Campaign news and rumors: Andy Dillon the independent edition

105th (4.00 / 2)

For all of us at ML, we'll be entertained regardless of whether McMaster enters the race. Why? Because Dennis Lennox is already a declared candidate. Enjoy a bit a drivel by the Provcateur blog enjoys Lennox's "ideas."
http://theeprovocateur.blogspo...

Given that there are four Republicans currently in the 105th District (including Lennox), it will certainly be a nice and messy race.

---

by: pbratt @ Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 19:21:28 PM CST

I suspect Mr. Lennox behind the McMasters complaint, matter o' fact (0.00 / 0)

The contact name on the release was my man Chetly, but I suspect that the real aim was to help drive up the negatives on Greg McMaster, who probably has greater natural name ID in the area.

On the other hand, dude ought not be trying to eat his cake and have it, too.  Either spit or get off the pot, fella.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 21:35:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Transparency (0.00 / 0)

What's very odd about this situation is how untransparent both McMaster and Lennox are being about the whole situation when it's very obvious McMaster is behind the website and Lennox is behind the complaint.  And I'm sure they're both going to run as reformers.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 08:10:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Brady (0.00 / 0)

I respect your point, but the connection between Lennox and myself was never hidden.  I signed the press release and campaign complaint because I have several experience with several complaints, and every reporter was told that there was an advisory relationship between Lennox and myself.  There isn't yet a formal contractual relationship, but I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't as campaign season gears up.  There is no question that I am an interested party and not an objective observer - there is also no question that the evidence speaks for itself, particularly in campaign finance complaints I sign or defend (I've both defended a frivolous one against MCRI by BAMN, and had one against BAMN by MCRI that was determined correct in identifying $80,000 in BAMN hidden services, although that never saw the light of media day).  Facts and evidence speak for themselves - as both an activist or a consultant, I hold my work to a high standard of truth and accuracy.  Eric hit the nail on the head above in this story.  There's clearly something happening here with McMaster.

---

by: wet-chetly @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 21:45:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Chetly (0.00 / 0)

My criticism on your side isn't directed at your reaction, it's at that of Lennox.  While not as lame of that of McMaster's, it's very disappointing coming from someone who styles himself as a reformer.  Why can't he be as straightforward as you are?

Quite frankly, It's obvious that McMaster is in violation of campaign finance law, whether it was intentional or not.  It's particularly disappointing to me because I've worked closely with McMaster before on both diving and economic development legislation for northern Michigan and I really like the guy.  Why he would do something like this and then hide from it despite the obvious connections is just stupid.  Perhaps that district is better off with a Democrat or an independent Libertarian next cycle.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 22:16:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Point of fact... (0.00 / 0)

When the press release was originally forwarded to me, it did not have the name Dennis Lennox associated with it.  I made that connection myself, based on instinct.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 07:08:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

MIRS (0.00 / 0)

MIRS drew the same conclusion.  I'm not aware that Chetly has any personal connections to the 105th district.  The lack of transparency is using surrogates to do ones dirty work especially when they're not from the district.   I don't think anyone would believe that Chetly would have done this on his own.  The fact that there was a press release rather than just an honest complaint filed with Secretary of State is also telling since Chetly would have no personal reason/benefit to court press on this.  Wasn't there once some Reagan quote about Republicans not doing stuff like this to each other?  Far more than Democrats, they constatly seem to be at each others' throats.

---

by: Brady @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 08:38:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Chetly... (0.00 / 0)

I think Chetly has personal connections with Dennis.  I haven't asked, because it's not really my business who his friends are, but past correspondence leads me to believe that Chetly may have personal or professional reasons to help or work with him.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 09:01:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Professional (0.00 / 0)

I have a professional connection to Lennox based on my work on the CMU-Peters story.  While researching that story we spoke.  We've spoken a few times since then on different topics - notably the UAW golf course issue and most recently this.  I haven't agreed with every action Lennox has taken - I think I made that clear in the CMU case, but I also didn't think he was beyond his rights and he was certainly more in line than your friend Bruce Fealk, and I respected his moxy with FOIA. The facts of this particular case struck me as very interesting - and a sort of novel combination of FCC doctrine (in a legitimate way, not like the anti-Rush regulatory movement, but here with a real live candidate) and campaign finance (you get the intent of not filing from the TV angle) and journalistic ethics, which is a subject of my new accountability project.  Note, this is mainstream journalistic ethics - not new media.  It'll be interesting to see how the TV station handles this too.

---

by: wet-chetly @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 18:30:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll learn from this and make that more clear in future press releases (0.00 / 0)

There was no disingenuousness with the press who handled it because while I signed the press release, Lennox made all the followup phone calls so the press knew when they spoke to him.  I signed it because I filed the complaint.

MIRS and other papers wrote about the connection because Lennox explicitly told them of it and was the one initiating contact.  MIRS paraphrased it in an unfortunate way.

Next time, I'll make the connection clear in the press release, realizing now that it has a life of its own outside of its immediate audience.

Anyone with a google engine or those of you who have blog histories, simply know that I've had contact with him in the past.  

---

by: wet-chetly @ Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 18:19:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

New EPIC/MRA Poll (0.00 / 0)

Attorney General Mike Cox is the best-known and best-liked candidate in the race for governor while Lt. Governor John Cherry Jr. significantly trails the top three Republican candidates in those same categories, according to a poll released Wednesday, December 16, 2009.

The poll from Lansing-based EPIC/MRA asked 600 Michigan voters about whether they recognized the names of the prospective gubernatorial candidates and whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of them.

Cox: 84% name ID. 42% favorable, 20% unfavorable

Bouchard: 71% name ID.  31% favorable, 7% unfavorable.

Hoekstra:  65% name ID. 30% favorable, 12% unfavorable.

Cherry:  61% name ID.  18% favorable, 19% unfavorable.

Cox campaign manager Stu Sandler said Mr. Cox's strong numbers reflect his nearly seven-year record as attorney general and plan to cut taxes and spending.

Mr. Cherry continues to fight perceptions in Lansing that he faces an uphill fight to win the 2010 gubernatorial election, but campaign spokesperson Chris De Witt dismissed the importance of the survey.  "Polls at this point really have little impact," he said.

(Source: Gongwer)  

---

by: Brady @ Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 21:32:37 PM CST

Cox... (0.00 / 0)

It's very funny that the Cox campaign manager thinks that this poll reflects support for his boss' plan to cut taxes, when every other poll shows Michiganders very wary of further tax cuts if they will cause cuts to education, as they will.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 21:36:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

name is really just... (0.00 / 0)

...the difference between being famous and infamous. Hoekstra and to a large degree Cox are infamous.  

---

by: ski @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 09:44:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Favorability (0.00 / 0)

I suspect that is why EPIC/MRA also does favorability ratings along with name ID.  And you're right, when factoring in favorable over unfavorable, Bouchard is at +24%, while Cox is at +22% and Hoekstra is only at +18%.

---

by: Brady @ Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:41:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]