Arizona Sen. John McCain will be in Seattle Tuesday stumping for Mike McGavick.
The current and future Senators will be on the John Carlson show at 3pm and at a benefit dinner on Tuesday evening.
Okay, I realize that calling Mike McGavick a future Senator is an optimistic opinion, not a fact. But according to my good friends at The Stranger, who I assume prefer Cantwell over McGavick, it's not an unreasonable forecast.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 20, 2006 10:51 AM | Email ThisMcGavick is a competent but uninspiring candidate only marginally different than Cantwell on the issues that will get out the conservative vote. "Anybody but Cantwell" won't be enough.
His militant stance against the initiative process combined with his pro-choice persona in an increasingly blue state fails to provide reasons for conservative voters to support him; centrist voters (left-leaning in this state) will be less inclined to help keep Republicans in control of the Senate by supporting M. He cannot win by out-democrating the democrats.
Prediction: Cantwell... by 4%.
Posted by: Hinton on March 20, 2006 11:41 AMUnfortunately, it turned out to be the highlight of his career, his time in the Senate having been spent sabotaging the Republican Party and violating the Constitution (see McCain/Feingold).
Mike McGavick spent a little more time than that on Slade Gorton's staff where he assisted the erstwhile Senator who attacked Reagan appointees, including Robert Bork and, later, gave rubber-stamp approval to Clinton appointees, including Ruth Bader Ginsberg, campaigned to repeal the Reagan tax cuts, cast the deciding vote abandoning the Central American Freedom Fighters, and voted against every Religious Liberty measure that came before the Senate, all the while posturing as "our conservative Senator."
On (McGavick committee member) John Carlson's show Mike said Slade was the local politician he most admired. Sounds like the highlight of McGavick's career.
This, friends, is a match made in heaven.
Posted by: Doug Parris on March 20, 2006 12:03 PMhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002874923_obama19m.html
The senator was making other stops in town Saturday to raise money for Sen. Maria Cantwell, who sponsored the "Innovations in Education" event. Up for re-election, she faces Republican Mike McGavick and Green Party candidate Aaron Dixon in November's election.
Note how the Times chose to report what happened:
Cantwell had a harder time deflecting the protesters. At the start of her speech, some stood up in the bleachers and yelled over her words, holding up a banner.
King County Executive Ron Sims stepped up to the podium and started chanting Cantwell's name.
The crowd joined in, and the protesters were drowned out.
Get that? The protestors were drowned out.
Now let's see what the Stranger put up:
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/archives/2006/03/19-25.php#a004917 {Scroll down to read it}
Cantwell seemed flustered, and embarrassed to have brought her superstar Senate colleague all the way across the country for an anti-war ambush. As the protesters chanted, she made the standard stalling remarks about what a great country this is for allowing such dissent, and then said it was time to move on, that she wasn't there to talk about the war, but rather about education.
That didn't move the protesters, who kept chanting, and with the event teetering on the verge of collapse, King County Executive Ron Sims had to spring out of his seat on the dais and lead the crowd in a counter-chant of “Cantwell, Cantwell!” That gave Cantwell's handlers enough time to hustle the protesters out of the gym,
See the difference? Had this been a Bush event the headline in the Times would have been "Bush speech disrupted; Protestors removed from audience". Featuring comments from the people kicked out of their building and thinly veiled language as to how fascist the GOP is.
Same thing on dem side (and the moonbats deserved it, in any case), and not a word. This is why the lib media is trash.
If anyone doubts McGavick's conservative beliefs then they haven't been listening to his campaign stump speeches or they've been willfully ignorant of his campaign.
I'm assuming that Doug Parris, M&M, Bill and Hinton will be voting for McGavick this November, assuming of course he's the Republican nominee after the primary.
Some of the aforementioned posters intimated that McGavick was "pro-choice". Oh really? Is that why everyone on the left side of the spectrum are writing and warning about what a dangerous "right-wing pro-lifer" he is. If the guy is going to have that millstone hung around his neck by the other side the least you ought to do is support him.
Another comment was that there was little difference between McGavick and his Democrat opponent. So do you think McGavick would have voted for or against Bush's Supreme Court appointees, Alito and Roberts? Would he vote for or against the Patriot Act? Would he be supporting our troops fighting the war against terror in Afghanistan and Iraq or would he be bad mouthing their efforts every chance he gets? I'll leave it up to later posters to point out other differences.
More importantly though, it's almost indescribable how much attention having a Republican senator in a "blue" state would get back in DC when it comes to bring federal resources back here.
Let the Democrats fritter away their votes in internecine inter-party squabbles by voting for third party candidates or by staying home because of whatever their so-called principles are.
Posted by: Reporterward on March 20, 2006 12:36 PMI visited his website, he proposes no specific changes and says stuff like "we must be willing to do whatever is necessary" followed immediately by "we can start to enact meaningful guest worker programs to allow those who wish to participate in our economy to do so in a legal and responsible way"
IE Amnesty.
Not much choice, kinda like elections in the old Soviet Union, Party Candidate A or Party Candidate B.
Will there be a Senate candidate of ANY PARTY opposed to mass immigraton and amnesty for hostile foreign invaders?
Posted by: Smitty on March 20, 2006 12:36 PMThis is what needs to happen if we want to help the republicans make the right choice. Every conservative who wants what the conservative republicans want need to join the party NOW and start volunteering as PCO or block captain. We need to make the grassroots party republican.
For the large part, those who are keeping this party together at the grassroots level are very conservative. Connect with them and start working with them to get conservative republicans elected.
McGavick is no conservative. He won't pretend to be conservative unless there is a reason to do so. Right now in politics, there is no money, no power, no interest groups who favor conservatives. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN INFLUENCE McGAVICK TO BE CONSERVATIVE ARE THE GROUND TROOPS IN THE PARTY.
If he sees that his campaign will not succeed with out the army of conservative voters getting out and enthusiastically supporting him, then he will begin courting the conservatives.
But more importantly, there ARE candidates who are conservative and who can only succeed with people supporting them on the ground. If you fail to support these because you oppose some of the republicans, then there is no hope for a conservative republican party. On the other hand, if every conservative candidate has all the support they need, then this party will become conservative.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on March 20, 2006 12:39 PMAbout McGavick supposedly being soft on immigration. Obviously you weren't one of the five hundred people at his campaign in Seattle earlier this year.
One of the three or four issues he did have time to talk about was immigration and a proposed guest worker program. He specifically said he won't support any such guest worker program until we have our borders secure.
Now campaign promises are campaign promises. All I do is report what I've heard.
So you handful of McGavick detractors have to ask yourself two questions. 1) Is McGavick just lying or trying to placate the base when he says he supports border security and 2) Maria Cantwell is doing such a good job identifying proposing solutions to the immigration problem that our state can't afford to lose her.
I don't care what The Democrats are saying
about McGavick he is Pro Choice.When McGavick
was trying get support for his run.Steve
Hammond asked him what his position was
on abortion. McGavick said and I quote I am
pro choice.
What happened was McGavick got caught with
his own words that time. That's why he told
the Seattle Times the exact opposite.He is
very clever at taking non position postions.
What pathetic interview with hill paper.
He spent 10 minutes articulating nothing.
You want to resort to name calling you
go right ahead.But don't you ever question
my integrity.We saw it differently that
doesn't mean anyone was lying.
Street address:
Mike McGavick for U.S. Senate
501 8th Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98109
Mail address:
Mike McGavick for U.S. Senate
P.O. Box 9247
Seattle, WA 98109
Phone: (206) 838-7479
Fax: (206) 838-1158
Email: info@mikemcgavick.com
Invite Mike to an Event: schedule@mikemcgavick.com
(I should be getting paid for this. Or at least get some reduced rates on property insurance).
Had this been a Bush event the protestors _would never have made it in to the event_. That's the difference. Anyone disrupting an event of that sort would naturally be asked to leave if they don't desist, or removed if they refused.
Posted by: Daniel K on March 20, 2006 06:48 PMI'm sure Stefan, Matt, et al will comment on this later but I couldn't wait.
Even the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is dumping on Cantwell for being "wedded to a stay-the-course strategy in Iraq" and having "lost touch with her constituents on the central foreign policy issue".
Granted my friends on the Seattle PI editorial board are usually dead-wrong about every issue but they do have a pretty good hand on the pulse of the average fringe-lefty who can't afford to buy the paper in the PI's rump Roxbury-to-Ravenna circulation zone.
Let their side eat their own for a change.
And my apologies for dominating so much of this post guys...
Posted by: Reporterward on March 20, 2006 08:16 PMAs the election closes in, the PI and the other ultra-leftists will get into lockstep with Cantwell. While she may not be espousing all of their issues, the points you bring out, specifically that she's "wedded to a stay-the-course strategy in Iraq" and having "lost touch with her constituents on the central foreign policy issue" again will NOT provide them or anyone else on the left to vote for someone who by definition must continue to support the President's policies as a condition of his election. Locally, Don Carlson was a case in point. The WEA, sensing the possibility that the d's could retake the senate, dumped him like a bad habit, even tho he'd been carrying their water like Gunga Din for the entirety of his career. Thus, the left will continue to support Cantwell, if for no other reason then the possibility that they MAY retake the Senate.
I've heard McGavick speak... he was down here for our Lincoln Day Dinner. Thus, my characterization of him as "uninspiring." And I am much more concerned about what HE has to say then what his staffers say for him.
There aren't many things we need to hear. But those things we DO need to hear (Fiscal conservatism, support for the will and the voice of the people, restraint on abortion and the like) he must say and inculcate into his platform. Since none of that is likely... chances are many, far too many... will be sitting this one out.
Will I vote for him? Probably. But I won't give him money, doorbell or work my ass off putting signs up for him.
Because he must earn that effort from me... I don't know him, I have no emotional buy-in, and in the end, he's seeming much more like Cantwell then he is different from her on the core issues that matter to me.
Posted by: Hinton on March 20, 2006 09:57 PMMike's postion is clear, though it is intended to deceive. He is taking the self-destructive position that he Bush administration took long ago. Secure borders, open immigration.
Once we have SECURE BORDERS, which can be erected without deporting anyone, we give every illegal already inside a "temporary RENEWABLE guest permit" so they can "participate legally" and nothing has to change. Anyone who wants in can no longer sneak in (because we would then have SECURE BORDERS) but why would they want to sneak in when they can get a "temporary RENEWABLE guest permit" just for asking? So while legitmate applicants for real immigration wait in line, the cheaters are rewarded. This is now an old scam. How is it that some can't see through it??
Posted by: Doug Parris on March 21, 2006 01:26 AMIf he wants to tailor his message to "moderates", let him. I, however, am no longer going to waste time supporting a man who'll be a Democrat-Lite.
Posted by: Cartman on March 21, 2006 07:37 PMThe government has to make hard choices to get the deficit under control.
The federal government must once again learn to live within its means and get its fiscal house in order. Passing on an enormous deficit to our children is not helping them realize a better world.
Congress must reform the practice of earmarking special funds for home state pet projects that the entire country need not pay for.
Above all, raising taxes is not the answer to fixing the nation’s fiscal problems.
Mike believes:
The United States is at a critical point in its history. America can either help turn the tide of radical terrorism against those who would do us harm, or retreat and let countries like Iraq turn into the worst hotbeds for terrorists that the world has ever known.
American forces will come home when the job in Iraq is finished – setting a timetable would simply give America's enemies an advantage.
America must remain vigilant in the War on Terror and with the cooperation of the international community, continue to monitor and put pressure on countries like Iran and North Korea so that they comply with a peaceful, free world.
At home, America must continue its efforts to secure our homeland through steps such as fully implementing the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission.
Mike believes:
In order to secure our borders we must be willing to do whatever is necessary.
We must enact proper policies to curb the threat of terrorism.
Once we begin to effectively secure our borders, we can start to enact meaningful guest worker programs to allow those who wish to participate in our economy to do so in a legal and responsible way."
These are the issues pressing us today. These are what are critical in keeping America intact right now. I don't know if he is pro-life or pro-choice, but right now abortion is not a pressing issue in the grand scheme of things. If congress were to (although unlikely) pass a ban on abortion, the supreme court would overrule it 5(Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, Beyer) to 4 (Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito). It is my personal belief that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and left up to the states to decide.
Since I am not a one issue (abortion) voter, I will cast my vote for Mike McGavick to bring a voice of fiscal restraint and national security to Washington from Washington.
Posted by: Stohn Nishino on March 21, 2006 10:06 PM