Sunday, July 02, 2006

Jim Marcinkowski sign of hope for the dems?

If that's the case, I need to make a trip to Vegas for the betting lines in this race and go "all in" for Mike. This guy doesn't have a chance, and those that know me, know why. His last name may be Polish, but he has an Irish temper that's going to cost him big at some point - if it hasn't already.

The hype is from this blurb from the Argus

Its Web site, CQpolitics.com, rates every race in the country on a scale of seven ranks, from "Safe Republican" to "Safe Democrat."

The chances of Democratic challenger James Marcinkowski of Lake Orion are apparently improving, because CQ changed its rating of the contest from "Safe Republican" one notch in his favor to "Republican Favored." He still has two more notches to go before reaching the coveted "No Clear Favorite" ranking.
In an article accompanying the rating change, CQ's Marc Rehman wrote that Marcinkowski has two logistical advantages previous challengers didn't: First, he's from Oakland County and could siphon votes from the area added to the 8th District in the most recent redistricting.

Secondly, Marcinkowski has raised nearly $150,000 so far, "putting him in contrast to Rogers' past two underfinanced opponents," Rehman politely wrote.


The reason given was fundraising. Marcinkowski has more money than Bob Alexander and Frank McAlpine did. That makes him the great white hope for the dems, especially those looking from a distance in DC, Virginia, and Maryland. CQ's from DC, sees the money, sees the name Oakland County, and makes its decision from that.

The "logistical advantage" cited by CQ is a disadvantage for Marcinkowski. Most of Oakland County is Detroit media. The area around Holly, Fenton(Livingston side), and Durand is in Flint media. The district Howell-westward is in Lansing media. The Oakland County part of the district is 63%+ GOP. Even if Marcinkowski wins Lake Orion (and much of that is in the Knollenberg district), he's going to lose that part of district, most likely 60-40. His campaign address is a PO BOX in Brighton, 50 miles from his home. That's a long commute. Marcinkowski is on the fringes of the district, 50 miles from Brighton, and very far from the democrat base of the district - Lansing, East Lansing, and Okemos.

Too add to that, Rogers always wins big in Livingston County, never lower than 63.66% - and that is against an A-team opponent for an open seat. 70%+ is the norm here for Mike. Rogers almost always does well in the democrat stronghold of Ingham County. Dianne Byrum won big there in 2000 57-40, but she represented the area as a state senator. Since then, Mike won it 59-39 in 02 and only lost it 49.16 to 49.01 in 2004. In order for Marcinkowski to beat Mike, he needs to get over 60% here - that's tough if you're not a homer.

Shiawassee County is a marginal GOP area that sometimes goes Democrat. Mike wins big here. 62-35 in 98, 55-42 in 00, 69-29 in 02, 64-34 in 04. Clinton County is a GOP stronghold. 69-29 in 98, 74-25 in 02, 67-31 in 04. Marcinkowski is on the other side of the district from Shiawassee and Clinton Counties, as well as Ingham County. I don't see any logistical advantages for Marcinkowski at all. Shiawassee County is where a homer advantage would be most important, not Oakland.

So celebrate your momentum Jimmy, and waste all your money, since when all is said and done - Marcinkowski will Crash and Burn, eh Maverick?

31 comments:

Patrick Flynn said...

If money wins the election, then Kerry should have had something to show for his $20 million spent.

He lost because America wanted family values from their leaders.

Same reason Marcinkowski will be rejected in District 8 in November.

bluzie said...

And what about your values Patrick will cause the Republican's of the 8th to reject you?

Pogo said...

Patrick won't be rejected due to his values.

I've met and talked to both Mike Rogers and Patrick Flynn. They are both excellent candidates and I would be proud to support either of them in the general election.

The primary is difficult since they are facing off against one another. I'm sure Patrick won't like me saying this, but while Patrick is more conservative on a couple of issues overall I don't see enough difference to get me to dump Mike.

Mike has done a few things that I don't like but then nobody is perfect. Overall I feel he has been pretty effective and a good voice for our district.

Just about all the Republicans I've talked to have expressed similiar sentiments. Everyone likes Patrick but they also like Mike, and nobody wants to see a popular and effective incumbant like Mike forced into retirement.

This having been said, I would further like to say that I hope the best man wins and I will energetically support the winner this fall. Should Patrick not win I really hope that he stays involved in politics and runs for something else in the future because I believe our party needs people like him. If he were to run for an open seat or against an imcumbant that I dislike there is a very good possiblity I would jump on board and support his campaign from the beginning.

Pogo said...

As for Marcinkowski, this is just another "cheerleader" piece written by a liberal reporter engaging in wishful thinking. The hope is that if they ignore the cold hard reality of the hopelessness for Marcinkowski, that maybe more people will vote for him.

The Argus engages in this kind of wishful thinking on a regular basis and we can see how much effect it has had in the past here in Livingston County.

The only hope that the liberals at the Argus have is that a bunch of liberals from Wayne and Washtenaw counties move to Livingston County and erase the Republican advantage. This could happen as Livingston county becomes more urban but changes like this always happen slowly, over a period of decades.

The good part about this is that all the cheerleading going on at the Argus makes their liberal tilt obvious to all and gives good warning for Republicans to be suspicious of their endorsements, especially their non-partisian endorsements.

Republican Michigander said...

Patrick's not going to like my comments either.

I'm not rejecting Patrick's values in my vote. Patrick and Mike are both socially conservative, and this is the major issue in the race.

I'm voting FOR Mike Rogers, not against Patrick Flynn. In November, I'm voting FOR Mike Rogers and also AGAINST Jim Marcinkowski. I like Mike and don't have a reason to fire him. If Patrick wins, I'll vote for him in November over Marcinkowski.

Earlier this year I commented that I wish that Patrick ran for school board instead. I stand by that statement. I think he'd bring a perspective to the school board that is needed.

Patrick Flynn said...

I don't dislike any of your comments. They're honest and straightfoward.

I even appreciate negative comments when they come from the left. It's an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is.

The worst thing is apathy and indifference. I think our republic suffers more as a result of these than leftist attacks.

For my part, I'll do my best in the campaign and happily place the decision into the hands of the primary voters on August 8th, in the comfort of knowing that primary voters are almost never apathetic nor indifferent.

Keith Richards said...

Candidates who run negative attack campaigns in primaries against fellow Republicans really rub me the wrong way. I really admire Pat because he is running a real tough campaign but has chosen to stay optimistic and pro-active. It would be easy to go negative to gain media attention but Pat is obviously made of better stuff. This reminds me a lot of the personality of Ronald Reagan. I think this bodes well for Pat's future.

Stands Right said...

Seems strange to me that liberals are backing Marcinkowski. Here's a guy who launches his campaign by attacking the Bush Administration, alleging it broke the law when it outed Valerie Plame.

At the same time, Marcinkowski admits on the Boomantribune blog that he was involved in the CIA efforts to destabilize Nicaragua – in violation of the law at that time.

Seems to me that liberals will only take a stand depending on where they sit.

bluzie said...

Stands, are you saying that outing a CIA agent is not ilegal? Are you not concerned about our National Security?

Stands Right said...

Did not say that. Only pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of Marcinkowski’s selective memory: Outing Plame “Bad,” violating laws over Nicaragua, “Good.” Can’t have it both ways.

anonymous said...

It has been reported in numerous media reports that Plame was not actually working undercover when she was "outed".

Stands Right said...

Whether Plame was undercover is not really the point.

Here, let's make it clear: by his own admission, Marcinkowski broke the law when he provided covert aid to the Nicaraguan contra rebels. Therefore, he has no credibility and no standing to talk about Plame's "outing."

bluzie said...

I beleive you may be watching too much Fox News if you beleive the outing of Valerie Plame was not felony. Try to pay atenetion to credible news source. How many of you all paid homage to Ollie North, just last year?? Did not you call him a great American Hero? You didn't have one Democrat protesting his speaking in Livingston County like the Republicans protested Joe Wilson in January.
The outing of Valerie Plame is illegal. Everyone who has a brain can see this, even George Bush.

Stands Right said...

Bluzie, I don't know where to begin. So, maybe let's try from the top:

First, I did not say anything about the legal or criminal repercussions of "outing" Ms Plame.

Second, I am not "you all," and said nothing in my post about Mr. North - good, bad or indifferent.

My point is this, again: Even if the outing of Ms Plame was illegal (let's just assume it was, OK?) then even under these conditions Mr Marcinkowski, with his illegal involvement in the Iran/Nicaragua contra affair, is not in a position to comment from a high moral position.

Perhaps if he comes clean, tells us specifically what he did when he was assigned to Central America, asks the CIA to open his personnel file, then MAYBE he'll have some credibility. I don’t think any of this will ever happen.

And that comes back to the original point: How can liberals fall in love with a guy who was involved with President Ronald Reagan’s Iran/contra scandal? Reading what he wrote in the Booman Tribune blog makes one believe that he was and is a True Reagan Believer.

bluzie said...

Mr Marcinkowski was a soldier, not in command. He was promoted and served his country well. I guess you don't support your troops?

Stands Right said...

If you mean to say that Mr. Marcinkowski was not responsible for violating US and international laws because he was just following orders, well then I believe a number of tribunals summarily dismissed that argument long ago (Nuerenberg and My Lai come immediately to mind).

"Following orders" is not an excuse. In fact, US military law requires a soldier to disobey an illegal order. In any case, Mr. Marcinkowski wasn't a "soldier" - he was a covert intelligence officer with the CIA (or at least that's what he says) - in the US actions against Nicaragua.

But your next point confuses me, when was Mr. Marcinkowski "promoted?" Where and for what? With his CIA service still kept a secret how would you know if he "served his country well?" Why did he leave the CIA after a little more than three years?

But, I'm sure that you'll continue to toss personal insults ... whatever. Enjoy your Mr. Marcinkowski, ex-CIA, Reaganite and now liberal Democrat or whatever it is that he says he stands for.

Good bye.

armywife1 said...

I met Marcinkowski. If you challenge him for more than five minutes on anything substantial, his response may be something like he gave me, "At least Clinton didnt' send in un-uparmored humvees to Iraq". To which I replied, "because he didn't have any humvess, after slashing the military budget by 30%".

He seems to spout the typical liberal rhetoric. He didn't seem to have any origional thoughts. Not impressed. I may have been spouting as well, but I am not running for Congress.

Communications guru said...

Really, can anyone who doesn’t have an R after their name impress you? What’s wrong with pointing out shortcomings? If you can’t do that you can’t even talk about Bush. I was in the military during the Clinton years – as well as the Ford, Carter, Regan and Bush I years – I there were no problems.
You got five minutes with him, try getting five minutes with the incumbent if you don’t have a check in your hand or you are not on the Livingston gop executive committee.

Stands Right said...

Seems ironic, Communications guru, that you are criticizing armywife1 for pointing out the shortcomings of Marcinkowski while Spyboy was pointing out the shortcomings of W.

What's wrong with that?

Communications guru said...

Hardly ironic. It would help if the shortcomings that were pointed were true. Also, Jim Marcinkowski was never elected by a vote of the people to uphold the Constitution and govern the entire nation.
Mr. Marcinkowski, on the other hand, was carrying out the orders of the person elected to uphold and defend the Constitution and protect the country. You know, the buck allegedly stops at W’s desk, but in reality we know better. Also, there are a lot of shortcomings to point our about W, and it would take more than the alleged 5 minutes she said she had. Again, try and get 5 minutes with the incumbent bush apologist without a check in your hand or unless you’re a gop insider.
It seems to me she was pointing out the alleged shortcomings of former President Clinton, not Mr. Marcinkowski, and as I pointed out, she did not know what she was talking about.

Stands Right said...

Not ironic? How 'bout "sardonic?"

Stands Right said...

BTW, guru, I do beleive that Marcinkowski, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II all took the same Federal oath of office. You can find it in the constitution.

a-normal-person said...

Have any of you actually talked with Mr. Marcinkowski? You can sit here and type all day. That makes no difference. Go out and talk to him. Ask him these questions. All this talk is speculation. Go and talk to him to find out the real truth.

a-normal-person said...

And if he was "breaking US and International laws" why wasn't he punished.

Stands Right said...

Hey, a-normal-person!

Don't have to ask him "these questions," other people already have.

Read what Marcinkowski himself said on the liberal blog Boomantribune.com. First comment re-posted here from "Boston Joe" with replies from Spyboy. See the entire ugly exchange for yourself at http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/2/12/20058/1260.

But for real fun, see what Boston Joe (a Lansing non-practicing attorney) has to say about Spyboy here: http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/2/14/1138/79596.

Why wasn't he "punished?" Pu-leeze! Why did he left the CIA after only a little more than three years? Hell, he barely had time to learn how to use his secret decorder ring!

Stands Right




Re: On Foreign Policy (4.00 / 2)
Sounds to me like you are proud of your work supporting the Contras in Nicaragua. And I wouldn't expect anything less. From someone who supported, and perhaps continues to support Reagan-era ideals. And I don't mean that as harshly as it sounds. Blogging has tended to make much of my language shrill. And I applaud you for coming and answering questions.
There was the election in Nicaragua in 1984 which was validated by international observers, that seated an anti-U.S.leader. An election at least as fair as those conducted under the circumstances in Palestine and Iraq today. The first in decades (or ever) in that country, if I recall. An election that did not deter continued and illegal U.S. aggression.

And the whole ICJ finding in '86 which found the U.S. and its de facto force (Contras) guilty of war crimes. So, I guess one of my questions -- did you have a role, personally, in these war crimes? Which, according the the ICJ, would equate to a question of, did you, personally, train, equip, arm, finance or otherwise assist the Contras? I know that is a hard question. I don't expect that I'll have to ask it of many Democratic candidates in my lifetime. It is just a quirk of your resume.

Again. I don't mean to be so negative. You seem like a nice man. And strong, to try to stand up to the wrongs that this present administration has committed. I credit you for this. I wish you luck in that mission. My question about your personal past is sincere, and driven simply by the fact that you were in Nicaragua (I presume) at the time.

Also, just for the sake of full disclosure, I've pretty much made up my mind about your candidacy. While I really want to hear your answer, as a point of information, I'm swayed by the fact that you have been, as best as objective indicators can tell me, a card carrying Republican for your entire adult life (until your most recent conversion). That seems to leave me, as a voter in your district, voting against you in the primary, and voting for a third-party if that option is available. I am absolutely certain, that if you would remain a Republican, cross-over and run against Rogers in the Republican primary, I would be at the booth supporting you. Probably with donations, as well.

Good luck in your run.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

by BostonJoe (tjayolson@hotmail.com) on Tue Feb 14th, 2006 at 08:35:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Foreign Policy (none / 1)
Nicaragua was governed by a Junta. The Junta was never elected.
Since I have never been on a blog before, my initial observation is that everyone is pretty fast and lose and busy about categories and pigeon-holing.

Please feel free to vote for a Green or a Blue or whatever. That is your right. But understand that with that choice comes responsibility. If we invade Iran next, continue to disregard the Constitution, torture our captives, etc., you will have to take at least some responsibility two years from now for making the wrong choice.

This country is exeriencing what I believe is a very serious crisis and you have a litimus, no, a purity test. I'm sorry I don't meet every single one of your expectations.

The last person that ran I think probably came closer to meeting all of your expectations. The race was lost by almost a 3:1 margin.

Jim Marcinkowski

by Sea Eagle 1 (marcinkowski8@comcast.net) on Tue Feb 14th, 2006 at 10:25:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On Blogs (4.00 / 2)
So you know, on blogs, we have these running conversations. Pretty amazing some of the information that pops out sometimes. And I think they are great. I have never been able to speak to a prospective Congress person as I'm speaking with you now. Very democratic, I think, in terms of information. Information is "fast and lose" and subject to correction.
Like this:


Statement: "The last person that ran. . . . lost by almost a 3:1 margin," Jim Marcinkowski, Democratic candidate in Michigan's 8th Congressional District.
Fact: 2004 elections results (MI-08)
R-Mike Rogers 207,925
D-Bob Alexander 125,619

Ratio = 207,925:125,619 or 1.655:1

Question Is saying the guy you supported last time "lost by almost 3:1" playing "fast and loose?"

On the specific question of Nicaragua, I raised the issue because it is important to me as a progressive voter, and it is relevant because you were an actor on the ground there at that time. It is a time that shares some strange similarities to this time (Iran-Contra/Iraq Debacle). I didn't raise it out of the blue. And I suspect anyone reading your resume and having a basic understanding of recent history might have the same question, though might not get the same opportunity to ask you.

I gave you a couple of facts. Here, I'll just throw them out again. And I'll bold what I believe to be fairly straightforward factual information:


There was the election in Nicaragua in 1984 which was validated by international observers, that seated an anti-U.S.leader. An election at least as fair as those conducted under the circumstances in Palestine and Iraq today. The first in decades (or ever) in that country, if I recall. An election that did not deter continued and illegal U.S. aggression.
And the whole ICJ finding in '86 which found the U.S. and its de facto force (Contras) guilty of war crimes. So, I guess one of my questions -- did you have a role, personally, in these war crimes? Which, according the the ICJ, would equate to a question of, did you, personally, train, equip, arm, finance or otherwise assist the Contras? I know that is a hard question. I don't expect that I'll have to ask it of many Democratic candidates in my lifetime. It is just a quirk of your resume.

I guess you can dismiss it as saying everyone who opposed U.S. policy was part of "a Junta." Or every person elected who opposed U.S. policy was part of "a Junta." But that doesn't help someone who looks back at that time and questions your involvement.

I would think you could make a very principled defense as well. Factually. That lays out your committment to what you were doing there. An embraceme of the staunch anti-communist ideals of Reagan. To the extent of arming, training, and equipping people to murder the communist "Junta." I would expect you believed what you were doing was right. I guess, what I'm concerned about is whether you still think it is right? In light of your conversion on a host of other social and international issues, to the views of the Democratic party.

Which leads me to my main point. I'm not trying to pigeon hole you. And I would dearly love to have a good progressive candidate I could actively work to support, in hopes of ousting Mr. Rogers from our neighborhood. It is just that I look at your resume, and it seems to me you have been a Republican for your entire adult life. Not just a sit back and enjoy the good life Republican. An active Republican. You were a Reagan youth activist. You ran for office twice as a Republican. You have contributed to George W. Bush. Your good friends are high level Republicans. And you happened to serve in a job as a CIA agent, in a time, place and circumstance, that led to a truly extraordinary event -- a finding by an International tribunal that the U.S. had violated International law by acting as an aggressor nation. And it seems to me that you have not even reflected on that service, in terms of your personal contribution (this may be unfair -- but you haven't shared that reflection with me, you have just insisted that you know the U.S. was right in this instance -- a rather Bush-like statement, if you don't mind me making the observation).

I honestly hope these questions make you a better candidate. From my political outlook, it would be hard for you to represent a greater obstacle to peace and justice than Mike Rogers does. But I can't look at your resume and lend my support.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" -- Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

by BostonJoe (tjayolson@hotmail.com) on Wed F

Communications guru said...

No one is disputing that. I took the same oath of office when I joined the military and every time I reenlisted. The point, that you obviously miss, is that as an agent on the ground, Mr. Marcinkowski did not make policy. You do understand the difference?
The biggest question I have and what confuses me is the absolute bs dan writes in this post.
“This guy doesn't have a chance, and those that know me, know why.” I know he has a chance, but I don’t understand what knowing dan has to do with it.
“His last name may be Polish, but he has an Irish temper that's going to cost him big at some point - if it hasn't already.” What the hell doers that mean, and what is that based on?
I don’t consider any money Mr. Marcinkowski spends wasted money, because it only means the gop has to spend money where is has worked so hard to make safe for rogers and considers it safe. That’s money that will not be spent in target races. Also, dan and the rest of the republicans are so out of touch that they have no idea the ant-incumbent mood people are in, especially for a bush apologist like rogers.

Stands Right said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Stands Right said...

Communications Guru said: "The point, that you obviously miss, is that as an agent on the ground, Mr. Marcinkowski did not make policy. You do understand the difference?"

Seems that policy concerning Nicaragua was set by the Congress and President Reagan when the Congress passed, and he signed, the so-called Boland Amendment, prohibiting covert action by the CIA in that country. The expectation is (was) that everyone would conform to the law.

The amendment was passed after Republican senators learned, and became greatly upset, that the CIA was behind several acts of sabotage in Nicaragua, among other things.

So, no I didn’t miss the point, I only expect people, like Mr. Marcinkowski, to follow the law and policy set out by the Congress and the President – whether its on the “ground” or elsewhere.

Stands Right

a-normal-person said...

I found a few question that I would like to adress.
1.Why did he left the CIA after only a little more than three years?
2.did you have a role, personally, in these war crimes? Which, according the the ICJ, would equate to a question of, did you, personally, train, equip, arm, finance or otherwise assist the Contras?

1. Mr. Marcinkowski left the CIA for personal reasons. After the birth of his seconed son, he thought that it would be better to raise his kids around his family, not in a foreign country. Good idea? I think so.

2."War Crimes" please!!! He was down there to collect information on the Soviet communist effect of the region. After all the communists were aiding and supplying the sandinistas with helicopters, guns, and heavy artillary. Reading them for an armed take over of the region. There were also Soviet KGB agents in the surrounding countries, like in costa rica and hondures.

Furthermore, Stands, apparantly you sound like an expert in Central American affairs and CIA. You as well as million of american have no idea of what the CIA does on a regular basis. How can you sit there and accuse Mr. Marcinkowski of war crimes? That is like calling a guard at Abu Garab Prision a torturer. When all they did was preform there day to day duites OUTSIDE of the Prision. they had no part in the illeagal activities on the inside. Just beacause a few people messed up in one area, does no mean everyone messed up in all areas.

Thank you.

Stands Right said...

a-normal-person said: "You as well as million of american have no idea of what the CIA does on a regular basis."

Who does? And, that a-normal-person, is the problem. Why would you believe anything Marcinkowski says unless he's willing to have his personel file from the CIA open for public inspection? Will that ever happen? Hell, I don't even know if Spyboy was posted in Central America for certain. Next time you talk you him, you ask him something in Spanish.

As for your second point, you did not read my post, the comment about war crimes was made by Boston Joe - a regular on BoomanTribune.com - not me. I just re-posted it here so that you could see it for yourself.

a-normal-person said...

Why would you believe anything Marcinkowski says unless he's willing to have his personel file from the CIA open for public inspection?

Are you serious?!?! You must be mad! What on earth would his classified CIA record show? That he commited illegal acts or he aided the contras? Lets just say for fun he did aid the Contras. Would the CIA actually keep records of illegal activities of its agents? I don't think so. What benifit would one get if one were to read a covert CIA agents record? Nothing. There would be no benifit.