Michigan Liberal: - 2008 elections

Will This Be the Year For Young Voters? Part 1

dzhuang — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:08:28 GMT

CROSS-POSTED FROM MICHIGAN YOUTH POLITICAL ALLIANCE

Obama's message of hope and change has reached out to millions of young voters, and I do not understand how some people can not understand why. Republicans think it might have to do with the age of the candidate, so they bring in Palin. Now, she may be "young," but she certainly does not bring nearly the same understanding to issues that concern youth voters the most as Obama does.

With a young population experiencing piled-up college debt and the pressure of finding new jobs, they refuse to believe that a continuation of the current administration could be the solution, especially since John McCain barely shares the compassion Obama does for education and job growth. Our youth have also become disillusioned by the failed policies of the Iraq War and have felt the stress of escalating costs of health care within their families. Who deals with these issues with an eye out for how we feel? I don't see McCain caring much about what we think. The latest Gallup polls from September 7 reveal our thoughts exactly--60% favor Obama while only 32% favor McCain.

But putting all political affiliation aside, will youth participation shock us this election season?
Let's take a look at their involvement so far. In the Democratic primary elections, 6.5 million Democratic young voters voted--up over 100% since 2004. Students represented 25% of the primary vote, competing with older voters in their numbers. College Democrats are mobilizing students all across the country to register to vote, to phonebank, to canvas, to educate other students about the issues.

The participation on this side of the political spectrum has been remarkable; however, there are quite a few roadblocks. Voter ID laws, the lack of ballot boxes on campuses and residency requirement confusion prevent a lot of students from registering. To eliminate this dilemma and galvanize the youth, Obama's campaign has started 700 chapters of Students for Obama, to ensure college campuses have access to voter registration and information.

I can witness his campaign's effect in my town, where I always see students excitedly volunteering for his campaign, registering people to vote, demonstrating their support for his candidacy, promoting awareness of youth participation in politics. I know that he also recruits many youthful campaign organizers, positioning them at the forefront of his campaign. Some are even in the higher ranks of his staff.

A Harvard Panel even supported the idea that the youth played a pivotal role in winning the primary elections for Obama, noting its potential to spark some serious changes in voter demographics for the general election. Young people were active after the primaries too, making up 16% of the Democratic National Convention. Despite the absence of youth speakers, this percentage represents a huge increase--maybe a 5-7% difference, which amounts to several hundred youth.

Youth also seem to side with Obama instead of McCain on their primary concern: the economy. They fall to his side on several other issues as well, including taxes, morality, renewable energy and pay equity for women.

What can Republicans say to that?

PART 2 COMING UP NEXT

CROSS-POSTED FROM MICHIGAN YOUTH POLITICAL ALLIANCE

MI-13: Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick Does Not Deserve To Lose

RandySF — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 03:00:16 GMT

In my last job before I moved from Michigan to California, I was a grant writer and capital budget analyst for a major transit agency in the Detroit area, and it was a difficult period for us. The bottom fell out of the national and state economy and funding was sometimes difficult to come by. Demand for transportation, on the other hand, did not decrease and we constantly felt the pinch of these two pressures.

There were two key members of the Michigan Congressional delegation who sat on appropriating committees. One, former Senator Spence Abraham was useless and only took care of Western Michigan. The other, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, was always there for us. Now she is in for the fight of her political life. Her son, as I wrote about on Daily Kos, is in a world of legal trouble and has disgraced the Office of Mayor of Detroit and that has resulted in two strong primary challengers for tomorrow (the primary is the whole show in Detroit). But does she deserve this? Has she personally take actions that warrant her defeat? My answer is no. Everyone has a write to decide for him or herself. And there may be other issues the lead some to vote for her opponents. But when she speaks on behalf of the Mayor, she is speaking on behalf of her son. That has to be a natural reaction.

Kwame, on the other hand, should have grown up enough to realize how much he has hurt his family, his staff and the residents of Detroit. He should well know by now that he may cost his mother a long career in politics from the State House to the City Council to Congress. He should know that he could have spared so many people a world of hurt by resigning. But he did not, and tomorrow his own mother may be another casualty. She should not pay this price no matter how poorly she may have raised him (I should note that even the best parents cannot predict the outcome). If she pulls through, perhaps, in a rush of relief, he will wake up and quit before anyone else is hurt. If she does not, he will have no reason to stop tearing down everything around him. Please to not create more collateral damage.

Hillary under 60%, loses 70% of black vote, on MLK birthday primary

David Boyle — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:07:24 GMT

I have been musing that the MDP scheduled a primary on Martin Luther King's birthday (as opposed to the national holiday), when it was a primary that disenfranchised a black candidate who respected the letter and spirit of DNC rules (and a replacement February primary/caucus could easily have been scheduled); but maybe the forces of justice had their due last night.

See DetNews, the pithily-titled Michigan blacks reject HI[sic]llary;
HuffPo, Michigan Results Reveal Some Dangerous Trends For Clinton,

...the exit poll results from this strange contest reveal some troubling trends for the New York Senator. ...
Among black voters, Clinton was crushed by "uncommitted," 26-70. If that kind of margin among African Americans continues into future primaries, she faces major problems in the heavily black January 26 South Carolina primary....

; and at the current top of Mich Lib's "hand-selected" list, the Nation, Michigan's Ominous Message for Hillary Clinton,

...Clinton was perfectly positioned. She had no serious opposition. She also had the strong support of top Michigan Democrats such as Governor Jennifer Granholm and U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow.
Usually, a prominent presidential contender running a primary campaign without serious opposition and with strong in-state support from party leaders can count on winning 90 percent or more of the vote. ...
A remarkable 40 percent of Michiganders who participated in the primary voted for nobody, marking the "Uncommitted" option on their ballots. ...
Ominously for the Clinton camp, the former First Lady was losing the African-American vote -- in Wayne County and statewide -- to "Uncommitted." African-American leaders such as Detroit Congressman John Conyers, who backs Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, had urged an "Uncommitted" vote. ...
It is hard[] to believe that Clinton will get very far claiming Michigan handed her a meaningful victory Tuesday night. When two out of every five voters choose nobody rather than a prominent candidate who is running with little or no opposition, that candidate's got no reason to celebrate.

I hate to disagree with Eric B., but despite his post title, Clinton, Romney cruise to bigger than anticipated margins (Open thread), I, not to mention DetNews, HuffPo, & Nation above, don't think Hill did too good. At. All.

With comments like the Mich Lib one recently about needing a Caucasian fella on the ticket (Why? I'd vote for an Obama/Sebelius ticket, no white guy there), I think it is good to be sensitive, racially and otherwise, when making comments, maybe. And with the Daily Kos observations today, John Kerry: Kicking ass, defending the right to vote, and flying to Nevada (on John Kerry's fighting the Clinton attempt to disenfranchise largely Latina/o workers' vote), and Say Goodbye to Howard Dean, (about the DNC entering the legal fray against the Clinton disenfranchisement attempt, and the likelihood of the Clintons booting Dean, in favor of Terry McAuliffe, if they win), it looks not just like a Michigan Dem struggle against Granholm/Brewer/Dingell's complicity with disenfranchisement, it looks like a national battle, of the reformers against the unworthy Establishment. I hope we'd all be on the side of the reformers.

(While the DNC can't per se oppose the Clinton campaign, it's nice to see them at least opposing a Clinton initiative. Maybe Dean knows that not only will he be booted if the Clintons return to power, but decency itself will be booted as well.)

--The message, as always, is, be active and take back your party. Find replacements for the people I mention above who need to be replaced. Run yourself if you have to. Be inclusive to minorities and to people in general. Promote the right over the wrong, and progress over stagnation. Keep the dream alive. MLK would expect no less of you.

Granholm bashes "uncommitted"...while not committing to Michigan

David Boyle — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:39:27 GMT

J. Grho has been busy bashing the idea of an "uncommitted" vote, and puffing her pal Hillary, see, e.g., DetNews,

"She's committed to us. We are going to stand behind someone who stands behind us."

, AP via Muskegon Chronicle,

"Their choice is to be committed for uncommitted? Or to be committed to someone who has stood for us?"

(openly MOCKING "uncommitted" voters like John Conyers!!!)

, and DetNews, Clinton cruising over 'uncommitted' (which despite its title, queries

But will she capture a large enough percentage to avoid embarrassment Tuesday?

Gov. Jennifer Granholm said this morning at a Clinton rally in Southfield that her candidate "is committed to Michigan."
"Her opponent in this state apparently is 'uncommitted,' which is not an opponent," Granholm told reporters after speaking to 100 Clinton supporters at the Westin Hotel. "That is why we are encouraging voters to get out and vote for Hillary Clinton. She is not uncommitted to Michigan, which the other candidates apparently are."
Clinton opted not to campaign in Michigan because she made a pledge to uphold the party primary calendar, which is tilted to early races in Iowa and New Hampshire.

There are multiple truth problems with JG's words here, including the fact that, uh, Clinton pledged not to campaign in Michigan (as noted above)! so that Dennis Kucinich, whatever his other problems, is more committed to Michigan than Clinton, cf. George Bullard in DetNews, Re Michigan, at least Kucinich shows up.
As well, like it or not, Gravel and Kucinich are opponents of Clinton, too, so JG is inaccurate by not mentioning them as opponents, mentioning only "uncommitted" as an opponent. (Cheap rhetorical trick?)
Last but not least, Granholm (who USED to say that Michigan Liberal is her favorite blog--is that still true??--, so that she may read here frequently) may have borrowed the "committed/uncommitted" wordplay of yours truly on 1/9/08, "Ironically, then, if you are COMMITTED to change, you may have to vote UNCOMMITTED on 1/15." ...I wonder how much she might owe me for "copyright infringement"! No wonder the writers went on strike...

Now what is really interesting, is Jennifer Granholm's lack of commitment to staying in Michigan herself and doing her job, instead of running off to D.C. with Hillary, if she wins, and then leaving the Michigan mess to her new "Chief Operating Officer" (!! "Michigan Incorporated"??), and to John Cherry, whose, to be blunt, "charisma issues" might prevent him from becoming governor in a normal election.
See Tim Skubick, the "Off the Record" video of his JG interview on 10/12/07, at c. 13:45-15:45 on the video. (Check WKAR if the above link doesn't work) TS asks JG repeatedly if she will pledge not to leave Lansing, and JG refuses again and again to answer, talking about "speculation", dodging the issue, and leaving a deep suspicion about her own commitment to Michigan. (She does say that fixing Michigan should take longer than a year and a half, and that she doesn't want to go to D.C. ...o.k., then why can't she pledge to stay in Lansing? Whom does she think she's fooling??)

Repeatedly refusing to pledge to stay on the job in her own state, throwing (or even subtly massaging...) the election for a pal who can give her a cushy slot in D.C., and taking millions of taxpayers dollars to do it, plus the voter list graft, plus holding the DNC-rulebreaking election even after 4 Dem candidates correctly avoided it, plus Michigan's collapse in general...how committed is politician Granholm to Michigan, or staying in Michigan, or anything? Can she be believed when she mocks "uncommitted" voters like the great John Conyers and says voting Hillary is better?
Probably not. If you vote, vote "uncommitted"...and commit to doing something about Granholm's, Dingell's, Brewer's, Anuzis's, McManus's, and Bishop's noxious dedication to doing the wrong thing re the 1/15 primary, and so many other wrong things as well. Thanks for your commitment to Michigan and to Michigan rank-and-file Democrats!

Clinton disenfranchising Latinos...then pitting them against blacks?

David Boyle — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:47:58 GMT

The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza has noted in Minority Reports - After New Hampshire, a hint of racial politics,

On the morning after Clinton's victory, I talked to Sergio Bendixen, one of her pollsters, who specializes in the Hispanic vote. "In all honesty, the Hispanic vote is extremely important to the Clinton campaign. [...]," he said. "The fire wall doesn't apply now, because she is in good shape, but before last night the Hispanic vote was going to be the most important part of her fire wall on February 5th." The implications of that strategy are not necessarily uplifting.
...he was also frank about the fact that the Clintons, long beloved in the black community, are now dependent on a less edifying political dynamic: "The Hispanic voter-and I want to say this very carefully-has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."

Ouch.
I got the Lizza reference by reading DKos's Bob Johnson in The dark heart of the Clinton campaign: a strategy designed to make race THE issue by Bob Johnson; Johnson not only critcizes BET's own Clinton-supporting Bob Johnson for possibly raising "drug issues" about Obama, but also notes

The question of who stands to benefit from making the campaign about race has only one answer: Hillary Clinton. ...
Now, there is a certain irony in Lizza's noting of Camp Clinton's Hispanic strategy at the same time that Clinton surrogates are seeking to disenfranchise the culinary union members in Nevada, many of whom are Hispanic. (One would hope the Obama campaign would be quick to point out this hypocrisy.)
But the pattern from the Clinton camp is quite clear: they want to make the campaign about race. They want to make Obama into the second coming of Jesse Jackson, 1984 & 1988.

Well well. Disenfranchise Latina/os, then pit them against African Americans, maybe? --Perhaps not explicitly, as in printing flyers that say, "Hey Hispanics, vote against Black Barack" or something, but still...read what Ryan Lizza and Bob Johnson (of DKos) say. And such double-playing of Latina/o voters doesn't sound very nice to me.

As for the relevance of all that to Michigan, see my earlier diary Hillary DISSES MLK. ...Big mistake, on Hillary's clumsiness or insensitivity on racial issues. It seems that the Clintons have learned little since I wrote that diary; and maybe John Conyers, and many others, are right to urge an "uncommitted" vote after all.

Why Kos should withdraw his support for Romney in Michigan

David Boyle — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:38:37 GMT

(Cross-posted, and poll choices shortened due to space considerations, from Daily Kos)

It was alarming yesterday to see Kos actively supporting a Republican like Mitt Romney (I thought Kos wasn't a Repub any more...), and then to have the "Democrats.COM" gang send at Kos' request a mass e-mail, irresponsibly titled "Voting Fun in the Michigan Primary", endorsing that, too. What?

Actually, Kos' diary has an irresponsible, joy-riding type of title too, Let's have some fun in Michigan! He argues that keeping Romney in the race, by Dems voting for him and thus preventing a catastrophic Romney loss in Michigan, will keep an additional moving part in the Repub machine to muck it up, rather than letting Mich maul Mitt and knock him out. (Which would make life simpler for John McCain and other Repubs)
True, maybe, but is it worth the price? And what if, uh...Romney becomes President? with our help??

Democrats should vote for Democrats, and help stop Hillary too, in Michigan, by voting for uncommitted delegates. And Kos should publicly withdraw his misguided support for Romney, before he does any more damage.

(more below)
There have been various diaries in various places attacking Kos' decision: one example is Is Primary Day Pay-Back Time for Michigan Dems? on Michigan (Livingston County) Dem site "Living Blue",

...Right now, the Mittster is on track for his third silver medal, according to two polls cited by Daily Kos, so he needs some help to win.
The idea may tempt some. But I don't like to treat my vote like a joke. And we can't always tell which is the best candidate to run against. In 1980, some Democrats hoped the Republicans would nominate Ronald Reagan. We all know how well that worked out.

Indeed.
--In order, reasons for Kos to recant his bizarre Repub endorsement:

1) It's unethical or frivolous (see "treat my vote like a joke" above) to vote in SOMEONE ELSE'S primary. Would you want Repubs voting for Gravel in Dem events?

2) It may not work, e.g., if Romney wins the general election, or if voting for Huckabee or another candidate (hopefully not racist Ron Paul) would hurt the Repubs more;

3) Hillary may slip through if not enough Dems vote "not Hillary" by voting "uncommitted", since uncommitted delegates will be able to vote for Edwards or Obama. (See Detroit Dem congressman John Conyers' present vocal support for an "Uncommitted" vote.) --Indeed, Kos is voting for Obama himself, so Mich Dems should have the right to their best shot at an Obama vote, i.e., an "uncommitted" vote like Obama supporter Conyers recommends.

4) Again, maybe Democrats should actually vote for Democrats.

For more perspective see on Michigan Liberal the frontpaged post Michigan for Uncommitted in 2008! by rich

(

...As for crossing over to muck up the Republican Primary...."to hell with that!" ...

)

, and my own Vote "uncommitted", not for racist Ron Paul (or hope-less Hill).

So instead of hatching schemes and playing Wizard of Kos, uh, Oz, from far away, maybe Kos should listen to Dem folks in Michigan like the Livingston County poster. Locals may know better at times.

--I was originally going to title this present diary "Kos is insane to support Romney in Michigan", but thought I should have an "action" title rather than a "complaint about wacKos" title. So please spread the message and act to avert some crazed Dem wave for Mitt Frickin Romney in Michigan. Thank you!

HD-27: Mark Richardson to run for State Representative

Brainwrap — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:12:32 GMT

Hey, all--

As you know, due to Michigan's absurd term limit rule for state legislators (6 years for state Representatives, 8 years for state Senators), Andy Meisner, the highly-respected rep for my district (the 27th) is term-limited as of this year.

The good news is that it's a solidly Democratic district (something like 65% Dem, I believe), and we have several good people running to replace him.

One of these candidates, Mark Richardson, sat on the steering committee of Citizens for Religious Freedom, which, as you'll recall, was the group dedicated to defeating the disturbing Berkley Nativity Display Proposal. I'm happy to say that we were successful in defeating it last November (and B4M was kind enough to assist in our efforts, thanks!)

Mark and I got to know and respect each other over the course of the nativity battle, and he has since asked me to develop his official campaign website.

I should probably note at this point that no, I'm not doing it for free, but I'm proud to do so, as he's a good guy and would do a great job as state Rep.

I should also note that yes, this will be a contested primary, but Mark feels that this is actually a healthy thing for the democratic process. We're fortunate to have 2 progressive Democratic candidates to choose from.

Mark's official issue positions haven't been posted yet (they're on the way!), but reading the official press release (below) should reassure you that he's especially solid on environmental issues. I can personally attest that he's quite progressive on many other issues as well.

His official campaign launch is next Monday evening at Sila's restaurant here in Berkley. If you live in the district--or just happen to be in the area and want to lend your support--it'd be great if you could stop by!

For the rest of you, of course, the best way to help would be to toss a few bucks his way!

MARK RICHARDSON TO RUN FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE

MONDAY, JANUARY 7: Berkley resident and assistant Macomb County prosecutor Mark Richardson will formally announce his candidacy to succeed State Representative Andy Meisner at an event to be held on Monday, January 14, 6:30 p.m., at Sila’s Restaurant in Berkley.

Richardson said that key themes in his campaign will be addressing the state’s economic climate and restoring and protecting its natural resources. “I truly believe the future of our state depends on finding innovative solutions to energy use and supply, land use, and water quality problems. That, in turn, will lead to the creation of new businesses and industries, more jobs, and a better quality of life. State government must give people the tools to make all these things happen.”

Richardson has been endorsed by former Macomb County Prosecutor Carl Marlinga, Berkley Mayor Marilyn Stephan, and Berkley City Councilmember Phil O’Dwyer.

“One of my highest legislative priorities will be reforming Michigan’s antiquated tax structure,” Richardson said. “It is critically important to the future of our state to have a fair, equitable, and stable tax system. We simply can’t afford to repeat the budget debacle we saw in Lansing last year. We have to close wasteful tax loopholes and make the system simpler and fairer.”

Richardson also expressed his desire for an enhancement of mass transit, especially along the Woodward corridor. “Not only will mass transit be beneficial to the environment, but it will also create jobs, make us more competitive in the world market, and increase property values,” Richardson stressed.

A graduate of Michigan State University and Wayne State Law School, Richardson rose to prominence as an environmental attorney, representing groups such as the Sierra Club, the Detroit Audubon Society, the American Lung Association, and several municipalities during his years in private practice.

In 1998 Macomb County Prosecutor Carl Marlinga hired Richardson to serve as Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Water Quality. Richardson was the only assistant prosecutor in Michigan and one of very few local prosecutors in the entire country to specialize exclusively in environmental cases.

As Chief of the Macomb County Prosecutor’s Water Quality Unit, Richardson prosecuted environmental lawbreakers and represented Macomb County in civil actions in state and federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court. He also helped develop governmental policies and programs and laws to protect the waters of southeast Michigan and the Great Lakes.

Richardson currently serves as Chair of the Clinton River Public Advisory Council, a group that works to restore and protect the Clinton River. Richardson has also served as a policy advisor to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. He has been a Director and Committee Chair of the American Lung Association of Michigan. He is a member of the Michigan State Defense Force.

“I have dedicated my career to protecting the interests of ordinary people as a prosecutor, as an attorney, and as a public policy advocate,” said Richardson. “I have the experience and the dedication to lead the fight for better jobs, better schools, better health care, and better communities on behalf of the people of the 27th district.”

“Andy Meisner has done a good job representing the people of this district in Lansing,” added Richardson. “It’s unfortunate that term limits are removing experienced and dedicated people like Andy from office. I will be proud to succeed him.”

Richardson and his wife Susan have two grown children. They have been involved in many community activities in Berkley including Berkley Dads Club, Berkley Moms Club, Berkley Hoops, scouting, and other volunteer groups.

The 27th State House District includes the southeast Oakland County communities of Berkley, Ferndale, Hazel Park, Huntington Woods, Oak Park, and Pleasant Ridge.

Campaign Website: http://www.richardsonforstatehouse.com

On the web: http://www.richardsonforstatehouse.com

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7574446561

Vote "uncommitted", not for racist Ron Paul (or hope-less Hill)

David Boyle — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:12:09 GMT

Although respected posters here may say they're voting for Ron Paul or other Republicans...this may not be good. Explanation below.

See the poor man's Michigan Liberal, the New Republic, Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul.,

...Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. ...

Hillary hasn't been good on MLK issues, but Paul is much worse.
Do you want to vote for Adolf, uh, Ron Paul now? Maybe not. I hope.

There is also the ethical issue about messing with somebody else's primary; I don't really like it, any more than I would appreciate 10 zillion Repubs crossing over and making Mike Gravel the winner. Dems should vote...DEM, etc.
And finally, there is also the "dilution" tactical problem, i.e., one Dem thinks, "I'll vote for that loser Huckabee and he'll win the Michigan vote, haw haw", but another thinks "I'll vote for that loser Ron Paul and he'll win the Michigan vote, haw haw", so that the "loser" votes may be spread out too much and let Romney or McCain slip through anyway--and ALSO let Hillary slip through.
This is what professionals call A Bad Result.

See, too, Daily Kos today, cartwrightdale, Changing my vote from "Ron Paul" to "Uncommitted" (in Michigan),

...I stated a few days ago that Senator Clinton needs to say, on record, unambiguously and as Shermanesque as possible, that she will not challenge the Michigan delegate ban under any circumstances, and not accept delegate votes from Michigan under any circumstances. If she won't commit to this statement, she is patently unqualified to run in the Democratic primary to begin with, as she would be advocating the strategy of stealing an election. I spent the last day or so trying to get an answer from the Clinton campaign, and no one will commit to this statement that I've talked to so far. Which is terrifying.
Therefore, I have changed my mind about the strategic advantage of voting for Ron Paul. It is now the clear strategic advantage, if you're in Michigan, to vote "uncommitted". Voting "uncommitted" in the Democratic primary allows the delegates to be freed up to support who they like, should the convention prove a close one.
Yes, most Michigan Democrats I know still plan on staying home, or voting in the Republican primary, but I hope the word gets out in time that there is a better option. Voting uncommitted isn't the same as not voting -- it's stopping Hillary Clinton from the potential of hijacking an election with invalid delgates (should the final totals be close). And that in and of itself is even more valuable than assuring Ron Paul keeps being a pest.

As for Hillary, by the way: congratulations on her slim 2-point victory over Barack in NH last night, although Barack's 9-point Iowa victory over her was proportionately more impressive.
However, as Maureen Dowd notes in Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?,

...Gloria Steinem wrote in The Times yesterday that one of the reasons she is supporting Hillary is that she had "no masculinity to prove." But Hillary did feel she needed to prove her masculinity. That was why she voted to enable W. to invade Iraq without even reading the National Intelligence Estimate and backed the White House's bellicosity on Iran. ...
Hillary sounded silly trying to paint Obama as a poetic dreamer and herself as a prodigious doer. "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," she said. Did any living Democrat ever imagine that any other living Democrat would try to win a presidential primary in New Hampshire by comparing herself to L.B.J.? (Who was driven out of politics by Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire.)
Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink. The people from Hope are arguing against hope. ...

Hope against hope. Heh.
And with Hillary confirming in her victory speech that she'll get us out of Iraq "the right way", it implies she knows better than other Dem candidates what to do there. Which she didn't when she voted to send us to war there, causing far more tears in the families of our dead soldiers than she herself has shed recently; and I don't think she knows better now about Iraq, either. So much for Hillary.

So if you want a viable change candidate like Barack Obama (cf. the other poor man's Mich Lib, the Huffington Post, Obama Wins Key Support Of Nevada's Largest Union today) or John Edwards to win--and no lawsuit knocks over the primary, and if you don't want to boycott the primary, and maybe even if you like Richardson--, vote "uncommitted" and make sure all your friends do, too, and spread the word the best you can. --Kucinich is campaigning here, so he's violating the pledge not to campaign, maybe? and who wants to vote for a dishonest candidate? And Dodd is out. And Gravel...is Gravel, God bless him.
Ironically, then, if you are COMMITTED to change, you may have to vote UNCOMMITTED on 1/15. Funny, I know, but that's life.

Peace.

Hillary DISSES MLK. …Big mistake

David Boyle — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:50:15 GMT

(Cross-posted from Arblogger)

See, e.g., not only the Drudge Report headline earlier this morning, "HILLARY UNLOADS: YOU'RE NO MARTIN LUTHER KING..." (linking to NYT, "The Caucus", Clinton's Civil Rights Lesson,) but multiple recommended-list diaries on Daily Kos yesterday, including DemDog, Hillary Goes Negative...on Martin Luther King, Jr!!! [UPDATED], and Geekesque, (UPDATEDX2) Desperate Clinton: LBJ, not Martin Luther King, is real civil rights hero. The latter diary also has several negative opinions of Hillary's words, by African-American bloggers.

Excerpting from "Desperate Clinton":

"[from DetNews link in Geekesque diary,]

Obama challenged Clinton's claim in a weekend debate that he was raising "false hopes" about what he could deliver for the country. Obama told his audience that hope made President Kennedy aim to put a man on the moon and Martin Luther King Jr. to imagine the end of segregation. ...

Well, Clinton had her chance to respond, and oh boy did she deliver up a doozy [from Politico link in Geekesque diary]:

"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done. The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president capable of action."

Just how awful is this, on so many levels? "It took a President to get it done?"

NO.

It took a nation to get it done. It took a mass uprising to get it done. It took brave men and women to brave Bull Connor's thugs, firehoses, and dogs. It took an overriding popular will to see it throught. It took courage. It took inspiration. It took the the blood of martyrs and patriots.""

Amen.

The Michigan nexus is, how is Hillary's mega-flub going to play in the state of the late, great Rosa Parks??

I wonder what John Conyers would think...

MDP, no Denver rooms for thee at DNC

David Boyle — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 19:40:23 GMT

See AP via DetNews, National convention hotel rooms taken away from Michigan Dems,

Michigan Democrats no longer can count on getting hotel rooms at their national convention in Denver.
The Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee last month stripped Michigan of its 156 national convention delegates as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules. State party officials had until Saturday to come up with an alternative to the Jan. 15 contest, but declined to do so.
That decision caused the DNC to informally tell state Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer that the party no longer has reservations at the Red Lion Hotel Denver Central during the Aug. 25-28 convention, state party spokesman Jason Moon said Monday.
"We think that those hotel rooms will be given back to us," Moon added. ...
The Red Lion Denver Central is a 300-room hotel about 15 minutes from downtown Denver. State delegations fight hard to lock up the best hotels with enough room for their delegates, family members and political activists. ...

The primary may still be legal to hold as of today, but somehow, I don't know if all the MDP conventioneers can fit in one cardboard box in the mile-high Denver streets at night, now that their "Red Lion" rooms are gone. Maybe 2 really BIG boxes.

Blogging 4 Michigan on Obama/ism: "arrogant", "flawed", "dangerous"

David Boyle — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:58:22 GMT

I want to try a "meta" experiment, i.e., whether it's o.k. to discuss posts from another Michigan blog, e.g., Blogging for Michigan, without starting a "blog war" or whatever.
I'm not even going to offer any editorial comments, I just want to see what people think.
No war please! Or bad language. Thx!

1. wizardkitten, Thoughts on the NH debate,

...Obama strikes me as intelligent, thoughtful, definitely someone you want on the team, but also inexperienced and arrogant. Sorry bandwagon jumpers, but it seems the times that he faces criticism or tough questions, he tunes out and dismisses it with a wave of the hand. You get the impression he won't listen to your concerns if he doesn't agree with you. There is also the problem of this idea that Republicans are just going to join with him and sing "Kumbaya". Has he not been paying attention these past seven years? Still, I see incredible potential there; I just want a bit more seasoning. He hasn't been put through the fire yet, and I'm not sure how he will react when it happens. ...
But the person that could walk in and be president right now is Hillary Clinton. ...

2. Christine, Purple Is The New Capitulate,

...Obama's vision is downright dangerous to the larger progressive agenda.
Obama is running his campaign on change and hope. He's tapped into a powerful current: Americans are desperate for both. But the type of change that Obama is selling is fundamentally flawed.
Obama wants us to believe that he can bring together the Democrats and the Republicans. He wants us to believe that he can walk into the White House, butter up Congress like a biscuit, and then get all his legislation passed. There will be no opposition, because he's so sweet.
And he won't just save America ... speech that good works all over the globe. Just imagine: the world will live together in peace and the American Dream will be within everyone's reach. Mike Bishop and Governor Granholm will be homeys.
But Obama has a fundamental flaw in his vision; his premise is that it is possible for Republican Party to compromise, for the sake of good government. It's a false premise. It is not possible. ...
(You remember the color blue? It's one of those colors that Barack Obama doesn't see, except when he's counting potential electoral votes that he doesn't have to campaign for)
Progressives need a candidate who is willing to stand up for progressive values, not someone who will capitulate to the GOP for the sake of seeing purple. How do we know that Obama is that guy? He certainly hasn't mentioned our values in any of his speeches. In his Iowa victory speech, he never once mentioned our values. ...

And to keep things interesting, here's the "Hillary Clinton's Heated Response" YouTube video from the NH debate last night, here. (Cf. Jake Tapper of ABC, "Political Punch", Hillary's Debate Moment,

It won't come across on the transcript, but Sen. Hillary Clinton got angry during the debate tonight.
She was bickering with Sen. Barack Obama about their differences on health insurance, and whether Obama's plan leaves millions of Americans uninsured.
And then she ... well ... she got angry.
Frankly, I don't even really understand what she was saying. What I was getting was how angry she is. Not about an issue, so much, as about the fact that Obama is beating her.
The clip, I predict, will be played again and again and again.
Pundits will say that her tone made male voters recoil. And led some female voters to sneer.
Clinton people are spinning this as her projecting strength. I do not think that will be the widely-head [sic] view. ...
UPDATE: She just had another weird moment, too, where she seemed to blame Natalie Sarkisyan's death on John Edwards' inability to get the Patients Bill of Rights passed in the House.
I should add that this angry Hillary Clinton is NOT one I've ever seen at the Senate, on the stump, or in interviews. But I feel her performance tonight, in contrast to Obama's coolness and Edwards' Southern drawl, feeds into stereotypes about her. ...

)

Comments?? Keep them civilized, please. Thanks!

Hillary creeps, Jennifer weeps (or, Obama is the bomb-a)

David Boyle — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:27:30 GMT

Careful what horse you bet on. It might not win, but just creep into 3rd place. And you might not get to leave Lansing, and the Michigan mess, to be another lady's Attorney General in D.C. after all. Ooooops.

Congratulations to Barack Obama tonight; his theme of change is just what Michigan could use, plus a number of new politicians changing places with the old ones. Outmoded cars, outmoded congressmen, whatever.

...While I'm hoping the lawsuit by an MDP member against the MDP hierarchy who disenfranchised her (when they weren't busy endorsing...Hillary Clinton, hello Debbie) will succeed and prevent the 1/15 DNC-rulebreaking voter-list-thieving taxpayer money-wasting only-four-Dems-on-ballot county-clerk-troubling ""primary"", it might even be o.k. if it doesn't prevent it, and "Uncommitted"--not even a real person, only a name--beats Hillary on January 15 just like dead Mel Carnahan beating John Ashcroft. Fascinating. Just fascinating.

That's it for now. Enjoy the forward tidal wave of renewal and change, and help it forward, if you'd like to. Forward is usually better than back; so don't stop thinking about tomorrow!!!

Federal challenge to presidential primary

Eric B. — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:56:25 GMT

Well, been a couple of days ... time to break out the brass knuckles again. A lawsuit has been filed in federal court challenging Michigan's presidential primary. Here's the document.

The gist, as I understand it, is that the plaintiff is a member of the Democratic Party and her right to participate in the primary has been abridged because her preferred candidate has been barred by national party rules from participating in Michigan's primary. Thus, she has been disenfranchised.

Hopefully, I'll get a chance to read it a little later, but by the time I do that, I imagine that blood will have already been spilled.

Until then ... have at it!

Update! ... I should probably point out that the primary has many enemies, and this lawsuit was filed by Democratic Party activists and not Mark Grebner, Hugh McDiarmid, or Berl Schwartz.

Update2 ... Exhibits! 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Will I see you at the Oakland County Democratic Party Holiday Celebration?

Michael McGuinness — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:49:30 GMT

Hello All,

Which county has the second highest population in the state? You got it, Oakland County.

Which county has some of the closest election outcomes for our statewide candidates, even with their high voter turnout? That would be Oakland County.

Which county's Commission is only one seat away from Democratic control for the first time in anyone's memory, currently made up of 13 Republicans to 12 Democrats? Indeed, the Oakland County Commission.

Where is the county's high-profile Republican Prosecuting Attorney retiring at a young age, creating one of many phenomenal opportunities for Democrats to win a countywide seat for the first time in decades? None other than in the land of many oaks, Oakland County.

Where are there competitive races ahead for State Representative in 2008, with Democratic open seats and incumbents on both sides up for another term? Well, yes, Oakland County especially, but also true throughout the state.

Which county is home to Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop? As a matter of fact, he calls Rochester in Oakland County his home.

AND! Which county not only includes four congressional districts, but also entirely contains the 9th Congressional District -- the setting for one of multiple defeats of Republican incumbent defeats throughout the state? The ever-important Oakland County, of course.

With that said, we have an event on Tuesday evening that you won't want to miss. Come to our Holiday Celebration in Farmington Hills! The details are listed below and I hope to see you there.

Happy Holidays,

Michael McGuinness, Officer-At-Large
Oakland County Democratic Party

P.S. -- Which county party has the coolest chair in Michigan? That would be the Oakland County Democratic Party, with Chairman Dave Woodward, naturally.

2007 OCDP Holiday Celebration and Potluck
A Reunion of Democrats – Please bring Family and Friends
To meet us as we get ready for 2008!

The Oakland County Democratic Party will change its usual meeting location for December and will include a Holiday Celebration at the Pipefitters Local 636 Union Hall in Farmington Hills . Bring your friends, family and favorite holiday dish to pass.

When: Tuesday, December 11th 2007 from 7pm – 9:30pm
Where: Pipefitters Local 636 Union Hall, 30100 Northwestern Hwy, Farmington Hills 48334. One block west of Inkster Road.

Events of the night will include:

·        Potluck Dinner
Please bring their favorite holiday dish to pass. Beverages are also encouraged.   The dish and beverages should be enough for six people.

·        Outrageous Holiday Sweater Judging Contest
Guests are encouraged to wear the most outrageous holiday themed sweater (you know, the type with bells, sequins, 3-D Santa's with fuzzy beards, and ones that might even, actually light up). Outfits will be judged and the winner will receive a special prize.

·        Cookie Decorating Table
On the dessert table, guests will have the opportunity to design their own holiday sugar cookie with different frostings, sprinkles and other editable embellishments.

·        50-50 Raffle, Bumper Stickers and Buttons
We'll have a wide selection of Democratic Party – themed items Presidential candidate items and bumper stickers and buttons in a variety of messages such as "Had Enough? Vote Democratic."

If you have any questions or are in need transportation please call Brett Nicholson at 248 535 4983.

Judge: Florida Dems can't slap around DNC

David Boyle — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:55:21 GMT

See AP via Salon, Judge Allows Dems to Penalize Florida,

The Democratic National Committee can penalize the Florida party by stripping the state of its convention delegates because it is holding an early presidential primary, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled in favor of the DNC in a lawsuit by Sen. Bill Nelson and Rep. Alcee Hastings, both Florida Democrats. Nelson and Hastings had argued that state Democrats were being illegally penalized for the state having the primary earlier than national rules allow.
But Hinkle said that political parties have a First Amendment right to set their own rules and enforce them. The national party did that, which means that Florida will not have a say in picking the Democratic nominee. ...
The Democratic National Committee welcomed the decision.
"We're pleased the court ruled in our favor, recognizing the constitutionally protected right of the Democratic National Committee to enforce its rules and treat all state Democratic parties in a fair and equal way," said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney.
Hinkle said he wanted to issue a quick oral decision because there was some urgency in the case. He planned to issue a written decision by Monday, but anticipated that would not be the last word in the case. ...

Well, I guess there is some justice after all. Now if Michigan would just take note, and if certain persons would file federal complaints against the state of Michigan and/or certain political parties...

Eric B. slams satanic, thieving 1/15 primary

David Boyle — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 01:30:44 GMT

I don't know if you've heard of this Eric B. guy--and I don't know if he really is the famous rapper of that name in this SPECTACULAR photo--, but in the Morning Sun today, Opinion: $10 million, to almost be first, the B. says,

When we last checked in with Cliff Taylor and his merry band of judicial misfits, they were busying themselves applying legal principles over who can sue and under what conditions as though they came off the a la carte menu.
This week, they popped up to enable corruption so shameless that it brought tears to the spectral eyes of history's great ward heelers and political pit bosses, looking on from whatever slice of the afterlife is set aside for those so evil Satan could reasonably expect them to engineer a coup if condemned to Hell.
In a 4-3 vote, the state Supreme Court reinstated the mid-January presidential primary, which not only set an early date for the state's presidential primary, but also appropriated money from the state's general fund to do it. In an act of overt political graft, the state's taxpayers will cover this private process to the tune of $10 million, at a time when Secretary of State branches are closing, and police officers, firefighters and school teachers face the prospects of layoff. ...
Taxpayers [--] well, naturally, they get stuck with the check. As such, this represents a $10 million donation on behalf of the residents of Michigan to the campaign coffers of Clinton and Romney. This is worth remembering the next time some of the princip[al] architects of this mess[,] most of them Republicans[,] start complaining about government waste of taxpayer dollars. For everyone but the party faithful who are true believers of the eventual winners, the state's taxpayers get the very nice privilege of paying $10 million for the right to say that we almost went first.

Amen!

It's not over yet, though: there're the options of implementation challenges, federal court challenges, and of course, your right to demand your MDP not participate in this primary and disenfranchise you by DNC rules which prohibit a January primary/caucus.
Feel free to contact your MDP at 517-371-5410, and also to suggest to Mark Grebner (Practical Political Consulting, Inc. # 517-351-8274 may work) and others that you'd appreciate a federal court challenge to the state-o.k.'d thievery which picks your pocket to enrich others.

Unless you're into being a doormat and having your pocket picked (when you could stop it!), of course...

Go to federal court, Mark Grebner

David Boyle — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:44:19 GMT

Please, and soon.

Whether you make claims in federal court re takings, substantive and/or procedural due process, equal protection, 1st and 8th amendment stuff re making it a misdemeanor for journalists/folks to discuss the voter lists, ...not to mention equities/issues like

1) the county clerks saying they can't get out the absentee ballots on time (disenfranchising our SOLDIERS IN IRAQ, for cripes' sake),

2) the fact that the Democratic vote will be disenfranchised as a whole with a 1/15 primary (since it violates DNC rules and the delegates won't even be counted at the national convention...and there are few candidates on the ballot as well)--and don't forget the implementation challenge to be filed against the MDP for the MDP disenfranchising Michigan Dems!--,

3) the waste of public money on such a primary (as Speaker Andy Dillon has mentioned),

4) the interest in settled, fair decisions and procedures, not rush jobs like the State of Michigan is shoving down people's throats;

or other claims entirely: there may very likely be some powerful way or ways to challenge any arbitrary, capricious, and/or just plain stupid Michigan state government or court decisions recently made. So I hope you challenge, as soon as possible.

Even if you're not successful in the end (God forbid), you will at least have educated the public further about the extent to which their government is willing to steal from them, play with their votes (including soldiers' votes from abroad) and silence/criminalize free speech (again, the misdemeanor about discussing voter lists). So, it's more than worth the shot, any way one looks at it.

Moreover, you will be giving a great Thanksgiving present to the public by doing so, since someone should be protecting the people of Michigan from thievery, disenfranchisement, and bullying by a shady governmental apparatus. And people will give you thanks for doing it. I know I will.

Godspeed! We know you can do it! And have a great Thanksgiving, everybody!!

Presidential primary augers into side of mountain

Eric B. — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:59:48 GMT

Supporters of using taxpayer money to fund a private selection process are still holding out hope that the state Supreme Court will perform necessary CPR on the Jan. 15 primary, but the state's association of county clerks are saying, "Let the patient die already."

LANSING, Mich. (AP) - Supporters of Michigan's Jan. 15 presidential primary still were waiting Tuesday to hear if the state Supreme Court would allow the election to be held. But the Michigan Association of County Clerks said it wants to pull the plug on the election, now less than 60 days away.
The group said it's too late to guarantee that absentee voters - especially military members serving overseas, the elderly and disabled - will have enough time to apply for their ballots and return them on time.
"Unless Santa and his reindeer are prepared to deliver the ballots, it will be virtually impossible to get absentee ballots to everyone who requests one for the Jan. 15 primary," Saginaw County Clerk Sue Kaltenbach, who will become the association's president in January, said in a release.

Oh, happy days!

Jan 15 Presidential Primary - Hearing before Court of Appeals

Grebner — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 05:02:38 GMT

I'm too tired to write much, but maybe somebody else can add to this. This is written for people who are already familiar with the issues in the case; if you're not, you can find various documents on this site that will bring you up to speed.
The panel consisted of three Republicans: Don Owens, Bill Whitbeck, and Patrick Meter. They clearly had read the briefs, and had begun to form their opinions before the hearing opened at 1:30pm today. Whitbeck, in particular, fired off questions so fast that both sides lost their footing and were reduced to stumbling within seconds of the opening their arguments.

Speaking for the Secretary of State and the A. G., Heather Meingast was pathetic. When she tried to raise a point, Whitbeck would ask a question, or read from the court file, and she would be reduced to saying things like "Well, I guess you could say that. I don't think that's the way I'd say it though." That might have been effective, if her goal was not to change her own mind during the hearing. But since her job was to convince HIM, it was just sad.

She stumbled, in quick succession, over the meaning of "appropriation", "public", "private", and "property". (To paraphrase the State Constitution: "Public property shall not be appropriated for private purposes, except...").

She devoted considerable effort to claiming that we shouldn't be allowed to cite that provision in the State Constitution, since we hadn't raised it specifically in the lower court. Whitbeck read her the title from one of the counts of our complaint, which caused her to say that was the only place we had raised the point, so she could hardly expect we would rely on it. I guess she was trying to say we had lost our rights under the Constitution because we hadn't gone out of our way to remind them to look at it. Duh.

The major attack in their brief was "standing" - our right to bring the suit. By the time of the hearing, their position was so weak, that the issue was barely mentioned, either by the A.G. or by the Court. The fact it was central to their case simply points out their lack of any real issues.

Their best argument (maybe I should put "best" in quotes) was that the election was a really good thing, and a lot of people would like to vote in it. That was practically the only coherent thought Meingast expressed during the hearing.

My attorney, Randy Bodwin, started with a head of steam and but within 15 seconds got shunted off into the mud by well-chosen Whitbeck questions. Whenever he was able to answer one question, Whitbeck would fire off another, until Bodwin was spinning his wheels, in mud to the middle of his hubcaps. In Bodwin's case, the riddle was how to tell a "public purpose" from a "private" one.

I'm not working from a transcript, but Whitbeck asked something like: "What about building a road that benefits a particular person more than anyone else? Would that take a 2/3 vote of the legislature?"

To put a positive spin on it, the questions which stumped the AG were crucial to their case, while Randy got flummoxed by riddles to which Whitbeck already knew the answers. (I felt like I was back at law school, waving my hand in the back, practically shouting "I know! I know!" If I had been called on - just like at law school - I would then become embarrassed by a question specifically chosen, by Whitbeck or the prof, for me.)

After finishing their game of "stump the counsel", the panel turned to a question they seemed to really care about: How much time could they really spend thinking about it? The A.G. had claimed that Nov 15 was the absolute "drop-dead" date. Any decision later than Friday would make the primary impossible to conduct. Of course - under questioning - they admitted that wasn't true, and the problem was really that every day's delay just makes the process more difficult. The panel seemed to conclude that issuing a ruling by early next week would be soon enough, if they overturn or limit the reach of Collette's decision, and allow the Jan. 15 election to proceed.

In spite of the all-Republican coloration of the panel, it was about as good as we were likely to draw, since they seem to be fairly independent thinkers. They clearly cared about the issues, but they also were looking for a way to allow the election proceed.

Saul Anuzis hearts 1/15 primary in DetNews today. The Dingell-endorsed primary

David Boyle — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:18:00 GMT

See "Sooper Saul" in today's DN, Early primary gives Mich. more clout,

...Now, a small, but vocal faction within the Michigan Democrat [!] Party is working behind the scenes to scuttle our chance to play a pivotal role in selecting the presidential nominees. ...
It is time for Democrats in the Michigan House of Representatives to act and adopt legislation -- that passed the state Senate -- to once and for all set Michigan's primary for Jan. 15. ...

So, Saul is working with...Debbie "blow up New Hampshire and Iowa [!]" Dingell against these pesky

DEMOCRATS.

Is there something wrong here?? ?
(And Deb is saying there'll be a Jan. CAUCUS if no primary...does she ever learn?)

See philgoblue's current diary for ways to save your own vote being counted at the 2008 Dem national convention with a Feb. caucus.

(Brief info:

MDP: (517) 371-5410
midemparty@michigandems.com)

Act now before it's too late and demand a February 5-or-later caucus! The vote you save will be your own!
You can count on neither Saul Anuzis nor Debbie Dingell to protect your enfranchisement, I am sad to note...