Detroit gets an emergency financial manager

This is what happens with 50 years of Democrat rule. Insolvency. If there is one thing that we all need to remember, it is this. 50 years of Republican governance - Livingston County. 50 years of Democrat reigns of error - Wayne County.  Balanced Budgets, low taxes, high property values, low crime, less corruption and one of the better economies of SE Michigan - Livingston County. Insolvency, high taxes, low property values (mostly), high crime, major corruption, and an economic mess - Wayne County. Unassuming local officials who do their jobs property - Livingston County. Machine politics and corruption - Ed McNamara, Jennifer Granholm, Mike "Great white hope" Duggan, Monica Conyers, Kwame Kilpatrick, Bob Ficano - Wayne County. Republicans - Livingston County. Democrats - Wayne County.

Personally, I'd rather see Chapter 9 bankruptcy than an EFM, combined with a cutoff of all state funds outside of the musts until they get their act together. There's no doubt that Detroit needs an EFM from a competence standpoint. Is it a cure all? Not at all.

The question is this. When the EFM leaves Detroit, what's going to happen? The same old song and dance. Detroit is 95-5% Democrat. The same thing is going to happen when the outsiders leave unless things change quickly. Insanity is the same thing done over and over again and expecting better results. Until the progressives are neutered there, the city is going to keep mirroring the football team there in results. What else would you expect from a city that is 95% democrat? 

Dave Bing, a relatively sane democrat, is probably the best it's going to get out of there. At least he and Archer aren't crooks. The rest are going to be Kwames or maybe a Great White Hope for the liberal progressives in Mike Duggan - both of whom (along with Granholm and Ficano) who came from the same Ed McNamara machine. Duggan's tied in (at least indirectly) with the Metro Cars no big contracts. Even liberal Jack Lessenberry was suspicious of Duggan way back when he ran for prosecutor. The only difference between a Mike Duggan and Kwame Kilpatrick is color. It'd be the Rostenkowski or Blagojevich as compared to Jesse Jackson Jr. What's the difference? As far as I'm concerned, it's the same old song and dance.

From the Free Press

Rosendall said in court that Synagro officials "were very uncomfortable with dealing with someone that close to the mayor." He said the solution was to give 45% of the consulting fee to Jackson and 55% to the girlfriend, who would then give Kilpatrick his cut.
Rosendall said the money wouldn't all be paid at once.
The deal included $25,000 monthly fees, and milestone payments of roughly $100,000 for things like getting permits approved or construction started.
"Did Bernard Kilpatrick do anything to earn that money?" Bullotta asked.
"Not that I know of," Rosendall said.
Rosendall said he had heard rumors about that being the way things got done in Detroit.
"There was a pay-to-play thing going on in the city of Detroit," Rosendall testified. "You had to hire people or pay people to do (work)."
The government also played one audio recording in which Kilpatrick talked about carving out "borderline illegal" deals when he worked with Ed McNamara and Mike Duggan, who is now exploring running for mayor of Detroit. He didn't elaborate.

Bernard Kilpatrick is Kwame's dad and worked for McNamara.

After all this - can Detroit come back? Yes, it can. It won't be from outsiders either if it chooses to do so. EFM's can't save cities. They can at best mitigate some damage. The question is will Detroiters choose to come back. It's a choice made by Detroiters who live in the city, not suburban white people who left and still think they should run the city. Jobs, low crime, decent schools, lower costs. Those are what makes cities livable - not lofts and the "cool cities" tripe spewed by progressives. If Detroit wants to come back, they can't have the same old song and dance and 95-5% "progressive" democrat voting with the same city council, same policies, and same school boards elected time and time again. The other thing is this. Downtown won't save Detroit. Downtown and Wayne State aren't the big problem. The problem are the neighborhoods. Homes shouldn't be broken into. Lighting should work. Violent criminals should be taken off the streets. Property Taxes can't be 62 mills. Until those are fixed, Detroit will be what it is - a broken city with a relatively "safe zone" around downtown and Wayne State for suburban white people to come and spend their money and go home.

Detroit can choose to come back, but will it?  They'll have to take some pages from our playbook here in Livingston County to do so. I hope it'll happen, but I'll have to believe it to see it.

The Direction of the Michigan Republican Parties (State, County, District)

I'm probably going to be saying this line often in the next year or so. "I'm an elections guy first."

Jason Gillman of Right Michigan and I are having a cross blog philosophy discussion that I think cuts in a way to some of the disconnect between factions within the party.One discussion is here, and  a second discussion is here. A third one is here. I think this is a very important discussion to have, and there are some points on both sides here.  Today, Kevin Rex Heine had his own article here which had the results by district. Districts 1, 2, 3, 5, and 13 went for Courser. Districts 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 went for Schostak. Courser cleaned up in districts 2 and 3 and won 5 solidly. The other two districts were narrow. Schostak cleaned up in districts 4, 7, 9, and 14 and won 8 solidly. The other districts were narrow.

I'll say this to the change advocates. As someone who has been around 12 years and is probably considered establishment (as a county chair), I'm not your enemy. I wasn't even a Romney primary supporter. Not everyone who has been around over 5 years is your enemy. However, when you use words like "take over", you going to have a problem - and you're going to have people who ideology wise would probably be your ally going against you.

I don't like coronation politics - and "take over" politics is no different than coronation politics except it's a different "team". (I cringe at the term "coronation politics" being co-opted for a different campaign by someone else in a 3-way campaign I was also involved in, but that's another story - I used it in 2011). I didn't like the Romney coronation. I didn't like it for Hoekstra. I didn't like the attempts for it for Ron Paul at RNC convention after losing the primaries or Gary Glenn by MI4CS. The easiest thing to get my opposition is to try "take over" or coronation politics. I don't care which faction or side you are on. I don't have time for Big Fish in Small Ponds. I don't have time for that bullshit, and I'll even pay the quarter for using that term during Lent.

I'm also not going to sugarcoat things. National isn't making things easy for us at all right now. Between Boehner, Rove, Romney's campaign and project Orca, DC consulting class, and cave after cave on all fiscal matters, we're taking hits here for the poor work of others. The gas tax proposal isn't helping us right now either. I'll just say that I'm 100% in agreement with my senator Joe Hune in his opposition to that. Does Joe get the credit for this? He should. If you're going to stay home from voting to send Snyder or DC a message, Joe gets punished as well. That ain't right. A lot of people stayed home in 2012 (and 2008). Let's also remember that Right to Work would not have been passed if it wasn't for Rick Snyder. Give him credit there. Personal property tax (a major killer) is gone. MBT is gone.

A lot of activists are mad right now for a few reasons. I think the Romney coronation - especially in Michigan was extremely harmful for the party. We're still paying for it. Part or it was that the tactic was a short term success in helping Romney get the nomination. This was a Karl Rove playbook type of operation. Be aggressive in the primary, and be passive in the general.  Romney lost, which made it worse. People are taking pages from that Romney playbook for party coronation attempts and take over politics - as a reaction to what was done for Romney. That's what we are dealing with right now. It's putting us at each other's throats.With national's caving on issues, it's making it even worse. I don't like it either.


In Michigan, we have in reality about 100 Republican Parties. There's State Party/MRP, then there's 82 county parties (Wayne Caucuses) and 14 district parties. They are all different in dynamic. As a County Chair and District Treasurer, I have no control on what national does, what Rove does, or even what our elected officials do. I also have limited control on policy at either county or district level - despite setting agendas in county and controlling the money in district. I can't endorse as Chair. I could push for a bunch of resolutions, but that's a waste of time. They have no real effect. Calling our reps has more effect than a resolution. What I can do is publicize the good things our elected are doing. I also make sure our election operations are ready to go. That's my job. Elections. There's other things as well, but everything directly or indirectly goes back to elections - specifically elections impacting the first two words in our party - Livingston County (or 8th District with the other committee).

I am getting tired of people thinking that being a "True Conservative" or a "Constitutional Conservative" automatically qualifies one for a party leadership position. It doesn't. Been there, done that for 12 years, and even swore an oath to the Constitution. That doesn't qualify me either to be county party chair. What qualifies one for that position is the ability to get those "Constitutional Conservatives" elected. That's the key. Constitutional conservative candidates do not help us when they are not elected.

My own philosophy when it comes to supporting people for county, district, and state committees is to support workers. Who shows up and helps? Who has the skill sets to contribute? Who works well with the team? Who is involved in campaigns? Who understands elections? Who shows up in meetings? Who is active in conservative causes?  In Livingston County, that tends to be mostly conservatives across the board so we don't have the ideology battles very often. Any that do happen are either personality based or tactical based.

For those with ideology problems with current GOP elected officials, there's a method that can be used to rectify it. It's an old one which has been around a long time. Primaries. Just remember that if you're going to run a campaign, you have to do it properly or any primary challenge will go nowhere before it gets off the ground, much like these third party runs that always go nowhere. Speaking of third parties, as far as I'm concerned, third party activists are no different than democrats and will be treated accordingly.

It's time for those in so called "establishment" and those with grievances to discuss matters and for all sides to acknowledge the following.

1. There is a fractured party. Denying it doesn't make it untrue. It's hardly a secret.

2. Part of the fracture is due to the coronation politics and take over pushes - on ALL sides. Romney did a TON of damage here. Rove made it worse. Gary Johnson supporters who want to be Republican precinct delegates as well didn't help matters either. Dictatorial demands lead to those demands getting a middle finger in response.

3. The Republican base is extremely frustrated with Washington DC and the caving by national leadership - over and over and over again. This isn't a one time matter. This is all the time. This is as damaging as Romney and Rove.

4. If Republicans do not stand for lower taxes and fiscal responsibility, then what do we stand for?  This is a frustration, at least in spending, that goes back to the Bush years. Today, the Bush years are looked at as almost fiscal responsibility compared to today. Boehner needs to man up and stand up to Obama. The one bad part about Mike Pence becoming Governor of Indiana is that his presence in the House is sorely missed.

5. We need at least 50% +1 to win. There's a lot of things that need to happen in elections for that to happen. Being a "true conservative" is not enough. Saying that you are a true conservative 100 times is counter productive because you're not focused on things that matter to most people. Competence issues. "Doing the job" issues. You can be a strong conservative on both economic and social issues and get moderate and even some liberal votes. You can't do that if you yap about it all the time. Why? Because those voters think that you're not doing your job by focusing on those issues all the time.  On the same note, don't open yourself to a double flanking by not standing for anything and going leftist and caving. Both of those things are a good way to lose.

6. Elections aren't an art. They don't magically happen. They are a process that requires planning, knowledge, time, money, and energy. All wings of the party have had their successes and failures. If you don't know how to win (which is at times different in each race and each area), you shouldn't be running the show. If a plan is not going correctly, it's time to adjust. Good leaders do that. That goes for all sides.

7. It's time to end this "take over" talk. It does not do anything constructive and right on its face puts people at odds. It creates enemies.

We have a problem. Time to fix it. 2014 is on the horizon. 
 

By all means, leave

Back in 2008, I wrote a piece with the line Be Good or Be Gone. Some city jerk moved from Bay City to Frankenmuth and then tried to dictate how they ran things.

The thing with leftists - especially white leftists - is that they turn their current homes into bad places to live, move out, and arrogantly bring their leftism with them to the new place they move to, demanding that the new community conform to their cult of thinking.

I stood up and cheered at this story out of Wyoming. You move there, and then complain about guns and the energy industry? That's like complaining about lakes in Michigan.

By all means, leave

CHEYENNE -- A Newcastle state lawmaker is refusing to apologize after telling a Cheyenne minister that her and her family should leave the state if she doesn't like Wyoming politics.
The electronic skirmish started Thursday after the Rev. Audette Fulbright sent emails to all legislators stating her opposition to House Bill 105, which would have allowed people with concealed carry permits to carry guns at schools, community colleges, the University of Wyoming and public sporting events.

.......
Fulbright, who lives in Cheyenne, isn’t one of Hunt’s constituents. No other lawmakers responded except for Rep. Mary Throne, D-Cheyenne. Throne told Fulbright that the bill had moved to the Senate Education Committee and to contact committee members.
Fulbright and her family moved to Cheyenne from Virginia in July. They made the cross-country venture because the state had good schools and the landscapes remained intact. Fulbright gives her sermons at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Cheyenne. In her email to lawmakers she said she was shocked at the Legislature’s stance on guns this session.

Here's the letter and response. Some folks don't take kindly to Johnny Come Lately's invading and demanding how things should be. Notice the arrogant holier than thou superior tone in the letter as well.

Fulbright's email

Dear Representative,
I hope you are taking care of yourself during this busy session. I know it is a challenging, compressed time.
I am writing to express my grave concern about House Bill 105. Ample evidence has shown that schools and guns do not mix, and in particular, guns in the hands of amateurs/non-professionals is extremely dangerous, especially in any highly-charged situation. to expose our children to greater risk in their schools by encouraging more guns on campuses is something that we cannot allow.
My husband and I moved to Wyoming not too long ago. We believed it was a good place to raise children. With the recent and reactive expansion of gun laws and the profoundly serious dangers of fracking, we find we are seriously reconsidering our decision, which is wrenching to all of us. However, the safety of our family must come first. We are waiting to see what the legislature does this session. I know of other new-to-Wyoming families in similar contemplation. Your choices matter. It would be sad to see an exodus of educated, childrearing age adults from Wyoming as a result of poor lawmaking.
sincerely,
Rev. Audette Fulbright

Hunt's response

Rev. Fulbright,
I’ll be blunt. If you don’t like the political atmosphere of Wyoming, then by all means, leave. We, who have been here a very long time (I am proudly 4th generation) are quite proud of our independent heritage. I don’t expect a ‘mass exodus’ from our state just because we’re standing up for our rights. As to your comments on fracking, I would point out that you’re basing your statement on ‘dangers’ that have not been scientifically founded or proved as of yet.
It offends me to no end when liberal out-of-staters such as yourself move into Wyoming, trying to get away from where they came from, and then pompously demand that Wyoming conform to their way of thinking. We are, and will continue to be, a state which stands a head above the rest in terms of economic security. Our ability to do that is, in large part, to our ‘live and let live’ mentality when it comes to allowing economic development, and limiting government oversight. So, to conclude, if you’re so worried about what our legislature is working on, then go back home.
Sincerely,
Hans Hunt
Representative Hans Hunt
House District 02

If I cross paths with Hans Hunt, I'll buy him a beer for that response. If you don't like the culture of the state, why move there? If you move from an old place to a new place, why demand that it be changed to where you came? That's parasitic and toxic behavior. That's what is going on right now in Oakland County in its slow transition into a new Wayne County. The gold standard of Michigan is no longer the case. It also raises an alarm bell here in Livingston County.

Wyoming is sparsely populated, but fast growing due to the energy based economy growth there. This clown wants to stop that. She doesn't like guns, but goes to arguably the most pro-gun state in the country. GO HOME! If I moved to Detroit, Chicago, or Berkeley, would I demand they accommodate me? No. They are what they are. Leftist areas. I'm not from there. On the same note, I'm not going to sit by and let Detroit values, Chicago values, and Berkeley values invade here either.

Here in Michigan, the fastest growing county in SE Michigan is Livingston County. It's a contrast to Wayne County. Wayne County is democrat and urban. Livingston County is Republican and was (and somewhat still is, at least in character) rural. The tradition of the parties in both places is over 50 years. Livingston County balances its budget. Wayne County is a mess. Livingston County has low key officials who stay out of trouble. Wayne County has Ed McNamara, Bob Ficano, Kwame Kilpatrick, Jennifer Granholm, and Monica Conyers. Livingston County does its job. Wayne County government is featured in Charlie LeDuff's stories. Livingston County is growing. Wayne County is shrinking.

Our challenge here is this. We can not afford Wayne County values to come here. That does not mean we should not welcome Wayne County transplants. There's a big difference. There are a lot of Wayne County transplants who want no part of Wayne County values anymore. We need to welcome those who would like to join us. We should reject those - the flatlanders - who want to change us to Wayne County. That goes for transplants from anywhere, not just Wayne County. Livingston County is a good place to live for a reason. Part of that reason is that it is well run county with lower taxes, balanced budgets, less regulations than its neighbors, and a safe environment (especially by Michigan standards). If it becomes Wayne County and full of leftist democrats, that will no longer be the case.

We need to reject the Fulbright types who arrogantly wish to change us because we are supposedly backwards (while they leave their actual backward lands). We need to welcome those who wish to join us as we move forward and improve on what made us a great place to live to begin with.

Feb 22/23 - Michigan Republican Party Convention

There's always a different perspective at these events as a county chair than there is as a regular delegate. As a delegate, I worry about my vote. As chair, I worry about things going right and not screwing up my part along with my vote. There's always room for improvement.

There's no further conventions this year. I think the next one is after August of 2012. Mackinac isn't a convention, but an open conference to those who pay.

District parties and State Committee were elected on Friday and State Party officers elected on Saturday.

I think the process went fairly well in our caucus (officers unopposed in the end), but I'd like to see if we can move our county caucus to different areas so people can hear. In the 8th caucus, we have three counties in one room. It made it tough for hearing. I stayed out of the Oakland and Ingham County caucus decisions. The process in Livingston for district caucus was fair. The results were what they were. When there's eight good people running for six spots, two good people are going to unfortunately lose. I'm looking forward to working with the new committee that was elected. We have a lot of work to do and be ready for the dems.

 There were several contests for the chairs and vice chairs Saturday. A couple were unopposed. Most were easy decisions for me. Some were not. The runoff for outreach VC was tough since I didn't know the other two running (both from West Michigan). I knew the 3rd place finisher whom I supported back from previous campaigns. The youth VC spot was an extremely tough decision for me. I liked both candidates here. I think we will be in good hands there no matter who wins. The other ones were easy decisions for me. That includes my vote for Schostak as Chair. That was an easy decision for me. 

Change for change sake is not necessarily a good thing. I'll repeat that. Change for change sake is not necessarily a good thing. If you are running for chair. CEO. You need to show me you can do the job. You need to show me how you would be better than Schostak. Schostak has a two year record as finance chair and a two year record as Chair. I don't think he did a bad job considering the situation he was dealt with. Do I agree with every decision made? No. What I do like is that Schostak has done what I haven't seen done by most MIGOP chairs in my experience. Adjust when needed.

• Boston screwed up with Romney's campaign. That's not on Schostak. 
• Schostak bought the Romney/Ryan signs after Boston didn't come through. Some said that was a bad thing. I think those who said that do not understand how campaigns work. Ask Joe Hune if signs matter. 
• Karl Rove ran his mouth and for some reason a lot of big donors follow him. That's not on Schostak. 
• That delegate vote in the February primary? Part of that was Schostak. That one was bad and on him. Schostak isn't perfect.
• Straight Ticket voting is BY FAR the number one factor in State Board of Education and University 
•  Trustee/Regent races. That affects financial support to these candidates. Was that on Schostak? I'd say no. Some disagree. 
• The technology deficit is known. Schostak understands that, and not just because Courser said so since he ran for chair. 
• Schostak raised a lot of money. That made the impact of a 9pt loss seem like a 4-5pt loss. This was bad, but it wasn't 1996 bad. We kept the court and state house.
• The big problems I saw were strategic. Historically, state party defers to the candidates at the top of the ticket no matter who is chair. Schostak joined that last time, but I think won't be so apt to do that this time. Why? Boston incompetence. I'm starting to see some of the changes already - before Courser's campaign.

I personally like Todd Courser. I think he would have been great for State Board of Education. State Chair was another story. Platitudes aren't good enough to get my support. Telling me you are a constitutional conservative means nothing. Everyone claims to be that these days. It also doesn't qualify someone for chair.

Having your main team be the people behind the Gary Glenn coronation attempt is a good way to lose any chance at getting my support. I wasn't impressed with Cindy Gamrat's Michigan 4 Conservative Senate push. Now what I didn't mention in that article was that I knew the pick was going to be Gary Glenn before I wrote that. The attempted coronation backfired. Glenn withdrew from campaigning a few weeks before the election to support Durant (who I voted for when Konetchy was out) and Hoekstra won anyway. The guy they tried to get a coronation for did not make it. The local tea parties here had nothing to do with that.

Todd Courser himself is 0-3 in elections and from what I've heard, was never an officer in his county or district party (compared to my 6+ years as a party officer not even counting as chair).  His campaign was telling me that Schostak sucked. 0-3 sucks. That wasn't all his fault, but if you're putting down someone's work based on elections, you better have something to stand on. The coronation attempt for Gary Glenn who dropped out I think sucked more than the 0-3. It was a disaster, and I called it as such way back when. If Courser won, who was he going to hire for election work? Those people? In addition, how was he going to raise the necessary money?

I'm still open to 'non establishment' candidates. I voted for Santorum and don't regret it. I also don't necessarily back people just because they are running against 'the establishment.' Give me something to work with. A track record. A plan. Results.

The media memo is that the tea party opposed Schostak. That's only partially correct. The people who backed Courser that I noticed were the "It's time for change" folks, homeschool advocates (Courser is one of them - that's pro-Courser more than anything else), Campaign for Liberty (Ron Paul and Gary Johnson), Gary Glenn supporters, and SOME tea parties.
Schostak's supporters were a combination of establishment, some right to work advocates, SOME tea parties, and those who worked with him. He got my support with the signs last election. That got me off the fence.

That all said, there is no doubt we have a divided base. Washington incompetence isn't helping matters at all. Our DC Republicans are once again making things a lot tougher for us. A couple of Snyder vetoes of popular bills on gun safety and insurance matters supported by our Livingston County Republicans upset some people. The gas tax proposal is opposed by Joe Hune and many others. While we are quite appreciative of Right to Work, I'm not going to sugarcoat things and say all is well within the party. There's a lot of work to be done. Some people took out their frustrations on Schostak.

I hear this talk about how we need unity. While I agree, the question is how do we do it. I think we need to concentrate on the first part of our names and differentiate ourselves from DC. Washington is killing us. We're not Washington. I'm going to be making a concerted effort to remember the first two words of my party's name. "Livingston County." Just because Washington sucks doesn't mean we have anything to do with it.

Schostak has a lot of work to do. I think he'll get it done. Everyone has to do their part as well, and that includes me.

On to the next election. For us, that's May/August this year.

Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois Nazis

Warning - Some language in the Blues Brothers clip.

I got a $100 red light camera ticket from Chicago in the mail today. One problem. I haven't driven in Illinois, let alone Chicago, in at least 12 years. I also have never driven my current wheels there. The vehicle's license plate was off by one letter (Which I can tell even on the red light camera picture sent to me). It was a different vehicle from Michigan. I won't post pictures but you can bet your arse that I'll be sending a nice file to Sh-tcago (gave up swearing for Lent) to contest this piece of trash. They got the wrong car.

I'm even more insulted that they sent a picture of a foreign car to me and claim that it was my car. Anyone that knows me knows I drive Fords, not Scion. My family would disown me otherwise The picture of the vehicle was a Scion XD. I drive a older truck based Ford Explorer. There is a big difference. M and N are different letters. Fords and Scions are different vehicles. One quick license plate cross check should have handled that.


I wouldn't expect anything less than incompetence or a moneygrab attempt from the city that gave us Al Capone, Barack Obama, the Daley family, Dan Rostenkowski, Sam Giancana, Fred Roti (A Mobster who was a city alderman which lead the push for the gun ban), Pat Marcy, Jesse Jackson, Mel Reynolds, Rod Blagojevich, Rahm Emanuel, Daniel Walker, and Otto Kerner. Many of them are or have been jailbirds at some point. It's called C(r)ook County, Illinois(e) for a reason. Half of the pols there seem to end up in the big house.

 That's what democrat run cities get you.

Gun grabbers in Washington State want house to house searches for guns

The left says "Nobody wants to take your guns." That's a bald faced lie of course. I know. You know it. Everybody knows it. Those that say otherwise are lying. 

This new bill is scary. While this is supposedly a mistake, I'm skeptical of how much of a mistake it was. Words mean things. Language inserted into bills is often run by attorneys to double check matters. If this was a mistake, it got past a lot of people.

While Washington State is rather liberal, it like Oregon is not as liberal on guns as many other blue states. It's not like California, Illinois, or most of the Northeast (outside Pennsylvania, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire).

From Seattle Times

One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake.

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?
As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.
That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.
“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”
That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats. 

(Note to readers: The link above is to a new version of SB 5737, which no longer contains the disputed provision. The original version of the bill has been erased from the state’s Web site, but here you can see it as it was proposed.)

That's from a media editorial in the paper. As you'd guess, it's leftist, like most newspaper editorials.  Even they have a limit. Provisions like that could cause a lot of problems.

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:
“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”
In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.
“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”
He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”
I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

It's not paranoia if they are really out to get you. I'm not surprised one bit. That's what the left does. That's what big government does. More laws. More regulations. More criminalization. Obamacare makes felons of those who don't comply. Five years in prison. Why wouldn't they support house to house searches? It wouldn't be the first time.

Washington DC was pushing this back in 2008

Bill Clinton and the Butcher of Waco Janet Reno pushed warrantless searches in public housing. Remember the infamous "radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights quote?" That was referring to this.

New York State's latest gun grab banned magazines with more than 7 bullets. That covers almost all semi-automatic pistols outside of some 1911's. That also covers the classic Ruger 10/.22 Those who currently own them and don't turn them in or sell them out of state face a misdemeanor charge. What's going to happen there - house to house searches? Andrew Cuomo was part of that same Clinton administration, so it wouldn't shock me a bit.

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged in a long time, and parts I agree with and parts I don't, but one quote struck with me. It's as true as can be.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - Floyd Ferris

But this hasn't been proposed federally, right?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993 on behalf of myself and nine of my colleagues: Mel Reynolds, Bill Clay, Jerry Nadler, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John Lewis, Nydia Velazquez, Ron Dellums, Carrie Meek, and Alcee Hastings. This legislation, first introduced in the Senate by Senator John Chafee, would prohibit the transfer or possession of handguns and handgun ammunition, except in limited circumstances. It would go a long way toward protecting our citizens from violent crime.
The need for a ban on handguns cannot be overstated. Unlike rifles and shotguns, handguns are easily concealable. Consequently, they are the weapons of choice in most murders, accounting for the deaths of 25,000 Americans in 1991.
A 6-month grace period would be established during which time handguns could be turned in to any law enforcement agency with impunity and for reimbursement at the greater of $25 or the fair market value of the handgun . After the grace period's expiration, handguns could be turned in voluntarily with impunity from criminal prosecution, but a civil fine of $500 would be imposed.
Exemptions from the handgun ban would be permitted for Federal, State, or local government agencies, including military and law enforcement; collectors of antique firearms; federally licensed handgun sporting clubs; federally licensed professional security guard services; and federally licensed dealers, importers, or manufacturers.

The Public Health and Safety Act of 1993 represents a moderate, middle-of-the-road approach to handgun control which deserves the support of all members of Congress who want to stop gun murders now.
         --- Hon. Major R. Owens (Rep. NY, Introduction of the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993, Extension of Remarks - September 23, 1993. Congressional Record, 103rd Congress, 1993-1994)

While the 2nd Amendment in SCOTUS did rule against bans, keep in mind it was a 5-4 decision. Twice. If Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, or Alito retire under Obama's term, we are at major risk of the DC and Chicago bans being reversed.

Nobody wants to take the guns, right? We all know the answer to that. These gun grabs need to be stopped. Our checks and balances in our political system need to be respected, and the 2nd Amendment is a major part of that.

Talk is cheap

I gave up swearing for Lent, so I can't say what I'd really like to say here. I skipped the SOTU address. I had more important things to do, like watch the State game. Snark comment aside, after five years of the same old song and dance, what else would I expect.

From the Argus

And this was in the Argus.

The Livingston County Republican Party chairman says there was no need to watch President Barack Obama's State of the Union address because it's just "talk anyway, and talk is cheap."
"I figure watching the State of the Union would be a waste of my time; the reason being, I can't believe what is said anyway because we've had, by this point, five years of Obama," Chairman Dan Wholihan said, noting he instead watched the basketball game between Michigan and Michigan State.
"We know what he supports. We know what he is pushing. There's not a lot of news anyway," he added.

Past performance is usually the best indicator of future performance. We've had massive power grabs, spending increases, regulations, and tax increases. The speech, at least according to the lowlights I've seen, is nothing more than more of the same. Cap and Destroy, gun grabbing, spending.

Perhaps the most emotionally charged issue was Obama's call for passage of gun-control measures.
Daubenmier said Obama is "absolutely right" that victims of gun violence "deserve a vote" on these measures.
"It was another way in which the president sent a signal that he is tired of Republican obstructionism on proposals that are widely supported by the American people," she said.
Wholihan isn't impressed, saying Obama's comments have been the "same talking points proposed" by former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore's administration.

What wasn't printed is that we have massive gun control in Chicago. It doesn't work. Mexico has a total ban. El Paso next door with the same ethnic makeup is much safer. I've seen the same talking points about what is known in 2nd Amendment circles as "evil black rifles" that look scary, along with 'gun shows' (all dealers must perform background checks) for 15 years.

Wholihan said Obama needs to talk about spending cuts. He suggested looking back to 2000 and 2001 as a starting point.
"I think both parties have spent too much," he said. "I think Republicans are starting to realize that and are getting back to our traditional views on spending and budget. Livingston County Republicans have had balanced budgets every year. It's not hard to do. It just takes effort."

If you want to see balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, look at our county government. Lowest taxes, highest bond rating. Balanced budgets every year. Compare that to the feds, or Wayne County for that matter. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We need to apply the forward thinking of Livingston County to the rest of the country.

It's time for zero based budgeting in DC, and to end both tax and spend, along with borrow and spend. Mr. Obama shattered the Bush records, and then talks about fiscal responsibility. Talk is cheap. Talk from Mr. Obama is worthless.

Don Parker and Mike Tipton file for Commissioner vacancy

We'll have a May/August special election to fill the position by Jay Drick's promotion to magistrate.

From the Argus:

The race to fill an unexpired Livingston County Commission term is set.
Republican Don Parker, who was recently appointed to the seat, and Democrat Michael Tipton, a newly-elected Howell Township trustee, were the only candidates to filed Tuesday for the District 5 commission seat.

That means we probably won't have a real contest in the primary barring an unexpectedly strong write-in. There will be a contested special general election in August. We're going to need to be ready for that as Tipton did win his last race (unopposed). Parker's been there before, so he's not a stranger to elections. Parker was my commissioner when I lived in Howell and I thought he did a good job there.

The Special Primary is MAY 7th. The Special General is AUGUST 6th. Throw out most of the conventional rules with special elections. They are always about turnout. We can not beat ourselves this August.

Karl Kling also announces for the 47th District (HD-47)

I just saw this in the Argus. I knew he had a Bureau of Elections committee up, but I was waiting for a formal announcement before commenting.

Michigan Sports Academy-Livingston owner Karl Kling has announced his candidacy for Michigan’s 47th House District seat, currently filled by state Rep. Cindy Denby, R-Handy Township.
Kling is running as a GOP candidate for the seat, which is open in 2014 because Denby is term-limited.
He owns Michigan Sports Academy-Livingston, 760 McPherson Park Drive in Howell. The business is an indoor baseball and softball training facility. Kling is also a former Milford Times editor.

I don't know Karl Kling and found out what I could quickly. I saw his linkedin profile and saw he was active out in Oakland County politics for awhile and a writer with the South Lyon Herald. He was the chief of staff of Nancy Cassis and the Communications Director and later Executive Director for the OCRP. He lasted over a term as ED after the two years turnover, so he showed something they liked. His wife is/was Joe and Marty Knollenberg's treasurer so there are some strong political connections in the family, probably from the time with OCRP.

He's a relative stranger to Livingston County Politics to a large extent however which is much different and still more small town oriented than Oakland. With his baseball involvement, he's not a stranger to the Howell area community which values athletics. The question is if he can apply what he learned in Oakland to here, and get his baseball folks all behind him this campaign.

I expect Dr Vaupel to use the Joe Hune/Cindy Denby tried and true strategy for the district. If both of these candidates work like they are probably capable of working, it should be a good race. I haven't seen of any other names on the list.

Since I'm County Chair, I won't be making an endorsement in this primary except to say that either Hank Vaupel, Karl Kling, or someone else that wins will have tough shoes to full. Joe and Cindy both did a very good job in the 47th. That won't be easy to replace.

Good luck to both candidates, and I hope it's a good clean primary.

Dr Henry Vaupel announces run for state rep

From WHMI:

2/4/13 - A local official is looking to move into the political arena in 2014. Dr. Henry Vaupel of Fowlerville has officially announced his candidacy for Michigan’s 47th District House of Representatives seat. He is the current Handy Township Supervisor and the founder of a local veterinary clinic. The seat is currently held by Republican Cindy Denby, who is term limited. Dr. Vaupel says he brings extensive knowledge of his community to the race and would look to support legislation that grows the economy of Michigan, and Livingston County. He adds that any polices he would bring to Lansing would reflect his strong family and conservative values. District 47 encompasses Cohoctah, Conway, Deerfield, Handy, Hartland, Howell, Iosco, Marion, Oceola, Tyrone and Unadilla Townships as well as the City of Howell, the Village of Fowlerville and a portion of Fenton City. More information about Vaupel can be found through the link below. 

I think there's a geographic advantage with the Fowlerville area in regards to this district, despite more population in the Hartland/Tyrone area. Western Livingston has a long history for not only voting for their own, but getting out the vote in order to do so. Joe Hune set the standard on this in his 2002 then major upset. He worked hard and got Western Livingston behind him. Cindy Denby was Handy Township Supervisor and was also a staffer for Joe Hune before taking Joe's spot. Dr Hank Vaupel is currently Handy Township Supervisor and is now running for Joe and Cindy's old position.

Vaupel is a good guy and a long time supporter of the party and is probably best known for founding the Kern Road Veterinarian clinic.  He will certainly be a contender for the position. We'll see who else is in.

Karl Rove - Back the Hell off

I really don't understand how Karl Rove is considered a political genius unless it is the Wile E Coyote version of "super genius." He got lucky by 500 votes in Florida in 2000, and got lucky again that John Kerry was the worst candidate the dems could run in 2004 thanks to "The New Soldier" and his 1972 traitor speech (read the whole transcript). The only thing he really got right campaign wise was getting ballot initiatives going that drove conservative turnout. That's the one big thing I'll credit him with. When it comes to candidate strategy and issues, I think he flat out sucks.

Karl Rove was deputy Chief of Staff of Bush from 05 to 07. That is the same time trouble really started brewing for the Bush administration.

Karl Rove was 0-fer in Michigan. Lost the 2000 primary. Lost in 2000 and 2004 (and he shouldn't have lost 04). Crossroads lost here in 2012.  He also ran his mouth and did a 1/2way McCain statement here in the last election. He later said it was competitive in the last two weeks, but the earlier comment did major damage. Major. If he was the genius he claimed he was, he'd keep his mouth shut, stay off of Fox (if he's running crossroads) and do what needs to be done.

Now he's getting involved in primaries. Great. A quote from Coach Bob Knight comes to mind. "You (bleeped) it up to begin with, now just sit there or leave."  Knight was addressing a media person who misrepresented him. Rove embarrassed himself and spent a lot of political capital losing hundreds of millions of dollars from donor money and got bad results. His back is against the wall and he needs to redeem himself and his thought process. The think with these national consultants is that it is of course NEVER their own fault. It's always the fault of others. That's how they keep getting their paycheck and these hanger-ons stay around. It can't be the fault of "super genius" but it is the fault of those "tea party people."

Reality is that this year the only one I can pin on the tea party is Mourdock. Akin wasn't tea party (although some tea party backed him after the fact due to the attacks against him by Rove). Romney wasn't tea party. His election day operations are legendary bad with Project Orca. His sign policy also hurt us badly.  In 2010, you could point to Angle and O'Donnell as tea party, but this year you had establishment candidates lose too. Both sides have their good (Rob Portman, Pat Toomey) and bad (Tommy Thompson, Richard Mourdock).

From the NY Times.

The group, the Conservative Victory Project, is intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races.

“There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” said Steven J. Law, the president of American Crossroads, the “super PAC” creating the new project. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.” 

On paper, that sounds great. On paper. The problem is American Crossroads is run by Rove. Rove's track record makes Sarah Palin's look almost perfect. 3 for 20 or 7 for 24 (I've seen different reports.) This wasn't a wave election. The other issue is this. It's not about "most conservative" or "most moderate" if you are looking for electability. That's consultant and pundit BS. It's about the right fit. Rove doesn't get the Midwest. He never has. His record here shows that. Electability starts with candidates who A. Do their job and run on that first, B. Work hard and campaign and don't act like they are talked into running or are entitled to the job. Competence comes first. Where that affect social issues is where you have "far right" or "moderate" candidates play those up to the expense of going away from "doing your job issues."

The effort would put a new twist on the Republican-vs.-Republican warfare that has consumed the party’s primary races in recent years. In effect, the establishment is taking steps to fight back against Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations that have wielded significant influence in backing candidates who ultimately lost seats to Democrats in the general election.  

As someone who is not completely in either camp, I see a major problem here. One good friend of mind who is probably considered establishment said one of the biggest problems was Republicans bashing the hell out of each other in primaries. I'm not completely blameless here, but that was a good point mentioned. "For every attack between Santorum and Romney camps, you had votes going by default to Obama" was almost the exact quote from this individual. This person has a real point, especially after seeing the results. This Rovian stuff ain't helping matters.

As far as the "backing candidates who lose part", usually Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin are cited. Mourdock lost for saying something stupid. Akin wasn't tea party. He was establishment - Huckabee wing. He lost for saying something stupid. Saying something stupid isn't limited to "tea party" candidates. George Allen was very establishment and he lost in 06 for saying something stupid.

Iowa will be ground zero for this. 

The group’s plans, which were outlined for the first time last week in an interview with Mr. Law, call for hard-edge campaign tactics, including television advertising, against candidates whom party leaders see as unelectable and a drag on the efforts to win the Senate. Mr. Law cited Iowa as an example and said Republicans could no longer be squeamish about intervening in primary fights.

“We’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem,” Mr. Law said. “This is an example of candidate discipline and how it would play in a general election. All of the things he’s said are going to be hung around his neck.”

King beat Christine Vilsack, a strong candidate with 7 million in backing, by 8% in a slightly R district. Now can King sell in Eastern Iowa? That's why we have primaries. On the same note, would Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist be better as R's in 2010 than Pat Toomey and Marco Rubio? NRSC supported those now democrats. NRSC supported Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island. He won his primary and got his ass kicked in 2006. He also supported Obama, the 2nd worst resident of the White House in my lifetime outside of Jimmy Carter.

Grover Norquist, who leads Americans for Tax Reform, a fiscally conservative advocacy group that plays a role in Republican primary races, said he welcomed a pragmatic sense of discipline in recruiting candidates. But he said it was incorrect to suggest that candidates backed by Tea Party groups were the only ones to lose, pointing to establishment Republicans in North Dakota and Montana who also lost their races last year.

“People are imagining a problem that doesn’t exist,” Mr. Norquist said. “We’ve had people challenge the establishment guy and do swimmingly.” 

I'm not always in agreement with Norquist, but he's dead on here. Establishment candidates lost in Wisconsin and Michigan this year. Tea party candidates won Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida in 2010. Tea party won Texas in 2012. Tea party lost Indiana in 2012 and lost Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado in 2010. Establishment won Nevada  in 2012 and Ohio in 2010. They were generally united in New Hampshire in 2010 and won. Good candidates are good candidates regardless of which wing of the party. Bad is bad regardless of which wing of the party. "Electable candidates" aren't such because of just ideology. That's DC thinking.

Who are the recent winners in a purple state like Wisconsin? Scott Walker and Ron Johnson. I'm sure Rove would consider them too right wing to win a Midwestern state. Tommy Thompson lost. He shouldn't have lost, but he lost, to Tammy Baldwin of all people. Here in Michigan, I personally like Pete Hoekstra. He's a good guy who unfortunately was not a good candidate. He ran for senate like he was talked into running and did so as a favor. He was the establishment pick. He won the primary underwhelmingly and we had Bouchard 2006 all over again in the general. Stabenow has a lot of soft support. There was an opening there, but the window shut quickly and it was all over before it started.

If Steven Law at Crossroads really wants to do this right and be actually pragmatic instead of being another NRSC racket (Chafee, Crist, Specter all over again), he'll need to learn the territory of these areas in depth. He'll need to talk to the experts on the group and learn from them. REAL experts - away from the DC bubble. These experts are those who understand how things work in each individual state - people that live there. If Law tells Rove and DC consultants to back off, this may work. 

If Crossroads follows Rove's lead and pushes in, you're going to see state establishments, tea parties, conservatives, and everyone up and down the line unite - AGAINST Crossroads. Why? Turf wars. Arrogance combined with ignorance. Wasting money. How? Because candidates like Steve King in Iowa will drive up the Western Iowa vote with this line "Washington DC thinks they know what is best for Iowans. Vote for me and teach Washington establishment a lesson that primaries are for Iowans." That can work in every state. 

I encourage all Republican and Conservative donors to ask themselves these things when determining which committee to support:

1. Do these people have a good track record? Take a close look. While there's always many reasons why candidates sometimes lose, if you see the same style of campaign repeatedly with the same results, a pattern emerges.

2. Do I want my money spent on 3rd parties to elect republicans being wasted attacking good republicans in primaries?  If I want that, I'd donate to the candidate itself or an issues PAC.

3. Will this committee spend my money properly? I hate wasting money. Some call me cheap, but I prefer the term frugal. It goes back to running a countywide committee on $1700 against $10K+. We won BTW.

That doesn't apply just to Crossroads and Rove, but any committee. We all need to use due diligence in our decision making in which committees deserve our support, be it establishment, tea party, or all points in between.

Interesting blurb on the open County Commissioner seat

As Jay Drick resigned to become magistrate, a county commissioner district is now open.

I saw this on WHMI.com and it was quite interesting.

1/29/13- Interviews for an interim commissioner were held at last night’s meeting for the Livingston County Board of Commissioners. The seat became vacant when Jay Drick stepped down from his District 5 position to accept an appointment as magistrate. Candidates were asked a number of questions that educated the board on their intent as a commissioner, their experience and skills, and their involvement in the community they wish to serve.Candidates for the seat include Pastor Tom Huff, educator Mike Brennan, Howell Township Trustee Michael Tipton, and Howell attorney and former commissioner Don Parker. Parker (pictured on the left) served on the board from 2002 to 2010. The candidates will be reviewed by the board and voted on at Monday, February 4th’s scheduled meeting. (SO)

We'll have a special election for this spot. About the names mentioned.

Don Parker (R) - He was the commissioner here before Jay Drick took office in 2010. He wants his spot back now that it's open. I personally thought overall he was a good commissioner during the time I lived in Howell.

Mike Brennan (L) - He's a  Libertarian and runs a tutoring program.

Tom Huff (?) - Pastor of Grace Lutheran Church. I don't know much beyond that as I'm not Lutheran. He does have some name recognition in the area being a pastor. His wife donated to Shanda Willis (D) for state house, Bill Rogers opponent.

Mike Tipton (D) - I'm a little surprised that Mike Tipton's angling for a promotion to a temporary gig as commissioner literally right after he takes office at Howell Township. Tipton was unopposed for Howell Township trustee and won. Maybe this is due to making sure there is at least more than one interview. It'll be interesting if he runs for the special election. He doesn't have to give up his township spot to run, but would have to give it up if he won. Don't laugh when I say "if he won". He won once already in a shutout. I will however make sure that an R files for this seat this time.

One of these four will be appointed barring a surprise. There will also be a special election primary and general for the remainder of the term. We'll see who files likely in February.

New Geography hits the nail on the head

One of the few democrats I agree with more often than not is Joel Kotkin of New Geography. He may be a dem, but he's an old school FDR type and certainly not a new urbanist or a modern day "progressive." New Geography is one of the better social/political blogs out there and concentrates on the old school areas like actually building things.

From New Geography

This shift stems, in large part, from the movement from a predominately resource and tangible goods-based economy to an information-based one. In the past, political struggles were largely fought over how to divide up the spoils generated by the basic productive economy; labor, investors and management all shared a belief in the ethos of economic growth, manufacturing and resource extraction.
In contrast, today’s new hegemons hail almost entirely from outside the material economy, and many come from outside the realm of the market system entirely. Daniel Bell, in his landmark 1973 The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, may have been the first to identify this ascension to “pre-eminence of the professional and technical class.” This new “priesthood of power,” as he put it, would eventually overturn the traditional hierarchies based on land, corporate and financial assets.
Forty years later the outlines of this transformation are clear. Contrary to the conservative claims of Obama’s “socialist” tendencies, the administration is quite comfortable with such capitalist sectors as entertainment, the news media and the software side of the technology industry, particularly social media. The big difference is these firms derive their fortunes not from the soil and locally crafted manufacturers, but from the manipulation of ideas, concepts and images.
Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft are far from “the workers of the world,” but closer to modern-day robber barons. Through their own ingenuity, access to capital and often oligopolistic hold on lucrative markets, they have enjoyed one of the greatest accumulations of wealth in recent economic history, even amidst generally declining earnings, rising poverty and inequality among their fellow Americans. Last year the tech oligarchs emerged as major political players. Microsoft, Google and their employees were the largest private-sector donors to the president.

That's one wing of the dem base. The other two are closely tied to that industry. Academia and Foundations. A lot of the foundations have academia and politicians as trustees. I learned about the foundations from back in the late 90's and early 2000's in the 2nd Amendment movement as these big money foundations are often the biggest funders of the gun grabbers. They were propped up by the Joyce Foundation (Obama was trustee), Soros, Tides Foundation, MacArthur Fund, and other similar "C3's." Interesting, Obama's campaign organization is reforming into either a C3 or a C4. 

An even greater beneficiary of the second term will be the administrative class, who by their nature live largely outside the market system. This group, which I call the new clerisy, is based largely in academia and the federal bureaucracy, whose numbers and distinct privileges have grown throughout the past half century.

....
Indeed the clerisy accounted for five of the top eight sources of Obama’s campaign funding, led by the University of California, the federal workforce, Harvard , Columbia and Stanford. Academic support for Obama was remarkably lock-step: a remarkable 96% of all donations from the Ivy League went to the president, something more reminiscent of Soviet Russia than a properly functioning pluralistic academy.
To understand the possible implications of the new power arrangement, it is critical to understand the nature of the new clerisy. Unlike traditional capitalist power groups, including private-sector organized labor, the clerisy’s power derives not primarily through economic influence per se but through its growing power to inform opinion and regulate everything from how people live to what industries will be allowed to grow, or die.
The clerisy shares a kind of mission which Bell described as the rational “ordering of mass society.” Like the bishops and parish priests of the feudal past, or the public intellectuals, university dons and Anglican worthies of early 19th century Britain, today’s clerisy attempts to impart on the masses today’s distinctly secular “truths,” on issues ranging from the nature of justice, race and gender to the environment. Academics, for example, increasingly regulate speech along politically correct lines, and indoctrinate the young while the media shape their perceptions of reality.
Most distinctive about the clerisy is their unanimity of views. On campus today, there is broad agreement on a host of issues from gay marriage, affirmative action and what are perceived as “women’s” issues to an almost religious environmentalism that is contemptuous toward traditional industry and anything that smacks of traditional middle class suburban values. These views have shaped many of the perceptions of the current millennial generation, whose conversion to the clerical orthodoxy has caught most traditional conservatives utterly flat-footed.
As befits a technological age, the new clerisy also enjoys the sanction of what Bell defined as the “creative elite of scientists.” Prominent examples include the Secretary of Energy, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist David Chu; science advisor John Holdren; NASA’s James Hansen; and the board of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the words of New York Times hyper-partisan Charles Blow, Republicans have devolved into the “creationist party.” In contrast Obama reigns gloriously hailed as “the sun king” of official science.

In reality, once you stop testing theories, you're no longer a scientist, but a cult. The "sun king" fits perfectly.  This cultist collectivist mindset reminds me of the Eugenics push and racial social darwinism of the early 20th century which lead to Planned Parenthood (Margaret Sanger) and Fascism. It was bad when I was in school, and it has gotten much worse since then.

So who loses in the new order? Certainly unfashionable companies  – oil firms, agribusiness concerns, suburban homebuilders — face tougher times from regulators and the mainstream media . But the biggest losers likely will be the small business-oriented middle class. Not surprisingly Main Street, far more than Wall Street, harbors the gravest pessimism about the president’s second term.
The small business owner, the suburban homeowner, the family farmer or skilled construction tradesperson are intrinsically ill-suited to playing the the insiders’ game in Washington. Played up to at election time, they find their concerns promptly abandoned thereafter, outliers more than ever in a refashioned political order.

This is what we are up against.  We need to A. know the enemy and B. be prepared to counterpunch a knockout when they swing for our heads. Today's left wants to control our lives because they they know what is best for us. Think back to the Thomas Frank (academia) mantra when they complain that we all "vote against our interest." Our interest is actually controlling our own destiny and not being handcuffed by the zillions of regulations out there.

They need to get out of our way. If they don't, they need to be fired. That's all there is to it. 

Welcome to the cameras.

As the new disclaimer at the top of the site says, "Opinions on this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Livingston County Republican Party. That was certainly true before January 4th. It still is today, even though the line has somewhat blurred to the point where it is harder to separate the two. The old Reagan 11th Commandment will be used for the most part from this point on with this blog, along with less push in primary elections due to not being allowed to endorse (as chair) in primaries. I can't be the bad cop as much as I used to. I have to be the good cop.

One thing that is great and bad about the internet and the blogs is that there's a record of greatest hits. That record, in the case of this "no holds barred" blog goes back 7 years. I started this site in my 20's and I knew I was going to have to be ready for them when I talked to Chris Behnan in the Argus last week. That's part of the responsibility as chair. Some of those greatest hits I may have to answer for now that I'm in a different capacity. Behan posted some of these in the article.

Today's Argus

Republican Michigander blogger Dan Wholihan plans to make his well-followed, no-holds-barred blog more encompassing of the Livingston County Republican Party platform.
Wholihan feels he has to: He was elected county Republican Party chairman just after the start of the new year.
"Before, I was speaking for myself only. As a chair, I have to keep in mind that even when I'm not intending to speak for the party, it sounds like I would be," Wholihan said.
"I'm probably going to be more into the details. It will be less controversial than I've been at times," he added. The Green Oak Township resident, 33, was elected by his colleagues to a two-year term as party chairman, taking the reins from former Chairwoman Lana Theis

 
 He was nice and said I was 33 (I was in the interview). The major difference now and then is the role. I'm not just a blogger, a contractor, a treasurer, or a consultant. Those positions don't speak for the party. I can wear those different hats then. If Joe Hune, Cindy Denby, and Bill Rogers all of a sudden shock me and turns into leftists (not going to happen), I can't call him out on the blog, at least in the same way I otherwise could. Why? Because they are good Livingston County Republicans. Any issues I'd handle behind closed door. Even before on this blog, I was usually one to call them first instead of just firing way. The difference now is that I'm going to extend that to Snyder and the rest of those statewide. As for National.....no comment. Rove and some of these national consultants will still get called out though.

I'm going to address some of things mentioned in the article here adding more context.

I knew an old Snyder quote would be there. My stance on Rick Snyder in 2010 is and was well known, as was my support of Mike Cox who did as AG exactly what he said he was going to do. I was never a fan of Nafta/Gatt. Still am not. I'm not a fan of corporate speak. Snyder has gotten much better on the evasive comments. Since becoming governor, there no question where he stands on issues. Some I like and some I don't. His signing of Right to Work improved my opinion. He also signed (and vetoed) pro-life legislation. I'm glad the MBT is gone, although I agree with our own Joe Hune instead on the pension tax and gas tax.

As for how that effects county party, I have my responsibilities. My job is three things as county chair, and that doesn't change based on the names involved.

1. Elect Republicans to Livingston County.
2. Overperform in Livingston County so Republicans win statewide.
3. Build the party.

In an August 2010 post, Wholihan criticized spending under former Republican President George W. Bush, calling Bush "the best Democrat the Republicans ever had on fiscal matters."

Well, that's true. Obama broke his records and was worse on that issue. I knew a "Peter Principle" quote would be on there as well.

"When it comes to budgets and spending, Peter Principle in Chief Obama hasn't earned the right to say anything. He hasn't shown the intelligence, ability, experience, trustworthiness, or record to say anything regarding spending. He broke Bush's records on spending, and now demands a tax increase to bail himself out."

I coined that term because Mr.Obama has talked about deficits for then 3 years and the spending increases every year. He was a 1/2 term junior senator, caught lightning, and now thinks he's a king.

In with the "Greatest hits" from the blog was a quote that I'm glad made the papers.

While Republicans are heavily favored in the largely conservative county, he noted there were no GOP challengers in November for two open seats on the Howell Township Board of Trustees. Two Democrats automatically won two of the four board seats because only two Democrats and two Republicans ran for the positions.
He said wins by Democrats in neighboring Oakland County in November give him pause, given ongoing movement of Oakland County residents into Livingston County.
"The newcomers to our county do not have the same history of good local officials on the Republican level, and we need to educate our newcomers that there's a reason why Livingston County's a great place to live," Wholihan said.
"We have to earn their votes," he added.

The first two words in our party are Livingston County. What scares the hell out of  me with Oakland is that the longtime migration patterns continue and now affect downticket, not just presidential. Wayne County to Oakland. Oakland to Livingston. Southfield voted for Dukakis by 5000 votes. It's now 80-85% Dem. Farmington Hills voted for Rocky three times. It's becoming Southfield 20 years ago. Novi was 60% R, now it's close to 50/50. After Novi is South Lyon and Milford. After that is my home of Green Oak Township on the county line.

Livingston County is a great place to live. Those who move here agree. I stayed here instead of settling in Lansing. Part of the reason Livingston County is a great place to live is due to our local county republicans who do a great job for us. That is what we have to make sure our newcomers understand. Oakland is slipping. People who are moving there are taking Wayne County politics with them. All that's left are some commissioners, Brooks, and Bouchard. A few bad democrats in the minority can be covered up by the majority. However, the dems aren't usually like Unadilla's Jake Donohue anymore or even Jim Barcia or Joel Sheltrown. They are more apt to be the "progressives" like you'd see in the big cities. Liz Brater, Gary Peters, SEIU, and George Soros.

As far as my plans for county party, it is to first use the tools we have to reach our potential. This is a conservative county. While radio talk show hosts always mention that "conservatism works when it is tried" here is a case of it working in action over a period of years. IMO, we don't do a good enough job of explaining that, particularly with the issues with DC. Things get done here, with low taxes, and a balanced budget every year. It's not talk, like Obama with the deficit. It's action. Livingston County is a safe place to live as well, unlike many democrat havens out there.

Whom we elect, especially locally, makes a big difference. Let's not forget what brought us here.

Hathaway resigns. Snyder will appoint Supreme Court Justice.

We went from Justice Cliff Taylor, a real good man, to this.From WXYZ

(WXYZ) - Legal experts are saying that Michigan Supreme Court Justice Diane Hathaway may have avoided suspension by the Judicial Tenure Commission by announcing her retirement , but that doesn't mean she won't face criminal charges.
Channel 7 legal analyst Tom Cranmer says that is the big question and he believes it's a possibility.
This all surrounds allegations Hathaway shuffled properties in Michigan and Florida to enable a short sale on one. It was a story first reported by the 7 Action News Investigators.
Both the JYC and the US Attorney's Office have alleged fraud against Hathaway-- the US Attorney's claim is civil for now.

With Hathaway's resignation, Rick Snyder will appoint a new Supreme Court Justice. Personally, my first choice would be Wayne County Circuit Judge Dan Ryan if he wants it. I have no idea if he does. Another suggestion would be Colleen O'Brien who ran last time. O'Brien had a close loss to McCormack. This would follow the path of Justice Brian Zahra who lost in 02 or 04 and was later appointed and won his retention race. 

I hope Snyder picks someone good and someone with judicial experience. Supreme Court Justices need to be judges first.

The appointee will have to run in 2014 for the rest of the partial term. We have to be ready to go.

The New Livingston County GOP Chair

Hard work pays off. The new Livingston County Republican Party Chair is yours truly. I didn't win this alone and had some good help and friends in high places helping me, but I earned this position through experience, good campaigning, hard work, planning, organization, and developing long term relationships. A lot of the local county elected officials - all in different wings of the party - supported me for LCGOP Chair. What stood out to me is that none of them asked me for a favor outside of doing a good job. My promise was to do the best job possible. There was no "you back me for this or that and I'll support you." Now not surprising those candidates I've helped out in the past directly supported me, but many candidates I did not directly help in the past also supported me. Some of them I've known for 12 years. Others I've known for about a month. Most I've known for a few years. That was my advantage.

My job falls into three areas. The rest is all extra. I'm not going to forget the first two words of our party.
1. Elect Republicans in Livingston County.
2. Overperform in Livingston County so Republicans win statewide.
3. Build our party and grassroots in  Livingston County. 

Those three things. The first is obvious. It's not something we can take for granted as Howell Township showed it. Carl Levin almost carried the county in 2008. I know it was an almost uncontested race because Jack was hung out to dry and McCain quit, but it still almost happened. Oakland County's pattern is disturbing as well. Washtenaw County is next door, as are Genesee and Ingham Counties. Those are as blue of county as we are red. The 2nd part and 3rd parts go together. They build on each other.



The good news is that I'm the new Livingston County Republican Party Chair. The bad news is that as of last night I can't really separate "speaking for the party" from "speaking for myself" too much. If I make a brash comment on this blog calling out someone national, it's going to come back and bite everybody in our local party instead of just me. I'll use a little more discretion, but I'm not going to change who I am, and I'm not going to be somebody who is shackled to avoid offending everybody. However, I'll probably keep most of my criticisms of Republicans in-house and behind closed doors for the next two years. The main difference on this blog will be primaries. As Chair, I can not endorse in Republican primaries with my title. That's obvious and will be a change from previous policy on my blog.

Lastly, if you want Livingston County to stay a great place to live, let's remember who built us to be who we are. Republicans. Let's not turn into Wayne County. Elections have consequences and they affect our entire way of life.

New Livingston County Commissioner on the way

I heard about this awhile back (although this all developed after the November election - and I was one of the early ones to know), but didn't get a chance to post due to time constraints along with being asked to keep it quiet because it wasn't a done deal when I first heard about it. Jay Drick will be resigning at the end of January to become the new county magistrate, and we'll be having a new county commissioner in the 5th District. From a political side, Jay will be missed, but I think he'll do a very good job as magistrate. He has the right temperament to be a judge and certainly knows the law. Those who argue in front of him better have their facts and law straight. Congratulations to Jay.

The 5th District covers the City of Howell, Howell Township, and Cohoctah.

Don Parker announced that he was interested in the position. He was the commissioner before Jay Drick and did not run for re-election in 2010. He was the commissioner there back when I lived in Howell. Don Parker's a safe pick because he held the office previously.

Here's what's likely going to happen:

1. An appointment.

2. The question is this. If Parker, or somebody else is appointed, when is the election? While County offices aren't usually voted on in odd number years, other offices are voted on in odd number years. It SOUNDS like the appointee will finish Jay's term unless it is interpreted that November of 2013 (and August 2013 primary) is going to have to have a special election for the position. I'm not sure when Parker was first appointed to county commission off of city council, although he was unopposed election time that year.

--------------------------------------

Updated and Edited 1-16


There's some conflicting statutes and I talked to a few people including Margaret Dunleavy and Joan Runyan. It looks like there will be an appointment next month, along with a primary and general in May and August. The filing deadline for a May primary is February 12th, so we need to be ready as soon as that special election is called.

Electoral Votes by Congressional District?

There's been lots of talk about the electoral college among political pundits. Generally there's three ways suggested to assign presidential electors.

Winner Take All - This is used in 49 states. The candidate who wins the state gets all of the elected votes.

National Popular Vote - Not used but passed in 9 states. The theory goes if states adding up to 270 electoral votes enact this, the popular vote winner will win. I staunchly oppose this for several reasons. I said this on
Don't monkey with the system unless it is a must. It's not needed here. How often is the popular vote relatively close? Often. How often does the person who loses the popular vote win? Rarely. Three times I believe. Hayes, Adams, and Bush the first time. That's it. 

This gives urban areas much more power. It doesn't help rural populations.

Vote fraud. Chicago and Milwaukee affects the country instead of Illinois and Wisconsin.

Recounts. How will recounts be conducted under this. Instead of being confined to one state, it could go to hundreds of cities in fifty different states with fifty different rules under the NPV. It potentially creates a giant clustermuck with a capital "F".

Election rules. This will quasi-nationalize elections. Michigan is in the process of cleaning things up with elections with ID laws and such. If Ruth Johnson's reforms pass, what will happen nationally with the NPV? It's a quasi national system and will lead to quasi national election rules across the country. If this goes national, what happens with this? Are we going to be forced by SCOTUS to honor other state election laws in our own state with our own elections, and be forced to toss our election laws?  

 There's a lot of bad consequences. I'm a little more intrigued by the third way and am open to this here in Michigan, although I have concerns about that as well.


Maine/Nebraska - This is where the state winner gets 2 electoral votes, and the winner of each congressional district gets another. Some want to bring that to Michigan. Five years ago, I'd be all for it. Now? Not sure. It's a hell of a gamble. Pros and Cons:

Pros:
After Presidential losses of 16 and 9pts, Michigan may soon be ignored. This would change it as several districts are close. This also limits Detroit's influence on the election as they self-pack. It would heavily focus on MI-01, MI-06, MI-07, MI-08, and MI-11. Maybe MI-03 and MI-04 in a bad year.

Cons:
It puts a lot of presidential election power in the hands of the state legislature and governor. While APOL limits gerrymandering to a degree, it's not 100% followed for federal districts (federal law conflict) and we could have nasty gerrymanders, especially if Voting Rights Districts are lifted. It also ignores districts like MI-02, MI-05, MI-09, MI-12, MI-13, and MI-14.

Wildcards:
Will Michigan go to a redistricting commission which puts these in the hands of bureaucrats not accountable to the people. (Commissions can be good or bad ie Mathis in Arizona). What will the districts be in 2021?

How will other states react? Could Texas do this? Indiana? Florida? Ohio? Would this lead to NPV instead? What will the unintended consequences be?

From a purely Livingston County, Michigan standpoint, this is a good thing. Overall, I'm not so sure. I prefer this to NPV, and prefer this to being hung out to dry by campaigns that publicly quit or make promised that aren't kept. It would be good for eight years, but what about the 10 years after that? I don't know, and that's my concern.