- This topic is empty.
-
You know, I used to feel intimidated by the voting process. Still do a little, actually. There are so many issues; it seems like I just don’t have the time or interest to stay on top of them all. Some of you wonks out there probably know where Senator Patty Murray stands on things like cap-and-trade, financial regulation, trade policy . . .
Bully for you, wonks! I think those issues are all important. But right now there’s an even more pressing problem at hand, and it’s one that I don’t have to do any more research on before making up my mind.
I’m speaking of the pipeline, of course.
No, no, not the one in the Gulf of Mexico. The other one. You know—the one that’s been gushing blood and money for nearly a decade? Senator Murray can’t do anything to stop the BP spill, but she could do a lot to stanch the bloodbath in Iraq and Afghanistan. If only she wanted to.
But there’s the rub: Does Senator Murray really want to plug the war pipeline? She talks a good game, but I have my doubts about her willingness to follow through. Let’s look at her voting record, shall we?
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Patty_Murray_War_+_Peace.htm
As you can see, the Senator’s record is mixed. Yes, she’s done some admirable things over the years; yes, she’s taken a stand here and there. Her initial vote against Bush’s Iraq War Resolution was particularly encouraging, for example. But has the Senator done anything to cut off the money supply for these dreadful, misbegotten wars, now that they’re well underway? Has she ever stood up to a President, as it is her right and duty to do under the Constitution and the War Powers Act?
No, she has not.
Therefore, I must conclude that either Senator Murray really doesn’t want to stop the war, or she simply doesn’t have the guts to do so.
For several years now, members of the West Seattle Neighbors for Peace and Justice have been trying to talk with the Senator on this. Unfortunately, she’s never agreed to meet with us in person; she always sends one of her aides instead. The aides listen politely as we read our statements urging the Senator to vote against war funding. “Oh, the Senator cares very much about your opinions,” they assure us. “She wants to stop the war as much as you do. She’s doing everything she can. Yadda yadda yadda.”
“Have a nice day,” they coo, shutting the door gently behind us.
So we commiserate over lattes, trundle back on the bus, and ride back home. Next morning, we pick up a copy of the Times and read that Senator Murray has voted for yet another war appropriations bill.
Gush gush gush goes the money.
Although Senator Murray has voted for Congressional resolutions to bring some troops home, establish timetables, and so on, you have to remember that a resolution is just that: a resolution. It doesn’t have the force of law. (Accordingly, Presidents always ignore resolutions they don’t agree with.) What does have force, though, is money. If only Ms. Murray—and other nominally anti-war senators—had voted to cut off funding then these wars would be over and thousands of people who have died needlessly would still be alive. Yet, crazily, instead of twisting the spigot shut when she had the chance, Murray has voted to open it even wider. In the upside-down logic of American politics, that’s called “supporting the troops.”
And the blood spills out upon the sand.
At one of our recent non-meetings with the Senator, a fellow named Don was there from our group. (Most Sundays, you can see Don at the West Seattle Junction with one of his gigantic home-made banners.) When it was Don’s turn to talk, he pointed out to the Senator’s aide that people in Iraq and Afghanistan are still being held incommunicado and tortured, and that it was intolerable to him to think of his tax money being used for that. Don’s like me; he’s no policy wonk. Yet his argument was disarmingly elegant. “My government is torturing people,” he said, “and I want that to stop. Senator Murray, you can do something about this. Stop funding these wars.”
I don’t know if the aide ever passed Don’s message along to the Senator, but all we ever got back from her was a form letter. In that letter the Senator seemed sympathetic, just like her aides said. But she certainly didn’t make any commitment to stop funding the wars, to say nothing of torture and illegal detentions.
As I said, I don’t know where Murray stands on other issues, but the torture thing seems pretty black-and-white to me. If she can’t get that one right, then why should I believe—or even care—what she thinks about . . . campaign finance reform?
These are challenging times we’re living in. Seems like pipelines are busting all over the place, sucking off our precious natural resources and fouling our world with the waste products of unbridled capitalism and greed. Right now we don’t need politicians who will sympathize with us, wring their hands, and then do nothing. We need leaders who know what to do and have the guts to do it. Goddamn it, people—we need someone in Congress who will step up and shut off these pipelines NOW!
—Even if it does cost them donations from military contractors.
—Even if it does stir up a swarm of hyper-patriotic whack-jobs.
Yes, I’m angry. (Is it that obvious?) I’m working on it, though.
I’ll probably feel a lot better after November, when I can at least vote against war and torture.
—Even if I can’t vote for a candidate.
David Preston
June 3, 2010
Seattle
BTW: Do my criticisms of Patty Murray mean I’m endorsing Dino Rossi for Senate? Oh hell, no! —Do you think I want another Slade Gorton running loose out there? But neither am I buying into the argument that if I don’t vote for Murray and Rossi wins, it’s somehow my fault. (That smells a little like George Bush’s if-you’re-not-with-us-you’re-agin’-us hogwash, don’t you think?) Nevertheless, in a future post, I will address the problem of who to vote for when there’s no one to vote for.
So stay tuned, and watch this space for more details on the David Preston for Senate write-in campaign.
;-)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.