Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Morning News | Buying It »

Wednesday, November 1, 2006

Closed Cantwell

posted by on November 1 at 8:59 AM

As we’ve been reporting on the SLOG for the last few days, a group of students wearing Mike McGavick t-shirts was turned away from a Cantwell rally last weekend. (Here’s their own YouTube of it.) Since then, the students have been getting a lot of press. We have a version of the story coming out in our weekly print version today by Sarah Mirk.

Mirk had a hell of a time getting the Cantwell campaign to return calls for her story, and when the campaign finally did call Sarah back, it had very little to say.

Last night, at around 10:30pm—after this story had been churning for four days—the campaign finally sent out this overwrought response to the students’ complaint.

Last week the Cantwell campaign paid to rent a Bellevue Community College space, paid for BCC campus security officers to police the event and at the request of BCC paid for police officers from the town of Bellevue so we could hold a Democratic rally for several congressional races with Senator Obama. When a handful of McGavick supporters attempted to join the Democratic rally, they were told they were welcome if they were willing to leave their campaign gear outside. They declined our invitation to join our rally. These students protested immediately outside the Democratic rally before, during and after the event. They protested several feet away from Senator Cantwell’s vehicle until she departed the site. Given these McGavick supporters’ behavior before, during and after the Democratic rally, it is clear it is their intention was to be disruptive.

Our campaign invited our supporters to come, students were certainly welcome to attend — and many did. Over 2,500 people did attend to support the Democratic ticket. Our campaign did not ask for BCC classes to be cancelled, nor were we at any time aware that BCC classes were being cancelled or that any BCC students were being required to attend by their professors. At no time did our campaign violate these students’ civil rights.

I’m not a lawyer, so I have no idea if the Cantwell campaign is making any sense, but I am a voter, and this looks really lame. First of all, Cantwell’s long overdue response (until the story blew up, all they’d give out was a terse one-liner) only makes matters worse. They should have apologized for the gaffe right away… or else, fully explained themselves in a less defensive way. And my God, Cantwell is the heavy frontrunner. McGavick’s campaign is (was) floundering. What’s the big deal about a small group of students in McGavick tee-shirts? Cantwell’s first response, barring the students from the event, was wildly out of proportion to the situation. Cantwell’s second response—dismissive one-liners—only exacerbated the story. And now, this overwrought stuff about the students’ “disruptive” behavoir? Maybe the students “protested several feet away from Senator Cantwell’s vehicle until she departed the site” because they were mad about being locked out of a rally on their campus!

Cantwell would be making sense if she had rented out a room at the Sheraton for a fund raising dinner, but this was a rally at a community college. By her logic, Bush should be able to schedule a rally and not let in John Kerry supporters… Oh, wait. Oh, right. And that was lame too, people. And rightly, we all laughed, scoffed and bitched about that.

Why am I so hung up on this story? Because it resonates off my experience covering both campaigns this summer.

Check it out.

McGavick did a series of events this summer, taking over picnic sites at community parks, and he didn’t even skip a beat while the Cantwell campaign—the Cantwell campaign—had a guy setting up shop in the middle of the crowd with a tripod and a video camera.

As for regular Cantwell supporters: Well, at the McGavick event I was at, a college student who supported Cantwell, stood up and asked a stern question, and McGavick answered it in stride.

Cantwell also held some of those outdoor rallies this summer at picnic grounds. At the one I attended in southwest Washington, there was a guy walking around beforehand with a video camera. The Cantwell staffer running the event was freaking out, fretting and wondering exactly who the guy was, and what should she do? I told her I’d ask the guy who he was. “Thank you,” she sighed. It turned out the guy was with a Democratic candidate who was running for local office there in the 18th legislative district, and he just wanted some footage of his Democratic candidate with Cantwell.

I found the campaign’s behavoir that day a little strange. Now, I see that it’s standard Cantwell operating procedure.

RSS icon Comments

1

and they wonder why they gant get a grip on swing and independant voters, behavior like this makes we want to vote Mike! just to shut the campaign runners out of business.

god. they should have owned up to their wrong, apologized and publically flogged that idiot staffer in the video chanting that he owned the meeting hall.

fuck. this, and letting Kerry off his leash is why I will never be a registered Dem.

Idiots of the highest degree.

Posted by seattl98104 | November 1, 2006 9:13 AM
2

Boring!

Posted by Daniel K | November 1, 2006 9:22 AM
3

Josh,

Thank you so much for spending so much time following this story.

Instead of trying to figure out how to solve the impending, massive Medicare and Social Security crises, how to fix education and health care, rebuild our crumbling civic infrastructure and extricate ourselves from the current Republican guvmit’s disastrous foreign and domestic policies, we can all obsess over some 19 year old dickwads who weren’t allowed into a private campaign event.

If your goal is to disgust those of us who are fed up with both parties and convince us to give up on voting altogether as half of our fellow citizens have done, then you’re doing a bang up job.

Posted by Andrew | November 1, 2006 9:22 AM
4

Sorry, Josh I'm just not reading this the same as you. The PR doesn't sound to me to be "overwrought" at all, but rather clear and concise, setting out the circumstances, and explaining (from the campaign's point-of-view) the reason the students were barred entrance.

Comparing a campaign rally, for which the venue has been rented by a private entity, and which therefore legally grants the rentor the right of exclusion, is far, FAR different from President Bush holding a press conference at public expense - (not in fact a "campaign rally" - if, as it appears, you are referring to incidents such as occured several months ago in Denver) and restricting access. The GOP bars Democratic sympathizers from entering their paid-for campaign rallys, and nobody, including the "MSM" bats an eye; this situation is no different, and shouldn't be treated any differently. The fact that it IS, says far more about the lack of so-called "liberal bias" in the press, and the unabashed double-standards of the GOP than it does about Cantwell's presumed lack of inclusion.

From my perspective neither Cantwell, nor her campaign staff have anything to apologize for, nor should they, IMO. If the circumstances were as they described, they were perfectly within their legal rights to bar these protestors, end of story. In fact, at this point, backing down would probably be more damaging, since it would lend credence to the protestors original complaints, and that would just be playing into their hands.

And the fact that one of the first places the little whiners ran to was the ACLU of all things, just provides a doubly delicious irony that I doubt will be lost on many perceptive voters.

It's just another example of how desperate the GOP has become this election cycle, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see even more examples of this sort of thing before next Tuesday.

Posted by COMTE | November 1, 2006 9:30 AM
5

It's really another example of how even our liberal Seattle Stranger is obsessed with the "a pox on both your houses" idea that runs through every other media outlet.

Josh - do you not understand the nuance and difference between paid for campaign rallies (no matter the location) and public press conferences?

Perhaps Cantwell should have chosen a different venue if they wanted to "guarantee" the appearance that they had the right to keep people out, but that's a tactical, not a legal argument.

Is it too hard for you to get that there's a legal distinction between what's acceptable at the two types of events, and your attempt to whip up controversy on this makes you look dumber by the day?

Posted by jcricket | November 1, 2006 9:35 AM
6

She's clearly scared of people seeing her for the PC stick figure she really is.

It's almost too bad she's gonna easily win this election, because she's proving to us lately what a paranoid phony she is.

Posted by Gomez | November 1, 2006 9:37 AM
7

Oh, and Andrew, quit being such a drama queen.

Posted by Gomez | November 1, 2006 9:38 AM
8

This isn't a story.

Posted by Fnarf | November 1, 2006 9:45 AM
9

FNARF,

Check.

And I guess, as Cantwell would have us believe, people that show up to her rallies in McGavick t-shirts don't exist either.

Posted by Josh Feit | November 1, 2006 9:53 AM
10

in reference to the guy who sets up shop with a tripod and a video camera at the McGavick events - campaigns do this all the time. they send their staff to record everything that their opponent says. this is not something new. Anyone who enters the political game is full aware of this.

he's behind in the polls. hooray for political stunts.

Posted by jojox | November 1, 2006 9:54 AM
11

Josh,
This is a non-issue. Just because something is held at a community college campus doesn't make it a public event. If it is clear that the even is supporting the Democratic ticket, its obvious it was not a school function, because sponsoring such a function would be illegal for a public institution. It was, instead, a rally paid for by the campaign, set up in a place where the candidates could access a usually-overlooked audience: college students.
I say bravo to the Cantwell campaign for bringing Sen. Obama, Cantwell, and Darcy Burner before a group of voters that most other politicians overlook. Those Young-Republican-Future-GOP-Fuckhead-Leaders-of-Tomorrow are pulling a last minute stunt.
We are giving them exactly what they wanted by talking about it. Let's not honor the blatant attention-grabbing smear any longer.

Posted by socialarsonist | November 1, 2006 10:07 AM
12

Everyone calling this a non-issue is in serious denial. These consistent actions are an indictment of Cantwell's character.

Posted by Gomez | November 1, 2006 10:19 AM
13

Josh, you should keep on this, because if you don't, GWB won't have a majority in the Senate, and then you'll have less to write about.

Oh.

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 1, 2006 10:19 AM
14

Who gives a fuck about any of this?

Posted by keshmeshi | November 1, 2006 10:23 AM
15

you give a fuck about us giving a fuck, so we all give a fuck.

Posted by seattl98104 | November 1, 2006 10:25 AM
16

BTW, this is not going to hurt this campaign. She's gonna win easily. What this affects is her credibility down the line, including in future elections.

Posted by Gomez | November 1, 2006 10:28 AM
17

"I see that it’s standard Cantwell operating procedure"

A man will do anything to have his quotes become soundbites. The State GOP should grab that one and start repeating it.

Now, if Cantwell's wimpy staffers had beaten the crap out of the Mcgavick people than you could have done a Bloods and Crips staffers angle. You know, Cantwell= Blue, McGavick =Red.

=)

Posted by SeMe | November 1, 2006 10:30 AM
18

i don't understand how people can say this is a non-issue. when people get arrested by the secret service at bush/cheney events because of a sticker on their car or a t-shirt, it really pisses me off. now that a democrat does something similar (deny someone access because of a t-shirt) everyone is like "what's the big deal".

get some principles, jesus.

Posted by charles | November 1, 2006 10:32 AM
19

but charles, didn't you hear this is a tidal wave election, principles or morals or for that matter integrity doesn't matter when your trying to win over the reds.

blue at any cost! blue at any cost!

Posted by seattl98104 | November 1, 2006 10:38 AM
20

Josh, as somebody who once attended a Hillary Clinton rally at Westlake, only never to hear a word she said because Republican protesters behind me kept blowing airhorns the whole time while laughing and taunting the hundreds of people they were assaulting... I have a hard time feeling much sympathy for these McGavick protesters.

Having watched fellow blogger Mike Stark physically assaulted, grabbed in headlock, and slammed to the floor, merely for attempting to ask Sen. Allen a question... I have a hard time feeling much sympathy for these McGavick protesters.

Knowing that Rep. Dave Reichert had a local school bus driver fired because she gave the finger to Dick Cheney... I have a hard time feeling much sympathy for these McGavick protesters.

You know why this doesn't happen more at Republican events? Because they hold most of them in private, and because we know that if we were to attempt to disrupt a public event we'd likely have the shit kicked out of us by their thugs... and depending on the jurisdiction, find ourselves arrested for disturbing the peace.

Meanwhile, President Bush just abandoned a US soldier behind enemy lines in Iraq. But I guess that's not a big deal.

Posted by Goldy | November 1, 2006 10:52 AM
21

@19, I think you're giving the democrats too much credit ;)

That would imply that what she did was intentional... part of some evil plot (like the Rs). I think it was a panicked, knee jerk response which is lame.

democrats in office haven't really stood up for the principles that supposedly define us. if we don't call them on their bullshit they're never going to change.

give me more chris wallace v clinton. give me more "i dont need to be lectured by stuffed suits". get this i'm-afraid-of-a-tshirt bullshit out of here.

Posted by charles | November 1, 2006 10:54 AM
22

I find it interesting that people seem to be holding the Dems to a higher standard on this - but I can't figure out why. Is it because people bitch about Bush using the same tactics? So fucking what. When did Cantwell make a statement about private party and campaign events needing to be open to everyone? If she has, then I see the point in making a big deal out of this event - if not, shut up. You're "nationalizing" a local issue and playing into the GOP hit machine.

Also, it seems based on other student buzz, that these Young Repubs knew what they were doing and aren't going to be dinged academically for missing the event. They're just more spoiled Eastside children whining their way through life.

Posted by Soupytwist | November 1, 2006 10:59 AM
23

On a related note, during the 2004 recount a protest was held outside Rossi headquarters, with Dems on one side of the street and R's on the other. I found myself on the wrong side of the street, and rather than j-walk in front of the assembled police, I decided to hold my own, and carrying my sign, walk through the crowd of Republicans assembled on the sidewalk, so that I could get to the cross walk.

When I did, I was immediately surrounded by group of young, male Rossi supporters, who in an organized fashion created a phalanx around me, and forcing me off the sidewalk and into the parking lot in front of Rossi's headquarters. The then held me there and started screaming for the police to come and arrest me for trespassing, with one man shouting that I had threatened in. A nearby police officer rolled his at them and walked away. I pushed my way to the crown and walked towards the corner, but not before somebody tore my sign out of my hands and stomped on it. I picked up my sign and crossed the street at the light. As I crossed the streets the R's behind screamed at me to come back and fight, calling me a "pussy" and a "faggot."

And these were just Young Republicans... you know, the "mainstream" sort of folks.

Again, in context, I have little sympathy for the McGavick protesters who were denied the opportunity to disrupt the Obama event.

Posted by Goldy | November 1, 2006 11:02 AM
24

Right on, Goldy. This is a stunt, pure and simple. And Josh, in terms of the political debate, these young men DON'T exist: they're no more a part of the legitimate campaign process than if they were just robbing people. Screw 'em. The ACLU's not going to do a fucking thing. The "outrage" is all on the lefty side, from people who cannot bear to let an opportunity pass to eat their own young.

Posted by Fnarf | November 1, 2006 11:14 AM
25

You can have little sympathy for the past experiences you may have endured in the past, but what basically has occured here is the prosecution of thoughtcrime, and of thoughtcrime that wasn't even expressed. besides wearing t-shirts, what did this little group of Mike! supporters do to disrupt or attempt to disrupt the Dem rally? Nothing. They were prevented entry for wearing t-shirts.

It's retarted.

If the Cantwall campaign wanted to have a talking point, they should have let the group in, and if they had created a problem, peacefully escorted them out. At least they'd have a positive way to spin it, rather than "we own the space".

Posted by seattl98104 | November 1, 2006 11:16 AM
26

Josh asks:

Why am I so hung up on this story:

Maybe it's just because you're a little putz playing reporter, and can't be bothered to get off your ass and do some real work?

Posted by ivan | November 1, 2006 11:18 AM
27

And Fnarf, isn't it a priority to get more people to vote Blue? How is barring some Reds from a Dem rally going to get more of them to vote Blue?

Posted by seattl98104 | November 1, 2006 11:19 AM
28

I'm with Charles about the need for consistency in principles. Cantwell is also going to win this election hands down and this will seem like a non-issue until the next election when it will mark part of her character. She handled it poorly thus far, but like her vote on Iraq, it can still be dealt with.

Goldy, you make a confused case. The first part about the Clinton rally: protesters have a right to protest in this country in public places. Sorry if some are noisy. I don't particularly care for it, but that's their right. Did Clinton run from them? Did she have thugs assault them? No. If it were a private rally and location, then she could have had them removed by security and that would have been OK. As it is, I see no problems with it. Would you do the same or cheer on those who did the same at a Bush rally? I would...

Mike Stark's case is an extreme, but it makes the case for the Republican students; not for Cantwell. It shows just what's wrong when campaigns use strong arm tactics to attempt to control discourse. Cantwell's people didn't go to such extremes, but their mission was the same. I disapprove of the Cantwell campaign's decision and I strongly castigate Allen's people for what they did to Stark. Degrees are different, but the message is similar. The same could be said of the Reichart case.

Problem is, you can scream about their tactics all you want, but rather than fall back on them you should rise above it as much as possible. All Cantwell's campaign had to do was allow those students into the rally. If they protested inside, then escort them out and they look like asses. Instead, Cantwell hands to Republicans the label of hypocrite to brand her with because Democrats decry such tactics by Bush. Poorly played.

Posted by B.D. | November 1, 2006 11:22 AM
29

As long as the Democrats are expected to "out-nice" the Republicans, they will continue to be working under a handicap when they campaign. It's that simple. Politics isn't pretty. It's fought in the gutter. The Republicans know this, and the Democrats have finally started to figure it out. Don't make them pull punches.

Posted by Orv | November 1, 2006 11:22 AM
30

And these were just Young Republicans... you know, the "mainstream" sort of folks.

My experience with Young Republicans is that they tend to be nasty bullies filled with self righteousness and a feeling of privalege. That's not the case with all of them, I'm sure, but it's been my experience.

Still the tale you relate (which I'm certain is true) has no bearing on what Cantwell's campaign did. As an independent voter who is liberal, tends to vote Democrat, but also has allegiance with some libertarian ideas, I find the conduct of both Republicans and Democrats who use such tactics to be disgusting. Both sides should be admonished when it happens.

Good job reporting this, Josh.

Posted by B.D. | November 1, 2006 11:31 AM
31

Orv, no one is asking them to "out nice" Republicans. I'm asking both sides to let democracy blossom via opening up the process.

In fact, I applaud Kerry for his response to the Republicans over Kerry's joke. Kerry should attack back and hard. Every time he's asked about it, he should turn hard against the war mongers and bring the subject back to the failures of policy of this administration in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at home. Put them on the defensive.

So, no one's asking the Democrats to "out nice" Republicans. To frame it as such is to be dishonest. What is being asked is that both sides quit attempting to fence in and define the democratic process. Instead, open it up and call bullshit appropriately when the other side responds poorly.

Posted by B.D. | November 1, 2006 11:35 AM
32

It wasn't right or wrong, just politically inept.

Think how embarrassing it would have been for Mr. Congeniality Mike! if a bunch of spoiled young republican brats interrupted a speech by Barak Obama, guaranteeing a national stage for their childishness. His entire campaign is about being the candidate of civility.

Why not give them the rope to hang themselves. Let them blast their air horns, heckle and make general asses of themselves. Then throw them out "for their own safety."

Posted by golob | November 1, 2006 11:36 AM
33

I take the words of a militant lefty like Goldy with half a grain of salt.

Posted by Gomez | November 1, 2006 11:45 AM
34

Josh--
Thanks for this perspective. It is telling that the Cantwell crowd screams about the Patriot Act & worries about their idiotic phone calls being monitored....and then condones this.
I thought the Cantwell crowd was pro-tolerance & pro-diversity??? Obviously not the case is it. Do as Cantwell SAYS....not as she does.

Posted by aaaaaargh | November 1, 2006 11:49 AM
35

BD... I'm not saying that the Cantwell folk should have kept these protesters out -- if it was me, I would have let them in -- I'm just saying that I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

I say, next time, let them in. And if they disrupt the event, beat them within an inch of their life. In fact, next person to blow an airhorn in my ear is going to find it shoved so far up their ass that they'll be farting like a foghorn.

I'm just sayin'.

Of course, by keeping the protesters out, the Cantwell folk avoided a potential violent clash... the type of clash that will eventually start happening as Dems grow sick and tired of being demonized as cowards, traitors and appeasers, and then ridiculed as a bunch of pussies for not fighting back.

Posted by Goldy | November 1, 2006 12:08 PM
36

Goldy: You're a typical leftist fuck.

http://www.horsesass.org/index.php?p=2160

Posted by Eric | November 1, 2006 12:19 PM
37

Golob,

The problem is that either way the lil' GOP whiners get what they want - publicity. This isn't really about protesting Cantwell's policies, or freedom of speech; it's all about getting their little mugs on the evening news. If they had been allowed in and had protested (and admittedly that's speculation on my part, but certainly not outside of the realm of possibility - it's not like their kind hasn't done this before), it would have generated just as much free news time as did their non-admittance, only it would have served a double purpose by also disrupting their opponents' rally in the presence of a national political figure, when there was presumably a national press contingent available to report on it. And there's little doubt but that the media would have come up with some juicy soundbite, either from whomever was speaking at the time, or during the inevitable expulsion, or afterwards, that would have stirred the pot just as much as the incident with the Cantwell staffer.

In any case, it's designed to be a lose-lose for Team Cantwell, because no matter which action they take, they come off looking like left-wing bullies.

As I said in a previous post, these are the kinds of tactics the GOP has been reduced to utilizing this cycle; generating otherwise meaningless tempests in teapots, in a desperate attempt to create any kind of distraction away from their own abysmal record, and seemingly pathological character flaws.

Posted by COMTE | November 1, 2006 12:26 PM
38

For the record, the Cantwell campaign had run an ad inviting the public to this event. So it was ostensibly open to everyone. They should have let 'em in but allowed no disruption to take place. Doing it this way made C'well the fuck-up. I say let the other guys be the fuck-ups and get the bad press. But the Cantwell people don't seem to be very competent?

Posted by hogwash | November 1, 2006 12:41 PM
39

Comte --
Not all publicity is good. Obama really is a media star right now. I suspect he would have handled any obnoxiousness in stride, and made young republicans everywhere look more like the fools they are.

I agree with you fully this is what they wanted. Why not re-enforce the growing media trope of the snobby, war dodging, dirty young republican?

Posted by golob | November 1, 2006 12:42 PM
40

Eric: and like a typical righty, you have absolutely no sense of nuance.

Posted by Goldy | November 1, 2006 12:56 PM
41

This really is SOP for Cantwell -- denial, evasiveness, and trying the disappearing act.

First of all, no one should be turned away from a campaign rally because they wear an opponent's T-shirt. That's just lame. That the GOP does it does not excuse the Dems doing it. It's wrong in each case, and simply flat-out authoritarian.

Secondly, Cantwell's office workers are some of the most ignorant and impolite I have ever encountered. Some time ago, working in concert with a group of nuclear physicists who were afraid that Bush was poised to strike Iran with nuclear weapons, I tried to get an answer from my elected representatives to a simple yes/no question:

"Are you willing to take a nuclear first-strike against Iran off the table?"

McDermott's office was cool. "Of course," was the immediate (and sane) response.

Murray's office was a bit more problematic, but what I finally received, after some persistence, was a statement that seemed to suggest that she was opposed to preemptive nuclear strikes. She refused to give a simple yes or no answer. Her staff did try to accomodate my desire for a kind of answer, however.

Cantwell refused to answer at all, and her staff were dickwads. After many polite queries, I finally received a letter from Cantwell which talked about nuclear arms and the need for national security but never addressed that simple small question about nuclear preemptive strikes.

So I won't be voting for Cantwell. She doesn't represent me. I've only seen her face and heard her voice this season, when she's running for reelection. (She is usually dressed in red while in her advertisements -- how appropos!) Aside from these commericials, it may as well be that she's missing in action.

I consider myself an independent, and I vote a progressive ticket. But I can't vote for this coward Cantwell.

Posted by Sexton | November 1, 2006 12:57 PM
42

jcricket wrote: "Is it too hard for you to get that there's a legal distinction between what's acceptable at the two types of events, and your attempt to whip up controversy on this makes you look dumber by the day?"

Dear jcricket:

Perhaps you will feel dumber by the day if you will read the ACLU's legal approach to this case (via the Seattle Times link above, which you obviously did not bother to click):

Fithian also wrote: "The Cantwell campaign has told us BCC students are welcome to attend this event."

The e-mail amounted to an invitation to students from the school, according to Taylor, and made the rally an "open forum" in which students' free-speech rights should have been protected.

That some instructors canceled classes and made the event part of the curriculum also gave the students rights, Taylor wrote. "BCC could not bar students from a political science class simply because they wore T-shirts opposing the political views of the professor or a guest speaker. The same principle applies here."

Posted by Sexton | November 1, 2006 1:04 PM
43

I second the various points b.d. made. This whole notion of "republicans don't give us any respect so they don't deserve any in return" completely illustrates my point about principles. You know... the whole idea that I might disagree with what you say but will go to the ends of the earth to protect your right to say it... that whole thing? What happened to that in parts of this thread? These days it seems like politicians on both sides seem to have missed their junior high civics lessons about the importance of the constitution and the principles behind it.

equivocating about legalisms like whether it is a public or private event, of whether the first amendment only applies to the federal government and campaigns, while for federal office, are not included is the kind of hair splitting that embodies the last several years which can be described as nothing but a brutal and sustained attack against the very institutions that make this country what it is. this isn't "being nice", it's acting in the spirit that has defined us as a nation through history. Elemental stuff.

Democrats: Don't just talk about what you value, show it when it's hard, not just when it's easy.

Posted by charles | November 1, 2006 1:05 PM
44

So, Sexton if you vote for one of the also-rans and McGavik wins, will that make you feel better? Or merely more self-righteous?

Posted by THROW VOTE IN GARBAGE - HERE | November 1, 2006 1:06 PM
45

Dear Throw Vote in Garbage:

Neither. I will feel principled, a person who respects her own mind.

Cantwell, who couldn't bring herself to object to an act that could lead to the total annihilation of the planet, obviously doesn't understand the term "principle," nor does she appear to possess a mind of her own.

Posted by Sexton | November 1, 2006 1:20 PM
46

the onus isn't on me to bend and vote for someone who doesn't represent the kind of leader I feel should be acting on my behalf. the onus is on the candidate to demonstrate that they will act in my interests and safeguard the ideals that I believe in. that's not self-righteous... some "bad" thing. That's what the democrats have been missing. And why they've been losing.

Posted by charles | November 1, 2006 1:40 PM
47

The rallying cry of the conscience voter:

"I don't need to compromise my principles, because they don't have the slightest bearing on what happens to me anyway."
--Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes)

Posted by Chris | November 1, 2006 1:54 PM
48

HAHA. nice

Posted by charles | November 1, 2006 1:56 PM
49

Vote your values, vote Guthrie!

Posted by mark s2 | November 1, 2006 1:57 PM
50

I LOVE THIS ARGUMENT BY THE DEMS....... "WHAT HAPPENED TO THESE STUDENTS IS NO BIG DEAL!" THE FACT THAT A LAWSUIT CITING VIOLATION OF THE STUDENTS RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND FREE ASSOCIATION IS NO BIG DEAL! "WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON BIGGER THINGS LIKE THE WAR, GLOBAL WARMING, DEVELOPMENT OF NUKES, THE PIG REPUBLICANS!" This argument only leads us to believe that the students are RIGHT, they are taking appropriate legal action, and have already won the case because the DEMS are ready to divert already and talk about the "BIG" issues, that are more difficult to break down than these obvious violations!

Posted by Not voting for Cantwell anymore!!! | November 1, 2006 2:18 PM
51

Why are democrats aLLOWED to film and and even ask questions at a purely McGavick event, but Cantwell and Burner people will not let anyone film theirs.
DOUBLE STANDARD ALERT! YOU'RE VOTING FOR THESE WOMEN?

Posted by Michele | November 1, 2006 3:23 PM
52

I love the fact that their 'protest' is now a much more noticable one than a handful of t-shirts would've been. Goldy's point is funny though since Dems really are pussies.

As a Libertarian I wouldn't initiate force against you but if you got it started I'd kick your ass and then hold a parade every year to celebrate the fact.

Posted by Tracy | November 1, 2006 3:40 PM
53

Why are Democrats so worried about the rights of terrorists in Guantanamo when they are busy trampling on the rights of Americans to attend a public rally? Isn't it liberals who go to speeches by conservatives and instead of listening with open minds, engage in pie throwing and yelling at the invited guest speaker? Once again, Democrats show there is indeed a double standard. Free speech as long as they agree with you. NO DISPLAYS OF OPPOSING IDEAS WILL BE TOLERATED!!!!

Posted by Scott Collier | November 1, 2006 3:43 PM
54

Typical Lib's, what's good for the goose is certainly not good for the gander! It was a rally in a public building, and yes, the PUBLIC can/should be allowed to enter no matter what their stance! You bunch of babies, the person reporting this is trying to report an incident and you bash him for basically not being partisan enough! Thats it, go ahead and start chastising media types for being "reporters", reporting the news. That will continue your parties bitch and moan do nothing stance on most things! dumbasses!

Posted by AL | November 1, 2006 3:47 PM
55

More fucking exclamation MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Fnarf | November 1, 2006 7:29 PM
56

This isn't much of a story other than the fact that like Kerry....Maria can't seem to just say "We just made a mistake......that's all". Story goes away, just like that.....

Posted by The Speed | November 2, 2006 3:37 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).