November 04, 2006
"Cantwell Doesn't Care"

The fretting about civil liberties and the Patriotic Act are grossly exaggerated and I'm not criticizing Cantwell for voting for it. But the general perception that "Cantwell Doesn't Care" resonates, and is something the McGavick campaign could have exploited more fully. By all accounts, Cantwell cares about policy, but doesn't seem to care about actual people very much. She exhibits a pattern of alienating people, which would help explain why she has been, and will remain, so ineffective in office. Her chronic inaccessibility to the public and the media is another troubling aspect of this.

Among the more prominent examples of Cantwell's appalling personal behavior are former campaign staffer Mike Seely's portrait of Cantwell as a "paranoid hellcat of a boss". The tryst with ex-boyfriend Ron Dotzauer the week before his wedding to someone else was an act of appalling disregard towards another woman entering into a new marriage. Judging by the comments from women readers on this blog entry, Cantwell's statement that publishing the Dotzauer wedding episode was "offensive to women", was itself offensive to women.

And then there's Cantwell's disregard towards the public and the press who seek comments from her and her office.

I have called Senator Cantwell's office on several occasions to ask for information or a comment, and they have NEVER returned my phone call. Not once in the last 3 1/2 years, not even before I was so well-known as a conservative blogger, not even when I was writing for The Stranger. By contrast, press secretaries for, say, Mrs. Gregoire, Ron Sims and Greg Nickels have ALWAYS returned my calls, even though they know me as a tough critic of their boss. But not Cantwell. But at least it's not me. I sent a tip earlier this year to a Capitol Hill correspondent for a respected, non-ideological national publication, and suggested that they might have better luck getting a comment about it from Cantwell's office than I would. The response:

Cantwell's office, I have found, is terrible about getting back to people
As noted here earlier, she didn't sit down for a one-on-one interview with Robert Mak, as Mike McGavick did. Even Josh Feit at The Stranger, who has strongly favored Cantwell throughout the campaign, is dismayed by Cantwell and her campaign's attitude toward the BCC Republicans and the media.

McGavick and his campaign, on the other hand, have been more open and accessible to the public, the media and even his critics. Simply put, he seems to care about reaching people. I think most people would agree that when you're an elected representative, openness and accessibility to your constituents, is part of the job description. Even (especially?) for those constituents who don't agree with you all the time. How else can you truly be a representative? But Cantwell doesn't seem to care.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 04, 2006 05:58 PM | Email This
Comments
1. And when you vote Darcy Burner into office, for whatever your reason, Iraq, you hate Bush, Reichert isn't conservative enough, we need a balance of power - whatever.

You - the people who live in the 8th, are going to be represented the exact same way by Darcy Burner, as we are currently non-represented by the 99th most effective Senator.

We voted this garden tool out of office once before.

It's time to do it again.

On this one point, I agree with Darcy Burner. The current people in office don't represent us.

And they garner no respect from others in the chambers that they take up space in.

So vote for change.

McGavick !!!!!!

Darcy should add this to her resume.

I'm not a slut.

Posted by: ameslaker on November 4, 2006 06:19 PM
2. In the last few days nearing the election, you come out just like all 527's and try to go nastier at the end. Since the facts about the past 6 years never work with THIS GOP group, that is all that you have.

Delving into marriage records focusing on incesently about a "Paper traceable" Vote, that most parts of the country would die to have.

Why is it that you never defend the things this Administration and Congress has done for the country as a whole, other than makeing sure to the rest of the world know that we are tough guys, and can't be pushed around.

Being kept scared of Terrorism for the whole time is ridiculous. Let's hope the President will listen to a Democratic congress, and start saying our Mia culpa's around the world.

Even a pullout now won't stop it.

The terrorist are not going away when you leave 10 military bases in the country! Think about a Chinese base right down there between Seattle and Tacoma. With the final authority on anything that happens. Your gonna thank the lord for the 2nd amendment rights, and get it out of America.

This war can't end with us just pulling out the day that new congress is seated. Unless the plan is to just Nuke the area, then there needs to be open negotiations with all of the Iraqi neighbors and the rest of Europe. That again means we ne to make friends again.

You have to realize that it is not all the people like you and me just doing a job over there, working M-F trying to kill us.

It is the people that have been riled up by the religous fanatics. Religion again at the heart of it. Who are these people who are so easily excited about life being better in the next world? generally people not very happy with the life they are having now.

So we need the leaders of all these countries and religous groups, including all the Allahs, to sit down and figure it out. It could take time, but if the benefits to all the people to give them a better life while they are alive, then maybe they can negotiate a little safe place for Israel. (remember whatever the allahs preach is gold, so I am sure they can find an excuse to allow Israel in the Koran) and allow trade back and forth with them, there are a Billion customers over there waiting for our toys, if the Allahs would just let them have them.

We need to say I'm sorry, and start to play nice.

I know you all think America never makes any mistakes, well, no bodies perfect. We do a lot more good things than we do bad, but when we do real bad things, even the nice guy has to say I'm sorry.

If all this Climate change stuff is true according to the British, we will be more busy in a few years trying to keep nature from killing us, versus are sworn religous enemies.

Is there possibly another way to fight terrorists? I think so.

So Stephan, as a fellow jew I am just asking... a little critical thinking please.

Posted by: danw on November 4, 2006 06:55 PM
3. What an idiot.

Posted by: alphabet soup on November 4, 2006 07:31 PM
4. danw, are you seriously advocating diplomacy with people that are taught from the day they are born to hate Jews and the Western world and that killing all Westerners jews and sacrificing themselves will earn them eternal salvation? Do you REALLY think negotiation will work? Seriously? How well has that strategy worked with the Palestinians, for example?

Posted by: DennisODell on November 4, 2006 07:46 PM
5. oh dennis, you need to just say you're sorry and start to play nice...

is that anything like good home training??

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 4, 2006 08:04 PM
6. Cantwell also no-showed at the recent WBBA (Washington Biotech & Biomed Assoc) breakfast meeting. Doesn't seem to care about an industry that the Dems claim is important to the economy of Washington state.

Mike! was there.

Posted by: danno on November 4, 2006 08:11 PM
7. She looks suspiciously like Maria

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 4, 2006 08:21 PM
8. She's an ass!! Always has been and alwasy will be. She once told me that Real Audio wasn't interested in the radio station but the user. I asked her to expand on why and she said I'd have to contact her office for a response. She's a hack and a moron. I can believe that she 99 in the 100. Just look at the grandstanding she did on "oil companies gouging". Such BS!! They didn't, but our State Gov does....called taxes.

Posted by: Dengle on November 4, 2006 08:35 PM
9. BTW danw...being tough and convincing other countries that we were serious and weren't going to be pushed around amy more did get Khadaffi's Libya to give up their nuke program.

In international politics, possessing the ability and known (or at least perceived) willingness to use armed force opens up a lot more options diplomatically. There's a reason nobody worries about pissing off Sweden or Belgium. But not too many folks are willing to make the Chinese or Russians angry.

And finally to paraphrase (badly) Robert Heinlein: "Violence-raw, naked force-has solved more problems than any other technique in human history." Go ask the city fathers of Troy. Or Carthage.

Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on November 4, 2006 10:50 PM
10. What the heck has danw been smoking, eating, sniffing. Insert any other method I haven't mentioned, in here _____ . Then put it in there!

Posted by: JT on November 4, 2006 11:08 PM
11. Danw: We need to say we're sorry for exactly what? And when you speak of reglious fanatics so concerned with an afterlife, are you talking about Christians or fanatical Islamists? If memory serves me correctly it is an Islam belief that if you sacrifice yourself by taking the lives of as many infidels as possible, you get all sorts of goodies in the afterlife - virgins, blah, blah. So which is it? You ask is there possibly another way to fight these terrorists? And you think so. Please elaborate. Please tell us what you would do, especially if you were, as so many Westerners have been, in the situation of having your head removed by them? Play nice? This is not a game. If you think it is and we need to play nice, why dont you just get thee to Iraq or Iran, or maybe even Syria or Palestine, and see how much they appreciate you playing nice. Hint - they're not playing.

Posted by: katomar on November 4, 2006 11:19 PM
12. Saying that "Maria Cantwell doesn't care" misses the real point. She represents a class of person that simply cannot relate to people on a human level. There's a difference between having a stance on policy and being able to appropriately address constituents as people. It's related to the difference between those that run for election to bring about wonkish agenda items, like Clinton, Gore, Pelosi, etc., and those that take a constituent oriented, problem solving approach. It's the difference between forcing change and serving to solve problems. One cares about superimposing a peculiar world view without regard for human cost rather that serving the public's good as a priority.

What's worse is that such people would take such a description as a compliment.

Posted by: scott158 on November 4, 2006 11:38 PM
13. danw: Being a Jew doesn't give one any insight on how to deal with terrorists.

Being an Israeli does.

Posted by: sro on November 4, 2006 11:56 PM
14. Cantwell sure didn't care about MY family when she raised our taxes in '93!

Posted by: Michele on November 5, 2006 12:09 AM
15. Dan the terrorists (including nation states that support them) have been at war with us for the last 35 years. We haven't bothered to pay attention to it. A devastatingly bad move looking back at many of the terrorist attacks over those years.

If you want to live under the threat of suicide bombings here in the US you just let the islamists fester in peace.

What is your solution for fighting terrorists? Turn in all the other Jews, Christians, atheists, Buddhists,etc. first so you get to live longer?? The people who hate us hate us because we don't bow down to their god or their superior way of life, the hate has been taught to them since they were children. When these islamists are insulted their solution is to chop off the head of people who make them angry.

We need to stop the ideology that breeds terrorists, the only thing that they understand is fear. They should be afraid that we will kill them with impunity. IF these islamists are willing to make nice and live in a modern world fine, if not they need to be targeted.

Maria Cantwell will be a rubber stamp vote with the democratic caucus, she is hardly an independent or a thoughtful person. Her character is the issue, sadly our King County elections system will find enough votes for her whether she really got them or not.

Critical thinking is a great idea Dan, I think Stephan has been providing us with a significant amount of information to work with that many local print and television journalists have neglected to do! Too many of them are in the bag for the democrats.

When I talk to friends and family about the shady dealings of Cantwell, the first question they ask is, "Why isn't this in the newspaper?" Informed voters are good voters, the media has done a crappy job of providing voters with information in this election cycle.

Posted by: Skeptic on November 5, 2006 01:00 AM
16. danw: read this and get back to us...

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-10-29-1.html

Posted by: Tucker on November 5, 2006 01:08 AM
17. Tucker @ 16

From the link you sent.

If President Bush invaded Iran on the ground, bombing Iranian cities and killing Iranian soldiers, he would accomplish only what Hitler did by invading Russia -- uniting an oppressed people in support of a hated tyrant.


Then a couple of paragraghs later.

If we strike first, we can eliminate their ability to do mischief in the gulf quite readily. Their forces, however numerous, are pathetically vulnerable. Unlike their dispersed and shielded nuclear development capability, their military forces in the gulf are in obvious and accessible positions.

So are their own oil assets. They are as dependent on the Gulf to reach the world oil market as any of their neighbors. If we seize their oil platforms, destroy their shipping, and impose an absolute blockade on Iranian shipping in the Gulf -- while eliminating their ability to damage anybody else's shipping -- how long do you think the tyranny would remain in power?

So what is it attack or don't attack?

This writer also talks about Bush the Uniter. Now we all know that's not so true, or we wouldn't be having such evil intercourse between the 2 parties.

I use to be able to talk politics with my republican friends, not so much anymore.

We've been able to buy off the church leaders in this country, why not the Ayatollahs. Church is big business, let's just send Pat Robertson over there and show them how it's done.

Great start, would be to turn the 10 permanent military bases in Iraq into Wal-marts, now that's giving them what they want.

It's not an easy solution, but if you don't bring the world community together and get them to stop buying the oil as long as hate is the being taught in the schools. As long as the world supports the heads of these countries and their immediate families for a rich upper class. and no middle class, the the Ayatollahs are always going to have a fertile ground to recruit terrorists.

What chance do you think we have of forming anything that resembles a democracy, as long we have plans for permanent bases?

We will always look like an imperialistic occupying force, and how hard is that to recruit against.

So it needs to be done with the entire world, because we can not come home and hide in our borders. But we are deemed by many polls in the world more dangerous to world peace than the Muslims.

That is Bush and Bushs fault alone, he should have listened to daddy, about how you run a war.

PS Anyone see the movie about the War profiteering? Just want to know how much profiteering should be allowed while our boys are dying? What would be your response if you heard this was going on? just wondering if you really support the troops?


Posted by: Danw on November 5, 2006 02:20 AM
18. #17: A vivid example of reaping what we sow.

After the State of Washington closed it's mental institutions 30 or so years ago and put all mental patients out on the street..........

Must be fun to be totally detached from facts and reality......

Dan W: If Islamists take over, you and your looney ilk will be the first to be beheaded during Ramadan, as Islamists detest weakness.

What part of that do you not get??

Posted by: Hank on November 5, 2006 07:29 AM
19. Dan W.

You write as some sort of expert on the motivations of the Islamic people and religious fanatics, yet you say that we should get all the "Allah's" to sit down together at a table? My friend, there is only one Allah. If you don't believe that then you are a part of the problem. Not poverty, not our military bases, but a religious requirement, according to the dominant muslim sect, the Wahhabis, to exterminate or convert non-muslims and destroy their cultures. The terrorist attacks would stop if and only if we were to abandon our Constitution and convert the country to sharia law. You display a woeful ignorance of the motivations of our opponents for someone who has set himself up to lecture others as to our required course of action.

Posted by: Calvin A on November 5, 2006 07:45 AM
20. DanW, your major premise is wrong - that the jihadists are pretty much like the rest of us and can be brought to heel by applying the same kind of pressure that would cause the rest of us to modify our behavior. I don't hold that fallacy against you because, until 9/11, that attitude of "universal similarity" was held across the entire political spectrum in this country, from liberals to conservatives and everywhere in between. Like the other major fallacy that both liberals and conservatives trumpet - that we represent the thinking of the majority in this country - it just ain't so.

Every method of pressure that you propose would be seen by the jihadists as an attack that must be resisted "for the greater glory of Allah". As mentioned in other comments in this post, they've been trained from childhood for generations to hate: the Jews (not just the Israelis) first, and the West second. The only way to bring them to heel is to deal them enough defeats that they begin to question whether they properly understood what their god wants.

That's what President Bush has been trying to do. Has he made missteps? Of course - but name me one potential president who wouldn't have. Gore? His presidency would have been an extension of Clinton's, who just fueled Bin Laden's resolve by abandoning Somalia, convincing him that we would always cut and run. Kerry? Don't make me laugh. Those are the two choices we've had instead of Bush, and neither of them would have been up to the task.

How about Congress? Dems think they're going to take it back this week, but what would that accomplish? Congress has neither the skill set nor the Constitutional mandate to run a war - and don't kid yourself, war is what it is and was before we deployed a single troop to Afghanistan, much less Iraq. Congress as a group - and they can ONLY act as a group - lacks the moral fiber and spirit of personal sacrifice necessary to pursue this war to a successful conclusion. Bush has demonstrated both; he has continued with an increasingly unpopular course of action because he believes it to be right and values that above his "legacy" - unlike his predecessor, who kept his finger in the wind so much it was permanently chapped, and couldn't get his focus off his "legacy".

Going against Iraq wasn't a mistake. This is a war on terrorism, not just on Al Qaeda. Saddam supported terrorism: an Iraqi secret service agent was involved, at least peripherally, with the first attempt against the twin towers; Saddam had a public program of giving big cash awards to families of Palestinian homicide bombers; and, of course, there's the question of WMDs, which are instruments of terror in their own right.

The intelligence agencies of every civilized nation in the world agreed that Saddam was continuing to develop WMDs. The UN believed it and passed resolutions galore against Saddam and Iraq - 17, I think. They just didn't have the moral fiber to put their money where their mouth was; maybe Kofi Annan's son's participation in the oil for food ripoff had something to do with that. And Saddam himself promoted the image that he was continuing to develop WMDs - in fact, the New York Times confirmed late last week that he was still pursuing nuclear weapons research as late as 1995 or 1996. We had both the right and the RESPONSIBILITY to take him at his word. I believe that ultimately, when we've finished going through the tons of documentation that still remain, we'll find that Bush was right about WMDs and today's naysayers were wrong.

Finally, we ARE still making gains in Iraq. Not only is the infrastructure back up, but it's serving a much larger percentage of the population than it did under Saddam. 90% of the country is stabilized - of course, we don't hear about that from the MSM because they, for reasons of their own, want to concentrate on the region around Baghdad and on Sadr city. And the residents of those other regions, especially, are glad we came. The sectarian violence that alarmists keep wanting to call a "civil war" is anything but; there have been no large-scale desertions from the standing army to the "other side", as in a real civil war, and there is no one credibly claiming to be the legitimate government of Iraq, except the one in place which was democratically elected. These are a bunch of lawless thugs who will eventually be eliminated.

We may not always do it right, but we are in the right, and we have no reason to apologize to the rest of the world for attempting to contain the terrorists OUTSIDE our borders. Their opinions have no legitimacy in this situation, just as your opinion of how I should defend myself is of no importance when I'm the one being attacked.

Posted by: sro on November 5, 2006 08:55 AM
21. #20

SRO.....

Well thought out post, and nicely put.....

Posted by: Chris on November 5, 2006 09:22 AM
22. Quite a diatribe there, too bad it is as phoney as the outrage expressed at Kerry's botched joke.

Posted by: RobK1967 on November 5, 2006 09:40 AM
23. RobK1967: Once you look up the definition of "diatribe" and the spelling of "phony", try again - with facts to support your thesis.

Because opinions without facts are like notrils - everybody has a couple, and they're full of boogers.

Posted by: sro on November 5, 2006 09:46 AM
24. ...nostrils, that is.

Posted by: sro on November 5, 2006 09:47 AM
25. #22

Robbie

Head back to HA, we can have an intelligent adult discussion without you, I promise.

BTW-Kerry screwed up, why did he need to be joking in the first place? Why did he need to "botch" a joke about the president? Why was he trying to be funny about such a serious issue?

I do think the media took it a bit too far, but then Kerry himself was indignant about clearing it up quickly(he blew the chance standing next to Cantwell) the next day. Then Cantwell snubs her own by Ignoring "it", but that is nothing new.

Like I said before, HA is calling you.....

Posted by: Chris on November 5, 2006 09:55 AM
26. One last question for ya robby-boy - do you suppose sKerry ordered up another purple heart for himself after shooting himself in the foot?

Posted by: alphabet soup on November 5, 2006 10:02 AM
27. In the end, McGavick's failure to exploit Cantwell's 6 years of do-nothing representation will be why he loses this, even more then her complete lack of character or snake-like personality.

Imagine... we're now stuck with TWO utterly worthless, do-nothing porkers... one literally, one figuratively.

And, danw, come back after you've been hit in the head with a reality 2X4.

"Negotiate" with terrorist scum? Only on the question of how deep to bury them.

Posted by: Hinton on November 5, 2006 11:16 AM
28. SRO nice post, I am off now, so I will need to respond later.

As for Hinton. then you think the only solution is just to kill all muslims. Then why waste our boys, jst nuke em, if you don't think that talking will ever do any good.

Posted by: danw on November 5, 2006 11:52 AM
29. DanW @ 28. Thanks, I get more of a kick out of rational discussion, even if we never convince each other, that I do out of "diatribes".

Your response to Hinton was a little off the beam, though. He said "terrorist scum" and you said "all muslims". I really doubt you believe all muslims are terrorists.

Posted by: sro on November 5, 2006 01:06 PM
30. So sorry but I think I will not take your advice, HA doesn't give me quite the humor I get from reading what passes for discussion on this site. But I do thank you for the advice though, it means so much to me that you care like you do.

Posted by: RobK1967 on November 5, 2006 02:03 PM
31. PS To my good buddy sro, before you try and correct someone on their spelling you might want to actually make sure you are putting that big ol foot of yours in your mouth, phoney is a perfectly acceptable spelling of the word so please put your 'advice' where the sun don't shine, but please have a pleasant day.

Posted by: RobK1967 on November 5, 2006 02:09 PM
32. RobK1967: I stand corrected on your spelling. I find it instructive, though, that you declined my invitation to back up what you have to say with any facts.

I've noticed that about all your comments I've seen on this website. They're bitter and abusive (Webster's definition of "diatribe", by the way), you try to insult people by condescendingly telling us you find us "amusing", and - like nearly all liberals - you seem to think emoting is a reasonable substitute for thinking (which requires facts - remember those?). And, with the arrogance typical of nearly all liberals (and, sadly, way too many conservatives), you seem to be incapable of believing that anyone who disagrees with you could be sincere in their opinion.

Unless you change your style to something more mature (say, worthy of a 39-year-old), this is my last response to you no matter what you have to say about my entries. As you are now, your literary diarrhea isn't worth any more of my attention.

Posted by: sro on November 5, 2006 04:55 PM
33. SRO;
As for your belief that people universaly aren't the same, I think if you go deeper into the soul of the average man women or child. They all have in their hearts that that want to live well, prosper and and enjoy this life. You see many pictures of happy familial units enjoy lives treasures. You can't believe that all of these people are so wrapped up in the religion, that there are some that aren't so strict with their religion, that they are trying to enjoy this life....of course there are.


That would be like saying that every American is a Hardcore, touched by the lord to do his work and crusade madly against some cause. Even to the level of violence. Born again Christian.

That's not what we are, even within the Christians. Those are what we call the fanatics, they call them terrorists over there, and they have a bunch of them.

You have to take a look at what happened in Iran before the Hostage taking and the Shah. The Shah introduced western culture to the Iranians, and they liked it. People love this.
The problem was is that they are still in tribal mentality, and the tribes don't share.
So you have a couple of very rich tribes that are enjoying western culture. I saw plenty of them in Amsterdam last month.

The terrorist are not coming from these tribes, it is from the poorer people, who have had it so bad that they turn to religion. That's when there are more of these then the ruling families, they are able to have an uprising, cause they didn't share.
now they are under the yolk of the Religous leaders, and because they're not sharing either,they find that this life actually sucks, because I see how the rest of the world lives, and I why am I still working fields, moving cattle or some real crappy job that he barely gets by on. Then maybe I should be working for the next life, according to the religous leaders.

Nearly a billion muslims that the Allah, Ayatollahs, or other names of leaders I forgot to include, but I think I know who I am talking about that we need to start dealing with and negotiating.

So I still believe that the average Joe any where is just like you and I.

Then if we can get them off this Tribal mentality, and share with the whole country.

I am sorry to say, some of these items resemble what a lot of us feel some political parties direction is taking us. Power in the hands of a select few rich people, and trying to become more consolidated all the time and the religous leaders.

Sorry I am not going back and fixing grammer, I am trying to make a point, not pass a spelling exam.

Posted by: danw on November 5, 2006 07:08 PM
34. danw - if you are sincerely concerned about Islam I would urge you to see the documentary Obsession. It is available online as well as on cable.

Posted by: alphabet soup on November 5, 2006 07:20 PM
35. I don't think the "cantwell doesn't care" idea resonates at all. Clearly she does care about a number of issues that are relevant to her constituency in Washington. She has been highly effective at blocking a number of initiatives to derail federal protections of public health and land resources. This blog entry is just another example of your moral relativism. It amazes me that the emotionally driven liberals are now the ones who seem to be truly thinking about policy and most importantly...listening to the people

Posted by: Chas on November 5, 2006 08:08 PM
36. (Snerk!) Yea chas, you just hold onto that belief....

Posted by: alphabet soup on November 5, 2006 08:24 PM
37. Cantwell certainly cares that a certain file concerning a certain Divorce is not opened...right? it seems being named and deposed as a correspondant in a divorce action doesn't fit with Maria's image. Hiding funds from an ex (current?) lovers wife during a Divorce action to get his support payments lowered seems, well a bit jaded. Not exactly what you expect from your friendly Senator from Realnetworks. Maybe after the IRS gets done with her, we can finally have the truth.

Posted by: Smokie on November 5, 2006 09:37 PM
38. DanW, I don't call people on spelling and grammar errors here unless they combine those errors with a snottily superior attitude. You haven't done so.

I believe you're still operating from some faulty assumptions, but it's been a long day and I'm really tired. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow, when I'm fresher, to discuss those.

Have a good evening.

Posted by: sro on November 5, 2006 09:41 PM
39. Re: whether Cantwell cares.
I couldn't care less whether Cantwell cares about me. I care about policy; which is reason enough to vote her out. Those who indulge in the concern about whether politicials care about them exhibit a self-centered, usually self-pittying psychology which seeks in government a substitute for the mother/wife/dog they never really had.

Posted by: Bill on November 6, 2006 06:19 AM
40. SRO
I wasn't thinking you were going to question my grammar, but it tends to be the MO from many on this board. When you don't have an answer for the message, blame it on a public school failure for my misspellings, and change the debate.

Posted by: danw on November 6, 2006 08:40 AM
41. The travesty is that Cantwell really doesn't care, but she is adept at portraying it that she does. In a recent ad, she had the audacity to say she "fought for the sales tax deduction for Washington state residents", but fails to mention that SHE VOTED AGAINST IT, because it contained something she would have to compromise on involving a small percentage of workers in this state. Why McGavick has not picked up on this vote in his "differences" ads is beyond me. Anyone who itemizes their taxes in this state this year will pay HIGHER taxes because of Cantwell's vote.

Posted by: Palouse on November 6, 2006 08:49 AM
42. danw, reading your posts makes my head hurt. Perhaps you need to assess your ability to communicate your "thoughts." Spelling, grammar, and proper essay format MATTER.

Posted by: Kyle on November 6, 2006 12:44 PM
43. Kyle, just who is forcing you to read dan's posts if they cause you so much discomfort?? I guess you must be a masochist.

Posted by: RobK1967 on November 6, 2006 06:06 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?