fuck her. who does she think she represents?

as far as i am concerned whatever she did for anwar means nothing in comparison to her last two acts of betrayal.

i might as well vote republican. at least i know what i am getting.

fuck her. who does she think she represents?

as far as i am concerned whatever she did for anwar means nothing in comparison to her last two acts of betrayal.

i might as well vote republican. at least i know what i am getting.

thanks for pointing this out, josh. i have been really puzzled by cantwell's actions this week. her seat is one of the top targets for the republicans and i just can't understand why she would alienate her supporters right now.

her votes this week send a puzzling and disturbing message. i am very disappointed. losing that seat to a republican candidate cannot be an option in the next election.

well. shit on a stick.

Catnwell is a liberal republican a la McCain. A centrist right senator with a big head.

As much as I dislike supporting Greens, I am going for Aaron Dixon, supporting Cantwell is truly throwing your vote away on a Republican-like Dem, is like voting for Liebrmann, granted she throws the enviros a bone ( a la DMX) "Throw a Dawg a bone, let a dawg roam and he will find his way home....

Voting for greens has always worked in the past. Vote away. Vote away. Vote your vote away. I smell perma-majority for the Rs.

Well with Cantwell They Have majority. Cantwell is just a Dem by name, the Bushies get way more out of her, she is one of their Dems that can swing their way.

I dont like voting for Greens, but hey Aron Dixon is a knowledgable, community oriented, cool Mo FO and the Dems dont support him, they never support grassroots candidates so whats a brother to do? Besides Cantwell doesnt give a rat's ass about urban progressive politics.

Props for calling Cantwell out, Josh. That shit is indefensible.

To all the self rightous fuckers out there who always dog the green voters and nadar voters and the like, for voting their conscience, this is what your unwavering support for the lesser evil has won us over the years. Congratulations, voting against your conscience in every election has really done wonders. Thanks to you whenever we go to vote now we get to chose which of 2 republicans will fuck us the least. Supporting third party candidates that actually represent our views (how novel) and are actually LIBERAL, may seem futile in the present, but could be incredibly beneficial to our future. Convincing the mainstream electorate that "liberal" candidate doesn't equal crackpot whacko, starts with liberals supporting these candidates themselves. Stop fooling yourselves and vote GREEN against Cantwell. If the Dems start losing senate seats bacause their liberal constituancy is abandoning them, it will be the beginning of the end for republican wolves in democrats clothing, a la Lieberman, Cantwell.

Did any of you actually participate in Green Party politics in 2000 or 1996? Pretty much cured me, although efforts have been made to woo me back by a couple of recent former Democrats who I respect.

Patty Murray on the other hand has won me over and my respect for her has steadily increased from a serious low half way through her first term. She has become consistantly principled and thoughtful in her approach. And judging by the letters she always sends back to those who write, she (her staff?) seems to think through and develop policy positions on major issues rather than just do what the lobbiests and polls tell her.

Cantwell clearly sticks with lobbiests and polls to figure out her positions, so they cant help but flip flop all over the place. I'm going to vote for Cantwell anyway.

According to Progressive Punch, Cantwell ranks to the left of Russ Feingold.

Sure, you can argue Cantwell is "selling out the base" but if she's ranking better than Feingold and half the Dem senate caucus, that must mean they're "selling out the base" on other issues.

But since Feingold is such a lefty hero, I suppose that means "selling out the base" is fine... as long as it's an issue *you* personally don't care about. It's a very selfish sentiment at work.

(See Paul Hackett for a great example of this phenomena.)

The reason why Greens lose is ilustrated by the kind of nonsense you just posted.

You are as self righteous as anybody else. Believing that you are more progressive than so and so and not interested in building coalitions with progressive urban Dems. It is the reason why Greens lost in San Francisco Mayoral race. The greens have a long way to go in building coalitions with workers, young people union and everyday folks and not to mention communities of color. Going to a Green meeting is like being at Folklife on Friday. Look,there are decent DEM candidates out there and the best strategy is to build coalitions a la Paul Wellstone instead of trashing DEm voters who are suspicious of some of the loons that populate Green pot lucks.

And showers should be mandatory for Green organizers.

I am supporting Aaron Dixon because I think he is the better man and the better candidate and has an extensive history working with our city's inner city youth, this is a dude who cares and is not just about his past as a Black Panter he deserves a listen and not because he is running as a Green.

The Greens suck ass! That is a srupid option in our current political process. Change the process and it might mean something to vote Green. Now its just a vote for the other team.

The American Green Party is a bunch of whack jobs who sit around pissing and moaning about evrything and getting nothing done but taking up space in a community center conference room somewhere. They should focus on greenie issues.

We need a better way to hold Dem's accountable. Howard Dean sucks too. He is out there recruting anti fucking choice candidates.

We need a new movement and we have to be willing to let some of our past Dem's go because they are going anyway. Trying to appease the rural farm and labor vote is fucking killing us. Maybe it's time - dare I say - to severe that relationship, be free of it and just admit that urban Dem's are pro choice, pro gay, pro transit, pro city, pro affirmative action, pro immigration, pro jobs, pro technology, pro france, pro sex, pro diversity, pro porn, pro feminism, pro density, pro freedom of the press, etc.

Good SEME, i am glad you are voting your consicence, supporting the candidate that represents your views and not just the major candidate that offends you least. that is exactly what i was talking about. Votes are the best way to get third party candidates the kind of legitamcy that hopefully will lead to a larger, more diverse and less hygenically challenged constituency. Of course if Cantewell loses, be prepared to face the wrath of those i was criticising who will give you hell for voting your consicence.

Josh, now would be a great time to write Maria a letter asking her what exactly she was thinking when she voted this way. It won't accomplish much but we'll at least know what the hell she's thinking.

The San Franciscan Green candidate barely lost the mayoral race. The reason he lost is because Gavin Newsom had the backing of San Francisco's political establishment and because the Republicans in the city held their noses and voted for Newsom.

I do agree that the Greens have no real, concise agenda. There are so many crazies in that party who each want their specific issue at the forefront. That's why the Greens' positions run the gamut from freeing Mumia Abu Jamal (not giving him a new trial, just freeing him), to legalizing marijuana, to abolishing capitalism (or some such shit). If they ever want any legitimacy, they have to find one, two, or maybe three big issues, stick to them, and ignore the loonies.

The real question is why the Dems aren't running a viable alternative to Cantwell in the primary. Hell, even the 43rd district D's wouldn't criticize Cantwell for letting Alito join the supreme court. Why the silence?

The left is the only thing mainstream Democrats feel comfortable really hating in public. A corporate Dem like Cantwell gets a pass, though. Dems are shameless in directing all sorts of vitriol at any radical or even left-leaning person. But they are scared to death of attacking Republicans with anything near the same amount of contempt or heavy-handed, you're with us or you're against us rhetoric. They'll hate Nader but be civil to Tom Delay. And to even question why is to be attacked as a radical or worse.

Why? Because they believe all the right wing culture war stereotypes about a hard left being synonymous with over-the-top 1960s radicals. They think that strong opinions from the left mean embarrassing utopianism or grandstanding. Instead of defending environmentalism, or the welfare state, or pacifism, they buy whole-heartedly into the idea that the left is anti-American, anti-Christian, anti- middle America, out of touch with reality. And they will do almost anything to prove it.

The irony is that while most Democrats hate their ideological base, they still rely on social movement rhetoric to project any sort of identity at all, and rely on left voters. They give activists absolutely nothing but demand absolute Party allegiance. They, much more than Republicans, are the enforcers of one party rule in this country. They refuse to dissent, to have strong opinions, except in the safest seats, and in the most meaningless contexts. Because most of them are deeply scared. Because they live in fear that Republicans will call them names, will say they look like 60s radicals, when they've spent so many years trying to prove otherwise.

I feel there needs to be some added perspective to this thing, at least as far as cantwell is concerned. I'm not even going to address the 3rd party arguments, i'm not up for conversing on all the implications and ramifications of what such a thing would allow for.

Regarding cantwell however, while i understand that her vote seems pretty confusing, please think before you type. Come at this from the perspective that she probably agrees with most of the stuff in the patriot act, not because shes some conservative in liberal clothing but because most of the stuff in there isnt bad stuff. Things needed to be changed after the attack, i dont mention this to gain some edge but to simply point out that there are good reasons for many of the provisions in the Patriot Act (god, how i hate that name). The very bad provisions we all know. Looking at it from this perspective, voting for the filibuster was her attempt to change what is wrong with it before it went for a final vote before the senate.

That failed, so rather than vote against a bill that she mostly agrees with, thus trying to throw the baby out with the bath water, she voted for it and why do any of you think she won't work hard every day to try and change the provisions that she and i and you all have serious problems with? She has done more and affected more positive change as a freshman senator than anyone could have demanded of her when she was elected in 2000.

If that is the problem, if you dont like what the status quo of the senate is, then blame the system, not the senator. She is necessarily a political animal and she has rocked the boat in the left's favor more than anyone could have hoped expected.

You guys remember Slade? Well, McGavick is slade in moderate clothing, a slicker, younger version of that bigoted sonofabitch so ask yourselves if you want him to get in the door of the senate.

that shit is just pathetic. if you're not on the payroll of some democratic legislator, you should be doubly ashamed of yourself for not even having an excuse for promoting such tepid leadship.

"why do any of you think she won't work hard every day to try and change the provisions that she and i and you all have serious problems with?"

because she fucking voted for them!

Here is a quote from Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, Hunter S. Thompson's book about the 1972 McGovern campaign. This was written in early 72, when it looked like pro-war Muskie was going to win the nomination.

------
I nodded. The argument was familiar. I had even made it myself, here and there, but I was beginning to sense something very depressing about it. How many more of these goddamn electons are we going to have to write off as lame but "regrettably necessary" holding actions? And how many more of these stinking double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils?

I have been through three presidential elections, now, but it has been twelve years since I could look at a ballot and see a name I wanted to vote for. In 1964, I refused to vote at all, and in '68 I spent half a morning in the county courthouse getting an absentee ballot so I could vote, out of spite, for Dick Gregory.

Now, with another of these big bogus showdowns looming down on us, I can already pick up the stench of another bummer. I understand, along with a lot of other people, that the big thing, this year is Beating Nixon. But that was also the big thing, as I can recall, twelve years ago in 1960 - and as far as I can tell, we've gone from bad to worse to rotten since then, and the outlook is for more of the same.

------

Since then, we've had 34 years of voting lesser evil. And that has gotten us ... what?

Keep at it, boys and girls. Keep trying to fix the Democratic Party. One of these days you'll get somewhere -- yeah, right.

It is not so complicated. Vote for McGavrick or Dixon if you want to advance the Bush agenda. Vote for Cantwell if you do not.