Aftermath 2016: Everything You Know Is Wrong.

     Hell really has frozen over.

     In a year that has already proven that impossible doesn't mean a thing, the American people took that to another extreme last night, voting Donald Trump to be our next president. And as I try to make sense of it all, a few bullet points:

• And that is why you don't call the election weeks out from the actual election. (Associated Press, take note.) I'm amazed at how so many otherwise reputable pollsters and news organizations got this so very wrong; somebody at the Freep has gotta be out of a job after calling Michigan for Hillary maybe 30 minutes after the polls closed. 

• On "political correctness" and the last shreds of decorum in politics: Y'know, I'm about as much of a defender of the First Amendment as anybody you'll find. I mean, I work in talk radio; how could I not be? And the second unpopular speech becomes criminalized, it's a step towards an authoritarian government that runs contrary to everything this country stands for. That very principle is a big part of why I could never support Trump's candidacy. But if there's one thing I'm most disappointed about in this election process other than the result, it's the fact that a decent number of his supporters have taken their leader's "war on political correctness" to mean that they should be allowed to be a dick without repercussions. Worse yet is the fact that Trump's election appears to have emboldened morons like these to go out and terrorize people.
  
  That said, it should go without saying that not all Trump supporters are racist, sexist, or homophobic; hell, the majority of them aren't. But there is clearly a loud, vocal subset of his supporters that would have every Muslim in this country shipped out or in an internment camp, that really are scared of the idea of white people no longer being the majority and see other races as inferior, or that believe the LGBT community isn't entitled to the same rights straight folk are. Thankfully, that's not the case among my friends, online or elsewhere, though if I'm wrong and you are one of these, kindly show yourself the door. Because if you think this is acceptable behavior in a civilized nation, you're clearly no friend of mine.
  
  But as it turns out, throwing every nasty name in the book at Trump supporters didn't convince them not to vote for the guy. Keep in mind: the people you're hurling such invective at are still, in fact, people, and you still have to coexist with them for the next four years. Furthermore, you're going to have to win some of them over to have a chance to effect the change you want to see in this country. It's not just die-hard conservatives that voted for this guy, after all; I know at least a few independents and Bernie supporters that voted Trump in the general. While I don't agree with the decision, can you really blame them for not wanting to support a candidate and party that had the fix in for their guy from the start? And adding to the discord and division in this country isn't going to accomplish that, even if your cause is righteous.

• I am, however, skeptical of this narrative that "the people stood up against corruption": only one Senate seat and 6 House seats changed hands. How does this make any sense? The American people supposedly wanted change, and yet they voted to retain 98.5% of the Congress with some of the lowest approval ratings in history. Ya really do get the government you deserve, I suppose. And of course, there's still a vacancy in the Supreme Court to fill, and that will give the GOP control of every branch of the federal government for at least the next two years. I'm just hoping like hell Ginsburg hangs on til 2020.

• Does this mean we're finally done with Hillary Clinton running for President? I mean, by all logical rights, this shouldn't have been this close of a race. It's hard to imagine that any other potential Democratic candidate could have fared worse here. But the Democrats had to go and pick the person with the most possible baggage to run for the office because it was "her turn." And I don't wanna hear about how "third parties" did this to you; you knew how flawed your candidate was, and you didn't make a better choice in the primary. And yet, the people who pointed this out at the time were either ignored or even labeled sexist for not going all-in on Hillary, a rather odd turn considering that many of those cast protest votes for Jill Stein.
  
  You can argue all you want about whether a Sanders candidacy would have gotten it done against Trump, but would he really have done worse? It's hard to see the "socialism" card being played as effectively against him as the "corruption" card was against Hillary, who had the misfortune of representing the status quo in a year where the people wanted change, while also having a fair share of scandal following her around, some of which had more substance than her backers would ever admit. Don't get your hopes up about another Sanders run, either; he'd be 79 on Inauguration Day 2020, making him by far the oldest man to ever take the office. Hopefully Liz Warren takes a run at it in the next cycle.

• I find it amusing that so many of the same people who have spent the last eight years telling anyone who will listen that Obama was "not my president," the people that were threatening to move to Texas and secede from the union if Hillary got elected, the people who yelled to anyone who would listen that the election would be "rigged" if Hillary won it, the people who have insisted that Obama isn't even a legitimate citizen, much less a legitimate president, are now telling everybody else to suck it up and get behind their guy. After, of course, the requisite gloating, which won't be forgotten come 2020. Somehow, the party that has thrown fits every step of the way since 2008 expects the other half of the country to get over it and fall in line behind their guy from day one. And as such, I'm inclined to cut President Trump as much slack as Obama has been given by the other side for the last eight years. Which is to say, none.
  
  I'll say this much: if he does manage to make favorable trade deals, if his childcare proposals come to pass, if he addresses the rising cost of student loans, if he actually takes meaningful steps towards campaign finance reform, I'll be more than happy to give credit where due. At the same time, I will absolutely criticize and call him out when his policies hurt the American people. I worry for the friends of mine that finally got access to health care under the ACA, flawed program though it may be, and will most likely lose it under the new administration. I worry for the gay, lesbian, and transgender friends of mine who potentially stand to face legalized discrimination for being who they are. I worry that the environment is pretty much screwed unless Trump can be convinced that the prospect of climate change would be bad for his own business interests.

• But for all the talk during the campaign, I doubt that Trump will get most of the things he wants. Personally, I just want to be in the room when Trump tries to sell Congress on the idea of term limits and bans on lobbying and gets laughed out of the Capitol building. Of course, this also assumes he doesn't leave that idea by the wayside when he takes office. Do I hate the idea of him nominating at least one Supreme Court justice, if not more? Absolutely. Do I think conservatives are going to get their wish of having Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges overturned? Honestly (and thankfully), I don't. Do I think Trump himself even wants those things? It's hard to say. He did come out and criticize North Carolina's HB 2 at times this year, though he has also somewhat defended it, and has stated in the past he would like to make sexual orientation a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (As for Mike Pence, supporter of gay conversion therapy and some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, that's another story.) Do I think "the wall" will get built? Absolutely not. Do I think the promised mass deportations will happen? Doubtful. Are those manufacturing jobs coming back? Not likely. Hell, even the most loathsome of his proposed assaults on the First Amendment won't happen; Congress wouldn't stand for it, and even the most conservative judges he could appoint would never uphold it. Of course, it's hard to know what he truly wants anyway, as his positions have shifted continuously over the years, and even quite a bit during this campaign.
  
  Ultimately, as much as I'd like to jump on the doomsday bandwagon like some of my liberal friends, and as much as I find many of Trump's policy proposals to be positively reprehensible, this isn't going to be the last presidency in U.S. history. This country has survived a civil war, two World Wars, countless other military conflicts, stock market crashes, terrorist attacks, and some truly awful presidencies. (The 43rd comes to mind.) And yet, we're still here.
  
  And if there's one other thing that gives me some semblance of comfort, it's this: there's still half of the country that feels the way I do, they're not going anywhere either, and their fight doesn't end because of one loss at the ballot box. Look, people, you're not moving to Canada, and rioting in the streets over the results of a fair election won't change the outcome. So take that energy and put it towards something productive, because there's a lot of work to be done to make sure the progress made in this country doesn't take a step backward. Get involved. Get informed. Make your voice heard. Hell, run for office. And, y'know, maybe put aside the "you're all a bunch of racist, sexist homophobes" rhetoric away for a while; if we're going to win hearts and minds, maybe blatantly insulting people isn't the best way to accomplish that.

• One final thought in all of this... In the span of a week, the Chicago Cubs won a World Series and Donald Trump got elected president. I'm almost forced to ask:
  
  Might this be the Lions' year?

Election 2016: Who Cares We're Screwed Anyway.

     At least it's almost over... right?          

     This has been, quite possibly, the most contentious election season in recent memory. Few candidates have been quite as reviled as the two major-party choices staring down voters in this presidential race, and no doubt that's contributed to the discord and political fatigue quite a bit. (And believe me, not many things will cause you as much political fatigue as working in talk radio.)

     But beyond even that, I can't recall a presidential race that has engendered this level of venom in so many people, nor one that has torn as many friendships apart as this. Which is a concept I just cannot wrap my head around, as I've never been one to consider that an option. One of my best friends in this world is about as Republican as they come. Another, a straight-up libertarian. And we argue and debate about everything politically, and disagree on a good portion of it. Usually at the bar, usually over a beer or two. And yet, we're able to leave it at that and still have fun hanging out. It doesn't carry on past that conversation, it doesn't leave anybody with anger, resentment, animosity, whatever. (It also doesn't leave anybody's mind changed either, usually, but that's not the point.) Because contrary to what you read on Facebook, it is still possible to be friends with people with whom you disagree on things.

     But that doesn't seem to be the case for many folks anymore. Between the Trump crowd arguing that anyone that doesn't wanna see real-life Biff Tannen as leader of the free world supports corruption, and the HuffPost thinkpieces about how it's totally okay to end friendships over politics because you're a better person than they are, it's all getting a bit ridiculous. Maybe it's the fact that in the past, these conversations didn't happen because it wasn't considered particularly polite to discuss politics and religion with everybody you met. Or maybe it's that there wasn't a Facebook, or any social media, with which to shout all your political affiliations and beliefs to the world with a single click.

     Or maybe it's something to do with the choice faced this year between the two most polarizing presidential candidates in modern political history.

     The seemingly obvious place to start is with Republican nominee Donald Trump, a man who prides himself on saying the worst possible thing at pretty much any time. But beyond the ridiculously offensive, insulting, and factually inaccurate statements he makes on a minute-by-minute basis, there's his charitable foundations's illegalities, housing discrimination, his fraudulent university, his bankruptcies, getting bailed out of his casino's debt through illegal means, his employing of undocumented immigrants while blaming them for everything that's wrong with this country, his money made off the backs of unpaid contractors, his illegal use of his charitable funds to pay his own legal bills, and oh, that time when he bribed a sitting attorney general not to prosecute his fraud university. And that's all before you get to his actual policy positions, whatever they happen to be that day. This week, they appear to be privatizing roads and the idea that climate change is BS... unless it threatens one of his business interests. Lest you think he's finally committing to staying on point, though, he did still find time in his most coherent major policy speech to date to threaten to sue the women that have accused him of sexual harassment and the media that report on the things he does.

     In any other year, it would be hard to see Trump even having a chance at the presidency. Unfortunately, the Democrats found the one politician as hated by the right as Trump is by the left: Hillary Clinton, who's been the subject of a cottage industry since the 90's devoted to exposing every impropriety, real or imagined, that she's had even a tangential connection to. The number of scandals to her credit is staggering, but how many of them have any substance? Not as many as her opponents might think, but more than her supporters would like to admit. The fact that she made it out of the primary is truly a testament to her campaign team, or as you might know them, the DNC. There's the Clinton Foundation and it's seeming pay-for-play arrangements and other improprieties, which we can't prove with absolute certainty any "play" was involved, though there was certainly plenty of "pay" in a couple ways. There's the emails, the only thing of substance to come from four years of Benghazi hearings and the most damning of accusations against her. Though it looks as if the FBI has ended its investigation into this for good, there's still the fact that information that was classified on some level was found on this server, and that's still kind of a problem. And while her social and economic views are more agreeable to mine, the fact that several neoconservatives involved with the Bush administration have endorsed her is cause for some concern as far as foreign policy goes.

     With candidates like these, it's not hard to see why voters are looking to other options. The problem is, those options aren't a whole lot better. In the early stages of the general election, when iit first appeared a Trump-Clinton matchup was inevitable, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson enjoyed something of a surge in popularity, portraying himself as the only reasonable guy running. Then, his "Aleppo moment" happened. Then a couple more. And since then, many of his public appearances have bordered on bizarre, to the point where his own vice president has all but endorsed Clinton. But if you put all that aside and look at his policies... those, like their proponent, are kind of a mixed bag. He's for all the civil liberties one could possibly have, but economically he's in favor of replacing the IRS with a national sales tax, which would be felt more by the lower and middle class. And he's a man of many contradictions: he wants to eliminate a number of federal agencies, but would have others pick up many of the same duties. He wants more transparency in government, yet supports the Citizens United ruling. He's a non-interventionalist that opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet he would not commit to opposing drone attacks in the Middle East. He believes human carbon emissions do have an effect on the climate, but not enough to do anything about it... but who cares, because eventually the sun is going to expand and engulf the Earth anyway.

     Then there's Jill Stein, who has somehow been arrested more during her campaigns for office than either of the two major candidates, which is disappointing in a few different ways. True to her party, the environment is definitely a top priority; she's called climate change "a greater threat than World War II." And she's put her freedom where her mouth is there; the arrest I mentioned earlier came as she was protesting at the planned site of the Dakota Access Pipeline. She's also been the only candidate to support the implementation of instant-runoff voting, which in itself makes me want to vote for her out of principle. And as you'd expect, she's rather socially liberal as well. But, her economic policy isn't exactly lighting the world on fire. She's proposed forgiving all student loan debt through quantitative easing, which she says is a "magic trick that basically people don't need to understand any more about than that it is a magic trick." You can't make this stuff up. Needless to say, it's a bit more complicated than that. Between the magic tricks, the borderline 9/11 trutherism, the borderline anti-vaxxer stance, the belief that WiFi causes health issues and a stance on GMO's that certainly seems to run contrary to the opinions of much of the scientific community, you almost have to ask: "Are we sure she seriously has a medical degree from Harvard?"

     Then there's the even more fringe candidates, from Evan McMullen, the independent Republican candidate whose sole purpose seems to be to win Utah; Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party, the party that wonders what would happen if we got rid of that whole "separation-of-church-and-state" thing; Tom Hoefling of America's Party, which is even further to the right; about 20 different socialist candidates, and dozens of write-ins. If you're considering a write-in, take note that these are the only candidates that will be counted, so even if you're feeling the Bern or considering a protest vote for Cruz or Carson, just know that your vote literally will not count.

     As if having to pick the lesser of two four six way too many lessers wasn't bad enough, the other unfortunate side effect of this election has been the apparent dismissal of facts as being meaningful in any way. There was a time in which the credibility of a page like Snopes (or Politifact, or FactCheck) was unassailable, and that once debunked urban legends could be put to rest outside of the most conspiracy-minded folk. But something has changed with this election cycle: facts don't matter anymore, and if you believe something hard enough, then eventually it becomes accepted as truth. And when you have presidential candidates openly courting the fringes and empowering blindly partisan ideologues that demand that their opinions count as much as everybody else's facts, you get what has happened over the last 16 months.

     For one example, look no further than the case of Bill Clinton's supposed illegitimate child. A paternity test was done in 1999, and Clinton wasn't found to be the father, a fact that was even run by right-wing blogger and 30's film noir detective Matt Drudge. But now that story has resurfaced, and when one tries to remind those spreading that story that it was already disproven, the response is either to ignore the proof, or claim that the source of the debunking is biased against them, which creates an odd moment of irony when the Drudge Report is being accused of liberal bias. Then of course, there are the "body counts," which have been disproven a few times over. Of course, you also have the occasional stories about Trump's Russian ties which thus far have been more smoke than fire. But this has got to be the first election in modern U.S. history in which this many people believe a major presidential candidate is literally murdering political enemies, without a shred of evidence to support it.

     And rehashing the conspiracy theories of the 90's is one thing, Inventing new ones is another altogether. Take this story, from a website calling itself "The Denver Guardian," claiming that an FBI agent in Walkerville, Maryland suspected of leaking Clinton emails had his home burned to the ground with he and his wife inside it. Sure, they say it was a murder-suicide, but Hillary is clearly behind this! Problem is, everything about this story starts to unravel when you look into it even a slight bit. For example, any record anywhere of any of these events happening. The link to local TV outlet WHAG linked in the story defaults to the front page of the station's website, which shows absolutely nothing about the story in question. A cursory glance of major news sources turns up nothing. The people in the story don't exist, and Walkerville isn't even a real city. Even the claim of the paper's very existence crumbles under the slightest bit of scrutiny: "Denver Guardian is Denver's oldest news source and one of the longest running daily newspapers published in the United States." Except that no, that would be the Denver Post, which is at least a real thing that exists. Its social media links go nowhere, and its address is a tree in a parking lot next to a vacant building in Denver. Man, the Keebler elves must really be hurting for work these days. And most of the site is a placeholder with no content, the standard hallmark of the fake news site.

     Now I clearly should not have to devote this much space to proving one of these absurd pieces false. But people who should know better are still falling for them on a daily basis. I never cease to be amazed by how people can question the objectivity of any and every major news organization, yet fake websites like these pass the snuff test, And I'm not about to argue against checking your sources and doing research; Jayson Blair-type incidents do happen (or Mitch Albom, if you prefer), and it's not hard to find examples where the press aren't doing their job thoroughly enough, or are running with outright falsehoods (the Slate article about Trump's server and the Russian bank; the Fox News claim that Clinton was about to be indicted before the investigation was ultimately closed again). But we're now more than ever in a place where you can show up with documented evidence of a claim, and be dismissed because your facts don't line up with the preconceived narrative the other person has already formulated in their head.

     This is where this election cycle has left us.

     And it forces one to ask: Can we get a do-over on this whole thing?

The Authoritative Guide To Doomsday.... er, Election Day 2016

     It's that time again, for the third and thankfully final time this year.

     In a year that has seen more political drama than any in recent memory, we're finally closing in on the home stretch, and within a week, we'll have a new president, congressman, prosecutor, and (hopefully) some peace and quiet. And as is customary around these parts, I run down the ballot and look at all the important races facing you tomorrow.

• As far as presidential choices, you're already screwed before you cast a vote. As far as options that have enough ballot access to theoretically win, you have Donald Trump, a narcissist pandering to the most xenophobic wing of his party while offering little in terms of tangible policy; Hillary Clinton, whom you've no doubt been flooded with so many substance free "scandals" that it's almost too easy to overlook some of her actual concerning lapses in judgement; Gary Johnson, whose economic policy consists of "let's just get rid of all the rules and hope for the best," because as we all know, corporations never act in an unethical manner; and finally Jill Stein, who, when she's not busy speaking about economic policy as "magic tricks," spends her time giving vague credence to the tinfoil-hat wing of her party that believes vaccines cause autism and that 9/11 was an inside job. Endorsement? Hardly; they're all freakin' nuts!

• U.S. House- First off, if you're looking for anybody actually local, forget about it. Only one candidate claims a Lapeer County residence, and I use that term loosely. If you're looking for somebody to keep Lapeer County's best interest at heart... well, three of the four candidates showed up to the one general election forum held in Lapeer, and the front-runner wasn't one of 'em, so take that as you will. The candidates:
  
       Paul Mitchell (R)- For starters, not the hair-care guy, but rather the proprietor of one of those for-profit colleges (Ross) who currently claims Dryden as home, but ran in Midland last election, and is also the money behind the campaign to take down the road debacle otherwise known as Proposal 1, which is about where his positive attributes end. Needless to say, my experiences with him on the campaign trail don't leave me sold on the idea that he'll take the concerns of his constituents into consideration. (This would be the candidate that did not attend the forum.)
  
       Frank Accavitti (D)- A former mayor of Eastpointe and state rep in Macomb County. He has made a point of talking about bringing broadband to the Thumb, and that his jobs plan calls for incentivizing companies to run broadband across state right-of-ways. Opposes single-payer healthcare because "what about employees in the insurance industry/stockholders of insurance companies?"
  
       Lisa Lane Gioia (L)- As one would expect from a Libertarian, sticks to the company line of nonintervention, ending the IRS and the Department of Education, and in general getting the federal government out of... well, everything.
  
       Ben Nofs (G)- A Berniecrat disillusioned by the Democratic Party, with everything that implies, including support for single-payer healthcare and renewable energy. As the lone veteran running, he's made improving veterans' affairs a priority, and he's firmly against arms sales to foreign nations and propping up regimes that violate the basic human rights of their people.

• Prosecutor- One of those races that nobody typically notices until the incumbent really screws up, and in this case, the incumbent really screwed up. The current holder of the office, Tim Turkelson, will be out of a job no matter the outcome of this election, having made a few enemies too many in his time in office. Running to replace him:
  
       Mike Sharkey (R)- Byron Konschuh's defense attorney, so it's pretty clear why he ran to unseat Turkelson. Certainly seems a conflict of interest that the county prosecutor could potentially try cases before a guy he defended at trial, though I'm sure certain corruption-based pages will ignore that.
  
       Phillip Fulks (D)- The only candidate running for this office to not have had any ties to any of the myriad scandals involving Konschuh or Turkelson, and as such, the only one that won't be coming in with any baggage or conflicts of interest. If we're really all about a fresh start in the courthouse, this seems like a good place to start.

• Circuit Court Judge- Of course, my usual policy is to vote against whoever the Corruption Page endorses, but beyond that, the reasons to vote for Dave Richardson haven't been all that compelling. Not to say that he'd be a bad judge; I've not really heard anything bad about the man, other than that he was a Todd Courser supporter, which is admittedly about the worst thing you can say of somebody in Lapeer County. But when you're running as a write-in against an incumbent, the burden is on you to prove that your opponent is unfit to stay in office, and I can't honestly say that Richardson has done that. Honestly? I don't care where Nick Holowka throws his trash. Is he doing his job properly? That's definitely up for debate. Certainly, the lack of technological advancement and specialized courts, particularly the oft-mentioned drug court, which Lapeer has had in the past but has gone away in recent years amid cutbacks from the state. But it's also hard to determine how much of this Richardson would be able to implement. Seems rather interesting, though, that the same people who decry a "good ol' boys" network at the courthouse have no issue with it as long as they're in charge of it; note which sitting judge has thrown his endorsement behind Richardson, and note who's throwing their money behind him.

• State Representative- It's Gary Howell and Margaret Guererro DeLuca again, in a repeat of... this year's matchup. I like them both, though I've admittedly been a Deluca supporter since her first run for the office. But no matter who wins here, we'll have good representation in Lansing. Gary Howell may not have been my first, second, or third choice, but credit where credit is due: he has made good on several campaign promises since being elected, and has been light years ahead of his predecessor in regards to maintaining communication with his constituents. Truthfully, anybody willing to subject themselves to my line of questioning gets a point or two in my book! No shock here: the County Press endorses Howell; not at all a surprise, as its owner has been a major donor. As you might expect though, my support is still ultimately behind DeLuca.

• Lapeer Board of Education-  There's two spots to fill, and one incumbent, a political newcomer, and two hyper-partisan candidates running to fill them.
  
       Brad Haggadone- The lone incumbent running, despite being all of two years removed from high school. Seems to have the support of the rest of the current board, though he's also hitched his wagon to Jan Peabody's candidacy, as the other Republican running.
  
       Lisa Novak- Serves as Associate Professor of Accounting at Mott Community College, and worked for years in accounting for K-12 public education, so there's no doubt she has a background that would make her an excellent fit for the job.
  
       Jan Peabody- Lapeer County GOP chair, whose last few runs at public office were largely bought and paid for by the DeVos family and the Great Lakes Education Project, which support union busting and privatization of schools. Hardly supporters of public education. Is amazingly still Facebook friends with me despite that I haven't supported a single attempt she has ever made to run for office.
  
       Dave Campbell- The husband of a Lapeer schoolteacher, and a staunch pro-union Democrat currently employed in the prosecutor's office. Refused to attend the recent Tea Party-sponsored school board forum for predictable reasons: early tea party groups were supported by the Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity, whose Michigan director now chairs Donald Trump's campaign in this state, and both are inextricably tied to the Tea Party even now.
  
  I'll address this at length here. When running for public office, it seems a bit counterproductive to refuse to address the public in any forum, even one as partisan as the Tea Party. Even more so when no other organization is willing or able to put together similar events. And to be clear, the Lapeer County Tea Party's political views are about the polar opposite of my own, as are those of the candidates they have endorsed. And yet I make it a point, when my schedule permits, to venture into the lion's den and attend the forums, despite the occasional blatant editorializing from the moderators. And you may recall that during the last state representative race, all three candidates in the general election showed up to face questioning, and boy, did Democrat Margaret DeLuca hear it from a couple of Tea Party diehards in attendance. But the point is, she still went, and you've got to respect anybody that's going into a room knowing the hosts are not particularly receptive to their cause, and making their case anyway. Despite completely sympathizing with his position, I really wish Campbell would have done the same.
  
  Also worth noting: The Lapeer Education Association, which is currently embroiled in a contract dispute with Lapeer Schools over teachers taking pay cuts so their superintendent can get his 8% raise, endorses Campbell and Novak, so do with that as you will.

• Road Commissioner- Honestly? I don't know a thing about either one.

• College Boards of Regents- Don't know, don't particularly care, as I didn't go to U-M, MSU, or Wayne State.

• State Supreme Court- David Viviano and Joan Larsen are the incumbents, and if there's a compelling reason to vote against either, I'm not aware of it.

• Millages- The Lapeer County Veterans Affairs Office is up for a renewal of its current .10 mills, which should be a no-brainer, and the Lapeer County EMS seeks a 1-mill increase in taxes, with which it would expand its service and open additional bases in Metamora and Goodland Township. LCEMS' primary competition is Medstar, which just happens to be co-owned by a McLaren hospital in Macomb County and holds the lucrative contract with McLaren in Lapeer for medical transfer services. That cuts into the money that funds LCEMS, which has made it clear that a 'no' vote means a potential shutdown. Really it boils down to this: If you're not comfortable with having Lapeer County in the hands of a for-profit ambulance service that can't get to patients in outlying parts of the county in a timely manner because it's not worth it to them financially to staff those areas at the level LCEMS currently does, then vote yes.
  
  Unfortunately, the County Press opposed the LCEMS millage in an editorial Sunday, though with Rick Burroughs' ties to McLaren and the fact that McLaren is a major advertiser in the Press and sister publication the LA View, it's not hard to see why. Now, I've got something of a tortured relationship with the local paper: I defend their reporters against anonymous slander and unmask the people doing the slandering, I get my name butchered in a picture taken at a gig. (Not the same reporter, by the way.) I call their editorial out for things like a bizarre double-endorsement that reads like it was mandated from on high, they write a spread about my radio gig. But things like this that read as obvious conflicts of interest are rather disappointing, and even more so considering that one man owns both countywide news publications and essentially controls what news is published in the county. (Yeah, I know, Tri-City Times, but try finding one of those west of Van Dyke and north of 21.)

• Finally, and I cannot stress this enough, do your research, people. Last Sunday's County Press had a pretty solid voters guide (if not some questionable endorsements), the county Tea Party hosted a forum or two; hell, I went so far as to stage a congressional debate in Lapeer. As is our usual custom, links to campaign pages are linked in this post so you can ask questions of these people yourself, and if you really wanna kill some time and stumble into the rabbit hole, look up who's funding them.
  
  Even if you vote for Pedro in the presidential race, at least get out there and vote on the races and millages down the ballot. There's a lot more at stake than which mistake is going to hold the highest office in the land; if anything, several of these other races are likely to have far more effect on your daily life than the one up top.
  
  And the same thing I asked of you in the last state rep race in March holds true for the next presidential race.
  
  Whatever you do, for the love of all that is holy, don't let this happen again next time.

The Authoritative Guide To The August 2nd Primary

     So here we are, once again.

     Two days before the primary, and the races are looking as nasty as ever.

     And your not-so-humble correspondent is still attempting to make sense of it all, which is a proposition easier said than done. There's much to hit on here, so we're gonna go with bullet-points for this one.

• Todd Courser Speaks! Everybody's favorite political disgrace has crawled back out from the rock he'd been hiding under since announcing his run for prosecutor. In a far-too-long video posted this week, Courser rambled at length about several topics, from how he's the real victim here, to the prosecutor's race (Turkelson is corrupt, Sharkey's a social liberal, I'm the real victim here), to the "wombats" working for him in Lansing, back to how he's the real victim here. And the irony of Courser accusing Turkelson of wasting taxpayer money after racking up
  a significant tab for the county in his own right is not lost on us.
  
• The Endorsements Are In! I can't say I've been overly impressed with the editorial judgement of the County Press during this election season; while there are some damn fine reporters doing their best to be fair throughout the process, the judgement of the higher-ups has been a bit lacking. For starters: there's a race for Congress ongoing, one where there's a good possibility that it will be decided in the primary, and they've all but completely ignored it, focusing all their attention on the sheriff and prosecutor's races. Thankfully, the Times-Herald in Port Huron is doing the job for them, hosting one final debate tonight, to be live-streamed on their website.
  
  Then, there's their not-at-all-surprising endorsement of Tim Turkelson, coming a week after they basically let McLaren run a full-page Turkelson ad in the back of the LA View. They also endorsed Scott McKenna, whose sticker is prominently featured on the front of today's paper. (EDIT: In the interest of fairness, Dave Eady's sticker ran on Thursday's LA View. And with McKenna, it's entirely possible that the ceaseless smears on him played a factor, along with Ron Kalanquin's refusal to repudiate them.) But in the case of the prosecutor and other recent races, the bizarre double-endorsement in the last state rep primary being a notable example, it seems rather obvious at this point just who the paper is in bed with, and it's hard not to feel bad for the hard-working reporters over there that have to be associated with it.
  
• The corruption of the Corruption Page. Leave it to everyone's favorite online smear merchants to get away from the issues and into candidates' bedrooms, as several posts in recent days have flat-out accused the current prosecutor of having affairs with multiple women. Of course, the geniuses running that page  also think Phil Foley personally writes the editorials for the paper, despite not being an editor, so take them with a grain of salt. But this is really what it's come to? "We're not saying Turkelson is sleeping with his secretary, but we're not not saying it either"? Is that all the burden of proof I need to post things now, too? So I could totally say something like, "I'm not saying the Lapeer County Corruption Page is run in part by a former courthouse employee, with very close ties to a former challenger to Kalanquin, and also has a personal vendetta against Scott McKenna rooted in a kids' sports team he coached, but I'm not not saying it either." Did I do that right?
  
• On to the actual voter's guide... we'll start with the prosecutor's race, which as pointed out prior, has essentially become a referendum on the Byron Konschuh trial. Because, if we're to be entirely honest here, what else is there to really campaign on? The winner will face Democrat Phillip Fulks in November.
  
       Tim Turkelson- The incumbent. Made a few enemies in the courthouse by bringing Konschuh's misuse of funds to the attention of the state attorney general. Made even more by directly violating a judge's orders in another case, and more still by seemingly letting Matt Wandrie off the hook for his drunken hit-and-run incident. VOTE IF: You're one of those crazy people that believe that nobody should be above the law... except the top lawyer in town.
  
       Mike Sharkey- Judge Konschuh's defense attorney, so it should be self-evident why he's running. To their credit, Team Sharkey did finally denounce the "Corruption" page when I spoke with them the other day, making it clear that there is no bad blood between Sharkey and primary target Scott McKenna. VOTE IF: You're one of those crazy people that believe nobody should be above the law... except the top judge in town.
  
       Todd Courser- LOL. VOTE IF: You're one of those crazy people that believe nobody should be above the law... except former state representatives.
• On to the Sheriff race, which will be decided in the primary.
  
       Ron Kalanquin- The incumbent and very public face of the department, perhaps a bit too public at times, depending on who you ask. Much as in the last election, waited until the absolute last minute to declare his candidacy, despite voicing support to other candidates. His campaign and supporters have engaged in one of the worst smear campaigns in recent memory, throwing a litany of accusations against McKenna, most of them baseless at best and defamatory at worst. VOTE IF: You like your sheriff to have plenty of politician in him.
  
       Scott McKenna- Formerly the chief of police in Mt. Morris, and currently on the receiving end of some of the worst smear attacks seen in this county since Todd Courser's first race for state rep. Has the support of a surprising number of employees of the sheriff's department, which should say something about the man in office currently. Admittedly, though, there are a few black marks on his time in Mt. Morris, with millages being passed but not being enough to prevent officer layoffs. VOTE IF: Relentless negativity towards (and occasionally from) a candidate won't dissuade you from voting for them.
  
       Dave Eady- Former sheriff's deputy, and current county commissioner. Has the endorsement of the Lapeer County Firefighters Association and fellow commissioner (and friend of the blog) Ian Kempf, and has thus far avoided the mudslinging and borderline slander that this race has otherwise devolved into. Finally got to have a substantive discussion with him as well recently, and would not say so much as an unkind word about either of his opponents, despite the prompting of your humble correspondent, opting to focus primarily on a few things he felt that could be done to improve relations between police and the public. VOTE IF: You really just want all the attacks and bickering to be over already.
• Moving on, there's a race for the 10th District Congressional seat vacated by Candice Miller. The winner will face Democrat Frank Accavitti Jr. and Libertarian Lisa Lane Gioia in November.
  
       Tony Forlini- Current state representative in a district that is fairly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. As a certified financial planner and member of the House Appropriations Committee, has made much of his ability to balance a budget, and is easily the candidate most likely to appeal to non-Republicans in the general. But in a district that is heavily Republican outside of southern Macomb County, that may not much matter in the primary. VOTE IF: The ability to manage a budget is an important quality in the people you elect to manage a budget.
  
       Paul Mitchell- The self-proclaimed "solutions" candidate, but his solutions don't seem much more workable than those of his competition. Spent a great deal in the effort to vote down the roads bill boondoggle known as Proposal 1. Moved to the district to spend a great deal to run for Congress again after losing a previous congressional bid in the 4th District. Will no doubt try to spend a great deal again elsewhere if he fails this time around. At least he makes some quality hair care products. VOTE IF: You believe you really can put a price on representation in Washington, and it just happens to fall in the $5-6 million range.
  
       Phil Pavlov- Current State Senator for a district that includes St. Clair County, and formerly included Lapeer County as well. Given his unresponsiveness to his constituents and dismissive attitude towards pretty much everybody that doesn't toe his party line, the redistricting that changed that was no great loss for Lapeer. VOTE IF: You don't much like hearing from your congressman.
  
       Alan Sanborn- Former State Senator, Sanborn doesn't deviate much from the party line. An unapologetic conservative fiscally and socially, he's the only candidate whose issues page on his website still devotes time to railing against same-sex marriage. I really hoped we'd moved beyond this. VOTE IF: You like your Republican politicians with a healthy dose of red-meat rhetoric.
  
       David VanAssche- Another political newcomer, this one in his first-ever run for office, but without the pocketbook of Paul Mitchell. Spent most of his career in military service, and as he likes to point out, despite being a political newbie, he has more experience in Washington than any candidate in the field. If there's any one candidate qualified to speak on matters of national security, it's him. VOTE IF: You like your public servants to actually understand what the whole "public servant" thing means.

• As for our own endorsements... In all good conscience, I can't endorse anybody for prosecutor. Turkelson and Courser are clearly unfit to hold the job, and Sharkey doesn't engender much confidence either. Turkelson is still in the midst of his own contempt of court case for having refused a judge's order to return property that lawfully belonged to a former defendant that he attempted to prosecute; Sharkey and his team still don't understand the difference between not guilty and a plea deal; and Todd Courser may yet lose his own law license, pending the charges against him. None of these men should be allowed near this position, and knowing nothing of the Democratic challenger, I would still submit that he could not possibly be any worse in office.
  
  In the sheriff's race, only one candidate has managed to avoid the ridiculous amount of mudslinging going on, and has remained focused on what he would do were he to win the election. That candidate is county commissioner Dave Eady, and he's absolutely got our endorsement. There's still too many legitimate red flags with Scott McKenna's candidacy, and Ron Kalanquin has shown far too much willingness to get in the gutter with him this time around.
  
  Finally, the race to replace Candice Miller... I've gone through hours of video of debates with the five Republicans chasing after this seat, talked to three of them, and been ignored by one and blocked by another. And while most of them have given the standard boilerplate answers one would expect from their party, a couple of them stand above the fray. Forlini has offered up some of the most sensible solutions for current economic woes. Kudos as well, for being the only candidate on either side willing to commit to supporting a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United case. (EDIT: Sanborn and VanAssche voiced their support for the same this evening, during the Times-Herald forum, which can be viewed here.)
  
  One of the political newcomers stood out as well, but not the one you'd expect. VanAssche, a 27-year Air Force vet and former Chief Mission Director for Air Force One, for which he served under the current president. More than any of his opponents, VanAssche offered an honest assessment of the state's culpability in the Flint water crisis, and the federal government's responsibility in helping to fix it. His quote to the Detroit Free Press sums it up well: "Unfortunately, leaders in government continue to fail to understand the concept of service before self."
  
• A few other races of note.... There's a countywide millage up for renewal for the Suncrest Medical Care Facility which should certainly be approved. There are a few races in Mayfield Township up for grabs as well; among them, friend of the blog Jake Davison is running for township treasurer, whom we endorse as well. As for countywide races, there's two road commission seats being contested, as well as the drain commissioner's seat.
  
• One more suggestion while we're at it... Can we make these sheriff and prosecutor's races non-partisan already? Contrary to popular belief, there is sometimes an actual contested Democratic (or third party) primary in this county, at which point your options are give up your right to vote your conscience in a legislative race, or give up your right to vote at all in a race like the one for sheriff, where there is literally no opposition party running. The idea that one should have to be a member of a particular party in order to have any say whatsoever in a general election is absurd.

     As always, don't take our word alone for it; watch the debates (and read my recaps where applicable). In the case of the Congressional race, the Free Press has an excellent resource on the candidates and their views. In the case of the rest... I can't help ya. The video of the last local candidate forum has never been posted, which leaves you with the County Press and various Facebook ramblings of varying agendas. The best advice to be given, apart from what has been mentioned here previously, is to do your research and decide what you think based on the facts that are available.

     A tall order indeed, in this election cycle.

The Only Lapeer County Congressional Primary Debate: Cliff Notes Edition

     Once again, it's been quite the eventful election season in Lapeer County.

     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 Biff Tannen Donald Trump, as the candidates were asked if they would support their party's presumptive presidential nominee. Naturally, all three of them fell over each other to endorse him. The legalization of marijuana would be the next topic of debate; Mitchell side-stepped the question by saying it should be a state issue; Forlini said he supports medicinal use, but not recreational; while Pavlov pointed out that even medicinal use is still illegal on a federal level, said he'd never support recreational use, and made the bizarre claim that legalizing marijuana at all is "killing our job providers" because construction companies "do not want people who are on the effects of marijuana."

     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.

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.

Filing Day Fallout: A Few Familiar Faces Return

     And you thought Lapeer's long national nightmare was over.

     But apparently it's going to take more than criminal charges to rid Lapeer politics of Todd Courser.

     Disregarding the imminent possibility of jail time or getting disbarred, Courser filed to run for Lapeer County Prosecutor on the day of the filing deadline, where he'll be facing incumbent Tim Turkelson and Mike Sharkey in the Republican primary, and Phillip Fulks as the lone Democrat in the general on the off chance he makes it that far.

     It doesn't take a lot to see why Courser would do this, slim chance though he may have to win: Courser was rather upset, to say the least, that Turkelson refused to charge Joe Gamrat with a crime after being revealed to be the "blackmailer" in the wake of Courser's adultery cover-up scandal. And Turkelson's popularity has no doubt taken a hit after "Donut-gate" and the Byron Konschuh trial. But while Turkelson is about as vulnerable as any incumbent in that position could be, would voters ever even consider supporting Todd Courser again?

     Well, perhaps in an alternate universe where pigs fly, hell has frozen over, and the Lions win the Super Bowl every year...

     ...Nope. Still can't see it.

     In other news, the sheriff's race is, for all intents and purposes, over.

     Late yesterday, Ron Kalanquin decided to run again for the position he has long held, and had intended to vacate after this election, much like he planned to vacate it after the last one. In his supposed absence, three new candidates threw their hats into the ring: Harry Lutze, Scott McKenna, and Dave Eady, who also filed to run for his current county commissioner spot again and faces some tough competition there. Despite the competition for this office, it would be rather surprising to see Kalanquin lose the position, especially with the aforementioned turmoil at the county courthouse; the idea of having continued stability in at least one county office will no doubt appeal to many.

     And in a race that's back to being something of an afterthought, nobody on the Republican side is challenging Gary Howell for the state representative position; the one other Republican candidate that filed, Jake Davison, withdrew in December and instead appears to have set his sights on the high-stakes race for Mayfield Township Treasurer. On the Democratic side, Margaret Guererro DeLuca is running a third time for the position, with no competition in the field. Granted, between the incredible disappearing Eric Johnson and R.D. "Freeway To The Moon" Bohm last time, and Todd Courser's twin brother Ike Eickholdt in the 2014 race, DeLuca has never faced any serious competition from within her own party. But with all due respect to DeLuca, who has fought about as hard as one could reasonably expect and would have made a damn fine representative in Lansing, it's hard to picture her beating Howell, especially having lost to him once already this year.

     The best shot the Democrats had to win the office was against Todd Courser the first time around, though straight-ticket voting eventually did them in; they might have had a chance last time, but the party failed to capitalize early on Todd's scandal when it first broke and let the Republican challengers get out ahead. Now that Gary Howell is firmly entrenched in the position, it's going to be rather difficult to unseat him, especially considering that so far he's been true to his campaign promises, sponsoring or co-sponsoring legislation to roll back the pension tax, remove the FOIA exemption from the governor and legislature, and stop human trafficking. Barring a rather large public gaffe, the seat is still his come November.

     More in the days to come on some of the other races up for grabs this fall, as there's a House seat that's about to be vacant...

Better Know A State Senator: Patrick Colbeck v. Education

     Sometimes you wonder just how much education the legislators in Lansing really have.

     And then you can't help but wonder why in the hell we let them have any say in the education of anyone else.

     Case in point: State Senator Patrick Colbeck of Northville. It started last week, with a series of posts on his campaign's Facebook page criticizing Northville Schools for including Toni Morrison's "The Bluest Eye," a book that won the Nobel Prize for Literature, in its AP English course, referring to it as a "pornographic work." The book, which has been part of the curriculum at Northville since the early 90's, features depictions of sexual assault, rape, and incest, which clearly aren't meant to be glorified or intended to be erotic. The books in question aren't meant to tittilate. They're meant to evoke an emotional response, not of sexual stimulation, but of disgust and horror that a person could do those sorts of things to another human being. You'd think any reasonable adult or even high schooler would realize this. But, not Sen. Colbeck.

     That said: were he simply questioning whether or not these books are appropriate for students, that'd be one thing. It'd be far easier to have a reasonable discussion over it, and I probably wouldn't be writing this now. But unfortunately, Colbeck followed up his criticism by taking the particularly explicit passages of Morrison's books, putting them next to the Ten Commandments, and asking "which book is more offensive?" A clear attempt to make his oft-repeated point that the Bible should be taught in schools and that religious indoctrination is somehow the role of the public school system.

     Of course, if Colbeck were being truly interested in being fair here, he'd place those passages of Morrison's alongside some of the more explicit ones in the Bible, that bring up things such as adultery, prostitution, date rape, incest, and fathers pimping out their own daughters, none of which are exactly condemned in the Old Testament. If you're really interested in an honest comparison, Sen. Colbeck, why not put any of the explicit parts of Ms. Morrison's novels along side the stories of Judah and the harlot, or Lot and his daughters, or hell, Sodom and Gomorrah?

     Then, after that crusade, Colbeck came back with a list of changes he'd like to see to the state's proposed social studies curriculum. The list starts out pretty straightforward, with the gripe that "it's not a democracy, it's a 'constitutional republic'" that Tea Party folk are rather hung up on. Then, things take a... somewhat authoritarian turn, as Colbeck criticizes the emphasis on citizen involvement, or as he calls it, "political activism." He then calls for limiting citizen involvement lessons to "the importance of understanding the law and abiding be the law." Apparently, Sen. Colbeck believes you don't need to learn how you can change the system, but only how to mindlessly obey it. And people want to accuse liberals of "brainwashing" students?

     From there, he goes on about the limited powers of federal government and an emphasis on "states' rights"; again, typical Tea Party talking point, nothing new. Then we get into his personal crusade against the Southern Poverty Law Center; Colbeck is infuriated that the SPLC has condemned the Family Research Council as a "hate group" for it's stance on same-sex marriage, among other things, then further assails them for "undermining our system of government." Of course, he can't cite a single example, other than their use of terms like "justice" and "the common good," which is the same thing as socialism in his eyes.

     Next, Colbeck turns his outrage to a supposed "Islamic bias," because as he claims, there is an entire section in the world history curriculum devoted to Islam, but not one devoted to Christianity. Of course, the section he references is in direct reference to the part of the Arab world in which Islamic-based governments came to be; Christianity is mentioned in that very section as well; and the Roman Catholic Church is given its own section on the next page in relation to Western Europe pre-1500. Keeping in mind we're talking about a section covering world history before the year 1500, he also demands inclusion of the Great Awakening of the mid 1800's, and the role of religion in founding America. It can't possibly be that hard to see why that makes no sense whatsoever.

     It only gets better from here. In a section I have yet to find in the original copy of the proposed curriculum, Colbeck objects to any reference to the LGBT community, and suggests it be replaced with his long-winded treatise about how Everson v. Board of Education, the 1947 Supreme Court ruling that the "establishment of religion clause" applied to state governments as well as federal, somehow suppressed "religious liberty." Or, prevented the government from imposing or promoting religion by law; in Colbeck's mind, the two concepts are one and the same. He further went on to claim the Obergefell v. Hodges decision as "legal action against people of faith that assert their right to conscience protected under the First Amendment." The delusion of this man knows no bounds.

     The next few sections are in relation to the Declaration of Independence and public education; nothing noteworthy save for the last sentence of the public education section: "If one would truly like to get to the origin of public education in America, you should start with the Old Deluder Satan Act of 1642 which points to the need for public education so that students could read the Bible and understand when they were being deceived by false precepts." Par for the course, really; literally anywhere he can try and sneak in some sort of religious propaganda, Colbeck does.

     Perhaps it shouldn't come as much surprise that Colbeck's next target is the Progressive Era of the late 1800's and early 1900's, and Progressive support of political and social reform. Naturally, he can't help himself but to remind everybody that the KKK was founded as an anti-Republican group, and that it was Republicans that were pro-civil rights. From there, he attempts to whitewash over climate change, claiming that even mentioning it promotes an "alarmist atmosphere" in the classroom. Next, it's time to tear apart the New Deal, as Colbeck cries bias again because "significant focus is applied to policies of a single president." Of course that tends to happen when one is referring to sweeping political change enacted by the only man to ever be elected to four terms as president, but our man has an answer to that as well, calling to add discussion of how FDR's policies lead to the ratification of the 22nd Amendment (which instituted the two-term limit), because that's clearly not politically biased at all.

      Finally, in a section about "domestic conflicts and tensions," Colbeck calls for the aforementioned Everson case and a few other "religious liberty" cases to be included in a section on controversial Supreme Court rulings with, among others, Hazelwood v. United States, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Miranda v. Arizona. Because clearly the right to a fair trial, the right to an attorney, and the right to not face employment discrimination are the same thing as the right to have schools and governments promote religion. And last but not least, he insists on putting the Clinton trial alongside Watergate in the lesson plan. Because again, breaking, entering, and bugging the offices of your political opponents and covering it up is as bad as lying about oral sex.

     It'd be somewhat tempting to give him the benefit of the doubt on some of this, if this weren't the same man who regularly prattles on about how "Faith is on trial in America," and citing schlock like the "God's Not Dead" films in his defense. Or if he didn't regularly cherry-pick any and every quote from the Founding Fathers that can be twisted to support religion in the public square. Or if he didn't cite discredited Wallbuilders proprietor and noted historical fraud David Barton as an expert on the same.

     Clearly Sen. Colbeck has an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with the best interest of the education of Michigan students.

     And if the man had his way, he'd be pushing back education in this state a good hundred years or more.