I attended Mike McGavick's press conference this afternoon where he announced his exploratory committee for the 2006 U.S. Senate race
Mike McGavick with wife Gaelynn.
Audio of the press conference is posted here (7 MB). His opening remarks last for about 13 minutes, followed by about 18 minutes of Q & A.
The stated purpose was to discuss his motivation for exploring the Senate race. He came across as an attractive, optimistic personality, who appeals to people's positive instincts. He spoke about his background as a boy, in politics, in business and as a father, gave nods to Reagan, to Senators (as he called them) "Scoop", "Maggie", "Dan" and "Slade", called for civility in politics.But I would have wanted to know more about the issues that he's passionate about that motivated him to get into the race. The portion of his talk that attempted to address issues consisted of this (starts at 8:10) --
1) He was "deeply moved by Dino Rossi's campaign for governor", which he says was "about working with others to make it happen" Wants to convert the anger and resentment some felt because of the way that race worked out into positive energy
2) He has grown up around great leaders of this state. "I similarly hold this state and its needs in my heart"
3) "The state of the state"-- "We stand uniquely able to advance all of humanity". "We can have both fish and agriculture in Washington State and that's the kind of leadership I'll provide." The federal government can do more to sponsor medical research at the UW. We're a port community and interface with the world at all times. "Nobody should be better at the civility that leads to true diversity". We're home to a lot of members of the military "we must model to the entirety of the United States our deep and profound commitment to the troops and not just lip service ... that they win soon and come home soon and that we continue the war against terror.
I don't expect detailed policy papers at this point, but he'll be more interesting when he starts talking about specific goals and more concrete issues.
The most interesting moment for me was when Joel Connelly asked him for his position on I-912. His answer is at 13:18. McGavick wouldn't take a position on the initiative except to say that 520 and the Viaduct are important assets that he's "focused on", and that "I personally have been voting No on every Referendum that comes along, because I don't think that's how we ought to be governed".
In fact, I-912 is not a Referendum, but an Initiative. So was that an intentional duck? Or did he use the word Referendum to also encompass Initiatives? If the former, he earns a demerit for not giving a straight answer and if the latter he earns a demerit for a disingenuous answer. As it turns out, McGavick donated $500 to the 2002 pro-Monorail Rise Above it All initiative campaign. He reported a Highlands residence, no less, meaning that he probably wouldn't be paying the MVET for the Monorail he was promoting to Seattle residents.
During the Q&A he made some quite sensible comments about campaign finance and also got in a parting shot at Hilarycare.
The AP report on the press conference is here.
UPDATE: McGavick's spokesman confirms that he meant Referendum to include Initiative. We'll have to wait until the office is more organized for a statement that explains how he reconciles voting no on all initiatives with a campaign contribution for an initiative that imposed a tax on a city that he wasn't living in. Another point that came up -- it initially appeared to me that McGavick wasn't registered to vote in King County and I asked his spokesman about this. In fact he is registered, but we figured out that his name is misspelled in the voter database as "McGavivk". He'll be contacting the county to have that corrected.
UPDATE 2: Duh! There is no technical inconsistency between voting NO on all initiatives and his donation to the Monorail initiative campaign. He wasn't eligible to vote for the Monorail because he didn't live in Seattle so he obviously didn't vote YES on it. Silly me that I didn't catch this right away. I'm sure he'll have the opportunity soon enough to explain whether he really thinks it's okay to fund other people's initiative campaigns as long as you vote NO on your own, and whether he'll still defend his support for the Monorail or call it a mistake with the benefit of hindsight.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 19, 2005 02:32 PM | Email ThisMcGavick is a pretty liberal Republican, so he may have a chance to be elected in this state. But don't expect him to turn out to be some conservative senator--I just don't see that.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on July 19, 2005 03:23 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on July 19, 2005 03:25 PMThat means that even a liberal McGavick is better than a liberal Cantwell. When it really matters, he will be smart enough to come through for the party.
Posted by: Janet S on July 19, 2005 03:53 PMYep, this is a big time red flag. I don't want another bonehead who isn't familiar with the Washington State Constitution representing me, even if he does kick Cantwell to the curb.
Posted by: steve_dog on July 19, 2005 04:32 PMThe Initiative Process is the only thing that govern's effectively in this state. That comment alone will probably eliminate him in the primary.
Next candidate please.
Posted by: Andy on July 19, 2005 04:54 PMMr. McGavick, formerly a campaign manager for Slade Gorton, will probably be much like his mentor if he is elected Senator.
He has earned tens of millions of dollars as Chairman and CEO of Safeco. Along with his high-level political donor connections, I suspect that his campaign will not be in danger of running out of money.
Posted by: Tim B. on July 19, 2005 05:07 PMMcGavick is the REAL deal.
Do you think Murray or Cantwell vote in favor of initiatives? Hell no -- they're too busy raising our taxes and dumbing down America.
There is no substantive difference between Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray; Patty Murray is a liberal gas bag who has never had an original idea in her political life. Cantwell, her less than inspiring 'me-too' sidekick.
McGavick is the real deal. Watch the media start to protect Cantwell early by asking inane questions like "wouldn't McGavick be a better Governor?" They will also run tripe about him making money at Safeco and laying people off. PLEASE -- that is business. Thank God we have someone running who knows what that means.
Posted by: seanod100 on July 19, 2005 05:14 PMUnfortunately, these populist measures often divert energy away from throwing out incumbents in the state legislature.
(The Democrats in Olympia were responsible for much more than simply raising the gas tax in the most recent session.)
I suspect that if Washington had no initiative/referendum, Republicans would win more often in the state legislature. Posted by: Tim B. on July 19, 2005 05:14 PM
The Libertarian will likely take at least three percent of the vote away from McGavick and doom any chance of beating Maria Cantwell in 2006.
And we will be able to thank Chris Vance for fighting so hard against ANY type of top two or runoff system -- thus dooming the GOP in every close race where the Libertarians choose to field a candidate.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 19, 2005 06:45 PMI would also point out that the guy is leaving a pretty nice life to enter the political fray. It can't be for the power -- CEO of a large, publicly-traded company at a very young age is just as cool as being one of 100 in the Senate. Posted by: wagopgirl on July 19, 2005 07:12 PM
These are the issues we should be talking about people.
The guy hasn't even announced that he will run and already you're lining up to take shots at him! Let's give him the opportunity to tell us where he stands on other important issues such as environmental policy, gun rights, economic issues and keeping America safe from the terrorists.
We all know about Cantwell's hand in the Growth Management Act, and it's no secret that she's been on board with the liberal plan to tax businesses and families into the ground. She doesn't fight for family values and she certainly doesn't support the President's agenda. I want somebody who will save the dams and fight against more restrictive gun laws. Somebody who will fight for lower taxes and support the President's agenda to fight terroism in our neighborhoods and around the world.
I want somebody who will be a part of the Republican team; supporting Judicial nominations is only one example of that.
I don't trust that Maria Cantwell will do any of these things, and I'm not ready to abandon a potentially great candidate based on his answer to ONE QUESTION. As far as I'm concerned, it's time for all Republicans to rally around Mike McGavick, give him early support and help anyway they can; or don't be surprised if we're faced with another 6 years of Maria Cantwell as our Senator, and don't complain either.
do you want lower taxes?
do you want your property protected?
do you want a strong defense?
If you do NOT want these things, vote for your nut-bag nominee du jour, take your 3%, and ensure that Cantwell is re-elected. Posted by: seanod100 on July 19, 2005 08:18 PM
Posted by: roger on July 19, 2005 10:48 PM
While I credit him for honesty- that was NOT the right answer to the question.
Next candidate please.
Posted by: Andy on July 19, 2005 10:50 PMThese "progressive," "populist" mechanisms simply transfer responsibility and accountability from elected representatives to what amounts to a vacuum.
Why should a legislator heed the constituents' demands if they can just enact or repeal the issue in question at their own whim-a whim requiring of thousands of hours of effort and thousands of dollars?
A representative democracy is not designed to provide an immediate gratification.
From Lynden to Vancouver, Neah Bay to Creston, what citizens must do is demand faithful and statesmanly representation through the ballot box (not the cursed absentee ballot) and unrelentingly hold their elected officials to account.
*King County R&E does pose a problem here*
Seattle voters especially must recognize the inconsistency of electing people who reward them with the dagger in the back. Everyone else, vote for Calhouns and exercise understandably exhausted patience. There is no other truly
'r'epulbican alternative.
But do refrain from denouncing a candidate who can bring our state respect, benefit and representation in a party-dictated federal system because he rejects a mechanism that threatens to isolate and preserve legislators from public sentiment and defray the fundamental design of our system of government.
I'll send a check, I'll campaign, but we insufferable Washingtonians must insist on real representation. And another R in the US Senate will do nothing but further the dire needs of our state.
Posted by: I've abandoned Washington . . . for now on July 19, 2005 10:54 PMYes...I agree!
We should be so beyond ignoring these blatant clues and smacking ourselves in hindsight! I'm tired of thinking "I should have KNOWN when he/she made the comment (_fill_in_blank__) that they were NOT the right candidate! Why did I vote for him/her?....."
No more making excuses for so-called Republican candidates! Too many RINO's were elected last November!
Posted by: Deborah on July 19, 2005 11:00 PMI will stay home or vote Libertarian if this anti-populist abortion-loving Slade Gorton-clone is the nominee. This conservative is tired of drinking from a GOP punch bowl full of liberal turds.
I would bet just about everything I own this guy's a carpetbagger too. Just what we need, some pretentious jagoff who probably isn't even from this state to come in and tell us direct democracy is too sophisticated for indigenous Washingtonians.
Posted by: Jim on July 20, 2005 03:45 AMThis makes it even more puzzling why someone who has been in the state as long as he has isn't more familiar with the nuances of referendums and initiatives, yet still feels obligated to take a position on their merits.
Indigenous or not, I'm not voting for any elitst hack who wants to transfer power from the people to Olympia.
Posted by: Jim on July 20, 2005 04:01 AMYou guys are even harder on your own candidates than you are on the oposition.
Lighten up a little.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 20, 2005 07:21 AMI will NOT support ANYONE, regardless of party, that places their judgment ahead of the voters of this state.
If he is a true Republican, then he will fight to make sure our rights are protected precisely as our state's constitution outlines.
He, obviously, will not. I, obviously, will never support this clown.
"Lighten up?" Not for an idiot like this.
Posted by: Who.... me? on July 20, 2005 08:03 AMYep, principles are a b1tch.
Posted by: steve_dog on July 20, 2005 08:28 AMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002391110_enron20.html
Maria Cantwell appears to be working her tail off to protect Snohomish County ratepayers. Whether or not she is effective in other areas, she is at least working hard there and getting a lot of favorable press coverages.
It doesn't seem to be a good start for McGavick to bumble the difference between referenda and initiatives, then say he has never voted for an initiative, and then basically oppose I-912 (which is a very strong item among most Republicans, especially party activists).
Apparently, the Seattle Times didn't even write about McGavick's announcement press conference yesterday. But they did cover Cantwell's efforts at dealing with the Enron fraud. Not a very good omen, when even the Seattle P-I covered it pretty well.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 20, 2005 09:02 AMSomething Unkl Witz and his partisan comrades don't understand is that conservatives demand real leadership, not empty rhetorical posturing and "the politics of meaning". We'll happily leave that useless cynical bag of lies and distortions for the liberals. After all, it's all they have.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 20, 2005 10:26 AMThe whole Enron escapade represents perhaps the pinnicle in poor business and politics reporting. The company, a very high risk venture which convinced people it was old industry (they were energy futures traders for crying out loud), would have collapsed when the other dot.com speculative ventures went under had it not held on by presenting a false front to Wall Street by cooking the books and trading on its overstated, and outdated, image as a utilities company -- and just long enough for insiders to collect some value and escape. Now we have legions of dispossessed investors, pensioners and creditors, most of whom would have lost their investment regardless of the last minute bookkeeping (because they bought in before Wall St. developed an accurate understanding of the financials), who think they were robbed of their investment when in reality only the poor folks who purchased after the dot.com collapse were truly misled. The others, the earlier investors, including the pensioners, simply had more time to discover their loss under conditions that allowed them to believe they had been robbed (who doesn't look for a bad buy when they lose all in a risky venture).
And all the shouting about Enron's "scheme's" to get around Grey Davis' price caps. Remember that Davis destroyed the functioning of the west coast power market by impeding the natural allocation functions of the marketplace through mandated price caps. Everyone under the sun who had power to sell, including several public utilities, were trying to find a way to sell at market rather than the capped price. Enron's response was to try and work around those price caps and deliver power to the public and make a profit. Davis pursued a conscious bankruptcy strategy for the state's power purchaser, a public entity, knowing full well that prices paid at peak market prices could be negotiated downwards in bankruptcy which he knew to be the inevitable result of his price caps. And he was right. Only So. Cal Edison survived the price caps debacle and everyone is trying to renegotiate the prices they agreed to pay for product in bankruptcy courts across the country. Including Sno PUD and Enron's trustees.
The crazy thing about all this is how Davis' price caps caused the whole mess but people think Enron evildoers are to blame. The folks at Enron are no angels, but even they couldn't have conceived the disaster that Grey Davis, using the instument of government power, brought about. Enron's activities were miniscule in terms of damage done to the public compared to the actions of the state of California.
Posted by: barchester on July 20, 2005 12:16 PMGrey Davis may have made it easier for Enron to commit fraud. However, Davis is a political has-been. The fraudulent Enron contract, on the other hand, is a present reality that affects hundreds of thousands of people in this state.
Cantwell has every right to "campaign" against Enron. She certainly has the responsibility to oppose federal laws favored by Enron's creditors that would hurt hundreds of thousands of her constituents.
However, neither McGavick nor any other Republican is going to be able to campaign against Grey Davis. They will have to either campaign for themselves, or against Cantwell.
Enron evidently committed billions of dollars in fraud. The Snohomish PUD contract appears to be part of that fraud. Snohomish County consumers should be able to get out of that contract, instead of having some federal law passed at the behest of Enron's creditors that makes them pay up on a fraudulent contract anyway.
Unfortunately for McGavick, the state's leading newspaper today chose to cover Cantwell's continuing campaign against Enron, and completely ignore the start of McGavick's campaign against Cantwell.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 20, 2005 12:37 PMEnron screwed us on your watch.
As per being tough on our own candidates- most conservatives won't vote for just anyone with an (R) by their name. That would fall under the working definition of the other party and leads to having people like Hunt, B Williams, Fraser and of course Fraudiore represent you.
Davis' artificial shortages were a necessary prerequisite to Enron's manipulation which may have added additional upward pressure on prices already inflated by the Governor's actions (how much of a component remains to be seen). Without the price caps, the markets could not have been manipulated in either the manner or extent they were, assuming this manipulation really caused the asserted damage (higher prices). Markets that are transparent and open are not easily gamed. Davis made the CA wholesale market as controlled and static as possible and without his actions Enron could not have succeeded with its fraud.
Posted by: barchester on July 20, 2005 03:00 PMIf he doesn't believe voters are capable of spotting a VERY bad deal like the gas tax- how exactly is he going to be a proponent for Social Security reform?
I'm quite tired of the government taking my money for my own good.
http://www.mikemcgavick.com Posted by: Mike McGavick on July 20, 2005 10:43 PM