Right...

So tell me again, how McGavick using his millions is different from Hinze-Kerry using his wife’s millions, and Lamont using his millions? And don't tell me it's where it came from. He was an executive with a golden parachute, they all have them, they come standard issue with success (or marrying well).

Easy...

Kerry didn't. Also, Lamont gave a little, but only as seed money. Also, Lamont FOUNDED a company, while Mike!tm got a golden parachute.

Kerry mortgaged his wifes mansion. Seed money? (one man's seed is another mans nut). Founded vs. Dircted... so what? It all comes down to protected free speech. You can spend as much of your own money as you want to get your message out... so can they. Nothing wrong with it.

You Gotta Be Kidding Me,

There's nothing wrong with it... unless the FEC and/or the U.S. District Court finds that the money was an illegal campaign contribution or wasn't rightfully due to McGavick.

The money is currently suspect.

Otherwise, yeah, he can open his wallet all he wants.

The problem is: We don't get to clear up the legitimate questions about the money until after the elections.

Wasn't there another senate candidate named Cantwell who used millions of her own fortune to campaign with?

Josh,
Is this the article?

http://seattlepi.com/local/279742_mcgavick02.html

I just think that ANYTHING rich people do is OK, because they're rich. I going to be rich soon myself! I got an email from an African guy's wife and she's gonna give me a million dollars if I give her my bank number.

That's why I'm a Retardlican. Retardlicans are RICH!!!

Disclaimer: I am a staunch Democrat, but also a long time Safeco employee.

Calling the $28 million a golden parachute is false. The bulk of that money was a result of stock options that were granted to Mike! back when he took the CEO job in 2001. At the time Safeco was in serious trouble from a failed merger with another company. Mike! completely restructured the company, doubled its value, and despite layoffs, saved a lot of good paying jobs. A lot of us employees questioned Mike! about his compensation (the previous CEO made far, far less), but to our respect, he didn't skirt the issue.

It surprises me a little that The Stranger doesn't mention that, as CEO, Mike! expanded domestic partnership benefits, made diversity a priority (including some of the most leftist training sessions ever), has had very few claims disputes from hurricane Katrina, and fought to keep Safeco in the U-District despite strong financial reasons not to.

Huh,

Great post.

I was on the fence on who to vote for and after reading how Mcgavick transformed SAFECO, it is clear that this is the type of leadership Washington State needs.

Because voting in the Senate is just like running an insurance company.

Unfortunately, Republican candidates can't be trusted to be moderates. Once they get to DC, get a sniff of the long green, get a talking-to by Unkie Karl, they become right wing zombies. It's already starting with him and this bullshit creationist stance. We have to break the stranglehold. The only Repub who speaks up is Hagle, and he only does that because his former company owns the voting machines in Nebraska.

Vote Cantwell: At least she's not a Republican - and the folks at Real don't want her back.

While I'm not crazy about rich people being able to throw huge amounts of their own money at elections, I agree that there's not much we can do about it until we have some sort of election reform. The danger being, of course, that we need a governing body that is in touch with the economic reality of middle-class (including upper middle-class) people. If it's all rich people, we run the danger of becoming the court of Louis XVI. (or one of those Louis'. I can never keep them straight)

What disappoints me about Mike! is that, just like Reichart (sp?) he's a panderer to the lowest common denominator - and in the GOP that's the reactionary/fundamentalist vote - and the normal, rational Republicans wink and not and let them do it. They're afraid of pissing off the wackos.

It's just like what the GOP always puts up agains McDermott. What a collection of losers. I don't know what rock that last chick climbed out from under, but I'm glad she went back there fast. I don't want "a return to biblical values" or the "McDuffy reader" (whatever that is) I want good roads, clean air, clean water, reasonable taxation, and effective (but not excessive) government regulation. If a truly moderate Republican exists anymore, and if that Republican would run, I might actually vote for him/her, on the theory that change is good.

But the minute they start caving on their convictions, and hemming and hawing over basic "hands-off" government questions such as "Are you pro-choice?" "Do you support civil unions?" "Do you reject teaching creationism in public school science courses?" they lose me, because they are showing their cowardice, and I go running back to the dems, who represent at least a modicum of sense.

Moderate Republicans need to reclaim their party from the nutcases. It may hurt the party in the short run, but it may save it in the long run. It won't be long before they decide to splineter off and form a Jesus party or something stupid like that.

And until the moderate Republicans do that, I'm not going to vote for ANY Republicans, liberal, moderate, or otherwise. It DOESN'T MATTER what McGavick's issue positions are. What matters is that votes are going to come up in the senate, and McGavick is going to be voting WITH Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Larry Craig of Idaho, Trent Lott of Mississippi, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma way more often than not.

No matter how McGavick tries to distance himself, you're not voting for an individual, you're voting for a national party that is DEVOTED TO EVIL.

David in Wedgwood,
The article you linked is on the lawsuit against SAFECO filed by the granddaughter. I was looking for Modie's article on the Democrats' complaint with the FEC.

Meanwhile, what are you all talking about? McGavick is not running as a moderate. Social security, the war, gay marriage, immigration, intelligent design, choice. It's all party line GOP stuff.

Meanwhile, what are you all talking about? McGavick is not running as a moderate.

Sure he's *running* as a moderate. That's what all that "rise above the partisanship" bullshit is about. Because he's going to take the center road and not get bogged down in culture wars blah blah blah.

Of course, in reality, when that persistant reporter can *finally* nail him down to an actual stance, it's the same old right-wing crap that we've had the past 6 years where "rising above partisanship" is just code for "running over the other party".

The only way a Republican can win statewide right now is if they take great pains to avoid publicizing the fact that they're a Republican.