As a sort of Part II from my previous post "Club for Growth Endorses MIke McGavick", I now share with readers what the Club says about our WA republican U.S. Senate candidate (the boldface has been added by moi) plus a few of my own personal thoughts about his liberal opponent:
"Few candidates can match Mike McGavick's qualifications for the Senate. As the recent CEO of Safeco, he turned around the troubled insurer into a solidly profitable company. He also has solid experience on Capitol Hill as a former Senate chief-of-staff. He is one of the smartest candidates we have ever met, and understands and believes in the pro-growth policies needed for our nation's future. He is solid on all our key issues, including pro-growth tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, freer trade and legal reform. He will also bring some much-needed knowledge of insurance principles to Congress."And here's the bad news from the Club about Mike's liberal opponent, Maria Cantwell:
"The incombent Senator, Maria Cantwell, has a dismal 17% on the Club's scorecard. Despite massive support for repeal of the Death Tax in Washington, she repeatedly voted to keep it. Cantwell is one of the most vulnerable Democratic senators and recent public pollling shows the race relatively close with Cantwell under 50%."The report goes on to say that the Green Party candidate could also siphon some liberal votes off of Cantwell, making the race that much more interesting.
Cantwell has been very disappointing as a senator in that she fails to understand that we deserve MORE economic freedom, not less, as displayed in her failure to vote for President Bush's tax cuts--which currently leave us all with more money in our pockets to spend on family needs, etc. She DID give Washingtonians a big, fat tax increase back in '93 (as a member of the House of Representatives), which was a major pain in the pocketbook! She also hasn't done much to keep the sales tax deduction in place, which would've made a huge difference for many Washingtonians. It would've helped our family a great deal to be able to continue deducting sales tax on our federal return, but Maria doesn't seem to care about it at this point.
Cantwell also forgets that not everyone gets rich due to having stock options, and that most of us will accumulate a nest egg simply by working hard and carefully saving for our entire lives---and we don't wish that nest egg to be robbed by the federal government upon our passing. This is evidenced by the fact that she has failed to do anything to lessen the burden of the death tax. At the very least, greatly increasing the exemption and cutting the egregiously high death tax rates would be some kind of start. But she never could be bothered to help her hard-working constituents in any of those ways.
So, vote for Mike McGavick and send liberal Maria Cantwell home, so she can't financially harm her constituents anymore!
Posted by MicheleDeRouis at September 24, 2006 09:13 PM | Email This So Mike McGavick's now for tax cuts. That's
good. But it confuses me because you see it wasn't
always the case. I want him to come clean once
and for all and explain why when Grover Norquist
first came with his pledge to not raise taxes.
Mike McGavick said NO! Then after he did sign
the Pledge he tried to hide that fact.
For months there was nothing on his website
about tax cuts and now it magically appears.
I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing this
whole thing.
To be clear I am not now nor have ever supported
Cantwell.But I cannot and I will not support
someone who using deception to get his base to
vote for him.
C'mon. Don't be so sanctimonious. The fact is that any vote is for the lesser of two evils. Mike McGavick is not perfect, but he is the lesser of two evils. Cantwell is a progressive. She's for the increase of statism. There's no way we are better off with Cantwell.
So if you are not for Cantwell and you won't vote for McGavick, what are you going to do, vote Green? A de-facto vote for McGavick. Or abstain, one less vote to help in getting rid of Cantwell.
Practically speaking if you are any more to the right than absolute neutral, your position makes no sense.
Who are you going to vote for, Phil?
You're asking us not to vote for McGavick, so I think you owe us your answer. Or, stop posting, because clearly you haven't thought through the positions you keep advocating.
Phil? Phil!!
Thanks!
Posted by: Anonymous Listener on September 27, 2006 05:40 AM
So when I get to that point on the ballot I
will obstain from voting.
McGavick is the only sane choice for security of this place we live called the USA.
Posted by: KS on September 28, 2006 10:14 PM
Now you know how we feel Phil! We've had a hard time believing anything you say for a really, really long time!
Oh, and for whatever unspoken thing that McGavick tried to do to your savior, Susan Huchison, (I seriously doubt he tried anything that wasn't standard politics, but that's beside the point.) keep in mind: it would have been 10X worse if it had the D's done it. And if she was so horrified she didn't run, she wasn't tough enough to get elected anyway.
So, even if you ARE right, which I doubt, I thank McGavick for doing it.
I for one hate to see it.
I don't agree with Phil on issues, but I did believe until now he was a dedicated republican above all. In this crutial race if he misses the very critical importance of voting for a party that has kept this country safe and secure since 9/11, then he is in essence saying he would trust the democrats to this critical task.
That Phil, would be a sad day in this country, and the notch issue people and fenceriders would have made that possible.
The democrats entire focus over the next 2 years, if given power, will be a continual infatuation with impeaching Bush. This country will stand still for two years while the terriorists plot.
I want a Senate and a Congress that chooses to focus on this country's security. Enabling the democrats by leaving your ballot vote blank, will bring you a Senate and Congress who will not and have not secured this country.
In the end, it is your choice Phil!
First of all what McGavick and his campaign
tried to do to Susan Hutchison had nothing
to do with why she decided not to run.Believe
me she is about as tough as they come.It
bothered me because she didn't deserve what
they were doing. It never bothered Susan.
GS,
My biggest problem with McGavick is he can't
tell the truth about where he stands on
almost anything.His positions continually
change.I happen to believe that honor and
integrity should still matter.You make
the point that what they did is just
standard politics.That doesn't make what
they did right.Look we all know that the
democrats do that kind of stuff. Thats
what they do best. We on the other hand
shouldn't do that to our own.If you want
to win then win honorably.