Cantwell by the Numbers

About a week ago there was some chatter on certain blogs ( here and here for instance) about the latest Rasmussen polling numbers between Maria Cantwell and Mike (mini-Slade) McGavick. The numbers show that Cantwell has fallen into a virtual dead heat with the so-called novice politician (44% to 40% with a margin of error of 4.5%). I decided at that time I would not post anything on this so as to not come off as gloating on Cantwell’s plummeting numbers. However, with a tip of the hat to David Postman at the Seattle Times, this piece of news thrown in as an “update” to his blog post about the 8th CD contest between Darcy Burner and incumbent republican, Dave Reichert put Cantwell’s situation back into perspective and onto my front page:

”UPDATE: Speaking of rankings, Republican Mike McGavick's campaign draws my attention to the National Journal's Hotline rankings of Senate races that reports a "slightly improved climate" for McGavick against Sen. Maria Cantwell.
There's no big change, but there are some good tidbits for McGavick in the rankings. Hotline calls him "the GOP's best Senate challenger in the country." There's a cautionary note that the race could slip from its position as the seventh hottest Senate race. But I bet this line is on the wall of McGavick headquarters this morning:
"But right now, we can't imagine ever viewing any other Democratic incumbent as more vulnerable than Cantwell."”

The Stranger’s “Slog” adds this: ”Now, the equally well-respected Cook Political Report (subscription required) delivers some more bracing analysis for incumbent Cantwell.
Here’s how their write-up begins:
Washington: On many levels, freshman Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell may be the party’s most vulnerable incumbent. Cantwell has not established herself in the minds of voters, her poll numbers tend to be weaker than those of her colleague Sen. Patty Murray, she does not have a long record of accomplishment, and she can’t finance her campaign as she did in 2000 when she defeated incumbent Republican Sen. Slade Gorton. As important, Cantwell will face a very strong opponent in former Safeco CEO Mike McGavick.”

All of these reports reach basically the same conclusion for Cantwell’s plummet. (And for the record, this is a Cantwell slide. Over the six months since Rasmussen first started polling this race, Cantwell’s number have dropped by some 6 to 8 percentage points while mini-Slade has only picked up 3 percentage points over that same period) According to the report, ”Thanks largely to her support for the war in Iraq, electoral support for Senator Maria Cantwell (D) has slipped once again—for the fifth survey in a row. “ It goes on to say, ”Cantwell attracts slightly more support from Democrats (82%) than McGavick does from Republicans (80%), but 8% of Democrats now say they would vote for another candidate altogether given a Cantwell-McGavick match-up. (Emphasis mine) Only 1% of GOP voters feel that way.”

Now when these Rasmussen numbers first came out, most of the Pro-Cantwell bloggers started admonishing the 8% of Progressive Democrats with statements like this from Shaun Dale at the “Upper Left” Blog: ”If you count yourself among that 8%, can you really count yourself in the Democratic Party? Because Maria Cantwell is the Democratic candidate for the US Senate. The next Senator will be Maria or the Republican.

There are no other choices. Sorry about the sharply binary nature of American politics in the 21st century, but there it is.

Which side are you on?”

Now here’s the thing; around a year ago Mark Wilson started campaigning around the state talking about how Maria Cantwell was jeopardizing this Democratic senate seat because she had been (and continues to) alienate the Progressive base of the party. He pointed to her vote and continued support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, her votes for NAFTA and CAFTA, the Patriot Act (now twice), voting to confirm (Mushroom Cloud) Condi Rice and John (ignore those death squads) Negroponte. What he got was a mix of support, criticism over his previous runs for office, and the troubling, “I believe in what you say, but Maria is certain to win so why bother?” On June 3rd, Mark delivered this same message at the Washington State Democrats Convention in Yakima. He was received pretty much the same way he has been all year. On June 5th, the Cantwell wing of the 38th LD pounded their chests and slapped down their fellow Democrats who had committed the crime of supporting an alternative candidate; claiming their action was in the cause of party unity. On June 21st, the Rasmussen numbers came out.

To those who have said we must support Maria because she is the only one who can win in November, I again ask; are you willing to risk this vital seat based on some false sense of party loyalty and unity in the face of the growing reality that without the Progressive base, this seat is lost? Would you ask the Progressive base to put aside principle and Democratic values rather than require the same of the elected representative? Are you willing to cast off the base rather than elect a candidate in the September primary who could, based on his previous runs attract new voters to the Democratic party who would otherwise pull votes away from a Democratic candidate?

Finally, I will leave you with this: If you have been underestimating the political strength of Mike McGavick, you have been doing a real disservice to the Democrats’ chances in November. Do not forget that as Slade Gorton’s Chief of Staff, McGavick knows the republican machine in this state as well as anyone and he knows who and how to use it. Do not lose sight of the fact that the Gorton and Rossi folks are hungry for what they see as revenge. Republican voters will not stay home and they will NOT cross over for Cantwell. It will take the whole Democratic Party and, possibly, some more pragmatic 3rd party voters to keep this seat in Democratic hands.


Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Even More News

In 1993, with Bill Clinton in the Whitehouse and Maria Cantwell serving her first (and only) term in the US House, the Democratic Party took a sharp turn away from their long established role as defender of worker’s rights and strong partner of organized labor. Over the loud objections of many labor and environmental organizations, Clinton began an aggressive campaign to move through the congress and sign into law the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA was touted as a way to reverse the growing trade deficit by promoting US exports and, in the process, create millions of new jobs for the American economy. At the time those opposed to the agreement argued that, without strong worker and environmental protections as well as some disincentive for US firms who might move their companies “offshore”, there might be great risk of job loss and even a worsening effect on the trade deficit. Due in very large part to Clinton’s personal salesmanship (coupled with Democratic euphoria in reclaiming the Whitehouse) NAFTA was passed with both Maria Cantwell in the House and Patty Murray in the Senate voting for passage.

So how has that vote worked out for America and Washington State? According to a 2005 report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) - a Labor-backed think tank of leading economists, ”The rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2004 has caused the displacement of production that supported 1,015,291 U.S. jobs since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993. Jobs were displaced in every state and major industry in the United States. Two thirds of those lost jobs were in manufacturing industries.” They go on to say, ”Since NAFTA took effect, the growth of exports supported approximately 1 million U.S. jobs, but the growth of imports displaced domestic production that would have supported 2 million jobs. Consequently, the growth of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada caused a net decline in U.S. production that would have supported about 1 million U.S. jobs.”Another ramification that should not be lost on Democrats is that in 1994 the Democrats lost control of the US House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. It took another election for them to lose the Senate as well. I wonder how many of those one million displaced (Union) workers voted.

The timing of the EPI report (and its relevant data) is important as it was released on the eve of the 2005 vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). It was hoped that the data and statistics it contained might cause our representatives (particularly the Democrats) to hold out for tighter worker and environmental controls and be more mindful of the potential impact on American goods and labor. In other words, it was a plea to demand Fair Trade and not this so-called Free Trade. While passage of CAFTA was almost assured on the basis of the republican majorities in both houses of congress, most Democrats seemed to have learned from the NAFTA example and voted against CAFTA. Unfortunately in Washington State those lessons seemed to have been lost on Senator Murray and our new Junior Senator, Maria Cantwell (Norm Dicks was the only Washington Democrat in the House to vote in favor of CAFTA).

We do not know for certain that we will suffer the same effects to our labor force from CAFTA that we have from NAFTA, however we may refer again to the EPI report for some historical perspective: ”NAFTA has also failed to deliver on its promised benefits to the poorest citizens of the hemisphere, many of them living in Mexico. Real wages of Mexican manufacturing workers have fallen despite a decade of strong GDP growth (Salas 2001). There have been substantial increases in informal sector work such as street vending and unpaid family work in stores and restaurants. One major study has concluded that "NAFTA has not helped the Mexican economy keep pace with the growing demand for jobs…The agricultural sector, where almost a fifth of Mexicans still work, has lost 1.3 million jobs…" Is there any question as to where many of these unemployed workers are now?

Obviously Senator Cantwell is not alone in her support for these so-called Free Trade policies. However she, not Senator Murray, is the one up for re-election at this time and this is yet one more vote that has caused concern amongst many of her constituents. Unlike some other votes though, CAFTA was one of those issues where there was almost universal opposition from the state party as well as the various labor and environmental groups. Yet Senator Cantwell, looking into the face of the collected data and hearing the pleas from those (such as my wife and myself) who had lost jobs as a direct result of NAFTA, chose to continue down that path.

In September, we have an opportunity to choose a different path. In the Democratic Primary, we have the opportunity to choose a candidate who will say no to this sell out to America’s labor movement. In Mark Wilson we have a candidate who will fight to make worker and environmental protections integral parts of any future trade agreements. In September, exercise your right to choose; choose Mark Wilson – Democrat for U.S. Senate.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

IWR News

Iraq Body Count: 6/27/06
Americans Killed: 2524
Americans Wounded: 18,356
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 42,889
http://icasualties.org/oif/
.......................................................

Latest Confirmed Casualties



*Cpl Ryan J. Buckley, 21, of Nokomis, Ill., died in Baghdad, Iraq on June 23.
*Staff Sgt. Virrueta A. Sanchez, 33, of Houston, Texas, died in Balad, Iraq on June 24.

*Pfc. Devon J. Gibbons, 19, of Port Orchard, Wash.(47), died on June 23, in the Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, of injuries sustained on April 11 in Taji, Iraq.

*Spc. Channing G. Singletary, 30, of Sylvester, Ga., died in Baghdad, Iraq on June 23.

*Sgt. Benjamin J. Laymon, 22, of Mount Vernon, Ohio died on June 24 in the vicinity of Baghdad, Iraq.

*Sgt. Justin D. Norton, 21, of Rainier, Wash.(48) died on June 24 in the vicinity of Baghdad, Iraq.


Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

IWR News

Iraq Body Count: 6/24/06
Americans Killed: 2516
Americans Wounded: 18,356
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 42,889
http://icasualties.org/oif/
.......................................................

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Sgt. Reyes Ramirez, 23, of Willis, Texas, died in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, on June 17.

*Spc. Robert L. Jones, 22, of Milwaukie, Ore. died in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, on June 17.

*Cpl. Christopher D. Leon, 20, of Lancaster, Calif. died June 20 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Lance Cpl. Brandon J. Webb, 20, of Swartz Creek, Mich. died June 20 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Pfc. Christopher N. White, 23, of Southport, N.C. died June 20 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Staff Sgt. Benjamin D. Williams, 30, of Orange, Texas died June 20 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore. died in the vicinity of Baghdad, Iraq,
from injuries sustained on or about June 16.

*Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of San Marcos, Texas died in the vicinity of Baghdad, Iraq, from injuries sustained on or about June 16.

*Sgt. Sirlou C. Cuaresma, 25, of Chicago, Ill., died in Baghdad, Iraq on June 21.

*Cpl. Riley E. Baker, 22, of Pacific, Mo., died June 22 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Staff Sgt. Mario J. Bievre, 34, of Constantinople, Ill. died on June 23 in the vicinity of Baghdad, Iraq.

*Pfc. Paul A. Beyer, 21, of Jamestown, N.D. died on June 23 in the vicinity of Baghdad, Iraq.


Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Fighting Them There

To the surviving family members of the estimated 20,000 to 100,000 Iraqis who have died since the American led invasion and occupation of your country I offer the following:

While I have been opposed to this action since its inception, I have spent the past 3 years trying to find some rational reason why this military adventure into your county might be justified. Over recent weeks, in our houses of congress, there have been discussions about what our mission is and how we will know when we have succeeded. During these discussions there has been something repeated that I have heard over the entire course of this invasion and occupation and yet never really absorbed its full impact.“In this effort, we have chosen to fight the terrorists on their turf so that we don’t have to face them at home.” In adding up all of the points in the discussion on why we entered Iraq, what we found to be true after the invasion, and why we are still there, I find that I am most troubled by the sentiment expressed as,“fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.” In other words, we are using your country as our battlefield so that we do not fight our own battles on our own soil. In so doing we are saying that Iraqi lives are valued lower than American lives.

Before we invaded Iraq, we were told that Saddam Hussein had amassed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that he would certainly offer them up to the terrorist networks he supported. We were told that we would be liberating the Iraqi people who were living under the repressive government of Saddam. It did not take very long for the military of the United States to meet those goals. It was quickly proven that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and yet the argument has been made that by toppling Saddam, we effectively kept him from ever coming back later to develop or distribute the weapons he no longer had. We also quickly discovered that there was no network of terrorists in Iraq. So, having accomplished our mission of removing the threat of WMD and liberating the Iraqi people from the grip of Saddam Hussein, why do we still remain in Iraq? Apparently the part of the plan that was kept from the Iraqi people (as well as most Americans) was that by setting up an occupying force in Iraq we could entice the terrorists to come into your country so that we could fight them on Iraqi soil and not on American soil. Apparently it was decided somewhere along the way that, in America’s war on terror, no price or sacrifice was to high – for the Iraqi people.


Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

IWR News

Iraq Body Count: 6/20/06
Americans Killed: 2504
Americans Wounded: 18,356
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 42,889
http://icasualties.org/oif/
.......................................................

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Cpl. Michael A. Estrella, 20, of Hemet, Calif., died June 14 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Spc. Jeremiah S. Santos, 21, of Minot, N.D., died in Baghdad, Iraq, on June 15.

*Spc. Brent W. Koch, 22, of Morton, Minn., died on June 16, in Ad Diwaniyah, Iraq.

*Spc. David J. Babineau, 25, of Springfield, Mass. died on June 16, in Baghdad, Iraq.


Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

In Yet Other News

As Senator Cantwell campaigns around the state, she repeatedly speaks about her commitment to our privacy and civil liberties and reminds us that she is the only Northwest Senator to vote against both John Roberts and Samuel Alito for appointment to the United States Supreme Court. However, we might want to take a closer look at that commitment.

As I have pointed out in a previous post , even when faced with the reality that her previously stated concerns about the Patriot Act had not been addressed, Senator Cantwell still split with Senator Patty Murray and voted to reauthorize that invasive act.

This brings us to the case of Samuel Alito and his confirmation to a seat on the US Supreme Court. Coming on the heels of John Robert’s confirmation as Chief Justice, it was obvious to even the casual observer that the republican controlled senate was going to rubber stamp any conservative nominee that George W. Bush sent their way and that the only way the Democrats would be able to prevent a radical shift to the right on the court was to exercise their right to filibuster.

As Samuel Alito was going through the motions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was becoming more clear that his judicial philosophy took him well outside the mainstream on issues of privacy rights and, perhaps more relevant to the times, the limits of executive power as it relates to the constitutional separation of powers. It was immediately after these hearings that a number of prominent Democratic senators made it known that they were prepared to launch a filibuster to prevent Alito’s elevation to the bench if indeed he was passed out of the Judiciary Committee.

As is her custom, Senator Cantwell scheduled and held a private meeting with Alito to gain her own insight as to his positions and to determine her own position relative to the vote to confirm. From this meeting, Cantwell released the following statement

”Monday, January 30, 2006

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Monday,

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) announced that she will vote against the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.

As she has with previous potential Supreme Court Justices prior to announcing her position, Cantwell met face-to-face with Judge Alito in her Washington, DC office. During their meeting on Monday afternoon, Cantwell asked Alito about his record and recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Cantwell specifically asked about his positions on the right to privacy, the balance of power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government and the rights of the individual versus the government.

Based on Alito’s record as a jurist and following the answers he gave in response to her questions, Cantwell released the following statement on her decision to vote against Alito’s nomination:

“I am very concerned with Judge Alito’s record regarding an individual’s constitutional right to privacy. (emphasis TLS) While I do not expect any judicial nominee to prejudge future cases, I do expect all nominees to make their positions clear on protecting the most basic rights of individuals and the fundamental structure and foundations of our democracy. In the end, I cannot be sure that Judge Alito would do either.

“Judge Alito has a record of concern when it comes to placing and consolidating the rights of the government over the rights of the individual(emphasis TLS) and he has not provided the answers to adequately reassure the people of our nation. I must conclude that he would neither show due respect for the authority of Congress nor apply a necessary check to the reach of the executive.(emphasis TLS) With great respect for the institution, I cannot vote to confirm Judge Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Now I would say that those are some pretty strong suggestions about the type of harm an Alito confirmation could produce coming from the Supreme Court. However, as I have previously stated, it was widely accepted by all but the most naïve that the only way to prevent this nominee from obtaining a confirmation from this republican controlled body was for Democrats to stand united (especially those who would claim a mantle of leadership) in a filibuster of the confirmation. In fact, such prominent Democrats as John Kerry, Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, Hillary Clinton, and our own Patty Murray stood to encourage their fellow Democrats to join them in such an effort.

In the end, however, Senator Cantwell, who had said that she believed Samuel Alito would “neither show due respect for the authority of Congress nor apply a necessary check to the reach of the executive” joined seventeen Democratic senators (including Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson) to invoke cloture and end any filibuster. True to her word however, when the forgone conclusion (otherwise referred to as the confirmation vote) was reached, Senator Cantwell voted “No”. Unfortunately for those who cherish our civil liberties, the senator was on the losing end as Samuel Alito was confirmed by a vote of 58 to 42.

Sometimes, even in an election year, we ask our representatives to stand on principle. In light of the possible consequences, this was one such time. There will be more opportunities to stand up for our privacy and civil liberties. I have seen where Senator Cantwell stands. I think there is a better choice

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Our Own "Brownie"?

A few days ago I received an email from a friend of mine in the Progressive Caucus of Snohomish County Democrats asking if I had seen the following:

Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon announced today the appointment of John E. Pennington to the position of Director of Snohomish County’s Department of Emergency Management (DEM). Pennington, who most recently served as FEMA Region X Director, will start July 13, as acting director until such time as the County Council makes the appointment official.
“Saving life, liberty and property during a disaster is of the highest priority for this County,” says Executive Reardon. “As the former FEMA Region X director, John Pennington brings to this position vast experience and the respect of federal, state and local government as well as homeland security officials. He has my utmost confidence. I am pleased that he has accepted this position.”

My friend then went on to say that it looked like we may be getting our own Michael Brown in Snohomish County. She sent along some information that she had pieced together in a very quick Internet search. Among the things she turned up were interesting items like the fact Pennington holds “a degree in business administration via mail and e-mail correspondence from California Coastal University, an unaccredited institution that was later called a "diploma mill" by federal authorities”. Also, as a four term republican legislator, (where he served with Democrat Reardon) apparently his only experience in handling major disasters was “as the <2000> co-chairman of the Bush campaign in Cowlitz County, where Bush lost to Al Gore 49 percent to 46 percent”. At the request of Jennifer Dunn, former republican representative from the 8th CD, Pennington was appointed FEMA Region X Director by George W. Bush.

Well, at first I was going to just let this go. I mean, I don’t have any type of degree (I may look into California Coastal now though) and even a republican can occasionally do a good job. But then I stumbled on an entry from fellow blogger, David Goldstein aka “Goldy” at HorsesAss.org: GOP insider trashes NW region FEMA chief

It seems that in September of 2005, Goldy came upon a blog entry from Kelly Hinton, a former executive director of the Washington State Republican Party (blogging at Clark County Politics), essentially ripping Pennington’s appointment to his FEMA position. Part of Hinton’s entry at the time read: ” The fact is that at the time of his appointment, John Pennington knew no more about emergency management then he did brain surgery. He got the job because Jennifer Dunn like[d] him. Period.” and then Hinton levels the most disturbing allegation: ” Then, of course, many of us became privy to a fax sent out by Pennington’s wife, making numerous allegations against him concerning domestic violence and abuse. The fax, from “Valerie Ann Pennington,” dated 11 June and addressed to, among others, the Governor and the State AG, and CC’d to both Senators Murray and Cantwell was faxed to a variety of officials in both parties. The fax says, in part, “I am the spouse of Region 10 FEMA Director, Department of Homeland Security, John Edward Pennington… on January 13, 2005, I… filed for restraining orders against my husband of fourteen years. Since that date I have filed for divorce and provided evidence to the court of a neck injury sustained during an assault from my husband on September 7, 2004. I have also provided evidence of repeated violations of existing restraining orders by Mr. Pennington, and statements from witnesses of his verbal abuse and violent temper.”

Now I agree with Goldy that divorce is a personal thing and should not be played out in some blog. However, the character of those who are paid with our tax dollars is very much in play when it involves allegations of abuse and domestic violence. While allegations are not enough to deny someone a job, they are certainly worth investigating before rather than after a final decision is made. I would hope that the County Council, as well as our local media, will do a thorough job of vetting this appointment.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Rep. Adam Smith on "The Resolution"

Friends,
I just received this email from Rep. Adam Smith and am posting it to provide equal space to my criticism of his recent vote. I have extended the same offer to Rep. Rick Larsen - stay tuned:

**************************

Smith Expresses Support for U.S. Troops In Iraq, But Urges Greater Congressional Oversight and New Direction

Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Rep. Adam Smith expressed disappointment with a resolution considered in the House regarding Iraq and the war on terrorism. The non-binding resolution expressed the House of Representatives' support for American troops and commitment to achieving success in Iraq and the war on terrorism, a sentiment that Smith shares. However, he decried the inadequacy of the measure, and the attempt of House Republicans to use the Iraq War as an election-year ploy. He voted in favor of the resolution to express support for the many servicemen and women of the 9th Congressional District, and made the following statements after the vote:

“First, let me state unequivocally that I do not support the status quo in Iraq, and that I strongly disagree with countless actions and decisions President Bush has made in the lead up to the war, in launching the war, and in the conduct of the war.

The Republicans, in a cynical political strategy, crafted a resolution that does not anywhere state complete support for the President's conduct of the war or for the idea of continuing our troop presence in Iraq indefinitely. In fact the bulk of the resolution simply states support for our troops, a desire for us to prevail in the Global War on Terror, condemnation of the terrorists, and a desire to create a secure, stable, democratic, and united Iraq. Every single American I can think of supports all of these statements. But it is a gross mischaracterization of the entire debate on Iraq to say that support for these principles means support for how President Bush has conducted United States policy in Iraq or for how he plans to conduct future policy in that troubled nation.”

Smith continued, "This administration has made, and continues to make, many costly mistakes in Iraq, and this Congress has failed to ask the tough questions that will help us change course and move more quickly to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis."

During House debate on the resolution, Smith expressed his disappointment in a speech on the House floor. The full text of Smith's floor speech follows:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in disappointment - though I must say, not in surprise - about the exercise the House is engaged in today. This is not a true debate about our policy in Iraq. A real debate on Iraq would allow us to consider alternative proposals and vote on meaningful amendments that could help us improve the very difficult situation there. Instead we have before us an un-amendable, rhetorical document about the war on terrorism that barely focuses on Iraq itself, and certainly doesn't deal with the real challenges we face there. This process is an offense to our democracy.

What is even more troubling, Mr. Speaker, is that this kind of undemocratic approach is precisely what led to the Bush administration's many costly mistakes in Iraq. Americans have seen how the administration's stubborn single-mindedness and refusal to consider alternative views and dissenting opinions have cost us dearly in Iraq. The facts are all-to-well-known:

When General Shinseki said that far more troops would be needed to secure the peace in Iraq, he was ignored and soon retired - and the result was that the troops we did send struggled unnecessarily to prevent and control a massive insurgency.

When advisors warned the administration not to de-Baathify and disband the Iraqi military and security forces, they were ignored. As Prime Minister Tony Blair has publicly admitted, this was a grave mistake that effectively pushed thousands of military-trained, disempowered Sunnis into the streets, fueling the post-war insurgency.

And the administration's refusal to heed dissenting views on Iraq continues to this day. Now that the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has brought to light massive amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse in the reconstruction contracting, I understand that the administration and the Republicans in Congress are trying to prematurely end his mandate.

This is a clear pattern, Mr. Speaker, and the consequences of this arrogant, undemocratic approach are real. It has cost us dearly in American lives and resources, undermined our efforts to build peace and stability in Iraq, and delayed our departure from the country.

Mr. Speaker, I supported the use-of-force authorization in October 2002 in order to give the President the leverage to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for his threatening behavior and refusal to submit to weapons inspections. And that is what makes it all the more frustrating that the President misused that authority by rushing to war and committing so many grave and costly mistakes in Iraq.

So no, Mr. Speaker, this is not a real debate. A real debate would allow us to consider the important questions in Iraq: Can we afford to make an open-ended commitment to staying in Iraq? Has our troop presence there reached the point where it is inhibiting a successful transition to full Iraqi sovereignty? Can our strained military and ballooning national deficit handle it?

How can we accelerate the transition to Iraqi sovereignty and responsibility for their own country? How best can we engage in more robust diplomacy with our allies and key regional players who can help bolster the new Iraqi government and contribute to its reconstruction?

How can we improve Congressional oversight so that we can identify and rectify the enormous mistakes the administration has made in Iraq?

These are the questions we should be debating, Mr. Speaker, because they directly affect our ability to achieve success in Iraq. We owe it to our brave men and women in uniform and to the American people to ask these questions. But instead, we have a resolution before us today that is basically irrelevant when it comes to the real issues in Iraq. It says, essentially, that we support fighting terrorism and that we are committed to achieving success in Iraq. I agree with that, but that doesn't say anything about how we get there. That is the important question.

Mr. Speaker, today Congress is continuing to utterly abdicate its oversight responsibility. Since the outbreak of war, this Congress has done little more than endorse the administration's policy in Iraq, instead of asking the tough questions and scrutinizing that policy, as the Constitution requires us to do.

Mr. Speaker, I hope, despite this Congress' refusal to conduct oversight, that we can be honest today as we look ahead in Iraq. We all want to see an Iraq that is stable, secure, and free. Our troops are doing an outstanding job, and they deserve our full support and respect. But the fact is that success or failure in Iraq increasingly depends on the decisions of Iraqi leaders, and they must understand that. In order to achieve success in Iraq we must accelerate the transition to Iraqi sovereignty.

I believe that significantly reducing our military footprint is critical for making that happen. While we cannot simply abandon Iraq at this point, drawing down our forces levels in a responsible way in the coming months will force the Iraqis to take greater responsibility for their own security and reduce their dependence on U.S. forces. It will also send an important message to the Iraqi people that Americans are not there to occupy the country, but rather seek to begin leaving as Iraqis take control of their own country.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as we move forward in Iraq, both the future and the past matter. We must make the best of a difficult situation by working diligently to help Iraqis take full responsibility for running their country so that our overburdened troops can come home. And we must do so in a manner that does not give the violent Islamic terrorists in the world any greater strength. Yet we must also be willing to acknowledge and learn from our mistakes so that we can chart a new path forward. That requires holding the Bush administration and this rubber-stamp Congress accountable for their failures."
****************************

Comments are welcome here or, if you would prefer to address you concerns directly to Rep. Smith, you may do so at: info@electadamsmith.com


As I have expressed to Rep. Smith, while I strongly disagree with his vote, I applaud his efforts to reach out in a pro-active way to explain his vote to his constituents and other concerned Washington voters


Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

United We Stand?

On the day when the Pentagon announced American military deaths had reached 2500 in Iraq, the republican controlled House of Representatives dishonored the memory of those troops by bringing to the floor a political document intended to further politicize the so-called war on terror. What could be worse than that?........42 House Democrats caved in to the bully on the playground and voted to accept Karl Rove's call to endorse this endless war! What could be worse than that?........My own representative, Rick Larsen (d-WA,2nd CD) was one of those 42 votes! Adam Smith was the other Washington State democrat to vote Aye.

So what important new thing did the republicans want to say about Iraq this week?


RESOLUTION
Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;

Whereas for the past two decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States;

Whereas it is essential to the security of the American people and to world security that the United States, together with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and to those who provide them assistance;

Whereas the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists failed to stop free elections in Afghanistan and the first popularly-elected President in that nation's history has taken office;

Whereas the continued determination of Afghanistan, the United States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be required to sustain a sovereign, free, and secure Afghanistan;

Whereas the steadfast resolve of the United States and its partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass destruction;

Whereas by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions;

Whereas the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors;

Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;

Whereas the Iraqi people, with the help of the United States and other Coalition partners, have formed a permanent, representative government under a newly ratified constitution;

Whereas the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East;

Whereas United States Armed Forces, in coordination with Iraqi security forces and Coalition and other friendly forces, have scored impressive victories in Iraq including finding and killing the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi;

Whereas Iraqi security forces are, over time, taking over from United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to secure Iraq;

Whereas the United States and Coalition servicemembers and civilians and the members of the Iraqi security forces and those assisting them who have made the ultimate sacrifice or been wounded in Iraq have done so nobly, in the cause of freedom; and

Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;

(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;

(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;

(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;

(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;

(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and

(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

************

So let's get this straight - Larsen and Smith agree with the republicans that Iraq is in fact a front in the so-called war on terror. They agree that Iraq was a threat to global security and that the Saddam Hussein regime was supporting terrorists and they also believe we cannot leave until Iraq is "sovereign, free, secure, and united."

Over the course of ten hours of a unity rarely seen in five years, Democrat after Democrat came to the floor of the House to let the republicans know that they are done being called unpatriotic for asking for genuine oversight of Bush's war of choice in Iraq. From John Murtha to Nancy Pelosi to Barbara Lee to Jim McDermott to NORM DICKS, the House Democrats started showing real spine and cohesiveness as a caucus to tell the House bullies that their regime of political terror was coming to an end. There was agreement that indeed Iraq had never posed any threat to this country; that there was no evidence of ties to any terrorist organization; that Bush had lied and manipulated data to take this country into a war of choice. They agreed that the only link to the so-called war on terror is the one Bush created with his invasion of that country. One after one they exalted John Murtha for speaking truth to power and embraced his plan for re-deployment of our troops from combat positions in Iraq.

In response to this challenge to their non-binding political ploy, the republican bullies repeated the Rovian lines of "Support our Troops" and "Don't Cut and Run". The contrast could not have been any clearer and yet.......In the morning's light, Larsen and Smith parted with 149 Democrats, 3 Republicans and Independent Bernie Sanders to join 214 republicans and 40 of their fellow democrats in saying to those troops who have made and who continue to make the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, "You will be rewarded by slogans and bullshit in the People's House".


Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

In Other News

In October, 2001, Senator Maria Cantwell voted to pass the USA Patriot Act - and act that would soon find the country's librarians on the front lines in defending Americans' civil liberties. In her statement on the senate floor before her vote, Cantwell said the following:

“Mr. President, I support this bill but I do so only with the gravest reservations. We are giving broad new powers to our law enforcement and intelligence communities, without the traditional safeguards of judicial review and congressional oversight. I believe that many provisions of the bill, particularly those sections dealing with electronic eavesdropping and computer trespass, remain seriously flawed and may infringe on civil liberties…” ”…Unfortunately, aspects of this bill that greatly expand electronic eavesdropping in this country without providing adequate safeguards are deeply troubling. This bill attempts to improve our ability to eavesdrop on terrorists in this country without abridging American's Fourth Amendment right of reasonable search and seizure. I do not believe it does a good enough job.
Expansion of wiretap authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will expand the ability of the government - allowing wiretaps on the lines of American citizens - not just foreign terrorists. And it will be done in secret with insignificant reporting to the Congress, and with no way for Congress to conduct meaningful oversight…”

While there were many voices asking for restraint on the part of the government, the overall sense of the senate was to act first and ask questions later. As an acknowledgement to those concerns however, certain provisions of this intrusive act were set to expire or be reviewed for renewal after four years. Over the ensuing four years, many flaws and abuses in this act were exposed and challenged and the sense that there was a pattern of abuse of power on the part of the Bush Administration continued to grow. By the time those provisions of the Patriot Act came up for either expiration or renewal, there was a new awareness amongst the Democrats in Congress that more Americans were concerned about their civil liberties and were opposed to the extension of these provisions. Civil libertarians, members of the judiciary, and other concerned citizens had now had an opportunity to weigh in and passage of this bill was in real jeopardy.

In February, 2006, the senate again voted on extending the provisions of the USA Patriot Act. At that time, Senator Cantwell, having heard from constituents, expert witnesses and colleagues including Russ Feingold and Patty Murray (who had now determined that this act was flawed beyond repair) proceeded to vote “Aye” to the question of extending this threat to our civil liberties – the only Washington State Democrat to do so.

In four years, with the provisions of the bill that she was most concerned about still not improved (with the more recent revelations about the NSA wiretapping just around the corner), Senator Cantwell – this time in the light of day - acknowledged that she was aware of the potential assault on our freedoms and still chose to vote “Aye”.

In September, you will have a choice to make on who you believe will better represent and speak up for your freedoms and civil liberties. Choose wisely.


Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue
Protect our Civil Liberties

IWR News

Iraq Body Count: 6/13/06
Americans Killed: 2497
Americans Wounded: 18,356
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 42,747
http://icasualties.org/oif/
.......................................................


Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*2nd Lt. John S. Vaughan, 23, of Edwards, Colo., died in Mosul, Iraq, on June 7.

*Sgt. 1st Class Clarence D. McSwain, 31, of Meridian, Miss., died in Baghdad, Iraq on June 8.

*Pvt. Benjamin J. Slaven, 22, of Plymouth, Neb., died on June 9, in Ad Diwaniyah, Iraq.

*Lance Cpl. Salvador Guerrero, 21, of Los Angeles, Calif., died June 9 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Lance Cpl. Brent B. Zoucha, 19, of Merrick, Neb., died June 9 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Seaman Apprentice Zachary M. Alday, 22, of Donalsonville, Ga., died June 9 in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq.


Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Vote Mark dot Org

They call him Johnny One-Note, these repeaters of the news.
They say he only talks of war; only sings Iraqi blues.
When he tries to speak of other things; valid points, other views
The press just types out “Anti-war”; his other points refused.

When he speaks of trade and jobs and privacy their printer’s ink runs dry
As if they don’t want these other things to ever reach your eye.
The story line has been foretold; there’s no need to even try
To get the message out that he’s more than “No War Guy”.

Any press is good press; that’s how the adage goes
But the person that they write about and who the public knows
Has been defined by someone else and so his altered ego grows
The single-issue candidate they write about has been painted head to toe.

Now the war is an issue that deserves a full debate
And the challenger has every right to give it extra weight
But the press has an obligation to the voters of this state To report a clearer picture, not hold back till it’s too late

There is going to be a primary where the Democrats will decide
Who will represent them; who’ll take on the other side
We should vote our hopes and values; we should cast our vote with pride
And we should cast our vote with knowledge that our eyes were open wide

If the media won’t show you everything that they should show
Mark Wilson’s got a website where I hope that you will go
To read about the person, his positions, all those things you need to know
Vote Mark dot Org because the main stream media blows


Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

IWR News

Iraq Body Count: 6/11/06
Americans Killed: 2492
Americans Wounded: 18,254
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 42,747
http://icasualties.org/oif/
.......................................................


Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Sgt. Carlos E. Pernell, 25, of Munford, Ala. died in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, on June 6.

*Cpl. Andy D. Anderson, 24, of Falls Church, Va. died in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, on June 6.

*1st Lt Scott M. Love, 32, of Knoxville, TN. dies in Ar Ramadi, Iraq on June 7.

*Pfc David N. Crombie, 19, of Winnemucca, Nev. died in Ar Ramadi, Iraq on June 7.

*Spc. Luis D. Santos, 20, of Rialto, Calif., died in Buritz, Iraq, on June 8.

*Sgt. Jose M. Velez, 35, of Bronx, N.Y., died in Kirkuk, Iraq, on June 9.

*Sgt. 1st Class Daniel B. Crabtree, 31, of Canton, Ohio, died in Al Kut, Iraq, on June 9.


Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

We are the Bull in the China Shop

Friends,
As a comment to a comment to a recent posting here, Allen McPheeters posed the following:

Chad:

You have my sympathies. Early in my first gig as a PCO, I attended the party's county convention to vote for delegates to the state convention. I was in favor of one candidate for the party's Presidential nomination; there was another strong candidate as well. By the time I left that day, I'd had a wonderful (if stinging) lesson in the importance of out-organizing your opponent. So we nominated G. W. Bush instead of John McCain.

All of which is to say that politics is a rough game, regardless of the team you play for, and you have to be prepared to have your people in place when the voting comes down.

But the real reason I'm posting is because of the comments just above mine. I disagree with you on whether it was right or not to invade Iraq, for reasons I'd be happy to explain if you were interested. But I'm willing to believe that men of good faith and honorable intent can disagree on public policy. What I want to know is, if you "just disagree with (Bush) that you clean up a mess with the same military force you used to create it in the first place," then what is your plan on how to clean up the mess in Iraq?

--
Posted by Allen McPheeters to The Left Shue at 6/08/2006 11:21:15 PM
*****

I am pleased to read Allen's comment and have chosen to open a new post for the purpose of responding and hopefully creating a reasoned and civil discussion on this issue and possibly more in the future.

To Allen, I would like to say that I have chosen to respond only to the questions you have put to me. I am aware that you have also commented on entries from Soulrebel and Jackie Minchew. I will leave their responses or lack thereof to them. I do welcome you to the Left Shue and offer the following:
*************

Allen,
Thanks for your comments. I would be happy to hear your thoughts on the righteousness of pre-emptively invading a country that we had effectively bombed and "sanctioned" into a third world straw horse that posed this country no threat. I do agree with your premise that, "men of good faith and honorable intent can disagree on public policy." However, I believe that you would also have to believe that those setting the public policy are also men of good faith and honorable intent and it is at this starting point that we may have our greatest disagreement.

As for the question of who would clean up the mess in Iraq, I would say that, so far as the military response, cleanup and infrastructure are better left to maintenance battalions and not infantry companies. However, I also believe that the military maintainance role should only be viewed as short term and limited to immediate action such as ensuring hospitals and other humanitarian agencies are capable of functioning in the immediate aftermath of violence.

It is critical that more Iraqis take the lead roles in rebuilding in their own country. Rather than a series of no-bid contracts to Bush/Cheney Inc. political cronies, every effort should have been, and still should be, extended in identifying and empowering Iraqi firms to take on this task. Unemployment in Iraq is hovering around 80%. If you put a shovel in a man's hand and a paycheck at the end of the week, he may just put down that rifle or remote triggering device. Who knows the power grid and the water/sewage system better than the people who built them originally? The latest reports have electricity at below 50% of pre-invasion capacity and access to clean water is even worse. It is obvious to me that Halliburton is not doing the job and, based on the number of reports of price gouging (of American tax dollars) by many of the private firms in Iraq, it is simply criminal to allow this situation to remain the same. Isn’t it just a bit disturbing that the largest construction project in Iraq, rather than being a new power generating station, has been the building of the largest embassy in the world? Imagine being an Iraqi woman having to stand in line for a tanker truck to provide you your ration of clean drinking water for the week. Now ask how it is right that, rather than build more water filtration facilities, Kellog-Brown and Root has just completed work on the last of fourteen new permanent military bases (complete with the McDonalds, Burger King, and KFC intended to give the troops that feeling of "home").

The money being appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction should be awarded directly to the Iraqi government for distribution (via their Interior Ministry) to local contractors or to other international firms as deemed appropriate and cost effective by that entity. The United States should be willing to provide equipment and materials directly to the Iraqi government as part of any reconstruction package – bulldozers, not bullets.

As for the obvious question of security, I would suggest that we first have to agree that there are two differing forms of violence taking place in Iraq; the sectarian violence that is a result of the power vacuum left by the deposing of Saddam Hussein and the insurgency/resistance to the American occupation of that country. Both situations are real and must be dealt with before Iraq can be rebuilt and stable.

The solution to the resistance is for the United States to declare victory in regime change and announce our departure at the earliest practicable date that would allow for an orderly and safe deployment of our forces out of Iraq. The sectarian violence (some have referred to this as a civil war) is unfortunate and might have been mostly avoided if the Bush administration had truly planned for the transition of power after Saddam. However, if the new government is to be effective, they must show that they are truly open to political and economic power sharing. As a sovereign nation, they should be appealing to the UN for international peacekeepers to replace American troops and they should certainly appeal to their direct neighbors in the region to be the faces of that international force.

Finally, to those who say that we are responsible for fixing what we broke I would ask this; who would you have repair your broken watch, the one who broke it or a watch-smith who has the skill and the motivation to do the job correctly?

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

IWR News

"A Year of Transition", Day: 160

Iraq Body Count: 6/09/06
Americans Killed: 2489
Americans Wounded: 18,254
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 42,646
http://icasualties.org/oif/
.......................................................


Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Cpl. Ryan J. Cummings, 22, of Streamwood, Ill., died June 3 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Staff Sgt. Darren Harmon, 44, of Newark Del., died in Haditha, Iraq, on June 3.

*Maj. Michael D. Stover, 43, of Mansfield, Ohio, died June 3 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*1st Lt. Ryan T. Sanders, 27, of College Station, Texas died in Baghdad, Iraq, on June 4.

*Sgt. Daniel R. Gionet, 23, of Pelham, N.H. died in Baghdad, Iraq, on June 4.

*Spc. Issac S. Lawson, 35, of Sacramento, Calif., died in Baghdad, Iraq, on June 5.

*Petty Officer 1st Class Gary T. Rovinski, 44, of Roseville, Ill., died June 5, in Al Anbar Province, Iraq.

*Sgt. Mark T. Smykowski, 23, of Mentor, Ohio, died June 6 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Staff Sgt. Richard A. Blakley, 34, of Plainfield, Ind., died in Al Khalidiyah, Iraq, on June 6.


Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

IWR News

Iraq Body Count: 6/06/06
Americans Killed: 2476
Americans Wounded: 18,254
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 42,646
http://icasualties.org/oif/
.......................................................

Latest Confirmed Casualties:


*Capt. James A. Funkhouser, 35, of Katy, Texas, died in Baghdad, Iraq, on May 29.

*Spc. Bobby R. West, 23, of Beebe, Ark., died in Baghdad, Iraq, on May 30.

*Cpl. Alexander J. Kolasa, 22, of White Lake, Mich., died in Baghdad, Iraq, on May 31.

*Pfc. Brett L. Tribble, 20, of Lake Jackson, Texas, died in Ar Ramadi on June 3.


Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

And the Tent Comes Down

The 38th LD brought out the big guns tonight, including all three of its elected representatives (Sen. Jean Berkey, Rep. John McCoy, and Rep. Mike Sells) as well as Snohomish County Executive, Aaron Reardon to let upstart supporters of Mark Wilson know who really owns this district. In a move that will only please the "Nobody but Maria" crowd, the folks who run the LD managed to bring in those ringers who rarely attend LD meetings (and then only when directed by the party elders) to vote to rescind the endorsement that Wilson received in the mail just prior to his announcement of that endorsement at the State Democratic Convention. Thus is the democratic process according to the 30 year member of the 38th LD (and aide to Sen. Berkey) who said when she was asked how they could so easily nullify the legal votes of the previous meeting, "Stuff happens. Get over it!"

The proposed motion to rescind the endorsement (which was duly noted in the "Call to Meeting") was put forward by State Representative John McCoy, a PCO who had not been present at the May 1st meeting. There was a disagreement between the Chair, Marian Harrison, and Curt Eidem, LD representative to the Snohomish County Executive Board (who is considering a run for LD Chair in January and who had actually placed the proposed Motion to Rescind into the Call to Meeting) over the validity of the motion with the reluctant decision of the Chair being that the motion could stand. As soon as there was a second I stood to "Object to the Consideration of the Motion". Again there was much discussion over this little used parliamentary procedure, followed by a very confusing voting period in which the majority of those present were unsure as to what result an aye or a nay vote would produce. The ayes and nays were called for, immediately followed by a call for "Division of the House." At this point, the true nature of the Motion to Rescind was revealed. When two LD members, Charlene Rawson and Michele Pin (Snohomish County Corresponding Secretary) did not fully understand the voting instruction (rising to vote "Aye" would sustain the objection), they were instructed by 38th LD PCO (and bi-annual meeting attendee) Dylan Malone, that "If you support Maria, you should sit down."; which they both did. As we were voting on a motion that applied exclusively to Mark Wilson, I felt this was a rather strange instruction. After a couple of false starts, the vote to sustain my objection failed and we went on to debate the original motion to rescind the endorsement of Mark Wilson.

John McCoy began his speech in favor of his motion by reminding everyone that he had not been at the original meeting in May but that he had heard the process was somehow flawed. Therefore, he was making the motion to rescind based upon a flawed process for which he could offer no proof or exact evidence other than "I heard..." (I hope he doesn't do it this way in Olympia). As an after thought, he said Maria Cantwell was still a good senator even with her "questionable votes". At this point I made a point of inquiry to ask the Secretary if all of the 38th LD Bylaw procedures of notification had been followed with notice being provided to all of the members of the LD. I was informed that indeed every LD member had been duly notified of the May meeting and that the Call to Meeting did contain the required language that endorsements might be considered. Next, LD member Harry Abbott stood to speak against the motion by saying that those who had taken the time to attend the May meeting and voted for the endorsement of Mark Wilson did so in good faith and with the understanding that the will of the majority would prevail. He went on to say that many people were unhappy with Senator Cantwell and that they believed the candidate who best represented them was Mark Wilson. He asked if there was something wrong with the LD honoring the vote of those members. Harry was followed by Dylan Malone (again, not present for the original vote) who reminded us of how wonderful Maria Cantwell is and how we should unite behind one candidate. After Dylan came PCO John Flowers who again stated the fact that everyone had had an opportunity to attend the meeting and vote and, just as there were people absent from tonight's meeting who would not be able to vote on this motion, there should be something honorable in accepting the vote of those who are present at the time of any vote and they should not be cast out because they do not follow the dictates of the party's pre-determined nominee. After John came our State Committeeman, Kelly Wright who also was not at the original vote but his was a much better excuse. He was working on the Coordinated Campaign on that night. As a matter of fact, Kelly told about how the campaign office erupted when they got word (and it did travel fast) of the 38th's vote to endorse Mark. According to Kelly, calls went out almost immediately to Snohomish County Chair, Mark Hintz to ask how this was allowed to happen. At this point, our Chair, Marian Harrison took a point of personal privledge to say the she was never contacted directly by anyone to ask about the process or procedure involved in granting this endorsement by her own LD. Kelly finished by making the obligatory remarks about Mark's previous party affiliations. Our final speaker in opposition to the motion was Ed Vaughn who spoke passionately about how he felt personally insulted by the assault on his vote to endorse Mark Wilson. Ed spoke about making the effort to come to the LD meetings and said that effort should be rewarded and not insulted just because the losing side can simply find some new votes for the next meeting and simply nullify your vote. The vote was taken and the Wilson side went down to resounding defeat.

In my remarks during "Good of the Order", I informed the body that they had indeed voted to rebuke, revoke, and invalidate the votes of some newly active fellow LD members who thought they were becoming involved in a democratic process where you come to the meetings and do the work and you get rewarded. Instead, what they were told tonight was that, if your are bold enough (or stupid enough) to mess with the machine, you will be burned and quickly put back in your place. The vote to rescind the endorsement set a precedent in this LD that has never created the language or a governing rule for rescinding an endorsement. In so doing, we have now established a guiding principle in this LD that says, "If we disagree, we will have a month to round up new bodies to defeat you." This vote was not about correcting a bad process. The process was followed to the letter according to the rules of our LD. It was hardly about Mark Wilson as a candidate. It was about the old school 38th flexing their muscle at the behest of the Cantwell Campaign. This was a direct insult to certain members of the LD, the LD Chair, and to the democratic process.

By the way, did I mention that all of the above occured AFTER Maria Cantwell had been recommended for and had received the endorsement of the 38th LD just minutes before?

Leaving Yakima, I had felt pretty good that the State Democrats had finally opened the tent, if only just a bit to allow alternative candidates to speak to the convention. Tonight, the 38th folded up the tent.


Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

Not Our War??

After the video from Bill Clinton who spoke of Maria falling on a sword for him in 1994 (over her vote for the Clinton economic package of tax increases), after the live plea from Jim McDermott who recalled how Maria rebounded from the 1994 loss to become an environmental champion in the Senate in 2000, the sound of the war drums began. Pounding and pounding they grew to a crescendo as Senator Cantwell arrived at the microphone. “No More War, No More War, No More War” – the chant grew to compete with the beat of the war drums. Maria Cantwell delivered. She spoke no more of war. In almost twenty minutes at a podium before nearly 1,000 convention delegates, scores of other party activists, and the media, it was as if Iraq had already been resolved by the magical Democratic Leadership Council slogan “2006 – A Year of Transition” (created to replace the too Bush-like “Stay the Course”) Then, to the renewed beat of the war drums, an overhead bombardment of green and blue balloons, and cannon fire, she was gone.

The chants of “No More War” were still resonating through the hall when state party chair, Dwight Pelz rose to the microphone to utter the most amazing line of the convention, “Iraq is not our war.” He said Iraq is a republican war. This is not our war? Well then, that makes everything all right, doesn’t it? I mean, all of you anti-war folks can put away your signs and dampen that anger now because Iraq is “not our war.” You are now free to finish your Kool-Aid, take off that Mark Wilson tee shirt, and start supporting Maria. Did I mention, "this is not our war”?

How can this not be “our war”? Are the troops fighting and dying every day in Iraq not Americans? Are the men and women losing their limbs, their eyesight and mental capacities not potential Democratic voters or even future candidates? Is there a new standard in this country that somehow allows some to relinquish ownership of actions taken in the name of the entire country simply because it may cost them votes later? While I certainly agree with the sentiments of the “Not in Our Name” movement, I also accept the fact that, even without my explicit consent, the actions of this government are executed in the name of the entire country. As difficult as it may be for Chairman Pelz to accept, the Bush administration did not act unilaterally before they launched this country into military action. They sought and received Bi-partisan congressional approval for their actions. This is in fact a deed of ownership; especially for those senators and congressmen who voted to authorize the use of force.

Why is this important to acknowledge? Without ownership, we have no obligation to repair the damage caused. To her credit in recent accounts Senator Cantwell does accept ownership of her vote and her continuing support for the actions in Iraq. Chairman Pelz might look to that example. Where I (and so many others) differ with Senator Cantwell is in her acceptance of pre-emptive war as a means to achieve regime change as acceptable U.S. Foreign policy. I believe she understands this and realizing she will never sell that concept to the Democratic base has simply chosen a tactic of non-engagement on the issue. Unfortunately for both Pelz and Cantwell, Iraq is much too large to sweep under a rug or hide behind a curtain.

In a race for a seat that was last decided by fewer votes than the number of American troops lost in Iraq thus far, I would hope that Washington State Democrats would soon come to understand that “Iraq is not our war” is not a winning strategy. We need to support a candidate who is willing to not only take ownership but who will take the lead in working to resolve the one issue that drives all other issues before us in the coming years. The drain of national resources – human and financial – due to the invasion and occupation of Iraq will continue to have a direct impact on environmental, energy, healthcare, and human welfare issues in this country until we end that action and act to prevent similar ones in the future.

Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue

IWR News

"A Year of Transition", Day: 152

Iraq Body Count: 6/01/06
Americans Killed: 2471
Americans Wounded: 17,869
Iraqi Dead: Est.: 42,434
http://icasualties.org/oif/
.......................................................


Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Lance Cpl. Kevin A. Lucas, 20, of Greensboro, N.C., died May 26 in Al Anbar province, Iraq.

*Spc. J. Adan Garcia, 20, of Irving, Texas, died on May 27 in the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., of injuries sustained May 22 in Baghdad, Iraq.

*Cpl. Jeremy M. Loveless, 25, of Estacada, Ore., died in Mosul, Iraq on May 29.

*Cpl. Richard A. Bennett, 25, of Girard, Kan. died May 30, following a non-hostile helicopter accident near Al Taqaddum, Iraq, on May 27.

*Capt. Nathanael J. Doring, 31, of Apple Valley, Minn. died May 30, following a non-hostile helicopter accident near Al Taqaddum, Iraq, on May 27.


Peace,

Chad (The Left) Shue