July 25, 2006
No Surprise Here
Mike McGavick wants nine debates with Senator Cantwell. Amen to that. Though anyone who has watched the clips of McGavick on the Open Mike Tour won't be surprised at such a challenge.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 25, 2006
07:51 PM | Email This
1. If McGavick wants 9 debates and Cantwell wants 0, I predict we'll see 2.
2. Everyone knows incumbents rarely chance debates, especially vulnerable ones. They've got everything to lose, nothing to gain. Her handlers have got to know that McGavick would tower over Cantwell, physically and intellectually. Odds are she'll just use her D.C. blood money to slander him in the media.
3. Why doesn't McGavick offer to debate Cantwell every day until the election? That way she can never take any votes he disagrees with.
4. What will they debate about...Mr. Mike is Pro-Choice, Pro-Illegal Alien, Pro- Government funded Stem Cell Research, Pro Gay Marriage, Pro Government Spending...sounds to me they agree on the important issues!!!
Yeah, the way to go here is to pull a Goldstein and put up a counter on the McGavick website. Number of Days since McGavick challenged Cantwell to a debate. It would just tick up while she tried to weasel out. If she does debate him, she's got no chance. Progressives are not use to defending their ideas in public. They just want to hand them down from on high.
Can't wait to watch Cantwell flounder.
Flash, my big trump card is our national security. Period. National Security is the reason the states gave up some of their rights to form the United States of America.
In times of peace, maybe you are right. But right now and in this place, national security is concern 1, concern 2, ....
And you know, a lot of people jump on Bush over his spending (I am one of them), but, his spending binge is nothing compared to what it would have been under a different administration.
Bush had to spend money on some of those programs- just not as much as the Ds wanted. It was called triangulation.
One other thing, this state needs a strong Senator. McGavick may not be but at least he has REAL private experience. And we should have an R senator in an R controlled Senate.
I've got to ask why we need an R senator in an R controlled Senate? Can't Washington citizens make the decision based on our own needs and desires, regardless of what's going on in the OTHER Washington? Or are you worried that we won't get enough pork without an R? Mike should NOT try to run on national issues, or be associated IN ANY WAY with the horrificly inept Congressional Republicans.
I have a hard time overcoming the impression that Mr. McGavick was foisted on our state by the RNC and the Pork Meister In Chief Senitor Ted Stevens of Alaska. My gut reaction to his candidacy is that Washington needs two Senitors, and Alaska does not need three. I know I should give him a fair chance. It's just hard to overcome the impression he would take his orders from Anchorage (or the suite of rooms Sen. Stevens occupies in D.C.) rather than Washington. Debates would help - for those who actually watch. I hope there are more than 0.
Has anyone else noticed how pathetic poor Maria's recent television ads are? "Protected Washington citizens from Big Oil Gouging..." or some such nonsense. (could someone please define "gouging" and prove how it could be perpetrated upon unsuspecting consumers?!)
Is this really the best her campaign could come up with? But brain-dead Puget Sound leftists just eagerly lap up this vapid drivel. There must be something about tofu and ecstasy (in addition to marijuana) and the like that damages the normal brain's B.S.-meter receptors.
Can we start a campaign referring to poor Ms. Cantwell as "Cant-vote-well", or this perhaps, "Cant-debate-well"?
Anyone care to try their own Maria Cant-[insert delectable jibe here]-well moniker?
9. I would not be suprised if Sen. Cantwell agrees to 0 debates. She knows that when she has a real person that will actually debate her and not pay her lip service (i.e. MSM) she will lose. She will probably claim that she is too busy campaigning and trying to find more red vines for her volunteers.
If you have to ask this question, you may need to study up on how the other Washington works.
We really hurt ourselves over by not having a republican in the senate. It means that we don't have anyone representing Washington in a large number of the policy conversations going on - those that happen behind closed doors in GOP senate planning sessons.
If you add on the fact that Cantwell is famous in DC for not even making the attempt to "build bridges" with the majority, it really compounds the problem. I'm sure the cheering minority in hard left downtown Seattle might cheer her on for not dealing with the GOP, but by not engaging in the conversation she marginalizes herself and doesn't even get the opportunity to represent the views of Washington state.
Cantwell has created a situation where she can't build concensus with enough senators to get anything through the senate. She doesn't have the relationships necessary to help get Washington's interests recognized in important legislation. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, but Maria is sleeping on the couch.
Maria has been in DC for years and all she's managed to do is piss off important people and build walls. There's no upside for our state in having a senator like that.
I'm not a huge fan of our other Washington senator and I think she spends to much of her political capital on things that aren't really about Washington state, but you can at least give her credit for working with the opposition and producing results for us.
Having a D and an R in the senate could give our state a real advantage. Having Maria out of the senate and having anyone in there regardless of party that can build bridges would at least be an improvement.
I know how the other Washington works. I guess I was feeling idealistic when I wrote my post. Ideally (and not focusing on Cantwell in particular) why should we have to vote for the person who is most likely to fit in with the DC power structure?
Realistically, you are absolutely right. It is much more sensible to elect someone who will fit in, or who can at least forge alliances across party boundaries. And I think that your assertion that Ms. Cantwell does not work well with others (reguardless of political affiliation) is correct.
An interesting digression (to me at least) is weather or not Cantwell is being cheered by the radical left. I believe that many many in the NO IRAQ WAR crowd dislike her immensely. I don't think she's a liberal. I doubt Sen. Cantwell believes in much of anything. Weather or not that is better than being a hard left liberal is an interesting question to ponder...
12. Sstarr, I feel you are right in saying the Sen. Cantwell does not believe in much of anything. She doesnt seem to have much support from the radically left, because of her stance on the war and she does not have support from the right for her stance on the NSA program (just to name one). If McGavick were smart he would have came out strong for border security first instead of echoing Sen Cantwell's position for a comprehensive package now stance.
The idea that Ted Stevens had anything to do
with McGavick being the Gop candidate is absurd.
This happened because the State Gop leadership
and the establisment crowd wanted Mike McGavick.
They have wanted McGavick since day one.There
really is nothing more to it then that.