All you people hatin' on Cantwell better wake up [View All]

I understand you don't like her votes on Iraq and Alito. I understand some of you just don't like her. But we've got a chance to retake the Senate this fall. There are a half dozen republican seats ripe for the picking. However, we can't afford to lose any of the seats we currently hold. So you got to ask yourselves, are we better off with a Democratic Senate with Cantwell in it? Or is the satisfaction of dumping Cantwell worth leaving the republicans in control? Make no mistake, a vote for Dixon is a vote for McGavick. The Bush regime has two more years. You think it makes no difference whether Harry Reed or Trent Lott is senate leader? You think it makes no difference whether Orren Hatch or Pat Leahy chairs the judiciary committee? You think having that hack Pat Roberts in charge of the intelligence committee is in the country's best interest?

In a perfect world Cantwell wouldn't be my first choice to represent Washington. But we got to deal with the world we live in. There's no Ned Lamont going to come riding up on a big white horse and sweep us off to some ideal place. The cards are already dealt. It's Cantwell or McGavick. I've seen this kind of choice before. In 1968 Hubert Humphrey couldn't distance himself from LBJ's war. I was so mad at Hubert that I didn't vote. A lot of other people had the same reaction and we ended up with Nixon. In 2000 Nader told us there was no difference between Gore and Bush. A lot of people who should have kknown better believed him. I wonder if they still do.

My point is just this: There's always a choice and there is aways a lesser evil. Whatever your feeling toward a particular candidate, there is only one overwhelming argument; in November the Republicans have got to go. Don't piss away this opportunity.