Politics McGavick Pledges to Contribute $$ to Lieberman Campaign
McGavick issued a press release today on the Lieberman news:
“The latest victim of partisanship is Sen. Joe Lieberman,â€ť Mike McGavick said this morning. “As the Senator said in his concession speech last night, it’s time for our elected leaders to stop playing political games so that we can get things done for this country. Senator Lieberman’s message of independence and bi-partisanship is right for our country. We don’t have to agree on all issues, but this nation is desperate for leaders that will look beyond their party leaders to help our families and communities—even if it might put their own re-election in doubt. In support of Sen. Lieberman’s campaign for civility, I wish him the best, and Gaelynn and I plan on contributing to his campaign.â€ť
Given that Lieberman’s voting record mirrors Cantwell’s voting record, McGavick should consider two things.
1) If McGavick thinks Lieberman is a symbol of the healthy, moderate bi-partisanship that he wishes would displace the polarized partisanship of DC, he should drop out and contribute to Cantwell’s campaign. Again, her record mirrors Lieberman’s.
2) If McGavick is so enamored of Lieberman’s record of defying partisanship, McGavick should stop running as a party line Republican, and follow Lieberaman’s example and run as an Independent himself.
As I wrote a few weeks ago: McGavick’s attempt to transform the current foul mood of voters (anger at the party in power, the GOP) into a general anger at partisanship…is a deliberate end-run around Cantwell, who isn’t hotly partisan.
From the end of my article:
Cantwell famously teamed up with the GOP to pass bipartisan campaign finance reform; in 2003, she reached across the aisle to pass the sales tax deduction; she didn’t join the Democrats’ gimmicky Alito filibuster; she voted for the PATRIOT Act. She’s under fire from liberals for being conservative.After the audience Q&A, I asked McGavick where Cantwell fit into his critique of D.C.’s pessimistic culture. “I barely talked about Cantwell [because partisan bickering] is a national issue,” he said. “It’s not about Senator Cantwell.”
McGavick is running against D.C., not against Cantwell. If McGavick can continue to do an end run around Cantwell with his broad critique of D.C.—he could win. And Cantwell is letting this happen. She needs to make McGavick run against her—and things like her VA funding vote— if she wants to short-circuit McGavick’s charming attempt to co-opt public anger to his advantage.