State Rep Q&A, And The Democratic Debate: Cliff Notes Edition

     It truly seems like it's been an eternity, even though it's only taken us about two months to get to this point.

     And one week from today, with any luck, the sideshow in the 82nd District will finally be over, and somebody, anybody, other than Todd Courser will be your next state representative. Within the last few days, the cast of thousands running for the job had a few opportunities to respond to the concerns of their constituents, or in Courser's case, doubling down on blowing them off.

     We'll start with one final debate recap: The Lapeer County Democrats had theirs on Thursday night, and I suppose I owe most of the hard-core party folk an apology here. It appeared in local Democratic circles that Margaret Guererro-DeLuca, who lost to Todd Courser last year in the general election, was already anointed the chosen one by those most active in the party at the county level, seemingly ignoring the fact that two other candidates also declared for the primary.

     After watching Eric Johnson and R.D. Bohm in action, I now see exactly why that was.

     As it turns out, Johnson, a mortgage lender who turned out to expend quite a few words while saying very little, probably made a wise decision in skipping every debate before this one; and Bohm, a hardhat-wearing 81-year old retiree who's as close to the real-life version of Abe Simpson as one can get, showed why he hasn't been taken particularly seriously by, well, anybody.

     When asked what would be the first bill they'd introduce, DeLuca said she'd repeal the pension tax, Johnson said he'd repeal right-to-work after spending most of his response time defending himself against a statement he gave to the County Press that he ran as a Democrat because it would be easier to win the primary, and Bohm said he'd restore weigh stations and weight limits on trucks, which would be a recurring theme of his throughout the night. Next, the candidates were asked what changes they'd make to the state's tax code. Johnson joined DeLuca in wanting to repeal the pension tax, Bohm responded that he'd restore the Michigan Business Tax, while DeLuca wants to implement a graduated income tax.

     The next question asked which issues the candidates could find common ground on with Republicans, and on which issues they'd be unwilling to compromise on. Bohm declared there is absolutely no common ground or compromise to be had. "I don't think I could find any common ground with them unless they're resigning!" DeLuca responded that compromise could be had through discussion, facts and data, but no particular specifics were given to the question posed. Johnson went on a tangent about economic growth, but didn't answer the question.

     The topic then turned to working with local municipalities to bring jobs to Lapeer County. DeLuca emphasized talking to each municipality and local board to find out their needs, citing examples from her time as mayor of Imlay City. Johnson vowed to hold town hall meetings, then went on a tangent about I-69 and attracting youth and keeping them in Lapeer. Bohm went on a different tangent about 69 and extending the freeway to the Thumb, a priority for... well, Bohm and literally nobody else.

     Last week's roads bill passed by the state House was then brought up, and the candidates were asked if they'd have voted for the bill, and if not, what solution they'd propose instead. Johnson again avoided the question, only mentioning in his rebuttal that a more permanent solution is needed. Bohm would vote down any bill that didn't make up for costs associated with truck weight limits, audit the Catastrophic Accident Fund, and make 69 a toll road, which isn't necessarily legal in Michigan. Deluca would vote no on the bill proposed, citing the outrageous registration fee increase, the fact that said money would be coming from somewhere in the general fund, and posing an interesting question herself: why is it going to take until 2020 for the money raised to actually go to the roads? Never one to leave time on the clock, Bohm then took the last 20 seconds of DeLuca's rebuttal!

     Next came the issues of repealing prevailing wage and raising minimum wage- Bohm came out against eliminating prevailing wage and for raising minimum wage. DeLuca called out Republicans for not even knowing what the minimum wage is when asked at the first debate, went on to explain that the current minimum wage law doesn't do enough for tipped workers, and went on to oppose repealing prevailing wage. Johnson... apparently supports minimum wage, for whatever that's worth, and stands against repealing prevailing wage. It's not exactly difficult to conclude that there's only one serious contender on the Democratic side that stands any chance in the general election. Only DeLuca even managed to answer the actual questions posed, with much incoherent rambling on one side and off-topic rambling on the other.        

     The County Press then ran a questionnaire with all 14 candidates in Sunday's paper. Not much here that's particularly enlightening, unless you really enjoy platitudes about working across the aisle, less regulations, and more liberty, but a few bullet-points, if I may:

     -Bohm continued to throw red meat to the Democratic base, doubling down on his "no compromise with Republicans, ever" policy and calling for I-69 to be tied into Van Dyke, despite the fact that it's... been... tied to Van Dyke for decades. And once again, a call that nobody asked for to build a freeway to the thumb, as Van Dyke isn't good enough because reasons.

     -Courser, to nobody's surprise, remains as defiant as ever, denying any and all wrongdoing while attacking "progressive leadership" in Lansing, despite clearly not knowing what the word 'progressive' means. He sent out yet another bizarre manifesto this week, trumpeting his nonexistent accomplishments from his time in Lansing and once again whining about being bullied by the 'establishment,' while blasting the hell out of Jan Peabody, Ian Kempf, Jake Davison and Gary Howell as "good Republican Party hacks," then went on to single out Peabody and tear her a new one over her backers at the Great Lakes Education Project and accuse her of administering abortion-inducing medications. Regardless of where you stand on those issues or on any candidate, the personal attacks on the part of the incumbent representative are uncalled for, though not at all surprising. Davison, Kempf, Howell and even Peabody are decent, hardworking and honest people, who deserve far better that the slime being thrown by a lowlife like Courser.

     From there, there isn't anything particularly noteworthy. The County Press asked four fairly vague questions, all of which have been answered several times already in much further depth: what made them decide to run, how they would work with fellow lawmakers to get things done, how they would work to reduce unemployment, and why they are uniquely qualified for the office.

     Barring a final outburst of crazy from Todd, I'll have one last round-up of all the candidates later this week, along with a note or two on the city commissioner's race (yes, there are other things on the ballot in November!), and then maybe we'll finally be done with all of this, if we're lucky.

Watching The Second State Rep Debate, So You Don't Have To

     The ongoing circus that is the 82nd District State House representatives race goes on, with another debate this past Tuesday.

     Once again, all the Republican candidates showed up, even the elusive Todd Courser, who's made claims more than once that the debate's co-moderator, Jeff Hogan of the County Press, is part of some progressive conspiracy against him. However, this time Margaret Guererro DeLuca wasn't the only Democrat to appear; R.D. Bohm dropped in to do his best Grandpa Simpson impersonation, while I'm not entirely certain that Eric Johnson even actually exists.

     Now, I didn't make it to the debate until relatively late in the evening, the audio portion of the Lapeer Tea Party's video of the event cut out pretty badly til about an hour in, and LapeerNow has yet to post the video they took that night, so this will be an unfortunately incomplete breakdown, to (hopefully!) be updated if and when the rest of the video from the evening surfaces.

     We start, then, with the fourth question of the evening: Essentially, what would be the candidates' biggest priorities upon getting elected? Guererro stressed operational excellence (more on that later in this post), less regulation on small and home-based businesses. DeLuca's focus was on attracting skilled trade jobs to Lapeer County. Howell's priorities were jobs, education, and roads, emphasizing the Ed-Tech program and utilizing the gas tax specifically for fixing the roads and not MDOT overhead. Kempf touched on bringing business to Lapeer County and over-regulation, particularly on homeowners. Landosky acknowledged that Lapeer has a job problem, but a training problem as well. Peabody spoke of jobs, streamlining government, and veterans. Tuski mentioned the state budget, and a desire to serve on the Appropriations Committee, to find out how much money is being sent to Lansing and how much it's getting back. Adams expressed disappointment in the consolidation of the Department of Human Services with the Department of Community Health, and the loss of jobs and funding in the former, also proposing to solve the employment problem through more education and training in skilled trades. Bohm started by promising to hold Gov. Snyder's feet to the fire, and railed against the Catastrophic Accident Fund, lamenting that there is $57 billion in it that is unaccounted for and that could be used elsewhere, specifically using $3 billion of that for roads. (In what would be a running theme, Bohm went over time quite a bit, with the moderator attempting to cut him off twice on this question alone, to no avail.) Courser spent most of his time lecturing the audience that it's not the government's role to create jobs, and that "you can have all the government you want, but you gotta pay for it." Smith touched on agriculture and skilled trades, citing Ed-Tech in particular: "This building right here is where I decided not to go to college." As for jobs, she pointed out several places in the area that were hiring: "there's jobs out there; look for them." Davison stressed cutting taxes to create a better environment for jobs, pointed out that he has pledged to never vote for a tax increase, and called out Republicans for supporting a gas tax increase. Dewilde mentioned education and infrastructure as two major factors in creating a better climate for businesses to move to Lapeer.

     Next, the candidates were asked what they would do "to promote problem solving over politics." Tuski touched on the importance of crossing the aisle to get things done. Adams emphasized the gridlock on a roads bill as a symptom of the problem in Lansing, calling out Courser specifically: "It's easy to be conservative when you say 'no' to everything, but you won't get anything done if you just keep on saying no!" Bohm stressed the lack of voting and attention paid to elections such as these in non-presidential or gubernatorial years. Courser, naturally, rephrased the question altogether as "How are you an effective legislator?" and answered with "I guess you have to define effective" and accused his Republican colleagues of "selling off liberty" while not answering the original question in the slightest. Smith made the point that it's a necessity to value all opinions, regardless of political ideology. Davison spoke of finding those moderates on the other side that would be receptive to supporting his legislation, then went on to remind everyone of his experience working for Jud Gilbert. Dewilde stressed seeking a consensus and working with other sides. Guererro echoed Courser's sentiments, also emphasizing putting the Constitution first; "no negotiating there." DeLuca stressed "common sense decisions" while expressing skepticism that any of her Republican opponents would actually be willing to oppose the more loathsome bills passed by their own party, despite the rhetoric of some that claim they'd do just that. Howell then claimed "I am the Republican who's going to Lansing to repeal the things that Republicans have passed that are not right for our state," specifically the senior pension tax. Kempf cited his experience as a county commissioner and running the Eastern Michigan Fairgrounds as proof that he can work across the board. Landosky was incredulous at the fact that the legislature saw the voters rejected Proposal 1 as an unacceptable fix for the roads, yet still could not put together a better roads bill. Peabody cited her experience in a non-partisan line of work as proof that she can work with others in a political setting, yet made clear she won't compromise her stance on guns, abortion, or fiscal issues.

     Then the topic once again turned to gun control, and Sen. Mike Green's bill to allow CPL's in schools. Bohm was against, confused by the fact that "even my dog has to have a license" but most of his opponents feel that handguns shouldn't. Courser once again reiterated his desire to have zero gun restrictions at all, claiming "the Second Amendment is my right to carry." Smith made clear she too was against gun-free zones, though she touched on mental health as an issue. Dewilde said he'd support the bill, as long as those allowed to carry were well-trained, but would still support not allowing guns in bars. Guererro opposes the bill because it eliminates open-carry in schools. DeLuca called BS on the  "gun-free zone" narrative, pointing out that the recent Oregon shooting wasn't in a gun-free zone. She went on to say that having talked to teachers, most of them are opposed to such a bill. Kempf again stressed the need for more liason officers in schools, but supports the bill because of the extra training offered, as did Landosky. Peabody supported the bill and Kempf's call for more officers in schools, Adams supported CPL's in schools, and Tuski avoided the question.

     The last question before closing statements was also the most interesting one. Candidates were asked which of their opponents would get their vote if they weren't running. Peabody started things off by stammering her way through a non-answer. Tuski chose Smith, whom he voted for in the last primary. Adams absolutely stunned me by throwing his support behind DeLuca: "She actually impresses me!" Naturally, Bohm endorsed his fellow Democrat as well. Courser made sure to start off by pointing out that it wouldn't be DeLuca, then selecting Guererro as the only candidate he could possibly vote for. Davison chose Howell with Kempf as his second choice, adding "that doesn't mean anyone else should, but if you can't stand me, vote for Gary." DeLuca called Courser out for attacking her as "pro-big government," then chose Howell "because he does the research." Not surprisingly, Dewilde narrowed his options to Adams or DeLuca. You could tell Guererro Jr. didn't want to say it, but he finally admitted that he doesn't "believe anybody would support the Constitution like Courser." Landosky backed Howell, Smith supported Adams, and Kempf said he'd endorse Howell because "when he's done running, he would probably endorse me!" Howell surprisingly threw his theoretical support behind Smith, "but ignore my advice and vote for Howell. A few I talked to afterwards thought this somewhat disingenuous, and expected his answer would be Kempf.

     Finally, I did get a chance to speak in person to most of the candidates following the debate. (Full disclosure: I'm friends on social media with Davison, Kempf, Adams, DeLuca, Guererro, and inexplicably, Peabody, and have had a few policy debates with a few of them online and in-person.) In no particular order:

     -I asked Rick Guererro to follow up on a discussion we'd had on Facebook after my last debate recap, where I stated I felt that he had dodged the MEDC question. He responded by asserting that through implementing "operational excellency" programs the state could eliminate the need for "picking winners and losers" with the MEDC. On Tuesday, he went on to explain to me that by implementing such operational efficiency programs as 6sigma within state government (a point which DeLuca also mentioned during the debate), he believes the need would lessen for what he referred to as "cumbersome" taxes that cause businesses to seek tax relief elsewhere. Might still not agree with him on a lot of things, but I give him quite a bit of credit for being willing to respond to my line of questioning in the first place and putting serious thought into his answers.

     -A common theme was disillusionment with the current state of the Republican Party, but not for the reasons that Courser has asserted. Jim Dewilde, one of the most moderate Republicans in the field, indicated to me that "this is no longer the party I first joined years ago," and that he's running in an attempt to change it from within, but not in the direction in which Courser seeks to do so. Russ Adams echoed his sentiments, conceding that he understands why so many are jaded by the GOP, particularly in light of Courser's actions during his tenure.

     -My discussion with Kempf was far more informal, as the first time I met him, at the GOP booth at Lapeer Days, I had interrogated him over the roads, economy, and the then-current rep's unwillingness to work with anybody and whether he'd be any different, which he made very clear he would. Same for both DeLuca and Davison, the latter interrupted by a now ex-Facebook friend of his voicing her displeasure with him.

     -Bohm was rather interesting post-debate, as much so as you'd expect from a guy who showed up wearing a hardhat with his name spelled out on it; his main point was that we shouldn't be wasting time on things like gay marriage and abortion (neither of which have been addressed in either debate), but rather... the fact that China is trying to set up a land base on the moon, while we're "wasting money" on exploring Mars. You can't make this stuff up.

     Most of the candidates came off a lot better than in the prior debate; Chris Tuski had a better showing than the last debate, particularly when asked about his priorities when elected, and Russ Adams did a far better job of staying on point and reined in the fire from the first debate, while still coming across as passionate about the issues he spoke of. Bohm, while he had some interesting answers, probably didn't do much to sway Democratic voters away from DeLuca. Courser, of course, was defiant as ever throughout, and it's hard to see him winning anybody other than the die-hards over with his performances. Peabody once again had trouble at times articulating her points and directly answering questions, and it's no doubt the outside lobbyist support and mailers, and not her public speaking ability, keeping her in this race. Guererro did much better at explaining his positions, though it remains to be seen which candidate will be hurt more his association with Courser. You'd have to imagine that Guererro would siphon votes from those who like Courser's fiscal policy stances, but not the baggage that comes with the man himself. And there's little doubt that's what he's counting on. But as distasteful as many find Courser to be all around, embracing him and his stances is a risky proposition.

     There's one more event for the Democratic candidates on Thursday at the County Center Building, which I plan to do my best to attend, if only to find out once and for all if Eric Johnson is a real person, or just how long it takes for somebody to get Bohm to give up the microphone. After that, the results of the County Press questionnaire for the candidates will be published next Sunday, after which I'll do one final pre-election roundup.

Musical Odds and Ends...

     With the election a month away and another debate to crash on Wednesday, it's probably about time I take a break for a few days from all the Courser-bashing I do in this space normally. And since the Lions have already killed all hope for the year, I figured I'd touch on another subject rather near and dear to me.

     As most of you who've stumbled across my little corner of the internet know by now, when I'm not ranting into my computer for hours on end, I'm a professional musician, in the sense that I subject people to my singing and playing on a regular basis, and occasionally somebody will throw a couple bucks at me for doing so. And I've also worked at a couple different live music venues over the years, one a fairly respectable theatre, and one dive bar that tried to get out of paying anybody they could, band or employee. (Hence why I'm no longer doing either there, and why they are no longer in business.) So I've seen both sides of the coin as far as that goes. Which brings me to a couple "open letters" floating around musician circles that I can't help but comment on.

     The first is one originally posted on Craigslist by a Tampa area bar owner. The point of which is basically: you're here to sell booze, and that's it. Some of his advice is pretty basic stuff (respect the venue, engage the crowd, act like you give a damn), and you'd be surprised at how many bands disregard it, but there's also a lot of kvetching about bands being too loud, not dressing 'professionally' enough, not playing the right kind of music, etc. And part of that should be on the venue to book acts that are right for that venue. If your place has more on an acoustic/folk vibe, book bands that fit that style. My main band won't be playing any coffeehouses anytime soon, but my drummer and his wife's acoustic duo might. If you're a country bar, rock bar, whatever, book the kind of music that won't chase your regulars away, but might bring more people in. If we don't fit what you're looking for, look elsewhere instead of getting pissed when we're not what you wanted. Our band's not gonna bust out "Friends In Low Places," no matter how many drunks request it or whose birthday it is. And then there's the condescending bit about "I'm not gonna listen to your demo or check your band out at all, but there's a way to get booked, but I'm not gonna tell you what it is!"

     Then there's a musician's rebuttal to said letter, and I can't help but agree with a lot, though not all, of his points, which are bolded as follows.

     Upgrade your crappy sound and light gear... or buy some if you don't have any.
     I get the feeling that the author is a guy who's not exactly been slogging through the bar circuit. Unless you're playing an established concert venue (as opposed to a bar that just happens to host live music) where you're one of several bands playing that night, I wouldn't count on that. Damn near every band I've ever played with has their own PA and lighting rig, and I can count on two fingers the venues I've played that asked us to supply nothing more than our own amps, mics and instruments. Truth be told, I prefer it that way; those were also the least-paying gigs we did.

    Acknowledge that the reason those people are in the bar in the first place is probably to see me play AND drink your booze.
     Now, I'm all about promoting alcoholism as much as the next guy. There's a reason the night we played a venue always happened to be "Buy The Band A Shot Night": Because that shit fucking works. And there's a reason I pretty much never play a request without a drink in hand: I'm nothing if not proficient at drinking on some other drunk's dime. But there's a reason I'm a musician and not an alcohol salesman for a living, the Guinness jersey I proudly rep at gigs aside. I'm here to help put asses in your seats so they'll drink your booze or order your food, but I'm not about to go into a damn Fireball commercial on stage.

     Pay me better. Failing better pay, don't try to stiff me at 3 a.m.
     It's not as though I really expected to pay my bills doing this, but damn, some places can be downright insulting when it comes to paying their talent. We played a gig a good 40 miles out of the city we all live in, that wanted to pay us (a 4-piece) $150 for the evening. We got them to agree to $250, plus "set drinks," which traditionally means one drink per set, which we usually do 3 or 4 sets. Imagine my surprise when I got my tab at the end of the night, and somehow owed damn near all of my pay because not only was their definition of set drink "one for the night," but the band was also getting charged marked up prices for drinks! ($3 for a pint of Natty Light and $6 for Michelob Amber Bock, the closest thing to a drinkable beer here. That says it all.)

     Another one that always got under my skin was the venue that expects a band to play for free "for the exposure." Which couldn't possibly be a more asinine statement. Tell ya what: next time you need to order a large quantity of food, call up a restaurant and see if they'll cater your event for free "for the exposure." If you don't get laughed off the phone or hung up on right there, I'll be shocked. We need to make a living as much as you do. Charity events are always an exception, of course. But when the charity is a bar owner who wants to pack his place without spending so much as a dime or a drop of booze to do it (hell, my first gig out of high school, I played for dinner and that was it), that's a different story.

      Worse still are the venues and promoters that expect bands to go sell tickets for them, and give them little to nothing in return. I'm thankful that as a band that could always get steady bar gigs, we never had to lower ourselves to that, but too many musician friends of mine who do originals find themselves in these no-win deals, usually staged as a "battle of the bands" with some ridiculous prize that nobody actually wins. One I saw promised a cash prize, studio time, and that a record label A&R guy would be at the venue the night of. Guess how many of those actually happened.

     The idea that it's entirely on the band to promote a gig is beyond stale as well. I'm all willing to print up flyers and bomb the hell out of my Facebook page to get asses in the seats, and most of the venues we play are damn good about putting our shows out there ahead of time. Then you have the bar I worked at, which put absolutely zero effort into promoting their venue, much less the bands that played it, and compounding that was the fact that they were located three miles north of town, a good quarter mile off the actual road, with a sign you stood a good chance of not catching until you were passing it by, that usually didn't get updated til the night of a show. Despite all this, the owner regularly bitched that he didn't get any business when bands or DJ's played there, which usually led to him trying to undercut what he promised the entertainment. (No joke, I saw this guy try and hand a karaoke DJ $15 for a 4-hour set, and bitch at him for not bringing a following with him. How many of those guys do you know that have a "following" of any sort?)

     Another thing I've noticed is the disdain for the "open mic night" because it's somehow cheapening live music. Now, I got lucky and fell into a well-established gig of this sort, and I'll be honest: that's some of the easiest money I make all week, and I play usually all of two sets a night! Some people seem to think that's the cheap way out for a venue to go, but that's not always the case. For one, someone has to run the damn thing, and provide entertainment when nobody shows up to jam, and that somebody has to get paid. You can't just plug a microphone into an amplifier, leave it there, not tell anybody, and call it an open mic night. (And yes, I've been to one place that did exactly that.) And in my experience, if there isn't a full band hosting (which there usually is), and sometimes even when there is, it's usually on a night that you wouldn't normally expect to see people packing the bar, usually sometime in the middle of the week when most places would otherwise offer karaoke, if anything at all. So in a lot of cases, it's not taking away from what would be somebody else's paying gig, it's a gig that otherwise wouldn't exist at all; in fact, our most recent gig of that sort came at a bar that didn't offer live entertainment of any sort on that particular night until we showed up.

     And from a musician's standpoint, I'm a big proponent of the open jam, and not just because my band happens to host one. For one, I found it to be a great place to get better at what I do; nothing builds your chops quite like getting thrown on stage with a bunch of people you've never jammed with before, playing songs you've never heard before. And in my case, it directly led to my meeting my current bandmates, and after jamming a few open mics, we started booking paying gigs from there. If you're treating it as the means to an end, instead of the end itself, open jams can be some productive and valuable stage time, and open a lot of doors that might not have been available before. Sure, you can jam in the basement for hours at a time (and I have), but there's some things you just can't work out til you're actually on stage.

     As I said earlier, I'm under no illusion that I'm going to make much of a living doing this, and that isn't why I do what I do. But if there's two things that just irritate me to no end about the music scene (apart from "bands" that sing to backing tracks, but that's another rant for another day), it's the guys who cut down other cats trying to make a few bucks hosting jam nights and open mics, and the venues and promoters that legitimately try to cheap out on live entertainment or screw performers over; if they're bringing in customers, bands should be able to get the money they deserve for what they do, or at the very least, the money they agreed to with the venue; and venues to still make money on drinks. And I'd like to think there's plenty of room for the open mic guys, the cover bands doing 4-hour sets on a Saturday night, and the bands that come out and do an hour of their originals, to all go out and get theirs, and be compensated fairly for it. It doesn't have to be an either-or proposition; hell, I do all of the above, depending on the day! As a smarter musician than myself once told me, "Music isn't supposed to be a competition."

Watching the State Rep Debate So You Don't Have To

     Finally, all (or at least most) of the candidates vying to be your next state representative were gathered together in one place to take questions from their future constituents over the weekend, and a lot of questions were answered, even from the guy who has a great aversion to taking questions from his constituents.

     The debate was put on by the Lapeer County Tea Party, and they let you know it from the second you walked in the door, with a large poster diagramming President Obama's alleged ties to socialism and Marxism on display by the entrance. Not exactly the kind of place I feel particularly welcome, but in the interest of saving you three hours of your Friday night, I ventured out to the Lapeer County Sportsman's Club to see if I could get a question or two in. 12 of the 14 candidates showed up for the debate; all the Republicans, naturally, including disgraced ex-rep Todd Courser, who showed up at the last possible second; and Democrat Margaret Guererro DeLuca. If you missed it, you can watch the whole thing here, but if you don't have three hours to dedicate to that, here's the Cliff Notes version.

     The first topic of the evening was gun control, as you'd expect given the shootings in Oregon that had just happened. Courser, of course, wants absolutely zero restrictions on guns whatsoever, while Jake Davison and Rick Guererro blamed the Oregon shooting on gun-free zones, despite the fact that the Oregon shooting didn't take place in one. DeLuca posed an interesting question regarding the bill that expanded open-carry zones: "why did this bill not include the Michigan legislative chambers or courthouses?" She went on to defend her Second Amendement bona-fides: "I'm married to a police officer. We have many guns in our home. I probably have the most guns in my home than anyone on this panel." Jim Dewilde was far more moderate on this than his fellow Republicans: "Close the loopholes at gun shows where they don't require background checks. Let's make sure if we're selling someone a gun, that we're not selling it to a loony toon. Let's make sure we're not selling it to a domestic abuser, or a criminal." Gary Howell touched on getting guns "out of the hands of the nutcases." Ian Kempf proposed that more school liason officers, of which DeLuca's husband is one, would be helpful. Al Landosky proposes enforcing the laws already in place. Jan Peabody mentioned mental illness, but then went on an off-topic tangent about "sanctuary cities." Not to be outdone, Russell Adams went on an odd tangent about drunk driving, going so far as to claim that "we don't legislate that anymore!" That's so wrong on several different levels, I don't even know where to start.

     From there, the discussion moved to term limits, which only DeLuca and Landoski came out against. After that, it was on to marijuana. DeLuca's position hasn't changed from the last campaign: put it to the voters to decide. Jim Dewilde supported legalizing medicinal, with mixed feelings towards recreational and the caveat that "I'm not one of those that drinks or smokes marijuana; I'm just naturally this way!" Guererro, as a libertarian, supports it, based in part on the increased tax revenue in other states that have done so, and a decrease in painkiller deaths in those states. Howell, Peabody, and Tuski were completely against legalization. Kempf, Landosky, and Smith are against recreational use, but would be in favor of sentencing reform. Peabody ended up going on an unrelated tangent about heroin; not to be outdone, Adams went on an even more bizarre tangent about banking laws. Then there was the irony of Courser saying "it's not my business to decide what other people do with themselves," when he's done exactly that quite frequently, while riding the fence on the actual issue, though tending towards the libertarian "government shouldn't be involved" stance. Then, Davison came out 100% in support of legalization, likening the issue to Prohibition: "we learned in the 20's, banning it is worse than regulating it."

     Then the discussion came to the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, or as most know it, the agency behind the "Pure Michigan" campaign, which just laid off 65 staffers and has been a favorite target of Courser and his ilk, claiming that it's no more than political favoritism, For starters, I was rather disappointed that very few of the candidates actually know what the MEDC actually does, or why it might possibly be important to not shut down an agency that attempts to connect startup businesses with capital providers and increase the amount of capital available for business in general, helps to find federal grants for startup tech companies, promotes increased visibility and funding for the arts and arts education, and otherwise offers incentives for business to come to Michigan and stay here.

     Courser, of course, supports abolishing it altogether, Dewilde claimed that the MEDC "is an organization that we sorely need", and having served with the Tuscola County Economic Development Corporation, said "it's just not good business sense" to eliminate an organization dedicated to bringing better jobs to the state. Guererro started off with "Not to avoid the question," then proceeded to avoid the question entirely, going off on the film industry and education. Howell also went on about Vo-Tech and didn't even mention the MEDC in his response. Kempf mentioned the lack of communication between the MEDC and similar local organizations. Landoski also admitted to not knowing what the MEDC does. Peabody said it "wasn't a bad thing" that they just laid off 65 people and that she "wasn't upset about it," while Tuski said they "probably weren't value added" and that "this is a good time to actually lose your job." Adams went on yet another digression about DHS layoffs; a fair point, but one that had absolutely nothing to do with the question asked. admit that they do serve a necessary purpose. Davison wants to get rid of most of the MEDC, but concedes that can't be done without losing high-paying jobs to neighboring states willing to give the tax breaks. DeLuca also pointed out that the MEDC needs more transparency, and that much of that money should be passed down to local agencies.

     For some reason, mandatory vaccinations were the next topic. Most of the field were completely against, though Davison suggested he'd reconsider that stance if an outbreak were to occur in Michigan, and DeLuca and Dewilde were in favor. Dewilde: "How many of ya'd like to see a repeat of the black plague?"

     Next, candidates were asked if they knew what the minimum wage was, and whether it should be raised or lowered. Only DeLuca correctly answered the first part of that question, and the field save for DeLuca and Dewilde were against increasing it, with the usual platitudes of "making minimum wage a lifestyle" and "making a career out of a menial job," while Davison said he'd like to get rid of it entirely. DeLuca made the point that if we want people off state aid, "give them a wage they can live on!" She went on to blow out the "high school jobs" narrative with a few choice stats: 80% of minimum wage earners are over 21, and 70% of those are women with one or more dependents. Dewilde took it even further, claiming it should be raised to "between $11 and $12 an hour by the middle of next year, and by 2020 it should be $15 an hour."

     School funding and teacher morale were the next order of business; Landosky's solution was more local control, Peabody claimed Republicans have put more money into schools than Democrats, a point which DeLuca and Howell both challenged. Tuski, Dewilde, and Guererro called out Common Core as a reason for declining teacher morale, and Guererro pointed out expanding class sizes, while both Guererro and Howell railed against forcing teachers to continually take classes themselves. Smith pointed out that federal funding has decreased, and along with Adams called to standardize the per-pupil ratio of funding. Davison questioned why teacher pay is based strictly on seniority as opposed to actual performance.

     Unfunded mandates were the next topic, and the field was largely emphatically against, though Smith passed on the question entirely, Kempf pointed out that they're already illegal, though the state has ways around it, and DeLuca pointed out exactly how they affected revenue sharing in Imlay City. From there, a question was asked about attending local meetings and keeping in contact with constituents. Courser, naturally, deflected the question, going on about his conservative voting record and how difficult it is to communicate with his constituents, while Davison called him out: "It's not that difficult if you've done it before." DeLuca put Courser on blast immediately following that: "We all know legislators have an exorbitant amount of time on their hands... We've seen representatives who ignore, delete constituents that don't agree with them, have a difference of opinion; that's not how you represent your constituents!"

     Finally, the candidates were asked how they would fund state road repairs. Tuski and Adams didn't give any specifics, other than "there's gotta be money there." Courser blamed the road shortfall on Medicaid, welfare, and the MEDC. Davison had the most curious non-answer of all: If you want your roads fixed, "you have to increase the gas tax, and I'm against increasing the gas tax." Which leads one to assume that he wouldn't fix the roads at all. DeLuca claims the current funding formula is flawed, and more of the road money should be given to local municipalities. Dewilde didn't really have any answers either, apart from blaming the roundabout. Guererro blamed overregulation and prevailing wage, while Howell called out misallocation of the current road money on non-road related items. Kempf pointed out a few particular frivolous expenditures, such as Amtrak, bus transit, and traffic control near Michigan International Speedway, and called for the sales tax applied to gas to be directed specifically to roads. Landosky's plan calls for user taxes would cover up to 90% of all road funding, while 10% would come out of the general fund, and he decried subsidies for hybrid vehicles. Peabody's plan calls for 1.5% of the sales tax on gas to go to the roads, repealing prevailing wage (which she claims will save nearly half a billion dollars), dedicating 1% of use tax revenue, redirecting oil and gas royalty revenues to roads, and competitive bidding for state services. Smith called for raising the gas tax, but only if the money were specifically going to roads.

     As for the individual candidates themselves:

     Ian Kempf and Jake Davison acquitted themselves fairly well, even if Davison didn't have quite all the answers I would have liked. Both possess the political experience and the confidence that would imply; Kempf trumpeted his County Commission and Eastern Michigan Fair experience quite frequently, while Davison made no apologies whatsoever for his status as a Lansing "insider."

     Give credit to Margaret Guererro DeLuca; she went up against 11 Republican candidates in a debate hosted by an organization that is pretty well opposed to everything she stands for (and let you know it the second you walked through the door), and she more than held her own, had the facts and numbers to prove her claims, and backed down from nobody. By that same token, I'm extremely disappointed that Eric Johnson and R.D. Bohm, the other Democratic candidates, didn't show.

     It's pretty evident that Gary Howell has not a single fuck left to give; he spent much of the evening calling out both sides of the political spectrum for not getting anything done. In response to a question about seniors, he called out Republicans for eliminating the pension exemption and reducing the homestead tax credit. Agree with his views or not, the man gets points for sincerity, if nothing else; one gets the sense that he's not going to BS anybody.

     Russell Adams: A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Couldn't answer a direct question to save his life, but what he lacked in that he made up in volume, bluster and off-topic tangents.

     Jan Peabody: The train of thought appears to have derailed at the station. Sorry, but there's just no 'there' there, and this debate confirmed it. She too was prone to not answering questions directly and straying entirely off topic on several occasions, and there was really nothing of substance to much of her responses.

     Not overly impressed by Al Landosky and Rick Guererro. Two cases in which a lack of political experience is all too evident, and a lack of preparation even more so.

     Chris Tuski: Your standard, inoffensive, boilerplate bland, politician type. No shock that he's the one associated with an actual former state rep. And a quote like "This is a good time to actually lose your job" comes across as tone-deaf at best, and utterly callous at worst. Nothing to see here.

     Sharna Smith was... there. Though she had a good line about part-time legislature: "What is considered part-time? Because aren't they in session only three days a week; with, like, three times a year they get a vacation for several weeks? That, to me, is already part-time!"

     Jim Dewilde actually kind of impressed me; he had some of the most reasonable and moderate answers of the field, and along with Kempf, made it clear he's willing to work with the other side in Lansing to get things done, something the current state rep refused at all costs.

     And speaking of... I did finally get the chance to interrogate our boy Todd in person, and it went as well as you could expect. So well that, in the middle of a question about Elliott-Larsen and his marriage bills, he gave me a "god bless" and walked away. Big surprise; he can't handle a direct question from anybody. It was an odd exchange, for sure:

     Me: "So, you support employment and housing discrimination against LGBT individuals?"

     Todd: "We agree on one thing: LGBT's shouldn't be a protected class."

     Me: "We don't agree on that at all!"

     Todd: "God bless you." *walks away.*

     Really wish I'd had the chance to ask him about the MEDC in detail. Or if he even knows what that organization actually does. Or why he feels he shouldn't have to reimburse the taxpayers for the cost of this special election, given that he's running for a seat he resigned from a week prior. Or even the question I actually asked him above. If any of you manage to get those answers out of him, do pass them along..

     Did love this quote from his opening statement, though, presented here without context: "If you want someone in Lansing to continue to expose it, I'm the guy to do it."