Aug 28 2006
McGavick’s disclosure and Cantwell’s Reaction
McGavick made the unprecedented move of disclosing his own political skeleton, that being a 1993 DUI.
My initial reaction was *YAWN*.
A DUI 13 years ago is not a show stopper in a political world such as ours, with "Checkpoint Cynthia" McKinney and Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy, or his son Pat "DUI" Kennedy.
Yes it is a matter of character, and is something that should be noted, but what is more important to me is patterns of behavior, not single events.
In his disclosure, Mike says:
Here it is: I have lots of faults, and I have made some mistakes that I deeply regret.
In my personal life I reflect on two great failures:
Most important, my first marriage ended in divorce, and as a result my eldest son, Jack, grew up with me as a “part-time” dad.
Well, here he gets a lot of resonance from me, as I understand this issue from both sides, as a child with a part time dad, and a divorced dad, who was for a while a single dad.
Maybe Mike does understand the pain of dealing with the complexities of a split family. It is easy to spin platitudes and such, but the reality is ugly and dark, and if Mike has a personal sense of this, I respect that.
He continues:
The second terrible mistake, which was difficult to discuss with my teenage son, was that I was cited for DUI when I cut a yellow light too close in 1993. I was driving Gaelynn home from several celebrations honoring our new relationship and should not have gotten behind the wheel. Thankfully, there was no accident, but it still haunts me that I put other people at risk by driving while impaired. All in all, it was and remains a humbling and powerful event in my life.
What is notable here is that this is the kind of event that the opposition campaigns love to dig out and parade. By controlling the disclosure, he now controls the event. But notably, he makes no excuses, he accepts responsibility, which is refreshing.
While it is fairly clear that this disclosure was politically motivated, and likely very well thought out, I still find it worthy of applause that in a climate of blaming, excuses and mitigating circumstances, we have one candidate who is not afraid to embrace his failures and mistakes.
Now the question is "How will Cantwell try to use this information"?
Captains Quarters Blog picked up this story, and specifically Cantwell’s reaction"
Maria Cantwell faces a tough re-election bid against businessman and former Slade Gorton aide Mike McGavick this fall for her Senate seat. Rasmussen shows her clinging to a six-point lead in Washington against her challenger, down five points from June. That lead will probably shrink or disappear after a dishonest shell game her campaign played today in issuing a vicious personal attack on McGavick after he revealed a DUI from 1993:
…
Under these circumstances, an opposing candidate does best by refraining from comment, especially that which will be seen as personal attacks on a man for being honest. Maria Cantwell pledged to do just that — but as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports, her campaign hastily arranged for the Democratic Party to attack McGavick as a drunk on her behalf:
Cantwell campaign spokeswoman Amanda Mahnke said the senator had no reaction and would not be commenting on McGavick’s admissions.
But….
The Cantwell campaign then, however, alerted the state Democratic Party about the P-I query. Party spokesman Kelly Steele telephoned to say, "From privatizing Social Security to drunk driving, it becomes clearer every day that Mike McGavick and George Bush are cut from the same cloth."
That is a contemptible attack, especially given the pledge from Cantwell’s campaign. The Democrats are so desperate to attack George Bush that they have no compunction about tasteless and completely inapposite insults. George Bush has long been open about his problems with alcohol, and McGavick released the DUI himself. Neither of them promote drunk driving; the Democratic response makes it sound as if the two Republicans endorse it as public policy. It’s a cheap shot, and the Cantwell campaign’s involvement in it after pledging to remain silent shows the dishonest nature of Cantwell and her campaign.
I can’t help but agree.
Coupled with her blatant lies about the Minimum wage vote, it plays Maria as being a typical politician and not really standing out as exceptional in any sense.
The Seattle PI, a paper that is tytpically liberally biased even lauds his disclosure:
By revealing his citation for a DUI 13 years ago, Senate candidate Mike McGavick took a page from Socrates.
He displayed courage, putting a personal embarrassment in the public eye that might have gone unnoticed. He was frank about a mistake that could make moral purists within his own GOP cool toward him.
He showed he’s human.
Such refreshing candor comes to a world of politics where players prefer to keep the masks on.
He closes by saying:
Add it up and you get this: McGavick as a very public example of the Socratic call to live a life examined.
My politics are different from his. Even so, there’s something admirable in his recent actions. Here’s a man seeking public office who is willing to talk freely about the most challenging moments of his private life.
We have people currently in public office who are unwilling to talk about the most challenging moments of their public doings.
I wonder if Cantwell, who remains tight-lipped about her controversial vote for war in Iraq, is taking notes.
Not to mention her support of Nafta and Cafta, both of which (according to a progressive blog) make her a free trade Conservative, her vote against the minimum wage increase with affected millions of lower income people around the country and her stance on domestic oil production which keeps us firmly under the thumb of foreign oil.
While I have not gone as far as to endorse anyone yet, McGavick at least interjects an element of humanity to his campiagn, which is a good thing.
It would be nice to see in this upcoming election a real glimpse at the human beings behind the campaigns.
We have seen part of one side, will Cantwell be as honest? Her lying about the minimum wage bill, and her blinking in the stare down with the netroots liberals over the Iraq war have already put Maria at strike two in my book, and the Nafta and ANWAR issues have been troubling as well.
Will she strike out over the issue of personal honesty?
4 Responses to “McGavick’s disclosure and Cantwell’s Reaction”
Leave a Reply
You can track future comments on this post via this RSS feed. You can trackback this post by pinging this URL.
Allowed HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Ridiculous as has unfortunately been usual lately…
You start out OK. I would agree about McGavick’s statements. However, in this contest, I’d like something better than a second-hand account from CQ… At least a link. And I’m tired of the constant conflation of unrelated events, people, and organizations by the neocons…
Cantwell isn’t the party, and vise-verse. It’s dishonest to blame Cantwell for the Party’s actions.
And they do have a point, although they should add a lot of names to the "drunk" list…
As for the contested vote, it’s McGavick who is the liar, and naive, to boot. I’m listening to Mr. High Squeaky voice AGAIN right now. At best, his slant on the issue is dishonest. Only itemizers can use the deduction - not the "average family." I have the damned forms open in front of me right now. Schedule "A", line 5B.
Furthermore, he demonstrates a profound naivete when he says he "would tell the party to "go jump." Partisan representation is the province of the House: The Senate is supposed to champion the interests of the whole Nation. If you support the Electoral College, you should understand that…
And speaking of the National interest, it was political gerrymandering of the worst sort on the part of the Republicans to lump the wage issue, the dynasty tax, and the sales tax into one vote. Each issue deserved it’s own hearing.
But where is your wrath for that? Some moderate you are…
And speaking of moderation, it should be noted Cantwell is dodging bombs from both rabid right and loony left - you gave the examples. That’s the operational definition of "middle of the road."
Last, she’s showing more balls than almost all of the Repub sheep on Iraq: She is admitting she screwed up. Iraq is a disaster: We lost another 8 good men this weekend, and another 100 or so Iraqis died. That’s way over 10,000 since the current fool in charge over there took "office"…
When are the rest of you going to grow the intellectual balls to admit your error?
Not ever, I bet…
And while it is off-topic, McGavick deserves two black eyes for his policy at Safeco redlining people, canceling their insurance for bad credit.
People are required by law to carry insurance; his idea of a proper road to profitability was to cancel customers in good standing only because they were delinquent on other, unrelated issues. It just turns him into a predatory strong-arm man for the credit card loan sharks.
But what the heck, he got his $20 million… How perfectly fat-cat Republican. If there is a god, the party’s founder is puking on god’s feet as he watches this…
It’s unethical and even possibly illegal… If there is any justice left in America the downfallen, this issue will haunt him into November - and ruin him.
Ridiculous as has unfortunately been usual lately…
And yet here you are anyway
Cantwell isn’t the party, and vise-verse. It’s dishonest to blame Cantwell for the Party’s actions.
Well you have no problem assigning collective guilt to Republicans….
And they do have a point, although they should add a lot of names to the "drunk" list…
As long as that list starts with Ted Kennedy fine.
As for the contested vote, it’s McGavick who is the liar, and naive, to boot. I’m listening to Mr. High Squeaky voice AGAIN right now. At best, his slant on the issue is dishonest. Only itemizers can use the deduction - not the "average family." I have the damned forms open in front of me right now. Schedule "A", line 5B.
Irrelevent. Did she lie or not? The answer is clearly yes.
Furthermore, he demonstrates a profound naivete when he says he "would tell the party to "go jump." Partisan representation is the province of the House: The Senate is supposed to champion the interests of the whole Nation. If you support the Electoral College, you should understand that…
PAartisan representation has nothing to do with it. if your party is going the wrong direction, you tell them to flip. whats the beef with that?
Yes, the Senate is con cerned with the whole nation, but look how well Maria fits in there: She claims she supported Nafta/Cafta because it benefited the State, yet did it truly benefit the nation? She torpedoed the minimum wage in what she falsely claimed was a move to protect 100k WASHINGTON voters over how many million accross the country, and it was a sham, the 100K victims she holds up as a shjield were NEVER at risk.
And speaking of the National interest, it was political gerrymandering of the worst sort on the part of the Republicans to lump the wage issue, the dynasty tax, and the sales tax into one vote. Each issue deserved it’s own hearing.
But where is your wrath for that? Some moderate you are…
Bullshit, I have consitently condemned the practice of laundry listing bills.
And speaking of moderation, it should be noted Cantwell is dodging bombs from both rabid right and loony left - you gave the examples. That’s the operational definition of "middle of the road."
Its also called tepid and pandering to the middle, but in her case you make it hero status. Wait, she is bucking her mainstream party.
What was that you said earlier? Get your stories straight bub.
Last, she’s showing more balls than almost all of the Repub sheep on Iraq: She is admitting she screwed up. Iraq is a disaster: We lost another 8 good men this weekend, and another 100 or so Iraqis died. That’s way over 10,000 since the current fool in charge over there took "office"…
Bull. She never admitted any such thing. She pandered to the Nutroots by back pedalling and veering off. She siad if she knew then what she knows now she would not have voted as she did, but so what, so did everyone else.
When are the rest of you going to grow the intellectual balls to admit your error?
Not ever, I bet…
I dont know why. I opposed the invasion in 2003 because we did not have Afghanistan locked down. ask anyone who knew me.
Now that we have invaded, we have to finish. I still maintain that the ties between him and al qaeda as well as his insatiable lust for domination made the invasion inevitible, but at the time I opposed it.
Try again.
“While I have not gone as far as to endorse anyone yet, McGavick at least interjects an element of humanity to his campiagn, which is a good thing.”
————————–
McGavick’s humanity will lose the election. He needs to hit illegal immigration hard to have a chance, and he’s already come out for some sort of amnesty. His disclosure better be the beginning of hitting Cantwell on immigration or he’s toast.