Mike McGavick says I got his Social Security position wrong three months ago. On June 30 I had a lengthy interview with McGavick and wrote a hefty post about his position. It was a post that got some circulation, in part because it was prompted by calls from Talking Points Memo to try to suss out where candidates stood on Social Security.

In fact, the post was excerpted the next day on McGavick's own campaign blog, with a link to my full post and this note to supporters:

Postman has lots more details on Mike's specific platform. Go check it out.

In the ensuing months McGavick hasn't said anything at all to me about his objections to what I wrote, and neither has anyone on his staff. It can't be that McGavick is shy about calling me when he thinks I'm wrong, even about one sentence.

But he didn't say anything to me until today after Sen. Maria Cantwell started airing a radio ad attacking his position. When I saw the McGavick campaign's response to the ad, it was clear to me there was a discrepancy between what I heard and wrote in June and what the candidate was saying today. So I asked for a clarification and McGavick was quick to call me.

Here's the nut: I wrote that McGavick supported phasing in "individually-controlled, privately managed retirement accounts" for Social Security.

That very section was on McGavick's campaign blog under the headline "Mike on Social Security Reform."

There was also this in my original June post:

McGavick said he knows that people will refer to his talk of personally controlled accounts as privatization. He said financial institutions would be involved, but would not control, the investments. "I'm not turning it over to banks to run. I'm turning it over to the individuals for them to run." The accounts would be similar to 401 K programs, with investment choices "that could provide a higher yield than the current Social Security investment strategy." But with individual control would come a lower guaranteed benefit.

He said today that he has never supported individually controlled or privately managed retirement accounts. He said neither banks, or individuals, would manage the accounts, but that the government would. Financial institutions would not be involved in any way.

"I don't want it privately managed, either by Wall Street or that individual. What I want is a government-run program, with money going into an account. It would be managed by the government."

I told McGavick I was left scratching my head over how such an error could go more than three months without anyone mentioning it. Social Security is an important issue and in the days following my post Democrats criticized his stance. But still, no call for a correction or clarification.

"I feel horrible if there's been some confusion because I don't want an outsider managing the money because I don't trust them to."

So why didn't anyone ever ask me to correct it, or at least let me know it was wrong for future reference?

"I have no idea why that happened. I understand your frustration. But this is the way I view my proposal. I haven't thought about it differently since I came out with it. That's why I have been so critical of people who call it privatization, because I don't want anyone else managing it. I want the government managing it."

McGavick referred me to a page on his Web site that includes multiple examples of him talking about Social Security that fits what he says is his position. But that all came after my June 30 post. I mentioned in my original post the dearth of information available about his Social Security position. That's why we had a long interview about it. And I'm not an expert in Social Security, so I asked a lot of questions before I starting writing.

It can't be that the McGavick campaign has forgotten about the post since June. On the new McGavick Social Security Web page they include a McGavick quote from my post:

"I do not think the president's program was that well designed or that well promoted. But I think something like this with some hard bipartisan work could create a lasting solution for a problem that has cyclically dogged us for decades."

He said he should have objected because my description of having financial institutions manage the money is "outsourcing," and outsourcing is "privatization," he said. And he says he opposes privatization.

That's what he's upset about today; Cantwell's radio ad that says he supports privatizing Social Security. And the ad includes this line: "The Seattle Times writes that Mike McGavick favors privately managed retirement accounts." That's me. And if that is the primary source for calling McGavick's plan "privatization," I can understand why it's important for him to say he needs to correct the record.

But I'm left wondering how I got something so wrong in a post that was written so carefully about an issue that was obviously a hot button in the campaign.

We'll have a story in the paper tomorrow about new dueling McGavick and Cantwell ads about Social Security.