Watching the 10th District Congressional Debate So You Don't Have To

     And here I thought it'd be a few more months before I did another one of these.

     Though the way the schedule around here has been of late, you could hardly be blamed for thinking it wouldn't show up until November.

     But there are still races to be covered that don't involve the Lapeer County courthouse, so here we are. The state rep's race seems like a formality at this point, with a matchup that sees incumbent Gary Howell running against Democratic challenger Margaret Guererro DeLuca again. So instead, we turn our attention to the 10th District in the House of Representatives, where Candice Miller is stepping down. The Lapeer County and Bluewater Area Tea Party groups hosted a debate on Friday in Port Huron, which you can watch here if you have an hour and a half to kill, but as a public service, I've summed up all their responses for you here.

     First off for the Republicans is State Representative and former Harrison Twp. Supervisor Tony Forlini, elected to a district that splits fairly evenly between Republicans and Democrats, who has hung his hat on his ability to balance a budget. From there, the mic went to Paul Mitchell, who bills himself as a political outsider and the antithesis to the career politician. Having been the CEO of Ross Education for over 20 years, he played up his experience in creating "welfare-to-work" programs in major cities. Next up was State Senator and former St. Clair County Commissioner Phil Pavlov, a guy who wears his Tea Party cred on his sleeve. (Full disclosure: he also doesn't much like it when you question his political views; I've got the social media blocks to prove it.) After that was former State Senator Alan Sanborn, who used most of his introduction to rail against socialism and entitlements. Last up was David VanAssche, an Air Force veteran and an executive at a tech start-up. The lone Democrat running, Frank Accavitti Jr., was a no-show, which is rather disappointing; at least DeLuca showed up to all of the Tea Party debates that were put on, knowing full well she would be facing a less than supportive crowd. As such, with only the Republicans in the building, the questions tended to take a bit of a different tone than the state representative debates prior, with Lapeer Tea Party chair Bill Gavette moderating.

     And as one would expect from a Tea Party-sponsored and moderated debate, the first question was about "moral decay" and what would the candidates would do to stop it. And the answers were about what you would expect from candidates vying for the approval of the Tea Party. Forlini responded by talking about Detroit schools and the lack of parents being present in children's lives. Mitchell blamed a lack of individual accountability and entitlements, again bringing up welfare-to-work programs. Pavlov blamed "the progressive left" for pulling apart the American family, citing the transgender bathroom bills but offering no more details from there. Sanborn put the blame on fathers abandoning their families and taking prayer out of schools. Van Assche also came back to religion and lack of prayer in schools, as well as "Christian-Judeo values."

     Next, the candidates were asked what they'd do to reach out to the political minority in their district. Mitchell stressed communication and listening to all constituents. Pavlov played up his own independent endorsements, while Sanborn pointed out that he'd at one point won 96% of the vote in a previous race because of his willingness to help all of his constituents. VanAssche touched on legislative reform, constituent services, and fighting for federal funding. Forlini went back to his ability to win as a Republican in a district that is a majority Democratic one, and his ability to serve all of his contituents and win over a majority of independents.

     The candidates were then asked what their top priority would be if elected. Pavlov chose the economy, particularly the national debt, and security. Sanborn had a similar response, focusing mostly in prioritizing spending, especially Social Security, for which he said he'd propose a bill that would prevent anyone from drawing from without paying into it. For VanAssche, defense spending was top priority. Forlini cited the lack of financial discipline in the House, while Mitchell suggested fixing or repealing the tax code and lessening regulations to fix economic stagnation.

     From there, they would be asked about border control. Sanborn re-emphasized making Homeland Security a priority, calling for 20,000 additional border guards, and made the claim that more terrorists come in from Canada than Mexico. VanAssche backed Trump's wall, and called for all immigrants who have committed crimes to be rounded up and removed from the country. Forlini pointed to technologically advanced security measures in other countries as examples to go off of. Mitchell pointed out the overemphasis on enforcing tax laws as opposed to protecting borders and denying any refugees from certain areas, while Pavlov brought up his own bills against "sanctuary cities."

     The Orlando shooting and similar acts by American-born citizens were the next subject of discussion, as candidates were asked how they'd address such self-radicalized terrorists. VanAssche stressed the importance of reporting suspicious behavior, Forlini made mention of profiling, defending the practice, while Mitchell claimed a double standard that a Christian church would be shut down for inciting terrorism, but a mosque wouldn't face the same consequences, an assertion with little to back it up, finishing with a jab at Hillary Clinton. Pavlov spoke about addressing the high number of different federal agencies authorized to carry guns and provide security services, and Sanborn promoted allowing teachers to carry guns in schools and capital punishment.

     Education was brought up after that, with Forlini expressing opposition to common core standards. Mitchell blasted the large amount of school funding wasted on bureaucracy, while also blasting common core. Pavlov brought up one of his own bills passed to attempt to replace common core, while Sanborn stressed leaving education to local governments while decrying the Obamacare and gay marriage rulings, and claiming that history isn't taught in school anymore. VanAssche accused common core of "dumbing down" children.

     Farming issues were the next subject. Mitchell talked about a proposed bill that would make regulatory agencies get congressional approval before making regulations with an impact of over $100 million. Pavlov stressed getting the DEQ out of agriculture, while Sanborn advocated canning the EPA director. VanAssche slammed overregulation, claiming that farmers can't find migrant workers because of a "nanny state mentality," but didn't exactly explain how. Forlini also mentioned overregulation and stressed the importance of keeping raw product in-state to be manufactured.

     The Affordable Care Act came up for discussion next, and it's not hard to see where this is going just from Gavette's editorializing that "the system has been a disaster." All the candidates called for it to be repealed, while Sanborn and Mitchell promoted the idea of buying insurance across state lines, Pavlov and VanAssche emphasized patient-doctor relationships, and Forlini lamented the "Walmart-ization" of health care and that a few national corporations have been allowed to maintain a stranglehold on health insurance without lowering prices.

     From there, it was on to gun rights, or as it was phrased by the moderator, "constitutional carry." This resulted in some interesting responses, as all five played to the base here, each emphasizing how much they support the NRA. Sanborn bragged about his A+ rating by the NRA and railed against gun-free zones. VanAssche went on a tangent about "socialist liberals" supporting gun control, Forlini went after the NFL for banning guns at Lions games, Mitchell used his time to criticize the Democrats for supporting legislation that would ban people on the government terror watch lists from purchasing weapons, and Pavlov pointed to his record in the state Senate on pro-gun legislation.

     When asked if they'd make it a priority to prosecute those in government involved in corruption, all said yes, with Sanborn, never one to miss an opportunity to throw in an off-topic tangent, adding "and we can start with Planned Parenthood." The candidates were then asked what distinguished them from their competition. Forlini promoted his record of getting better services out of a smaller budget, Mitchell played up his business experience and welfare-to-work program, Pavlov went back to his record in the state legislature, Sanborn reminded the audience of his conservative record, fiscally and socially, and VanAssche pointed to his military record and experience running a tech firm.

     Finally, the field was asked about the strengths and positives they saw in the government and no, the irony of the Tea Party asking politicians to say something nice about government isn't lost on your humble correspondent. Mitchell singled out the military, Pavlov pointed to the Constitution and a few particular decisions made by the Supreme Court, Sanborn noted that he was elected on 9/11 and blamed Obama for racism and hostility towards cops, and VanAssche offered one word: "liberty." Forlini ended with this: "Our greatest asset is our brand... how many people around the world strive to be American?"

     Ultimately, it's a rather interesting field offered here. Surprisingly, Mitchell didn't mention once during the course of the evening his role in defeating the abomination of a roads bill known as Proposal 1, a point that he's played up during much of his campaign. Forlini appears to be the candidate most likely to appeal to independents and those outside of the Tea Party fold; he referred quite frequently to his experience in balancing budgets in his comments, and given his success in a state House district not nearly as favorable to Republicans as the congressional seat he's vying for here, he'd no doubt fare very well in the general election. VanAssche came through strong on issues of defense and security, a given with his background, but lacked a bit on others. Pavlov referenced his record in the state legislature the most of any of the established politicians, a smart move in most election seasons, but with two competitors making much of their status as political outsiders, it has the potential to backfire on him this time around. And Sanborn seemed tailor-made for this crowd: an unapologetic conservative fiscally and socially, not above tossing out red meat to the base anywhere he can find an opportunity to do so, though that won't help him much in the general election or even among the moderates voting in the primary.

     It doesn't appear that any more debates are confirmed at the moment; hopefully that changes at some point between now and August. For one, it'd be nice to see the Democratic candidate show up to the party and to see if he can hold his own against his potential opponents; two, it'd be great to give Lapeer County voters the chance to see them all in person at once without an hour-plus drive, particularly in a race in which Lapeer is often marginalized considering the boundaries of the district. (And possibly a more impartial line of questioning; I appreciate that the Tea Party folk are even hosting these forums, but seriously, the very first question is about "moral decay"?)

     And with so much going on closer to home, this is one race that has the potential to be overlooked.

     Though in all reality, it might also be one of the most important.

Hints, Allegations And Things Left Unproven

     This election cycle in Lapeer County might be one of the nastiest in recent memory.

     And it's not even because of anything any candidates are saying publicly, a fact made all the more shocking by the fact that Todd Courser is running for office yet again.

     And it's not even the state representative's race that has been so heated this time around; that one seems almost a mere formality at this point. Instead, the attention is on two races that normally go unnoticed by most; county prosecutor, and county sheriff. In most years, the incumbents for those positions would likely win rather handily. But there's been much controversy surrounding those races of late, mostly relating to the Byron Konschuh "Donut-gate" alleged scandal and Lapeer Schools Superintendent Matt Wandrie's hit-and-run incident, and has been fueled primarily by the Lapeer County Corruption Page on Facebook.

     Now, normally this isn't a space I'd waste on an anonymous bomb-thrower on Facebook, as I'm much more interested by actual politicians and the things they're doing and saying, as well as the instances where those two things . But the fact that so many are buying into the nonsense this page is spewing, combined with personal attacks on friends of mine, hasn't left me much choice.

     I'll start off by saying this: I have no dog in this fight. The few relationships I have with anybody in the Sheriff's Department are through mutual involvement in the local music scene, and in fact I've been asked about joining up with one of the sheriff candidates' campaigns, by somebody outside of the department itself, but I have no intention of doing so, as I can't throw my support fully around any of the candidates running. And as for the prosecutor's race, the only skin I have in the game there is making sure Todd Courser never gets elected to another public office in this county again. (Not that he needs my help.) Hell, I've never even met Turkelson or Sharkey, probably won't, and I'm entirely fine with that. And again, I'm not endorsing anybody in this race, in part because I don't want my reputation being dragged through the mud by being directly involved in that situation, and in part because I'd like to keep my options open if any of them decide to take Courser's new radio home up on their offer of free airtime and would like a co-host with actual radio experience.

     See that? It's called full disclosure. I know that's a foreign concept to the Corruption Page, but it lends a bit of credibility to the things you say. Oh, sorry, I suppose now I have to explain what credibility means...

     So at the outset, the focus was squarely on Turkelson, with a post of a body shot being done off of him at a retirement party eight years prior. Not exactly sure where corruption comes into play there, as body shots aren't exactly a crime, so we'll move on. Of course, Wandrie-gate would be the next big story to cover, with the implication that Turkelson let the superintendent off easy because of their relationship outside of the case, the proof of which seems limited to the fact that both serve on boards of the same charitable organizations. Wait a minute... you mean to tell me that highly visible politicians and people like school superintendents get involved with charity work, sometimes even -gasp- with the same charities? Why, I've never heard of such a thing! Of course, that would be all well and good, until the county treasurer and sheriff candidate Scott McKenna got dragged into the mud with a web of supposed cover-ups, ties and associations that would make even the most diehard conspiracy theorist's head spin.

     Then there's the attacks on McKenna's character, which just get more outlandish by the day. First, there was the postings about McKenna having been drinking at the same Literacy Center function at which Superintendent Hit-and-Run was busted. For the life of me, I'm still trying to figure out what this proves about McKenna. That he enjoys the occasional drink out in public? If that's the case, then virtually every public office holder is disqualified from doing so. Elsewhere in the comments, another busybody chimed in complaining that McKenna and other parents were drinking at a banquet for the Lapeer Jr. Lightning, which wasn't a school function, therefore not illegal or against any rules. Now, I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on the radio, but I'm pretty sure that there's no law that says you aren't allowed to consume alcohol at any function that benefits children, or where children are present. If there were, I'm pretty sure every open house I ever attended, or any school fundraiser ever hosted by a bar, would have been shut down. So to say that this is a bit of a stretch is probably understating things.

     It gets better from there, or stupider depending on your view. It was found out that a McKenna sign was placed at the home of a convicted sexual offender. The implication there being that anybody running for public office obviously endorses everybody that places one of their signs in their yard. Which is possibly the most ridiculous conclusion that could have possibly been reached. Do these people honestly believe that candidates are doing background checks on the owners and residents of any property on which they place a sign? Or that said candidates are personally placing all the signs themselves, and know exactly where each one is? The original post claimed McKenna's parents personally installed the sign and live across the street, claims which have both been called into question.

     Finally, brace yourselves for the brain cells you're about to lose trying to figure this one out. Recently it was revealed that a man in Flushing is suspected of having ties to ISIS. His whereabouts seem rather sketchy at best; reports claim he apparently graduated high school in Colorado, was a student at a university in Sudan, and disappeared off the face of the earth altogether sometime last year. How does this possibly relate to a guy running for sheriff in Lapeer? Well, McKenna was police chief in Mt. Morris Township, where th guy's family still resides, and... clearly he... should have... stopped this guy from joining ISIS... somehow? I'm sorry, but Evel Knievel couldn't have made these leaps. The FBI is following this guy, it's not known if he has any ties to any other potential ISIS recruits in Flint, and even the FBI doesn't have any answers. Hell, the Genesee County sheriff was "faintly aware" at best! How in the world does the blame fall on McKenna's shoulders? What exactly is he supposed to have done that the freakin' FBI hasn't been able to?!

     Of course, it's not enough to slam the people running for office; even their friends and supporters aren't safe. A sheriff's deputy went to bat for McKenna, and wound up attacked for it on this page, with some veiled threats to "connect the dots," whatever those would be. For a site that claims not to traffic in rumors and innuendo, they certainly don't seem to have a problem with it when it suits them.

     It's a damn shame the owner of this page couldn't stay out of the mud, because there's a lot here worth looking at and quite a bit of potential wrongdoing. Obviously Wandrie is in the wrong for his actions, and his attempts to diffuse the situation by sending out snarky letters to parents lambasting social media instead of the guy that hit a car so hard he pushed it into another car, and calling over 8 grand in damage a "minor fender-bender," are helping his cause none. And Turkelson doesn't exactly come across as a choirboy either, but I'm kind of a fan of factual evidence, and that's in short supply here. And there are no doubt legitimate reasons to not support McKenna; for one, the fact that after raising two millages, he still had to downsize his force, doesn't bode well for a much larger force at a department that supposedly returns money to the county every year. But none of them have anything to do with sex offenders, alcohol or ISIS.

     Truthfully, I debated on whether or not this page was even worth addressing. But there appear to be quite a few people out there, some that I do respect, that are buying into unsubstantiated rumors and innuendo posted by sources that won't sign their names to them, and if there's two things I hate, it's people that post unsubstantiated rumors as fact without signing their names to them, and anonymous bomb-throwers slandering good and decent people. Clearly I don't exactly pull punches on this page, and a few people have taken exception to the things I post here and let me know it. But of course, my name and face are tied to this thing fairly prominently (this blog is only tied to my Facebook account and all), and I don't think that anybody that reads this thing is exactly unaware at this point of who I am, what I do, and why I do it. But we don't exactly have that same courtesy with the Corruption Page; how do we know the author isn't somebody with a personal score to settle against any of the above parties? Say, somebody who's very close to a former challenger to the incumbent sheriff that might have had their own brush with the law. The motives behind this page are becoming fairly clear, as are the people responsible, and both will be brought to light in time if they continue to smear third parties that have done nothing wrong. Certainly it would be in Kalanquin and Sharkey's best interest to speak out against and distance themselves from the nonsense being spewed on it.

     Because anybody who's willing to plant skeletons in people's closets ought not protest too much when their own are found out.

     And in a town where everybody knows everybody, they always will be eventually.