Friday, October 27, 2006

Politics Blizzard

Developments are coming fast and furious...


Robert Novak provides another report on the status of the House and Senate.

If things like this keep happening, voters may start fleeing the country during election season.

The Gazette has started making its endorsements. They don't endorse Jack Hoogendyk, and don't endorse the Democrat either. Go figure. I shredded their inane editorial on Jack before the primary.

Gazette editor Jim Borden recounts the recent Jon Silver controversy. Of course, it was the commenters who were reasonable, and Silver unreasonable.


Mike Bouchard continues to build momentum. Mike spent yesterday in West Michigan. While in Kalamazoo he visited with the Western Michigan University College Republicans and then headed over to Grand Rapids. National attention, the President coming in later today on behalf of his campaign, and great reviews from his debates, forums and appearances are changing the dynamics of this race. The trend is moving our way and Mike is in position to take advantage of the opportunities.


While the 2006 election cycle nears its climax, maneuvering is already underway for the 2008 Presidential election. The State Republican party is dividing into camps supporting John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Joe Sylvester is upset about the number of College Republicans who he sees as supporting John McCain. Meanwhile, Jason Miller writes that Mitt Romney's record shows that he is not a conservative.


Republican Michigander reports information on liberal billionaire Jon Stryker who has spent millions to defeat Republicans here and here. Styrker's campaign of lies has nothing to do with outsourcing, the minimum wage, or George's medical practice. The real issue is homosexual rights. Stryker has spent millions to promote "gay rights," but since he know most people don't support them, he tries to fool people about other issues. From Saul's blog:

Kalamazoo-area philanthropist Jon STRYKER and his sister, Pat STRYKER, have dumped a combined $5.1 million into the new anti-Republican political action committee (PAC) known as "Coalition for Progress (CFP)." It's money that has almost exclusively gone into cable and radio commercials that bang on Republican candidates across the state.

Campaign finance documents filed today show CFP has spent $4 million this campaign cycle on advertising, robo-calls and other out-reach efforts to dissuade voters from picking Republican gubernatorial nominee Dick DeVOS and other GOP legislative candidates.


"So, what's a Legislature go for these days? $5.15 million," Resch said. "What do you get for $5.1 million? What kind of policies do you want passed in the Legislature for $5.1 million? What kind of voter approved laws do you want reversed for $5.1 million?"

Resch suggested Stryker, a gay activist, wants to overturn the voter-approved Proposal 2 of 2004 that constitutionally defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. He also said Stryker may want to "bust" open state spending.


In total, CFP reported having 74 contributions with 70 coming from someone other than Stryker. However, non-Stryker contributions accounted for less than a half of a percent of all the money CFP raised.
Stryker's "coalition" is a coalition of one. (Two, counting his sister Pat.) Yet another Stryker lie.


Anonymous said...,_2006

Both are losing even when you count the margin of error in every poll.

Like I said... Tom better win... cause I'm from Flint and Dale Kildee contiunually creams any republican.

Its gonna be a sad election day for me.

Anonymous said...

I noticed nobody's carrying water for the child-abuser-coddling Tim Walberg anymore. What happened?

Anonymous said...

First, I would like to tip my hat a fellow Flintstone: The Pissed off Republican Student. It is true that Flint is heavily democratic and Kildee will likely win again. Though I intend to vote for him, I agree it would be better if the race were more competitive. There is an equal protection argument to be made in the sense that the votes of GOP voters in heavily democratic districts (and vice-versa) are worth less than their counterpart’s votes in more competitive ones. Gerrymandered districts have created safe seats for both parties and predetermined far too many races in this country. When you factor in how both parties systematically stifle third-party candidates (most prominently through denying access to debates), you begin to see American politics for what it is: a tyranny of two parties. I would like to make a second comment concerning the Kalamazoo GOP’s ranting about Jon Stryker. Given the party’s general distaste for campaign finance reform, how is it possible to criticize Mr. Stryker for spending his money as he sees fit. It is perfectly legal for him to do so. Perhaps this is a time to suggest that money is not speech and Mr. Stryker should not be allowed to do what he is doing. This is the position I would take. The influence of private money creates a system of access and allows the wealthy to have undue influence come election time. Perhaps the GOP should consider the implications of this given they are for once on the receiving end. With this year’s congressional races on pace to be the most expensive ever, one can only conclude that political offices are becoming products to be bought by the highest bidder. My point is that if you do not support the regulation of private money in campaigns for public office, you have no grounds to criticize Mr. Stryker. Such is the America your party has fought to create (along with the Democrats).

Anonymous said...

I agree with Jim Borden on this one. Let Silver say what he likes and if people have a beef with it, give them an opportunity to respond either on the website or in a letter to the editor.

Anonymous said...

Are you calling Flint a gerrymandered district???????

It's like the most liberal city in America other than San Francisco.

Granted, Kildee is pro-life and voted for the war, he's still a liberal and I cannot bring myself to vote for him.

Conservative First said...

The two-party system is an inevitiable result of winner-take-all elections and rational calulation by voters. Whether there is a better alternative is debatable.

My problem with Stryker is not that he is spending money, it is that he is lying. I do not believe that taking away Mr. Stryker's freedom of speech is moral. Rather than legally restricting his speech, I believe that the right course of action is to respond to his lies with the truth. I criticize him because I don't believe in silencing him.

Anonymous said...

Whether or not Flint is a gerrymandered district is not the point. Such districts do exist; there is no doubt about that. Interestingly, perhaps the comments by the Pissed off Republican Student demonstrate that there could be a place for third parties in our system. Why should I be forced to choose between two candidates based on one or two high-priority issues? Why can I not support a candidate most in line with my views? An example might be a pro-life, anti-war, anti-minimum wage, anti-death penalty, pro-environment, pro-business, low tax candidate. (Not that those are my views mind you). I'd also be interested to hear what Allan has to say about how Stryker's money gives him a bigger platform and thus allows him to more effectively distribute his lies. Why should he be entitled to that (in regards to support of candidates for public office)?

Dan said...

"The State Republican party is dividing into camps supporting John McCain and Mitt Romney."

I'm still waiting for choice C.

A.J. said...

I agree, Republican Michigander. I didn't vote in the 2000 presidential primary because McCain and Bush just didn't excite me. I told myself I would vote for whichever of them won come time for the general. I feel I'll be doing the same here. Neither of these guys has me jumping for joy. Now I know how the Democrats felt when they gave the nomination to Kerry. Very few people liked him, but hey he was better than Bush. I'm not huge fans of McCain or Romney but hey, they're better than any Democrat that can be turned up.

PENCE '08!

Conservative First said...

Anonymous (though we all know who you are):

You are free to vote for whomever you like in the the primary or general, by write-in if necessary. It's not my fault your candidate won't win.

Having more candidates on the ballot only makes it less likely that any given candidate will win. The problem is politics itself. By definition, politics is the use of power to impose a policy on people who wouldn't otherwise agree to it. No matter how you decide the results, somebody loses. We should decide as many issues as practical based on freedom.

As to Stryker, I might support tighening up laws against libel and slander, but I do not support any a priori restrictions on political speech. It is a fantasy to think that the rich and poor will ever have equal political influence.

In any case, other than the government itself, the groups with the biggest platforms to influence elections are media corporations. Shall we repeal freedom of the press as well?

Restricting campaign spending also restricts the ability to tell the truth. This only gives the government more power. We should counter lies not with laws, but with the truth.

Anonymous said...


I am happy you know who I am. Least you think you have solved some crack case, I will remind you of my comments to a previous blog posting where I pointed out that those who do not have a Google Account must post anonymous. Thus, it is not as if I am trying to hide. I am also happy you seem agree with my comment about politics and how it is about favoring one group over another based on arbitrary criteria. What bothers me is your assertion that rich and poor will never have equal political influence. Why should that be? Why cannot a poor person have as much access to the political process as a rich one? What does that say of those who obtain their money through illegal means? Are they entitled to more influence simply because they are wealthier? I also do not see how restricting campaign spending prevents the truth from getting out there or how that gives government more power. Your logic is far from clear. If you are contending that because it is so expensive to obtain national media coverage, taking away money from campaigns will limit the ability to disseminate information and therefore make it harder to challenge the positions of government, it would seem to me that the reason coverage is so expensive is exactly because people spend so much money on it. This is one example where the market is not the best solution if we find that it limits the access of vast amounts of people to the political process. I also do not see how having more candidates on the ballot will make it less likely someone will win. I assume that was just a poor choice of words on your part and what you meant is that someone will not obtain a majority. The point I wanted to make is that third parties face a major disadvantage in obtaining a national platform and ballot access in many cases. It does not seem to me that you can suggest no one would vote for them if they are not given the opportunity to convince voters in the same manner as the two major parties. We can even limit this to the issue of debates. Why are third party candidates routinely shutout from debates? So you see, I am not suggesting political speech should be limited, quite the opposite. I am dismissive of the idea that we should have an oligarchy in this country where more wealth equates with more political influence. Perhaps you disagree.