HorsesAss.Org

“I put this out there because I did think it was a part of my past that shaped who I am, that the public should know.”
— Mike McGavick on KING5 News Up Front with Robert Mak

If you haven’t already seen Robert Mak’s interview with Mike?™ McGavick on KING-5 News Up Front, you’ve gotta watch it. More than two weeks after Mike?™ made a public show of confessing his private sins, the controversy refuses to die.

At times he seemed to be taken aback by Mak’s blunt questions, and I’m guessing Mike?™ probably wishes he could take back a few of his answers. In this latest interview the Republican US Senate wannabe continues to contradict both himself and reality, while confirming my basic analysis of the rhetorical focus of his campaign. No wonder reporters have grown unwilling to accept his words at face value.

Take for example Mike?™’s dismissal of a charge that he lied about winning a state track title, an allegation I first raised, and one that he laughs off as “absurd.” Mike?™ is shown telling an audience that this is the type of tabloid journalism that is poisoning modern politics.

“A member of the press had been convinced that I hadn’t actually won a track meet that had been discussed in an article, and they were going to run it as a lie unless I proved that I’d won that track meet. Aren’t you glad I spent the weekend trying to find that news clipping about that track meet. But this is what politics has been reduced to.”

Umm… but I never disputed the fact that he won a track meet. In fact, I specifically cited a contemporary who says he did win a race, albeit a “dinky little indoor meet” with no school affiliation or state title attached. The question is whether Mike?™ won a “state track title” as he apparently told the Seattle Times:

McGavick pumped gas to help pay for Seattle Prep. He won a state track title his senior year and argued he should take the summer off to train for nationals

Share:

• Tweet
• Email
• Print

If you have sent me email over the past 24-hours or so, and you are awaiting a response… don’t hold your breath.

As the result of a really stupendous spam attack (at its peak I was receiving hundreds, if not thousands of emails a minute) my mail server has been down for almost a day. I do not know if this attack was commercially or politically motivated, but either way it is an attack on my Constitutional right to free speech, and either way I just want to tell the perpetrators: FUCK YOU!

This is a cowardly, selfish and rude way of doing business, whatever your business may be. I would have added the descriptor “unAmerican,” but too often these days, this is how I see my fellow Americans treating their fellow man.

Happy Birthday Mom. And Bob.

(I guess, life goes on.)

The Seahawks (and the Eagles) won, and I’m not preempted… so what better way to celebrate Sunday night than to pop open a cold beer and tune in to “The David Goldstein Show” on Newsradio 710-KIRO, tonight from 7PM to 10PM.

The lineup could change in response to breaking news, but here’s what I think I’ll be talking about tonight:

7PM: We’ve already got two Johnsons and a Dick on the state Supreme Court, two of which clearly dress right, but that’s not enough for the BIAW, who keeps slapping their members on the bench, this time pulling a Groen and whipping out yet another Johnson in their drive to take control of the court. Joining me to discuss the enormous sums of money the right wing is spending on our formerly low profile judicial races is Jenny Durkan, one of our state’s most prominent attorneys, and a co-chair of Citizens to Uphold the Constitution.

8PM: Curious about tonight’s broadcast of Path to 9/11, but can’t bear to bring yourself to watch ABC’s propagandistic, lying piece of crap? Well, turn off the TV and tune in 710-AM, because Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis is on East Coast time watching it for you. After he’s done, he’s gonna call in to critique the movie and discuss the controversy surrounding it.

9PM: Jim Hightower, one of the pioneers of progressive radio will not be on the show tonight. But he will be at Seattle’s Town Hall on Thursday, September 14, headlining a conference on energy, agriculture and sustainability. I’ll be talking with some of the conference organizers in the first couple segments, then a representative from the No on I-933 campaign will join me to talk about how that dangerous initiative could kill Washington’s efforts at sustainable growth.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

The other day the King County Bar Association clarified its “not qualified” rating for judicial hopeful, perennial candidate and HA regular Richard Pope. Some have suggested that the KCBA has some sort of bias against right-wing candidates, but association President John Ruhl insists that they took this unusual step because Richard is, well… unusual unqualified.

The basis for Richard’s extremely low rating (you can’t get any lower without losing your license) is “unprofessional conduct” in four court cases where Richard was sanctioned and/or fined for missing filing dates, frivolous motions and other court delays. So as a public service, I thought I’d publish a few of Richard’s Greatest Hits Misses, culled from the court records, so that you’d all get a feel for what Richard does for a living when he’s not commenting in the threads here or on (un)Sound Politics. (Names and addresses have been excised, and the emphasis is always mine.)

In this first case, Richard is appealing an anti-harassment order the ex-wife of a client had obtained against Richard. The Court refused to hear the appeal as moot because, um… the order had since expired.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.
Janet M., Respondent, v. Richard L. POPE, Jr., Appellant.
Nos. 36277-1-I, 39470-3-I.

March 31, 1997.

*1 Richard Pope appeals from the district court’s renewal of the anti-harassment order issued to Janet M. He argues that the district court applied the wrong standard for renewal and that it did not have jurisdiction to renew the order. [FN1] We decline to reach the merits of Mr. Pope’s issues and dismiss his appeal as moot because the order has expired and we can provide no relief. In addition, although we recognize that the order may be renewed again, we do not believe that the appeals raise any issues of substantial public interest which require review even though they are moot.

That must have been quite a divorce, and from the looks of it Richard’s client got the worst of it. Could it have been due to bad representation? These next two are from the underlying divorce case, in which Richard was representing the husband.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.
In re: Janet M, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. John H., Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
No. 37870-8-I.

Sept. 2, 1997.

Counsel for Appellant(s) Richard L. Pope Jr.,

…

We note that John H failed to pay for some of the clerk’s papers he designated in time for their transmission to this court prior to oral argument. Indeed, payment was forthcoming only after repeated notifications from this court. As a result, the papers were not filed in this court until after oral argument, thus preventing our review of some of the issues raised in preparation for oral argument. The unacceptable delay in perfecting the record is an egregious violation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure and is entirely attributable to John H and/or his counsel. See RAP 9.7. To consider these late papers would be to ignore the legitimate purposes of the rule and to reward dilatory conduct. Accordingly, we will not consider the late-filed papers and will resolve issues requiring reference to these papers against John H.

…

We grant Janet M’s motion for sanctions pursuant to RAP 18.9(a) based upon the conduct of John H’s counsel during the pendency of this appeal. As discussed, this court’s review of some of the issues raised in this appeal prior to oral argument was precluded due to counsel’s failure to pay for a part of the clerk’s papers he designated almost 12 months earlier. After several inquiries from this court, and dunning letters from the superior court clerk, counsel finally paid for the papers and they were filed with this court two days after oral argument. As a result, we were unable to review issues raised in the briefs. Because we resolve those issues against John H, we do not impose any additional sanction for that violation.

*7 Many other violations occurred, however. At each step of the appellate process, John H failed to comply with the time limits of the rules, resulting in significant delay. He failed to timely file the statement of arrangements, the report of proceedings, his opening brief, and his reply brief. Despite frequent notices from the court, numerous motions by Janet M and at least three hearings, John H almost never complied with any deadline set by the court unless notified that failure to do so would result in automatic dismissal without further notice. For example, upon John H’s request, he was granted an extension until March 17, 1997 to file his reply/cross-respondent’s brief. The commissioner’s ruling specifically stated that no further extensions would be granted, and reserved for the panel Janet M’s motion for sanctions. In complete disregard of this order, John H did not file his brief until April 24, 1997. Another commissioner imposed modest sanctions (totaling $500) for the late filing of the reply brief. Additional sanctions pursuant to RAP 18.9 are warranted here.

…

We impose sanctions pursuant to RAP 18.9 in the amount of $1,500 against John H and his counsel, jointly and severally, payable to Janet M.

Man… this case didn’t go very well for Richard and his client. So of course, Richard appeals. That’s when the judge really lays into him.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.
IN RE THE MARRIAGE of: Janet M, Appellant, and John H, Respondent.
No. 42755-5-I.

Aug. 16, 1999.

Richard L. Pope Jr., Seattle, WA, for Respondent(s).

…

This is the third appeal in a case between former spouses Janet M and John H regarding child support modification. Each appeal has been marked by delays, endless motions, and failure to comply with court rulings. John H and his attorney Richard Pope failed for some 20 months to pay sanctions awarded jointly and severally against them in the first appeal. [FN1] Due to this failure, John H’s separate appeal from the decision on remand and his cross appeal in this matter were dismissed.

FN1. After oral argument on this case, attorney Richard Pope was ordered to appear before this court on April 6, 1999 to show cause why he should not be precluded from further participation in any appeal or proceeding before Division One of the Washington State Court of Appeals for failure to pay sanctions imposed in this case and another. At that appearance, Pope provided proof that the above sanctions had been fully paid by that date and on April 23, 1999 this court ordered that no further action is required as to the sanctions.

…

Even if Janet M. received appropriate notice of the claim and failed to object or follow through in the bankruptcy court, as is claimed by John H, his attorney Richard Pope remained liable for the sanctions. The order of this court was for a judgment against John H and Pope, jointly and severally. A discharge of John H in bankruptcy does not serve to release Pope from the obligation.

We impose additional sanctions pursuant to RAP 18.9 in the amount of $1,500 against John H and his counsel, jointly and severally, payable to Janet M., for their flagrant disregard of this court’s previous order to pay sanctions. This amount shall be reduced to judgment by the superior court immediately upon mandate of this opinion, with interest to accrue at the statutory amount. Failure to pay the amount within 30 days thereafter may result in additional sanctions.

At this point some of you might argue that continuing to cite Richard’s court record would be frivolous. But since Richard has been sanctioned himself for making frivolous claims, it only seems fair.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.
Richard K and Nancy K, Appellants, v. Tip R; Lora R; Michael N; and Kameron C., Respondents.
and Richard L. Pope, Jr., Appellant.
Nos. 42001-1-I, 42245-6-I.

Aug. 16, 1999.

We affirm the court’s award of sanctions against Richard Pope as it relates to two of the K’s three claims but remand for redetermination the amount of the award in light of this opinion.

Apparently, Richard has learned from the best. In this case, the trial judge was Jeanette Burrage. Yikes. She awarded sanctions and the court of appeals added to them for a frivolous appeal.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.
AUBURN CHEVROLET, INC., a Washington corporation, Respondent, v. Scot K and ‘Jane Doe’ K, Appellant.
No. 46924-0-I.

Nov. 5, 2001.

Appeal from Superior Court of King County, Docket No. 99-2-15604-8, judgment or order under review, date filed 06/09/2000; Jeanette Burrage, Judge.

Richard L. Pope Jr., Seattle, WA, for appellant(s).

Auburn Chevrolet obtained a money judgment against ‘Scot Kuchta Columbia Landscape’ for payment on a contract. That judgment was not appealed. The trial court entered an order confirming a sheriff’s sale of equipment owned by Columbia Landscape Services, LLC (Columbia) to satisfy that judgment. Columbia appeals, arguing that its assets were improperly seized and it was not liable on the judgment because it was not properly named. Orders shortening time and sanctions imposed by the trial court are also challenged. Finding no error, we affirm and award attorney fees to Auburn Chevrolet for defending a frivolous appeal.

…

Although the trial court denied that motion, it entered findings explaining that it imposed sanctions because Columbia engaged in ‘inappropriate and improper conduct’ and acted in bad faith.

…

Columbia appeals the trial court’s refusal to impose sanctions against Auburn Chevrolet, its imposition of $3,200 in sanctions against Columbia, and its denial of Columbia’s motion for reconsideration. The trial court explained that it imposed sanctions against Columbia because it engaged in ‘inappropriate and improper conduct’ and acted in bad faith throughout the litigation process.

…

Auburn Chevrolet requests an award of attorney fees for defending against a frivolous appeal. ‘The appellate court on its own initiative or on motion of a party may order a party … who … files a frivolous appeal … to pay terms or compensatory damages to any other party who has been harmed{.}’ RAP 18.9(a). ‘An appeal is frivolous if, considering the entire record, it has so little merit that there is no reasonable possibility of reversal and reasonable minds could not differ about the issues raised.’ Johnson v. Mermis, 91 Wn.App. 127, 137, 955 P.2d 826 (1998) (footnote omitted).

*5 In this case, the trial court properly permitted Auburn Chevrolet to satisfy an unappealed judgment. In this appeal, Columbia continues its attempt to avoid enforcement of that judgment by arguing that it was not a party to it. This argument is without merit. Indeed, Columbia presented no valid basis to challenge the order confirming the sheriff’s sale of its equipment. Columbia also did not establish prejudice from the trial court’s orders shortening time. Further, there is no indication that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Columbia’s motion for sanctions or by imposing sanctions on Columbia. Because Columbia’s arguments have so little merit that there is no reasonable possibility of reversal, this appeal is frivolous. We therefore award attorney fees to Auburn Chevrolet and refer this matter to a commissioner of this court to determine the proper amount of fees following Auburn Chevrolet’s compliance with RAP 18.1. Affirmed.

Well, with a stellar track record like that, no wonder Richard has recently attracted such high profile clients as the Popular Assembly of Sovereign Kazens. Way to go Richard.

To be honest, I feel a little bad posting Richard’s court records like this. I kinda like Richard. Sorta. Sure, he’s more than a touch nutty and can display a helluva a mean streak, but he’s one of the few righties here who seems willing to mitigate his beliefs with facts, and in his more lucid moments makes welcome contributions to the comment threads.

In fact, I like him so much that I not only endorsed him for Port Commissioner (sorta), I actually hesitated to publish these documents, which were forwarded to me months ago. But he is running for district court, and he is judged by his peers to be “not qualified”… and considering Richard’s own penchant for using his access to court records to dig up dirt on other people (you can be sure you’d have already seen my court record if I had one) I guess it’s only fair to do the same to him.

In his defense, as Richard explains in a 2005 court document, he’s had to deal with some tough personal crises over the past couple years, and I genuinely hope everything works out for him and his family. Reading the sad details it’s no wonder…

“Frankly, counsel thinks that his own mental health situation is terrible, although he hopes most of it is situationally derived, rather than long term.”

Personally, I wish Richard the best. I just wouldn’t want to be arguing a case before him.

In a May, 2003 interview with the Seattle Times, Mike?™ McGavick nostalgically reflected on how his father taught him the value of sacrifice, hard work and setting priorities.

McGavick pumped gas to help pay for Seattle Prep. He won a state track title his senior year and argued he should take the summer off to train for nationals

Share:

• Tweet
• Email
• Print

If you’ve ever felt the urge to shoot state Sen. Pam Roach, here’s your chance. But be careful. She’s armed and loaded.

The FEC reports are in and Democratic challenger Darcy Burner has outraised Republican incumbent Dave Reichert for the third straight time. Daniel’s got the scoop.

During the two-month, pre-primary reporting period of July and August, Burner raised $311,980 compared to Reichert’s $198,043. Burner’s lead in individual contributions (a measure of broad support) was even more impressive, leading Reichert nearly two-to-one, $217,000 to $111,959.

Reichert still leads in cash on hand, $1,131,479 to $727,607, but with your help Burner expects to continue to narrow that gap between now and the election.

It is interesting to note that despite Burner’s fundraising prowess thus far, very few of her contributors have yet to “double-max”… that is, give the maximum contribution for both the primary and the general election. I mention this both to point out Burner’s fundraising potential over the next few weeks, and to needle all you big-money donors out there to max out now.

This is good news for Democrats in WA’s 8th Congressional District. Both Burner in WA-08 and Peter Goldmark in WA-05 have the better message than their Republican opponents. They don’t need to raise the most money to win, they just need to raise enough to stay competitive, spend wisely, and get their message out.

So far, so good.

I just got a call from 710-KIRO asking me to comment on the news that I-917, Tim Eyman’s Yet Another Thirty Dollar Car Tab Initiative has officially failed to qualify for the ballot. I’m not sure what soundbite they’ll use but I’m guessing I won’t come off sounding very surprised.

According to reports coming out of the Secretary of State’s office, 41,186 signatures have already been disqualified with about 30,000 left to verify. Considering Eyman only turned in 266,006 signatures, that leaves I-917 mathematically shy of the 224,880 signature threshold.

I’m not sure exactly how or why, but when it comes right down to it, Tim Eyman fucked up. Give me half a million dollars to buy signatures, and I could qualify for the ballot an initiative declaring September 11th “Osama bin Laden Day.” Yet somehow, Timmy flushed over $460,000 down the toilet, without reaching to the open wallet of Woodenville investment banker Michael Dunmire for the extra 40 grand needed to put I-917 over the top.

What a horse’s ass.

For years now Tim has been lauded as some kind of initiative guru but his track record is actually quite laughable. For the second time in three years Tim won’t have a single initiative on the state ballot, with only his over-reaching but superfluous performance audits initiative being approved by voters. Meanwhile, four out of five of his infamous anti-tax initiatives have subsequently been ruled unconstitutional.

The only thing remaining between Tim and political obscurity is Dunmire’s checkbook. Hard to imagine Timmy’s personal sugar daddy indefinitely throwing good money after bad.

First-term Republican Rep. Dave Reichert refused to be interviewed by MSNBC.com for their piece highlighting the tight race for WA’s 8th Congressional District. But state Senator Pam Roach (R-19th Century) was not so shy in going on the record to criticize Democratic challenger Darcy Burner:

“I got her mailer, with the photo of her and her son,” said Republican Pam Roach, a 16-year veteran of the state senate and a Reichert supporter, whose legislative district overlaps part of the southern portion of the congressional district. “My reaction was: “If you’re elected, when are you going to spend time with your child?’ She has one baby; will she have two or three more?” People in the district, Roach said, demand full-time representation.

“My reaction was “why don’t you just take care of your child and grow up a bit and then think about running for office?'”

Yeah, um… because having a political career is exactly the type of maternal neglect that could lead your child to grow up to be a drug dealer or something.

The spectacle of Pam Roach offering anybody child rearing tips is ironic enough, but I wonder if Roach has offered the same sage, Victorian advice to incumbent Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris in WA’s 5th Congressional District?

After all, if Roach is implying that women of childbearing age shouldn’t server in Congress, it is the recently married, fundamentalist Christian, anti-birth-control, 35-year-old McMorris who is way more likely to be popping out babies over the next few sessions. On the other hand, demographic trends strongly suggest that the pro-choice, feminist Burner, with a single child after 13 years of marriage, is exactly the type of woman who tends to stop at one.

So I guess we should be expecting Roach to announce her endorsement of Peter Goldmark any day now, right?

UPDATE:
Not sure who made the video, but here at least is the story behind the music. (Yes, it is Rickie Lee Jones.)

Sure, it’s a robo-poll, and within the margin of error, but Constituent Dynamics has just released its first poll of WA-08, and it shows Democratic Challenger Darcy Burner leading Republican Incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert by 49% to 46%.

Wow.

UPDATE:
It’s taken me a while to pull together my analysis of this poll because quite frankly, I’m still rubbing my eyes in disbelief. Don’t get me wrong, I honestly believe Burner has a better than 50-50 chance of winning in November, but intuitively, it just doesn’t seem possible given the circumstances for Burner to be within the margin of error, let alone leading, at this point in the campaign. I would have been thrilled simply to see her within single digits.

So struggling to wrap my mind around these numbers I gave a call to the only pollster I know, Bill Broadhead, who seemed a bit defensive when I started questioning the numbers. It took me a few moments to grok that the polling company in question, Constituent Dynamics (CD), is actually Broadhead’s firm.

Oops.

Anyway, here’s the inside scoop. Broadhead, of course, vouches for his poll’s methodology, as well as the broader reputation of IVR’s (robo-polls) in general, which he says have proven very accurate in recent years. He emphasized, however, that CD does not rely on the less-expensive (and less-reliable) random-dialing technique, but rather uses the voter rolls in each district to prescreen for frequent voters. They then combine the age and gender data from survey responses with that on the voter rolls to create an automatic match-back between the respondent and a specific household member.

As for the somewhat surprising results that show Burner with an early lead despite having very little paid media and a huge name ID disadvantage, Broadhead sees this as part of a larger trend borne out across all 30 House races surveyed: that the 2006 election is in the process of being nationalized like no other race since 1994. The difference, as Broadhead reads the data, is that unlike 1994, when it was largely angry white men who turned against the Democratic-controlled Congress, the anger in 2006 is more broadly distributed across the electorate.

President Bush is proving widely unpopular amongst 8th CD voters, with his job approval/disapproval rating standing at a dismal 38% to 58%. So rather than this being the typical contest between two competing candidates, Broadhead sees this election shaping up as a referendum on President Bush and the Republican controlled Congress.

“What’s going on in the individual elections, while important,” Broadhead told me, “is not quite as important as what we see when there is not this national overlay.”

Um… that’s “the wave” that everybody keeps talking about.

Broadhead cautions that CD’s 30-race survey is not all gloom and doom for the GOP. The data shows no significant Democratic advantage in terms of motivation, and suggests that the national mood is strongly anti-incumbent rather than just strictly anti-Republican. Indeed, unlike most years, Republicans running for open seats are having an easier time of it than incumbent Republicans running for reelection.

Hmm. I suppose I can buy that analysis. Though until I see these results reproduced elsewhere I’ll have to keep the joyful gloating to myself and simply remain cautiously optimistic.

Still, there’s no doubt that the trendlines are very encouraging and that the momentum is now clearly on Darcy Burner’s side… despite the fact that Reichert has near universal name recognition, half a million dollars worth of franking and $300K in advertising (courtesy of the US Chamber of Commerce) on his side.

I bet there are some nervous folks over at Reichert headquarters this afternoon.

Normally, I listen to the podcast before writing up these summaries, because… well… I was drinking at the time it was recorded and I want to make sure that I remember events accurately. But apparently, that’s just not the Mike?™ McGavick Way of doing things. So I’ll just write this post to the best of my recollection, and apologize in advance if I’m contradicted by the actual audio recording.

I’m pretty damn sure that joining me in an our sober discussion of the issues were Will, Mollie, Lynn, Nick, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly and TV’s Soleil Moon Frye. At least I think. Topics of discussion may have included Mike?™ McGavick’s alcohol-hazed recollection of his DUI, Mike?™ McGavick’s money-crazed connection to VECO Corp. and their Corrupt Bastards Club of Alaska legislators, Democratic challenger Peter Goldmark spreading like wildfire through WA’s 5th Congressional District, and I think — though I’m not sure, ’cause I don’t really remember anything after I strapped the headset on — I think we talked at length about how Rep. Dave Reichert’s extensive use of steroids have swollen his testicles to the size of small grapefruit. But maybe not.

The show is 51:51, and is available here as a 38.9 MB MP3. Please visit PodcastingLiberally.com for complete archives and RSS feeds.

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for producing the show.]

Well, um… I gotta admit that Mike?™ McGavick has finally come up with a plausible explanation for the disparities between his own account of his 1993 DUI and the official police report. Apparently, Mike?™ blacked out.

Appearing on the Dori Monson Show this afternoon, Mike?™ insisted that he reported the details of his DUI as he remembered them — he just didn’t remember all that much. When asked why he told a reporter that he had merely received a citation, when in fact he was arrested, Mike?™ said that he did not remember being arrested. When Dori pressed on, pointing out that it’s hard to forget being driven to the station and handcuffed to a desk, Mike?™ insisted that he did not remember being handcuffed. The truth is, Mike?™ professed…

“I don’t remember much of what happened after I was pulled over.”

Um… that’s called blacking out, and it’s one of the loudest and clearest warning signs of problem drinking. And it’s not like this episode happened during his irresponsible teens; Mike?™ was 35-years-old at the time, so without evidence to the contrary, it’s pretty hard to imagine his drinking habits have changed all that much over the past 13 years.

Indeed, when Dori asked him if he still drinks, Mike?™ unhesitatingly replied yes. But when asked if he still drinks and drives, Mike?™ qualified his answer: “Drink too much and drive? No.”

Mike?™ made it clear he’s no believer in zero tolerance, and has no qualms about getting behind the wheel of a car as long as he thinks he’s within the legal limit. And that’s fine. Neither do most Americans. But then, most Americans aren’t blackout drunks who are running for the US Senate, and even a conflicted but sympathetic Dori was forced to ponder whether being “so drunk that you don’t remember being put in handcuffs” might raise a question about one’s qualifications for high office.

I never believed that it was the DUI or the drinking itself that was the big issue here, but rather, Mike?™’s lack of candor along with the cynical use of his running-on-the-issues meme to intentionally run away from them. Once again Mike?™ harped on how he’s “so sick of the way we conduct politics these days,” insisting that “issues are too darn important not to talk about.” And yet it was he who raised his own DUI as a campaign issue in the first place.

But now, with his own admission that he drank to the point of blacking out, and that he apparently hasn’t changed his drinking habits in any way, I’m not so sure that the DUI on its own isn’t a relevant talking point in this campaign.

Do we really want to elect a US Senator who occasionally goes on a bender, whether or not he climbs behind the wheel of a car afterwards? I think that those of us who have grown up as children of alcoholics, or who have married into that sort of unstable family life would likely say no. And I think that accounts for a far larger percentage of the voting public than McGavick and his advisors might imagine.

TANGENT ALERT:
There was one other McGavick quote that really stuck in my craw, when he reiterated his regret that he “didn’t get to participate on a regular basis” in his son’s life.

I dunno, maybe I put too much weight in, you know, words… but “didn’t get to” doesn’t sound to me like an admission of responsibility. It wasn’t that McGavick “didn’t get to” participate in his son’s life. He chose not to.

Far be it from me to criticize how another man conducts his family life, but it was McGavick after all who raised this issue in the first place, in the middle of a Senate campaign, in an effort to publicly wring from his personal regret whatever political advantage it might provide.

I’m just saying.