Well, we finally have the official census figures, and for the first time in history, Michigan lost people in the course of a decade. Worse, we'll have fewer members of Congress.
Join me over the fold for a reasonable solution, what will likely happen instead, and other bad news for the Great Lakes State from the 2010 U.S. Census.
On February 18, 2010, Organizing for America (OFA), Health Care for American NOW! (HCAN) and no less than THIRTY other organizations sponsored a CALL FOR ACTION rally in Madison Heights in southeastern Michigan calling for Congress to act now on jobs for Michigan. These sponsoring groups represent a broad coalition of interests including health care reform, peace, immigration reform, clean energy and climate change prevention, jobs/labor, and social justice. There were about 350-400 people in attendance. This was just one of many such rallies being held across the country.
More than 350 activists gathered in Madison Heights, MI, calling for Congress to finish health care reform, energy reform, immigration reform and a jobs bill to put people back to work. Look for full coverage in The Rochester Citizen
The Administration is playing hardball with members its own party--particularly Progressives who are trying to block more funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. John Conyers has consistently said he won't provide more funding for the war(s0--and thus far he refuses to budge.
If you want to end George Bush's wars, call Conyers at 202-225-5126 and thank him for his principled stance.
Lately there has been a lot of Debate over the number of Democratic Congressional Districts that Democrats could gerrymander out of the state of Michigan if they had complete control (right now they hold the Governorship and State House. They stand a good chance at taking control of the State Senate while the Governor's race is a tossup). A few people have said that it is possible to succesfully draw a map that would yield 12 Democratic seats and only 2 Republican seats. I've been trying for several weeks to draw a 12-2 map, meanwhile protecting endangered incumbents (specifically Schauer) and I've determined that a 12-2 map would be far overeaching and in a neutral or Republican leaning year might end up 9-5 or worse. I think the best Michigan Democrats could do is create 11 safe or Democrat leaning districts and 3 strongly Republican districts. I've drawn a map that I think does just that, although I still am not entirely confident that we could hold both of my "Thumb" districts in a Republican year. But without further ado, here's my map.
Yesterday, in Austin TX at Netroots Nation, the annual convention of progressive bloggers, a question and answer session was held, and the guests included Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. The first question posed to Speaker Pelosi concerned the subpoenas that have been ignored by the likes of Harriett Meirs and Karl Rove, and what she proposed to do about it. In answer, she dissembled about how dismayed she was that the Justice Department won't cooperate, etc. She didn't answer the question.
It is ridiculous and insulting for her to assume that we are so naive as to think that this "Administration" will do anything other than stonewall this thing, and that they will do anything that is not literally forced upon them. That means that the power of inherent comtempt, which permits the House to order the Sergeant at Arms to physically detain a witness until he or she cooperates, is the required remedy. For an excellent series of discussions on this topic, I recommend the diaries of Kagro X in Daily Kos.
The follow up question to the Speaker attempted to elicit an adequate answer to the first question. In answer, Pelosi essentially passed the buck to the Judiciary Committee Chairman, John Conyers, leaving it up to him.
Fortunately, Mr. Conyers hails from our fair state. It occurs to me that we have a Democratic State Convention scheduled to take place a few weeks from now. Will there be a Blogger's Caucus meeting at that time? Will Mr. Conyers attend the State Convention? Wouldn't this be an ideal occasion to address this problem?
Karl Rove and the other crooks who have defied Congressional orders to testify, are thumbing their noses at the House and its "leadership" Thus far, they have done so with impunity. Speaker Pelosi and her associates have rendered themselves contemptible in the eyes of our political foes, and in our eyes as well, and made it difficult for many Americans to figure whether the elections of 2006 have made any real difference.
I urge the Michigan Democratic Blogger's Caucus to hold a caucus at the State Convention, and to invite Chairman Conyers to attend and to address this vital issue.
Thanks to John Conyers for resisting the Republicans (and the Democratic leadership) and voting against both the recent war funding bills and the FISA bill.
This 6:46 minute clip highlights the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats stand up for our civil liberties and Republicans are willing to sell our civil liberties down the river.
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.
...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....
...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.
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.
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!
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."
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.
(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.
Here's a link to a clip of the first six minutes of Representative Conyers' (D-Detroit) speech, where he says "impeachment isn't off my table." My summary follows -- please forgive the lack of detail, but it was hard to take notes: http://video.google....
First of all, this was a well-attended event -- we had over 600 people in the auditorium at Pontiac Central High School. The Raging Grannies and a rap group sang, there was a panel discussion, and there were several other speakers, including Nancy Skinner, who gave a rousing speech against the war. The big Joe NOllenberg head showed up, too.
Last night, August 28, Congressman John Conyers was one of the speakers at the Town Hall against the escalation in Iraq. He also spoke about impeachment. I only got part of his speech, but the entire program will be available soon.
The full details of how Democrats managed to snatch defeat out of victory on the FISA Amendments passed in early August are only now trickling out. But in an new article, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter places a good deal of the blame with John Conyers.
Even liberals like Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, argued in two heated, closed-door meetings on Aug. 3 that the Democrats might as well cave. Otherwise, they would be pounded during the August recess for ignoring national security and destroyed as a party if the country were actually attacked. Even though the leadership and 82 percent of House Democrats voted against the bill, they did not block it, delay the recess and hold the Congress in session. The private excuse was that the liberal base wouldn't be satisfied no matter what they did, and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid couldn't make the more conservative Senate go along anyway. Apparently, there's always an excuse for leaving for vacation on time.
