This clip from KING 5's Robert Mak discussing the Democrats videotaping McGavick is interesting. It's pretty neutral, though McGavick seems to come out the better of things in the end.
Give McGavick credit for how he's choosing to embrace the young wards of the Democratic party and have some fun with them. And as usual, give credit to Robert Mak, one of the best political reporters in the region, for his usual balanced reporting. What really struck me about the clip though is that Dwight Pelz could use some media training.
Hat tip: Respectfully Republican
Posted by Eric Earling at July 16, 2006 09:32 AM | Email ThisAs I was watching this clip, two things came to mind:
1: Mike McGavick is showing far more class and savvy than Maria Cantwell with his behavior on the campaign trail.
2: The last thing said on the clip about the reasons why the Democratic party was doing this was rather interesting. Saying they were doing it because McGavick is new to the game and they need to know everything he is for sounds like a good idea... but would they accept the same explanation for the Republican party doing this to Darcy Burner? So far it seems like they do not. Just my observation.
Domo.
Posted by: Left Behind by the New Democratic Party on July 16, 2006 01:24 PMFor a more abusive example of this practice, we'd have to go back the 2004 election where Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jack Ryan (IL) had a campaign aide record Barack Obama's every move. Apparently, Obama's stalker was more aggressive, following him through statehouse corridors and taping as he chatted with colleagues, made private calls to his wife and daughters, and even chasing him as he headed to the restroom. In some cases, the aide heckled Obama by yelling questions at him in public.
Obama had no problem with the recording of his statements, but he asked that the cameraman keep his distance. The taping of McGavick's public appearances seems quite respectful in comparison.
Posted by: scottd on July 16, 2006 09:37 PMIn searching around for corroboration I discovered that it more prevelant on both sides than I had imagined. I would rather they didn't, but it looks like status quo from here on out...
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 16, 2006 10:43 PMLet's put aside the Bush fantasy that ANWR will solve the nation's energy crisis (it won't). Let's also put aside the extreme left's environmental agenda. Instead focus just on whether it would help or hurt WA.
In that vein, the most common reason would be to lower our gas costs. However, ANWR is neutral to our gas costs. We already get most of our gas from Alaska and it make no difference. The oil companies price gas on the world wide price not what it costs to extract and ship the oil. If they can sell Alaska oil to overseas and to other US markets for a higher price they will, and thus in turn charge us the world going rate, even if it has no bearing on the cost to extract and ship it to Washington refineries.
Second, ANWR will have no bearing on the lack of refineries in the US to convert the oil to gas, which is one of the major contributing factors.
If McGavick was smart he would shift the focus from ANWR and instead to the other factors that make up the high oil prices, like lack of refineries. It does no good to tap ANWR with the Global (OPEC) nations keeping the price high and with the lack of US refinery space. The system can only process oil at the rate of the refineries, not on how much is available
ANWR would give us a temporary relief from dependence on foriegn oil, but so would Canada and other sources. It doesn't fix the long term dependency and doesn't fix the lack of refineries. It's time oil companies start reinvesting their profits into the system. That is what I would look to McGavick to promote (or Cantwell). If neither of them misses the real need, then shame on them.
Posted by: tc on July 17, 2006 06:01 AMOpening ANWR, even though it may not have an immediate effect on oil supplies, is an important step to break the environmentalist, no drilling mindset that so grips the Beltway set. It would be a signal to the world markets that we will no longer allow the designation of some godforsaken wilderness as "pristine" that would prevent us from exploring for oil there. Once ANWR is opened then the vast offshore oil tracts could be considered.
Of course cutting red tape to allow new refineries to be built is important but it is even more important to break the no drilling prohibition that so contributes to the pyschology of fear about oil supplies.
Posted by: Bill K. on July 17, 2006 10:59 PMCurmudgeonly, snarly, grumpy Dwight has more entertainment value than Homer Simpson on his best day!
When he was on the King County Council, he and I would exchange barbs often. He was such an easy target! Sadly, we've only had one exchange since he became the Washington State Democratic Party's Howard Dean Minnie-Me.
Dwight isn't any campaign consultant's idea of a party chairman, and that's good. With him, what you see is what you get. That's the way it should be. No more burnished, blow-dried, bland, boring, both-sides-of-the-issue, both-sides-of-their-mouths party hacks or candidates...on both sides, in both parties.
Posted by: Piper Soctt on July 18, 2006 09:47 AMIf you want to talk about "stalking", I'm sure you remember the Ryan campaign tracker in '04 who was following Obama into the bathroom.
Posted by: teh.grassroots on August 2, 2006 01:11 PM