Sunday, December 30, 2012

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.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

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:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Heads up with Biden's gun control aka freedom control task force

    Here's a lesson for politicians who lose their balls (to put it bluntly) when things get tough on an issue. We have LONG memories on 2nd Amendment issues. The reason there was no "president Gore" was due to him becoming a gun grabber. 1994 was partially in response to Clinton's gun bans. Bill Clinton himself blamed the NRA and had a personal agenda since.

    Most of these excerpts are from The Hill

    Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) vetoed a concealed carry gun bill on Tuesday.

    The bill would have let concealed gun owners with additional permits carry their weapons in places where it was previously illegal to carry them such as places of worship, bars, schools, and stadiums."

    The last thing Snyder needs right now is to be double-flanked. The unions want revenge and now gun owners are mad. Many conservatives who finally were happy at something Snyder did are now irked. Again. Now I don't think the NRA would support Whitmer or Peters against Snyder, but John Cherry? They might stay out against a Mark Schauer now that their records on this issue are about equal (can't count on although not Joe Schwarz/Whitmer bad). This veto needs to be overridden or sent back to Snyder's desk. No CPL reform. No bridge.

    Pragmatically, what would the independents rather have in these criminal empowerment zones - conceal carry, or open carry by CPL holders? The latter is probably legal under a technicality. Politicians also have to remember that the opinions of the public that matter are not now, but 19 months from now. In addition, criminal empowerment zones don't stop criminals from shooting people.

    Now comes John Boehner who is showing Peter Principle tendencies of his own. He's already doing a piss poor job with the fiscal negotiations (No mention of spending?) and I'm concerned he's going to sell us down the river. I got one question for Boehner. "Do you want to lose the house?" I don't want to see him lose the house, but I wouldn't mind seeing him lose as speaker either in a caucus vote, or a primary challenge. Anyone in the Cincy or Dayton suburbs/exurbs/rural areas outside there want to take him on? It's a safe district in the general election.

    "We need to have a discussion about guns," the lawmaker said, relaying Boehner's remarks, "and that doesn't mean that all of a sudden we abandon the Second Amendment or the NRA [National Rifle Association] or anything like that. But there needs to be a discussion and everybody needs to participate and we need to depoliticize it."

    Boehner, you're talking about our constitutional rights here. Do you understand that? We don't need any federal discussion beyond "national reciprocity" of concealed carry. Don't sell us out, or there will be grave political consequences.  Democrats were taught that lesson twice. So were individual republicans at times. Lugar lost. Partly on this issue. Walt North and the guy before Mark Schauer (then state rep) lost over votes on either firearms or hunting. About the same comments on the level of Boehner came from dem Joe Manchin. When you two rush, you're wrong.

    Obama loves his commissions and the noise they all make. Nothing like appointing a guy that voted to ban .30-30 ammunition (your grandfather's hunting round) as the head of that "task force." Joe Biden. From The Hill:
    Earlier in the week, Obama conferred with Biden and other top Cabinet officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
    "Their participation underscores the comprehensive way in which the president views this problem," Carney said.

    The White House has indicated that in addition to supporting an assault-weapons ban, the president will call for restrictions on high-capacity ammunition clips and legislation that will close the gun-show exception for background checks. But Obama is also expected to examine mental-health programs and depictions of violence in entertainment, including movies and video games.

    Of course these bans NEVER apply to the police.... Eric Holder supports even a handgun ban except to police, military, political buddies, and Mexican drug cartels with Fast and Furious. Also, anyone who doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine needs to shut the Hell up about that issue due to ignorance. As for gun show exceptions for background checks, they don't exist. I bought a shotgun from a gun show. I went through the Federal NICS check. ALL dealers are required to perform NICS checks or similar/stricter checks on the state level.

    This is the same old schiesse that the democrats pushed in 1994 and 1999. It would have done nothing to stop theses. As for so called "assault weapons", Connecticut banned them. Yes. Banned them. The motive here isn't to save lives, but for politicians to take our freedoms and gain more power, or for politicians to pat themselves on the back and say that they did something (while doing nothing that solves a problem).

    As far as blaming movies and games, that's just as stupid as blaming the guns. How long have we had violence in entertainment? There's actually less school shootings today than there was. The difference today is the 24 hour news networks and the internet. Not just CNN, but also Fox and MSNBC. Violent movies. Go back to the old gangster films. Westerns. John Wayne. Clint Eastwood. Godfather in the 70's. Scarface and Arnold/Stallone/Die Hard movies in the 80's. Goodfellas in the 90's. This ain't new. Video Games. They've been violent at times since the early 90's. Mortal Kombat is over 20 years old. So is Wolfenstein. Doom isn't far beyond that. People who grew up on those games are now in their mid 30's or older. 

    What's the government going to push here, censorship? That's also freedom control. While I'd agree that either the movie or the game Scarface shouldn't be for kids, that's not the government's responsibility. That's a parent's responsibility. I'd trust parents more than government officials (including public school officials).

    Right now we're on defense. The leftist media wants to blame us for all the bad people out there that shoot up schools. We need to be vigilant and think long term. We need to make sure politicians think long term - to election day. Those with us we need to thank and encourage to stay with us. Those against us need to be fired. When it comes to our constitutional rights, there is nothing to discuss. We do not need to give up our constitutional rights. Freedom control is unacceptable and those that partake in it need to pay with their jobs.

    For the rest of us, buy magazines, scary looking firearms, .223 (which is really fairly low powered despite the media lies/ignorance), and .308 ammo today.  Magazines especially, since I think if anything gets banned, it will be that. Buy a lot of them, and you might even make a profit on the black market if it goes. Remember how much "pre-bans" went for in 2003?

    Stay cool, and stay vigilant.

    Tuesday, December 11, 2012

    Union Leadership in Action

    Right To Work is now law in Michigan. Union leadership (not to be confused with regular union members) showed what they are about today - again. Warning - strong language used on video.

    From Right Michigan:

    Steven Crowder's attack:

    And one other from the other side of the tent.

    Union leadership needs to lose. Period.

    Monday, December 10, 2012

    Right to Work in Michigan

    Despite being from a union family, I support Right to Work. More than anything else, it would once again help union leadership be forced to be accountable to its members which isn't the case in closed shop. Unions were needed in the 1930's. The union leadership sold out for good in the 1990's. They stopped advocating for workers in contracts and care more about going to the fancy cocktail parties and high society democrat leaders. The UAW caved on outsourcing in the 1990's in the GM strike. The unions endorsed all the democrats who supported NAFTA and GATT. All those Clintonites. Solidarity magazine these days is nothing more than a democrat party rag, even pushing cap and trade and Obamacare which is highly destructive to the auto industry. That doesn't even get to government unions which make Reuther look center-left.

    Right to Work doesn't destroy unions. Those who want to join can still join. What union leadership needs to do it once again represent those workers they claim to represent. That means more time working on beneficial contracts and less time getting your arse kissed by politicians.

    There's several lessons from this.

    1. When you put all your eggs in one basket, you're asking for it when it doesn't succeed. As The Peter Principle in Chief Obama says, "I won". Unions - especially government unions (outside police which are bipartisan) - are a wholly owned subsidiary of the democrats. They went all in recently. The MEA led the charge against Paul Scott and for Prop 2. Prop 2 had a massive union turnout this year helping the democrats. Those scalps the unions did get in the state house came back to bite them in lame duck. The deciding votes were from losing/retiring state reps. Holly Hughes, Mark Ouimet, Rick Olson, Matt Huuki, and Kurt Damrow all left a parting gift on their way out the door.

    2. What did Republicans have to lose? Not much. Statewide? Lost the presidency. So what. That doesn't mean a damn thing. Obama's not in charge here. He's a nobody. These are strictly Michigan matters, not US Government. Onward. Democrats cry gerrymandering, but in reality (state rep/senate) under APOL rules that limit municipal breaks, there's a limited amount that can't be done outside of Congressional. Most of the democrats in Michigan are self-packed. Detroit is 93-5 Democrat. Most of Oakland County's democrats are either in Pontiac or South of 13 mile and east of Haggerty. Most of Macomb County's democrats are South of 59. Other than that, Ann Arbor, Ypsi, Superior Twp, Pittsfield Twp, Scio Twp in Washtenaw County. Lansing, East Lansing, and Meridian Twp in Ingham County. Muskegon. Flint, Mt Morris, Davison, and Burton. Saginaw. Bay City. Grand Rapids (city). Marquette. Ironwood area. Mt Pleasant. Kalamazoo (City). Benton Harbor. Albion. Lesser extent Battle Creek, Port Huron, Adrian, and Jackson. Those districts outside of Jackson, Adrian, Port Huron, and Benton Harbor are dem. The exceptions are due to other Republican areas in that district. Battle Creek/Albion's district became solid dem with redistricting with other lean dem areas in it.

    3. The old saying applies here. "If you are going to kill the king, you had best kill him." Scott Walker didn't go for Right to Work and the recall attempt happened anyway largely pushed by Wisconsin's MEA equivalent. It happened here too with Paul Scott. Scott lost, but his replacement was a Republican. Joe Graves. Then then pushed prop 2. From what I've heard, if the unions didn't push prop 2, Right to Work wouldn't have been considered. Prop 2 failed. The turnout damaged some republicans, but they didn't "kill the king".

    Also, the goon squads are out in force. If being "tough guys" and harassing women (because they aren't man enough to do anything to a grown man without their posse), slashing tires, threats, and similar organized crime tactics is what they need to stay relevant, then they can go the way of the Gambino Crime Family as far as I'm concerned. They can perform unnatural acts on themselves. For those out of state thugs invading here (as well as ignorant thugs in state) Michigan has "Stand Your Ground" if your imminently threatened with death or great bodily harm BTW. Remember that son, in case you eff with the wrong people. 

    Tuesday, December 04, 2012

    Democrats gloat about their free pass in Howell Township (and party leadership thoughts)

    The democrats tripled their representation in Livingston County partisan offices, and it is in one of the least likely places - Howell Township. They gloated about it in the paper. They gloated about it because Republicans allowed it to happen

    I wrote about this back in May titled Embarassing black eye. We were caught looking.

    Caught looking. It's a baseball term I use. In politics, I use it when someone gets lackadaisical, and gets defeated because the other side outworks them. The person isn't paying attention to the tactics of the other team or the situation and watches strike three go past them, getting a bad out. "Caught napping" is another term often used. If you hear me say that we were "caught looking," this is what I'm referring to, right here.

    I'm going to be hearing about this post from some unhappy people, most of whom I consider friends, but the facts speak for themselves here. I hope those people are unhappy reading this, and I'm unhappy about writing this. It's a swift kick in our collective asses, and it is needed. The first two words in our local Livingston County Republican Party/Committee are "Livingston County." Those are the two most important words in the name. It is where we live. 


    The biggest fubar was in Howell Township. Four trustee candidates have filed. Two in each party. In addition, we KNEW there would be openings there as Carolyn Henry is running for prosecutor, and gave us plenty of notice. We knew democrats would be running. They filed, long before Tuesday. In a 57% McCain and 65% Bush municipality, we're giving two seats to the dems. They are tripling their representation in this county, before we even have the general election.

    We couldn't get people to run in those areas? One of their residents is running against an incumbent at a higher office, but not the two democrats taking over his township. I wasn't too happy about that.

    I'm still mad about that. LCGOP leadership (for the record, I'm not on LCGOP EC, but 8th District) should not have allowed that to happen. Because this did happen, we lost these two seats before any contest began. In Howell Township, John Doe could win as an R with just a name on the ballot.

    The Argus has this in today's paper

    The Howell Township Board of Trustees has Democratic Party members for the first time in more than five decades — a sign the party has a growing influence in Livingston County, said Judy Daubenmier, county Democratic Party chairwoman.
    On Nov. 6, township voters elected Democrats Lois Kanniainen and Mike Tipton as two of the board's four trustees.
    The Democrats' victories were inevitable — four people ran for the four trustee seats — but were a step toward dispelling "some of the mystique" of county Democrats, Daubenmier said.

    Again, this happened because our local party allowed it to happen. 1958. To give an idea how long ago that is, it is the year after the Detroit Lions were NFL Champions. This is basic organization 101.

    There's more.
    "I think it will give us some people that we can highlight and talk about, and people can see what they do," Daubenmier said.
    "We're just really, really pleased that Lois and Mike stepped forward. They were willing to step forward, and it's a township that faces some difficult problems right now, and they're ready to lead," she added.

    Judy Daubenmier has every reason to gloat. While our local party dropped the ball, the dems took advantage of the opening. They won 1420 to 0 and 1327 to 0. It was a shutout. Now we have to hope they don't disguise their leftism enough to become viable candidates for higher office.

    This can not happen again. Party leadership will be chosen soon. While there is lots of talk about who is the "constitutionalist" conservative or is the "true" conservative, the first two words in Livingston County Republican Party are "Livingston County."  We need to make sure our local races are not neglected and that the big picture is seen. There are three people running for chair. One's the current party secretary and was a liaison to most factions and has been active locally since 06 (was active in Washtenaw previously), one's a relative newcomer (active since 09) likely backed by the outgoing chair, and I am the other. I may win. I may lose. I can see it going either way. I personally get along with the other two running, and am running on the issues. I've worked well with the current secretary as a district member, and IMO the Howell Township candidate recruitment troubles was not on him. The newcomer has been active, along with the secretary and myself at the groundwork events needed this last campaign.

    Believe it or not, some factions are trying to right-flank me. That's hard to believe for some, but it's not that surprising these days. That's partly because I've been involved in the party for 11 years and don't talk about how I'm the true conservative all the time like I did in the old days. Talk is cheap. All the readers here know where I stand and that's not going to change. I'm hardly a liberal. I was on the Mike Pence for President bandwagon since 2006 with my fiscal views. Still am. I can't hide my views if I tried.

    While I, along with the rest of the people running, consider ourselves to be a "true conservative", the job of Chair and EC members isn't to be the "true conservative." That in and of itself doesn't qualify any of us three for anything at all. Our job is to be able to get Republicans of all views including (not excluding) the "true conservatives" elected in the general election at all levels of government. That is how to advance the conservative movement. Conservatives don't magically win elections. It takes organization, campaign experience, data reading, hard work, planning, execution, tactics, time management, volunteer's time management, good staffing, messaging (watch the mouth), and money. That's just what we can control. It also takes what we can't control. Votes. Organization, execution, tactics, and time management was lacking last election (and pre-election). That needs to change.

    As I just said, our job is to be able to get Republicans of all views including (not excluding) the "true conservatives" elected in the general election at all levels of government. That includes those who aren't necessarily my favorite. The job is for Republican leadership to have a strong enough showing in Livingston County to win statewide. We can not neglect our nominees, whether they be from the tea party wing, establishment win, moderate wing, old style conservative wing, or libertarian wing. I don't like it when our nominees are abandoned and hung out to dry. That includes conservatives like Tim Walberg and Jack Hoogendyk, center-right candidates like Pete Hoekstra and Mike Bouchard, moderates like John McCain (he DID win the primary in 08) and all points in-between. I can promise that I won't use the chair's power for buddy politics or smashing views which may be critical of some of the people within the party.  I will smash coronation (or takeover) attempts (whether I am Chair or not). We have primaries for a reason to vet candidates and to nominate the best candidate on a number of areas (ideology, competence, campaign ability, etc). I understand the critics. I've been a critic myself at times long before the rise of the Tea Party, and much of that is found in my greatest hits here.

    However, what has been neglected the most at the county level in the push for ideology and flash is our meat and potatoes organizational abilities. I don't want to see 1420 and 1327 to 0 again. Proper time management and organization would have prevented that. The August Primary filing deadline isn't a secret. It's in May every two years. Township elections are every four years. We needed to be ready. That wouldn't happen on my watch. While I can't control what a candidate would do, we'd be prepared for abandonment (ie McCain, Rove's mouth until he changed his mind) as well with our own infrastructure if I have any say in the matter.

    Livingston County has an advantage that a lot of other counties do not have. While the famous billboards with the "Keep Livingston Republican" slogan due to "Low taxes, highest bond rating" is well known, this is also a safe community to live with good people. That's not an accident. While there are some township exceptions, most of the county is reasonably well run at that level, and very well run at the county level. Our party doesn't brag enough about that to the newcomers here. You want Wayne County to be spread here, vote dem. You want Livingston County to still be well run, support us. It's Republicans which got Livingston County to this point. That's not an accident.  That doesn't just happen. As the talk radio saying goes, conservatism works when it is tried. However, repeating that doesn't work. Pointing how how and where it does with real world examples does work.

    It's up to precinct delegates and county elected officials to elect the EC. Whether I am deemed worthy to make a comeback to county after my stint at district committee isn't up to me. I'm running the different scenarios and can see a path to win and a path to narrowly lose. The county elected officials all know me and at least one of the other people running. I know many, but not all of the precinct delegates. I do hope that precinct delegates reading this think carefully about the people selected and consider past performance, organizational ability, tactics, planning, competence, and execution, as well as the obvious of ideology. Our goals aren't to get our buddies the important titles, but to pick the best Republican leadership so Livingston County can sweep the county, and also carry the rest of the state past the finish line. I don't need the title for glory sake or to be the supposed big fish (ain't that big) in a small pond. I have a good party title already with district that I'm probably assured of keeping. A lot of the big names already know me. After 11 1/2 years, that tends to happen. I'm also well aware that those who believe their own press clipping tend to fall from grace rather quickly. I've seen it happen more times than I can count and was on the receiving end of that in another group in 02. The guy who was the big power that went against us is now practically a nobody as well these days. We aren't that big. The smart ones understand that. 

    Party leadership is an important decision, and one with two years of ramifications. We need to make 18 wise decisions for executive committee and then the executive committee needs to make wise decisions for party officers including chair. The decisions we need to decide isn't who is the most 'true conservative' but who can help get the Republicans - including true conservatives - elected in a difficult general election campaign statewide (or 8th District if Mike runs for Senate). Livingston County will need to carry extra weight due to some of the other counties.

    It's our party. Here's our chance. We need to make sure locally that what happened in Howell Township doesn't happen again. We need to make sure that Michigan is a swing state in statewide elections again and do our part both locally, district wide, and statewide.

    Sunday, December 02, 2012

    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


         (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


         (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
    Anderson Hood Johnson Whitmer
    Bieda Hopgood Smith Young
    Gregory Hunter Warren
    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.  

    Thursday, November 22, 2012

    What is the "electable" candidate?

    Every primary I hear a lot of talk from amateur hour pundits and other figures talk about how primary voters need to vote for the so called "electable" candidate. Often, electable means the pet candidate of the NRSC. Chris Chocola of the Club for Growth, called this logic out in an editorial.

    In the wake of some missed opportunities to pick up seats in the U.S. Senate over the last few cycles, one tactical change floated by the GOP establishment is that the party apparatus and its affiliated Super PACs should play a more influential role in primaries to make sure that more “electable” candidates are nominated.
    It is hard to imagine a bigger mistake.
    I hope Jerry Moran cleans house with the administrative portion of NRSC. I'm not impressed with their record the past six years, especially.  Marco Rubio told primary voters in 2010 to pick a better establishment.

    Chocola continues.

    First, let’s review the Senate races where the Republicans nominated so-called “electable” establishment candidates in 2012: Denny Rehberg in Montana, Rick Berg in North Dakota, Heather Wilson in New Mexico, George Allen in Virginia, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin. All were establishment favorites because they were all “electable.” All of them lost.

    Berg and Thompson were the two biggest disappointments. Unfortunately Mourdock also lost, and he was Chocola's guy. He lost for the same reason Akin did. Dumbass comments.

    Second, let’s review the recent history of the Republican establishment’s choices of candidates in high-profile Republican primaries against fiscal conservatives.
    The names that come to mind include Dede Scozzafava, Arlen Specter, and Charlie Crist. All were supported by the Republican Party establishment as the most “electable” in their respective races. These stellar “Republican” candidates ended up either endorsing the Democratic candidate in the race or became Democrats themselves.

    Read more here:

    That's the big reason for a lot of major dislike these days from the base towards liberals that the media calls moderate (Bush is an actual moderate). People like Charlie Crist. These same turkeys that tell us to be team players pull this crap sometimes even if their candidate is nominated, like in 2008 and even this year in 2012. I haven't forgotten, Irish grudges and all. If I took one for the team to help Romney in the general election these same moderates and liberals need to take one for the team when a conservative is nominates. I respect Rudy Giuliani even though I don't agree with him. Rick Snyder on the other hand can go perform an unnatural act on himself.

    There is a clear solution. If the GOP wants to involve itself in primaries again it should focus on supporting candidates who clearly believe in and can articulate what the Republican Party says it stands for, limited government and economic freedom. Not candidates who simply adopt whatever positions make them the most “electable.”
    One of the biggest silver linings of the 2012 election is the deep Republican bench. In addition to rising stars endorsed by the Club for Growth PAC like Senators Toomey, Rubio, Cruz, Mike Lee, Jeff Flake, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul, a whole new generation of governors who support economic freedom stand ready in the wings.

    Read more here:

    I generally agree, but good philosophy is only one part of what is electable.When I look at an electable candidate, I look at the following:

    1. Does the candidate have a history of winning tough areas?

    Pat Toomey won in the Leigh Valley several times and then won statewide in Pennsylvania. He's a conservative. Heather Wilson, more moderate, won in Albuquerque. She lost this year statewide in New Mexico, but I thought she wasn't a bad candidate.

    2. Does the candidate have a tendency of putting his/her foot in the mouth?

    Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell. George Allen in 2006. This has nothing to do with liberal, moderate, or conservative. This is about being smart and controlling yourself. 

    3. Is the candidate talked into running, or does he/she want the job?

    This I thought about after this year. If you told me last year that Mr Welfare Reform, Tommy Thompson was going to lose to a Madison progressive far leftist, I'd laugh in your face. I would not have gotten the last laugh. The NRSC loves candidates who are ex=governors or establishmeent congressmen who aren't very controversial. Pete Hoekstra, Tommy Thompson, and Mike Bouchard in 2006 ran like they were talked into running. I'm not sure they really wanted the job, or at least campaign for it. Maybe Hoekstra and Bouchard (good guys, but weren't the best candidates) wouldn't have won anyway, but I didn't expect them to lost by 15-20pts. I learned a lot this year about the dangers of candidates without the fire in the belly.

    4. Does the candidate have a strong base and can get that group to the polls?

    Pat Toomey. Marco Rubio. Tom Coburn as a congressman winning a very conservadem seat. Hoeven as governor in North Dakota. Justin Amash and the libertarians in his district.  There are people that go to elections just to vote FOR those people more than simply generic R. 

    5. Does the candidate appeal to independents? That doesn't mean "moderate" which can sometimes lead to double flanking and race skipping. A reputation of integrity, competence, and principles gain independent votes. Mike Rogers has even won Ingham County at times, even though he's a social conservative. Pat Toomey ran better than "moderates" Romney and McCain in the liberal Philly suburbs. He won Bucks County (so did Romney, although Bush lost it twice). Rubio swept Florida easily.

    6. Can the candidate raise money? At least enough to win.

    That doesn't mean the candidate needs to outspend the opponent, but the candidate needs to be competitive so we don't get Stabenow vs Hoekstra/Bouchard situations.

    I've come to believe that philosophy doesn't mean as much to electability as tone, competence, self-control, work ethic, and message. Liberal Fred Upton wins a swing district, as does Tim Walberg and Mike Rogers. Upton isn't the jerk that Joe Schwarz is. Walberg isn't Todd Akin. Mike Pence is possibly more conservative than Mourdock. Kelly Ayotte was supported by a lot of the grass roots as well as establishment and won a swing state.

    Amateur hour pundits believe than candidates need to be "moderate" to win, and they can't be further from the truth. Results show things are a lot more complicated than the ability for most beltway so called journalists to understand. 

    In order to win, I think you need a specific plan (part of Romney's problem - too many platitudes and flips), be able to execute it (Orca didn't help), not be a jerk, work hard and campaign like you want the job. There's electable tea party candidates and unelectable tea party candidates. There's electable establishment candidates and unelectable establishment candidates.

    Read more here:

    Read more here:

    Tuesday, November 20, 2012

    The UN Arms Trade Treaty - Boy who cried wolf or actual wolf?

    My opinion of the UN is that the US should get out of the UN. I have a real problem with Americans ceding sovereignty to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.  That's not going to happen, so we need to stay alert.

    There's a lot of hype over the last 15 years or so about global gun control and the UN Small Arms Treaty (now Arms Trade Treaty). A lot of the hype is dismissed in mainstream thought partly due to a lot of boy who cry wolf claims. Some of the facts to consider are this.

    1. The US Constitution supercedes any treaty.
    2. All treaties do not take effect until POTUS signs it and Senate ratifies it.
    3. There currently is no signed agreement.
    4. There ARE global gun control advocates who target "civilian" owners of firearms here in the US. Rebecca Peters is the most notable, and supports global gun control over the US "who needs to join the rest of the world."
    5. There was a push for a very restrictive treaty opposed by the Bush administration which rejected it.
    6. There was another treaty on the table in 2012. There was no vote, but discussion about more talks in 2013.
    7. There's draft language from the last conference.

    In short, right now there is a wolf pup. It's a potential threat, but not the same as a full grown timberwolf. We need to be wary and watch this, and make sure that there is no full grown wolf out there, but at the same time not to panic until it is there.

    The draft language is on the UN website along with an assortment of views about what they think should happen. 

    Some things from the draft language stand out.

    "This treaty covers......."small arms and light weapons." 

    Small arms for those who don't know cover almost all firearms outside of possibly black powder or some shotguns. It includes pistols, revolvers, and deer rifles. Keep in mind that hunting guns are or once were military guns, at least in style. The calibers are similar, or even more powerful. If you don't believe me, compare a .223 AR-15 round to a .30-06. Speaking of .30-06, that's the same caliber as the classic M1-Garand. Anyone who thinks that these don't target hunting firearms needs to "wake the bleep up and smell the Maple Nut Crunch." 

    "Each state party shall establish...a national control list" 
    That references small arms. 

    "Each state party shall take all appropiate legislative and administrative measures necessary to impliment the provisions of this treaty and shall designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective and transparent national control system regulating the international transfer of conventional arms."

    I read that as registration. "But it's international." Firearms owners reading this should look where their guns are made. While many are American, a lot of them are not. A lot of the firearms companies are not American, including some of the biggest here. Glock is an Austrian company. Beretta and Benelli are Italian. Walther, Sig Sauer, Lugar, and H&K are German. FN is Belgian. Makarov is Russian. Uzi is Israeli. Lee-Enfield is British. A lot of the American arms go overseas....or to Mexico through the Obama Administration's Fast and Furious plan.

    Each state party shall designate one or more national points of contact to exchange information on matters related to implementation of this treaty. 

    Sounds like registration to me.

    "Each state party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of ammunition for conventional arms...."

    Great. Ammo control. This should cause .223 and .308 sales to skyrocket. .45ACP as well. There's an identical measure for parts and components too.

    There's also recordkeeping provisions as well. There's several references to "unauthorized end use" as well.

    That's the draft language. It could be more or less restrictive. You have Amnesty Intl, Oxfam, and Iansa pushing hard for global gun grabs in addition to the unacceptable registration requirements in this draft language treaty.

    Unfortunately, registration may very well make it past SCOTUS. It's not (yet) confiscation.  Be prepared for the wolf and keep an eye out on this come March.

    Polly, this wasn't voter intimidation (Genoa Township)

    As a poll challenger in most elections for the past 10 years, I have a pretty good idea what was going on here. I know a little bit about elections. I shouldn't know more than the clerk, especially someone who used to be my municipal clerk as I used to live in Genoa Township for almost 25 years.

    Long before this, I'm not impressed with the job done recently by Polly Skolarus. She was unopposed in the last election, but some normally GOP voters on my recommendation gave her what I call the "blank treatment" (voting for blank and skipping that race) for a reason. The write-ins for the primary were blundered, and a non-citizen was voting under her watch until that was cleaned up. From what I've heard, she was aware of the non-citizen voting previously as well and let it go. There are a few other things, but somebody needs a primary challenge here, which I've believed long before this. If I still lived in Genoa Township, I might have given it a go. If I was forced to pick between Todd Smith getting another term or Polly Skolarus getting another term, I'd go reluctantly with Smith, and I supported Smith's opponents in the primary, and one of the conservative independents in the general.  Polly was unopposed.

    From the Argus.

    Republican poll challengers attempted to intimidate voters in each of Genoa Township's 12 voting precincts this month, the township's GOP clerk said.
    Township Clerk Polly Skolarus said the Republican challengers did not challenge voters' registration, but transmitted their data electronically to state party officials during the Nov. 6 election.

    When you are a municipal clerk, you can't be ignorant. You need to know the laws and make sure the poll workers know them and the standard operating procedures. Prepare for everything, including the bad stuff like a broken tabulator. Poll challengers are used for making sure the polls are run properly. They are also sometimes used in GOTV efforts.

    Genoa Township is a republican stronghold. We WANT a high turnout in Genoa Township. We DON'T want to supposedly "suppress" the vote there. The challengers wanted to GOTV. This was part of the infamous Project Orca. While Project Orca sounds like a giant clustermuck and failure from a software angle, the concept that was attempted here was not. If there were more challengers in Genoa Township than in Ann Arbor, East Lansing, or Lansing, that's the reason. Usually there's occasionally a challenger or two in the precincts around here, and it's more often a democrat. The Republican challengers are in 70%+ dem precincts.

    I've seen what Polly's complaining about on a smaller scale. I challenged in a Southwest Lansing precinct back in 2010. Lansing is a democrat stronghold. The democrat challengers there were over the shoulder getting information about who voted, and getting that list back to the dems to find out who has not voted, so they can get those people to the polls and vote. There was a competitive state rep race that year between Barb Byrum and Jeff Osterle. It's a mostly rural district with part of South Lansing as well. Byrum needed a good turnout in South Lansing to survive that year. She did. This isn't some top secret operation that I'm describing. It's something democrats have done in urban areas for years.

    Election challengers are appointed by political parties and organizations and can formally challenge a voter's registration and precinct practices. Poll watchers do not need those credentials, but can only observe the process.

    They can also be behind the poll workers. Poll watchers can not. That's why the GOTV folks behind the poll book are challengers. Poll workers don't care for it, but they understand that it is part of the process and are professional. I'm usually an active challenger, although I haven't been given a list so I play it by ear and eye. Just being there and knowing what I'm doing is 1/2 of the battle. I haven't seen shenanigans, but you never know what may be the next Philly.

    Township resident Barbara Shreve filed a formal complaint with the state. She called her voting experience on Nov. 6 "the worst I've ever experienced" in her complaint.
    Shreve said a poll challenger wrote down her name when she questioned the challenger's role at the voter application table. She said she considered that an act of intimidation.
    "As a citizen of this community, state and country, I am appalled to have any sort of political activist within the precinct. She was within a few feet of the people making their personal decision of who to elect and what proposals to support," Shreve wrote in her letter.

    The challenger is not supposed to talk or gesture to voters and should be trained in that to avoid actual intimidation. I think what the person did was to write that down and report that as a potential issue. 95% of voters don't know about poll challengers or what they do. They aren't used to it in Livingston County especially.

    With the exception of one or two challengers in the 2010 election, the township hadn't had a poll challenger in at least Skolarus' 26-year career with the township, she said.
    A GOP challenger also monitored the township's absentee-voter counting board, Skolarus added.
     The AV watch was likely an active challenger, and someone should be always watching the AV's. The rest of it sounds like an attempt at the Project Orca operation to get out the vote so non-voters are contacted. 

    Monday, November 19, 2012

    The tax pledge isn't about Norquist. It's about us.

    The Argus doesn't get it at all.

    But the Washington, D.C., lobbyist has more control over U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, than do any of the 12-year congressman's constituents, including the 202,000 who voted for him this month.
    Why? Because Norquist is the author of Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which commits signers to opposing any and all federal tax hikes. Most congressional Republicans have signed it under the threat that Norquist will wage war on them if they don't, or if they violate it.

    Bullshit. They sign it because the voters will toss them out of office if they raise taxes. They sign it so primary voters can say that this person signed the pledge and is worthy of my vote. All Norquist is, is a messenger. In addition to Norquist today, you have the internet and lots of people with easy access to, publishing, emails, and other things that can make a politician's life more difficult than it used to be.   

    The bottom line is this. Government has not earned more revenue. Peter Principle in Chief Obama broke Bush's records on spending. Government has failed to properly manage the current trillions of dollars received. The deficit is over a trillion dollars per year. The national debt is over 16 Trillion dollars. Government screwed it up, and now wants us to bail them out so they can screw it up some more.

    It's not Grover Norquist. It's the government SPENDING and the fact that voters, especially primary voters in conservative districts, don't want to see government bail itself out for piss poor decisions. Again.

    Thursday, November 15, 2012

    Heads up this lame duck for gas tax increases and vehicle registration hikes

    I'm hearing there is high potential of movement on this issue in the lame duck. Gas tax especially. This one pisses me off, and I'm not going to be very forgiving about it, at least on a professional and political basis. 

    Once again. Don't blame me. I voted for Mike Cox. I voted for Prop 5. I'll vote for any reasonable or even semi-reasonable primary challenger to Snyder in a New York Minute especially if the democrat is beatable. One of the biggest reasons I voted for Proposal 5 is to put in the check the absolute cultist jihad among the Lansing elite in the dogmatic pursuit to raise the gas tax. This is shared by the tax raising Rick Snyder who is so brazen about this that he mentioned his support in September of this year soon before the election. It's not just Snyder either.

    Of course there's no push to get rid of the sales tax on gasoline. This is another attempt by big government to be afraid of handling REAL budget issues and stop compartmentalizing different areas, and to instead ask - no demand - than we bail out the government's screw ups. This is all based on the false premis that the gas tax/registrations - and ONLY the gas tax/registrations can pay for roads. The transportation budget isn't just roads either, but WALLY trains.

    From Bridge Magazine

    Defeat of Proposal 5 means a simple legislative majority remains the threshold for statewide tax increases, perhaps opening the door to revision of the gas tax.
    Did I call this or what.September - 41 cent gas tax isn't good enough for Rick Snyder

    The bad news is that unless the 2/3 proposal passes, eventually this tax increase will pass, likely in a lame duck session. When I don't know, but there's too much of a sustained Lansing insider push from the government class. Click on the gas tax label on the blog and you'll see a ton of it, largely from termed out legislators, road lobbyists, and local governments. It's not just democrats either, but insider republicans (although definitely not a conservative) like Ken Sikkema who gave Granholm almost everything she wanted in her first term. Right now a lot of legislators are scared of this and rightly so, but this could kill us in a lame duck at some point, especially if the governor is also in lame duck.

    This is a big reason why the 2/3rd amendment has to pass. It would have stopped the Blanchard, Granholm, and Snyder taxes that have been passed. It can also stop the gas tax increases whether it is pushed by Granholm, Snyder, or whoever is there in the future. The legislature does not always check and balance the governor who is mistakenly viewed as the leader of the party. Vote yes on Proposal 5.

    Snyder wants this. Badly. Of course he can afford this unlike many of us. These high prices absolutely KILLED US (makes hammerfist and slams desk) in 2006 and most of 2008. We hit $4+ again this year. It's still over $3.50. At $4.10, 41 cents of every gallon goes to "With Republicans like him, who needs democrats" Rick Snyder. Right now it's about 37 cents.

    As I explained about how bad this was with Snyder back in 2011.

    There's three things wrong with the wholesale taxes.

    1. Taxes go up even more when gas prices increase. That encourages higher gas prices to be even higher. We're almost $3.50 a gallon. That's damaging to any supposed recovery.

    2. This does not address the 6% sales tax on gasoline - that does not go to roads. This will affect things more with a wholesale tax.

    3. It continues the false assumption that the gas tax, and only the gas tax, goes to fix the roads.

    4. While the non-sales tax portion of the gas tax goes to transportation, that does not necessarily equal roads.

    I've covered this issue more times than Matt Millen has lost games as a GM. This is the worst tax in the country, outside of possibly the self-employment tax.

    Transportation doesn't necessarily equal roads either. Snyder also wants $120+ a year in registration fee increases as well to add insult to injury. He likes the WALLY type trains as well. You got to be shitting me.

    Well if they vote for this, well, six months during the term for those who aren't lame duck, the recall option  - yes recall option - is open. 1984 style. Paul Scott  was recalled, and replaced by a Republican, so there is precedent of Republicans replacing Republicans in recalls if this is necessary, let alone the democrats. For those who are two year lame ducks and have higher office aspirations, they can get recalled and their push for higher office can be gone for good. Too bad Mark Schauer didn't get recalled as he was running against Walberg in 2008. That two years he was in Congress gave us Cap and Destroy and Obamacare.

    Here's the statute.

    168.951 Officers subject to recall; time for filing recall petition; performance of duties until result of recall election certified.
    Sec. 951.
    Every elective officer in the state, except a judicial officer, is subject to recall by the voters of the electoral district in which the officer is elected as provided in this chapter. A petition shall not be filed against an officer until the officer has actually performed the duties of the office to which elected for a period of 6 months during the current term of that office. A petition shall not be filed against an officer during the last 6 months of the officer's term of office. An officer sought to be recalled shall continue to perform duties of the office until the result of the recall election is certified.

    This is also important to remember:
    168.952 Recall petitions; requirements; submission to board of county election commissioners; determination; notice; meeting; presentation of arguments; appeal; validity of petition.
    Sec. 952.
    (1) A petition for the recall of an officer shall meet all of the following requirements:
    (a) Comply with section 544c(1) and (2).
    (b) Be printed.
    (c) State clearly each reason for the recall. Each reason for the recall shall be based upon the officer's conduct during his or her current term of office. The reason for the recall may be typewritten.
    (d) Contain a certificate of the circulator. The certificate of the circulator may be printed on the reverse side of the petition.
    (e) Be in a form prescribed by the secretary of state.
    (2) Before being circulated, a petition for the recall of an officer shall be submitted to the board of county election commissioners of the county in which the officer whose recall is sought resides.
    (3) The board of county election commissioners, not less than 10 days or more than 20 days after submission to it of a petition for the recall of an officer, shall meet and shall determine whether each reason for the recall stated in the petition is of sufficient clarity to enable the officer whose recall is sought and the electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall. Failure of the board of county election commissioners to comply with this subsection shall constitute a determination that each reason for the recall stated in the petition is of sufficient clarity to enable the officer whose recall is being sought and the electors to identify the course of conduct that is the basis for the recall.
    (4) The board of county election commissioners, not later than 24 hours after receipt of a petition for the recall of an officer, shall notify the officer whose recall is sought of each reason stated in the petition and of the date of the meeting of the board of county election commissioners to consider the clarity of each reason.
    (5) The officer whose recall is sought and the sponsors of the petition may appear at the meeting and present arguments on the clarity of each reason.
    (6) The determination by the board of county election commissioners may be appealed by the officer whose recall is sought or by the sponsors of the petition drive to the circuit court in the county. The appeal shall be filed not more than 10 days after the determination of the board of county election commissioners.
    (7) A petition that is determined to be of sufficient clarity under subsection (1) or, if the determination under subsection (1) is appealed pursuant to subsection (6), a petition that is determined by the circuit court to be of sufficient clarity is valid for 180 days following the last determination of sufficient clarity under this section. A recall petition that is filed under section 959 or 960 after the 180-day period described in this subsection is not valid and shall not be accepted pursuant to section 961. This subsection does not prohibit a person from resubmitting a recall petition for a determination of sufficient clarity under this section.

    History: 1954, Act 116, Eff. June 1, 1955 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 66, Imd. Eff. Apr. 2, 1976 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 456, Imd. Eff. Dec. 30, 1982 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 45, Imd. Eff. May 27, 1993 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 137, Eff. Jan. 1, 1994
    Popular Name: Election Code

    If they vote for this, we can't use this as the "official" reason to recall someone - at least in the state house because it is in a different term of office. However, someone can be recalled for ANY reason as long as it is clear. Find a vote from the first six months in that current term, and use that as the "official" reason. The unoffical reason can be the vote to increase the gas taxes. There is nothing that stops those supporting the recall of State Rep John Doe from broadcasting his vote for the gas tax increases. Recall campaigns are campaigns like any other campaign. It is a check and balance on this lame duck and right after the election gamesmanship that politicians like to play because they can get away with it.

    The House and Senate has a choice. They can LEAD, or they can be followers and yesmen because the Lansing culture pushes that. They were followers and yesmen over the pension tax and didn't do the right thing. They need to do the right thing this time and dictate to Snyder that he's the executive director of Michigan and not the boss.

    On the same note, we need to remember those with courage to tell Snyder not to even think about this tax and vote against it if it gets to that point. I remember the votes of  Jack Brandenburg, Dave Hildenbrand, Joe Hune, Rick Jones, David Robertson, Tory Rocca, Anthony Forlini, Ken Goike, Pat Somerville, Rick Outman, Pete Lund, and Andrea LaFontaine when it came to the pension tax. They did the right thing and voted against it. We need more of that here with the gas tax.

    While Clint Eastwood's RNC speech wasn't the best, one line was perfect. Politicians are our employees. It is best that they remember this. If not now, in the 2012 primaries or recalls if necessary. .