Is mike mcgavick losing because he's too liberal for republicans?

"God is real. Mike McGavick’s posturing on conservative issues is not." Doug Parris, The Reagan Wing

It's been a mystery to some: Mike McGavick, the friendly, tow-headed Republican who looks like Charlie Brown and sounds like Julia Childs just hasn't gone anywhere. Or at least his US Senate candidacy against Maria Cantwell hasn't.

He' has gone all over the state, but continues wrestling in the tofu of 8 to 10 points down despite, it seems, anything and everything he says or does.

The conventional wisdom is that it's a bad Republican year, or the media's not giving him a chance or maybe the Seattle Times endorsement might be fatal. Some say his voice is too squeaky, or his Washington insider/insurance lobbyist image too difficult to shed.

Dundering along the campaign trail wearing his "moderate" suit, not only has he missed with the liberal majority and the existential middle, but also and more seriously, he's failed to get it up with the GOP's hard right grassroots who have loomed so large in the past.

This faction, out of favor in the party superstructure at the moment, is still out there in numbers that could really help McGavick's failing cause.

They were underwhelmed by the clumsiness of McGavick's unprompted DUI confession, but more by the moral ambiguity it implied.

And unfortunately for him, there's more. His flip-flopping on abortion hasn't put any stars in his crown.

Oh no. 

At first, he said he was "against abortion." But the pragmatists running the party- evil spawn of former State Chair Chris Vance- believe you can't win saying that in Washington, a longtime pro-life state. So Mike told media and Republican honchos early on that he was "pro-choice." Then he began trying to scratch everybody's backs simultaneously:

The Rev. Joe Fuiten, president of Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government, a Christian lobbying group and an informal adviser to McGavick, says the candidate is a centrist on abortion but "not truly pro-choice."

Pro-life blogger Michelle McIntyre at Life of the Party ain't buying it:

"...in the long term, ... it is better to not give control of the party to our opposition. And besides, the net result of having McGavick in the Senate vs. Cantwell, on pro-life legislation or confirmation of judges in this term would be the same. ... [when McGavick’s former boss and favorite senator, Slade Gorton ... knew that an issue had a conservative majority (with or without him), he'd vote with them, collecting conservative votes to make his record look tolerable on paper to the Republican base. But when his vote really mattered, when it was close, he always parted with his conservative colleagues. McGavick was his chief of staff at this time and no doubt, very influential in these decisions. 

The Reagan Wing's Doug Parris, the intense, erudite, extreme, and witty (wittier, at least, than any other carnivorous dinosaur we know) is a conservative gadfly who flies with a cloud of other articulate gadflies delivering the truth as they know it to the party regulars, who they demonize as "pragmatists." On illegal immigration:

First McGavick stumped with John McCain and endorsed the open borders/amnesty bill McCain put together with Ted Kennedy. ("It's not amnesty! It's a work permit and a path to citizenship!") But, perhaps, it could be marketed better. We could call it "McAmnesty."
Next, he distanced himself from the Washington State Republican Platform plank on Illegals, saying he was concerned it was a slippery slope to racism. ...
Then he opened a Spanish-speaking campaign website to appeal to the illegal vote. (All U.S. citizens, whatever ethnicity, are proficient in English.) Only the Spanish site promised "safer" borders.

The fundamentalists and the hard conservatives can pick up wafts of the cheap cologne of ambiguity and the stink of opportunism on a politician- they ought to- they've been bamboozled enough times by the Republican Party!

With Bush administration's shameless pandering to them, they've got their noses open this time around for sure.

McGavick and the likes of Fuiton have confused and split the right hand side of the party. In a letter recently to believers, Rev. Fuiten, clearly talking about McGavick, agonizes, "The election is only a few days away and I fear that Christians will hand the election to the worst elements in the political system by not voting, or by voting for some but not others." 

"Should we vote for them if we don't 100% agree?" Fuiton asks rhetorically. Parris answers sardonically that Fuiton's concern is "obviously unnecessary." Because, he writes, "it is very clear Mike agrees with everyone 100%. It doesn't matter where you stand. Mike is there with you. Somewhere, sometime Mike has expressed strong agreement with your point of view."

Confused, and pissed off, conservatives are staying away from the polls in Washington state this time or voting for 'none of the above" instead of McGavick. or even Reichert.
Parris writes:

There is absolutely no way for him to catch up. Why? Because he doesn’t disagree with [Maria Cantwell] on issues. There is no reason for the casual voter to choose him over her unless they just prefer the name “Republican” and we already know how that breaks out in this State. Mike has already kissed off the conservatives, too.

The dance is over. A vote for Mike McGavick is a vote for Maria Cantwell. The race looks like a Mazda Miata that got hit broadside running a red light.

Comments

[joanie]

Well, that's interesting. I never confused Mike! with Maria. I just always thought the guy was just another Republican money launderer . . . so to speak. Too much emphasis on personal gain and bottom line and a too little authenticity.

He reeks of money, money, money . . . so maybe his campaign is being infected by the corruption virus in Congress.

[Brian In Lacey wa]

hooty hoo! no more styblehead !
The Sunday school teacher was carefully explaining the story of Elijah the Prophet and the false prophets of Baal. She explained how Elijah built the altar, put wood upon it, cut the steer in pieces and laid it upon the altar.

And then Elijah commanded the people of God to fill four barrels of water and pour it over the altar. He had them do this four times.

"Now, said the teacher, "can anyone in the class tell me why the Lord would have Elijah pour water over the steer on the altar?"

A little girl in the back of the room raised her hand with great enthusiasm. "To make the gravy," came her enthusiastic reply.

[Stephen Schwartz]

I wonder. in real issues the differences between them is very little. They bot come form professional political backgrounds, both have used politics to make $$, both support a practical rather than an ideological POV.

McG's problme, I believe is that his party has moved so far to the right that a moderate can not ge tout the base, yet McG is not able to support the things that might excite middel of the road Washington.

If I had been his campaign manager, I would have run as an Evans Republican. Given the manadatory Dem commitment to party lines on abortion, naturalization, and Iraq, there is plenty of room to be in the center w/o totally alineting the right.

Issues he could have supported:

true tax reform (instead of the wealth subsidy tax)

enhanced immigration for the qualified immigrants who can help us all save social security

true health care reform

US as a world leader rather than trying to be the world's cop.

Tough policy on China in re Tibet and N. Korea.

etc.

[sparky]

I actually feel sort of sorry for Republican candidates nowadays. I dont think the current party leadership would allow anyone to run as an "Evans Republican", as attractive as it would be to a large percentage of the population. The leadership is so hell-bent on a certain agenda, that if anyone wants to run, they must parrot the party line, regardless of how they may feel about it personally. I remember a few summers ago when the Leadership refused to let "other" candidates place their literature on the Republican table at the Puyallup Fair because they would not sign the pledge to think one certain way.
I would seriously pay attention to another Dan Evans, but until the "real" Republicans take back their party from the extremists who are in leadership positions, ( and who consult with Rove over who should run) I dont think it will happen anytime soon.

[coiler]

How could they possibly confuse him with 'liberal'? He may have tried to court the suburban vote by being pro-choice earlier on and lost, so it appears he is really going after the E.Wash/SW Wash/Freedom County voters who hate welfare recipeints, think he is a CEO wiz, and see nothing wrong 1 DUI infraction.

[adjil]

McGavick hasn't done anything to explain how he would accomplish anything as a senator. His latest ads highlight his "independence" and that he won't vote the party line. Well thats all fine and good, but how is he going to be effective in any way?

Cantwell's out talking about how she builds coalitions and forms partnerships to pass (or not pass) legislation and McGavick's out bragging that he's going to vote differently from his party.

On a side note, his pdf "roadmap" from his campaign website reads to me like the GOP national platform. Makes you wonder...

[Fremont]

(Completely off topic: Joans and Bla'M and Mac-o-philes, were you pc users before you became Mac users? What recommendations do you have for transitioning with dignity? (No Merck products...they're headed for a Vioxx induced bankruptcy, IMHO). Any sealed documents or twelve-step programs?)

[TomF]

McGavick's going to lose by about eight points. Here is why:

1. His "I'm really an independent, I'll stick up for the people of Washington and ignore Republican marching orders" line is stone cold bullshit. No freshman US senator on either side of the aisle gets to do any such thing. If he tried, he'd be excommunicated -- no committee assignments, no budget input, no influence. Suddenly they'd be voting through nuclear waste storage sites in Medina over his objections. It's a naive, silly stance, a desperate attempt to distance him from the reviled GOP machine, and Mike knows what a fantasy it is -- or ought to. If he really wants to run as an independent, he should take that shot.

2. Most moderate ticket-splitting voters are thinking twice this year about doing anything to support a Republican majority, no matter how good the guy is. A lot of inoffensive moderate GOPers like Conrad Burns are going to lose because of this.

3. Mike's hideous "tough decisions" at Safeco -- the layoffs, the cold policy cancellations -- are no talking point for him. He should fry in hell for his actions. Anyone who knows his Safeco story would drink ammonia before voting for him. I guess taking the $28 million golden parachute wasn't such a tough decision.

Cantwell, like her party, is going to get back in despite an absence of ideas or accomplishments just because of macro forces. I don't like her at all, but I'm going to have to vote for her, THEN work against her.

[Rich]

Mike's former company Safco is in the process of moving downtown and selling there U distric building. Mikes replacement has figured out that they were losing tons o dough through poor space management and planing. If you ask me I think he was way too over paid for being such a compentent CEO.

[sparky]

Fremont..I have a G4 mac laptop at school and a Dell Inspiron laptop at home. I like both for different reasons. Go to Costco or Best Buy and ask to use some of the display models to find one you like.

[joanie]

Sparky, Fremont already has one - I believe.

Fremont, I've always been a mac-o-phile but use PCs at school. When Mac moved to their new operating system, I had a lot of problems as well. But, with time, it will get easier. (Macs used to be more intuitive than they are not - my opinion!) And since I got Office for mac, I use Word more than I do Apple.

Any specific questions? Glad to try to help.

[joanie]

Also off topic: Frank is doing an excellent show right now on a teacher in Northshore who had a very long history of inappropriate touching of students and all the money Northshore paid keeping it quiet.

Unbelievable!

Also, with the Seattle School Board's decision to deep six school closure plans, education is feeling some pain these days. Manhas is leaving at the end of the year. Don't blame him. Everybody has a sacred cow. Read the article in the Seattle Times.

Regarding McGavick: I think he has the same problem Kerry had in 2004: he hasn't defined himself at all. But Kerry got better at the end . . . McGavick seems to be slipping and sliding all over the place. Which tells me he's trying to hide what he is all about! The guy just comes across a like a used-car salesman.

Also interesting article in the Times on prop rights - I'm voting a firm no.

[Dana]

Judging from what I've read about Mike McGavick, he's an intelligent man. So how can he run such a STUPID campaign?

(Maybe the same way John Kerry did...?)

[joanie]

I just heard another McGavick ad. Why don't they pull 'em and save their money?

I know why he's losing . . . he's got a voice that's way higher than Goldy's! He sounds like Walter Denton . . .

[Thom]

I know why he's losing . . . he's got a voice that's way higher than Goldy's!

Wow! If a conservative made a comment about a candidate's voice...it would be regarded as a slam on something a candidate can't control....

[joanie]

Thom, I might have to charge you with stalking . . . :)

But, I think I like you. You have persistence . . . instead of getting mad and calling me names, you keep trying.

Of course, as Goldy has proven, anyone can control his voice . . . but since I'm sure you will find a nonsensical way to argue the point, let's just pretend we've already chased our tails and save ourselves the trouble. It's late and I'm not up to another game of tail-chasing. But, thanks for the offer.

J

BTW, are you old enough to know who Walter Denton is? I don't think so . . . you're too much fun!

[joanie]

Oh Thom! You did a no-no! You forgot to turn off the italics! (I did that once; Michael was not happy . . . )

Michael, there is a way for you to do it. You should check with Goldy because when we forget to turn off italics and bold over there, it doesn't carry over to the next post. It used to - but doesn't anymore.

[Thom]

Wow...most sites got rid of that YEARS ago....

[Thom]

Here's a test to get rid of the itals...

[Thom]

let's get rid of the itals...another test

[Thom]

joanie...I think this fixed it.

[Thom]

TEST..this is a no ital post.