Both the Seattle P-I and The Seattle Times today publish stories based on the actual police report of Mike McGavick's 1993 DUI case in Montogomery County, Maryland. And the Republican challenger to U.S. Maria Cantwell is getting pounded for allegedly being less than forthcoming in his recent pre-emptive announcement of the incident. The upshot: McGavick drove through a steady red light not a yellow as he claimed; he was arrested not merely cited as he said. His original language here, in a campaign blog post. More new information: he also failed three field sobriety tests, and fell asleep in his jail cell. We're all human. I don't think the one DUI - as alarming an error in judgement as it is - means he's not now a fit candidate with a whole lot on the ball. But I wonder if questions will linger about his candor and honesty. FWIW, Seattle P-I columnist Robert Jamieson, who recently came to McGavick's defense, now feels hoodwinked.
UPDATE: More to the point than how he feels, Jamieson rightly notes sloppy work by McGavick's staff. They should have had the police report in hand before the mea culpa.
McGavick or his handlers take us for fools. They had to think no reporter would try to get the old police report. McGavick may have sold his own staff so well on his confession that they didn't check out the facts.Posted by Matt Rosenberg at September 02, 2006 09:57 AM | Email This
fact is, you choose the best of a lot who acts & votes the way you prefer; maybe (to you) that's a Rev. Moon, maybe that's a Hillary, or a Reagan; sure, stuff like character and past actions are important, but PERSPECTIVE is also key--big picture, taking it all in as a whole
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 2, 2006 10:19 AMJamieson's column with it's "gotcha you're a liar" theme is pure overblown bias at its worst. This from the same media that's doing everything it can to not report the embarrasing truth about lying Joe Wilson and the absurd Valerie Plame affair.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 2, 2006 10:24 AMIf Mike McGavick did his mea culpa from memory than his otherwise brilliant campaign is not so smart. It sounds like wink-wink head nodding between candidate and staff and a candidate holding out hope he could get away with gross minimization of a story he claims to be serious about.
If McGavick were really talking about issues, Eric's hopes might have some slim chance of materializing. But he's not. He's talking today about his DUI again - all over the state, whether he knows it or not.
And its not just the liberal interest groups who will be all over this - it is a whole bunch of people, including a lot of Republicans, who were hoping for far better from McGavick and his campaign. This is a huge let down.
Novak has the following announcement ina column this morning:
A footnote: The GOP's favorite Senate challenger this year is insurance tycoon Mike McGavick, who has pulled within four to five points of Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell in the state of Washington. McGavick will be feted by Republican senators when he comes to Washington, D.C., Sept. 20 for a $1,000-a-ticket fund-raiser at the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The event is co-sponsored by 43 of 55 Republican senators.
Novak's poll numbers are now clearly dated and may represent the peak of the McGavick campaign's hopes. GOP money may be better spent defending embattled incumbants in the 5th and the 8th. It's pretty simple.
Posted by: thor on September 2, 2006 10:36 AMEveryone charged with DUI gets ARRESTED. Under the "implied consent" laws in Washington, Maryland, and probably every other state, the suspect has to be UNDER ARREST in order to be asked to take the breath test (and subject to not-so-nice consequences for refusing to take it).
To be charged with DUI, you eventually have to be CITED. Normally, a citation is issued pretty soon after the suspect has taken or refused the breath test. However, in some places (like King County) the suspect will be released at this point, and the citation will be filed some time later by prosecutors (often six weeks or more after the arrest).
And then there is being BOOKED. In many areas, many DUI suspects will be released after being cited, or even released with citations to follow later. On the other hand, it is quite common to book the suspect into jail after issuing the citation (or even pending issuance of a citation). Some jurisdictions have bail schedules, allowing the suspect to post bail immediately in a pre-determined amount, Other jurisdictions will require that a judge or magistrate determine the amount of bail.
Posted by: Richard Pope on September 2, 2006 10:42 AMQuick question: the tone of your posts, sometimes in direct words is often, "I thought McGavick was better than this..." Could you please point to one comment you've ever offered at this site that takes a positive view of anything McGavick has done? The discrepancy between the tone you often try to take and the consistent content of your collection of posts is duplicitous, and tiresome.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 2, 2006 10:46 AMIf you did something wrong in the past and publicly admit it in order to get it out there, take your medicine and move on. Meaning, get all of the information out there and take your lumps. Once the initial blast passes, get back on message.
Now? Not only is the original mistake back in the news but now there's the appearance of a cover up of that original news.
The DUI itself wasn't going to cost McGavick, in my opinion. But the lack of forthrightness on this incident will cause people to question everything he says from now on, and that will dog him the rest of the campaign.
People can forgive a drunk driver. They're less likely to forgive a person who is less forthright with the whole truth about that drunk driving. Inexcusable.
Posted by: jimg on September 2, 2006 11:08 AMI am not buying the "....so intoxicated the events are fuzzy...." excuse. He sobered up (mostly) before they released him. He surely remembers being released.
The issue is honesty and integrity. I was impressed when he came forward with the admission. I am disappointed with the net result.
His mea culpa was disingenuous and we are deserving of better representation.
He lied. There really is no getting around that.
Carl Grossman
Posted by: frogtalk4u on September 2, 2006 11:28 AMI am not buying the "....so intoxicated the events are fuzzy...." excuse. He sobered up (mostly) before they released him. He surely remembers being released.
The issue is honesty and integrity. I was impressed when he came forward with the admission. I am disappointed with the net result.
His mea culpa was disingenuous and we are deserving of better representation.
He lied. There really is no getting around that
Posted by: frogtalk4u on September 2, 2006 11:28 AMI was arrested 14 years ago, and I NEVER FELT THE HANDCUFFS Click.
My memory of the evening is fuzzy after that many years.
So unless you live inside McGavick's head, you are only speculating.
Posted by: chris on September 2, 2006 11:46 AMHow about this? it is rare for the state to be presented with a candidate with the credentials of Mike McGavick. His background in business and politics constitute a superb resume that has been unequaled by recent candidates. His early campaign was outstanding and welcome in tone and content. He is articulate and congenial. He has the brains to master complex issues and be an outstanding representative of the entire state in the US Senate - not just conservative republicans, but all the people. He made the right calls on stem cells, distancing himself from Frist on the war in Irag, and has remained consistent and true on issues like: ANWR, abortion and the war even though his views on most of these subjects are outside the views of mainstream voters. His early TV spots and his RV tour around the state were terrific moves. His campaign's organizational abilities have been stellar with what appears to be local organization within each of the state's 39 counties.
It is not reasonable for our state to demand sainthood by its representatives in the US Senate. I'm old. I recall Governor Langley running against Warren Magnuson and lamely trying to capitalize on what some people perceived as Maggie's boozing and womanizing. But I recall Maggie proclaiming that he thought he was running for the US Senate, not sainthood. It worked for Maggie. But McGavick now seems to be wanting to have it both ways - which doesn't work.
Candidates are often always most burned by the things they say and publish themselves - their own words. I took McGavick at his early word to change the tone in DC. But his recent serious stumble with his mea culpa (not telling the whole truth) and this trickster ad he's been runnng on the trifecta are hugely disappointing from a guy who made character the issue. I think his failure to come clean on his early support for transportation improvements and tax increases necessary for them was dumb and cheeky - because I'd prefer a GOP candidate who had solutions to transportation problems and will lead. That's how I think his actions will be read by most all the people voters who might otherwise have been attracted to him.
This is just a big disappointment at this stage. And I don't think he'll be able to recover in what remains a blue state in a blue year. Not because of the DUI in this instance, but because of the way he treated it compared to early TV spots essentially telling us that he learned life's lessons early.
Posted by: thor on September 2, 2006 11:46 AMThat's better, thanks. I disagree pretty strongly with your analysis, but at least you've laid out some validity now to your "disappointed" theme by actually noting what you like about McGavick's candidacy.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 2, 2006 11:56 AMI'll still vote for him, but he screwed up his admission.
Posted by: Don on September 2, 2006 12:28 PMGood posts, which I find persuasive. Any write-in suggestions?
Posted by: Tom Rekdal on September 2, 2006 12:35 PM I think I can help you with that.Try Brad Klippert.He actually is on the ballot for the
primary.If you want to know more about him.
Go to bradklippert.com I hope this helps some.
I am a McGavick supporter, and still am. But I have lost a little bit of steam for him.
Posted by: Kyle on September 2, 2006 03:30 PMI can forgive him for the DUI, as egregious as driving THAT drunk is, but if you are going to try and take the high road, you can't fake it.
Posted by: Giffy on September 2, 2006 04:59 PMI still don't get why people are so hung up on his not saying he was arrested. Pretty much goes with the territory when you're busted for DUI. I never thought for a minute that he hadn't been arrested. The left screams "cover up" but it just isn't there. I think there is this tendency to let the left dictate the tone on this kind of thing and then pile on saying McGavick's campaign made some major mistake. The only thing McGavick's campaign did wrong is make the same mistake Republicans make time and again, underestimate the ability of the left to play mean hardball.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 2, 2006 05:22 PMThe DUI had its 15 minutes- let's get back to the issues that really affect us. Like perhaps highway dollars...(my governor got a 9 cent/gallon gas tax, the tribes got 17 million of it, and all I got were these stupid dots).
Seems like folks on the Titanic want to push away the life boat because they don't like the size of font of the numbering.
Posted by: Andy on September 2, 2006 05:43 PMWhat matters to the 2 people I know who are undecided in this race (my mom and my boss) is the fact that Mike got a DUI, not that he told a story that seems to have missed a few facts. Several people here have stated that 13 years was a long time ago, as if that makes it less relevant, but Mike was very much an adult and very much involved in public policy in our state at that time. It's not as if he was some twenty-something sowing his wild oats.
A question. I am a bit young I suppose and don't know much about Ted Kennedy, as you all seem to. Why so much focus on him as the evil face of the democratic party? To me he seems SO not relevant.
Posted by: JakeP on September 2, 2006 08:38 PMHere is what Wikipeida:
On July 18, 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick, Martha's Vineyard, which was intended to be a reunion of those who had worked on his brother Robert's 1968 presidential campaign. Kennedy drove away with party guest Mary Jo Kopechne as a passenger in his 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88. According to Kennedy, he made a wrong turn onto an unlit road that led to Dike Bridge (also spelled Dyke Bridge), a wooden bridge angled obliquely to the road with no guardrail, and drove over its side. The car plunged into tide-swept Poucha Pond (at that location a channel) and came to rest upside down underwater. Kennedy was able to swim free of the vehicle, but passenger Kopechne was not. He then walked away from the accident and his dead guest. Kennedy discussed the accident with several people, including his lawyer and Kopechne's parents, before he contacted the police more than 10 hours after the accident. The incident quickly became a scandal. Kennedy was criticized for allegedly driving drunk, for failing to save Kopechne, for failing to summon help immediately, and for contacting not the police but rather his lawyer first. Kennedy entered a plea of guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. He received a sentence of two months in jail, which was suspended.
Hope that sheds some light on it for you.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on September 2, 2006 08:58 PMhttp://www.ytedk.com/
Posted by: Cheryl on September 2, 2006 09:49 PMWhen you stop voting and supporting Teddy Kennedy as Senator after all the tradgedies and travesties of his humiliating drunken past.
I'll stop supporting Mike Mc Gavick.
Posted by: GS on September 2, 2006 11:17 PMAnd when droves of democrats start calling for Ted's resignation, and say that Patrick kennedy is unfit for office, I will vote for someone other than Mike. But I know that won't happen, so Mike's vote from me looks pretty safe.
Posted by: Michele on September 2, 2006 11:50 PMMcGavick's "cut a yellow light too close" is the same sort of thing. If I'd read the statement closely (I didn't much care about a 13-year-old DUI, so I didn't pay that much attention), I would have seen it immediately. If you are cited for "cut[ting] a yellow light too close," that means you're being cited for running a red light. Again, that's what he should have said. Trying to minimize his offense was dumb.
I'm still going to vote for McGavick (barring any worse revelations), because he's better and smarter than Cantwell. But some people who might have voted for him won't--not because of the DUI, but because this makes him look like a weasel.
Posted by: ScottM on September 3, 2006 07:16 AMWhat matters to me is that Maria Cantwell has espoused defeatist, statist positions. We need new leadership in WA. It's time to take back this state. Vote Mike McGavick.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 3, 2006 08:48 AMTell you what. I've stopped voting for Ted Kennedy. In fact, I've never voted for him.
Now, will you promise never to vote for Mike McGavick?
Posted by: JDB on September 3, 2006 09:18 AMThat is the problem with a "Civility" Campaign. Those that try it have a very special name every time.....LOSER!!!!
McGavick has to go on the attack. This is an Election COMPETITION for God's Sake.
McGavick has to Chronicle the Cantwell hipocrosy in financing ner campaign against Slade Gorton.
McGavick has to chronicle that Cantwell was bought & PAID FOR by Rob Glaser (a big-time LEFTIST).
Frankly, Slade Gorton did us all a HUGE disservice by not challenging the result of his loss to Cantwell. Obviously Gorton was done if he lost. Instead, Gorton wanted a legacy as a "gentleman"! PHUCK THAT SH*T!!
Had Gorton fought as he should have, Rossi would have likely won because some things would have come to light in 2000...making 2004 likely more fair. BUT NO!!!!!!!!
I'm tired of Republicans that worry more about being likeable, lovable & huggable than standing up for Conservative principles. They fall right into the LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWN trap.
Know what I mean??
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on September 3, 2006 10:00 AMMcGavick is a liberal. Sure one with an R behind his his name, but a liberal none the less.
Liberals have little character. They will lie about the truth. They will bend light around the truth. They aren't bound by what "IS" "IS".
No doubt he is hidding lots about his past. Liberals live immoral lives by practically definition.
This is reality. Do what you wish, but don't pull the wool over your OWN eyes.
Posted by: Doug Parris on September 3, 2006 11:34 AMThe Sex and Diversity Wars: What is Cultural Marxism?
Posted by: Doug Parris on September 3, 2006 11:47 AMWith that said, I will still vote for him, but less enthusiastically - the lesser of two evils. I don't know why he played it the way that he did - there is still time for him to redeem himself and show some cajones, but the ball is clearly in his court.
Posted by: KS on September 3, 2006 02:45 PMYeah, Cantwell is liberal, but not as liberal as Lowry was. And Mike McGavick is far far more dangerous due to how his behavior hurts the image of the Republican Party.
Mike McGavick is liberal. And liberals are immoral so we shouldn't really be surprised about all this coming out about him. I would be surprised if this isn't the top of the iceberg and lots of scandels don't come out about him.
He kind of reminds me of Bob Packwood. People in the know understand what I am getting at. McGavick is glad that it's the only the DWI coming out about him because perhaps it would be a distraction and hopefully it won't come out about his ... well those in the know know what I am talking about, and those who aren't will probably know before the campaign is over.
All you're adding to the discussion here Jane is garbage.
On Saturday I showed D. the FAX that has been circulating around about McGavick and he just cracked up. I was surprised that he wanted J. to see it since I didn’t think she would appreciate such humor but she laughed more heartedly than the Old Man did. People can surprise you that way sometimes can’t they.
Well, I do think they will per-agreement keep it only on just the DUI but they will be biting their tongues off while doing so. That is what I love the best about this.
Well, let’s make plan to meet with our mutual friend in DC sometime this fall. As you know, I will be in Europe to mid-Oct. so perhaps the beginning of November if you aren’t too busy with the political stuff.
Keep it cool dude.
Posted by: UNOWHO on September 3, 2006 07:26 PMI am from Oregon and don't see that McGavick (from what I know is like Packwood). I also want to see how Mike Mc responds to these allegations before I conclude anything.
Posted by: KS on September 3, 2006 08:35 PMI remember back when volunteering for one of Dan's elections for Governor I met this nice kid, oh, what was his name, Tad Bandy I think it was.
He was such a nice young person. He had great ideas. Now Tad Bandy would be the type of Republican I could support.
Now why didn't we run Tad Bandy for something? Well for all I know we tried and those extremists who invaded our party in the 1980s pushed him out. Things would have been so different had John Anderson become our President in 1980 and not that monkey actor war mongerer. Oh, what might have been.
Well, Tad Bandy, wherever you may be now, as true midstreamer I just want to say is that we sure missed an opportunity with you. You were a charming smart young kid, and a lady killer to boot.
Posted by: Alice on September 3, 2006 11:21 PMWait... did I just call for them to be thrown out?
Anyway, those dirty, rotten, slavering neanderthal, extra chromosome, tin hat thugs are always criticizing and saying negative things about people. Those inhuman, brain dead scumbags! They're always engaged in ad hominem attacks! Why can't they be positive?
They just don't understand what it means to be loving. I hate them.
This comment thread has now crossed the Stupidity Horizon.
Posted by: ScottM on September 4, 2006 07:56 AMA lot of Morrison backers backed Lowry. Sid's brother sent Lowry a much publicized $25 check. And Lowry capitalized on the anti-Eikenberry sentiment by announcing that he intended to appoint Morrison to his cabinet if elected.
The reason why so many of the state's Republicans would not support Eikenberry is that he ran a slimeball primary campaign and violated Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment with really nasty hit pieces against Morrison, complemented by more vile tripe from the NRA supporting Eikenberry.
When the news media exposed the Eikenberry and NRA slime - after the primary - a whole lot of Republicans and independent voters went south on Eikenberry. Lowry even carried Yakima County.
Posted by: thor on September 4, 2006 10:21 AMAs a reward for his all but public support Mike Lowry gave Sid Morrison a job in his adminstration.
So, Thor, as much as you mainstreamers hate the truth you can not hide from this. A 25 dollar check doesn't get you head of State Transportation, but working behind the scenes to get your supporters to come out in the newspapers for Mike Lowry does.
Posted by: Truth on September 4, 2006 10:48 AMBut coming out in the Newspapers for a Liberal Democrat over a Republican in the newspapers like you mainstreamers did, doesn't violate it?
How about accepting a job with a liberal Democrat adminstration?
Since it is obvious that the Mainstream Republicans seem to get a pass on this whole "11th Commandment" thing and it seems to only be forcefully applied on conservatives, I really don't have much respect for it.
Posted by: Truth on September 4, 2006 10:58 AMSure, what you do in the privacy of the voting booth is your business, and even telling your friends that you are going to vote for a liberal democrat, but being so public with your support, in the Newspapers and such, takes it to a new level.
You liberal Republicans only bring up "the 11th Commandment" when you don't want comservatives to bring up the voting records of your RINO incumbants. You have proven time and time again that you feel in no way bound by it, and therefore conservatives should feel in no way bound by it either.
Posted by: Truth on September 4, 2006 11:04 AMI think not. Because if you had you would understand what a backstabbing lot the Mainstream Reepublicans of Washington State are.
Unless, the campaigns you have worked for are for the backstabbing RINOS. If that is the case, still you would know what I say is the truth but you will try to hide it.
McGavick was a loser from the beginning. But with his DUI now the question is if it is worth bringing the whole Washington State Republican party down to to the level of Ted Kennedy.
Sorry, McGavick isn't worth it.
Posted by: Truth on September 4, 2006 11:24 AMAnd it isn't only Bundy, the current head of the Mainstream Republicans of the State of Washington worked for that perv Mike Lowry.
And then you have Nethercutt who is a Castro fan. Even went to visit him.
And now the current thing with McGavick being a pathetic drunk.
You know it really says a lot about the Mainstream Republicans of Washington State when they have more hatred for Ellen Craswell than they do Mike Lowry, or even Ted Bundy.
The Country Clubers who are in control of the Republican party are the most vile of people. As long as they get to determine who our candidates are, situations like we now have with McGavick will just be par for the course.
Posted by: Alex on September 5, 2006 09:47 AMI don't know about Morrison campaign people giving Lowry mailing lists 1992, but I sorta doubt it. Morrison endorsed Eikenberry, period. All the GOP candidates that year agreed to support whomever won the primary.
Eikenberry lost in 1992. There's no one else to blame. He never recovered from the slimeball campaign he used to win the primary.
And we got a liberal Governor.
It's pretty simple.
Posted by: thor on September 5, 2006 08:52 PMHis endorsement was an endorsement in name only which he made in such a way to let people know that he REALLY wasn't endorsing Eikenberry.
And then, behind the scenes he had his people do all they could to help Lowry get elected.
Thor, I have truth on my side. You can't deny that Sid Morrison took Lowry up on his offer to work for him. Lowry gave him that appointment for a reason. And the reason was the behind the scenes help Sid gave him on his campaign.
Regardless of what Eikenberry did, was that any justification for you mainstream Republicans of Washington State to come out in favor of Mike Lowry in the newspapers?
If so, then why shouldn't I publicly support Maria Cantwell this year given how your candidate running against her is a moral scumbag.
Posted by: Truth on September 5, 2006 09:46 PM