Tag Archives: Senator Cantwell

Mike McGavick – Know Him by his Past Business Associates

Posted on September 30th, 2006 | Comments Off on Mike McGavick – Know Him by his Past Business Associates

For about 6 years Mike McGavick worked for CNA Financial Corporation based in Chicago, Illinois. He started in 1995 and left to go to work at Safeco in Feb 2001. Mike McGavick is the Republican challenger to incumbent Washington State U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell.

CNN Financial Corporation is a large insurance corporation that is a 90% owned subsidiary of Loews Corporation. But Mike never mentions this relationship of CNA Financial Corporation to Loews.

Just what is Loews? The following is taken from the earliest posted Annual Report at Loews website, http://ir.loews.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=102789&p=irol-annualreports 2003 Annual Report:

LOEWS CORPORATION, a holding company, is one of the largest diversified financial corporations in the United States. Its principal subsidiaries are listed below. www.loews.com

CNA Financial Corporation (90 percent owned) is one of the largest property-casualty insurance organizations in the United States. www.cna.com

Lorillard, Inc. (wholly owned) is America’s oldest tobacco company. Its principal products are marketed under the brand names Newport, Kent, True, Maverick and Old Gold.Substantially all of its sales are in the United States. www.lorillard.com

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. (54 percent owned), one of the world’s largest offshore drilling companies, offers comprehensive drilling services to the energy industry around the world. It owns and operates 45 offshore drilling rigs. www.diamondoffshore.com

Loews Hotels (wholly owned) has established itself as one of the country’s top luxury lodging companies. It operates 20 hotels and resorts, of which 18 are in the United States and two are in Canada. www.loewshotels.com

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (wholly owned) owns and operates a 5,800-mile pipeline system that transports natural gas from the Gulf Coast, east Texas and north Louisiana to markets in the southern United States and throughout the Midwest. www.txgt.com

Bulova Corporation (97 percent owned) is a major distributor and marketer of watches and clocks. Its brand names include Bulova, Caravelle, Wittnauer and Accutron. www.bulova.com

Comments Off on Mike McGavick – Know Him by his Past Business Associates

Posted in Congress, Elections

Tagged , ,

Cantwell and Murray Almost Identical Say Public Interest Groups

Posted on August 18th, 2006 | Comments Off on Cantwell and Murray Almost Identical Say Public Interest Groups

Washington State Senators Cantwell and Murray could almost be identical twins if you look at how interest groups rate them. Project Vote Smart has lots and lots of information on our two Senators and one of the areas they do a great job on is a compilation of interest group ratings.

When you check the rating for Senator Maria Cantwell and Senator Patty Murray you won’t find a lot of differences. In fact you’ll find a lot of identical ratings by groups.

A lot of discussion of Senator Cantwell has been on the Iraq War. It is important to also look at how interest groups rate her on other issues like education, environment, civil rights, labor and peace. The comparison below is between Cantwell and Murray.

Before you decide to sit this election out, consider what type of ratings you would expect a Senator Mike McGavick to get from these same groups. Maybe you’ll decide it’s time to really help get Maria re-elected.

Organization …………………………………..Cantwell …………………Murray

NARAL ProChoice 2005……………………….100 ……………………… 75

Nat Right to Life 2005 ……………………………0…………………………0

Nat. Assoc of Wheat Growers 2005 ………..100 ……………………..100

Humane Society of US 2005 …………………100 ……………………..80

Nat Trust for Historic Preservation …………100 …………………….100

Americans for Tax Reform 2005 ………………25 ………………………15

US Chamber of Commerce 2005……………….56 ……………………..44

Am Civil Liberties Union …………………………78 ……………………..78

Nat Assoc for Adv of Colored People 2005….95 ………………………90

Human Rights Campaign 2003-2004 ……….88 ……………………..88

Leadership Council on Civil Rights …………….100 ………………….100

Eagle Forum 2005…………………………………….0 ………………………0

American Conservative Union …………………….0 ………………………0

Christian Coalition 2004 ……………………………0 ………………………0

National Education Assoc 2005 …………………….100 ………………….100

American Wilderness Coalition 2005 ………….100 ………………….100

League of Conservation Voters 2005 …………..90 …………………….95

Children’s Defense Fund 2005 …………………….89 …………………….100

Family Research Council 2004 ……………………0 ……………………….14

Peace Action 2005 …………………………………..89 ………………………89

Peace PAC 2005 ……………………………………….100 ……………………100

Am Assoc of Univ Women 2005 ………………….100 …………………….83

Nat Org for Women 2005 ………………………….100 …………………….75

US PIRG 2005 ………………………………………….95 ……………………..100

Gun Owners of America 2005 ……………………….0 …………………………0

Brady Camp to Prevent Gun Violence 2003 ……..100 ……………………90

Am Public Health Assoc ……………………………….90 …………………….90

Service Employees Int Union …………………………85 …………………….85

AFL-CIO ……………………………………………………79 ……………………..86

Americans for Democratic Action 2005 ………….95 ……………………..95

Alliance for Retired Americans ………………………100 …………………..100

Disabled American Vets 2005 ………………………..92 ……………………..92

Bread for the World 2003/2004 ……………………100 ……………………100

There are actually some areas, like women’s groups, that Cantwell seems to rate as more liberal than Murray. In the end though, the differences are probably single vote differences on an interest group’s list. As you can see, Senator Cantwell’s and Senator Murray’s interest group ratings very similar.

Washington State Democratic and public interest groups’ values and voting interests have been well represented in Congress by Senator Cantwell and Senator Murray. Washington State has a lot to lose if we don’t re-elect Senator Cantwell this year.

You can support Maria’s campaign by going to http://www.cantwell.com/ and volunteering or making a donation today.

Comments Off on Cantwell and Murray Almost Identical Say Public Interest Groups

Posted in Congress, Elections

Tagged ,

And Now for the Rest of the Story by Mike McGavick.

Posted on August 16th, 2006 | Comments Off on And Now for the Rest of the Story by Mike McGavick.

“It’s part of the crap you can expect from the party of Karl Rove.It’s totally taken out of context.” That was my wife’s reaction to hearing Republican Mike McGavick’s new radio ad on KIRO this morning. I couldn’t have said it better.

In the radio ad McGavick accuses Senator Maria Cantwell of voting against this state’s soon to expire sales tax deduction on our Federal income tax. He basically accuses her of stealing a $550 sales tax deduction from Washington families. It’s desperation politics time I guess.

As the Seattle PI notes this morning in an editorial, the real vote was also on reducing the minimum wage for tip workers in this state and reducing the Federal estate tax on multimillionaires. But McGavick fails to mention this saying only that “she disagreed with parts of the bill”. In Washington State thousands of restaurant workers and others that rely on tips to get by, would have seen a real reduction in their actual take home pay as they saw their minimum wage go down under one of the “parts” of this bill.

My analogy of McGavick’s ad is, its like someone calling to say your son is coming home from the war, but neglects to say he is also dead. If this is the type of Senator that McGavick will be, then we can expect he will never tell us the full story. We can’t expect him to tell us the truth as a Senator because he can’t do it now. By the way, he did say that he approved the ad.

McGavick claims Cantwell’s vote (against decreasing the minimum wage for thousands of Washington State workers) was part of the partisan nonsense that causes people to vote against families of your own state.

Well you have that right Mike. The partisan Republican run Congress, that does not consult with the Democrats, is not interested in helping working families or they would have run the sales tax deduction as a separate bill. One also might wonder why they didn’t make the sales tax deduction permanent in the first place. Likewise they could have run increasing the minimum wage as a separate bill and allowed for amendments. They were previously unable to pass the inheritance tax bill on its own. And Republicans have repeatedly stopped any vote on the minimum wage year after year.

Why are they having to vote on it again except for partisan Republican advantage to do things like helping the National Restaurant Association lower what their workers make or helping their wealthy patron donors avoid paying tax on appreciated property or stocks by allowing them to transfer it tax free when someone dies.

If you really want to avoid further partisan Republican steamrolling over American families and voters, then do as McGavick suggests. Lets end this one party rule and boot the Republicans out of Congress. It time to get back to the business of America and really help families with education, health care and jobs that pay a living wage, rather than worrying about things like whether “under God” is in our Pledge of Allegiance.

McGavick is right on ending strident partisanship in Congress. However electing another Republican to the Senate is not the way to do it.

Comments Off on And Now for the Rest of the Story by Mike McGavick.

Posted in Congress, Elections

Tagged , , ,

Is Karl Rove Laughing his Head off at Washington’s Progressives?

Posted on July 11th, 2006 | Comments Off on Is Karl Rove Laughing his Head off at Washington’s Progressives?

Of course! If Karl Rove wanted to misdirect progressive Democrats away from the national strategy of taking control of the U.S. Senate and/or House, what better way than to have the Democrats fighting each other over, of all things, Bush’s never ending War in Iraq.

It’s time for those Democrats who question Senator Cantwell’s position on Iraq to realize that Iraq is not her war. She did not start it but she is part of the dialogue looking for a solution. She is a member of a minority party. Republicans run Washington, not Senator Cantwell or any other Democrat.

Democrats are fighting amongst themselves about a war they didn’t start and about which they and the American people were lied to by Bush. Meanwhile these same Democrats ignore other things the Republicans and Bush are dismal on, like not raising the minimum wage over the last 10 years or not fighting global warming or not aggressively working for energy independence from foreign oil or Bush’s giving tax breaks that only increase the share of the money the very rich have.

This issue was discussed several weeks ago in MSNBC’s Newsweek Politics.Rove’s Trap
The president’s strategist is politicizing the Iraq war for partisan political gain. Will the Dems figure out how to fight back?

Lets pick just one quote from that article : “….It’s very Rovean; they’re trying to turn a weakness into a strength.” Another Democratic strategist noted the irony that after four years of no accountability on the mistakes made in prosecuting the Iraq war, the administration was hanging Democrats out to dry. This strategist called it “reverse accountability” shift the blame to those not in charge.”

“shift the blame to those not in charge” Can it be any clearer?

Left wing peace and progressive Democrats in Washington State are falling into this trap. They are doing Karl Rove’s dirty work by attacking Senator Maria Cantwell on Iraq. They are dividing the Democratic Party because she is not willing to sign off on some left wing purity test which one commenter on my previous blog post phrased as having her say “she was either duped, pressured or just flat wrong” when she joined 29 other Democrats in the US Senate who voted in 2002 to give Bush authority to invade Iraq.

Frankly I don’t know what this would do to get us out of Iraq. As I’ve said before this is George Bush’s war. Republicans control the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate and the Presidency. Democrats are the minority party and do not control any committees and can not conduct any hearings on the Iraq War.

And yet some progressive Democrats continue to attack Senator Maria Cantwell like this is her war and she has some kind of stronghold over what happens? If Senator Maria Cantwell suddenly changed into a Russ Feingold Democrat, what would that do to end the war? Nothing – because it does nothing to change the fact that the Democrats are the minority party and do not have the votes to do anything. Congressman Jay Inslee has commented in the past how Democrats in Congress are not even consulted on bills the Republicans run – there is no bipartisanship going on in Washington DC. We have a one party government and that is a Republican Party controlled government.

For the life of me why aren’t these progressive Democrats putting pressure on Mike McGavick about his position on Iraq. Am I missing something here? Because if there are some of you who do like you say and won’t help Cantwell get elected and won’t vote for her then you are supporting McGavick for Senate and are acting to support Karl Rove and George Bush and the Iraq War as it now stands.

Strategic thinking is important. What is it you want to accomphlish? Will you do that by the tactics you are using or are you falling into a Rovean trap?

Lets look at what Cantwell’s opponent says on Iraq.

Going to McGavick’s website there is scant information on Iraq: I could find only these two written statements.

The U.S. cannot retreat from the War on Terror or countries like Iraq will turn into the worst hotbeds of terror the world has ever witnessed.

U.S. forces will come home from Iraq when the job is finished. Setting a timetable for troop pullout gives the advantage to America’s terrorist enemies.

These statements say very little except that McGavick supports Rove and Bush and Rumsfeld. The reality is McGavick is a vote for Bush’s War in Iraq. This is the alternative to Senator Maria Cantwell?

Some people are upset that Mark Wilson is no longer challenging Senator Maria Cantwell in the Democratic primary. I would argue that there really was not much of a challenge going on in the first place. Wilson publicly stated on the David Goldstein show on KIRO 710 radio that he never really intended to file for the Democratic Party primary but was trying to give a voice to opposition to the war. Huh?

While I can appreciate Wilson trying to raise important issues in the Democratic Party – maybe he was just a little bit dishonest in trying torepresent himself as a serious candidate for U.S. Senator. Or maybe he is just trying to put a face saving spin on the fact that his campaign didn’t get the support he needed to run a successful race and he didn’t want to be known as the Democrat who helped Mike McGavick get elected.

But to anyone looking at the state Democratic Convention in Yakima last month it was obvious that Wilson never stood a chance. While I support progressives and consider myself one, there really is no organized unified progressive movement in Washington state. That was obvious when the “Progressive Caucus” met at the state convention.

There was no organized game plan of how to increase the influence of progressives in the party and when volunteers were asked to help recruit more, the hands raised were few. Mark Wilson attended the caucus but he did not seem to have a vision of how to organize the state. It appeared that he was waiting for others to put it together.

I mention this because any organized movement is difficult. But it does need leaders and it does need a plan. It needs vision and it needs people ready and willing to help. I saw well intentioned good people involved but it was not going to help Mark. He was on his own.

As a result Mark Wilson never was a really viable candidate, having neither the money or volunteers or widespread backing to run a statewide campaign against the incumbent.

I believe it’s time for progressives to move on. A few vocal voices and bloggers do not make a movement. We need to not make Washington a swing state in the Senate race, so national Democratic resources need to be directed here, at the expense of other Democratic candidates.

Besides helping Senator Cantwell get re-elected, we need to assist in races where new Democrats can win – like Darcy Burner (WA-8) and Peter Goldmark (WA-5). Picking up seats in Congress to give Democrats a majority in at least one branch of Congress will be the best strategy to end the War in Iraq.

Asking Senator Maria Cantwell to submit to some progressive purity test right now won’t mean anything if Democrats don’t win control of the U.S. House and/or Senate.

This election is certainly a referendum on Iraq for Bush. Unfortunately if Democrats don’t pick up seats in Congress, it will be used as an confirmation by Bush that the American people support his position on Iraq. And we will have missed our best opportunity in 6 years to change American politics for the better.

Comments Off on Is Karl Rove Laughing his Head off at Washington’s Progressives?

Posted in Congress, Elections

Tagged , , ,

Iraq is Bush’s War, not Senator Maria Cantwell’s!

Posted on July 10th, 2006 | 2 comments

President Bush started the Iraq War, not Senator Maria Cantwell. It was a preemptive war that was started based on false and erroneous information. Senator Cantwell has previously acknowledged that, “If we knew then what we know now there probably never would have been a vote by Congress to go into Iraq.” At the time the majority of Democrats voted 29 to 21 to support Bush.

Mark Wilson, who was an anti-war candidate running against Cantwell on the war, ended his campaign on Sunday. He has joined forces with Cantwell, believing that they share similar goals of ending the war. In a Seattle PI article he is quoted as saying they agree that “there must be no permanent American bases in Iraq.”

Mark Wilson position is welcomed by those of us that believe the primary objective of this election year must be for Democrats to gain control of the Senate and the House. Politics is the art of compromise and practicality. Mark Wilson has realized that while he has made the Iraq War a campaign issue he did not have the resources or supporters to mount a serious challenge. Continuing his campaign would have done more to hurt efforts to end the war than help.

Senator Cantwell has not been a lover of Saddam Hussein, and in fact voted to support the current President’s Father in what is now known as the “Gulf War”. There is no way a thinking, caring person is going to say that they supported the type of dictator Saddam Hussein was or the murderous way he kept power in Iraq.

Cantwell took a tough vote along with many other Democrats in 2002. As CNN noted on Oct. 11, 2002 , “the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. ….The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists. “

As we now know this rationale, has since been discredited and was based on faulty information. But at the time many Democrats joined with the Republicans in voting to give Bush authority if necessary to invade Iraq based on what they were told by the Bush Administration. In fact 29 Democratic Senators voted yes, not just Maria Cantwell.

Here is a list of those Democrats: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Biden (DE), Breaux (LA), Cantwell (WA), Carnahan (MO), Carper (DE), Cleland (GA). Clinton (NY), Daschle (SD), Dodd (CT), Dorgan (ND), Edwards (NC), Feinstein (CA), Harkin (IA), Hollings (SD). Johnson (SD), Kerry (MA), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lieberman (CT), Lincoln (AR), Miller (GA), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Reid (NV), Rockefeller (WV), Schemer (NY), and Torricelli (NJ)

If you still really feel passionate about this issue log onto Act for Change and send Cantwell an e-mail about how you feel about her vote. But at some point we literally need to move on. Cantwell has and is looking for solutions to get us out of Iraq. Cantwell’s Republican opponent is not going to oppose Bush’s war policies. If Cantwell loses it will be an affirmation for the war, not a vote against the war. A Republican win is another vote to support Bush.

Senator Cantwell is calling for setting milestones for getting out of Iraq. On David Goldstein’s show Sunday night on KIRO 710 she said that “This year is the time to turn the sovereignty and security issues over to Iraq”

She emphasized that last year’s 79 to 19 vote by Democrats and Republicans calling for starting to bring the troops home this year was a turning point. It was a contrast to Bush’s “head in the sand approach.”

Sound leadership means setting goals and expectations. Cantwell is committed to a structured withdrawal from Iraq based on setting milestones , holding people accountable and ending Bush’s blank check policy of war in Iraq.

Because that is what the Republicans just voted for in opposing a timetable to get out of Iraq. They voted for blank check warfare.

Iraq has become the never ending war George Orwell wrote about in 1984. A perpetual war keeps the people in fear and allows for their domination. War is Peace was a Government slogan. . When you say it, “war is peace”, isn’t this what Bush is saying because otherwise to him the only alternative is “cut and run”.

Senator Cantwell is opposed to this idea of a never ending war that the Bush lack of leadership is foisting on the American people. Cantwell sees’ “lots of twists and turns” and acknowledges that there is less water, less electricity and less oil than before the war. Yet she sees optimism in the recent vote of Iraqis for their government. She called it “impressive.” She witnessed people bringing their children with them as they voted. Children were sticking their fingers in the blue ink, taking part in the process.

The number one priority Senator Cantwell sees is to get the Iraq Security Forces trained, which she says General Casey has said will be happening by the end of the year.

In addition Senator Cantwell believes more effort needs to be made to get other countries who pledged support to follow through. She noted some $13 billion of outstanding commitments from other countries exists. “Let’s get it into Iraq” says Cantwell.

She believes our countries best interests are served by trying to get more more countries involved and supports a bipartisan effort by previous Presidents Bush and Clinton getting involved.

Listening to Senator Cantwell speak on Goldstein’s show let’s one see why Mark Wilson would quit his candidacy to support Cantwell. On the radio Mark Wilson acknowledged to Goldstein that his chances had been a long shot. He also reached the conclusion that working to elect a Democratic majority in the U S Senate would more likely happen by working to re-elect Senator Maria Cantwell than by continuing his efforts to debate the issues. Besides he noted, he’s not independently wealthy nor was there a large enough network of moneyed supporters for him to wage a serious primary challenge.

2 Comments

Posted in Congress, Democrats

Tagged , ,

Senator Cantwell Clearly Says Once Again "Bring the Troops Home"

Posted on April 26th, 2006 | 4 comments

This last Saturday Senator Maria Cantwell was a surprise speaker at the 46th Legislative District Democratic Caucus. She once again said that this was “the year of transition in Iraq“and that we needed “to bring the troops home.”

On April 17, 2006 in the Seattle Times she is quoted as saying the same thing:

“2006 needs to be a year of transition, and I’m fighting to get the Iraqi people on their feet and get our troops home,” she said.
Did you think we needed to get rid of Saddam Hussein? “Yes, and on the resolution I haven’t changed my mind. I’m going to talk to them [anti-war Democrats] about what I think we need in 2006, and they can make the judgment on that.”

The “Bring the Troops Home” statement has also previously been reported on twice by the NPI Blog. So it is not a new statement but it appears to be Cantwell’s official position. She also has met with representatives of groups opposing the Iraq War. You can read some lengthy observations by others of that meeting at WashBlog.

When I had a chance to question Senator Cantwell after her speech to the Democrats, she again stated that her position under Bush on getting rid of Saddam Hussein is consistent with her position in 1993 when Clinton was President.

Regarding her vote giving Bush authority to go to war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, however she also told me, “If we knew then what we know now there probably never would have been a vote by Congress to go into Iraq.”

Regarding Iran, Cantwell deplored Bush’s “saberrattling” and said “he needed to ratchet things down.” Rather than starting at the highest level of confrontation, she said he should “drop talk of a nuclear weapons strike“ and start with direct contact, talking and negotiation to try to reach resolution.

Cantwell’s current position on Iraq is based on a resolution passed by Congress called the Warner Frist Amendment, Amendment 2518. A press release by Senator Karl Levin dated Nov 15, 2006 presents a small amount of discussion on the issue when it was before the Senate. It passed by a vote of 79 to 19. Levin had proposed stronger wording in an initial version.

Thirteen Republicans voted against the watered down amendment which set no specific timeline for withdrawal. Senator John McCain of Arizona, who is also running to succeed Bush, was one of those. Senators Cantwell and Murray voted for the amendment.

The Senate Resolution represents a significant turning point in the Iraq War. A good discussion of this is presented at the Council for a Liveable World’s Withdrawal from Iraq Blog.

…the reality of the symbolism is that most of the media and the political establishment view the Senate votes as a watershed. Most in both camps say that the Senate is abandoning Bush’s “stay the course” policy. Senators have read the polls and the election results. The President’s policies have been repudiated.
…it is now perceived wisdom that Bush is losing both parties on the war. It is now virtually impossible to turn the clock back. This widespread interpretation also brings the war’s end a bit closer by fueling the drive to exit.
Some argue that the vote only gave Republicans and potential Democratic presidential candidates cover. Whether that it true or not, many such candidates are now on record for a phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq and for telling the Iraqis that the U.S. will eventually depart.

Cantwell and the Democrats are shaping the issue and moving forward by declaring 2006 as the year of transition in Iraq. Reports required by the resolution on progress in getting out of Iraq are to be given to Congress.

Nevertheless I think it is important that more specific goals and dates be set. This is the way you run a successful operation, just like a business plan and without more specifics no one’s feet are held to the fire.

There is a more specific plan that looks appealing to me. It is titled “Strategic Redeployment – a Progressive Plan for Iraq Against Violent Extremists” and was written by Lawrence Korb, a Reagan administration assistant defense secretary and Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress.

First published on Sept. 29, 2005 Brian Katulis last month published a commentary in tPhiladelphiapha Inquier as a followup, entitled Strategic Redeployment Best of All. I think the basic thesis of the plan is sound and deserves serious consideration.

As Karulis points out:

President Bush’s “stay-the-course” message offers nothing new to an impatient American public. It merely restates a failed policy that only further increases the burden on American taxpayers, weakens U.S. ground forces, serves as a rallying cry for al-Qaeda, and fails to stabilize Iraq.

The Strategic Redeployment Plan is pretty straight forward:

The plan calls on the Bush administration to encourage Iraqi leaders to take control of their country by saying the U.S. military is going to leave Iraq and set a timetable for doing so. The proposal says the United States should draw down its troop presence from its present level of 136,000 to 60,000 by the end of the year, the remainder to virtually zero by the end of 2007. It also encourages more vigorous diplomacy in the region and in Iraq, to bring the country’s factions together.
The gradual drawdown would allow U.S. troops to continue providing crucial support to the nascent Iraqi security forces. But the plan also clears the way for a political solution and recognizes that current troop levels are unsustainable without a draft. If we still have more than 130,000 ground soldiers in Iraq a year from now, we will destroy the all-volunteer Army. Keeping such a large contingent of troops there will require the Pentagon to send many units back to Iraq for a third time and to activate reserve and Guard forces a second or third time.

The United States can not impose its will on an unwilling country. We need to acknowledge that we have successfully removed a despot from running Iraq but also realize that the future depends on Iraq citizens taking responsibility for their future. At this point the longer we stay without an end point, the more likely that ultimately a civil war will split Iraq into opposing religious factions.

As Katulis states:

The key to strategic redeployment is that it acknowledges up front that Iraq’s problems cannot be solved by American boots on the ground. A timetable for withdrawal will spur Iraq’s battling factions to try harder to reach a compromise before U.S. troops leave.

4 Comments

Posted in Congress, Democrats

Tagged , ,

Senator Cantwell Press Conference a Shocker in More Ways than One!

Posted on April 10th, 2006 | Comments Off on Senator Cantwell Press Conference a Shocker in More Ways than One!

At a press conference in Seattle today Senator Cantwell called the latest proposal to settle Enron bankruptcy claims with Northwest ratepayers an “insult“. She berated the blatant attempt to suppress Enron evidence and the attempt to make the NW ratepayers the deep pockets for settling Enron’s bankruptcy.

The proposal drafted by Enron and FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) proposes settling for pennies on the dollar for Enron overcharges. The proposal now goes to the three FERC commissioners for approval.

The current proposal started with some $20 million in disputed overcharges to the Snohomish PUD but has been expanded to cover much more. It includes a blatant and outrageous attempt to suppress the public seeing any new Enron information and proposes suppressing current information from being used for other cases.

Enron is also trying to collect some $120 million from the Snohomish PUD for contracts that were terminated. The Enron-FERC proposal would keep sealed the documents from the current case. This would severely hinder the Snohomish PUD in presenting its case on the $120 million contract termination dispute.

FERC is supposed to regulate energy wholesale prices and by law is supposed to protect ratepayers by assuring that rates are “just and reasonable”. FERC ignored repeated requests from Western states to intervene in controlling the price spikes in 2000 and 2001 that drove electric rates as much as 100 times current prices. They made some references to a free market as their rationale. The problem was that Enron was manipulating the market. See more on FERC at Frontline’s What is FERC?

FERC’s initial look at Enron’s practices was lukewarm and failed to uncover audiotapes and other documents that now have emerged. As Senator Cantwell notes, “ The failure to uncover those audiotapes and other data raised serious questions in my mind … about the thoroughness of FERC’s investigation. Still more flags were raised when we learned that FERC staff had previously attempted to quash or exclude portions of this evidence from the record.”

Senator Cantwell continued to pursue the issue.

Finally in June 2004 former FERC Chairman Wood told Senator Cantwell and Senator Lieberman of Connecticut that some $800,000 0f taxpayer money would be committed for further investigation. Out of this additional investigation , some $1.8 billion was determined by FERC staff to be “illegal profit” As such it was supposed to be returned to ratepayers.

The current Enron-FERC proposal, if approved, would void any further action by FERC to return funds to NW ratepayers. It would also seal from public view critical evidence of Enron’s misdeeds.

Cantwell responded, “We’ve been fighting for years to get justice for Northwest ratepayers, and now the same Federal regulators who just hired an ex-Enron attorney are proposing a settlement that will give families and businesses less than one percent of what these corporate criminals took. This is an insult to hard-working families overwhelmed by years of record-high energy costs. We need honesty and fairness from energy regulators. Northwest families deserve better than a settlement that pays pennies to the dollar.”

Senator Cantwell was joined in condemning the proposal before FERC by representatives of the Snohomish and Grays Harbor PUD’s, the Port of Seattle and Ash Grove Cement.

Enron, through market manipulation, price gouging and other methods, helped to create the Western Power Crisis in 2000 and 2001 by manipulating energy markets and artificially driving up prices to exorbitant levels. Enron declared bankruptcy in Dec 2001.

Everyone thinks that California ratepayers suffered the most as a result of Enron’s manipulating the energy markets. Enron’s profit and loss statements for 2000 and 2001 actually show the opposite. Enron showed a profit of $694,580,802 for that time from the Pacific Northwest compared to $347,238,448 profit from California, a 2:1 ratio.

Northwest ratepayers took the biggest hit from Enron’s manipulation of the markets.

Comments Off on Senator Cantwell Press Conference a Shocker in More Ways than One!

Posted in Democrats, Energy

Tagged , , ,

Senator Cantwell Continues Fight Against Enron to Protect NW Ratepayers

Posted on April 9th, 2006 | 2 comments

Senator Maria Cantwell is holding a press conference this morning in Seattle to oppose a proposed settlement of overcharge claims by the Snohomish PUD against Enron.

Senator Cantwell is sending a letter today to FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, urging that they reject this settlement. She calls the agreement “woefully inadequate.” The proposed settlement was made by FERC staff and Enron.

The Snohomish PUD filed a claim of over $20 million against Enron for overcharges as Enron
manipulated the electricity market in 2000 – 2001. The proposed settlement is for only $2.3 million.

Enron went bankrupt after manipulating the energy markets and stealing millions and millions of dollars from businesses and other ratepayers. The Snohomish PUD has said these illicit actions by Enron total over $1.8 billion for all ratepayers.

Despite pleadings from ratepayers and the states for the Federal government to get involved Bush stood on the sidelines doing nothing. FERC did nothing.

The Snohomish PUD cancelled its contract with Enron just days before Enron filed for bankruptcy on Dec 2, 2001. Enron, even though bankrupt, filed a $125 million contract-termination suit against the Snohomish PUD.

Efforts by the Snohomish PUD and Senator Cantwell helped bring to light the shady corrupt practices of Enron.

Particularly troubling now is a part of the proposed agreement that would hide a lot of evidence in this case from the public. The settlement says that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will “withdraw all pleadings, testimony, related exhibits, discovery requests of any type, and all additional requests for relief filed with FERC.”

This action would hurt the Snohomish PUD’s efforts to defend itself against Enron’s contract termination penalty claim.

And it would nullify the amendment Cantwell added to Senate legislation that gave FERC authority to cancel these termination fees as part of the bankruptcy proceedings.

2 Comments

Posted in Democrats, Economy

Tagged , , ,

Why are Republicans Still Ignoring U.S.Senator Cantwell’s ENRON Reforms?

Posted on March 31st, 2006 | Comments Off on Why are Republicans Still Ignoring U.S.Senator Cantwell’s ENRON Reforms?

ENRON is again front and center in the news. But where are the Republicans, who control Congress, in efforts to prevent another ENRON from severely impacting ratepayers? Where are Republicans like Mike McGavick in urging action to protect Northwest ratepayers? Missing in action!

Meanwhile U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington State has made very clear her position of the need to protect Washington State ratepayers from another ENRON. Last year she introduced S. 33 in the U.S. Senate. The bill is straightforward, easy to understand, and short:

“S. 33 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Electricity Needs Rules and Oversight Now (ENRON) Act”.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF ENERGY MARKET MANIPULATION.
(a) PROHIBITION.–Part II of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“SEC. 215. PROHIBITION OF MARKET MANIPULATION.
“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of electric energy or the purchase or sale of transmission services subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such regulations as the Commission may promulgate as appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of electric ratepayers.”.
(b) RATES RESULTING FROM MARKET MANIPULATION.–Section 205(a) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824d(a)) is amended by inserting after “not just and reasonable” the following: “or that result from a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance”.

Did the Republicans who run Congress or President Bush ever act on this legislation? No! Are they doing anything now? No!

So its obvious – the current Republican Congress and President Bush agree that it is all right to charge ratepayers for increased electrical rates that occur as a result of “a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance” done by unscrupulous energy traders and brokers.

To refresh our memories on this issue let me quote from Senator Cantwell’s statement in the Congressional Record

“…the release of audiotapes of Enron traders gloating about their ability to manipulate energy markets shocked the Nation. As more tapes surface and energy prices continue to rise, the need for the Senate to pass the ENRON Act has never been more clear.

A public utility near Seattle, which is trying to get back the money it lost to Enron’s unscrupulous energy trading practices, received the tapes from the Justice Department. These tapes confirm what we all suspected: Enron manipulated energy markets and gouged consumers.

According to these tapes, Enron traders celebrated when a forest fire shut down a major transmission line into California in 2000. This shutdown cut power supplies and raised energy prices. An energy trader sang: “Burn, baby, burn. That’s a beautiful thing.”

These taped conversations also provide evidence that Enron made secret pacts with power producers, and Enron traders deliberately drove up prices by ordering power plants to shut down. The traders also brag about their ability to manipulate markets and steal money from the “grandmothers of California,” who one trader called “Grandma Millie.”

The arrogance of these traders shocks the conscience. It also demonstrates the need for Congress to protect consumers from energy market manipulation. We cannot let the market abuses that took place during the Western energy crisis of 2000 happen again.

What was the Republican Senate response. Well as Senator Cantwell noted:

“…this language was stripped from the omnibus spending bill. These necessary protections were also omitted from the final energy conference report and the revised energy bill we voted on in April 2004. ”

If you think it doesn’t make a difference whether Republicans or Democrats control the US Congress think again. This is just one example among many that point the differences. The US Senate does not need any more Republicans and certainly not from Washington state.

Next time you see Republican Insurance Salesman Mike McGavick, who is running against Senator Cantwell, ask him where he was while ENRON was ripping off Washington state ratepayers. We know where Senator Cantwell was.

Senator Maria Cantwell’s campaign can be reached at Maria Cantwell for U.S. Senate

Comments Off on Why are Republicans Still Ignoring U.S.Senator Cantwell’s ENRON Reforms?

Posted in Congress, Democrats, Economy, Energy

Tagged , ,

McGavick, McCain, Mc????

Posted on March 22nd, 2006 | Comments Off on McGavick, McCain, Mc????

Senator John McCain is a conservative Republican running for President of the United States in 2008. He is doing what any potential candidate for President must do if he wants to win. He must build up debts that others owe him that he can call in later.

Mike McGavick is running as a Republican for the U.S. Senate seat in Washington state that is currently held by Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell. McCain was the star attraction at a McGavick fundraiser held Tuesday night at a hotel in Seattle, WA. McGavick hopes to emulate McCain.

However, nationally there is a debate emerging as to just who is John McCain. See Daily Koz’s blog, Bushier Than Thou! as one example. See also the article in The Nation entitled, The Real McCain. That same debate needs to occur for McGavick.

McGavick has not run for office before in Washington state. He is hoping that he can appear to be all things to all people just like Dino Rossi did in his run for Governor of Washington state. And he is hoping for a little of Senator McCain’s overrated independent status in the media.

I don’t think that Democrats can let that happen. McGavick needs to be asked now what he stands for. For instance, what is his position on proposed Initiative 933? I-933 is the initiative being pushed by the Washington State Farm Bureau. It is an attempt to end zoning laws in Washington state by requiring that developers and others receive tax dollars from the state if the state won’t let them build whatever they want, where ever they want.

Initiative 933 is being opposed by the Community Protection Coalition.

If McGavick positions are vague then one needs to look at things like his cozying up to McCain. What is McCain’s record on so called property rights issues?

Well one place you can look is at his voting record. And actually that voting record has been tallied up by none other than a national organization based here in Washington state.

Chuck Cushman, who was involved with the infamous so called Wise Use Movement that attacked environmental regulations in the past, now runs an organization called the American Land Rights Association. They recently changed their name from the “League of Private Property Voters”. Cushman is based in Battleground, Washington.

Their “mission” is “dealing with private property issues including government land use controls, federal and state growth management, wetlands and the Endangered Species Act.”

Their 2003 Private Property Congressional Vote Index is the last one listed. Rating issues such as repeal of the Estate Tax, reducing legal barriers to timber sales and cutting environmental and conservation program funding it gives McCain a positive rating of 67% in 2003. In 2001-2002 he received a rating of 70%, in 2001 a rating of 86%, and a 62% rating in 2000.

By way of contrast Senator Maria Cantwell and Senator Patty Murray in 2003 both scored “0”‘s . On the House side Jay Inslee scored “0”, Brian Baird “8” Rick Larsen “25”, Norm Dicks “8”, Jim McDermott “0”, Adam Smith “8” and Doc Hastings “100”.If McGavick does not like this associating and guessing where he is on issues, then he needs to clearly state his positions. If you go to his website and check on environmental issues it sounds just like what Cushman and the private use people would say because it is so vague. It sounds like something Chuck Cushman would write frankly. I have taken the liberty of making bold those words and sentences that in particular raise a red flag.

Environmental conservation and productive development are not mutually exclusive. We can protect and improve our environment while at the same time allowing responsible human development.
In Eastern Washington especially, the choice to save the salmon or keep the dams has been presented as an either/or issue. This simply isn’t the case.
Washingtonians know what’s best for their communities and its time the federal government let us solve our own problems.
The environment can be protected while allowing for development such as the dams that make Eastern Washington a bread basket rather than a dust bowl.
The federal government must step aside and allow us Northwesterners to deal with the problem as we see fit for we have the greatest at stake when it comes to keeping our state beautiful and our economies strong.

This “environmental statement” does not say where McGavick is on the Endangered Species Act, on protecting Federal Regulations on Air and Water Pollution, on cleaning up Puget Sound, on making polluters pay for cleaning up their toxic waste, protecting wilderness areas, or global warming or much else. It’s emphasis seems to be on his saying we should get the Federal Government out of our state and let us develop whatever we want. This sounds like an appeal to the Chuck Cushman’s of the world, not to most of Washington’s voters who love Washington State because of it’s environmental qualities. These people do not want to trade for the sake of some dollars in developers’ pockets the quality of life we now enjoy.

 

Comments Off on McGavick, McCain, Mc????

Posted in Elections, Environment, Initiatives, Republicans

Tagged , , , , , ,