Michigan’s 37th Senate District race promises to turn out like one of those movies Mommy didn’t let you watch as a kid.
The poll paints Wayne Schmidt as an undesirable Republican candidate for the 37th district seat. The poll of 599 likely Republican primary voters who were reached last Monday, February 10, said no to the big spender by more than 20 points, even WITH the MOE. (Margin Of Error of 4.0%) Maybe its something about Schmidt’s willingness to expand government into places where it ought not go? Maybe its his Welfare expansion vote? Maybe its his affinity to give Southern Michigan more tax dollars?
Greg MacMaster……………….41.57% (249)
Wayne Schmidt………………..17.36% (104)
Of course polling is only a snapshot in time, but the advantages of incumbency no longer exist, AND something else revealed itself in the polling done by the MacMaster campaign. One of the largest blocks of voters has Schmidt getting an electoral intent wedgie at about the margin of error.
Grand Traverse County (Schmidt’s home turf) favors MacMaster 34% 29%
Yet another traditional Michigan community is pressured to elevate a behavior based identity to protected status
If, after reading the previous article by Mr. Heine, any of the Bay County Commissioners could still affirm the dangerous lifestyle of Sodom, we would know there is at least one more formerly ‘traditional’ community that has lost its way.
We are being told thatToday at 4 p.m., those Bay County Commissioners will be considering passage of an ordinance banning discrimination of LGBT workers in Bay County with a public hearing. Actual voting on the controversial issue will not happen until March 11.
And even though there have been no reported incidents of this type of discrimination, it is being pushed through by those with an agenda of self destructive behavior. It’s one more opportunity for this lifestyle to be ‘in our face’ and promoted as ‘normal’ civilized behavior, to grow the ranks of those who participate in an unhealthy paradigm.
Why would a pro-life party embrace a culture of death?
The normal course of action for a pandemic is to mobilize medical resources in order to learn, as quickly as possible, as much as can be learned about the disease, specifically including source of infection and method of transmission. Until this information is learned, the victims are sometimes isolated from the rest of society as a reliable way to contain the outbreak, until either a cure or vaccine is developed. Even if a cure or vaccine isn’t yet available, the knowledge regarding infection source and transmission is made public as soon as it’s known, and widely circulated, so that others who aren’t infected can take appropriate precautions.
But what happens when both the principal source of infection and the principal method of transmission for a global pandemic are known to be directly linked to a lifestyle choice that is a political hot-button issue? Does elected leadership still speak the truth, so that those at risk can know the facts and adjust their lifestyle accordingly, or do they put reelection concerns above all else, bury their heads in the sand, and publicly chastise any of their own who dare speak the truth in public on the record?