Posted on 10/22/2006 3:20:18 PM PDT by Publius
In Sen. Maria Cantwell and challenger Mike McGavick, Washington has two fully qualified choices for the Senate. The better choice is the Republican, McGavick.
Some see this election as a referendum on George W. Bush. If we did, we would be for a solid Democratic ticket. But like most Washington voters, we take our candidates one at a time. Mike McGavick is an unusual businessman-politician. He managed the multibillion-dollar turnaround of Safeco Corporation, sacrificing some jobs but saving many others. He showed a sense of social purpose in his stress on racial inclusion at Safeco. He knows politics, having worked for Sen. Slade Gorton. He has run a clean campaign.
Critics will note that McGavick supports the elimination of the federal estate tax, a cause for which The Seattle Times has campaigned many years. That is part of why we endorse him, but not most of it. We endorsed Cantwell six years ago, knowing her position on the estate tax, and could endorse her again.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
One quail does not make a covey, but it can sure make the dog happy.
Two days ago in our local paper Tri-City Herald they said he was doing so poorly 35% to Cantdowells, 55% (or something like that) that the RNC was going to quit putting money into his campaign and not fund commercials during the last two weeks of the election.
I was quite impressed with the commercials that just started showing the differences between him and Can'tdowell.
I feel like I am missing something about McGavick. I know very little about him....I know he is more liberal than I would like. I am only voting for him because he's not Cantwell....and he can't be much worse than she was.
Ping. Flying pigs alert.
Sounds like a lib to me. Why should I care if this idiot wins?
It take imagination to be a nation of quitters?? It takes imagination to embolden Al Qaeda by handing them a victory in Iraq and allowing them to say they drove the US military out of Iraq?? What takes imagination is to believe that would not make the US less safe in the world, swell the ranks of the jihadists and allow them to take over Iraq and its oil resources to be a new training ground and treasure chest from which to launch Al Qaeda terrorism throughout the world. It also takes imagination to not realize it will also make things worse for us in Afghanistan as the jihadists then re-deploy there to replicate their successful effort to get us to retreat in Iraq.
Anyway, what a stupid comment for this newspaper to make even if I'm glad they are wisely endorsing McGavick otherwise. By the way, I'm guessing the Seattle P.I. is endorsing Cantwell. Does this paper have much circulation?
Hell I am voting for Tom Kean Jr. He is a RINO but even a RINO is better than a full fledged liberal nut case like Menendez.
Both papers have a wide circulation.
This is just another of the wacky endorsements fpr the left coast. The LAT for Arnold and the Oregonian for Saxton. Whatevwer is this world coming to? :-).
Because you're a realist?
As I understand it, the family that still owns most of this paper has been crusading against the estate tax for years; their #1 issue.
That would be the Nordstrom family, of department store fame.
So Mitch McConnell can be majority leader.
This is a surprise! I don't see it having a major effect. Perhaps a few latte-drinking, volvo-driving social liberals who are pro-business may switch their votes to McGavick due to this, but not enough to change the outcome.
I've seen newspapers around here endorse the Republican when the Republican didn't stand any chance of winning. They will also endorse the Republican when the Democrat has zero chance of winning. Making useless endorsements of Republicans this way gives lying scumbag newspapers like the Seattle Times the chance to say, "See? We're non-partisan."
I haven't heard any speculation about the GOP contest for leader. Is it Mitch by default? How about Tom Coburn..
Or maybe 1 watt of common sense is getting through to some libs..The idea that Seattle poses a very attractive target for an AlQeda attack...
No, that's not it.
There's something underhanded going on with this endorsement. The scumbags at that paper must be gnashing their teeth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.