A Lesson from Virginia

Submitted by TheMaverick09

In the '70s, independents started aligning with the GOP. In the '80s, a slew of conservative Democrats (led by now former Sen. Chuck Robb) wooed them back. The '90s saw the Republicans take advantage of the Democrats moving slightly too far left to win four out of five major races. Now the Democrats are on their own winning streak, thanks to putting on a more practical governing face and a Republican Party that's lost touch with the independents.

Michigan Democrats could learn a great deal from the Virginia political landscape as detailed by NBC news analyst Chuck Todd in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal.

The lesson for Michigan Democrats is two-fold: First, recognize the political importance of the independent voter in deciding the outcome of elections. I argue that the independent voter will be especially relevant in the 2008 election because the Republican Party has taken such polarizing positions on critical issues such as stem-cell research, the war in Iraq, the environment and health care. Second, the Democratic Party in Michigan must remember that its candidates for office represent a “practical governing face” and not a partisan governing face.

At this early stage of the political discussion for 2008 it is clear there is a real swing toward Democratic candidates. With this swing will come pressure on candidates to accept the entire platform of the Democratic Party and then present him/herself as the “best Democrat” among the candidates. This tendency will prove a dangerous position for a would-be Democratic nominee in 7th Congressional District of Michigan.

For a number of years now, the 7th has been viewed as a staunchly conservative district and that is simply untrue. A general election victory is only achievable with broad voter appeal. In general elections, the majority of voters look to the candidate and the qualities he brings to the office and do not simply vote for someone based on their political affiliation. There is something to be said for cross-over appeal.

Mr. Todd offers up Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia as an example of an elected official who has never failed to appeal to his district’s independent voters.

What's fascinating is that from a 30-year perspective, Mr. Warner hasn't lost touch with Virginia ideologically. The two parties ebbed and flowed past him, while he's continued to appeal to independent voters. Over the past four decades, they've traded dominance in statewide elections, with one party or the other winning three or four major races in a row. In this state, each party has been able to hold the upper hand, through the support of independent voters, for about a decade at a time.

The Democratic candidate for the 7th Congressional seat must follow a mold similar to Senator Warner if the party wishes to win and maintain this seat. The candidate should be intelligent, secure in his/her convictions, possess an understanding of his entire district and not be beholden to a rigid party platform. More importantly, we must have a candidate capable of appealing to the independent voters. Some of these independent voters have always been fiercely independent. However, in 2008 many independent voters will be moderate Republicans disgusted with the direction their party has taken of late. These newly independent voters will not be comfortable supporting an anointed partisan who fails to understand the broad spectrum of political issues that are important to them.

The Forest from the Trees

Submitted by TheMaverick09.

We should keep in mind the big political picture for 2008. Animosity-laden posts of late are really unproductive and only serve to undermine the success of Democrats in the 7^th. The questioning of blogger’s motives and conspiratorial quips is ridiculous.

The Democratic candidates in the 7^th District present an interesting aspect of the 2008 election. However, the infighting is beginning to resemble the inner-party squabble that has kept Democratic candidates from defeating Republicans and, in the past, prevented a Democratic majority.

I fear our conversation has lost its focus. I see the 7^th District race as more of a test for the Democratic Party and the extent to which we are capable, at a state and national level, of making smart candidate choices and properly allocating resources behind the most viable candidate in the race?. The blogosphere is an important new addition to politics and campaigns and is destined to reshape politics forever. However, Democrats ought to keep in mind that politics is a science. And when it comes to the 7^th Congressional race and how the 08 election is shaping up, certain candidates will be stronger than others. No matter how passionate one may be about one candidate or another, there will be one who is the best bet to oust the Republicans. It is also a fact that a messy and expensive primary race does not help the cause. I have said it before and I will say it again and again, in many cases primary races serve only to hurt a party when it comes to the general election.

My hope is the conversation here is not founded only in emotion, wild speculation and calls for censorship of opinions. Rather, lets try to elevate the conversation and have discussions in the Netroots based on political science and strategy. In doing so, the party will be better able to help clear the way for a Democrat who is most likely to defeat Walberg.

The Focus is on Walberg

From an anonymous poster at WalbergWatch and To Play the King.:

I think everyone-especially when they post here, needs to remember that the focus is beating Walberg.

I like Mark Schauer and think he is doing a good job in the Senate.

I think Jim Berryman was a good State Senator and fought a good fight against Smith in '98.

As Republican's go, I think Joe Schwarz was a good Congressman and if he switched parties would do an excellent job.

So, ironically, after so many years of wandering the wilderness of nobody to run or having a nobody run against "Do Nothing Nick"-Reiner, Crittendon, etc, we seem to have too many qualified candidates to run against Walberg.

The logical thought then, seems, to boil it down to who is doing what now.

Sen. Schauer is a sitting Senator, currently serving the largest poplulation centers in the 7th. Then, along with that, the complex and important role of leading one of the four caucus' and (presumably) preparing the caucus for both the 2010/12 re-districting fight and 2010 election.

Jim Berryman is fighting for teachers benefits with the MEA.

Joe Schwarz is working on Health Care issues and (I assume) continuing his medical practice.

We can debate the relative importance of Congress/State Senate, but it is irresponsible to suggest that either isn't or is more important than the other. Maybe to you, one is bigger than the other, but they are both big. It matters who is serving and the policys they promote.

At the end of the day, I return to my opening line, focus on beating Walberg.

If Berryman continues to run or Schwarz jumps in as a Dem, then I think it is probably better to have Schauer stay in the Senate. Both Berryman and Schwarz are credible, realistic alternatives to Walberg.

Ultimately, I think any of the 3 (S,S,B) can beat Walberg, but lets say Schauer does. Then we are left with a special election in the 19th.

Would Simpson run? Griffin? Whomever-hopefully-the Dems in Calhoun have elected to replace Nofs?

The bets on all of the above are long. All are/would be important to keeping the Dems in charge of the State House.

What would likely happen? Probably the first of an 8 year run in the Senate for Mike Nofs.

Now, how bad can that be? Well, doing the math on the Senate today, the Dems have 17 seats. Ultimately, when the budget and the rest of the important decisions are made in Lansing, the Senate Republicans have two marginal seats-Kahn and Richardville. Both will have to be very careful how they vote btwn now and the next election. So, they are the most likely to join with the Dems on a "mission critical" vote (Education, taxes, cuts, etc.) With the two of them today, that gives you 19, with the Lt. Gov breaking a tie.

Take the 19th/Schauer off the table, put in Nofs, and you drop to 18. Or, to put it another way-wave goodbye to getting anything done during the last two years of the Granholm administration.

I like Schauer. I like what he is doing, but I would also like him to stay in the Senate.

Demas Opines on Possible Schauer Run

The Battle Creek Enquirer's Susan J. Demas hits the nail on the head with her column from today, "Schauer should sit this one out."

No one questions Senator Schauer's abilities as a state legislator. That's not the issue. The issue is where he can best serve us, and that's in the Michigan Senate. Some highlights from the column:

Yes, everyone was shocked, shocked this month to learn Mr. Schauer wants to go to Washington. Ever since former U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz fell to Tim Walberg in last summer’s bloody GOP primary, Dems have sounded an anguished cry: “If only
Mark had run.”
Maybe that’s why his political machine didn’t do battle for Sharon Renier, the ne’er-do-well turkey farmer who last fall came within four points of beating Walberg anyway.
…
Michigan is facing its worst crisis in history, between the hemorrhaging auto industry, embarrassingly low college-graduation rates and a state government that lacks the dough to keep the lights on. Schauer can’t possibly accomplish more for the state as a freshman congressman — one out of 435 — than as minority leader of Michigan’s upper chamber. He’s Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s go-to guy and the Dems’ strongest voice on budget matters.

Demas' column reinforces the view of one very astute commenter on this blog. I'm reposting it virtually in its entirety here:

We need Senator Schauer doing the good work he’s doing in the Senate. When he’s there, good things happen (or bad things--like censorship--stop). When he’s not there, we lose our leader.

Case in point: Schauer has taken Senate Republicans to task for not getting the job done. A few days ago, he held a press conference to raise hell, and raise hell he did. “My caucus members are sick and tired of being part of a do-nothing Senate.” Well said and good job, Senator.

That’s why we need him in Lansing. But now, Republican partisans are taking him to task for leaving the country for an Israel trip. They note Granholm press secretary Liz Boyd’s statement that "Every day the Legislature is on vacation and not working on the budget hurts the state.”

Schauer should have stayed in Lansing in his office, demonstrated how hard Democrats are working and continued to fire away at the irresponsible, let’s-take-a-break legislators. Instead, he went to Israel and undercut the governor’s message. He’s allowed the Republicans to say, “Well, Mark, that’s like the pot calling the kettle black. You weren't here either.”

Senator Schauer should be in Michigan giving the Republicans hell, not in Israel giving them a pass. I think your concerns about a Schauer congressional run are well founded. He should focus on the task at hand and spread the Democratic love. Good Democrats can’t afford distractions, neither can the state.

Mark, Stay in the Senate

I’ve been giving more thought to the recent news that state Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) is considering entering the primary for the nomination against U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg. The more I think about it, the less I like it. Here’s why:

Mark, you were elected to lead our party in the Senate for the next four years. That’s where we need you. The governor has laid out an ambitious plan to rescue our state from an economic depression. The other side holds the majority in the Senate and is more interested in obstructing and pandering than getting the job done. We need to hold their feet to the fire until they help approve the necessary revenues to get the job done, and after that to make sure they don’t succeed in obstructing good policies. The pressure applied by the governor’s office, public opinion and Schauer is finally yielding results. Bishop acknowledged today that a tax increase is “inevitable.” That’s progress.

We expect our legislative leaders to do two things: 1) speak for the caucus and make sure the group votes together, 2) lay the groundwork, do the fundraising and campaigning to gain/retain a majority in the next election.

So far, Schauer has done a respectable job in the first area. We also need him there for the second one. We need to retake the Senate in 2010. It is essential that we have control of legislative and congressional redistricting, and we need the Senate to do that.
To retake the Senate, we have a good shot in 2010, if someone can lead us there. At 17-21, we are only two seats away from gaining control (with a Democratic lieutenant governor breaking the tie). But we make this achievement much less likely if our leader is absent from his post when he should be leading the charge.

Why do I say this? Let’s look at how House Democrats languished in the minority until they had a leader who put her ambitions aside.

At a 52-58 disadvantage in 2001, the House Dems elected Kwame Kilpatrick as their leader. But by year’s end he was gone after a successful run for mayor of Detroit. As his mid-term replacement, they chose Buzz Thomas. But instead of focusing his efforts on returning the House Democrats to majority, Thomas (like Kilpatrick) had other plans. He was running for the Senate and gaining a House Democratic majority fell a few places on his to-do list. What was the result? In 2002, Democrats lost another three seats, falling to a 61-49 disadvantage, their worst working arrangement since the Great Depression.

How could this happen? Simple. House Democratic leaders weren’t focused on getting a majority.

But after 2002 along came Dianne Byrum as House Democratic leader. Other than seeking reelection to the House (which wasn't in question), she remained focused on helping her caucus. In 2004, under Byrum’s leadership, they retook those the three seats they lost in 2002, bringing themselves back to three seats shy of majority, 52-58. Byrum was term limited in 2006, yet continued to lead the Democrats campaign efforts. With a well-coordinated effort in 2006, Byrum’s work yielded success: a three-seat majority, the first time in 10 years Democrats controlled either legislative chamber.

Now, consider what Schauer would have to do as a congressional candidate: Fly out to Washington all the time for endorsement meetings, strategy meetings and fundraisers. He’d also be driving all over the rural seven-county district, leaving a lot of Senate Democratic business unattended to. In other words: With the Democrats rudderless, Senate Republicans would have
no check on their power and our efforts to retake the majority would fail again.

From another angle: If Schauer had the good fortune to win, a special election would be held, most likely to be won by a Republican (they get their people to the polls in low-turnout elections). We’d be back to a 16-22 disadvantage, now three seats short of a majority (assuming there’s a Democratic lieutenant governor).

We need good Democratic leadership in the Senate. We need to help the governor get her agenda through. We need to get back more seats. We need to keep the out-of-control Republicans in check. To do that, we need not unstable and distracted leadership, but stable and focused leadership.

Mark, I’m not saying you’d be a bad congressman, I just think we need you to “right” the ship that is the Senate. Help us now, and we’ll remember that down the line when it’s time for Congress.

Walberg Votes Against Our Troops

Tim Walberg stands side by side with President Bush on almost every issue and couldn't be more proud to do so. This rubber stamping is never more evident than when it comes to the War in Iraq.

To trust Tim Walberg to exercise good judgment on the Iraq war is folly. While he claims to supports the war, he clearly does not support the troops fighting in this conflict.

Case in point: U.S. military leadership has been unambiguously clear about the danger of the armed forces reaching a critical breaking point. Troops are stretched dangerously thin and many are serving their third tour in the combat zone. Furthermore, we are finding more and more veterans affected by PTSD when they come home and are not receiving adequate treatment in the short time before being redeployed.

H.R. 3159, as passed by the House on August 2, would allow our troops a longer break between tours of duty. The legislation would "mandate minimum periods of rest and recuperation for units and members of the regular and reserve components of the Armed Forces between deployments for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom."

Walberg voted NO on this legislation. It is safe to assume that while the 7th District's congressman is in favor of The War, he is opposed to giving our troops the time they need to mentally and physically recover from the rigors of combat. He is opposed to legislation that would guarantee that our troops have time with their families to reconnect and make sure their family lives are in order. He is opposed to legislation that would give children and spouses time to reconnect with a parent who serves this fine country overseas.

This cavalier attitude toward national security is a disgusting and unforgivable betrayal of our men and women in uniform. He ought to ask what kind of family values deny troops a guaranteed amount of time with their loved ones before packing up their Kevlar and heading back into the combat zone. I would challenge Walberg to ask any veteran or active service member if they would object to a break before returning to war. Ask any of them if it would be of benefit to them personally – and to our military -- to have this time? Ask them if this break would make them more effective in the field upon their return? I doubt there would be any NO votes on that question.

Tim, it's a break, pal. You weren't ending their service in the military or heaven forbid ending the war. The bill was just giving the troops a little breather. But then again, I guess someone who has never been shot at and only poses with guns wouldn't understand why someone in combat might need a designated break before heading back in.

Below is a brief summary of the bill passed in the House despite Republican Tim Walberg's opposition.

Roll Call Vote 796. H R 3159 RECORDED VOTE 2-Aug-2007 1:53 PM

	Ayes	Noes	PRES	NV
Democratic	223	4		3
Republican	6	190	3	3
TOTALS	229	194	3	6

Explanation (from Library of Congress):

Prohibits units and members of the regular Armed Forces from being deployed for Operations Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom (including participation in the NATO International Security Assistance Force ( Afghanistan)) unless the period between deployments is equal to or longer than the period of the previous deployment. Expresses the sense of Congress that the optimal minimum period between such deployments should be equal to or longer than twice the period of the previous deployment.

Prohibits units and members of the reserves from being deployed for such Operations (including such NATO participation) if the unit or member has been deployed within three preceding years. Expresses the sense of Congress that units and members of the reserves should not be mobilized continuously for more than one year, and that the optimal minimum period between such deployments should be five years.

Authorizes the: (1) President to waive such limitations after certifying to Congress that the deployment is necessary to meet an operational emergency posing a threat to vital national security interests; or (2) chief of staff of the military department concerned (including the Coast Guard) to waive such limitations with respect to a member who has voluntarily requested mobilization.

Renier and Skinner ... Not Again.

Pepper’s Rule: Just because a candidate can recite the party talking points doesn’t mean he/she is electable.

In 2006 – a great year for Democrats – party leaders failed to unite behind solid candidates for Congress in the 7th and 9th Districts. Now these same candidates are talking about running again in 2008.

I am referring, specifically to Jackson County’s Sharon Renier in the 7th and Oakland County’s Nancy Skinner in the 9th. Many Democrats think these two have a great opportunity to do in 2008 what they failed to do in 2006: beat a Republican for Congress. The line of thinking goes as follows: Renier/Skinner had everything stacked against them -- no fundraising, no major campaign organization, no high-profile supporters, and yet they came SO CLOSE to knocking off an incumbent. Ergo, if we throw a lot of money their way, there is NO DOUBT they will win in 2008.

Let’s face facts. The reasons these races ended up being SO CLOSE was not because of the Democratic candidates’ strengths, but instead 1) the anti-Bush Democratic tide, and 2) out-of-touch Republican nominees. The sad truth is that Democrats failed to capitalize on Republican liabilities by fielding lousy candidates who couldn’t beat the damaged-good GOP nominees.

First, what’s wrong with Renier? She seems to say the right things right? Well, maybe. First of all, she raised next to no money. Second, she had no staff to help get our her message. Third, when she did come in contact with the public, she rarely left them with a favorable impression, compared to a candidate who employed a child abuser (Walberg). The Jackson Citizen Patriot included this anecdote as part of its rationale to endorse the deeply flawed Republican candidate Tim Walberg over Renier.

Renier embraces the concept of universal health care and would fund a system by taking the cap off Social Security earnings and taxing "rich" people. In a rant that was both crude and offensive, she said the Reaganesque "trickle-down" theory reminds her of urine -- as in "always p---ing on us." (November 3, 2006).

Nancy Skinner. In 2004, she ran for the U.S. Senate – in Illinois against Barack Obama! In 2006, she moved to Michigan, ostensibly to parlay a “career” as a talk-show host into a successful campaign for Congress, but no such luck. Realizing he had a battle on his hands, incumbent Republican Joe Knollenberg effectively tagged Skinner as a carpetbagger whose views on fuel-economy standards would destroy the auto industry in Michigan.

In short, I believe, the story behind these races is not “how close they were” but “how the Democrats managed to lose.” The reason is simple: bad candidates.

As we look to 2008, we are going to need seasoned and smart candidates with actual ideas, not run-of-the-mill Bush bashers who can recite talking points.

I hope we can do better this time. Our state needs better leadership than the kind Republicans are providing. But if we want that kind of leadership, we will actually have to find good leaders. Let’s think on that as various Democrats throw their hats into the ring.

Should Schauer Run? Maybe. Maybe Not.

WalbergWatch graciously agreed to lend me space to air my ambivalence regarding Democratic state Sen. Mark Schauer’s decision to explore a run against freshman U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Tipton).

While I have no beef with Representative Walberg personally, I do disagree with his politics. I think he’s out of step with the views of mainstream America and legislates based on ideology rather than the needs of his 7th District. So it should come as no surprise that I will support any Democrat who has a shot at replacing Representative Walberg. Schauer, currently the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, has said he is considering a run.

As I explained on WalbergWatch, I am not on the “Run Mark Run” bandwagon. He might be a good candidate, but I have some concerns. Here they are as expressed on WalbergWatch:

1) Schauer would have to vacate (or spend much less time at) his post as Senate Democratic leader, leaving us rudderless in the Senate when he's needed most. Fixing the budget situation is a big deal.

2) If Senator Schauer were to beat Walberg, that would create a vacancy in his Senate seat. At least temporarily, that gives Republicans a larger majority in the State Senate.

3) Worse, there would have to be a special election for his senatorial seat. The sad truth is that Right to Life and conservative zealots are much more effective about getting their core people to the polls during special elections. Given that he holds a Republican seat, it is more than likely that a Republican will regain that seat in the special election. Since it would be less than half a term (4 years) until the next election – 2010 – that Republican could run for reelection in 2010 and 2014. You would have Republican control of the seat for almost 10 years!

I say this not to take a shot at Schauer. But we need to slow down a second before the "Run Mark Run" hysteria takes control of our reason. There are two impressive candidates in the field already.

It is very easy to brush off these concerns, as some writers have. But that would be a mistake. One commenter believes there’s no comparison between a U.S. House seat and a Senate seat:

We should also keep in mind there are orders of magnitude difference in the importance of the Michigan State Senate and the US Congress. Having a great guy lead the minority Senate Democrats for his last two years before being term limited is good. Knocking off one of the most right wing members of Congress and helping to guarantee majority control of congress is vital. That to me just does not seem to be a close call!

“Anonymous” forgets the importance of holding Democratic seats as we enter redistricting. Following the 2010 Census, the Legislature and governor will have to sign off on a package of bills laying out the new districts for Michigan’s congressional delegation, state Senate, state House and Court of Appeals. If the Democrats have control of the House, Senate and governor’s office going into 2010, they can craft a 10-year redistricting plan that maximizes their advantages in future elections. If there is divided control, expect little-to-no marginal advantage for the Democrats.

As of now, the only place Democrats lack control is in the Senate, where they’re only down by two seats. A mere two-seat Democratic gain would allow a Democratic lieutenant governor to break the tie (19-19) and throw control to the Democrats. If we have control, we write the redistricting plan. If we have Schauer’s seat, we’re much more likely to be in control.

First Posting.

This is my first posting. Welcome to "To Play the King." We're going to discuss Michigan politics, the political landscape, the political players, and all things political ... with a focus on politics.

My name is Francis Pepper, and I am the editor of this blog. I am left of center, and this blog will reflect that. But anyone -- regardless of his or her views -- is welcome to respond. Keep it civil and stick to the argument at hand. The more the merrier. If you have any suggestions for this blog, please post them or e-mail me at mrpepper3@gmail.com.