I got a new job - and you can be a part of it!

I am pleased to announce that I have accepted a position as Deputy Political Director for Trevor for Congress!

Trevor Thomas is running for Congress in the new 3rd Congressional District, which now includes the counties of Barry, Calhoun, Ionia, and most of Kent. This is Gerald Ford's old seat, but Dick VanderVeen (D-East Grand Rapids) represented the district for nearly three years after Ford became Vice President. The seat has a tradition of electing Members of Congress who were well respected by Democrats and Republicans alike.

That is, until 2010.

Justin Amash has shown himself to be very ideological and ambitious. In 2008, the 28-year-old Amash was elected to the state House. Just two years later, he chose to run for Congress instead of running for another two terms in Lansing. That's despite the fact that his State House district is very Republican, and he certainly would've won re-election. In his votes in Washington (and before that in Lansing), he has ticked off a number of his fellow Republicans. He endorsed Ron Paul for President this year.

In short, Justin Amash needs to go. And Trevor Thomas is the man to make that happen.

Trevor has accomplished a lot in such a short time. Raised in the town of Marne, Trevor is the son of two GM retirees and has many relatives who have worn our country's uniform. Trevor graduated from Grand Valley State before working for WGVU, WOOD TV8, Granholm for Governor 2006, the Office of the Governor, and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. He played a key role in eliminating "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." His roots here are strong; his commitment to progressive values is even stronger.

He has also shown that he is able to build the string base of support he will need in order to win both the primary and the general. In the first quarter, 800 donors gave more than $100,000 - and 88% of those donations were $200 or less. He has been endorsed by progressives like John Cherry, centrists such as Jennifer Granholm, and even a few Republicans (Former Kent County Republican Party chair Bob Eleveld introduced Trevor at his announcement speech last month).

If you've wanted Democrats in Washington to do a better job and stand up for our values, Trevor Thomas is your answer. If you think we need more people young people in Congress with working-class roots, Trevor Thomas is your answer. If you want to see more and better Democrats in elected office, Trevor Thomas is your answer. If you want someone who will stand up for his beliefs but who also knows how to build coalitions, Trevor Thomas is your answer.

To say the least, I am honored to have this opportunity to work for him and to help send him to Washington.

If you are so inclined, feel free to chip in a few bucks to ensure we have what it takes to win this race!

This time, the path to the nomination was a little easier for Obama

Sounds like Vermin Supreme didn't pose much of a threat to Obama after all. ;-)

The Party of Women (And Sensible Men) endorses its candidates

While I was bartending here in greater GR, other Democrats from across the state were gathered at Cobo Hall to endorse a slate of candidates for various offices in this year's election. The endorsees are:

• Supreme Court (technically nonpartisan): Bridget Mary McCormack, Shelia Johnson, Connie Kelley
• State Board of Education: Lupe Ramos-Montigny, Michelle Fecteau
• U-M Regents: Mark Bernstein, Shauna Ryder-Diggs
• MSU Trustees: Joel Ferguson, Brian Mosallam
• WSU Governors: Sandra Hughes O'Brien, Kim Trent

They are set to be formally nominated at a separate convention in late August (state law provides a certain window during which they may actually be nominated). I don't yet know a whole lot about all of these candidates, but a few observations:

1. McCormack has been campaigning for this for quite some time now, going around and meeting with grassroots Democratic activists around the state. It's a strategy I call "the Jocelyn Benson," since Jocelyn did that for more than a year before she was nominated for Secretary of State.

2. Johnson also campaigned across the state in 2010, appearing at many Democratic gatherings. However, she ended up not being nominated in 2010. I'm glad she got a nod this time.

3. Lupe was one of our nominees in 2010, as you may recall. She was a teacher in Grand Rapids Public Schools for 36 years. Don't you think the Board of Ed could stand to use an educator's perspective?

4. Bernstein should win on name recognition alone. Let's face it: If you're a candidate for one of these offices, most of the votes you get will be from people who (a) recognized your name or (b) vote straight ticket or close to straight ticket. If he does win, Bernstein will be the second in his family to be elected to a statewide education board; his brother, Richard, was elected in 2002.

5. Ferguson is the only incumbent Democrat seeking re-election to any of these boards.

6. If our Supreme Court candidates all win this year, the Michigan Supreme Court will have five women. Five out of seven. And of the 11 candidates endorsed this weekend, eight are women.

Of course, I don't think that merely having women in public office is the end-all, be-all for equality. I'm glad we have Vice President Biden instead of Vice President Palin. But at a time like this, it highlights a difference between the two parties.

The Party of Palin has been declaring war on Palin's gender in the name of "religious freedom" or "conscience" - and now they are paying the price in the polls. Their nominees for various offices will likely include Mitt "What Will He Believe Next Month?" Romney, Stephen Markman, Brian Zahra, Pete "Cultural Sensitivity" Hoekstra, and probably several men (and a couple women) for education boards. (There will likely be a lot of pressure from Republicans to have their party nominate a woman for the other Supreme Court slot, and given their plummeting standing among women, don't be surprised if Romney picks a woman for VP.)

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party's nominees for various offices will include our first African-American President, the author of the Violence Against Women Act, Michigan's first female Senator, and the aforementioned women (and men).

Transparency, anyone?

Knowledge is power.

Cliches are a dime a dozen, but when you think about it, knowledge really is power. That's why I'm a big fan of transparency.

Now, I understand that there are times when government - and those who influence it – need to maintain some sort of confidentiality. People's identities need to be protected, and dangerous consequences may result if the CIA’s work is blown or a secret military operation is leaked (who knew about the raid on the bin Laden compound?)

But overall, transparency needs to be the rule, not the exception. That goes for those in government as well as those who seek to wield their massive resources to ensure that government does their bidding.

In the wake of that disastrous Supreme Court decision of 1/21/10 – the one whose name I will not mention – many of us wondered what we can do about it. There is growing support for an amendment to the United States Constitution, which would involve a massive undertaking if it is to be adopted.

But while we might not be able to stop corporations from spending their vast resources without, we can make them tell us when they’re doing it.

Enter the Corporate Accountability Amendment. It's a proposal to amend the state Constitution (much easier than amending the US Constitution!) to shed some light on the campaign finance system.According to their website, this amendment has two primary goals

1. Disclosure: Ensuring citizens know when CEOs and lobbyist are influencing elections and public policy by requiring instant disclosure of Corporate Funded Political Communications and Lobbying in Michigan.

2. Disclaimer: Ensuring large corporations and CEOs "Stand By Their Ad" by requiring them to identify who funded the political and lobbying communications on the ads themselves, just like candidates for office and unions have to do right now.

One thing I like about this is that when a political ad comes on TV, people will see right there who is behind it.

That Supreme Court case was one of the biggest affronts to democracy in a long time – right up there with the Emergency Manager law. If this amendment passes, starting in 2014, voters will see who is responsible for these ads that we have to put up with every election season.

And that knowledge will be power - power to make an informed decision and to know who's really responsible for that propaganda.

Being an amendment to the state Constitution, 322,000 signatures need to be collected to put it on the ballot. So be sure to sign up on their website to keep updated on how to help.

Pestka announces for Congress

1976.

America had just turned 200, West Michigan native Gerald Ford was President, disco was big, and most Republicans were decent.

That year, Congressman Dick VanderVeen - a Democrat who had won a 1974 special election to replace then-VP Ford in Congress - lost his bid for re-election. Ever since then, Greater Grand Rapids has been represented exclusively by Republicans.

Steve Pestka wants to change that.

Pestka, a longtime fixture on the West Michigan political scene, announced today that he is running for Congress in Michigan's 3rd Congressional District. Pestka has served as a assistant prosecutor, Kent County Commissioner, State Representative, and Circuit Court judge.

Pestka is the second Democratic candidate to enter this exciting race. Trevor Thomas, a rising star in our Party, has worked for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network for the Granholm Administration; he jumped in the race three weeks ago. Either one will make a fine Congressman.

The new 3rd District includes all of Calhoun, Ionia, and Barry counties, a piece of Montcalm County, and most of Kent County. Grand Rapids and Battle Creek are the two big cities in the district.

Pestka has already earned the endorsements of former Congressman Mark Schauer; State Representatives Brandon Dillon, Roy Schmidt, and Kate Segal; and a host of local Party activists and elected officials and Democratic Party activists.

Thomas has landed two big endorsements in recent days: Both Granholm and her lieutenant governor, John Cherry, have endorsed Thomas. In addition, Thomas has already raised nearly $19,000 on his ActBlue page alone - not to mention much more offline.

A recent poll showed Amash leading Pestka in a hypothetical matchup 50-39, but after respondents were given positive statements about each candidate, Pestka pulled within two. When positives and negatives were added to the mix, Pestka actually led 47-43.

Combine that with Amash's 25% approval rating, and you'll see that Amash is in big trouble.

As long as we have a healthy primary contest, and as long as our nominee fights for progressive Democratic values, Amash will have a heck of a fight on his hands!

Primary postmortem

Turnout barely exceeds 2008: Looks like Republican turnout will surpass the 2008 total by only about 125,000 votes, give or take a few. In 2008, 869,169 votes were cast for Republican candidates. This year, two things appeared to contribute to increased turnout:

• The Democratic race is uncontested this year, and some people who voted for Hillary or for Uncommitted in 2008 either did not vote this time or crossed over.
• Republicans invested much more heavily in Michigan this time than in 2008. Last time, the focus of the national Republican race was on Super Tuesday, as Romney was more or less expected to win the Michigan primary (which was three weeks before Super Tuesday). This time, a very close race (and the possibility of Romney losing what he should've won in a cakewalk) meant more interest in the race - thus also contributing to higher turnout.

Despite that, Republicans only got around 1 million votes this time.

A lot of money to barely win your 'home' state: Romney and his super PAC spent $3,807,082 in Michigan, while Santorum and his super PAC spent $2,182,786. At the moment, with a few precincts left to report, it comes out to $9.33 per vote for Romney and $5.79 per vote for Santorum. And what did Romney get for that? A 3-point win in a state he should've won in a cakewalk. And as Dana points out, Romney's 41% just barely exceeds his 2008 performance of 39%.

Exit poll sheds light on primary electorate: CNN's exit poll has a load of fascinating info.

• 9% of Republican primary voters were Democrats, and Santorum got a majority (not just a plurality) of Dems.
• 39% called themselves moderate or liberal.
• Santorum gets almost half the vote among those who dislike the other candidates more than they like their own candidates.
• Nearly 3 in 8 Republican primary voters say abortion should be "always" or "mostly" legal.
• 44% approved of the government bailing out the automakers.
• Most fascinating of all (IMHO): Romney and Santorum tied among Tea Party supporters, with Santorum winning among those who do not support the Tea Party.

Republicans' irresponsibility comes back to bite them: Michigan republicans wasted $40 million of our tax dollars to hold this primary so they could anoint Romney as the nominee here in Michigan. Well, how's that turning out for you, Republicans? Your party is at war with itself, and now your frontrunner is trailing Obama by 16 points in Michigan.

State House races offer good signs for Democrats: The 29th and 51st State House districts had special elections to fill the remainders of the terms of Tim Melton (D-29th), who resigned, and Paul Scott (R-51st), who was recalled. Both were succeeded by members of their own parties, meaning there will be no change in the balance of power in the State House.

In November 2008 - a great election for Democrats - Paul Scott got 53% of the vote in the 51st House race. This time, with a much more Republican electorate, Joe Graves got a whopping 54%. One should be careful about reading too much into that, but with a much more Republican electorate voting yesterday (60% Republican statewide, according to CNN), do you not think Graves should've done much better than 54%?

Could it be that Michigan Republicans are in for a backlash for their anti-worker agenda?

Republicans prepare for caucuses, touting commitment to jobs, fiscal responsibility

By SCOTT HUSSEIN URBANOWSKI
SNARX News

LANSING - Republicans across the state are preparing for tonight's Presidential caucuses, which have brought the world's attention to this state with a Republican-dominated government.

Michigan Republicans decided last year to use a caucus to allocate the state's Republican National Convention delegates. Proposals for a statewide, taxpayer-funded primary were shot down.

"In 2010, we campaigned on more jobs, less government, and less spending," said Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville. "By choosing a caucus system instead of a primary, we are fulfilling our promises by not spending your tax dollars."

US Senate candidate Gary Glenn said that Republican lawmakers have taken a route that is "consistent with Christian principles."

"Christ taught us to take care of the poor," said Glenn. "Rather than waste money doing something our Party could do by itself, our Party decided to forgo using tax dollars for a primary, instead using that money to allow things like the Earned Income Tax Credit to continue as they were before."

A Republican spokesman noted that by saving $10 million on a primary, many jobs have been saved, including those of police and firefighters.

"The Democrat Party has forgotten 9/11," said the spokesman, who wished to remain anonymous. "We haven't forgotten. We remember the bravery of our firefighters and police. In tribute to them, and in order to protect our communities, we have chosen to preserve their jobs here in Michigan."

Republican activist Sanctity O'Marriage, R-Roscommon,* said he is proud of his party for standing up to Democrats in Washington by showing how to cut spending in government.

"Instead of getting government involved in private matters, Republicans are committed to doing the responsible thing," said O'Marriage, who plans to caucus for Santorum.

"Debbie Spenditnow and Khalid Sheikh bin Hussein bin Soetoro bin Obumbum can't say that!"

Stay tuned to SNARX news for complete Michigan Republican caucus coverage

-----------

*Roscommon = Actual name of a village in Ireland, pop. 5,000. It's purported that the town in northern Michigan is named for the one in Ireland. Fun fact.

Waltz drops out of 6th District Congressional race due to "life threatening illness"

Oh no.

Due to an unforeseen life threatening illness we regretfully have to announce that John Waltz will be ending his campaign to secure the Democratic Party nomination for Michigan’s Sixth District. At this time, John is unable to provide a statement, but the family will answer questions if needed.

After someone asked if John was okay, his wife, Jane, said this in a comment:

He is very ill at this point. Thanks for your kind words.

So every indication is that this has to do with John Waltz himself, not a family member.

Waltz is an Iraq veteran who moved to Michigan after running against Geoff Davis (R) in KY-04 in 2010.

Waltz is a brave man who has done so much for our country. While his campaign is over, here's hoping he can summon his courage once again and make it through this.

Let us extend our best wishes, prayers, vibes, and so forth to John and his family.

Kardashian Wins Iowa Republican Caucus

By SNARX NEWS

DES MOINES - Ms. Kim Kardashian, one of the most influential, inspirational, and important people in the world, won the Iowa Republican caucuses Tuesday, setting her up as the favorite to face President Barack Obama this fall.

With 99% of precincts reporting, Kardashian had 41% of the vote in the caucuses, with other Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney garnering 15% each and Ron Paul receiving roughly 14%.

Jon Huntsman, one of the last four somewhat-sane Republicans still alive, received negative-1 percent of the vote.

"I am so happy for my sis," said Mrs. Khloe Odom in a statement released early Wednesday.

Analysts credited a number of factors for Kardashian's win.

"She combines the marital fidelity of Newt Gingrich and the intelligence of Rick Perry with the wealth of Mitt Romney and the craziness of Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul," noted Kandy Krowley of KNN (Kardashian News Network).

Krowley noted that Kardashian also appeals to the Republican family-values crowd in a way that is reminiscent of Rick Santorum.

"While it's true I was married and divorced, at least I'm not a lesbian," noted Kardashian in a recent debate.

In an interview with KNN Wednesday morning, Perry attributed his disappointing performance to "three main factors: A weak ground game, stiff competition, and.... I can't remember the other one."

Glenn Anderson to run for Congress

State Sen. Glenn Anderson (D-Westland) will announce tomorrow morning that he is running for Congress in 2012.

Anderson served in the state House from 2001 until his election to the state Senate in 2006. Before that, he served nine years on the Westland City Council. Anderson worked at Ford starting in 1972 (where he joined the UAW) and is also a licensed Realtor.

If Anderson is elected to Congress, it won't be the first time he's pulled off such an upset. In order to win his election to the Senate in 2006, Anderson had to defeat an incumbent, Laura Toy. Anderson and Jim Barcia are the only two Democrats in the past 21 years (perhaps longer) to win a Republican-held State Senate seat. Renowned political analyst Peter Bratt called Anderson's 2006 campaign "one of the best I've seen in Michigan politics."

Anderson will run in the 11th District for the seat currently held by Thaddeus McCotter. No word yet on whether McCotter plans to run for re-election, but another Republican - State Sen. Mike Kowall (R-White Lake) - is running. Like the old 11th, the new 11th is not the friendliest for Democrats, but in the old 11th, McCotter only won by 6% in 2008 against a little-known Democrat. Said Democrat, Joseph Larkin, actually won the Wayne County portion of the district.

Anderson is a well-respected, tenacious, blue-collar Democrat who knows how to win and of whom we can all be proud. Republicans have a huge fight on their hands.

Spending Money Wisely - or, In Defense of the MDP

With the success of Wisconsin Democrats' recent efforts to recall Republican lawmakers and replace them with Democrats, a number of progressives in Michigan have called on the Michigan Democratic Party to seek to recall Michigan Republican lawmakers.

The MDP's recent request for support in defeating recall attempts against Democratic lawmakers provoked the ire of one blogger on Blogging for Michigan. What follows is my response to his post, which I have chosen to repost here.

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

Frankly, I remain unconvinced that the MDP should be spending – rather, wasting – members’ hard-earned dollars on the remote possibility of electing Democrats just months before the entire State House will be up for election anyway.

There will be something in November 2012 called a ‘general election.’ If a Republican can’t be ousted in November 2012, they probably couldn’t be ousted in a recall election either.

Of course, many of us believe that in those rare cases in which a recall SHOULD be attempted, the petition-gathering stage of such an effort should be done on as grassroots a level as possible. Whatever your views on that, let’s be practical here: Is it worth it for the MDP to spend our (members’) money on getting petition signatures just for the ever-so-slight possibility that someone might be recalled in a couple months and possibly – just possibly – be replaced by a Democrat six whole months (i.e. 1/4 of a state House term) later, and just before the term is to expire anyway? Especially when it would take eight successful recalls just to bring Republicans down to 55 House seats?

Now if we had a recall system like they do in Wisconsin, I would be more likely to support MDP involvement in the petition-gathering stage. Consider the differences between Michigan and Wisconsin: There, once the petition is filed, the countdown is on for a general election to be held between the two major-party nominees (and if needed, a primary takes place beforehand). And that election can take place within a couple months. Here, OTOH, after petitions are filed, the next step is for an election to determine whether the person should actually be recalled in the first place. THEN there’s a primary, THEN a general election after that which would take place six months after the original recall vote (and about nine months after petitions are turned in).

Suppose petitions to recall a Republican lawmaker were turned in tomorrow. The recall vote would happen in February, which is not an ideal time for Democrats, since that is the date of the Presidential primary (in which most voters will be Republicans, thus likely shellacking a recall attempt against a Republican by a wide margin). In the highly unlikely event that the lawmaker IS recalled, the primary to succeed him/her would be May 8. The general election would be August 7 - also not ideal since Republicans will have another statewide primary that day, this time for US Senate. Whether or not many Democrats vote will depend on whether or not Democrats have competitive primaries for different races in that state House district. Not to mention how confusing the ballot would be for those unfamiliar with the primary process - "Okay, so I could only vote for Republicans in that section of the ballot, so I guess I'll have to vote for the Republican in this state House race too." In the unlikely event that a Democrat is elected in August, guess what will happen just three months later? The general election.

Oh, but the MDP doesn't have the money to keep them in office or to help carry Michigan for Obama. Thus they who were elected in August lose just three months later. Plus we're stuck with President Perry, Senator Durant, and the scorn of Michigan once again being the scapegoat in the Democratic Party. All because the MDP was spending money trying to get people recalled so others could replace them for three months.

Suddenly, it seems pointless for the MDP to be spending all that money, doesn't it?

Now if the MDP had enough money to throw around, maybe it would make more sense for MDP leaders to support the petition-gathering stage. But as we all know very well, the DeVoses are not Democrats, and the MDP is not the richest entity known to humankind.

As to fighting Republican attempts at recalling Democratic lawmakers? Republicans are infamous for using every dirty trick in the book to get Democrats recalled. Witness (1) the 2007-2008 recall campaigns against lawmakers who voted to raise the income tax; (2) the tricks used to get Wisconsin Democrats recalled; and (3) the effort to get the affirmative action ban on the ballot in 2006. In all of these cases, deception was used to get signatures from people who wouldn’t otherwise support their efforts.

If any of these campaigns against Democratic lawmakers are able to get the necessary petition signatures, guess when the recall election would be? February 28. I already mentioned above that most of those who vote on February 28 will be Republicans, who would be much more likely to vote ‘yes’ on a recall question against a Democrat. Result? These Democrats would be VERY likely to get thrown out of office. In other words, this (the petition-gathering stage) IS the election, so to speak. Whether or not folks like Brandon Dillon stay in office for the rest of their terms could very well be decided more by the success or failure of the Republicans’ petition-gathering efforts, with the February 28 election being a formality.

That’s why this needs to be fought NOW.

As an MDP member, I expect Party leadership to act in ways that will help us elect Democrats and keep current Democratic elected officials in office. Every dollar that is spent on an effort that is highly unlikely to succeed is a dollar that cannot be spent helping to re-elect our President, re-elect Senator Stabenow, and take back the US House, the State Supreme Court – and, by the way, the State House.

Snyder recall effort fizzles; focus must shift to winning in 2011 and 2012

No surprise here.

Two newspapers report an effort to recall Republican Gov. Rick Snyder is fizzling.The Detroit Free Press on Wednesday cited an e-mail from campaign spokesman Tom Bryant saying "the recall effort will be coming to an end."

Organizers tell The Livingston County Daily Press & Argus the effort will fall short of making the February ballot.

The Associated Press called numbers listed on the group's state finance registration but didn't reach anyone actively involved in the recall effort.

We can debate until the cows come home about whether or not it was worth it to try to recall him. Everyone knew the odds were stacked - only two states have ever recalled a governor. But since we all know that this recall campaign is done with, there is no reason - none - to waste time looking behind and asking, 'What if...?'

What needs to happen now is that those who were involved in the effort to recall Snyder need to continue - rather, expand - their efforts to keep this progressive movement going. Sure, not all of us Democrats/liberals/progressives were on the same page when it came to recalling Snyder. But we ARE on the same page in opposing the emergency manager law, efforts to make Michigan a Work-for-Less state, and the many other fronts in their War on People.

So if you live in Michigan, get involved in the fight to repeal the EFM law. Write/call your elected officials. Donate to a favorite candidate before the Friday night deadline (if I could find a full-time job, I certainly would make a contribution or two!). Volunteer for candidates running in this November's elections. Help make the Democratic Party more progressive by taking part in Engage Michigan.

In addition to local races in 2011, there's a plethora of activity on the 2012 ballot with races for President, US Senate, US House, State House, State Supreme Court, countywide offices, county commissions, and so much more. In addition to the likely EFM referendum, we'll probably see another ballot initiative or two.

Hanging together is so much more fun than hanging separately.

Hoekstra flip-flops, will run for Senate after all

From WOOD TV8 comes news that Congressman-turned-lobbyist, 2010 gubernatorial candidate, Twitter aficionado, and breacher of security Pete Hoekstra has flip-flopped on running for US Senate against Debbie Stabenow.

The Associated Press has learned that former U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra plans to run for the seat held by Democratic Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

Two Republicans with knowledge of his decision say the Holland Republican has changed his mind about staying out of the race and plans an announcement soon.

Both spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been made public.

...

Earlier this year, Hoekstra became a senior adviser at Dickstein Shapiro LLP, a law and lobbying firm in Washington, D.C.

Hoekstra would enter the race as the most viable of the Republican candidates - and almost certainly the initial frontrunner in the Republican primary - thanks in part to his 18 years in Congress and his unsuccessful 2010 bid for Governor, in which he finished second behind Rick Snyder.

However, will Hoekstra get through the Republican Senate primary? Will tea partiers accept someone who voted to raise the debt limit on five different occasions during the Bush era? Or will he suffer the same fate as Rob Simmons, Mike Castle, Scott McInnis, and other Republicans who got teabagged in their Senate runs in 2010?

Oh, and will he get Right to Life's endorsement? He blamed his 2010 loss on Right to Life, which endorsed then-Attorney General Mike Cox instead of Hoekstra - likely helping to split the teabagger vote and enabling the relatively 'moderate' Snyder to win with 37% of the vote. (Seems odd to think Snyder was/is believed to be relatively moderate, but that's today's Republican Party.) In Michigan, ticking off Right to Life is the Republican equivalent of a Democrat ticking off labor - not a good idea, to say the least.

For now - ten months before the filing deadline and more than a year before the primary - Hoekstra is the fourth Republican to enter the race, the other three being Oakland County Drain Commissioner John McCulloch, former probate judge Randy Hekman, and businessman Peter Konetchy. Of those three, I had only previously heard of McCulloch - and I've been following politics closely for 11 years. I wouldn't be surprised to see one, two, or all three of them bow out with Hoekstra now in the race - but then again, as I alluded to earlier, Hoekstra's ripe for a tea party challenge, and it's possible one of those three (or someone else) could jump in.

Democrats have a lot that we can hang around Hoekstra's neck. First is the obvious - he decided not to run, then he decided to run, raising questions about his ability to make a decision and stick to it. He also has 18 years of Congressional votes to answer for, many of which indicate how out-of-touch he is, while others (such as the aforementioned debt limit increases) could show hypocrisy on his part (provided he opposes raising the debt ceiling - which he will probably have to if he wants to win the Republican primary).

Of course, Stabenow also has a lot going FOR her. For one thing, Michigan leans Democratic. Yes, we had a really rough time of it here in 2010, primarily owing to appallingly low turnout - but 2012 should see better turnout with a Presidential race at the top of the ticket. In addition, Democrats have won 11 of the last 12 US Senate races in Michigan.

Michigan's first female Senator, Stabenow was one of the first three women to defeat incumbent US Senators (along with Carol Moseley Braun in the 1992 Democratic primary and Maria Cantwell, also in the 2000 general election). She served four years on the Ingham County Commission, twelve in the state House, four in the state Senate, and four in the US House before upsetting Spence Abraham in 2000. She was the first woman to preside over the State House, so she's quite the trailblazer when it comes to women in Michigan politics.

While Carl Levin has done so much in the areas of US foreign policy and defense, Stabenow, Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has been a tireless, 'behind-the-scenes' leader among Senate Democrats when it comes to domestic policy, particularly regarding healthcare and the environment. Stabenow has also done a lot to help reduce the inflow of Canadian trash into Michigan. Drilling for oil in the Great Lakes? That's illegal thanks to a law Stabenow sponsored.

Stabenow is used to facing close election contests - and winning. She was elected to the House by 25,000 votes and the US Senate by 43,000 votes, both times beating Republican incumbents. She has $4 million in the bank for 2012 - which puts her at a solid advantage.

Countless Republicans - including all of Michigan's current congressional delegation - had decided against challenging her, and until yesterday, Stabenow was drawing rather weak opposition. My feeling is that they'd rather sit out 2012 and wait until 2014, when Carl Levin (then 80 years old and finishing his 6th term) would likely retire (he was expected to retire in 2008 but decided instead to run).

Now comes a more formidable challenger for Stabenow - one with name recognition and a lot of respect within establishment Republican circles. But is it too little, too late? Would the people of Michigan really turn down a trailblazing incumbent they've twice supported in favor of a controversial lawmaker-turned-lobbyist?

Whatever the case, it's gonna be a tough challenge for Hoekstra to get elected to the Senate in a Presidential year in Democratic-leaning Michigan. But anything is possible, so stay tuned.

Letter to the Editor: Obama has already accomplished much

It's been a few years since I did one of these. This one appeared in Monday's Grand Rapids Press - the front page of which featured the headline "Bin Laden Dead" in all caps - meaning many people probably got that particular issue.

I am glad President Barack Obama has decided to run for re-election. His character, competence, and courage make him one of the best Presidents in the post-FDR era.

Thanks to him, our economy is recovering from the Bush Recession. America’s auto industry is not just surviving - it's thriving. More people have access to health insurance. Our government is more transparent than it was before. Combat operations in Iraq are over, as Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. Thanks to Nobel laureate Obama, recent polls show that the United States is the most respected country in the world - a remarkable change from the Bush years.

These are all huge achievements - achievements which most Presidents would be unable to do in eight years, much less 27 months. It would be hard to list all of President Obama’s accomplishments thus far, but suffice it to say that he is that rare kind of President who usually only comes around once or twice in a person's lifetime.

Principled, patriotic, and progressive, Obama is what we all should want in a President. I look forward to giving him the support he has earned. God bless our nation and our President!

2012 DNC delegates to be selected via May caucus

While many of you were/are in Lansing, I have been spending my day (a) interviewing for a job, (b) listening to our President, and (c) skimming through the Michigan Democratic Party's Draft Delegate Selection Plan for the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte.

From a press release:

The caucus will occur on May 5, 2012 with district-level delegates and alternates elected at congressional district conventions on June 2, 2012 and statewide delegates and alternates elected at a State Central Committee meeting on June 23, 2012.

Michigan has 177 delegates and 13 alternates to the National Convention. Those numbers will be increased by holding the caucus in May under an incentive system adopted by the DNC.

A draft delegate selection plan (DSP) was posted on the MDP website today, beginning a 30-day public comment period. The plan will be considered for adoption by the State Central Committee at its May 14, 2011 meeting in Mt. Pleasant.

Here's the draft Delegate Selection Plan. The plan will be put up for a vote at State Central next month in Mount Pleasant.

The allocation of delegates to various Presidential candidates will depend on the candidates' performance in the state as a whole as well as in each Congressional district (the districts being the current ones, i.e. those adopted after the 2000 Census). Delegates are distributed proportionally to those who get at least 15% of the caucus vote in a district or the state overall.

What does this mean? Obama will probably get most/all of the delegate votes unless either (a) he gets a credible primary challenger and that challenger is still in the race in May (after several primaies/caucuses have been held), or (b) enough disenchanted Democrats (which I doubt there really are that many among the MDP's membership, but that's for another time) care enough to show up at the caucuses to vote 'Uncommitted.' Remember from the 2008 primary that 'Uncommitted' is automatically listed just like a candidate, but whether Uncommitted can get 15% of the vote is up in the air.

Here's hoping I'll see you in Charlotte!

Bits of Tid: March 31, 2011

• Guess who wants Wisconsin State Senator Randy Hopper recalled? His wife.


• It looks like Tim Pawlenty is on the cusp of running for President. He and Huckabee may be two of the more formidable challengers for Obama - Pawlenty, perhaps more than Huckabee. Neither of them have much (that I know of, at least) that could be used against them. At least not on the order of Romney's flip-flopping, Gingrich's many scandals, and Bachmann's extremism.


• For those of you complaining that Obama shouldn't spend time filling out his bracket, with all that's going on in the world: (a) Even the President needs a break - especially Obama, given all he's had to deal with; (b) Don't tell me you wouldn't fill out a bracket if you were President; and (c) Explain why you (most of you, anyway) voted for this guy:


• For those of you complaining about Obama being in Latin America while ordering airstrikes in Libya: It's the 21st Century. Everything the President needs to make these decisions is easily accessible when he's traveling abroad.


• We don't know all the details about Libya (as much as some of us think we do). But I do know that after 8 years of You-Know-Who, it's good to have a thinking President again.


• Don't you just hate it when government butts in and tells us what kind of internet service we can and cannot get?


• Will someone PLEASE stand up for those downtrodden, overtaxed big businesses?


• Perhaps Hillary should reconsider not running for President again: 66% of Americans view her favorably.

Coming Soon to a Ballot near you, Part II: Proposals

Welcome to Part II of a post-2010 election, pre-2012 election miniseries here on Great Lakes, Great Times, Great Scott, titled "Coming Soon to a Ballot Near You." Part one, on candidates who may make a comeback, can be found here.

Michigan residents have voted on 19 statewide ballot proposals since 2000. These proposals have legalized medical marijuana and stem cell research; banned gay marriage and affirmative action; and restricted eminent domain, felons serving in office, and pay increases for lawmakers. Voters have also blocked mandates on education funding, mourning dove hunting, the elimination of the 'straight-ticket' voting option, and school vouchers.

Despite Michigan's recent history with controversial ballot proposals, the two that appeared on the 2010 ballot garnered very little attention - and the results of each were decisive. Proposal 1, the proposal for a Constitutional convention which appears on the ballot every 16 years, was defeated by a 2-1 margin, while Proposal 2 passed by a 3-1 margin, thus preventing certain felons from holding elective office until 20 years after their conviction.

The lack of controversy from last year's ballot proposals may have contributed to the low turnout in this year's gubernatorial election. Nearly 570,000 fewer voters showed up at the polls in this year's gubernatorial election compared to 2006 - despite nicer weather and the fact that an unusually high number of seats were open.

But with the 2012 campaign starting to warm up, activists on all sides of various issues are getting ready to collect signatures to put various proposals on the 2012 ballot. Debate surrounding ballot proposals often influences the debate surrounding offices on the ballot. Recall, for instance, the considerable debate surrounding Bush, Gore, and vouchers in 2000, as well as Bush, Kerry, and gay marriage in 2004.

With 3,226,088 people having voted in the 2010 election for Governor, a ballot proposal would need the following number of signatures to get on the ballot, depending on the type of proposal:

• For a Constitutional amendment: 322,609 signatures


• For an initiative statute: 258,088 signatures


• For a referendum on a bill passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor: 161,305 signatures

So the bar has been set a little lower due to the low turnout in the gubernatorial election, meaning this could be the best chance supporters of a certain issue have to get a proposal on the ballot. Result? 2012 could be the busiest year, proposal-wise, that Michigan has had since 1996.

What issues could be the topics of ballot-proposal discussion in 2012?

Mining: Supporters attempted to get a proposal on the 2010 ballot that would have severely restricted mining in Michigan. They say they will try again for the 2012 ballot.

Healthcare: Opponents of President Obama's healthcare law failed to get a measure on the ballot that would have apparently stopped the healthcare law from taking effect in Michigan. A similar measure passed in Missouri last year.

Term limits: This is one of those that is often talked about, but hasn't been on the ballot since the current limits were enacted in 1992. Since then, individuals have been eligible to serve three 2-year terms in the House and two 4-year terms as a State Senator, Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor, and Governor. Petitions were circulated in 2010 to eliminate term limits, but it didn't make it to the ballot. A group is trying to get it on the ballot in 2012; their proposal also calls for the elimination of the state Senate.

Rights of state employees: The same group attempting to get the term limits/get-rid-of-the-Senate proposal on the ballot is also pushing for three ballot proposals that would curtail the rights of working Michiganians. These proposals would ban collective bargaining by our hard-working state employees; make Michigan what I call a "Work for Less" state; and repeal the Public Employment Relations Act. The Legislature is considering bills that would do these things, thus possibly making these efforts irrelevant. However, if such bills are passed and signed into law, don't be surprised if labor groups unite to force these issues onto the ballot via referendum.

Casinos: Following the passage of Proposal 1 in 2004, new casinos may only be opened following a statewide vote to approve such casinos. If the group Michigan Is Yours gets their way, we could have seven new casinos opening across the state after the 2012 election.

(Historical fun fact: Another provision of the 1992 proposal had limited members of the US Congress from Michigan to six 2-year terms in the House and two 6-year terms in the Senate; however, like other term limits laws affecting members of Congress, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to invoke restrictions on serving in Congress beyond what is already in the Constitution (being of a certain age, living in the US a certain period of time, and living in the state you wish to represent in Congress).)

Government reform: In 2008, a number of Michigan Democrats tried to get a detailed proposal on the ballot that was called "Reform Michigan Government Now. Among other things, the proposal would have reduced the number of state lawmakers and judges; curbed state lawmakers' retirement benefits; mandated a paper trail for all elections; prohibited election officials from being involved in campaigns for elections they directed; and established a commission to conduct redistricting. Each of these issues could be placed on the 2012 ballot separately, although the one on redistricting may wait until later in the decade.

So what should progressive Democrats like us do?

Given that Republicans control the entire Legislature, there may be a lot of bills passed by the Republicans in Lansing that end up being both bad politics and bad policy. In addition to the anti-worker efforts mentioned above, there is also a bill to eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit. Forcing these laws onto the ballot by referendum could prove to be a very worthwhile strategy.

Ah, but there's a catch. See, any bill that includes an appropriation of some sort is not subject to a referendum. That was the reason the state Supreme Court blocked a referendum on the controversial concealed weapons law of 2001. If referenda on destructive Republican legislation are prohibited by such appropriations, we could still reverse these laws through the initiative process.

Either way, promoting our stances on issues via ballot proposals is an effort Democrats should definitely undertake. Win or lose on the proposal itself, this strategy would give otherwise apathetic voters - many of them Democrats/Obama supporters - a reason to vote.

And if 2010 taught us anything, it's that they sure do need a reason to vote.

Bits of Tid: February 6, 2011

Elections Here and Abroad Edition

• Happy Birthday Grandma! She's 87 today, which is hard to believe. She's also a proud Democrat, was an Army nurse, and is deeply committed to her Catholic faith. (She met Grandpa through her brother-in-law, who was one of his Army buddies.)
• So Mubarak says he won't run in the upcoming Egyptian election. But will he even allow it go on? Or will he just cancel it and maintain power for as long as he's able to? That's not far-fetched given that he hasn't allowed anyone to run against him.
• Notice how the media is portraying the protests as 'anti-government' protests? They're anti-Mubarak protests, but you don't hear them calling them that. Unless they're trying to use these protests against the Mubarak regime to further a general distaste of government in general.
• If not for Egypt, the fact that this would have been Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday would probably be the big story of the day. But as someone recalled in a recent letter to USA Today:

  I do not recall any celebration of Franklin D. Roosevelt's 100th birthday, and he had real accomplishments: leading this country out of the Depression and to victory over the Nazis in World War II. Roosevelt created the modern presidency, not Reagan, who demeaned and disgraced it.

  Furthermore, one wonders if the modern Tea Party would tolerate someone like Reagan running for office. He tripled the national debt and raised the payroll tax. At any rate, there better be a lot of hoopla surrounding the 100th birthdays of Gerald Ford (July 14, 2013) and John F. Kennedy (May 29, 2016).
• It's February 6 and so far only one Republican - Herman Cain (?!) - has even formed an exploratory committee to run for President. At this time in 2003, Howard Dean, John Edwards, and John Kerry (and probably a couple others) had announced Presidential runs. Four years ago today, Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Tom Vilsack had formed committees, along with Sam Brownback (R) and others. Perhaps they're waiting for Palin to say whether she'll run or not? Either way, while she has a hardcore batch of supporters, I don't expect Palin to get the nod.
• I kind of suspect that they all see Obama as the general-election favorite, and many people who didn't vote in 2010 (thus enabling the Republican wave) will vote this time, boosting Obama and other Dems. Perhps if they see more weakness/vulnerability in Obama, they'll run. Otherwise, who wants to be the Dole or Mondale of 2012? (Keep in mind, though, that so much can and will happen between now and November 6, 2012. In fact, Bush Sr.'s poularity in 1991 is credited/blamed for dissuading many Democrats from making a run - but Clinton's persistence paid off big time.)
• That said, 2011 does come before 2012. (Shocking, huh?) This year's focus is on local races, including for mayor of Grand Rapids, Flint, and other cities, along with city council/commission races in most cities. Perhaps, for the first time since I turned 18, I (a First Ward resident) will vote in a contested City Commission race here in Kentwood!
• Also up for election this year are seats on school boards as well as community college trusteeships. The race for two spots on the Grand Rapids Community College Board of Trustees features former GRPS superintendent Bert Bleke and former Republican state House candidate Frank Murin, among others. In Kentwood, incumbent Bill Joseph is retiring, while Mimi Madden is seeking her third term (and will likely get one of my votes). That means one other person will be elected - and unless another great candidate steps up to the plate, my other vote will go to Amanda LeAnne Brunzell.
• After much thought, I'll cheer for Josh Gordy, Cullen Jenkins, Frank Zombo, and the Packers over Antonio Brown and the Steelers. But like I said, they both got good players.

Coming Soon to a Ballot Near You, Part I: Comeback Kids

Welcome to a post-2010 election, pre-2012 election miniseries titled "Coming Soon to a Ballot Near You." Part I focuses on which candidates might run for which offices in the near future.

With each election, there are winners and losers. But many people often forget that those who lose one election, often come back to win later on. In fact almost every successful politician has lost at least one election in his or her lifetime:

• Barack Obama was soundly defeated in a run for Congress in 2000.
• George W. Bush missed out on the chance to serve in Congress in 1978.
• Bill Clinton lost a race for Congress in 1972, and lost his re-election bid for Governor of Arkansas in 1980 (before coming back two years later and winning re-election each time until his election as President).
• Georhe H.W. Bush lost a race for US Senate - to Lloyd Bentsen, the same Lloyd Bentsen who ran for Vice President 18 years later while Bush was running for (and elected) President.
• Ronald Reagan ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1976, but lost to sitting President Gerald Ford.
• Jimmy Carter lost a race for Georgia State Senate in 1962.
• Also in 1962, Richard Nixon lost his race to be governor of California just two years after his narrow loss to JFK.
• Lyndon Johnson lost his bid to be the Democratioc presidential nominee in 1960. Of course, JFK picked him to be his running mate, and the rest is history.
• Franklin Roosevelt was denied the Vice Presidency in 1920, twelve years before being elected President.

Meanwhile, here in Michigan:

• Five of the last six unsuccessful nominees for Michigan Lieutenant Governor are currently serving in elected office: Olivia Maynard (1990) is a University of Michigan Regent; Debbie Stabenow (1994) is a US Senator; Loren Bennett (2002) is a Wayne County Commissioner; Ruth Johnson (2006) is Oakland County Clerk and will soon be Secretary of State; and Brenda Lawrence (2010) is mayor of Southfield. Note that three of those five have been elected to statewide office.
• Congressman Gary Peters originally sought to be Governor during the 2002 campaign, but dropped out because he diodn't have nearly enough support. He narrowly lost the race for Attorney General that year - the first Democrat to lose a race for that office in 50 years.
• Attorney General-elect Bill Schuette lost a race for US Senate against Carl Levin in 1990.
• State Senator-elect Tom Casperson ran for Congress and got trounced by Bart Stupak in 2008.
• Tim Walberg is now only 2 for 4 in Congressional elections, losing in 2004 and 2008.
• Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard was re-elected in 2008 after losing the US Senate race to Debbie Stabenow two years later.
• Congressman-elect Hansen Clarke finished a distant third in the 2005 race for Mayor of Detroit. Kwame Kilpatrick did much better than him.

Okay, I think I've made my point.

So who are some of the 2010 runners-up who we may see again in 2012, 2014, or beyond? Well, here are some of the people who had good runs in 2010, and where I think they should run in the future:

• Virg Bernero: A race for Congress against Mike Rogers (if they are still in the same district). There has been a lot of grumbling that Democrats haven't run a striong candidate since Dianne Byrum's narrow loss in 2000.
• Brenda Lawrence: A run for Gary Peters's Congressional seat if and when Peters steps aside (more on him in a minute). Or perhaps another run for Oakland County Executive -- she'll have better name recognition than she did in 2008.
• Jocelyn Benson: Another run for Secretary of State in 2014, or perhaps spend some time in the Legislature while another person runs against Johnson in 2014. If Johnson wins in 2014, then Benson could run again in 2018. While I'd be surprised to see a Democrat besides Benson elected Secretary of State in 2014 (at least if office-hopper Johnson runs again), if that does happen again, Benson could run again in 2022, when she'll still be only 45.
• Mark Schauer: Another run for Congress in whichever Congressional district he finds himself after redistricting.
• Pat Miles: Another run for Congress in 2012, or State Senate or Attorney General in 2014.
• David LaGrand: Mayor of Grand Rapids in 2011 (if George Heartwell decides against a third term) or Kent County Prosecutor in 2012.
• Lupe Ramos-Montigny: Another run for State Board of Education in 2012.

Among those who did win in 2010 - and yes, there are some - I see some bright futures for these fine folks:

• Gary Peters and Hansen Clarke: Re-election in 2012, then in 2014, one can run for Governor while the other runs for US Senate. (I'd be shocked if Carl Levin ran for another term in 2014.)
• Gretchen Whitmer (Senate Democratic Leader): Congress in 2012 and/or 2014, or Attorney General in 2014.
• Glenn Anderson: (Senate Democratic Whip): Congress against Thaddeus McCotter (we almost beat McCotter in 2008) or Governor or Lieutenant Governor in 2014.
• Richard Hammel (House Democratic Leader): Congress when Dale Kildee retires.
• Kate Segal (House Democratic Whip): Re-election in 2012, then State Senate against Mike Nofs in 2014.
• Robert Ficano: Governor in 2014 or Congress against Thaddeus McCotter in 2012 or 2014.