LOL: As ballots arrive, McGavick distances himself from D.C. GOP

[flamingyouth]

SEATTLE -- Republican Mike McGavick, challenging Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell in a Democratic-leaning state where George Bush's poll numbers are in the tank, offers this campaign twist: He's running against the GOP-dominated Washington, D.C., establishment.

He has just broken with the White House over how the Iraq war is being waged and says he would have voted against the invasion if he'd known there were no weapons of mass destruction. He'd dump Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He rails against out-of-control spending his party has allowed. And he decries partisan gridlock and failure to fix America's most vexing problems.

"I want people to understand clearly that I would be a different kind of Republican," says McGavick. "I'm running against that whole culture."

Cantwell, quite content to agree with his implicit criticism of the Republican status quo, doesn't think voters will buy the logic that it makes sense to send another Republican to D.C. as a way to change things.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_Wash_Senate.html

[Diane R]

1. Cantwell is running a devastating ad.

It (correctly) says that McGavick laid off 1,700 workers from SAFECO (an insurance company) right before he took $4 million in bonuses, then cut health and pension benefits right before he took a $28 million dollar golden parachute when he retired after just four years as CEO.

McGavick's head is spinning...he'd been running ads touting his successes at SAFECO.

[SeattleGirl]

2. I thought it was more like $40 million. Either way, that's quite

the reward for screwing people over.

[Yellowbird]

4. Link to the Ad you're referring to

http://www.cantwell.com/multimedia/video/45.aspx

[TruthDetector]

5. re: Cantwell is running a devastating ad

I am curious why both parties can't run ads based on honesty and integrity instead of looking for ways they can mislead and misrepresent issues and events. Yes these last minute ads are devastating. They are because they are dishonest and are timed to be so late in the game that the record being set straight won't happen until it is too late.

We see ads against Richert that say he voted against funding for Veterans. Yet King TV tracked checked the facts and found that he actually voted for increased spending for veterans in both budgets.

We see ads that continually state that McGavick would "privatize" social security even though he has clearly been saying from day one that he was against it.

McGavick was offered the job at Safeco because they wanted him to try and save the company from going under. He did his job very well and saved the company and thousands of jobs. As a result he was well paid for it. The fact that Cantwell made millions at Real Networks and left before it crashed shouldn't be an issue, and McGavick getting paid what was promised to him for doing his job shouldn't be either.

Not a one of us would turn down payment owed to us for doing our jobs, why should it be an issue for either of these candidates? It shouldn't.

This isn't one sided, I know both parties do it, but it is wrong and can't be jusitified.

How can people ever take us serious as leaders if we can't be honest with them when we are trying to get elected?

[geniph]

6. Ah, well, maybe because all those claims are TRUE

to wit, McGavick on privatization of Social Security:
http://www.wa-democrats.org/press_display.php?id=287

Some facts about McGavick's tenure at Safeco:
http://www.wa-democrats.org/press_display.php?id=395

Some facts about that claim that Reichert's making:
http://www.wa-democrats.org/press_display.php?id=374
Reichert voted against extending TRICARE healthcare to all National Guard troops, Reservists, and their families.

I find it curious that every single post you've made so far is quoting Republican talking points. Good luck with that.

[TruthDetector]

7. Prime example

This is my point exactly. Citing campaign spin from either party to try and prove your point just proves mine.

The other classic is to accuse someone of using "talking points" when you can't handle the truth.

Look, both sides do it, and you are doing it now, and that is my point. We need to stop doing it.

[philosophie_en_rose]

8. You're being silly. No one is making things up here.

Advocating for happy-fun-lovey campaigning irresponsibly ignores unethical and hypocritical behavior.

[PatMan242]

9. Huh?

I think you're confused, TruthDetector....either that, or you're a Republican. Pointing out a candidate's ACTUAL actions (firing people while receiving huge bonuses) and ACTUAL positions (privatizing SS) is neither campaign spin nor a talking point. They are called facts, and they are fair game.


I also think it's time to get rid of the "kinder, gentler" Democrat. We've ben tiptoeing around trying not to offend anyone, while Karl Rove wins election after election.

We can play nice AFTER we kick every stinking Republican out of office, not before.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

10. Who are you and why are you here?

Hm?

[The empressof all]

11. Where'd he go?

:hi:

[geniph]

12. I think our new friend is no more.

;-)

[progressivebydesign]

13. I think the "Truth Detector" is broken or ran out of batteries...

perhaps a metal detector would be a better choice.. our friend can look for coins on a beach somewhere.

[frebrd]

3. Love it! nt