I interviewed US Senate candidate Mike McGavick today, and you can hear the result here. He made a pitch to both moderates and conservatives, and outlined why he thinks he's got a great shot at winning in November. He also shared his thoughts on how he thinks the state GOP needs to change in order to win more elections, specifically in regards to the issues it focuses on. Anyone planning to vote in November should listen to this interview.
Another highlight was his endorsement of the Internet-driven Porkbusters project, previously discussed on this site by Jim Miller. I discuss that in more detail at my personal site here.
On a vaguely related note, you might be interested in a new project my wife and I have just started called Past Cast, a weekly podcast "bringing history to life through the spoken, sung and written word." Our first episode is on Abraham Lincoln.
Posted by Timothy Goddard at February 15, 2006 09:31 PM | Email ThisI wonder how many more Washington politicians have their positions because their former co-workers think these pols would do less harm in elected office than working in the private sector.
Posted by: Libertarian on February 16, 2006 08:28 AM
Ladies and Gentleman these three previous
comments are pretty indicative of the problem
McGavick has.You have three comments and the
only mention of McGavick is by someone who
isn't even old enough to vote.And in the 10
hour period this story has been posted that's
all that has been said about McGavick.
One more time Susan is not running. This has
nothing to with her.So you people that
continue to take shots at me should be more
concerned about who is running than who
isn't and why McGavick isn't gaining any
ground.
Washington is a blue state. It has incumbent 'Rat Senators. They don't do much except bad-mouth Bush and vote against Republican initiatives, which probably plays well with the majority of the WA state electorate. A challenger to a 'Rat incumbent really has to give a good reason to voters to throw out the 'Rat in favor of someone new. That is easier to do if the 'Rat screws up royally but Cantwell has not done that. She hasn't done much of anything, really, except bad-mouth Bush, but that is probably not enough to have people want to kick her out.
But, there is an upside. At least McGavick gets to polish his concession speech.
Posted by: Interested Observer on February 16, 2006 09:25 AMTwo top of the line Democratic Senators (Jackson and Porkbarrel Magnusson) being in office forever. Gorton said it is time to phase out one of them and replace with a younger senator, so that Washington State power (through seniority)remains after Jackson retires. Too bad it was the young Jackson that died and left us weak.
A spinoff in today's race is that "what good are two Democrat Senators when the Senate is run by Republicans?" "We need a Republican Senator in D.C. to protect our interests!" At least one.
I think that can get some Ds defecting especially when it can get pointed out that Cantwell is weak.
But, it takes someone to take their gloves off and start punching away.
Posted by: swatter on February 16, 2006 09:59 AMI agree a Republican senator would have more pull for our state. I don't think there would be continued efforts in the budget to redirect BPA surpluses to pay down the national debt (a blue state tax) if we had at least one senator who had real access to the President. But that won't play with the hate Bush crowd.
Posted by: Palouse on February 16, 2006 10:35 AMIf I may... remind everyone that it was in 1973, Prez Jimmy “inflation is good,” Carter, signed the “ANWAR OIL RESERVE ACT”
Who's Phil Spackman?
Posted by: Cliff on February 16, 2006 11:02 AMBeyond that, every penny Cantwell spends on this race is a penny the Dems can't spend on legislative races. And beyond that, McGavick is sure to be popular in some districts represented by Democrats, and his coattails there may help us take back the legislature even if he doesn't win. Washing your hands of the whole thing just because the odds are long is just silly.
Swatter's got the right idea regarding how Cantwell can be beat, and if you listen to the interview, that's the strategy McGavick is taking.
One thing, though, about McGavick that a lot of people here won't like is that he's going to be much, much nicer to Cantwell than they would prefer.
Posted by: Timothy on February 16, 2006 11:14 AMGood for business, bad for politics.
Posted by: husky93 on February 16, 2006 11:30 AMIn Timothy's interview Mike hints at being an environmentalist, (which he can play two ways politically) but gives no hint of curbing the business-destroying, land-grabbing environmentalist Washington State juggernaut. Indeed, his plan is "more local control." While he wants to make that sound like Federalism, as a practical matter ask yourself the following question: "Who is more likely to take my property rights - George Bush bureaucrats or Christine Gregoire and Ron Sims bureaucrats?" McGavick articulates no principle that tells us where he stands on the substantive issues. But his background does.
Federalism? No way. He thinks we can make headway with the electorate on the education issue by furthering the destruction of Federalism. He endorses Ted Kennedy's education program and begins to reveal his roots as an Outcome Based Education activist in the early '90s (when he helped destroy State Education through HB 1209 and when Slade (with Mike on staff) supported Clinton’s destructive federal education initiative). Mike wants MORE FEDERAL CONTROL in education. That is his answer!
Mike touts his viability with Democrats by (legitimately) mentioning his support for Cultural Marxism under the code-word "diversity." Affirmative Action (with its hidden discrimination) has no enemy in Mike.
His answer to PORK is "principled spending" under which he asserts Washington State will get plenty of Federal money. And he endorses the mantra of all "moderates" in both Parties who pretend to "fiscal conservatism": efficiency! We can do all the Democrats want to do with Government, we just will do it more efficiently!
The only limit he has proposed to Government is trust in Mike McGavick to "make the right choice."
Finally, we see who Mike McGavick really is in his fawning approval of two politicians: former Democrat Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Lieberman and John "screw the First Amendment, I will control political speech" McCain.
Case Closed.
http://www.acuratings.org/statedelegation.asp?state=wa
Posted by: Palouse on February 16, 2006 12:26 PMI get the sense that these posters are Cantwell supporters looking to appear "helpful" and worried about how vulnerable the senator is since her support numbers are weak and her resume of accomplishments is non existent.
Mike can win. He has the money, the resume, and the (to use a MSMS word) gravitas. Once his messages hit the media he's going to make Maria look like a mousey little malcontent who can't get anything accomplished.
Serious conservatives should take a good look at Mike McGavick and support him. Conservatives in this state are capable of voting Cantwell out. They just need a reason to and Mike fills that bill.
Posted by: Johnny on February 16, 2006 01:34 PMPhil Spackman is the guy who posted a comment immediately after my first post on this thread. He mentions somebody named Susan, and I don't know who he's talking about.
Posted by: Libertarian on February 16, 2006 02:14 PMSerious conservatives should take a good look at Mike McGavick and support him. Conservatives in this state are capable of voting Cantwell out. They just need a reason to and Mike fills that bill.
Johnny, what you have said more or less parallels what Doug said, just using kinder words. Are you a Cantwell lurker?
Posted by: huckleberry on February 16, 2006 02:47 PM
The Susan I am refering to is Susan Hutchison.
Will just leave it at that.Other than to say
she is a conservative.
I know who both 'Susan' and 'Phil Spackman' are.
It was a rhetorical question.
Posted by: Cliff on February 16, 2006 08:20 PMLet McGavick get his ducks lined up. I don't think the unknown Cantwell was as close as McGavick was at the same time.
If McGavick has gravitas as a poster said, it should be a McGavick runaway.
Posted by: swatter on February 17, 2006 07:42 AMThe multitude of polls showing excellent Cantwell numbers is bearing this out: What compelling reason is there for the voters in a Democratic state to oust a moderate Democratic female senator? (After all, if you're honest with yourselves and look at the numbers from the 04 Gov race, it's pretty clear that Rossi didn't really come close to winning, rather Gregoire came close to losing by virtue of running a historically poor campaign.)
So, can a blindingly rich insurance exec beat a Cantwell? Not in this state, in the current political atmosphere, and with McG's very heavy Safeco baggage that will come to light soon enough. His biggest dilemna, however, is the new campaign finance law that essentially prevents him from funding his own campaign without doubling the amount that contributors can give to Cantwell. He's forced, then to attract national R money - and that Bush/Cheney/Delay/Abramoff/Ken Lay stuff doesn't smell so good in these parts.
Bye.
Posted by: Blunder on February 17, 2006 04:42 PMNobody.
But at least I know it. Phil doesn't.
Posted by: Cliff on February 17, 2006 07:42 PMOn the Abramoff thing, if I were you I wouldn't be too eager to grapple with that tarbaby, you just might get stuck. Did you know that the beloved Patty Murray and the sainted Maria Cantwell also raked in Abramoff cash? Sure, it was filtered through Indian tribes, and to Cantwell's credit those funds were then donated to charity rather than being banked. But not-a-rocket-scientist Murray is keeping the dough. Murray says returning it would "taint" the tribes who donated it. Yeah, sure, just like refusing stolen goods from a fence would "taint" the fence. How stupid is that? Then again, Murray has never been what you'd call a mental giant. But Murray and Cantwell will get a pass, because they're 'Rats, whereas McGavick, who has never been accused of taking Abramoff cash, will be hounded about it because he's guilty by association (that "R" after his name).
Posted by: Interested Observer on February 20, 2006 06:06 AMWhile McGavick doesn't have the direct-from-Abramhoff problem, he will indeed be guilty by association as the people who got money directly from him are almost exclusively Republicans.
Is it fair? Who knows. All I can say is Democrats were similarly tarred by any association with former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski who was stealing stamps and bouncing checks at the House Bank. He was the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee so anyone who had business with that committee had business with him. The R's did a great job of implying involvement in the "scandal" by any Democrat who'd ever written a letter to Chairman Rostenkowski or, worse yet, had a picture with him. It was masterful, if entirely deceitful.
The bottom line is 2006 is not going to be a good year for run-of-the-mill Republicans with no compelling answer to the question: What's Maria done so wrong to offend the majority of voters in this blue state in a year that's looking worse and worse for R's by the day?
McGavick is toast.
Posted by: Blunder on February 20, 2006 12:01 PMHow is "Conservatives in this state are capable of voting Cantwell out" at all like the numerous posters who say "McGavick won't come close" because this is a "blue state" (which I guess it is if you live in King County and never leave it.)
How can opposite things mean the same thing?
Aww, they're so cute when they've just emerged from their liberal cocoon. Reality, alas, is going to deal harshly with this one, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Timothy on February 20, 2006 07:41 PMThis from the former Chief of Staff of one of our great "porkers"!
Oh, the irony . . .
Mr. Goddard, you can and will believe what you want about 2000 and 2004. However, I'd be willing to place a friendly wager that at the end of the evening of November 7, McGavick will have 44 or 45 percent, less if there is a third party. I welcome the R's public portrayal of this race as a "winnable". It's what must be said at this stage. Every expert observer who's analyzed this race (and you're likely not one of them) suggests this will be a long, brutally expensive, and fruitless slog for McGavick. Hell, even Slade Gorton has said so publicly!
Further, McGavick has a terribly difficult choice to make about where he will get the money - some $20 million - to match Cantwell's fundraising abilities and re-elect numbers. With R seats all over the country in jeopardy, this seat will not, come August, be a high priority for national money. And that, my friend, will be the that.
McGavick's move to Capitol Hill from the Highlands will have been for naught but a little ego stroke.
Posted by: Blunder on February 20, 2006 10:58 PMSo the question may not come down so much to "what has Cantwell done wrong" more than, what has Cantwell done right? Do the voters of WA state just want a Senator who does nothing wrong, or do they want a Senator who, aside from doing nothing wrong, actually gets something done?
I have to tell you, honestly, that from my observations of national politics over the years, Washington State has had little or no clout in DC (and I think that may have been another factor in Rossi's lack of interest in running for a Senate seat). I don't know why that is, but the fact is that for a good number of years now the state has sent to DC Senators who were not only in the minority party, they were particularly ineffective as members of that minority party. If all you want is a couple of shrills who do nothing but bad-mouth Bush, then, well, fine, stick with what you've got. Butr it seems to me that such a strategy is counterproductive.
Posted by: Interested Observer on February 21, 2006 05:13 AMAs I noted before, the WA state Repubs had to do the best they could once Rossi turned down the chance to run against Cantwell. Everyone knows that McGavick was on the "B" team, but you've got to go with someone. I'm not sure that running a fat-cat corporate CEO is the best choice, but he is known in the community and brings some political experience (non-elected, granted) to the race. He has centrist positions on some issues and that may sway some of the moderate vote. He may also be able to keep a sizable portion of conservatives in his camp. Will that be enough? My instinct says no, but then again, Rossi won his race going against conventional wisdom, which had Fraudoire a heavy favorite. I think Cantwell is a much better campaigner than thieving Fraudoire, so that will make it a more difficult run for McGavick, but, like I said, all you can do is try.
Posted by: Interested Observer on February 21, 2006 06:30 AM