Sheehan to run against Pelosi

[abudabit]

CRAWFORD, Texas - Cindy Sheehan, the slain soldier's mother whose attacks on President Bush made her a darling of the anti-war movement, has a new target: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sheehan, who announced in late May that she was departing the peace movement, said she decided to run against Pelosi unless the congresswoman moves to oust Bush in the next two weeks.

"I think all politicians should be held accountable," Sheehan told The Associated Press on Sunday. "Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership. We hired them to bring an end to the war."

Sheehan said she will run as an independent against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 if Pelosi does not file articles of impeachment against Bush by July 23. That's when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting from the group's war protest site near Bush's Crawford ranch.

Although Sheehan has never held public office, she said she already has the name recognition and would not have to run against Pelosi in a primary.

"I would give her a run for her money," Sheehan said.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the congresswoman has said repeatedly her focus is on ending the war in Iraq.

"She believes that the best way to support our troops in Iraq is to bring them home safely and soon," Daly said in an e-mail to the AP. "July will be a month of action in Congress to end the war, including a vote to redeploy our troops by next spring."

Sheehan, who turns 50 on Tuesday, said Bush should be impeached because she believes he misled the public about the reasons for going to war, violated the Geneva Convention by torturing detainees and crossed the line by commuting the prison sentence of former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. She said other grounds for impeachment are the domestic spying program and the "inadequate and tragic" response to Hurricane Katrina.

The White House declined to comment Sunday.

Sheehan said she hopes Pelosi files the articles of impeachment. But if not, Sheehan said she is ready to run for office.

Sheehan plans her official candidacy announcement Tuesday. She was in Crawford over the weekend to ceremoniously give the keys of the 5-acre protest site near Bush's ranch to its new owner, California radio talk show host Bree Walker.

"I'm doing it to encourage other people to run against Congress members who aren't doing their jobs, who are beholden to special interests," Sheehan said.

Sheehan first came to Crawford in August 2005 during Bush's vacation, demanding to talk to him about the war that claimed her son Casey's life in 2004.

She became the face of the anti-war movement during her 26-day roadside vigil that drew thousands of demonstrators. But it also drew counter protests of Bush supporters, many who said she was hurting troop morale.

Sheehan recently said she was leaving the Democratic Party because it "caved" into the president. Last week, she announced her caravan to Washington, which she calls the "people's accountability movement."

Sheehan said she lives in a Sacramento suburb but declined to disclose which city, citing safety reasons. The area is outside Pelosi's district, but there are no residency requirements for congressional members, according to the California secretary of state's office.


Haha, I hope Opie's crazy mom wins.

[BravoSierra]

Didn't she give up a couple months ago? What a whore. No way she'll win.

[Frank Alexander]

It is San Fran we're talking about; she might actually have a chance there

[Razor Roman]

It gives me great pleasure to see them "eating their own".

[wes mantooth]

I wish Homeless Charlie would **** both of them.

[queeby]

I think it's cool. I voted Democrat in the last election and have watched them do absolutley nothing for a year. I am glad she is holding that bitch accountable.

[Earth2murf]

She is a CUNT both of them

[fuckwit]

She is a CUNT both of them

Yeh! Fucking stupid cunt whore whos son died in Iraq! How dare she have an opinion! Twat!


Id rather see a citizen take a term in office then a career politician die of old age in one.

[Vyce]

Yeh! Fucking stupid cunt whore whos son died in Iraq! How dare she have an opinion! Twat!


Oh, more of this ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY horseshit.

Her son died. Many people have lost sons and daughters in the war, and actually still support it.

She's a huge attention whore, who has literally whined and cried at times when people weren't paying enough attention to her. This is more of the same. She realized that she wasn't really in the spotlight anymore, so it was time to get her name back in the papers.

[Creampier]

I'm proud of her son for volunteering, serving and ultimately sacrificing himself in that clusterfuck of a war. I couldn't imagine what it's like to lose a child.

However, I think Sheehan earns Twat status for her attention whoring activities after her son's death. This crazy bitch blamed Israel for her son's death (because this war was a neo-conservative conspiracy to help them out??!!!?).

She goes and meets with Hugo Chavez (who when he took the helm in Venezuela in '99 openly expressed support for Saddam Hussein and the Taliban) and who now has an open cheeky relationship/alliance with that Iranian fucker! But who's the "world's biggest terrorist" according to her? You guessed it, George Dubya!!!

I'd hate to vote in that election, but I think if there was a gun to my head, I'd go for Pelosi :puke:
Cindy is nuttier than squirrel shit!

[fuckwit]

Oh, more of this ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY horseshit.

Her son died. Many people have lost sons and daughters in the war, and actually still support it.

She's a huge attention whore, who has literally whined and cried at times when people weren't paying enough attention to her. This is more of the same. She realized that she wasn't really in the spotlight anymore, so it was time to get her name back in the papers.

Yeh her son dieing gives her opinion no credibility in the real world. Shes just another political shill. Total horseshit.
What makes you not a cunt?

Some how I dont think her son died and she thought oh boy this is a chance to get away from it all and become a media sensation. She went fucking loopy. That sorta thing happens when you lose a child.


I'm proud of her son for volunteering, serving and ultimately sacrificing himself in that clusterfuck of a war. I couldn't imagine what it's like to lose a child.

However, I think Sheehan earns Twat status for her attention whoring activities after her son's death. This crazy bitch blamed Israel for her son's death (because this war was a neo-conservative conspiracy to help them out??!!!?).

She goes and meets with Hugo Chavez (who when he took the helm in Venezuela in '99 openly expressed support for Saddam Hussein and the Taliban) and who now has an open cheeky relationship/alliance with that Iranian fucker! But who's the "world's biggest terrorist" according to her? You guessed it, George Dubya!!!

I'd hate to vote in that election, but I think if there was a gun to my head, I'd go for Pelosi :puke:
Cindy is nuttier than squirrel shit!

I havent followed her career of protesting. Shes probably nuts I will concede.

Shes just a woman. I dont know how anyone doesnt see her as a normal person. Her son died. She went nuts. Like your expected too. She got into this and has genuine anger. Thats part of grieving. And she really has a big reason to be involved in the discussions about this war, as all these families do no matter their opinion.
Someone who loses a child like that really needs something to occupy themselves. Im glad shes got something and didnt just sit at home alone for a few years before slitting her wrists in a fit of depression.

Im against the war. So maybe thats why I see her with more sympathy. I really cant look at this woman and not take her seriously.

[mascan42]

Cindy Sheehan: for people who think Nancy Pelosi is too right-wing. ::hammer:

[Vyce]

Yeh her son dieing gives her opinion no credibility in the real world. Shes just another political shill. Total horseshit.
What makes you not a cunt?

Some how I dont think her son died and she thought oh boy this is a chance to get away from it all and become a media sensation. She went fucking loopy. That sorta thing happens when you lose a child.


If you really believe all that shit, you are, what Ron Bennington would call, a rube. A hayseed, a mark. A fucking EASY mark.

Sheehan was always a hard-left idealogue. Her son's death just gave her a twisted legitimacy to espouse those fews. She did not "go crazy" upon the death of her son, she always felt the way that she did, she just capitalized on her personal tragedy to further her own agenda.

Hence, why people think she's a fucking cunt.

There are plenty of people who have lost family members in this war. Some of them have lost people and then protested the war. Some have lost family, sons and daughters, are are still strong SUPPORTERS of the war. The fact that you lost a child in the war, or really the fact that you may have suffered a loss in ANYTHING - the war, to a violent crime here in the states, to a drunk driver, to cancer, etc. - gives you perspective that others who haven't experienced that loss don't share. What it does NOT give you, is Absolute Moral Authority (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/opinion/10dowd.html?ex=1281326400&en=e3acb1a7b96946da&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss), as Maureen Dowd might say.

With regards to Sheehan, I think Christopher Hitchens said it best: "I distrust anyone who claims to speak for the fallen, and I distrust even more the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them."

This is really not a woman you can defend too strongly. You really can't justify her saying that the Iraq War was because of a Jewish cabal / Israel. You really can't excuse her hanging around with Hugo Chavez, in a visit that, at the least, was used as a major anti-U.S. propaganda piece by his regime. She's done all of these things and more, NOT because she 'went crazy', but because she was always a hardcore leftist, she's always held these views, she just lacked the validation to spout them off and have them be accepted by a wide group of people.

Until the death of her son.

[fuckwit]

Because I wont shit on some dead kids mom Im a dunce, a dope, a chump, a buffoon? Drop the thesaurus.
Yes plenty of familes. . Maureen Dowd, other libral things your hate, moral authority makes you right and her wrong. I got all this.

This is a woman I cant defend to strongly? Why because you support the war and dont want someone who you disagree with defended? Thanks for deciding for me.
I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to disrespect some dead soldiers mother. He fought and died in a war with our flag on his arm and now half the political field in this country cant seem to get enough of calling his mother a cunt just for being his mother. The least you could do is not senselessly dehumanize her while hes not around to defend her anymore. Shes not Al Sharpton. Shes one of us and shes suffered. Give her a little dignity when you stomp her opinion.
Say you died at war, and left your mother alone in the world and she went out and got involved in politics. Trying to stop other soldiers mothers from going through the pain she went through when she lost her son(for whatever reason). Would you want the people of your country that ideologically disagreed taking every opportunity they got to belittle her?

So youve got different views then her? Good for you. Stop calling the dead kids mother a cunt.

[Stormrider666]

Oh, more of this ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY horseshit.

Her son died. Many people have lost sons and daughters in the war, and actually still support it.

She's a huge attention whore, who has literally whined and cried at times when people weren't paying enough attention to her. This is more of the same. She realized that she wasn't really in the spotlight anymore, so it was time to get her name back in the papers.

Totally agree. I feel sorry and everything that her son died, but its like you said she isn't the only parent to lose a child in this war. She really needs to go away. She basically was a media created senasation because she is blond haired, blue eyed white woman and the Democrats used her to get elected.

[Jimmy's Dignity]

It is San Fran we're talking about; she might actually have a chance there

x2 :icon_eek::icon_eek::icon_eek::icon_eek::icon_eek:

[Stormrider666]

x2 :icon_eek::icon_eek::icon_eek::icon_eek::icon_eek:

Not to get off topic, but you do know Emma Watson is on Letterman tonight Jimmy?:action-sm

[Budyzir]

It is San Fran we're talking about; she might actually have a chance there

It gives me great pleasure to see them "eating their own".

She is a CUNT both of them

CAT FIGHT !!!!!

:popcorn:

[Abysmul]

So youve got different views then her? Good for you. Stop calling the dead kids mother a cunt.

SHE'S A CUNT!

[DC Chick]

Didn't she give up a couple months ago?
Second sentence in the article says she quit the peace movement in May.
I feel bad for the people of that district, Pelosi vs Sheehan is going to get way too much attention.

[Vyce]

Because I wont shit on some dead kids mom Im a dunce, a dope, a chump, a buffoon? Drop the thesaurus.
Yes plenty of familes. . Maureen Dowd, other libral things your hate, moral authority makes you right and her wrong. I got all this.

This is a woman I cant defend to strongly? Why because you support the war and dont want someone who you disagree with defended? Thanks for deciding for me.

You're either an idiot, or being willfully obtuse.

So let me rephrase it for you. It's not just about being pro-war or anti-war. It's about attempting to COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN any and all opposition and criticism to your viewpoint.

You know, the sort of thing that liberals always claimed that Bush and / or Republicans like to do?

The "absolute moral authority" meme started by Dowd was a particularly vile and insidious attempt to shut down any pro-war support, because OH MAH GAWD how can you DARE disagree with this woman, who lost her son?!?!?!

(this, of course, ignored those folks who lost loved ones in the war and still supported it - I guess we're to believe "absolute moral authority" skipped them).

You can oppose me on anything you want. Any issue. Doesn't have to be a left - right issue, you can argue with me about what's the best toppings to put on a fucking hot dog. It doesn't matter. Try and shut me down before I can even have the chance to disagree, and then there's a problem. What I will resent, is people like Sheehan trying to strike down any opposition before it's even heard under this false aura of moral superiority.

I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to disrespect some dead soldiers mother. He fought and died in a war with our flag on his arm and now half the political field in this country cant seem to get enough of calling his mother a cunt just for being his mother. The least you could do is not senselessly dehumanize her while hes not around to defend her anymore. Shes not Al Sharpton. Shes one of us and shes suffered. Give her a little dignity when you stomp her opinion.

What has she done to deserve my respect? All she's done is exploit her child's death for her own political ends.

And that's what you're not understanding. SHE, individually, is getting a lot of shit from people, and rightfully so. It's NOT merely because she's anti-war - hell, plenty of people feel that way these days. It's because many people, accurately I believe, conceive her to be nothing more than a particularly craven opportunist, who always had these far-left, "nutroots" ideas, and then capitalized on her son's tragic death to give legitimacy to herself and those views.

If you want to feel bad for her, feel bad that, to an extent, she was exploited herself by some of the hard-left elements in liberal politics, who have always had and pushed an anti-war agenda, and she was merely too naive, foolish, and wrapped up in her own cult of personality to realize it.

Say you died at war, and left your mother alone in the world and she went out and got involved in politics. Trying to stop other soldiers mothers from going through the pain she went through when she lost her son(for whatever reason). Would you want the people of your country that ideologically disagreed taking every opportunity they got to belittle her?

So youve got different views then her? Good for you. Stop calling the dead kids mother a cunt.

She's no one worth justifying, IMO. Even supposing that you support her anti-war position, you can't defend - and this is what I meant - some of the more egregious things she's done in her time in the spotlight. Such as blame Israel for the Iraq War and her son's death. Such as siding with Hugo Chavez, who at BEST can be safely labelled as "anti-American". For showing little respect for the military her son was a part of and died with, at times insinuating that old-school Vietnam-era rhetoric that our soldiers regularly engaged in atrocities against civilians. For holding more sympathy for the terrorist scum who killed her son than her fellow Americans.

I'm tired of "Dissent is patriotic, MAAAAAAANNN!" horseshit. Some times the people doing it, really are just fucking anti-American CUNTS.

And that's what she is.

[fuckwit]

It's about attempting to COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN any and all opposition and criticism to your viewpoint.

I just have sympathy for the woman douchbag.


..God you are fucking fighting the wrong enemies psycho. Wake the fuck up.

[Sunsetspawn]

You know what, plagiarism's great until you get caught.

Although I suppose an arugment sounds less convincing if you have to precede every post with, "yeah, well this person says this."

So who's the plagiarist?

[YourAmishDaddy]

I'm tired of "Dissent is patriotic, MAAAAAAANNN!" horseshit. Some times the people doing it, really are just fucking anti-American CUNTS.

And sometimes the so called pro American loudmouth sanctimonious condescending fascists are as well.

The day I ever read or unearth any literature from the Founding Fathers where they attempted to overtalk, spew hatred, condescend, act overly aggressive, and if one allowed act violently to the opposing viewpoint I'll gladly proclaim this attitude patriotic.

Other that that. Remember one thing. being louder, more pompous, arrogant, condescending, and shouting doesn't make you right.

You are the type that wishes to pound the patriotism into someone. You "love" this country so much everything you put forth is contrary to everything it stands for. And the day we need as a nation to resort to this attitude is the day the flag needs to ceremoniously be rolled up and retired. For good.

[Vyce]

And sometimes the so called pro American loudmouth sanctimonious condescending fascists are as well.

The day I ever read or unearth any literature from the Founding Fathers where they attempted to overtalk, spew hatred, condescend, act overly aggressive, and if one allowed act violently to the opposing viewpoint I'll gladly proclaim this attitude patriotic.

Other that that. Remember one thing. being louder, more pompous, arrogant, condescending, and shouting doesn't make you right.

You are the type that wishes to pound the patriotism into someone. You "love" this country so much everything you put forth is contrary to everything it stands for. And the day we need as a nation to resort to this attitude is the day the flag needs to ceremoniously be rolled up and retired. For good.

Spare me your bullshit platitudes.

I won't even get into the whole issue of how somewhere along the way, people, such as you it seems, came to believe that the ONLY way to be patriotic is to completely shit on the government every day of your life. That's an entirely other assinine concept to argue for another day.

I was specifically talking about Sheehan and those of her ilk. If you oppose the war, that's fine. If you oppose the current administration, knock yourself out.

Once you start labeling our soldiers as murderers.....once you start hanging around with very real anti-U.S. enemies, such as Hugo Chavez.....once you start publishing fantasies about murdering George W. Bush (http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/09/cindy-sheehan-confessions-of-a-dangerous-mom.php), you lose, IMO, the right to claim the patriotism gimmick. Once you start heading into that territory, I would hope that one would FINALLY be able to label such a person as 'anti-American', because, really, it'd be pretty fucking accurate. But whatever, think me a fascist for feeling that way.

[wes mantooth]

Spare me your bullshit platitudes.

I won't even get into the whole issue of how somewhere along the way, people, such as you it seems, came to believe that the ONLY way to be patriotic is to completely shit on the government every day of your life. That's an entirely other assinine concept to argue for another day.

I was specifically talking about Sheehan and those of her ilk. If you oppose the war, that's fine. If you oppose the current administration, knock yourself out.

Once you start labeling our soldiers as murderers.....once you start hanging around with very real anti-U.S. enemies, such as Hugo Chavez.....once you start publishing fantasies about murdering George W. Bush (http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/09/cindy-sheehan-confessions-of-a-dangerous-mom.php), you lose, IMO, the right to claim the patriotism gimmick. Once you start heading into that territory, I would hope that one would FINALLY be able to label such a person as 'anti-American', because, really, it'd be pretty fucking accurate. But whatever, think me a fascist for feeling that way.


Great post.

[YourAmishDaddy]

I was specifically talking about Sheehan and those of her ilk. If you oppose the war, that's fine. If you oppose the current administration, knock yourself out.

Once you start labeling our soldiers as murderers.....once you start hanging around with very real anti-U.S. enemies, such as Hugo Chavez.....once you start publishing fantasies about murdering George W. Bush (http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/09/cindy-sheehan-confessions-of-a-dangerous-mom.php), you lose, IMO, the right to claim the patriotism gimmick. Once you start heading into that territory, I would hope that one would FINALLY be able to label such a person as 'anti-American', because, really, it'd be pretty fucking accurate. But whatever, think me a fascist for feeling that way.

So basically what you're saying is there are sliding conditions to what makes one "American" in your book. Because there is a difference here.

One does not need to advocate one thing someone like a Sheehan says or does. First off most of your angst centers around Hugo Chavez. An "enemy" as you call him. Well until I see Chavez building nukes and becoming poised to militarily attack this country Chavez is a nobody. What you are doing is parroting what you've heard other people say.

Venezuela is the last frontier on non collective oil. So of course out of nowhere whoever runs the place will be labeled an "enemy." But that's another issue altogether, but I'd love to know all the things that Hugo Chavez has done that would be so threatening to this country.

Then you say when people go after Bush they're unpatriotic, and anti-American. As if Bush himself is America. This country was more important than it's presidency for over 200 years. And it will continue for whatever length is left.

You try to link people bashing the government with bashing the country. Sorry, two different things. And it always amuses me when so called "conservatives" are champions for government. Now all of a sudden government is good, and necessary. And as much of it as possible is a great thing

As for the military itself one can take that path of trashing individual service men and women, and i'll not go down it. But as a whole there is an entity better known as the military indistrial complex that I despise, and most real conservatives do as well.

Once again, people as yourself try to link that to the actual troops on the ground. Like I said Sheehan has said awful things about the military personnel, and i'll not pardon her for that. But that very military is supposedly fighting for the right to say it if one chooses.

Which basically leads us to the last point. As long as people agree with you, and fall in line with your ideology they're fine. it's once they deviate from the path you think we all should be then you have issues with it.

[MrBogey]

Hugo is an old school marxist and as such is the enemy of free people anywhere. Despite what the rose color glasses do for your vision, he is currently arming Venezuela up and won't be afraid to muscle us when the time comes.

He said, If you oppose the war, that's fine. If you oppose the current administration, knock yourself out.

you said, Then you say when people go after Bush they're unpatriotic, and anti-American.

Wanted the quotes there to be real obvious.

[NoSurviivors]

Sheean is a fucking lunatic. Doesn't she realize that shes spoiling the same way Nader spoiled the presedential election for Gore?

Stupid bitch has a severe case of tunnel vision, and she's drunk on 'power'.

[YourAmishDaddy]

Hugo is an old school marxist and as such is the enemy of free people anywhere. Despite what the rose color glasses do for your vision, he is currently arming Venezuela up and won't be afraid to muscle us when the time comes.

And of course being a Marxist makes one "the enemy." Now we could run down the principles and beliefs of Marx and list them out one by one and bore everyone to death. And then list the current neoconservative positions and they'd be nearly identical.

So of course Hugo Chavez is "the enemy" because he's a competitor in purveying the same Trotskyist ideals as those he's in the running with.

So yes, you are right in a sense Chavez is a Marxist. And Marxism is a philosophy that is contrary to liberty and freedom. And so are the neoconservatives. Who bow at the altar of people like Irving Kristol and Trotsky. Who are nothing more than the very people they profess to hate, for running a better racket.

This is why they hate Hugo Chavez so much.

[MrBogey]

Now we could run down the principles and beliefs of Marx and list them out one by one and bore everyone to death. And then list the current neoconservative positions and they'd be nearly identical.

That's crazy. Neoconservatism grew from disenfranchised Democrats who while pro-liberal social policies detested weak foreign policies that relied on isolationism and the counter-culture that erupted from the 1960s. Sure, some had studied Trotsky but like people who drank too much booze they backed away from it and hated it ever since.

This Neo-conservatives=Trotskyists was nonsense perpetuated by guys like Justin Raimondo and Pat Buchanan. Which if anything makes me suspect it has more to do with the fact that Trotsky as well as many prominent neo-cons are jews. I mean, the only people who throw that out are generally either anti-semites or paleocons.

[YourAmishDaddy]

That's crazy. Neoconservatism grew from disenfranchised Democrats who while pro-liberal social policies detested weak foreign policies that relied on isolationism and the counter-culture that erupted from the 1960s. Sure, some had studied Trotsky but like people who drank too much booze they backed away from it and hated it ever since.

This Neo-conservatives=Trotskyists was nonsense perpetuated by guys like Justin Raimondo and Pat Buchanan. Which if anything makes me suspect it has more to do with the fact that Trotsky as well as many prominent neo-cons are jews. I mean, the only people who throw that out are generally either anti-semites or paleocons.

Oh here we go with the "neocons are Jews" thing. I really haven't studied it. I know Bush isn't Jewish, nor is Rumsfeld, or Cheney, or Rice, or was Powell. All neocons, all worthless garbage.

And I know exactly who the neoconservative movement is in America. And you touched on part of with the disillusioned leftist part of it. Out of the Scoop Jackson wing of the democratic party and all.

Well they never abandoned those principles. Nor their Trotskyist and Kristol roots. Hell, look at that name Kristol and it's even more laughable.

[MrBogey]

Nor their Trotskyist and Kristol roots.

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0304/0304neocontrotp1.htm

As far back as the mid 1980s, paleoconservatives were caustically commenting on the supposed "Trotskyist roots" of the neoconservatives. At an infamously raucous debate between conservatives held at the Philadelphia Society in 1986, the paleoconservative historian Stephen J. Tonsor expressed dismay that former Marxists had come to play such a dominant role within conservatism, and quipped that had Trotsky not been assassinated he would no doubt be working for the Hoover Institute and writing articles for Commentary. [4] But it was not until the Gulf War of 1991 that the tale about neoconservatism's "Trotskyist roots" took the form in which we know it today. Within weeks of the war ending, Leon Hadar of the Cato Institute laid out the now widely accepted view in an article in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs:

Among the major figures in the [neoconservative] movement were former Trotskyites who studied in the '30s and '40s at the then "poor man's Harvard," the City College of New York, a center for socialist activism. They included Irving Kristol, who in the 1950s launched an anti-Soviet CIA front, the International Congress for Cultural Freedom; Norman Podhoretz, the editor of the American Jewish Committee's monthly magazine Commentary, which he turned into a major neoconservative outlet; Podhoretz's wife, Midge Decter, the chairperson of the now-defunct Committee on the Free World; sociologists Nathan Glazer and Daniel Bell; and Democratic Party pamphleteer Ben Wattenberg. [5]

The only problem with Hadar's account of neoconservatism's origins is that it is almost completely false. A simple check of biographical facts is enough to show that neither Norman Podhoretz nor Midge Decter attended CCNY in the 1930s or 40s, nor were they ever Marxists, let alone Trotskyists. Nathan Glazer and Daniel Bell did attend CCNY in the late 1930s, but again neither was ever a Trotskyist. Glazer was a Left Socialist-Zionist, while Bell joined first the Young People's Socialist League (YPSL) in the early 1930s, and then the ardently anti-communist Social Democratic Federation towards the end of the decade. For his part, Ben Wattenberg could hardly have attended CCNY in the 1930s or 40s since he was only born in 1933. He in fact did not attend CCNY at all, and was also never a Trotskyist. That leaves Irving Kristol as the only neoconservative among those mentioned by Hadar who was actually ever associated with Trotskyism -- and even that statement requires some qualification, as we will see below.

[MrBogey]

The "Trotskyism" of Irving Kristol

If the "Trotskyist roots" of neoconservatism have been greatly exaggerated, what about those of the first generation who were involved with Trotskyism? How much of an influence did Trotskyism have on their thinking? Presumably on this level a more credible case could be made for a real Trotskyist influence on neoconservatism. But it is precisely here that the complete lack of substance of the "Trotskyist neocon" assertion emerges, for there is nothing in any of the neoconservatives' vast political, sociological, or cultural writings that points to the remotest influence of Trotskyism. Instead, those propagating the assertion have been forced to rely only on whatever anecdotal evidence is available to make their case. Thus Irving Kristol, who wrote an autobiographical essay entitled "Memoirs of a Trotskyist" and has sprinkled mentions of his youthful political dalliances throughout his writings, is more often accused of still being influenced by Trotskyism than Seymour Martin Lipset, who was also a Trotskyist but who has not made similar use of his own brief radical past.
Irving Kristol
Kristol

For paleocon polemicists, it matters little that Kristol has spent almost his entire adult life as one of America's most prolific and high-profile intellectual proponents of democracy and capitalism. It matters little because as diligently reported by paleocon journalist Daniel McCarthy, Kristol had the temerity to write, and supposedly did so "with relish", that "I regard myself as lucky to have been a young Trostkyite and I have not a single bitter memory". [9] Just as incriminating is Kristol's claim to have learned how to construct an argument by reading Trotskyist theoretical journals! But if the lack of seriousness in the paleocon accusations is evident, it does raise the question of exactly how much of a Trotskyist Irving Kristol was in his youth. And if one takes a close look at his actual Trotskyist past, a very different picture emerges from the one that has been conjured up by the polemicists and to a certain extent by Kristol himself.

Kristol was involved in the late 1930s, still in his teens, in the milieux of the young Jewish intellectuals that frequented the now-infamous Alcove No.1 at CCNY. While there he became a fellow traveler of the small group of Trotskyist students who belonged to the youth wing of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), known as the Young People's Socialist League-Fourth International (YPSL-FI). While steeped in the world of hyper-intellectual debating at CCNY, Kristol was not an SWP or YPSL-FI member -- and much less a full blown Trotskyist ideologue, as is often implied by those seeking to exaggerate his Trotskyist credentials. Infamously, James P. Cannon, Irish-American leader of the Trotskyists, once admonished Kristol and his friend and fellow CCNYer Earl Raab for not joining the SWP. From Mexico, Trotsky himself cast a wary eye on the YPSL's and fellow travelers such as Kristol and Raab because of their "lack of experience" and, more damningly, for their "petty bourgeois" backgrounds. [10]

Despite Cannon's scoldings, Kristol never did join the "official" Trotskyists of the SWP, but rather the heretical offshoot led by Max Shachtman, the Workers' Party (WP), in 1940. More importantly, Kristol belonged to a small intra-party faction inside the WP known as the "Shermanites" which was led by future Sociologist Philip Selznick, and also included Lipset, Himmelfarb, and Diamond, i.e. the only other neoconservatives to have been associated with Trotskyism. What is key here, and what for the most part has been overlooked, is that the Shermanites considered not only Stalinism but Bolshevism, which in their context meant Trotskyism, to be "… bureaucratic, totalitarian, and undemocratic". [11] Decisive to Kristol and the others' rejection of Marxism and Trotskyism was Robert Michels' Political Parties, which was introduced to the group by Selznick. [12] This "premature" anti-communism was so anathema to Shachtman that after Kristol and the tiny band of Shermanites resigned from the Workers' Party in 1941, a mere one year after they had joined, they were then retroactively expelled. The journal that Kristol and the Shermanites briefly published after their expulsion from the Workers Party, Enquiry, far from providing "conventional Marxist fare" as has been claimed by one scholar, in fact consisted mainly of substantive critiques of Marxism, Leninism, and Trotskyism, all the more noteworthy for the youthfulness of those making them. [13]

A more sober appraisal of the historical evidence shows that, contrary to the claims of the paleocons, and even some of his own writings, Irving Kristol's Trotskyism was far too peripheral and brief for him to be considered a representative Trotskyist of that era, or even much of a Trotskyist at all -- something which applies just as much if not more to the only other "Trotskyist neocons": Lipset, Himmelfarb, and Diamond.

For why your accusation is erroneous.

[YourAmishDaddy]

I judge them by their actions. And all of their actions thus forth drip with Trotsky. And well you choose to copy paste. Fine I could go find some site and just paste it and bore everyone. But I'll spare them

Or I can just be equally snippy and call the Bush Administration The New Bolsheviks. Although Bush is more Robespierre than anything himself. If it makes me a Paleocon to call these people out I am honored. And will unapologetically say so. Jewish or not, they're all shit. Neocons are pure garbage, unfit to associate with anything with more than one cell.

My own words. Much easier than using Google.

[MrBogey]

I judge them by their actions. And all of their actions thus forth drip with Trotsky. And well you choose to copy paste. Fine I could go find some site and just paste it and bore everyone. But I'll spare them

Or I can just be equally snippy and call the Bush Administration The New Bolsheviks. Although Bush is more Robespierre than anything himself. If it makes me a Paleocon to call these people out I am honored. And will unapologetically say so. Jewish or not, they're all shit. Neocons are pure garbage, unfit to associate with anything with more than one cell.

My own words. Much easier than using Google.

I cited it because it's historical. For citing historical fact copying and pasting it is far better as there's no loss in the "signal".

As far as Nc=Trotskyists. Eh?

Like I said, Trotskyites follow marxist economic ideals in a democratic collectivist environment with the idea of everlasting revolution. Neocons believe in more capitalistic semi-austrian economic principles in a liberal democracy. I don't see the convergance.

[YourAmishDaddy]

Like I said, Trotskyites follow marxist economic ideals in a democratic collectivist environment with the idea of everlasting revolution. Neocons believe in more capitalistic semi-austrian economic principles in a liberal democracy. I don't see the convergance.

And then what happened?

[MrBogey]

And then what happened?

I won the discussion when I proved my point, evidenced by the reply to said point. So I stopped responding.

[Vyce]

YourAmishDaddy makes my head hurt trying to muddle my way through those posts of his.

I felt I was speaking quite plainly, and yet he seems to have a wildly different perception as to my actual words and meanings.

[YourAmishDaddy]

I won the discussion when I proved my point, evidenced by the reply to said point. So I stopped responding.

And then what happened?

[YourAmishDaddy]

YourAmishDaddy makes my head hurt trying to muddle my way through those posts of his.

I felt I was speaking quite plainly, and yet he seems to have a wildly different perception as to my actual words and meanings.

Best believe when you and I go at it it will at least be worth the price of admission. I gotta keep you on your toes. Ol buddy ol pal.

No hard feelings though.