Guest Rant Jul 25, 2022 at 10:00 am

The Stranger Election Control Board Is Wrong

Gallardo is challenging Democratic Rep. Adam Smith in the 9th Congressional District, which covers Bellevue, Mercer Island, South Seattle, and parts of South King County. Courtesy of the Campaign



Command+F: "Ukraine"

Results: 0


Also I totally agree that we should be sending more people like Cori Bush to Congress. However, there is that pesky detail that Representative Bush votes for Ukraine and against Russian imperialism.


Democrats currently DO NOT have the power to codify Roe or stack the Court.

Fixed it for you.


2000: Bush and Gore are no different. There's no harm in not voting for Gore.

2016: Clinton and Trump are no different. There's no harm in not voting for Clinton.

2000-now: a shit ton of bad stuff happens thanks to the above.

2022: Smith and Courtney are no different. There's no harm in not voting for Smith.

It's fascinating to watch people ignore the consequences of terrible decisionmaking and ask for more.


@1 This fixation on Ukraine by Gallardo's opponents is impressive in its discipline; if only they could wield that discipline to accomplish any of their political goals in DC, they might not be facing insurgent candidates such as AOC, Cori Bush, and Gallardo. It appears they will attempt to use vague and ominous gestures toward Ukraine as a singular disqualifying issue, which speaks to Gallardo's strengths across the board, as well as Smith's devastating weaknesses.

Based on the hysteria from the establishment, one would think she actively supported Russia's invasion. So I read the "controversial" statement. I found that it not only condemned Russia's illegal invasion, it provided nuance often lacking in American foreign policy.

People will be voting on inflation, jobs, housing, guns, healthcare, and abortion. Beware the moderate who always wants to change the tune to a vague rant on Ukraine. They're showing they'd rather not talk about everyday domestic issues. They want your eyes a thousand miles away, not on everything in front of your face. Vote Gallardo.


This piece said nothing about Gallardo herself and more hysteria about why her opponent in the primary is the wrong choice.

What type of a teacher is she? Is she well liked by her students? Are there any controversies voters should be aware of? Is she a parent?

Socialists love to talk about issues but voters care about people and their silly bullshit. I would never in a million years vote for Tiffany Smiley because fuck all Republicans but her ads are very effective in selling voters on exactly who she is. Stephanie Gallardo? Total enigma. Don't be surprised when she loses big.


@4: Look, I'm just taking Gallardo at her word here:

"If there is any distinction I would like to highlight between my candidacy and platform as compared to my incumbent opponent @RepAdamSmith, look no further than Ukraine and any foreign policy issue."

And I assume you're referring to this statement where Call, Parson, and Gallardo state:

"We stand with the 74% of Americans who do not think the U.S. should have a major role in Ukraine. We call on President Biden and Congress not to drag our country into war with Russia."

Let's not forget that this was in response to the United States's plans to send aid to Ukraine, including weapons systems. Supplying weapons, etc. to Ukraine is how folks like Rep. Bush support Ukraine and stand against Russian imperialism.

I don't like Smith either. If Gallardo just said 'I'd take the same position as AOC, Bush, etc' on Ukranian aid packages, I'd prefer her over Smith. But she doesn't.


Gallardo has approximately 0 percent chance of coming ahead of Smith in this primary and she will most definitely not be the next Congressperson from that district. Smith is going to hold that office till he retires. Save your breath, people.


Me, I'm voting Smith. Not Tulsi 2.0.


@6 Americans don't want further military involvement in Ukraine. Just 8% of the public believes that Ukraine should be a top priority. Gallardo comfortably holds the majority opinion.

I must point out that Gallardo's statement is from FEBRUARY 24, 2022 and explicitly refers to a DIRECT WAR between the US and Russia in the text, while Cori Bush's statement is from MAY 10, 2022 and refers to sending arms, food, and medical aid. Quite deceptive to pair the two together. Bush also wrote:

"Additionally, at $40 billion, this is an extraordinary amount of military assistance, a large percentage of which will go directly to private defense contractors. In the last year alone, the United States will have provided Ukraine with more military aid than any country in the last two decades, and twice as much military assistance as the yearly cost of war in Afghanistan, even when American troops were on the ground. The sheer size of the package given an already inflated Pentagon budget should not go without critique. I remain concerned about the increased risks of direct war and the potential for direct military confrontation."

There is no disagreement between Gallardo and Bush on that issue.

US has the power to negotiate an end to the war. It should. But, D.C. wants an extended war to weaken Russia - much like the Afghan-Soviet War of the 1980s - not a settlement. This time Azov will play the Mujahideen. Who knows what the blowback will look like over the 20 years.

There's a brutal contradiction in a country spending unfathomable sums of money to fight proxy wars, while simultaneously putting a generation in debt for their education, blocking universal healthcare, and letting infrastructure degrade because these things "cost too much". We need politicians who will fight that contradiction.


@2 They do have the power to codify Roe as it was originally intended (first trimester) but instead of working with pro-choice Republicans want to codify up to the point of birth with no moral exceptions for doctors which is a non-starter for 60+% of the country.
I really don't understand why they keep pushing packing the court. Mitch McConnell connection with the dark lord has always allowed to be 10 steps ahead of the Democrats. Roe would not have been overturned if Harry Reid hadn't carved out the filibuster for lower court judges. That move allowed Mitch to nuke it for Supreme Court judges which gave Trump 3 picks. Don't even get me started on Merrick Garland. That guy sucks and is for more cops and the surveillance state.


@9: Maybe you have a newer "controversial" statement that we should use as her current stance on this issue then. Or maybe you're just trying to play rhetorical tricks and move the goalposts. Doesn't matter either way to me, tbh.

Rep. Bush is absolutely right to criticize the frankly disgusting amount of money we spend on the military. I think that worrying about the risks of a direct military conflict between NATO and Russia is entirely reasonable too, given the possibility of it spinning out of control into an extinction-level event.

I'd love to see Gallardo issue a crystal-clear statement about whether she supports the US arming Ukranians to defend their right to exist as a nation from Russia. If she was in Congress right now, would she have voted in favor or against these military aid bills for Ukraine? That is the question. Everything she's said indicates the answer is NO, and I think that's disqualifying, even with all of the 'war is a racket' stuff we're talking about here.


@11: You're the only person playing rhetorical games and moving goalposts. If you want to prove that Gallardo supports "Russian Imperialism," it's on you to do so. Bush's criticism wasn't just about military spending, it was specifically about military spending going to Ukraine - exactly your complaint about Gallardo.

The US cannot print enough money to aid Ukraine in perpetuity. At some point, AOC, Bush, and the rest of the elected progressives will stop voting for these measures with criticism, and start voting against them with criticism, just as the progressives slowly stopped supporting our bloody adventures in Afghanistan.

This war hasn't seen legitimate peace talks because of western pressure and western arms. Ukraine cannot win back their former territory without direct engagement from the US and NATO, and it's honestly debatable that Crimea would even want to rejoin Ukraine. This war is already a bloody stalemate pushing us closer to nuclear war every day. Even short of a nuclear conflict, continued fighting will cause global famines and further destabilize Europe.

If we want to introduce morality and the right to exist into this foreign policy argument, you'll note that Adam Smith actively supports the genocide being carried out by Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Gallardo's realism wants to prevent a nuclear conflict; Smith's realism wants to keep the Saudi family happy. Who is more moral in the end?


@13 "Who is more moral in the end?" Obviously, it's you, your righteousness.


@14: What a delightful non sequitur! Never once mentioned myself, but I appreciate your kind words :)


@14 Here's something you apparently haven't noticed about life: People say volumes about themselves without using the words I, me or my. Some learnin' for ya!


And in case you didn't get my meaning first time around, you're a pompous twit.


Sawant endorsed Gallardo so I assume there’s some corruption with her, as is with any trump endorsed candidate. kshama sawants motives to sabotage the Democratic races and that type of alter-extremism gave us donald. I don’t trust anything that comes out of kshamas mouth. I feel bad for Gallardo but she should have avoided having ties with Sawant so her reputation wouldn’t be tarnished.


Pronouns in the signature of these writers is not good optics for being taken seriously.


The reason democrats are possibly going to get wiped out in the Nov elections is not that they didn’t go far enough down the progressive rabbit hole it’s that the progressive policy positions are out of line with then majority of voters and just dipping their toes in that toxic water proved disasterous. I worry for the Dems when Pelosi, Schumer et al retire. If Primila, AOC and the squad are the future of the party the Dems will be a minority party despite the crazies running the Republicans right now.


Just imagine how whack these folks are that they couldn't even convince the Stranger to agree with them. And how life experience clueless they are not to learn from TWO failed election cycles where the electorate utterly rejected their candidates.


@16: It's funny that a critique of another person's moralistic take on US foreign policy somehow made you think I'm the moralizer. You can't be a foreign policy scold when your preferred candidate has been enabling the Saudi genocide in Yemen because they don't want to upset an oil monarch who butchered a Washington Post journalist with a bone saw.


"Democrats currently have the power to codify Roe or stack the Court"

Wrong on both counts, as @2 noted. As @3 recounted, it was support for unelectably fringe left-wing candidates which allowed Republicans the power to get Roe overturned. The answer is not to support another unelectable, fringe left-wing candidate.

"... we must build a political movement that will consistently fight for our interests ..."

Which is of course the thing supporters of these candidates never, ever do. They do not put in the hard, tedious, costly, and chronic effort needed to build a party or movement capable of getting enough votes to elect these candidates. Instead, they tell outright lies about the Democrats (see above), and imply the cheap and easy answer is to vote for the left-of-the-Democrat candidate.

(Even if one of these candidates could get elected, electing a candidate does not help to "build a political movement." CM Sawant is the senior member of the Seattle City Council, and for all of her many years there, she has been telling us all about how she is building "her movement." How's that coming along?)

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.