I'm sure we're each familiar with the phrase, "Having your cake and eating it too". While almost everyone is guilty of this from time to time, mainstream politicians seem to immerse themselves in it. It really doesn't matter if one is a Democrat or Republican -- both seem to enjoy large pieces of cake and gorging on it to the point of choking.
Bill Clinton is a famous "cake" eater. He was one of those rare campaigners who could address two opposing sides in the same day, yet have both sides certain that he agreed with their stance or point of view. I'd like to put Dubya in this category too, but he's simply not smart nor savvy enough to pull it off.
Here in Washington State, incumbent Democratic US Senator Maria Cantwell genuinely is wanting her cake and eating it too. She voted for the Iraqi "war". She's voted for every one of the Bush administration's appropiation bills in support of the war. She even voted against the Kerry bill this summer that would have set a deadline to bring US troops home.
DESPITE all these facts, she's trying to convince Washington voters that HER position on the topic is somehow different than our erstwhile president. Lately, she's been blathering about wanting 2006 to be a "transition" year. What in the heck does that mean?
As mentioned above, she COULD have supported the Kerry bill, but she didn't. So what has she done to create this nebulous "transition"? Nada, except repeat it in stump speeches.
Let's face it, Cantwell's position isn't that much different than her Republican opponent Mike McGavick.
However, it IS different than the Green Party's Aaron Dixon. Aaron supports the immediate withdrawal of US troops. And that's why I'm voting for Aaron and why I hope Cantwell loses miserably!
Bill Clinton is a famous "cake" eater. He was one of those rare campaigners who could address two opposing sides in the same day, yet have both sides certain that he agreed with their stance or point of view. I'd like to put Dubya in this category too, but he's simply not smart nor savvy enough to pull it off.
Here in Washington State, incumbent Democratic US Senator Maria Cantwell genuinely is wanting her cake and eating it too. She voted for the Iraqi "war". She's voted for every one of the Bush administration's appropiation bills in support of the war. She even voted against the Kerry bill this summer that would have set a deadline to bring US troops home.
DESPITE all these facts, she's trying to convince Washington voters that HER position on the topic is somehow different than our erstwhile president. Lately, she's been blathering about wanting 2006 to be a "transition" year. What in the heck does that mean?
As mentioned above, she COULD have supported the Kerry bill, but she didn't. So what has she done to create this nebulous "transition"? Nada, except repeat it in stump speeches.
Let's face it, Cantwell's position isn't that much different than her Republican opponent Mike McGavick.
However, it IS different than the Green Party's Aaron Dixon. Aaron supports the immediate withdrawal of US troops. And that's why I'm voting for Aaron and why I hope Cantwell loses miserably!