Anyone trying to beat a Rogers in Livingston County has an uphill battle on their hands.
U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, is running for his fifth term in the U.S. Congress after wining his first term by a less than 1 percent of the vote with a mere 111 votes in 2000 back in the days when the 8th District was actually a competitive swing district. This is the same district than produced Democratic U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, and it was her election to the Senate that opened the seat for Rogers. He is again running against Lansing resident Bob Alexander.
After Republican gerrymandering in 2002, Rogers needs little help in keeping the seat, but he is getting plenty of it anyway. So I was a little surprised to see this notice about the Greater Brighton Area Chamber of Commerce’s membership breakfast on Sept. 15. In the middle of election season, it is featuring Mike Rogers.
The blurb says he will present something called "Energy, Economy and Jobs." “Congressman Rogers will delve into his plans to help the United States develop diverse and clean sources of energy with his Energy Independence Plan, lower gas prices and share ways to bring jobs to Michigan.”
I don’t know what else we are going to hear from Rogers, other than drill here drill now. Rogers has been a extremely close alley of oilman George Bush, and anything he says beside drill, drill, drill is just rhetoric from him.
But the most glaring thing for me was: how can they allow him to give basically a campaign stump speech less than two month before the election and not extend the same courtesy to his opponent? This is even advertised on the Livingston County Republican Party’s web site.
I understand his mother was the director of the chamber for many years and the building that houses the chamber offices are named in honor of her, but there are still standards.
We need to call the chamber at (810) 227-5086 and ask for some fairness.
As you know, his older brother, Livingston County Commissioner Bill Rogers, is running for the open seat in the state House for the 66th District against Democrat Donna Anderson.
Last month the hometown Livingston County Press & Argus, long friendly to the Rogers family, did a puff piece on the Rogers family last month. The general manager of the paper has even contributed to Mike Rogers campaign. When supporters of Donna Anderson complained about the piece and not giving equal time, they were told it was not a political piece.
Now, I will agree it was a puff piece in that no tough questions were asked, but to paint it as not a political piece is disingenuous at best. None of the three are new to public office, so you have to question the timing of this article.
Then a quick check of Bill Rogers campaign finance report reveals an interesting tidbit. On July 29 there is an expenditure to the Press & Argus for $2,207 in advertising . Now, there was once a time when the best way to reach voters was through the local newspaper, and if you went through back issues from 15-20 years ago you would see lots of political advertising in the local newspaper. However, that has gone the way of kids on bicycles delivering the local newspaper.
As a support of newspapers and a former print journalist that’s a sad fact, but you cannot deny that readership has fallen off. Newspaper advertising is not the best way to reach voters anymore, unfortunately.
He spent $1,340 on the local radio station, but a mere $180 on the Ann Arbor News weekly product that covers Livingston County with an office in downtown Brighton.
It seems funny that less than a month after spending more than $2,000 with the paper, we get this puff piece.
Just asking.
28 comments:
Kevin, you are manufacturing an issue over nothing. The Chamber has had Mike at several "Good Morning Livingston" events over the last few years. This is nothing new. Every couple of months, Mike's there. It's part of his job description.
"Part of his job description?" "This is nothing new?"
I beg to differ. In the middle of the campaign season the rules change, especially when he's talking about something that is so clearly political.
The Democrat Dirty Tricks Patrol is on the job. They sent 30 lawyers and investigators to Alaska to attempt to dig up dirt on Governor Sarah Palin.
Democrats so far have accused her of not actually having a baby, but that her daughter had the baby and saying it was Governor Palin's was covering it up. That was interesting for about two days, until it was announced that her daughter was pregnant now and had been for five months. That would be a neat trick to get pregnant in March, have a baby in April and cotinue the first pregnancy after the second was completed.
They then tried saying that Governor Palin was a member of AIP who want to secede from the US. It took about a day for that story to be found to be false.
Next they said that she tried to ban books, which also turned out to be false.
They've accused her of lying about putting the Governors plane (from the previous Governor) on E-bay. Again, they were caught in a lie. She had put it on E-bay.
They've tried to say that she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it, but this too proved to be false as it was discovered that she was non-committal on the bridge and after becoming Governor she learned the intimate details of the bridge and did tell the Congress, 'no thanks'.
Of course, there is the story of her former brother in law, who tasered his step son (admitted on CNN interview, admitted shooting a moose illegally (again, admitted).
It's amazing to me that these liberal Democrats haven't learned that you don't beat a woman by beating up on a woman.
But then, as we've seen over and over, including on this site, these liberals don't care about all women. ONly their own women. According to liberals, women are allowed to have their own minds provided they agree with the Democrat men.
Meanwhile, Obama is falling deeper and deeper in the polls.
Maybe the liberals should send an additional 30 hit men to Alaska to see if they can find out if she is really lying about her weight too.
Brett
Again, stay on topic and post this bullshit on your “blog.” How many times do I have to say that, but you still continue to post your lies here.
Perhaps Grampy McSame should have vetted the most inexpedient VP candidate in history. That says a lot about his piss poor judgment. The rest of your post is simply not true.
Prove it. You can't. Too bad for you.
Only government bureaucrats would consider spending $3 million to create a job to be a success! Two new state government "job creation programs" are bragging that they have spent over 116 million to create 40 new Michigan jobs over the last two years - almost $3 million per "created" job!
An article in today's Detroit Free Press describes how tax dollars have been borrowed and spent by two state programs, the Venture Michigan Fund and the Michigan 21st Century Investment Fund, to help new, fledgling companies start up in Michigan. These programs were created in 2005 because Governor Granholm and state lawmakers believed that not enough private sector investors were willing to risk their own capital in new Michigan-based companies.
Are 40 new state-program-created jobs worth $116.3 million in your tax dollars? According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau statistics, Michigan's economy created 502,990 new jobs in 2004/2005 - and lost 602,913 jobs. That's a net loss of about 100,000 jobs. And those job losses occurred before the 2007 business tax and income tax hikes.
Doomed to repeat history?
Until recently, our state constitution prohibited state government from investing tax dollars in private sector companies. Why? Because in the 1800s, the state decided that it could make oodles of money by investing tax dollars in canal building companies. Those state investments cost taxpayers dearly after someone invented things called "railroads" which moved people and goods more efficiently than canals. Burned badly, the state constitution was drawn to prohibit future politicians from making private-sector investments with public funds.
That prohibition changed in 2002 when voters approved an amendment to the constitutionally-created Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund. That constitutional amendment was about securing revenues for conservation and recreation programs, but it also created a sneaky, little-publicized loophole that allowed the state to use your tax dollars to invest in, or own, private-sector companies.
Is anybody in touch with reality?
The print edition of the Free Press article's headline reads, "State venture capital funds pay off". Ned Staebler, director of capital markets development at the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) is quoted as saying, "As a strategy, it's really paid off."
Will somebody please tell the emperor that he isn't wearing any clothes? That 40 new jobs over two years is peanuts compared to the approximately 200,000 net-jobs lost during that period! Will a reporter or headline writer even ask how the MEDC could possibly think that spending $3 million in tax dollars per job is "paying off"?
God save Michigan.
God save me from thread-jacking asshats.
There are things that are true. But you won't find them from the creator of this site. What you get is perversions, lies, and danger to women, children and the elderly here when you disagree with him. Thank God, I have the truth on my side.
Prove what? That you’re too stupid to stay on topic?
Hilarious. You say things that I printed are untrue, I tell you to prove it and you don't know what you're supposed to prove.
I stand corrected. You are that dumb.
The Conservative Media, nothing like LIES to get people to you Liberal Puke
Media Bias Basics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How the Media Vote. Surveys of journalists’ self-reported voting habits show them backing the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1964, including landslide losers George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 2004, a poll conducted by the University of Connecticut found journalists backed John Kerry over George W. Bush by a greater than two-to-one margin. See Section.
Journalists’ Political Views. Compared to their audiences, journalists are far more likely to say they are Democrats or liberals, and they espouse liberal positions on a wide variety of issues. A 2004 poll by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press found five times more journalists described themselves as “liberal” as said they were “conservative.” See Section.
How the Public Views the Media. In increasing numbers, the viewing audiences recognize the media’s liberal tilt. Gallup polls have consistently found that three times as many see the media as “too liberal” as see a media that is “too conservative.” A 2005 survey conducted for the American Journalism Review found nearly two-thirds of the public disagreed with the statement, “The news media try to report the news without bias,” and 42 percent of adults disagreed strongly. See Section.
Admissions of Liberal Bias. A number of journalists have admitted that the majority of their brethren approach the news from a liberal angle. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerry’s vote by “maybe 15 points,” which he later revised to five points. In 2005, ex-CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter confessed he stopped watching his old network: “The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me.” See Section
Denials of Liberal Bias. Many journalists continue to deny the liberal bias that taints their profession. During the height of CBS’s forged memo scandal during the 2004 campaign, Dan Rather insisted that the problem wasn’t his bias, it was his anybody who criticized him. “People who are so passionately partisan politically or ideologically committed basically say, ‘Because he won’t report it our way, we’re going to hang something bad around his neck and choke him with it, check him out of existence if we can, if not make him feel great pain,’” Rather told USA Today in September 2004. “They know that I’m fiercely independent and that’s what drives them up a wall.” See Section.
Evidence of Bias in News Coverage. The Media Research Center continuously reports on instances of the liberal bias in the mainstream media. Daily CyberAlerts offer a regular roundup of the latest instances of biased reporting, while our NewsBusters blog allows Web users to post their own reactions. Media Reality Check fax reports showcase important stories that the news media have distorted or ignored, and several times each year the MRC publishes Special Reports offering in-depth documentation of the media’s bias on specific issues.
I'm no fan of Kevin, but posting a title like that is really stupid and can cost you a lot of money if you aren't careful. Fair warning.
Thanks for the compliment, brett you fucking coward. My offer still stands.
Fair statement republican michigander
But you are talking about a guy who post addresses on the internet.
He should be put in jail
By the way big tough guy who sailed the ocean blew with the rest of the semen
this is not Brett
I just do not like pieces of s#$t like you who would actually look up a guys address and post it.
Someone should post your address
Go ahead and post it you chicken shit, I could care less. Hell, I’ll do it myself.
It’s 428 West St. Howell. You truly are a coward brett.
Aren't wing-nuts fun?
I'm getting credit for someone elses posts? Cool. But sorry, that wasn't me.
I received a phone call today from someone that said that because an address was posted, I should post your address on my blog. I can't do that. I used to teach computer safety on America Online and one of the first rules in that class is that you don't give out your own personal information, nor anyone elses. There are too many perverts, weirdo's and predators out there. You can endanger someone's life or safety by doing that.
It is a sick person that would post an address on the internet. The guy that runs this blog put that address on his site because he didn't like something that I said in response to something he said. I've never believed in anger management classes, but this guy would be a prime candidate for Anger Management classes if ever there was one.
So let me be clear. That address is not mine. I chose a name for myself that is not mine, other than my first name. I have younger children, so I don't tell the truth when it comes to my name (other than my first name) and where I live. I am partially responsible for the danger that the creator of this blog put on the people that do have the address because I created an area where I'm supposedly from. I have since changed that. But that doesn't stop the danger from the people that may have the address that he's posted.
His actions are not only dangerous to others, under the guise of invading my privacy, but they are just flat out purposely destructive to another human being, even though he thought that humaan being was me.
I have notified the proper authorities of what happened so that they can deal with anything that may happen.
I strongly suggest that the creator of this blog remove his own address from his last post. I understand he has a wife and possibly a daughter. I don't think that putting his wife and any children at risk is worth it just to appear to be a tough guy. I would think that he would care more about his own family than to broadcast his address on the internet.
What really bothers me is that I seem to be more worried about his wife's safety than he is and I don't even know her.
I strongly urge you to remove your address as well as to remove the address that you posted earlier. If you want to be angry with me, the threats of "kicking my ass", while silly, are a much better way to deal with your hatred than putting ANYONE at risk by blasting addresses on the internet. My address, someone elses address, your own address. The internet is no place to put them. It is just plain stupid.
Think of your wife for once and remove your address. Think of other people for a change and don't put anyone's address on the internet.
Putting someone elses address on here is a violation of your Terms of Service for your blog. I believe that putting your own address is also a violation, but I don't know for certain. I strongly urge you to remove any and all addresses for safety reasons of all involved. That's not a Democrat issue, it's not a Republican issue. It's common sense and safer to have them all removed.
Brett
What a bunch of crap. Yes, I believe it's you behind the hateful posts. You, who posts anonymously, out of the blue called me the vile, disgusting name of pedophile, and they did the same thing under another anonymous name. I could give a crap what you say about AOL and online safety. My name is in the phone book, and my name has never been secret. When I worked for the MI Messenger I was dual posting with my screen name here and my real name there.
What is this "The guy that runs this blog" shit? That would be me. As for anger management, look in the mirror. I have never called someone a disgusting, false name like a pedophile because I was pissed off.
You are a liar.
As far as "kicking your ass," please tell me in what world is it you live in where you can call somebody a pedophile and not expect that person to get upset? Please tell me in what world is it you live in where you can call somebody a pedophile and not expect some consequences?
Sorry, it's not a violation of the Terms of Service.
You gave me this shit about "I won't debate someone I don't respect" BS, but you keep coming back like a cockroach. Here's my warning to you, and I will give it only once. You post off topic again, you're done here. You call me or anyone else a vile name like child molester or a pedophile you're done here. You want to call me stupid; dump a more, etc., that's fine. I understand that's your "debate" style, but you crossed the line with the pedophile remark.
Oh good. A threat of censorship. Something you've sworn you've never done and that you'd never do. That will be the proof that you aren't honest.
Here's some facts for you. I didn't post under that other name. You're paranoid.
There is no debating with you. A debate is two people, who disagree or are taking opposite sides of an issue and arguing the points of that issue. It is NOT threatening to kick someone's ass because one says the sky is blue, and the other says it's gray, with the guy claiming it's gray threatening to kick the ass of the guy that say's it's blue. It can be called bullying, but it's not debating. So as you can see (well maybe you can't see it, but reasonable can) there has never been a debate on this site.
The line was crossed with the publishing of an address. You are perfectly within your rights to put your address on there. It's foolish and stupid, but it's your right. However, it is NOT YOUR RIGHT to print another address on the internet.
You're not a man, you're a coward. You're a wimp and you attempt to be a bully. You make threats but yet you just don't seem to have the guts to follow through.
I have no doubt you'll follow through on blocking me from posting here. It will only prove me right and I love being proven right.
So have at it little girl.
Yesterday afternoon, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati denied Michigan House Speaker Andy Dillon's final, last-gasp legal effort to stop an election calling for his recall from office from appearing on the November 4th election ballot.
Dillon was targeted for recall after supporting last year's 12% income tax hike and 22% business tax hike.
If you've followed the Dillon recall effort since last year, you're familiar with what an extraordinary battle it has been. Rose Bogaert, Chair of the Wayne County Taxpayers Association, and others supporting the Dillon recall, have overcome extraordinary obstacles including:
1. A corrupt Wayne County Board of Electors which refused to approve the recall petition language until ordered to do so by a court.
2. Frigid, snowy February and March weather for collecting signatures.
3. Paid, hostile 'blockers' who Dillon hired to discourage and intimidate potential petition signers.
4. Undercover private investigators hired by Dillon's attorney to infiltrate the petition signature gathering campaign - and who later admitted under oath to deliberately committing fraud.
5. Goons convicted of violent felonies hired to shadow (and intimidate) recall petition circulators.
6. Corrupt local politicians like Redford Township Supervisor, and close Dillon ally, Miles "Boss Hogg" Handy who abused his office to use Redford police to harass recall petition circulators.
7. Unconstitutional state petition circulator laws that made circulating recall petitions significantly harder than circulating any other petition. Rose Bogaert went to federal court to challenge these laws - and won!
What an extraordinary victory over enormous odds! Because of the perseverance of Rose Bogaert - and everybody and anybody who helped her - Andy Dillon is the first Speaker of the House in U.S. history to face being recalled from office. And Rose and her supporters (including YOU) have continued a precedent that taxpayer activists set back in 1983, when two state senators faced recall after supporting an income tax hike. That precedent? If Lansing hikes taxes on economically beleaguered citizens, well then SOMEONE guilty is gonna face recall from office!
Now, a final phase of this historic battle begins - the recall election itself. Can Rose convince citizens in the 17th House District to recall the Speaker of the House? Or will her message be buried in Dillon's deluge of mailings and Lansing-paid propaganda? Will everything about the recall be buried in the presidential election hoopla?
Well, that’s all up to the voters of the 17th District and Rose Bogaert. And you. Anyone ready to help finish this fight?
You have been warned. You can always continue to do what you are doing and post as someone else. I can't stop that, but I took a stand.
If I'm the coward, then why don't you call me a pedophile to my face? You have my address, and like I have said numerous times: I will meet you anywhere to give you the opportunity to say it to my face. Who is the coward again?
Can you tell me what the fraudulent Andy Dillon Recall has to do with the "Livingston County favorite sons get by with too much help from their friends?"
Answer: Nothing. That was your last post here.
You were warned. Goodbye. My offer still stands. Anywhere anytime.
I keep trying to hope that Kevin is intentionally trying to look like an out of control maniac. He sometimes writes a rational essay (even if I disagree with them) and they suddenly starts calling people assholes, and tosses out f-bombs and makes accusations (such as against Brett) that he can't back up. Maybe it's a feeble attempt to stir up controversy and interest in his site.
But I don't think Kevin is that clever. I think he is just unhinged at times...he also seems to have a lot of spare time. Good for him, I guess.
He should be happy for Brett, though, because I think Brett represents about 20 percent of Kevin's audience.
I come by here about every other month, but it's never worth it...although Kevin's latest immature explosion was kind of funny. But I hope he's a true liberal Democrat and hates guns...because I would be worried if a guy as mentally unstable as he appears to be had access to firearms.
How ironic. Some guy afraid to identify themselves is calling me a maniac and unhinged. I don’t have a problem being called names like stupid, dumb, unhinged and a maniac by rightwing tools like you. Hell, that’s standard operating procedure for right-wingers, and I’m used to it. But when someone stoops so low as to call me a child molester, I get angry. I think most normal people would too.
What accusations did I make against you, Brett? What didn’t I back up? You have my address, and you can call me a pedophile to my face anytime. Now, who was that trying to stir up controversy?
Of course I’m a liberal Democrat. Liberals have made this country great. I don’t hate guns at all. I just think something as deadly as a handgun that has just one purpose should have some controls placed on it.
If you don't want people to post under "anonymous", then don't offer the option. If you offer it, don't bitch that people take you up on it. You are such a moron.
Besides, why would anyone identify themselves when you show a propensity for such hatred and viciousness? Brett identifies himself and you accuse you of posting under a different name. When he denies it, you go berserk.
I hope you get back on your meds.
Well, thank you. Coming from you that means…nothing. If you mean the kind of "hatred and viciousness" that leads you to call someone a pedophile and a child molester because you don't agree with them, then you need to look in the mirror.
well...there you go again. I never called you a pedophile. Brett says he didn't either. Someone did and I think that was uncalled for. But it wasn't me. But those facts don't bother you, which is par for the course and why your posts carry no credibility. There may be truth in your posts but it's not essential to you, so it's risky to believe anything you write. As far as namecalling when you disagree...well, pot, say hello to kettle.
If Brett said he didn't call me a pedophile then his lying has not stopped, and how do I know you are not him. This is what he said in the comments section of the post "Palin heaps on disgusting personal attacks that lack substance or truth." Here it is:
"Like I said, I don't allow pedophiles to call me. I have a couple of younger children, so I avoid those that I don't trust from having physical and/or voice contact with my household. So skip the congratulations when McCain wins except on your blog."
I don't understand the point you are trying to make when you wrote, "But those facts don't bother you, which is par for the course and why your posts carry no credibility." I present facts to back up my opinions. If I was lying, it would be easy to debunk my posts. That hasn't happened.
Post a Comment