Today's Tacoma News-Tribune reports that "Likely Senate candidate will stay as Safeco CEO"
Mike McGavick, a likely Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006, will remain Safeco CEO indefinitely, the insurance giant announced Tuesday.McGavick also says that his exploratory Senate bid remains on track:McGavick had intended to step down today in order to devote more time to deciding whether to run for the seat held by U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Edmonds).
But Safeco hasn’t selected a new chief executive and McGavick agreed to remain until a successor is named
McGavick said he’s received an “outpouring of support” for a potential Senate campaign.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 31, 2005 10:18 AM | Email This“While I have not set a deadline for deciding on a formal candidacy, I am thrilled with the progress,”
I have to wonder if mcgavick is really staying
on because of the dark cloud hanging over safeco
due to being under investigation for
questionable business practices.Both the
feds and the state are looking into them.
What qualified person in the right mind would
want to take over the company with this happening.
He alienated 420,000 voters in his first press conference!
I think it's smoothing the way for another candidate.
If he still decides to run- my support will be only on the local candidates this [2006] election. He can decide for himself if wants to buy a seat in office like Cashwell.
Posted by: Andy on August 31, 2005 11:25 AMSeems like Mr. McGavick should be focusing his energies on dealing with the most costly catastrophe in US history.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 31, 2005 01:04 PMIf he beats Craswell's % it will be amazing.
Double loser...
Posted by: Amy Tonga on August 31, 2005 01:27 PMIf he beats Craswell's % it will be amazing.
Double loser...
Posted by: Amy Tonga on August 31, 2005 01:27 PMGuess who Vance has signed up as speaker, not McGavick, but Dale Foreman.
Posted by: concerned voter on August 31, 2005 01:54 PM mcgavick won't even make it out of the
primary.Vance promised to deliver an opponent
free primary and as usual its blowing up in his
face.
As far as cantwell winning I wouldnt be
so sure about that.All can say is I have
seen some numbers that don't include mcgavick
and she is in real trouble.
While don't usually agree with goldstein
about anything.This time he is right Vance
and the rest of the bellevue mafia wanted mcgavick.
I know for a fact vance has tried to get the others
that are interesting in running not to.
Once again vance failed.
Posted by: phil spackman on August 31, 2005 02:39 PMCheers!
JIM
The reason why Dale Foreman is the keynote speaker is because there are more than one candidate snooping around the senate race and thus they do not want to pick omongst them -- McGavick is the favorite, but tebelius is still snooping around and she is the state committee woman, thus she can not be snubbed.
Richard.
Posted by: Richard on August 31, 2005 04:28 PMThis landshark set his own campaign wagon on fire when he shot off his stupid gob about wanting to abolish the initiative process. He is unfit for public service. Public stockade, maybe... but not public service.
Is this unscrupulous yobbo and Linda Hutchison the best the WSRP can do? I think I'm gonna be ill...
Posted by: ERNurse on August 31, 2005 04:48 PM Who's linda hutchison?I assume you mean Susan
Hutchison.All I can say is I have spent a lot
of time getting to know Susan.You are wrong
about her.I wish could tell everyone where
Susan stands on the issue's but I promised her
what we talked about is between us.
When Susan is ready to talk most of you will be
very surprised at what you hear.
As far Susan's much-vaunted "readiness to talk" goes, she still has not adequately explained her conduct on Comrade Sims' handpicked "impartial taskforce." Is she ready to explain herself on that account? Evidently not. So then, "when she is ready" is likely to become "too late".
In this country, we give people chances. When they betray our trust, they run out of chances. Susan had a golden opportunity to define herself as something special, and she threw it away by siding with that treasonous, terrorist-protecting sonufabitch Sims and his lapdog Logan on this election whitewash.
She thus does not qualify for my vote. Been here before, Phil. She has done nothing to change my mind, and she's running out of time.
Can anybody in this state with an R behind his or her surname demonstrate some capacity to lead, for God's sake!?
Posted by: ERNurse on August 31, 2005 05:16 PM at the risk of getting ripped to shreds
again let me add this.You don't know the whole
story of what went down on Kvi that day.
What Susan was told and what ended up happening
were 2 different things.
I know this is a very important issue to a lot
of people.But its just one issue to summarily
discard someone over one issue is dangerous.
I wish I could tell you what really happened that
day with KVI but I am not at liberty to do
so for now.
Posted by: phil spackman on August 31, 2005 06:42 PM
Mcgavick's playing whats called duck and cover
He is one step ahead of the feds and one step
from you know where.That's right safeco and mcgavick
are in some big time trouble and that is what
this is all about.
My intent was not to rip you to shreds. My intent was to illustrate the appalling lack of leadership among the republicans in this state. I included Susan because her performance at the time left much to be desired in the leadership department. So far, I have not seen anything to convince me that she would be up to the job that she seeks.
That's my opinion. Emphatic? Well, maybe a little. But my opinion.
I am willing to be proven wrong by Susan. In fact, I would love for Susan to step up and show us some of her conservative mettle. We could use some of it around here.
Phil, I am not speaking out against you. I am not speaking out against Susan in particular, either. The one thing I absolutely abhor above anything else on this planet is moral cowardice. If someone doesn't have the spine to stand up for what is right, fair, just, and true, even in the face of a numerically-superior enemy, then they should not have bothered to show up. Moral cowards do more damage to the people who trust them then the enemy could ever do.
Moral courage counts for something in my book, Phil. Maybe that makes me old-fashioned. But I have no patience for people who aren't willing to back up their words with deeds, come hell or high water.
Posted by: ERNurse on August 31, 2005 08:34 PMWe've got a lot of theories out there but the truth is no one knows except McGavick. Perhaps instead of jumping to conclusions we should give this some time and see what his intentions are. Perhaps they really do need him right now? Perhaps he really has found some good support? WHO KNOWS!? Chill!!!!
All I'm saying is that I don't think McGavick plays to lose and we should stop trying to read his mind. I have hope.
Posted by: Hopeful on August 31, 2005 09:59 PM