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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Francis,
Good posting. I think you’re raising a good point. 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.
Post a Comment