May 01, 2006
Mike McGavick has relaunched his campaign blog with lots 'o new articles, including a call to ban Iran from the World Cup until they renounce their nuclear ambitions. A must read for all Washingtonians who care about having new leadership in the Senate.
Posted by Andy MacDonald at May 01, 2006
02:52 PM | Email This
Huck, where ya been?
Yeah, that was a real yawner. Ban Iran from the World Cup? Wow!! That will really stop them from bringing bombs to the US and into Israel, won't it?
I am starting to wonder about this guy, just like other clear thinkers whose vote is expected to be R.
Vanilli manilli comes to mind.
Everyone seems to have the vanilla solution to immigration issues today.
He can spout all that stuff out but nothing practical here that will get put in place.
I guess I am looking for a hard-hitter, but all we have is a dancer.
4. The feminization of our society requires all men to be castrated before considering a run for public office.
Ban Iran from the World Cup?!? Like the U.S. has any influence over FIFA?
This is "new leadership in the Senate?" No, my friends, this is a buffoon, this is a laughingstock, this is something to throw peanuts at.
Forget Nethercutt numbers. We will roll up Linda Smith numbers on this guy!
6. A dancer? You mean when he uses phrases like "... a secure border, and a flexible guest worker program. They go hand in hand." Is that dancing?
Too many blogs, too little time.
I don't even read the blogs whose links are along the right of Sound Politics (sorry guys:-)
I doubt I'll be checking in regularly to read the McGavick blog.
With that said, Mike! is the best candidate. I'll be voting for him in the primary and general elections. He is far superior to Cantwell, or the third and fourth party candidates in this race.
I'm sure everyone here will be doing the same thing while doing their utmost to have a Republican in this state join the GOP Senate majority back in DC.
8. I am so depresssed, because this guy has had zero visibility so far. He may be the best candidate, but so far is as bland as milque toast. Not a winning strategy in order to go up against a candidate that has name recognition and liberal credentials. When will he be splashing his way onto the political scene? I am afraid it is already too late and therefore his campaign ia a waste of resources.
Mike! is going to keep Iran! out of the World Cup?
I admit it's not something I follow too closely. Are they a threat?
To win the Cup, I mean.
10. I agree with swatters comments on immigration.
The only problem I forsee with allowing the illegals to become legal is that they will no loneger "do the job Americans wont do". Why do I say this? Simple; they will no longer do these jobs, because as citizens they can no demand better wages. Let's face it, the only reason they get hired is that the illegal immigrant is a cheap form of labor who, due to being illegal, can not complain to the government about there low wages or poor work conditions. I feel that the saying should actually be, "they do jobs for smaller wages than Americans would do them for".
11. A dancer? You mean when he uses phrases like "... a secure border, and a flexible guest worker program. They go hand in hand." Is that dancing?
No, that's telling the truth.
If you ignore supply and demand when you make laws, the laws don't work. Example: How hard is it to get pot? Easier then it is for an under 18 kid to get alcohol. Which is also easy.
We will only have a secure border when we have a realistic border policy in terms of guest workers and such. Till then, we will not have a secure border.
12. When McGavick says unequivocally that he intends to close the border as fast as possible, and before any more blather about guest workers, I'll take him seriously. Otherwise, I'll be voting for his opponent.
13. Pretty weak on the rhetoric re: Illegal immigration. His position is only slightly distinguishable from his opponent. The comment on Iran doesn't really resonate. I thought that his campaign ads sounded OK - however he does not have an intimidating voice, but now I wonder. Anyone who mentions guest workers before securing the borders translates to illegal amnesty.. I sure disdain the President's stand on the borders - can Tony Snow talk some sense into this guy ? If he keeps this up - his ratings will be in the 20's before you know it - Lord help save us from this utter lack of leadership !
14. You know, KS, all the years I was voting for Republicans, I literally thought they intended to secure the borders, but just had so many things to do that they hadn't gotten around to it yet. How naive I was. Republicans, by and large, are huge supporters of illegal immigration. It feels good to be an independent voter again.
Huck, swatter again. The McGavick soundbite on immigration is too pat. It feels like it is a focus group position and not one from the candidate's own opinion.
It was as legitimate a position, but like Boonie says, it doesn't have any oomph.
From history, it was promised by SP opiners that once McGavick gets going, we are all going to be impressed. I, for one, suggested that the State needed an R Senator just so the pork gets back here and we have a say on the BPA issues.
So far, I have not been impressed. Maybe I'll vote for him just because he isn't Cantwell, I don't know.
16. I smell a R.I.N.O. in a Ronald Reagan suit!!!
I am beginning to think “Big Mc” can be founds somewhers to the left of “Mc Cain”
18. 1 McGavick needs to give me a reason why I should vote for him
2 Cantwell voted for the war in Iraq and stood up to Ted Stevens and Alaska on the "bridge to nowhere" pork project
3 Cantwell has essentially Clintonized Slade Gorton's 2000 campaign platform.
4 Until Mike and his staff can explain how voting for Mike will help Seattle, King County, the State of Washington, and the Party; there's really no reason to get involved
5 Currently Mike is running for Ambassador to Timbuktu, not US Senator
19. I am an independent and cannot take anyone who calls themself a conservative for granted any more - their actions speak the loudest.
20. Sadly, Jeffro, I think you might be correct.