Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Mike McGavick Probably Just Lost My Vote...

As a moderate democrat I was open to Mike McGavick's campaign. I personally believe there should be a healthy churn in our elected officials, and I am not opposed to voting republican to keep new ideas coming out of Washington.

But, over the course of his campaign, he has been racking up mistakes and faux paus that have finally reached my personal tipping point. His first mistake was his whole hearted embrace of GWBush early in his campaign, but hey, Bush was popular at that point, so why wouldn't he try to ride someone's coattails? I was willing to overlook it because it didn't seem out of place for a someone to suck up to the leader of their party. Nevertheless, strike one Mike.

The second instance was his comments about Seattle while campaigning in Eastern Washington. I like to read N. Idaho and E. Washington blogs because that is where I am from. I like the people, the values, the lifestyle, and someday hope to return. From reading these blogs though, I have ascertained a definite level of vitriol from our eastern neighbors toward those of us in the Puget Sound area. This vitriol runs deep despite the fact that they must certainly know that the wealth from Seattle and King County paves their roads, buys goods from their farms, and subsidized their schools. There is never any acknowledgement on the Eastern side of the state of the contribution of King County to the state, there is only resentment over King Counties voting tendencies. Therefore, it is clear that he was merely pandering to the receptive crowd. Although clearly a right of passage in politics, it was still disappointing and I expected more from him. Strike two.

The last incident is what has probably pushed him out of consideration for my vote. It's a radio ad that attacks Sen. Cantwell for not supporting the vote to make the deduction that we get to make for our sales tax, when paying federal income taxes, permanent. While it is true she did vote against the bill containing the provision, it is false to characterize her as against the measure. I know that politician like to spin this game of asking why is someone for something but votes against it, but that a disingenuous stance given they know how the system works. It was Sen. Cantwell who led a bipartisan group in the attempt to get the deduction permanent. In truth, it was the republicans who opposed the measure and the tax break. For all the republican parties talk of being anti-tax, when they had the chance to give everyone in Washington and 12 other states a tax break they balked. Why was the republican leadership against this effort? I don't know. Perhaps they don't like a sweeping tax cut that is available to everyone; gay, straight, married, single, rich or poor. Given what they seem to endorse lately, the republicans seem only to like to give tax cuts to exclusive classes of people, such as: investors, people who stand to inherit vast sums of money, or to families with children. The state tax exemption must have been to inclusive for their liking.

Regardless, it was the republicans who contorted this bill and Mike M. knows it, he knows what Sen Cantwell position on the issue, but he playing a political game that works because it few people stop to think of how bills get passed and how the thing work in DC.

I guess that was has finally turned me off. I wanted someone new, I was looking forward to the notion that an citizen, a successful businessman, would be committed to this county and want to serve. However, I also want someone who is running because they have values and stand for something. But these three instances show someone who has simply tried to latch on to his parties leadership's buttcheeks, who panders to crowds, and blurs the facts a little just to win a vote. In the end, he has already met the definition of a politician who will say or do anything to win a vote. If he's already cut out of politician cloth before even being elected, than what will he turn into if he's send to D.C. A person like that is not what I want this Washington to send to the other Washington.

So, my vote is up for grabs, anyone interested?

This last incident coupled with

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Has anyone thought about the huge sum Mike got from Safeco when he retired? That money came from policy holders and those who probably did not get the true value of their claims. Also now the company has laid off a large number of former employees. Did any of the above people know they were supplying funds for this man?
And who looses in the end? We all know! Clintjones@olypen.com

Anonymous said...

Has anyone thought about the huge sum Mike got from Safeco when he retired? That money came from policy holders and those who probably did not get the true value of their claims. Also now the company has laid off a large number of former employees. Did any of the above people know they were supplying funds for this man?
And who looses in the end? We all know! Clintjones@olypen.com

Matt said...

I have qualms about the state of executive compensation in general and this just shows that Mike M. simply took whateveryone else in his situtation takes, he didn't step up and refuse the money on ethical grounds, than again, what CEO does? I don't think this is a vote strike against him, just shows he just an average joe CEO.