Washblog

McGavick is no republican charismatic powerhouse who could ride roughshod over Maria due to some sort of sheer intelligence, skill, personality and leadership advantage. If he and his party succeed in building that lie, then it's our own damn fault.

She's got him hands down.

Right...  You know, Dino Rossi almost/maybe/sorta-did win the election of '04 because lots of Democrats thought the same thing back then.  You have no evidence that McGavick is weak.  He managed a Senate campaign (Gorton in '88) that came from further behind than McG is behind now to WIN.  McGavick knows what it takes to win and he'll do anything to beat Maria Cantwell.  She is a giant thorn in their side, and they think they have a shot here in the NW to take down a Dem.

Don't misjudge the opposition.  At least be mindful that talking down Cantwell makes her weaker.  (Sorta reminds me back in '00, when all the libs talked shit about Gore, which had something to do with Gore's negatives always being high.)

Point One
Maria is going to win her primary easily.

But if someone like Paul Hackett were challenging her for the nomination, all you tip-toers would be standing on shaky crystal pedestals trying to get the rest of us to shut the hell up.

For me, the logic of the post stops right here.

IF Cantwell had a legitimate challenger we could talk. IF she had a challenger all of this might make some sense. She doesn't. (If you think Wilson is a legit Democratic candidate for Senator you might as well quit reading this post because we are not going to agree on much of anything.)

Since Cantwell does not have a Democratic challenger, the choice in an election campaign is to take actions that help Cantwell or actions that help McGavick.

You seem to think that the world is divided between those who will take a stand and those who don't. No offense, but that is just foolish.

There are those who will take a particular stand in particular circumstances and those who won't.  

The choice here is to attack Cantwell when the only alternative is McGavick, or not to.

It seems silly to go on about basic political facts, but that seems to be the discussion we are having.

Anti-Cantwell attacks help McGavick. To ignore this is to ignore the reality of our political system. No matter how well-intentioned, no matter how honorable, that is the practical outcome.  If Paul Hackett were here you might have a case, he is not, and to ignore that is to ignore reality. This does not impugn my backbone, it impugns your political judgement.

But even if we ignore all the political realities and you want to define your goal as 'helping convince Cantwell to take a stand against the war', this action is unlikely to help.

If she buckles now, she looks weak and just capitulated to 6 folks sitting in an office. That would make you happy, but would likely damage her image more than it would help.

In essence, you guys just forced her into a Sister Souljah moment and will have likely forced her hand to move exactly opposite of what your stated goal is.

I sympathize greatly Arthur and on the policy I have been and am on your side, but circular firing squads are simply not good politics.

There is widespread discontent about the Iraq war in this country. The real challenge of the anti-Iraq-war movement is to capitalize on that discontent. In my view, our elected officals have not responded to this discontent with serious policymaking and practical action. Part of the problem is that the opposition Democratic Party has too many leaders and Party regulars afraid of confronting the issue.

In the meantime, the situation in Iraq worsens every day and becomes more dangerous for all of us. It is most dangerous for the human beings in Iraq, whether Iraqis or American servicemembers. But it's also dangerous for their family members in this country and elsewhere. Beyond that, it's dangerous for human beings in neighboring countries. And with a price tag of $1-2 trillion and counting, it's dangerous for the long-term financial health of future generations of American human beings.

In my opinion, those who tell us that we shouldn't publicly pressure Congress members and the Bush administration are on the wrong side of history. I understand why Sen. Cantwell is a focus of antiwar activity in this state, but it can't stop there. How, for example, has Sen. Murray been a leader on the Iraq war? For that matter, how have the Senate Democrats shown leadership? And where is Howard Dean these days?

I don't know how to mobilize that widespread anti-Iraq-war discontent. Dr. Gale and his fellow protesters have taken one approach--an approach that is deeply serious and has at least yielded another meeting with Sen. Cantwell. In my view, it is quite naive to call it merely a publicity stunt. It's also quite naive to have assumed that it was a lose-lose situation or that it would inevitably hurt Sen. Cantwell's re-election chances. The last few days we've seen the moral and intellectual weakness of the we-must-never-embarrass-Maria-cause-she'll-lose-the-election obsession.

The first Progressive Era demonstrated that serious political change happens because lots of outsiders and insiders are doing lots of things. In the Progressive Era, there was a lot of social experimentation. Activists tried all sorts of things. There were some rather remarkable alliances. In the end, the Progressives succeeded in moving inside even the Republican Party.

So once again I advocate we--by "we" I mean the anti-Iraq-war activists--simply set aside other people's obsessions with not publicly pressuring Sen. Cantwell or any other elected official. I say we bypass them and let them worry amongst themselves. You don't win arguments by picking apart your opponents' positions. You win arguments by forcing others to argue on your terms. Let's figure out how we can mobilize the widespread discontent of mainstream America, and then let others deal with that.

I don't have the answers, but I venture a few suggestions:

• To paraphrase the eighth rule of radicals, let's keep the pressure on; let's vary methods and techniques. We should keep at it, and we should experiment to see what works and what doesn't. Let's not be too afraid of making a mistake.

• Let's expand the alliance. There are lots of disparate anti-Iraq-war groups out there. They need to seek alliances and tie themselves together in mutual projects. Dr. Gale has been good at that. We should learn from him and build on his efforts.

• Let's reach out to discontented Americans and figure out ways for them to express their discontent in politically powerful ways. And let's try to understand what actually bothers mainstream Americans about the war. Is it the money? The lost lives? The broken bodies? The destablization of the Mideast? What is it?

• Let's learn from one another. What have people tried that has worked? What hasn't worked? What tools and techniques and contacts and information should we be sharing?

• Let's talk frankly among one another. For example, we've put a lot of energy into trying to influence Sen. Cantwell. How have we done? Should we shift some focus to Sen. Murray? Do we want her to be more out in front on the war? What about some of our Congressmen?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sit-in at Sen. Cantwell's Office On "Hold" -- Protestors wait for meeting with Senator on May 6;

Cantwell's office refuses to allow meeting to be made public

We engaged in civil disobedience in Senator Cantwell's office to convey both the gravity of the situation in Iraq and highlight that because Senator Cantwell "helped lead us into this war; now it's incumbent on Cantwell to help lead us out of it" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editorial Board, 03/21/06).

Our sit-in began at noon on Tuesday, April 25th.  The sit-in continues, but is "on hold", with our demands remaining the same: that she publicly support Senator Kerry's plan calling for a withdrawal of all troops by the end of 2006 and/or that Senator Cantwell hold a public forum to fully address the costs of this war and a way to end it.

As Senator Cantwell has stated "when the Iraqi forces stand up, the US forces will stand down", we have stated that "when Senator Cantwell stands
up, we will stand down."

Today Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin has announced a Senate amendment to a spending bill requiring that US troops leave Iraq by the end of 2006.

With this news it is all the more imperative that Senator Cantwell rally support behind the only options open for ending this war.

On the Wednesday, April 26, at approximately 1:30 PM, we placed our sit-in "on hold" for the following reasons:

(1)  (a) The senator has agreed to meet with us again on May 6.  We are saddened and disappointed that the meeting will remain non-public.  Past
meetings (with ourselves and with other groups) have lacked any mechanism to provide for follow-up and accountability.  We offered the Senator's staff numerous mechanisms for making the meeting public, as a step toward guaranteeing follow-up and accountability, including simple procedures such as providing a publicly accessible verbatim written transcript.  The Senator's staff has declined all such suggestions.

       (b) There will be a mutually agreed moderator at this meeting to keep it focused and productive.
       (c) There will be core questions we will submit to the Senator's staff in advance, questions we feel the Senator has failed to answer.  We would like for the discussion to remain focused on two themes, which are the
rationale for removing US armed forces from Iraq: (1) how to reduce US casualties in Iraq, and (ii) how to end civilian deaths which the US bears
responsibility for.  We are not simply calling for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, we are also calling for an end to US aggression against Iraqis.

(2) Out of consideration for two staff members, who remained in the office with us all night, we wanted those people to be able to resume their normal duties and their personal lives and responsibilities.  They were forced to sleep on the same miserable floors we were.  At all times the staff have been respectful and considerate, going beyond what they were required to do.
We were given a conference room, water, and full access to a bathroom at all times.  The fact that we did not have access to food, beyond what we brought in with us, is completely irrelevant: we did not sit-in at the Senator's office to dine and/or be entertained.  Those in our group who have medical needs were provided breakfast on Wednesday.  We all deeply appreciate the
behavior of the staff and regret any inconveniences they experienced.

(3)  As our sit-in is on "hold", pending the outcome of our May 6 meeting, we reserve the right to resume our sit-in.  We have the agreement of the staff that the members of our group will not be preemptively barred from the Seattle Federal Building or from the Senator's office before such time that we might resume our sit-in.

For any updates please call 1-866-NoIraqWar (1-866-664-7279).

Joe Colgan,
Father of 1st Lt. Benjamin Colgan, KIA Iraq 11/01/2003

Joshua Farris,
US Army Spc., Veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom

Stacy Bannerman,
wife of Operation Iraqi Freedom Veteran; Advisory Board of Military Families
Speak Out, author of 'When the War Came Home' (2006, Continuum)

Rev. Richard Gamble,
Pastor Keystone United Church of Christ; Co-Chair of the Interfaith Network
of Concern for the People of Iraq (Program Affiliate of the Church Council
of Greater Seattle)

Abe Osheroff,
Veteran of the Spanish Civil War and WW II

Howard Gale,
Organizer of the 2005 Iraq Veterans Forum at Seattle Town Hall;  Research
Psychologist & Consultant

Adam Garcia,
family member Veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, student activist at
Seattle Central Community College

Arthur
What they inwardly imagine is the only thing they'll accept.

At this point, any Democrat who doesn't use this opportunity to kick the shit out of the Republicans is worthless - totally worthless. They are completely vulnerable on this issue.