Jack Kevorkian Lives: the Obscure Congressional Candidate Has Started Campaigning

OK, so the title was a little cheesy.  Anyway, this is my next segement in my series on the Race for Michigan’s 9th Congressional District.  Dr. Jack “Death” Kevorkian had a town hall-type meeting with about 35 people in Birmingham last week.

He started off by saying, “Okay, so what do you want to know?”  He was asked questions about loss of freedoms.  He was asked about the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae mortgage companies.

Kevorkian replied to that with a fitting libertarian (although he’s running as an independent) response, “What bailout?  You’re kind of sheep-like.  You’ve all been conditioned to think and act like sheep.”

Another person “asked about a scientist who believes that four countries control the equipment that controls weather and climate” (Free Press).  What kind of people were at that meeting!

Kevorkian later went on to say, “I don’t want to be a congressman.  I only want to serve two years. I’m here to educate and inform the public. … You are enslaved, but you don’t know it.  You don’t want to admit it because you’re walking around free, eating good dinners.  As long as you’re comfortable, you’re controllable.”

Again, a very libertarian (although VERY extreme) stance overall.  I’m not sure why he didn’t run as a Libertarian, whether the party wouldn’t let him, or he just didn’t want any political party connection.

I’ll see if I can get a quote from the campaign on that.

Asked if he is fit to serve, Kevorkian had the following conversation with a FOX 2 reporter:

Reporter: In 2006, one of your petitions to be paroled was that you’re gravely ill.

Kevorkian: At the time I was.

Reporter: Are you fit to serve?

Kevorkian: Well, how do I look?

And here’s the full FOX 2 story:

So, there you have it.  Kevorkian is essentially running a libertarian/limited government involvement, independent campaign.

What effect will Kevorkian have on the general election?  That depends on what he emphasizes and how much money he spends.  He’s sure to get some Democrats who supported euthanasia.  He’s sure to get the libertarian vote, but will that come from Republicans who are sick of Joe Knollenberg, or former Republicans who would’ve voted for Gary Peters?  We’ll have to wait and see.

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

I Think Congressional Candidate Gary Peters Needs Some New Staff

This is the next segment in my Race for Michigan’s 9th District series, also being posted on RightMichigan.com:

Back in June, I sent 2 e-mails to the Gary Peters for Congress campaign, asking 3 questions about the polo shirt ad “scandal”:

I am the administrator of the blog Republican Ranting, and I have been following the race for the 9th District.  I am interested in hearing a response from Mr. Peters on the issue of possibly photoshopping a picture that was used on campaign literature (http://www.oaklandpolitics.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=5D880FB79AD9E84B58AC4A66C6F38C01?diaryId=200).
My goal in blogging about this is not to criticize Mr. Peters, but to just give the facts to the voters of the district.  I have stood up for Peters in the past … and I simply want the truth.

Mr. Peters’ answers to the following questions would be greatly appreciated:
1. Are the allegations of editing the picture(s) true?
2. If so, did you add in or remove the polo logo?
3. If so, why did you do it?

Thank you for your cooperation,
Nathan Inks

On June 17^th, I called Peters’ office and spoke to a young woman about who to talk to to get a quote about the “scandal.”  She told me that one of their “communications people” would get back to me” and took down my number.

I waited and never heard back.  So I called again on June 19^th, and spoke with Bob, another receptionist.  I told him I had called before and told him my story about doing a blog post.  He went to go look for the communications director.  He came back, and told me that ***** [I promised him that he could remain anonymous] was in a meeting.  So I assumed that ***** was the communications director.  Bob took down my phone number.

Well, ***** never called me back, so I sent an e-mail and he told me that I had contacted the wrong person, and that I wanted to speak with Anna.  So I sent her an e-mail.  No response.  I called, and she told me that I wanted to speak with Clark Petting (who is now listed on the website as the Media Contact, but back in June it was Julie, or somebody like that).  So I sen him an e-mail.  When I got no response from him, and was unable to call the office (due to my work schedule), I gave up.  I fail to see how a Congressional candidate’s campaign staff can send me around to that many people and have them not respond to me or not be the person I’m looking for.

So, Clark, or anybody in the Peters campaign, if you’d like to answer my questions, because I really DO want to do the story in a fair and balanced way, e-mail me at n.d.inks@gmail.com.  I hate to bring attention to it like this, but I’ve run out of ideas on how to get a quote from the campaign.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Gas Prices Are Too High, and Joe Knollenberg Has a Plan to Fix That

Alright, this is the next segment in my series on  the race for Michigan’s 9^th District.  Although it doesn’t directly tie into what’s going on in the race, gas prices are rising and that’s making it an important issue (especially considering the current economy).

Knollenberg himself, outlined a plan to reduce gas prices, saying, “These high gas prices are totally unacceptable.”

Knollenberg held the press conference with House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO).  Blunt shared Knollenberg’s thoughts about adding to the refinery capacity for refineries in the U.S., to stop placing oil into natural reserves, urging foreign countries to increase their oil output, and accessing oil resources under public land and water through environmentally safe methods, saying, “It’s foolish not to use the oil and natural gas both [under] the ground and in deep water.”

But, Knollenberg (like anybody who knows something about energy), doesn’t want to simply rely on oil.  He has supported wind and nuclear (my personal favorite – I’ve been a HUGE advocate for nuclear power) power plants as well as conserving energy at home and on the road (through simply turning off lights to carpooling).

Knollenberg introduced The New Bridging Industry and Government Through Hi-Tech Research on Energy Efficiency Act, the “New Big Three Act,” which will promote more energy efficient technology, both in the public and private sectors.  Among other things, the act would:

• Provide $750 million in grants over 5 years for research and develop advanced vehicle batteries.
• Provide $250 million over 5 years to add hydrogen fuel stations to existing gas stations.
• Spend $150 million over 3 years for the government to purchase hydrogen vehicles.
• Help auto makers meet federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

Knollenberg showed confidence in his plan, saying, “My plan will turn the tide [and] bring gas prices back to reality.”

The law is currently being reviewed by the House Ways and Means Committee, and Knollenberg is expected to push for a vote on the floor later this week.

Personally, I think it’s a great plan.  Although I’d like to see more of a push for nuclear power, many people don’t like nuclear power, and it suffers  from the “just not in my back yard” argument more than any other type of power.

Although I don’t know his policies, I’m fairly confident that Knollenberg’s opponent, Gary Peters, would side with most of the Democrats in their proposed tax on the oil companies, which will do nothing for consumers and only hurt workers of the oil companies.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Race for Michigan’s 9th Congressional District: A Look at Money and Fundraising

Alright, after a moderately severe housing disaster last week (who knew flushing a toilet could cause so much chaos), I am back and blogging about THE RACE FOR MICHIGAN’S 9^TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT!  This week, I will be looking at the money (wishing that some of it were my own).

Who is giving who money?

I looked at the top 19 industry sectors (information from the U.S. Census Bureau).  In 7 of the 8 sectors that the census bureau and OpenSecrets.org looked at, Knollenberg raised more money than Peters (in terms of percentage, not total.  Total would be unfair to Peters because Peters has raised less than half of what Knollenberg has).

Here’s some information from OpenSecrets.org:

Knollenberg received contributions from the following sectors.  I have highlighted the sectors that appear  on the Census Bureau’s list (the Census has Real estate and Finances as separate.  If they were combined, they would rank 5^th, instead of 12^th and 8^th, respectively):

Sector	Total
Finance/Insur/RealEst	$269,200
Transportation	$238,149
Ideology/Single-Issue	$178,974
Lawyers & Lobbyists	$148,530
Misc Business	$135,050
Construction	$108,200
Other	$87,700
Health	$58,972
Energy/Nat Resource	$54,625
Defense	$33,250
Communic/Electronics	$23,550
Agribusiness	$15,500
Labor	$7,500

Now, let’s look at Peters:

Sector	Total
Labor	$132,500
Lawyers & Lobbyists	$103,921
Ideology/Single-Issue	$81,818
Other	$73,587
Finance/Insur/RealEst	$37,367
Misc Business	$35,943
Health	$15,750
Communic/Electronics	$5,300
Construction	$4,300
Agribusiness	$2,847
Transportation	$1,500
Energy/Nat Resource	$1,168

Or, let’s look at it this way, 41.99% of Knollenberg’s money has come from industries that make up a major  part of the district, while only 26.76% of Peters’ money did.

So, where is Peters’ money coming from?

Well, when we look at specific industries, we see that his #1 contributing industry is lawyers/law firms.  Then come leadership PACS (after retired contributors), then a  whole slew of…

Unions!

Now, no offense to any union members, but unions don’t have the 9^th District as their focus.  Unions have gone from advocates for decent rights of workers to greedy organizations that border the category of corrupt organizations.  Take the UAW for example, which is now advocating fair trade because “China sells dangerous toys.”  Bull crap!  The real reason that you’re advocating fair trade is because you need tariffs on imports so that companies don’t ship your jobs overseas.  You want the ability to get paid $30/hour plus great benefits but still retain the right to strike anytime you want a 30 cent raise.  Get a life!  OK, sorry – back on track…

Peters has also received money from some of the most liberal politicians and organizations:

• $4,000 from Representative Charles Rangel (NY-15)
• $4,000 from Representative Nancy Pelosi (CA-8)
• $5,000 NARAL Pro-Choice America
• $4,000 from Representative John Dingell (MI-15)
• $2,000 from Representative Sander Levein (MI-12)
• $4,000 from Senator Carl Levin (MI)
• $500 from Representative John Conyers (MI-14 – my future Representative after I move.  YIKES!)
• $4,000 from Steny Hoyer (MD-5)
• $10,000 from AmeriPAC: The Fund for a Greater America
• $5,000 from Victory Now PAC
• $10,000 from Our Common Values PAC
• $10,000 from National Leadership PAC

So, we have Peters receiving money from some of the most liberal politicians and PACs in the country – scary.

Is there any hope, Republican Ranting?

Well, there’s always hope up in Oakland County (I’ve given up on hoping for Republicans down here in Wayne County).  Fortunately, Peters is being out-raised by nearly 2-1.  Knollenberg has raised $1,847,146 against Peters’ $750,162.  Knollenberg still has $1,336,212 on hand, while Peters has $644,931.

So, Knollenberg’s got this in the bag then?

Not quite.  Although I think he’ll win, it should be noted that Peters is benefiting from ActBlue, the online  Democratic fundraising site.  He has 1,004 supporters and has raised $228,540.  The online aspect, combined with his being on the DCCC’s RedtoBlue list, could help him where he needs it in the fundraising  area.

Overall, I still think that Knollenberg is doing great and is headed for a victory, but Republicans have to step it up and make sure that they’re supporting Knollenberg, not only at the voting booth but in the check books.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Central Michigan University Impliments a Ban on Professors Running for Public Office, Including Congressional Candidate Gary Peters

This is part 2 in a weekly series on the race for Michigan’s 9^th Congressional District.  This was supposed to be a post about fundraising, but we’ve had some interesting developments come up in the past week.  Central Michigan University proposed a policy that would go in effect on July 1^st, that would require “full-time employees of the university … to either resign or take an unpaid leave of absence when they comply with candidacy filing requirements, 60 days prior to the date set forth for the election relating to the sought-after public office, whichever date is closer to the elections” (source: CM-Life).

The CM-Life reported that this policy was implemented as a result of the Gary Peters issue: “It’s a political year and questions were raised about political candidates (on campus). … That’s when the questions began, in relation to the Gary Peters reaction, but it goes deeper than that.  The university realized the need for a policy.” ~~Steve Smith, Director of Media Relations

There are some exceptions to the new policy:

• Candidates for unpaid or temporary offices
  • Municipal charter revision commissions
  • Delegate to constitutional conventions
  • Positions on a city or county board where the position is unpaid
• Candidates for any part-time local offices where the position would not demand work during university-working hours

Smith said that the policy is not final, saying, “We are still waiting on input from the on-campus community.”

Contrary to what I had heard earlier (as I will explain later), the faculty union will be subject to this policy.

Now, I had heard about this policy being in the making back in late April.  I had been told by somebody inside of CMUthat this policy would not apply to faculty who are union members because their contract would have to be reworked through the union, and the union would never let this happen, so instead of fighting with those faculty members, they were just going to leave them exempt.

Dennis Lennox, former Student’s Against Gary Peters spokesman told the  CM-Life, “I think it’s a great proposal that should have been implemented months ago.  This is a victory for students and tax payers who wanted to hold Gary Peters accountable.  It’s a huge vindication.  It’s just unfortunate it took 10 months and a whole host of horrible events for this resolution to occur.”

Now, how does this affect the race for the 9^th District?  Well, as I’m sure you all know, Gary Peters obviously falls under this policy.  He will either have to resign or take a leave of absence.

What do I think?  I think the policy is completely stupid, but I think it will stand in court.  From what I’ve seen, since CMU gets federal money, the policy can legally fall as an extension under the Hatch Act of 1939, which has been held up in 2 Supreme Court cases.

Personally, I think this is a violation of free speech.

Ideally, CMU would have a policy that would allow professors to run for office but make sure that no time or resources that belong to CMU are used.

I don’t know if Peters will resign or take a leave of absence, or if he’ll challenge it.  The source that talked to me in late April told me that he/she thought that the ACLU might get involved.  Now that it applies to union faculty members, I think the union will fight back as well, which is a great help for their cause.  They could turn this into quite a battle.  Of course, if they went on strike, I would consider that way over the line and probably add them to my long list of hated unions.

I’ll keep you updated if any more news comes out about the policy.  Next week (maybe), I’ll be talking about fundraising.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Michigan’s Top House Race: Gary Peters vs. Joe Knollenberg (vs. Quacky Dr. Jack Kevorkian)

The following post is also being syndicated on Right Michigan, where I was offered a position to cover Michigan’s 9th District:

I would first like to thank Nick for allowing me the opportunity to cover stories on the race for Michigan’s 9th District for his site.

First, what exactly is Michigan’s 9th District?

It’s Oakland, Bloomfield, Southfield, and West Bloomfield townships; parts of Orion and Waterford townships; the cities of Farmington, Farmington Hills, Orchard Lake, Keego Harbor, Sylvan Lake, Pontiac, Auburn Hills, Rochester Hills, Rochester, Troy, Clawson, Royal Oak, Berkley, Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills and Lake Angelus; and the villages of Franklin, Bingham Farms and Beverly Hills (bold indicates where Representative Knollenberg won; italics indicate a close margin; villages were not categorized since they do not vote on their own).  Or, for you visual people, it’s this:

What are the demographics?

1. 83.1% White
2. 8.1% Black
3. 5.6% Asian
4. 3.0% Hispanic
5. 0.5% Native American
6. 0.5% Other

So, how does the district vote?

• The district has been given Cook Partisan Index of R+0, meaning that the district is more Republican than other average districts, but by less than 1%.
• The district voted for George Bush in 2004.
• The district voted for Al Gore in 2000 (although the make-up of the district was different from now).
• The district has voted for Joe Knollenberg since 2002.

Why is this race so important?

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) placed this district in the top 13 districts that they are targetting in their Red to Blue campaign.

What exactly is the Red to Blue campaign?

The DCCC put out this press release explaining the campaign:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee today announced the first round of Red to Blue candidates challenging Republican incumbents. This is the second slate of Democratic congressional candidates that have qualified for the competitive DCCC Red to Blue program, the first slate was for candidates in open seats. These candidates earned a spot in the program by surpassing demanding fundraising goals and skillfully demonstrating to voters that they stand for change and will represent new priorities when elected to Congress.

These candidates have come out of the gate strong and the Red to Blue Program will give them the financial and structural edge to be even more competitive in November,” said Chairman Chris Van Hollen, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “The candidates for change in our first round of challenger Red to Blue are strong examples of Democrats who represent a commitment to new priorities for the families in their districts.

The Red to Blue program highlights top Democratic campaigns across the country, and offers them financial, communications, and strategic support. The program will introduce Democratic supporters to new, competitive candidates in order to help expand the fundraising base for these campaigns.

Chairman Van Hollen joined Red to Blue co-chairs Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Artur Davis (D-AL), and Bruce Braley (D-IA) to announce the first 13 challenger candidates for change who qualified for the Red to Blue:

Kay Barnes (MO-06)
Anne Barth (WV-02)
Darcy Burner (WA-08)
Robert Daskas (NV-03)
Steve Driehaus (OH-01)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Christine Jennings (FL-13)
Larry Kissell (NC-08)
Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
Eric Massa (NY-29)
Gary Peters (MI-09)
Mark Schauer (MI-07)
Dan Seals (IL-10)
Red to Blue was a proven success in the 2004 and 2006 cycles. In 2004, the Red to Blue program raised nearly $7.5 million for twenty seven campaigns across the country with an average of more than $250,000 per campaign. In 2006, the Red to Blue program raised nearly $22.6 million for 56 campaigns with an average of $404,000 per campaign. Red to Blue was also responsible for solidifying the structure of dozens of campaigns and making a real difference for Democrats across America.

Soon after the DCCC put this up on their website, they got some comments about these candidates not being what’s best for the party in terms of stances, but the fact that they’ll be able to raise large amounts of money:

Your only criteria for inclusion seem to be fund-raising ability, not issues.
Isn’t this what scuttled the progress of the party over the years since
you deep-sixed progressive programs and started going to corporations hat in hand?

Soon after other negative comments, the DCCC disabled comments on that press release.

What were the results of the 2006 Election?

1. Joe Knollenberg (R) 142,290 51.56%
2. Nancy Skinner (D) 127,620 46.21%
3. Adam Goodman (L) 3,702 1.34%
4. Matthew R. Abel (G) 2,468 0.89%

Is this actually close?

For Knollenberg, it is somewhat close, since he was a 14-year incumbent, but he still won by over 5%.

So, who exactly is Gary Peters?

Gary Peters is running against Representative Knollenberg.  He was a state Senator from 1994-2002, when he was term-limited out.  He then ran against Mike Cox for Attorney General in 2002, where he lost the general election.

He was the Michigan Lottery Commissioner from 2003-2007.

He was hired to teach at Central Michigan University, where he was the center of controversy (that’s a way too long story to tell, so just read The Peters Report or my category of posts on him here, or just search “Gary Peters” here on the Right Michigan website).

Who is Jack Kevorkian?

Jack Kevorkian is a doctor who was sent to jail a few years ago for assisting a patient in committing suicide.  Dr. Kevorkian hired attorney Geoffrey Fieger to represent him in that case, but obviously, he lost.  He was sentenced for 10-25 years, but only served 8, after the parole board let him out early due to his kidney illness.  He was expected to die within a year of leaving prison in May of 2006, but instead, he decided to run for Congress, against Joe Knollenberg and Gary Peters.

How will having Dr. Kevorkian running affect the race?

That is somewhat hard to tell.  I have done some calculations.  In 1998, Proposal B was brought before voters to allow for assisted suicide.  Although it failed statewide as well as in Oakland County, it did better than average in the 9th District (33.05%-66.95%).  I did some calculations, and if we assume that only 75% of voters who voted against the proposal vote for Knollenberg in 2008, Knollenberg would still come out with a win just above 50%.  Peters would received around 45%, and Kevorkian would receive 5%.

This assumes that Kevorkian only gets 5%, and I think he will get a little more from the Democrats who are unsatissfied with the direction of the party.  So, if we assume that Kevorkian gets 8%, 2% more from Peters and 1% from swing-Knollenberg-voters (libertarians), we would have Knollenberg with 49%, Peters with 43% and Kevorkian with 8%.  This leaves plenty of room for Knollenberg to lose a few voters who are mad at the Republican party an the Iraq War, but I think Knollenberg is pretty safe this election.

Again, I’d like to thank Nick for allowing me to report on this race.

Next week, I’ll be looking into some of the fundraising of this race.

Done Analyzing,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

The Race for Michigan’s 105th House District Heats Up

Well, since this looks like it could be one of the more interesting races this summer and fall, I decided to post about it.

Representative Kevin Elsenheimer (R-Bellaire) decided not to seek a third term in the House of Representatives so that he could run for a judge’s seat on the Court of Appeals.

Here’s who all has said they’re running:

• Central Michigan University student Dennis Lennox was the first to announce his candidacy when he sent out a press release in late March.  He also launched his website www.dennisfornorthernmichigan.com.  Lennox is a resident of Topinabee (Cheboygan County), and has been at the center of controversy involving his disagreement with Central Michigan University administrators and the hiring of Gary Peters.  As far as I know, he has not yet filed any official papers.
• Norwood Township Supervisor Tim Boyko.  He launched his website http://boyko4staterep.blogspot.com/.  He is expected to file paperwork on April 7th, and formally announce his canidacy on the 9th.
• Ken Glasser, chairman of the Otsego County Board of Commissioners.  I haven’t been able to find out much information about him.  He was the Otsego County Commissioner for 8 years, for 2 of which he was the chairman.  Here is his website: http://www.votekenglasser.com/.
• Jeff Garfield, originally from the Flint area, is a Gaylord resident of 11 years was previously elected as commissioner of Otsego County.  He has also served on his local planning commission and chamber of commerce.  Garfield ran against Elsenheimer in the 2004 primary.  Garfield has not yet filed any paperwork.
• Also running is John Ramsey, the father of the slain child beauty pagent star JonBenét Patricia Ramsey.  Ramsey is originally from Georgia, but he moved to Colorado, where JonBenét was murdered.  In the Ramsey family bought a summer home in Charlevoix, and he and his wife, Patsy moved here permanently in 1993.  He briefly moved back to Georgia in 2006, when his wife went down there to receive treatment for cancer.  Sadly, she lost her battle with cancer that year.  Ramsey also ran against Elsenheimer in the 2004 primary, and he has not yet filed any paperwork.
• Tony Cutler, launched a website, www.tonycutler.com, but has not yet filed any paperwork.  Cutler finished 6th out of 7 when he ran for city council.

So, on to the controversies (disclaimer: I am simply stating the controversies that are already out there.  Just because I am writing about them does NOT mean that I have taken a side on the issue):

• Dennis Lennox
  • He was disciplined by Central Michigan University for violating the student code of conduct.  I have stated previously that I supported Dennis in his fight agains the university for his rights.
  • He was criticized by many for going too far in his efforts against Gary Peters.  While I disagree with some of his methods, I definitely think that Peters has some conflict of interest problems.
  • Recently, the following Facebook picture surfaced of Lennox getting a shoe shine by an African American, and many have accused Lennox of being racist because of the comment under the picture saying, “Dude, you have slaves?” (although I will note that the comment was not Lennox’s and he does not indicate that he supports the opinion of the comment):

• John Ramsey
  • Due to the little experience with murders that the Boulder, CO police had, John and Patsy were suspects of the murder of their daughter JonBenét, up until the theory of an intruder became popular (and I will note that that is the theory that I hold to).  They were never charged, and I think that this should be completely left out of the election, and I have no respect for anybody who uses this against John.
  • John moved to Georgia when his wife saught treatment for cancer, and he cancelled his Michigan driver’s license in early 2007.  He has stated, “I didn’t realize a driver’s license dictated where you resided,” and plans on getting a Michigan driver’s license as soon as possible.  The only home he owns is in Charlevoix.

So, it looks like this could be a VERY interesting primary on the Republican side – we’ll wait and see who pulls ahead.

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican :: :: :: :: ::

“Doctor Death” is Running for Congress in Michigan

What do a felonious & murderous doctor, a former Lottery Commissioner turned (controversial) professor, a dude with a really big head, a Congressman, and a kid with a video camera accused of being “Virginia Tech dangerous” have in common?  They’re all involved in the election for the 9th Congressional District of Michigan.  This race just keeps getting wackier, so I’ll list the basics:

• Joe Knollenberg (R-Bloomfield Hills) is the current Representative for Michigan’s 9th Congressional district (“Oakland, Bloomfield, and West Bloomfield townships; parts of Orion and Waterford townships; the cities of Farmington, Farmington Hills, Orchard Lake, Keego Harbor, Sylvan Lake, Pontiac, Auburn Hills, Rochester Hills, Rochester, Troy, Clawson, Royal Oak, Berkley, Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills and Lake Angelus; and the villages of Franklin, Bingham Farms and Beverly Hills” – yeah, Okland county’s kinda weird like that).  (Source: The Oakland Press).
• There’s a dude with a big paper maché head who has a blog about “Joe Nollenberg” - opposing him mainly on the Iraq War.
• Gary Peters is the Democratic candidate running for Congress.  He was the former Michigan Lottery Commissioner, and now he is a professor at Central Michigan University who has come under heavy fire by…
• Dennis Lennox, head of Students Against Gary Peters.  Lennox is opposing Peters because he believes that there’s a conflict of interest if Peter’s is trying to be a professor and run for office in a county that’s at least 2 hours away (and that’s if you’re speeding).  Lennox has come under heavy fire from CMU and has been compared to the VA Tech shooter. (Click on the categories for Peters or Lennox to see more of my posts about their adventures – there’s a lot of them).

And now today, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, “Dr. Death,” announced that he will run as an independent.  Kevorkian, now 80, was sentenced to 10-25 years in prison on second degree murder charges after he assisted in the suicide of Thomas Youk on September 17^th, 1998.  He aired a recording of the suicide on 60 Minutes on November 23^rd and was charged on March 26^th, 1999.  He was let out on parole after 8 years on June 1^st, 2007.

In a statement to The Oakland Press after getting petitions from the Oakland County Clerk’s Office, Kevorkian said, “I plan to [run as an Independent].  I wouldn’t do this otherwise.  We need some honesty and sincerity instead of corrupt government in Washington.”  He said that he would have more details next week and that “everything’s in a formative stage.”

Kevorkian has until June 17^th to gather 3,000 signatures in order to get him on the November ballot as an independent.

Here are some responses to the news:

• Oakland County Prosecutor Dave Gorcyca, who sent Kevorkian to prison: “I would place Jack Kevorkian’s candidacy in the same ranking with Ron Paul’s [poor Ron Paul].  It’s probably more of a publicity stunt.  To call attention to himself is standard protocol for Jack when he doesn’t have the limelight focused on him.  I would not consider his candidacy to be a legitimate one.”
• Gary Peter’s spokeswoman Julie Petrick: “Everybody has the right to run.  Right now, Gary is focused on bringing real change to Oakland County.  Knollenberg has heaped mountains of debt on our children, disastrous trade policies that have destroyed our manufacturing sector, and gotten us into a protracted war with no end in sight.  It’s time for real change in Oakland County and that’s what we’re focused on.”
• Representative Knollenberg has not yet commented.

I’ve gotta disagree with Gorcyca here.  The Democrats saw an opportunity to take Knollenberg’s seat when he only won with 51.5% in 2006, but now that there’s 2 liberals running, I think Knollenberg is safe.  Let me explain:

In 1998, Proposal B, “To Legalize Prescription of Lethal Medication to Terminally Ill,” was proposed and failed pretty badly.  Specifically in Oakland County, 129,649 voted for it, and 265,888 voted against it – so 67.22% voted against it.  I then looked at all of the 9th District (adding in some extra areas of Orion and Waterford, since I couldn’t figure out which precincts weren’t in the 9th District and excluding the villages of Franklin, Bingham Farms and Beverly Hills, since I couldn’t figure out which precincts of the cities that they lie inside of were their precincts).  I came out with 77,776 voting for the proposal and 158,095 voting against it, so 67.03% opposed it.  So, let’s assume that Knollenberg can only pull 45% of his districts support, which is a low estimate.  That means that 55% will be split between Peters and Kevorkian.  32.97% of the district voted for Proposal B, and let’s assume that only 80% were Democrats (again, an extremely low estimate).  So, 26.38% of the 9th District are Democrats who support assisted suicide.  Now, let’s assume that Kevorkian only gets 40% of that group and nobody else.  He winds up with 10.55%, leaving Peters with 44.45%.  Knollenberg wins (and I actually didn’t mean for the calculations to turn out that close - I was just estimating numbers as I went).  So, 1) I underestimated Knollenberg, 2) I supposed that a high 20% of Prop B supporters were Republicans and thus won’t cross over from Peters to Kevorkian, and 3) I assumed that Kevorkian won’t even get half of the Prop B supporters.  I honestly think the election will fall more like:

1. Knollenberg 53%
2. Peters 28%
3. Kevorkian 19%

It’ll be an interesting race, but this definitely helps Knollenberg.

Oh, and Kevorkian’s possible campaign slogan: “We slaughter the opponents” – wouldn’t that make a great slogan!

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Central Michigan University Violated State Law in Dennis Lennox’s Hearing

For the background on this particular case, see my post here http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/central-michigan-postpones-dennis-lennoxs-disciplinary-hearing-yet-again/.  After that hearing, Lennox accused the University of violating the Open Meetings Act (OMA), Act 267 of 1976 (Michigan Compiled Laws [MCL], Chapter 15), specifically Section 15.268:

Sec. 8.

A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes:

…

(b) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of a student if the public body is part of the school district, intermediate school district, or institution of higher education that the student is attending, and if the student or the student’s parent or guardian requests a closed hearing.

Now, at first I was skeptical of what Lennox was saying.  I mean, sure the Open Meetings Act would apply to most meetings, but I didn’t actually think that disciplinary hearings of students would be open to the public.  So I poured over the OMA and found that what Lennox had said was true.  So then I thought, what about the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (U.S. Code, Title 20, Chapter 31, Subchapter III, Part 4, § 1232g).  Surely that must be the reason that the University is having closed meetings (the federal law would trump OMA).  So I poured over FERPA and found this:

(h) Disciplinary records; disclosure

Nothing in this section shall prohibit an educational agency or institution from—

(1) including appropriate information in the education record of any student concerning disciplinary action taken against such student for conduct that posed a significant risk to the safety or well-being of that student, other students, or other members of the school community; or

(2) disclosing such information to teachers and school officials, including teachers and school officials in other schools, who have legitimate educational interests in the behavior of the student.

Now, there are a couple of other references to disciplinary hearings, but none that indicate that a hearing that is the result of a non-dangerous offense can’t be released, just that the results of a hearing because of violence or a nonforcible sex offense are excluded from being withheld.  So, it can’t be federal law that they’re using as the excuse.

Also, why would the Michigan Legislature pass a law in 1976 that directly contradicted a U.S. Law passed in 1974 (I like to think that our politicians are decently smart, even if we have people like Jennifer Granholm and Al Frankenstein out there).

Furthermore, even IF holding an open hearing violated FERPA, it wouldn’t be illegal – it would just keep CMU from getting federal money.  Holding a closed meeting without consent though, directly defies state law.  But again, I don’t think that the OMA and FERPA contradict each other. 

So, after pouring over these laws, I’ve come to the conclusion that Lennox is right (and I should point out – it’s not that I don’t trust Lennox, but the legal system is complicated, and I always scrutinize laws for myself).

But that’s not all I found.  I also found a fun little section in OMA.  Here’s Section 15.269:

15.269 Minutes.

Sec. 9.

(1) Each public body shall keep minutes of each meeting showing the date, time, place, members present, members absent, any decisions made at a meeting open to the public, and the purpose or purposes for which a closed session is held. The minutes shall include all roll call votes taken at the meeting. The public body shall make any corrections in the minutes at the next meeting after the meeting to which the minutes refer. The public body shall make corrected minutes available at or before the next subsequent meeting after correction. The corrected minutes shall show both the original entry and the correction.

(2) Minutes are public records open to public inspection, and a public body shall make the minutes available at the address designated on posted public notices pursuant to section 4. The public body shall make copies of the minutes available to the public at the reasonable estimated cost for printing and copying.

(3) A public body shall make proposed minutes available for public inspection within 8 business days after the meeting to which the minutes refer. The public body shall make approved minutes available for public inspection within 5 business days after the meeting at which the minutes are approved by the public body.

(4) A public body shall not include in or with its minutes any personally identifiable information that, if released, would prevent the public body from complying with section 444 of subpart 4 of part C of the general education provisions act, 20 USC 1232g, commonly referred to as the family educational rights and privacy act of 1974.

And where are these minutes? 

So it is my opinion that CMU is in direct violation of state law.  They’ve already been found to have lied about things in their code of conduct (that a policy on students videotaping their own hearings was in there – it’s NOT!), and now it appears that they’ve violated state law.

Why do they have to keep opposing Lennox on this?  Just admit that you were wrong and move on before you find yourself at the paying end of a lawsuit!

Also, if I were Gary Peters, I’d resign at this point – all of this could really come back to haunt him come election time.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::

Hearing Held for Dennis Lennox; He Was Issued a Reprimand by CMU

Alright, well we’re almost to the end of an era.  The fight between Dennis Lennox II and Central Michigan University over Gary Peters is almost over.

Over spring break, CMU held a closed-door hearing to determine Lennox’s fate.  (The previous hearing had been cancelled because Lennox refused to turn off his video camera, because he claimed that it was his first amendment right to videotape his own hearing [and I agree]: http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/central-michigan-postpones-dennis-lennoxs-disciplinary-hearing-yet-again/).

So, the conduct proceedings officer (maybe Asst. Dean of Students Tony Voisin again?) ruled that Lennox was guilty of the 3 things he was accused of: 1) providing false information to a university official, 2) identifying himself as Dick Cheney to a professor, and 3) improperly posting fliers, by putting them on benches in the hallways.  Lennox was then issued a letter of reprimand.

Lennox has since stated that he will appeal the finding that he violated the school’s code of conduct.

Steve Smith, CMU’s media representative, in response to questions about Lennox saying that he could have been expelled, responded that he cannot comment on Lennox’s case specifically, due to privacy laws, but that the purpose of the code of conduct is to “[educate students] with punishment and sanctions as a secondary measure.”

So, we’ll see what happens if Lennox appeals – but I think that this case is pretty much done now.

Although it’s not ideal, I think that Dennis’s “punishment” is as close to ideal as he’s going to get – so I would personally just leave it alone, but the appeals process is there for a reason. 

Done Reporting,

Ranting Republican
:: :: :: :: ::