Campaign
On March 9, 2006, Aaron Dixon announced his decision to seek the Green Party's nomination for U.S. Senate, challenging Cantwell on her continued support for the U.S. presence in Iraq and the USA PATRIOT Act. On May 13, 2006, Dixon secured the party's nomination at the Green Party of Washington state's Spring Convention.
Initially, Cantwell had two challengers from within the Democratic primary, both of them taking strong stances against the Iraq war that brought attention to Cantwell's votes for the Iraq Resolution and against a timeline for withdrawal: Mark Wilson and Hong Tran. Three other Democrats also entered the primary race: Mike the Mover, Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson, and Mohammad H. Said.
On August 8, 2006, the incumbent Democratic Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, lost his primary race to challenger Ned Lamont by 52%-48%, and appeared to be following through on his earlier commitment to run as an Independent in the general election. A great deal of attention had focused on this race, as an early barometer of both anti-incumbent and anti-war sentiment nationwide. Comparisons were made between Lieberman's troubles and Cantwell's re-election bid, citing Cantwell's vote in favor of the Iraq Resolution that led to the war, her refusal to say she regretted the vote, and her vote against a timetable for withdrawal. [6] [7]
Unlike Lamont's campaign, Cantwell's anti-war opponents' campaigns received much less funding and did not have the same support from the blogosphere that brought Lamont to prominence and improved his name recognition. Also, unlike Lieberman, Cantwell altered her position on the war during her campaign and criticized the Bush administration for its conduct of the war. She also hired her most vocal anti-war primary opponent, Mark Wilson, at an $8,000-a-month salary, a move that was described by political commentators as "buying out" the opposition (which she also allegedly attempted with other anti-war challengers Hong Tran and Aaron Dixon). [8] The article does, however, note that, despite the differences in exact circumstances, the Lieberman defeat also showed that voters were in an anti-incumbent mood, which could create problems for Cantwell. [9] This is supported by another P-I article that also notes that the primary loss of Lieberman and two House incumbents, Michigan Republican Joe Schwarz and Georgia Democrat Cynthia McKinney, on the same day indicated that there might be a nationwide anti-incumbent trend. [10]
Following the primary results, Cantwell endorsed Ned Lamont, and McGavick responded by endorsing Senator Lieberman. [11] [12] The Dixon campaign released a statement criticizing Cantwell's "spin and vague rhetoric" on the war, and equating her current position to a pro-war stance similar to Lieberman's. [13]
On August 14, less than a week after Lamont's win and nearly four years after the actual event, Cantwell for the first time said she would have voted against the authorization to use force in Iraq if she knew then what she knows today. [14] However, she did so only after hearing her opponent McGavick say that he would have voted against the authorization under those conditions. [15] Cantwell stated that she had no regrets for her vote in favor of the authorization [16] and did not change that position. [17]
On July 9, anti-war challenger Mark Wilson announced he would abandon his bid, endorse Cantwell, and take a paid position offered by Cantwell's campaign, one day after progressive activist and anti-war critic Dal LaMagna wasn hired to be the Cantwell campaign's co-chair. Initially, Cantwell's campaign refused to state how much they were paying Wilson, but under pressure from the media, disclosed that he was receiving $8,000 per month, only slightly less than Cantwell's campaign manager Matt Butler, who earned $8,731 per month. [18] [19] The next day, Hong Tran received a call from LaMagna saying they would like her to join their campaign, in a context that she interpreted as a job offer, which she refused. [20] Political commentators, including those at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and one at The Washington Times , expressed their views that Cantwell was attempting to eliminate the viable options anti-war Democrats had to voice their opinion on the war in the upcoming primary by having Wilson join her campaign and then soliciting Tran. [21] [22] [23] [24]
Wilson's supporters and journalists expressed surprise at his withdrawal from the race after a 16-month campaign, where he was a sharp critic of the incumbent Senator, who he referred to on his campaign website as a "free-trading corporate elitist" who "bought her seat", then "alienated and alarmed" her base. [25] When asked by reporters if he still believed what he said about Cantwell during his primary bid, he stated: "I believed in it to a point in order to capitalize on what was already existent, which was a rift within the Democratic Party over the issue of the war." [26] Both Dixon and Tran publicly doubted that Wilson's apparent change of heart was genuine, citing his paid position with the campaign and his initial refusal to disclose his salary. [25]
On September 25, Joshua Frank reported that Dixon had alleged that he had been contacted twice in July by Mark Wilson, who implied that large donations to Dixon's non-profit organization, Central House, would be made if he were to withdraw his candidacy before filing. Dixon also claimed that Wilson was not the only Cantwell staffer to contact him, but declined to disclose who the other staffer was. Dixon also made this claim on a Democracy Now! broadcast. [27] David Postman of the Seattle Times contacted the Cantwell campaign about the allegations; their spokesperson didn't say it didn't happen, but stated that no one on the campaign had been authorized to speak to Dixon about his campaign. The campaign did not allow access to Wilson so he could respond as to whether the conversation took place. [28] Other reporters also had trouble contacting Wilson in recent weeks; Susan Paynter of the Seattle P-I, in an article on his shunning of the media, noted that there had been a widespread assumption after Wilson's hire that the intent was to silence him and that his disappearance only reinforced this assumption, calling it "the political equivalent of a farm subsidy." Paynter also quoted Hong Tran as saying that the reaction to Wilson's initial appearances on the campaign trail after he had joined Cantwell were so negative that she was not surprised he disappeared. [24]
While some of Washington's legislative districts did not give endorsements for the primary election, Cantwell received the sole endorsement of at least 14 of the 49 legislative districts in the state. [29] [30] [31] Hong Tran won the sole endorsement of one district, the 32nd (Cantwell's home district), and split dual endorsements with Cantwell in three others: the 40th, 25th, and 26th. [32] Tran attended the endorsement meeting for the 32nd Legislative District in person and, according to one blogger who claims to have spoken to people who attended the meeting, made her positions clear and responded to questions. According to the blogger, Cantwell sent Mark Wilson in her stead, who was unable to defend Cantwell's votes in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the Iraq War. [33]
On September 19, after her defeat in the Democratic primary, Hong Tran lamented to the Seattle Times "how undemocratic the Democratic Party really is," [34] saying the state Democratic party had tried to keep her from getting attention, forbidding her from putting up signs at Coordinated Campaign events and not giving her access to the state party voter rolls. [35] Cantwell, whose campaign hired two of her early critics, had also refused to debate Tran. When asked before the primary whether she would endorse the senator if her primary bid proved unsuccessful, Tran had responded, "certainly not." [36]
