Tag: durant

Today's vote: ONLY NINE Senate Republicans worthy of being in DC... Coburn (R-OK), DeMint (R-SC), Hatch (R-UT), Lee (R-UT), Moran (R-KS), Paul (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), Rubio (R-FL), Vitter (R-LA)

Gary Glenn today announced over 27,000 signatures collected. State law requires U.S. Senate candidates to gather a minimum of 15,000 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, the highest requirement in the nation, and 100 signatures from at least half of the state's 15 congressional districts.  Glenn far exceeded both requirements, submitting signatures from all 83 counties in the state and more than 500 signatures from all 15 districts.

But it was not as much as the gun to the head method employed by labor for Debbie Stabenow's 30,000 signatures.  Ones that still may include a few from voters of a posthumous state.

And Glenn's goal, buttressed by the truly grass roots Mi4CS effort has not only been met but has apparently exceeded the signature counts of each of the other opponents.  Some of whom had to pay for signature gathering.  Hoekstra stopped at 22,000 a month ago, Durant, yesterday, with 24,407, Hekman and Konetchy both today with 19,323, and 15,500 respectively.  Konetchy for his part, is likely to be now crossing both sets of fingers and toes.

Yet it is all quite Impressive.

The argument can now begin on the philosophical strengths of each candidate.  The requirements alone are a test of will and ability to pursue the office.

Imagine if everyone was a Republican.  Imagine if everyone who occupied an office in government was a Republican party member.

Would all of our problems be solved?  Does it mean we have to stop worrying about what they do? Would we be satisfied to allow those individuals to manage the affairs continuously, even if they voted frequently to do things not consistent with the party platform? How about decisions made are not consistent with our core beliefs?

Think about this as you read through.

We should start with the question of why is it we elect people in the first place?  Is it not simply to have someone speak for us?

We all come with a certain amount of predisposed opinions, thoughts, ideas, based on our experiences, our education, and in large part our faith (or lack thereof).  We draw from our life's preceding acts and mold our conclusions about how things should be from the outcomes we either witness, or experience personally.  And over time we can make certain assumptions based on the lessons of time. We are the sum of our experiences, ideas, and environment, as well as observations of other experiences and others' ideas.

And when we select someone to speak for us, to represent our views, to be our surrogate, we entrust them with all of that experience.  We give to them the unique ability to present our case on social issues and speak to the manner in which we will provide for those issues.  Our values should be handed over carefully to only those who would respect them.  Our voice should be heard through them.

This does not mean a person who is elected should have to go back on every decision and poll those supporters for the appropriate answer.  It simply means that we (as voters)  have an obligation before putting someone in office, to determine that they represent us best in their ideas, their natural instincts, or their character.

Car whiz Lutz to help Clark Durant

General Motors adviser Bob Lutz likes Michigan charter school executive Clark Durant so much that he's signing on as the Republican U.S. Senate candidate's general finance chairman.

Lutz told The Associated Press in an interview that Durant has "impeccable" business credentials, is a compassionate conservative and would be the best Republican to run against Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow in 2012. The well-known auto design guru's high profile could be a bonus for Durant, who's facing former U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra and three others in the GOP race.