Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« The Fight of the Year | Eyman Courts Evangenicals »

Saturday, May 20, 2006

My Brief Interview w/ Sen. Feingold

Posted by on May 20 at 15:30 PM

“Did you ask him about the war?”

The question was a sarcastic barb from some Cantwell diehards after I had followed Sen. Russ Feingold out to his van and managed to score a brief interview with the Wisconsin Senator and anti-war hero. Feingold was the guest speaker today at a Maria Cantwell rally in Ballard at Whittier Elementary—a splashy kick-off for an afternoon of Cantwell doorbelling.

Feingold’s speech had (glaringly) made no mention of the war. He talked about: campaign finance, the budget deficit, the environment, and energy independence. This from the Senate’s leading opponent of the war? Indeed, less than a month ago, Feingold dramatically introduced an amendment to the appropriations bill that would have required the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31st, 2006.

Cantwell supporters didn’t want the war to come up today. Cantwell has been notably unapologetic about her 2002 vote for the war, and it’s hurting her with Democratic activists. Cantwell wanted the Feingold visit to put the progressive stamp of approval on her campaign—without complications. (No signs were allowed in the building.)

However, today’s “cheap stunt”—as one activist standing outside with an anti-war placard called the Feingold drive by—only heightened Cantwell’s Iraq problem.

There was Feingold, an obvious hero to the 200 or so Democratic activists in the room, up on stage and not talking about the issue that’s motivating Democratic activists right now: “The immoral war” (as the afternoon’s emcee, local Dem chair Peter House said by way of introducing Feingold.)

So, yes, I did ask Feingold about the war. In fact, it’s all I asked him about. It was the question that was on everyone’s mind. And it’s all they gave me time for.

Q: Why didn’t you talk about the war in Iraq today? Feingold: I’ve been very clear about my position on the war. I want the troops out by the end of the year. Q: Yes, Senator, you have been clear. I ask because this is a Cantwell rally and Senator Cantwell hasn’t been very clear about her position on the war… Feingold: I’ll let Senator Cantwell speak about her position on the war. I want to focus on the things that she’s a leader on… like the environment and energy independence.

I’ll file a longer story on this in next week’s Stranger, but glancing at my notes here’s one bit: After Feingold compared Wisconsin and Washington—calling both states purple, rather than blue—he told the crowd that despite that fact, he was able to win handily because people were willing to go out and do the grunt the work, the doorbelling. (Feingold got 55% in WI, while Kerry got 50%).

“That’s because you stand for something!” someone in the back of the room called out.


CommentsRSS icon

In Connecticut, some Dems were able to get a progressive on the primary ballot to challenge 'Republican in disguise' Joe Leiberman. Why can't the Dems in Left-Opia Washington come up w/ a viable alternative to Cantwell?

Cantwell has left herself wide open, and if McGavick doesn't have the courage or ability to take advantage of it, he too really isn't fit for this race.

How pathetic the choices have become.


---Jensen



Cantwell's not nearly as bad as Lieberman. For one thing, she's stood up to that turd, Ted Stevens, on environmental issues.

Cantwell has left herself wide open... by fighting Bush over ANWR, student loans, and over WA state public energy.

That damn Senator!

Looks like all the Ralph Nader 'tards are itching to put another rebublican in office (again!). You can't tell me that McGavick won't be gettin' it on with Stevens (and god knows who else) the day after the election if he wins. Cantwell ain't perfect, and I'm not a groupie or anything, but "perfect" candidates are only perfect to a smallish group of people and are unelectable -- especially in a state-wide race in Washington...

If Iraq were the only issue it would be easier to swallow this piece of "politics of convenience". Feingold is the undisputed leader against the Bush assualt on our civil liberties - having the distrinction of being the only Senate Democrat to vote against the Patriot Act twice, with Cantwell being the only Washington Democrat to vote FOR it twice.
Finally it is about time for folks to "get over" Cantwell's environmental "stewardship." On environmental issues, she is safe in a herd that includes almost the entire Democratic caucus as well as a significant portion of republicans. The same is true on choice.
As for "perfect" candidates, if there is a choice that is closer to your values that the incumbent, why would you not at least make the effort to move in that direction? There will be a Democratic alternative to Maria Cantwell on the Democratic ballot in September. Vote your values.

Peace,

There will be a Democratic alternative to Maria Cantwell on the Democratic ballot in September. Vote your values.

Real Democrats have different values than the CATO Institute.

As a Nader voter, it's hard to see Cantwell refuse to change her position on Iraq. The Stranger what strongly pro-war and had the courage to turn around and now be pacifist. Cantwell is supposed to represent us, the people. If the people are now agaist the war and she refuses to budge, it's time to vote our values. At least with Nader we proved that many people would choose "none of the above".

Eight years on, there's still people who think there's no difference between a democrat who they disagree with on one or two issues and, a party-line republican.

Eight years, no learning. There is something in the water.

Cantwell doesn't just represent Capitol Hill, you doofs, she represents the entire state. Leave the caccoon once in a while you might be amazed at what you find.

Aexia
Some people, such as Mark Wilson actually grow and change positions over six years when faced with a different reality. I wish I could say the same for Senator "No Regrets" Cantwell.

Peace,


MAX HATS Wrote:
"Cantwell doesn't just represent Capitol Hill, you doofs, she represents the entire state."

She certainly does, Max Hats, however almost all state wide elections are simply won and lost based on the Seattle/Tacoma vote. I am sure this fact hasn't been lost on Cantwell and her handlers.

What you and other posters continue to ignore is that about 2,500 American men and women have lost their lives; about 18,000 have been maimed and or injured and an estimated 35-45,000 Iraqi lives have been lost. This continues 24/7.

Cantwell refusal to address the issue means she tacitly condones the continuation of the status quo. In my opinion, this is an insult to those who have given their lives and to those who are waiting to give their lives.

I believe such inaction is completely reprehensible, and if this truly is Cantwell's position, she does not deserve to be a sitting Senator representing the State of Washington.

---Jensen

Thank you, Jensen. I had no idea there was a war going on in, what's that again, Iraq or something? Huh.

What you and other posters continue to ignore is that about 2,500 American men and women have lost their lives; about 18,000 have been maimed and or injured and an estimated 35-45,000 Iraqi lives have been lost. This continues 24/7.

Why bother including Iraqi deaths in an argument about withdrawl? If we pull out, the bloodshed will only ramp up.

Cantwell refusal to address the issue means she tacitly condones the continuation of the status quo. In my opinion, this is an insult to those who have given their lives and to those who are waiting to give their lives.

I believe such inaction is completely reprehensible, and if this truly is Cantwell's position, she does not deserve to be a sitting Senator representing the State of Washington.

Good point, man. I'm sure putting a republican in office will fix those problems right up.

Fact: Gore won Washington State (and Oregon) in 2000 despite any big bad Nader defection.

So can we quit with the local Dem-junta bullshit about local Naderites & anti-war types loosing that election? It didn't happen. Cool it with the crap.

The problems with Cantwell's candidancy are her responsibility and follow directly from her positions on defense and security issues. Last time I checked, those issues were, uh . . . . kind of important to the electorate. Oh, and didn't I read somewhere that the public has turned against the war?

But why run good candidates that reflect popular opinion on the most significant issues? It's so much more fun to run a little insider's club and keep bitching about Nader and "extreme-ists" when your candidates falter. That's called electoral pragmatism, right?

Gotta admit , 'pragmatism' sounds a lot cooler than 'cry baby club'.

Get over it. Join the rest of the world, stand against war, resist constituional erosion, and win back the hearts of the electorate.

Why bother including Iraqi deaths in an argument about withdrawl? If we pull out, the bloodshed will only ramp up.


Because the United States is directly responsible for those Iraqi deaths, and indirectly responsible for all deaths that have/will occur because of the ensuing chaos in Iraq, which is a _direct_ result of the policies & decisions of the US military in the past 3 years.


Just to be clear: Cantwell (& the rest of the majority of the Senate) didn't "vote" for the invasion of Iraq. What they voted for was to capitulate their responsibility in declaring war given to them by the Constitution they were sworn to uphold over to Bush, who then gave the order to illegally (by the international rules of engagement) invade Iraq.


So if Cantwell doesn't want the responsibilities that the Constitution has given her, where she's willing to betray the Constitution's checks & balances and relinquish the power of the Legislative branch & give it over to the Executive, then why should I vote for her? The only arguement I've heard here & elsewhere is to make sure a Republican doesn't do it any faster. Fuckin' great. I get to chose between a lazy traitor or an efficient one.

MAX HATS Wrote:
"Good point, man. I'm sure putting a republican in office will fix those problems right up."

Thank you, Max. Why does it have to be a Republican, Max? Wouldn't a different Democrat do as well?

Lastly, thank you for your comments regarding your evaluation of the deaths of Iraqi citizens. Perhaps
it mirrors that of Cantwell's, however she apparently doesn't think it important enough, as our representative to the United States Senate, to inform us of her position.

As I write this, I hear on the evening news that Iraqi citizens have died today and certainly it is only a matter of time until we hear that members of our armed forces have perished too.

Too what end, Max? Until you and others of your ilk are secure in knowing a Republican hasn't been elected to Cantwell's seat at the cost of Iraqi, American an other's lives?


---Jensen

Because the United States is directly responsible for those Iraqi deaths, and indirectly responsible for all deaths that have/will occur because of the ensuing chaos in Iraq, which is a _direct_ result of the policies & decisions of the US military in the past 3 years.

Those deaths are a direct result of chaos, yes. Pulling out 140,000 soldiers acting in a security function is supposed to lessen chaos how? I am looking for some sort of internal consistancy in your logic, and I can't find it. If blood is on our hands for not properly securing the country, how much more blood will be on our hands for pulling the only functional non-sectarian nationwide security force out of Iraq?

Thank you, Max. Why does it have to be a Republican, Max? Wouldn't a different Democrat do as well?

I have no problem with a primary challenge. What worries me is a laserbeam focus on simply getting her out of office.

Daniel,

The Stranger was not "strongly pro-war."
Dan Savage was "strongly pro-war."
Please go to the video tape. In the run up to the war, on October 17, 2002 I wrote a feature called "Say 'No" to War on Iraq" and Savage wrote a counterpoint sidebar in support of the war.
Additionally, when Bush made his 48 hours TV announcment on March 17 2003, Sandeep Kaushik and I wrote a piece tearing apart Bush's case for war—which ran on March 19.

By the way, the best reporting I've seen about current conditions in Iraq was on C-Span this afternoon.

Here's the tag:

On Saturday, May 20 at 7:00 pm and Sunday, May 21 at 4:00 pm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Insurgency in Iraq
Nir Rosen, Ahmed Hashim, Anne Garrels

Description: From the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City, Nir Rosen and Ahmed Hashim talk about the insurgency in Iraq and the possibilities of a full-blown civil war occurring there. Both participants, who have authored recent books on the subject, describe the development and changing nature of the resistance forces in Iraq and the Bush administration's strategy to combat them. Mr. Rosen and Prof. Hashim also discuss the rise of Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his army, who the authors say wield a huge amount of power in Iraq now and are responsible for a series of recent attacks on Iraqi Sunnis. Following their remarks, both authors answer questions from the audience. The discussion is moderated by National Public Radio (NPR) foreign correspondent Anne Garrels.

Author Bio: Nir Rosen is a freelance journalist/filmmaker and a fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, DC. He has worked Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia. For more information, visit Mr. Rosen's blog at www.nirrosen.com. Ahmed Hashim, a professor of strategic studies at the Naval War College, worked as an advisor to American military officials in Iraq between November 2003 and September 2005. He is the co-author (with Anthony Cordesman) of "Iran: Dilemmas of Dual Containment" and "Iraq: Sanctions and Beyond."

Publisher: (for Hashim) Cornell University Press www.cornellpress.cornell.edu (for Rosen) Free Press www.simonsays.com


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm going to start checking out Nir's Blog. I think Hashim teaches military tactics. His book was called "Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency in Iraq."

The news was depressing. Consensus view was Iraq will probably break into it's three basic constituencies with ethnic cleansing unleashed in areas with mixed Sunni/Shiite populations. Kurds will come out ahead while Sunnis and Shiites mess with each other. Civil society flourishing in Kurd regions. Older Kurds see business opportunities in Turkey and Post-War iraq. Rosen expects states on the periphery to get involved, citing western Sunni tribal relations that extend into Syria and Lebanon. Sadr/Shia militia most significant force. American's described as Sunni protectors, particularly in light of Al-Sastani & Shiite relations w/Iran ( a Shiite republic).

Any remnant middle-class is now trying to flee the country. The population was not traditionally segregated along severe religious and ethnic lines but the current level of day-to-day violence (particularly since the massive bombing of the mosque in Sammarrah (sp?)) forces local populations to seek protection from armed militias who are motivated to advance their particular sectarian agenda.

Rosen's opinion was that the level of violence was going to increase despite anything the US might try to do, though yes, the US presence is doubtlessly holding down the current level of violence somewhat. On the other hand, the central state we are supposedly helping them build has no legitimacy except as a puppetshow to engage and distract the american public and policy-makers with a pageant of milestones of alleged self-governance.

I don't trust Joe Biden but from time to time he has a knack for saying things that seem to make sense. His suggestion of a three-part Iraq, and in general a rapid "Internationalization" of any peace-keeping forces (that's not a pull out but an exchange of our forces for somebody else's) seems sound to me, or at least seems like a conversation with new ideas. The current policy, or Cantwellian mute-ness while the primary geo-strategic region of the world goes apocalyptic as a result of our criminal intervention, is dead on arrival.

I believed the Bush lead-in to the war was a sham and I wrote a series of letters to Sen. Cantwell begging her not to grant him military authority. She sacrificed my support when she took that vote. Turns out she was wrong, but there's no sign that she will take responsibiltiy for her mistake, nor does she seem to have made any significant effort to become particularly well-informed about events on the ground there.

If the Dems want to be sure of winning, they should find a candidate that better represents her constituency. Short of that, maybe a significant vote for someone else in the September Primary will send the message that she needs to turn over a new leaf.

It would be one thing if Cantwell were the only Dem afflicted with this kind of 'war-blindness'. Her position is clearly (mis)guided by some kind of Party leadership strategy. To my way of thinking, it is this strategy failure to motivate popular passions around the traditional Democratic values that put George W. in the White House and confirmed his re-election.

The Dem's need to chuck the dead wood. Thankfully, I think there's a post-Deaniac, Air-America listening, blog-engaged popular progressive movement afoot that's ready to help clean house. If Maria were the clever, "new economy' politician I thought she was when I voted for her in 2000, she would be on the right side of this movement instead of standing in the way.

"Dan Savage was "strongly pro-war."

Has Dan apologized for his stupidity on this issue and recanted his position?

Realizing I'm a little late to contribute to the discussion, I'm going to do it anyway!

I emailed Cantwell my disallusionment with her as well. But, I've been reevaluating my reaction on the grounds some have put forth above:

nobody's perfect! If she recanted or changed her mind, she would be labeled a "flip-flopper." Haven't we been there before? Repubs will use any label they can and they are good at it.

Also, even though some of us want out of Iraq, the American people by and large think we shouldn't just leave . . . most have a sense of guilt. . . responsibility . . . call it what you will. She's staying true to her earlier convictions to stay electable in my opinion. Yeah, I think she's okay . . . she is a rookie and took some real heat from Ted Stevens and I admire her for that.

Let's give her a break. She might be the best we have.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).