In today’s column, the Seattle P-I’s Joel Connelly writes about the reader response to his previous broad defense of Sen. Maria Cantwell. While he says the response was mixed, he excerpts quite a few vitriolic letters from the anti-Cantwell camp.
In reading through Connelly’s column I think it becomes clear that the most fervent Cantwell haters are operating under two basic misconceptions, that a) engineering a Cantwell defeat will somehow pull the Democratic Party further to the left, and b) that Cantwell is actually pro-war.
Connelly correctly concludes that to Cantwell’s fiercest critics, her Iraq war authorization vote and her failure thus far to recant it, trump all other issues. But I agree wholeheartedly that there are other issues — like global warming — with a far greater impact on a far larger number of people. Yet while Cantwell has been one of the Senate’s most outspoken and effective leaders on energy and the environment, she continues to be vilified by some on the left.
This prompted one of Cantwell’s supporters to ask, “What are these people thinking?”
A clue was provided in an e-mail entitled “Progressives MUST defeat Cantwell” from reader Donald Suppner.
“Cantwell is Lieberman Lite,” he wrote.
“One more DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) corporate whore.”
Alluding to the Green Party’s candidate, Suppner added: “If progressives vote for Aaron Dixon in numbers that would have elected Cantwell, and the D.C. Dems fall one seat short of taking the Senate, THEN the cowardly Dem politicians will realize that they MUST deal with our issues. It worked for the right-wing religious perverts. Bushco kisses their feet on cue.”
Uh-huh.
See, the problem is, people like Suppner have it backwards. The “right-wing religious perverts” have influence within the GOP far exceeding their strength in numbers because they helped Republicans seize power, not because they threatened to undermine them. Indeed, at the national level, the theocrats essentially seized control of the Republican Party by working from within.
Compare that to Ralph Nader and the Green Party’s success in pulling the Democrats to the left by handing the White House to Bush. How’s that goin’ for you?
(And let’s be blunt: while there were many other factors, Al Gore would have won in 2000 if not for Nader. So all you unrepentant Naderites out there should be blaming yourselves for the Iraq war, not Cantwell.)
In short, you want to make the Democrats more progressive? Make yourself an indispensable part of Democratic success. That’s what me and my fellow progressive bloggers are in the process of doing.
But all that strategery stuff aside, I’m convinced that the most vitriolic Cantwell critics are all talking out of their asses when they attempt to portray her as a hawkish war monger.
Yes, Cantwell voted for the Iraq war authorization… as did most of the Democratic leadership. And no, she has not stood up and given a mea culpa asking for our forgiveness.
But neither is she a defender of the Bush administration’s war policy.
The truth is, she’s actually said relatively little publicly about the war, and what she has said has admittedly been rather muddled. It is easy for those of us on the left or the right to view the war with all the clarity of a passionate ideologue, but my guess is that like the majority of Americans (and the majority of Washingtonians she directly represents,) Cantwell is genuinely conflicted about the war and the best way to extract our nation from it, while honoring our commitments to both the Iraqi people and our own troops.
It is easy for me to condemn President Bush for lying to the American public and the world in selling his cynical, misguided war, and for the incompetent, immoral, and ultimately disastrous way he has conducted it. But I’m not a U.S. Senator. I don’t have to worry about how my public statements will be interpreted by our allies and enemies abroad, or about what impact they may have on the morale of our troops and their families. Cantwell does.
I don’t know if Cantwell does or does not regret her vote for authorization, and I’m not sure she’ll ever come out and tell us. But either way, she can’t take back that vote, and her actions and words in its aftermath must now be calculated to make the best of a very bad situation.
You and I can rail against the war all we want — and we should — but we don’t have to look a soldier’s mother in eye and tell her that her son died in vain.
There are no simple solutions to the war in Iraq, and I don’t expect any from Cantwell. But what I do know is that I’d rather have Cantwell and a Democratic majority in the Senate providing a check and balance on the Bush administration, than yet another Republican rubber stamp like McGavick.
Yeah, I keep making that point regarding Nader and ‘pulling to the left’ but the Naderites just don’t seem to get it. Sigh.
Nice comeback to the nutty wingers that troll here especially those intellectually bankrupt little weasels jaybo and whatwillmariado.
Goldy,
you continue to come off as an unprincipled DLC whore. The fact that she voted with the DLC is EXCATLY the problem. The DLC is pretty much GOP-lite. Maybe they want to give your tax dollars to different corporations, but most politicians in BOTH parties have the same goal: take our tax dollars and enrich their stock-holding constiuents.
You have yet to defend votes for the patriot act, CAFTA, federal class action suits, Alito, and other attacks on woking class folks. Environment aside, Cantwell IS a rubber stamp for this administration.
One more thing: your title is very misleading. Are you saying she’s anti-war but voted for it anyway? That doesn’t make sense.
-Cantwell haters are operating under two basic misconceptions, that a) engineering a Cantwell defeat will somehow pull the Democratic Party further to the left-
Funny, that’s the EXACT SAME THING they said when they put Nader up to run against Gore (and kinda against George W). I remember the common logic went something like this: “even if Bush gets elected, things have to get worse before they get better.”
OK, Greenies – are things BAD ENOUGH FOR YOU YET? Apparently not, since you anti-war (actually pro-war, when you think about it) clowns are doing your best to make sure the US Senate stays in the GOP’s hands.
The only thing Greens and left-leaning Democrats are good at is POLITICAL SUICIDE. Who cares about the actual outcome, right?
freek: smoke less pot, take a break from your attempt to end world capitalism as we know it, and join us here in reality for once.
You’re just a tool for the right wing – nothing more, nothing less.
The DLC could swing WAY further to the right, and NEVER do nearly as much damage to our country as you idiots have done.
@3 Democrats are the party of tax-and-spend. The Republicans are the party of borrow-and-spend. :)
Good points Goldy, I agree with you that Cantwell has been solid on other important issues. That is an undisputed fact.
However, lets not forget her vote for the Patriot Act. Was that a passive agressive way to stand up to the administration?
Was her vote for CAFTA with its lousy envioremental regulations a way to tell third world countries that she only cares about North America’s enviorement and that the earth’s problems stop at the US border?
Youre right, most of the Dems voted for the war. And they can not take it back. But, at least Senator Kerry and many others have stated publicly that they were mislead by a lying sack of shit president. Why cant Cantwell do the same? Arrogance?
She should answer these things, at the very least address them. You can keep dismissing third parties, but one day it will come around. There is a huge percentage of the population that do not vote nor will they ever vote for the Dems or will only vote for Dems like Paul Wellstone or Ron Dellums.
Too bad Aaron’s campaign is a joke, I think the time will come when third parties begin to really do the ground work and start running good solid candidates in smaller races and build from there. Unfortunately the greens are not that party.
6 – I prefer borrow and squander.
You have to pick your issues and vote accordingly. I’ve yet to see a candidate I agreed with on everything. Cantwell (and Dems in general) remains the better choice until third parties field truly viable and appealing candidates, i.e. start taking politics seriously.
I think is more than fielding viable candidates, I think its about building a party. Running in smaller races is a start, fighting for districts, and voter registration of the disenfranchised. And I dont mean the type of voter registration where you set up a table outside and hope somebody grabs your materials. Im talking about party building like the workers party in Brazil; door to door registration, understanding of the base. Like I said, the Green party is not that party. You dont run in a huge state wide election without a solid base and Green party hippies are not that numerous, though they would like to think so and though they would like to think that theyre the party of communities of color, that is not the case. But the two party system is just not healthy for a democracy. I agree that you have to be pragmatic, but you can not just keep giving them a pass on everything. Like I said, I agree that Cantwell has done some good things and is the best candidate now, but her vote for the patriot act, her arrogance on her war vote, her vote on cafta, her lame stand on the alito filibuster is not something Im willing to overlook.
It is easy for me to condemn President Bush for lying to the American public and the world in selling his cynical, misguided war, and for the incompetent, immoral, and ultimately disastrous way he has conducted it. But I’m not a U.S. Senator. I don’t have to worry about how my public statements will be interpreted by our allies and enemies abroad, or about what impact they may have on the morale of our troops and their families. Cantwell does.
I have to disagree with this. Cantwell is not risking anything politically by coming out today and saying that her vote to authorize war was a mistake. One of the most powerful weapons the Democrats have in this race is the crumbling notion that our liberty is better protected by Republicans. With Maria Cantwell’s silence on the war and her opposition to Senator Feingold on the Patriot Act, she will give McGavick the opportunity to capture the kinds of swing voters (who are generally more centrist, but care much more about civil liberties than other voters) that have voted mainly with the Republicans in the past. Democrats are making a huge mistake in believing that Cantwell’s detractors are on the “left” of her. They’re not. Her main detractors are more “libertarian” than her. That’s a huge difference.
As it gets closer to November, one of our best weapons will be to convince the voters of this state that McGavick will be the typical Republican willing to support Bush’s wasteful spending and big brother ideas for national security. You can’t do that if the Democratic candidate has no concept of why Bush’s actions in this area have been so damaging. All the negative stereotypes of the overly-authoritarian Democratic Party in this state become amplified and many voters will convince themselves that McGavick may be more anti-Bush from a libertarian standpoint than Cantwell.
I can’t speak for other Democrats who are reluctant to support Cantwell, but my reasoning is rooted in the fact that Cantwell has done everything she can in the past 2-3 years to give the Republicans the slim chance they have to retake her Senate seat. She’s giving McGavick an opening here, and the last thing we need to do is to convince ourselves that being a Democrat is evidence enough that you will stand up to the Bush agenda. Not everyone is going to buy that as much as those of us who follow politics very closely (which is a very small percentage of voters).
-Cantwell IS a rubber stamp for this administration.-
It’s pretty clear freek either doesn’t read, or doesn’t get out much.
Or, he’s just another right wing troll who isn’t good at anything besides lying.
LR @ 12
On issues of civil liberties, Cantwell has been a rubber stamp for this administration. I agree that for the environment, and perhaps on some other issues, she certainly hasn’t. But doesn’t it concern you that to a significant voting block (which incorporates both left-leaning civil libertarians like myself as well as big-L Libertarians on the right), she has been? If large numbers of libertarians vote for a third party this year (or worse, for McGavick), Maria Cantwell has no one to blame but herself for completely ignoring the issue of civil liberties in a year like this when the government openly admits that it can spy on people and two of the most authoritarian Supreme Court justices in history take to the bench.
-my reasoning is rooted in the fact that Cantwell has done everything she can in the past 2-3 years to give the Republicans the slim chance they have to retake her Senate seat. She’s giving McGavick an opening here-
Holy cow, thehim – are you fricking serious?
You’re blaming Cantwell for this Green Party clown of a candidate, and for a handful of loud, self-defeatist leftists?
Political suicide is their gig, not Cantwell’s.
And, for the record, single issue activists need to get their heads checked – whether it’s on the far left or the far right.
Anybody willing to sacrifice ANWR (as well as a whole host of other progressive causes) for something that happened three years ago, and CANNOT be undone IS A MORON.
Do you fit that bill, thehim?
redneck@12 enough w/ the ad hominem attacks already. Do you do this to everyone you disagree with? Would you do this to me if we were in a bar face to face?
Enlighten me. What has diagreed with the administration on beside the environment? Please reference specific, substantive votes.
This is at least the thrid time I’ve called Goldy out on this. He’s been silent. So have his defenders when you take the trolls out.
Maria Cantwell has voted — just like the vast majority of both Democrats and Republicans in both houses of Congress — to wipe out the surplus and spend the USA into trillions of dollars of new debt over the last five and a half years. She is extremely vulnerable on this issue — but can Aaron Dixon and Mike McGavick make this case strong enough?
Substantial majorities of the people disapprove of everything in both the executive and legislative branches of government. Polls show the approval rating for Bush, Cheney, Congress, GOP leadership in Congress, and Democrat leadership in Congress to be in the 30’s (or lower). On NATIONAL polls of prominent Senators, McCain is about the only one who breaks 50% in approval, while Frist, Clinton, Kerry and others are in the cellar. (Senators tend to do well in just their own state polls, however, as opposed to nationally.)
Probably both the Democrats and GOP would do well to nominate former or sitting Governors as their Presidential nominees in 2008. Someone with a good track record of managing their state finances and keep their administrations in order.
thehim @ 13
Yeah – go ahead and blame all the Bush Administration’s policies and transgressions on Cantwell. In fact, why don’t you leftist clowns just run a bunch of ads morphing Cantwell into Bush, so the REAL Bush clone (McGavick) can sail on to victory.
Just like all ideologues, you guys do a better job of EATING YOUR OWN than you do FIGHTING THE REAL ENEMY.
Which makes me wonder if you are real progressives in the first place – or just your garden variety anti-government anarchists / libertarians. If so: you right wing tools can rot in hell with the rest of your anti-democracy friends.
Goldy is right on.
There is some risk politically to cowering under a cloud of regret. Have you noticed the theme of the McGavick ads? “Washington DC is out of touch and we need sensible leadership” (never mind of course that his “leadership” is the last thing DC needs!) What plays into that more than admitting you made a mistake, and really are a skittish Democrat who lacks strength & resolve? Any such admission by her now would simply be providing copy and clips for mailings and TV ads, nothing more. Most of the public may be against the war now, but don’t you dare think that being upset about Iraq means we are ready to re-elect someone who does not exude strength. Admitting a mistake like this does NOT IMPROVE THAT IMAGE! Dean tried that angle in 2003, and it was too much for the electorate, and most Democrats in Iowa, to swallow. Remember, voters do not think like we do!!
Unfortunate situation, you bet. Wondering why the cantwell people won’t return my emails looking to explain this? Yep! Wish she were more like Patty, absolutely. But I continue to maintain that her being in the senate as a Dem contributes more to the betterment of our county than ANY VOTE SHE HAS EVER TAKEN. MAJORITIES MATTER.
-redneck@12 enough w/ the ad hominem attacks already. Do you do this to everyone you disagree with?-
No – just to the ignorant defeatist idiots – and your right wing puppet masters.
-Would you do this to me if we were in a bar face to face?-
Heck yeah – and I would enjoy it more, too.
G(etting) R(epublicans) E(lected) E(very) N(ovember)
Calling Cantwell anti-war is absurd. She is anything but anti-war. It would be like calling Lyndon Johnson anti-war.
But by all means, keep at it. Keep attention focused on this matter. Anti-war liberals will know that you are full of it, and will defect over to Dixon in droves. Middle of the road voters (the “swing” voters who make the difference between the Democrats and GOP winning in every statewide election) will see that Cantwell is a wishy-washy flip-flopper and will consider McGavick more seriously.
freek – gay issues
freek – think Harry Reid
fuck the filter
Great summation-
But I continue to maintain that her being in the senate as a Dem contributes more to the betterment of our county than ANY VOTE SHE HAS EVER TAKEN. MAJORITIES MATTER.
redneck@19 Big talk from an anonymous poster on the internet. Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion? Have you ever? I’ve seen your handle in the comments for other articles but I can’t remember anything you’ve written. For someone who likes to accuse people of being GOP operatives, you sure do like their tactics: personal attacks and avoid substative debate.
Can you back up your statement that Cantwell is not a rubber stamp or not?
LR @ 17
You could not possibly be missing my point more. I’m going to cast my vote for Maria Cantwell in November. What I’m saying to you is that unless she starts explaining her voting record and convincing people that she isn’t a combination of Democratic flimsliness and Republican authoritarianism, Mike McGavick could be the next Senator from Washington State. And I DON’T WANT THAT!!
Maria Cantwell is doing everything she can right now to lose in a year when Democrats should be untouchable. And until nitwits like you start to understand that people like me are NOT on the far-left, you’re going to continue to hurt the Democratic Party in this state.
Read Richard Pope’s post. I rarely agree with him, but I find it important to understand his perspective on issues. And if you read his post, you’ll understand that it will not be as hard as you think to paint Cantwell as being Bush’s accomplice in the massive overspending our government has done in the past 5 years.
Richard @ 21
Middle of the road voters (the “swing†voters who make the difference between the Democrats and GOP winning in every statewide election) will see that Cantwell is a wishy-washy flip-flopper and will consider McGavick more seriously.
Thanks for helping to explain this. As I said, I don’t agree with you much on issues, but you do understand politics in this state. The longer Cantwell waits to start talking about Iraq, the worse this effect will be.
The DARK LORD appeared today, snarling, always snarling, and proclaimed support for McGavick. Crowing a hoarse chortle over the effectiveness of divisiveness, “Let’s you and them fight – To the Death!”, his grumbling voice actuator entoned. Commandor Condoleeza’s raspy bi-tonal breathing hissed slowly while organizing the White drones.
Cantwell can’t be prowar and antiwar at the same time can she? I know a gal has a right to change her mind , but has she really changed her mind ? I don’t think so . She’s as hawkish as they come voting for everywar budget that comes along without a peep .
Cantwell can’t continue to fund the Long War and progressives expect the infrastucture in this nation to improve , Katrina like emergency failures will continue , Social Security ?, forget it , Maria’s helping haul the green stuff to Iraq literally as fast as they can print it . Hey wait a minute , maybe Maria isn’t a progressive afterall , maybe she’s one of those Demorats of convenience ???
LR: Chill the fuck out! You’re going going psycho on people against hom your main complaint is that they’re eating their own. That’s problematic, you know?
-Cantwell has done everything she can in the past 2-3 years to give the Republicans the slim chance they have to retake her Senate seat.-
-If large numbers of libertarians vote for a third party this year (or worse, for McGavick), Maria Cantwell has no one to blame but herself –
thehim – this Green Party “blame the Democrat” approach is growing so tiresome. It’s as if the far left needs to find a new way to rationalize their attempts at political suicide (maybe because down inside they feel guilty for dragging people like us down with them on each kamizazee mission) each election cycle.
-Joe Szwaja runs against Jim McDermott because Jim McDermott doesn’t care enough about some obscure tribe in Africa.
-Ralph Nader runs against Al Gore because he thought Gore wasn’t a strong enough environmentalist (despite the fact Gore was working on Global Warming before anybody else)
-Gentry Lange runs against Ron Sims because Ron Sims is supposedly a tool of the right wing voting machine conspiracy
-Aaron Dixon runs against Maria Cantwell because….well because apparently the lilly-white Greens needed to chew up and spit out another sacrificial lamb/candidate who drops off the face of the planet once the election is over
In each one of these races, there is always an apologist out there – like thehim – blaming the Democrat for these useless and pointless third party challenges, which ALWAYS only benefit the GOP.
Why, after Nader delivered George W Bush in 2000, clowns like thehim were out there with the same old refrain: “Gore couldn’t even win his home state of TN – it was HIS fault” Well, the last time GORE ran in TN, it was a DEMOCRATIC STATE. Ten years later, when Gore ran for President, Tennessee was strongly in the red column, with nearly every statewide office being held by the GOP. Details details. But if we were to believe the clueless, self-absolving Greens, it was ALL GORE’S FAULT he couldn’t win Tennessee.
Riiiight, DeadlyShoe – it’s MY fault Greens and suicidal lefties are trying to remove “un-pure” Democrats, and replace them with right wing Republicans. Nothing divisive involved with clueless lefties giving George W a majority in the Senate again next year!
thehim – this Green Party “blame the Democrat†approach is growing so tiresome. It’s as if the far left needs to find a new way to rationalize their attempts at political suicide (maybe because down inside they feel guilty for dragging people like us down with them on each kamizazee mission) each election cycle.
OK, I’ve clearly overestimated your intelligence here, so I’ll try my best to explain this in very simple terms. I am not a Green. I have never been a Green, and I will probably never be a Green. I think Aaron Dixon is a joke and there’s a 0% chance that I’ll be voting for someone other than Maria Cantwell in November.
I’m not trying to hurt Democrats at all. I’m trying to explain to you that Maria Cantwell’s positions on both the war and civil liberties are likely going to hurt her in November and that there are things she can do now (speaking up about the war, supporting Senator Feingold’s censure resolution) to avoid that.
In each one of these races, there is always an apologist out there – like thehim – blaming the Democrat for these useless and pointless third party challenges, which ALWAYS only benefit the GOP.
When a Democrat decides to ignore large subsets of the voting population, then it IS their fault when third party challenges arise. I’m going to vote for Maria Cantwell regardless because I’m very well aware of the internal power struggle in Washington and how difficult it is to block legislation unless the Democrats have a majority in both houses of Congress. But not every voter in this state knows or cares as much about that. I’m not worried as much about people not voting for Cantwell and voting for Dixon. I’m more worried about people not voting for Cantwell and voting for McGavick because they see McGavick as being more anti-Bush than her. And that’s solely Maria Cantwell’s fault.
-What I’m saying to you is that unless she starts explaining her voting record and convincing people that she isn’t a combination of Democratic flimsliness and Republican authoritarianism, Mike McGavick could be the next Senator from Washington State-
Fine enough, thethim. But you may also want to consider the fact that WA state (yes – the state, not the left-leaning Seattle bubble) has a history of supporting strong-on-defense Democrats (Magnuson, Jackson, Foley); and whether you oppose that position or not, the anti-military/Seattle echo chamber may make us all feel good about agreeing with eachother – but it doesn’t deliver the kind of votes you need to win an election.
If you watched Patty Murray retain her seat two years ago, you will notice she didn’t suck up to the far left to do it – nor was she “forced” to explain some of her votes to this group.
Murray spoke to those “namby-pamby/flip flopping/democrat-leaning independent” types who make or break almost every election outside Seattle each election cycle.
And, in doing so, she prevented another Bush clone from adding to the GOP majority in the Senate.
Not to say Murray and Cantwell should abandon their base to win elections. But I just don’t think the “base” should be limited to a handful of single issue permanent-activist types.
If you watched Patty Murray retain her seat two years ago, you will notice she didn’t suck up to the far left to do it – nor was she “forced†to explain some of her votes to this group.
Right, but Patty Murray has had a much better record on civil liberties than Maria Cantwell. I agree with you that you shouldn’t suck up to the far left to win a state-wide election in Washington. That’s not what I’m saying. This state has a very strong civil libertarian base that constitutes a large number of the swing votes. They care about government overspending, property rights, gun rights, civil liberties, the drug war. They’re both left and right, and they are much more alarmed by things like the Patriot Act than many others (both strict D’s and R’s). As Richard said, this is the group that generally decides the statewide races, and Cantwell’s record in this area is very poor, and the stakes in this area are pretty high this year.
And also, George Nethercutt was an embarrassment of a candidate in 2004. It’s very possible that McGavick will be just as bad and all of this will be moot. At least, that’s what I hope. For now, I’m anticipating that he’ll run a smart campaign.
If we want a great representative for Alaska, we should vote for Mikey. He’s bought and paid for by the Alaska oil interests.
6
“@3 Democrats are the party of tax-and-spend. The Republicans are the party of borrow-and-spend. Commentby Michael— 4/5/06@ 11:43 am”
You neglected to mention that Democrats spend on things that actually do ordinary people some good, while Republicans spend on things that (a) line the pockets of the ultra-rich, and (b) kill people.
The plain fact is that Cantwell doesn’t represent me, a 52yo lifelong Democrat, when she votes for the Patriot Act (twice), for the odious bankruptcy bill, against the Alito filibuster, for confirming Ashcroft, Gonzalez, and Rice. Her unwillingness to support Feingold’s censure resolution is yet another strike against her. She is the living embodiment of a DLC/GOP-lite “centrist”.
I’ll be voting against her in the primary, but I’ll hold my nose and vote for her in November.
16
“Probably both the Democrats and GOP would do well to nominate former or sitting Governors as their Presidential nominees in 2008. Someone with a good track record of managing their state finances and keep their administrations in order. Commentby Richard Pope— 4/5/06@ 12:46 pm”
Well, on the Democratic side, that would be Howard Dean, wouldn’t it?
21
“Middle of the road voters (the “swing” voters who make the difference between the Democrats and GOP winning in every statewide election) will see that Cantwell is a wishy-washy flip-flopper and will consider McGavick more seriously. Commentby Richard Pope— 4/5/06@ 12:51 pm”
Keep dreaming, Richard, if it makes ya happy!
ROGER RABBIT POLL
How many Democrats would rather vote for a $14-million-a-year insurance CEO who takes money from oil companies than Maria Cantwell?
[ ] 1. 0
[ ] 2. 1
[ ] 3. 2
[ ] 4. 2 1/2
[ ] 5. an indeterminate number less than 5
Roger @ 42,
Read BillR’s comment @ 40. If you think there aren’t large numbers of people in this state who are thinking like that, you’re kidding yourself as badly as some of the other Democrats on this thread.
freek @3,
A rubber stamp? What world do you live in? Take a look at her voting score at Progressive Punch, and compare her to the rest of our delegation. Cantwell scores an 89% compared to Patty Murray’s 90%. That’s only a few points below renowned liberal Jim McDermott, and over 5 points higher than much loved Jay Inslee.
Has she cast some disappointing votes? Hell yeah! But over all she has a pretty good voting record, and is anything but a rubber stamp for this administration. Really, check it out… Progressive Punch breaks everything down vote by vote.
theHim @11,
I think you misunderstand me. I’m not arguing that Cantwell’s tepid critique of the war thus far has anything to do with electoral politics. I’m saying that as senator her public statements can have a much greater impact abroad and at home than that of say, some blogger.
That said, I agree with @34 that she needs to make her position on the war more clear or else she will lose some votes in November.
Richard @21,
I never said Cantwell was “anti-war”. I said that she was not “pro-war.” There is a war right now, whether we like it or not, and it is possible for people to have nuanced or even ambivalent feelings about what is or is not the best course of action.
44
Hey, I hear your complaints, and I could add that Maria was a carpetbagger who moved to Washington because she calculated that our state was the best place to launch her hoped-for political career, after checking us out like an industrialist looking for a river to pollute. She’s not my idea of an ideal Democrat either, okay? The time to bounce her is 2012, not 2006. We’re not dealing with business as usual this year. Nuff said.
BREAKING NEWS — Tacoma bones identified as Adre’anne Jackson
BillR,
Even an old commie such as myself can agree with your sentiments. Cantwell needs to either be (a.) defeated; or (b.) scared to death in a Democratic Party PRIMARY battle. That the greens cannot bring themselves to do this speaks to their insistence on ideological purity over political success. And isn’t political success what this is all about?
However, if it is all about “heightening the contradictions”, then join the Progressive Labor Party (Trotskyites).
48
Hey Joe, you were a big supporter of Trotsky, as I recall. That’s a mean ice axe you swing there, dude.
Why are Wrongboy, [Just another Chicken Hawk], Mark the Welching Yellowback, Ms. Chickenhawk and all your other favorite wingnuts not supporting our president and signing up for the military?
Play Yellow Elephant Bingo and find out:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/
Wabbit @ 41
Actually, I was thinking that former Virginia Governor Mark Warner (who stepped down after 2005 election) would be a strong candidate for the Democrats.
Just as Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (who is stepping down after 2006 election) would be a strong candidate for the Republicans.
Warner and Romney also have the advantage of being from the other party’s base stronghold. Certainly would shake things up a little bit!
I think you misunderstand me. I’m not arguing that Cantwell’s tepid critique of the war thus far has anything to do with electoral politics. I’m saying that as senator her public statements can have a much greater impact abroad and at home than that of say, some blogger.
Not even Donald Rumsfeld believes that a Senator’s words affect the war effort. Why would anyone else?
There’s simply no excuse for Cantwell’s silence on this any more. How hard his is it to say:
a) I regret my vote for the war
b) We need to establish a timetable
Either she’s afraid to say it, which is bad, or she doesn’t believe it, which is frighteningly bad.
P.S. I’m listening to the podcast. Well done, nice interview with Darcy.
Anbody catch McGavick’s weak stance on gay marriage on the radio this afternoon? Where is Cantwell on the issue and how about Dixon. I seem to recall Maria being against gay marriage as well?
Warner and Romney also have the advantage of being from the other party’s base stronghold.
Not quite. Warner is from Virginia. The Republican base is now a town on the Utah-Idaho border.
“Probably both the Democrats and GOP would do well to nominate former or sitting Governors as their Presidential nominees in 2008. Someone with a good track record of managing their state finances and keep their administrations in order.”
Mr. Pope: You would appear to be endorsing Howard Dean as a possible Democratic candidate. 5 terms as governor with balanced budgets. nobody else comes close.
Goldy says what needs to be said; the Party is what matters, and the Party needs your vote. Hold the nose and vote the Party. Or you can try to replace the sitting Senator in the Primary with someone more to your liking.
Looking over the comments, enough of you will continue with your personal hissy fits to elect most any Republican. Carry on.
New surgery for the Socialist Democrats to fix their Depression problem, and could be a solution for Roger and Gang. The operation borrowed a procedure called deep brain stimulation, or D.B.S., which is used to treat Parkinson’s. It involves planting electrodes in a region near the center of the brain called Area 25 and sending in a steady stream of low voltage from a pacemaker in the chest.
http://www.nytimes.com/
A Depression Switch?
By DAVID DOBBS
Published: April 2, 2006
Deanna Cole-Benjamin never figured to be a test case for a radical new brain surgery for depression. Her youth contained no traumas; her adult life, as she describes it, was blessed. At 22 she joined Gary Benjamin, a career financial officer in the Canadian Army, in a marriage that brought her happiness and, in the 1990’s, three children. They lived in a comfortable house in Kingston, a pleasant university town on Lake Ontario’s north shore, and Deanna, a public-health nurse, loved her work. But in the last months of 2000, apropos of nothing � no life changes, no losses � she slid into a depression of extraordinary depth and duration.
It began with a feeling of not really feeling as connected to things as usual,” she told me one evening at the family’s dining-room table. “Then it was like this wall fell around me. I felt sadder and sadder and then just numb.”
Her doctor prescribed progressively stronger antidepressants, but they scarcely touched her. A couple of weeks before Christmas, she stopped going to work. The simplest acts � deciding what to wear, making breakfast � required immense will. Then one day, alone in the house after Gary had taken the kids to school and gone to work, she felt so desperate to escape her pain that she drove to her doctor’s office and told him she didn’t think she could go on anymore.
Roger and Gang it appears the Democrats support illegal aliens free Citizenship instead of deportation.
U. S. Senate Democrats block amendment that would prevent criminal illegal aliens from obtaining citizenship
Seattle, WA – “I am extremely disappointed by the Democrats’ attempts to block a Republican amendment that would prevent illegal aliens convicted of felonies from getting US citizenship,” said Washington State Republican Party Chairman Diane Tebelius earlier today. Democrats, lead by Minority Leader Harry Reid claimed that the amendment “hurts” the immigration reform bill currently being considered by the US Senate. Washington State’s Maria Cantwell was predictably silent on the issue. “Does Maria Cantwell support making U.S. Citizens out of illegal aliens with felony convictions?” asked Tebelius.
Contrary to Maria Cantwell’s avoidance of this issue, Republican Senate candidate Mike McGavick has taken a clear stand. “Not allowing felony convicted aliens the privilege of law abiding citizens, the privilege of working and residing in The United States common sense,” said McGavick. “Yet the Senate Minority objects? Worse they will not even permit a vote on the issue. If the Senate is not allowed to reach a consensus on criminal aliens becoming citizens, what hope is there for true immigration reform?”
“I don’t know how anyone could object to this a common sense amendment,” said Tebelius. “Clearly the Democrats are out of step with the American people on this issue. Maria Cantwell owes the voters of this state an explanation.”
Just as Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (who is stepping down after 2006 election) would be a strong candidate for the Republicans.
Oh, Richard! You are so naive, it is amusing to read your posts. Your disconnect from reality is near total. Look. Many on the extremo christian right consider the Mormons a cult. A cult in the worst sense of the word. Between the immigration imbroglio, the acceptance, even by a growing number of wingnut christians that global warming is, like, real, the disaster in Iraq–and now a Mormon for president? The GOP base is crumbling. The only thing that can save them is a coup d’etat. Oh. Wait. There was that funny stuff with the Supremes in 2000.
Roger and Gang it appears the Democrats support illegal aliens free Citizenship instead of deportation.
Why not? You cheap labor conservatives want them here. Why not make them citizens?
Factchex:
ODIOUS BillR @ 40 recirculates the ODIOUS LIE that Cantwell voted for the “odious bankruptcy bill”. With so many Cantwell bashers in attendance, and so many of them so well versed in the facts of this matter, their ensuing failure to correct the record is no accident.
SeattleDem @ 53 — Cantwell was the first candidate I ever heard give an unembellished one-word answer (“yes”) to the gay marriage question in a major broadcast setting (KIRO radio, Dave Ross show, 2000). Come to think of it, she’s probably still the only one.
It should be clear from context that the Cantwell bashers — Democrats, Greens or Republicans — have among the lowest collective ethical standards of anybody this side of Lyndon LaRouche. Why? I dunno. You’d think they’d want to do better, what with their being holier than god and all.
Cantwell was the first candidate I ever heard give an unembellished one-word answer (“yes”) to the gay marriage question in a major broadcast setting (KIRO radio, Dave Ross show, 2000). Come to think of it, she’s probably still the only one.
Commentby RonK, Seattle— 4/5/06@ 9:35 pm
Ronk are you like Boing Bob who is gay and want to make a statement? What is you point? Are you Gay and need extra support? Come on Chap it is OK to be Gay but let go of it, and smell the roses and smile.
It should be clear from context that the Cantwell bashers – Democrats, Greens or Republicans – have among the lowest collective ethical standards of anybody this side of Lyndon LaRouche. Why? I dunno. You’d think they’d want to do better, what with their being holier than god and all.
Commentby RonK, Seattle— 4/5/06@ 9:35 pm
RonK are you a real Democrat or a Socialist Democrat? Nobody bashes the woman you like, but have a different point of view. Nobody is holier than God is even though you believe in Lenin, and what he stands for in your life. Ron you set your standards at one level and everybody who has a half a brain sets it levels above you.
I will vote for and work for Cantwell.
Not because I think she is blameless. Much of the current anger at her votes is justified but handing the seat over to the repubs is foolish and will not change the situation in the Senate for the better.
I too would like Maria to explain the logic used in some of the senate votes in this term. Many of us are NOT the pollyannas that think the title of a bill and the aye or nay are the whole story. Horsetrading and backscratching may as well be the two most powerful unwritten rules in the senate. Purists should never look deeply at politics or sausage as it is being made since that way lies non participation in the process or the active sabotage we are seeing emerge on the fringes.
I probably will not agree with her explanations either, but I want the hear them anyway. If they exhibit a twisted or flawed logic that seems at odds with reality, then I and others will start activly looking for a candidate that can be vetted, and showered with netroots money, and ultimately run against her in the next cycle. Hopefully we will have a solid majority by then so we don’t have to hold our nose and send her back to the senate.
Any other path is disaster on a national level as well as an opening to let the Ted (Exxon) Stevens of the senate dictate policy for the northwest.
I am still hoping she will start acting a little more in the interest of her constituants, especially those who make less than a million dollars a year.
Ronk is a REAL Democrat. And a damn fine activist :)
Sometimes we don’t agree but that doesn’t mean he ain’t right.
:)
-Ronk are you like Boing Bob who is gay and want to make a statement? What is you point? Are you Gay and need extra support?-
klake – what’s your obsession with gays, anyways? Some transferrence going on here, perhaps?
-Nobody is holier than God is even though you believe in Lenin, and what he stands for in your life.-
klake, are you really serious with these bizarre statements? Can your really be as weird as you play yourself off as?
BTW, klake – did you find that “escape goat” of yours yet?
Only DLC Dems claim that Gore lost in 2000 because of Nader. Gore WON IN 2000! Nader didn’t even pick up five percent of the vote! Ross Perot got 20! This is totally corporate whore democratic spin that blames lefties that actually care about peace and justice for the wimpy, corporate pap that passes for Democratic national strategy.
Cantwell is going to lose, not because of us, but because of her and her desire to be a b.ig fat corporate fundraiser. If we want to get labor and peace to join with the DP in this race, we have to have a candidate that will repeal free trade laws and get us out of Iraq. Will she do it?
I doubt it. And horsesass can keep seeking those fat corporate contracts.
I am so sick and tired of hearing Democrats attack Nader/Green voters and blame them for Democrat losses. Please stop, breathe, and ACCEPT two very basic facts.
1) Nader gave many thousands of voters someone to vote for. There is absolutely NO REASON to assume that all of those votes would have been cast for Gore if Nader was not in the race.
2) The Democrats are not entitled to my vote. And some Democratic candidates do not deserve my vote simply because they are less offensive than their Republican opponent.
I don’t know how I’m going to vote in the Senate race, but if the choice is between Cantwell representing my interests by, say, 65% and McGavick representing them by, say, 50% then there’s not a whole lot of distance between them, is there? And if their stances are the same on all of the key issues that are important to me, no matter how they differ on the little ones? And if they are both just rich, white corporate whores?
Idiot. You “think,” that Cantwell’s “conflicted” about her pro-war, pro-Patriot Act stance. She’s no more conflicted than you are. She’s got her pay-off (money and power–yes, I’m saying she’s another Bushie hireling) and she’s not about to bite the hand that feeds her.