I attended last night's McGavick for Senate campaign fundraiser with Sen. John McCain (I sat at the press table in the back). The video of the speeches should be available on the campaign webcast page at some point. It will be worth watching.
I managed to catch a few minutes one-on-one with both Sen. McCain and Mike McGavick.
Here's the audio of my two minutes with Sen. McCain. (I asked him how he thought the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reforms have been working; I also asked him what we should be doing about Iran).
Here are audio clips of my brief interview with McGavick.
1) Elaborates on why he views Sen. McCain as a role model; also comments on McCain's campaign finance reforms
2) His thoughts on reining in runaway federal spending
3) His position on abortion.
For other reports on the McGavick/McCain event: Neil Modie of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Patrick Bell of PLU CRs
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 22, 2006 10:43 AM | Email This Now that's a very interesting response he
gave you about a abortion. I wish you would
asked McGavick why then he told Steve Hammond
he was pro choice.This is the problem with
McGavick he tells one person one thing and
somebody else another story.He asks us trust
him.How can we?
McGavick says he wants to reduce the number of abortions by changing people's hearts and minds and by encouraging them to make different choices, not through coercion. That sounds like a pretty clear, consistent and reasonable position to me.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 22, 2006 11:09 AM I think you know Steve Hammond well enough
to know he wouldn't make something like that
up.Don't take my word for it ask steve
yourself. Then will see who is consistent
about there positions.
I'll continue to vote R, but only because the democrats are a bunch of lying weasels.
Posted by: Dan on March 22, 2006 12:51 PMEasy, if he votes anywhere close to McCain, he's a far better choice for conservatives than Cantwell.
McCain voted far more in favor of conservative positions than he voted against them. He scored an 83 (out of 100) on the scale by that conservative rating organization.
Conversely, Cantwell voted on the complete opposite end of the spectrum, scoring an 8 (out of 100).
Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2006 12:52 PMHe isn't even worth that much energy to even discuss.
Suffice to say that with a RINO opportunist like John McCann supporting him, it sure shows McGavick's true colors regarding where he is really coming from.
Sure, McGavick isn't as bad a candidate as Pro Castro Term Limit Traitor Nethercutt, but this is not going to be a Republican year and I do think people underestimate the hatred out there for the insurance industry - justified or not.
Posted by: Hank on March 22, 2006 01:04 PMI disagree with McGavick on some things (more than I disagree with McCain, I think), but someone who agreed entirely with me would likely not have much of a shot of winning in this state.
Palouse has it right on, although that rating is misleading. Look a the very top of the list: McCain got a negative score for voting against HR 2673 (a spending bill), but in fact, McCain voted against it because it was not fiscally conservative *enough*.
Not to say all of his positions are like that. His vote on requiring safety devices on guns is not very conservative, for example. Still, the rating is misleading (as all are prone to be).
Randy Mueller
Candidate for State Representative
17th dist pos 2, GOP
www.electrandymueller.com
ps - it was good talking to you at the event, Stefan. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Randy Mueller on March 22, 2006 01:14 PMThis is simply not a Republican year. Politics do go somewhat in cycles.
It will be a Republican year again someday like it was in 1994. Until then save your energy.
This year, even if he was a good candidate he couldn't win. (But I think he is simply a RINO).
Posted by: Greg on March 22, 2006 01:17 PMAll the people who won't vote for McGavick because he's not conservative enough, or worse vote for Cantwell just to spite that fact, are idiots.
Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2006 01:18 PMYou can't fight the market. You have to respect the trend.
Same goes for politics.
Posted by: Greg on March 22, 2006 01:21 PMThe only thing that McGavick would be conservative on is some Business issues especially ones that help the insurance industry.
Otherwise, not too much different than Cantwell on the critical issues.
Yawn.
And again, not going to be a Republican year.
Posted by: Greg on March 22, 2006 01:24 PMYou are spitting in the wind.
Things will come around our direction again.
But not this year.
So, why spit in the wind?
Especially for a RINO like McGavick.
Posted by: Greg on March 22, 2006 01:26 PMThat's a self-fulfilling prophecy if I ever heard one. If enough Republicans give up on their candidates this year and save their energy for a "Republican year" then it won't be a Republican year. Ever. It will be a Republican year if we make it so.
We are the ones who make or break our candidates, not random chance or some mythical cycle. We are the ones who decide what sort of year it is going to be, and I say that this year will be a Republican year in Washington state.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on March 22, 2006 01:26 PMGreg, defeatist attitudes like that whether in politics, war, careers, relationships, whatever will always result in failure.
Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2006 01:30 PMIf you think this is going to be a Republican year, you are deceiving yourself.
And I thought that was one of the things that we criticize the Liberals for - Self deception instead of facing cold hard reality.
And there aren't that many Republicans worth fighting for anyway. Lots of RINOS but few committed conservatives.
Posted by: Greg on March 22, 2006 01:31 PMUntil then we should spend all our efforts on getting rid of the RINOs in the Republican party.
If we want to take back our state and our country we first need to take back the GOP.
Posted by: Greg on March 22, 2006 01:39 PMIt's impossible.
I will remind you after he gets destroyed in the Nov. Elections.
Posted by: Greg on March 22, 2006 01:43 PMYou are totally discounting the hatred towards insurance companies out there.
I am not going to say whether it is justified or not but the only industry less popular with the public is the tobacco industry.
That's just the cold hard fact of it.
And I thought conservatism was in part about having the courage to face cold hard reality and not to live in some land of make-believe when reality isn't to our liking.
Posted by: Hank on March 22, 2006 01:47 PMI probably won't go out knocking on doors, but he'll have my vote and a campaign contribution.
Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2006 01:52 PMThen he says that we need to change hearts so that there are fewer abortions.
Are we electing a senator or a preacher? Maybe someone should explain the job description of a senator to McGavick.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on March 22, 2006 01:56 PMHe doesn't need your contribution.
Go to the Federal Election Commission and check for yourself.
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/disclosure_data_search.shtml
He has the money.
He just doesn't have a chance.
Posted by: Hank on March 22, 2006 01:56 PMGreg, if wagering on the favorite and winning makes you feel good so you can say I told you so, save it. I don't need your sanctimony.
Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2006 01:59 PMAnd he definitely has a chance. The only way he doesn't is if he is not in the race at all.
Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2006 02:02 PMWell, I did when I was younger and the candidate was principled and cared about issues so it wasn't merely about getting a person elected but also about promoting an agenda.
But I am for the most part done tilting at windmills.
And of course McGarvick would hardly fit that bill any way. I don't see any indication that he would fight a battle for the critical issues of the day.
If he won't fight for what I care about even when the battle is uphill why would I fight an uphill battle for him. Even if a miracle happens and he wins I still lose. For he would be unwilling to to fight uphill battles on my behalf even though I fought an uphill battle on his.
Like I said, I am for the most part done helping candidates who have a slim chance of victory. I used to when the election was more than just getting a candidate elected but there was actually an important message getting out, but nowdays principled candidates are few and far between and I probably wouldn't help them as for the most part the youthful energy it takes to tilt at windmills has drained from me.
But why would I have ever tilted at windmills for an unprincipled candidate? For a candidate that wants to be elected not do really do anything, but just to be something - a Senator with the trappings that goes along with that.
And besides McGavick doesn't even have a slim chance of victory.
Posted by: Greg on March 22, 2006 02:12 PMWhy don't you take your money and take a match to it and watch it slowly burn.
You would have much more fun and it would be much more useful than donating it to McGavick.
Posted by: Hank on March 22, 2006 02:14 PMFortunately, I don't surround myself with negative people like you two (or one, who knows). I would probably be working in some dead end job and a union member.
Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2006 02:20 PMOn the other hand, the Libs simply want to frame this as a choice debate like they do with everything for political advantage, to create new victim classes, more hedonism, less responsibility, no father families, etc. and that's wrong too.
McGavik simply says, that he wants abortion to be rare and legal. The whole conflict will blow over when the Supreme Court properly addresses the issue as was not done with Roe v Wade. If anything, why not as McGavik suggests, frame the debate on when and not if abortions are legal. That satisfies both those who want abortions and those who don't like them and want to minimize them as much as possible. Also, the monrning after pill will eliminate a lot of the debate as it becomes more common and acceptable. There's not a whole lot anyone can do to prevent someone from getting a hold of this small pill and taking it in private to create what is effectively a personal abortion. And if there is any attempt to supress the morning after pill, make abortions illegal, etc. then there will be yet another illegal drug that gets smuggled in to the US, or yet another underground clinical system like those that provide steroids for athletes.
The best part about McGavik's answer though is that it diffuses the whining liberals who attempt to out McGavik about every issue that he has not vigorously stated. That's just the game of politics and it's a typical cowardly and ineffective tactic that you might see from someone on the left who has a local blog.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 22, 2006 02:43 PMSeems counterproductive if my goal is to see conservative public politics enacted.
Senator Cantwell has no influence over the State Republican party. A Senator McGavick WOULD.
That alone makes him less desirable than Cantvotewell.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 22, 2006 02:50 PMThanks for picking up the slack today.
It is nucking futs, to use a medical description, to think that McGavick is just the same as Cantwell.
The lovely thing about this race is that there are clear differences between the candidates on just about every issue.
I know there's folks who try to create more power for themselves by trying to drag down people on their own side of the fence. These are the type of people who would, politically, prefer to sit in a room with lights off so they can hear themselves complain about how dark it is.
That's simply not possible. The Republicans are in the majority because they are the Big Tent party.
I know another guy like you, just as blind, but in the other direction: he thinks the Republicans can win a majority by getting rid of the "religious right."
And "Republican (by default)": McGavick's view of abortion was essentially Lincoln's view of slavery. You don't really think Lincoln fought a war to free the slaves, do you? He was perfectly willing to let the slaves remain slaves if it meant keeping the union together.
McGavick not only has a good chance to win, he WILL win, and we will all be much better off for it.
The only people opposing McGavick are the ones who have marginilized themselves from the base of the Republican party. They are out of power in the party and their big plan is to boot as many people out of the party until such a time comes when they can take the reigns.
Sorry guys, this state is too valuable a prize to lose and this young conservative isn't going to play that game.
And as I've said, the first people to start slinging the term RINO around are always the first ones to not vote for Republicans.
Posted by: Reporterward on March 22, 2006 03:00 PMIf past elections are any indications the election is going to be decided by Dean Logan any way.
Dean Logan is going to de-facto select who wins this race and I doubt it will be in McGavick's favor.
Posted by: Ted on March 22, 2006 03:01 PMI guess someone should ask him if he would have vote for Alito and Roberts, but other than that, I don't see how his view on abortion, though it differs from mine, represents a practical problem for the advancement of my views.
Unless you consider Ted Kennedy a moderate.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 22, 2006 03:03 PMAnyway, just writing to tell you, thanks for running, and good luck. We need all the Republicans we can get in the state house. Even if they are the Mainstream ones. :-)
Posted by: pudge on March 22, 2006 03:05 PMYour people were very quick to support Mike Lowry. And I mean publicly in the Newspaper, by donating money, and in other very public ways, not only in the slience of the voting booth. And he was running against someone who was if anything no more than a moderate.
But that was before your time, right?
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 22, 2006 03:08 PMIt's been shown that McGavick will be, if he is anything like McCain (as there seems to be general agreement that he is), will vote far more with the conservative positions than not. Please either refute this, or explain why it doesn't matter, that Cantwell would be better for some other reason.
You did give one reason, saying he would have control over the state party, but that's false. Diane Tebelius is in control over the state party, and she won't let McGavick or anyone else pick the leadership. And she is chosen by the state executive committee, which is far too conservative to let someone un-conservative become the party chair.
Posted by: pudge on March 22, 2006 03:09 PM You keep saying how conservative McCain is.
A true conservative would never have crafted
a law that limits the right to free speech.
Whats even scarier is McGavick agrees with it.
Listen To stefan's interview you will see what
I mean.
Even if Republicans do get control of the government in one election they will quickly lose it in the next because people would have been expecting real change and not just more of the same liberal policies.
Pudge do all you care about is winning elections or do you actually want to see conservative policies come out of these people if they get elected?
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 22, 2006 03:11 PMBy that standard, no one in the Senate is conservative. Nor is Bush. No Child Left Behind, are you kidding me? Ted Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere? Trent Lott's riverboats? I have serious problems with some actions by every Senator in Congress. You cannot get perfection.
If there is no room in "your" Republican party for someone who can state as intelligent a position as McGavick stated (impromptu at that), then the cause is lost and we might as well just give all our property to the state and surrender our liberty all together rather than wait until it is eventually taken from us.
Posted by: srogers on March 22, 2006 03:19 PMThis is conservatism. It's not all there is to it, but by far, what I care most about right now is what McGavick most wants to do: strong security policies, win in Iraq, cut spending, keep taxes low, protect states' rights. These are McGavick's positions, these are my positions. The things we disagree on simply don't matter compared to these.
It's not merely about winning elections. I did not actively support Nethercutt because to me he seemed like just another politician who wouldn't really try to change anything. I support McGavick because he seems to me that he does want to change the things I want changed, and he furthermore seems capable of helping that change occur.
RINOS boil frogs far,far better than Liberal Democrats do, and that makes them far more dangerous.
Posted by: Conservative, not Republican on March 22, 2006 03:20 PMsecurity?
federal spending?
separation of church and state?
states' rights?
we have a rubber-stamp congress right now (although the political spin in the next few months might try to obfuscate that fact).
provided that congress remains in republican control, how does it really matter if mcgavick wins or loses? how would it affect washington (not the republican party in washington, but the state of washington and all of its people)?
Posted by: dinesh on March 22, 2006 03:23 PMWait, the Republicans have controlled Congress for the last 10 years and our President is a Republican. Yet we have been spending faster than we have since LBJ.
The fact is I don't believe McGavick when he says he will cut the budget. Even if I did, given what I have seen from the other Republicans in Congress and the President I doubt he would get very far.
But again, I don't believe he would even try. That is just campaign rhetoric and if you believe that he would "walk the walk" if he got elected then you are a dolt.
But again, he doesn't have a chance of getting elected so it is all academic.
Posted by: Conservative, not Republican on March 22, 2006 03:26 PMI could go on but I've got to run. This conservative young man has to leave the top secret confines of his Bellevue newsroom to head over and help our Republican congressman get re-elected by doing some grunt work.
Posted by: Reporterward on March 22, 2006 03:35 PMWell I hope that before you just kneejerked gave them your support you checked out their voting record. Otherwise you are part of the problem
Voting records can be checked at the following site:
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/legislature/
And also, you need to look at who is donating money to the candidate as well as WHO THEY ARE DONATING TO!
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/servlet/ContServlet
But you just kneejerk support anyone they dish out to you don't you!!!!
You are part of the problem!
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 22, 2006 03:37 PMThis is how Bush supports our troops.
How can you justify this? Isn't there some things that are more important than being a loyal republican?
If it is a choice between being a loyal American and a loyal Republican I would rather be a local American and the way that Bush has sold out the American Fighting man is disgraceful and Bush deserves the disdain of all conservatives as well as all Americans for it.
But of course, Palouse and Pudge you can't say anything unless it is a Republican talking point.
Whatever TRAITORS!
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican. on March 22, 2006 03:50 PMBTW, Bush was just the better of two evils for me.
Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2006 03:59 PMIf this is how we are going to treat the US Fighting Man we might as well leave now as we have already lost.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 22, 2006 04:02 PMWhich is it?
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 22, 2006 04:04 PMWe need to support the troops.
Bush has betrayed them.
http://www.defendthedefenders.org
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001514.htm
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 22, 2006 04:10 PMAre you suggesting that he should use the power of the Executive to circumvent the Uniform Code of Military Justice?
Posted by: Palouse on March 22, 2006 04:11 PMAnd in the meantime, we lose the war on terror, we lose our property rights and never get them back, and we create new huge social welfare programs that will never be repealed.
Sorry, not buying it.
"Do you really think that McGavick could get budget cutting measures through ... Congress"
Not by himself, no. But with McCain and others in Congress who have been deficit hawks over this time, or are renewing their interest in cutting the deficit, or coming to it for the first time ... yes. I think the time is just right for this to happen, but it will not happen without people like McGavick.
"The fact is I don't believe McGavick when he says he will cut the budget."
The fact is, I think you would say you don't believe anything he says, except for the things you disagree with, simply because you decided you don't like him, so everything he does is wrong.
"Well I hope that before you just kneejerked gave them your support you checked out their voting record."
Well, I never did kneejerk, so I could not have done anything before I did something I didn't do.
I know them personally, and yes, I know their voting records pretty well (I know Dan better than Kirk, but they both have pretty much the same voting record). I just saw Dan last week, at the Evergreen Republican Women's meeting, and he gave a fantastic talk about the last legislative session. He's strongly pro-life, pro-business, pro-property rights, and so on. You really don't get much more conservative than he is.
But if you didn't kneejerk in your attack of me, you'd already have looked at their records, and you'd already know that.
I also know Mike and Robert pretty well, and they are both good strong conservatives.
They are all four likely coming to one of my meetings sometime this spring. You're welcome to come to, as long as you're not as much of an asshole in person as you are online. Which seems unlikely.
"But you just kneejerk support anyone they dish out to you don't you!!!!"
I already told you I didn't support Nethercutt, so ... um, no.
I'm sorry, but you're just an ignorant jerk, attacking anyone who voices remote disagreement with you, and I am therefore done with you.
But apart from that, if McGavick and McCain and others are successful in helping to cut spending, improve security, and son on ... that helps us all significantly.
Do you KNOW their voting records or do you just take their word on their voting records or juse ASSUME they have a conservative voting record because they give a good song and dance when in front of a group of like minded conservatives.
I don't know their voting records. They might be conservatives. But don't just ASSUME they have conservative voting records - check it out for yourself.
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/legislature
When you personally know a politician it is easier for them to deceive you because you just naturally want to think the best of them.
And also check into who they are donating money to, not only who is donating money to them.
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/servlet/ContServlet
Posted by: Conservative, not Republican on March 22, 2006 04:24 PMDone with you, am I.
I think McGavick told you one thing and told Reporterward the exact opposite.
It is common for a politican to tell one person or group one thing and a different person or group the exact opposite.
I know I am not saying anything that is surprising or isn't commonly known, however still people tend to forget this when the politician is someone they have personally known or met with.
It the other politicians they are the problem.
Posted by: Conservative, not Republican on March 22, 2006 04:34 PMThat is because despite what you might think if you personally know a politician and have looked them in the eye it is easier for them to deceive you because you naturally want to think the best of them.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 22, 2006 04:36 PMOh, wait - that's right - they sucked it up and carried on, unlike you sorry, slack jawed, half assed, wanna be "Big R Republican'ts" (You know who I'm talking about, CnR) and got the job done.
I'm a Libertarian (donating and all that) and I'll be voting R this year to get rid of the damn Democrats. But you guys go ahead and defeat your own candidates.
Posted by: Aaron on March 22, 2006 06:19 PMAs for this comment thread, I can't believe some of the remarks being made. Are you seriously arguing over who is more "ideologically pure"? That's ridiculous!
Posted by: Patrick on March 22, 2006 07:39 PMMcGavick is a conservative on taxes, the economy and security. Cantwell does her country a disservice with her destructive lockstep alignment with the parties Left.
Grow up. We have to win elections to implement policy. Lets not leave it up the the moronic Left.
Posted by: Gary Bezowsky on March 22, 2006 07:46 PMMcGavick is a conservative on taxes, the economy and security. Cantwell does her country a disservice with her destructive lockstep alignment with the parties Left.
Grow up. We have to win elections to implement policy. Lets not leave it up the the moronic Left.
Posted by: Gary Bezowsky on March 22, 2006 07:46 PMMcGavick is a conservative on taxes, the economy and security. Cantwell does her country a disservice with her destructive lockstep alignment with the parties Left.
Grow up. We have to win elections to implement policy. Lets not leave it up the the moronic Left.
Posted by: Gary Bezowsky on March 22, 2006 07:46 PMMcGavick is a conservative on taxes, the economy and security. Cantwell does her country a disservice with her destructive lockstep alignment with the parties Left.
Grow up. We have to win elections to implement policy. Lets not leave it up the the moronic Left.
Posted by: Gary Bezowsky on March 22, 2006 07:46 PMMcGavick is a conservative on taxes, the economy and security. Cantwell does her country a disservice with her destructive lockstep alignment with the parties Left.
Grow up. We have to win elections to implement policy. Lets not leave it up the the moronic Left.
Posted by: Gary Bezowsky on March 22, 2006 07:46 PMLet's wait until we have a true conservative we can support.
Of course this whole debate is academic. There is no way McGavick can win since this is not a Republican year. The Republican party as a whole is going to do very bad because of Bush and you just can't fight the trend on this. Can't go spitting against the wind.
Even if he was a good candidate McGavick would lose this year. And he isn't a good candidate.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 22, 2006 07:54 PMI am still planning to vote against Cantwell, by voting for McGavick. If the Republicans give up and decide to stay home because Bush isn't doing well, it will be a long night for the R's and will send a bad message. If McGavick is able to distance himself from Bush, that will help. The independents will ultimately carry the election. It is the Democrats election to lose and they may be capable of it, but not if the R's give up and don't bother to vote.
Posted by: KS on March 22, 2006 08:15 PMMike actually did a good job getting ahead of the insurance companies are bad issue. He framed most federal spending as basically insurance programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) and noted "Isn't it time we sent someone to Washington to know something about making insurance programs work?" He is right. He took Safeco from $1B in losses to highly profitable. We could use some of that in our overblown, mismanaged government insurance programs. Mike is the right guy.
Posted by: Martin Tobias on March 22, 2006 08:33 PMAnd Safeco -- at least to people around here -- is more than an insurance company, it's a business that employs a lot of people and he saved the jobs of those people, and he has a proven record of fiscal acumen. Even most of the furthest-left liberals like those things.
Stohn: yes, I am sometimes shocked at it myself. Oh well, best we can do is to ignore them. However, Bush won primarily because, as you say, there was no alternative: Kerry tried to win as the anti-Bush, but Bush really won because he was the anti-Kerry.
Frankly, I saw that coming two years away, and was shocked the Democrats couldn't resist nominating someone on the far left.
But with McGavick, it's different. Sure, he may be more to the left than many of us on some issues, but we are not backing him because he's the anti-Cantwell, but because of the good things he brings to the table on a variety of issues, especially his fiscal conservatism, and his ability to work with others and help change the tone.
I was just reading an article in National Review (probably not one of McGavick's favorite journals) about how the last election, it was the race to see who was not as bad as the other guy, but that in 2006, the Republican numbers are so low that this strategy is not necessarily a good one for the GOP. I am quite pleased that I have two candidates (McGavick and Doug Roulstone) I can positively favor, that have great things going for them, things people want and like.
So you're saying that because Lincoln was for slavery (a strange assertion) that it's a good thing that McGavick is for abortion? And the Emancipation Proclamation was a ruse? And somehow McGavick being for abortion will hold the nation together?
Maybe you could clarify because what you said sounds a little insane. It's sounds like you're so desperate to justify your pro-abortion stand that it doesn't matter how far you have to distort the facts (which would be normal for a Democrat.)
Posted by: Republican (by default) on March 22, 2006 11:44 PMYes, the insurance system -- especially in the health area -- is busted. Sure McG proves that he knows how to make money for big insurance companies. But why would we want someone who was/is part of the problem to be crafting the federal government solutions? Just because he "understands" the issues? Give me a break. I'd prefer someone who leans towards the consumer interests on insurance policy rather than an insurance executive who has made millions because of Safeco's increased rates.
Posted by: Barry Nunn on March 23, 2006 07:10 AMI am going to do what the Mainstream Republicans did in 1992 in the Governor's race. Heck it worked for them.
We don't need a Evans like Senator who will use the "spoils of victory" to get rid of the conservatives from the state Republican party and replace them with RINOS.
We don't need a good frog boiler. We need someone who is committed to doing what needs to be done to save our state and our country!
Of course this whole debate is academic as not even a good Republican could win this year. Politics goes in cycles somewhat and this is simply not a republican year.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 23, 2006 07:48 AMAl la the whole Dunn-Hammond thing as being an example of what to expect if McGavick gets elected. Mainstreamers are effective at stopping conservatives now. They will be even far more effective at stopping conservatives if McGavick wins.
That is worst than a Cantwell victory.
Posted by: conservative, not Republican on March 23, 2006 08:43 AMFor that is what you will get with a McGavick victory.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 23, 2006 09:04 AM
Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail To The Chief",
oh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no senator's son,
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate one, no,
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, why don't they help themselves? oh.
But when the taxman come to the door,
Lord, the house look a like a rummage sale, yes,
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no millionaire's son, no, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate one, no.
Yeh, some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, how much should we give,
oh, they only answer, more, more, more, yoh,
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no military son, SON, NO
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate one, NO NO
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate son, son son son
http://yu.ac.kr/~bwlee/midi/ftson.mid
Posted by: Sue K. on March 23, 2006 09:23 AMIt's an assertion I did not make. He was not for slavery, he was against its immediate abolition, because the country was unable to absorb such a change.
And far from being strange, this is clear historical fact. The Union mattered to Lincoln far more than slavery did. He would never have abolished slavery if it meant losing the Union. He said this many times, and he never did.
He only freed the slaves because the war gave him the opportunity to do so, without harming the country any more than it had already been harmed by the War. The War was fought to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. True, the South seceded over slavery, but the North did not fight to abolish slavery.
"... that it's a good thing that McGavick is for abortion?"
Not a "good" thing, but a defensible thing.
"And the Emancipation Proclamation was a ruse?"
That came during the war, because of the war. It did not cause the war. Indeed, it would not have been legal without the existence of war (and was of questionable legality even in that context).
"And somehow McGavick being for abortion will hold the nation together?"
No, but if somehow the Senate could end abortion right now, that WOULD tear the nation apart, and perhaps irreperably harm the Republican party.
Our country has gone so far down in the past few years...the scandals rocking leading republicans in the White house (Libby, et. al), the Senate (Frist, et. al), the House (Delay, et. al.) that only crazies could want that to continue.
Let's pray that this never happens. For the benefit of all US citizens, here and abroad. This country is great. Why ruin it further?
Posted by: LovinUSA on March 23, 2006 10:33 AMIf there is a comparison between Lincoln, federalism and state rights, and abortion it's that Roe v. Wade federalized a states' issue. It's abortion that is dividing the country. That means that while the federal government came in on the side of the life of slaves (rather then the ownership of slaves as property) they have come in on the side of death for innocent children in the abortion issue.
Most of the women who get abortions are doing so because they exercised their right to jump in the sack and have unprotected sex. Nobody at he federal or state level violated her rights or has any intentions of doing so. But ending the life of the unborn child is not a matter of choice or rights for the woman. It's a consequence of exercising her right. She made her choice and she has to live with it. After the baby is born she can give it up to someone who will care for it instead of try to kill it.
There is no indication that the senate could, or even would if they could, 'end abortion' now or ever. What they can do, and what they're being asked to do is to end the federal role in abortion and let the states decide. However, McGavick said that he opposes making any that law prevents abortion. Does that mean that he would oppose a law that would allow states to decide? Or for that matter would he oppose a constitutional amendment that bans abortion even if the people approved it?
So in your comparison the federal government has weighed in on the other side of this issue than they did on slavery. They chose life in the civil war, but death in abortion. And your implication that there is a comparison between Lincoln's role or values in ending slavery are in the smallest way comparable to McGavick's role or values in abortion are preposterous. If Lincoln had been asked if it was all right for a woman to show up at a clinic to kill her baby before it was born, what do you think he would have said? Your comparison isn't insane, it is vile, offensive and atrocious. Lincoln probably would have been ashamed to even be included in such a comparison.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on March 23, 2006 10:58 AMLibby exposing plame - there was no crime committed and no reason to think that he was doing so and also, it hasn't even been shown that he did or that he lied about it.
Delay is being attacked by a political hack and nothing is sticking in court, just as it didn't when the same man attacked others.
Nuts? This country has survived a major attack, won two wars and hasn't been successfully attacked since that time. I'm not certain, but I think we've gone longer without a successful attack under Bush than we did under Clinton. Having Dems in control would be putting the country at greater risk. Maybe that 34% are nuts.
The economic colapse was set up during the Clinton administration. The Bush administration has handled it pretty well, all things considered. If you want to complain about the economy, talk to Clinton or the president behind his presidency, his wife.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on March 23, 2006 11:08 AMYou are asking me to get my facts straight and then you don't disagree with me. I said "scandal" yet you somehow argue that I said Libby committed a crime (I didn't).
It's amazing that you continue to bash Clinton for Bush's failures. Clinton inherited the Bush 1 garbage and turned it around. During the turnaround, the republicans claimed (accurately) that he stole their ideas!
So...he used good ideas (from republicans in many economic cases) and now you blame him for the Bush 2 cratering? Either your party was lying then (when they said the good economic results were the result of stolen republican ideas) or you are lying now (when you claim it was all his fault).
Cover as much as you want...the lies and name calling still surface in all your arguments.
Pray that the madness ends this November...for the good of our country, our troops, our people and our freedoms.
It's so typical of your side...you ignore what is said (in my case, directly), you argue that something I didn't say is wrong making it look like I said something I didn't.
Name calling and lying about the other side. That's exactly what we've got with our Republican white house and congress. You fit in perfectly.
Posted by: LovinUSA on March 23, 2006 11:36 AMStupid, insane, facts!
"That means that while the federal government came in on the side of the life of slaves (rather then the ownership of slaves as property) they have come in on the side of death for innocent children in the abortion issue."
Uh ... the federal government came down on the side of the life of the slaves only after 100 years and a war. Up until then, the courts and laws were decidedly supportive of the right to own slaves, in the South at least.
So, no.
"There is no indication that the senate could, or even would if they could, 'end abortion' now or ever."
Yes. That's what I said.
"What they can do, and what they're being asked to do is to end the federal role in abortion and let the states decide."
I am entirely against that. Just like slavery and civil rights for abortion are properly federal issues, so too should abortion be. It's about protecting civil liberties, one way or the other: the rights of the mothers to kill their children, or the rights of the children to stay alive. Either way, I see it as a federal issue.
"However, McGavick said that he opposes making any that law prevents abortion."
Yes, as Lincoln opposed any law that made slavery illegal in the South.
"Does that mean that he would oppose a law that would allow states to decide?"
I know *I* would (except perhaps as a stopgap measure while preparing to make it illegal federally). But I don't know: ask him. As the Senate currently cannot do that, since the Court has ruled on it, I don't see that it matters much what he would do.
Or for that matter would he oppose a constitutional amendment that bans abortion even if the people approved it?
That's begging the question. The people don't vote on it until after it passes the legislature, so there's no good way to know if the people approve it beforehand, unless there is overwhelming public opinion one way or the other, which there is not, which is WHY he is not in favor of abolishing abortion in the first place.
"So in your comparison the federal government has weighed in on the other side of this issue than they did on slavery."
Again, no, they did not.
"They chose life in the civil war, but death in abortion."
You're entirely wrong. Did you not read what I wrote, or did you just ignore it? Lincoln was perfectly willing to accept slavery if it meant they could avoid war and preserve the Union. This is clear fact. He only freed the slaves because by that time, there was nothing to lose, since secession and war had already happened.
Lincoln DID NOT fight the war to end slavery. There is no truth to that notion.
"And your implication that there is a comparison between Lincoln's role or values in ending slavery are in the smallest way comparable to McGavick's role or values in abortion are preposterous."
If by "preposterous" you mean "true," then I agree.
"If Lincoln had been asked if it was all right for a woman to show up at a clinic to kill her baby before it was born, what do you think he would have said?"
I am not comparing Lincoln's views on abortion to McGavick's views on abortion. I am comparing Lincoln's views on slavery to McGavick's views on abortion. And if you had asked Lincoln if the South should be allowed to continue to own slaves, until the country as a whole could agree on it, he would say yes. In fact, he did say yes.
Lincoln's policy before the war was just like McGavick's: enact certain restrictions to reduce the most egregious examples and the spread of the practice, but do not force abolition of the practice on a country that is not ready to accept it.
You need to read up. Start with the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Here's a quote from the first one to get you started, where he defends the right of the South to own slaves, while saying he wishes slavery did not exist (and at the same time, notes that whites are superior to blacks, for what it's worth), and advocates the *eventual* abolition of slavery that you find to be so "vile, offensive and atrocious":
When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,-to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.
But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave-trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbid the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter.
So, those are the facts. Do with them as you will, but try to do with them in a discussion actually about that topic.
and while you are all posting onto blogs, name calling, figuring out which white male should tell women what to do with their bodies and the like, thousands of troops will be stationed fighting terrorists that didn't exist before bush, jr. in a country that never attacked us.
put your little yellow stickers on your bumpers, the polar ice caps will melt in 2050 and seattle will finally get more than 50 days of sunshine.
Posted by: dinesh on March 23, 2006 01:49 PMIf he wins he will give too much power to the Evans Republican wing of the Republican Party.
That wing of the party is already too strong and has a death grip on the state party. It has become the "Gatekeepers" who bar good conservative candidates from running.
Having McGavick in office will be far more devestating to conservatives than Cantwell. I for one am voting for Cantwell to ensure that this Mainstreamer isn't elected. For if he is, I doubt that we will ever see a conservative candidate be allowed to run for public office by the Republicans in this state ever again.
Posted by: Linda on March 23, 2006 02:24 PMUm, yes, that is why all political parties exist. So? How is this a deep insight or otherwise significant?
"and spend our money on their friends' projects and their college 101 theories of society"
Well, McGavick certainly does not represent that. He is decidedly ANTI-pork.
"and while you are all posting onto blogs, name calling, figuring out which white male should tell women what to do with their bodies and the like"
You do know that more women in the U.S. are pro-life than men, right? Just checking.
i wasn't really trying to impart some great insight. reading these comments, however, suprises me, b/c it is the blog comment equivalent of a schoolyard fight--some pushing, shoving, name calling.
one of the biggest issues facing the country is our dependence on oil and other forms of fossil fuels; and the global impact humans have on climate. i think mother nature will continue to demonstrate that your party affiliation means little, its your consumption, our collective consumption, that matters.
as for the polls re choice, here's what i found (although not women specific):
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
i don't think abortion is desirable, but sometimes necessary. fundamentally, it does not seem to be a place for either federal or state govt to be interfering. what's next, ban on junk food? gonna tell me what i must weigh? please, govt out and off of my body!
Posted by: dinesh on March 23, 2006 03:36 PMBut you guys FEEL more strongly, so that makes you better.
And I've seen the polls. I know what they say. Roughly half (sometimes more, sometimes less) think abortion either should always be illegal, or should be illegal except in cases of rape/inc*st/life of the mother. That is, half the country is VERY pro-life (and the page you provide backs that up). And more of the women are in that group than are the men.
fundamentally, it does not seem to be a place for either federal or state govt to be interfering
The overwhelming majority of Americans, where about 3/4 think abortion should be illegal at least at some point in the second trimester, disagree with you.
what's next, ban on junk food?
This is the logical fallacy of begging the question. By comparing abortion to eating junk food, you are saying that the life in the womb has no rights, that there is no moral or ethical obligation to protect that life.
But, of course, that is the very reason why a large majority of Americans thinks that abortion, at some stage, should be illegal, because they believe it DOES have rights. For you to assume in your argument the very question that is at issue is to be intellectually dishonest, and if you cannot discuss this honestly and intelligently, I do not care to discuss it with you at all.
Posted by: pudge on March 23, 2006 04:07 PMLovinUSA, sorry for the twist on your name, I shouldn't have done that. But for the rest of it, you're out to lunch on the issue. A baseless 'scandal' is nothing more than venomous rhetoric. All of the accusations you made are baseless. You and the rest of the tinfoil hat brigade (like dinesh) probably don't care whether your accusations have any truth to them. You're never held accountable for them, especially in the media that joins you in them. So I guess you can rant on with no consequence, other than the free speech of others who can call you on the lies. But I'm done with that in this thread. It's already a waste of time to deal with this garbage.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on March 23, 2006 09:48 PMI am not bringing Lincoln on to the side of abortion, any more than I am bringing him on to the side of slavery.
And whether it is reprehensible is not a fact, but opinion.
What is a fact, however, is that Lincoln favored the temporary continuation and gradual abolition of slavery, just as McGavick favors the tempoary continuation and gradual abolition of abortion.
What is a fact, is that he favored laws protecting slaveowners and their right to their "property," even if that "property" escaped to the North, just as McGavick favors laws protecting the right of women to abort the life in their womb.
What is a fact, is that he favored significant restrictions on the practice and spread of slavery, just as McGavick favors significant restrictions on the practice and spread of abortion.
Those are facts. What you said is not a fact.
At least she could make a case for her point
So what you're saying is not only do you not know your history, but you refused to even read the quote I provided.
Gotcha.
I think your reading of Lincoln and comparisons between his approach to slavery and the current situation with abortion are good. However, I think your analysis of McGavick is way off. What Lincoln is saying in the quote you provide is several things. First is that he recognizes how difficult it would be to simply free the slaves and either send them back to Africa or let them loose in the country and make them social and political equals. He also is acknowledging that he is no better than the Southerners and slave-owners, i.e. he is not judging them or placing the burden and blame for slavery on them. He recognizes that it the whole nation is responsible.
As a solution to slavery he then suggests the idea that "systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted"... and THEN says "but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South." Translation -- the Southerners are being too slow in emancipating the slaves on their own.
In the second paragraph, he acknowledges the "right to property...fully and fairly." Which is a very important right. And he would grant them legislation for reclaiming their property but not in such an extreme manner that a free man would have less rights than someone who has been given the death penalty (trial by jury, etc.)
In conclusion, he says, DESPITE all the above we should act to limit slavery -- There is no excuse for "permitting slavery to go into our own free territory." Keep it in the South while we try to find a peaceful and practical way to end it there. He makes the point that the law that already forbade the slave trade from Africa also forbids the taking of them to Nebraska and morally speaking are equivalent. To repeal the law against taking them to Nebraska the nation might as well ramp up the slave trade again.
It is obvious that Lincoln wants to hold the line on slavery with the ultimate goal of freeing the slaves while recognizing the difficulties in doing so. Obviously he wishes to do it in a way that doesn't lead to war or hurt the nation. I think you are saying that Mike McGavick wants to hold the line on abortion with the ultimate goal of ridding the country of abortion while recognizing the difficulties in doing so. Mike McGavick has NOT taken this position though he has given the appearance of taking this position.
Mike McGavick has proposed no legislative solution to limiting abortion that would be within his sphere of influence as a US Senator. PBA and parental notification are out of his hands as a senator.(Furthermore, states with parental notification STILL have high abortion rates.) He hasn't even complained about the "tardiness" on the part of the abortion industry and state governments in moving the nation away from abortion as Lincoln does about that South and slavery. McGavick gives no indication that he has thought seriously about the abortion dilemma in the way that Lincoln did about slavery. He is willing to live with it and accommodate it in a quest for a seat in the US Senate. Meanwhile the nation simmers.
Lincoln also said -- A house divided against itself cannot stand. It cannot be half-free and half-slave. Likewise, our nation cannot be half-free and half-abortion. The half that doesn't want abortion still has to live with it, which they are not willing to do. McGavick has sided with the half that wants abortion while trying to give the appearance of siding with the half that doesn't.
Posted by: me on March 24, 2006 03:45 PMGood! I hate it when people just agree with me.
I don't disagree with your analysis of Lincoln, so I'll skip ahead:
I think you are saying that Mike McGavick wants to hold the line on abortion with the ultimate goal of ridding the country of abortion while recognizing the difficulties in doing so. Mike McGavick has NOT taken this position though he has given the appearance of taking this position.
I disagree. Did you listen to the audio file posted above? He is personally against abortion, he wants there to be continually fewer abortions, and he wants to do that through restricting it and offering alternatives.
Do you really want to quibble over whether he wants abortion abolished entirely? He doesn't come out and say it directly, but it is necessarily where his argument leads: if you keep reducing abortions, keep offering alternatives, with the stated belief that abortion is wrong, you obviously want to eventually make it disappear altogether.
Mike McGavick has proposed no legislative solution to limiting abortion that would be within his sphere of influence as a US Senator. PBA and parental notification are out of his hands as a senator.
Parental notification, probably. PBA is, only because it has already been passed: and if the Supreme Court kills it for some non-fundamental reason (such as inadequate protections for the mother), then it will come up before the Senate again. And federal funding, that certainly is part of his authority as a Senator.
Do you personally know of any restrictions on abortion that the U.S. Congress might be inclined to enact, or should enact? Let's ask him if he would support it.
He hasn't even complained about the "tardiness" on the part of the abortion industry and state governments in moving the nation away from abortion as Lincoln does about that South and slavery.
Well, he directly implied many of the states are not doing enough by favoring parental notification. And maybe we should ask him if he thinks Planned Parenthood etc. should be doing more to help counsel young women away from abortion, toward other options.
Realize too that slavery and abortion are not exactly alike: in the mid-1800s, it was clear to most people in the South (and certainly generally agreed upon by the people of Illinois) that slavery as an institution upon which the Southern economy was based could not stand. The South, regardless of the morality of slavery, was going to be forced to move past it, at some point.
But nobody's way of life, except for lobbyists, doctors, and prostitutes, relies on abortion. There is no real urgency, and never will be, on the part of the pro-abortion crowd to get past abortion. Slavery had a moral and economic component to it, but abortion is, for most people, purely moral.
I don't think it is very instructive to look for a 1:1 correlation between everything Lincoln did on slavery, and what people like Mike do on abortion.
McGavick gives no indication that he has thought seriously about the abortion dilemma in the way that Lincoln did about slavery.
I think his audio quote above does give an indication he has thought very seriously about the issue. I am not interested in comparing the seriousness of his thoughts to Lincoln, as though it were a contest.
He is willing to live with it and accommodate it in a quest for a seat in the US Senate.
And so too Lincoln was, with slavery, as you've already conceded.
The only differences you've noted between Lincoln and McGavick are either presumptive (e.g., he does not wish to actually end abortion), or insignificant (e.g., he has not proposed federal legislation), or beside the point (e.g., he has not asked Planned Parenthood to help reduce abortions).
So, I disagree that my analysis was way off.
I wonder if part of the root of your disagreement might be that you think I am saying McGavick is "the Lincoln of the anti-abortion movement." No, I am not saying that. I am merely saying his position on abortion is essentially the same as Lincoln's position on slavery. Obviously, Lincoln was out in front on the slavery issue, and McGavick is not out in front on abortion. But that speaks to their political strategy and emphasis, not their basic viewpoint, which is what I was talking about.
I think it is plenty good enough, personally, to get someone who shares my belief that abortion is not going away any time soon, and in the meantime, we should work to restrict it, and reduce it.
As I noted before, there are legitimate questions open. Let's ask him. Would you have voted for Alito, and Roberts? Would you vote for [insert legislation here]?
I am likely going to meet McGavick sometime next month, along with a bunch of other Snohomish County volunteers. Give me questions you have, I'll make sure they get answered.
"Would you have voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsberg?" To that he has already said "yes". And we are likely to get those kinds of nominations out of the next president if McCain is our nominee and he loses to Hillary.
You've got your head in the sand if you think that a pro-life candidate can't win in this state. Even if he couldn't, he should do the right thing! Wake up and come out of your little world in the liberal Puget Sound where I know many conservatives live too. And don't give me the usual "why didn't Craswell or Smith win?" You know better pudge.
And I agree, your comparison of Lincoln and McGavick is insane. I read your quote too. You are clearly taking his words out of context to mean he was as complacent with slavery as McGavick is with abortion. Did Lincoln ever say he was "pro-choice" on slavery or anything like that? No. McGavick is trying to have it both ways. He's running for the nomination of the pro-life party. He feels the need to keep us appeased, but he's like his favorite Republican, Slade Gorton (who deliberately helped make abortion legal in this state before R v W), pro-abortion-choice.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on March 24, 2006 06:10 PMWow. It's hard to believe you really are open to having a reasonable dialogue about this. Clearly, what the intent of the "productive" comment relates to is the fact that the amendment would fail, and therefore it is wasted effort and energy, and causes increased animosity, to bother trying.
And if you think someone who right now favored a Constitutional amendment on abortion could possibly win the Senate, you're the one on the moon.
And again, you're wrong about PBA, so please stop saying that in the future. There's a very strong possibility that the PBA ban will die in the court because of lack of protection of the mother, which will only cause the Senate to design another bill.
I find most of your response to the McGavick campaign to be unenlightened and sophomoric. Come on, attacking his position just because some other people who hold a similar position "haven't fully examined the issue"? And so that means he hasn't, either? Bollocks.
So? 96 Senators -- all but three of the Republicans, including many very pro-life Republican Senators -- voted for Ginsburg. This is unremarkable.
You've got your head in the sand if you think that a pro-life candidate can't win in this state.
You've got yours in the sand if you think one could.
Even if he couldn't, he should do the right thing!
Which is what? What actual legislation do you want him to vote for, that you believe he would not vote for, that actually has a chance of passing?
C'mon, tell me.
And I agree, your comparison of Lincoln and McGavick is insane.
Then you obviously did not understand it.
You are clearly taking his words out of context to mean he was as complacent with slavery as McGavick is with abortion.
I did not take anything out of context. You're simply wrong.
Further, I never implied, in any way, that Lincoln was complacent about restricting slavery. And neither is McGavick complacent about restricting abortion.
As I said in a recent post to "me", I never said or implied that McGavick is as zealous in his opposition to abortion as Lincoln was in his opposition to slavery. I was not comparing relative fervor in holding to his viewpoint, but the viewpoint itself. What's important is what legislation he favors, and what his long-term goals are.
Did Lincoln ever say he was "pro-choice" on slavery or anything like that?
He said -- many times -- that he favors the right of Southern states to choose to allow slavery. Whether he gave himself a specific label is entirely irrelevant.
Labels are conveniences, not truths. Does he want to restrict abortion in every way that the legislator has so far tried to do? Yes. Does he want to eventually abolish abortion, through change in attitudes, over time? Yes. I don't care what you call it, but those are good things.
That's a great idea to ask McGavick some
questions.Ask why he told Steve Hammond.
That quote I am pro choice and then he told
sharkansky something different.
Also ask McGavick why back in July when Grover
Norvquist of the americans for tax reform
first asked him sign a pledge not to raise taxes
he turned him down .Then after finding out that
Susan Hutchison signed he changed his mind
and did sign.Then ask why he didn't want the
americans for tax reform to list him on there
website as doing so.
Then ask him if plans on apologizing to
Susan Hutchison for the part he and his
campaign played in trying to malign her
character.I think a lot of people would
like the answer to these questions.
Similarly, where is the evidence he turned down Grover Norquist? Or that he asked them not to put his name on their web site?
And where is the evidence he maligned Hutchison's character?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Yes, I can ask him about interstate transfers. That's a great question. The gag rule is a decent question; it's harder to answer because it is far more complex, but that might simply mean his answer will give us more insight into what he is thinking.
As to a Supreme Court justice, I won't bother asking that. We already know he said he would have voted for Alito and Roberts, and I am certain he would say something like, "well, I would be willing to, but I would need to look at the nominee's record," as pretty much every Senator and Senate candidate says. No one commits, anymore, to voting for anonymous, unidentified, judicial nominees.
By the way, Lincoln's position you describe above (keep states already opposed to slavery slave-free, allow no new states to adopt slavery, and contain the slave states themselves)was Lincoln's early (but later abandoned) position. Do this, Lincoln had argued, and slavery (abortion) will eventually vanish. The facts and reality caught up and he did abandon this position.
No, he didn't. His position remained the same. However, come the Civil War, it became moot. The reason he held that position was twofold: a. he knew he could not change the law because there was not enough support, and b. he knew if they tried it would result in Civil War and other serious economic and social problems.
But then the South seceded, and both of those reasons were obviated: we already had war, and he suddenly had the power, and the majority backing of the people (of the remaining states). And further, since he did it under his war authority as Commander in Chief, he actually had the power to do it without the legislature.
His position did not change: circumstances changed.
So McGavick is actually taking an approach that won't work.
If we'd not had Civil War, I believe slavery would have ended within a few decades. Again, though, that would have been primarily because of economic pressure, and there's no significant economic pressure to end abortion. Further, social pressure against slavery was increasing, and it is not increasing against abortion.
So the two situations, of course, are not entirely comparable. But this does not mean McGavick's position is unprincipled, it just means you doubt its potential efficacy. I do doubt it as well, but I don't disrespect him for holding to it, and further, I believe that practicality -- the fact that he agrees with me (and you) on every actual abortion issue so far that he's commented on -- makes me simply not care about the long-term prospects of his overall view, which I don't see as nearly as important.
PBA, IMO is over if the SC doesn't uphold that last Federal ban. ... I just don't know how the Senate could rewrite it so that it would pass Constitutional muster without leaving the "health of the mother" loophole every aboritonist in the country can drive a truck thru.
It depends on what the SCOTUS says. If it says there needs to be a "serious risk to physical health" exception, then the Senate can do that.
Actually McGavick's approach is much more akin to Stephen Douglas, as in this statement replacing "slavery" with "abortion".
I disagree.
"It is no argument to say that abortion is an evil, and hence should not be tolerated. You must allow the people to decide for themselves whether it is a good or an evil."
Right, McGavick does not say that. He says abortion is evil, but the law protects it, and he does not support trying to change the law because it can't be done at this time, and it is a waste of time to do so.
The prochoice side both "denies the right of Congress to force the acceptance of abortion upon people unwilling to believe it is moral" and "denies the right of Congress to force the prohibition of abortion upon people unwilling to believe it is immoral."
Similarly, Lincoln was very clear, that the Constitution prohibited the Congress from forcing slavery on the North, or from forcing no slavery on the South. The difference being that Lincoln and McGavick want change, but recognize the law and the society will not allow it; while Douglas did not want change.
There were about 24,000 abortions in the state last year. They couldn't all be prostitutes.
You misrepresent my argument, if you think I was implying that. I was talking about people who rely, economically, on the abortion industry. Most people who have abortions do not rely on them for economic reasons. Prostitutes, abortion provides, and lobbyists/lawyers/etc. are among the few who do.
you know I knew that's what you would say.
Everyone else is lying and McGavick's
telling the truth.I know Steve Hammond
to be honorable man if he says McGavick
told him he is pro choice then thats what
happened.You don't believe me have the guts to
ask Steve Hammond yourself.
That comes from Grover Norquist himself
I will have him personally email you
exactly what happened.Now as for what
happened to Susan Hutchison confidential
sources have given me documented information
that McGavick's campaign played a part in
trying to damage Susan Hutchison character.
So? Is that meant to imply that what I said is wrong or invalid?
Everyone else is lying and McGavick's telling the truth.
I never said, or implied, that anyone was lying.
What you apparently are unable to understand is that my saying I do not believe something does not imply that the person saying it is lying. Responsible people do not simply believe everything they hear, even if they know it might be true.
I demand proof -- or convincing evidence -- before I believe something. And perhaps you find this offensive, but the fact is that you saying something is not, in the slightest bit, convincing to me.
The only thing I am calling a lie is your implication that I said anyone else was lying. Your misstatement about what I said calls into question your judgment, which makes me even LESS likely to believe your interpretation of the events you wish me to believe happened.
I know Steve Hammond
I don't. And not only do I know him, but I never heard him say what you said he said. And I do not know you, either. So, I have no reason to believe McGavick said what you say Steve said he said.
And isn't this common sense? What if I told you, "Some guy you don't know told me that someone you like said something you don't like." Would you believe me? Of course not. So don't pretend that I am any different from you in this respect; it just makes you look silly.
You don't believe me have the guts to ask Steve Hammond yourself.
"Guts"? OOooooooo k. You are the one who wants people to believe it, it is your responsibility to provide evidence that it happened. It's not my job to prove your case for you. Trying to attack my manliness by questioning my "guts" certainly won't make me believe your case.
That comes from Grover Norquist himself I will have him personally email you exactly what happened.
Fine. If he tells me what was said, and I find it to be convincing, then I will consider asking McGavick about it.
Now as for what happened to Susan Hutchison confidential sources have given me documented information that McGavick's campaign played a part in trying to damage Susan Hutchison character.
As soon as I can see and verify that information as accurate and authentic, then I will believe it. Until then, I will not.
Look, I didn't believe Powell when he said to the UN that Iraq had WMD, because his evidence was unconvincing. I didn't believe the press when they said Bush lied about Iraq, because they didn't actually show that he lied. And I am not going to believe you when you say things that you don't back up, either.
Here's what the Republican National Platform says about the Human Life Amendment among other measures to endo abortion:
As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of
Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to
life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution
and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections
apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that
right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion
and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges
who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
And for the Republicans who voted to confirm Ginsberg, including the pro-life ones, they didn't have the hindsight that they now do as McGavick does on just how devastating justices like her have been to our nation. My hope is that those same Republican Senators would have a different answer than McGavick now does. The point is, he has no committment to the cause of life. And I've seen him skirt the issue.
Yes, so? What do you mean to say by pasting that? If you mean to say McGavick does not fully support this portion of the Republican party platform, I already knew this, and didn't imply otherwise.
And for the Republicans who voted to confirm Ginsberg, including the pro-life ones, they didn't have the hindsight that they now do as McGavick does on just how devastating justices like her have been to our nation.
Nonsense. Everyone knew at the time she was an ardent supporter of abortion and that she was very far on the left of the judicial spectrum. Nothing she's said or done as a judge has been a significant deviation from what was known about her at the time.
What is it you think the Senate did not know at the time?
And neither is any candidate who has a chance of beating Cantwell.
You say, -- "Further, social pressure against slavery was increasing, and it is not increasing against abortion." I think you are wrong on this re abortion but time will tell.
Well, the polls don't reflect it. It's been about 50-50 for several years.
I think you are saying that only those groups profit financially. Did you mean to include Planned Parenthood in that group?
Yes, of course. I specifically included them, actually, in the initial statement I made on the subject.
Your comment that Lincoln believed up until the Civil War that containing slavery in the south would work doesn't jive with the facts.
I don't know what you mean. Do you think I said that slavery would be contained in the south permanently, that this was some permanent workable solution? I never said that, nor implied it in any way.
I very clearly said precisely the opposite: that Lincoln wanted the eventual abolition of slavery. The strategy for this abolition was containment, and then to shrink it down within that contained area, until someday it is abolished, which seems to be precisely what McGavick's expressed position is on abortion.
His "House Divided" speech was given in 1858.
Yes, and in it, he expressed precisely what I am talking about: the gradual abolition of slavery through containment. Emphasis mine.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.
Note the use of the word "permanently." He was not advocating immediate abolition of slavery, but saying the current status could not remain permanently. And then he sets up two possible outcomes: one the containment/eventual abolition through social attitude change that I've said he supported, and the other the spread of it until it is legal everywhere. He obviously favored the former.
Ok so you don't know who Steve Hammond is.
A lot of people who view this board do.
Most of them respect him because he is an
honorable man. He has nothing to gain by making
such a story up.If you don't know Steve
Hammond he was up until Jan a king county
councilman in Distrit 9.
I will have Grover Norvquist email you the
information. Again what would Grover have to
gain by making something like that up?
You aren't making any sense. Lincoln says, "It will become all one thing or all the other." That is NOT support for or belief in containment or co-existance. His point in the "house divided" speech is that the nation cannot be half slave and have free -- the essense of containment. He had previously thought that those two sides could co-exist but now concedes that they cannot. He now believes that one side or the other must and will win.
How one side would win obviously remained an open question in 1858 just as it remains open today on abortion.
I didn't say that. Read again. I said I do not know him.
He has nothing to gain by making such a story up.
So? First, I don't know that. Second, I don't even know he said it, I only have YOU saying he said it, and you have already proven yourself several times to be pretty poot at accurately representing what other people say.
I will have Grover Norvquist email you the information.
Still waiting.
Again what would Grover have to gain by making something like that up?
Same answer as above.
Posted by: pudge on March 30, 2006 09:41 AMYes, I am. You simply lack understanding.
Lincoln says, "It will become all one thing or all the other." That is NOT support for or belief in containment or co-existance.
Actually, it is precisely that. He says, in the very next line, how he proposes that it will become all free: "... the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction ..."
That is a blueprint for how to become all free: via containment ("arrest the further spread of it") and changing of the public mind, for eventual, gradual ("ultimate") extinction.
He had previously thought that those two sides could co-exist but now concedes that they cannot.
Lincoln never, that I can find, expressed the belief that the two sides could permanently coexist. He always, up until when the war began, expressed the belief that they must coexist temporarily, as he did in the House Divided speech.
You appear to lack understanding that there is a difference between today and tomorrow, between temporary and permanent. I have been talking all along about temporary coexistence, for abolition someday in the future. You seem to be interpreting me as saying Lincoln was in favor of permanent coexistence or containment, which is an argument I never made: I quite clearly was talking about Lincoln's support for temporary containment, for eventual abolition.
And quite clearly, this was Lincoln's position, as the House Divided speech makes abundantly clear.
How one side would win obviously remained an open question in 1858
Except that Lincoln said precisely how his side would win (although he was wrong): containment and gradual change.