Hoekstra, at the time, told people he would only serve 6 terms (12 years) and that he would not accept special interest money.  He has since changed his mimd on both of these fronts.

At the same time the numbers on the President AND on the war are both steadily rising while a couple of known Dems in the military analysis field just published reports stating the surge may actually be working.

I'm not trying to beat up on the guy too much but I do believe a man's word is his bond.  If you break the promises you made to get elected, what promises have been broken since being elected?  

Schauer's district includes Jackson, which is in a  "do NOT tax us one more penny!" mode.  If he even thinks about raising taxes the voters will rip his head off.  I'll be one standing in line with my pitchfork.

I wonder if the next election is going to be a serious anti-incumbent one because of the budget mess, Granholm's mismanagement and the threats of holding up the taxpayers again.  Any candidate is going to have to hold firm on NO NEW TAXES, and Schauer has no record of that.

Now, I am not advocating that he be bounced from office because of this.  What I am saying is that when he ran for office promising he would only serve 6 terms and take no special interest money and he did not honor either of those promises.  These are questions of character and integrity.

The 7th CD has taken a hard left - Doug Spade upset Walberg in Lenawee; Doug was replaced by his brother, Dudley, who is now in his first term.  Simpson and Griffin replaced Mickey/Leslie Mortimer and Clark Bisbee- The only Republicans left in the district are Nofs and Caswell in the House and Brown in the Senate.  

For instance and while it is a laudable goal and I have no problem with officials who do take it or do not take it, saying you will not take PAC money is not necessarily wise if you want to be competitive financially in campaigns and it does "hobble" the candidate.

Comparing your current taste in music  (or on an issue) to a promise to 750,000 people to only serve a certain amount of time is not the same, though.  You may like AC/DC right now and express your thoughts as such to others.  When saying "I really like AC/DC" you imply that you like them  right now.  It doesn't necessarily mean you will tomorrow.  

But if you say "I promise (or pledge) to listen to only AC/DC from now until I die" you have made a promise that is binding (however inconsequential it may be).

The same is true about Hoekstra and his promise to only serve 12 years.  Had his statements been more like "I may only serve 12 years" he would have said something entirely different. Whatever his reasons for making a promise like that (and I happen to agree that it was a silly thing to promise), whether it was political expediency or truly believing that he would only serve 12 years, are really immaterial since he promised people that he would only serve 12 years.  

Back tracking on that promise is a character and integrity issue and it isn't any different than the one pointed out as a flaw in Schauer's integrity when he told people that he would serve his full term in the senate.

Others made the same promise in 1992 - Nick Smith, for example - and they kept it.  He probably could have won re-election had he decided to run again but he, at least in my mind, did the honorable thing and kept his word.

Changing your mind on an issue, like abortion, for example is not the same thing.  If you start telling people you are pro-choice and then upon further reflection determine that position is no longer consistent with your world view and decide the pro-life position is better policy for you, that is a principle change. Unless you promised to be "pro-choice today, tomorrow and for the rest of eternity" there isn't a problem.  If you did make such a promise your credibility would be in question (even though I would laud someone for making the right choice on the issue).

Yup, the same for the Republicans in Congress.

"At the same time the numbers on the President AND on the war are both steadily rising while a couple of known Dems in the military analysis field just published reports stating the surge may actually be working."

I think they went from 18% support to 20% support. As for those "known Dems", they've supported the war all along. They said that they think the surge is working militarily but most everything else is status quo or backsliding (Iraqi politicians for one). They have little credibility in Democratic circles because they've been pro-war cheerleaders since Day One and most people see this as simply more of the same from them.

"Add on to that the fact that Michigan's top vulnerable GOP member, Joe Knollenberg has two Dems who'll be beating themselves senseless in a primary and Bart Stupak's waning support in CD01 and there all hope might not be lost."

The latest gaffe was comparing Iraq to Detroit. Are you crazy? I don't remember any bombs, gunshots, IEDs, etc. going off at the Lions game, nor on the drive in, nor as I waited in line at Chelio's.

He said some areas of Iraq were safer than the city of Detroit.  And he was right.

Anyone who says he "compared them" and brings up bombs and IEDs is either a political opportunist or too lazy to read his comments in full to get a little context.

And one thing he never did was lie to his constituents, telling them he'd serve a full term and then 1/4 of the way through back the heck out and abandon his position in the middle of a budget debate.

Unless you think houses that are falling apart and unkept yards are trendy.