GOP primary in 11th Senate District now includes charges of inappropriate sex talk

There are a lot of interesting primary races, but the Republican primary in the 11th Senate District is spinning out of control.

The race already has a criminal, a carpetbagger and now charges of lying, inappropriate sexual behavior and playing an imposter entered the race yesterday to make it even more interesting after a pair of reports from MIRS and Gongwer that cover the Capitol.

Squaring off in the open 11th District to replace term-limited Alan Sanborn – one of the most extremists member of the Senate – are former state Reps. Leon Drolet and Jack Brandenburg and current state Rep. Kim Meltzer.

Drolet should be in jail because of his criminal acts in the attempt to recall Speaker of the House Andy Dillon, not to mention his recent campaign violation. Meltzer has been accused of being a carpetbagger because she just rented an address in the safe Republican district, and she also hired the person known for dirty tricks. Brandenburg had escaped notice; until now.

Brandenburg, as well as Drolet served as co-chairs of the crooked Proposal 2 campaign in 2006 that banned affirmative action programs that used fraud to get on the ballot.
Jennifer Gratz, who led the 2006 ballot proposal, said that a political action committee (PAC) she is involved with had mailed flyers into the district to accuse Brandenburg of lying about his role with the so-called “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative” campaign; Brandenburg claimed he was the co-chair. Gratz, now works for the American Civil Rights Institute, the California-based group that's primary purpose is to oppose affirmative action.

According to subscription only MIRS, when Gratz was asked what led to Brandenburg to leave the campaign, she had this to say:

"We were on a conference call with me, Leon, Jack and Ward," Gratz said. "There may have been some others on the call as well, but I can't remember exactly. "Ward (Connerly) asked for help more help from Leon and Jack. Then Jack said, 'F*** Off.'"
Gratz said that as far as she knows, that parting shot was Brandenburg's final involvement with the MCRI movement.

But Brandenburg had this to day to MIRS in response. "On that conference call Ward Connerly was basically chewing Leon and I out," Brandenburg said. "Leon and I had worked our butts off for a year. We weren't getting paid anything. It was voluntary. I think Gratz was getting paid at that time, but we weren't."
"So then Connerly wanted Leon and I to come up with $50,000," Brandenburg continued. "At that point, I said that even if I had $50,000 I wouldn't give it to him. He asked me if I could come up with the money tomorrow, and I said no. But when he said 'You haven't done anything,' that's what I really didn't appreciate. I said, "Hey Ward, F*** off."

But the story was even more explosive in Gongwer, and Gratz either didn’t tell MIRS the entire story, or MIRS chose not to include the allegation.

During an interview with Gongwer about the flyer, Gratz was asked why she just didn’t call Brandenburg and ask him to stop claiming he was the co-chair. Gratz apparently told Gongwer she would never contact Brandenburg because of “an incident that she said occurred in January 2006 when Mr. Brandenburg was serving his second term in the House.” Gratz claims she received a message Booth Newspapers columnist Rick Haglund had called to interview her.

Gratz said she “returned the call, and the first couple questions were standard journalistic fare. Then, "He said, 'Can I ask you a personal question?' He said, 'How do you feel about oral sex?'" Ms. Gratz said.”

Brandenburg denies the incident ever occurred.

Drolet served as co-chair of the ballot campaign with Brandenburg, but Drolet stuck with the racist campaign. Gratz is supporting Drolet in the primary election.

Petition fraud is nothing new to Drolet and company

To quote a sage hall of fame former New York Yankee catcher, the recall farce against Michigan House Speaker Andy Dillon is "It's deja vu all over again.”

Despite mounting evidence of fraud and deceit to collect signatures, out of state money, illegal petition gathers, cash for signatures and illegal campaign contributions by Republican Macomb County Commissioner Leon Drolet and company, they are assuring the mainstream press that the recall will get on the ballot. Michigan Liberal and Eric Baerren have done an excellent job of documenting and presenting some of this fraud.

As evidence of the expected success of the Dillon recall, they point to the success of the racist Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) that went on the November 2006 ballot that did away with affirmative action. Despite proof of the same deceptive tactics used on both petition drives – even by some of the same players involved in this recall, including Drolet – the petitions were certified and it went on the ballot and was approved by voters.

You may recall that the California group headed by Ward Connerly came to Michigan to push the initiative, and the group illegally lied to people and misrepresented themselves to get signatures. In fact, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission adopted a resolution against the racist initiative. Following a six-month investigation that concluded on June 12, 2006, it released the results that found “…that efforts to place the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) on the ballot appeared to be based upon a massive campaign of fraud and deceit.”

“The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is a shameful attempt to confuse and manipulate unsuspecting Michigan voters, was what one member of the Civil Rights Commission said about the effort.

Sounds very familiar doesn’t it? Kind of like deja vu all over again.

Drolet and company submitted the signatures just before the deadline, but we have not heard much about their failures. It started recalls against Reps. Robert Dean, D-Grand Rapids, Marie Donigan, D-Royal Oak; Sen. Jerry Van Woerkom, R-Norton Shores; Rep. Mary Valentine, D-Muskegon; Rep. Marc Corriveau, D-Northville; Rep. Ed Gaffney, R-Grosse Pointe Farms; Rep. Steve Bieda, D-Warren, and Rep. Joel Sheltrown, D-West Branch, but all have failed. It seems sad that they are crowing about 1 out of 9. That’s a pretty crappy success rate, especially when you consider it’s the Michigan voters who are the losers.

Recalls should be reserved for officeholders who commit a crime, commit fraud or deceit or are dishonest. The kind of things that Drolet has done in this witch-hunt. It is not for a politician for simply doing their job, for casting one vote and keeping the state open. If you disagree, you vote for his opponent in the election, and you can do that in August or November, just three and six months.

Rightwing extremist hired gun takes shot at Howell teachers

The assault on the Howell teachers union, Howell Education Association, is getting some help from an Oakland County rightwing extremist connected with racist and extreme causes.

Chet Zarko, “a metro-Detroit, Michigan-based, political and marketing research and consulting service, focusing on conservative and moderate candidates and other clients” is accusing the HEA of abusing taxpayer-funded resources to promote union causes in a front page story in the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus. That description is from his web site, and there is nothing moderate about Zarko.

Zarko was the communications director for the California group headed by Ward Connerly that came to the state to push the racist Michigan Civil Rights Initiative on the November 2006 ballot that did away with affirmative action. Zarko is a dirty trickster in the tradition of Saul Anuzis, Kyle Bristow and Bill Nowling, and his most well known stunt is when he tried to goad Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer into a confrontation by sticking a video camera in his face at public meeting in October of 2005.

We have to wonder who is paying Zarko, and we see the fingerprints of the anti-gay hate group known as the LOVE” PAC (Livingston Organization for Values in Education) and specifically “LOVE” and school board member Wendy Day. Zarko first contacted Day on her blog, as far as we know. And we wonder why the teachers have no contract?

According to the article, “Zarko alleges Howell Education Association leaders have "conducted a large amount of union business on public time, including trying to retain MEA (Michigan Education Association) affiliated MESSA health-insurance, and using parent-teacher conferences to recruit parents (to) their side of a collective-bargaining debate. bases his claims on union leaders' e-mails that he received through the Freedom of Information Act. He has posted several of the e-mails on his Web log and commented about them in a press release issued Friday.”

“Doug Norton, union president, calls Zarko's claims "absolutely erroneous on all counts."
"It's obviously timed to throw mud to affect the school board election and to derail what are positive signs for bargaining," Norton said Monday. "Mr. Zarko is connected with (a) statewide campaign to attack MEA and MESSA. In fact, he and others are working to get other for-profit insurance companies in across the state."

In a further development, Genoa Township radio station WHMI is reporting a temporary restraining order has been signed by Livingston County Circuit Court Judge Stanley Latreille that prevents Howell Public Schools from releasing more e-mails by leaders and members of the teacher’s union.”

A hearing has been set for Thursday to see if more emails can be released under FOIA.

Newspaper rightwing editorial condones voter fraud and eliminating independent judiciary

Despite an anti-Republican swing in the nation, the OP-ED pages of the Daily Press & Argus continues its shift to the right. The latest evidence of that trend is the editorial in today’s edition that says Proposal 2, that bans affirmative action programs based on race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin, should not be challenged in the courts. Their reasoning is because voters in Livingston County voted nearly 3-1 for it.

Apparently, they have forgotten there are three branches of government, and the independent judiciary job’s is to ensure laws pass Constitutional muster. Often, it’s the last resort for the poor and powerless who have been discriminated against and who have been treated unfairly. I’m sure if a Constitutional amendment banning African-Americans from voting had been placed on the ballot in 1962 in Alabama or Mississippi it would have passed by a similar margin, but that would note have made it right. Remember, Proposal 2 was opposed by both candidates for governor, and those who supported Proposal 2 included the KKK. Let the courts do the job the Founding Fathers intended it to do.

The editorial says opponents fought hard to keep it off the ballot, but they did not commit voter fraud like California’s Ward Connerly and his supporters. I don’t know what affirmative action plan Chris Ward has suggested, but I can safely say it will be like every alleged reform he has introduced and only benefit Republicans.

Ward’s position on Prop 2 was pretty clear. He asked the Attorney General to determine whether the Michigan Civil Rights Commission "may have exceeded its constitutional and statutory powers" in investigating the gathering of signatures for the ban. Legal experts have said they did not, and Ward conveniently ignored the fact that despite widespread allegations of fraud, no other body or office in the state was allowed to look into the fraud committed, In fact, Ward went out of his way to take powers away from the state Board of Canvassers because they were concerned with the fraud committed. He’s supposed to be so concerned about voter fraud with his unconstitutional voter ID bill, but voter fraud committed for something he supports is OK.

The reasons for the issue’s success are many. Most obvious was the fact that many voters — particularly white voters — saw logic in an argument that said discrimination by race is wrong, regardless of the motivation.
The opponents didn’t help their cause with clumsy and frantic tactics. They fought hard to keep the issue from the ballot, leaving the impression that they didn’t want voters to have a say in the matter.
Then they used scare tactics, including wild suggestions that the proposal would prevent women from getting cancer screenings.
The measure would have likely passed anyway, but many voters could not have enjoyed being treated as though they were idiots.
Now what? One tactic is for opponents to talk long and loud about how this places a stigma on the state. Do that effectively enough, and it could be come a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Another strategy was immediately announced by Mary Sue Coleman, president of the University of Michigan, which was the target of two U.S. Supreme Court lawsuits that centered on its affirmative action admission programs.
Coleman stridently vowed to begin litigation to fight the decision of the state’s voters. Apparently our voters are allowed to pay taxes to support the university — and to pay for lawsuits — but they aren’t competent to make informed decisions on complex issues.
There is another strategy. That’s to accept the decision of the voters and to accept the notion that affirmative action plans based solely on race are inherently flawed. Why not instead pursue affirmative action plans based on socioeconomic factors rather than race, as state Rep. Chris Ward, R-Brighton Township, suggested?
Why not also more seriously address the root problems that make affirmative action plans necessary? It may sound good if U-M adds a few minority students — some of whom may be in the upper middle class — under an affirmative action program.
But shouldn’t we, as a matter of state policy, be looking instead at why a majority of minority-dominated inner-city high school students have dropped out and aren’t candidates for any sort of college? Shouldn’t we be attacking the root problems that imply that minority students aren’t prepared to get into college unless they get a break?
Tuesday’s vote doesn’t mean that state government and universities have to turn their backs on minority progress. What it does mean is that voters feel the policies are unfair and that, despite some successes, ineffective.
In light of last week’s vote, state university, government and business leaders have two choices. They can find more effective ways to narrow inequities while promoting minority advancement.
Or they can file another lawsuit.