Mike McGavick in Washington 2006 Senate Debate


On Abortion: No partial-birth; no taxpayer funding; yes parental consent

Q: What’s your position on abortion?

GUTHRIE: I believe you have the right to medical freedom. You get to choose the procedures that you undergo, not politicians. Your individual right translates into a woman’s right for reproductive freedom. I’m pro-choice.

McGAVICK: I’m in the middle of the two extremes on this issue. I don’t believe that partial birth abortion should be used as a loophole to allow abortion at any time. I do not believe that the taxpayers should be forced to pay for abortion. With underage pregnancies, parents have a right to be involved with that decision. Within these boundaries, I believe choice should exist. My opponent is of a more extreme view, that women and children and taxpayers should all be involved.

CANTWELL: I support Roe v. Wade. It has been the law of the land for 30 years. More importantly, it has been voted on, by initiative, ad adopted by the people of this state.

Source: Washington Senate Debate hosted by KING-5 Oct 17, 2006

On Principles & Values: Voted for Bush in 2004; to defeat radical Islamic terrorism

Q: In 2004 ,who got your vote for President, and why?

CANTWELL: I voted for John Kerry. He matched our Northwest values. He won Washington state because he understood our values and would fight for them.

McGAVICK: I voted for George Bush because he understood that the single most important issue facing America was the war to defeat radical Islamic terrorism. I also thought it was more likely, given Bush’s record, that he would do more to reduce the debt than John Kerry.

GUTHRIE: The American people could see that the choices we had were terrible. Only 40% of registered voters voted-60% were not served, and were disgusted with the Democrats & Republicans. I voted for change. I voted for Michael Badnarik, who represented a new sensible center in politics, without the extremes of the Democrats & Republicans. My vote represented the values of America; we’re socially tolerant yet fiscally responsible. My vote counted because I didn’t fall into the trap of voting for the lesser of two evils.

Source: Washington Senate Debate hosted by KING-5 (X-ref Cantwell) Oct 17, 2006

On Social Security: Cantwell opposes new ideas but has no Soc. Sec. plan

First, we must keep our promises to our senior citizens Q: What’s your plan to save Social Security?

CANTWELL: I want to protect Social Security. What I like about Social Security is that it’s a guaranteed benefit. It has progressivity, like for women who make less or live longer. To change that, by making proposal. We must guarantee benefits to those who are nearing retirement, while for younger workers, there should be personal accounts. But, I oppose them being privatized.

GUTHRIE: First, we must keep our promises to our senior citizens. But young people 25 and undershould have personal savings accounts. For the gap between 25 and 50, they can either opt-out and accept a lump-sum payment, or they can continue with the current system.

Source: Washington Senate Debate hosted by KING-5 (X-ref Cantwell) Oct 17, 2006

On Social Security: Personal accounts for younger workers, but not privatized

Q: More about your plan to save Social Security?

A: You heard no plan from the incumbent for how to save Social Security. You only heard a list of what the incumbent opposes. I do have a proposal. First, we must guarantee benefits to those who are retired or are nearing retirement. Second, to get at the financial crisis, encourage those who have enough from their private planning for retirement, to throw their Social Security back into the system, to prolong it for all of us. Third, for younger workers, there should be personal accounts. But, I oppose them being privatized. I think that’s a mistake. I don’t trust Wall Street to manage this money, and I don’t trust the individuals to manage this money. It should be a government-run program with continued guaranteed benefits.

Source: Washington Senate Debate hosted by KING-5 & Seattle Times Oct 17, 2006

On War & Peace: Cannot give Iraq to the terrorists or they’ll follow us here

Q: What’s your definition for an acceptable resolution in Iraq?

McGAVICK: We have got to win the war against radical Islamic terrorism. Sen. Cantwell voted for the war, and she was a strong supporter of the war. As the election has gone on, we’ve heard more about troop withdrawals. To suddenly withdraw from Iraq would give our enemy heart, and would give them a staging ground for terrorism against us. Now, I’m not satisfied with the progress we’re making. We need a select bipartisan group of Senators to develop alternative ways forward, to prevent creating a vacuum that would give Iraq to terrorists and allow them to follow us here.

GUTHRIE: Currently in Iraq we have a civil war. Our brave soldiers are doing their best, but we need to bring them home as quickly as is consistent with their safety.

CANTWELL: We do need to change the course in Iraq. To say that we’re going to stay there as long as it takes, or even indicate that we’re going to have permanent bases, is the wrong message.

Source: Washington Senate Debate hosted by KING-5 & Seattle Times Oct 17, 2006

The above quotations are from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) faces challengers Mike McGavick (R) & Bruce Guthrie (L) in this debate moderated by Dennis Bounds, KING 5, Oct. 17, 2006. Debate sponsored by the Seattle Times, Northwest News Network, KREM TV, Seattle City Club..
Click here for other excerpts from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) faces challengers Mike McGavick (R) & Bruce Guthrie (L) in this debate moderated by Dennis Bounds, KING 5, Oct. 17, 2006. Debate sponsored by the Seattle Times, Northwest News Network, KREM TV, Seattle City Club..
Click here for other excerpts by Mike McGavick.
Click here for a profile of Mike McGavick.
Mike McGavick on other issues:
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org
(We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Feb 26, 2019