No Hoekstra in Illinois

The hate Bush/America crowd that worked up their base into a frenzy, managed to get Barak Obama to promise if elected, to close Guantanamo (Gitmo) prison within a year. We have learned now, that Obama believes that the government should run like a community organization. He, as the community organizer should simply be able to give a motivational speech, and others should be inspired to follow his dream. Well, wake up. This is reality. Obama never really had a plan as to what to do with the prisoners. He assumed that other people would volunteer to solve the problem. That’s what happens in the NGOs and other organizations that Obama has a history with. In fact, the ideal solution to all public policy issues is to first have a community organization get its network to find a voluntary solution. Likeminded, loosely connected organizations that all favor a socialist (progressive) agenda are able to find someone for every particular need. Don’t be offended by this idea. The Christian Church was founded on this principle. If however, the voluntary solution proves limited or slow in results, then legislative action is pursued. Finally, if that fails, then a direct appeal to the judicial activism will trump all.
The Obama administration honestly believed that they merely had to speak to closing Gitmo and liberal states would step up to the plate. This did happen. Many states like Michigan volunteered to take the problem off Obama’s hands. Then we the people spoke. It became apparent very quickly that most Americans had a problem with bringing terrorists to the states and treating them as common criminals with the protections of the constitution. After being shot down in all other states, Obama returned to his home state, where politics is done with twisted arms and purchased favors, to find a solution.
Congratulations Illinois. Your former senator, now president is gifting you with the lowest and most dangerous type of humans; those that take innocent life with pride. Michigan citizens should feel great pride in themselves for standing up and resisting. But even more so, they owe a great debt of gratitude to U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra for fighting so aggressively to keep Michigan from being the volunteer to solve Obama’s Gitmo problem.

Mackinac Island GOP Straw Poll

The envelope please....

And the Winner is...
According to the straw poll of Michigan's grassroots Republicans. For the governor’s race… Rick Snyder the successful businessman won convincingly. The Attorney General race went to former Court of Appeals Judge Bill Schuette. And the Sec. of State race was won by State Sen. Michelle McManus.
What do these results really mean? If one is familiar with the August 2007 Iowa Straw poll for the GOP Presidential race, one knows that there is much more to be gleaned from the results. The results from the most recent presidential Iowa straw poll showed Mitt Romney winning but not by the numbers expected. He outspent everyone else by ridiculous amounts. As a result, He came out weakened. Sam Brownback was the next biggest spender and needed to place second to convince donors he was viable. He came in third. He dropped out shortly thereafter. Second place went to Mike Huckabee. This surprising result catapulted him to the status of “top tier” candidates. His campaign held out to the end.
John McCain avoided the Iowa Straw Poll and had not presence there. Predictably, he received less than one percent of the vote. This was not a negative per se. As the only candidate from both major parties who publicly opposed corn based ethanol, he knew he had no chance and chose to lose on his own terms. When the Iowa Primary came in January of 2008, it was won by Huckabee with Romney a distant second. McCain tied with Fred Thompson for third. McCain roared back to life less than a week later in New Hampshire.
The press and media favorites were Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. They never were serious contenders. Neither put together the grassroots organization that winning requires. Ron Paul was a constant presence, but could never add to his limited Libertarian base. In the end it was McCain’s powerful organization that made the difference. (note: Powerful organizations can still be beat. Just ask Hillary Clinton)
Previous years conferences on Mackinac Island also showed early glimpses of future results. Mitt Romney (a Michigander) was stunned by the strength of McCain’s organization. The eventual primary result verified Romney’s weakness when he won the state by single digit percentage points.
Similarly, U.S. Senate candidate Keith Butler was considered to be the clear favorite. Jerry Zandstra’s strong showing demonstrated how weak the support truly was. This convinced Mike Bouchard to enter the race and he became the eventual nominee to run against Sen. Stabenow
Rich DeVos made an impressive appearance on the island and his strong showing convinced everyone else to get out or stay out of the race.
So early straw polls do matter. U.S. Congressman Pete Hoekstra chose not to have a major presence on the island. One seriously has to question if he could have had one if he wanted to. His support is strong in his own congressional district and also in nearby Grand Rapids, but he has spent little time in the last four years putting together a statewide organization and developing name recognition. It is likely that Like McCain in Iowa’s straw poll, he chose to lose on his own terms. Still, he finished within reach of Mike Cox and Mike Bouchard.
The surprise in the poll came in that Mike Cox, who had a strong and prominent presence on the island did not do better. In previous years, one could count on seeing hordes of Cox t-shirts. His successful run for Attorney General allowed for him to establish a statewide organization. Will Cox be the Mitt Romney who should have won the Iowa Primary but was upset by an outsider?
Similarly, the Bouchard and Land ticket should also have been strong. Lands eager volunteers were legendary in years past. Her statewide network and Bouchard’s connections from the U.S. Senate race should have resulted in a strong showing. I had anticipated a close early race between Cox and Bouchard. The fact that their support is identical is noteworthy.
Clearly the real winner in not only numbers, but also momentum was Rick Snyder. A political newcomer, he seems to have learned quickly how to develop a statewide organization and a compelling message. As the state of Michigan lingers in its seventh years of economic depression, the regret of not voting for businessman Devos in 2006 haunts many voters. Snyder may be able to tap into this sentiment. His not being a career politician also favors his chances as the national mode seems weary of both Republicans and Democrats.
One thing is for sure. It is far too early to make predictions. Many things can happen and new faces may appear suddenly. But if the Michigan Leadership Conference Straw Poll is a first snap shop, it shows the race could be long and hard fought. Hopefully party unity stays strong in the end.

Island Update

For those unable to attend the Michigan Leadership Conference on Mackinac Island, the weather has cooperated and we are all enjoying sunshine and a cool breeze off the lake. This is great news for all the new brides scattered throughout the island. Unlike previous years, there seems to be a lower level of friction between the campaigns and their candidates. This harmony should be welcomed as voters have grown tired of bitter political fighting not only between parties but within parties as well.
The political debate between gubernatorial candidates showed no fireworks or clear frontrunner. It did demonstrate a slate of viable candidates. In an election season that bodes poorly for incumbent politicians of both parties, it should be interesting to see which candidate can capture the “outsider” label. Most have long track records in politics and will need to answer for their contribution to the mess in Lansing.
The economy and taxes seems to dominate all other discussion. This in a state that has little positive to show the rest of the country. Whoever follows Jennifer Grandholm as the Democratic Party nominee will carry a heavy burden to convince Michigan voters that they need four more years. Will voters reward Republicans statewide as a result? That may have as much to do with the national mood of voters more than that of the longsuffering residents of Michigan.

My Letter To Attorney General Mike Cox

The following is a copy of a letter sent to Attorney General Mike Cox. It is in response to the lack of response I have received from his office and other public servants when seeking information under the Freedom of Information Act. I grow tired of stalling tactics and invite others to join me in the search for answers

Address Removed
Caledonia, MI 49316

September 17, 2009

Hon. Mike Cox, Esq.
Attorney General of Michigan
G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor
525 W. Ottawa St.
P.O. Box 30212
Lansing, MI 48909

Dear Attorney General Cox:

I recently read about your commitment to disclosure by candidates for public office and their spouses and applaud the steps you have taken in this regard. Transparency is important for both candidates for, and holders of, elected office and I support your position that all money from lobbyists over $250 should be disclosed.

I’m a member of the Society of Professional Journalists and have started a blog that is covering the race for Governor, among other things. In studying the issues, I came across two non-profit organizations that bear your name. The first, the Attorney General Cox Committee, was formed on January 21, 2003, and is a lobbying organization. The second, called the Mike Cox Pay Kids Foundation, was incorporated on August 6, 2003. It is a tax-deductible, charitable foundation.

Together these organizations have raised and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. I believe your spouse was one of three board members for both organizations, and was the foundation’s treasurer. Much of the spending of these organizations went to pay for advertising that carried your name.

I obtained public record information for these organizations, but cannot find a document that discloses who funded them. Could you ask the boards of these organizations to disclose a list of who contributed to them – above $250?

According to the latest annual reports (2008) filed for these organization, the boards consist of Michael Garavaglia, Shannon Price, and Laura Cox; and Michael Garavaglia, Laura Cox, and Thomas Furtaw, respectively. Your assistance in getting these board members to cooperate in disclosing their sources of funding over $250 will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Tim Jerzyk

Accountability and Transparency

This blog site was created for the purpose of holding politicians and candidates accountable in light of the upcoming election (2010). I make no attempt to hide my own political philosophical leanings. I am as uncomfortable with a Republicans growing government as I am with Democrats. For individuals, organizations, corporations and politicians alike, government budgets have become a form of lottery. Most people do not go out of their way to buy a lottery ticket, but when the jackpot reaches record amounts, even rational people cannot resist the urge. The size of the budgets at the state and federal level have created a level of temptation that makes hiring a lobbyist or forming a special interest group not only irresistible, but logical. If money is being given away, why not get in line?


For this reason the distinction of which party stands for "bigger" or "smaller" government has been blurred. Whether a conservative or liberal, most Americans coil at the thought of increased government intrusion into citizen's private lives. Shrinking government requires shrinking budgets. It is this idea that politicians seems to forget, despite what they may have promised while campaigning for office. Although perhaps too simplistic a phrase, "follow the money" truly does hold relevance to discovering the sources of corruption and unhealthy influences.

The State of Michigan is no longer in a position to tolerate politicians who express fidelity to anyone but its citizens. The gubernatorial candidates must be accountable and transparent regarding their financial activities. I am uncomfortable with, and puzzled by the actions of one candidate’s actions.

Attorney General Mike Cox's actions are worrisome to me not only for what I am unable to find through Freedom of Information request, but the apparent stalling that is taking place in providing the information.

I have decided with some hesitation, to post my correspondence regarding my inquiry so as to allow the light of truth to shine. I encourage others with greater skill and resources to join my quest for accountability and transparency

A this point I resist forming any conclusion, but my resolve for answers grows.

Let's Try Something New

The 2010 gubernatorial race calls for not only new solutions in Lansing, but new FACES as well. Recycling faces leads to recycled ideas and a continued system of bought and paid for politicians. Americans and especially Michiganders are tired of the traditional two party political system that takes entrenched politicians and forces an either-or choice on election day. Voters are also aware that throwing their support behind a "third-party" candidate is in reality tossing their vote out the window. (Let's face it, we all know it's true) The place to affect change is at the level of the Primary Election. The question for each candidate, either Democratic or Republican is to who do you own your allegiance?
From what I have gleaned so far from the declared candidates, is that there are three types of candidates. To avoid playing favorites, I will illustrate on “Potential Candidates”.
There are those relying on name recognition: Ted Nugent? George Perles?
Those relying on a long history and connections within the political system: Andy Dillan? Candice Miller?
And those who come from outside the political “system” but have distinguished themselves. Dick DeVos?
It is perhaps too early to declare to the field closed, but it is the precise time to start asking difficult questions. The primary question will have to do will allegiance. Perhaps this may best be understood as “Show me the money”. What motivates or even dictates the behavior of the candidates? Do they want to be governor because “it’s their time”? Have the “political insiders” in each party decided who’s in? Or are there other reasons? Have term limits forced them to move to another political job? Do they have solutions that can not be traced to special interest? These are legitimate questions and ones that need to be answered before voters are asked to decide.

Compassionate Government

Compassionate Government

For those who don’t remember, early in the 2000 presidential campaign there was a divide in the Republican Party over the use of the term “compassionate conservative”. For many in the party, the need for the distinction was quite obvious. Conservatives were mean, unless they were the religious type, and then they were just extremists. Perhaps you’ve heard the following concept. “Regular” conservatives, it is said, wanted to teach the poor to fish, while liberals wanted to give the poor fish to eat. Conservative pointed out that at liberals were foolish, because they would need to keep feeding the poor everyday for the rest of their lives and their children and grandchildren as well. In essence, they would become permanent wards of the state and loyal voters fearful of losing their handouts. This was contrary to the American dream. What about hard work? Rugged individualism? Self reliance? To only feed a man a fish was to subjugate him to near slave status to the mercy of others. It robbed him of dignity and the ability to achieve his right to the pursuit of happiness. Liberalism, it was reasoned, was wholly un-American.

Liberals of course, scoffed at such a view. So, they argued, a man and his family must starve to death while taking fishing lessons from someone who takes the fish he catches and deducts the cost for the pole or nets and the training and then takes his profit off the top? This leaves the man with mere scraps with which to feed his family. The greedy fisherman CEO who owns the boat and hires the man lives fine and profits greatly while the man who is desperate and has no clout, must take what he gets. Is this the “brotherly love” that the city of Philadelphia in 1776 was known for? Is this the American way? Must a man live in poverty his whole life while making someone else wealthy off of his sweat? This seems to resemble slavery as well.

For the conservative in the Republican Party, this was a serious issue. These conservatives were conscious of the PR image that they were constantly fighting. Americans may as a whole be politically ignorant, but they recognize injustice and compassion when they see it. Neither solution of teaching or feeding were sufficient, but if only one was to be chosen, a man needs to eat first, if he is to work. Perhaps this will explain the liberal’s argument about free school breakfast and lunches in public schools. Enter the term “Compassionate Conservative”. Why not do both! Genius! If we allow welfare, but limit it’s duration and require the recipient to seek employment, it’s a win-win. A kinder and gentler America.

Other Republicans were aghast. Conservatism did not need a qualifier. How dare anyone suggest that there was a need for the adjective “compassionate”. It was self evident. The true definition of conservatism was dripping with compassion. To suggest the need for the adjective compassionate was to concede the point to liberals. This became a struggle over who could be more “compassionate”? Republicans would thus join the battle on the Liberal Democrats terms. A battle the conservatives were sure to lose.

The decision for the Republicans to appear compassionate began long before the 2000 election. George H.W. Bush, Ford and Nixon were moderates. Each caved many times to the pressure of public perception. The net result was the continual expansion of size and scope of the government. George W. Bush did not reverse this trend. Although his tax cuts and pro-life positions were surely conservative, the culmination of his presidency resulted in an increase in the growth of government. Individual trees were indeed conservative, but the forest as a whole was not.

The history of corruption, waste, patronage and bureaucratic stagnation in government is well known. In fact, it is far more shocking to discover the opposite when it occasionally occurs. Each and every wasteful program was masked behind a wall labeled “compassion”. It is the responsibility of each citizen to stay interested and informed. It is the responsibility of the free press to discover and proclaim its discoveries. The current “crisis” status of the economy at the state, national and global levels invites rapid and radical responses. Due diligence requires a restless mind and a watchful eye toward the continued expansion of government in the name of compassion. Liberty is never free.

The struggle for Liberty rests in the hands of the individual citizen. Each right and every dollar taken by or given to the government is one which our children and grandchildren will someday have to fight to restore. It is for posterity and moral fortitude that each citizen resit the trend that now pervades our nation.