Jul 25, 2008

GOP candidates try to out conservative each other

BRIGHTON -- Any primary in Livingston County consists of Republican candidates trying to out-conservative and out-pro-life each other, and it was no different Thursday at a debate sponsored by The Livingston County Daily Press and Argus to fill the open seats in the Michigan House of Representatives.

Republicans Jason Corosanite and Bill Rogers are facing off to run against Democrats Donna Anderson of Brighton and Milford resident Tom Crawford for the open 66th District seat that includes the city of Brighton and the townships of Marion, Oceola, Brighton, Genoa, Green Oak and Milford. Crawford was absent.

Republicans Charlie Aberasturi, Cindy Denby, Carl Konopaska and Frank Portelli are facing off against Democrat and Hamburg Township resident Scott Lucas for the open 47th District seat that includes the City of Howell and the townships of Cohoctah, Conway, Deerfield, Hamburg, Handy, Hartland, Howell, Iosco, Marion, Putnam, Tyrone and Unadilla.

Over the years I have been to many debates, and I even coved this debate for the Press & Argus. But I was never more frustrated and disappointed after a debate. This is really the first debate I attend after working in both the Michigan House and Senate, and I’m much more familiar with the process. The Press & Argus did an excellent job like they always do, and I recommend you watch their video feed of the event. But their choice of questions was not the best. Why would they ask their position on stem cell research in a primary where five of the six candidates are Republicans? I already knew what their answer would be, and only Anderson favored it.

“It will go forward in Michigan, and it must go forward,” she said. “People need to understand where these cells come from.”

Embryonic stem cells are primitive cells that can be generated in a Petri dish after an egg is fertilized by sperm in a dish in a fertility clinic. I can’t get past the fact they will just toss them in the trash when they are no longer needed or wanted, but they can’t be used to conduct research that may help to find a cue for things like multiple sclerosis; cancers; cardiovascular diseases; circulatory and respiratory diseases and spinal cord injuries.

I am happy to say they used my question on whether they support a workplace ban on smoking. I was really surprised all the Republicans were against it, and only Anderson supported it. This is a bipartisan issue, and both the House and the Republican controlled Senate have passed a version of the smoking ban. The debate is will we ban it completely or will we allow exceptions for casinos, cigar bars and bingo halls, not that it will be banned.

“It one of the best ways to protect our health,” Anderson said.

There was too much talk about either banning tobacco in general, it’s hypocritical to ban smoking in bars because the tax on cigarettes balances the state budget and individual business owners should be able choose. First, this is not about smoking, it’s about secondhand smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General has said there is no safe amount of secondhand smoke. Simply put, second-hand smoke kills. Some said they support a ban in office buildings. But if I’m a bartender or waitress I can’t light up in their office, so why are people allowed to light up in my office?

The bottom line is there is little difference between the GOP candidates, so it comes down to qualifications and experience. I would endorse Cindy Denby in the 47th District only because I personally know her. I covered Handy Township from 2000-2008 where she served as Supervisor. Because I live in the 47th District, I will be voting for Scott Lucas.

In the 66th I endorse Bill Rogers for the GOP, only because I know him from covering the county Board of Commissioners where he currently serve as the chair. He is a really nice, sincere guy, and I respect and like him, as well as Denby. But frankly, I was more than disappointed by their positions. Clearly, Donna Anderson won this debate, and that’s who people should vote for.

I can’t wait for the general election debate.


Brett said...

Interesting. You endorse candidates because you claim to know them and like them but make no mention of endorsing them for their position on issues.

This says alot about you. You've convinced me that there is nothing but an empty space between the ears.

There is so much wrong with what the writer of this blog says in his piece, but it would just take too long to review all of the crap in his writing.

It's like listening to someone say "I choose checkers over tiddly winks because I just can't get those tiddly winks to fly."


The Truth Hurts said...

And you believe that media is conservative. Man you are a dupe for the Democratic Party.

Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1
By WILLIAM TATE | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

Even the Associated Press — no bastion of conservatism — has considered, at least superficially, the media's favoritism for Barack Obama. It's time to revisit media bias.

True to form, journalists are defending their bias by saying that one candidate, Obama, is more newsworthy than the other. In other words, there is no media bias. It is we, the hoi polloi, who reveal our bias by questioning the neutrality of these learned professionals in their ivory-towered newsrooms.

Big Media applies this rationalization to every argument used to point out bias. "It's not a result of bias," they say. "It's a matter of news judgment."

And, like the man who knows his wallet was pickpocketed but can't prove it, the public is left to futilely rage against the injustice of it all.

The "newsworthy" argument can be applied to every metric — one-sided imbalances in airtime, story placement, column inches, number of stories, etc. — save one.

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.

A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.

As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:

"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."

The timing of that article was rather curious. Dated June 25, 2007, it appeared during the middle of the summer news doldrums in a non-election year — timing that was sure to minimize its impact among the general public, while still warning newsrooms across the country that such political donations can be checked.

In case that was too subtle, MSNBC ran a sidebar story detailing cautionary tales of reporters who lost their jobs or were otherwise negatively impacted because their donations became public.

As if to warn their comrades-in-news against putting their money where their mouth is, the report also cautioned that, with the Internet, "it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors."

It went on to detail the ban that most major media organizations have against newsroom employees donating to political campaigns, a ban that raises some obvious First Amendment issues. Whether it's intentional or not, the ban makes it difficult to verify the political leanings of Big Media reporters, editors and producers. There are two logical ways to extrapolate what those leanings are, though.

One is the overwhelming nature of the above statistics. Given the pack mentality among journalists and, just like any pack, the tendency to follow the leader — in this case, Big Media — and since Big Media are centered in some of the bluest of blue parts of the country, it is highly likely that the media elite reflect the same, or an even greater, liberal bias.

A second is to analyze contributions from folks in the same corporate cultures. That analysis provides some surprising results. The contributions of individuals who reported being employed by major media organizations are listed in the nearby table.

The contributions add up to $315,533 to Democrats and $22,656 to Republicans — most of that to Ron Paul, who was supported by many liberals as a stalking horse to John McCain, a la Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos with Hillary and Obama.

What is truly remarkable about the list is that, discounting contributions to Paul and Rudy Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain).

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.

Communications guru said...

Yes. The media is conservative. Your proof that the media is biased liberally is an opinion piece from a conservative columnist? Please. The NT Times refused to publish OP-EDs from Bill Clinton, too

Communications guru said...

I thought I was pretty clear when I said I was more than disappointed by their
positions. Again, I could care less what a loser like you thinks. As far as
intelligence, you prove how little you have every time you comment. I would say
go away, but your ignorance does so much more for my cause.

If “there is so much wrong with what the writer of this blog says in his piece, but it
would just take too long to review all of the crap in his writing” then why don’t
you provide just one or two examples? You have no problem providing long,
unreadable comments many times. Why not now?

The truth hurts said...



Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

How do you then come back and say that.

Please no one could be as stupid as your are unless they are retarded.

So you are either retarded or just using a gimick to try and get people to your far left blog.

Communications guru said...

What gimmick are you talking about? The name? The media is conservative. It’s certainly not called that to get right-wing idiots like you to read it. I want intelligent, opened-minded people to read it, and that does not describe you or any right-winger. This is a liberal blog, but it’s certinally not “far left.”

Brett said...

You should be happy that the world isn't flat...you do realize the world isn't flat don't you?

If the world was flat, you're so far to the left that you'd still be falling.

Can you say "extremist liberal left"? You're there.

You make Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama seem right wing.


Brett said...

Unfortunately, I believe that you're too intolerant of others opinions, and ideas and you just don't want to see past your own needs and wants of trying to control everyone's lives when you obviously can't control your own.

I believe in rugged individualism. In this country every man, woman and child has an opportunity to improve their lives and lifestyles with hard work, ambition and a dream.

The liberal mindset is all about life's lottery. They believe that people are born into their situations and rarely have a chance to change that. Due to that, they insist on taking the opportunity away from children by giving them a poor education. Keep them dumb so they become good little servants of the government.

They try to stifle people by taking their money if they do well and giving it to those that sit around and do nothing. They reward the girls that can't keep their legs together and get pregnant. They reward the lazy that refuse to go out and work but sit at home and watch their 48 inch television while complaining that a 48 inch television screen is not good enough. They do this by taking money from those that do work and giving it to those that want a free ride.

The Declaration of Independence states that we have unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It does not guarantee happiness. It says that you have the Right to PURSUE happiness.

We have the right to Life. Those that are unable to speak for themselves are spoken for by those that try to protect their lives. We have the right to Liberty. Freedom from oppression. Taking our money and redistributing it to the lazy is not liberty. Taking my money and applying it to abortions for those that can't afford it, is taking my beliefs and telling me they mean nothing by using my money for something that I don't believe in.

You should try reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Nowhere in there does it guarantee you a great life, nor does it guarantee you a right to health care, nor the right to have your every want provided for you off the backs of those that are productive in this country.

Your position is anti American and Anti Constitutional. The founding fathers weren't named that because they impregnated everything in a skirt. It means that they put together a great country and set up the best form of government in the world where people have freedoms to pursue happiness. To pursue for themselves what they want provided they don't take the rights of others away in so doing.

You could learn alot by reading the Declaration and the Constitution and you could learn their meanings by perusing the Federalist papers.


Communications guru said...

Please. What makes me “extremist liberal left?” I don’t agree with you? Guilty as charged, but I am extreme nothing.

Communications guru said...

Obviously, you do care. My point is why do you continue to argue with me and waste my time? You refuse to even acknowledge an argument, and I’m sick of your personal attacks. Spend the time on your own blog trying to improve it. You are being disingenuous again. Your name is one thing, but you put the address of your blog on the bottom as a way to get more readers.

I have no problem listening to other opinions and allowing them to express it, and if that were not the case I would have banned you long ago, or refused to allow anonymous comments. That typically happen on right-wing blogs, and I have been banned from two simply because I made too much sense. If I did that then you would have every right to say I am intolerant of other opinions. I’m not. I don’t know what I could learn from reading your blog. It seems to me you spend more time and more words here than on your own blog. You have not made many, if any, convincing arguments here, so what can I possibly learn from reading it. Are you saying something different there than here?

I believe in “rugged individualism” as well. But a privileged person like George Bush has much more opportunity to succeed than someone born into poverty. I want to see the playing field level.
You are so wrong about the so-called “liberal mind set” it’s almost funny, except there are people who actually believe that false stereotype put out by the right.

Who the hell are you to tell me I am “anti-American and Anti-Constitutional?” Again, because I disagree with you? I got news for you: I am more of a patriot than you will ever be.

Brett said...

Wrong. My responding to your comments doesn't mean I care one way or another whether you read it. It's entirely up to you. We call that freedom. You choose what you want to read and what you don't want to read and you also choose the reasons for your choices.

I don't sign anonymously. To post on your blog, apparently you have to put Name and the type your name in. Fine. I've done that almost everytime. What I do do each and every time is sign my name at the end of each of my posts.

You think you've been banned from two blogs because you make too much sense? Think about that for a second. Nobody would ban someone for making too much sense. They might ban you for your personal attacks, or because you're very unreasonable in your comments, or in your positions, but I have never seen anyone banned from anything for making too much sense. That's just not sensible.

I have removed a couple of your posts because of the language that you used on my blog. But you haven't been banned. If you can't address the issue without using foul language and without name calling, then you're just not worthy of being read on my blog.

Make sensible arguments, without berating others and without using foul language, and your post will remain on my blog.

A privileged person like George Bush. Hmmm. I wonder if you'd say the same about Ted Kennedy who didn't do anything other than being born a Kennedy. Or John Kerry, who didn't do anything but marry the daughter of the Heinz family.

You really want to know who I am to tell you that you're anti-American and anti-Constitutional? I am Brett Young. I have read your posts. I've attempted to engage you in discussion. I've seen from your posts what your beliefs are and I've seen you deny things that are reported in the mainstream press as well as other places and I've seen you deny things that are known facts directly from the horses mouth that you claim aren't true.

You can claim to be more of a patriot than I, but your words, expressions and attitude that comes out in your posts as well as your blog stories show clearly and concisely that you're anti-American and anti-Constitutional.

You are welcome to ban me from your blog. I look forward to it. Quite frankly, I give you credit because I figured you'd have done it long ago, but then again, some just live the chance to spit and growl at every opportunity whether they make sense or not.

You, my friend, make no sense, lie constantly, then back down. You put down things in your blog that you can't verify and reword things to make yourself sound credible while making it sound like it's actually part of the information that you're passing out.

You tell people why they say things, why they do things and you haven't a clue if it's true. You want to tell people what they think and when they think it. If you were the journalist you claim to be or have been, you'd know that that is not the way to conduct yourself in stories. You should be separating your opinion from the reporting. You try to act the reporter, but intersperse your opinions inside the so-called reporting.

The fun part is that you're never missing an opportunity to blow your own horn and to constantly give your resume'.

When I see someone that is constantly offering their resume' despite it not being asked for, I immediately look to verify the words written.

Each time, I've caught you stretching the truth at the lease and in no less than six cases lying outright.

If you believe in 'rugged individualism' there is no but. You included the but.

Congrats to George Bush for being born of privilege, and to Kennedy and to Kerry and to all of the others that have been born to privilege. But I congratulate even more those that work for a living and increase their position through their hard work in pursuit of their own dreams.

What has Kennedy done to better America? What has Kerry done to better America? Nothing. They have lived off the trust fund of family, whether by blood or marriage and not put their money where their mouths are. George Bush was an oilman and was a major league baseball owner. He has failed at business and succeeded in other areas. But at least he's been in business. Now he's succeeded as President.

He had an agenda when he came into office and in less than 7 months it was changed for him by the attack on America. He adjusted and his administration has been about ridding this country of terrorism. So far, he's been very successful as we've had no terrorist attacks on our own soil since Sept. 11, 2001. Clinton can't say that. We were attacked 8 times on our soil.

You don't think. You don't reason. You don't look at history and you don't look at what America is all about and what she stands for. You don't follow the idea of liberty and you try to trash the Constitution. So who am I tell you that you're Anti American and Anti Constitution? I'm Brett Young and I stand by my words with your words as my proof.

You may continue to complain about my words, but that's my position and I'm not changing it. I do hope you grow out of your hatred for this country, but while I'm an optimist, I'm afraid that the hope you growing out of your hatred is too much to expect.


Communications guru said...

Sorry, you do post anonymously. Anyone can put their name at the bottom of a post.

I have been banned from the two blogs because right-winger do not like to be challenged, and their positions can’t stand up to scrutiny.

You “removed a couple of my posts?” You’re full of it. I have never posted on that thing you call a blog. In fact, I don’t think anyone has. I guess that’s the difference between me and you: I don’t censor anyone, not even your disgusting personal attacks.

Yes, Ted Kennedy was born of privilege, but that does not stop me or him from thinking we should level the playing field.

Again, I am more of an American than you will ever be. You’re an idiot, but not un-American. What you really are is a coward that only mouths the words of freedom, I defended them.

Again, I do not censor like you, and I will never ban anyone, even a coward like you. Besides, your sorry posts do more for my side anyway.

I never said I’m a reporter. This biog. is my opinion, like 99 percent of the blogs out there. I am no longer a reporter, and I am free to express my opinion. I can say what I want any way I want. That’s a freedom I spent most of my adult life defending.

You have never caught me “stretching the truth” or lying. You never will.

Sorry, George Bush has never succeeded at anything. If his name wasn’t Bush, he would be a failed businessman. I don’t know if you were aware of this, but George Bush was president when the worst attack on U.S. soil occurred. Now, you want to give him credit because another one didn’t happen? Sad, just sad.

You have no right and no reason to call me un-American. Perhaps you can tell me how I can overcome that? Agree with you? Never. After you serve a hitch in the military, come and talk to me. I will never apologize to a coward like you for being proud of my service.

Brett said...

From your "About me" section on your home page for your blog:

"A Michigan Legislative staffer, a former print journalist, retired military and progressive dedicated..."

From your last post:

"I never said I’m a reporter. This biog. is my opinion, like 99 percent of the blogs out there. I am no longer a reporter, and I am free to express..."

Caugnt in another lie. Need I say more?


Communications guru said...

What does former mean to you, moron?