Washblog

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

Find someone in 3 years who actually has the credibility to run for the United States Senate.  Mark Wilson is a political gadfly - he can't figure out which party he belongs to (first a Libertarian - then a Green - now, magically, a Dem), and has absolutely no prior experience in anything that would prepare him to sit in the United States Senate.

Draft Inslee (although I hear he'd rather be Gov after Gregoire has had her run), or find just about anyone else - but Wilson isn't it.

I'm with Obama

Wilson clearly isn't a much of a Democrat and isn't much of senator quality either.  Again, my guess is you know this too.

The choice before us now is Cantwell or McGavick. I know which one of those two I support, what about you?

Now if your goal is to influence how Cantwell votes than there are many ways to do that. I would just suggest that trying to help McGavick get elected is not a very good place to start.

If I thought that the positions Cantwell has taken which have REALLY PISSED OFF her base were either:

A) A product of her deeply held principles

OR

B) Popular positions that bolstered her message

I would not be pissed off. Look, take an issue like Gun Control. I'm for it. A lot of Ls and Ps I know are for it, and I'll throw it out the window without a second throught because it's just bad politics.

But Cantwell's position on Iraq is ALSO bad politics. Her advisers are telling her it makes her seem "moderate". What it makes her seem is cowardly and out of touch.

All the issues thehim has mentioned have something in common - Cantwell is basically putting forward the idea that to get what we want we have to accept not only the FACT but the RIGHTNESS of the Republican approach. This is stupid. She is doing their work for them.

When Cantwell has stood up it has worked. Her present approach is not working. Cantwell can and must do better if she is going to be part of a greater victory. If she doesn't see an obligation to her party, if she just cares about herself, fine. That's her right. But then she absolves her party of their obligation to her.  

In my view, we spend far too much time worrying that a few thousand Dems might not vote for Sen. Cantwell in the general. Why spend so much energy trying to keep other Dems in line?

I'd rather we get on to the business of supporting candidates who need our support (such as Darcy Burner). In addition, I'd rather that we pressure the elected officials we have to do serious work on the critical issues of the day.

I'd be happy to pressure Republicans, except they don't listen to people like me. So I'm stuck pressuring Democrats. If more of us had been pressuring Senators Murray and Cantwell, as well as various members of Congress, they would have been forced to join the Iraq civil war debate by now. There are lots of ways to pressure elected officials. We simply haven't been using the means at our disposal.

I'm always amazed when I make hard criticisms of Sen. Cantwell and send my public comments directly to senior Cantwell staff--I'm always amazed they don't just tell me to get lost. But I think it's because I tell them, over and over and over, that I simply want the senator to take constructive policy positions on Iraq. I want her to join the public conversation about it. And I always offer several concrete examples of positive things she could do.

I should add that different Congressional offices require different approaches. I don't think, for example, "tough love" is something you want to use with McDermott. It wouldn't be appropriate. The one thing I see that is required in dealing with all offices is the long-term cultivation of relationships. And that requires patience and persistance. Office staff also has to see what their boss is going to get out of working with you. More often than not, the "reward" is implied: maybe you'll make a glowing report in front of district membership; maybe you'll just be one more satisfied constituent; maybe you'll help them spread the word they're doing the right thing on an issue.

So I see all this do-we-or-do-we-not-vote-for-Cantwell talk as hindering our ability to pressure her to be more responsive on issues that might actually help her and, more importantly, help the human race.

But that's the wrong question.

She is the best we will do in 2006.  

More to the point, she's the only meaningful choice we have in 2006.  Any chance to do better disappeared a year or two ago, when no real challenger came forward.

You're only young once, but you can be immature forever -- Larry Andersen
Blogging at Peace Tree Farm

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

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.)

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.

And he owes thousands in unpaid child support to yet another ex.

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."

Conservative Republicans mounted a serious effort to knock off moderate GOP Senator Specter of PA, but Specter narrowly won the primary (and was reelected handily).

Look at it this way, thehim.  If Dems had picked Deborah Senn in 2000, Slade Gorton would have been reelected.  Slade would have been Senator the last six years, and Slade sure as hell would have voted a lot worse than Cantwell has voted.  I know, that doesn't take the edge off certain MC votes, but Maria beat Slade and added a Dem seat.

I support Maria mainly because we need to hold her seat to futher efforts to take back the Senate.  That's why I support her, and other questionable Dems, like Sen. Ben Nelson (NE).

For me, at this point, its all about moving the ball forward.  And allowing Mike McGavick to win in a squeaker is not an option.

ps: Also, I understand that Cantwell could take a more liberal stand on issues to win back Seattle liberals.  But it looks like she ain't uh-gonna do it.  If she loses, I blame her first, not the anti-Cantwell type Dems who seem to frequent Washblog.

   Here is my conclusion:

The only question that remains is whether Mark is a "viable" candidate.
Viable: "Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable"
Oddly enough, the people who spend the most time asking this question are the very people who keep his name out of their newspapers and other venues where he might gain some traction. I would suggest that the real answer to that question lies with those who consider themselves progressive and are looking for someone to represent their values and stand up to the Bush Administration. The way I see it, we either stand with Mark today or we live with more of the same for the NEXT SIX YEARS. You decide.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue