State Republicans Put Contempt For Voters, Voting On Full Display

     At this point, the democratic process hardly means a damn thing in Michigan.

     Because no matter what the will of the people might be, the state legislature will find a way around it.

     As you may have heard, the State Senate has approved a House bill that would end straight-ticket voting in the state of Michigan. Which isn't exactly the worst thing to happen; 41 other states also eliminated the practice, and it's hard to argue that anything that forces voters to look more closely at who they vote into office is inherently a bad thing.

     But in this case, the devil's in the details. Namely in a $5 million appropriation added onto the bill that would render it unable to ever be repealed by voters via referendum. The State House had also tie-barred another bill to it that would have called for no-reason absentee voting, but Sen. Majority Leader Arlen Meekhof made clear that the Senate would remove that tie-bar, which they did by a 20-17 vote. The House has yet to approve the bill without said tie-bar, but most signs would seem to indicate that they will.

     Now, I'm not here to argue that eliminating straight-ticket voting is a bad thing in and of itself. Naturally, as most liberals in the state believe that it disenfranchises Democratic voters in more liberal urban areas by causing longer lines at the polls, many of them stand staunchly against the bill. Yet, seeing how GOP lawmakers in Kansas are trying to reintroduce straight-party voting as they feel it will give them the advantage, that point seems hardly a given. And I'm not concerned at all as to which party gains the advantage on this; after all, how else could Todd Courser have won by as much as he did in 2014, if not for straight-ticket voting?

     What is rather infuriating about the process, however, is that lawmakers, knowing that similar bills have twice been passed by the legislature and twice been repealed by voters, have made this law essentially democracy-proof. Under the state Constitution, any bill passed containing any sort of financial appropriation is no longer subject to voter referendum, meaning that voters in Michigan can never overturn it if passed. This has been a popular tactic by the Republican legislature when passing bills they know voters will find unfavorable; we saw it earlier this year with the attempt at no-fault "reform," before that with the emergency manager law, and with the right-to-work(-for-less) legislation that was passed.

     It's also hard to argue against cries of voter suppression when the Senate goes out of its way to remove the one protection this bill had against vote suppression. No-reason absentee voting would have at least alleviated the wait at the polls for those who, for whatever reason (and quite frankly, the reason shouldn't matter), can't make it to their polling station on election day, and the concerted effort to deny that only gives credence to claims that this is purely a political ploy by the party in power in order to retain that power.

     Furthermore, this sort of tactic only proves the point that those currently in charge in Lansing care not in the slightest for the opinions of their constituents. The insistence on ramming through the same road bill that voters soundly rejected earlier this year should have been proof enough in itself that no matter what the people want, it will be soundly ignored by those who claim to represent you.

     Despite their best efforts, however, that still doesn't have to be the case. And the voters of this state need to make their voice heard, the only way that any politician seems to understand these days.

     Unfortunately, that might mean an extra few minutes out of your day next November.

     But that should be a sacrifice worth making to send the message to Lansing about who truly holds the power here.

Starbucks Ruins Christmas For Everyone. Or, Much Ado About A Coffee Cup.

     It's the most annoying time of the year.

     That time when a coffee cup somehow turns into a cultural battleground.

     We're only a week past Halloween, and already the self-righteous culture warrior brigade has found something trivial to be up in arms about. So, in the last possible topic I ever expected to have to write about in a serious manner, and the last possible thing I ever expected anyone could be legitimately upset over, Starbucks recently introduced it's cup design for the holiday season, and people are furious. Why, you ask? Because this year... they're just plain red cups with the company logo on them. While I can't imagine the good people at Solo are enthused about Starbucks encroaching on their territory, there's apparently a far greater outrage in all of this.

     As you've come to expect right now, the usual pandering suspects on the right are raising hell about this. I came across a link from a site called Right Wing News, which apparently decided accuracy was no longer a priority two words into their name. One of their writers spews this gem:

     Obviously normal people who are offended by the anti-Christmas ratchet tightening each year don’t count. In a country run by cultural Marxists, normal people never count. That they have been systematically eradicating Christmas tells you all you need to know about progressives.

     I wasn't aware that taking Christmas greetings off cups that never had them was "eradicating" Christmas, nor that snowflakes are the exclusive domain of the Christian religion, but what the hell do I know. So that's why it never snows at my house on Christmas.

     Then, there's the reason anybody's talking about this at all. In a video I have no intention of linking to because screw giving any more pageviews to a guy who tagged every conservative news outlet (and, oddly, MSNBC) in the comments to his own video, evangelical something-or-other and noted half-witted troll Josh Feuerstein came up with the brilliant idea of going into Starbucks, ordering coffee, and when asked for a name, telling the server his name was "Merry Christmas." Wow, you really showed those godless liberals, Josh! Because what better way to protest a business than by making it a point to go and patronize that business? I'm sure you'll be shocked by this, but Starbucks employees do typically still wish you a merry Christmas anyway (so I'm told; you'll never catch me paying for their overpriced coffee), and I doubt they care that you think you're somehow getting one over on them by making them write it on your cup. But nobody ever accused Feuerstein of making sense, or backing up his points with logic, or thinking in general. This, mind you, is the same man who screamed about a "Christian holocaust" when Kim Davis was jailed, and recorded a 'take-down' of evolution which really doesn't, though in his defense, it's really unfair to the monkeys to suggest Feuerstein is more intellectually evolved than them.

     And then there's Breitbart, the website that continues to carry on its late founder's legacy of being wrong about absolutely everything, often to a libelous extent. One of their writers went so far as to declare this injustice "Emblematic Of The Christian Culture Cleansing Of The West," without a hint of irony to be found. Never mind that Starbucks still prominently sells their "Christmas Blend" and offers gift cards with all the cutesy Christmas drawings you could possibly want. Oh, and Advent calendars. Yes, the godless heathens sell Advent calendars. "Frankly, the only thing that could redeem them from this whitewashing of Christmas is to print Bible verses on their cups next year." Did I miss the year that their cups featured baby Jesus in a manger with a pumpkin spice latte? There's never been any sort of religious display on a Starbucks cup, unless snowmen and ornaments are now religious symbols.

     Finally, presidential candidate Biff Tannen, who has yet to find an issue he can't make all about himself, decided to join in the fray, calling for a boycott of Starbucks, presumably by making them build the most luxurious wall ever around each one then kicking them out, despite having one as a tenant at Trump Tower. "If I become president, we're all gonna be saying 'Merry Christmas' again." And while I can see why the President's Committee on Holiday Greetings is being made a top priority here, that really leaves me with more questions than answers. Such as, "how is this schmuck the Republican front-runner?"

     It is somewhat refreshing, though, to see that many of the folks that usually perpetuate this culture war nonsense have been silent, if not outright condemning the likes of Feuerstein and Breitbart.
Even Sarah freakin' Palin came out against the uproar, though not without the usual dig at "the Left" as if we're the same kind of monolith that Christians despise being portrayed as (as well they should). When Sarah Palin is on the right side of an issue and you aren't, you're doing something horribly, horribly wrong.

     I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again before all is said and done. Christians: You don't hold exclusive rights to the last two months of the year. If every store you go into doesn't have at least three nativity scenes set up in front of it, or Christmas music blaring from the speakers, it doesn't mean they're trying to oppress you. Look up the actual meaning of that word if you're still confused. Everybody else: Let 'em have their holiday. Do you really need to boycott your kid's band concert and raise unholy hell because they played "Silent Night"? Just take your day off (or your time-and-a-half) and let everyone else enjoy their day.

     But honestly, the cynic in me can't help but think this was all part of the plan, and that we're probably all playing into their hands by giving this any coverage at all. Starbucks had to know there'd be some level of scrutiny applied to them over anything that could even possibly been interpreted as anti-Christmas, as tends to happen in these circles when your CEO is unabashedly liberal.

     I've gotta believe they're loving every bit of the free publicity this has brought them.

     Over something as simple as a cup of coffee.

Toddwatch 2015: The Aftermath

     Finally, the nightmare is over.

     At least until he runs again.

     Can you really ever discard that as a possibility?

     Indeed, it's true: Lapeer County's favorite embarrassment lost his bid for re-election, and it wasn't even close.

     The surprising part is the actual victor: not presumptive front-runner Jan Peabody, nor Imlay City favorite Ian Kempf, nor Kevin Daley-approved Chris Tuski, but attorney Gary Howell, who won with 3,076 votes. In second place was Peabody with 2,418 votes; apparently, her most recent mailer featuring the unfortunate endorsement of the unfortunate John Stahl, complete with the two of them standing on the front of it looking completely bewildered, wasn't enough to pull her over her biggest rival. Tuski finished 22 votes behind her, and Kempf finished fourth with 2,069, proving once again that running a clean campaign simply doesn't work. No other candidate cleared 1,000, including Courser himself (415 would be his final tally, good for sixth), and two candidates, Jim DeWilde and Allan Landosky, didn't even clear 100. Combined.

     On the Democratic side, Margaret Guererro DeLuca demolished noted moonbat R.D. Bohm and Eric Johnson combined by over 2,000 votes, with Johnson somehow doubling Bohm's total despite not showing up for anything until the Democrat-only debate.

      As for the general election, a few things remain to be seen; namely, whether any write-in candidates will take a shot at the seat. And no doubt I'll have plenty of things to say about them, and plenty of questions to ask. But there truly are no losers here. Despite my disappointment in his recent mailers going after Peabody, Howell is still about as straight a shooter and a decent man as they come. Proof that sincerity will get you a long way. Likewise, no one can doubt DeLuca knows that of which she speaks, and she's got all the facts and numbers to back up her stances. Truthfully, I wouldn't be entirely disappointed with either being sent to Lansing, though regular readers can guess which one I'd throw my support behind.

     And finally, I'd like to address the guy who started this whole mess. As the old saying goes, you can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you're a fool if you think you can fool all the people all the time. Thankfully, the voters of Lapeer County were smart enough to realize the mistake made and remove you from office, but not before you wasted $120,000 of our money on an election to replace you, made this county look foolish on a national scale, and left Lapeer unrepresented for the next four months. And sure, it looks like you'll get your "20/20" segment and cry about how badly you were treated, and how the progressive liberal conservatives destroyed your career, and speak up for the millions of families out there suffering from... adulterous husbands screwing their co-workers, then covering it up with taxpayer funds? I'm not really sure where you were going with that one.

     But take this as a lesson learned: there's only so much you can screw people over, deny it, cover it up, and then show no remorse for it, before they wise up and stop allowing you to take advantage of them. And it's the lack of repentance for your actions, complete lack of sympathy for the people whose lives you damaged, and continued denial of wrongdoing in the face of all your wrongdoing, that truly eliminates all benefit of the doubt. Know too, should you ever try and run for office again: plugging your ears and ignoring the voice of your constituents is the quickest way to make enemies of them. (Especially if they have a blog and way too much time on their hands.)

     I'm sure we'll have to hear about how the world has conspired against you, between those evil liberal progressive Republicans, the biased progressive conservatives at the Detroit News, and about how you were the lone voice of reason at the state House, who simply wanted nothing more than to enact Christian Sharia law in this state while making sure any issues that might be important to your constituents remained completely unattended to. Truly, you were the victim in all this, not the people you threw under the bus or refused to represent. Unfortunately for you, however, the people of Lansing and Lapeer finally saw you for what you really are, and you got exactly what you deserved.

     And now, having given Lapeer a black eye on a national stage, I sincerely hope you'll be smart enough to go away for a good long while.

     But I sincerely doubt it.

The Authoritative Guide To Tuesday's Election

     At long last, our long local nightmare comes to an end.

     On Tuesday, Lapeer County voters will head to the polls to determine, among other things, who will next represent them in Lansing. And while I'm somewhat sad for the loss of the seemingly endless source of material that was Todd Courser's political career, somebody has to do the job he was voted in to do. And unless it's the independent that already announced a campaign, it will be one of these 14 folks:

     (Note: the links in this next section are to the Facebook pages of each candidate's campaign. I felt this would serve as the easiest method for those who wish to get in direct contact with the candidates. The exceptions: Howell and Dewilde's personal profiles are listed, as they appear to be using them in lieu of a campaign page; Johnson has no link, as he doesn't even appear to have a Facebook account or website; and Bohm has no link, as I'm fairly certain he views the internet as some sort of sorcery.)

     Russell Adams- One of three candidates running with zero experience as a politician or business owner, nor any political endorsement. Surprisingly independent for being a Republican in Lapeer County. VOTE IF: Being a "political outsider" is something that's important to you, and you're absolutely serious about this.

     R.D. Bohm- Has about as much contempt for Republicans and stories with a point as Courser does to Democrats and... well, most Republicans. VOTE IF: Freeways to nowhere and bases on the moon are your thing; wearing an onion on your belt was the style back in your day.

     Todd Courser- Because why wouldn't you run for the same office you just resigned from, a week after you resigned from it? VOTE IF: You wish to finally destroy my faith in my fellow man.

     Jake Davison- If you like your politicians experienced, but with the appearance of a high school senior, Jake's your guy. Would like you to know that he is, indeed, King Shit. Would also like you to know that you won't have to worry about him wasting your money covering up a sex scandal, mostly because he's currently single. (Ladies.) Despite being the youngest candidate, actually has the most Lansing experience of anybody running, as a former employee of longtime state rep/senator Jud Gilbert. VOTE IF: You want your experienced politicians to have said experience in the actual office they're running for; you wanna hear him sing "Roundabout" by Yes at his victory celebration. (And trust me, you want this.)

     Margaret Guererro DeLuca- Former Imlay City mayor, lost to Courser last time around. Can quote seemingly endless statistics, facts and data to back up her platform, and is not afraid to let you know it. VOTE IF: You're one of maybe five supporters of hers that somehow doesn't think she has the Dem nomination locked up already.

     James DeWilde- Also looking to change his party from within, but moving in the opposite direction as the incumbent. Easily the most socially liberal of the Republican candidates, yet fiscally conservative, and one of the few with a background in economic development. Truly a damn shame his campaign got so little traction behind it; he'd have made a fine candidate on either side of the political fence, in a far less crowded field. VOTE IF: You like your Republicans to be not-so-Republican.

     Rick Guererro Jr.- Todd Courser Lite. Hasn't done much to downplay that association, either. VOTE IF: You, for some reason, want to vote for Todd Courser, but without all the adultery, fire and brimstone.

     Gary Howell- Can't believe this shit. Is getting too old for this shit. Has had enough of this shit. At least that's the image he's projected so far, anyway. But for a guy who's claimed he won't run again after he serves this term, he sure has put a lot of time and money into mailers attacking Jan Peabody, accusing her of being funded by "liberal" billionaire Dick DeVos. If the man who brought you the world's largest somehow-legal pyramid scheme, a man further to the right than even the Koch brothers themselves, is a liberal, then what does that make me? Joseph Stalin? VOTE IF: You've had enough of this shit, but not enough not to support a guy who keeps perpetuating it.

     Eric Johnson- He does exist! Johnson came out of hiding for Thursday's debate, just long enough to remind us that he told the County Press that he's running as a Democrat because it's an easier fight. Probably should have stayed in hiding. VOTE IF: ...you want to prove him right about that? I got nothin'.

     Ian Kempf- Helped bring back the Eastern Michigan Fair from the brink; has been a county commissioner for a good decade and a half. The one front-runner that hasn't done any negative campaigning whatsoever. Easily the most difficult guy to make jokes about in this whole race. VOTE IF: You're looking for the closest thing to real experience short of actually being in Lansing, or a guy that can stand on his own merit without mudslinging; you want to ensure this blog goes dormant for a good long while.

     Allan Landosky- Who? VOTE IF: Seriously, who?

     Jan Peabody- If ever there were an establishment-approved Republican in this race, the chair of the Lapeer County Republican Party is it. And there's a reason she keeps getting hammered over the amount of contributions coming from outside lobbying groups. Would almost certainly de-friend me on Facebook if she read literally a single thing I've ever posted. VOTE IF: Communication skills aren't a high priority for you; you really don't care about how much of a role outside lobbyist money plays in local politics.

     Sharna Smith- Ran last year, played spoiler to ensure Courser's primary victory. Decent candidate who has served her township well in her current position, but nothing particularly makes her stand out from most of her competition. VOTE IF: ...I'm still trying to answer that from the last election.

     Chris Tuski- Not much of note to differentiate him from the field, other than the endorsement of previous state rep Kevin Daley (supposedly in part to keep him from running against Daley for state Senate in the last election, but that's neither here nor there.) VOTE IF: You'd rather have had Kevin Daley serve a fourth term.

     All jokes aside, there's several candidates I feel would absolutely be worthy of the job, and at this point, it seems that damn near every candidate has stood in my line of fire at one point or another, whether in-person or via Facebook. And except for the incumbent, every single one engaged me in conversation and attempted to answer the questions I had for them. In particular, Kempf and Davison have taken the most of my interrogation outside of the debates and managed to answer most of my questions in a satisfactory manner; Guererro and I sparred a bit on Facebook over my first debate recap, and Adams let me have it a bit as well! I've spoken in person with all of the above and DeLuca, DeWilde, Peabody, Bohm, and Johnson; other than Courser, all of them have been nothing but gracious and respectful to a guy that has been fairly blunt in sharing his opinions of them all!

     I've held off on making endorsements on the Republican side so far in this campaign. The reason for this is fairly simple: as many of you know, I was involved in a primary campaign for this very race last year, for somebody I considered a good friend and a great supporter of my musical endeavors over the last few years. After the election, there was something of a falling out between us, and for this cycle, I'd like to avoid a repeat of that. That said, I did play a fundraiser in this cycle for Davison, whose father I consider a great friend and a stand-up guy. And while there are a few lesser-known candidates whose views align more with my own (in an alternate universe with a smaller field, Jim DeWilde would be getting my vote without a doubt), of the front-runners on the Republican side, Kempf and Davison are the best options to be had. Both have the political experience the job demands, and both have run clean campaigns without the all-too-typical mudslinging and endless bombardment of phone calls. As for the Democratic side, it's been fairly obvious to me for a while that DeLuca is the only logical choice for the nomination.

     Then there's the Lapeer City Commissioner's race. Eight candidates are running for four spots: Mike Robinet and the oft-outspoken John Lyons are stepping down, while Catherine Bostick and A. Wayne Bennett are the incumbents running again. Despite the ubiquitous presence of "We Love Lapeer" signs around town (a campaign of his that never went any further than the actual signs), I can't, in good conscience, endorse a man who helped Courser to evade questioning for his actions and has continued to support him, nor a man who publicly referred to homosexuality as an "abomination" immediately following the Supreme Court ruling; as such, A. Wayne Bennett will not be getting my vote. Running against them are Glenn Alverson, Josh Atwood, Deb Marquardt, Mary Miracle, Erik Reinhardt, and Michael Stuart. Marquardt served admirably up until the last election, when a last-minute change of heart about running resulted in her name being left off the ballot. As far as the newcomers go, I've managed to find very little information on most of them, but Atwood has easily done the most campaigning of any candidate, made himself readily accessible to voters, and as a downtown business owner, has put his money where his mouth is. The man came into the most cynical group of people in Lapeer County (Lapeer Sound Off on Facebook) and was grilled about everything from his age, to his business experience, to, for some reason, his beard, and put a great deal of thought into his responses. As such, I have great confidence in his ability to work with residents and business owners alike and bring new ideas to the city commission, and I give him my full endorsement. (Plus, the beard is pretty sweet!)

     If ever there were a silver lining to the dark cloud hanging over Lapeer County for the last year, it's the fact that having a national political scandal happening in your hometown does wonders for voter interest and engagement. I haven't seen this many people this invested in what their local elected officials are doing at any point in the 14 years I've lived in Lapeer; you'd be amazed how many couldn't tell you the name of the mayor of this city! (Uh... it's Bill something-or-other, isn't it?)

     In keeping with that, if I can ask one thing of everybody reading here, it's this: Vote. And be informed. Read the write-ups of the debates that were held. Hell, watch the videos of the first two. See for yourself what all of the candidates stand for. I've even provided the links to the Facebook pages of each campaign so you can see what they believe in their own words, or pester them for yourselves and ask them whatever questions you feel haven't been satisfactorily answered yet. And if you really want to know the kind of man the incumbent is, read this and follow the links; there's 40 of them in that post alone, which link to either the man's own words, his own actions, or the many instances where the two wildly differ.

     Finally, I leave you with this: if ever you should, for even a second, think to yourself that maybe, just maybe, this whole process has humbled our last representative in the slightest, that he might just feel some shame and remorse for what he's done to the people of Lapeer County, remember that the man himself asked us this a few days ago:

     If that doesn't say it all, I don't know what does.

Survey Time With Todd Courser... Again.

     Well, here's that final outburst of crazy I promised earlier this week.

     So, once again, Todd Courser has allegedly sent out a survey to gauge to opinion of his former constituents, and it's an interesting poll to say the least. Now, I've heard of political types sending out surveys that are designed to subconsciously favor certain answers and a certain political viewpoint. But this... this is more badly-written campaign ad than badly-written survey.

     (Editor's note: This survey was first brought to my attention by Laura Cline, wife of ex-Courser staffer Joshua Cline. While I can understand the skepticism from some corners, this survey is so identical in tone and phrasing to Courser's own typical rambling, it's hard to imagine it coming from anyone other than the man himself.)

     

     Big shocker: when all else fails, Todd attacks everyone he's running against. I'm not at all a fan of Jan Peabody, and refuse to support her in any election, but there is absolutely no proof to back up the second claim Courser makes about her here, nor the ones made against Gary Howell. And Davison did work for the Koch-backed Americans For Prosperity at one point, the same group that backed Todd last time around, so take that (and Courser's attacks on Jud Gilbert, another former Davison employer who is ten times the public servant Courser could ever hope to be) how you will. (Also: note that Rick Guererro is the one candidate he has nothing negative to say about.)

     While it's not surprising that Courser can't imagine that anybody could possibly not be as militantly anti-abortion, nor that anyone wouldn't want as many people to have guns as possible regardless of mental or criminal history, it's worth noting that several of the things he has proposed are already illegal. And let it also be noted that no, Courser has not been ruled out as a suspect, and that yes, it's going to take more than 24 hours for prosecutor Tim Turkelson to review the case and formally press charges. Apparently, justice can't move fast enough when it's convenient for Todd.

     Because there are so many damn communists in Lapeer County, right? And I can't help but feel like question number 5 implies another slam at a group Courser doesn't have the slightest bit of respect for...

     Another one of Courser's many logical fallacies, this one implying that a politician who works with the other party and acknowledges the opinions of those he disagrees with is somehow a negative, despite most of his constituents disagreeing with that assessment.

     In recent days, Gary Howell has greatly turned me off as a potential voter, but that has nothing to do with the baseless assertions posited here. The idea that independent voters shouldn't have any say in who the candidates are in general elections is positively asinine, and as a guy who has trumpeted his support for eliminating straight-ticket voting, a rather hypocritical stance to take.

    Again, GLEP has several knocks against it, but supporting common core isn't one for most actual teachers. And any proof on that abortion claim, either? Not that she'd have any legal right to deny RU486 to anyone (which would be what Todd is referring to here), but there's no proof that she ever prescribed it to anyone.

     No political hit, and said "enemies" did testify. Next...

     Then why did he admit to wrongdoing, then try and deny it while claiming he "never read the report?" Makes one wonder what other things he didn't read that he voted on...

     Another favorite tactic of Todd's seems to be dismissing interaction with his constituents as "pancake/spaghetti dinners." Because why should the people that elected this bozo be able to engage him for any reason or get answers from him? Sorry, Todd, but communication is a two-way street.

     Now, obviously I'm not exactly a conservative, but why should Courser expect any majority of support when he's publicly acknowledged that he takes zero consideration for anyone that opposes his agenda, despite there being a sizable amount of voters in town that do oppose him. And of course, there's the usual whining about the "liberal media," despite the fact that the paper that broke the news about his misdeeds, the rather conservative Detroit News, endorsed him and Gamrat in the last election. And the local paper, the County Press, endorsed two other Republicans this time around, Howell and Ian Kempf. Not exactly liberal folk. But clearly anybody to the left of Courser is a flaming liberal...

     But sadly, that's not even close to all... two more surveys were sent out to try and boost public opinion, and they're every bit as absurd as this one. Further proof that Todd Courser is simply incapable of accepting responsibility for his actions, and... seriously, the man thinks he could be president? 

     If ever you needed concrete evidence of just how delusional this man is, here it is.

     (Thanks to Laura Cline and Carson Lucas for their help in compiling all of this!)

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."