Even when we're not making national headlines.
Much has been made in recent weeks over the races for Lapeer County Sheriff and Prosecutor, with enough mudslinging to make Todd Courser blush. The prosecutor's race, one that typically gets little to no attention, has essentially become a referendum on the Byron Konschuh issue, with incumbent Tim Turkelson the man who first brought the issue to the state attorney general, and challenger Mike Sharkey the man who represented Konschuh at trial. And Courser, who has his own axe to grind with Turkelson, is also running, but you'd never know that by the complete lack of campaigning on his part.
As for the sheriff's race, Ron Kalanquin jumped in at the literal last minute, supposedly because his hand-picked successor dropped out due to health concerns. But that too has become an extension of the above race, with challenger Scott McKenna being inextricably tied to Turkelson, leading both of their opponents to gang up and try to kill two birds with one stone. It's hard to imagine a race for this office ever having been as nasty as this one, and that's saying a lot, considering one of Kalanquin's challengers in the last election was a guy that had lawsuits brought against (and settled by) the departments he worked for because of his actions. (And oddly enough, that guy has now thrown his full support behind Kalanquin.) Compared to him, McKenna and Dave Eady might as well be choirboys. And there was a "meet-the-candidates" forum last Tuesday focusing on those races, but since no video seems to exist and your humble corespondent was unable to attend, there's not much to be said here about that.
Despite their stranglehold on local media coverage, however, those aren't the only races facing Lapeer County on August 2nd, and might not even be the most important. Candice Miller is stepping down from the House of Representatives after her current term, and the race is on to replace her. And on Thursday night, another attempt was made by the Young Republicans of Lapeer County to round up the candidates vying to be the 10th District's next congressional representative. Admittedly, the candidate turnout was more dismal than the last one; only Paul Mitchell, Phil Pavlov, and Tony Forlini made an appearance. Former state senator Alan Sanborn and political newcomer David Van Assche were both invited but chose not to attend; read that how you will as to how much they care about the county in their district that isn't Macomb or St. Clair. (Note that both were in attendance for a Macomb County GOP-sponsored debate two days before moderated by Fox 2's Charlie Langton and longtime Detroit morning radio fixture Jim "JJ" Johnson. That debate may yet be covered here this week, time permitting.) The full video of the debate can be found here, but you know the drill: politicians say things, I write 'em here.
The first question concerned
The Affordable Care Act was the next subject, with candidates being asked if they'd repeal it, and how they'd replace or reform it. Forlini, a health insurance agent, criticized higher rates and a lack of choices, calling for a full repeal, though he didn't say what he'd replace it with. Pavlov also called for a full repeal, making the claim that "you can't have a relationship with your doctor anymore" and attacked the very idea of the federal government being involved in health care. Mitchell was the only candidate to actually offer something resembling a solution, stressing the importance of being able to buy health care across state lines, and having more options available to consumers.
Candidates were then asked about mental health, and what they would do to address it. Pavlov made the claim that Medicaid expansion had hurt mental health funding, Mitchell made the case that the money exists in the budget to fund these programs, blaming a lack of priorities at the federal and state level, including federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Forlini lambasted the criminal justice system, pointing out that many people currently in prison should instead be getting mental health and drug addiction treatment.
Police brutality, discrimination, and the Black Lives Matter movement came up next, as the candidates were asked if the federal government should be addressing those issues. Mitchell went after elected officials for jumping to conclusions before investigations had been done. Forlini echoed that sentiment, taking exception to the assumption that the police officers in these cases were guilty. Pavlov blamed Obama for "splitting this country up and getting us fighting with law enforcement."
From there, the conversation segued to gun control (and what the moderator referred to as "ever-growing call to violate an individual's Second Amendment rights"). Forlini made the claim that "there is no such thing as gun violence" then went back to his earlier point about mental health as being the real issue. Pavlov trumpeted his endorsement by the NRA, listed off the ways he's voted to make it easier to obtain a gun, and went after the idea of "gun-free zones." Mitchell made the claim that "laws don't stop violence," and also came back to a lack priorities and a lack of mental health funding.
Candidates were then asked what they'd do to address national security. Pavlov went on about "sanctuary cities" (claiming that there are two "official" ones in this state) and immigration laws. Mitchell promoted enforcing current immigration laws, stopping refugees from coming to the U.S., and getting more involved in fighting ISIS overseas. Forlini went after current U.S. foreign policy, lamenting the fact that "we go in, we bomb them, and we leave" and calling for more long-term military intervention abroad.
After a bit more editorializing by the moderator, the question essentially came to Hillary Clinton's investigation by the FBI. Mitchell blasted Clinton as a criminal, attorney general Loretta Lynch as a "political hack," and went after Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her comments about Trump. Forlini cited Clinton's ongoing scandal as a sign that the country has lost its way. Pavlov tied all that into the "corruption of the Obama administration" and blamed Clinton for "destabilizing the Middle East."
From there, it was back to issues closer to home. When asked how they'd combat human trafficking, Forlini pointed out that "there's laws already in place" that need to be enforced, Pavlov went back to immigration laws, while Mitchell claimed it wasn't an illegal immigration issue, but an issue of "political correctness," claiming officers are afraid to do their jobs because they might be labeled a racist or criminal.
Finally, the candidates were asked what the biggest issues facing the district are. Pavlov cited the economy as the biggest issue, then security and government overreach. Mitchell also brought up security, particularly border control and fighting ISIS abroad, balancing the budget, and reforming the tax code. Forlini touched on the differences in priorities in certain sections of the district, from the northern part of the district wanting to be left alone by government, the manufacturing base in the southern parts of the district and their concerns about trade deals, and concerns about clean water and government overreach.
All in all, there wasn't much that changed from the last debate covered here; Forlini still plays relatively moderate, Pavlov played up his Senate experience (while ramping up his attacks on the "progressive left"), and Mitchell sold himself as the "solutions" candidate. It was ultimately a rather tame affair, the real fireworks coming two nights before at the Macomb County debate, with Pavlov and Mitchell trading jabs over the lavish sums of money Mitchell has put into congressional runs in two districts and the PAC funds taken by Pavlov and others, as the field attempted to paint Mitchell as a carpetbagger who only moved into the district after a failed run in the 4th District in an attempt to buy his way into Congress.
And with the primary only two weeks away, there's bound to be more fireworks yet to come.
