"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." (Mark Twain)
Thursday, April 13, 2006
For me, Iraq is not the litmus test issue. The litmus test issue was her vote in favor of S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005...
Shaun at Upper Left (upon whom I heaped some abuse, by name, in spite of my actually being a fan of his) called me out for this claim, noting (correctly) that Cantwell in fact voted nay on S. 256. It turns out that I had misread this article from Common Dreams, which actually referred to Cantwell's vote in favor of S. 420, a 2001 bankruptcy "reform" package, and had lazily failed to check the role call on the 2005 vote. My mistake was inexcusably sloppy.
In response to Shaun's righteous smackdown, I admitted to being a knucklehead but then went on to write:
Doesn't change two things, however: (a) I don't particularly like Maria Cantwell, and would support any credible primary challenger; and, (b) I will vote for her in the general against McGavick, and will enthusiastically urge others to do the same.
In spite of my mistake regarding the S. 256 vote, I still don't much care for Maria Cantwell. She's a damn sight better than McGavick, and she's done some fine work on the ANWR and Enron issues, but she leaves me colder than a Copper River sockeye. I should note, however, that there was a time not so long ago when I felt much the same about our senior Senator, Patty Murray. I once believed that she was neither very bright nor very effective; I have since come to feel that I was hasty and unfair in my judgment, and I now like Patty Marray a lot. Perhaps I will experience a similar change of opinion regarding Cantwell one day, perhaps not. Either way, for the time being the issue is moot - Mike McGavick must be defeated, and that means a (more or less) enthusiastic vote for Maria Cantwell. On that point, Shaun and I are in wholehearted agreement.