Washblog

Thank you Lietta for your thoughtful journal.

I just have one addition. Our troops are in the middle of a CIVIL war. They should not be.

by DWE on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 12:00:12 PM PST

---

I think the thing that this diary reminds us of is simply that there are some issues that are bigger than individual candidates.

Lietta asks whether we would trust the lives of one of our family members to Maria Cantwell's commitment. He's not a family member, but a great freidn of all of us in the Dean Campaign will soon be flying into Iraq with the U.S. Air Force. I have a friend who just got back from deployment in Fallujah with the Marines. He has two kids.

The military people we send to Iraq have only the citizens and politicians to protect them. They give up their rights to decide for themselves. If I believed that Maria Cantwell's position on Iraq cam from her deep convictions - came from a serious consideration of the reality of the war - I would not take her to task. But I'm sure that she is just ducking the issue. That's really unseemly to say the least.

Democrats have the attitude that they can somehow skate by and not confront the Republicans, not realizing that people notice their absence. Ratings by an Institute and votes on this program or that are not what tells the voters what kind of person you are and where you stand. Votes and statements on the key issues of the day are what tell voters you are worth electing.

Democrats in the leadership have not been successful telling voters whythey are worth election. They are satisfied with saying "we aren't as bad a s the Republicans" without really even going out and telling us how bad the Republicans are. It is not a strategy for success and indeed it has not succeeded. It minimizes victories and trends in our favor and maximizes losses and trends that go against us.

Vocal Cantwell supporters are not confident in the 14-point lead she has because they do not see her being able to launch a strong campaign against her opponent. It's become a question of how many votes McGavick's campaign will take away from Cantwell, not whether it will take votes away at all, as it should be. That attitude is a product of the weakness of her positions.

by dlaw on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 04:50:44 PM PST

---

have their say as to why we should quit guilting them about how useless Cantwell has been in doing the right thing to rein in a nutcase president, I am left to make one observation.

I'm not in any way the smartest guy in Bay Center,  Washington, and the number of my competitors is less than 400 souls.

But as dumb as I am and was, I knew Bush was an incompetent faker in 1999, 2000, and 2001. I KNEW his Iraq reason and rationale was bogus and could see it coming in 2001. 2002, 2003 and afterwards have only vindicated my dumb ass assessment.

Now if you're trying to tell a dumb ass like me that Cantwell was dumber than me and actually thought Bush and his reasons were legitimate from he get go, then we need a new and smarter senator.

This one has been faking it too.

There comes a time when our terror of a Republican victory over a Democratic incumbent has to take second place to a consideration of who has no courage to admit a mistake nor the gumption to pick up the standard again, raise it to make things right and act like a god damn leader. We need to seriously consider an alternate democratic candidate and let Cantwell know it right up to primary day.

If she doesn't get the message, she's as dumb as I've said or as stuplidly stubborn as the President she refuses to challenge. We don't need that. Really we don't

With or without a Democrat as a junior senator from Washington, we do not and must not tolerate a lack of courage and leadership in our elected officials. Again, we need to seriously consider that all the way up to the primary and convey that precise message to Ms. Cantwell.

All you strategists seem to be stuck in the cheap side of the Monopoly Board wanting us to spend our energy on Virginia Avenue and a maybe a railroad instead of making for Boardwalk and Park Place.

2006 is going to reflect voter backlash against republicans and play-it-safe Democrats all over America no matter who the Demo candidate is in Washington State.

But there's no comparison between a certain incumbent from Bellevue and the Democratic Iraq War veterans running for office. They deserve better companions than the incumbents who haven't been there, haven't done than and haven't admitted that supporting Bush's war was a mistake.

If our national Democratic party cannot take back Senate and House with or without shallow-water Demos like Cantwell, then all of us will be better off come December 2006 by joining another party or starting a new one.

And this article needs to be on the front page.

Arthur
You sure you ain't staking too much on yer theories? Not enough common sense?

by Arthur Ruger on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 06:34:05 PM PST

---

But on election day know that the D's have a solid chance to take the 6 US senate seats needed to gain the majority provided all D seats are held. Cantwell it a top target for the RNC and the reason is simple, they know she will be a reliable vote for the Dem's when they are in the majority and we begin to change the direction our nation has been taking under Bush and with the R's in the majority in both houses.
So make as much noise for peace and for our troops as you can but do not throw your vote away for Aaron Dixon and by all means do cast a vote in the senate race.

Over at horsesass the story on Dixon by Geov Parrish titled Shame on the Greens and Aaron Dixon and linked here:  http://feedthefish.org/etsblog/archives/000970.html
The story details the results of basic research about this poor choice for the Green Party candidate. Can you say not viable? What follows is an excerpt from Geov's story listing a few choice facts about Dixon:

"1) Eighteen criminal charges in the last 17 years, most (but not all) for traffic violations and unpaid traffic fines.

2. Massive debts from dozens of unpaid fines in both Seattle Municipal Court and King County District Court. A number are for driving without insurance (and yes, he can afford it.)
   
3. Dixon claims on his web site that the woman he currently lives with (and who is his campaign media contact) is his wife. She isn't, and she'd better not be. He's still in the process of divorcing his last wife.
   
4. And he owes thousands in unpaid child support to yet another ex.
   
5. Not only has Dixon not voted since registering in 1998 (which was reported Thursday), but he's never voted before that, either. In other words, he's never voted in King County. Ever, over an adult life spanning nearly 40 years. And his inactive voter registration lists a now-invalid address."

 

by Particle Man on Mon Mar 27, 2006 at 08:58:43 AM PST

---

War was not the answer. Cantwell who was involved in the Iraq issue as sanctions were imposed and ignored and so on, was of the mindset that the government there needed to change. It was with this mindset that she took the votes leading up to our invasion. Were those votes partly political? Many D's took political votes in those days (sadly).
Years later in the fall of last year it became fashionable for even hawks among our congressional delegation to say the war was a mistake (something they had known for years). Was announcing this revelation political? I think yes, since their districts strongly oppose the war and the pres's handling of it.
Have I talked with Maria on this subject? No. Would that be likely to give a clear picture of how much of her present position is political? No. But my view is that she:

1. Feels trapped (damned if she does damned if she doesn't)
   
2. Looks at the 50%-50% party split in our state, the similarities between her match up and the Gov V/S Rossi match up, her own narrow victory last time, and sees a need to get max votes from R held congressional districts.
   
3. given where things are now that she wants to see us restore order prior to withdrawing.

Well, the first two are political and from a political standpoint her stand today makes more sense politically than the fantasy that we can restore order by expending more trillions and lives. Iraq is a lost cause and the only way we will see a change in policy prior to electing the next democratic president it to take back the house and senate. Please vote for her anyway.

by Particle Man on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 09:02:23 AM PST

---

It is so very easy for new congressmen and congresswomen, in the House or Senate, who were not in office in 2003 to suggest they would not have voted to authorize the President to use force if necessary to defend this country.

Given how few didn't back then, I take with a grain of salt any affirmations that these politicians would have done as much had they been in D.C. at the time, with Obama being no exception.

On The Road To 2008: Countdown to the next opportunity to change the direction of America

by Daniel K on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 12:37:49 PM PST

---

was certainly not a great time to be a Democrat.  Vote one way, you're against holding Saddamn Hussein responsible for crimes against Man.  Vote another, you sign off on what Bush says he's going to do, and what he doesn't say he's going to do.  The initial vote isn't the point of this.  It's Sen. Cantwell's inability to face facts on the issue.  It is not necessary for her to regret her vote (how very 'Democrat' of us, to demand meaningless statements) but to change her policy (the meaningful part).  I want Cantwell to veer towards Senator Obama on this count.  Political solution, not military, an exit plan that get's troops out soon.  But maybe, Cantwell isn't against pulling troops out.  I want to know why, and how she's holding Bush accountable.  For me, it is not necessary for her to be in favor of censure, but simply that she doesn't shoot down those who are.  The important part is taking back the Senate, because with that comes investigation power and the effective end of the Bush Presidency.

by Belltowner on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 04:30:27 PM PST

---