August 11, 2006
More Inconsistent Cantwell

Maria Cantwell has not been shy about taking inconistent positions in politics or policy as of late. Now there is more.

Cantwell recently told the Stranger, she "'believes that intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum of our public schools.'" Ok. Could she then please explain why she joined 90 other Senators in voting for this amendment from Senator Santorum? The text of that amendement reads:

It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and
(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.

Call me crazy, but the intent of that amendment is pretty clear in supporting the discussion of all available theories, though it obviously allows evolution to be the dominant focus of instruction. Whether intelligent design is correct or not it certainly seems to fit the intent of the amendment to explain intelligent design at the same time the theory of evolution is taught so students have a more complete understanding of competing theories.

So, which is it Senator Cantwell?

UPDATE: Stranger link added.

Posted by Eric Earling at August 11, 2006 07:31 AM | Email This
1. Eric, you're wasting alot of typing on a Senate race that isn't going to be close (and you know it). There is simply no way that a large number of Patty Murray voters are going to support Mike. Cantwell isn't Chrissie, the most repulsive candidate the Demos could find (who won anyway). Cantwell will get around 55%, like any other decent Democrat will in this state for years to come.

It's over. WA is a blue state, as blue as MA. Once in a while a Repub may win the Governorship (like Romney) as long as that Repub is a moderate and the Democrats run a real loser. But, the Senate seats are going to be Maria's and Patty's until at least 2020.

You know it is the truth I speak.

Posted by: Truth_teller on August 11, 2006 07:35 AM
2. Blue State? Seattle might be liberal as they come, but Seattle doesn't speak for me. There are a great deal of conservatives living in WA. East of the Cascades it is very Red. Even areas such as east King County is Red. Keep trying Mr. Truth, and just maybe you will find the truth come November.

Posted by: Will on August 11, 2006 07:44 AM
3. Care to address the issue at hand, TT?

If you think Washington is in any way like Massachusetts, you are without a clue. It wasn't that long ago that 60 of the state's 98 representatives were Republicans. The demographics haven't changed that much. Get outside of King, parts of Pierce and Snohomish counties and you'll find a lot of 'red' voters.
-end sidebar

Care to explain why "Senator 2020" - who's already been thrown out of office once in this state - voted one way and now claims the opposite?

Posted by: jimg on August 11, 2006 07:48 AM
4. Truth_teller,

If you're so smart - why do you think that 'a lot' is one word??

I guess prophets don't use spell check, huh?

Posted by: Larry on August 11, 2006 08:03 AM
5. I think the key here is that Cantwell was playing to her audience, in this case the readers of the Stranger. I expect she'd choose her words differently if she was being interviewed the Wenatchee World.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 11, 2006 08:06 AM
6. That's "by" the Wenatchee World, Bill. My bad.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 11, 2006 08:11 AM
7. What is this, a third grade squabble? Cantwell is the perfect blue candidate. Cant' see anything, Cant' find anything, Cant' do anything. Just wish she would have picked something else to buy. Cant' we just leave 'Well enough alone. Ah! but it is good sport to poke fun at her.

Posted by: JT on August 11, 2006 08:15 AM
8. If you believe that the senate race will be won based on the candidate's actual position on issues important to the American public (and I'm not sure if that is true), wouldn't it make sense to look at the official positions of both candidates on the most important issue... the Iraq war?

Mike's position seems to be... continue with the same Iraq policy we have been engaged in over the past four years.

Mike McGavick:
"U.S. forces should come home from Iraq when the job is finished. Setting a politically driven timetable for troop withdrawal gives the advantage to America’s terrorist enemies"

Maria's position (at least today) seems to be, get out as quickly as possible. No ideas on how to deal with the radical Islamists, but then again, Mike really doesn't address that issue either.

Maria Cantwell:
"Maria strongly opposes the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq. She believes that 2006 must be a year of transition, when we bring more of our troops home and work to achieve stability through greater international cooperation."

Frankly, I don't like either candidate, but I'll vote for whatever candidate seems likely to do the least damage.... TBD

Posted by: Splinter on August 11, 2006 08:15 AM
9. Bill, is that good or bad? Answer of course is bad.

So we can then take it that she has no beliefs in which she stands for since she'll just say what she has to to get your vote? I believe the word for that is lier.

I wouldn't vote for her because I don't believe her and I don't think she's doing what is best for not only WA but the entire US.

Posted by: Dengle on August 11, 2006 08:17 AM
10. I think that there is some validity to your comments - but only in the same way that dogs eat their own vomit.

I just wonder how many more fiascos this state must suffer through before the electorate recognizes that they've been voting in morons. Given the resilience of Washington State (coupled with the invincible ignorance of its voters), I'd say it's gonna take a while yet...

Posted by: Insane People for Can' on August 11, 2006 08:21 AM
11. Splinter,

There are several opportunities and threads to talk about the candidates' positions on the Iraq war. Care to address the subject of this post?

Posted by: jimg on August 11, 2006 08:26 AM
12. Bill,

That's one of biggest grips about pols. Different messages for different audiences.

A person with well formed core beliefs will not change message to suit the audience. Someone in the US Senate is a a leadership position. They should be selling the audience on the validity and superiority of their ideas.

Changing message to the audiences preferences is indicative of a vacuous person, one who has no business being in the Senate.

Posted by: JCM on August 11, 2006 08:30 AM
13. November will be interesting!

Things are changing daily. I just hope that WA voters and voters across this country understand that Iraq is just a battle in a larger war. We cannot afford to loose!

Posted by: billb on August 11, 2006 08:33 AM
14. jimg: "Care to address the subject of this post?"

It seemed like the thread had already moved onto the electability of Cantwell, or the blueness of Washington... but if you insist.

I don't see where the problem is with the text of the Amendment honestly. I have always been against teaching ID as a science, but that isn't what this Amendment appears to do. In a nut shell, it appers to say that students should be taught to distinguish between science and philosoply, and that the subject of "evolution" is a controversial subject. So what?

Posted by: Splinter on August 11, 2006 08:36 AM
15. I've read this amendment three times. I am against teaching ID, but I see nothing offensive in it.

Students SHOULD be taught to distinguish scientific from religious claims, as no 1 states.

And students SHOULD understand why evolution is controversial, and be prepared to intelligently participate in the debate as no 2 states.

The amendment doesn't say that students should be taught junk instead of science, or "alternative" theories.

One of us is crazy, I suppose, but as I read it nowhere does this seem to remotely encourage teaching ID.

If you've got to reach this far to make Cantwell a hypocrite, it's gonna be a long three months for ya.

Posted by: Confused on August 11, 2006 08:41 AM
16. Even if there were some inconsistency, this is just more crap of people on both sides adding stupid, meaningless amendments to substantive bills. Here is the CRS summary of the bill itself:

The bill is huge, and reauthorizes a bunch of programs Cantwell probably likes. It's such garbage when these amendment are tacked on, and then some dishonest political hack blogger tries to pretend that the senator separately approved some philosophical statement.

You people have no shame or honor, none of you.

Posted by: Confused on August 11, 2006 08:46 AM
17. "You people have no shame or honor, none of you."

Personal attacks aside, I'd just like to know where Cantwell really stands. I think we all know what happens to bills in congress.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 11, 2006 09:24 AM
18. Bill: "I'd just like to know where Cantwell really stands"

My understanding is that she is against teaching ID as an alternative theory to evolution in science class.

Honestly, I do not see where this amendment does that or why she should be opposed to it. Am I missing something?

Posted by: Splinter on August 11, 2006 09:30 AM
19. Hey confused, I can see where you get your name.

Evolution is not controversial anywhere in science.

But since you already know your are confused, I was just trying to help

Posted by: who knows on August 11, 2006 10:16 AM
20. Correction is is you're or you are. My bad

Posted by: whoknows on August 11, 2006 10:18 AM
21. I think that on this issue Cantwell isn't flip flopping at all. I read the amendment as implying:

1. Evolution is testable by data, intelligent design is just a philosophy and is not science.
2. Evolution generates controversy because some people are just irrational.

I wonder why Sen. Santorum would sign on to this - unless there's some sort of secret code in the wording.

If I were Mr. McGavick I would not want Intelligent Design to become a campaign issue. I suspect his personal beliefs conflict with what he has to say to fire up the Republican base.

Posted by: Sstarr on August 11, 2006 10:26 AM
22. A nice illustration of why Democrats are losing mindshare nation wide. The left is now so entrenched with relativism and subjectivism that it becomes impossible for a unprincipled Democrat like Cantwell to take a stand.

Either one believes in evolution or in intelligent design (which is simply a repackaging of creationism.) Fine. Some people are secular and some are of faith.

But for Cantwell, ever the multiculturalist, diversity steeped leftist, simple stances become impossible conundrums. Every issue must be approached with careful triangulation and awareness of one's audience, etc.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 11, 2006 10:49 AM
23. Jeff B: "Either one believes in evolution or in intelligent design"

Can you please show me exactly where in the amendment that ID is mentioned?

Good lord you people are REALLY stretching here trying to make this thing an issue. There is a lot of ammunition out there to attack Cantwell with, but this isn't one of them.

I completely disagree with teaching ID as a "science", yet I completely agree with everything this Amendment says. How is that being "subjective" or using "careful triangulation" at all?

Posted by: Splinter on August 11, 2006 10:58 AM
24. I shudder whenever the topic of Intelligent Design comes up. It is the one topic that makes otherwise reasonable conservatives sound like blithering idiots. The entire argument that teaching ID is just about "letting the students make up their own mind about different theories" is so stunningly dishonest it's hard to know what to say to it. There are hundreds, if not thousands of competing theories about our origins. Very few are based in scientific observation and ID is NOT one of them. Evolution is.

Posted by: Stork on August 11, 2006 06:13 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?