"A false Witness will not go unpunished" -Prov. 19:5,9

"lying lips are an abomination to the Lord" – Prov. 12:22

The editorial page of past Saturday’s edition of the Grand Rapids Press was littered with a sizable number of comments on former Mayor John Logie’s call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush. Yes, it looks like, for better or worse, Logie is the talk of the town. The former mayor apparently made his controversial remarks in a public address at Fountain Street Church, a place known in these parts as an island of progressive thought in a sea of members of the Flat Earth Society. Some of the letters to the editor supported Logie, others expressed shock and dismay that a respected local public official would make such an outrageous suggestion.

Logie essentially said that if Bush and his entourage misled the United States into an immoral pre-emptive war of choice against a country that had done no harm to us, then the blood of nearly 3,000 American people and untold numbers of Iraqis is on his hands. This is not to mention other crimes and misdemeanors such as illegal warrantless wiretapping, incompetence in handling the Hurricane Katrina crisis, having disturbing friendships and links with criminal figures such as Kenny Boy Lay at Enron, Congressman Tom DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, illegally detaining suspected enemies at Guantanamo Bay and overseeing and defending inhumane torture of prisoners of war.

The irony is that I suspect many of the letter writers angry with Logie supported sacking Bill Clinton about eight years ago for the horrible crime of getting a blow job in the White House from a woman other than his wife and then not fessing up to it.

There is yet another irony here, but it occurred a little more than 32 years ago. Not long after Gerald Ford was elevated to the presidency because of the resignation of Richard Nixon, Ford decided to pardon Nixon in a pre-emptive strike against putting a former president on trial for any crimes he may have committed. Much of the country was outraged as a result, and many historians still consider it the biggest reason why Ford was defeated by Jimmy Carter in his bid to be elected president in 1976. Yet, almost immediately after Ford did the controversial deed, he received words of support from a totally unexpected source. The Rev. Duncan Littlefair of Grand Rapids, less than a week after the pardon was announced, preached that the true spirit of Christianity is in its ability to forgive. He essentially argued, “To err is human, to forgive divine.” This sermon backing Ford was reported in national news media, particularly in Time magazine.

Littlefair had been a thorn in the side of Nixon for a long time, openly criticizing his conduct of the presidency and the War in Vietnam. The reverend was regarded by Ford and the Republican Party as a bit of a left-wing crazy who did not share mainstream views of most of West Michigan citizens. Littlefair, at age 89, not long before he died, confessed in writing in the GR Press that he had once helped a terminally ill good friend commit suicide, much like Jack Kevorkian. And guess where Littlefair was pastor? That’s right — Fountain Street Church.

My message to John Logie, if he ever gets a chance to read this blog some day, and for what it’s worth, the ex-mayor’s actions were worthy of the kind of tales John F. Kennedy told in “Profiles in Courage.” John Logie, whom I have regarded as a moderate Republican all these years, is a great American, a true patriot who has shown me the courage to do the right thing in the face of massive criticism. Perhaps there truly is a hero among us, and like Rev. Littlefair, he can come from unexpected places.

Those who don’t learn from history...

As the new and old Barry County Boards of Commissioners examine what to do about the Charlton Park mess in the wake of two millage defeats, the immortal words of Spanish philosopher George Santayana seem appropriate:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

On an international scale, our current president’s greatest fault, besides his incompetence and arrogance, is his failure to understand history, what has gone before. He and his cronies have ignored the many painful lessons of futile, far away and colonial wars fought by us in Vietnam, by the French in Indochina, by the Soviets in Afghanistan, by the French in Algeria, even by the British in the U.S. colonies and by so many other conflicts in which the ultimate losers were the people who did not live where the wars were being fought.

On a local scale, the current County Board of Commissioners absorbed a shocking 59 to 41 percent defeat of a millage renewal proposal in the August primary and hastily put together another request for the November general election, only to see that one go down by slightly friendlier numbers, 55 to 45%.

The response of too many Charlton Park supporters immediately after the Aug. 8 results was something like, “Don’t you wanna keep the park open? We’re gonna give you another chance in November, but this time you better say yes, or we’ll hafta shut it down.” With the exception of Mike Callton, nobody on the County Board seemed interested in researching some history to learn just what had happened here and why. It was a lot like the Bush Administration’s refusal to try to understand logically what really caused the Sept. 11 attacks (“Because they hate freedom” is not an adequate explanation). Furthermore, the board didn’t bother to ask a lot of people who voted against the renewal just what their problem was and what it would take to turn around the poll results.

Callton actually learned and explained that the Charlton Park millage renewal didn’t pass by an overwhelming mandate in 1986 or in 1996. Such slim margins should have been warnings long ago to the Parks and Recreation Commission and County Board that the public hasn’t been entirely sold on what some call Barry County’s greatest tourist attraction. He also pointed out that Barry County had exactly zero earmarked millages twenty years ago, but now has five. This is more important than what too many local public officials believe. Please note that all millage requests on the ballot Nov. 7 were defeated.

The commissioners in August were set to go back to the voters in November with exactly the same renewal proposal that went down 59-41 Aug. 8. All that would have done was enable the public to respond with the simple, but effective, “What part of ‘no’ don’t you understand?” At least they had the slightly good sense to roll back the levy from .25 to .2275 mill and reduce the number of years from ten to five. But that, and the larger numbers showing up at the polls in November, just wasn’t enough to make up the difference. There is something fundamentally wrong here, folks, and doing another top-down style campaign on Charlton Park’s behalf is almost certain to doom it. All you have to do is look at history.

There are rumblings that the new board, when it convenes in January, will call for a public hearing or maybe a series of public hearings very simply to ask voters why they’ve said “no” twice, and what it will take to get them to change their minds. Then the board is rumored to be set to make massive changes, if necessary, in the governing of Charlton Park. One more special millage to salvage Charlton Park is a good possibility in August or November of 2007. But before that happens, a lot of changes will be made and some heads may roll.

Don’t forget there still are a lot of people who believe the park should be privatized, even though Irving Charlton deeded the property to the county as a public facility and history shows us that privatizing public services or facilities isn’t always the best option. Private ownership, to my mind, doesn’t have a lot of respect for offering history to children at no cost, rather it would be more interested in making big bucks with little regard to the public's best interests.

My vision for Charlton Park is similar to what Fred Jacobs has advocated in his editorials in the Hastings Banner. I’d like to see a steady stream of school children visiting and touring the park and village on weekdays during the academic year and then use virtually every weekend from April through October for tourist-oriented events such as Civil War re-enactments, bluegrass festivals, car shows or any other money-making adventure that can be imagined. Solid management and some slick promotion might be able to put Charlton Park in the black enough so it wouldn’t have to depend on an earmarked millage. It at least deserves a shot lest this unique attraction fall into the wrong hands and fail to serve as the educational and recreational tool it could be.

The possibilities are great, saving this park is doable. But let’s not live out the warning from Santayana and keep making the same mistakes.

Campaign post mortem Part 1

I've been putting this off mostly because there's so much to say about the past couple of days. So, this is mostly random thoughts as I try to hit as many observations as possible of what has taken place and not delay this any further. I will also be breaking this up into sections since I rambled on a bit and felt it was too long for one post (I'll post my comments on the statewide contests and the local Congressional races in a little while).

Charlton Park millage defeat– It was fairly obvious this one was going down again. The "Friends" of the park didn't mount much of a campaign other than fear tactics about shutting the park and telling voters how stupid we are for not "getting it." To anyone paying attention, it seems pretty obvious that the old gang reaped what they sewed when they ousted the park director and anyone else that wasn't a team player. They drove out several large events that gave the public a reason to use and visit the park and be reminded of its charm — something which might have prompted a few more "yes" votes.

What is needed now is input from the "no" crowd, some sensible reforms, new faces & ideas and a charm offensive that reminds voters of why it's important to Barry County to maintain this great educational tool, link to our past and potentially valuable part of a tourist economy. The new board must enact reforms, reinstill confidence among the voters and put on a charm offensive that restores the understanding among voters about why they chose to help support this resource in the past.

County Board of Commissioners– It's pretty amazing to see the change that has taken over the board over the past two years and I'm pretty confident that we've got a better group of commissioners than we've had for a while. I hope they ask questions, seek input and restore confidence that government can work for its citizens.

I had hoped we could have ended up with at least one Democrat on the board just for the simple fact that having a more relevant Democratic Party in Barry County politics can only help the people achieve better results from their government. Results were encouraging for local Democrats, yet there were only three candidates, none of which were able to crack the 40% threshold due to various dynamics in each of those races. This was an opportunity that somehow slipped away. The Dems must make a commitment to contest every single race and even have a minimum of one contested primary. If they can offer quality candidates at the county level they might even leverage those results in building a party that challenges at higher levels. Otherwise, the Barry County Democratic Party teeters on the brink of continued irrelevancy, a pattern for almost 25 years. This party needs new, more energetic and younger faces.

One of the important things to watch in the county board to be sworn in in January is whether this group can work together effectively. Mike Callton, or whoever ends up as chairman (and how sad this is the first time in over a decade there has not been one woman on the county board), is bound to have their hands full herding the feral cats who may resent Callton's perceived aspirations for higher office. We have a few board members willing to follow but we also have a few that might wander off the reservation and make life rough for the person who needs to show some leadership and a track record when future elections come ‘round. We also have the threat that the “good ole boys” will surely have some new and maybe even some old faces run in two years and try to claw their way back into power. If this board fails to meet its responsibilities to the people who voted for change they may not occupy their chairs for long.


State Rep. & Senate– Suzzette Royston's campaign was able to throw a scare into Pincushion Patty in Eaton County, but it was the same old story in Barry and Allegan. Why didn't she hit Birkholz hard on the casino in Allegan County? One problem is that in a one- party region it's hard to find qualified people from the opposition party willing to take on a quixotic campaign and as long as the long shot odds of winning deter qualified candidates, we will continue to see failure to get positive results, which only creates a perpetual cycle of more defeats.

Doug Kalnbach eclipsed 40 percent in Barry County, which perhaps shows the way for local Democrats — by offering voters a blue collar working class candidate with appeal to constituencies that are typically Republican or don't vote in large numbers (hunters and bikers) while offering enough red meat on economic issues to maintain Democratic support, Democrats could continue to make gains and in another cycle or two compete at the state rep level. Calley performed below the "baseline" number of Republican voters, which showed that some people wished to have a better alternative.

Election results coming in

Obviously, many precincts still to report but at this hour we know Granholm, Stabenow, Cox and Land have won the state-wide races. Democrats say they've taken the State House- stay tuned on that one. Closer to home, Charlton Park millage goes down again and it looks like in the county board races that Gibson beats Loftus and Ferris beats Lewis. Once I saw Englerth had beaten Brinkert with all precincts reporting but that number was since removed though now Channel 8 is reporting the same numbers but with 0% reporting. VanNortwick leads Miller with only Johnstown left to report.

Schwarz files as write in for MI-07

Thanks to Sentinel for telling me about this hot news:

Schwarz enters race as write-in candidate in congressional race

11/6/2006, 4:41 PM
The Associated Press
 
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz, who lost the Republican primary to Tim Walberg, has filed to be a write-in candidate in his congressional district for Tuesday's election.

"This is not trying to upset the race," Matt Marsden, Schwarz's chief of staff, told the Battle Creek Enquirer. "This is not trying to pull any last minute hijinks."

Marsden said Schwarz supporters have told the congressman, R-Battle Creek, they planned to write in his name on Tuesday. However, without filing as a write-in candidate, those votes would not have been counted. And so Schwarz filed.

...snip...

Walberg is still considered the favorite against Renier, who won only 36 percent of the vote in 2004 against Schwarz and has a limited amount of money.

But in the closing weeks of the campaign, Walberg's support had remained under 50 percent in polling against Renier, an organic farmer from Munith, while dealing with fallout from a campaign staffer who resigned after facing charges that he struck his 9-year-old foster son.

I guess I have to take Schwarz's campaign at their word because if they really wanted to spoil this they could have decided right after the primary to do this.

Use the comments for any Election Eve gossip, campaigning, arguments, questions, etc.
AND DON'T FORGET TO VOTE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7!

Negative and Let Live

A common mantra this time every couple of years is how sick and tired people are of "negative politics" and "nasty attack ads" but if it didn't work, they wouldn't keep doing it. I'm astounded how much of simple politics escapes most people- the main things being that attack ads are meant to drive down turnout (so every time people tune out the process because of all those attacks ads they help prove the effectiveness of negative campaigning) and the mistaken notion that all "negative" attacks are of the same ilk. As long as ill-informed voters continue to make bad decisions or avoid the process altogether we won't see the changes we seek in our campaigns, our elections, and our government.

A simple fact of politics that many fail to grasp is the main purpose of the negative ad. Negative attacks are used primarily to try to convince voters who might otherwise consider the opponent that the candidate is somehow corrupt, incompetent, weak or lying, etc. Thus if your opponent is courting the women's vote you either run an ad talking about how weak they are on sex offenders if you're a Republican or how they want to control your uterus if you're a Democrat. Attack ads are meant to turn people off from the process by driving independent and undecided voters away from elections, thus making our modern political process into a contest where the side that can drive the largest turnout of their core constituency to the polls wins. Modern elections are almost entirely decided, not by the so-called "security moms" or "NASCAR dads" or the fence-sitting and indecisive moderates who mostly don't even pay attention to issues beyond today's talking points, but by the most enthusiastic supporters on either side. When Joe Six Pack and Judy Lunch Bucket turn off and tune out due to the mud slinging the media advisors working for the campaigns smile their crooked smiles and go back to their push polling and their direct mail slime operations.

A co-worker mentioned to me today that the only campaign commercials that focus on issues are the negative attack ads and I had to stop and realize that this appraisal was almost entirely true (the one exception that comes readily to mind in this campaign is Tom George's ads for his State Senate campaign focusing on the murder of a man at a Kalamazoo bus station and the bill that resulted- though, obviously this ad is short on hard hitting stances that might alienate voters- George might as well come out and pass a bill proclaiming kittens as soft and cuddly creatures or sunshine a warm and pleasant feeling).

The fact is that most campaigns rely only on two forms of advertising. One is the "bio" ad which I have previously railed against here which tells us which congregation the candidate belongs to, how many beautiful grandchildren they have and how long they've lived in our wonderful community but little in the way of actual substance. The bio ad might mention someone is "for good jobs" or "against more taxes" but these are usually just talking point with little in the behind them beside an attempt to keep voters from thinking too much about what it means and whether it's good for their family or the country. The other form is the attack ad which usually seeks to show the opponent as holding an unpopular position usually by whatever deceptive means are necessary such as taking one item out of an appropriations bill containing thousands of earmarks (such as Mike Bouchard has attempted to do in his attacks on Senator Stabenow despite the fact it was his own party's senior senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, who forced the "bridge to nowhere" upon us and it was his own party's Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, who allowed the measure to be added and the vote to take place with the item in the bill, and President George W. Bush who didn't veto the bill but signed it into law). However, sometimes these negative ads are actually illuminating since often candidates seem to prefer to talk in bland generalities about tough issues which might alienate people.

A disturbingly large number of people vote out of obligation without informing themselves on the issues. I too often hear from people in the last two weeks of a year-long campaign suddenly asking me about campaigns and issues without even a basic knowledge of the complex and difficult issues that stand before us which they should have spent years thinking about or at least a couple of spare hours of their lives, yet they seem perfectly willing and even compelled to go cast a vote based on about five minutes of thought in the last days of a campaign. These voters often go with "their gut" and end up voting for the person with the most money and the slickest ads who told the most comfortable lies. And on the endless cycles goes, leaving these clueless folks to wonder why government seems to broken.

Most people don't seem capable or willing to weed out what is an honest portrayal of the opponent's position and what is an unfair and borderline slanderous attack meant to distort a person's record or position. Politics, it is said, is a contact sport and people can and do get hurt. We have to expect candidates will say anything to get elected but it's up to us, the electorate, to call a fair fight and inform ourselves enough to call proper balls and strikes. A lot is at stake in each election and I ask people to consider if the negative ads they are seeing aren't actually the most substantial part of our current campaign process or if they're just spin meant to take your eye of the ball. If our government of the people, by the people and for the people seems broken, the fault, dear readers, lies not in our stars but in ourselves.