{news} Cindy Sheehan endorses Zeese, other Greens

[Green Party-CT]

A significant development for Greens..  Kevin Zeese is a Green 
candidate for
US Senate in Maryland, also endorsed by the Populist and Libertarian
parties.



Subject: [mgp-disc] Sheehan endorses Zeese



*PLEASE FORWARD*

Friends:

Cindy Sheehan, an an interview yesterday, breaks with Progressive 
Democrats of American on whose board she sits and re-states her 
endorsement of Zeese for Senate and other peace candidates. (PDA only 
endorses Democrats as they are essentially an arm of the Democratic 
Party and put party before principles.) Cindy is highly critical of the 
Democrats to the point of saying that she is looking at starting a new 
third party that will be "viable and credible" and not ruled by the 
"corporate elite." 

Cindy's endorsement is particularly important in Maryland where Mike 
Hersh, the leader of Progressive Democrats of Maryland, has been on a 
Cardin crusade -- misstating Cardin's record by closing his eyes to 
Cardin's record of voting $320 billion for the war, opposing exit 
strategy amendments, supporting stay the course resolutions and voting 
for the Patriot Act as well as many other corporate-friendly pieces of 
legislation. See http://kevinzeese.
<http://kevinzeese.com/content/view/205/5/> com/content/view/205/5/ for
Cardin's 
record. Cardin has also refused to take the bombing of Iran off the 
table and is an ardent supporter of Israel no matter what they do. The 
Jewish peace group, Jewish Voice for Peace gives Cardin a failing grade 
of 40%. Rather than allying with the peace movement in the Jewish 
community, Cardin allies with the hawks and is one of the top 
recipients 
of Israeli lobby money. Indeed, when one looks at Cardin's funding 
sources he fits exactly what Cindy is concerned about -- politicians 
who 
are funded by the corporate elite and have a history of doing their 
bidding in Congress. (Michael Steele is also wrong on these issues. For 
his record see http://kevinzeese.
<http://kevinzeese.com/content/view/207/5/> com/content/view/207/5/.)

My hope is that peace advocates will vote peace -- if they do there is 
only one choice in Maryland. Further, voters that see that the broader 
issue of the day is corporate control of government will vote for the 
only candidate that is not taking money from the big business special 
interests. We can change the direction of this country -- and it can 
begin in Maryland on November 7 if people vote for what they want and 
are not manipulated by the two party trap of voting for what you don't 
want. As Cindy says "Instead of voting for the 'lesser of two evils' we 
should be voting for a candidate that reflects our 'beatitudes' and not 
the war machine's."

If people want a copy of the DVD of the debate we held at the Urban 
League we have high quality copies available (better than the one on 
the 
web, this one has four camera angles rather than one). Please get one 
and invite all of your neighbors over to watch it. This was a historic 
debate for Maryland with three candidates sharing the stage -- this has 
never happened before in a statewide election in Maryland. We will be 
having a televised debate on October 25th. It will be on News Channel 8 
as well as on Maryland Public Television. Spread the word so voters can 
really see their choices by comparing the three candidates as they 
stand 
together and exchange ideas.

Kevin
www.ZeeseForSenate.org
www.Zeese.US (wiki site)

*An Interview with Cindy Sheehan*
by Joshua Frank (repost and link)
/Saturday Oct 21st, 2006 10:14 PM /

/Cindy Sheehan responds to Joshua Frank's questions about her
cooperation with the PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) and her
future political plans./

*An Interview with Cindy Sheehan
Independent Politics and the Antiwar Movement *

Joshua Frank: Cindy, we are in the armpit of another election season 
and 
it seems that the mainstream antiwar movement is rallying behind the 
Democrats once again, hoping if the Dems can just recapture the House 
that the Republicans will finally be held accountable for all their 
horrible faults. Impeachment will follow and the war will end. What do 
you think? Where do you stand on all of this?

Cindy Sheehan: I hold very little hope that, due to the utter 
corruption 
of our electoral system, and the Republican reign of terror and fear 
against the American public, the Democrats will even take back one or 
more Houses of Congress.

Even if the Democrats take back the lower House, the potential Speaker, 
Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) has already said that impeachment would not be "in 
the cards." Rep. John Conyers (D-Mi) has also backed off of impeachment 
rhetoric. Since Bush has said over and over again that the troops 
aren't 
coming home while he is president, it is up to us to make sure that his 
presidency is cut short.

We all know that the Vietnam War ended when Congress cut its funding. 
There is a bill that has been sponsored by Rep. Jim McGovern, (D-Ma) 
HR4232 that cuts funding to leave our troops in Iraq, but he has very 
little support and even a smaller chance of getting it to the floor for 
a vote. I believe that most representatives don't support the bill 
because they will be accused of "not supporting the troops." I believe 
that it is not supporting the troops to leave them in that nightmare.

Although I admire the Democrats on many issues, when it comes to war 
and 
peace, most get their pockets lined by the same corporate interests.

No matter which party has control of Congress come November, we the 
people have to keep the pressure up to stop the current course our 
country is taking.

Frank: You are currently serving on the Board of Directors for the 
Progressive Democrats of America, a pro-Democrat organization that 
calls 
for reform of the Democratic Party from within. The PDA consistently 
ignores progressive antiwar alternatives to the Democrats. Do you think 
that such a position could actually hurt the antiwar movement? Should 
we 
instead be supporting antiwar candidates who want to hold both parties 
accountable?

Sheehan: I think that the PDA endorses candidates based on their entire 
platforms. Of course, I only care about candidate's record on the war 
and what they say about peace. I prefer to call our movement a "peace" 
movement, because "antiwar" is too narrow.

I think it would be great if we didn't need a PDA, if all Democrats 
were 
progressive peace candidates, but we know they are not.

I would vote for a Republican if they were calling for the withdrawal 
of 
troops and for impeachment, and I definitely think a viable third party 
could rein in the "two" parties we have now.

We will never have a viable third party, though, as long as we vote out 
of fear and not out of integrity. Instead of voting for the "lesser of 
two evils" we should be voting for a candidate that reflects our 
"beatitudes" and not the war machine's.

Frank: The PDA may endorse candidates based on their entire platform, 
but they still won't support antiwar candidates that are not Democrats 
-- and they've received a fair amount of criticism for that position. 
Do 
you think that such a policy may be a problem for those who want to 
build an independent antiwar movement that seeks to challenge both 
parties?

Sheehan: Yes, well the group is called Progressive Democrats of 
America. 
They have had no problem with me endorsing third party candidates. I 
completely support a viable third party. I don't know if PDA's position 
is holding up an independent antiwar party as much as the mainstream 
Republican and Democrats are.

I think reform of the Democratic Party could only reinforce antiwar 
efforts and all progressive causes in general.

I don't think the PDA is hurting the antiwar movement because I don't 
think they have enough consolidated power to affect it one-way or the 
other.

Frank: It seems to me that working to reform the Democratic Party, like 
the PDA is, sidelines other issues, most importantly right now, the war 
effort. I guess you don't agree?

Sheehan: I think it will take all of us working for all kinds of 
issues; 
the PDA can focus on their piece. I will continue to focus on mine just 
like you will continue to focus on yours.

Frank: Who are the peace candidates you are supporting this year?

Sheehan: So far I have supported three who ended up losing in the 
primaries: Marcy Winograd, Jonathan Tasisni and Christine Cegelis -- 
all 
of whom are Democrats, first two up against pro-war incumbents. I have 
also supported Jeanne Cricenzo, a Democrat, Malachy McCourt for 
Governor 
of New York who is a Green and Michael Berg and Todd Chretien, both of 
whom are Greens. Kevin Zeese of Maryland who is an independent 
candidate. And most recently I told Howie Hawkins, who is running 
against Hillary Clinton in New York as a Green, that I would support 
his 
antiwar campaign.

Frank: I've heard a rumor that you may be looking to start your own 
third party. Is that true?

Sheehan: Yes, it is true. I think that to save our democracy our 
country 
needs a viable and credible third party. This nation was founded on 
rule 
by a few rich white males, and for all intents and purposes, we are 
still ruled by a corporate elite.

We need a third party that will represent all the people, not just the 
wealthy.
http://brickburner. <http://brickburner.blogs.com/my_weblog/200...>
blogs.com/my_weblog/200... 
<http://brickburner.
<http://brickburner.blogs.com/my_weblog/2006/10/an_interview_wi.html>
blogs.com/my_weblog/2006/10/an_interview_wi.html>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20061023/9b8afc4b/attachment.html>