Carl Levin finally retires

I'm shocked. I thought Levin would be like Byrd, Kennedy, and Thurmond and stay in office until he is completely unable to do so. Our rights are a whole lot safer with that gun grabber out of there. I'll be raising a glass tonight toasting to his retirement.


The question is the resulting domino effect from this. So far we know:

Clark Durant - Ran in 2010 primary -  Apparently not running
Candice Miller - MI-10 incumbent - Apparently not running
Bill Schuette - AG - Probably not running

Possible candidates I've heard:
GOP:

Justin Amash - MI-03 incumbent, former state rep
My gut says he's running. He's a libertarian leaning republican in many respects, and with Rand Paul's fillibuster and his problems with house GOP leadership, this is an opening that I can him taking. Can he win? I think he could, if he can keep the more mouthy backers in check. Amash wasn't the strongest guy in MI-03, but that's a matchup issue more than anything else. MI-03 is one of the more establishment friendly districts. Right now, there's an opening for someone like him. The party is split, and a lot of people in the base - not just campaign for liberty - not just tea party - but even regular republicans - are disgusted at DC leadership and the lack of fight right now towards Obama - especially on fiscal issues.

Mike Rogers - MI-08 incumbent, former state senate
I haven't heard anything one way or the other about Mike running. I think he may our strongest possible candidate. He always runs ahead of the ticket in this district, gets extra votes out of both Livingston and Ingham (sometimes wins there) Counties. He won a very tough election in 2000 so he's had tough races.

Terri Lynn Land - Former Sec of State
She won statewide twice easily and would have a lot of West Michigan support.

Roger Kahn - State Senator  (Termed out)
He won a tough district twice that covered all of Saginaw County. He's a doctor as well. I'm not sure he'd get past the primary or has the name recognition, but I can see him running, especially if Dave Camp makes a statewide run later.

Brian Calley - Lt Gov
I think there's a better chance of him going for an open MI-03 spot if Amash runs. A lot of people just don't know the Lt Governor in Michigan.

Ruth Johnson - Sec of State, former Oakland Clerk
She could be a strong candidate, but her top issues are perfect of Sec of State. Election reform.

Dem:
Gary Peters - MI-14 incumbent, formerly MI-09 incumbent, previously AG candidate and state senator:

Peters is 1/2 step ahead of generic democrat. That's not meant as an insult. He's not going to blunder and offend people, but he's not going to stick out as a star candidate. He's cautious. He had a solid D state senate district in the 90's which included Southfield and Pontiac. He lost his AG race to Mike Cox by 5500 votes. The old MI-09 scared me back in 02 because I knew it was on borrowed time. Joe Knollenberg was strong under the 2006 wave hit. He survived it bruised and battered and Peters finished the job in 2008 with the collapse. Peters showed some strength in 2010 surviving that wave against Rocky Raczkowski. His district was carved up in redistricting. He won a dem primary against Hansen Clarke for the MI-14 district. Most expect Peters to run for either Senate or Governor. That will open up MI-14.


Mark Schauer - Former MI-07 incumbent, former state rep and state senator. I can't stand how he votes hard left while pretending to be a moderate, but when it comes to campaigns, he knows how to win. He won a swing/lean dem district out of Battle Creek. That was before that district had Albion in it. Mike Nofs (R) replaced Schauer who replaced a different Republican. Schauer ran for the open State Senate district (Calhoun and part of Jackson County) in 2002 and it wasn't close. He beat Mickey Mortimer, who wasn't a pushover. Schauer rode the 2008 wave to beat an abandoned Tim Walberg by 3 points, before losing to Walberg in a 2010 rematch by about 5-6%. Schauer was at the big union protests, so I think he's running for something, whether it be governor or senate. My gut says that Peters will run for one office and Schauer the other.

Jennifer Granholm - The "Matt Millen" of Governors. I'll be surprised if she runs, but I hope she is the nominee. I think between Peters, Schauer, Dianne Byrum, Whitmer, and Granholm - she'll be the easiest to beat due to being the Matt Millen of Governors. 

I've heard some possible speculation about Mike Duggan, one of the Byrums, and Gretchen Whitmer. I doubt Duggan would run against Peters or Schauer. I think Duggan's going to try and be the Great White Hope of Detroit with the ghost of Ed McNamara and Ficano. I think Whitmer would be a strong candidate, but she declined to run previously due to young kids. If she declined a gubernatorial run in her home Lansing area, then I'll be surprised if she wants to move her kids to DC. The Byrums are well known in the Lansing area and wouldn't be pushovers, but I think Schauer or Peters is stronger, at least right now.

One of the interesting things about this is what happens if these candidates all run (which I don't expect) is more open seats.

Sec of State - If this opens up, we'll be electing our nominee at the 2014 GOP State Convention in August/September. A lot of people ran for this in 2010.

Lt Gov - If this opens up, we'll be electing our nominee at the 2014 GOP State Convention in August/September. Historically, the governor nominee picks his Lt Gov, but there was a push by West Michigan tea parties in 2010 for MI-02 congressional candidate and businessman Bill Cooper.


MI-03 - There's a strong GOP bench here with Kent County. Too many names to mention. Mike Nofs is in Calhoun County, and Brian Calley is I believe in Ionia County. The dems don't have a deep bench, but Mark Schauer is now here, as is Kate Segal.

MI-08 - Stronger bench for the GOP. Joe Hune, Bill Rogers, Cindy Denby, Brad Jacobsen, Jim Marleau, Ruth Johnson, Mike Bishop, and Tom McMillin for GOP. The dems have a bench in the Lansing area. Gretchen Whitmer, the Byrums, Dave Hollister, and a few state reps.

MI-14 - VRA District. Safe dem. Brenda Lawrence in Southfield, and a bunch of Detroit dems. Hansen Clarke previously held the seat. I wouldn't count out Kwame Kilpatrick.

It's going to be interesting.

There's Lansing. There's Bush. There's Obama. There's Matt Millen, and then there's the US Senate

When it comes to fiscal irresponsibility, there several degrees of bad. Lansing is bad. The US House is worse. George W Bush was worse than the current and former US House combined. On spending, Bush sucked. Obama is worse than Bush. He really sucks. Obama isn't the worst though. There's a special kind of bad, the beyond Matt Millen category. Jennifer Granholm is called the Matt Millen of Governors. The United States Senate collectively is the Matt Millen of all of politics, if not worse. If they were managing a football team, it would be 0-16 every year. If they were running a basketball team, they couldn't beat the Washington Generals. If they were running a hockey team, they would go 0-82 even if Wayne Gretzky played for them. They are Matt Millen, John L Smith, and UM's Bill Martin all rolled up into one.

Barack Obama's spending plan sucks, but it sucks less than what is there now, and I would have voted for it as a start. Yes, I would have voted for it. It's not good enough, but it is better than the status quo.

From the AP

WASHINGTON – Just days after President Barack Obama endorsed a partial freeze on domestic spending, his Democratic allies in the Senate have rejected a plan attempting to do pretty much the same thing.
Old-school Democrats were the driving force in killing the bipartisan legislation, sponsored by Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions and Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill. Their plan was slightly modified version of Obama's that would have permitted domestic agencies an increase of just about 1 percent, with slightly higher boosts for the Pentagon.
A 56-strong majority of senators supported the plan but it failed because 60 votes were required. The vote came the morning after Obama threatened to veto spending bills that would exceed a domestic spending freeze.

That doesn't mean I've forgotten Obama's poor handling of spending and record deficits up to this point. I haven't. The Senate also has another present for us. They raised the debt ceiling an addition 1.9 trillion! Great job dumbasses. They took care of that before Scott Brown was seated. I wonder why?  Also from the AP

WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats needed all the 60 votes at their disposal Thursday to muscle through legislation allowing the government to go $1.9 trillion deeper in debt.
Democratic leaders were able to prevail on the politically volatile 60-39 vote only because Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts has yet to be seated. Republicans had insisted on a 60-vote, super-majority threshhold to pass the measure. An earlier test vote succeeded on a 60-40 vote.

Thank you Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow for doing your normal job. I could be stoned a still do a better job than this group of jokers.

It's past time to cut spending, reduce the debt, reduce the interest payments, and get our house in order so we don't lose our sovereignty.

Carl Levin oinking at the trough

As dangerously incompetent Debbie Stabenow is, we can always do worse. In fact, worse is no other than Carl Levin who has been in his senate about as long as I've been alive....and I'm in my 30's. Levin is a common denominator with all of the country's problems regarding Congress.

Here's Levin's poor defense regarding Pork.

Michigan is getting tens of millions of dollars in 'budget earmarks' in a federal spending bill that the president is expected to sign today.

Republican lawmakers complain the entire bill contains $5 billion in wasteful spending.

Michigan Senator Carl Levin disagrees.

"They think, 'Gee if you eliminate all those earmarks there would be less federal spending.' That is not the case," says Levin.

That is called government math. If I spend money on a project, it takes money. If the earmarks are taken out, it is less money which is less spending. That is obvious...to anybody but Carl Levin aka Lenin.

Carl Levin lies while showing disrespect for the Constitution

The US Senate collectively is the biggest group of screw ups in any governmental body. No group has singlehandedly screwed up this country since the Carter administration.

Carl Levin has been in office for 30 years, first elected in 1978. Since then, he can almost always be counted on for embarassing this state. While there was this talk of "hope and change" during the last election, leave it to the senate to send the same group of old timers and screw ups back to Washington. Carl Levin leads the way in this state. More of the same.

Levin just ran his mouth again showing his distain for the constitution. There's many LIES given here, and he needs to be called out on them.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives described assault weapons in their Assault Weapons Profile as weapons “designed for rapid fire and close quarter shooting at human beings.

That's not what was banned under the old law. What was banned were mostly RIFLES. Rifles are not designed for close quarter shooting. "Rapid rife" firearms were banned in 1934 without a special Class 3 licenses (and those are restricted to those built before 1986). Carl, you need to shut the hell up if you don't understand an issue, but where else could I expect more ignorance than from the US Senate.

That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are massed produced mayhem.” Unlike semiautomatic hunting rifles, which are designed to be fired from the shoulder and rely on the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, assault weapons are designed to be fired at the hip and to maximize their ability to rapidly shoot multiple human targets.

Now that is just one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in my life. The "evil" AK-47's are shot from the shoulder. So is the AR-15, MP-5, and all pistols.

The report also outlines the dangerous weapons race law enforcement officers have been forced to enter in an effort to counter the increasing likelihood that they will be confronted by a criminal wielding an assault weapon. In addition to the common criminal, assault weapons are high attractive weapons for terrorists. The ease which with they can currently be purchased, combined with their designed ability to inflict as much damage possible, make them ideal tools for conspiring terrorists. Just last year five men were arrested in New Jersey with a stockpile of assault weapons, while planning to attack the United States Army base at Fort Dix.

Under the ban, I could have stockpiled a ton of pre-ban fireams easily. Nothings changed since the ban. The rest is just political speak and crap by someone who has high disrespect for freedom.

Despite the overwhelming support of the law enforcement community,

Like who outside of a few chiefs, which are mostly politicians whose job is to kiss the mayor's rear end?

Now, four years later, 19 previously banned military-style assault weapons, some capable of firing up to 600 rounds per minute, are once again pervading our streets and neighborhoods.

This is the biggest pile of crap of all. 600 rounds a minute? Why don't you prove it, son? You get one of those pre-ban firearms, and fire off 600 rounds in a minute. I'll even let you pre-load all the magazines first. If you can't do that with one of these formerly banned so called assault weapons, sit down and shut your damn mouth. There is no way in hell I could fire off 600 rounds in one minute with a semi-auto with a standard magazine. 10 rounds in one second, with 20 standard magazines (30 rounds). That means I reload twenty times in a minute. I'm not sure I could even pull off 600 rounds in a low recoil Ruger 10/22 with a teardrop magazine (50 rounds - 12 reloads) in a minute, let alone with a AR-15 or a semi-auto knockoff of an MP-5 or Uzi (Full auto). This isn't an automatic firearm we're discussing here, but the firing of one bullet per one trigger pull.

Here's the thing that is ALWAYS the case about gun grabbers. They can not rely on the facts in making their argument. They rely on lies and deception in their fight against freedom. They lie about not taking our guns away, lie about the facts in order to scare people, lie about saying it does not apply to hunting weapons, and lie. The reason why gun grabbers like Levin lie is because they believe that only the government should own firearms and that us rubes can not be trusted with them. When only the government has guns, it's called a police state.

It's time for real change. Unfortunately, the people of Michigan wanted more of the same and re-election this fool. Don't blame me. I voted for Jack, and Rocky before him.

And one again, if you don't know the fact Levin, sit down and shut your damn mouth, son.

Rocky II? (Levin v Raczkowski)

It looks like Rocky Raczkowski may be running against Levin again. From the AP

MACKINAC ISLAND, Mich. (AP) — Next year's U.S. Senate race is looking like it could be a rematch between longtime Democratic incumbent Carl Levin and Republican Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski.

Raczkowski spoke briefly Saturday at a Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference luncheon, the usual biennial kickoff for the following year's elections. He didn't commit while he was on the island to running, but says he has set up an exploratory committee and is considering challenging Levin a second time.

Another Republican, state Rep. Jack Hoogendyk of Kalamazoo, told The Associated Press by telephone Sunday that he's also considering the race. He said he has received encouragement from party leaders and from supporters who got to know him during his six-month bid for governor in 2005. Hoogendyk withdrew without challenging Dick DeVos for the 2006 GOP nomination and is serving his last two-term in the state House.

Raczkowski, 38, said his military service overseas since his unsuccessful 2002 run against Levin have given him a different outlook than when he took on Levin while still a state representative from Farmington Hills. Now a businessman and major in the U.S. Army Reserves, he said he has lost six friends in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He now considers himself less a Republican and more an advocate for U.S. soldiers and those hurt by Michigan's troubled economy.

"I am vehemently disappointed with this administration's mismanagement of the war and with the fact that they don't seem to have much of a receptive ear to this economy and the automotive ear," Raczkowski said, speaking of decisions made by President Bush.

But while Levin, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been pushing a proposal that seeks to restrict the mission of troops to fighting terrorists and training the Iraqi security force, Raczkowski doesn't want to go that far.

"He's always been a thoughtful gentleman," Raczkowski said. "But quitting now is a practice that I as a soldier cannot accept and that we can't stand as a country."

I always thought Rocky could have been a very good candidate in 2002. If the party supported him, I think we could have pulled off the upset of Levin. He was right on the issues. He was an excellent speaker. He had presense. He's excellent in working a crowd. He's won three times in a very difficult district out in Farmington Hills (a district that voted for Gore and Kerry). The two things he did lack are name recognition and money. The first part is tough to find and those who don't have it need to work at it for years to correct it. I'm not a good public speaker. I can get by if I have to, and it took me a long time just to do that. The last parts - money and name recognition - can be corrected in a short period of time with help. If Rocky runs and is our candidate - we need to help him.

One thing that irked me to no end back in 02 (and still does) was what the state party did to him. It was despicable. They threw him to the wolves and gave him no support whatsoever. At the state convention, they were gutless wonders and didn't let him speak until the convention was practicaly over. The keynote speakers was finished and the closing occured. Most of the crowd left. I was on my way out, until I saw that Rocky was speaking. They did that since they were so afraid of Rocky upending the gubenatorial candidate, Dick Posthumus. Instead of having Rocky help raise the chance of Posthumus winning, they pushed him down. That wasn't right, and I hope Saul learned from State Party 02's mistakes. I do not expect there to be a repeat. I should mention that a repeat abandonment here would just allow Levin to help other candidates across the country, instead of keeping his money here at home.

Most people don't know much about Carl Levin, or his stances on the issues which are out of step with Michigan. He's just "there", and relies on his images of "rolling up his sleeves" to work, backing the auto industry, and a foreign policy stance that changes with the wind. What he does effectively for the state in the last 15 years except vote right on CAFE standards - which he is now caving on with boss Reid forcing him in line?

Could Rocky win? With support - I think he can win. His stances on issues are closer to mainstream Michigan. His well-rounded experience in the military, business, and legislative backgrounds also give him a good boost. His speaking ability can sell people that he meets - but he can't do it if he's thrown to the wolves with no help whatsoever, as was the case in 02.

He got 38% there with no help. We need between 11-12% more. That's tough, but certainly possible. Candice Miller was crushed by David Bonior before she beat another instituion in Richard Austin. Mike Simpson lost at least twice before winning. Let's get some guts for once and actually target a seat that conventional wisdom says we can't win.

Rocky II?

The second time Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed fought, Rocky won.

Rumor is that former state rep Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski may be rematching Carl Levin in 2008.

I think it could have been an interesting matchup in 2002, if Rocky wasn't thrown to the wolves by a bunch of cowards - I repeat - cowards - who wrote off the Levin race before it started.

One thing I do respect on the democrat side of all people is Howard Dean. Dean has his 50 state strategy that was laughed at by many (not me). If you write off 1/2 of the country, or write off any race against a long time incumbent, you aren't going to win, and you'll be playing defense instead the entire time. Dean has some guts if nothing else.

Rocky's background and views are a good fit for a Michigan candidate. He's socially center-conservative (pro-2nd Amendment, pro-life). He's owned a business. He opposed NAFTA. He's a combat veteran in the military. He's a good speaker. He's won a seat in a swing to democrat-leaning district. (Farmington Hills).

The biggest weakness is money and the lack of confidence of establishment types who don't think Levin is beatable. The former is tough. The latter is self fufilling if it isn't prevented. The unknown Dick Posthumus came within 4% of the then "unbeatable" Jennifer Granholm despite 75% of the GOP establishment being cowards and saying "can't win, can't win" all throughout 2002. He could have won, and if those cowards actually gave some effort, he would have won, and Granholm wouldn't have destroyed this state with her Matt Millen style of management.

I'm undecided in the 08 senate primary, but I have no problems with giving Rocky another shot. With some good low budget campaign strategists, a grass roots movement, a solid message, and hard work, there could be a real surprise in 08.

30+ year incumbent Jack Brooks was knocked out by Steve Stockman in a rematch in a democrat leaning seat won by Bill Clinton twice. Jon Tester beat longtime incumbent Conrad Burns in Montana, a normally Republican leaning state. Incumbents are beatable. Let's give Levin a real race for the first time in 24 years.