Via Twitter
Saul Anuzis
Congress MI-8: I'm out for at least 3 practical reason:) Just can't afford it. Thanks to all who offered support! http://ow.ly/i/56A9a
Showing posts with label Saul Anuzis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saul Anuzis. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 02, 2014
Sunday, March 30, 2014
MI-08 - Who's going to be my next Congressman?
Update 3-31-14 - Former State Senator Mike Bishop and Rochester Hills Mayor Bryan Barnett, both from the Rochester area are running.
A new era is beginning here in the 8th District.
(Full disclosure, I did some work for Sen. Joe Hune in his 2010 campaign)
With Mike Rogers retiring, things have significantly changed here. The 8th District leans Republican, but isn't a safe district with Mike Rogers retiring. It went for the dems at the top of the ticket in 2006 and 2008, and went for the Republicans in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, and 2012. I went over the presidential numbers in depth here and explored an open possibility here. I'm not going to rehash the presidential numbers much or the top of the ticket numbers much here. In an Republican year, we win. In a neutral year, we probably win, but candidate quality will matter more. In a bad year, we better have a damn good candidate. The top of the ticket will have its own variables. We have to control what we control, and that means voting for a good candidate in this August primary, whomever it may be.
There's a lot of rumors going on about candidates who are and who aren't running. I'm not going to do a lot of speculation except to say that oftentimes the national reporters don't have any idea what they are talking about. If the person doesn't live in the district or have ties to the district, the person won't be a serious candidate more than likely. Especially if the districts don't all run together (like the Bloomfield area in the 9th, 11th, and 14th). The 8th isn't like that outside of a small part of Rochester Hills which is in both districts (mostly in the 8th).
Politics 1 mentions Saul Anuzis, Bryan Barnett, Mike Bishop, Mike Bouchard, Craig DeRoche, Gail Haines, Joe Hune, Rick Jones, Jim Marleau, Tom McMillin, Barb Byrum, Sam Singh, and Peter Spadafore as possible candidates (In addition to the two announced dems Ken Darga and Susan Grettenberger). There was very little research done there and by the national press. Mike Bouchard and Craig DeRoche both live in the 11th District nowhere near the 8th. Birmingham and Novi. Jones is in Grand Ledge, in the 7th District. He's never represented any of the 8th. Gail Haines is in the 11th, and only represents a small part of the 8th. I don't expect many of those to be serious contenders. This is not a carpetbagging friendly area, especially away from Oakland County. One better have some good ties here at minimum. Bill Rogers has announced he's not running. Joe Hune and Mike Bishop are significant names who would be contenders if they choose to run. They are considering. Saul Anuzis who lives in Lansing (although the Eaton County side - barely) announced he is considering. Bryan Barnett (Rochester Hills Mayor) has apparently announced he's running. If Brad Jacobsen, Tom McMillin, or Jim Marleau run, they certainly can't be counted out. I have not heard interest expressed by them, but this is a very recent announcement. On the dem side, I expect Barb Byrum to run. The other names I've heard there are sacrificial lamb candidates. Byrum would be a tougher candidate.
The filing deadline is April 22nd. This is significant. I'll be real blunt here. There's a petition requirement of 1000 valid signatures. That means 1500-2000 are more likely needed, and not "McCotter campaign staff" style. That means there isn't much time. Three weeks. Whoever jumps in now has to have serious organization, or the ability to raise enough money to hire petition circulators. Anyone that doesn't have instant organization to do that is wasting their time, their money, staff time, and volunteer time. I don't want to lose this seat to a democrat. The easiest way to see that happen is for there to be poor organization on the R side and a bad candidate due to that.
So who would be the strongest candidates?
That's a question where we would need an educated guess. I'm going to look at four potential Republican candidates for now in alphabetical order as these the names I've heard the most. Saul Anuzis. Bryan Barnett. Mike Bishop. Joe Hune. On the dem side, the only potential with any chance that I can see at this point is Barb Byrum. (Gretchen Whitmer isn't running).
I'll start with the democrat, Byrum. Barb Byrum won three races in a borderline swing/slightly democrat district in Ingham County, along with the Ingham County Clerk position. Byrum's old district, the old HD-67 covers rural Ingham County, Mason, Delhi Township, and Southwest Lansing. I believe she's in the Mason or Leslie area. Dianne represented Onondaga. The Byrums have some strength in rural Ingham County, although their real base in the portion of Lansing in their district. This is the least democrat state rep district in the county, as the other two districts are all of Lansing or overwhelmingly East Lansing/Meridian Twp based.
Unfortunately, most of the analysis is through wave elections (06, 08, 10) so it's of limited use. However, Byrum probably has to match 2006 Granholm or 2008 Obama numbers to have a chance to win.
Overall, she'll need to get numbers similar to Obama/Granholm in 06/08 if she's going to have a good shot winning. That means about 57% or better in the district. Mike Rogers always won this state rep district. Byrum got about 58-59% in 2006 and 63% in 2008. 2010 was a scare for her, but she survived. 2012 was countywide and she got 68%. Lansing turnout will be the biggest key for her.
Saul Anuzis has never held elected office. He's been a Legislative Chief of Staff, a consultant, a State Party Chair, and an RNC Committeeman. He's been very active behind the scenes, but this would be new territory.
I don't know much about Bryan Barnett. He won his Rochester Hills mayoral election easily in 2011. 77.29% to 22.46%. He won in 2007 with a similar margin. Most of Rochester Hills is in the 8th District, but only as of the 2012 election. It's a big jump from mayor to Congress, even in a city of 71,000. It's slightly smaller than a state rep district.
Mike Bishop is former Senate Majority Leader and State Rep. He ran for St Senate in 2002 and 2006 winning easily. He ran for AG at a convention and lost a tight race to Bill Schuette. No shame there. He lost to Jessica Cooper in the 2012 election for prosecutor by 5%. Straight tickets in places like Pontiac and Southfield did him in. The area he lost was not in the 8th district.
Bishop had mostly wave elections as well during his career, although 2000 and 2002 weren't waves. In 1998, John Engler was an incumbent and had Geoffrey Fieger as an opponent. Todd Akin post gaffe would win against Fieger. Bishop ran 5% behind Engler, but got 70%+ in his district.
In 2000, he ran 8-10% better than Bush across the board. Nothing overlapped with Mike Rogers as none of his district at the time was in the 8th. Bishop was in the 1990's incarnation of HD-45 which was Addison Twp, Orion Twp, Oxford Twp, Oakland Twp, Rochester, and part of Rochester Hills. It was a blood red district and still is today. North Oakland outside of Holly Twp is as Republican as Livingston County (Rochester area less R, but still safe)
In 2002, Bishop ran for State Senate and won. SD-15 at the time has much of the North Oakland part now in the 8th at the same period. The district has Addison Twp, Clarkston, Independence Twp, Oakland Twp (now 8th, wasn't then), Orion Twp, Oxford Twp, Rochester (now 8th, wasn't then) , and Rochester Hills (most now in 8th, wasn't then). It also had Auburn Hills, Keego Harbor, Lake Angelus, Pontiac, and Sylvan Lake which is in other districts. He ran ahead of Posthumus across the board, by major numbers outside of Pontiac. He ran slightly ahead of Mike Rogers (1-2%) in most of the district outside of Independence and Clarkston which was within 1%.
2006 was a bad year, but Bishop won easily, albeit with 56% instead of 62%. He ran well ahead of DeVos outside of Pontiac and Keego Harbor, and by 10%+ better in his home turf of Rochester/Rochester Hills. Like 2002, he ran slightly ahead of Rogers outside of Independence/Clarkston (less than 1% variation). Pontiac is a straight ticket graveyard without base areas outvoting it. Auburn Hills is tough territory. They don't matter in the 8th.
2012 was a little different. Bishop ran slightly ahead of Romney in the 8th District part of the district when going for prosecutor. He ran behind Rogers across the board outside of Rochester and Clarkston. That's due to Rogers facing Lance Enderle who was a sacrificial lamb. Bishop challenged a strong incumbent in Jessica Cooper (was a judge before prosecutor). Not surprising, Bishop was much stronger in the Eastern part of Oakland County in the 8th district. Here's a map, because it has probably the best comparisons. The red is where he ran ahead of Romney by over 2%. The "dark salmon" is where he ran ahead by 0-2%. The light blue is where he ran behind by 0-2%. He didn't run behind Romney anywhere by a significant margin.
This is the only time where Bishop was held to what is slightly better than "generic R." Bishop got 59.92% in North Oakland compared to Romney's 58.35% (and Rogers 63.42%). Even so, he's still quite strong in Orion Twp, Oakland Twp, and the Rochester area. That's his base.
The last potential candidate here is Joe Hune. In 2002, Livingston County went big for Republicans overall. Rogers was at his height in popularity, and also had a D- opponent. Hune ran well behind Rogers in his first race - except in his home base of Handy Twp where he ran ahead of even Mike Rogers breaking 80% there. Hune running 7% behind Mike Rogers isn't to be confused that with weakness. Hune won the general election with 68% to Rogers 75%. Both ran ahead of the top of the ticket by significant margins. Posthumus got 61.28%, Hune 68.85%, and Rogers 75.85%.
In 2004, Hune has his best year by percentage. He ran 9% ahead of Bush, and even ahead of Rogers, although by less than 1%. He ran strongly ahead of Bush everyone. The red is where he ran ahead of Rogers by 2%. The black is where he ran ahead by 5% or more. The "dark salmon" is where he ran ahead 0-2%. Light blue is where Rogers ran 0-2% ahead. The blue is where Rogers ran 3-5%+ Keep in mind that in his weaker areas, he still ran well ahead of Bush - and Bush won the district with 61.85%. Hune and Rogers broke 70%.
2006 was a rougher year. DeVos was held to 55.82% in the district. Hune had 61.56% and Rogers 62.15%. He didn't run ahead of Rogers this time, but here's the map with the same codes.
2010 was a wave year and Rogers and Snyder both got over 71%. Hune ran behind them a bit for an open seat (ran almost even in his base area), but still got almost 68%. Rogers is originally from Brighton Township, so that factors into the difference with Rogers. This is the first time Hune represented that part of the county.
Again, the thing to remember is that Mike Rogers is generally the gold standard of Republican electoral performance in this district. In all except one race, Mike Bishop ran well ahead of the ticket. In all races, except the 2010 wave, Joe Hune ran well ahead of the ticket. Neither of these two would drag down the ticket. This is not measuring "weakness", but extra strength needed to go into a congressional run in case of trouble against a democrat.
If Hune, Bishop, Anuzis, Barnett, or someone else gets numbers ahead of the top of the ticket in a neutral or wave election, we'll be fine. If we have someone that underperforms, we're in trouble.
The announcement about Rogers not running is two days ago, so there's a lot of behind the scenes rumors, measuring, jockeying, and organization going on right now. There is not a major window with the quick filing deadline. Expect some decisions to be made fast, and for a lot of people to get behind a candidate (or two) quickly so this person gets on the ballot.
Let's hope for a good clean primary with minimum mudslinging, and hope the best candidate wins.
A new era is beginning here in the 8th District.
(Full disclosure, I did some work for Sen. Joe Hune in his 2010 campaign)
With Mike Rogers retiring, things have significantly changed here. The 8th District leans Republican, but isn't a safe district with Mike Rogers retiring. It went for the dems at the top of the ticket in 2006 and 2008, and went for the Republicans in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, and 2012. I went over the presidential numbers in depth here and explored an open possibility here. I'm not going to rehash the presidential numbers much or the top of the ticket numbers much here. In an Republican year, we win. In a neutral year, we probably win, but candidate quality will matter more. In a bad year, we better have a damn good candidate. The top of the ticket will have its own variables. We have to control what we control, and that means voting for a good candidate in this August primary, whomever it may be.
There's a lot of rumors going on about candidates who are and who aren't running. I'm not going to do a lot of speculation except to say that oftentimes the national reporters don't have any idea what they are talking about. If the person doesn't live in the district or have ties to the district, the person won't be a serious candidate more than likely. Especially if the districts don't all run together (like the Bloomfield area in the 9th, 11th, and 14th). The 8th isn't like that outside of a small part of Rochester Hills which is in both districts (mostly in the 8th).
Politics 1 mentions Saul Anuzis, Bryan Barnett, Mike Bishop, Mike Bouchard, Craig DeRoche, Gail Haines, Joe Hune, Rick Jones, Jim Marleau, Tom McMillin, Barb Byrum, Sam Singh, and Peter Spadafore as possible candidates (In addition to the two announced dems Ken Darga and Susan Grettenberger). There was very little research done there and by the national press. Mike Bouchard and Craig DeRoche both live in the 11th District nowhere near the 8th. Birmingham and Novi. Jones is in Grand Ledge, in the 7th District. He's never represented any of the 8th. Gail Haines is in the 11th, and only represents a small part of the 8th. I don't expect many of those to be serious contenders. This is not a carpetbagging friendly area, especially away from Oakland County. One better have some good ties here at minimum. Bill Rogers has announced he's not running. Joe Hune and Mike Bishop are significant names who would be contenders if they choose to run. They are considering. Saul Anuzis who lives in Lansing (although the Eaton County side - barely) announced he is considering. Bryan Barnett (Rochester Hills Mayor) has apparently announced he's running. If Brad Jacobsen, Tom McMillin, or Jim Marleau run, they certainly can't be counted out. I have not heard interest expressed by them, but this is a very recent announcement. On the dem side, I expect Barb Byrum to run. The other names I've heard there are sacrificial lamb candidates. Byrum would be a tougher candidate.
The filing deadline is April 22nd. This is significant. I'll be real blunt here. There's a petition requirement of 1000 valid signatures. That means 1500-2000 are more likely needed, and not "McCotter campaign staff" style. That means there isn't much time. Three weeks. Whoever jumps in now has to have serious organization, or the ability to raise enough money to hire petition circulators. Anyone that doesn't have instant organization to do that is wasting their time, their money, staff time, and volunteer time. I don't want to lose this seat to a democrat. The easiest way to see that happen is for there to be poor organization on the R side and a bad candidate due to that.
So who would be the strongest candidates?
That's a question where we would need an educated guess. I'm going to look at four potential Republican candidates for now in alphabetical order as these the names I've heard the most. Saul Anuzis. Bryan Barnett. Mike Bishop. Joe Hune. On the dem side, the only potential with any chance that I can see at this point is Barb Byrum. (Gretchen Whitmer isn't running).
I'll start with the democrat, Byrum. Barb Byrum won three races in a borderline swing/slightly democrat district in Ingham County, along with the Ingham County Clerk position. Byrum's old district, the old HD-67 covers rural Ingham County, Mason, Delhi Township, and Southwest Lansing. I believe she's in the Mason or Leslie area. Dianne represented Onondaga. The Byrums have some strength in rural Ingham County, although their real base in the portion of Lansing in their district. This is the least democrat state rep district in the county, as the other two districts are all of Lansing or overwhelmingly East Lansing/Meridian Twp based.
Unfortunately, most of the analysis is through wave elections (06, 08, 10) so it's of limited use. However, Byrum probably has to match 2006 Granholm or 2008 Obama numbers to have a chance to win.
Overall, she'll need to get numbers similar to Obama/Granholm in 06/08 if she's going to have a good shot winning. That means about 57% or better in the district. Mike Rogers always won this state rep district. Byrum got about 58-59% in 2006 and 63% in 2008. 2010 was a scare for her, but she survived. 2012 was countywide and she got 68%. Lansing turnout will be the biggest key for her.
Saul Anuzis has never held elected office. He's been a Legislative Chief of Staff, a consultant, a State Party Chair, and an RNC Committeeman. He's been very active behind the scenes, but this would be new territory.
I don't know much about Bryan Barnett. He won his Rochester Hills mayoral election easily in 2011. 77.29% to 22.46%. He won in 2007 with a similar margin. Most of Rochester Hills is in the 8th District, but only as of the 2012 election. It's a big jump from mayor to Congress, even in a city of 71,000. It's slightly smaller than a state rep district.
Mike Bishop is former Senate Majority Leader and State Rep. He ran for St Senate in 2002 and 2006 winning easily. He ran for AG at a convention and lost a tight race to Bill Schuette. No shame there. He lost to Jessica Cooper in the 2012 election for prosecutor by 5%. Straight tickets in places like Pontiac and Southfield did him in. The area he lost was not in the 8th district.
Bishop had mostly wave elections as well during his career, although 2000 and 2002 weren't waves. In 1998, John Engler was an incumbent and had Geoffrey Fieger as an opponent. Todd Akin post gaffe would win against Fieger. Bishop ran 5% behind Engler, but got 70%+ in his district.
In 2000, he ran 8-10% better than Bush across the board. Nothing overlapped with Mike Rogers as none of his district at the time was in the 8th. Bishop was in the 1990's incarnation of HD-45 which was Addison Twp, Orion Twp, Oxford Twp, Oakland Twp, Rochester, and part of Rochester Hills. It was a blood red district and still is today. North Oakland outside of Holly Twp is as Republican as Livingston County (Rochester area less R, but still safe)
In 2002, Bishop ran for State Senate and won. SD-15 at the time has much of the North Oakland part now in the 8th at the same period. The district has Addison Twp, Clarkston, Independence Twp, Oakland Twp (now 8th, wasn't then), Orion Twp, Oxford Twp, Rochester (now 8th, wasn't then) , and Rochester Hills (most now in 8th, wasn't then). It also had Auburn Hills, Keego Harbor, Lake Angelus, Pontiac, and Sylvan Lake which is in other districts. He ran ahead of Posthumus across the board, by major numbers outside of Pontiac. He ran slightly ahead of Mike Rogers (1-2%) in most of the district outside of Independence and Clarkston which was within 1%.
2006 was a bad year, but Bishop won easily, albeit with 56% instead of 62%. He ran well ahead of DeVos outside of Pontiac and Keego Harbor, and by 10%+ better in his home turf of Rochester/Rochester Hills. Like 2002, he ran slightly ahead of Rogers outside of Independence/Clarkston (less than 1% variation). Pontiac is a straight ticket graveyard without base areas outvoting it. Auburn Hills is tough territory. They don't matter in the 8th.
2012 was a little different. Bishop ran slightly ahead of Romney in the 8th District part of the district when going for prosecutor. He ran behind Rogers across the board outside of Rochester and Clarkston. That's due to Rogers facing Lance Enderle who was a sacrificial lamb. Bishop challenged a strong incumbent in Jessica Cooper (was a judge before prosecutor). Not surprising, Bishop was much stronger in the Eastern part of Oakland County in the 8th district. Here's a map, because it has probably the best comparisons. The red is where he ran ahead of Romney by over 2%. The "dark salmon" is where he ran ahead by 0-2%. The light blue is where he ran behind by 0-2%. He didn't run behind Romney anywhere by a significant margin.
This is the only time where Bishop was held to what is slightly better than "generic R." Bishop got 59.92% in North Oakland compared to Romney's 58.35% (and Rogers 63.42%). Even so, he's still quite strong in Orion Twp, Oakland Twp, and the Rochester area. That's his base.
The last potential candidate here is Joe Hune. In 2002, Livingston County went big for Republicans overall. Rogers was at his height in popularity, and also had a D- opponent. Hune ran well behind Rogers in his first race - except in his home base of Handy Twp where he ran ahead of even Mike Rogers breaking 80% there. Hune running 7% behind Mike Rogers isn't to be confused that with weakness. Hune won the general election with 68% to Rogers 75%. Both ran ahead of the top of the ticket by significant margins. Posthumus got 61.28%, Hune 68.85%, and Rogers 75.85%.
In 2004, Hune has his best year by percentage. He ran 9% ahead of Bush, and even ahead of Rogers, although by less than 1%. He ran strongly ahead of Bush everyone. The red is where he ran ahead of Rogers by 2%. The black is where he ran ahead by 5% or more. The "dark salmon" is where he ran ahead 0-2%. Light blue is where Rogers ran 0-2% ahead. The blue is where Rogers ran 3-5%+ Keep in mind that in his weaker areas, he still ran well ahead of Bush - and Bush won the district with 61.85%. Hune and Rogers broke 70%.
2006 was a rougher year. DeVos was held to 55.82% in the district. Hune had 61.56% and Rogers 62.15%. He didn't run ahead of Rogers this time, but here's the map with the same codes.
2010 was a wave year and Rogers and Snyder both got over 71%. Hune ran behind them a bit for an open seat (ran almost even in his base area), but still got almost 68%. Rogers is originally from Brighton Township, so that factors into the difference with Rogers. This is the first time Hune represented that part of the county.
Again, the thing to remember is that Mike Rogers is generally the gold standard of Republican electoral performance in this district. In all except one race, Mike Bishop ran well ahead of the ticket. In all races, except the 2010 wave, Joe Hune ran well ahead of the ticket. Neither of these two would drag down the ticket. This is not measuring "weakness", but extra strength needed to go into a congressional run in case of trouble against a democrat.
If Hune, Bishop, Anuzis, Barnett, or someone else gets numbers ahead of the top of the ticket in a neutral or wave election, we'll be fine. If we have someone that underperforms, we're in trouble.
The announcement about Rogers not running is two days ago, so there's a lot of behind the scenes rumors, measuring, jockeying, and organization going on right now. There is not a major window with the quick filing deadline. Expect some decisions to be made fast, and for a lot of people to get behind a candidate (or two) quickly so this person gets on the ballot.
Let's hope for a good clean primary with minimum mudslinging, and hope the best candidate wins.
Saturday, May 05, 2012
I'm backing Saul Anuzis
I'm going to get an earful from some quarters for this, and maybe even both barrels.
I have nothing bad to say about Dave Agema. I don't really know, although I know of him, and know he's a strong conservative. I have no problems with him. I'm also not a consultant war type of guy, so I'm not voting against him because of possible associations, nor am I voting for Saul because of associations. I've backed Yob candidates. I've opposed Yob candidates. I've backed Sterling candidates. I've opposed Sterling candidates. I don't play that sort of game.
It's well known that I'm only voting for Romney because he sucks less. So why am I backing his biggest supporter in Michigan?
Part of it is loyalty. Saul and I go back years, long before I had the blog. His brother took me under his wing when I was a rookie in politics back when he was county chair, and IMO one of the best we've had. However the biggest thing is when push comes to shove, Saul will do what he thinks is right. He's always given me a straight answer, and sometimes a blunt answer. Sometimes that cuts in favor of where I stand, and other times it cuts against and I think he's dead wrong (Romney and the delegate battle). He isn't afraid of a battle and will stick his neck out when most bigwigs won't.
The one thing that really earned my respect beyond a personal loyalty situation was back when he was chair. Granholm was governor and pushed the tax increases. She was demanding republicans go along with it. Many were beaten down and ready to cave. While a lot of bloggers, including many good people over on Right Michigan, are going heavy after Saul because of the aftermath in Michigan's primary (and I gave him an earful about that myself), you have to take the entire record, good, bad, and in between.
I posted this way back in 2007. If you remember right, we got our asses kicked in 2008, after a previous ass kicking in 2006. If the politicians listened to me on fiscal issues, that would not have happened. Saul got it though.
From September 10, 2007
While the party caved to Granholm and got the expected results afterward, Saul at least got it. This was two years before the beginning of "tea parties" when it comes to taxes. Some things never change. Government spends too much and wants the people to bail them out. Now that was back in 2007, and I remember all the heat Saul got from that behind the scenes. It was viewed as a turf war, and Saul stepped on toes that didn't like it.
I think this tax issue may be coming back soon. Obama is pushing the same stuff Granholm did. We all know that oftentimes republican senators are the biggest cowards in the entire country. They love to cave and then call themselves "statesmen" when voting for awful policy. (Cough Lindsay Graham) Saul can very well give people like Graham a boot when it is needed, and at the same time be able to get away with it. He's a communications ace. He doesn't hide, and he'll take the arrows as they come in.
Nothing against Agema, but I'm voting for Saul.
I have nothing bad to say about Dave Agema. I don't really know, although I know of him, and know he's a strong conservative. I have no problems with him. I'm also not a consultant war type of guy, so I'm not voting against him because of possible associations, nor am I voting for Saul because of associations. I've backed Yob candidates. I've opposed Yob candidates. I've backed Sterling candidates. I've opposed Sterling candidates. I don't play that sort of game.
It's well known that I'm only voting for Romney because he sucks less. So why am I backing his biggest supporter in Michigan?
Part of it is loyalty. Saul and I go back years, long before I had the blog. His brother took me under his wing when I was a rookie in politics back when he was county chair, and IMO one of the best we've had. However the biggest thing is when push comes to shove, Saul will do what he thinks is right. He's always given me a straight answer, and sometimes a blunt answer. Sometimes that cuts in favor of where I stand, and other times it cuts against and I think he's dead wrong (Romney and the delegate battle). He isn't afraid of a battle and will stick his neck out when most bigwigs won't.
The one thing that really earned my respect beyond a personal loyalty situation was back when he was chair. Granholm was governor and pushed the tax increases. She was demanding republicans go along with it. Many were beaten down and ready to cave. While a lot of bloggers, including many good people over on Right Michigan, are going heavy after Saul because of the aftermath in Michigan's primary (and I gave him an earful about that myself), you have to take the entire record, good, bad, and in between.
I posted this way back in 2007. If you remember right, we got our asses kicked in 2008, after a previous ass kicking in 2006. If the politicians listened to me on fiscal issues, that would not have happened. Saul got it though.
From September 10, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
RINOS whining about Saul's anti-tax support
I don't use the term RINO all that much anymore. Considering some seem to want to be bailing out Granholm, I will here. Apparently, some squishes on tax policies are not very happy with Saul Anuzis. This is in the Detroit News.LANSING -- Republican lawmakers are increasingly irritated with their state party boss, Saul Anuzis, because they say his steady drumbeat against raising taxes is making it more difficult to work out a deal to resolve Michigan's nagging budget deficit.
It's not that difficult. Lansing fouled things up by spending too much. Lansing now is mad that Saul isn't accepting Lansing asking us to bail them out."It's a gray area at best, but it's indicative of the partisanship that exists in Lansing that keeps us from getting work done in a statesman-like manner," said Rep. Lorence Wenke, R-Galesburg, who occasionally parts with the GOP leadership on policy matters.
"Is Saul Anuzis breaking some new ground here? It seems he is setting the new low standard."
Anuzis said it's his role to "reflect the feeling of the party. We want real reform first before discussion of any tax increase. I think I am representing the views of our party members."
I'll give Wenke a little credit for putting his name behind this post. That's about all the credit I'll give him. Wenke is in the state house where the dems have a majority. Why the hell is he complaining about taxes then, when it could pass without any republican votes? The anti-tax sentiment does not keep you from getting your work done, Mr. Wenke. It keeps you from taking the easy way out. The last time we had a big majority in the state house and acted "Statesmanlike" against Granholm and raised taxes with the help of 15 turncoats, we lost our majority. The people - your boss - don't want a tax increase.
Wenke said Anuzis is doing the bidding of the national party, which wants to establish a conservative brand for the 2008 presidential election.
"The party clearly is positioning itself for the '08 election, and this is what party leaders like Saul are paid to do," Wenke said.
Replied Anuzis: "My job is to make sure we as a party don't lose our brand, don't lose the image that attracts people to vote for us."
I can't speak for Saul, but I did not see a lot of economic conservatism coming from the national party recently. That's the problem to begin with and a reason why we got slapped in the side of the head back in 06 when much of our base stayed home and Reagan Democrats voted democrat. Our base understand it, and our elected officials need to understand it before they join the unemployment lines.
One Republican lawmaker, who asked not to be named because of concerns about crossing swords with party leaders, said: "The last thing we need is somebody who is not an elected official publicly hammering on us. He's not the one who has to put his name on the line and vote for or against this. I've never seen this before, and I've been in the party a lot of years, where a party chair is dictating policy. It's inappropriate and a growing number of us are sick and tired of it."
To the coward who didn't put his name down, let me tell you how things work, son. You are an elected official. You work for the people in your district. We as party activists do not work for you. Saul doesn't work for you. He works for the state delegates who selected him at a convention. We are the party base. People like you are the problem. You knew well in advance that you have to put your name on the line in a vote. That's your job and why you get paid the big bucks. Stop complaining, stop looking for bailouts, and start doing your job.
If you vote for a tax increase, Saul is the last person you should be worried about. It's your base that you should be worried about. The last time our party took the safe route and caved on taxes, we lost our majority here. The last time our party went leftist, we lost our majority. It's time to take a stand, and that means no new taxes. If you're in the way and vote for it, you should be sent home as well in the August primary, if not a recall election.
While the party caved to Granholm and got the expected results afterward, Saul at least got it. This was two years before the beginning of "tea parties" when it comes to taxes. Some things never change. Government spends too much and wants the people to bail them out. Now that was back in 2007, and I remember all the heat Saul got from that behind the scenes. It was viewed as a turf war, and Saul stepped on toes that didn't like it.
I think this tax issue may be coming back soon. Obama is pushing the same stuff Granholm did. We all know that oftentimes republican senators are the biggest cowards in the entire country. They love to cave and then call themselves "statesmen" when voting for awful policy. (Cough Lindsay Graham) Saul can very well give people like Graham a boot when it is needed, and at the same time be able to get away with it. He's a communications ace. He doesn't hide, and he'll take the arrows as they come in.
Nothing against Agema, but I'm voting for Saul.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Party Leadership Races
This week we (precinct delegates) will be selecting the next executive committee for our county party. The executive committee will be picking the officers. I'm not running for county party because of time constraints. I have too many irons in the fire right now and basically can only be a vote and title right now for county. Someone else can do a better job, and I don't need an important sounding title.
There won't be a slate. The process is 18 votes for the at large positions. It will be a straight up ballot vote selecting the paid party members. That's it. Some people I'll actively support. Some I'll actively oppose. Some I'll stay neutral. I'll post more on that this week. Lana Theis, Brighton Township Treasurer, is running for county chair. Mike Murphy is stepping down as chair by his own choice. Lana has my support.
Some time after that, there will be another convention to select delegates to state convention. This is for the state and district committee leadership. For the 8th District (of which I am a committee member), I support our incumbents if they run again. I don't usually make blanket endorsements, but we're a good team. It's a good committee going in the right direction after starting from scratch. It has been dormant for years outside of its role as a convention. Now it's an actual political party. The big race at the next state convention however is state chair, and there's an interesting tidbit from Saul Anuzis.
I'm also looking forward to hearing from him, but I'm not going to vote necessarily for - or against - his pick. Who Snyder picks has no bearing on who I support. I know the tradition is for the governor to pick his guy. That goes back to the Engler years and he for the most part controlled the party. If Snyder's pick is best, I will support that pick. If someone else is better, that's who I'll support. I'm nobody's yesman.
This will be a good first test for Snyder. He'll need to pick someone electable by the state delegates selected by the county conventions. I'm still learning more about the candidates before I make my choice. I hope Snyder does due diligence and picks the right person for the job.
Speaking of Saul, he's running for RNC Chair and has my endorsement for what that's worth (I can't vote for RNC chair, only committeeman). I think he'll do well if he has good fundraisers (right now there isn't at RNC) and strategists (not as bad as Steele's rep and not nearly as bad as NRSC, but could be better) working for him. Saul's an ace at communications, and that's an area lacking right now from party. He does well on TV and knows how to use the internet. Saul earned my respect by circling the wagons on the Granholm tax increases. We didn't have the votes, but he prevents a worse cave than their was by the GOP. Saul's not afraid to hold someone's feet to the fire and took a lot of heat from the insiders for doing so. Good luck to Saul in his race.
There won't be a slate. The process is 18 votes for the at large positions. It will be a straight up ballot vote selecting the paid party members. That's it. Some people I'll actively support. Some I'll actively oppose. Some I'll stay neutral. I'll post more on that this week. Lana Theis, Brighton Township Treasurer, is running for county chair. Mike Murphy is stepping down as chair by his own choice. Lana has my support.
Some time after that, there will be another convention to select delegates to state convention. This is for the state and district committee leadership. For the 8th District (of which I am a committee member), I support our incumbents if they run again. I don't usually make blanket endorsements, but we're a good team. It's a good committee going in the right direction after starting from scratch. It has been dormant for years outside of its role as a convention. Now it's an actual political party. The big race at the next state convention however is state chair, and there's an interesting tidbit from Saul Anuzis.
Snyder To Weigh In On MRP Chair Race
MIRS reports: “For those of you who felt the incoming governor would sit on the sidelines and watch the Michigan Republican Party (MRP) select a new chairperson, think again.
There are strong indications that Gov.-elect Rick SNYDER will voice his “personal choice” to replace outgoing Chair Ron WEISER and it may come sooner than later…
…Snyder wants someone to be a “partner” in his legislative efforts and his personal review of all of the candidates is now underway and “he will make his personal preference known.”
Multiple sources have laid out the field of candidates to include Secretary of State Terri Lynn LAND, MRP Finance Chair Robert “Bobby” SCHOSTAK and MRP Coalitions Vice Chair ScottGREENLEE ”
I think this is a good idea. He is our Governor, our leader and will set to tone and direction our state will take over the next 8 years. He needs to have a team around him he can count on and work with.
I’m looking forward to hearing from him.
I'm also looking forward to hearing from him, but I'm not going to vote necessarily for - or against - his pick. Who Snyder picks has no bearing on who I support. I know the tradition is for the governor to pick his guy. That goes back to the Engler years and he for the most part controlled the party. If Snyder's pick is best, I will support that pick. If someone else is better, that's who I'll support. I'm nobody's yesman.
This will be a good first test for Snyder. He'll need to pick someone electable by the state delegates selected by the county conventions. I'm still learning more about the candidates before I make my choice. I hope Snyder does due diligence and picks the right person for the job.
Speaking of Saul, he's running for RNC Chair and has my endorsement for what that's worth (I can't vote for RNC chair, only committeeman). I think he'll do well if he has good fundraisers (right now there isn't at RNC) and strategists (not as bad as Steele's rep and not nearly as bad as NRSC, but could be better) working for him. Saul's an ace at communications, and that's an area lacking right now from party. He does well on TV and knows how to use the internet. Saul earned my respect by circling the wagons on the Granholm tax increases. We didn't have the votes, but he prevents a worse cave than their was by the GOP. Saul's not afraid to hold someone's feet to the fire and took a lot of heat from the insiders for doing so. Good luck to Saul in his race.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Inside baseball (RNC, MI GOP races)
I'm violating the 3rd rail of my site. I generally do not comment much publicaly on inside baseball measures that are not elections. It often causes more trouble than it is worth. Right now we have two significant races affecting the GOP. One is for RNC chair. The other is MI GOP chair.
I'll start with the MI GOP chair. I am currently undecided in who I am supporting, assuming that I am a state delegate for the next convention. I have been a delegate every time I chose to run for the spot, so I assume it is likely I'll be at the next meeting. Ingham County Chair and former State Senator Norm Shinkle was running, and dropped out and supported Former Slovakia Ambassador Ron Weiser. That means two people are running now. Ron Weiser and State Rep and US Senate candidate Jack Hoogendyk. I know both Norm and Jack who are both good people. I do not know Ron Weiser. I don't claim solidarity to the "West MI" clique or the "East MI" cliques, etc. etc. I've backed those firmly in the West MI clique in the past, and those in the East MI clique in the past. I will continue to back those in both camps.
I have three questions for each of the candidates.
1. How are you going to keep the State Senate, AG, and Sec of STate seat, and how are you planning to take back the house, governor, and State Supreme Court back from the dems?
2. How do you plan to assist candidates who are running - specifically.
3. How will you build on the current foundation set by Saul and his administration and which would you do the same or different?
Those three questions and answers will determine whom I support.
Now for the RNC, there are six candidates for that position.
1. Saul Anuzis
2. Mike Duncan
3. Michael Steele
4. Ken Blackwell
5. Chip Saltsman
6. Katon Dawson
1. Saul Anuzis. Saul is great at logtistics and communications. That's his specialty. Many chairs want to be part of the cocktail party crowd. Saul will go to the grassroots meetings instead. Saul also is not afraid to go on TV to go after the dems, or to ruffle feathers. He's a solid conservative (fiscal, life, guns), and is working to make sure the GOP is fiscally conservative again. I remember how on Granholm's tax increase, he was doing his best to try and firewall that from going into law. It didn't happen, but he showed that the Republicans need to stand for something and not follow the leader of Granholm which started this downward spiral going back to 02-04.(Johnson/Sikkema) I do have one concern. Who will Saul hire in DC for election consulting? Saul is a delegater, like a lot of CEO's. After 2004 I talked with him about election mailings and strategies since I had some concerns about some of them and what happened in a few races. I think that is his one major weakness in Michigan. If that is addressed, and I think it can be as Saul IS a delegater, then Saul can be a great chair for the RNC. Election strategy is my only concern, but it is a concern. I think it is less of one in DC for him than it is in Michigan with the cliques. DC has it's cliques, but Saul isn't as tied to/against them than he was to a degree in Michigan.
2. Mike Duncan, the incumbent, needs to go. The RNC, NRCC, and NRSC hung out to dry so many winnable seats and got involved too often in primaries, spending money that needs to be used to win seats away from democrats. That's not to get to the next part. Mike who? I've never seen him. He's the RNC chair, and I couldn't pick out his face in the crowd? That's not good. Lastly, he was Bush's guy. I've frankly had enough of the Bush years and the big spending and the "big government conservatism." Sorry, Mike. It's not personal against you, but just how it is time for Boehner to step down from leadership, it's time for new leadership in DC that is frankly not tied to the establishment crowd.
3. Michael Steele. His claim to fame is running successfully as Bob Ehrich's LT in Maryland back in 02. Ehrlich as governor, Steele as LT Gov. He ran in 06 against Ben Cardin and did not win.
4. Ken Blackwell. I like the guy since he wasn't tied to the corrput Taft liberal republican machine in Ohio and their tax increase/gun grab support. More importantly, Blackwell spoke up and fought that when it was not the in thing to do. Taft was convicted of four misdemeanors while in office, and Blackwell was not a part of that. Unfortnately, he lost badly in his gubenatorial campaign.
5. Chip Saltsman - Mike Huckabee's campaign manager and former policy advisor to Bill Frist. He did a good job in Tenneesee from keeping it from being Gored in 2000.
6. Katon Dawson - South Carolina Chair. I don't know much about him, although South Carolina is the most GOP state in the South up and down the ticket.
For MI GOP Chair, I'm undecided. For RNC, I support Saul Anuzis.
I'll start with the MI GOP chair. I am currently undecided in who I am supporting, assuming that I am a state delegate for the next convention. I have been a delegate every time I chose to run for the spot, so I assume it is likely I'll be at the next meeting. Ingham County Chair and former State Senator Norm Shinkle was running, and dropped out and supported Former Slovakia Ambassador Ron Weiser. That means two people are running now. Ron Weiser and State Rep and US Senate candidate Jack Hoogendyk. I know both Norm and Jack who are both good people. I do not know Ron Weiser. I don't claim solidarity to the "West MI" clique or the "East MI" cliques, etc. etc. I've backed those firmly in the West MI clique in the past, and those in the East MI clique in the past. I will continue to back those in both camps.
I have three questions for each of the candidates.
1. How are you going to keep the State Senate, AG, and Sec of STate seat, and how are you planning to take back the house, governor, and State Supreme Court back from the dems?
2. How do you plan to assist candidates who are running - specifically.
3. How will you build on the current foundation set by Saul and his administration and which would you do the same or different?
Those three questions and answers will determine whom I support.
Now for the RNC, there are six candidates for that position.
1. Saul Anuzis
2. Mike Duncan
3. Michael Steele
4. Ken Blackwell
5. Chip Saltsman
6. Katon Dawson
1. Saul Anuzis. Saul is great at logtistics and communications. That's his specialty. Many chairs want to be part of the cocktail party crowd. Saul will go to the grassroots meetings instead. Saul also is not afraid to go on TV to go after the dems, or to ruffle feathers. He's a solid conservative (fiscal, life, guns), and is working to make sure the GOP is fiscally conservative again. I remember how on Granholm's tax increase, he was doing his best to try and firewall that from going into law. It didn't happen, but he showed that the Republicans need to stand for something and not follow the leader of Granholm which started this downward spiral going back to 02-04.(Johnson/Sikkema) I do have one concern. Who will Saul hire in DC for election consulting? Saul is a delegater, like a lot of CEO's. After 2004 I talked with him about election mailings and strategies since I had some concerns about some of them and what happened in a few races. I think that is his one major weakness in Michigan. If that is addressed, and I think it can be as Saul IS a delegater, then Saul can be a great chair for the RNC. Election strategy is my only concern, but it is a concern. I think it is less of one in DC for him than it is in Michigan with the cliques. DC has it's cliques, but Saul isn't as tied to/against them than he was to a degree in Michigan.
2. Mike Duncan, the incumbent, needs to go. The RNC, NRCC, and NRSC hung out to dry so many winnable seats and got involved too often in primaries, spending money that needs to be used to win seats away from democrats. That's not to get to the next part. Mike who? I've never seen him. He's the RNC chair, and I couldn't pick out his face in the crowd? That's not good. Lastly, he was Bush's guy. I've frankly had enough of the Bush years and the big spending and the "big government conservatism." Sorry, Mike. It's not personal against you, but just how it is time for Boehner to step down from leadership, it's time for new leadership in DC that is frankly not tied to the establishment crowd.
3. Michael Steele. His claim to fame is running successfully as Bob Ehrich's LT in Maryland back in 02. Ehrlich as governor, Steele as LT Gov. He ran in 06 against Ben Cardin and did not win.
4. Ken Blackwell. I like the guy since he wasn't tied to the corrput Taft liberal republican machine in Ohio and their tax increase/gun grab support. More importantly, Blackwell spoke up and fought that when it was not the in thing to do. Taft was convicted of four misdemeanors while in office, and Blackwell was not a part of that. Unfortnately, he lost badly in his gubenatorial campaign.
5. Chip Saltsman - Mike Huckabee's campaign manager and former policy advisor to Bill Frist. He did a good job in Tenneesee from keeping it from being Gored in 2000.
6. Katon Dawson - South Carolina Chair. I don't know much about him, although South Carolina is the most GOP state in the South up and down the ticket.
For MI GOP Chair, I'm undecided. For RNC, I support Saul Anuzis.
Monday, September 10, 2007
RINOS whining about Saul's anti-tax support
I don't use the term RINO all that much anymore. Considering some seem to want to be bailing out Granholm, I will here. Apparently, some squishes on tax policies are not very happy with Saul Anuzis. This is in the Detroit News.
It's not that difficult. Lansing fouled things up by spending too much. Lansing now is mad that Saul isn't accepting Lansing asking us to bail them out.
I'll give Wenke a little credit for putting his name behind this post. That's about all the credit I'll give him. Wenke is in the state house where the dems have a majority. Why the hell is he complaining about taxes then, when it could pass without any republican votes? The anti-tax sentiment does not keep you from getting your work done, Mr. Wenke. It keeps you from taking the easy way out. The last time we had a big majority in the state house and acted "Statesmanlike" against Granholm and raised taxes with the help of 15 turncoats, we lost our majority. The people - your boss - don't want a tax increase.
I can't speak for Saul, but I did not see a lot of economic conservatism coming from the national party recently. That's the problem to begin with and a reason why we got slapped in the side of the head back in 06 when much of our base stayed home and Reagan Democrats voted democrat. Our base understand it, and our elected officials need to understand it before they join the unemployment lines.
To the coward who didn't put his name down, let me tell you how things work, son. You are an elected offical. You work for the people in your district. We as party activists do not work for you. Saul doesn't work for you. He works for the state delegates who selected him at a convention. We are the party base. People like you are the problem. You knew well in advance that you have to put your name on the line in a vote. That's your job and why you get paid the big bucks. Stop complaining, stop looking for bailouts, and start doing your job.
If you vote for a tax increase, Saul is the last person you should be worried about. It's your base that you should be worried about. The last time our party took the safe route and caved on taxes, we lost our majority here. The last time our party went leftist, we lost our majority. It's time to take a stand, and that means no new taxes. If you're in the way and vote for it, you should be sent home as well in the August primary, if not a recall election.
LANSING -- Republican lawmakers are increasingly irritated with their state party boss, Saul Anuzis, because they say his steady drumbeat against raising taxes is making it more difficult to work out a deal to resolve Michigan's nagging budget deficit.
It's not that difficult. Lansing fouled things up by spending too much. Lansing now is mad that Saul isn't accepting Lansing asking us to bail them out.
"It's a gray area at best, but it's indicative of the partisanship that exists in Lansing that keeps us from getting work done in a statesman-like manner," said Rep. Lorence Wenke, R-Galesburg, who occasionally parts with the GOP leadership on policy matters.
"Is Saul Anuzis breaking some new ground here? It seems he is setting the new low standard."
Anuzis said it's his role to "reflect the feeling of the party. We want real reform first before discussion of any tax increase. I think I am representing the views of our party members."
I'll give Wenke a little credit for putting his name behind this post. That's about all the credit I'll give him. Wenke is in the state house where the dems have a majority. Why the hell is he complaining about taxes then, when it could pass without any republican votes? The anti-tax sentiment does not keep you from getting your work done, Mr. Wenke. It keeps you from taking the easy way out. The last time we had a big majority in the state house and acted "Statesmanlike" against Granholm and raised taxes with the help of 15 turncoats, we lost our majority. The people - your boss - don't want a tax increase.
Wenke said Anuzis is doing the bidding of the national party, which wants to establish a conservative brand for the 2008 presidential election.
"The party clearly is positioning itself for the '08 election, and this is what party leaders like Saul are paid to do," Wenke said.
Replied Anuzis: "My job is to make sure we as a party don't lose our brand, don't lose the image that attracts people to vote for us."
I can't speak for Saul, but I did not see a lot of economic conservatism coming from the national party recently. That's the problem to begin with and a reason why we got slapped in the side of the head back in 06 when much of our base stayed home and Reagan Democrats voted democrat. Our base understand it, and our elected officials need to understand it before they join the unemployment lines.
One Republican lawmaker, who asked not to be named because of concerns about crossing swords with party leaders, said: "The last thing we need is somebody who is not an elected official publicly hammering on us. He's not the one who has to put his name on the line and vote for or against this. I've never seen this before, and I've been in the party a lot of years, where a party chair is dictating policy. It's inappropriate and a growing number of us are sick and tired of it."
To the coward who didn't put his name down, let me tell you how things work, son. You are an elected offical. You work for the people in your district. We as party activists do not work for you. Saul doesn't work for you. He works for the state delegates who selected him at a convention. We are the party base. People like you are the problem. You knew well in advance that you have to put your name on the line in a vote. That's your job and why you get paid the big bucks. Stop complaining, stop looking for bailouts, and start doing your job.
If you vote for a tax increase, Saul is the last person you should be worried about. It's your base that you should be worried about. The last time our party took the safe route and caved on taxes, we lost our majority here. The last time our party went leftist, we lost our majority. It's time to take a stand, and that means no new taxes. If you're in the way and vote for it, you should be sent home as well in the August primary, if not a recall election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
