Josh Feit at The Stranger says "Score one for McGavick". No, really.
And Taegan Goddard observes that "McGavick Closes In on Cantwell"
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 13, 2006 03:18 PM | Email ThisMcGavick is doing a great job and has a REAL shot at winning this thing. With 2 other candidates going to pull votes away from Cantwell, McGavick is a serious contender for this seat.
Posted by: KatInSeattle on April 13, 2006 03:50 PMCantwell... by 4.
Posted by: Hinton on April 13, 2006 04:00 PMThe moonbat sepaku entertainment factor would be priceless if McGavick wins.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 13, 2006 04:01 PMhttp://www.theolympian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
McGavick can't win until KCRE is bought back from the fraud and corruption spin it is in. It will most probably be another nail biter with Logan finding more ballots in a special hand recount!
Posted by: sgmmac on April 13, 2006 04:12 PMHer previous opponent was Slade and a lot of Rs wanted him out (you can still see that by posts around that McGavick has that negative with some R votes).
The pretty face shine is gone from her, as well as the self-made millionaire image. She is ripe for the dump.
Posted by: swatter on April 13, 2006 04:25 PM
So is this how the McGavick Campaign is
spinning the change in campaign managers.
Its really know big deal?Its never a good
sign when that happens.In McGavick's case
he is on to Campaign manager number 3.
Everyone remember Afton Swift?
Yeah I know your all touting the latest
rasmussen poll.Still no matter how you
look at it McGavick has been no closer in any
poll than the 8 points he is now in the
rasmussen poll and has not been at any time
during this race.
I also have to wonder since the McGavick
campaign is big on touting the the strategic
vision polls.Why they find this poll more
accurate?You can't have it both ways now
that the strategic vision has him further
behind.
Beware of the recounts with Deanron - if that happens, McGavick will lose.
Posted by: KS on April 13, 2006 09:44 PMAside from Phil, go to opensecrets.org and look where Cantwell raised her $11M war chest...it's like 58% from out-of-state. That's even a greater percentage than our other dimwit senator in '04. The big $$$ come from DC lobbyists, most likely Hillary C's clique. Hillary's making sure Cantwell has enough coins this time around, so she won't need any after-election "bailout" fundraisers like in '00.
Mike Mac's got a long row to hoe to bring in the $$$. Washington State Republicans need to start writing checks.
Posted by: Saltherring on April 14, 2006 05:38 AM
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-flash06.html?project=elections06-ft
That my friends is not a conservative position.
Anyone that would limit the right to free speech
is no conservative.If Mike McGavick admitted
where he stands on the most of the issues.He
would be lucky if he got thirty percent of
the republican vote.
Can anyone answer this question: Why did Ian quit?
Posted by: DJ on April 14, 2006 10:11 AM The Official statement from the McGavick
Campaign is that the early success has taken
more of a personal toll on Ian Goodhew than
he had anticipated.If you really believe
this is why he left maybe I can convince
you that Mike McGavick really is a conservative.
For once I would like the McGavick campaign
to be honest about something.
While you're waiting for the McGavick campaign to be honest about something, we'll be waiting for you to start posting some intelligent political analysis.
Take this charmer: "To date he
has not willingly taken a conservative position
on anything."
Really?
Let's see, he's come out in favor of an aggressive stance in the War on Terror, improving border security, more marekt place competition in the delivery of healthcare, and balancing the budget without raising taxes.
Which of those positions isn't conservative?
I realize he obviously isn't meeting your needs because he's not Susan Hutchison, but get over it. Also, he's not appealing to the Doug Parris' of the world by jumping up and down talking about abortion and gay people and those evil, wicked RINO's. Some people (mostly those who understand how to have a chance at Republicans winning statewide elections in Washington) would consider that a sign of political acumen.
Based on the combination of polling done recently by Survey USA, Zogby, and Rasmussen, there has been clear movement in McGavick's race in the last month. Heck, being 8 points down in April is better than where Dino was at in 2004 if I recall correctly.
So, as much as we're all looking forward to your next anti-McGavick post, perhaps you could do us a favor and save it.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 14, 2006 02:23 PMMike supports the President on the War on Terror, but, you know, even a third of the Democrats are afraid to vote for withdrawl. Beyond that, which is hardly in the red meat category, he has advocted nothing that could be called "agressive," against terror. His "border security is a case in point. He is just getting in line with the GOP moderate establishment.
We can now legitimately refer to the "McCain, McGavick, Kennedy" position on "border security," since all three are on the FAR LEFT on that issue. All you do is re-label AMNESTY as "Guest Worker Permit" and declare secure borders. It's a joke. Wake up and smell the ether.
He is a mulitmillionaire insurance CEO. Why wouldn't he favor "more market competition" on health care? That is the one issue the big business wing of the Party shares with the rest of us. They are one issue. They want to do anything that benefits big business. That is their one issue. They think they connect with the GOP on their pure selfishness alone, sanity on illegal cheap labor notwithstanding.
Given his E-X-T-E-N-S-I-V-E record on raising both taxes and spending, and initial refusal to sign the no-tax pledge, you could expect his call to "balance the budget without tax increases" to evaporate quicker that Frosty in July... if he were ever elected. Slade did the exact same thing with Mike "Bader" McGavick riding shotgun.
Eric, be honest. You support him BECAUSE he is a liberal like you.
And while you're at it, I suggest you stay off policy debate and just go back to what you do best. Calling conservatives names and distorting our positions. It's your real talent.
And yes, McGavick only cares about advancing the cause of big business. Nothing else! My goodness you're a genius Doug.
Excuse me, I need to sit down for a second. I was temporarily overhwelmed by your wisdom and logic. Because you know, as much as I wasn't thrilled in the least with the Senate's immigration bill, it was at least reform, and Sen. Brownback, that lionheart of liberals, supported it. So yes, you're right, it's "on the FAR LEFT." Because when McGavick says we need to secure our borders, no matter what the cost, then yes by golly, he's a liberal!
And quick question, what's with the Bader reference? If you're talking about Brett Bader, you're not talking about someone who is held in high regard by a number of Republicans close to McGavick.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 14, 2006 11:11 PMIs that your middle finger or your IQ?
The only skill you've ever attempted to master is ridicule.
Mike McGavick/Kennedy is not only supporting the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill, he said that if he'd had the chance he would have voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Hadn't you heard?
You can't change amnesty into something else by calling it "guest worker". You can't change Gay marriage into something else by calling it "civil unions" and you can't change liberals into something else by calling them "Republicans"
McGavick is currently campaigning on being "bi-partisan." Everyone with any integrity and adequate intelligence in the GOP knows that's a euphemism, like "civil unions" and "guest workers."
You and I both know why you are the appontee of the Bush administration. It's called patronage. (and in your case nepotism.) The patronage posts available in Washington State went to friends of the ruling Republican Left elite. Enjoy it while you can.
Posted by: Doug Parris on April 15, 2006 03:11 AMIn all fairness, you of all people should not chide someone for using ridicule during the course of a debate. Besides, I actually was floored by your wisdom and logic for a minute there. Really.
Moreover, you have yet to dispute the core point of my original post rebutting Phil: that McGavick has taken conservative positions and that his campaign is gaining ground.
Now, I know you don't like him because he, and I, are not your type of Republican. And yes, I knew he said he would have voted for Ginsburg when Clinton nominated her...like the 98 Senators who did vote for confirmation. His logic being, just like Republicans argued with Roberts and Scalia, that the President has a right to appoint people of his own ideological preference. And absent being unqualified for the Court, ideology alone is not a fair reason to vote against a qualified nominee. I know you don’t like that, and ironically neither did many Democrats in the Senate recently, but it is not an unreasonable position. Nor are all of those 98 Senators liberals because of that vote. You’d have great trouble convincing most of the American political community to question the conservatism of many of the Republicans in those 98.
Also, you continue to rail about the Senate immigration bill, but you haven’t addressed the fact one of the more stalwart conservatives in that body, Sen. Brownback, is supporting it. As I’ve said, I don’t like the bill either, but does support for the bill make one a liberal? Is Sen. Brownback now a liberal, and traitor to the conservative cause because he supports this bill? Get real.
Related to getting real, you didn’t answer my question about your Bader reference. I know you like to throw insults around, but could you at least get the associations correct? Brett Bader is hardly simpatico with many of those you ascribe to the supposed liberal wing of the Republican party.
Finally, as amusing as your description of my job procurement is, it, like much of your political analysis remains flawed. First the nepotism charge is laughable given that my family has had no role whatsoever in me getting this job….but if you think so go right ahead. Moreover, if you think the “ruling Republican left elite” are responsible for the appointed Republican officials at the Dept. of Education from Colorado and Texas who interviewed me and recommended to me to the White House, ok. If you think that same cabal has taken over the White House Office of Political Affairs who actually hired me, in large part because of my work supporting the Bush/Cheney 2000 campaign, then ok too. And if you furthermore think that President Bush is also part of the “ruling Republican left elite” as well then be my guest, because that’s the logical conclusion of your assertion. Your entitled to that opinion, but as usual, most of the world doesn’t share it.
Now, in the meantime, I have better things to do this holiday weekend then engage in other round-and-round debate with you on a thread that no one is reading anymore.
Have a happy Easter.
Waiting for the pix of Mc Gavick and Cheney petting an atomic bomb with oil derricks and wonderful mountains in the background.
Adios, Mike.
Posted by: Bob on April 16, 2006 10:58 AM
Actually the Reagan Wing does allow comments,
if you look at the bottom of each story you
will see the word comments. Just click
on comments and your there.