Repukes lie even when they're telling the truth (McGavick)

McGavick misstated details of DUI arrest
He was arrested, cuffed and fell asleep at station, police say

By NEIL MODIE
P-I REPORTER

U.S. Senate candidate Mike McGavick ran a red light, reeked of alcohol, failed a roadside sobriety test and fell asleep during police processing on a 1993 drunken-driving charge, according to a Maryland police report.

POLICE REPORT

Read the police report (PDF)

The report was obtained Friday from the Montgomery County, Md., Police Department. It suggests that McGavick, a Republican running against Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell this fall, was less candid than he seemed when he disclosed the previously unknown arrest on his campaign Web site Aug. 24.

What may have looked like a smart pre-emptive strike -- airing potentially damaging information about his past before his political enemies could dig it up -- might now become campaign fodder for them. Some observers suggested it could turn what had seemed like candor against him.

"If you're going to go the confession route in politics, make sure it's a full and accurate confession," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. "Otherwise, you're defeating your own purpose and you're going to create a second spate of worse stories, which is exactly what (McGavick) has done."

Elliott Bundy, McGavick's campaign spokesman, said the candidate made the admission "under no pressure from anyone. ... It's disappointing that he's now being attacked for his candor. The campaign is focusing on the incredibly important issues in this election."

Bundy said the campaign didn't have a copy of the police report before McGavick's online confession.


--more--

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/283622_mcgavick02.html Ha Ha
----------------------------------------
EDIT: COPYRIGHT. PLEASE POST ONLY 4 OR 5
PARAGRAPHS FROM THE COPYRIGHTED NEWS
SOURCE PER DU RULES.

I looked on his website and found his 'confession'. Bunch of disingenuous crap. The DUI is the least of it. Thinly disguised bragging about how he dumped his first wife for a trophy and a non-apology for misleading employees about the future of their jobs. And then some trivial confession about smearing another candidate.

on a blood-alcohol test...Maryland's...legal limit (was) 0.10...The police report said his intoxication level was that high even though he wasn't given the test until 83 minutes after he was stopped.

...(A) breath-test researcher with the Washington State Patrol said a person who blows a 0.17 in a breath test an hour and a half after being pulled over would likely have registered approximately 0.19 if tested at the time of the arrest.

Well, let's be fair--maybe he was too drunk to remember exactly what happened!

:eyes:
rocknation

"I take FULL Responsibility for..." (hic) "having been made drunk by alcohol because my friends threw a celebration for me" (see, I while take "full" responsibility--I was "full" of drink--it was really caused by all our friends giving us drinks heavily laden with alcohol, and also if the alcohol hadn't been so inebriating, it wouldn't have happened. So yes, I take full responsibility for having been there (and, of course, it's not really "taking responsibility" or anything, it's just admitting what was about to become common knowledge--still, I want to take credit for my candor and courage for being willing to step up to the challenge and making a real difference while striving to bring the truth to light. Obviously, "Honesty" is much more important to my campaign than it is to my opponent which is evidenced by the fact that we were the first to bring the facts to light--obviously they don't care as much since they didn't even seek the truth!"

"If elected, I will take action to make it a criminal offense for friends to throw celebrations that result in getting their guests of honor toasted and will even write a strongly worded letter to the Association of American Alcohol Producers suggesting that they should support public health and safety by making their products less inebriating! The root causes of such incidents as that which my wife and I endured will be addressed and we will all benefit from a safer world and stronger America!" (see, that way, he can both claim to take responsibility for something that's really just a standard political trick in which one tries to deflate an embarassing incident in advance, while simultaneously implying it wasn't really his fault--it's because his friends made him drunk and because alcohol makes you drunk if you drink it--such fun; though he could have said something like "I take full responsibility... for sharing the details about an incident from the past..."--where he takes responsibility for letting people know--not for having been a drunk driver; go figure.)

Just as Bush can (erroneously; and to his advantage) be seen as learning from his actions and having the courage to face his "mistakes" by admitting that mistakes were made by somebody, unbeknownst to him (ie. CIA's flawed intel), but that he takes full responsibility for "admitting" that, so can others. It's really special because if you listen to the words, he never admits to any personal mistake--and usually, he "takes responsibility" for admitting that "mistakes were made"--not for having made any mistakes himself, but for admitting that "mistakes were made". His speech writers (short phrase writers) are very clever--they know he'd never admit anything--and that even admitting that anyone, anywhere, anytime that had anything to do with him or his projects is stretching it--they have to actually make phrases that don't make any sense at all--don't say anything at all and least of all, actually "admit" or "accept responsibility" for any kind of failure or mistake. Listen closely. Write it down--see if it makes a real sentence; if it does, see if it makes any sense--it's practically guaranteed to be "ambiguous". It will "sound" like it makes sense. I may even "sound" like he actually took responsibility for something--but he doesn't. Though, since it would be a lie--he would never actually take responsibility for any mistake (and even beyond 'never' would he actually 'take responsibility' for anything that involved accepting any kind of 'consequences')--I'm almost surprised he'd balk at doing so. That's because he never says anything that isn't in some way a lie--so what's the big deal--lie about admitting a mistake.

I suppose that if you believe you're doing what God told you to do--you couldn't say it was a mistake, no matter how badly it turned out, without basically saying that God made the mistake. Anyway, that's Bush. This guy just forgot to do that Rovian/Republican technique for obfuscating the issue while taking credit for something that seems to too many people to be meaningful.

Please be aware that DU copyright rules require that excerpts of copyrighted material be limited to four or five paragraphs and must include a link to the original source.

In the future, please insure your posts adhere to this standard.

TIA,

unhappycamper
DU Moderator