I didn’t have much of a write up on it before, but the crowd of 1200+ folks who showed demonstrated the draw of this energetic and charismatic leader, Herman Cain. The news cycle was on full tilt boogie, and in fact one would have thought there was NO OTHER NEWS at all when he arrived.

Enjoy the video, pulled together from a couple of camera sources, in its full 1080p HD production.

LANSING

“Momentum for new leadership in the White House is building to new heights as President Obama’s failed stimulus and his borrow-and-bust policies wreak havoc on our economy,” Michigan Republican Party Chairman Bobby Schostak said today. “The RNC recognizes that Michigan turned bright red in 2010 and will play a crucial role in 2012.

“Oakland University will serve as a great place for Republicans to debate a new way forward for our economy and highlight how President Obama has failed to lead. Michigan is undoubtedly a battleground state and Republicans are here to win and make Barack Obama a one-term president,” said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus. 

“Michigan’s presidential debate will be broadcast worldwide by CNBC and will showcase Republican ideas to turn the country around and put it on the right track,” Schostak said. “The debate will focus on jobs and the economy, and has now been elevated as an official debate by the RNC.”

The Michigan Republican Party, in conjunction with CNBC and Oakland University, will host a GOP Presidential Primary Debate on Wednesday, November 9, 2011 from 8pm to 10pm ET.

A statement from Carl Levin sitting Michigan US Senator:

Madam President, to say the legislation before us is not ideal is truly an understatement.

The notion that our deficit problem can be solved solely by cutting spending flies in the face of our experience when in fact unwise tax cuts for the wealthy and egregious tax loopholes are significant culprits in our fiscal crisis. I believe too many Republicans are influenced by an ideology so extreme that it promised to wreak economic havoc if they did not get their way. No additional revenues became the battle cry, an approach that prevents the balanced deficit reduction that the American people rightly support. The result is that this legislation incorporates some policies that are profoundly unfair to middle-income Americans.

So seen in isolation, this is not a good bill. But no public policy exists in a vacuum. Despite its many flaws, this legislation must pass. Let me explain why.

While there will be a number of negative consequences as a result of this bill’s passage, there will be more dire consequences if it fails to pass. The choice here is between a faulty piece of legislation, on the one hand, and severe damage to our economy and even greater joblessness on the other. The choice we face now, today, with this vote, is whether to accept a flawed bill, or to watch the United States, the globe’s pre-eminent economic power, default on its obligations to senior citizens, students and veterans, as well as to those who have invested in our country by the purchase of our bonds and Treasury notes. We have taken many steps in the past three years to try to restart job creation in this country; those efforts would come undone in the crisis that would follow our failure to pass this bill.

One of the things that is right about this legislation is that it avoids a misguided demand that we have another round of crisis and negotiation over this issue in just a few short months. A short-term increase in the debt limit, as House Republicans demanded, would surely have led to a damaging downgrade of the government’s credit rating. It would have frozen financing for businesses and consumers. We simply cannot put the American people and the American economy through that again.

Despite this bill’s imbalance in focusing solely on spending cuts, it does contain a mechanism that can force acceptance of what our Republican colleagues have refused to accept: the reality that revenue must be a part of real deficit reduction, and that fair and effective deficit reduction efforts require shared sacrifice. 2011 is the year of unbalanced spending cuts. 2012 must be a year of shared sacrifice, one in which the President uses the bully pulpit to lead the nation to accept the notion that everyone, including surely the wealthy, must play a role in reducing deficits.

Democrats have repeatedly emphasized this point. It is a simple fact that among the largest factors contributing to our deficits is the Bush tax cuts, tax cuts that greatly increased the growth of the gap between the wealthiest among us and working families.

Today, median household income, the income of the typical American household, is lower than it was in the mid 1990s. And yet, the wealthiest Americans not only do extremely well, they are doing better and better all the time. A few decades ago, the wealthiest one percent of all Americans took in 10 percent of all income. Today it’s 24 percent.

These numbers are not aberrations, nor actions of a free market. They reflect policy choices. And too often, the choice has been to pay lip service to the middle class, while driving income inequality to levels not seen in 80 years. The failure to ask all Americans to join in the sacrifices required to reduce our deficit flies in the face of logic and fairness and threatens to increase the growing gap between upper-income and middle-income families.

Democrats have proposed common-sense steps to address the failure to include more revenue and promote shared sacrifice. We propose restoration of the 39.6 percent tax bracket for the wealthiest Americans who make nearly $400,000 a year or more. Most Democrats support the end of tax breaks for the massively profitable oil companies. We seek to close loopholes that now allow tax dodgers to hide income and assets in overseas tax havens to avoid the taxes they rightly owe, and to end tax breaks that let highly paid hedge fund managers enjoy a lower income tax rate than the rate their employees pay.

So far, too many have denied the need for these changes. But there is a chance at least that this legislation may finally force consideration of added revenues, added fairness in the tax code, and the shared sacrifice that is so missing from the cuts in the legislation before us.

Why is that? Under this legislation, we will face a stark choice: We must agree before the end of this year to deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years, or stand by as an automatic budget cut kicks in to accomplish that goal. A bipartisan joint committee of 12 Members of Congress will meet and develop a deficit-reduction plan that avoids those automatic cuts. That joint committee will have broad powers to review and propose changes to spending and to the tax code and to add revenues. Revenues will finally be back on the table, where they have always belonged.

Now, meeting the $1.2 trillion goal will not be easy, but it is achievable. Achievable, that is, if those who have so far been unwilling to compromise can recognize that revenue must be part of the equation. Nobody should be eager for those automatic cuts to take effect. Many would be unacceptably painful and damaging. But the very idea of those automatic cuts is that they are so unacceptable that few of us will want to see them enacted, and most of us will be willing to compromise in order to avoid them.

Congress used this once approach before. In 1985, we passed Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, which set forth specific deficit targets and required cuts if those targets weren’t met. The framework for today’s legislation is based on that model. As one of the authors of the Gramm-Rudman Hollings Act, Senator Gramm, put it: “It was never the objective of Gramm-Rudman to trigger the sequester; the objective of Gramm-Rudman was to have the threat of the sequester force compromise and action.” And it did, for example, in 1990, when, facing the possibility of unacceptable cuts in defense and other important programs, President Bush and bipartisan leaders in Congress adopted a balanced deficit-reduction plan that included significant new revenues.

The Damocles Sword of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction act was the reason for that outcome.

I believe that any plan from the bipartisan committee that fails the test of balance will have no chance of passage in the United States Senate. That means the members of the committee must truly be willing to lead, to put aside partisanship and rigid ideology, if we are to avoid triggering unacceptable cuts. Success also is going to require presidential leadership and stronger use of his bully pulpit.

Democrats have demonstrated that we are willing to put forward serious deficit-reduction proposals, plans that include painful cuts to important priorities. With a vote to approve this bill, which we must, it is my hope that we have reached the high tide of an ideological movement that has sought to hold tax cuts for the wealthy sacred, while imposing increasingly draconian cuts on American families, and threatened economic calamity if that movement did not get its way. The era of slashing programs that help middle-class Americans, with no shared sacrifice by the wealthiest among us, that era must end, and give way to an era in which fairness and balance guide our efforts. Passing this legislation today hopefully will drive us to make that transition.

To which Republican US senate candidate Peter Konetchy Replies:

I disagree with Senator Levin.

His basic argument is that the government is more responsible with the people’s money the people who actually earn it. He wants to take more of the people’s money (through tax) and waste it on his pet political projects.

Organizations within the free market must compete with each other to provide the highest quality product at the lowest price. This forces efficiency. The government has no incentive to be efficient and views private sector profit as its safety net to feed its inefficiency. Hence Levin wants to tax.

He’s also stating that the free market is incapable of meeting the people’s needs, thereby justifying government dependency programs. I feel just the opposite. There is an inverse relationship between the ability of the free market to meet the needs of society and the amount of government interference through tax and regulation.

He mentions “Shared Sacrifice”. His definition of shared sacrifice means taxing more from the producers to give to the non-producers. I define it as allowing the producers to keep more of what they have earned, and requiring government to address their waste and expecting those receiving government distribution payments (outside of Social Security and Medicare) to expect less and become responsible for themselves.

He criticizes the Bush Tax Cuts. If I remember, these cuts spurred economic growth immediately after 9-11 and allowed the free market to keep unemployment under 5%. Bush, along with Kennedy and Reagan before him, proved tax cuts spur economic growth and reduce government dependence.

He believes the government must help the middle class via dependency programs. I disagree. The best way to help the middle class is to allow the producers of this nation to keep and invest their hard earned money into the economy creating new jobs. These jobs require workers, decreasing unemployment, and return self respect to the formerly unemployed people of this country.

His mention of a 1.2 trillion debt reduction over 10 years is a lie. If true the debt would be 13.2 trillion at the end of 10 years, but instead the debt is expected to actually increase by upwards of 10 trillion – to a total of about 25 trillion. Levin’s complaining about wanting to cut proposed future increases by 1.2 trillion. – A complete farce.

I feel the only way to get out of this economic quagmire is to drastically cut spending, cut taxes, cut government regulation, and allow the free market to rebound. I would also strongly encourage the government to allow the private sector, using private investment, to develop our domestic energy reserves (oil, gas, nuclear). The US should be self sufficient, and a net exporter or energy.

Peter Konetchy, Candidate for US Senate, Michigan 2012

In fact much of today’s radical progressive agenda would not have been moved forward either.

If the audio drops for you, then go here: and start the video at 03:18.  Strangely, I have had an audio drop issue on this clip even though the master is fine.  When Youttube processes it, spots of audio seem to “drop out”.

A particular point he makes can be found at about 4:15, as he starts to describe the blurred line between the Democrats and the Republicans. He was absolutely correct on his analysis. Furthermore, there are a number of events that have happened since that speech, that can be used as lessons. Surely, an encyclopedia of Republican “moderation” could be written from only 35 years of government expansion, (since the video was made) and intrusion into our lives that offers as proof, a failure to stand on principles.

How DOES the line get blurred though? What is it that brings about a change in a person elected, whom might well have spoken solidly as a conservative during the election cycle, and then seemingly wavers from principle unexpectedly?

Having beaten an incumbent in the primary, who I believe strayed from conservative principles I may be able to offer a bit of understanding. Realize of course that my position, should I win in the general Nov 02, is not one of great significance to the country, nor is it one that would write me into the history books as a notable elected individual, but it carries its own weight locally, and on how I react to certain issues, and circumstance.  The elected candidate might well seem different from the trying to be elected candidate.

Of course having the “elected” part to go, I am willing to assume a little room in my thesis.

WHY someone runs, might well have a number of answers. In my own case it was the phone calls from a number of folks who know me, have read some of my work, know I am solidly conservative, and appreciate some of the principled stands that I take. The requests came continually enough, and alongside the natural instinct of wanting to have things done MY WAY, I reluctantly agreed to engage.

I knew there were problems I might be able to solve or at least affect positively. But at first, I wasn’t sure if I even WANTED to win. It wasn’t that big a deal. Mentally I was geared towards state and federal issues, and even with a reasonable knowledge of the shenanigans in county government I wasn’t too sure I would be effective. Add to this, having never run for office I was out of a comfort zone.

It changes fast enough though.

How easy it becomes when the ego is stroked by people actually volunteering to go door to door on your behalf. A self discovery that you might actually have an message to deliver, that is important enough to warrant people dedicating their time for what YOU believe in. Before long, a relative indifference changes to a commitment to invest your own time and energy into the process. It becomes more important as you see its value through the efforts of others. YOU become more important as they tap into your desire to convert YOUR opinion into action.

In a way, to become leader you must first follow the lead of your supporters, but where it goes from there can become altogether different.

At what point does an opinion of self importance transform into acting contrary to principle?

It can happen at the same time one finds a willing ally to fight for him. At the same time someone commits to assisting you, it is all too easy to ignore the minor differences you might have. EVEN IF those differences run in opposition to your core beliefs. It becomes harder to speak out against what is WRONG, if you feel you will offend the belief set of someone who has “for the most part” taken up your banner to get you elected. That loyalty, even in a misplaced condition is a conservative trait.

It can also happen when faced with an electorate that is perceived to be in opposition to your core principles. When you are right in “zigging,” but conventional wisdom says “zagging” is the best tactic to become an office holder. Whether it is the media, or public policy groups, or even a bought and paid for rally by big labor, “group think” has its effectiveness. One of my good (conservative) friends said to me about his election strategy:

“you know I’ll have to campaign a little to the left.. once I get beyond the primary”

I asked him why. I KNEW the answer, but wanted to know if it was what I was assuming.. That the voters are used to a “moderate” voice.

He thought he would lose because his conservative beliefs would be seen as maybe a little to extreme. So instead of advocating the positions he himself held personally, he was willing to put a stamp of approval on a compromise of his principles. His fear of outright rejection by some, diluted his message. It weakened his own personal resolve at the same time. He wanted to WIN! I understand that too.

Unless you win, its hard to effect change.. RIGHT?

Maybe there is too much consideration for “winning” being the leading indicator versus the end result of a good message.

Maybe its possible to win WITHOUT selling out your principles.

Reagan, pointed out in his presentation that there are people waiting to be involved. That they have given up because they saw no difference between the parties. There was no reason for them to pick one side or the other. When confronted with 35-40% voting rates, it seems he may be on to something. In fact, its one of the main arguments the Libertarians have made for a couple of decades. I would argue there is a difference, but it has not been one that is clearly defined, if only demonstrated by the inability of Republicans to use the majority in both houses ALONG with the Presidency to lower the deficit spending and restore our liberties that have been removed piecemeal from us through the last several administrations.

They had their chance to redeem themselves. But some Republicans have been comfortable with Democrat lite or “moderate” voting records that keep them safely in office as long as the rest of the population stays home. Now all of a sudden, those previously silent voices are being heard, and the cheese is being moved. Losses by entrenched Republicans with quite moderate stands are being thrown aside. Those who have participated in the quickening removal of our liberties by the current administration are finding out their “safe” stands on some issues are NOT acceptable to people who expect them to behave like Republicans.

They are discovering that the “winning strategy” of moderation is a loser after all.

The Tea Party events have changed the game to be sure. Conservatives found their voice, and discovered kin, both inside, and outside the Republican or Democrat parties. But the conservatives are savvy enough already to realize a third party solution gets them nothing.. So it was a natural fit to push the most conservative candidates, EVEN IF they might have a seemingly uphill battle. And EVEN IF it seems that the stark contrast between ideas brings about the bigger question of electability in November.

The question of course always coming from the capitulating weenies on the Republican side who are worried more about the WIN than what is right. The question coming from those who have never stopped to think that maybe instead of bashing that which they claim to represent, they should teach it. There is a disconnect because of ego. Of course you cannot spend time teaching it, and risk alienating others to the cause because they will think it proselytizing. Better to let those people who might be WRONG, or at least misinformed to continue being so. They might not like you…

Heaven forbid.

But there is also an industry built around keeping incumbents and “expected” nominees in place. Those folks who have little concern about the general welfare of the nation, or the direction it is heading, feed the head. The self importance already built in through the (sometimes repeated) election process is further reinforced by those who give great amounts of money (and plenty of free advice) with daily visits, luncheons in a politician’s honor and a guidance that is hard to overcome with a letter or two of hope or wishes from someplace so distant as home.

Vanity serves the office well. Did we not see a perfect example of this in the defeat of Mike Castle by a presumably conservative Christine O’Donnell?

The media, the lobbyists, the Republican elite guard, and those who thought Castle had the best odds of WINNING in November all wanted Castle to win in the primary. Never mind that he votes consistently with the other side in his current position. He was ENTITLED. He was special. And NOW he has a purplish bruise all over his EGO that can be seen several states away. He hasn’t even congratulated the winner. Everyone TOLD HIM HE WAS IT.

Everyone was wrong. So.. Now they roll out the “Buckley rule”

No less than Charles Krauthammer whom I agree with most often, complains that the Buckley rule; “Support the most conservative candidate who is electable” was violated. Even Krauthammer sees the WIN as the end game so effortlessly, that it is likely to promote such behavior into the future as well. However, this is so different a time, that egos, winning, and status quo cannot be accepted. From this point forward, the conservative’s national strategy MUST be to roll back the clock a few decades.

And it won’t happen with self absorbed politicos.

Andrew McCarthy writes:

“As one would expect from a tactical guideline, the Buckley Rule’s ambition is limited. Tactics are not strategy. They are what you use to succeed within a given strategic framework. If you don’t have a strategy, tactics become a poor substitute for thinking. If you have the wrong strategy, tactics are only the means by which you will fail to achieve your highest interest — because you have miscalculated what your highest interest is. “

And what is our highest interest?

Some in the GOP seem to have forgotten.  Not for long though.

As a follow up and coincidentally, much of the fraud happened in Oakland county, by Democrats, and was discovered by the Oakland county Clerk’s office run by Michigan Secretary of State candidate Ruth Johnson. Johnson’s office discovered irregularities after being contacted by a candidate who was unaware he was running on “the Tea Party” slate.

And as the story develops..  there may be criminal implications.

Ruth Johnson applauded the unanimous decision of the Oakland County Circuit Court bench to pursue a grand jury investigation into the apparent fraudulent activities of individuals in the creation of a fake political party intended to deceive voters.

Ruth Johnson, the Oakland County Clerk and Republican nominee for Secretary of State, uncovered this growing scandal when she received evidence of a candidate filing for the November ballot was the result of a likely fraud. That candidate, Aaron Tyler, has sworn to the fact he did not file to run for office and did not sign any of the paperwork filed under his name.

To improve the process and create greater accountability on a statewide basis, Johnson is proposing the creation of an election crimes unit that would include state and local law enforcement, prosecutors and election officials.  Said Johnson:

“This new unit will send a serious message that election crimes in Michigan are a danger to our democracy and that a coordinated effort will be mounted to quickly pursue those who break the law. So far in this case I can list eight different government agencies that have some role in the investigation in question. We need to pool those resources, streamline the process and empower experts to bring out the truth before voters cast their ballots. “

As has been widely reported in the media this was not an isolated case of deception but likely part of a larger plan which includes false candidates for many offices at both the state and local level. Michael McGuiness, who served as Director of Operations for the Jocelyn Benson for Secretary of State campaign, and Jason H. Bauer have resigned their positions within the Oakland County Democratic Party in the wake of these revelations. Both Mr. McGuiness and Mr. Bauer have been shown to be directly connected to many of the filings in question in media accounts.

Johnson testified before the Michigan State Board of Canvassers which rejected the fake political party known as “The Tea Party”. The Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court have since upheld that decision.

More as it happens.

The county convention serves as a selection tool for the Republican party delegates to the State Convention, which will select the Attorney General, Secretary of State,  Michigan Supreme Court candidates, Education board, and the trustee candidates for MSU, UofM and Wayne State.

Also..  The State Convention is responsible for selecting/approving the LT. Governor choice.

I had attended the GOP convention in Minnesota for the 2008 election.  THAT event was just slightly surreal, but this particular convention was down home and decidedly local.  23 voting delegates to the State Convention were selected, along with 23 alternates in the event the first string players couldn’t make it.

Some Observations.

1. There is still an “old guard” in the Republican Party – Like it or not, there is a highly protective group of individuals in the local party who might well be tired of losing in the general elections, but still do not understand why they do.  They protect their own, and look at new input with a certain (perceived) distrust.  Apparently no one likes their cheese moved.  They showed in strength.
2. Numbers don’t lie, votes tallied demonstrated a reliable and organized effort at keeping certain people from becoming delegates to the state convention.  Vote numbers were remarkably similar for candidates who have a particular interest.  Intelligence gathered beforehand has particular designations assigned to certain persons for this purpose.  SOME delegates carried lists that identified conservatives who were members of 912 or tea party groups.  It was a “negative list.”
3. Many Tea Party type folks are political party novices.  I place myself on that list, at least as far as local electioneering goes.  Many cannot understand how (in their view) people can operate sans principle, or even without educating themselves before voting.  But this is a part of the lesson.  TIME and participation begets stronger alliances.  One of the early statements in the convention by a candidate offering his pledge of new support for the nominee who walloped him in the primary, drove it home there is much to learn.
4. I am just starting  to realize the effect of local political families, and how they work.  Few principles are involved, and even fewer cares outside of the power structure for the sake of the “familial power structure” need be considered.  MOST (there are some who watch their own industries closely) could seemingly care less about legislation passed, as long as THEIR OWN are able to participate.   Principle seems to bore them.  Some consider the constitution a “single issue.” (seriously.. taken from a conversation with a “regular”)

Did any of this make the meeting contentious? Nope.

In fact, some of those observations might well be made by the very people who are described.  The convention itself was upbeat and positive, and the folks who may well have viewed from the inside for the first time, have taken the good from this experience and learned how better to advance the next time.  Input was considered and the new ideas did indeed affect how the process was managed.  New members and old alike had a hand in the development of the evening’s activities.   A secret ballot replaced the hands up approval process, the thought of a “slate” selection disappeared, and though the final selection of delegates may well bear out the same results, the precedent means a healthier standard going forward.

And in the end..

I would opine Dave Barr did a fine job of chairing the convention, and any thoughts or concerns that the convention might have an uncomfortable edge to it disappeared as soon as the session began.  Folks knew there was a large contingent present to represent one of the candidates to be selected at the State Convention, and in the spirit of politics, larger voting numbers win.  The Grand Traverse Republican Party has done its part, and a delegation is set for the 28th of August.

In the end, there were no sore losers.  None. NADA.  Just lessons.

“The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to “save the country from trending toward socialism.”

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”

Politico’s piece has sparked a number of lefty blogs, who are looking for anything they can find to turn attention away from the FAIL Obama policies and the current debate on the monstrous government health care takeover.  Using a paltry 2 pages from the presentation found,  Democrats have begun to rail on Republican efforts to milk the rich donors based on the fears of this country turning to socialism etc.. But at the same time ignoring that many donors were AT THE RETREAT where the presentation was made.

An attempt to turn the Republican supporters against the party is expected.  The left has been trying to define Republicans based on their limited synaptic polarization, but to use a strategy session hand out as a smoking gun for a political party is somewhat weak and has the smell of desperation.

But let us not forget that in our own state, the glorious territory of Michigan, it was not a Republican “conspiracy” that attempted to rewrite the constitution of the state in a single pass, but rather the collusion of the Democrat Party, and The Unions.  The 2008 discovery by a Mackinac center intern of the Democrat takeover plan was found on a UAW website, and outlined the ways in which to deceive Michigan voters so that the Democrats could retain power in a state where the dissatisfaction with Democrat leadership would leave them out of power from 2012-2021 (their estimates.. not mine)

The document, when addressing the desired redistricting to help retain democrat seats:

“To succeed Redistricting reform must be a part of a larger, popular state government reform proposal”

which means “We need to headline the package with things that people actually might support”

They even recognized how incredibly miserable a job Democrats have done in Michigan, all the while trying to get more power for encore performances:

“In 2008, use the public’s very negative mood and high level of discouragement about state government (the worst in 25 years) to enact a ballot proposal which comprehensively reforms state government, including changing the structural obstacles to Democratic control of state government in 2012-2021″

And it wasn’t ME who added the parenthesis and “worst in 25 years” comment..

The worst part of this document, is that it wasn’t merely a strategy booklet laying around, but rather a full blown plan bought and paid for by the Democrat Party in Michigan.  It’s implementation HAPPENED, and the Democrats LIED about it.  They claimed to have nothing to do with it when the RMGN (Reform Michigan Government NOW) petitions appeared on the scene.  They hid the source of the funding, and only when this document was discovered, did the Michigan Democrat leadership admit its participation.

From Stacking the courts by elimination of “conservative” or otherwise Republican identified judges, to redistricting that favored Democrat majorities, the entire ballot initiative that came out fortunately had one little problem.

It was too big.  IT wouldn’t fit on the ballot, and was summarily rejected for that reason.

The failure of the Democrats and their leadership in this state and in the nation can be summed up in one word; “proboscis”.  The consistent failures result in the inability to see beyond the ends of their elite, and oft upturned noses.  Lack of consideration for the damaging complexities they weave, while practicing the art of deception over a voting public and indeed their very own constituencies.

And now they would condemn the Republicans, for the simple act of considering how best to raise funds and reach their donor base based on a little stroking of the ego?

Laughable.

Sadly some of the most skilled orators are the most deceptive.

Trusting her judgment is not an option any longer.  In fact, there is nothing redeeming about the miserable failure Jennifer Granholm and the machine which placed her in the driver’s seat of the work truck of the nation.  Michigan needs a mechanic pretty badly now, as the brakes are shot, the tank is 3/4 empty, and we are running on 2 flat tires.

Tomorrow, Jennifer Granholm will tell us we need to re-upholster the seats however. .

By the sounds of the motor, what we truly need is an oil change.

The Republicans most recent ad is not too bad..

Indeed, the Republican party has an opportunity to take advantage of the record of the worst governor the state has ever seen. If you are a party loyalist, and like to win elections, this is your year with the fallout and failure of both our state leadership, and that at the national level. But don’t forget the capitulation of moderate Republicans that went along amiably with policy that both violates the intent of our constitution, and helped the failures along.

Take nothing for Granted. Know who it is you support. If they willfully adorn the mantle of savior to the masses, they at the same time eagerly seek your unwilling participation. It matters little whether your keeper wears the mantle of Republican or Democrat as long as you are willing to subject yourself to losses of freedom.

More later today on tomorrow’s Rally.

We have been responding that the Tea Parties are PURE GRASSROOTS And then..

The Tea Party Organizers for the Chicago event have released this:

Steele Not Wanted to Speak at Chicago Tea Party

NATIONAL- A few days ago Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele asked to speak at the Chicago Tax Day Tea Party. He was thanked for finally reaching out to the movement but denied to speak.National Communications Director Juliana Johnson states, “Steele hasn’t shown any interest in this movement until now, until the cameras are rolling. We denied his invitation. In addition, this is a nonpartisan event, not an RNC event.”Eric Odom, Director of the DontGo Movement, said in his letter to Steele’s people, “…We’re still excited to know that Chairman Steele will be in Chicago and we hope, after knowing that he’ll be in the city, that he’ll stop by and mingle with the Americans who will be rallying on April 15th. This will also present a fantastic time for Chairman Steele to LISTEN to what we have to say and perhaps gather some thoughts on what the RNC needs to be doing moving forward.” Please go to  http://www.dontgomovement.com/blog/2009/04/08/rnc-chairman-steel-requests-speaker-spot-at-chicago-tea-party/ to read the full letter. DontGo Movement will be protesting, along with many other organizations, the fact that government intrusion doesn’t work. “A la the 1773 Boston Tea Party, we’re fed up with the taxation and the government takeover brought on with the Stimulus Bill and the numerous other bailouts. There’s only one proven way to create jobs and that is by cutting income taxes and wasteful spending” said Odom. Tax Day Tea Parties will be taking place in hundreds of cities throughout America on April 15th and they are expecting a turnout of over 500,000 people. The original batch of Tea Parties, put together in only a few days, occurred in hundreds of cities with tens of thousands of people coming out in support. The main sponsors of the Tea Parties are the DontGo Movement, Smart Girl Politics, and Top Conservatives on Twitter.

For more information on the Tax Day Tea Parties, please go to www.taxdayteaparty.com. For the letter to Steele, please go to http://www.dontgomovement.com/blog/2009/04/08/rnc-chairman-steel-requests-speaker-spot-at-chicago-tea-party/

The Chicago organizers have made it VERY CLEAR this is NOT a Republican event. It is not an event solely brought about under a single party affiliation. YES there are a lot of conservatives, YES there will likely be a number of folks like myself who are members of the Republican party, but there will also be a lot of folks who are members or supporters of the Libertarian Party, Democrats, Greens Etc..  REAL PEOPLE with a very real concern that Government has gone a little (or a lot, depending on your perspective)  too far in laying claim to taxes on money we havent even earned yet.

Early in the tea party scheduling, I offered a suggestion to Congressman Dave Camp’s office (as a constituent) that he make an attempt to participate in some way.  I offered space on this blog, for comment and suggested he at least show up.  Recently, I received this PDF which is a message to the Tea Party participants from his district:

Of course I would have preferred he showed primarily for the sake of being on the right side of the issue. However I find myself disappointed that A. It took so long to see which way the wind was blowing, and B. He STILL couldn’t commit to what is quite obviously an effort outside partisanship, yet would demonstrate a TRUE commitment to properly representing his constituents.

Don’t get me wrong…  Dave Camp is a good guy, and he and I might agree 90% of the time, but the underlying reality of politics is clearly demonstrated.  We MUST remain in a constant “battle mode” if we are to keep the attention of our elected representatives.

It is the real folks on the ground making things happen, NOT our congressmen.   It is the people who will travel outside of their easy chairs to make a stand and say NO MORE, who will ultimately guide policy.  Doug Powers who attended the last Lansing Rally explains why he attends:

For me, these tea parties are about putting an end to waste. Not the waste of money (though obviously that’s a major concern), but rather the tragic waste of American ingenuity, innovation, creativity and philanthropy.

It is you, whether  Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or otherwise who give up your right to be heard if you don’t take a stand frequenly.  Your voice cannot be heard unless it is loud enough. And because our representation has short term memory loss, it must be constant, no matter your Representative’s party.