State Republicans Put Contempt For Voters, Voting On Full Display

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

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

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

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 Namely in a $5 million appropriation added onto the bill that would render it unable to ever be repealed by voters via referendum.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

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

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however, is that lawmakers, knowing that similar bills have twice been passed by the legislature and twice been repealed by voters, have made this law essentially democracy-proof.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     It's the most annoying time of the year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Over something as simple as a cup of coffee.

Toddwatch 2015: The Aftermath

     Finally, the nightmare is over.

     At least until he runs again.

     Can you really ever discard that as a possibility?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     But I sincerely doubt it.

The Authoritative Guide To Tuesday's Election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey Time With Todd Courser... Again.

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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