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. .

WALLY Train to Nowhere push continues

The Argus has another story on the WALLY train.

The planned Washtenaw and Livingston Line commuter train is among multiple mass-transit projects Michiganders can "taste" and "feel," though taxpayer-dollar commitment to the projects remains uncertain, a regional planning official said Tuesday.
 The tax payer dollar commitment should be ZERO. From a practical standpoint alone, we need to remember this. We are Livingston County. Homes are spread out. People like the autonomy that comes with cars. Driving to the stations take nearly as much time as the drive to the destination. It's impracticable. 
"They are literally on the rails right now to make sure that they're going to be safe," Tait said at Tuesday's Good Morning Livingston program at Chemung Hills Golf Club & Banquet Center in Oceola Township.
"I've not seen such enthusiasm for transit throughout the region in a long, long time, if ever," he added. "I think we're on the cusp of good things happening. It's just we've got to keep pushing."
While the plans are moving forward, all transit systems rely on some level of private and public investment, Tait said.
WALLY is expected to have about $7 million in annual operating expenses, about 30 percent of which would be offset by rider fares, said Michael Benham, strategic planner for the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, which oversees WALLY.

 Construction of WALLY on existing rail lines is expected to cost $41 million.
The cost keeps going up, up, up, and up. I thought it was 4.9 million a year?  I wrote this back in 2007, and this covers what it takes to break even under the much lower cost estimates.

4.9 million will cover what? You have salaries, security, normal wear and tear, energy costs, and runs. 2.9 for startup? Between the trains, parking lot construction, training, etc? I'm skeptical. Even using that number, will you get a profit on that. 15,000 people (estimated number of commuters from Livingston to Ann Arbor at $225 a month (rumored price) will get you 3.37 Million a month - that's if EVERY commuter in the county uses it and pays that amount. I'm guessing most of the commuters to Ann Arbor are in Brighton, Hartland, and Hamburg. Hamburg has 20,000 people. I'll guess that 4000 of them commute to Ann Arbor, with 1000 in Howell (city has 10000 people) commuting. That'll give 5000 of the areas covered from the train. 5000 * 225 - 1.125 million a month - if all commute on the train. Anyone familiar with Hamburg knows how spread out it is. Part of it is "Brighton", most of it is "Pinckney", part of it is "Lakeland", and part of it is "Whitmore Lake". I'll be shocked if most of the commuters are going to drive a few miles to wait for the train. This area is spread out. Howell is denser, but has much less population - and it too is spread out a bit in its eastern and northern most areas near 59 - and forget about getting much help from Genoa (even with the Chilson stop - that area is flat out country), Marion, Howell Twp, and Oceola.

In order to cover the estimated operation costs from regular commuters - you need 408,334 a month - 1814 commuters a day (including weekends, so weekend warriors are very important). That leaves 2.9 million in debt from startup costs which can be paid for over a few years with good profit.

Can you get 15-20% of county's Ann Arbor commuters to use the train EVERY DAY - despite cutting out Brighton and Hartland from the route? If you can, then I'll cook up some fried crow.
 It ain't going to cover even close to the costs. Tait says this here when he mentions the T word. Taxes.

Tait said local taxes, while unpopular, will be essential to any of the transit projects coming to fruition under a transit authority.
"We have to agree that transit is a worthy investment" to move forward, he said.
To date, the city of Howell has invested in WALLY's planning stages, but the Livingston County Board of Commissioners and most of the county's local governments have declined investing in the project.
Hamburg Township officials have expressed interest in investing at least a nominal amount of money to WALLY. Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority have pledged dollars toward the project.
Kudos for the commissioners getting it.  It's not a worthy investment, unless private funds take care of it.

Benham said motorists and homeowners who don't use WALLY would benefit from less traffic congestion, increased property values and a decrease in vehicle emissions. He said mass transit draws commercial interest, which in turn boosts tax revenue and the values of homes.
"We're not talking about WALLY versus highway. It's not an either-or," Benham, a former rail coordinator in Chicago, said. "We're talking about balance and choice."
It IS an either or because money that goes here comes from somewhere. Taxes. There won't be less congestion. 1800 commuters a day - at best, won't ease congestion on two-lane each way freeways that get 50,000+ cars a day. Keep in mind this train doesn't go to Brighton or Hartland, only Howell, maybe Hamburg, and western Genoa Twp.

Let's be who we are, a semi-rural county with rural values. Besides, the less Ann Arbor influence here the better.

Friday, November 09, 2012

Obama pushes for tax increases to bailout his fubar fiscal policies

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.

From Yahoo

Claiming a mandate from his election romp over Mitt Romney, President Barack Obama announced on Friday that he had invited congressional leaders to the White House next week for talks on how to steer the battered economy away from a "fiscal cliff." Obama said he was open to compromise with Republicans—but that any final deal needed to raise taxes on the richest Americans.
"This was a central question during the election," the president said in brief remarks in the East Room of the White House. "It was debated over and over again, and on Tuesday night we found out that a majority of Americans agree with my approach.
"Our job now is to get a majority in Congress to reflect the will of the American people," Obama said. "I'm not wedded to every detail of my plan. I'm open to compromise. I'm open to new ideas. I'm committed to solving our fiscal challenges. But I refuse to accept any approach that isn't balanced."

Boehner needs to tell Obama to go perform an unatural act on himself. Obama hasn't signed any budgets in forever. Push your budget, and make Obama veto it.

I don't like this comment. 

Republican House Speaker John Boehner, speaking shortly before the president's appearance, said he was looking to Obama "to lead" and that he had a short, "cordial" conversation with the president earlier this week about ways to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.
"We both understand that trying to find a way to avert the fiscal cliff is important for this country," Boehner said. "And I'm hopeful that productive conversations can begin soon so we can forge an agreement that can pass the Congress."

He's not my leader. He's not my boss. The problem is that people treat a glorified executive director as a king. That's how we get stuck with this American Idol 'rockstar' crap instead of actual competence for once.

Both political parties are unacceptable on spending. Boehner needs to push through a balanced budget, and dictate to the Peter Principle in Chief. It's Boehner's job to lead the house, not defer to the Peter Principle in Chief.

No tax increases.Spending cuts. Those two things need to be non negotiable. Don't raise the debt ceiling anymore either.

Emergency Manager law - replace it with bankruptcy court

Elections need to have consequences. The emergency manager law failed on referendum. I don't have a real problem with that. My problem is that the law likely goes back to the old. What I'd like to see is the whole thing gone and replaced with real consequences instead of this scenario that always happens in emergency manager areas.

1. People vote for bad government officials.
2. Officials spend into debt.
3. People re-elect those officials
4. Same thing.
5. Manager cleans up mess.
6. People re-elect the clowns that fouled it up.
7. Repeat.

The real problem isn't the officials. They only do what they were hired to do by the real problem. The problem is the voters of these areas that were affected by the manager. Voters in Benton Harbor, Highland Park, Hamtramck, Flint, Detroit Schools, Pontiac, Allen Park and Ecorse elected the officials that were put in receivership.  Not surprisingly, they are all heavily democrat with the exception of Allen Park which just leans democrat. Detroit has 50 years of Democrat rule. Hamtramck, Ecorse, and Allen Park are white majority or plurality so this isn't a racial thing. This is a democrat thing.

Instead of manager bailouts, these municipalities need to go to bankruptcy court. Chapter 9 or even Chapter 7. It may be time to bring back Greenfield Twp, Springwells Twp, Ecorse Twp, Hamtramck Twp, Gratiot Twp, etc. 

When shareholders don't hire good employees, they go out of business and in some cases lose incorporation. That needs to start happening to bad municipalities. It also need to be known that voters caused the problems for hiring bad people and not being active in their communities. In addition, voters outside needs areas need to be aware of what caused the problem, and not allow voters from these messed up communities to move into their area and elect trash destroying the new communities.

Elections need consequences, and we shouldn't be bailing out bad decisions over and over again. That's insanity.

MI-11 still a cluster by electing two congressmen

The 11th district elected two congressmen last Tuesday. I thought this could happen, because of differences in the new and old districts. Thank you McCotter campaign staffers.

I've heard conflicting things about the special election in the 11th. The AP called it at first for Bentivolio. I saw three sources now that called it for David Curson, so I think that's the correct call now. That's the Secretary of State's call as well.

Old 11th:
David Curson  - 159,267
Kerry Bentivolio - 151,740
Third Parties - 18,139

New 11th
Kerry Bentivolio - 181,796
Syed Taj - 158,889
Third Parties - About 18,000

Thanks to McCotter and his campaign staff, we have a two month period of a dem in a lame duck session with major fiscal discussions. Thanks, man.

This still isn't over. Besides the court cases, there may be a nasty primary here in 2014. What Bentivolio needs to do starting in January is to work the district hard. People first and foremost want competence here with the district related issues that don't get the press. Constituent relations is key. If Bentivolio shores that up, thinks before he speaks and doesn't do a Todd Akin, and works hard, he can survive a primary/general in 2014.


Wednesday, November 07, 2012

Pragmatism vs Ideology

I rarely like the internet political quizzes, because frankly most of the questions suck. I found one that I really liked that was as close as it gets. I Side With. It gives "yes" and "no" answers, but also other choice "C" answers as well.

The Results:
Gary Johnson - 96%
Mitt Romney - 76%
Virgil Goode - 64%
Rocky Anderson - 16%
Jill Stein - 10%
Obama - 5%

Romney on social, Johnson on the rest.

I'm not that surprised except that I usually don't score as high with libertarians and my marks with LP/RP are both in the 70-75% range with the rest under 25%. They didn't ask trade questions which skewed it away from the populists more.

However, I didn't write in Johnson. No, Romney wasn't my first choice. Like many, I didn't like the coronation attempt between Foxnews and also the rules changes for Mitt. On the same note, I didn't care for EITHER side in the Ron Paul vs Romney dual coronation attempts. In Romneys defense, he at least won a majority of the primaries. Luckily for Romney, I want Obama fired. In Ron Paul's case, I voted for him in 08, but not this year. The coronation push alienated me. The RNC and Paulite gamesmanship didn't look good for either side in Tampa. The former didn't need to spike the football. The latter has no business claiming anything until it won enough actual primaries (at any level, let alone presidential) to contend. My candidate lost too. It sucks. It happens.

Would I like to see more liberty candidates in the GOP? In some areas, if they aren't too hung up on technicalities. There's no way a candidate who claims to be a libertarian (and pro-life) republican would vote against defending planned parenthood. Or vote against national CPL reciprocity, all while incorrectly (especially on the CPL) claiming "constitutional" grounds (Full Faith and Credit). There are times due to language where a bill should be voted down, or amended. There's also times when there's nothing wrong with the bill's language. If you claim to really be a liberty candidate, be for liberty, don't just fall on your sword when the end result of that is less liberty than before. 

I realized over my years that 3rd parties are a protest vote. No more, and no less. If Teddy Roosevelt can't win as a 3rd party, no one can. I used to vote about 1/3 R and 2/3 L when I was a new voter, then considered myself independent. I have protested vote or 'voted for blank' on occasion, although I am less apt to do so than in my early years. This year was a bit of an exception as I did leave a few more of the uncontested races blank than normal with Green Oak pushing another millage. Again.

Many of the Paul hardliners are either writing in Ron Paul or voting for Johnson. Some are doing so because they really like Gary Johnson and damn the torpedoes. I can understand that. A couple of my family members took that stance. No games are involved there and they can't bring themselves to support either candidate.

Then, there's this mindset by some. "You didn't let us take over the party, so we're going to spite you and hope you lose to a 48-49% Obama so you'll be forced to come back begging to us." Ain't gonna happen. Even if Obama won due to Johnson votes, it ain't gonna happen.Two words. Ralph Nader. Nader's name since 2000 among democrats is mud. Ron Paul's name (as he'll get the blame) will be mud if Obama wins with 48-49%. There won't be begging, but a declaration of political war. 

Some people like Herman Cain are clamoring now for a 3rd party. All I have to say to that is the following. 
1. How will the third party get enough support to win?

"“I never thought that I would say this, and this is the first time publicly that I’ve said it: We need a third party to save this country. Not Ron Paul and the Ron Paulites. No. We need a legitimate third party to challenge the current system that we have, because I don’t believe that the Republican Party … has the ability to rebrand itself,” Cain said."

It is so easy to say "We'll get a new conservative party and the conservatives will join us and all will be well." The problem is that it's all bullshit. Third parties failed, have failed, and always will fail. Teddy Roosevelt, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Virgil Goode, John Anderson, George Wallace, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan all failed as 3rd parties. In order for a 3rd party to be relevant, one has to be competitive in 34% of the seats in congress or compete for a majority in a electoral college. Ain't gonna happen.

Steve Schmidt also has his head up his ass. That's not surprising. He was McCain's campaign manager. We all know how that went. I could have done a better job than that clown in 08. I doubt I would lose Indiana at least. That takes work in a presidential election.

“When I talk about a civil war in the Republican Party, what I mean is, it’s time for Republican elected leaders to stand up and to repudiate this nonsense [of the extreme right wing], and to repudiate it directly,” he said.

Screw off, Steve. We just ran a moderate. We ran a moderate before that in 2008. Your boy McCain. Hell, Bush was a moderate, at least fiscally. What we need is to repudite bullshit like what you are slinging to try and salvage your incompetent reputation.

Conservatives can win. Conservatives can win in moderate or even liberal districts. Moderates can win. Moderates can win conservative and liberal districts. They both win by not doing a Steve Schmidt and putting their big mouths away and by doing their jobs properly on constituent issues and being competent people. That's what's most important. Don't be incompetent like Steve Schmidt was in his election work. Don't be a dumbass like Todd Akin (establishment, Huckabee wing). Don't be a dumbass like Richard Mourdock (Tea Party). They made the same error. Don't be something that you aren't. I think Mitt would have done much better in the primary if he was just who he was. I think that came out in the first debate.

Be who you are. Be competent at what you do. Be tactically smart and principled. Have a good plan. That's the starting success to build from at any level.  Pick fights when you must, but not when you don't have to do so.

Conservatives need moderates (true moderates, not leftists). Moderates need conservatives. Tea party needs establishment. Establishment needs tea party. Right now, we don't have the leverage. We need to create it and create it now, so Obama doesn't spend the next four years turning this country into Chicago.  

2012 Election Commentary - Pt 2 - Livingston County

Livingston County's results are in. While they aren't perfect, the voters here a lot smarter than elsewhere. We don't want to turn into another Detroit.

Every Republican running who had opponents won. The only democrats who won were those running as non-partisan, were unopposed, or those like Allen Carlson in Hamburg which ran as Republicans. The results are as follows in Livingston County.

Romney 60000 - 60.90%
Obama 37186 -  37.74% - won statewide

Not great for the county, but it's good to see that number over 60% again.

Pete Hoekstra - 51252 - 53.17%
Stabenow - 41703 - 43.26% - won statewide

Stabenow runs better in Livingston County than most dems, but Hoekstra's lack of campaigning hurt him more than anything else.

Mike Rogers - 65308 - 68.65%
Lance Enderle - 26079 - 27.41%

Rogers had a spirited challenge from Enderle, but it went nowhere.

State rep:

42nd (was 66th)
Bill Rogers -31429 - 63.14%
Shanda Willis - 16453 - 33.05%

Cindy Denby - 27619 - 63.95%
Shawn Lowe Desai - 13886 - 32.15%

Bill Vailliencourt - 57279 - 64.92%
Matt Evans - 30442 - 34.50%

The county commissioner seats are all nearly 2-1 or better. Two interesting ones were this:

Jay Drick - 5384 - 74.45%
Rodger Young -1799 - 24.88%

Young is a libertarian. No dem ran. This shows the futility of 3rd parties. In a one on one matchup, they don't break 30% of the vote in almost all cases.

Dennis Dolan - 5953 - 58.10%
Jim Katakowski - 4237 - 41.35%

This was the toughest district based in Hamburg Township. Dolan isn't a campaigner, which drives many of us in county or district party up a wall. I think this will continue to be our toughest defense.

None of the trustees were close except Hamburg.

Last Republican - Jason Negri  - 6083
Annette Koeble - 5119

From a two party standpoint, it's about 54-45. Negri was 4th place. Rumor was that Koeble was backed by many of the people in Hamburg Township government. It wouldn't surprise me since Carlson is a RINO in the truest sense.

Two dems won in Howell Township and the incumbent dem won in Unadilla Township. They were both unopposed. That's on the party. There's no excuse.

Tyrone Township had nobody file at the deadline, but there were four republicans that did get themselves on the ballot as (originally) a write-in in the primary. They all won.

Supreme Court is likely going to be Markman, Zahra, and McCormack. I was sorry to see McCormack win and O'Brien lose. Markman, Zahra, and O'Brien won the county.

Probate Court was interesting:
Miriam Cavanaugh - 33180 - 51.42%
Lori Marran - 30919 - 47.92%

I'll remain quiet about who I voted for here. I'll also say that I wonder if Cavanaugh won partly due to the UAW endorsing Marran. I made my decision before I found out about the UAW's endorsement, but I know at least five people - all with UAW ties, vote for Cavanaugh based on that endorsement. Most people don't follow probate law and when it's a close call (as it was for me since I think both would be a good judge), sometimes certain endorsements matter for good (Sue Reck in Marran's case, Vailliencourt in Cavanaugh's case) or for bad (UAW).  

ALL of the proposals failed statewide. In County, Prop 1 passed easily while the rest failed badly.

For the tax measures.

Brighton City - NO win by 125
Green Oak - YES wins by 520
Howell Township - NO wins 4.5-1. Again. Did they finally get the message?
Brighton Schools - YES wins by 1500

 Lastly, the schools. Conservatives split the results here.

Brighton Schools.
Jay Krause and Nick Fiani win. Fiani's win was an upset due to his results last time. I think those "Conservative Nick Fiani" signs out there helped in a big way. Ken Stahl was the treasurer of the millage committee and the favorite. Big win for taxpayers with Fiani defeating Stahl. Too bad Van Henteryk didn't win.

Howell Schools:
Two conservatives won here. Deb McCormick and Mike Moloney. Moloney's fiscal knowledge is needed there.

Overall, we did alright downticket outside of the self inflicting wounds in Howell Twp and Unadilla. We must be vigilant as Oakland County next door at the county level is starting to dismantle what built the county and replace it with Detroit style politics as democrats won the countywide races. We don't need that here.

2012 Election commentary - Pt 1

I'm still trying to get all the results in that I can. Some are tougher than others. I'll get to the actual numbers when they are in. Some of the counties aren't in yet, at least officially. I'd have to see the micro level to make final determinations.

To Start -Why did Romney lose and Obama win? Romney wasn't as bad of candidate as I thought he would be. He went from being what I thought was a bad candidate to a mediocre candidate on the level of George W Bush (different strengths and different weaknesses). This was a guy that was not popular at all during the primaries over a list of other weak candidates. Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, and others all were considered "contenders" at some point. Each had their turn as the "not Romney." Romney was able to get a lot of that base on board. He did show some of the same weakness from 2008 that cost him against McCain. He can't close the deal. Obama I think did with the hurricane.

This reminded me a bit of the 2004 campaign in reverse, except that Romney wasn't a traitor like John Kerry. Romney did have his major flaw however in the auto bailout editorial. 

This is what I think were the major factors both here and elsewhere.

1. Ground game and late start. Romney's ground game was NOT bad (McCain's was nonexistent), but he doesn't have the big ace in the hole that the dems have. Government unions and the both money and organization they have. When I was watching the precincts in Lansing, ALL of them had people working the polls with slate cards. Most of them were working for proposals, but they also handed out lit with candidates. That's allowed beyond 100 ft of the entrance. The timing I think was off as well. There was a late start and signs weren't in (and they were rationed) until the absentee votes were already started. The ground game needs to be cultivated first before the tv ad wars. This frustrated a lot of early volunteers and turned a lot of them into keybord and internet warriors instead of actual activists.

2.  Rick Snyder. He was a triple whammy for us this year in Michigan:
Snyder whammy 1 -  Snyder and Romney to an extent have similar styles. Business CEO's. I got a lot of flack from blue collar white ethnics (and I'm from a family of them) about Romney being too much like Snyder. We needed to win that vote to have a chance. In the Midwest, we did NOT. Macomb and Monroe Counties stayed with Obama.

Snyder whammy 2 - TAXES. Specifically his push for the gas tax and his already enacted pension tax. This was, due to style and backgrounds, backlashed by association to Snyder.

Snyder whammy 3 - Proposal 5. This could have helped get more conservatives to the polls if Snyder stayed out of the way and some of the reps had a little more courage. Joe Hune supported it, but even he should have supported it from the start. The Snyder led push against Prop 5 did not help us with fiscally conservative independents that we needed to defeat Obama. We didn't get enough. Oakland stayed with Obama, and Romney underperformed in West Michigan.

3. Most of the proposals.  All the liberal interest groups had a reason to go to the polls. Proposal 1 - Emergency Manager Law. - Inner Cities. They don't want to be taken over by the manager and it the old law is back in effect. Personally, I'd rather see piss poor run municipalities and districts get put in bankruptcy court instead. If they vote for screw-ups, they deserve the consequences.  Proposal 2 - All the unions, especially government unions were organized for this. MEA and SEIU especially. Proposal 3 - Greenies. Proposal 4 - SEIU again. This was like 2004 in reverse with the gay marriage ban on the ballot.

4. Hurricane. There was a shift to Obama at the end. Incumbents usually get a small break at times of disaster. Chris Christie and Obama had their photo-op. Big assist there among independents. I don't fault Christie for this. Many conservatives are pissed off about it, but he has his job to do. His job as CEO of New Jersey is to steady the ship there. The photo op distracted voters from Obama's self-destruction and made him look "bipartisan."

5. Where did Romney stand?  That was the problem conservatives had in the primary. That was the problem a lot of independents had. (Voted for it before against it)

6. Let Detroit go Bankrupt. This is what most of all killed Romney. One headline made by the kings of the leftist media - the NY Times.  That hurt him bad. What also hurt is this. Romney should have constantly reminded voters that GM and Chrysler DID go bankrupt. Bankruptcy reorganization isn't the same as bankruptcy liquidation (of everything). Most people when they think of bankruptcy think of the liquidation. This hurt him bad in SE Michigan, the Dayton area, and Northern Ohio.

7. Bad senate candidates. I'm as pro-life as it gets. Babies need to be protected (and THAT's the focus pro-life candidates need to get back to, not the exception arguments. Babies are innocent.). You'll also never hear me make the same dipshit comments made by Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin. That cost us AT LEAST two senate campaigns and played into the playbook of Planned Barrenhood. It may have hurt us elsewhere as well, and I think it hurt Romney in the Northeast. Those wern't the only bad candidates. I personally like Pete Hoekstra and Tommy Thompson, but they ran like they were talked into running. Hoekstra was Bouchard 2006 all over again. Stabenow can be beat, but NOT by a generic campaign. I think Clark Durant would have given us a better shot. We need to make sure in primaries that we vote for candidates who run like they want to win, and those that don't have a history of making Todd Akin type of statements.

Now notice what I didn't say. I didn't say establishment. I didn't say tea party. I didn't say moderate. I didn't say not conservative enough. That's all media pundit talking head bullshit and horseshit. Todd Akin isn't tea party. He was the establishment candidate, Huckabee wing. Richard Mourdock was a tea party candidate who beat liberal republican Dick Lugar in the primary. Both made the same comments that did not need to be said. Both of them would have won if they didn't make those comments. Romney didn't "moderate" too late or be "conservative." too early. He did best when he talked about his plans. Competence based issues. It's Obama's weakness. It should have been Romney's strength. 

In 2016, there will be an open seat primary on both sides. We need to find a good solid competent candidate who can get votes from both the base and the independents. That does not require going so called moderate or so called far rights. It requires someone whom we can hire to do the job properly.

On a different note, I have to give some kudos to the election workers running the polls in Lansing. I was a roving attorney there assigned nine precincts. I was able to make eight because of major problems at one of the precincts. The problem was a broken tabulator that counts the votes. My grades for the poll workers was an A, and an F- for the machines. The poll workers did the best they could with the circumstances. I was there when it happened, and I received a call about it when a concerned voter called GOP HQ. Poll challengers and poll watchers are important. Poll workers also important. Those are thankless jobs, but needed.

Lastly - The Good (Livingston County). The Bad (Obama). The Ugly (US Senate). Democrats destroyed Detroit, and if you keep voting for democrats, especially city or inner ring suburban democrats, you're going to eventually turn the entire country into Detroit or Chicago (and I mean ALL parts of those cities, not just downtown where the tourists go). That includes white democrats who are just as much of the problem. The Detroit riots happen under the watch of white progressives. They start the problems in the first place.

When these politicians do what we all know they do, the blames lies not with the politicians, but their idiot employers who hired them. Their VOTERS are the f'ups. Their VOTERS are to blame. Brian Banks, Barack Obama, and Chris Dodd don't just appear. The shareholders who are f'ups hire them.
But don't you forget you made the choice, You made your mark, you raised your voice, They're all the same, you're all to blame They're all the same, you're all to blame They're all the same, and you're to blame You're dogs!

50+ years of Republican run areas - Livingston County.
50+ years of Democrat run area - City of Detroit.
Call it sour grapes if you want, but that's the fact, Jack.

Monday, November 05, 2012

2 Minutes left in the 4th quarter

It's the day before the polls - real polls - open. There's conflicting polls out right now about who is likely to win. One thing ALL the polls have in common is that they don't expect a blowout and Romney is within the margin of error in the dem favored polls, and Obama is within the margin of error in the GOP favored polls. This will be decided tomorrow.

That means we need to do our part. To conservatives who haven't voted - we need you. To those who already voted - we still need you. I'm not from Obama's Chicago or Boss Tweed's machine, so I can't say vote early and often. However, work the polls, either as a poll watcher, challenger, or campaigner outside the 100ft of the entrance. Get other conservatives out to the polls. 

My prediction overall is 285-253 Romney, with Ohio being another 2000 Florida (The Cincy Suburbs will save the day). If we get upsets in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and/or Wisconsin, we're not going to have to worry about this going to court. We can't control what we can't control, but we can control what we can control, and that is voting, working the polls, GOTV, and the groundwork that needs to be done to win. 

I won't be posting election updates here tomorrow. I'll be working the polls until after closing, and then making the rounds at election parties. If there's a problem at your polling station, call your county clerk. If there's shenanigans, call them and also call MIGOP at 517-487-5413. 

I already voted:
Romney - Anybody but Obama
Hoekstra - Fire Harry Reid
Mike and Bill Rogers
Would have voted for Cindy Denby if I was still in that district
Gave what I call the "blank treatment" (left it blank) to Green Oak incumbents over the millage.  
Markman, Zahra, and O'Brien for Supreme Court
If I could, I'd vote for Circuit Judge Dan Ryan in Wayne County. He's as good as it gets.

Yes on Proposal 1 and 5
No on 2, 3, 4, 6, and the Green Oak Millage 

Control what you can control, and we should win. Since I'm working as a lawyer with poll challengers.......