New Senate Candidate? Or not?

I saw this in today's Argus:

Yusif “Joe” Barakat plans to be Michigan’s next U.S. senator, and believes he can get to Washington, D.C., on a platform of “meaningful change” versus politics as usual.
The Hamburg Township Democrat, 78, is confident he can win with almost nil campaign funds in a race that is increasingly gaining national attention.
“My mission is to help change the planet. There’s an expression that says it’s only crazy people who think they can change the world and they’re usually the ones that can,” Barakat said.
“I may be flying at windmills. I’ve been called Don Quixote before,” he added.
Barakat, a Palestinian native, is in the process of getting enough signatures to appear on the Democratic primary ballot in August. U.S. Rep. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township, is also running for the spot.
The Democratic winner in the race for the seat, currently filled by outgoing Sen. Carl Levin, D-Detroit, is likely to face Republican and former Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land in November’s general election for a six-year term.
Barakat has made local headlines for his participation in peace rallies and for his pro-Palestinian political views. While critical of the United States’ close ties to Israel, he said he’s also concerned about schools, roads and helping the elderly.
He has no outright criticism of Peters, but Barakat thinks Congress in general isn’t serving the public.

I checked the FEC report and no committee was listed. If he really is a candidate, he needs to send his stuff to the FEC.

You're either in or you're out

I'm getting real tired of this type of talk.

From Bloomberg news

Representative Dave Camp, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he would decide by January whether to run for the Senate next year. 

You're either in or you're out. I'm tired of this "might run" or "may run" type of talk I see from so many people speculated as candidates. Run, or don't run. I respect either decision.

 If you show me a half-assed campaign, you'll get half-assed results. If you're not going to jump in with both feet and give it 100% in your campaign - DON'T RUN. Candidates who run a half-way campaign in a Senate race are as bad as a Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, or Todd Akin. They get the same results. They lose. Usually 57-40. Where was Pete Hoesktra last year? Tommy Thompson lost too, to Tammy Baldwin of all people.

After last year, my patience for a bullshit halfway job campaign is done, whether it be a halfway job due to abandonment, laziness, bad advice of consultants, giving up, or running like you are talked into running. Voters respect effort. Whether you agree or not with Joe Hune, he knows how to win and outwork opponents. That gets him votes from independents as well as conservatives. These are things that can always be controlled. Things that can be controlled should be controlled. Self inflicted errors have cost a number of campaigns.

What scares me is this. Some quarters in Lansing are not fans of Terri Land and are recruiting some supposed "big name" to jump in. This is reminding me of Butler, Zandstra, Bouchard in 2006 in some ways. They are in love with the idea of a Dave Camp candidacy for one reason and one reason only. He has a  $3 Million Dollar warchest and has had some elected office. Money is important, but it doesn't guarantee a win. Ask Romney. He was the supposed "electable" (I never thought so - and said he couldn't close the deal long before the loss) candidate because of money. That was one of the crappiest campaigns I've ever seen between Boston's broken promises and the Project Orca clustermuck. Money is important, but decisions in how it is spent is more important. Will Camp knock on doors? Will he spend the hours and hours necessary away from his home base in Midland, and go to places like Ottawa County, the UP, Metro Detroit, Livingston County, and across the whole state? If I ask 100 Republican voters here who Dave Camp is, most will say "Who?" and we border his district.

I met Dave Camp a couple of times, but I don't know him. From what I've heard about him, he doesn't have skeletons, is quiet and isn't offensive. He shows up and does his job. He hasn't had many tough races and never won with less than 61%. That can be encouraging or discouraging. Encouraging is that he's not Todd Akin. What's discouraging is that he (like Hoekstra) hasn't been through the ringer of a super tough general election campaign. His toughest opponent was probably Mike Huckleberry, probably considered a B- team candidate (although an A candidate if the district was Montcalm County) who later went on to win a state rep race for a term. 

Camp is chair of Ways and Means. Does he have the time to run a full bore campaign against a tough opponent in Gary Peters? If the answer is maybe, probably, or "he thinks he can", then he shouldn't run. Camp should only run if he can look in the mirror and then tell his family "I'm in 100%. We will win and do what it takes to do so." If he can honestly do that without trying to make himself believe he can do that, then I have no problem with his candidacy.

One thing I respect about Terri Lynn Land is that she told Mike Rogers "I'll wait until this time." When that date passed, she ran. No mights. No maybes. She's in. We have a candidate here who has announced. She's won statewide twice. If someone wants to run a primary, that's fine. If someone is running because he was talked into running due to a 3 million warchest, then that's not good.

Back in 2002, I always ran into Terri Land on the campaign trail. She was strong in West Michigan, but worked hard out here as well. That was one of the big reasons she earned my support (Lorne Bennett was running as well then). She was a hard worker. She didn't disappear after the election either. There's a lot to be said for that, especially as I live on the other side of the state.

Whoever runs has to outwork Gary Peters by a good margin. If the candidate is unwilling or unable to do that, then that candidate won't win. Peters isn't a pushover.
 

CPL changes passed Michigan Senate (SB59)

There was a lot of talk about reforming some of Michigan's gun laws. Snyder (and Michigan State Police) was behind the scenes pushing back against a lot of it. He's not a real friend of gun owners, although he's not Gretchen Whitmer or Joe Schwarz on this issue either from what I hear.  Probably similar to Granholm or Engler who won't oppose it if it is politically expedient. Granholm was awful as AG on this issue (tied too much with Duggan), not bad on this issue as governor (thanks to Cherry), and now back to her AG views with her talk show (ie Stand your ground comments after she signed a similar bill in MI). I was hoping to get rid of registration/licensing completely. That didn't happen.

I was hoping this would go further than it did. It's still much more good than bad. The two bads are the OC loophole in CEZ's by CPL holders is officially closed, and hearing notices are now first class mail instead of certified. The rest are improvements, including exemptions for "special" CPLS (rather repeal completely), and sheriffs doing all the gun board work (rather be gone completely, but it's better). This reminds me a bit of the original CPL bill. Some good steps, but it isn't perfect.

A compromise bill, SB 59, passed the Michigan Senate that did I think more good than bad. Mlive gives a brief run down. 

LANSING, MI - County concealed weapons licensing boards would be eliminated and sheriffs would take over their duties under a bill approved Thursday by the Michigan Senate.
The legislation – passed 27-11 in the Republican-led chamber – next goes to the Republican-led House for its consideration in the final weeks of the 2011-12 legislative session.
Some of the changes contained in the proposal, according to an analysis provided by Republicans:
• Concealed carry permit holders who get additional, enhanced training beyond basic requirements and spend more time at the gun range would be allowed to carry concealed in so-called “gun free” zones such as schools and churches. The pistol-free zones would remain in effect for others. “Open carry” in those zones would be prohibited.
• County concealed weapons licensing boards would be eliminated, and county sheriffs would assume their duties. County clerks and state police would continue to have roles in the process. Sheriffs would continue to consult with prosecutors and police on applicants.
• A license decision would have to be made within 45 days of application – one of the provisions aimed at streamlining the permit process.

Some of it I like. Some of it I wish goes further. I like the boards being eliminated period with the police out out of the equation completely (sorry Murph), but I'd much rather have the sheriffs there than the prosecutors and especially MSP. MSP out of the equation is a huge win and reduces gamesmanship. They are no friends of freedom.

One of the best aspects of this bill is that an applicant may no longer be required to meet with the sheriff's rep (formerly board) unless the sheriff's dept believes the applicant may not be qualified for a CPL. That's eliminates a major inconvenience in some counties. 

The bill prohibited licensing authorities from requiring other documents (Doctor's notes were a problem in Kent County) and extra fees outside what is legislated.

Stalling by counties on fingerprints does not affect the 45 day window for temporary licenses.

An exemption is required allowing CPL holders to carry in some CEZ's (criminal empowerment zones). Exemption requests that are denied can be appealed.

The training now requires firing at least 98 rounds of ammo, not 30.

The new exemption covers this:

k) An individual who applies for and is granted an exemption

from this section by the licensing authority. An individual is

eligible for an exemption from this section only if the individual

requests an exemption on his or her license application and 1 or

more of the following apply:

     (i) The individual is a licensee or is applying for an initial

or renewal license or an exemption under this subdivision who

provides a certificate indicating on its face that the individual

has completed not less than 8 hours of training in addition to the

training required under sections 5b(7)(c) and 5j that satisfies all

of the following conditions:

     (A) It includes both classroom and range time.

     (B) It includes the firing of not fewer than an additional 94

rounds.

     (C) It focuses on the training principles described in section

5b(7)(c) as they apply to public places and premises listed in

subsection (1) as limited under subsection (5).

     (D) It is provided by an agency of this state or by a national

or state firearms training organization.

     (E) The training instructor is certified as a firearms

instructor by this state or by a national or state firearms

training organization and is eligible under section 5j to provide

training under section 5b(7)(c).

     (F) The training is completed not more than 5 years

immediately preceding the date of application for an original or

renewal license or an exemption under this subdivision.

     (ii) The individual is certified as a firearms instructor by

this state or by a national or state firearms training

organization, and is eligible under section 5j to provide training

under section 5b(7)(c). It is prima facie evidence that the

individual is eligible for an exemption under this subparagraph if

the individual possesses a certificate as a firearms instructor

issued by this state or by a national or state firearms training

organization that meets the requirements of section 5j.

     (6) The licensing authority may delegate the responsibility

for issuing or denying issuance of an exemption under subsection

(5)(k) to the clerk of the licensing authority for current

licensees only.

     (7) The licensing authority or the clerk under subsection (6),

as applicable, shall within 10 days after receiving an application

for an exemption, either issue or deny issuance of the exemption

and send by first-class mail in a sealed envelope a replacement

license to the applicant with the exemption indorsement or, if the

exemption is denied, a notice of denial. If the exemption is

denied, the notice of denial shall specifically state the statutory

authority for the denial. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the

licensing authority or the clerk, as applicable, from making a

determination regarding the exemption at the time the application

is submitted and immediately either issuing a replacement license

to the applicant that contains the exemption indorsement or denying

the exemption and immediately providing the written notice of the

denial, including the statement of the statutory authority for the

denial, to the applicant.

     (8) If the licensing authority delegates the responsibility

for issuing or denying issuance of an exemption under section 5o to

the clerk of the licensing authority, the entire fee paid for the

exemption and the replacement license shall be deposited in the

concealed pistol licensing fund and credited to the account

established for the clerk of the licensing authority.

     (9) If the applicant is licensed under this act to carry a

concealed pistol at the time he or she is granted an exemption

under section 5o, the applicant shall surrender his or her license

to the licensing authority by mail or in person immediately upon

receiving his or her replacement license containing the exemption

indorsement.

     (10) An individual licensed under this act to carry a

concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section

12a(1)(h), shall not intentionally display or openly carry a pistol

on the premises listed in subsection (1)(a) to (h) unless the

individual owns the premises described in subsection (1) or is

employed or contracted by the owner or other person with control

over the premises described in subsection (1), if the possession of

the firearm is to provide security services for the premises or is

otherwise in the scope of the individual's official duties, or the

individual is acting with the express written consent of the ownerof the premises or an agent of the owner of the premis

Why does this always have to be so convoluted? I need to give Mike Green's office a call and see what is defined as a "state or national firearms training organization." At first glance, my gut tells me likely NRA, as they are the usual standard, but I'd like to rely on more than that. What is going to piss off some people is the subtle open carry ban by cpl holders in those CEZ's. Depending on some technicalities, one is possibly allowed to open carry in some cez's if that individual is a cpl holder. This is no longer the case without the exemption. Violations of carrying in criminal empowerment zones are the same. Civil infraction and CPL suspension for 1st offense. Misdeamenor and revoke for 2nd offense. Felony for 3rd offense and CPL revoked.

I don't like at all the certified mail being replaced by first class mail for hearing notices. I don't trust first class mail very much unless it's certified.

There's added projection for the "village idiot" clause. If there is "clear and present" danger, an applicant or CPL holder is a danger to the public, the applicant is entitled to legal council at the hearing to help make sure this actually is the case and not gamesmanship.

Interestingly, the Michigan Senate on guns is probably more partisan now than ever. Part of that is probably 2010 election results by location.

Roll Call No. 791 Yeas—27

Booher Green Kowall Proos
Brandenburg Hansen Marleau Richardville
Casperson Hildenbrand Meekhof Robertson
Caswell Hune Moolenaar Rocca
Colbeck Jansen Nofs Schuitmaker
Emmons Jones Pappageorge Walker
Gleason Kahn Pavlov

Nays—11

Anderson Hood Johnson Whitmer
Bieda Hopgood Smith Young
Gregory Hunter Warren

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Hansen

The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.

Anderson's vote surprised me a little. The rest did not. Gleason's the lone dem voting for this bill. Back in the original CPL days, about 1/3 of the dems supported it and 1/4 of the republicans opposed. Now no republicans opposed it, and only one dem supported it. It'll be interesting to see what the house does.  

 

Ballot updates - Cassis is in as write-in, others off ballot

There's been updates on who is on the ballot.  From the Free Press

McCotter wasn't the only candidate with insufficient petition signatures. Also kept off ballots by the state Board of Canvassers on Wednesday were: U.S. Senate candidate Peter Konetchy, a Roscommon Republican; 7th Congressional District candidate Michael Stahly, a Potterville Republican, and 8th Congressional District candidate Michael Magdich, a Democrat from Whitmore Lake.

I'm sad to see Konetchy out. While I keep my blog and my business interests largely separate, Peter was one of my clients. He's a good guy and focused heavily on the constitution, limited government, and budgetary concerns. Unfortunately it was a skeleton crew campaign and there's only so much a few people can do. I haven't completely decided who I'm backing with him out, although I will not be supporting Gary Glenn at all. I won't go into the details, except to say that I'm not impressed with some of the behind the scenes campaign tactics used by some of his major pushers. This goes long before the past week. It's not about conservative views in this case, but tactics.

Magdich is out. That means there is only one guy running on the democrat side for the 8th district. Lance Enderle in a rematch. Lance will have more time to campaign this time. 

There's also a coronation attempt from 11 "leaders" in the 11th District. Also from The Free Press

Former state Sen. Nancy Cassis, a Novi Republican, is the consensus candidate among a group of 11 GOP leaders in Oakland and Wayne counties to run a write-in 11th district congressional campaign in wake of the botched effort to put U.S. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter on the ballot.

Nothing against Cassis, but I hope no party resources are used by committees controlled by those leaders. If individuals are supporting Cassis, that's fine, but party resources should not be used in the primary. I think there's a very good chance that our nominee in the 11th district will be Kerry Bentivolio, if for no other reason, his name being on the ballot, and Cassis running as a write-in. Party resources should stay neutral in the primary, and be ready to go in the general for whoever the nominee is, be it Bentivolio or Cassis. It's going to take at least 25,000 write-ins just to be remotely considered, and I suspect the number to be closer to 40,000. If Cassis can get that, without official party resources, then I'll be impressed and she's earned it. She'll have to work 3-4 times as hard as Bentivolio to have a chance. 

Bentivolio's weakness is money. He doesn't have a lot and won't be getting much, since I think Oakland GOP is unofficially going to be pushing the money to Cassis. Brooks Patterson's comments made it clear. There's a way around that, although it's not an easy one. Bentivolio needs to get primary voter lists, and start hitting doors, doors, and doors. Joe Hune style. While I think Bentivolio is favored to win, he can't take this for granted either. Control what can be controlled and work from there.

Ridiculous Law of the Week - Part 8 - Campaign Finance Senate Style

I don't have the citation offhand outside of PDF regulations, but as you'd guess, I would know this one. I do not often agree with Rich Robinson of Michigan's Campaign Finance Network. I'm not a big BCRA fan at all and support unlimited donation limits with full disclosure. However, this is bad.


The Free Press had this out. It's not entirely accurate, but it's close.

In this digital age of immediate news and information, the U.S. Senate is still stuck firmly in 20th Century.
Under arcane Senate rules, candidates don't have to file their campaign finance reports electronically and can, instead, go through a tedious process that holds up reports for weeks, even months.
"It allows them to hide who is bankrolling their campaigns," said Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, which tracks campaign spending. "When you think about the time and money they're wasting to play this stupid game, they really ought to be ashamed of themselves."
For the past decade, candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and president of the U.S. and political action committees have been required to file their campaign finance reports electronically with the Federal Elections Commission. The e-filing system, which also is used for most state office candidates, allows for almost immediate access to campaign finance reports -- which reveal who is contributing to campaigns and how candidates are spending their money.

I agree with using electronic filing for US Senate races. It makes it easier and in practicality for senate reports, we use FECFile anyway for limit checks, validation, and data entry so we can print the long reports on the computer easier. I have to make a correction. If we are treasurers for US Senate campaigns - we HAVE to go by hand. It is required. There is no "don't have to file" electronically. We are not allowed to do so and you can check the FEC's candidate committee manual to find that in the small print. I can't just send it electronically to the FEC. We aren't directly governed by the FEC, but the Secretary of the Senate. That means I have to print out the dozens of pages of data from FECFile, mail it to Virginia, and keep checking to make sure they have it. It creates more work, and worse, I'm not 100% in control of the situation. It's not like I can just drive off to DC if there's a problem unlike Howell or Lansing. 

One other thing not mentioned  with the extra day is that there's two different possible due dates. For example April 15th was the last due date. It was a Sunday, so in reality it was moved up to the 13th (unlike taxes). If the report was sent on the 13th using regular first class mail, then the committee better open up its checkbook. Under first class mail, the Secretary of the Senate needs to receive the report by the 15th. If certified mail is used, it's okay, even though it's still first class mail in delivery time. The due date under certified mail is by postmarked. Needless to day, I always use certified to be safe.

Early coronation attempts from some tea parties are not the way to go

I want to preface this post by saying that I'm neither pro, nor anti tea-parties. Plural because they are heavily local based. When one is right, I'll support it. When it's wrong, I oppose it. The same goes for RNC, MIGOP, PACs and local parties. I'm not a paying member of any tea party organization. I'm not tied to any tea party leadership. I have been a visitor to Retakeourgov meetings in the past and think they are a very well run organization. Neither they, nor Brighton Tea Party from what I've read, took part in this. A lot of other tea parties did not either, at least 21 of them. Hence, why I used the word SOME in the title with regards to this.

FromMidland News Herald

MT. PLEASANT - Members of a coalition of Tea Party groups Saturday endorsed Gary Glenn of Midland for the Republican nomination to challenge incumbent Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

Glenn is president of the American Family Association of Michigan, and has long been active in conservative social causes. He’s best known as one of the authors of the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment to the Michigan constitution, which banned gay marriage in the state.

“I simply told the truth about where I think this country is headed,” Glenn told representatives of about 48 activist groups from across the state gathered at downtown Mt. Pleasant’s Centennial Hall. “If Barack Obama and Debbie Stabenow are re-elected, they threaten to take away our birthright of freedom, and turn our country into the United Socialist States of America.”

I knew about this in December, a week before my warning about big fish wannabes in small ponds. I heard then that this was a setup for Gary Glenn back then. I'm not posting this to discuss the positives and negatives of Gary Glenn as a candidate. My problem would remain the same if this was set up for any of the other candidates running, especially at this point. I also don't care for this being marketed as a "stop Stabenow" attempt as we already have a good process for that called the August primary.

This was my warning in December.

This is a dangerous game that can easily become more about personalities than about issues. Certain people like to see themselves as power brokers. You get on the right PAC boards and you become "an important person." You can puff yourself up to sound even more important, and can have some yesman who follow you, tell you how great you are, and then try and take your spot in the future. There's also yesmen "leaders" who will automatically "lead" their group to follow whatever some big name wants. That's what I refer to as big fish in little pond syndrome. I've seen it over 11 years of involvement in PACs, C4's, Party, and office politics. Guess what. Most of those who think they are big names, really aren't that important. The ones who puff themselves up in the room, usually aren't important, and deep down, they know it.

I hope the tea parties (plural) stay about ideology, and less about personalities. THAT is their strength. Once they become about personalities and favorites, it's all downhill from there. The cost is respect.

Some folks consider me a big name. I'm not that big. I'm just big enough to be a pain in the arse when I choose to be. Big names come and go real quick. In some respects, I was a bigger name 10 years ago and got in a nasty office politics battle. It was a learning experience and one I never forget. The winners were nobody. The losers were everybody. The six of us lost. The other side got a Pyrrhic victory as the best people (us) were no longer there and the organization wasn't even close to being the same. Been there. Done that. Don't want to see it on our side again. Don't want to be brought into it, but quite capable if I am forced to do so.

According to Michigan for Conservative Senate, 43 tea parties made the decision. At least 21 did not, and some have said that the number was over 60 that did not.

What's wrong with this from a tactical standpoint?

1. Infighting. Michigan for Conservative Senate calls this a Tea Party endorsement in its press release. That's not going to sit well with a lot of people.

2. Process. Some were excluded in the decision. How was the process? Was Glenn that much better than Hoekstra, Durant, Konetchy, Hekman, Marino, or Boman?

3. Timing. This was announced right before the presidential primary. How much press did "Michigan for Conservative Senate" receive for this? Some, but not nearly what it would be in May. This limits the help for Glenn. Few were paying attention to the senate race.

4. Timing pt 2. We have no idea who is a viable candidate or who can win. If you're going to gamble like this all in, you better be ready to both win the primary and take out the dangerous incompetent one - Debbie Stabenow. The filing deadline is May. That's the first we'll see of someone getting weeded out and/or dropped out candidates. Things can change quickly. Spence Abraham was up 20% over Stabenow in September of 2000. He lost. The campaign is just beginning.

As voters, we need to look at the candidates, where they stand, who they are, and do our due diligence in making a decision this August. Take this endorsement for what it is. A pick made from some representatives of some tea parties. No more. No less. It's not a consensus for all of them. I just hope it doesn't lead to unneeded trouble.

O'Donnell wins Delaware Primary - mixed views on this

I thought Castle was going to pull it off in Delaware, but I was wrong about it. If I lived in Delaware, I wouldn't care for either of my two choices (O'Donnell for non-ideological reasons like frivolous damages claims in a lawsuit) but would have done a one time only vote for liberal republican Castle for pragmatic reasons. Delaware is a social liberal state with heavy Philadelphia area influence.

I think the pundits are missing the point with the O'Donnell win and I think this still goes way beyond "tea party" and "moderate" and "liberal" and "conservative reasons." This stuff has been stewing since 2006, caught fire in 2008, and exploded with the stimulus and Obamacare. Spending and big government is one big issue, but the other one is simply attitude.

I was a family member's house last night and saw this headline on the TV. "NRSC won't spend money on this race." That's the problem that so many of the conservative base AND independents have, beyond any ideology. First off, even if the NRSC isn't going to donate money, they need to shut the hell up. Don't give away your game plan. Don't automatically write off competitive seats like a pussycat. Nobody respect that, from any ideology. Where a lot of the disconnect is though between the base, the tea party, Washington, and establishments is this attitude. Who works for who. The establishment and DC leadership thinks they are in charge, they pick their candidates, they appoint party leadership, and that they lead the way and that the base should follow their lead, no matter what. Grass roots vs professionalism, and they believe they are the professionals. That works when everyone is on the same page. When it isn't, then it doesn't work. Neither the base or the independents like being dictated to.

The difference today than in the past is this. Conservative independents (Where most tea party activists fall) and the base republicans no longer are accepting dictates from party leadership. In the minds of most, they FUBARed the situation. A lot of this is aimed at NRSC and to a lesser extent RNC (Steele's foot in mouth). NRSC tried to run off candidates in primaries in favor of RINO's. Castle isn't a RINO. He's a liberal. Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter were RINO's. Now they are democrats. Lisa Murkowski is showing RINO tendancies and may run as a write in. Lincoln Chafee is a RINO who endorsed Obama. Joe Schwarz was a RINO on the house side and backed Mark Schauer. Why the hell are these idiots getting support from leadership IN PRIMARIES. Leadership needs to stay out of primaries and let the state electorate make the decision in the primary. It's leadership's job to elect republicans, not the coronation of their candidates.

In this election season, the majority of time the leadership has dictated a candidate, that candidate was defeated in the primary. That ought to send a message to DC, but DC doesn't get it at all. Charlie Crist quit and ran as a so called independent. Arlen Specter switched primaries and lost anyway. Bob Bennett's bailout votes cost him his job. Bob Inglis lost. Parker Griffith lost. Castle lost. Their preferred primary candidates in Colorado, Nevada, and Kentucky lost too. In Wisconsin, California, and Washington, their preferred candidate won. In New Hampshire (close to call), their candidate is winning barring recount. In Wisconsin, Washington, and New Hampshire, the preferred candidate is acceptable to many of the base as well.

What needs to happen:

1. Leadership needs to stay out of primaries and stop running their mouths. Primaries are decided by state voters, not leadership. Save your money, time, and mouths for the general election.

2. The base that does not like the "coronation" candidate needs to pick someone better who can win. Pat Toomey and Marco Rubio were very good choices. Others aren't.

3. Losers in primaries need to suck it up and take it for the team. One BIG reason a lot of so called establishment "moderates" are almost despised more than democrats are due to people like Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, Joe Schwarz, Wayne Gilchrist, Lincoln Chafee, and many so called conservative pundits, Bush administration people (Dowd, McKinnon) and columists in the 2008 election. These assholes (not all moderates, but those I named) got their candidate who they demanded elected (McCain) in the primary, and then go out and endorse a leftist like Obama in the general. Many have LONG memories on that.

4. Pick a better establishment. Marco Rubio said this in his primary against Crist. This is most important. In the end, the establishment is picked by apathy. Party leadership (outside of caucus - NRSC, NRCC, etc) is elected. It's elected by activists. We need to do our homework and make sure the right people are elected. For me it is those that have their ear to the ground and at the same time are strong competent individuals who are good administrators and want to win in the fall.

Did DC learn its lesson? I hope so, but I doubt it.

Delaware - Mike Castle, lesser of two evils in primary and general

Mike Castle has my least favorite voting record. 99 out of 100 times, I would not vote for him in either the primary OR general. Nothing personal, but he's a gun grabber who voted for cap and trade. Dealbreaker twice over. If he was running in the house re-election, I probably wouldn't vote for him. However, I need his committee vote in the senate in the outside chance that Harry Reid gets fired.

Mike Castle is running against national tea party and Palin supported Christine O'Donnell. While O'Donnell is better on views, she can't win in November. It's not because of her views or Castle's local popularity that she can't win. It's because of her own past. Redstate got off this bandwagon for a good reason.

From Weekly Standard

O'Donnell alleged in a July 1, 2005 complaint filed in district court that she had been demoted because ISI's conservative philosophy dictated that women must be subordinate to men. She claimed she was fired when she contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding her demotion. ISI told the Delaware News Journal that she had been "terminated for operating a for-profit business."

First off, it's rare that employment reasons for termination are even mentioned in public. That looks cut and dry to me. Jeopardizing a non-profit. The response? A frivolous lawsuit.

Up to $3,952,447 in "Direct Damages, including back pay" and "lifetime lost income and liftetime damage to reputation."

--Up to $500,000 "for emotional distress, humiliation, emotional pain, embarrassment, depression."

--Up to $3.5 million in punitive damages for "willful, legally-malicious and outrageous conduct" by ISI.

Lifetime lost income? You got to be kidding me. There's much worse at that article. Castle's wrong, but he's not a clown.

In addition to all that, Delaware is Delaware. It's a fiscal mostly liberal, pro-corporate, and social liberal state. It's the exact opposite of my views, basically. The best we can get there is another Bill Roth type. Castle isn't as good as Roth, but it's him or a clown like O'Donnell who will lose simply for being a clown even taking views out of the equation.

Why would I hold my nose there for someone like Castle this one time only? Two reasons. Committee votes and the fact that he'll take over IMMEDIATELY. This does not wait till January when the rest of the senate gains happen. Right now we need Brown, Snowe, and Collins all to be on board if there is a filibuster. Castle gets at least some breathing room, and Coons will make it even tougher with the vacancy. If a gun vote comes up, at least we got Ben Nelson, Jim Webb, and Jon Tester as reliable democrats on that one issue, and I don't expect that in lame duck. Cap and trade is a risk. Coons will vote for it. I guarantee it. Castle will too. That's why I said one time only.

We need 10 pickups to get the senate. That gives us control of committees and determines what will be heard and not heard.

The better chances for major pickups will happen in 2012 and 2014 as those are six years after the wave years by the dems. This year, take what you can get, and kick Reid out of majority leader, Schumer off of judiciary leadership, Dick Durbin off of whatever committee he leads, etc, etc.

To the National Tea Party and Sarah Palin, pick better battles. This one isn't one you want to be on. One look at the complaint report shows that O'Donnell is bad news.

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.

Scott Brown and Massachusetts - Act like we're down 5 points.

Right now the big special election is in Massachusetts. January 19th is the day. One thing I've always said about special elections is throw the rules out. Turnout is lighter, and usually the winner is who gets their people out to the polls. It doesn't matter where. These are different elections than normal.

That aside, by all accounts, the Republicans should not be able to compete there. This isn't a state that is a swing state like Virginia or slightly blue state like Michigan.  This isn't the 19th state senate district which is a bellwether district. This isn't Long Island NY or New Jersey which in a good GOP year is about 5 points democrat. Tough, but winnable at the right time. This isn't even Illinois, solidly democrat, but elects an occasional republican to federal office statewide (Peter Fitzgerald won in 98). This is Massachusetts. George McGovern won here. Reagan was the aberration, and had a great last name for the state, and it's gone much more liberal since then as the Irish yellow dog democrat domination has lessened and the professor crowd is more dominant (UMass,  Harvard, Tuffs, MIT, Boston U, Boston College, etc).

Most polls right now have Brown ahead. Now, I know the democrats have been attacking pollsters lately, but remember one thing. When polls are correct, they are a snapshot in time of the opinions of the populace. Polls may be wrong. People may change their mind between today and Tuesday. Irony is that Rasmussen, who the dems hate, has Brown down by 2%. From Real Clear Politics

Poll	Date	Sample	Brown (R)	Coakley (D)	Spread
PJM/CrossTarget (R)	1/14 - 1/14	946 LV	54	39	Brown +15
Blue Mass Group/R2000 (D)	1/12 - 1/13	500 LV	41	49	Coakley +8
Suffolk/7News	1/11 - 1/13	500 LV	50	46	Brown +4
Rasmussen Reports	1/11 - 1/11	1000 LV	47	49	Coakley +2
PPP (D)	1/7 - 1/9	744 LV	48	47	Brown +1
Rasmussen Reports	1/4 - 1/4	500 LV	41	50	Coakley +9
Boston Globe	1/2 - 1/6	554 LV	36	53	Coakley +17
Suffolk	11/4 - 11/8	600 RV	27	58	Coakley +31
Western NE College	10/18 - 10/22	342 LV	32	58	Coakley +26
Suffolk	9/12 - 9/15	500 RV	24	54	Coakley +30

What happens Tuesday? Do the weak dems come home? Do the dems stay home? Do they vote for Brown. I don't know. I'd like to predict a Brown win, but I can't get past the fact that this is Massachusetts, consistently 62% Democrat in presidential elections, and more in senate elections. Only twice did Ted Kennedy get under 60% of the vote. Once in 1962, and later in 1994. John Kerry's first three races were tougher, but only once had less than 55% (1996). The US House delegation is 10-nothing (Gerrymandered), and only four of those seats in great years like 1994, I'd consider winnable outside of the perfect storm if they open up. That said, it's the perfect storm if Brown wins despite places like Amherst, Holyoke, Springfield, Boston, Cambridge, Brookline, and Newton.


Scott Brown for US Senate. Good luck to Brown, if he wins, that will send a big message to the democrat, that even their home base is no longer secure. I wrote last November about a possible
Republican comeback in the Northeast. It's still a long ways off from a comeback, but this could be step 4 here, after the 09 wins in New Jersey, Long Island, and Pennsylvania judges.

Upset Watch

This goes into the "I'll believe it when I see it" category, but nobody expected the Giants to beat the Patriots either.While most pundits laughed at Howard Dean's 50 state strategy - it worked. The Republicans need to do the same thing. It looks like they MIGHT be making a run in Massachusetts of all places. Now are they expected to win there? No. However, this is a special election.  In a recent special election in a district that went 75% for Obama, the GOP one. Joseph Cao won in New Orleans for the first time since I don't know when. Maybe reconstruction.

If a 75% district can be won in a special election, albeit against a crooked incumbent, an open seat in a 62% democrat state is winnable in a special election. The special election for the Massachusetts US Senate Seat is January 19th. It'll be cold. Politics won't be on the mind of most people. Nothing else is on the ticket more than likely. Some think there's a puncher's chance.

From Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics.

There's been a fair amount of excitement in the rightosphere regarding the January 19, 2010 special election to fill the seat of Senator Ted Kennedy. The race pits Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley against Republican state Senator Scott Brown. The cases for GOP optimism are pretty well spelled out in Jim Geraghty's piece at National Review.
There's some truth to these arguments, as Massachusetts isn't as monolithically Democratic as most make it out to be; the real power brokers in the state are the Independents, who make up a near-plurality of the electorate. Hence, Republicans have been able to elect a number of GOP Governors over the last few decades (and in a straight-up match up with Deval Patrick, would probably be poised to do it again in 2010). Jim Ogonowski's near-win in MA-05 in 2007, during the depths of anti-GOP sentiment in the country, gives further proof of the state's willingness to embrace the right kind of Republican (ie a non-Southern, non-conservative Republican without ties to the religious right.
 .......
In any event, if we take a 38%D, 19%R, 42%I electorate and have Coakley win 90% of the Democrats, 4% of Republicans and 38% of Independents, we come out with an exceedingly close 51.06-48.9% Coakley win. I did not expect that.
Now, for three caveats. Obviously, Independents in Massachusetts are probably more liberal than Independents in New Jersey or, certainly, Virginia, so they might swing less. But that's baked into the pie somewhat by using 2008 as the baseline, where they voted more for Obama than NJ and VA Independents did to begin with. And remember, oddly enough, Independents swung more toward Republicans in New Jersey than they did in Virginia.

And National Review reporting some reader reports at their site.

I wouldn't be shocked if this was closer than the 62-38 races which we've had for the presidency the last three elections. However, I will be shocked if there is an upset. That aside, every race should be contested, and especially in special elections. There is a puncher's chance, and the GOP needs to throw a ton of punches to get back into the game. 

Good luck to Brown.

The GOP's biggest obstacle to a comeback, idiot senators

First of all, I want to get this out of the way. I'm not on board yet for the 2012 Sarah Palin for president campaign. I'm still undecided, and while I like Palin, she's not my first choice among potential candidates. That aside, Palin is a big draw for the grassroots, and that rubs some insiders in the beltway the wrong way. There was a whole bunch of yapping back and forth about a big NRCC fundraiser where she attended.

This lead to a sneering catfight from DC's The Hill that reminded me from a scene from the movie Ghostbusters. From the mayor's office scene - Is this true? Yes it's true. This man has no dick.

From the Hill

Several GOP senators offered searing criticism of the Alaska governor when asked in recent interviews whether she could pose a credible challenge to President Obama in 2012.

“She has to hunker down and govern and show she’s not a joke,” said a GOP lawmaker who represents one of the southern battlegrounds of the 2012 election.

First of all, if you don't sign your name to your statement, it's a joke. This reminds me of the anyonomous coward state rep here last year over the tax increase who was all pissed off that he was being pressured by the GOP to reject the tax increase. That's why I thought of the scene from Ghostbusters. If you can't put your name behind it, then it is worthless. It's cowardly.

We'll find out in 2010 about Palin's ability to govern as decided by her constituents back home. My money on this statement was Graham, and he's a joke as far as I'm concerned.

One GOP senator questioned whether Palin has enough gravitas for voters to trust her in tough economic times.

“If the economy implodes, I don’t see her as having much of a chance,” said the lawmaker, who noted that Palin’s national political ambitions have caused her political troubles at home. “She has also taken on water up there in Alaska.”

Sounds like wishful thinking.

Sadly, the democrats had the best quote here.

Meanwhile, Democratic strategists delighted over the confusion caused by the spat.

“Oh, to be a fly on the wall during the NRCC-NRSC dinner planning meetings,” quipped a senior House Democratic political aide.

Right now we have an economy in the crapper. We have record deficits and spending. We have massive big government power grabs by Obama's goons, and you people are all bent out of shape with Palin? Do your jobs for once and try and put up some spirited opposition and alternative plans.

Once again, the US Senate, democrat and republican alike, shows the worst the government has to offer, and Obama can be tossed in that category as well. He was a senator.

Government's war on the auto industry

Right now, the biggest enemy to our auto industry is the government. First of all, I titled this "Government's war on the auto industry." I did not title this the Obama Chicago Mob war on the auto industry, or even the democrat war on the auto industry. They are some of the biggest villans, but they are one of many.

The first Bush was not a friend of the industry. Clinton was not either. He signed NAFTA and GATT. Ross Perot warned us of a giant sucking sound of jobs with the passage of those two trade agreements. He was right. Al Gore wanted to outlaw the internal combustable engine. Bush basically sat on his hands and then bailed out Wall Street along with his parters McCain and Obama on this. Both McCain and Obama lectured us about manufacturing and threw the auto industry under the bus. Obama was the only reason I voted for McCain. Only reason.

Right now the auto industry is double flanked by a significant number of pols in both parties. On the Democrat side, our industry's best ally is John Dingell. Dingell did his best, but the CULT of global warming, knocked him out for a radical in Henry Waxman. They also knocked out Joe Knollenberg, one of the two best friends of the industry on the Republican side. The other one is being targetted. Thad McCotter. McCotter is one of the few true friends of the auto industry left.

The Republicans have their own jerks. McCain was one. Bob Corker and Richard Shelby the party switcher is another. Corker got his wish with a GM bankruptcy. Guess what. Saturn's gone. Where's Saturn based? Spring Hill, TN. Great job standing up for your state, son. With "friends" like those two, we don't need any enemies. I hope both of these individuals get a nice primary challenge when they are next up for election.

The doubleflank is the global warming left like Pelosi, Waxman, Gore and Obama and anti-UAW right like Corker, Bush, and Shelby. One wants to punish the industry because they want cars banned except for the rich elite, and the other wants to unionbust at the cost of the entire company. I have mixed views on unions but I damn well don't want to see my industry destroyed.

The biggest threat is this cult of global warming. This global warming cult based on temperature data of 150 years (1860-today - and keep in mind we are coming out of a 500 year mini ige age from around 1300-1850), a microsecond of time by earth standards that is billions of years old. I'm not going to debate global warming here, except that any 150 year data set is worthless). It may exist. It may not. I'm not convinced that it is a problem even if it does exist, and I damn well am not buying any doomsday crap based on what we breathe out - CO2.

Regardless of the truth of fiction of global warming, I have a hard time with supporting government regulation over every aspect of our lives, and the rapid destruction and dismantling of our state's industry that built the middle class in our country.


What we have today and in the future was a long time coming. Many dominoes have fallen so far in the government war on the auto industry. Unless you've tuned out the news, today GM, once the largest company in the world, has filed for bankruptcy. Some of you here reading may not care. You will, when this affects your state, and your city, and it will. Believe me, it will.

Plants are closing, in Michigan and elsewhere. These people need to find work. They have families. Many are moving away to find work. Some are going on welfare. Many will take early retirement and look for other work. Dealers will close. Suppliers will close. The ripple effect will follow. Schools will have lower enrollment. Less money. Less tax money is collected because of lost jobs and at the local and state levels, relocation. The much ballyhooed services industry is losing money too. Auto workers and their families won't be spending as much money on tourism and luxuries.

In the Chrysler case, the government forced it to go under a large part of foreign ownership because Obama likes the Fiat. With its bankruptcy, so far, they are losing 25% of its dealerships. That's a lot of jobs. The UAW and the Government combined owned 65%.

In the case of General Motors, to begin with, 2100 dealers will be closed or placed on standby, as will 14 plants, seven in Michigan, including the Lake Orion plant which hits close to home in this family. GM's also off the NYSE and Dow.

This is supposed to "save" the industry? Thousands of dealers, dozens of plants, God knows how many suppliers, and all that this supports? What about the Mexico or foreign plants? GM's plant closings alone will cost 21,000 jobs.

All of that is subject to change by the courts as well. It could be worse.

Now as for the government dicates, here's a question. When has big government run anything top notch? Look at the US Senate. You will not find a bigger group of jokes on the face of the earth. From Levin and Stabenow doing nothing for Michigan, to Durbin, Obama, McCain, (formerly) Ted Stevens, Robert Byrd the pork king, Corker, Shelby, Specter, Feinstein, Boxer, Biden, and 1/2 of Obama's cabinent that came from that joke of a political body. Now the government and Obama want even higher CAFE standards, and are pushing the Big 3 away from what they do best. Trucks and SUV's.

Some of the inside stories I have heard are leaking what the Obama people have been yapping about. I am paraphrasing this to protect this individual who doesn't want his name out there. People with 30 years of auto experience in both foreign and domestic cars are being dictated to by government bureaucrats from Obama's admin, people with no manufacturing experience, no auto industry experience, no business experience, no finance experience, and no engineering experience. Big government at work.

One was telling the auto industry to make a car that was electric and liquid natural gas with enough combined fuel to go 500 miles to reduce the number of gas stations. They were quoting BTU's (energy measurement) of natural gas and battery life that they had looked up by some advocacy group.

This was nearly impossible based on the laws of physics due to the size of the car needed for that. Common sense. The number of batteries and natural gas tank would be gigantic. We'd have to drive busses. The individual mentioned the laws of phyics, and the Obama bureaucrat said that they needed to tell Congress to change that law or use an executive order. Good luck with that.

Lastly, I'm hearing a lot of preaching by Granholm and the others in both parties about diversifying the economy. Yeah, I support that. Who doesn't. However, diversifying the economy should not mean that we throw manufacturing under the bus. We need to protect our manufacturing. We need to keep these jobs home, not in China. We need to stop throwing our blue collar heritage, culture, and manufacturing under the bus. The next person who runs his mouth about these jobs not coming back needs to be forced to drink soup for a week.

When it comes to the auto industry, the government has failed this country. It has failed with big regulations, trade agreements, micromanagement, and its jihad with the cult of global warming. The best thing the government can do is reduce the regulations, enact fair trade agreements so our manufacturing isn't dead, stop the heavy taxes and red tape, and work for energy independence in a proper fashion, by an all of the above policy including drilling and refining, as well as nuclear technology.

Who cares about the possibility of global warming if your state is being turned into an economic depresssion. It's time to put Michigan first.

Jim DeMint tries to get Senate Leadership to wake up, gets attacked for his efforts

The Senate proves once again that it is the most inept body on the face of the earth. This time it's the GOP senate leadership being the problem....again. Jim DeMint tries his best, but this is his response.

From Politico

Just after November’s election, Republican senators huddled in a closed-door meeting to consider a package of rules that would have tossed Ted Stevens out of their conference, imposed term limits on party leaders and otherwise changed the way the Senate Republican Conference does business.

South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who proposed the rules, saw quickly that they weren’t going to be popular with his colleagues. So one of his staffers urged him to withdraw the proposal setting term limits on the GOP leader, and DeMint hoped the others would remain packaged together so they could be considered in a single vote.

But Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee took issue with the staffer and quickly called a vote on the term-limit proposal before DeMint decided to withdraw it. Then party leaders proceeded to call up each of DeMint’s other proposals separately, creating a long series of votes that DeMint lost badly.

“No doubt,” DeMint said, Republican leaders were “trying to humiliate” him.

Let's look at what the old system has got us. The Senate revived the bailout. Ted Stevens invented the bridge to nowhere. The senate spends more than the house and voted for that bridge 80-20 or something like that. The same people who screw up get promoted and are part of the club. DeMint, who is a relative newcomer to the senate. McConnell has been there for years. Alexander is new, but was a Tennessee governor and has been a politican insider for ever.

As Republicans seek a way forward after two disastrous elections, social and fiscal conservative activists off Capitol Hill are rallying behind DeMint because of his unrelenting style to force his party to return to its small-government, free market roots. DeMint, 57, said in an interview that he’s not dwelling on his previous battles with the GOP leadership and sees areas where his party’s leaders and the Obama administration can work together to solve the country’s problems.

But DeMint is less willing to compromise with Democrats than many in his party, and some Senate Republicans doubt his fiery tactics can lead their party out of the political wilderness when the public is seeking an end to legislative gridlock.

DeMint’s critics, including senior Republican senators and top aides in the Senate, say his refusal to work within the norms of the body — by showing deference to party leaders and chairmen and building support behind closed doors without airing concerns first to the news media — undermines his ability to draw support for his cause.

The problem right now is that there is too much deference to "leaders" and not enough leadership that deserves deference. Right now the GOP needs to do two things more than anything else.

1. Formulate a clear plan of opposition plan to Obama's big spending. Noticed I said "plan." That doesn't mean simply saying that Obama's plan sucks (which it does). It means coming out with a good alternative to Obama's plan and communicate it to them.

2. Clean up the corruption. Don't tolerate the Ted Stevens types anymore.

Dumb and Dumber (and a new No guts award winner)

It's a very interesting political day today. As Vince Lombardi said, "What the hell's going on out here."

First off, this isn't the dumb and dumber part, but the GOP got whacked in Illinois. Illinois is a bad state for us overall with the Chicago influence, but this one really hurt. There was a special election with the resignation of Dennis Hastert. Democrat Foster knocked out Jim Oberweis

Why did this happen? It's quite simple. You do not win when you don't show up. In a marginal GOP leaning district, low turnout hurt bad, since there enough democrats to win if they show up. That happened here.

Special Election 08:
Bill Foster - 52,010
Jim Oberweis - 46,988

That's VERY low turnout for a congressional seat. 06 was an off year, and 04 is a presidential year.

2006
Dennis Hastert - 117,870 - 60%
Jonathan Laesch - 79,274 - 40%

2004
Dennis Hastert - 191,616 - 69%
Ruben Zamora - 87,590 - 31%

Bush won the district 55-44 in 04 and 54-42 in 00. There's no reason we should have lost this. The LOSER in 04 and 06 had 35,000 and 27,000 more votes than the WINNER in the 08 special election. There's going to be a rematch this fall, but Oberweis is obviously behind the 8 ball.

Now, on to Dumb and Dumber.

Dumb goes to New York Governor Elliot Spitzer. No, not for likely (based on his comments) being involved in a prostitution ring.
From the London Times

Eliot Spitzer, the crusading New York Governor often tipped as a future American president, suffered a spectacular fall from grace yesterday when he was implicated in a prostitution ring.

Mr Spitzer, whose eight years as New York State’s Attorney-General earned him a reputation as “the sheriff of Wall Street”, reportedly told senior aides that he was a client of an international escort service that charged up to $5,500 (£2,750) an hour. Court papers hinted at risky sexual practices. He cancelled all his public appearances and met officials in his Fifth Avenue apartment before making a public apology to his family and the public.

“I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and in a way that violates my or any sense of right and wrong,” he said, with his wife Silda at his side. “I apologise first and most importantly to my family. I apologise to the public, whom I have promised better. I am disappointed I have not lived up to the standards I have set for myself.”

Mr Spitzer, 48, who was elected Governor with a record 69 per cent of the vote, is married with three daughters. He did not immediately step down, but said that he needed to dedicate some time to regaining the trust of his family. If he steps aside, he will be replaced by Lieutenant-Gover-nor David Paterson

The dumb part is this.

In 2004 he voiced revulsion as he announced the arrests of 16 people for running a prostitution ring out of Staten Island

Is that a competition ring, Spitz? Apt last name for you if I may add?

The real dumb part - $5500 an hour? THAT's dumb. You're the governor of New York, and have to pay that much? For that price, not to mention your career, she better be really hot.


Dumber goes to the Arkansas GOP. I'm bringing back the No Guts award for these guys. They are our third winner. Our first "No Guts" award winner was Barack Obama. Our 2nd winner was an apartment complex in Jacksonville for firing a guy who did the right thing. Our next winner is the Arkansas GOP for this.

From CQ Politics:

Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor ’s bid for a second Senate term soared from highly likely to virtually certain Monday, when no Republican challenger met the state’s congressional filing deadline at noon central time.

CQ Politics has changed its rating on Pryor’s race to Safe Democratic from Democrat Favored, reflecting the fact that he is the first Senate incumbent running this year to officially draw no major-party opponent.

It was likely that this rating change would have been made even if the GOP had fielded a candidate. Republicans’ hopes for seriously competing faded after Asa Hutchinson, a former House member and former high-ranking official at the federal Department of Homeland Security, declined a Senate bid. Then former Gov. Mike Huckabee stuck to his pledge not to run for the Senate this year, even though he dropped his presidential campaign last week after Arizona Sen. John McCain won enough delegates to clinch the Republican nomination.

Pryor is a FIRST TERM incumbent. The GOP didn't show up. They could not get John Doe even to run? Pryor was a very beatable incumbent, and one of the best shots in the Senate - and this is a very tough cycle for the GOP Senate (as will be 2010). 2012 is our best shot at a comeback there. Because of the ineptness of the Arkansas GOP, we're handicapped even more. Thanks, guys. As I said in the Hastert seat, you don't win if you don't show up. That earned you all a No Guts award. Every race should be contested. Period.

Senate candidate Al Franken, inc fined $25,000 for Workman's comp violations

I don't usually comment on national stuff outside of the presidency, but this is too good to pass up. Too paraphrase Stuart Smalley, Al showed here that he isn't good enough or smart enough. We don't know if people like him yet.

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune

DFL Senate candidate Al Franken owes a $25,000 penalty to the New York State Workers' Compensation Board for failing to carry workers' compensation insurance for employees of his namesake corporation from 2002 to 2005, state officials said.

New York officials have made numerous attempts to contact Franken about the matter since April 2005 but have gotten no reply.

Campaign spokesman Andy Barr said that neither Franken nor his wife, Franni, were aware of the matter before Tuesday. They have lived in Minneapolis for the past few years and did not know about the state's attempts to reach them in New York City, he said.

Well, you should be aware. What's nice about this is that we have a primary source here to help us. New York State has a list of corporations.
Al Franken, inc - is here

It's based in New York City, Franken's old home. It's listed as ACTIVE. Most importantly, the Chairman and CEO is Alan Franken. I think it is safe to assume that Alan Franken is Al. A CEO has a fidiciary duty by law to corporation which employs him. Alan Frankin, inc - isn't Al. It's a seperate entity that employs Al Franken as CEO.(Although Al is probably majority or sole shareholder). As CEO, Al had employees. If Al wasn't aware of the workman's comp issue, it's because he was negligent. No excuse. I wasn't aware gets people fired, sued, and in some case maybe jail. If Franken was moving, he should have had an agent, or updated his contact information.

More:

The Workers' Compensation Board began sending Franken notices in April 2005 after discovering that the insurance hadn't been paid for nearly three years.

Officials first sought an explanation. Receiving no response, they sent a penalty notice to Franken in June 2005 that outlined rights to appeal.

The state then turned to a collection agency to reach Franken. When that didn't work, the state tried again in July 2006. Penalty statements were sent in August and December of 2006 and March 2007, Keegan said.

The judgment was finally entered against Franken in May 2007, and another notice sent by certified mail to his Manhattan apartment. Since then, Keegan said, three more statements have been sent -- the most recent in January -- without response.

The Frankens bought a townhouse in Minneapolis in April 2005. Barr said that the corporation relocated to Minneapolis in January 2006.

At BEST, Al Franken did all the following.
1. He did not (or had nobody) check his corporate mail for three years. Not good for a CEO who has or had employees. Is that good judgement for the Senate

2. He did not close up shop properly in 06 if he was relocating his corporation, nor sent notice to New York. His NY Status is ACTIVE. Active IN New York.

3. He did not have an agent in New York. With his money, he could had a lawyer there on retainer in case something happened - or to handle a transfer. The first thing I learned in Biz Org is to have an attorney involved in corporate drafting.

4. He showed overall bad judgment. It takes work to get a default judgment against you like that. I've dealt with many bureaucrats. Most hate extra work. They do not want to have to go to court on a matter like this. This started as a "fix-it". They wanted to settle it afterward. Then they had to get the lawyers involved with a LEIN, and even went to court. Al or his agent didn't even show up to court. Judgment for the plaintiff against Al Franken Inc.

5. He showed what he thinks of the working class. This multi millionaire did not pay his fair share, and broke the law while doing so.

To sum things up, he isn't qualified for the job. Time to send Al Franken back to doing Stuart Smalley skits.

Outside of Tom Coburn, More fiscal irresponsibility in the Peter Principle Senate

One of the few good Senators is Tom Coburn out of Oklahoma. I wish he was running for president, but I don't think he wants the job.

A big deal was made over the veto of SCHIPP, which was a tax increase and major spending increase on health care which is not affordable. It was of course, "for the children," but how many senators really care for the children?

From the Washington Times

On Tuesday, Mr. Coburn offered an amendment that would have stalled funding for pork projects until Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt certified that every child in this country had health insurance. Mr. Coburn's colleagues smacked down his amendment by a 68-26 vote, a tally that included 23 members of his own party defecting from his movement toward fiscal restraint.

After rejecting Mr. Coburn's measure, senators then proceeded to attach $400 million in earmarks, many unrelated, to an appropriations bill funding the Departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services. Such unrelated pork projects and their hefty price tags ranged from $1 million for a celebration at Vermont's Lake Champlain to $500,000 for field trips to the Chesapeake Bay. There was even a curious provision for $500,000 toward a "virtual herbarium" in New York and $50,000 for an ice center in Utah. It is unconscionable that senators were willing to place these projects above health-care reform.

There was one victory was last week, however, when Mr. Coburn was able to nix a $1 million provision that would have gone toward a museum memorializing the 1969 Woodstock music festival. The Senate voted 52-42 to reject the measure and instead fund maternal health care. Why did the Woodstock project got the ax while the other extraneous projects were rubber stamped?

No wonder why Congress has a 17% approval rating. They suck.

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.