August 29, 2006
Last Call

Too much may have been written already about Senate candidate Mike McGavick's admission, among other things, of driving while under the influence of alcohol in 1993.
The news coverage over the last four days has been like a crowd of kibitzers complimenting a good chess player for sacrificing a pawn to begin an intricate gambit. The merits of this particular zwischenzug will be determined by the voters during the endgame in November.

Rather than debate the motives of the Senate race chess players, I'm a bit more interested in the motives of the people commenting on this particular match.
Some of the characters are obvious. Eric Earling, below, has his take.
David Postman gets paid for his opinion here.
There is perhaps a bit of poor sportsmanship on the part of the Democrat Party for not being able to nail Mike! on this later in the season.
Horsesass blogger David Goldstein might be suffering from what we in the poultry industry call a cock block for not being able to use the same stratagem he employed in 2005 versus former King County Councilmember David Irons Jr. in his race for King County Executive.

What I'm wondering is why we heard about this news in August and not earlier in the year like a month after McGavick's kickoff?
It is not terribly difficult to uncover that sort of information. During a yearlong political campaign, any reporter worth his notepad will have done a little courthouse bloodhounding to see what the public records will turn up. That's journalism school 101 stuff practically.
The fact that McGavick was cited for having a 0.17 percent blood-alcohol level while operating a motor vehicle does raise to the level of meriting some news coverage.
So it is completely surprising to me that supposedly no one knew of this until 11 weeks before the election. Was everyone at the Seattle P-I, Seattle Times, News Tribune or Spokesman Review sniffing news ink? What about our intrepid and well-coifed television personalities at KING, KOMO, KIRO or Q-13 Fox? Surely this would have garnered some airtime on a radio station. You'd have thought that at least The Olympian would have caught wind of this or the Associated Press' bureau in the state capitol. The incident did happen in their neck of the woods.
No. Instead this news - just like most news it seems - was broken in press release fashion on McGavick's blog no less.

Now did our local reporters and editors know of the information before hand and choose to spike the story because of some altruistic sense of good form and civility? A 13-year old DUI incident isn't exactly stop-the-presses material. It's one of those seedy, little pieces that you don't feel good writing about but you have to write about because the public needs to know. It is a relevant story. It would go in any paper I was running. And every reporter I know would do the same.

So did the press know of McGavick's driving record and were choosing to hold onto that information until later in the political season?
That's the question to ask. Because if the "media" was choosing to do this they'd be going from informing the public to trying to mold and influence public opinion; a behavior that is antithetical to any good journalist.

"McGavick arrest for DUI" has less legs in late August before Labor Day than the same headline in late October before Halloween. Today it rates about 20 column inches of print, an editorial and maybe a pontification from the paper's columnist. In two months it can be splashed above the fold with sidebars, photographs jumps to an inside double truck featuring a complete police report and transcripts from the trial.
News is news but the timing in which it comes out has everything to do with how it is received.

So far I have not read any story from an editor or writer admitting one way or the other about their knowledge beforehand of this incident.
I am highly doubtful that of the number of ever-so capable political reporters in this state that none of them were aware of McGavick's DUI record. When you are a good reporter and when you are enmeshed in the fairly small, cliquish world that is Washington state politics you can't help but have apples like this fall in your lap or on your head.
If none of them did than it's another black-eye for this area's follow-the-pack, press release driven political coverage.
But if someone knew of the story and were sitting on it; that tells something else entirely. Whether it boded for good or ill depends on your perspective.

Posted by DonWard at August 29, 2006 11:18 AM | Email This
Comments
1. 2 thoughts:

1. I believe the DUI had been expunged from the records. I don't know if that makes the records unavailable or not.

2. The DUI was known but kept under wraps so that it could be revealed right before the election for maximum effect,(ala Bush in 2000).

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2006 11:32 AM
2. Watch closely as the "Lee Giles" information trickles out information that the News Tribune has been sittin' on in order to protect Tacoma pols. The web of filth in Tacoma/Pierce includes local ‘celebrities’ (Frugal Gourmet), Politicians and their favorites (especially but not limited to other members of their sex-clubs), Strip club owners and more. One thing they all have in common is that the News Tribune provides cover for their nefarious activities through their failure to cover graft and corruption which they are knowledgeable of.

Posted by: JDH on August 29, 2006 11:44 AM
3. For those who have suffered the aftermath of the damage a drunk driver can do, you can be assured that this issue of a "13-year old DUI incident" is a big deal. My Sister and one of her children died because of a drunk driver and although I have voted Republican in the past, I have donated five hundred dollars to the Cantwell campaign in order to defeat McGavick.

The good thing however that since this has come out so early there is still time to fix it. Cantwell can be beaten on the issues, but with McGavick's bagage, the campaign won't be about the issues. It will be about McGavick. The news media will ensure that. The Cantwell campaign will ensure that.

I am already aware of the tactics they will use. They will put MADD stickers on McGavick signs. And they are planning to make signs that they can put up next to McGavick signs that will have the name of a victim of a drunk driver on it. These tactics will be effective.

Liberal Republicans have always stressed the need of supporting only candidates that are "electable" (of course they didn't think Reagan was electable). Well the truth is that McGavick simply isn't electable. That alone should motivate the leadership in the Republican to ask McGavick to step aside so that a more electable candidate can run. Last minute candidacies have been successful in the past and at least a new candidate will have a chance, which is something that McGavick clearly doesn't have.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 11:45 AM
4. Jane,

You are absolutely right about all of this.
The only thing I would add is that the safeco trainwreck will
probably be the worst part of all it.As for
the State Gop leadership asking McGavick to
step aside. This will never happen I say this
because that would mean they would have to admit they
made a mistake.That is something they will never
do. Not to mention the establishment crowd is so
invested in McGavick's campaign that this kind
failure would be a disaster to them.


If he should lose the election that would be one thing because they can always blame someone else for it.
I can't see a way they would ever have McGavick
step aside.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 29, 2006 12:02 PM
5. I know they won't ask McGavick to step aside. If I thought there was any chance that they would I would have waited before sending in my check to Cantwell.

This party isn't the party of Ted Kennedy. But that is exactly what it what McGavick is turning it into.

And as someone who first got involved in the Republican Party in 1980 to help Reagan I grieve for that.

But not nearly as much as I grieve for my sister and my niece.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 12:08 PM
6. By benefit of Don's reporter experience, he makes a good point. Were they sitting on the knowledge, waiting for the best moment to drop the stink bomb? A day or three before ballots were cast would have been perfect. Put my check mark in the "They were waiting" box.

Comparing McGavick to a drunken sot like Teddy seems harsh. Did McGavick kill somebody? What did I miss? Is he chasing girls down the beach in his underwear?

If McGavick steps aside, who is that "electable" candidate going to be? There is very little time to establish one anyway.

At this point I think that letting him win or lose on his merits is what needs to be done. I think that it would be hard to find the perfect political virgin that everybody needs to feel good about themselves when they pull the lever.

Posted by: G Jiggy on August 29, 2006 12:24 PM
7. A theory:

Cantwell's supporters are growing desperate as she fails to gain the benchmark 50% in polls.

Capitalizing in the DUI admission, Phil and his minions lead the charge to have McGavick replaced as the Republican candidate to assure that Maria wins.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2006 12:25 PM
8. Phil-

I'm sure that I'm not the only poster here that's sick of your sourgrapes blathering. Whah, whah whah. I see your name at the bottom of a post and I skip it because you are the proverbial broken record.

Jane-

If true, I am very sorry for your loss. But I think you sound like a died in the wool liberal democrat. $500 to Maria Cantwell - PLEASE! I hope that you are as zeolous regarding any drunk driver regardless of party. But I think you are full of BS.

Posted by: Jeffro on August 29, 2006 12:25 PM
9. That should be "Capitalizing on". Sorry, I had a middle-aged moment.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2006 12:31 PM
10. Isn't it interesting that everyone ASSumes Mike didn't learn a great big humbling lesson 13 years ago.

The relevant question should be DID he learn his lesson? Has he driven impaired again? If he has, ask yourselves, why in God's name would he have pre-emptively brought attention to the problem?

How smug and self-righteous does one have to be, to not admire one that admits a mistake and goes on never to make it again?


Mike, if you're reading this, I suggest that NOW you go donate and widely distribute a public service announcement about drunk driving... REALLY drive the smug and self-righteous around the bend.

Posted by: Cheryl on August 29, 2006 12:42 PM
11. I have donated a great deal of money to groups that does public service annocenments about drunk driving, but I am very offended at the leadership of the State Republicans (and now many of the people who post here) who thinks that what McGavick did was no big deal. You act like he got a parking ticket.

You say "well, he made a mistake and everyone makes mistakes don't they"? Well, the answer is no, everyone doesn't make mistakes of this level of seriousness. There are mistakes and there are mistakes aren't there. Would you let a murder go free if he said "Well I made a mistake but I have learned from it"?

And we are talking about a person who is going for a high office. Even if "everyone makes mistakes (of this level of seriousness) we aren't talking about everyone here. We are talking about a man, who if elected will be one of one hundred people who our country have deemed worthy of this position.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 12:52 PM
12. He made a horrible decision, he got CAUGHT, he did NOT kill, maim or injure anyone. He learned NOT to do it again and he hasn't

God, I would hate to be your child and ever screw up or make a mistake.

I would argue that he would make that much better of a legislator as he has first hand knowledge of learning from ones mistakes.

Posted by: Cheryl on August 29, 2006 12:57 PM
13. Very good question. I would have to say that with the way some in the MSM have been lately I would be lead to believe that they were sitting on this story until right before the election. Look at what has happened in recent history. The CBS story about President Bush supposedly being AWOL ending up being faked, The photographs from Reuturs from Lebanon that were fake and it also looks now like the MSM new that it was Richard Armitage that leaked Valerie Plame's name in that non-issue leak case yet they kept reporting it was Rove.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 29, 2006 01:01 PM
14. Jane-

You still sound like a democrat seminar blogger.

By your logic, what exactly qualifies Maria Cantwell to hold one of those 100 post. She doesn't have a DUI conviction? Just the same, it doesn't mean that she hasn't driven under the influence - she just hasn't been caught.

Wasn't it your state democrat legislators that refused to make DUI punishments stricter? I hope that you don't/didn't vote for any of them.

Posted by: Jeffro on August 29, 2006 01:03 PM
15. Jane-
No one thinks that a DUI is no big deal, but I think we all did things in our life that we're sorry for. Over the course of a half century, the only person who doesn't do something wrong is the one that does nothing.

The key is whether you believe the person learned from the mistake. I believe (and believe most people believe) that Mike probably doesn't jump in the car after a few highballs anymore.

I think sometimes that all this "gottcha" politics played by both sides really hurts us as a nation. Think about it.

I'd much rather have someone who had their life destroyed by drugs talking to my kids about why they shouldn't use them.

I think that if we had more former drug users in the narcotics enforcement, we might have a more effective drug enforcement effort.

Instead of all the politicians on TV talking about why we shouldn't be at war and what the soldiers and Iraqis really need, wouldn't it be nice if we got regular interviews with soldiers and Iraqi's who are both for and against the occupation? (When was the last time you saw any Iraqi on TV that lost a relative to Saddam, for instance. They don't even talk about the stuff coming out of Saddam's trial on page 1. Has anyone asked an Iraqi on camera lately what they think would happen if we cut and run?)

Maybe I'm alone, but these kinds of things make sense to me.

The fact of the matter is that this was a single event that happened 13 years ago. He was at a political event and drank a few beers with his supporters. I'm sure it's probably happened before to other politicians on both sides of the isle. It hasn't happened since. That's the whole point.

Posted by: Johnny on August 29, 2006 01:12 PM
16. Bill,

I think sometimes you have a selective memory
problem. I have said nothing about McGavick's
Dui. If thats what you think this is all about
then you really aren't paying attention very well.

Posted by: phil spackman on August 29, 2006 01:15 PM
17. Jane,

1st off - my condolences for your loss. I can understand your hostility towards drunk driving and anyone that has done it.

What I don't understand is why you would want to elect Maria? What does she bring that you support? Is it only that she has never been convicted of a DUI?

As for your analagy, Mike didn't go free, he served the sentence that was handed down. So I'm not sure that is applicable. Plus murder isn't probably the right way to put it either. If you said, he accidently killed someone or committed manslaughter then that might work. Finally, everyone doesn't make that mistake, but sadly 10 of thousands do each year in WA.

Posted by: Dengle on August 29, 2006 01:19 PM
18. Phil, Jane, et al...

Your support of Cantwell over a one-time McGavick stupidity ignores the bigger picture on this topic - that being the huge amount of cash she gets from the trial lawyers and the resultant legislative payback in their favor. That collaboration is far more destructive in many ways, including the repeated exoneration of chronic drunk drivers.

Single-issue voters are pathetic.

Posted by: GOPolitics on August 29, 2006 01:19 PM
19. I would be arrogant to think that I am the only one who hasn't made mistakes in my life.

I know I am not.

And when I say mistakes I mean big mistakes. Sure everyone has "spilled milk" but few of us really have made the serious level of mistakes we are talking about here.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 01:20 PM
20. Should we forgive that guy who shot those people at the Jewish Federation building?

After all it seems like it was a "one-time stupidity".

Again, there are mistakes and there are mistakes.

And only liberals believe that everyone has made the level of mistake that we are talking about here.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 01:25 PM
21. Jane,
By what logic does not voting for Mike bring your sister back, or balm your emotional wounds? You sound like a local version of the loco Cindy who will be out at midnight defacing Mike! signs with MADD stickers, justified by your single issue passion, or your use of this issue to leverage a previously held political view.

Please, send Maria another $500 so you can join that minority of donations which actually come from Washington residents. Most of her money comes from out of state; Democratic machine money, which, OH! also supports and embraces as a champion the most famous DUI offender of our time, The Cowardly Killer of Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy. Sleep well. Most hypocrites do.

My stand on drunk driving? Personally, I support taking the car, and three years of driving privileges from anyone on their first DUI. No excuses. Kill someone while drunk? Lose your life, too.

Jane, I too grieve for your loss. Tragic and irreversable. You have a choice to try to direct your grief appropriately; or continue on that bitter path in really honoring your sister's memory by sending another check to Maria/Teddy.

Mike is certainly not perfect, and I have disagreements with some of his stands on issues. That is how I will vote, on the issues, and on the implications of having a continuing Democratic party hold on the State of Washington. Maria got my vote three times. I have given her a chance to perform, and she has failed. Mike will get my vote this time.

Posted by: duhh on August 29, 2006 01:35 PM
22. GOPolitics,

Did I ever say I was supporting Cantwell?
No I didn't. What I said was I will not
blindly support someone simply because
they have an R by there name.However I
will never support Cantwell.


I'm sorry I cannot support someone who can't
or won't say what he stands for.Yeah I know
he has said some things. But he has already
changed his position on some of then.Take the
war in Iraq for example.First he supported Bush
completely on that. Now Its well If I knew
then what I know now I would not have voted
to go to Iraq.


All you have to do is look at the polling
data in this to see that a majority in
this state don't support the war in Iraq.
Then you will understand why he changed
his position.


Posted by: phil spackman on August 29, 2006 01:37 PM
23. phil spackman,

I've been reading this blog for three years, and I've NEVER read you writing ANYTHING GOOD about ANYONE.

You're a stone-thrower making unfounded allegorical diatribes against good people.

Nobody here pays attention to what you write. In fact, I wouldn't be the first person to state that when I see your name, I roll my eyes and skip it all.

You're the human metaphor - never stating what you really know, just alluding that there's always something dark and despicable hidden just beyond the perception of the common voter.

Well, I'm calling your bluff. I'd say that you're full of $h!t, but that would imply that you actually have substance. You're an emply shell of a human being who derives pleasure out of being recognized in the comments of someone else's blog.

I can't tell if what you know is relevant, because you never deign to tell us. Why don't you start your own blog and let us actually DISCUSS the RELEVANT issues of the day?

Posted by: Larry on August 29, 2006 02:02 PM
24. I still get the attitude from you people that this isn't a big deal.

One of the consequences of drunk driving should be that people won't vote for you to be a US Senator.

You can talk about Teddy all you want but I thought that this Wasn't the Party of Ted Kennedy.

But that seems to be what McGavick is turning this party into.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 02:03 PM
25. Gee I thought the question was whether or not you feel that the media may have sat on this story or not. Yet now it has turned into do we vote for McGavick or not. Drunk Driving is a horrible offense, but cant we keep on the topic? If you want to talk about whether or not you should vote for McGavick over this DUI why not start a thread in the public Blog.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 29, 2006 02:07 PM
26. Gee I thought the question was whether or not you feel that the media may have sat on this story or not. Yet now it has turned into do we vote for McGavick or not. Drunk Driving is a horrible offense, but cant we keep on the topic? If you want to talk about whether or not you should vote for McGavick over this DUI why not start a thread in the public Blog.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 29, 2006 02:08 PM
27. Jane,

I'm sorry for your loss, if you actually had one.

Your writing sounds contrived. You sound like the typical 'I'm really a Republican, but not for THIS guy' lying liberal Democrat trying to drum up support for a do-nothing incumbant who's in deep trouble.

You talk about the evils of drunk driving. Yet you know NOTHING about McGavick's incident. I've two friends who received DUIs - one when the automobile wasn't operating, my friend was listening to music with the keys in the ignition and the car turned off; the other was for DUI while on a bicycle! Now, how do you know McGavick's predicament was any worse than these?

I'm calling your bluff too, Jane. You've already compared McGavick to Ted Kennedy (Comment 5) even though nobody was hurt. You've compared a DUI to murder (comment 11) even though nobody was hurt.

And now you've compared the situation to the terrorist incident by the Muslim shooting up the Jewish Federation (comment 20).

You're full of $h!t, too, although at least I believe that Phil Spackman believes his opinions. I think you're a shill of Cantdoanythingwell and the liberals and Democrats.

Like I said - I'm sorry for your loss, if you actually had one. I don't believe that you did.

But nobody cares about this anyway - you'll see in November.

Posted by: Larry on August 29, 2006 02:09 PM
28. Jane,

So you donate money to the party of Ted Kennedy. How inverted your logic is to accuse the republicans of being a party like Ted Kennedy but donate money to the party of Ted Kennedy so you do not have to be part of a party like Ted Kennedy. You have lost any creditability you had with your stance. I hope you realize this.

Respectfully,
James S.

Posted by: James S. on August 29, 2006 02:14 PM
29. If people don't care about this then it will say that people still don't take drunk driving seriously, and that would be a sad indictment of society indeed.

But I think that people will care and it will have an effect in November. And unfortunately the Republican party in this state will be tarnished as being the party that is soft on Drunk Driving for years to come.

But we will see this November won't we? This campaign has turned into a referendum on how people feel about drunk driving. Vote for McGavick and you will be making a public statement that you don't think drunk driving is important.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 02:18 PM
30. After that comment Jane I'm convinced you are nothing more than a seminar liberal poster. You aren't fooling anyone here.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2006 02:28 PM
31. Jane,

You are making some wild assumtions and leaps of logic here.

Just because a person doesn't think that a 13 year old DUI is reason enough to vote against somebody doesn't mean that they do not take DUIs seriously.

Personally, I take them very seriously, but I'm also very serious about other issues too. Cantwell doesn't support or, in some cases, opposes my view on those other issues. Should I throw all away all my concern about other issues because 13 years ago her opponent made a mistake that fortunately hurt noone and that he hasn't repeated?

You are essentially asking me to take a DUI more seriously than other issues I care about.

Posted by: KenB on August 29, 2006 02:37 PM
32. Once again I think this conversation has gotten off topic. Please take it to the public blog. Thank You.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 29, 2006 02:44 PM
33. Jane-

Answer truthfully please:

Do you or have you ever drank alcholic beverages?

Do you drive?

Have you ever had one drink and gotten behind the wheel of a car?

Has anyone you were ever with had one drink and gotten behind the wheel of a car?

Did you go to a College or trade school?

I can answer yes to all of these questions. In addition, I volunteered for a drinking and driving obstacle course set up by Troopers (I've had some professional driver training). It was quite interesting. I drank small amounts over a 3 hour period until I blew the legal limit which was .10 at the time. Failed final lap due to slower driving speeds. On another night, I may have passed all laps or failed the second lap. First lap is zero booze.

Almost all of us have had one drink and gotten behind the wheel.

Posted by: Jeffro on August 29, 2006 02:47 PM
34. I wish people would stop calling what he did a "mistake" because it tends to trivalize what he did sounding like he burnt toast or forgot to take out the trash.

DUI is very serious. I thought the Republican party understood that. I am sad to find out that I am wrong.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 02:50 PM
35. GOPol at 18: my sentiments exactly;

Jane, if your loss is true, may your loss someday be accepted and you find comfort;

however, I agree that our daily 'losses' and 'assualts' against our taxpaying safety and rights due to liberal feel-good initiatives like Tent City, 'mainstreaming' thugs, dopers, crazies, soft sentences on child molesters and knee-jerk lawsuits and clueless anti-terror awareness hurt FAR more people & lives;
little cuts bleed too; and after enough blood, the entire body dies--"left" or "right" side;

you want perfection in a candidate? good luck; try a robot; one can find dirt on virtually anyone; what does that prove?

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 29, 2006 02:54 PM
36. Jane,

I've had enough of your made-up trivialities.

Please provide me with:
1. The name of your sister and 'her child' who were killed by a drunk driver (I usually refer to the children of my siblings as 'nieces' and 'nephews').
2. The location of their final resting place; and
3. A link to a news report of their untimely passing, hopefully with reference to being survived by a sister with a first-name of 'Jane'.

If all of this checks out, this weekend I promise that I will place one-dozen yellow roses, for friendship, on the headstone of both your sister and her child.

Put up or shut up. I'll bet you can't deliver.

Posted by: Larry on August 29, 2006 02:54 PM
37. Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes.

Sorry, but the truth is that I have never drank alcohol and got behind the wheel. And at parties in College, I was most usually the designated driver though I wasn't a couple of times but when I wasn't then someone else was.

You sound like a liberal thinking everyone else has done the immoral stuff they did.

What's the big deal. Everyone has done it. Everyone has had drugs, drove drunk or under the influence of Marijuana. Everyone has cheated on their wife. Everyone has had oral sex with a co-worker. Had sex with the same sex, at least once. Everyone has done it, and if you haven't then you are lying.

Sorry, Liberals. Not everyone has lived a immoral lifestyle like you have. No, everyone doesn't "do it". Just the people you hang with.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 02:57 PM
38. (I usually refer to the children of my siblings as 'nieces' and 'nephews').


#5

"This party isn't the party of Ted Kennedy. But that is exactly what it what McGavick is turning it into.

And as someone who first got involved in the Republican Party in 1980 to help Reagan I grieve for that.

But not nearly as much as I grieve for my sister and my niece."

Do you have a problem with reading, Larry?

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 03:01 PM
39. TrueSoldier-

Agree that the topic was when the Cantwell camp would release this DUI news. But it appears that we have a democrat seminar blogger (jane) trying to make political hey out of it anyway. Much more fun!

Larry, Jimmie, James S-

Glad you guys see Jane for what she is. (see my post - #8)

Posted by: Jeffro on August 29, 2006 03:01 PM
40. Larry,

I don't know where Stefan or one of the other bloggers are
that contribute to sound politics right now.
But you have crossed the line. I can understand
that you don't believe what Jane is saying thats
fine. What your doing now is not right.Please
don't take this any further than you already
have.


Posted by: phil spackman on August 29, 2006 03:01 PM
41. Jane,

Do you think he did it deliberately?

If not, then it WAS a mistake.

That doesn't mean it's not serious. And just because I don't feel that it's as serious as issues like energy policy and national security, doesn't mean I don't take it seriously. In essense, you are asking me to trivialize those issues and vote for a cantidate whom I disagree with on those issues simply to send a message that I don't like DUIs.

Posted by: KenB on August 29, 2006 03:04 PM
42. Given the demonizing of McGavick for a past DUI it will be interesting to see the liberal take on Bobbee Bridge the next time she's up for election. I suspect we'll see the same spin afforded her as Ted Kennedy.

Posted by: Tyler Durden on August 29, 2006 03:04 PM
43. Jane: Your post 29 is quite interesting. Do you really, really think some substantial number think drunk driving is not a serious issue? Do you actually know anyone who is soft on drunk driving? I do not. To insinuate that a political party, or any group of people for that matter, is soft on drunk driving is a breathatkingly ignorant statement. Further, to insinuate that an election will turn on a 13 yr old incident also assumes the public is so empty headed that such an incident (13 yrs old, no one hurt, no repeat, voluntary disclosure) is vastly more important than issues that confront us and can seriously impact millions: energy supply issues, security issues, Islamofascists hot to nuke us, the utter collapse of the public school system in the inner cities, on and on.

Desperate to trash Republicans, eh Jane?? Better come up with something other than righteous indigation over what in reality is not much of substance, Jane.

As for Phil Spackman, he reminds me of that Mel Gibson movie where Mel was an unbelievably paranoid whack job. Entertaining for a while, harmless, ultimately annoying. Chill out, Phil.

Posted by: Hank on August 29, 2006 03:05 PM
44. phil spackman,

STFU.

Thanks,

Posted by: Larry on August 29, 2006 03:06 PM
45. He had free-will KenB.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 03:09 PM
46. you'll see in November.

Famous last words from a proven seer.

You can talk about Teddy all you want but I thought that this Wasn't the Party of Ted Kennedy.

Oh my! This remark just made my day! Bravo!

Posted by: Jimmy Blue on August 29, 2006 03:09 PM
47. "Do you actually know anyone who is soft on drunk driving?"

Well now I do. Just read the comments.

"Everyone does it".

No, no they don't. And those who believe they do are hanging with the wrong crowd.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 03:13 PM
48. Jeffro--smelled Fake Jane's argument from across the room--cheap perfume combined with a hint of Tarzan's b.o.; maybe it's true, maybe not; it's a blog; trust no one but yourself;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 29, 2006 03:14 PM
49. Jane-

Thanks for your honesty in answering my questions. You say that you got in the car with someone that drank and got behind the wheel. Hmmm - isn't it your responsibility to not get in the car and to do everything within your power to keep this person from driving?

No I'm not nor are most of these other posters liberals nor do we share the Clinton mindset that everybody does it. We do realize that we make mistakes, sometimes huge ones with severe consequences. We also know how to forgive others. Many of us have also had great losses but no longer wear them on our sleaves for all to see.

Please, I ask that you acheive some sort of closure, forgive and please, please, please, (if you truely are a Republican) vote for McGavick. You don't help your cause voting for Cantwell - see Jimmie's post #35.

Posted by: Jeffro on August 29, 2006 03:15 PM
50. Slow news day.

The most entertaining thing was Don Ward's comment about Goldstein. I'd bet $100 someone was going to tip Goldy on this story and he's definitely a bit "blue" balled that he missed his chance.

If you've been reading these threads, it should become pretty apparent that Phil Spackman's got some kind of personal axe to grind with McGavick. Phil, your personal axe grinding makes me more, not less likely to vote for McGavick.

As for DUI. Sheesh, you get MADD types here proposing some pretty radical punishments for a DUI regardless of the outcome. There's a difference between a DUI in which someone or something is harmed and one that is simply a case of DUI. The media and police advocacy groups have blown DUI way out of proportion. It's a lot like the Anti-Gun movement. The fact is that most people drive DUI all the time. Did you have a glass of wine at the restaurant with your wife last week? Technically, that's DUI. DUI, like all things driving, is about judgement. If you've had a couple of drinks over the course of a meal and you are more than safe to drive home, you shouldn't live with some kind of irrational fear. Driving while on a cell phone is equally distracting, but somehow that's more acceptable.

And as for McGavick, yeah, he was over the limit. Bad move. But he did not hurt anyone or anything, and it was thirteen years ago. The punishment fit the crime. I'm glad he has opened up his closet, and correspondingly, I take a no harm DUI into account with the appropriate weighting. It certainly is not a very big deal in his overall candidacy, unless you are a Democrat Activist or Blogger and you are desperately searching for any and all dirt, however minor, on McGavick. Cantwell is still polling below 50%. Bottom line is that the Dems are worried.

Very entertaining. Overtly left leaning media October surprise foiled.

Posted by: Jeff B. on August 29, 2006 03:17 PM
51. Islamofascists didn't kill members of my family.

A drunk driver did.

And, even after 9-11 the average American is in far greater danger of being killed by a drunk driver than in a terrorist attack.

So, let's put a little perspective on this whole terrorist thing. Sure, they are a danger, but the truth is that most Americans will not be touched directly by them whereas a good number of Americans will be effected by the destruction a drunk driver causes.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 03:19 PM
52. "You say that you got in the car with someone that drank and got behind the wheel. Hmmm - isn't it your responsibility to not get in the car and to do everything within your power to keep this person from driving?"

No, I didn't say that. If I did I must have gotten my Yes and No responses out of order.

I said that when I went to a party I was usually the designated driver. When I wasn't, then someone else in my group was the designated driver. If you don't know what a designated driver is, well it is a person from your group who pledges not to drink that night so he or she can drive everyone home without driving under the influence.


Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 03:23 PM
53. Jan: You are priceless. Apparently, down the rabbit hole with Alice where only a teetotaler is good enough to be called serious on drunk driving, or a Democrat, or someone who thinks a one time no harm incident is a death sentence. Too bad we dont apply your harsh standards to child molestors....

Whatever happened to all that famous liberal tolerance and diversity and compassion for the down and out?

Gee, on second thought, maybe if Mike McGavik slept in a sleeping bag at the Courthouse, pissed in doorways, crashed/drank at a City funded flophouse, he could succesfully run for the Senate........as a Democrat....

Only one operative word, Jane........Cuckoo....

Posted by: Hank on August 29, 2006 03:27 PM
54. Jeffro said "We do realize that we make mistakes, "

I have never made a mistake, not in the context and magnitude we are discusing here.

And, even if I have, well I am not running for US Senate. It is not hypocritical to hold those people who are running for high office at a higher standard than we have maintained ourselves.

But again, I have never made a mistake. My husband, my friends, my family haven't ever made a mistake either. Not in the context and magnitude we are talking about here.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 03:29 PM
55. "Too bad we dont apply your harsh standards to child molestors...."

It is, isn't it.

I am not the liberal here. You are the ones who are justifying the unjustifable for crass political reason.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 03:34 PM
56. Jane: Lets cut to the chase. We better go lynch Mike McGavik right now-no trial, just a tree and a rope. Since you are perfect, all we need is your last name and, presto, a write in to replace ol' "Swinging" Mike....

Posted by: Hank on August 29, 2006 03:35 PM
57. I never said I was perfect and I don't think I am alone in never having done a seriously wrong thing in my life.

In fact I know I am not.

You sound like a liberal. "come on, everyone has cheated on their wife, had sex with a subordinate, smoked pot, gotten a DUI, had sex with a person of the same sex. Come on we have all done it".

Sorry, liberals, no we haven't "all done it" . It probably seems that way because of the people who hang out with, but there is an America out there that you don't have a clue about where most people haven't lived the immoral lifestyle you have lived.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 03:42 PM
58. jane-

Fair enough, you got your yes and no mixed up.

I do know what a designated driver is and my group of friends trade off as most do.

Do you know what a seminar talking point liberal democrat is? If not look in the mirror.

By the way, friend of mine lost his wife and child in the September 11th attack. He moved back out here to be around his folks and to rebuild. So September 11 touched me because he's been my friend since junior high. It touched his parents, brothers and sister and their kids. I didn't know his wife or son well, but I'm sure it deeply touched his wife's family and friends as well.

Everything, including tragedy, has a ripple effect. National security is and always should be job one of the federal government. Who do you think is going to be tougher on terrorism - Maria or Mike?! Vote accordingly.

Lobby your local reps to get tougher on DUI offenders. This is not a job for a Senator.

Posted by: Jeffro on August 29, 2006 03:42 PM
59. Well you have been effected by terrorism and I have been effected by drunk driving. Never said terrorism wasn't a concern, but still if you look at statistics you are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than a terrorst.

Who do I think will be tougher on terrorism? I think they will be equally weak. After all McGavick has now said that he would have not voted to go into Iraq.

You say "Lobby your local reps to get tougher on DUI offenders. This is not a job for a Senator."

Well I say a Senater is not the job for a DUI offender.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 03:46 PM
60. Jane,

Thanks for proving my point:

"This campaign has turned into a referendum on how people feel about drunk driving. Vote for McGavick and you will be making a public statement that you don't think drunk driving is important."

"So, let's put a little perspective on this whole terrorist thing. Sure, they are a danger, but the truth is that most Americans will not be touched directly by them whereas a good number of Americans will be effected by the destruction a drunk driver causes."

This is a single-issue election about drunk driving. We're not at war, and terrorists aren't that big a threat.

Posted by: Larry on August 29, 2006 03:51 PM
61. Jane-

You sound like a liberal. "come on, everyone has cheated on their wife, had sex with a subordinate, smoked pot, gotten a DUI, had sex with a person of the same sex. Come on we have all done it".

Now you just sound like a loony. As far as your list above, only one of these is illegal, the rest I'd consider unethical and/or immorral.

Sincerely don't think you are going to win anyone over to your camp, except maybe Phil. He may also be without sin.

Posted by: Jeffro on August 29, 2006 03:54 PM
62. Because of McGavick's bagage this campaign has become a single-issue election about drunk driving instead about the war on terror.

And, while you may not like to hear this, despite the fact that we are indeed at war, still the average citzen is much more likely to die at the hands of a drunk driver instead of a terrorist.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 03:54 PM
63. Jeffro, maybe you have done one or more of the things listed above, but I haven't.

Nor would I want an US Senator or any other elected official for that matter who have.

If in your book that makes me "sinless" then so be it. But let me tell you there are lot more "sinless" people out there than you might think.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 03:58 PM
64. Jane,

My offer still stands: Two dozen yellow roses if you validate your story.

We can all see the spots on you, miss liberal leopard.

Put up or shut up. You still haven't delivered.

Posted by: Larry on August 29, 2006 04:00 PM
65. jane said:

You say "Lobby your local reps to get tougher on DUI offenders. This is not a job for a Senator."

Well I say a Senater is not the job for a DUI offender.

Nicely done! I actually laughed at this one.

Unfortunately for you, this is not a single issue election and on the real issues, you and Maria lose.

Bye bye.

Posted by: Jeffro on August 29, 2006 04:01 PM
66. And, even after 9-11 the average American is in far greater danger of being killed by [insert random accident here] than in a terrorist attack.

These has been the most recent lefty meme to pop up. Read several samples of it just today. Struck by lightning, hit by truck and now drunk driver.

As an earlier poster mentioned, "your use of this issue to leverage a previously held political view" applies. Now, you could easily dispell the doubters by providing the information about your sister and your niece. If you think it's beneath standards to request that, so be it. However, in light of your many questionable comments in this thread, don't expect your opinion to carry any weight without it.

Posted by: jimg on August 29, 2006 04:05 PM
67. I am not going to have you or someone else desecrate their graves with McGavick stickers.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 04:05 PM
68. I am not going to have you or someone else desecrate their graves with McGavick stickers.

Oh, puhleeze. Nevermind what I posted. You're a lost cause. Now go away.

Posted by: jimg on August 29, 2006 04:09 PM
69. jimg a drunk driving accident is only random for the victims of the drunk driver.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 04:10 PM
70. Jane, if you're making this up about your relatives being killed by a drunk driver you are very sick.

Really looks to me like that time honored liberal tactic..."you can't have an opinion on this because you haven't experienced it".

And of course now I am obligated to say that if you did actually lose loved ones I am truly sorry.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2006 04:13 PM
71. Sorry folks for the people who have taken the thread off topic. Jane specifically.
The question at hand when I wrote this post was the media response to this issue (and Democrat response).
I've been out all day beating the bushes so I've not been monitoring. Plus Stefan, Eric et al haven't taught me how to crack the whip yet on folks abusing this forum for their own diatribes.

A reminder, stay on topic please. And if you're confused look at the subhead labeled "media news".

Posted by: Reporterward on August 29, 2006 04:14 PM
72. I would say Bill, that you probably wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what McGavick did if you ever had been personally effected by a drunk driver killing your love ones.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 04:16 PM
73. Jane,

"I am not going to have you or someone else desecrate their graves with McGavick stickers."

That's called 'Projection'. Just because that's something that you and your liberal friends would do, please don't assume that I'd stoop so low.

You're really a sick person.

Posted by: Larry on August 29, 2006 04:18 PM
74. What if everything Jane has posted is true! What if she tragically lost her sister and niece to a drunk driver. What if she hasn't done anything illegal, immorral or unethical in her life. What if Maria Cantwell is the rational choice based on what is best for the country and McGavick is another Ted K. in a Republican uniform. What if Phil S. is completely rational and there really is a Washington State GOP conspiracy. That if I'm an homosexual drunk driver that's having an affair with a horse. If Larry is a cruel, cruel man that would post McGavick stickers on gravemarkers of drunk driving victims. What if everything she says is real!?!!!?...........................NAHHHH!!!!

Posted by: Jeffro on August 29, 2006 04:19 PM
75. Bill @ 1,

I can't answer your question at number one whether the records have been expunged or not.

JDH @ 2

That's not the first time I've heard that allegation against the News Tribune. Having written at one of the other "Independent Voices" in Pierce County I can share that many people feel that same way.
I'm not in that boat since I haven't seen it definatively proven one way or the other.

Posted by: Reporterward on August 29, 2006 04:22 PM
76. Reporterward.

It it my understanding that SAFECO doesn't cover people with DUIs on their record.

Is there any way to find out if they made an exception in the case of McGavick?

Posted by: jane on August 29, 2006 04:25 PM
77. Don Ward's comment about Goldstein

When does the "Two Minutes' Hate" start?

Posted by: Jimmy Blue on August 29, 2006 04:30 PM
78. Jeffro said "That if I'm an homosexual drunk driver that's having an affair with a horse."

I don't know about the first part but as for the second part... do you live in Enumclaw?

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 04:31 PM
79. Don,

You might be seeing some of the Democrat response right here. Having said that I noticed that Maria has refused comment, a wise decision probably. One of her party henchmen did make a nasty comment comparing McGavik to Bush as has been mentioned elsewhere on SP. http://soundpolitics.com/archives/006750.html

The media response that I've seen has been pretty tepid. I suspect that there is some seething going on in newsrooms and at Democratic headquarters over not being able to expoit McGavick's DUI to the fullest effect due to his confession. My personal opinion, this is not going to be a factor in the November election.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2006 04:31 PM
80. Jeffro:#74 is perfect. You, however, neglected to mention the name of your horse "friend". I just know that when Jane reveals the name of her lost beloveds, you will reveal your horse's name, and then Larry will put stickers on Goldstein's forehead instead or your Horse's A++. You see, Larry wouldn't abuse an animal, Jane thinks McGavik is an animal, and many women think Teddy Kennedy is a drunk animal........

Posted by: Hank on August 29, 2006 04:33 PM
81. If this isn't a factor in the November elections then it says that our society still doesn't take drunk driving seriously.

I am not saying you aren't right Bill. You well may be. I am just saying how sad it would be if you are.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 04:34 PM
82. I have a question: Did Safeco provide McGavick auto insurance even after blowing a .17? Would they insure Joe Schmo if he had a similar violation in his driving record? After all doesn't Safeco discriminate in favor of only safe drivers to hold down insurance premiums???

Posted by: balanced but fair on August 29, 2006 04:35 PM
83. Bill,
I'm sure there's some seething going on at Democrat headquarters and the Maria camp.
I would doubt there's much seething going on at newsrooms per se. There's usually too much going on for that.
It's just curious to see that it was a mea culpa press (blog) release that broke this story so late in the year and not an intrepid reporter wanting to nail another pelt on the wall.

Posted by: Reporterward on August 29, 2006 04:39 PM
84. That's my question too.

I think we haven't been told all there is to be told about this DUI yet.

And some here have posted that "McGavick learned from this". Funny, I haven't heard what steps he took after this DUI to rehabitate himself. I mean did he go to Schick Shadel? Does he go to "Friends of Bill W." meetings? Does he participate in AA.

Washington DC is quite the party town with Lobbyists throwing big parties where alcohol flows like water. Is he really going to be able to resist all of that?

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 04:42 PM
85. "but the truth is that most Americans will not be touched directly by them " Jane--being an "ostrich" just delays for a moment the head-lopping; ask any pre-Thanksgiving turkey;

also, the dog + bone 1-issue thing is a tip off; way too dramatic; if true, what stage of the '7 stages' of mourning are you at? do you plan on moving through them or becoming frozen in time?
Larry at 64--still have to agree with you;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 29, 2006 04:43 PM
86. Jimmie,

I realize that Terrorists are more "sexy" than drunk drivers but the fact still remains that more Americans will be effected this year by the trama caused by drunk drivers than the trama caused by terrorists.

That isn't to say we shouldn't do anything about the terrorists, but it is to say we need to treat drunk driving more serious than we do now.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 04:47 PM
87. Jane,

Why do you assume that McGavick needs to be rehabilitated. AA? Why do you assume he's an alcoholic? That's a disease. All he did was to violdate a traffic law and receive a ticket.

You're spinning far out into left field. You assume that a man is an alcoholic because he received a traffic ticket?

Once again - you're engaging in projection. Just because your friends desecrate gravesites doesn't mean everyone does it. Just because you have a mental defect doesn't mean that McGavick does.

Idiot.

Posted by: Larry on August 29, 2006 04:59 PM
88. " All he did was to violdate a traffic law and receive a ticket"

See, just like a parking ticket, huh.

You people disgust me. DUI is a serious issue and you trivalize it just to get this McGavick fellow elected.

It is sad to see the GOP tarnished in this state as the party who sees DUI violations as just a traffic violation similar to parking tickets. Who sees drunk drivers as no big problem.

Posted by: Jane on August 29, 2006 05:04 PM
89. Reporterward (Don) at #83 "It's just curious to see that it was a mea culpa press (blog) release that broke this story so late in the year and not an intrepid reporter wanting to nail another pelt on the wall."

Yeah. I have to believe that no one knew about it. Doesn't happen very often these days when so much information is readily available.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 29, 2006 05:05 PM
90. Jane--one-trick ponies, even with valid issues, by their nature, distract from their other messages--IF they have any others;

preoccupation could pigeonhole you as preoccupied and not much else; dosent help your cause in a multifaceted political blog nor an election; sure--drinking & driving is important, but it's not the only evil in our state and nation; and yes, i think we need even tougher rules ENFORCED for drinking;

as for terrorists, shall we sit and wait for your stats to equal out? not me; not a survival plan;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 29, 2006 05:10 PM
91. Jane: McGavik made a mistake that hurt no one 13 yrs ago. You, in your obsession, trivialize Cantwell's incompetence as a Senator, economic ignorance on taxes, love of socialism aka singel payer health care, indifference to the mortal threat of militant Islam, and utterly trash a decent man far more competent. If this election is about DUI, in light of what is going on around us, we as a society do not deserve to survive. Your single issue obsession is far more of an illness than McGavik's ONE 13 yr old indiscretion. My wife died of cancer-that does not mean that the world starts and stops on cancer issues. Grow up, Jane. Get over it, Jane. I genuinely feel compassion for you, and sadness for your self absorbed obsession with DUI issues. Dont worry, an Islamic terrorist who slits your throat simply because you are an American will not be drunk as it is a mortal sin in Islam to be drunk.

Go away...

Posted by: Hank on August 29, 2006 05:20 PM
92. sadness for your self absorbed obsession with DUI issues.

MADD? Better believe it.

Posted by: Jimmy Blue on August 29, 2006 05:43 PM
93. Hank-

You're not going to believe this, but the horses name is Jane. I also heard that she lost a sibbling mare and foal to a drunk riding jockey.

Crazy world.

Posted by: Jeffro on August 29, 2006 06:47 PM
94. Jane, I'm sorry for your loss. A terrible tragedy that I can only somewhat comprehend as I, too, have suffered the loss of friends (but not flesh and blood)at the hands of drunk drivers and alcoholism.

This being said: I was convicted of 3 DUI's from 1985 to 1995 and I've been sober for 3 1/2 years.

So, I guess the question is--should I be branded with a scarlet "D" for the rest of my natural life? And how long should I be the target (directly or indirectly) of wrath from those who've lost loved ones to drunken drivers?

I'm curious to know. I understand your anger in that I hold similar anger towards pedophiles (more like rage).

Am I as vile as them in your mind?

Perhaps you or someone else here believes I should be locked up for the rest of my life, or banished to a remote island to rot. I can understand those feelings because I have them towards pedophiles.

Yet, I'm not a pedophile, and I don't drink let alone drink and drive. Nor am I looking for a handout or sympathy. I AM accountable for my actions and I HAVE payed my debts to society [including incarceration] and the State of Washington.

I have a very good white collar job in IT, and you could never guess that my internal life is so profoundly filled with compassion, sensitivity and love one hand, and horror, darkness and violence on the other. It's a daily battle.

Perhaps some of you should pause and thank God you haven't been afflicted with the progressive and FATAL DISEASE of alcoholism. Perhaps.

Perhaps some of you should pause and thank God you don't know the residual rage from childhood beatings, torture, neglect and abandonment. Just perhaps.

I'm doing the best I can with the hand I've been dealt. I'm on medication and in therapy. I'm trying to do something with my life while reconciling and recovering from the horrific events of the past.

I was victimized, but I'm NOT a victim. (This is also why I'm NOT a liberal.) Ultimately, I AM a product of my decisions. I AM accountable. I understand this.

Most of you probably have a life. I'm simply trying to survive. And I'm doing so without puting other lives at risk and providing for myself. If that's not enough for some of you then that's your side of the street. Not mine.

Posted by: YourLifeIsMyFault on August 29, 2006 07:28 PM
95. I'm curious to know. I understand your anger in that I hold similar anger towards pedophiles (more like rage).

Am I as vile as them in your mind?

Naughty, naughty!! I call Bravo Sierra!!!

Posted by: Jimmy Blue on August 29, 2006 08:30 PM
96. Midstream Republicans of Washington is claiming to have the answers (from McGavick insiders) to why this eluded both the Media and the Cantwell campaign.
Click for the: INSIDE STORY

Posted by: Doug Parris on August 29, 2006 08:40 PM
97. Don, WTF is "zwischenzug"?

Posted by: ERNurse on August 29, 2006 09:10 PM
98. I would just like to say that I work as a writer for a local broadcasting station and all of the editors I were around were completly surprised about this information. They even discussed whether to air the material as they were worried it was just a smear campiagn out of Senator Cantwell'ls press office.

Posted by: Mike on August 29, 2006 09:12 PM
99. I would just like to say that I work as a writer for a local broadcasting station and all of the editors I were around were completly surprised about this information. They even discussed whether to air the material as they were worried it was just a smear campiagn out of Senator Cantwell'ls press office.

Posted by: Mike on August 29, 2006 09:13 PM
100. If McGavick had been a Democrat, he would have been hailed and then the story would have disappeared. The MSM has double standards - when will this sink in ? The silence about WSSC Judge Bobbi Bridge was deafening because she is a Democrat and what she did was much worse than him.

I am not condoning what he did, however it was 12 years ago & its probable that Goldstein was licking his chops about this as a hit piece, but for what credit McGavick should get - he beat him to the punch. Did he cause any accidents there ? No, but he was charged and it is probably expunged from his record. Mike has put himself under the microscope by doing this and he'll have to walk the tightrope from here on out because of his true confessions.

Posted by: KS on August 29, 2006 09:22 PM
101. +++


Jane is phony. I just read every message, and way too many are from Jane.


I doubt she lost anyone to a drunk driver. Her one and only goal has been to be disruptive.


Like Cindy Sheehan, she has made a total fool of herself that she hurts her own 'cause'.

Posted by: Not Jane on August 29, 2006 09:37 PM
102. I aggree with the other posters that Jane is a fraud. No real republican would ever consider Drunk Driving to be a disqalifier for statewide office. Jane must be a Dem plant because she is criticising a republican. Don't you get it Jane? We real republicans never question the party. It's the D-rats who "discuss ideas" and "debate strategies." We just take orders.

We all know drunk driving is not really a big deal. Only a few people are hit a year and they're usually just winged or brushed by a speeding car. Besides, Mike only had 8 drinks in an hour (equal to .17 BAL). He was probably in complete control of his vehicle and safely comporting his wife and child home when he was pulled over part-way home. The fact that Mike has kept the incident a sercret during a very public career as a CEO and a candidate should not signify that he hasn't learned anything except not to get caught. He probably learned to take a different route home when he is over the legal limit.

Posted by: You're wrong Jane on August 29, 2006 11:49 PM
103. Any reporter will tell you that sitting on a story like this when it could be subsequently dug up by any other media outlet is probably the dumbest idea in all of journalism. "Here, scoop me. Please! Anyone scoop me!" Very dumb.

Clearly no one had this story because Mike knew how to keep it quiet.

Posted by: Sorry Charlie on August 29, 2006 11:52 PM
104. Mike @ 98,

And I assume you don't have an exclamation point behind your name.
Of the three potential scenarios I came up with I lean towards the reporters not knowing what was going on (raises hand). Which isn't a big surprise.
However, I'm sure that of the dozens of political reporters in this state, some with three decades or more of experience, you'd have thought at least one would hav known about this. But I could be wrong.

Sorry Charlie @ 103

You may be right. Probably because you have the coolest hotmail address I've come across recently. (being a GI Joe fan) I'm sure you have the blue hood and high screechy voice too.

Posted by: Reporterward on August 30, 2006 12:11 AM
105. Uh, back to the original topic: Don, your experience as a reporter surely tops mine (which is none). But it seems to me the simplest explanation for why no reporter dug this up is that it's August, and most of the (not obsessed with politics) public doesn't start to focus on the election until after Labor Day, especially when the primaries are essentially uncontested. Had McGavick not revealed his secret, we would probably have read it in after the Times and P-I started doing their "personality of the candidates" pieces in late September or early October.

Posted by: Allen McPheeters on August 30, 2006 12:19 AM
106. When I pointed out above that there were three logical conclusion one could make about the coverage of this event I did not take into account the nimble mind of Doug Parris and the Super Adventure Club.
To paraphrase his satyrical entry at the Reagan Wing, Doug alleges that Mike! faked or made up this DUI or at least preemptively announced it as a devious ploy to gain sympathy from the electorate.
Coincidentally, this same line of reasoning was brought up tonight by our Progressive friends at the Drinking Liberally event tonight during their podcast.
So when David Goldstein and former Seattle Weekly writer Geov Parrish (no relation) come to the same conclusion as conservative icon Doug Parris then this new theory must be true.

Posted by: Reporterward on August 30, 2006 12:21 AM
107. I was asked "So, I guess the question is--should I be branded with a scarlet "D" for the rest of my natural life?"

You should at the very least not be elected to the US Senate.

Posted by: Jane on August 30, 2006 08:14 AM
108. I was asked "Am I as vile as them (pedophiles) in your mind?

I thought long and hard about that question last night.

You are almost as vile as them, but no pedophiles (who also claim to have a "disease") are more vile than you.

Posted by: Jane on August 30, 2006 08:17 AM
109. "Perhaps some of you should pause and thank God you haven't been afflicted with the progressive and FATAL DISEASE of alcoholism. Perhaps."

Alcoholism ISN'T a Disease. It's a behavior.

A disease is a condition brought about by some external force, ie germs.

Drinking is a behavior, and behaviors can be modified. To say otherwise denies free will.

I know that pedophiles claim to have a disease as well. Like what they do is beyond their control. Again, that denies free will.

Posted by: Jane on August 30, 2006 08:22 AM
110. We have the right to demand that our leaders, especially when we are talking about a high office, has lived a upright life, even when we have failed to do so. That isn't hypocritical.

But again, that said, "everyone doesn't do it". I know plenty of people who have lived upright lives and who haven't made the types of "mistakes" that people like Bill Clinton (who doesn't even see them as mistakes) and McGavick has.

And, you know, I really do get the impression that the only mistake McGavick thinks he made was getting caught.

Posted by: Jane on August 30, 2006 08:28 AM
111. NotJane at 101--agree--Jane is too intense;

big axe to grind; pent up anger; frustration with own life? maybe fired/passed over for promo by McGavick in a prior job?

even victims' families of many worse crimes don't go this ballistic; they put that energy into support groups and volunteering; they don't gush tirades against candidates for a focused blunder; again--a one-trick pony; smells funny;

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 30, 2006 09:43 AM
112. Jane,

You're a fake. And you're not even a good or intellignent fake.

Jane: "Alcoholism ISN'T a Disease. It's a behavior."

Mayo Clinic: "Alcoholism is a chronic, often progressive disease."

So who are we to believe, Jane or the Mayo Clinic?

Furthermore, anyone who REALLY has the bona-fides that you claim you do (lost relatives to drunk driver, activist against drunk driving) would KNOW that ALCOHOLISM IS A DISEASE!! Come one, everyone knows this - really, Jane. It's common knowledge that is totally uncommon to you.

You've shown you know NOTHING about the subject of which you PRETEND you're an expert.

I've called your bluff over and over, and you've responded with sick, despicable allegations.

You're a fraud, everyone knows it, and nobody cares what you think.

Go away.

Posted by: Larry on August 30, 2006 10:14 AM
113. I know that the liberal medical establishment calls alcoholism a disease.

But it isn't. When you have a disease, the disease comes upon you. Sure you might have taken steps that made it more likely to get the disease (such as having unprotected sex) but once you get the disease, you don't have to take any further steps.

But for alcoholism, you have to keep drinking. Alcoholism is a series of actions, not a medical condition.

By calling alcoholism a disease you are denying free will. By calling alcoholism a disease you are saying that people do not have self control. That is a liberal attitude if I ever heard one.

Alcoholism is a behavior pattern. You have to constantly make decisions for this behavior to progress. With diseases while sure you might have made a choice that made contracting that disease practically inevitable, after contacting the disease, the progression of the disease needs no further decision to act from you.

Posted by: Jane on August 30, 2006 11:41 AM
114. As I said - who are we to believe, the Mayo Clinic, or 'Jane'?

Jane's not a doctor - but she plays one in her own small, pathetic little mind.

"When you have a disease, the disease comes upon you." -- I assume that's generally accepted technical medical terminology (eyes rolling).

"But for alcoholism, you have to keep drinking. Alcoholism is a series of actions, not a medical condition." -- So if an alcoholic stops drinking, he's no longer an alcoholic? Au contraire, mon frere - that's total hogwash.

As the Mayo Clinic stated - "Alcoholism is a chronic, often progressive disease." If you're an alcoholic, you'll always be an alcoholic, even if you stop drinking. However, if you continue to drink alcohol, the disease will progress as the Mayo Clinic states. If you stop drinking, the disease will not progress, even though you still have the disease.

Furthermore, it's common knowledge that alcoholism is genetic, much like diabetes. If it's in your family, there's a good chance you'll get it if you don't watch your lifestyle choices.

Jane, you ignorant.... (said in my best Chevy Chase voice.)

You're a fraud. You're a pathetic lying idiot, and everything you've written here is patently false.

If you want to keep debating, you'll lose. And I invite any medical doctors with knowledge of alcoholism to weigh in on the subject.

Posted by: Larry on August 30, 2006 11:57 AM
115. jane is reminiscent of the reason why so many drink...

Posted by: alphabet soup on August 30, 2006 12:44 PM
116. Picking up a glass and taking a drink is an action. It is a choice.

It is not a disease.

To say it is denies free will.

Posted by: Jane on August 30, 2006 12:53 PM
117. Jane--even if your cause is true, you're a selfish topic-hijacker; no integrity; stick to the theme here; your 'over the top vigor' works against you;

are you still p.o.'d about those "C-" college term papers that ranted and were light on the bibliographies? done the night before? and whining "do we have to read EVERYTHING on the syllabus?!!"

i know your kind; the lazy one who always hooked up with me on the biology dissecting 'term project'

Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 30, 2006 01:07 PM
118. Totally off topic- but all these posts have made me very thirsty. Do you folks ever get together for beers? Many of you seem like the type I'd enjoy tipping a few with. We should organize a SP posters social. You guys crack me up!

P.S. I'm not really a homosexual alcholic, etc. I'm with the most wonderful woman and we have three equally wonderful daughters and we currently reside in Bellevue until we can find something outside of KC.

Posted by: Jeffro on August 30, 2006 01:41 PM
119. Jane,

STFU.

A person can be an alcoholic if they never pick up a drink. If and when they drink, the disease progresses. The disease relates to the fact that they feel compelled to drink, unlike the rest of us who aren't alcoholics. Whether or not they drink they are still an alcoholic.

According to your theory, a diabetic is only a diabetic when they eat sugar. If they don't raise their blood sugar by eating a jelly doughnut, they're really not a diabetic. Diabetics have free will, and they don't have to eat a jelly doughnut, so diabetes isn't really a disease.

Idiot. Go away.

Posted by: Larry on August 30, 2006 03:48 PM
120. There really isn't much real political reporting in this state so it is no surprise that reporters around here didn't know about the DUI. I'm still not sure that the DUi would have been much news anyway unless McGavick had made it a big deal in a slow news cycle.

Reporters in this state rarely do much digging - most don't have time. Most of what we read is handed to them.

Posted by: thor on August 31, 2006 07:49 AM
121. Most newspapers also ran their own obituary editorials reflecting on MT's life and work. This archive contains 28 editorials, displayed two ways. jekyll-island net If your browser supports an imagemap, you can access them geographically by clicking on the map at left. Exploring the editorials this way helps see how, although writers talked about how well MT embodied "America" darinsteen [URL=http://darinsteen.com/linkpartners.html] darinsteen[/URL] http://darinsteen.com/linkpartners.html Adverse possession Adverse possession Adverse possession

Posted by: darinsteen on September 26, 2006 02:09 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?