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.