September 25, 2006
Did Senator Cantwell Try to Co-Opt Another Opponent?

Maybe. Read this story about conversations between the Cantwell camp and Green Party candidate Aaron Dixon. The story includes this discussion:

As Dixon tells it, 'Mark [Wilson] called and basically told me that a lot of people have a lot of money within the Cantwell campaign, and he said that they could put on a fundraiser for Central House that would "blow my mind." He called a week later and basically told me the same thing. I didn't bite, ending this war is too important.'

When asked if exiting the race would have been contingent on there being a fundraiser for his organization, Dixon answered, "It wasn't said directly, but it was certainly implied.'

This writer was harshly critical of the original "hiring" of Mark Wilson at this post, which includes a discussion of seemingly similar such overtures to Hong Tran. Since that time, more information about Wilson's activism, or lack thereof on the campaign trail (an odd turn of events for a campaign staffer with the title of "Outreach Director") has raised further questions about the whole episode.

At this point, a serious debate about the issues would be ideal and preferred in a competitive race for a seat in the US Senate. I've made no secret of my belief, for example, there is a stark contrast between the two sides on Social Security. But, I suppose debates require both candidates showing up, something Maria Cantwell doesn't seem eager to do, thus earning her the criticism of both Joel Connelly and the Olympian.

The Olympian editorial in particular poses the same question four times: "What is Maria afraid of?"

At this point, perhaps it might be answering questions about an odd pattern of conversations that imply Cantwell and/or her campaign team think more of making her opponents go away with financial inducements rather than letting the voters have their say. Either way, if Cantwell won't debate, perhaps she'll have to let such implications speak for themselves.

UPDATE: David Postman ads more reporting on the issue here, and Respectfully Republican offers some opinions here.

Posted by Eric Earling at September 25, 2006 07:24 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Eric, Glad to hear that you agree with Dixon that calling the president the Devil is a reasonable contribution to the national debate. Too bad Dixon has no support whatsoever even in liberal Seattle. Still, there's something I don't undersand. Is it your position that Wilson is actively working to earn his salary, or not. Please pick a position so that I can understand what the hell you're talking about.

Posted by: sorry charley on September 25, 2006 08:17 PM
2. s.c., don't you have anything better to do with your time?

Posted by: The Tim on September 25, 2006 08:29 PM
3. Charley

Read the links..................

It is obvious from your post that you don't think Mr Dixon is "worthy" of a senate position.

At least he cant be Bought. If you are an OUTREACH DIRECTOR I believe that means you "go out" into the public and REACH the voters for a particular campaign. Mr. Wilson seems to be AWOL on all published accounts (except for the buyoff of opposing canidates).

I think we could call Dixon "dennis" and say he snitched on "mr wilson". LOL

(sorry long monday here with the really dry humor)

Posted by: Chris on September 25, 2006 08:33 PM
4. Too bad s.c. doesn't seem to understand that Maria has apparently ditched debate in this race and is simply trying to buy people off from her own party and those in the Green party in order to try and win.

Posted by: Michele on September 25, 2006 09:31 PM
5. "Please pick a position so that I can understand what the hell you're talking about."

OK, how about "chuck, you're an idiot". I'm reasonably certain you're able to wrap your melon around that.

That's my position, and I'm sticking to it...

Posted by: alphabet soup on September 25, 2006 09:47 PM
6. Dixon's a known liar who can't pay his child support or be bothered to vote. While he may be telling the truth, it is equally likely that he is lying for attention. Thats the kind of thing you do when you have no support and the creepiest road signs of any candidate.

Even if he is telling the truth, Cantwell would hardly be the first to use third parties. Santorum pretty much tried to buy the green party candidate a spot on the ballot, and Bush supports volunteered for Nadar. It's all part of the game.

Posted by: Giffy on September 25, 2006 10:09 PM
7. But Giffy, if Dixon is such a supposed low-life, then why is Maria feeling threatened by such?

Posted by: Misty on September 25, 2006 10:26 PM
8. Misty: Because there are probably 2-3% dumb enough to vote for him and if the race is close that could through it Mike?. Its the same reason heavily favored incumbents still campaign. In politics you take no chances.

That still doesn't make the story true. Not sayings its false, just that Dixon's saying so doesn't make it true. If it is then he is a moron. I get that he is really concerend about ending the war, but his race will do nothing for that. Even he can't be delusional to believe he can win. At best he gets Mike? elected and that is certainly not going to bring about the withdrawal he wants. Turning down a major fund raiser for an organization that is actually doing something for a self-aggrandizing senate run is selfish nad just plain stupid.

Posted by: Giffy on September 26, 2006 06:11 AM
9. Fundraiser, Key Campaign Position, either way she was simply trying to buy her opponents. If I were McGavick, I'd do an Ad explaining this clearly.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 26, 2006 06:52 AM
10. Humorous response, Giffy. Try again Misty's challenge.

It doesn't cut it that (to paraphrase) Cantwell is afraid of Dixon because he is either a liar or a moron. If a moron, what is there to be afraid of?

Posted by: swatter on September 26, 2006 06:53 AM
11. Giffy says about Dixon " He can't be bothered to vote". Giffy makes that sound like a bad thing, obviously it's not a problem for Democrats like Darcy Burner who has the same issue. Oh and by the way, she is unqualified for national office as well.

Posted by: Huh? on September 26, 2006 06:58 AM
12. Lost in all this discussion: does Maria Cantwell deserve your vote? Can she be trusted not to go back on her pledge to seek an end to the War in Iraq? I have confidence that Libertarian Senate Candidate Bruce Guthrie will not only do so, but won't be taking anti-environment stances like trying to control gasoline prices. I have confidence that he won't support Federal Funding for Seattle's giant black hole for money (the Alaskan Way Tunnel) either.
Oh, and no, Maria hasn't offered Bruce a position on her campaign staff, either. She probably thinks he's not a threat to her, forgetting that she was elected to the Senate because of the votes that Libertarian Jeff Jared received back in 2000. But Bruce is the only REAL liberal in this race...

Posted by: Gene Hawkridge on September 26, 2006 07:44 AM
13. Eh, Gene, Libertarians usually siphon votes from the Rs and the Greens from the Ds.

Your question is a good one and we should ask McGavick if he tried to buy off Guthrie. I doubt it because the buyoff is usually a Democrat thing.

I still remember vividly when the fledling AAR station and its resident idiot, Randi Rhodes, started screaming at her guest, Ralph Nader, and how he was sabotaging the presidential election. But, she wasn't trying to bribe him.

Posted by: swatter on September 26, 2006 08:21 AM
14. Does Maria have enough money to buy off Mike? "I'm just asking."

Posted by: Cheryl on September 26, 2006 09:18 AM
15. Cheryl,

Aside from runamok fraud, I'd say that is Maria's only other possible way to win n November.

Fortunately she doesn't have enough money to buy out Mike!

Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on September 26, 2006 09:47 AM
16. alph..
How about leaving Chuck out of this. Sorry Charley is an idiot. Chuck is a deep thinking conservitive that deserves respect, does not believe a candidate should be bought off or believe that Cantwell has done anything to have earned election in the first place let alone reelection.

Posted by: ChuckS on September 26, 2006 10:08 AM
17. McGavick will lose.

Heck, he only got 85 percent in a primary where everyone knew he was going to win. So a vote for one of his opponents was a protest vote against McGavick. Fifteen percent of Republicans didn't want McGavick and are likely to not vote at all for him in the general, either by not going to the polls at all or leaving his position blank or writing in someone as a protest.

The only way McGavick can pull this out is to take an hard line on immigration. Make immigration the issue and he will win by a landslide. Sure the radical left will call him hateful for that but most Washingtonians will agree with him and will consider liberal name calling as an attack against them as well.

Will he do it? Nope. So he will lose.

Posted by: Ned on September 26, 2006 12:00 PM
18. Liars and morons often get votes. Remember who's president :)

Posted by: Giffy on September 26, 2006 12:43 PM
19. And remember who he was running against.

Posted by: swatter on September 26, 2006 01:25 PM
20. As a Democrat, I am disappointed in the crony tactics used by Cantwell. I just cannot bring myself to vote for someone who violates all the principle in which the party is supposed to stand.

Posted by: Big_D on September 26, 2006 01:41 PM
21. its not on topic, but why are you republicans outraged?

the republican senate and republican house are faced with the wonderful task of rubberstamping a bill that would allow this republican president to torture just like the soviets and north vietnamese.

what happen to your love of individual liberties?

Posted by: dinesh on September 26, 2006 01:49 PM
22. ChuckS - Sorry, it was unmannerly of me to conflate (and disparage all Chucks in the process) by lumping sorry-a$$ with the rest of you.

dinesh - you are the only one here who appears to be "outraged" (I can tell by the tiny wisps of smoke coming out from your ears). Chill dude...

Posted by: alphabet soup on September 26, 2006 02:24 PM
23. Hey Swatter and Misty,

Cantwell has nothing to fear. The race is over.

That is why Cantwell is now helping to divert money away from her own campaign towards other races like Darcy Burner. The Seattle Times reported that Cantwell raised about $35K for Burner from her supporters on the afternoon that Karl Rove was raising $5-10K for Reichert. Don't look for McGavick? to send any money Reichert's way any time soon.

The point is that Dixon is clearly lying in order to stir up any interest at all in his campaign which has been DOA from the start. He has every reason to make this up and Cantwell has absolutely no reason to have actually done it.

BTW: I really apreciate everyone here's support for a candidate who agrees with calling President Bush "Satan," and I just know you'll all be consistent in supporting every crazy nut out there who criticizes our president in every way imaginable. Cheers!

Posted by: Sorry Charlie on September 26, 2006 09:47 PM
24. Timeout, Sorry Charlie. I realize you're not exactly playing with a full deck here, but when did anyone, including me, say they're supporting Dixon? I simply passed on the story (which even David Postman found credible enough to report on); no one hear has said a darn thing about backing whatever policies Dixon might espouse.

Ok, next crazy comment, please.

Posted by: Eric Earling on September 26, 2006 10:45 PM
25. dinesh, please review the bill you are disparaging the President on before commenting. Thank you.

Posted by: swatter on September 27, 2006 06:54 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?