1. I can't help it - I know postman's site isn't "horses patoot", but I still feel like taking a shower...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 17, 2006 05:24 PM

2. Mike played offense, Maria played defense and that other guy was playing on a field on a totally different planet.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 17, 2006 10:07 PM

3. 15 seconds of can't well was all I could handle, decided to go see if I could find references to all those day care centers ole bin laden established, must be a conspiracy, can't find a one...;-)

Posted by: Fox3 on October 17, 2006 10:18 PM

4. I really hope that many voters in WA watched the debate tonight. Maria Can't-well. Tried, she tried for this and tried for that. I think during the course of 6 years you might present an actual list of accomplishments. Who cares what president they voted for? I'd like to see somebody work to restore our National Sovereignty, develop a comprehensive national energy policy, balance our budget and reform every government entitlement program. What party they come from wouldn't matter. Mike seems nearest to that wish.

Posted by: M.I. Right on October 17, 2006 10:26 PM

5. Here ya go Fox3. Can someone else host this so UW doesn't freak out?

http://students.washington.edu/munseym/Different_big.wmv

Posted by: Michael on October 17, 2006 10:48 PM

6. Debate? There was a debate tonight? Not on my TV. It was one lame question after another with NO rebuttals. That's not a debate.

As for the question about who each candidate voted for in the Presidential Election... I would have refused to answer... it's none of their business... unless you happen to work at KC Elections of course.

Posted by: Tucker on October 17, 2006 10:55 PM

7. I taped it and am just now starting to watch it. Right off the bat, the first question is asked, some confusion about who speaks first, Mike says well, I won the toss, so, Maria says to questioner, you were looking at me, and host says Maria, you go first. Dejavu of KC elections.....

Posted by: katomar on October 17, 2006 10:59 PM

8. It was a draw on TV. McGaick came across stiff and not very likeable. Guthrie won on many points but was way wacky on major issues. Cantwell coasted.

Mike picks up the right of center guy votes. Guthrie picks up spots of right to left. Cantwell holds her base of most everyone else and wins.

Game over.

Posted by: thor on October 17, 2006 11:16 PM

9. I love it! Cantwell and Guthrie both calling abortion "reproductive health care options"!! What a hoot! They can't bring themselves to say the word?

Posted by: katomar on October 17, 2006 11:26 PM

10. bingo, katomar. The fact that they can't say "abortion" sure suggests they know it's an ugly thing.

Posted by: Michele on October 18, 2006 12:35 AM

11. "Reproductive Health Care Options"... wow... talk about PC. Next thing you know, she'll be calling illegal aliens "undocumented immigrants" or "undocumented workers".

Oh, wait...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/288942_robert17.html

Posted by: Mike H on October 18, 2006 02:30 AM

12. I thought the big winner in the debate was Guthrie, solely for being here and coming across as sane. Hell, he came across as likeable. If only he had said "Democrats and Republicans" fewer times, I would have forgot for a moment that he was a Libertarian and crazy by defualt. But I like the guy all right. If this was a fair world, he'd be competitive. Although his illegal immigration answer was unrehearsed. But for some guy who probably rehearsed in his own basement with his dog playing McGavick and creepy shaved cat playing Cantwell, he did well -- albeit, he could have standed to not look down so much.

I don't know why you call a "big winner" here, Stefan. Frankly, even assuming for a moment McGavick was the run-away winner, it should be about as exciting for him as winning a Bruce Vilanch look-alike contest. What a polished, ironed rehash of positions we already knew the politicians held!

Cantwell totally coasted, Mike was predictable and kind of dweeby, and Guthrie screwed up enough on the big issues to remind me that he's still an big-L.

Too close to make any difference. McGavick's probably done; Guthrie pulls away Cantwell votes enough to make it interesting, but not enough to make it so competitive. I'll say 2000 all over again.

Posted by: Alcon Nighthawk on October 18, 2006 03:07 AM

13. Alcon, you don't know why Stefan calls McGavick a big winner? You really don't know why?

It's spelled S-H-I-L-L.

Posted by: ivan on October 18, 2006 05:13 AM

14. You know its too bad the Liberaterian's (sp?) are left most of the times with wacked candidates. Guthrie was actually enjoyable to hear his views at times. I did like his response on fiscal responsibility/balancing the budget. The problem was some of his other responses were too out there. I think in an election year like this, where alot of people are fed up with the job both sides are doing, a reasonable third party candidate might stand a chance.

I would call the debate a draw between Cantwell and McGavick. I can't call McGavick the winner because of some gaff's during the debate and a couple of non-answers. He had one gaff on gay marriage stating that he was against a man and women marrying, which in the whole context of his statement was reversed from what he meant to state. Cantwell just tried to sail through the debate and try not to slip up, but didn't really state anything new that would convince independent voters. Guthrie impressed, but then he went into weird answers on some questions that deflated his good answers on other questions.

Posted by: tc on October 18, 2006 05:57 AM

15. iban, what's that you're drinking?

It's spelled S-W-I-L-L

Posted by: Obi-Wan on October 18, 2006 06:03 AM

16. 2000 all over again? Tell me you guys are just putting up a good front and not so out-of-touch with reality. I'm no Cantwell fan, but Mike! is going to lose by about the same margin as Nethercutt did in 2004. That's what all the polls show and what all the experts say and that's what fits with the mood of the electorate.

If you believe this is a competitive race, you are fantasizing. The ( R ) Party sure doesn't believe it - hell, they are spending way more on the WA D8 race than the WA Senate race!

It's over. Mike! never had a real chance in this blue state, and in this blue year, he'll be lucky to get 45% of the vote.

Posted by: ModerateVoter on October 18, 2006 06:14 AM

17. Lets see in the first 5 minutes Mike? outlined his strong support for things that 70% of Washingtonians strongly oppose, Bush and the Iraq war. Thats how you win elections!

Posted by: Giffy on October 18, 2006 06:29 AM

18. I thought Guthrie came across as a very nervous buffoon with whacked out ideas. Maria was very slick, gave non-answers and talking points; no specific proposals or accomplishments beyond "work hard or worked hard". Mike's squeaky voice overwhelmed his very specific solutions to specific problems and straightforward accomplishments. I'd call it a no-winner debate, mainly controlled by on air presence. Had to laugh, though, at Guthrie whining about being the poorest millionaire up there.

Posted by: katomar on October 18, 2006 06:54 AM

19. tc, you are a genius. I heard the same thing so I pieced together the whole sentence and I was wrong. I believe his sentence was correct and not a gaffe.

Guthrie was disappointing as a Libertarian. Usually, those guys are dead on and can speak very well. I was disappointed.

Wife says Cantwell is a polished speaker. I barfed when she said that.

I liked McGavick's response on abortion. I didn't watch much more.

Dumb questions, for sure.

Cantwell, IMO, wasn't dressed very well. She reminded me of a witch dressed for Halloween. Why I should bring that up in this discussion because it sounds sexist, I don't know. Except, image is everything in these so-called debates.

I saw where Guthrie called for the other candidates being allowed in the debates and I immediately remembered the comedy routine of the nine or so Democratic presidential hopefuls in the week after week debates in 2004.

Posted by: swatter on October 18, 2006 07:16 AM

20. Cantwell is a polished speaker even though her answers are as liberal as they come.

McGavick always seems to be a whinner or maybe it is just his high pitched voice. He has real trouble trying to disassociate himself from the DC status quo (ie corruption, lobbyist scandals, ethics) since the GOP presently controls all aspects of it. I don't think the voters will be fooled.

Posted by: sendpoly on October 18, 2006 07:27 AM

21. Ditto Sendpoly

You said it all. Stef and many on sound politics are in this case, too partisan to call it the way it was, at the very least - a draw. More likely a Cantwell victory in that she knew the "talking points" that would appeal to Rossi voters who do not like George Bush. Sounds like McGavick has some polling that he needs to sure up...."Limbaugh" base. Which could be accurate, but not likely to gain enough ground in Washington State this year with those old tired lines. McGavick sounds like a great businessman and committed public servant, but this year it is about Iraq -- and now way to confuse people any longer that War in Iraq (reasons for going to war) are/is different than War on Terror (against Islamic Fundementalist). MCgavick cannot get out from under Bush/Rumsfield cloud. Too bad, cause McGavick does seem to have the right stuff to represent Washington State.

Posted by: Once At City on October 18, 2006 07:49 AM

22. I tend to agree that this was pretty much a draw. Mike McGavick does not do well on TV... too many hand motions and too animated, and the squeaky voice is a bit of a turn-off... but he made a lot of good points and got in quite a few digs about his opponent, which probably won't matter in this state.

Senator Cantwell actually came across much better than I remember her doing in the debates against Senator Gorton. Yes, she was plastic and didn't really say much, but she didn't have to... all she had to do was not make a major gaff.

Although she's probably one of the worst Senators on the hill I think Cantwell still wins. Heck, if Osama Momma Murray can win time after time, Senator Cantwell should too. Most voters are dumb, uniformed and really don't give a rip. If they are used to voting D they'll vote D here too.

I think a much more interesting match-up would have been Senator Cantwell against Susan Hutchison. That would have been much more fun to watch. Maybe next time.

Posted by: Tucker on October 18, 2006 12:30 PM

23. Just to clarify my cold medicine-tainted statement last night. I meant the 2000 Presidential race, not 2000 Senate race. I could even see a similar map, with Whatcom County flipping GOP due to Guthrie.

Posted by: Alcon Nighthawk on October 18, 2006 12:46 PM

24. The only "surprise" in this whole debate was when they put the camera on Joanie Balter.

My God, what happened to that woman. I've only seen the caricature of her that they used to use in the Times, which didn't make her look bad.

On tv last night she looked like a dried up old prune and whenever she spoke she sounded like the thrown away wife in a long overdue divorce case.

(I'd say that this woman had a face made for editorial, but I've read her editorials, and she isn't cut out for those either.)

Posted by: johnny on October 18, 2006 12:47 PM

25. Joanie Balter works at the newspaper for the same reasons Dori Monson works on the Radio=)

Bruce Guthrie is a very good guy and I have a lot of respect for him. I have had the pleasure of meeting him recently and he is a Great American, althouh he is very wrong on just about all the issues.

Posted by: Andrew Roberts on October 18, 2006 11:18 PM

26. Ridiculous. Weak? Sure Guthrie sounded unrehearsed. He had a week to prepare when the Republicrats had months. Wrong on the issues? I don't get how giving me more control of my life could ever be "wrong on the issues".

Posted by: Whidbey Central on October 20, 2006 12:39 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?