Rep. Martin Griffin, D-Jackson, officially filed to run for the 19th District Senate seat vacated by Sen. Mark Schauer's, D-Battle Creek, election to the U.S. House.
Griffin was elected to his second term in the House earlier this month representing the 64th District, which includes the city of Jackson, Concord, Hanover, Napoleon, Parma, Pulaski, Sandstone, Spring Arbor and Summit townships. Senate District 19 covers Calhoun and Jackson counties. Griffin won his House seat (Correction) by unseating incumbent Republican Rick Baxter in 2006, and he will need that experience to win the swing 19th District.
Griffin has an impressive resume of government service at all levels. He served as mayor of Jackson from 1995 - 2006. Prior to that, he was a staffer in the Michigan Legislature for 12 years, as well as a staff member for five years with former U.S. Congressman Carl Pursell.
So far, Griffin is running against Rep. Mike Nofs, R-Battle Creek, who is term limited. It's unclear if there will be a primary. Rep. Mike Simpson, D-Liberty Township, has been mentioned as a possible candidate, but he has not formally announced or filed a committee.
It's unclear when the Governor will call a special election, but the already short-handed Senate Democratic caucus will be even smaller after January when Schauer officially resigns to take his new seat.
4 comments:
Thanks for the heads up. You have a very well written blog. Good Job.
~ Andrew
Griffin unseated an incumbant Republican, Rick Baxter in 2006. The seat was not vacant.
Thank you for the kind words, and thank you for the correction.
Really? You call this a well-written blog. I will concede that he is good at cut-and-pasting some basic information.
But he is a vicious partisan, who attacks Republicans for doing things that he praises Democrats for doing.
He writes as though he is thinks it is a smear to be called a Muslim.
He falsely claimed that county Republicans broke the law and then got steamed and abusive when he was called on it. He still won't admit it, although he made specific claims that were blatantly false. He said the county GOP paid for election signs, when it did not; he said the county GOP phoned people and urged them to vote No, when they did not. His proof? There was no name on the sign so it had to be the Republicans, and he "believes" they must have made phone calls although he sort of admits he doesn't know of a single one. If that's what you call a well-written argument, that's your problem.
He defends a daddy-state where the government uses 10-year-olds as decoys against the -- shudder -- in-store distribution of advertising catalogues. However, he ridicules and gets into ugly name-calling when others (who don't agree with him politically) do the same thing. So he criticizes free speech by private individuals but encourages state intrusion into private affairs. Scary. Kind of a combination of Hitler and Stalin.
He says the current AG has no right to voice his opinion on legislation that affects health care cost and access for Michigan residents, and which involves a large insurer that gets unique non-profit status from the state. (I don't have an opinion on the legislation and I might disagree with AG Cox, but he surely has a right to weigh in.)
He throws opinion out as fact but belittles and ultimately ignores facts posted by those he disagrees with.
He discusses without understanding basic budget concepts. Same with simple economic concepts. When people point out his errors or shortcomings, he berates them and calls them names rather than deal with the issue...proudly saying that his strategy is to attack the messenger rather than debate the message.
He has frequently accused me of making a villainous accusation against him, when I have done no such thing. I ask him to prove it, but he ignores it and uses his false claim as an excuse to pull my post. Nonetheless, he lets another poster (who appears to be his alter ego) frequently make vulgar smears that include the frequent reference to "tit-sucking your mother." That's fit for his page because the poster agrees with him.
He has accused other posters of being me and he has accused me of being someone else. He is wrong on both counts.
This is the guy you praise.
And, it appears as though he does much of this while on the taxpayer payroll.
When he knows...or think he knows..who posters are, he attacks them, and then can't understand why people choose to remain anonymous. His double-standard and duplicity is clear. He denies name-calling, but gratuitously calls anonymous posters trolls. At least that's what he calls those who disagree with him. Anonymous posters who suck up to him are treated much nicer.
It's his post and he can do what he pleases. He needs his anonymous critics because that's just about all the action he gets on this post. But more and more, he appears to be a seriously troubled individual.
Post a Comment