September 11, 2006
Club for Growth Endorses Mike McGavick

I received a letter today from the Club for Growth which outlined their endorsements for U.S. Senate races. To my surprise, our own Mike McGavick appeared on the recommendation list!

For those of you unfamiliar with Club for Growth: it is a group which formed to look across the country at all the national House and Senate races, scouring the nation to find the Reaganite, pro-economic-growth candidates who will NOT do the tax-and-spend dance, etc. They then notify their members (like me) of who these Reaganesque candidates are and solicit campaign donations for said candidates. The Club bundles all the funds for each candidate and forwards them on to the endorsed candidates. The Club seems to have a succesful record electing these fiscal conservatives across the country, and as a conservative voter I have been impressed with the candidates they have endorsed.

I don't normally see many Washington state candidates appearing on C for G's recommendations. Cathy McMorris is the only one I can remember previously seeing. But what this recommendation tells me is that those of you who are concerned that McGavick is just some liberal-in-sheep's clothing---think again.

Club for Growth appears to carefully screen their candidates and only endorses the best ones, in my experience. So what this endorsement strongly suggests to me is that Mike will be good to all the hard-working taxpayers across our country and make votes that will encourage economic growth instead of stifle the economic engine of this nation.

Sounds good to me! Congratulations to McGavick for getting the Club for Growth endorsement.

Posted by MicheleDeRouis at September 11, 2006 10:39 PM | Email This
1. I'm familiar with the Club For Growth, and your analysis is spot on. If they're endorsing McGavick after the kind of exhaustive research they do, he's got to be solid.

Posted by: sr on September 12, 2006 06:50 AM
2. Michele,

Carefully screen their candidates?based
on what.My biggest concern about this
is where were they when George Nethercutt
was running? From a fiscal standpoint he
was a lot more in line with the beliefs
of the club for growth.Yet these guys
were nowhere to be found in 2004.

I have been in contact with club for growth
officials as to why they are supporting McGavick
From the discussions we have had so far its
apparent to me that they really don't know
where McGavick stands on fiscal issues.
It makes me a little suspicous about whats
really going on here.

Posted by: phil spackman on September 12, 2006 10:02 AM
3. It's fair to question any of their endorsements or lack thereof. All I know is that from the bios I've read for the candidates they present in past races, they clearly seem to be looking for the Reaganite fiscal conservatives across the country in all these races. And they never endorse republicans who--for instance--didn't support President Bush's tax cuts. I have been impressed with the bios of those they have put forward. Especially for the House. Maybe they don't always get it right, but they seem to get it right an awful lot of the time. All I know is that if McGavick were in there instead of Maria, we'd have one more vote for state sales tax deduction, which we did not get from Cantwell recently.

Posted by: Michele on September 12, 2006 11:27 AM
4. Michele,

That's fair enough, I must say how do they know
McGavick supports President Bush's tax cuts?
I can find nowhere on his website where he says
that.Yes I know he says he would have voted for the
sales tax deduction but that's all he has said.

McGavick talks about fiscal discipline what does
that mean? Would he vote for tax increase.Would
he vote for a tax cut. We really don't know
because he has never held a public office before.
At least with nethercutt he had a track record
of doing these things. He was the one who lead
the charge on the state sales tax deduction.
Again I ask where was the club for growth in

Posted by: phil spackman on September 12, 2006 04:41 PM
5. Phil, we know damn well where Cantwell sits on this, No on eliminating the Estate tax, No on reinstating the sales tax exemption, Yes on Gregoire's massive tax hikes, Need I name more?

Posted by: GS on September 13, 2006 03:36 PM
6. I also heard him say today, although I know he would never get this even to a vote in the Senate, that the senate should not get a raise in any year that they do not balance the budget. Tie it to that scenerio.

He thinks out of the box on these issues. I am hearing some refreshing ides from him these days compared to the democraps who have nothing to offer but ripping through our pocket books no matter what they campaign on.

Every Cantwell commercial has "I am working hard to reduce the taxes on the citizens of this state....BS

Posted by: GS on September 13, 2006 03:41 PM
7. GS,

I don't recall mentioning Cantwell at all.
I know she voted against it and that was wrong.
All I am doing is trying to understand why
the club for growth is supporting McGavick.
and why they didn't support Nethercutt.

I think they are fair questions to ask.Which they
have yet to answer.

Posted by: phil spackman on September 13, 2006 05:25 PM
8. All this focus on that drunk McGavick will doom other Republican party candidates in this state.

The man has already lost the campaign. Most people all realize it. No one has any respect or love for a drunk driver. A drunk once killed a friend of mine so I tend to take this stuff personally.

Already I have seen McGavick stickers with MADD stickers on it as reminders. And whenever he comes up in a conversation (which I try to change the subject) it is all in the context of "I guess the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats after all"

This would have been a great moment for Republicans to get more of our candidates elected by coming out against McGavick showing that we put principle first. Instead you have McGavick in his ads practically running against the Republican Party (both parties have been bad he says in his ads and while that may be true I doubt he was talking about NAFTA or Increased Federal Spending or Immigration where both parties have really joined hands against the average American).

In the end I doubt McGavick would vote much differently than Cantwell on most issues. If we are going to have a Republican in Name Only then, yeah, I would rather have a Democrat instead.

Posted by: Nathan on September 17, 2006 03:10 AM
9. Why are you GS so desirous of getting the estate tax repealed?

You are helping the Seattle Times by doing so because the owner wants to be able to transfer it to his son without it costing alot.

Most rich liberals get their money through estates. They are the children, grandchildren, etc of the people who actually worked and made the money. They the heirs live in their own world all their lives not wanting for anything and then they give a big bunch of their Dad's or Granddad's money to liberal causes.

Ending the estate tax will make it even worst. These trust fund babies will have even more money to give to, Green Peace, etc, etc.

Why do you want to help the owner of the Seattle Times by making it so much easier to give it over to his son?

Posted by: Nathan on September 17, 2006 03:18 AM
10. I meant to say McGavick SIGNS with MADD stickers on them.

Actually I haven't seen a McGavick sign around lately without a few on them. The liberal thugs have been very busy going around sticking them on every sign. And that has had an effect.

Posted by: Nathan on September 17, 2006 03:23 AM
11. Question?

Why is it relevant that McGavricks mom made him pay for a window he accidently broke when throwing around the football as a kid. but....

It isn't relevant that he received a DUI later on in his life...?


And what is the point of the story? Was it that his mom taught him responsibility, for if that indeed was the point, it is disproven by the fact that later on in his life he committed a very irresponsible act of drunk driving. What did mom have to say about that?

Posted by: SIdney on September 17, 2006 09:12 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?