Washblog

FEIT: Here in Washington state, the legislature passed a gay civil rights bill last spring. Do you support that bill?

MCGAVICK: I have my hands full with federal issues. I do not and will not talk about state issues. Because, I'm working at the federal level. I've got my hands full.

FEIT: But surely you have an opinion...

MCGAVICK: Again, you can look at my record at Safeco to understand that Safeco was a very welcoming employer and had very generous and very aggressively non-discriminatory benefits.

FEIT: So, Tim Eyman tried to get an initiative on the ballot to repeal [the gay civil rights bill]. Would you have voted for that?

MCGAVICK: Again, I've been asked about the gas tax last year. I'm now being asked about this. I'll be asked about other things. I do not comment on state initiatives because I'm focused on the federal issues. There's plenty of issues to ask me about all day long. And by the way, the precedent for that was set by Scoop and Maggie. [Former Washington Senators Henry "Scoop" Jackson & Warren G. Magnuson].

FEIT: The precedent for not answering...[McGavick's eyes darkened]... questions?...

MCGAVICK: You can think it's funny, I think it's appropriate. As a senate leader working on federal issues to not wander into every state issue going on at the legislature...

FEIT: I'm just curious what you believe. I mean, you're a Washingtonian. I'm a Washingtonian. This one issue is raging in our state. I want to know what you think about it.

MCGAVICK: There are lots of issues that I will be able to affect as your Senator. So, let's talk about them.

McGavick did go on to say, if the Washington state Supreme Court invalidated the state Defense Of Marriage Act, it would give him a reason, if elected to the U.S. Senate, to vote for a Constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage.

You have to appreciate Mike McGavick's honesty ... even as it reveals that local concerns take a back seat to what his party masters want him to support. If you doubt that, go read his campaign site and see his version of the Bush/Cheney/Rove line that fails dismally to speak to families and communities in this state where loved ones serving in Iraq is not an abstraction:

"America must steadfastly work to root out the sources of radical terrorism. The U.S. cannot retreat from the War on Terror or countries like Iraq will turn into the worst hotbeds of terror the world has ever witnessed.U.S. forces will come home from Iraq when the job is finished. Setting a timetable for troop pullout gives the advantage to America's terrorist enemies."

As far as being in synch with national Rethuglicans I'm surprised Mike has not accused those who disagree with the invasion and occupation of Iraq of wanting to "cut and run."

... but also appreciate that the honesty of his political judgement is based on assumptions and priorities that form the basis of his party's "Last Stand" desperation.

Republicans are sticking to the horses that got them there, calling on their faithful (faith-based, economicially rigid and terror-filled) old voting block from which the President and his Party are trying to milk more support out of their huge 33% popularity in this country.

But their efforts are curdling ... blood-curdling to be more precise.