May 9, 2008

Republican lawmaker introduces resolution supporting Andy Dillon

Sane people of all political stripes continue to line up behind House Speaker Andy Dillon to denounce the ridiculous and illegal recall against him for his vote for the increase of the income tax - and the since repealed sales tax on some services - that avoided a government shutdown and helped balanced the state budget on Oct. 1.

Both the subscription only MIRS and Gongwer reported that Rep. Dick Ball, R-Bennington Twp, introduced House Resolution 358 Thursday that would "express the sense of the House that recalls should be based on specific misconduct, criminal activity, or abuse of office and should not be based on a single vote and to denounce the effort to recall Speaker Andy Dillon." That’s also what the majority of voters think, and most state newspapers have editorialized that position. Both nonpartisan groups, like the Michigan Townships Association, and more partisan groups, like the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, have also taken the same position.

Some of the political posturing by some other Republicans was laughable. Rep. Kevin Elsenheimer, R-Bellaire - who is running to be the minority leader or for the Michigan Court of Appeals, depending on what day it is – said, according to Gongwer, that the supporters of the resolution were “…engaging the chamber in a political issue.” What, the House of Representatives is a political organization that engages in politics? Why, I never.

Even more funny was the reaction of Republican Macomb County Commissioner Leon Drolet, who launched the illegal and unethical recall that used faked signatures, paid petition collectors who lied to get signatures and used out-of-district petition gathers to collect signatures. He said in MIRS that “he felt he could get some public relations traction just on the basis that the House was considering taking the resolution up.” With Drolet, that’s exactly what this witch-hunt is all about.

He also, of course, brought up Dillon’s long planned week of vacation with his family. Ironically, the bill that Republicans used to embarrass Dillon and illustrate the fact that he was gone, passed by a vote of 60-44 on Thursday. You will recall that on Wednesday, the Capital Outlay Budget – Senate Bill 511 – failed by just one vote. Drolet and company used that to try and say that if Dillon had been in the chamber it would have passed. They ignored, of course, that eight members were not at session yesterday and three Republicans did not even cast a vote in order to embarrass him.

Somebody better tell Elsenheimer about this politics thing in the chamber. I fail to see how introducing a bill or a resolution is political, but refusing to do what you were sent to Lansing to do is not political. To me, the actions by the three Republicans in refusing to vote might be more of a reason to recall a politician; for not doing what they were elected to do, instead of for doing what we sent them to do.

Gongwer also reported that the Department of State said on Thursday that it has conducted its initial review of the recall petition signatures found they have the required 8,724 signatures. Now if the SOS does its job properly, the fraud will begin to surface even more. The department will now proceed in matching the signatures to the qualified voter file to determine if there are enough to put the measure on the ballot.


Michael Motta said...

This is off-topic for the specific post but it's relevant to "The Conservative Media" blog as a whole. I've copy/pasted this from the ACLU site for any who may be intersted:

Subject: Stop media concentration

Did you know that just 6 media conglomerates control most of the media in the US?

In a free country, media concentration like this hinders vigorous public debate. The problem just got worse, when Bush's FCC basically gutted a rule that limited the number of both newspaper and television stations giant media conglomerates are able to buy up in the same city.

Fortunately, members of Congress are taking steps to reverse the damage. I just supported their efforts by sending them an email through the ACLU website. You can take action here:


Communications guru said...

Thanks for the post. That's exactly why the media is conservative.

Brett said...

It's interesting that while you mention that a resolution was introduced to renounce the recall, you didn't mention that the resolution was pulled out.

It seems that the resolution is in direct contrast with the Constitution. Recalls are designed to be political. When a politicians procedure is contrary to the publics desires, the public has the right to begin a recall. This scared the Republican that introduced the resolution.

Another reason it was pulled was because it mentioned the travails of a certain Democrat from the Detroit area. A guy by the name of Kwame Kilpatrick. He holds the office of Mayor. This scared the Democrats away from the resolution.

This is typical of liberals. Tell half the story. I don't know if the majority of newspapers in Michigan have editorialized against the recall. I've never bothered to count the papers, nor the number of editorials against the recall. I do know that there has been no referendum on Dillon's recall, so I don't know how the writer can possibly back up his assertion that the majority of voters are against the recall.

But then, when the writer is a liberal, no source, nor proof is needed for a statement. Just make the statement often enough and hope that by saying it more often that it becomes the truth.


Communications guru said...

That’s because you are mistaken, the resolution was not “pulled out.” It was introduced but not taken up, like many other bills. I would suggest you use the link I provided to track the action on the resolution. During a legislative session up to 3,000 bills and resolutions are introduced and many die in committee. The smoking ban bill was stuck in committee for 10 years, for example, and for 5 months this session.
I have never, nor has anyone else, said you could not start a recall for any reason or is it unconstitutional to do so. The majority of people do not believe you should recall someone for a vote you disagree with. That’s what an election is for.
Again, it was not pulled. I’m not sure what the Mayor of Detroit has to do with anything. A rightwing Republican who has always been anti-Detroit introduced a resolution. It was introduced, and no one stopped him. Like I have said before, I believe Kwame Kilpatrick should be recalled, and if I was a Detroit voter I would sign it. To, me that’s the kind of things people should be recalled. I believe someone has already started a recall.
You guys spent $100,000 on this recall, and you would think that if there was this grassroots movement to recall Andy Dillon, you would have raised a good share of that money from the district. They raised $5. There’s your referendum.
This is the second tine you have accused me of lying, and the second time I have proved you wrong. Once I let it slide, but twice? Don’t you think you need to apologize this time, or at lest admit you’re wrong.

Communications guru said...

That was my mistake, David Law has not yet introduce the resolution addressing Kilpatrick, but he said he planned to.

Brett said...

I re-read what I wrote and I don't see where I said you lied. I said you didn't state all of the facts.

By the way, if you're claiming that because Dillon was elected last time around that it means that the majority of the voters are against the recall, that's really quite a stretch. We'll find out in August if a majority of the voters are against the recall. You could be right, but until the vote happens, you're not right.

I don't apologize for things that I haven't said. The first time that I said you lied, I proved my point and your lie. You have never proven me wrong in my assertion of your veracity. I have yet to hear an apology from you for putting out false information.

The difference between you and I is that I don't expect to get an apology and don't require one mainly because you're not important enough for me to care about your lies and secondly, you probably would never admit an error, nor a direct lie even when caught. So I'm not holding my breath waiting for the apology that I never asked for and I'd suggest that you take a breath before someone mistakes you for a smurf because there is no apology forthcoming from me.

Have a great weekend!


Communications guru said...

Perhaps you can tell me what the difference between calling someone a liar and accusing them of not stating all of the facts. It’s sad you can’t admit when you are wrong.

You really don’t understand how recall elections work do you? Andy Dillon is very popular and respected in Redford. In fact, he beat his opponent by a vote of 25,158 to 7,226 in 2006. He got 77 percent of the vote. Now, I’m supposed to believe you got more than 8,000 signatures in the 17th District? I don’t think so, and we have proof illegal activity was used to collect the signatures.
Here’s what Drolet is betting on so much that he used illegal activity to try and get the recall on the ballot. Once a recall gets on the ballot it’s almost certain you lose. In a general election with months of commercials, door knocking, phone banking and parades you get a voter turnout of barely above 50 percent. Now, you get a special election where turnout is very low, and the only people who turnout are the few who are angry. Rarely will you get people to the polls just to save a politician’s job, no matter what party. I think Dillon is popular enough and they realize this was a tough vote that had to be made to survive, but it’s a gamble that he should not have to take and serves no useful purpose.

You accuse me of lying twice, and twice I proved you wrong twice. Then you have the balls to call me dishonest? I have not put out false information, and you have never proven I lied because I didn't. You said I made up the fact the Michigan Chamber came out against the recall. That’s a lie? No.

The difference between me and you is if I accuse someone of a lie I have the facts to back it up, you don’t. If I’m not important enough to care about then why are you bothering to comment here? All you are really doing is demonstrating how misinformed and ignorant you are. No wonder no one read that crappy blog of yours.

The Truth said...

Read on:

The Truth about the Democrats and Liberals

The Clinton Divorce
May 9, 2008; Page A16
No, we don't mean Bill and Hillary. We mean the separation now under way between the Clintons and the Democratic Party. Like all divorces after lengthy unions, this one is painful and has had its moments of reconciliation, but after Tuesday a split looks inevitable. The long co-dependency is over.

Truth be told, this was always a marriage more of convenience than love. The party's progressives never did like Bill Clinton's New Democrat ways, but after Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis they needed his epic political gifts to win back the White House. They hated him for their loss of Congress in 1994, but they tolerated Dick Morris and welfare reform to keep the presidency in 1996.

The price was that they had to put their ethics in a blind Clinton trust. Whitewater and the missing billing records, Webb Hubbell, cattle futures and "Red" Bone, the Lincoln Bedroom, Johnny Chung and the overseas fund-raising scandals, Paula Jones and lying under oath, Monica and the meaning of "is." Democrats, or all of them this side of Joe Lieberman and Pat Moynihan, defended the Clintons through it all. Everything was dismissed as a product of the "Republican attack machine," an invention of the "Clinton haters," or "just about sex."

Democrats and the media did make a fleeting attempt at liberation when Bill Clinton left office after 2000 amid the tawdry pardons. Barney Frank, the most fervent of the Clinton defenders throughout the 1990s, even called the pardons a "betrayal" and "contemptuous." More than a few Democrats also noticed that George W. Bush's main campaign theme in 2000 was restoring "dignity" and "honor" to the Oval Office, and that Al Gore had somehow lost despite two-thirds of voters saying the U.S. was moving in the right direction.

But Hillary Clinton had also won a Senate seat that year, and she had presidential ambitions of her own. So the trial separation was brief. Democrats acquiesced as the first couple put their own money man, Terry McAuliffe, in charge of the Democratic National Committee. As the Bush years rolled on and John Kerry lost, they watched Hillary build her machine and plot a Clinton restoration. They watched, too, as the New York Senator did her own triangulating on Iraq, first voting for it, then supporting it before turning against it as the election neared. Party regulars fell in line behind her, and her nomination was said to be "inevitable."

Then something astonishing happened. A new star emerged in Barack Obama, a man who had Bill Clinton's political talent but Hillary's liberal convictions. He had charisma, a flair for raising money, and he held out the chance of a 2008 Democratic landslide. Something more than a return to the trench warfare of the 1990s seemed possible – perhaps the revival of a liberal majority, circa 1965.

More remarkable still, Democrats supporting Mr. Obama had a revelation about Clintonian mores. David Geffen, channeling William Safire, declared that "everybody in politics lies," but the Clintons "do it with such ease, it's troubling." Ted Kennedy was shocked to see the Clintons play the race card in South Carolina. The media discovered their secrecy over tax records and Clinton Foundation donors, while columnists were appalled to hear her assail Mr. Obama for his associations with radical bomber William Ayers. Listen closely and you could almost hear Bob Dole asking, "Where's the outrage?"

By the time Mrs. Clinton made her famous claim about dodging Bosnian sniper fire, Democrats and their media friends no longer called it a mere gaffe, as they once might have. This time the remark was said to be emblematic of her entire political career. The same folks who had believed her about Whitewater and the rest now claimed she never tells the truth about anything.

As the scales suddenly fell from liberal eyes, the most striking statistic was the one in this week's North Carolina exit poll. Asked if they considered Mrs. Clinton "honest and trustworthy," no fewer than 50% of Democratic primary voters said she was not. In Indiana, the figure was merely 45%.

Slowly but surely, these Prisoners of Bill and Hill are now walking away, urging Mrs. Clinton to leave the race. Chuck Schumer damns her with faint support by saying any decision is up to her. Columnists from the New York Times, which endorsed her when she looked inevitable, now demand that she exit so as not to help John McCain. With Mr. Obama to ride, they no longer need the Arkansas interlopers.

If the Clintons play to their historic form, they will ignore all this for as long as they can. They will fight on, hoping that something else turns up about Mr. Obama before the convention. Or they'll try to play the Michigan and Florida cards. Or they'll unleash Harold Ickes on the superdelegates and suggest that if Mr. Obama loses in November she'll be back in 2012 and her revenge will be, well, Clintonian.

The difference between now and the 1990s, however, is that this time the Clinton foes aren't the "vast right-wing conspiracy." This time the conspirators are fellow Democrats. It took 10 years, but you might say Democrats have finally voted to impeach.

Communications guru said...

AP my ass. How about the opinion page of the conservative Wall Street Journal. It’s a conservative publication among an entire conservative media. Gee, I wonder why you didn’t tell readers where you got this piece? That’s sarcasm; by the way, I know exactly why you didn’t.
Come November, the Democratic Party will be united. What’s the alterative, Grampy McSame? Not.

The truth said...

Who said anything about the AP.

Are you on something?

Hey stupid if you would have read the article just as I copied it the ap comes fromt he picture which did not copy.

Boy your a sharp one!

Communications guru said...

Why am I “ “stupid and on something” because you made a mistake? Who said something about AP? You did. If you want to see somebody stupid look in the mirror. I have no idea if you are “on something.”

The Truth said...

Interesting you say "Who said something about AP? You did"

Yet if you looked 3 posts up you start your post with the following:

"AP my ass."

Your kidding me right? Hit the bong again and re-read your post

Alice said...

Here is an article about typical Liberals "everybody should pay taxes and pay a lot but we for god sake should not"

MA College Endowment Tax Debate Heats up

So Rep. Paul Kujawski of Webster, MA, sponsored an amendment to the House budget for studying whether university endowments worth over $1 billion in the state should be slapped with a 2.5% tax. This has a created a little storm in academic circles in MA, with every two bit economist and every major media outlet coming out against the proposal.

"When is a nonprofit not a nonprofit because of the wealth they are acquiring?" said Representative Paul Kujawski, a Democrat from Webster and chief backer of the legislation.
"It's mind boggling that one entity not paying taxes has $34 billion. How do you justify that?" said Kujawski, who serves on the influential House Ways and Means Committee. "When people can't afford to live. How do you justify not taxing them?" - Lawmakers target $1b endowments, Peter Schworm and Matt Viser, Boston Globe, May 8, 2008

But before we go into who is saying what, here's a bit of a backgrounder. This concept of taxing endowments actually has been bandied about in Washington DC ever since late last year, when endowments around the nation announced their blockbuster annual endowment investment performance reports. The ostentatious reason being given for taxing endowments is to lower tuition fees. It seems if the endowments spent 1% of their money on financial aid, they could altogether eliminate undergraduate tuition fees. The point was that the tax-exempt status of the endowments should be tied to lower tuition fees. Whatever the merits of this proposal, as usually happens in politics, the money goes in, but nothing comes out. So, this proposal being studied by the MA House would simply tax the endowments, period.

All right, let's down to the vicious reaction to the endowment tax by a horde of angry Harvard economists and sundry interested parties.

The Harvard Crimson has an article titled 'The Tax Stops Here', which should be sign enough of which way the wind is blowing in Harvard. This sort of amendment would have given life to the practice of the state penalizing monetarily successful universities—namely Harvard—for being just that. Only eight schools in Massachusetts have endowments over $1 billion: Harvard, MIT, Williams, Boston College, Amherst, Wellesley, Tufts, and Boston University. But with a $34.9 billion endowment, Harvard would see the greatest payout by far. The university with the next-largest endowment, MIT, has $9.98 billion.

Harvard's premier econblogger goes one step further and suggests that its time for Harvard to move and start a second campus outside the state, transfer much of the endowment to the new campus and support the old one by selling off land in Massachusetts. The good Professor seems a bit miffed...

The Boston Globe editorial page suggest its a good way - To strangle the economy. Harvard alone, with its endowment of $34 billion, would be on the hook for $840 million a year. But a tax of this magnitude on the state's universities and colleges would be economic suicide....The Legislature should abandon the endowment tax - an ill-conceived money grab that ignores how vital higher education is to the local economy.

The most unbiased article I read on this issue comes from, which contains reactions from both sides of the debate.

“I think that legislators, and I don’t think Massachusetts is unique in this, are simply frustrated by the pressures they’re under to solve lots of problems with decreasing revenues” from property taxes and other sources, said Richard Doherty, executive director of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Massachusetts, which represents the state’s private colleges. As they are “turning over rocks and stones looking for money,” as Robert Brown, the president of Boston University, put it, it’s perhaps not surprising that their attention was drawn to college endowments, since “the size of one of our colleges’ endowment seems to attract a fair amount of attention,” Doherty said, referring to Harvard. So is the idea, he was asked, that maybe there’s more money to be gotten?

“Absolutely,” Kujawski said. “We were saying the first billion isn’t going to be touched. So maybe more of these schools might provide more funds for their students, to stay under the billion. A billion dollars is a lot of money.” - Doug Lederman,, May 1, 2008

The article additionally focuses on the point that the sponsors of the amendment were merely trying to bring attention to the issue, and use it as a kind of motivator to get the endowments to spend more, rather than actually follow through and implement the tax. It should be noted that after the endowments came under Washington's radar last year, the Universities, led by Harvard, with a lot more following suit, increased financial aid for middle-class students. So, pressure does work. Only question is, will Massachusett's lawmakers know when to stop?

Communications guru said...

I have no idea how you reached that ridiculous conclusion. I’m a typical liberal, and I paid plenty in taxes; from my property taxes to my federal income tax. By the way, the next time you post why don’t you use your own thoughts instead of stealing an un-credited and unattributed article?

Communications guru said...

Again, the story you did not bother to say where it came from had AP at the top of the story, indicating it was an Associated Press story. When I found out where you stole it from, you claimed I was stupid because the AP photo did not get posted. You said it was my fault that you allegedly made a mistake. Who is hitting the bong again?
I said AP my ass because it appeared you tried to give the story creditability by claiming it was an AP story, and I caught you at it.