The other interesting finding in the new Strategic Visions poll is that Senator Maria Cantwell has only a 47% approval rating (contrast with 57% for Patty Murray). In a race held today between Cantwell and Mike McGavick, Cantwell would only hold 46% to 38%. That's a pretty good showing for McGavick considering that he's still officially in exploratory mode and isn't widely known yet.
I had a chance to chat with McGavick off-the-record the other day and got a much better impression than I did when attending his exploratory kick-off press conference last month. Trying to be constructive, I told him I was hoping he would have defined himself and the incumbent more clearly at his first press conference. But he explained that the press conference was specifically not intended to take stands on issues or to talk about the incumbent, that will all come later. He was the manager of Slade Gorton's comeback campaign of 1988, so I'll assume he knows what he's doing.
I did ask him about his press conference statement on I-912 and initiatives in general. First of all, a candidate for federal office should be talking about national issues, not state and local issues, so it was pretty silly of Connelly to ask him about I-912 in the first place. But since McGavick didn't give the best answer at the press conference, I thought it was fair to ask him to clarify his position. His answer to me was as non-committal as what he said at the press conference but more thoughtful and empathized with the frustration and distrust that so many voters obviously feel over the way that transportation has been managed in the state.
He's now wrapping up his duties as Safeco CEO and also talking to a lot of voters and grassroots Republicans asking for support. I think he'll make a strong candidate. I welcome healthy competition, but I think he'd be a tough one to be beat in a Republican primary. The 2006 Senate contest should be a good one and we'll be covering here on SoundPolitics.com!
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 11, 2005 12:32 PM | Email This
It was so considerate of you to give
Mcgavick another chance.Nothing like
being open minded.Its to bad you can't
give Susan Hutchison another chance.
But hey what do I know.I would much rather
have a healthy discussion with all the
candidates.Than just the one being shoved
down everyones throat by pal chris vance.
First of all, someone from the McGavick camp invited me to meet with him. If Hutchison asks to meet with me, I'd be happy to meet with her.
Second, my initial impression of McGavick was overall favorable, while I expressed both a few misgivings and an interest in learning more about him. My initial impression from hearing Hutchison on the Carlson Show was pretty negative. She'd have a lot of work to do to convince me she's worth backing.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on August 11, 2005 01:05 PMDump or get off the pot. I have a healthy skepticism of anyone, but something must be done. If the newly voted-in blood fails, we will roast them just as severely. Same pressure for any party--prove yourself to us (your taxpaying employers) or out you go. New blood could incite an internal elections civil riot for good change. Worth a try in my book--what else is there to lose?
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 11, 2005 01:45 PM
Chris Vance is damaged goods right now
and he knows it.Vance has upset some people
with his desire to run for the state senate
seat held by the retiring sen johnson.
Vance seems to think he can run for senator
and be state chair at the same time.This is
what is so bothersome to a number of people.
Vance no longer enjoys the support that he
once had among the state central committee.
To top that off at the last State executive
board meeting he actually had the nerve to ask for a
pay raise.At a time when the state party is in
debt to the tune of almost 2 million dollars.
Its not hard to see why vance has so little
effect anymore.
Maybe we need to open up the process a bit and not just go to the Bellevue kingmakers' ball.
Posted by: NWconservative on August 11, 2005 02:32 PM I would be more inclined to call it the king
county circus party. Because that's what you
have here.Obiviously it hasn't worked.Its
because of the mentality here of its are
way or are candidate or no way at all.
No question your right.What has it gotten them
over the past few years?They continue to lose
elections at an alarming rate.They can't figure
out why.The only conclusion they can come to
is its the voters fault because they given up
trying anymore.
Its an elistist group who can't see the
forest through the trees.The fact of the
matter is they have no one to blame but
themselves for what's happend here.
I agree with Phil Spackman on Vance. I have no love for the guy. Generally, party hacks are supposed to pick something and rail against it like a broken record. But occassionally that's not the best route. Chairman Dean should not be badmouthing Republicans. The 2004 election showed that voters were in favor of 2 things: morals and the war on terror. When Dean rails against white Christian morality and quote moveon.org, which is litterally allied with bin Laden, he misses any opportunity to further the Democratic cause. The Democrats need to come out in favor of things the Republicans have dropped the ball on (defecits, veteran's health care, etc.) The same goes for Chairman Vance. Washington is a special state, and the way to win Republicans is not badmouth the Democrats. If you put a gun to everybody's head, 60% of Washingtonians would decide they were "liberal" instead of "conservative." But luckily, it takes putting a gun to their head to make them decide. So there is a lot of room to win voters, by promoting issues people care about, such as pro-education and pro-business messages. The answer does not lie in releasing 8 press releases a day badmouthing Berendt and other Dems.
Posted by: ARS on August 11, 2005 03:34 PMUntil the state and county chairmen stop fueding and focus their energies on getting Republicans elected we will live in a Democrat dominated state. The Dem's have Big Labor to provide leadership, money and organization. They also control state and county governments (including the county election bureau) and are supported by a very liberal voting public.
You can call Mike McGavik and David Irons candidates, but they are really dreamers dressed to look like crusaders.
Posted by: Vagabond on August 11, 2005 04:09 PMI know because I too am a graduate of Olympia High School. If I understand it, Michelle lost both student government races she entered: a race for Sophomore Class President and for Student Body President.
Posted by: ARS on August 11, 2005 06:37 PM
First of all your not very good at
hiding who you were talking about.
You were talking about Reagan Dunn
and Steve Hammond.I want you know
you just insulted all of those people
that supported steve hammond at the
convention.
So in your mind they were all to stupid
to understand who they were voting for.
Are you aware that reagan dunn is still
running?That colossal waste of convention
decided nothing.
The delegates that voted for steve hammond
did so because they believe he best represents
there views.Its not because they were to
stupid to vote for someone who has money and
name recognition.
The problems I have with reagan dunn are
that he doesn't keep his promises.ie he made a
gentlemens agreement that if he lost at the
convention he would drop out of the race.
The other reason is the way he got rob mckenna's
seat.It troubles me greatly that this position
was bought for him by the friends of jennifer
dunn.3 days before the king gop decided who
among the 3 candidates they would appoint.They
donated 10,000 dollars to the king gop.
Reagan Dunn never thought he was going
to lose at the convention.That's the only
reason he agreed to drop out of the race.
He didn't think he was going to lose.
Oh in case your wondering I do not
live in the 9th district.
But do we really want a Senator who doesn't believe in the people's initiative process? It could be more dangerous!
McGavik's agreement to talk with you is just another testament of the power of your blog to influence public opinion Stefan!
I have nothing against Mr. McGavik. He is quite the businessman and does have a favorable history with Republican politicians.....
But - If he cannot see (- especially during this tumultuous time in our state -) the value and importance of our initiative process.....he just isn't in-touch with the people!
Posted by: Deborah on August 11, 2005 07:14 PMI don't think even the people of King County or even Seattle can identify with her. Well, all except people like Jenny Durkan, Gregoires's favorite lesbian.
Posted by: Iguana on August 11, 2005 07:25 PMMcGavick's the real deal and brought Slade back from private life in 1988. To hear that your first reaction to his press conference - the most exciting thing in Republican politics to come along in awhile - was to criticize the guy (you call it being cosntructive...which is inacccurate) is embarassing for you.
You're generally thoughtful and offer good comments but you should really think hard about whether you're being too negative. It's easy to criticize behind a keyboard. It's a lot harder to get out there and try and make a difference...McGavick deserves our support and encouragement (as do all the other potential candidates in the race), not criticism after the fact.
Being constructive is offering advice on how to act in the future, which by your description you didn't do. Being critical is what you did...by hitting the guy immediately following his conference.
Take a chance, man. Tell us something that you thinks going right around the state.
Posted by: BMack on August 11, 2005 07:41 PM I can apppreciate what your saying.But
no candidate deserves are support.They
have to earn it.Sense there hasn't even
been a primary yet no one has earned
anything.
Look I like stefan alot some of you may have
noticed lately there are some things we
strongly disagree on.But I still have a
great deal of respect for him.
Now you may not like what stefan said
about mcgavick but that's how he saw it
I think its also important to understand
that while you may think that mcgavick
is the real deal. There are alot of people
who see mcgavick being pushed on them by
chris vance and don't like it at all.
If mcgavick wins the primary then so
be it. But until then he must earn
everyone's support.
Hope you R's will take a long hard look at him before before slating him for the U.S. Senate. One false move and we may be stuck with him.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on August 11, 2005 08:49 PMThe guy tells the business crowd in Bellevue he opposes I-912 one day and turns around a tries to dodge the subject a few days later - when the cameras are rolling.
And since when a question about whether he supports I-912 is "silly?" Since he chummed up to SS? Because he's a federal candidate? When the GOP Chairman of the House Transportaton Committee is already telling us we'd be stupid to pass I-912? (Chairman Young tried and failed to get George W. Bush to increase the federal gas tax - which is why there was a 2 year delay in delivering a highway bill. The same Don Young who has done more than anyone to make the GOP congress into the world's biggest pork plant?) And Patty Murray tells us that if we pass I-912 the federal money for our highways might go away?
Silly? Silly me to think there isn't a federal question involved. Silly question? Or, great question? It was Slade who came back from the US Senate to try to persuade all of us to vote for R-51, another gas tax increase? In Locke-step with Gary?
MM wants the money from the Bellevue CEO business crowd so he tells them I-912 is bad. He plays dodge ball on I-912 with the rest of us because he wants our votes.
The only apparent "real deal" is another ambitious and not particulalry skillful politician. Hold on to your wallet. And pray for a candidate who can:
a. actually beat Cantwell and
b. answers the question the same way in front of the CEO suits and when the cameras are rolling.
Ronald Reagan was the "real deal." MM is clearly no RR. If he's all the GOP has to offer, somebody better tell him to clean up his act. He needs a good scrubbing.
Posted by: thor on August 11, 2005 09:04 PM This is choice here comes another Dunn
supporter who can't back up what he is
saying.I defy you to tell me what it was that
steve hammond actually did.
you know what? you can't anymore than reagan
dunn can.Because it never happened.
Its typical of you dunn supporters to
take cheap shots at hammond supporters.
After all there to stupid to vote the
right way.
I will say this again because it bares
repeating.The democrat leadership fears
steve hammond because they know he attracts
alot of democrat support because of his
stand on property rights.That is one
of the reasons the teamsters unions are
endorsing steve.
None of this crap ever happened and
you know it.Reagan Dunn had to come
up with a good reason for staying in the
race.So he concocted this bs story about what
hammond supposedly did.
The King county gop threw everything they
had at steve hammond prior to the convention
Reagan dunn didnt have to say anything
about steve hammond.Because the king gop
leadership did it for him.
Strategic Vision Poll, August 10, 2005
http://soundpolitics.com/SV_WAAugust.pdf
Interesting how moderate Republicans are in this state. 55% of them support moderate candidates (Guiliani, McCain, Pataki, Romney, Hagel), 21% support conservative candidates (Frist, Gingrich, Santorum, Allen), and 24% are undecided.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 11, 2005 10:46 PMI mean, how foolish would he have looked to say in effect, "I am thinking of attempting to enter public service because Maria Cantwell is bad for Washington."? He would've looked awful. So Stefan - normally on poin - missed it here. And he wasn't constructive.
And my larger point is that it's easy to spout off and be negative, but it's much harder to get out there and start saying what you're for. And I'm not hearing much of that on soundpolitics lately. that's all.
Posted by: BMack on August 11, 2005 10:46 PMThanks but no thanks. We don't need another elitist with a pie in the sky attitude. We have enough of that with democrats.
Next are you going to tell us the estate tax is a good thing and the dead should pay their fair share?
Posted by: Andy on August 11, 2005 11:27 PMbmack,
I don't know about McGavick's lack of enthusiasm in attacking Maria Cantwell...I don't believe that was ever an issue...
And quite to the contrary - Mr McGavick DID define himself at his first press conference! He defined his negative stance on the initiative process!
If you are going to post here..get it straight!
(Sound Politics has a wonderful search feature if you need to check your facts....)
I dunno, lots against him. Your hate for Cantwell will blind you until election day when she wins 56% to 43%.
The only chance to beat her now will be Linda Evans Parlette, which noone seems to talk about. She is still considering the run against McGavick.
I laugh at you all. =)
Posted by: Jerry on August 11, 2005 11:31 PMOh..By the way! This blog is filled with former non-informed voters! Many more have become quite versed in our State election laws and problems since November 2004! I wouldn't count on a complacent public this time.....And that *proud of women in office* thing... just isn't going to fly this time. Gregoire opened the eyes of many!
Posted by: Deborah on August 12, 2005 12:35 AMIn my opinion, Washington's Republicans are more centrist than say, Mississippi's. But not because of those polling numbers Richard Pope quoted. Nationwide, the numbers are similar are to Washington's. McCain/Giuliani, then Frist, then a load of others in low single digits. The others just don't have name ID yet. In 3 years, one or two family conservatives will come to the forefront: Sen. Santorum, Sen. Brownback, Sen. Allen, Gov. Romney, Gov. Sanford, Gov. Barbour, or Gov. Huckabee. One of these people will definately win the nomination. McCain, Giuliani (and Hagel, if he enters) will split the "moderate" votes in the first few primaries/caucases. Meanwhile, one or two of the above mentioned names will enter as well. The conservative "values" wing of the party has gotten smart in the past few years. Dr. Dobson (Focus on the Family), Tony Perkins (Family Research Council), et. al. will know to rally behind one candidate and present him as the "real" Republican choice. McCain or Giuliani will eventually drop out, since they are splitting votes and money. At that point it will be like 2000, when Bush was fighting McCain. Again it will look like a pro-family conservative against a maverick RINO and the RINO will lose. Too early to tell if GOP can knock off the Dem nominee. Depends on who it is: Clinton, Bayh, Edwards, Kerry, Biden, Richardson, Vilsack, Warner.
Regarding McGavick's chances:
McGavick is no Dino Rossi but trust me, he is a far better choice than Dianne Tebelius or Linda Evans Parlette. Tebelius is a miserable failure of a politician (most of her staff walked away during her 8th District campaign last summer). The politics of Linda Evans Parlette are slightly left of Karl Marx. She's only been in the legislature, in my opinion, because there aren't many good party runners in Chelan/Douglas Cos. All the good people work for the state, nobody left to recruit good candidates.
Posted by: ARS on August 12, 2005 05:48 AMIt's stefan, in his entry on this subject that states "Trying to be constructive, I told him I was hoping he would have defined himself and the incumbent more clearly at his first press conference."
I said we shouldn't be worried about that at this point.
Please pay attention, don't just hurl insults (ie "If you are going to post here..get it straight!
(Sound Politics has a wonderful search feature if you need to check your facts....)")
I know several people who work at Safeco and they are big McGavick fans for what he did in turning around that company -- the company was about to be sold and thousands of jobs would have left Seattle. Instead it has remained in Seattle (along with the jobs) and is now healthy and again a leader in their industry. McGavick deserve a lot of credit for this.
In terms of all the poor victims out there who think McGavick is being "forced" on them.. knock it off -- take time to learn about all the candidates and stop whinning. Then make up your own mind. I did that, and personally I choose McGavick regardless that people like Slade and Dunn also support him.
Posted by: Seamus on August 12, 2005 01:09 PMI wouldn't call Governor Mitt Romney a conservative. He is more of a moderate. You have to be in order to get elected as a Republican statewide in Massachusetts.
Diane Tebelius will probably not go very far in a Senate race. Same thing for Linda Evans Parlette -- although I certainly would not call her a leftist. Remains to be seen, of course.
Susan Hutchison would be the most dynamic primary challenger.
As for Mike McGavick, I am always skeptical of the viability of an insurance executive. But I haven't heard anything really horrible. He may indeed have a decent chance against Maria Cantwell.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 12, 2005 01:27 PM You just don't understand what most of us
are talking about.What people object to is
chris vance and the establishment deciding
they can speak for everyone else.
None of them consider themselves victims.
They are just frustrated by what they see as
an out of control state party who think
they know whats best for everyone else.
Those that vote republican in this state would
rather decide for themselves who they are going
to vote for.They would like a choice.I don't
recall anyone personally atacking mcgavick.
But don't sit there and presume to know what
others are thinking.when you don't have a clue.
if you have some proof of him doing something different, let's see it. Don't claim some form of conspiracy unless you have proof.
Posted by: seamus on August 12, 2005 03:00 PM Your very naive if you really think
chris vance had nothing to do with
this.The state chairman has everything
to do with candidate selection.I did
not say it was a conspiracy.
State chairman do have alot to say
about who the perspective candidate
or candidates are. If you don't think
that chris vance wants mcgavick you
are sadly mistaken.
I can guarantee you mcgavick didn't decide
on a whim he was going to run.I'm not saying
mcgavick didn't make the final decision.
but I'm certain he was encouraged to run
by vance.
And just what did you expect vance to say.I
want mcgavick everyone else should drop out.
He will never publicly say anything like that.
If vance were to say something like that now.
how he is being dumped on would pale in
comparison to what would happen then.
Believe me phil, the last thing i want to do on a Friday afternoon is pick a blog fight with someone I do not know. All I am saying is that people should stop their whinning about candidates being picked top down and stop believing red herrings that are thrown out that have NO proof.
If you don't like mcGavick for his record and you do like tebelius for her record -- fine. personally I plan to support Mike. I have met him many times in the past (and I have met Diane many times in the past) and I think McGavick is very impressive and his stand on issues are very well thought out. he will be our best chance to beat maria next november.
Posted by: seamus on August 12, 2005 05:07 PM
I really don't know what else to say.
but its obvious you really don't know
what kind of power chris vance has.
I have no written proof that he wants
mcgavick.But I know he does.I never said
anything about mcgavick's record.
That we be hard to do because he doesn't have one.I am not interested in either mcgavick or
tebilus.For the simple reason I don't think either one them can win.If you want to support
mcgavick go ahead thats your right.Just don't
come on here and tell everyone else to be
quiet.You may not agree with what they say
but its there right to say it.
Mitt Romney is no moderate. His only moderate stance is abortion, and even that is in doubt. While campaigning for Senate in the early 1990s he came out as a pro-choicer. When running for governor he vowed not to change any current laws dealing with abortion. He is now drifting right again as he contemplates a run for the presidency (they love him in New Hampshire--he vacations there). A campaign consultant (who I believe did some work for McCain and Kyl and others) said Romney's "been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly." He recently cut a vacation short to come back to Mass. and veto a morning-after pill bill. The bill was passed with a veto-proof margin in the Massachusetts Assembly (80% Dem, and I think the other 20% is actually Socialist), but Gov. Romney wanted to avail himself of previous notions that he was anti-life
Posted by: ARS on August 12, 2005 10:16 PMARS:
What a crock of crap! where do you get off making an unsubstantiated and blatantly flase accusation such as the one regarding Diane's staff on her Congressional campaign. Just to personally refute such lies, as I worked there, you're lying out your backside.
And as a general comment about your stealth mode posting re: your xxxx.mail.hous.gov e-mail address, well either you're doing something you ethically know to be wrong, or you're just flat out a coward, afraid to come out of the closet and identify who you are and work for.
Everyone I know said Diane Tebelius was by far the best candidate in the 8th race. Smart, personable, down-to-earth, very-well credentialed, expeienced, DC savvy, one of the hardest-working and most dedicated people I've ever known, and a damn good public speaker that in my not so humble opinion would make a GREAT U.S. Senator - a deliberating body - where such skills and talents would be more than welcome considering what Washinton State has had to endure with.
CANTWELL... CAN'T STAY!
Posted by: Jamie on August 14, 2005 12:31 PMWhile he headed Safeco Insurance, one of Mike McGavick’s insured motorists crossed the double yellow line in front of Les Schwab Tires in Ballard striking oncoming traffic and eventually hitting my car while it was parked legally in the Les Schwab parking lot.
Les Schwab, to their credit, did everything they could to help me get my car rolling again at no charge to me. (Bravo to Les Schwab.)
By contrast, the ensuing nightmare of dealing with Safeco Insurance clearly reflects the head of the company, Mike McGavick. My car was “totaled” and had to be towed to my home. Safeco then required that the standard adjusting be done. It was confirmed that over $5,670 in damage was inflicted on my car, which was greater than the then current resale value.
The agent that I was dealing with was nice enough but offered a fraction of the value of the average price of similar cars selling in The Little Nickle, CarFax and Auto Trader. I couldn’t buy a similar car to what I had lost unless I shelled out several thousand dollars.
I brought this to the attention of the claims adjustor in writing and on the phone and through email several times. There was deafening silence. I faxed copies of Auto Trader, Little Nickle and Carfax to both the adjustor and to Mike McGavick at his personal office fax. (I had called his personal secretary and she had given me the fax number and email address). These were short, concise and factual faxes, with copies of the aforementioned proofs of worth. I followed this up with email to him directly.
He did not email me, he did not call me, he did not have Public Relations call me. He sent the information back to the gnome who originally had quoted me the very unfair payoff amount. She said “you don’t have to get Mr. McGavick involved in this.”
This process went on for over a year and a half. It may seem odd to be so diligent about such a subject, but my car was legally parked, was totaled, I had to spend time I didn’t have to go out and look for a new car. I was offered a fraction of what similar cars were selling for and I had to cover the loss out MY pocket. It has never been resolved.
Mr. McGavick didn’t have the guts or good sense to send a card or email asking how he might help. He didn’t send Public Relations to see how they might help. He simply ignored me and hoped I’d go away. Why would I? Am I like these squirmy Progressive/liberals who cry and whimper when they don’t get their way? I think not. I know when I’ve been screwed and if it happened to me, it will happen to you when this guy gets elected. There are much, much better choices than Maria Cantwell, but it isn’t Mike McGavick.
Once he is elected, no doubt he will show the same blatant disregard to those whom he is sworn to serve. I, as a conservative, with conservative values, regard Mike McGavick simply as a greedy man, with no plan for the State of Washington and a guy who is looking for “bigger fish to fry” ie a Senatorial race to boost his personal ego.
Ken Maynard