« Greatest. Economics. Song. Ever. | Main | Who Was David and Who Was Goliath? »
June 25, 2006
Cantwell: Not So Bad
Before my post below gives anyone the wrong idea, Maria Cantwell isn't actually so bad. She's usually a fairly reliable pro-choice vote, she's leading the charge to stop the drilling in ANWR, she's against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and she's talking about withdrawing from Iraq:
Maria strongly opposes the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq. She believes that 2006 must be a year of transition, when we bring more of our troops home and work to achieve stability through greater international cooperation. The U.S. must step up political and diplomatic efforts to bring stability to Iraq and rally the world to help Iraq succeed on its own. We must get the Iraqi people on their feet and U.S. troops home.
Carl Ballard has the goods. And as Jon O. pointed out in comments, she's not Lieberman-bad when it comes to beating up on fellow Democrats for disagreeing with Bush on Iraq. It's not like Washington State is that liberal -- Kerry only got 53% of the vote, and I hear the eastern part of the state is pretty conservative. People (myself and jedmunds, in this case) need to be more careful about whom they're calling DINOs.
June 25, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
From yours, and jedmund's, relative position of the far left, there is no tolerance of anyone who doesn't hold your radical views in the Dem party. The only difference is you seem more pragmatic than he.
That must seem like a harsh statement, but to illustrate your fringiness, I must point to the party's platform. Nowhere can I find any official support for the homosexual lobby nor for bringing the troops home NOW, only in the extreme and loosely associated organizations such as Salon or commondreams who are not officail.
There is only one of two possibilities for this. 1) Either the party is lying to keep from losing votes on these unpopular and radical ideas, or 2)Salon, commondreams and people like jedmund (and let's not forget you) are the crazy uncle in the attic that the party doesn't want to talk about.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jun 25, 2006 9:35:03 AM
a lot of the dislike for cantwell is irrational so far as i can tell.
Posted by: Sandals | Jun 25, 2006 10:41:35 AM
And Fred is Johnny-on-the-spot with the gay marriage issue. He really doesn't seem to think about much else. Sad, that he's so obsessed.
Posted by: paperwight | Jun 25, 2006 10:46:08 AM
Thanks, Neil for helping to recalibrate Ezra's readers on Sen. Cantwell.
Support of the administration on Iraq has been Cantwell's most serious irritant to the local progressives, but she has begun to move our way on that issue. (Maybe not far and fast enough for the hard core--but let's encourage movement in our direction, not reject it. Unlike Lieberman, she voted with the Democrats on at least one of the two Democratic withdrawal amendments.)
This is not the time to assemble a circular firing squad. We need a Democratic majority in the Senate. (chairmanships, subpoena power, confirmations, etc.) Maria Cantwell has been on the progressive side of most issues. Not a DINO by any means.
Here's what I do with my anti-DINO twinges: I send money to Ned Lamont. But as a Washington State voter, I'm backing Maria Cantwell.
Posted by: Mickeleh | Jun 25, 2006 11:21:03 AM
Observation about your blog- it seems that most people here talk passed one another rather than engage each other in any real debate. Which of course, makes it an excellent blog for our times.
Posted by: akaison | Jun 25, 2006 11:44:14 AM
Thanks, Mickeleh. I think your take on the situation is exactly right.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jun 25, 2006 12:01:07 PM
And Fred is Johnny-on-the-spot with the gay marriage issue. He really doesn't seem to think about much else. Sad, that he's so obsessed.
---paperwipe
And those who don't think this is a big issue haven't been paying attention to the referendums and state constitutional amendments passed recently by voters. You want votes, but refuse to listen to voters.
Paperwipe is the perfect example of what has happened to the Democratic party as a whole. They ignore this because they know it's a losing issue and attack anyone who brings it up for discussion.
Say it ain't so.
Lying by omission is still lying. When will your party address this and other very important social issues that voters have time and time demonstrated that they care about?
Keep on doing what you are doing, and keep on getting the election results you have been getting. Simple as that.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jun 25, 2006 1:30:10 PM
Here's what I do with my anti-DINO twinges: I send money to Ned Lamont. But as a Washington State voter, I'm backing Maria Cantwell.
Bingo. To a large degree, Lamont's campaign is a matter of psychological warfare. It's easier to pull Maria Cantwell back into line by threatening Lieberman than by campaigning against her directly in a general election.
Posted by: Constantine | Jun 25, 2006 2:35:29 PM
Fred, the Democratic party doesn't take a stance on gay marriage because they're divided on the issue. As time goes on and the trends continue toward acceptance, the Democratic party will become less divided on the issue, and probably end up supporting it publicly, if later than they ought to. But I'm sure once the issue become a loser for Republicans, you'll still be telling them to push it, right?
Posted by: Jon O. | Jun 25, 2006 4:18:15 PM
I'm also a Washington State voter, and it's true that the state as a whole isn't all that liberal. It trends liberal because there's more people in the liberal Seattle area than in the quite right-wing east side of the mountains. Even significant parts of the west side (outside of Seattle) are conservative. Any statewide Washington politician, especially a first-termer, is going to have to do some dancing.
Posted by: Rebecca Allen, PhD, ARNP | Jun 25, 2006 4:26:25 PM
Fred, the Democratic party doesn't take a stance on gay marriage because they're divided on the issue.
If what you say is true, then they are hiding any support. All of the major players have voted agains t it. Kerry said he didn't support it. Clinton signed the DOMA...I can't think of anyone other than maybe Barney Frank that say they support it. Are they lying politicians for fear of losing power?
i>But I'm sure once the issue become a loser for Republicans, you'll still be telling them to push it, right?
The right will stand on prinicple, and not hide behind popularity as they do on the abortion upon demand issue. You may agree, or you may disagree,l but you know where they stand.
That's one of the major differences between how these two parties work. The Democrats hide their true agenda if it is not popular and the voters are smart enough to see it.
This tendency is the main reason why the party is not trusted on the issues that cannot be compromised such as national security and a major problem for the Democrats.
People want to know where you stand, right or wrong....good or bad...and the Dems weasel more than anyone I have ever seen, twisting in the wind of pew polls for the public viewing while keeping their agenda secret.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jun 26, 2006 9:18:11 AM
Well, Pro-war Democratic US Senator Maria Cantwell is coming to Spokane. Below you will find the details of the event followed by the text for a flyer you can copy and print for that event. Be sure to bring your
camera (better yet an observer with camera) and audio recorder for self protection as it is almost a certainty that in the course of expressing your free speech rights you will be subject to provocation
if not assault.
Protest location and details:
Spokane County Democratic Party salmon feed on Aug. 13 at 5 pm.
Tickets: $35. Must preregister. Riverfront Park, North Picnic Shelter
www.spokanedemocrats.org (324-8525)
Text for flyer:
OPPOSE SENATOR MARIA CANTWELL
AKA Maria "can't bloody well vote against 'em,
so might as well vote for 'em" Cantwell.
Maria voted to:
• Create the Patriot Act on October 25, 2001 and then to re-authorize
it on March 2, 2006.
• Pass the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of US Armed Froces
against Iraq in 2002 and every congressional appropriation for the war
since. A Cantwell spokesperson vehemently asserted that the Senator
continues to support the war. (Vancouver Columbian, August 8, 2005.)
• Stop the filibuster of extreme right-wing Judge Alito on January 30,
2006.
• Pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement in summer 2005.
Other Maria Cantwell facts:
• 4th largest recipient of lobbyist/lawyer money in the 2006 election
funding cycle with $676,835.
• Spent over $14 million dollars in campaign funds from 1999 to 2006.
• Has not given back several thousand $$ in Jack Abramoff related
contributions, including $2000 from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians and $1000 from the Saginaw Chippewa.
MARIA CANTWELL—IF SHE CAN'T VOTE WELL, VOTE HER OUT OF OFFICE!
Posted by: Tayacan | Aug 9, 2006 1:12:49 AM
Sandals said 'a lot of the dislike for cantwell is irrational so far as i can tell.'
Um, Maria cast a key vote installing conservative supreme court justice alito into office putting roe v wade in check mate, she voted for the war every time (and yes she's changing her tune now that the election nears but how sincere is it?), she voted for the patriot act that she is now seeking to reform (perhaps had she read it before she voted for it she would have that going for her), she voted for homeland security, national ID card contianing all our personal info(while gasping in horror on her web site that there is a data base gathering phone numbers that must be stopped _note to Maria, which data of ours is is bad for the govt to have??? PHONE NUMBERS???).
Protecting my rights from an ever expanding abusive government is NOT irrational. You are welcome to offer all of your own rights to this monolith, but you are entitled to NONE of mine.
I will not vote for war.
I will vote for marriage equality and other gay rights.
I will vote to protect seniors and veterans social security and healthcare.
I will vote for improving education.
I am voting for bruce guthrie.
Best wishes,
Scott~
Posted by: scott lindlsey | Oct 14, 2006 1:24:16 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
