out for almost another two years. Dems will be fearful and weak, Bush will be stupid and dangerous.

Cindy Sheehan running for Congress will not change that.

She wouldn't even if she won.

[shance]

1. Steny Hoyer is like so many - a war proponent and staunch advocate of AIPAC.

That doesnt make me feel comfortable.

If it were the Christian Coalition, it would essentially be the same extremist foundation that promotes war and destruction towards all that do not agree with them.

[Wetzelbill]

2. yes

I do feel it was a major blow for the anti-war movement when he beat Murtha last year. I know Pelosi wanted Murtha to be her right hand man, but Steny beat him out. Tough blow. I would not feel comfortable with him as Speaker at all.

[aquart]

3. Supporting Israel being wrong in your eyes?

Just so we're clear.

[Wetzelbill]

4. you're riding a fine line

with that question. It's like if somebody says they didn't support Pat Robertson and then another person steps in and says "Oh, supporting Jesus is wrong in your eyes?"

AIPAC is a special interest lobbying group. They are very rabid and heavily involved in pro-Israel foreign affairs. They have been connected to many controversial events, including espionage allegations against the United States. The don't necessarily push a rational type of support for Israel, they push the Likud Party line. If somebody is in support of AIPAC, they support a special interest group, one that has some dubious problems and a certain agenda, that doesn't necessarily mean that that person necessarily supports Israel or what is good for Israel in the end.

[shance]

7. Let's be clear. Yes supporting the war weaponry of Israel is wrong when

there is an annihilation happening against the Palestinian people, their land, their crops, their livestock, their children, their water, their homes, their dignity.

Just as it is wrong to support the Arab factions that would continue any war waging.

Yes, it most assuredly is wrong.

[JVS]

5. How is Hoyer not ending the war any worse than Pelosi not ending the war?

A war being waged by people who would ideally prefer not to have a war still kills and maims the way any war does. I think it would behoove the party to recognize that "If I had my druthers, we'd be out of Iraq" is no substitute at all for doing things to make that a reality.

[Wetzelbill]

8. he'd doubtlessly drag it out even longer for one thing

He'd be an absolute dead-ender. He voted for the war, and consistently against redeployment of troops. He parroted GOP talking points, when Murtha first came out against the war, and did so for most of the year. But that is probably moot. For the moment, it doesn't make a difference at all. But is that the only issue that matters? Steny Hoyer seems pretty open to an attack on Iran. Say if we had a Republican president who wanted to attack Iran, Steny Hoyer could give us two wars then. That's a major difference with Pelosi. He voted yes in 2005 on making the Patriot Act permanent. He also was one of the guys bragging about how Dems have gotten cozy with K-Street lobbyists every since the GOP started going in decline last year. He's solid on lots of issues, but troubling, if not dangerous, on others.

[Kagemusha]

6. Uh, even if she wins, Bush's term will be over.

What are we going to do, have Bush impeached AFTER he leaves office? That doesn't compute to me.

[Wetzelbill]

9. nope, it doesn't

I don't grasp her candidacy now. In two years, the biggest obstacle towards peace will be gone. That's a lot of the battle right there.