In a press release issued today, Safeco CEO Mike McGavick announced that he will resign his post at the end of August.
“This decision allows me to give full consideration to the possibility of public service.”
Uh-huh. Public service. You mean like challenging Sen. Maria Cantwell’s reelection in 2006?
Consider this an official announcement of his candidacy. McGavick wouldn’t be leaving an eight figure a year job if he wasn’t damn well confident he’s going to be the GOP’s anointed nominee. Yeah, that’s right… eight figures.
In 2001, a year his company lost more than $1 billion and laid off 1,200 people, he got paid $10.8 million. Last year, while he was deciding to close that Redmond campus, he raked in another $13.3 million and is now holding almost $25 million more in stock options. Even today, when his company is earning “record profits,” he continues to cut jobs and outsource his IT work overseas (offensively calling it “SmartSource”).
It’s hard to imagine how the Republicans are going to present a multi-millionaire insurance company executive who proudly advocates shipping jobs overseas, as a “man of the people.” But you know they’re going to try.
I hear some righties snidely claim that they’re going to force Cantwell to run on her record. Well I hate to burst their bubble, but McGavick has a record too, and it ain’t gonna look so pretty by the time November, 2006 comes around.
UPDATE:
I’m told that state Attorney General Rob McKenna has endorsed McGavick for senator, though I haven’t seen confirmation yet. So much for my dark horse candidate theory. (Though that doesn’t necessarily mean McKenna wasn’t considering a run.)
As if this state would consider giving the neocons another rubber stamp for their disastrous agenda. At least he has a little nest egg to fall back on once he loses.
Let’s hope Maria keeps her seat — the last thing anybody wants is a single party holding 60+ seats in the senate.
I consider myself a moderate democrat, but I’m intrigued by McGavick (though I think he’d make a better govenor than senator). He’s got great ideas to make Washington more business friendly. I just hope he has moderate social position. I was equally intrigued by Dino Rossi until I heard that he favored creationism over evolution.
A Multi-Millionare pretending to be ‘of the people’?
What kind of crazy talk is that?
Nobody would EVER win taking that position!
Oh…wait…I just remembered one person who did. I think her name started with an ‘M’, and ended with a ‘aria Cantwell’.
Cliff Smith @ 4
Oh..wait, wait..What about that guy whose name started with a ‘J’ and ended with ‘ohn Kerry’?
It’s hard to imagine how the Republicans are going to present a multi-millionaire insurance company executive who proudly advocates shipping jobs overseas, as a “man of the people.”
Uh, probably read the Democrat playbook and repeat what they say about a ‘multi-millionaire’ woman trying to pass herself off as a woman of the people.
The people of Washington most surely do not need an insurance company executive representing them in the Senate. The insurance industry bleeds us for premiums, squawks at paying benefits, and makes constant pitches to any available legislative body for limitation of its exposure. Mr. McGavick would not bring a useful perspective to the Senate.
Game On!
Perhaps McGavick could SmartSource his candidacy too. I’m sure he could get lots of votes (in other countries) where he’s created jobs.
Hasn’t Real Networks lost similar money, and Maria “found” a windfall of $10mm?
Slow down, Catnwell herself is a millionaire (one time at over 40 mil) from her days at Real, let alone John Kerry.
In 2003, this is what the field looked like in the Senate:
Senate millionaires
John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016
John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109
Peter Fitzgerald, R-Illinois: $26,132,013
Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018
Bill Frist, R-Tennessee: $15,108,042
John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029
Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009
Two Republicans in the top 10. Pretty weak to claim Republicans are the rich folk.
Read it here:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOL......finances/
These estimates are conservative.
Rather then dwell on it, I wanna see what he has to say, if nominated and whether he will offer more positive benefits and visions then Cantwell.
FWIW I voted for Cantwell, because I hoped her experience in the DOT COM industry would make her a good advicate for our state.
I feel disappointed as she seems to follow the crowd.
When Lee Iacocca took over Chrysler, he was paid $1 a year until the company made a profit. They sure don’t make CEOs anymore like they used to.
If McGavick is the kind of man who takes $10.8 million a year for losing money for his shareholders, I wonder what he’ll expect from taxpayers for screwing them over?
Why is it that Democrats always claim to be the ‘party of the people’ yet can always be found partying with the rich people?
14
Are you talking about Democrats, or are you talking about politicians (Dems or otherwise)? Or are you conflating political philosophy with personal wealth? Or both? What’s your point?
Cliff @4, et al:
You guys miss the point… by running a multi-millionaire (many times wealthier than Cantwell) you completely neutralize any attacks on Cantwell as a dot.com millionaire.
Rossi did well against Gregoire because he ran as an agent for change… how’s McGavick going to do that? You’ve got a guy who’s going to try to present himself as a pro-business, moderate Republican running against a senator with a voting record as a pro-business, moderate Democrat. So what change can McGavick bring? Oh yeah… giving the GOP absolute unchallenged control of the federal government. Like WA voters want that.
Of the rumored challengers, only Chris Vance would have been a weaker candidate.
Revolving door insurance lobbyist / congressional staffer / insurance lobbyist, bigtime insurance exec, outsourcer … high-priced, low-performance firm … put the company’s name on that ballpark the people bought in spite of themselves.
Yeah, he’s got a shot (where Rossi had no shot) … IF he can keep the GOP wings from going to war with each other (which they’ll do if he tips his hand on social issues) … and IF the “Republican” brand isn’t a drug on the market in 2006 as the Bush team self-destructs.
Maybe there’s an ambassadorship in it for him, down the road.
He has the $$$.
He has Cheney/Delay/ (likely Rove who will remain amazingly unscathed) — the machine.
He has the Rossi momentum.
He will be very formidable.
We just can’t allow Washington to contribute to a 60-vote senate majority for any party. In such a case, goodbye checks and balances.
I wonder where all of your complaining was when the Democrats dominated the House and Senate for so many years. These balances shift, its just how it works.
As I said, lets hear the guys ideas and fgo from there.let him pass or fail on his ideas, not his wallet.
He can’t do worse then Kerry.
If all the policyholders in this state who have been fucked over by Safeco raise their hands and vote for Cantwell, McGavick is toast.
I’m still laughing at this one.
Ivan @ 20
The theory that the incompetent are usually promoted to a higher level of incompetance should have the Safeco victims dissing Maria.
or Real Networks shareholders, who also suffered
We just can’t allow Washington to contribute to a 60-vote senate majority for any party. In such a case, goodbye checks and balances.
I want 65 republicans in the Senate…. that way Bush’s nominees will finally have a fair up and down vote.
Never fear, Seattle voters will continue to keep the state of Washington in the minority in Congress. Not sure what advantage that gains us, but it is just more fun than using your head and voting on records rather than party.
(Okay, go ahead and say it – “I’m an independent! I only vote democrat 84% of the time!)
#16,
You are more then a little naive if you think it would have been productive to attack Cantwell’s money at this stage. It was a useful attack in 2000, it wouldn’t be nearly as useful when she’s an incumbent senator, and even if the GOP candidate lived in a box behind a 7-11 I doubt it would have been useful.
However, Cantwell’s do-nothing-majoring-in-the-minors record can be exploited, and if Gregoire keeps it up, the state dems will get an ass whipping in ’06.
Will that translate into a US Senate victory? Who knows? Maybe, maybe not. Cantwell is the favorite, I won’t pretend she’s not, but saying McGavick isn’t a good candidate just because he’s a business executive is stupid. He’s got a wide breth of experience in politics and business, and will be formidable.
I think Mike McGavick would be extremely vulnerable to negative advertising by Cantwell and the Democrats. Take a look at the extremely small percentage of premiums charged to homeowners that Safeco Ins Co of America pays out in insured losses:
http://www.insurance.wa.gov/pu.....tPeril.pdf
Out of every dollar that Washington homeowners pay in insurance premiums to Safeco, only 39.02 cents are returned in the form of payments for insured losses. This is far below the statewide average of 48.18 cents, and one of the lowest payment rates of major insurance companies in this state.
Either Safeco charges its homeowners a lot more in premiums than the average company, or pays out much less in losses on claims filed by homeowners – or both. Certainly, with such a low payout rate, Safeco has become an extremely profitable company and its boss is to able to be a very well-compensated man.
Personally, I have my homeowner’s insurance with PEMCO, which at a payout rate of 63.97 cents per dollar of premiums is by far the best homeowner’s company out of the top 10 doing business in Washington. Maybe PEMCO executives give more money to Democrats, and Safeco executives give more money to Republicans, but I have to based my insurance decisions on personal economics.
In any event, by the time the Democrats get through with their negative advertising against McGavick, both Mike and Safeco could be made far worse off in the public perception. McGavick will be seen as someone who got rich on the backs of insured homeowners, and many homeowners will be considering changing their policies to other companies.
Cliff @ 25 “saying McGavick isn’t a good candidate just because he’s a business executive is stupid.”
You miss the point, my naive troll, he is an Insurance Executive. Oh, yeah, people just love Insurance Executives.
Can anyone else smell the toast burning?
You miss the point, my naive troll, he is an Insurance Executive. Oh, yeah, people just love Insurance Executives.
I know donk lawyer do!!!
Bravo RUFUS! This is about your 97th irrelevent post in a row.
My hat is off to you!
Richard Pope @26,
I agree totally. McGavick is vulnerable. It won’t be too difficult to dig up personal anecdotes of policy holders being screwed by Safeco while McGavick raked in millions.
By the way, I definitely plan to drop my Safeco insurance… not so much because of McGavick’s candidacy, but because my rates have risen so dramatically under his watch. Only inertia has kept me with Safeco thus far, but I’ve been looking at alternatives and am ready to switch.
RUFUS @ 28
Lay off the crack, man. You have become completely incomprehensible.
Oh. . . and if you are getting paid to post this drivel, you are, in effect, stealing from your employer.
I guess that would be, like, information superhighway robbery.
Hello.
This is aimed primarily at Thomas Trainwinder and at #18:
We just can’t allow Washington to contribute to a 60-vote senate majority for any party. In such a case, goodbye checks and balances.
Here is my simple question then:
If you are a man who truly believes in the theory that all onne party control in all three branches of out government is bad, then do you believe the current situation iun Washington Sate is bad as well? After all, all three branches of OUR government are currently controlled by one party. Now are you a man of your word, and will say this is not a good thing, or will you claim that this is different, because of something like “Oh, it’s the Democratic Party. You an trust us and them with everything.”? My belief is that all three branches controlled by one party is NOT a good thing, no matter which party is the one in charge.
I shall wait patiently for your answer.
Domo.
Left behind
Check out Goldy and his cheerleaders whining about the Republican party when one of his favorite bills (HB 1515) doesn’t pass BECAUSE TWO DEMOCRATS WOULD NOT VOTE FOR IT!. Somehow this is Karl Rove’s fault. That should tell you how these hypocrites play the game. Fire up the base with some straw man BS whining about the Republicans when they couldn’t even get the bill passed despite controlling all branches of state govt. Makes you feel real comfortable with these propagandists in control doesn’t it?
Goldy @ 16
“You guys miss the point… by running a multi-millionaire (many times wealthier than Cantwell) you completely neutralize any attacks on Cantwell as a dot.com millionaire.”
The ad will be on taking special interest money not on wealth. A major part of Cantwell’s 2000 campaign was that she wouldn’t take special interest money. That’s no longer true and will continue to not be true. Effectively McGavick has taken Cantwell’s place from 2000 and Cantwell has taken Gorton’s place. A wealthy business executive running against an incumbent Senator that relies on money from special interests to get re-elected. Given this state’s liberal leaning, it’s still an uphill road for any Republican candidate.
Goldy @ 30
“I agree totally. McGavick is vulnerable. It won’t be too difficult to dig up personal anecdotes of policy holders being screwed by Safeco while McGavick raked in millions.”
If Safeco is “screwing” their customers a more relevant forum an appeal to the insurance commissioner, than a campaign attack ad? Seems like a true “progressive” would show some concern for the little guy.
Richard Pope @ 26
I’m not sure how effective this type of ad would be. It seems too esoteric. I don’t recall Real being an issue in the 2000 campaign. I do expect this campaign will be highly negative because Cantwell has a lot of baggage and McGavick has little political name recognition.
Roger – As noted by Former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan, “you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.” There is no factual basis for your comment that McGavick “screwed” Safeco shareholders, in fact, both the stock and company have performed very well under his stewardship.
McGavick joined Safeco in January 2001 when Safeco’s stock was around $25 per share. It’s now around $56 per share, so Safeco’s stock has appreciated around 124% in four and a half years. The S&P 500 Index is down 10.6% during the same period.
He was brought in to straighten up a very troubled company which was losing money. He cleaned house (and the company really had a bunch of deadwood) and turned the company around. After reporting a loss (due to the restructuring) in 2001 of $0.72 per share, Safeco made money in each of the subsequent years: $2.15/sh in 2002, $2.91 in 2003, $4.22 in 2004, and analysts estimate that they will hit $5.24/sh in 2005.
I don’t know if his track record at Safeco is enough to justify your support for his candidacy, but I do think you should base your decision (and comments) on accurate information.
Wouldn’t it be great if we had some Libertarians as senators from Washington versus Democrats or Republicans?
CF @ 34 —
(1) Your claim that Cantwell has rescinded her pledge against special interest PAC money is flat-out false.
(2) “concern for the little guy”??? Are you saying that SAFECO is “the little guy”? Or WTF are you saying???
(3) RealNetworks was an issue, in various ways, in the 2000 campaign. Cantwell caught static for Real’s “nagware” marketing models. Cantwell was assailed from the left (and the right!) as a “corporate tool”. Her wealth was held against her, in contradictory angles of attack — that it was “undeserved”, that it left her “out of touch”, that Real’s stock decline was her fault, that she knew the boom was going to go bust and got out, that holding onto her shares evidenced bad business judgment, that her self-funding was somehow disreputable.
McGavick’s claims to fame are his insurance work, and his Gorton connections. Expect both in play.
But I will not promise that my very real misgivings cannot be overcome, and I do not believe that I am alone amongst bloggers in admitting that, given reasonably reliable information – and political relevance – I would reluctantly consider outing a closeted politician. For example, the anti-discrimination bill, HB 1515, failed in the state senate by a single vote; it will surely come to floor again next session, and I’m told there is at least one senator who should think twice before casting another hypocritical vote in opposition.
That Sen. Jacobsen should ask his question in such a blunt and public manner should be viewed as a clear, if subtle, warning shot across the bow of those of his colleagues who know who they are. There are closeted politicians who have strongly opposed HB 1515 and other legislation that would have extended civil rights to the gay community, and if they continue to pander to the religious zealots on the far right, they risk being revealed for what these zealots hate the most: a homosexual.
This sounds curiously like blackmail. One cannot be gay and disagree with such a bill? In otherwords, do want Goldy wants or you will be ‘outed’? Yeah, sounds like the ‘part of tolerance’ to me. Geobbels would be proud.
Roger@12,
When Lee Iacocca took over Chrysler, he was paid $1 a year until the company made a profit. They sure don’t make CEOs anymore like they used to.
Yes they do. Steve Jobs returned to Apple and is only getting $1 in salary.
ConservativeFirst @ 34
I am not trying to advocate against McGavick, but just pointing out potential vulnerability. Or lack of vulnerability, as the case may be.
Goldy’s initial criticisms may not have much net gain, if any, for Cantwell. If McGavick outsourced a lot of Safeco jobs, it wouldn’t hurt him too much, since lots of companies are doing this — especially Democrat-leaning Microsoft and AOL (call customer service for either company, and you will most likely get someone in India).
As for Safeco closing its Redmond campus, this was actually news to me, I must admit. But Safeco appears to be moving all of its Redmond employees to its Seattle HQ in the U-District, and will complete this move around 2008 or so. It doesn’t seem to be connected with employee layoffs.
The highest potential vulnerability of any insurance company is how they treat homeowners whose house has burned to the ground, or whose possessions have been burglarized. Most homeowner’s insurance companies actually pay less than 50 cents out of every premium dollar in claims, since a lot of money is consumed in overhead, as well as fighting potentially fraudulent claims (or screwing homeowners with legitimate claims).
Naturally, when Safeco only returns 39.02 cents of every homeowner premium in claim payments, that at least attracts attention, even when compared with the surprising low statewide average of 48.18 cents. Either Safeco is charging quite a bit too much for its insurance in the first place (since they don’t pay out all that much in losses), or some homeowners are getting screwed on legitimate claims, or both — or at least it sets off alarm bells in that direction.
Are there are homeowners that have successfully sued Safeco after being denied on legitimate claims? I know that Allstate, for example, gets sued quite frequently for these reasons, and has a bad reputation among people who are aware of this.
As Goldy said @ 30, it might not be too difficult for the Dems to dig up a few of these homeowners (if they exist) and tell their stories, combine this with the very low claim payouts, and high salary of McGavick — and cause some real damage to his standing. If these people exist, the Dems will have no difficulty locating them, since the trial lawyers who sued insurance companies for denial of coverage tend to be very strong backers of the Dems. (And out-of-state homeowners who have sued Safeco will be almost as effective as Washington homeowners, and just as easily for the Dems to identify.)
If legitimate, this type of negative advertising will be more effective than almost anything else. Negative issue advertising, by contrast, has limited effectiveness, since there are at least two sides to every sides. But if homeowners are really getting screwed, this would have a broad-based and non-ideological appeal. After all, a home is a family’s most important investment and their most important place to be.
RP @ 40 — McGavick was tasked to “turn SAFECO around”. In most industries — and especially in the insurance industry — there are ways to do this that produce short-term miracles and long-term morasses.
Shorting the policyholder is one of these “bonus baby” strategies. It’s a long-lead-time, low-turnover business, and it takes time for a “high cost” and “tough to collect” reputation to bite you in the bottom line.
I have no specific knowledge that this was the case with McGavick’s tenure at SAFECO … but it’s an angle that bears watching (especially in conjunction with scuttlebutt that the bloom was off the rose btwn McG and the Safe).
Ronk @ 37
“Your claim that Cantwell has rescinded her pledge against special interest PAC money is flat-out false.”
I didn’t say she rescinded it. She has started taking special interest money. She had a big campaign debt to pay off. Cantwell didn’t take special interest money in the 2000 election and made it a big part of her strategy. She can’t make that same claim in 2006. She did, however, misreport contributions to her 2000 campaign, and was admonished for this by the FEC.
““concern for the little guy”??? Are you saying that SAFECO is “the little guy”? Or WTF are you saying???”
If Safeco is screwing over policyholders (Goldy’s claim) then the appropriate venue to solve that issue is with the insurance commissioner or the courts not a campaign attack ad. How does attacking a political opponent solve this problem? The “little guy” is the policyholder, other than getting on TV how is the “being screwed” help him/her? It helps the candidate with a potentially large political gain.
“RealNetworks was an issue, in various ways, in the 2000 campaign”
The behavior of the Real Networks company wasn’t the subject of a campgaign ad that I remember. If it was, I don’t think it was very effective.
CF @ 42 — “She has started taking special interest money.”
Cite? Vance and his clowns made similar claims all through the 2000 campaign, and every year since, and never ever made anything stick.
Some of us wish she’d ditch the pledge … just say “CFR (or 9/11, or whatever) changed everything”, and move on. But that’s not her style.
There is hope for the future…
http://vote.wa.gov/students/results.aspx
I think he was referring to the clear correlation between education and and votes for democrats. I’m not kidding here. Look for yourselves.
At one end of the spectrum we have elementary school children voting 55% for the incumbent, W. And on the other end, assuming here that the parents have at least a high school education, the parents come in at nearly 70% for Kerry.
RonK @ 43
“Cite? Vance and his clowns made similar claims all through the 2000 campaign, and every year since, and never ever made anything stick.”
Numbers are for 2004:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pol.....cycle=2004
CF @ 46
Here are the numbers from the link that I meant to include in the last post.
1 Microsoft Corp $111,050
2 RealNetworks Inc $81,350
3 Preston, Gates et al $37,786
4 Baron & Budd $25,000
5 Irell & Manella $20,950
6 Boeing Co $20,650
7 DreamWorks SKG $18,500
8 Saltchuk Resources $17,800
9 Denny Miller & Assoc $17,256
10 Brownstein, Hyatt et al $16,550
11 Fannie Mae $16,250
12 Goldman Sachs $15,950
13 Accel Partners $15,750
14 Puget Sound Energy $14,500
14 AOL Time Warner $14,500
16 University of Washington $14,100
17 Patton Boggs LLP $14,020
18 Kreindler & Kreindler $13,500
19 Perkins Coie $12,750
20 MoneyTree Inc $12,707
ConservativeFirst @ 47
Oooooh. That makes eleven percent of her total fundraising having apparent connections to corporations. And, how much of those funds actually come from the companies listed? None.
From the marginal notes: The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
In fact, there is a little more information on that site here.
Funding from 2000 to 2004 fundraising cycles.
Individual contributions $5,406,386 (32.3%)
PAC contributions $154,750 (0.9%)
Candidate self-financing $10,331,911 (61.7%)
Other $839,152 (5.0%)
(Note: “Other” revenues are collected by the campaign and include things like interest from the campaign’s bank accounts and loans from outside sources.)
So, it looks like Cantwell got a whopping $155,000 from PAC’s in her entire Senatorial career (through 2004).
And, the site further shows that almost all the PAC contributions are from “single issue” PACs, and not from business or labor.
Sounds to me like Conservativefirst is trying to pull a fast one on you RonK
I think he was referring to the clear correlation between education and and votes for democrats. I’m not kidding here. Look for yourselves.
You will find once a college grad gets married and works out in the real world the numbers quickly change back to republican.
CF @ 46, 47 — Poor CF … you apparently forgot to include the following elements from the OpenSecrets report on Cantwell’s FEC filings:
HOW TO READ THIS CHART: This chart lists the top donors to this member of Congress during the current election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
and:
IMPORTANT NOTE: As a matter of policy, this member of Congress does not accept PAC money. Any contributions listed below were reported by the PACs, not the member, and will likely be amended at some future date after the contributions are returned. Also note that any contributions listed below from “candidate committees” are not considered PAC contributions, but rather contributions from one campaign committee to another.
In other words, these are contributions from people who work at (for instance) Microsoft. Even if you claim that “people who have jobs” are a special interest, this does not represent any departure from the clean money standard she set in 2000.
http://www.mikemcgavick.com
He has his site up now…
RonK @ 50
“Poor CF … you apparently forgot to include the following elements from the OpenSecrets report on Cantwell’s FEC filings:”
Nope, saw the first one, the second is nowhere to be found on the link I provided, so if you can link to where you got the “IMPORTANT NOTE:” statement, I’d be happy to look at it.
From the link:
“This chart lists the top donors to this member of Congress during the current election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization’s PACits individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.” (my emphasis)
If a PAC isn’t a special interest group, then there is no such thing as a special interest group. If you look at Cantwell’s 2000 campaign information:
http://www.opensecrets.org/rac.....cycle=2000
You’ll see Cantwell took $0 from PACs. Gorton took over $2 million from PACs.
In the 2006 election cycle you’ll see $171,000 so far in PAC contributions with 88.5% coming from sign Idealogical/Single Issue groups:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pol.....cycle=2006