1. That's Joni for ya. Collects samples from her echo chamber and throws it out there as the voice of the masses. Notice how everything conservative, GOP-related is 'wildly unpopular' but oh, those $30 car tabs? "Dumb"

Thanks for reminding my why I don't bother to read Balter's columns. Now, can I have my five minutes back?

Posted by: jimg on February 28, 2006 09:55 AM

2. If McGavick's performance when he talked to us at Farm Bureau Legislative Days down in Oly a few weeks ago is any guide, I would say not just 'pretty good' but 'very good'. I believe it is fair to say that all us Farm Bureau activists were significantly impressed; not just with the words he said; but also with the way he said them and how he interacts with people on a personal level. To put it simply, he comes across as a nice guy with a strong, focused message who knows what he is talking about.... gee....: Kind of like a guy who won the last race for Gov twice.

Posted by: Methow Ken on February 28, 2006 09:58 AM

3. It would take a candidate to throw his support behind Al Qaeda for me to vote for Cantwell. He's got a chance. Great. He's got my vote. Wake me up when the race is over.

Posted by: Palouse on February 28, 2006 10:02 AM

4. Ah, it appears that we once again are engaging in wishful thinking. McGavick, while smart and witty, is simply going through the motions. Cantwell has made a name for herself by standing up to Ted Stevens, something that seems to have energized Cantwell's base. It hasn't helped that Senator Stevens has been bitter and vindictive recently. With Cantwell going against someone who acts like mean, nasty, tempermental old man, it has only served to make Cantwell into a sort of hero.

McGavick is a good guy, but he can't compete against that. Prediction: We're toast this fall. Better to work to replace Patty Murray.

Posted by: Realistic Republican on February 28, 2006 10:03 AM

5. barnes loses a lot of credibility as a pure partisan hack when he writes propoganda like this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307336492/ref=ase_httpwwwandrec-20/102-1596494-3956945?n=283155&tagActionCode=httpwwwandrec-20

but barnes does make an especially interesing point about washington state: too many environmentalists, not enough evangelical chrisitians.

mcgavic has some fine qualities. let's see if the voters agree.

Posted by: dinesh on February 28, 2006 10:07 AM

6. Writing an opinion piece makes one a partisan hack, eh dinesh? Fine. Your opinion has just been noted.

Posted by: Danny on February 28, 2006 10:10 AM

7. I agree with the comments about Ted Stevens. His silly vendetta against Maria Cantwell is doing nothing but turn her into a hero with Washington voters who are against drilling in ANWAR. I wish someone would just tell him to put a cork in it. I really like what I am hearing from McGavick, and this may be picky, but I wish he could lower his voice a pitch when speaking publicly. Media bites are the all important tool in a campapign, and his voice is so high pitched, it almost appears as a weakness.

Posted by: katomar on February 28, 2006 10:13 AM

8. I wonder how the Clinton beast will sound when she is running for President for months on end. She has been working on her Dean voice and is actually getting better at it.

Gore and Kerry did so well because they had that deep voice that lulled many of the masses to sleep.

Voice presentation is very important.

Gravitas is needed. If he keeps his cool, then he has a shot.

Posted by: swatter on February 28, 2006 10:27 AM

9. To her credit, Cantwell *has* stood up for the state. Far more than can be said for Patty. IMO, Maria will be hard to beat.

Still, as long as McGavick stays positive and articulates his message well (Nethercutt was never able to do either), he might have a chance. Forget getting anything more than 25% in King County, though.

Posted by: Steve_dog on February 28, 2006 10:30 AM

10. It's doubtful that McGavick can beat the Democrat machine that is heavily invested in clinging to the Blue states at all costs. But, it has been amusing to read Goldstein's posts where he's gotten all excited about his discovery that McGavick is a Republican.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 28, 2006 10:36 AM

11. Allow me to give Ms. Balter similiar advice:
If Joni looked and acted more like a Republican, the circulation of the rag she works for would improve.....instead of being in it's current "free-fall" status.
Practice what you preach Joni!
Typical LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWN would think about deceiving and misrepresenting yourself as a path to victory. Victory at any cost, right Joni?

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on February 28, 2006 10:58 AM

12. danny:

coming in at 224 pages, barnes' book is one long opinion piece.

Posted by: dinesh on February 28, 2006 11:04 AM

13. So what? He states a premise, then sets out to support his premise. Your comment served no purpose except to pull the curtain back on your own biases.

Posted by: Danny on February 28, 2006 11:34 AM

14. Cantwell has been under the radar/stayed in hiding most of her time in DC - suddenly it's election time and her head pops up against ANWAR - whoop de do. She's singing to her own choir, who'd vote for anyone as long as they could prevent someone that DIDN'T have a 'D' after their name.

Posted by: Cheryl on February 28, 2006 11:40 AM

15. 'McGavick is a protégé of Gorton' Well then if he wins, he wins and nothing changes. Gorton -vs- Cantwell not a heck of a lot of difference there, so in other words it doesn't make much difference which one wins.

Posted by: JDH on February 28, 2006 12:14 PM

16. McGavick will be lucky to do better than Nethercutt. If Stevens wants to come down to Washington State to campaign against Cantwell, I suspect the Democrats will be glad to foot the bill.

Posted by: wayne on February 28, 2006 12:38 PM

17. McGavick will have to do better than "articulating a conservative message in a way that speaks to both the Republican base and to independent voters". He'll have to believe it an support it. From what I've heard so far, he's not all that conservative.

I think Barnes got it wrong. It's not that there aren't enough evangelical Christians, it's that there's no one they really want to vote for. So let's hear all the memes about 'the religious right', 'evangelicals', and hey, just say what you really think 'right-wing whackos'. I still can't believe how many Republicans repeat that garbage.

My personal opinion: we've been burned too many times by people who talk a good, conservative game, then show up on the field and run to the left.

Posted by: Republican (by default) on February 28, 2006 01:37 PM

18. Sorry, JDH, you are wrong on this one.

What in the world do you think our State influence is in DC? Zip, nada, zilch. Why not?

Think about it! A couple of whacko Dem Senators in a Republican White House and a Republican Senate and a Republican House of Representatives.

If for nothing else, we need at least one Republican Senator so our State's influence gets a little better. Ignore politics, we need a Republican.

Posted by: swatter on February 28, 2006 01:41 PM

19. Sure McGavick could win, but it would probably require an unlikely comibnation of events, one of which would probably have to be some cataclysmic event that wiped about 3 or 4 Seattle neighborhoods completely off the map.

Posted by: Vexorg on February 28, 2006 02:08 PM

20. I will never vote for an insurance executive.

SAFECO 's turn around is partly based on their aggressive policy of dropping homeowner's policies after a single claim.

I will vote for Maria

Posted by: Huskey93 on February 28, 2006 02:35 PM

21. Stevens is ardently representing his constituency, the majority of which wants the drilling in ANWR. That same majority also dislikes limo liberals from other states like Cantwell, Pelosi, Kennedy et al who have never been to ANWR and likely never will telling them how they should manage their own state.

Posted by: Palouse on February 28, 2006 03:17 PM

22. Palouse - I need to disagree slightly. ANWR is a federal reserve. Stevens "extorts" money from the oil companies to hand out to Alaskan residents at the other 49 states' expense. This really is a tax on a type of business. Big Box stores come to mind in this state for a "special" tax?

Posted by: fred on February 28, 2006 03:45 PM

23. Hey Vexorg: The only "cataclysmic event" that will help McGavick get elected is an election that's legal . . . and I don't see that happening as long as Sims, his buddies and the Demorats in Olympia (and that scum Reed) are in control. Which is to say probably not in our lifetime.

Posted by: Steve-O on February 28, 2006 04:09 PM

24. I see no problem with Alaska residents getting dividends from their oil revenues. It's much like how WA residents get the benefit of BPA power rates at a lower cost than market rates. Perhaps if McGavick is elected, the Republican administration will stop going after that little subsidy.

Yes ANWR is a federal reserve, but allocating part of federal reserves for commercial purposes is certainly not unprecedented, and in this case (I believe) warranted.

Posted by: Palouse on February 28, 2006 04:16 PM

25. Recent King 5 poll shows Cantwell up by 30% over McGavick (+/- 5%), and she is at 55% support - well above the 50% mark. No, I am not making this up. I just can't find a link to it. Anyone registered to King 5's website who can post a link? I think Rep. campaign cash is better spent elsewhere this year.

Posted by: Claire on February 28, 2006 04:43 PM

26. Sample size for that Elway poll was around 400 people, half the sample size for the Strategic Vision poll.

Posted by: Palouse on February 28, 2006 04:55 PM

27. Claire -

Polling by reputable firms (not Elway with a 400 person statewide sample) has McGavick down slightly under double digits. That's actually pretty good for a Republican challenger this early in a thus far low-profile race.

Elway's polls, especially with small sample sizes, are notoriously unpredictable. A thirty point lead is laughable since it's over double the highest gap in any other recent poll, and I know of at least 3 others besides Elway in the past month or so (Zogby, Rasmussen, & Strategic Vision).

Personally, I'd like to see Survey USA do one soon. They had an outstanding record of accuracy nationwide in 2004 and had the Rossi race well-pegged. I think King 5 and a station in Spokane teamed up in '04 to use Survey USA the last couple months of the election.

Posted by: Eric Earling on February 28, 2006 05:25 PM

28. Palouse - It may be true that we have cheaper electricity than market, I'm not sure of the details. But if it is federal than that is wrong too. Federal is ALL 50 states', not the one it happens to be located. All of those transactions are wrong.

If federal parks charged local state residence less than out of state that would be deemed ridiculous. It belongs to all of us, we should all be treated equally.

Posted by: fred on February 28, 2006 05:26 PM

29. R by D -

God forbid we elect a Republican who can at worst vote for a Republican majority leader and actually have a better seat at the table to look out for specific Washington state interests in a Republican Congress.

I believe we've disagreed in the past, and don't want to belabor those battles too much, but think it's fair to note your assessment about the impact of evangelical Christians in this state is wrong.

Now before you start claiming I'm calling you a right wing wacko, let me first say I am an evangelical Christian, though perhaps not quite what you'd call one. I don't think you're a wacko, I just think you're wrong.

That being said, I think evangelicals are an important force in Republican primary races. But they do not have critical mass in Washington state to tip statewide elections (or elections in many swing districts).

Republicans have to get votes from solid conservatives like evangelicals, votes from more moderate Republicans, and votes from independent voters (and even some Democrats) to win such races. I seem to recall you'd disagree with that, but if you were right, we wouldn't see so many races like Gorton and Rossi where there is a dramatic dropoff between those two candidates and the percentage of the vote received by other statewide Republican candidates, not to mention legislative and Congressional candidates.

Posted by: Eric Earling on February 28, 2006 05:33 PM

30. Fair enough fred, however if you are going to start taking back all state perks that result from federal sources of land, you'll be pretty busy repealing legislation and changing state laws.

Also keep in mind that ANWR was not federal land until the feds passed legislation making it so. It may belong to "all of us", but my personal opinion is that Alaska's residents' opinions count more.

Posted by: Palouse on February 28, 2006 05:37 PM

31. I have a short analysis on this topic you may find relevant titled, "The Battle for Washington Voters"

Also, see this thread for an interesting note about the supposed "lock-tight base" of Maria Cantwell.

Especially relevant to Palouse's comment is this quote in the Senate record:

"I understand the Senator from Alaska thinks this ANWR provision is in the interest of some, because I think it is in Alaska's interest. In 2005, petroleum counted for 86 percent of the State of Alaska's general revenues--86 percent of their State revenues. In fact, according to a published article, State officials expect that at least until 2013, 74 percent of Alaska's general purpose revenues will come from oil revenues. So I get why the State of Alaska cares so much. In fact, CBO recently calculated that Alaska will get $5 billion in revenue from this legislation if it is passed. Of course Alaska cares about this. Of course Alaska would hold up the legislative process and keep us here extra days to get this bill passed and get ANWR in by hook or crook, any possible way. Of course they would.

But don't say that this is in the national interest. What is in the national interest of our country is to get over our overdependence on foreign oil. We need to start doing that now, as well as get off of our overdependence on domestic oil and fossil fuels in general. Instead of implementing this Arctic drilling program, we ought to be implementing policies that help us diversify and move forward, so people can have affordable energy rates in this country and not be held hostage by these special interests."

Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on February 28, 2006 09:36 PM

32. Not only is McGavick going to pick up more votes in Seattle, he's going to do the same thing in Clark County. This guy has been GREAT about coming down here and making contact with the GOP base, and he's made it clear that considerable campaigning efforts will be made in this area.

Compare that to Cantwell, who pays very little attention to SW WA, and I can easily see Mike doing really well down here. I've had the pleasure of speaking with him a few times, and he's quite impressive.

Now if only Dino had paid more attention to SW WA. Sigh...

R

Posted by: Randy Mueller on March 1, 2006 12:00 AM

33. Why is a King 5 on-line poll important?

First off, it's a Seattle thing. Seattle is not Washington state. (Though Seattle-ites tend to forget that.)

Second, it's an on-line poll. On-line poll are just about always WILDLY inaccurate.

Posted by: johnny on March 1, 2006 05:48 AM

34. So Swatter,
What good did 'ol Fishstick do while he was there. I say support great Senate candidates, even if they are from another State, instead of half-assed ones, even if they are from yours. 'Republicans' have caused me more consternation than any Democrat.

Posted by: JDH on March 1, 2006 08:33 AM

35. Patrick, you Ds ought to see the light. You need to do both. If you aren't able to compromise a little by allowing ANWAR, you are setting yourself up for a rude awakening when the oil supplies really get tight. Then, you will have drilling all over, including the Sound and Eastern Washington.

JDH, he was an R vote. He did good things on the national defense. He also did enough for fishing rights for non-tribal fishermen that the Indian tribes spent big money to defeat him (that has to count for something).

And don't forget the Absent in Action Senator Murray when Bush recently proposed cutting off subsidies for our cheap power. Gorton played a big hand in stopping that.

So, you blame him for being too collegian? Okay, I'll buy that, but when he first went to office it was as a minority member of the Senate. That inferiority complex never left him.

Posted by: swatter on March 1, 2006 08:46 AM

36. I'll second what swatter said. There is a much longer list of issues one could cite for Slade, but swatter touches on an issue that is too often lost at some in the base who freak out everytime there is a compromise on an issue they care about: the Senate by nature and rule operates on consenus.

It doesn't matter if you have a strong majority, if you just try and consistently ramrod issues through then a determined minority (even a determined handful of Senators) can shut the Senate down lickety split. By design of the Founders and by evolution of its own rules, the Senate requires compromise. Granted, the base hates compromise but that's the reality of governing.

All that doesn't detract from criticism of the like of Linc Chaffee, the ladies from Maine, etc.; but the continued pounding of Senators for taking votes not totally in line with the base is nonsensical given that the Senate majority can rarely enact its will uncontested.

And as a footnote, it's worth noting that in his last several years Slade was Counsel to the Majority Leader, meaning he had a key position of influence. That meant on Washington state issues such as BPA, Snake River dams, etc. we had an oustanding seat at the table. And on national issues such as budget restraint and more limited gov't that Congress pushed Clinton on in the '90's Slade was an influential figure. So yeah, it was really helpful that we lost that JDH.

Posted by: Eric Earling on March 1, 2006 09:52 AM

37. But losing the R when it is in the majority is even a bigger travesty.

McGavick needs to start hammering on that issue now, or maybe it is his stratergery to wait till after Labor Day like Gorton did against Magnusson.

Posted by: swatter on March 1, 2006 10:40 AM

38. There may be a Republican backlash brewing - thanks to the plummeting approval ratings of Bush. However, there is an equal and opposite Democrat backlash in WA State because of the 2004 Governor election outcome and what has happened in Olympia since then and throw in the sour taste about the way Cantwell was elected in the first place. This could be the wave McGavick needs to capitalize on and ride to oust Cant-do-well, who has done little more than flatulated in her term.

Posted by: KS on March 1, 2006 03:03 PM

39. Just give it up.

This is simply not a Republican year. Politics are somewhat cyclical and this isn't a republican year.

A republican can't win over Cantwell this year. Especially an Insurance Executive.

So save your energy for 2008. Perhaps things would turn around our direction.

Perhaps then, we will have a candidate worth fighting for.

Posted by: Gene on March 5, 2006 11:10 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?