Safe Roads YES! is already running media ads . . . why aren’t their opponents?
So, about three weeks ago, Safe Roads YES! launched their radio and television ad campaign, designed to convince us that jacking up our per-person state tax-and-fee burden by roughly $248.12 – permanently (not including inflation adjustments to the wholesale fuel tax) – is a good idea. To do so, they’re using the standard tactics of bogus statistics and emotional appeals, praying that the typical low-information voter isn’t going to do even the basic homework into the legislative piece of sausage that the GoverNerd and his hodge-podge of allies are doing their damnedest to slide by us roughly six weeks from now.
And you’d think that at least one of the organizations or individuals lined up to oppose the Michigan Sales Tax Increase for Transportation Amendment would have already snagged media buys for at least one well-produced television commercial. I’ll freely admit that I don’t spend much time in front of the boob tube these days, but I can’t seem to get through even one prime-time television show (regardless of channel) without seeing at least one Pro-1 30-second spot. The reason that bugs me (both the pro-1 ad campaign and the absence of an anti-1 ad campaign) has less to do with polling, and more to do with my understanding of voter behavior.
Do we really want a third term for a Vice Chair who appears to be more interested in pandering than in outreach?
Since early 2014, there have been ever-escalating smear attacks against our national committeeman, Dave Agema, that have been as predictable as the calendar, in that they’ve occurred, if my memory serves me correctly, during the runup to every national or state committee meeting last year, as well as during the weeks immediately preceding the “fall” state convention (and are now occurring concurrent to the weeks preceding the “spring” state convention four weeks from now). The pattern is also predictable, in that either Ken Braun or Dennis Lennox (occasionally Kathy Hoekstra just for the sake of variety) will get wind (via one of their trolls) of a social media post on Agema’s Facebook page, will then cherry-pick some alleged “money quote” from the source article (or an article buried up to three links deep from that source) and then report that “money quote” as though Agema originally said it . . . and never-you-mind that they can’t be bothered to accurately report what he actually said with regard to why he found something post-worthy. The next step, again ridiculously predictable, is that the three amigos will then use their press credentials to publish opinion pieces, which allegedly-more-credible reporters will then use as source material for front-page “news” stories, which the usual suspects will then use to fuel a smear campaign of manufactured outrage, which the party’s useful idiots and low-information voter bloc will dutifully echo as an ever-increasing crescendo of calls for Agema to step down “for the good of the party.”
Fully detailing this pattern and the miscreants perpetuating it – which I intend to do – is a topic for another day soon. My purpose in mentioning it here is to merely highlight the hypocrisy of selective outrage within the party leadership, specifically in regard to a certain vice chair whose own conduct has been perhaps more offensive than that of the national committeeman for whose resignation she has recently called.
Young man, the plain language of the law is the plain language of the law, even when it works against you.
Regulars on either this site or the old one likely are sure to recall the Michigan Dele-Gate Fiasco. The quick synopsis, for the Johnny-come-latelies, is that, on the final night of February in 2012, the MIGOP Credentials Committee (at that time consisting of Bobby Schostak, Sharon Wise, Saul Anuzis, Holly Hughes, Eric Doster, Bill Runco, and Mike Cox) had the high-tech equivalent of a middle-of-the-night, smoke-filled-back-room meeting, and decided, by a 4-2 vote – Hughes didn’t get word of the meeting until after its conclusion – that the published and promulgated delegate allocation rules would be overridden, ex post facto, for no other purpose than to preserve the narrative of a “favorite son” presidential primary win. The resultant grassroots backlash culminated in the Showdown In Motown, where the alleged chief engineer of the fiasco, one Saul Anuzis, was convincingly replaced with Dave Agema (to the ongoing agony of Michigan Republican Progressives).
However, with now mere days before the MIGOP Policy Committee meets to rule on the affidavits of candidacy for the various 2015 State Convention candidates, we see a similar scenario playing out . . . with at least one familiar player in the mix.
Is the handwriting on the wall for the tea party movement in Michigan?
The saying “the handwriting is on the wall” has as its source an incident in 539 BC, recorded for posterity in Daniel 5, in which King Belshazzar of Babylon is plainly told that he has been weighed in the divine balance and found wanting, that the days of both his kingdom and his life have been numbered and brought to an end, and that his empire will be divided between the Medes and Persians then advancing on the city. The concept survives in modern English idiomology to imply that circumstances are such for a person or organization that it is now clear that their ultimate failure is to be expected, or at best will be effectively impossible to avert.
Given the thorough pasting that the constitutionalist insurgency endured in Michigan last month, as a statewide aggregate, it wasn’t exactly a leap for reporters and pundits (likely working from a coordinated set of talking points courtesy of the Michigan Republican Party old guard) to insert dramatic prophecies of impending doom for the tea party movement into their headlines and opinion pieces. David’s missive and Jason’s observation notwithstanding, I don’t think it unreasonable to ask the question: Given the significant events of last August, let alone the past 5-1/2 years, is the tea party movement on the verge of becoming just another footnote in Michigan political history?
March 15th, 2016 appears to be the likely date of the Michigan Republican presidential primary in the next election. The Michigan Republican Party’s Policy Committee approved the date, which is the earliest a primary can be held without losing delegates to the Republican National Convention.
If a candidate wins over 50-percent of the statewide vote, he or she will be awarded all of Michigan’s delegates. If the winner has less than that threshold, the delegates will be split up based on the vote.
Which, initially, left me a bit at a loss for words. Apparently, someone was praying that this wasn’t going to get noticed. Of course, that raised the question of “why” . . . and a cursory review of the details provides us with a quite predictable answer.
Did Melanie Reinhold Foster ever encounter a housing or tuition increase she didn’t agree with?
Edward John Markey, the junior U. S. Senator from Massachusetts (since July 16th, 2013) has represented the Bay State in Congress since November 2nd, 1976. Adding in his time in the Massachusetts House of Representatives (starting January 3rd, 1973), he’s served a total of a little over 41-½ years in publicly-elected office. During this time, Markey has developed a reputation, supported by both his voting record and his own live-mic admission, of having never once seen a tax increase that he didn’t support. (The long-running backroom joke is that the surefire way to get Markey’s support on a bill that he’d otherwise oppose is to slip a tax increase into the final version of the bill.)
Similarly, a certain candidate for this summer’s convention nomination to a certain university governing board already has an 18-year history on the governing boards of Michigan’s Division I universities. Reviewing her history during that time, I have found no evidence whatsoever of a tuition or housing increase that she wouldn’t support. If she gets back on one of those boards this fall, then that particular habit is going to be a problem.
When it comes to campaign finance, the tea party movement just doesn’t get it
“You can’t save the world if you can’t pay the rent.” – Morton Blackwell
It’s always an interesting academic exercise to attempt to calculate what Judas Iscariot’s 30 pieces of silver would have been worth in contemporary American currency. Depending upon whose calculations you use (and what assumptions they started with), estimates have varied from a few “benjamins” to a quarter-million “eisenhowers.” Almost all of the speculation, however, misses the point. And if you’re wondering how Judas’ epic infamy is connected to Mr. Blackwell’s wisdom, well, we’ll discuss that after the break.
What are the various types of “republican,” and how are they defined?
I have learned to despise the term “Republican In Name Only” (a.k.a., RINO). My hatred for it is, likely, because the term is almost always lobbed around thoughtlessly with no regard for meaning or context, but simply as a foul insult meant to disparage a political opponent, and often by someone who’s lacking for constructive rhetoric. (By that standard, “RINO” is no better than “Nazi,” “communist,” or “faggot,” in that the value of the term is cheapened when it’s reduced to a common insult.) Quite frankly, there are better ways to address the intra-party philosophical divide than to randomly sling profanity around; and this is coming from a career Sailor. However, in order to constructively address the problem, because other terms also get abused so badly, I think that perhaps some effort ought to be expended in pursuit of some basic definitions that concisely and completely identify the various types of “republicans” present in today’s party apparatus (both establishment and grassroots).
Allegedly setting the record straight, Melanie Foster continues to blow smoke
Those who know the basics about me are aware that I’m a native of Iosco County, specifically western Oscoda Township. Due to the nature of life in rural Northeast Michigan, I’ve also spent some time in and around various other parts of northern Iosco and southern Alcona Counties. Farms are a fact of life up there, and seeing, not to mention smelling, cows and/or horses is fairly common. I know what manure is primarily because I spent so much time stepping in it while attempting to impress the first girl I had a romantic interest in (long story, and it didn’t work out anyway).
It would appear to me that a certain education board candidate, who happens to have an agriculture background, is also quite familiar with manure. I say this because she’s been slinging it around quite a bit of late, most recently in a damage control effort that can only be described as a spin job.
Fiduciary Responsibilities: Trustees will act in a manner consistent with their fiduciary responsibilities to the University. Trustees will place the University’s interests ahead of their private interests. Trustees will exercise their powers and duties in the best interests of the Board and the University and for the public good.
Conflict of Interest: (a) A conflict of interest exists when a Trustee’s financial interests or other opportunities for personal benefit may compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, the Trustee’s independence of judgment in fulfilling his/her Board duties. (b) Trustees will endeavor to remain free from the influence of, or the appearance of, any conflicting interest in fulfilling their Board duties. Trustees will exercise care that no detriment to the University results from conflicts between their interests and those of the University. (c) Trustees will attempt to refrain from accepting duties, incurring obligations, or engaging in activities that would be incompatible with, or in conflict with, their Board duties.
Now, I’m not a Harvard-trained Philadelphia lawyer, but I am an educated man who is perfectly capable of understanding basic legalese. And I gotta tell you, I’m having one helluva time reconciling that with this here 7 Action News investigation from WXYZ-TV in Detroit.