Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Radiohead announce U.S. tour d... | Memory Lane »

Monday, May 1, 2006

Questions for Cantwell

Posted by on May 1 at 9:21 AM

Adam Garcia, one of the seven people who staged a sit-in (and ended up staying overnight) at Sen. Cantwell’s Seattle offices last Tuesday, posted in the Slog comments thread last Friday night.

In case it got buried over the weekend, here’s Adam’s post. (At the end, he mentions that his group— which managed to score a May 6 meeting w/ Cantwell—is submitting 10 questions to Cantwell in advance of the meeting. Adam’s obviously reading the Slog. So, if people have suggestions for Cantwell questions, post ‘em here.)


I’m Adam, one of the seven at the sit-in. In the conference call we had with D.C., the first day, we asked her to explain why she doesn’t support Kerry’s statements made in his “A Right and Responsibility to Speak Out” speech on April 11th. Of course we didn’t speak with her, but her foreign policy experts. They circled jerked us with non-answers that were tantamount to asking if we liked Iraqis to have electricity, hospitals, etc. These weren’t rhetorical questions either, they were seriously asking us. They said all this while ignoring the fact by every conceivable metric Iraq is getting worse.

We simply couldn’t fathom why she refuses to take a leadership role here and publicly endorse Kerry. She is quick to point out the shortcomings of the administration but when given a chance, Feingold’s call for censure, she didn’t open her mouth. Censure doesn’t mean squat! It’s the political equivalent of thumbing your nose at someone. She couldn’t even do that, how sad.

At this sit-in we urged her to stand up, and galvanize the citizens against war. Russ Feingold is blazing a path that she needs to follow.

I know this is bad for her campaign now and that this is seen as a clandestine ploy by and for McGavick. That’s simply untrue. The truth is that the time to hem and haw while waiting for someone to act is over. That doesn’t mean we’re going to wait for the Dems to take the majority and suddenly be anti-war. Fuck that, if they aren’t anti-war now they won’t be later. Kerry said it best in his speech: “The true defeatists are those who believe America is so weak that it must sacrifice its principles to the pursuit of illusory power.”


This was my first action toward pressuring the Senator. Everyone else there had previous meetings with her as far back as November of last year. Back then she couldn’t have been troubled to read Joe Colgan’s two hundred word op-ed prior to the meeting. She read it there on the spot, and it really pissed off Abe.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/257833_veterandad02.html

At least at this next meeting her staffers promised that Cantwell would be able to respond to 10 questions that we are submitting prior to our meeting. At least she can give us that. Let’s hope she can do more.

Posted by Adam G - April 28, 2006 11:38 PM


CommentsRSS icon

Only one term and she's completely out of touch.

I hate to say it, but I'm really thinking of voting for McGavick. He is, of course, worse than Cantwell, but since nobody serious is running against her in the primary, it's our only chance to get rid of her. Then in six years we can maybe get someone elected who isn't going to be a mindless beltway insider.

Of course some Cantwell harpy is going to attack me here, because Iraq isn't as important as preventing drilling in some Alaskan wasteland... or whatever other thing she's done that I don't give two shits about.

That's a good idea, give a Republican the Senate seat, with all the fundraising power incumbency entitles.

"Don't blame me--I voted for Kodos."

I'm sure Karl Rove thanks you for voting for his guy. Because it _does_ matter.

Yup, indeed, Christopher: two Cantwellian harpies showed up, like clockwork, to bash your opinion. However, I do have to agree with the harpies that voting for McGavick is a distasteful idea. That's why I'm voting for Mark Wilson's losing bid in the primaries, and then my cat as a write-in in the regular election.

Who needs affordable health care or social security when Wilson is willing to pay lip service to your pet issue?

Don't blithely assume you can elect the progressive of your dreams in 2012 after 6 years of McGavick. An incumbent here is probably good for 2 or 3 or 4 terms in office ... after which you have a 50/50 shot at electing a Democrat to the open seat.

Go to the archives. When has Washington elected a Senator of notably progressive bent?

And why spurn Cantwell's many virtues to spite her for one vote that made no difference in W's rush to war?

Also on the subject of Cantwell - lots of people are going apeshit over Cantwell co-sponsoring a fairly benign Iran sanctions resolution and saying she's betrayed us again blah blah.

Just ignore the fact that everyone from Jay Inslee to Barbara only-no-vote-on-Afghanistan Lee co-sponsored and voted for the House version. Or that DINO Barbara Boxer is also co-sponsoring the Senate version. Gotta stay angry at Cantwell for something and if it means a little selective outrage, so be it, right?

Why only ten questions?

"Why only ten questions?"

That's 1!

pragmatism? you want pragmatism?

nah, we don't care about pragmatism here.

we'd rather spite ourselves and help Bush keep a veto-proof majority in the Senate.

Comments Closed

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