Feb 11, 2011

MDP convention on tap Saturday


Saturday will be the first step toward taking back the Michigan House, the U.S. House, defending the Democratic U.S. Senate, and re-electing President Barack Obama in 2012 when Michigan Democrats gather in Detroit’s Cobo Hall on Saturday for the Michigan Democratic Party Convention.

The theme of this year’s convention is, “The Comeback Starts Now,” and will focus on improving Michigan’s economy and creating jobs.

“This convention will lay out the Democratic goals for 2011-12, and the main goal is creating jobs,” said Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer said. “We need to be focusing on creating jobs, improving our economy, and making it easier for small businesses to succeed.”
Various constituency caucuses will be held in the morning and district caucuses in the afternoon, and the main convention will at 3:30 p.m. where long-time Chair Brewer is seeking another two-year term. He is being challenged by what media reports are calling a “Detroit TV producer” named Ron Scott. I have never heard of him.

However, I think it's always a good thing for every office to have a challenge to give voters a choice, but I’m still supporting Brewer, despite the big losses last November. No one could have predicted the wave election, combined with the huge amounts of corporate and foreign cash pumped into GOP coffers.

Make sure to stop by the MDP Environment and Energy Caucus at 8 a.m. in room W2-68 and say hello. We have lined up some excellent speakers to talk about the attempted assault of the fragile environment by the Republicans in the Michigan Legislature, and the fight by Democratic lawmakers to fight the rollbacks of common sense protections.

A panel discussion will feature Rep. Ellen Cogen Lipton, D- Huntington Woods, Rep. Jon Switalski, D-Warren, a member of the House Energy and Technology Committee, and Cyndi Roper, State Director of Michigan Clean Water Action. Other elected officials will also be speaking.

See you there.

26 comments:

brad said...

You are officially a mouth piece without your own thoughts anymore.

"No one could have predicted the wave election, combined with the huge amounts of corporate and foreign cash pumped into GOP coffers."

First it was expected and predicted and second you have no proof of that because there are super strict rules on foreign companies involvement. You would have to believe the Dems, who are still in control or were in control last year made sure of it.

The reason for your massive losses is because of Obamacare and the $5 Trillion in new debt added to the American people. I thought you didnt like BHO as he is to conservative and you recently spoke of him having 8 SOTU and now again his re-election. You need consistency as well.

Communications guru said...

That is pure bullshit from some anonymous guy who can’t debunk what is written. This is my blog, my words and my beliefs; no one is paying me.

I stand by what I wrote, “"No one could have predicted the wave election, combined with the huge amounts of corporate and foreign cash pumped into GOP coffers."
As for corporate cash; check out a Supreme Court ruling called “Citizens United v Federal Election Commission.”

It’s funny; record debt from Saint Reagan and Bush is OK, but not from Obama that has lifted the country out of the Bush recession, the longest and deepest since the Great Depression and who put Bush’s war on the books
Show once instance where I said President Obama is a conservative.

kevins said...

"No one could have predicted..." except for the fact that just about everyone did.

Before the election, people were telling you how bad it would be for the Dems. You, though, said that wasn't the case. You said every party loses seats in the first off-year after winning the White House, and this year's Dem losses would be along those lines.

But everyone else, including Dem, spokesmen, said otherwise. They all predicted a huge GOP win and the GOP hammered your guys. It was a win of historical proportions. Your party's actions were firmly repudiated.

You were wrong before the election and you are lying now.

And speaking of foreign cash, I wonder if Al Gore is still finding money that foreigners were stuffing in his pocket?

brad said...

From the bottom up, sorry you may have said Obama isnt as liberal as you so that would make him more conservative than you.

I have reviewed it once more, Citizens United vs FEC. Corporations from outside of the US are not allowed to donate or make adverts in the country on behalf of a political candidate. You would think you would like it as Obama made more money from WallStreet donors than anywhere else in the country.

You can stand or sit all you want on what you wrote, the fact of the matter is you are again wrong. It was widely predicted and accepted that the GOP was going to bend over the DNC last November. The DNC lost majority power or rule in 635 local state and federal elections, thats a beat down of epic proportions. The only thing unknown was how much of a beat down you would get.

Deficit disorder: the Dems have had control of the purse strings since 2007 and have racked up the most debt EVER. Thats not anything that controversial or a lie, its a fact in every conceivable way. Since Obamacare is going to screw the country and the enormous amounts of debt run up by the DEMS that is why you got thoroughly spanked. Now the Repubs have run up deficits, i wont deny that, they just run up lesser deficits and the Dems take first prize in deficit spending.

Lastly anonymous? Yovue got my name. Stop being such a mean guy who is getting mad that he is losing his touch, it happens with age.

kevins said...

The best news that state Republicans could hear is that Mark Brewer is in charge of the strategy for Democrats.

Think of how scared the Green Bay Packers would be if they heard that Matt Millen was rehired as the Lions coach. It's just about the same thing.

Communications guru said...

Correct, no one could have predicted.”

Anyone can predict anything they want, and I’m sure a few people predicted the large losses the people suffered, but not many. A broken clock is right twice a day. People like Dick Morris are never right, but he’s still called a pundit.

That is correct, I did say the people would lose seats in the House because the party in the WH always loses seats in the Mid-term, but I didn’t think they would lose control of the House. I was wrong, and I admitted it the next day. Like I said, no one could have predicted.

What “ Dem, spokesmen predicted a huge GOP win.” Even if there was such a word as “repudiated,” this was a wave election.

I was wrong about the election, but what exactly am I lying about?
I have no idea about Al Gore, but I do know the U.S. Chamber pumped millions of foreign dollars into the election cycle.

brad said...

The party in the WH always loses seats midterm? Are you plum loco?

You do know the US Chamber pumped millions? Please show me that because all the news orgs and the Obama admin cant seem to prove it, I dont know how you can?

Untruths, just lots of regurgitated left wing puke that can not and is not proven.

My new blog is to deblog your blog all while on your blog.

So it was predicted all over that the House was going to switch and the Senate was possible but unlikely. 2012 will be glorious.

Why you bringing up AlGore and his ponzi scheme?

Communications guru said...

He did OK in 2006 and 2008; especially in 2008 when he helped unseat the only sitting Michigan Supreme Court Justice in, perhaps, Michigan history.

I will be voting for Mark on Saturday. See, unlike the state GOP, we don’t have unlimited corporate cash, including foreign cash, and he fills more than one role. The state GOP has a bigger staff, and the chair of the Grand Oil Party does nothing but raise more corporate cash.

Communications guru said...

A better statement is: The party in the WH almost always loses seats midterm. I believe that has not been the case once.

Yes, “the US Chamber pumped millions.”

I agree, 2012 will be “glorious.” When voters turnout, Republicans lose, and voters turnout for a Presidential election.

Johnny C said...

Guru,

It seems your buddy is having a nervous breakdown due to the fact he's breaking out the other screennames to troll your blog.

The two main factors that lead to the Republican victories in 2010 1. low turnout of sane people. 2. Like most midterm elections these voters are old, white and mostly misinformed.

Not I mean Brad your party doesn't even have a candidate and reading polls Obama beats all of the Republican contenders. And if the tea party fucks everything up by picking a candidate that's doesn't have a shot in winning guess what happens to those 25 Republicans that have to defend seats?

And not I mean Brad what will the Republicans run on? Creating jobs? they spent the bulk of their time trying to repel a law most Republicans have already admit won't happen and trying to pass anti-abortion laws.

I doubt the white, old and misinformed voter will save you next election.

brad said...

Vegas, please speak in coherent English verbage please.

You libs are quite funny, all you have is platitudes and you make up all these different little "facts" and nobody on here has any proof of what they spew. I have been the only one to do it. Kevin is probably the worst offender because counterpoints to him are all fake and he cant disprove them. Good day sirs.

brad said...

Time to quote Kevins. "You are living in a fantasy land, but that's all right. That's what pep rallies are for.

So you are saying that the only sane voters in Michigan are too lazy to vote? Interesting.

Whitmer is cooking the books. The vote was down in 2010 because 2008 was a presidential election. The vote is always lower two years later. The true fact is that even with the lower turnout, the Republican still pulled the same amount of votes while she dropped 5,000.

There are and always will be voter swings. But the fact is in 2010, voters said they were fed up with the Dems and voted for the Republicans. No amount of spin can change that, although it's funny that your position is the Democrats are too stupid and lazy to vote. Wow."

Communications guru said...

Whitmer is cooking the books? How? Mark Meadows said it, and he is basically correct, although his numbers are slightly off. In the last mid-term election in 2006 he won by a vote of 21,965 to 10,485. In the next mid-term, last November, it was 16,782 to 10,452. So, his Republican opponent got 33 less votes in 2010 when voters allegedly “fed up with the Dems.” In 2010 5,183 Democrats did not cast votes for him. Clearly, Democrats stayed home in 2010.That will not happen in 2012.

I said nothing of the kind. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows voter turnout wins elections. Democrats were not energized in 2010 like they were in 2008; that will not happen in 2012.

kevins said...

You are right. I mis-read your blog. Meadows said it, not Whitmer...at least according to your account.

But the point is still the same. More people vote in presidential elections than in off-years. Of that smaller number, Republicans took a far greater piece of the electoral pie.

Not energized? Is that your new term for stupid and lazy?

kevins said...

"No one could have predicted..." is what you wrote. But you were wrong and it was a lie. You said you correct mistakes and you never lie...once again, I prove you wrong.

For instance:

Michael Steele predicted Republicans would win the House and the Senate. That was a slight excess but given his party position, understandable.

Karl Rove said Republicans would win well over 50 seats in the House. He was correct. He said a Senate majority was "possible" and indeed the GOP came close.

The liberal Huffington Post said, "The 2010 midterm elections are here and MOST expect Republicans to make big gains in both chambers of Congress." (They were right...but the point is you said no one was predicting huge GOP wins when it fact, most were. The only ones that weren't were Dem spokespeople who had to put up a good front.

Haley Barbour predicted that Republicans will win the House, make "big gains" in the Senate and control at least 30 governors' mansions. He was right on the money.

Charles Cook of Cook Political Report said on Meet the Press that Republicans will enjoy "explosive" gains in the House of 50 to 60 seats. He was close.

Stuart Rothenberg, a political forecaster, said Republicans will gain 55-65 seats in the House. I think the final number was about 62.

It's interesting that so many people who predicted big gains were right. But more to the point, you said no one could have made such a prediction when in fact so many did.

So were you lying or ignorant? And will you own up to your error?

I think we all know the answer.

brad said...

Kevins, I like your initiative and proof of statements. KevHead cant seem to do that ever...

He will probably come back with saying those are lies, and nobody could have predicted it again, just like before same old song and dance one trick ponty.

Communications guru said...

“At least according to your account?” Do you have another account?

I don’t ever recall saying more people do not vote in presidential elections than in off-years, or that” that smaller number, Republicans took a far greater piece of the electoral pie.” What I said, and the numbers prove it, Democrats stayed home in greater numbers in 2010.

To your final questions, the answer is no. It’s funny that Republicans fight and oppose every single measure to make voting easier and more convenient.

brad said...

Actually they fight for voting to be honest and not have dead people vote and others vote twice. Dems are against showing ID's for who knows what reason, probably the reasons stated above so they can try to win elections by cheating.

Kevin you were owned.

kevins said...

Well, for once you were honest. I asked if you would own up to your error and you said you would not. That's a moment of truth in which you admit that you lied when you said you would correct your error.

Once again, you said no could could have predicted the huge Republican victories in November. That was a lie, which I proved with numerous examples. You ignored the proof and then admitted that you will not correct errors, despite your earlier claims otherwise.

You will quickly back away from this admission. But I commend you for your brief foray into honesty. It won't last long. But as they say, When a pig flies, you don't criticize it for not staying airborn for very long.

kevins said...

I begin to understand why misguided souls and democratic socialists like you live under the fantasy that you know better than other people how to live their lives.

Here's what you've said. Democratic voters would have a much better life had they only voted. They would have to be terribly lazy or stupid not to come out and vote. They didn't come out and vote. Therefore, according to you, Democratic voters are too stupid and lazy to do something as simple as voting even when such an act will clearly help themselves. Therefore, they need someone -- why that would be you -- do to their thinking for them.

You continually talk about false obstacles to voting. What obstacles were there in 2010 that didn't exist in 2008 when, by your own admission, there were a near-record number of voters?

People didn't vote because they didn't want to. Those that did vote, selected Republicans. Big time.

I know you say you didn't see it coming (but that's not surprising; I think you are surprised every time the sun comes up), but just about every other semi-alert person saw it coming. That's another lie you told, and another error you failed to correct.

Communications guru said...

Sorry, I didn’t lie, and I strand by what I said, no one could have predicted “the huge Republican victories in November.” And no one did, at least anyone reliable. The point you continue to ignore, is anyone can predict anything and not be held accountable. That’s what happened here. Again, no one predicted Republican gains this large. I found no one who told me Republicans were going to take control of the Michigan House.

I have always been honest, and you have never caught me in lie and never will. The only good news is it’s just temporary.

Communications guru said...

“Socialist Democrat?” Gee, where have I heard that before?

I get it now.

Again, anonymous coward, there is no such thing as a Socialist Democrat in the United States and that is just a false, Republican smear.

I never said anything close.
They are not “ false obstacles to voting,” and you can read about the obstruction of the Michigan Senate Republicans on this blog.

Sorry, I have never lied, and have nothing to correct.

kevins said...

I don't care where you heard about socialist democrats. I called you a democratic socialist. You apparently don't deny that.

You did admit that you wouldn't correct obvious errors and, as I predicted, you quickly retreated from a rare burst of honesty. It's amazing, you leave printed examples of your own errors, lies and twisted lines of reasoning...even though it's obvious, you deny it exists.

OK, so you admit you lied when you said "no one could have predicted..." but you are covering by now adding "anyone reliable." But that's not what you originally said and you are again lying.

But what do you mean by reliable? I listed several people who predicted -- correctly -- how the races would turn out. Maybe that explains a lot about you. When people are correct, you say they are not reliable. One of my sources was the Huffington Post. Is it your position that the Huffington Post is not reliable?

And again, explain to me why you think Democrats are so stupid and lazy that they won't come out to vote?

Communications guru said...

Of course I denied it because there is no such thing the United States.

I correct errors when I make them. Sorry, I have never lied.

brad said...

Game Set Match. KevHead lost. Its apparently evident.

kevins said...

Thanks brad...but it's not that hard to do, as you have discovered.

I can imagine his head spinning around as he tries to comprehend how badly he loses these matches.

"Of course I denied it because there is no such thing in the United States." You got me commieguru, what the heck are you talking about here?

Also, would you grow a pair of balls and at least try to answer the question: IS the Huffington Post a reliable source?