Not as unpopular as they would have you believe

According to the newest Epic MRA poll of Michigan voters, Barack Obama leads John McCain. The more interesting bit of news is how much better he matches up against McCain than Hillary Clinton would.

Obama, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, leads McCain 43 percent to 41 percent, according to the survey by Lansing polling firm EPIC-MRA. Obama's lead is well within the poll's error margin of 4 percentage points, however. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, holds a 46-37 edge over Clinton.


Obama's numbers look even better when you realize he has yet to fully campaign in the state while McCain has done so twice. It's reasonable to assume his numbers could come up by campaigning here just as they have in virtually every state during the primary season.

So much for the notion that Michigan voters would hold it against him that he followed the rules in the state's primary. The Clinton campaign has waged a bitter fight for the state's delegates which many felt could potentially alienate Obama from voters, thus denying him a fairly reliable large midwestern state. Clinton has tried to use her "win" here in an effort to sway remaining primary voters and Democratic Party superdelegates by creating a mythical narrative that only she can win the big swing states many see as key to an electoral victory in November. Not only was the argument wrong because it ignores many other small states that could tip the scales which Obama has ran well in, but now it's clear that it is also incorrect to assume her "win" meant anything more than it's easy to win a beauty contest when you're the only one vying for the crown.


In other polling data, even though it's being spun as bad news, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is not nearly as unpopular as the state's media wants to think she is. 45% hold a favorable view of the term-limited Governor, while just over 50% viewed her unfavorably (the President's unfavorable ratings are 10 points higher).

I'd say that all in all this isn't bad news for Granholm who has taken the brunt of round after round of budget battles with belligerent opponents who can't accept defeat at the ballot box as a sign that the public is not with them in their quest to restrict investments in state infrastructure and education, as well as getting the blame for the economic downturn which was caused by the failure of the Big 3 to nurse itself away from production lines raking in vast profits making gas-guzzling SUVs before the price of oil rose and dried up their profits, leading to massive job layoffs in a state already hit with the effects of trade deals without sufficient worker and environmental protections to level the playing field.

If the state's Republicans want to talk about the "unpopular" Governor then we should help them remember how few Americans still trust or support the President's failed policies and inept leadership and remind your fellow citizens that the Republican Party thinks that what we really need is more of the same.

Going back to Calley

For those of you who don't know, State Rep. Brian Calley sat in the "hot seat" with WOOD TV8's political reporter Rick Albin on last week's "To The Point." The main focus is Calley's "Kwame Bill" which would seek to make responsible sitting public officials, once they have been convicted of a crime, of any liability incurred by that municipality because of the official's wrong doing. I can't embed the video, so if you missed it and want to check it you have to click the link here.

Seek the truth, but not from a liar

If you’re a regular reader of West Michigan Politics (and given my infrequent postings of late, there’s still a surprising number of you), there’s a good chance you’ve read one of the many messages from a certain Seeker of Truth in the comments. This “truthseeker” often leaves off-topic comments in various posts that repeatedly charge Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf or his staff members of various charges ranging from the silly to the somewhat serious.

As many regular readers also know, “truthseeker” has always been a vocal defender (if not the actual person, something that many people who know him have suggested- I will leave that to readers to decide) of the former County 911 Director, Charlie Nystrom, who was recently forced to retire prematurely after being caught handing out “bonus” payments for overtime to select employees despite there being no evidence that was made public that those payments were authorized or deserved. Nystrom was first charged in a very high profile way by the Barry County Prosecutor, Tom Evans. The charges then went to the Sheriff’s Department where they disappeared for an overly-long period of time, then were sent back to the prosecutor who hasn’t been heard from on the topic since. Since then, truthseeker has spammed local political blogs with endless counter charges that at least deserve to be dealt with, since merely deleting the comments or even continuing to ignore them would only increase the chance of less-informed people thinking there’s validity to them.

Recently, I directly asked 2 members of the Barry County Board of Commissioners about the charges made in this blog and Dave Young’s Compulsory News blog regarding supposed corruption or malfeasance in the Sheriff’s Department. Neither of the commissioners I spoke with was even aware of the allegations. So, I will ask you this simple question: How are we supposed to take these charges seriously when the people making them have not even brought them up to those charged with oversight of the county government? Why have these charges been made repeatedly and local bloggers bullied, when the charges aren't credible enough to merit someone getting them on the public record?

I STILL have yet to see ONE letter to the editor of the local paper or hear of any ONE person standing up at a public meeting to air these grievances. I'd even settle for a yard sign or some kook with a billboard strapped to his car in a parade, but yet we have nothing. How can we take these charges seriously when the people pushing them refuse to do so on the record? From what I can see, this is nothing but another attempt to confuse the issues, spread the blame, or otherwise change the subject from the corruption that was entrenched in the County 911 system and is hopefully in the process of being remedied.

While I’ve stated publicly that I am greatly bothered by the Prosecutor’s silence (especially considering how vocal he was when making the original allegations) in the matter of former County 911 Director Charlie Nystrom’s alleged “embezzelment,” (once again, I’ll repeat that when a prosecutor goes public with a charge, he should damn well have the evidence to make the case and he should also most certinaly know the definition of the charges he’s making) but it doesn’t mean that Nystrom and his sock puppets will guilt me into joining their crusade to take down the Sheriff in their plot for revenge. In fact, I think Sheriff Leaf has done a decent job, considering my original reservations about his candidacy, and I think this campaign against him is part of a vendetta which is revenge for his part in helping to end the inglorious reign of Nystrom, which might be helped out by certain elements also harboring animosity over his ousting of the previous Sheriff in a bitter campaign. It is also convenient that these charges arise as we near a political season in which Leaf will again be on the ballot. In the past that I did not support the election of the County Prosecutor and Sheriff, yet somehow those with an ax to grind like to try to lump me into being a supporter or defender of them. It's a nice guilt-by-association tactic which truthseeker has become known for.

I’ll also add this last little bit of obviousness for anyone who still doesn’t get it: I started this blog because I had opinions about news and politics that I felt weren’t being aired. I am not a journalist or a news organization. I’m one person with a point of view. The beauty of the internet is that blogs are free. If you don't like what I write, feel free to start your own. You're still free to air your opinion here, but if you continue to spam the comments with the same old stuff we've heard before or outrageous allegations that you wouldn't make at a public meeting or in a letter to the editor, then I will feel free to delete the comments.

I'm sure we've now now all talked, read and thought a lot more about this than is necessary or warranted. Frankly, it's a personal vendetta and most people are DONE with it, those that aren't seem to have an obvious horse in the race and their comments should be taken with a huge boulder of salt. So, we hope to return to more pressing issues soon. It's not like there hasn't been anything in the news to talk about...

Mock Election

As most of you know, the states of Michigan and Florida were stripped of their presidential primary delegates when both states broke national party rules and scheduled primary elections before they were allowed to do so. I don't know how or why it is that some people still fail to realize that this mess will only be sorted out once the party has a nominee. Michigan and Florida will not be allowed to decide the nominee for the party, despite news reports that seek to fan the flames of controversy where there isn't even a spark of outrage amongst the actual electorate who realized a long time ago that the Michigan and Florida primaries were a sham whose results can not contribute to deciding a winner. The matter will be resolved when a candidate gains enough outstanding delegates, wins the nomination and orders the delegate of Michigan and Florida to be re-instated only when it no longer matters in a ceremonial gesture of goodwill. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.

I personally know way too many Democratic Party members who declined to participate in the mock election for it to stand. In many cases people didn't vote because their preferred candidate had removed their name from the ballot in support of DNC rules. All the candidates agreed not to campaign here at the request of the DNC, making it nothing more than a beauty contest. Simply put, an election in which many of the major candidates names are not even the ballot and none of them campaign here fails the test of being a legitimate election. All the campaigns knew the ground rules and agreed to them.

It sure seems that many of the people who don't seem to get this are the state party officials who created this mess by playing a game of chicken with the Democratic National Committee which refused to blink. Despite repeated assurances that Michigan's delegates from the primary would not count and despite the fact that Michigan voters went to the polls understanding they were likely only casting a "beauty contest" ballot, some still want to create turmoil and gain an unfair advantage for their candidate. In many cases, the state party officials are even threatening that Michigan's voters will somehow be "disenfranchised" by the DNC and may not vote for the Democratic nominee in November. I hate to get all technical here, but that's poppycock.

If Michigan voters were disenfranchised, it was by their own state legislature and Governor who clearly and knowingly broke national party rules when scheduling the primary and ignored repeated DNC warnings that doing so would mean having the state stripped of all its delegates at the national convention. Now, this may have been too harsh a penalty, but it was known ahead of time. Michigan officials had plenty of chances to do what other states have done and have a ceremonial primary with no delegates at stake and then hold a later caucus with binding results.

The ironic thing in all of this is that with the contest still yet to be decided, Michigan could even have moved back its primary and been the major player it sought to be by violating DNC rules and kicking off this fight. Instead of a meaningful contest all we got was a mock election, and Michigan lawmakers and party officials have no one to blame but themselves.

West Michigan blogging community expands

While I was out, it appears a new West Michigan political blog has formed. It looks a bit familiar but it should provide some interesting commentary and a place for West Michigan's growing progressive community to congregate. Head on over and check out their nice, long assortment of worthwhile links while I try to unthaw my fingers and get back to blogging.

So, anything happen while I was AWOL?

Free speech- unless you make a profit?

A little while ago a story made the news that a Michigan mother whose son had been killed in the Iraq war realized her son's name was among the 3,000 listed on a t-shirt which said "Bush Lied." The flap made headlines when Vicki Dickinson enlisted politicians to line up and kick sand at the maker of the shirt containing the name of her son and 2,999 other dead soldiers and propose yet another piece of feel-good legislation which will surely get overturned in the courts.

Sadly, but not unexpectedly, politicians rushed in to save the day and trampled over the Constitution to get to the side of the grieving mother. Even more sad was that one of those was State Senator Mark Schauer who obviously is trying to prove that he's no liberal and that he can restrict free speech as good as any Republican. As you may know Schauer has announced he is taking on radical right wing nut Tim Walberg who sits in the U.S. House of Representatives after beating moderate Republican Joe Schwarz in the GOP primary with lots of money from out-of-district special interest right wing groups like Club for Growth. Schauer is a well-liked moderate Democrat who has built his career on community and constituent service who would be an obvious improvement over the radical idealogue he seeks to replace.

Schauer has co-sponsored a bill which would make it illegal to make a profit using someone's name or image without their permission.

"No one should be allowed to make a buck by exploiting the name and image of someone else, particularly someone who has fought and died for this country," Schauer said in a statement released by his office.

"This measure will prevent greedy profiteers from taking advantage of people and protect the identities and reputations of private citizens."

Obviously, one feels for ALL the mothers who've lost their sons and daughters in a war most Americans think was a mistake, but this bill is so obviously and deeply flawed that it should never even be considered by the legislature. However, if our current political system one has to wonder if even one politician will be willing to stand up and do what's right and vote this thing down if it makes it to a vote.

I was reminded of this controversy when reading the letter column of a national magazine which, in its year end issue, had published the names and photos of American soldiers who died in Iraq in 2007. There was no anti-war message or "exploitation" but one could reasonably argue that publishing those photos would have violated the law proposed by Schauer and others. After all, when someone paid for that magazine, doesn't that mean they profited from the publication of the names and photos? Or does the proposed bill only apply to those who oppose the war?

This bill would open a can of legal worms that I almost can't even wrap my head around: would news broadcasts be forbidden from naming the soldiers who've been killed in the war until they get permission to do so? Obviously, this would even extend far beyond just the debate over the war as many works of journalism, art and literature are based on using people's name or likenesses. Often, it's often simply impossible to get permission from everyone pictured in a news story, a documentary film or even a t-shirt. One can imagine numerous examples where the participants would obviously be unwilling to give permission even though the now-outlawed activity might serve a vital interest. I for one would argue that political expression is a vital interest and the impact of the anti-war shirt would be muted considerable if it didn't contain the names of the REAL people that died in a war that someone believes was started because "Bush Lied."

While many people see nothing more than a grieving mother, I think there's more to it. Sadly, this seems like just a back door way for someone to silence opposition to the war in which their child gave his life. The mother almost admits as much when she says:

"I support my son, and I don't worry about whether I support the war. I support my son, and I support the troops. My son would be upset with this man."

"Supporting the troops" has become both a meaningless catch phrase (often used by those who extend their tours of duty but don't see to it they have body armor or adequate health care) as well as a bludgeon with which to crush opposition of the war- all criticism of the Pentagon, the generals, the Commander in Chief, etc. can be said to "hurt the troops." If the war goes badly because it was a dumb war to begin with, or because it was poorly executed, or because the intent was to sow destruction and chaos to destabilize a region in order to maintain control of it's natural resources, no one can ever point this out because one will "demoralize" the troops. One has to wonder how the troops face the bullets and bombs of the enemy if they can't even tolerate a Congressional debate- obviously, it's not the troops who fear the debate but the politicians and war profiteers who fear losing the debate and resort to cheap straw man or bait and switch rhetorical tactics to prop up the unpopular war. How sad that so many can't see through the cheap theatrics used to stifle this important debate.

Lawmakers should quit trying to score cheap political points by caving in on the rights these soldiers are said to be protecting. I worry that Schauer's support of this bill is just yet another sign that too many Democratic politicians are willing to sell out the core principles of the party to curry favor with supposed "moderates." Too bad the mythical moderates are too often turned off by Democrats who pander on important issues instead of standing up for what they believe in and the base of the party is left without anyone to carry their message and the political debate once again drifts further to the right. After all, why should voters send Mark Schauer to Washington if he's going to try to strip us of our right to free speech and to political dissent? We already have Tim Walberg to do that.

Primary post-mortem

It sure was nice to see that Barry County Commissioner Jeff VanNortwick survived the recall attempt. As many of you surely know VanNortwick was singled out for voting for the TOST ordinance requested by the local health department despite being but one of seven commissioners to vote for it. As many of you also know, VanNortwick beat local Farm Bureau member Tom Wing by a handful of votes and has been a vocal critic of industrial farm pollution. It doesn't take a genius to see why VanNortwick faced recall while the other 7 commissioners who approved TOST got a pass. Many saw his narrow victory over Wing in the GOP primary as evidence of his political weakness yet VanNortwick managed to beat down the recall effort by focusing his energy on a positive grassroots effort that emphasized connecting with neighbors, relatives and friends, going door to door and practicing old fashioned retail politics. It didn't hurt his efforts that the recall campaign never offered anything besides criticism of TOST- one vote- to try to subvert the electoral process and the voters of Baltimore, Johnstown and Assyria Townships soundly rejected it.

While many people see serial recall-instigator George Hubka as the biggest loser in the failed recall effort, I would have to say that Barry County Democratic Party Chair Barb Cichy has a claim to that title in that at least at one time she had the respect of many people who now question her recent actions. Cichy, once a vocal critic of the failures and cronyism of the Southwest Barry Sewer Authority, seemed to be hell-bent on taking out a protector of the environment who happened to be on the ballot with an (R) next to his name. The Democratic Party should offer up a legitimate candidate and support them instead of trying assist this Quixotic effort. The party's political capital and energy would be better spent building up instead of tearing down. Cichy was also an opponent of the Charlton Park millage which was certainly at least understandable, but her free and easy way with numbers and facts in that campaign and the recall effort are not, and neither is her aligning herself and her party with some of Barry County's most suspect characters in the process. It doesn't further the interests of the party or the citizens of Barry County.

###

The big winner in the Michigan primary Tuesday night was Mitt Romney, whose mostly self-financed campaign had done well in early states but except for a shallow victory in Wyoming had yet to notch a win that would impress the Beltway insiders. Romney, son of 3-term Michigan Governor George Romney, had the name and the cash to make a stand in Michigan and pulled out a rather decisive victory over John McCain who had taken the state in 2000 and supposedly had momentum which now seems all but lost as they head to South Carolina which derailed McCain's 2000 effort and could do so once again. The nail in McCain's coffin in Michigan was more than likely his blunt and cold assessment of lost manufacturing jobs while Romney pandered and promised the moon, in the eyes of many in the media at least.

Meanwhile, the big loser at the state level was the Democratic Party and the voters. Because of Michigan's decision to move up in the schedule, the state was penalized by the national parties. While the Republican National Committee chose to make Michigan pay by taking away half its delegates, the Democratic National Committee meted out a harsher sentence and stripped the state of all its delegates and threatened candidates with punishment is they campaigned here which resulted in 2 of the 3 Democratic contenders removing their names from the ballot and thus not even making it an interesting diversion. While the country and the Republican candidates talked about the state's issues (which was the intent of those in the state who forced the change), the Democratic candidates were nowhere to be found. What followed was an absurd one-sided discussion which mostly focused on the same George Bush voodoo economics that hasn't worked and never will- and certainly not the cure for what ails us. The argument went mostly unchallenged in the political debate played out via news reports, commercials, etc.

If the national Democratic Party thinks it only punished Mark Brewer and Debbie Dingell then they're simply wrong. Even if they think they only hurt the Democratic activists in the state who might not get the best hotel rooms in Denver for the national convention, they're mistaken. The DNC's overzealous punishment has hurt the party's chances to hold on to Michigan and hurt the country by giving the Republican Party nearly a week of exclusive access to the airwaves and the public consciousness. Then again, Michigan voters probably had less exposure to the recent attempts to drag down the Democratic debate in South Carolina so perhaps the Democrats weren't hurt here so bad after all.