Thursday, November 12, 2009

Republicans have excellent choices in 2010 primary !




Last Monday, I attended a "Meet the Candidates" dinner that featured all of the Republican candidates for Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State. It was sponsored by the 10th Congressional Leadership Committee and M.C.'d by 10th District U.S. Congresswoman Candice S. Miller.I always enjoy talking to my friend, Candice's Chief of Staff, Jamie Roe. The event was held at the Palazzo Grande Banquet and Event Center (http://thepalazzogrande.com/) in Shelby Twp.

It was an excellent opportunity to not only hear the candidates speak, but to see them all together on the same stage, and to get a sense of the type of person they are. It was also a chance to meet and talk to them personally. I had met several before, such as Secretary of State candidates Anne Norlander and Michelle McManus,and Gubernatorial candidate Mike Cox, but I had not had an opportunity to meet the Attorney General candidates, state Sen. Mike Bishop or Judge Bill Schuette.
I admire Senator Bishop for the excellent job he is doing in the budget negotiations to stifle Governor Granholm's attempts to force a tax increase.

In the crowded Governors race, there are several excellent Republican candidates. I think Michael Bouchard, an ex-Senate Majority Leader is a strong candidate, especially with running mate Terri Lynne Land. Congressman Pete Hoekstra is an intriguing candidate, with an excellent grasp of the issues.

But I have chosen to support Mike Cox, the current Attorney General. There are several things I like about Mike, including the fact that he has a military background. But the thing that really tips the balance as far as I'm concerned, is the fact that he is a fighter. In 2006/07, Attorney General Cox was willing to come out in support of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (Prop. 2) when almost every other elected official in the state was afraid to. I was working on Jennifer Gratz and Ward Connerly's effort, serving as the Macomb County Chairman for State Campaign Manager Doug Tietz. It wasn't the "politically-correct" thing to do at the time, but Mike Cox did what he knew was right. He stood up for the principle of "equal treatment before the law". His rulings as Attorney General kept U.of M. President Mary Sue Coleman from ignoring the will of Michigan's voters.

Attorney General Cox also did what he felt was right when he investigated the alleged party at the Manoogian Mansion and various allegations against former Mayor Kwame Kiulpatrick's office. Cox was tasked with investigating "criminal" wrong doing by the Mayor's office. I'm sure Mike Coxpersonally has no respect for Kilpatrick and is a far from Kilpatrick politically as he could be ... But he was not responsible for reporting the gross mis-management of the city by former Mayor Kilpatrick, which was the responsibility of the voters to rectify. (Unfortunately, they did the opposite and re-elected Kilpatrick to a second term.) The voters ignorance, or apathy, should not be blamed on Attorney General Cox. His report merely stated what the investigation had found, accurately I believe, that he had found no credible evidence or witnesses to substantiate the rumored party at the Manoogian Mansion. The wild rumors are just what Cox's report suggests they are; "urban legend". http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-34739_34811-70702--,00.html Mike Cox believes in treating everyone in Michigan, even Kwame Kilpatrick, equally before the law. He proved it in 2006-'07 by standing up for the Prop. 2 ballot initiative (MCRI)to ban racial preferences in the state!

Michigan voters are fortunate to have such a selection of excellent candidates for statewide offices next year in the 2010 elections. I have decided to support Mike Cox for Governor, Mike Bishop for Attorney General, and Michelle McManus for Secretary of State, although I would feel comfortable with any of the Republican candidates if elected !

56 comments:

  1. Brian we want you to run. You would make a great representative of we the people. We will all back you and I'm sure Bruce would make a mongoloid head of you. I'm so glad that you are a part of my community. Keep up the good work and keep us informed on what is happening.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chris, Thanks for the vote of confidence ! I'm working for Jack Brandenburg for now ...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey, Brian, I think you should run too. I would love that, Brian.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian - If it means Bruce covering up his stupid face with a piñata, I'm all for it too! Just kidding Bruce, you know we love our little liberal mongoloid mascot!

    In all seriousness, thanks Brian for the interesting, well-thought-out and most of all ORIGINAL blog topic. I'm not sold on Mike Cox yet, but as I said a while ago, Mike Cox's own dog could do better than ANY Democrat contender.

    Cox was on the WRIF this morning, I don't know if you caught it. It was entertaining until it devolved into an hour-long conversation about Kwame Kilpatrick (one of the many, many, many dirty Democrats, and surprise surprise a LIAR even when under OATH to God, another fine Democrat value).

    I'll check once in a while to see if the WRIF provides a link to listen to the audio, and send it to you if they do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It will be interesting what comes out in Cox's deposition. He gets pretty testy when reporters ask him about covering up his own role in the investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey, my hope is to be working for "Senator" Jack Brandenburg in some capacity for the next 8+ years, then we'll see what the political landscape looks like.
    I don't plan on working at Ford forever ...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why am i not suprised that the "personal responsibilty" blogger is supporting the philandering whore, Mike Cox? I mean the AG who broke the law and he's the one Mr. Personal Responsibility wants to elect. What a hypocrite you are, Brian.

    And personally i trust the sowrn testimony of the career State police officer over a lying, cheating poltician (see paragrtaph 1) about the mayoral party issue. Of course Brian does not, prefering to stand pat as an ideologue.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That is smart to learn about the political "business" before you do it. Back on subject Brian, what the heck is JoeC and Bruce talking about? Is Cox what they say he is? I'm suprised that the liberals don't like Cox more even if just for names sake. Bwaahahahahahaha. Joe it's nice to see you posting again. Are you still against everything Christian like Bruce is?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Chris, just to set the record straight, I'm not against everything Christian. I'm against Christian hypocrisy. The American Taliban/Christian right-wing idealogues, want America to bow down to their ideology on abortion, waging war, and a whole host of other ideological issues but they don't walk the walk when it comes to living in conformance with Christian principles of love for your fellow man.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Chris, what i am talking about is that Mike Cox admitted while Attorney General that he had an affair during his time in office. At the time and i think to this day, the Michigan state criminal code contained a law that made extra-martial affairs illegal. So you have the top prosecutor for the State admitting to having committed a felony.

    Now the law is outdated and needs to be removed, if only to protect republican prosecutors from themselves. But the mere fact that the man who espouses in his blog personal responsibility then chooses to support a man who does not embody personal responsibility makes Brian a hypocrite.

    Also a 35 year veteran of the Michigan State Police testified that he felt the AG's office was hindering the investigation in the supposed Kwame mansion party.

    "Krebs testified that investigators, himself included, were stymied by Attorney General Mike Cox, reports WDIV television in Detroit. Krebs alleges that Cox would not authorize subpoenas to further the investigation, directed detectives not to interview Kilpatrick’s wife, Carlita, and told investigators he would interview Kilpatrick himself, alone, without attorneys or other witnesses present."

    Thats part of what Detective Krebs testified under oath about the investigation into the party.

    And of course a major backer of Cox's campaign is Peter Karmonos, a heavy backer of Kwames.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nice to see that Joey thinks Bill Clinton is a philandering whore.... at least that's what I gathered from what you wrote... him and Joey's hero Edwards, they are the whoriest whores out there.... didn't that dude father a kid with his mistress, while his wife is battling cancer? At least Mike Cox admitted to what he did, and it appears that his wife forgave him. I didn't see Mike Cox dithering about "it depends on what the definition of "is" is".

    Boy Brian, I thought Mike Cox was running for Governor, not Jesus. As soon as you are perfect Joey feel free to start throwing stones. I thought all you liberals, when Clinton got caught with his pants down, said to mind your own business, that it was personal? And that cat lied under OATH about it! Remember that one Joey? Your hero Billy C. lying under oath?! I didn't see Cox do anything of that sort.

    Stupid Joey, everybody knows about Cox's extramarital affair. What do you hope to accomplish by bringing it up? Do you have any, you know, problems with his positions or policies? No, of course you don't Joey. You want to take it down to its most immature level.

    As Bruce said, we'll see what comes out in the deposition. I have to say, Bruce showed a lot of class by not going where you went Joey.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bruce, the liberal taliban wants everyone in America to bow down to Obama, the Democrats, and the federal government and all that they decree.

    Conservatives want people to be free to live their lives as they want, without the government telling them how to live, in any aspect.

    Which do you think is more free?

    Your very own Pelosi scoffs at the fact that her health care government takeover bill is a clear violation of The Constitution of These United States of America, and you think that is freedom?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bruce, one other thing, please don't act like Christians have cornered the market on hypocrisy. You liberal taliban have Michael Moore, Bruce Fealk, Barbara Streisand, Nancy Pelosi, Soros, Obama... I have demonstrated dozens of examples where you liberal Al Qaeda are the most hypocritical of all.

    As I am sure you are aware, many different people make up both parties. There are hypocrites and liars to spare on both sides. Are you trying to insinuate that you are perfect?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Liberal critics who want to call people hypocrites should be careful. I have spoken in favor of people taking "personal responsibility" for their actions. From what I know of Mike Cox, he has taken full responsibility for his personal mistakes and apoligized to his wife. Obviously she has accepted and they have moved on.

    I don't think Mike Cox has lied or tried to deny the situation, and while I certainly don't condone infidelity, I think Mike has probably paid a steep price in his marriage for his mistake.

    JoeC, owning up to something and taking responsibility for it is the essence of what "personal responsibility" means. It does not mean that you never make a mistake, in fact it means the opposite, that when you err you "take responsibility" and admit it.

    You can beat this dead horse 'till next November if you want, but I will be moving on to talk about the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So Bruce you never did watch my abortion video. How can you say it isn't murder if you haven't seen it? So because we don't like the killing of innocent babies we are bad? And also because we Christians sin? You are one messed up little man Bruce. I think you need a lot more people praying fot you other then Sue and I.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Brian, maybe Cox's moral failings won't come up again, but I doubt it.

    It's not just that situation that is of concern about Cox.

    "Michigan State Police Detective Sgt. Mark Krebs testified in a deposition last month that the state investigation of the rumored Manoogian Mansion party struggled against stonewalling by Detroit police, pressure from Cox's office and reluctant witnesses.

    Krebs testified in an Oct. 20 deposition obtained by the Free Press that Cox rushed to wrap up the investigation."
    http://www.freep.com/article/20091111/NEWS01/911110311/1320/Cox-to-testify-Dec.-11-in-Tamara-Greene-suit-

    And then there's this from Laura Berman.
    http://www.detnews.com/article/20091112/OPINION03/911120387/1438/OPINION0364/Manoogian-probe-dogs-Cox-s-gov-run
    Missing evidence?

    "Six years later, Krebs' dissatisfaction with Cox and the truncated investigation, ring clear.

    He suggests that Cox's lead attorney on the case, Thomas Furtaw, was pressured to speedily wrap up the investigation and distressed when it took longer than two weeks. "For somebody to tell me to hurry up, to close this out ... I thought that was unusual," Krebs says of Furtaw, who reported to Cox daily on the investigation.

    Into the bulging inventory of suspicious Manoogian-related circumstances, Krebs adds the mysterious disappearance of a box of computer back-up tapes. He claims a box of them, swathed in yellow police tape and locked in a Detroit police vault, was "compromised" the next morning, when State Police returned to claim it. Most of the data were missing and the protective tape had been removed, Krebs said.

    Krebs' concern about police irregularities, or Cox's decision to interview Kilpatrick, but not formally interrogate him, is tantalizing but inconclusive."

    As the top law enforcement officer in the state of Michigan, allegations of truncated investigations and missing evidence are troubling at best.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I do have to say I have second thought about a person that can't keep promises. I think it is great that he was truthful about it with his wife. He also said he was sorry and repented for his deeds. So he did redeem himself somewhat in my eyes. I do find it funny that those on the left have no problem with what the Democrats have done but when a Republican does it they go after him with guns blazing. Talk about hypocricy. Obama lied about not knowing Rev. Wright was a black theology racist preacher when he sat in his church for 20 yrs. They ignore all of Obamas radical friends and call us assholes for talking about it. But a man cheats on his wife and he is damned from politics. I wouldn't call Brian out for what you Liberal Taliban have done 10 times worse.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bruce why now all the sudden do you change your tune on allegations? Is it because you are the biggest hypocrit of them all? I thought you said that allegations are just allegation when it comes to terrorist but when it is a conservative politician you go nuts. Sue is right about you. You are crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Chris,
    You make a valid point, (Chris said...
    "I do have to say I have second thought about a person that can't keep promises.")
    I too am extremely disappointed when any politician, an elected leader of either party, is discovered to have violated their marriage vows and the trust of their wife.

    It is troubling, but I think it is equally important how that person handles it. Do they lie about it under oath and then go on T.V. and lie about it some more, or do they privately apoligize to their spouse, sincerely ask for forgiveness and seek marriage counseling and try to keep their family intact ?

    I think you can tell alot about a person's character by how they react in a tough or embarrassing situation. Bill Clinton and Kwame Kilpatrick acted one way, showing arrogance and a lack of remorse, and guys like Mike Cox and others who have chosen to humbly admit their mistake, apologize, and ask for forgiveness, have been able to move on without being ruined.

    I am not excusing infidelity by anyone. It is a serious violation of a sacred promise, but it is important to consider if the person "accepts responsibility" and changes their behavior.
    I am satisfied Mike Cox has done that and if his willing to accept his apology and move on, so am I.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Brian and Chris, I don't really care about Mike Cox's infidelity.

    What's a more important issue is allegations he tried to wrap up the investigation prematurely. As the state's top law enforcement officer, Cox should have encouraged a full investigation.

    This is way more troubling than his infidelity.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Might I add my 2 cents worth?

    Again "personel responsibility" rears it's head,I was waiting for it.

    Brian, you showed your cards early. By your previous post's it was clear (at least to me) that you were backing Cox. That said,why were you so fervent about Hoffman (NY-23) who was never a politician be it fed,state,county,city or dog-catcher?

    I do want a Conservative in the MI governors seat,but if you were for an independant candidate with conservative values representing NY,why not the same in your own state?

    I am troubled that I tend to agree that Cox hardly shows the responsibility you accused me of not knowing. Furthermore,I am also concerned as to your endorsing too early. Admitting your "friendships" is transparency,but also proves to people such as I,no impartiality for the other candidates "on the right".

    It is not your job (unless paid by Cox) to try to 'move on',it is totally a legitimate issue.

    If you are paid by Cox then your response is expected,however you should disclose if you are paid for that 'opinion' being published on Cox's behalf.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 3 cents here,,,,,

    I to this point (Nov. 2009) am not endorsing any of the MI Republican candidates for MI Governor until it all shakes out as it is too early.

    Given the current political atomosphere 'tis good to be conservative but not tied to the RNC. Think Newt.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Chris and Brian, co you really think anyone cares who you endorse? You might influence the 10 people that comment on this blog.

    Endorsements that matter come from people with influence. I agree with Chris, endorsing this early, especially such a flawed candidate as Mike Cox doesn't show much political acumen on your part.

    I think it is appropriate to tell your readers who you like and why, but saying you're offering your endorsement of a candidate only says to me you think you're way more important in the political arena than you actally are.

    This is the weakest field of Republican candidates I've seen in a long time.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see a Tea Party candidate emerge. I can't wait to see who that is. Maybe David Duke will move to Michigan and make a run.

    ReplyDelete
  24. John, can you stay on the topic at hand or is deflection your only tactic. Lets talk about Mike Cox, not Bill Clinton or John Edwards. They are not running for Gov of this state and weren't the subject of this blog. Atleast i amk able to criticise Brian fairly and on topic.

    Brian, my responsibility as a husband, which i take much more personally then Mike Cox did is to not sleep around, to not put myself in situations were i would be tempted or compromised. That comes before apologising or accepting blame for failures. It does make him a lesser man for having done what he did.

    I also understand that you and many other conservatives want to gloss over this, but given the years of hysteria and attacks on Clinton, the so-called sanctity of marriage groups this is an issue. Should the "family Values", "personal Responsibility" and "sanctity of Marriage" party be accepting and condoning the actions of political leaders who step so far not out of moral norms, but party platforms? Can you hold these platforms to be important when you violate them as readily as those that don't advocate them? If your going to espouse a platform that deals in morals shouldn't you have the guts to walk the walk and not just talk the talk? Its as simple as that Brian. Conservatives et themselves up as these champions of the bible and morals and then elect people who don't have the moral strength that they themselves exhibit everyday.

    John, can i come back to you for a moment? Your posts are weak man. Not to go off-topic, but John Edwards is not my hero. Where do you come up with that first grade stuff brother.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bruce said,"Endorsements that matter come from people with influence. I agree with Chris, endorsing this early, especially such a flawed candidate as Mike Cox doesn't show much political acumen on your part." What I ment was I don't know enough about this candidate or the others to back anyone as of yet. That doesn't mean Brian hasn't thoughtfully research and soul searched Cox. If Cox is the most conservative candidate and best candidate in my eyes I will back him.

    ReplyDelete
  26. JoeC and Bruce, are you guys saying you would never vote in Bill Clinton in for any govt elected post because he was unfaithful to his wife? Did you two want Clinton impeached for being unfaithful and lieing under oath? Or are you going after Cox for being a Republican and Clinton was off limits to you because of his Democrat status?

    ReplyDelete
  27. My problem with Cox is not his infidelity and I stated that above.

    My bigger problem with Cox is his obstructing an investigation of Kwame and the party and the alleged murder. That is a bigger problem for Cox, since we now have sworn testimony from a Detroit police officer speaking to the blocking of a full investigation and all while the states top law enforcement officer.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Chris,
    No i am not saying that. I am saying very clearly multiple times that I consider a political party and conservatives like Brian, who espouse all these so-called moral fiber politics to clearly be hypocrites.

    Whether i could vote for an adulterer is not relevant. I don't vote for "Family Values" or "Sanctity of Marriage" canidates. I don't talk about "personal responsibility" as part of my political beliefs.

    I am not going after Mike Cox. Please understand that i am not unhappy with him or the job he's done as AG. I am not even disappointed in his personal conduct, because his affair matters little to my life. I am solely questioning Brians support of him. Like i said in the last post, Mike Cox doesn't live up to the standards of the party platform, not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bruce why is it when it is a Republican that has an alligation of braking the law they are guilty as charged? But when it is a Democrat you call it what it is a alligation?

    ReplyDelete
  30. JoeC said,

    "I consider a political party and conservatives like Brian, who espouse all these so-called moral fiber politics to clearly be hypocrites." That says it all Joe. You hold conservatives to a moral fiber but not liberals. That is your rule not the rule of society. Both liberals and conservative are held to the same moral standardes weather you like it or not. You can't make up different rules for each party just because you think it. That is what John was trying to point out to you. It's call liberal hypocricy and is well documented as John has pointed out. Isn't that why you JoeC got cranked up when John pointed out that both sides sin and both sides need to be held accountable? And isn't that why you got so cranked up because you don't want to be held to the same social laws as conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  31. JoeC do you believe that we are on nation under God? Bruce has already said he doesn't believe that God stuff. Do you belioeve thius nation would be better if we were one nation under liberal rule?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Fine, Chris, allegation of obstructing an investigation. I don't have a problem with that change in language. However, I hope that the allegations get a real investigation.

    I do believe the credibility of the police officer that testified and I would hope Cox's testimony would be made public and the judge will change his mind about sealing the Cox testimony.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Chris, let me see if I can help you understand what angry JoeC is trying to say ...JoeC says since the Republican Party stresses "family values and morals" in its platform (which we do)that he will label any Republican a hypocrite for voting for someone who hasn't always displayed those "family values". So in Joe's angry mind, if you can forgive you're a hypocrite.

    Now, if you're a Democrat, the party that does not stress family values and morals, you can cheat on your wife or vote for people like Clinton and Kilpatrick, because they never said it was important to be faithful or get married before you get someone pregnant. Maybe that's why 70% of the babies born in the city of Detroit are born to single mothers ... Democrats don't care about morals, marriage and and fidelity. Right JoeC ?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thank you Brian for clearing that up for me. And thank you Bruce for clearing up your paranoid delutions about conservatives in the judicial system. So what Bruce is saying is if it is a liberal under investigation they are inocent until proven guilty. But if it is a conservative they are guilty until proven inocent. Talk about being the Liberal Taliban. In the liberal world everyone gets a trophy.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Brian now I see why conservatives are happier then liberals. No matter how they imagine things working in their mind it never pans out that way in the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Chris, leave it to you to twist my words. I can always count on you to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Brian and Chris - Thanks for addressing Joey. You guys are spot-on; Joey wants to bring up the moral failings of an elected official, but only if that elected official is a Republican. When his hypocrisy is thrown in his face, you are suddenly "off topic". "But he's running for Governor of Michigan!!!", Joey cries! "Pay no attention the President of the United States, because he's a Democrat!!!" Joey, if you don't want to talk about it, don't bring it up. As I said before, I give Bruce props for focusing on the real issues; he knows that that is what it should be about.

    Bruce - I'm not familiar with the obstruction of justice thing with Cox; can you give me a brief explanation about why (you, or others think) Cox would want to impede an investigation into KK? It seems like Cox would want to bring KK down. We know why Jenny G. took her sweet time to do anything, because she is friends with KK, and they are both Dems, and part of the McNamara crew. I just don't see what was in it for Cox.

    Also, what would Cox's office have to do with tampering with tapes that are in the possession of the Detroit Police? Again, I am not familiar with the aspects of this case, and it doesn't make sense to me. I'm not being confrontational, just sincerely curious. And do you know when Cox will be deposed (is that set in stone, that he will in fact be deposed?)

    ReplyDelete
  38. This Free Press article should help you out, John.
    http://www.freep.com/article/20091030/NEWS01/91030034/1318/Cox-volunteers-to-sit-for-Tamara-Greene-deposition.

    I believe there were also rumors at the time that Cox may have attended the party that has been at issue. I don't think there's anything "in it" for Cox, except protect his own ass for obstructing justice and impeding an investigation. The deposition is scheduled for December 11.

    Here is another article on the topic, John. Given your superior research capabilities, I would think you would have found these on your own, but I'm glad to help out.

    http://www.freep.com/article/20091111/NEWS01/91111035/1003/NEWS01/Cox-seeks-to-open-Greene-suit-testimony-to-public

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jesus Christ ! Bruce,,,the Freep??????

    LMAO OFF ! Can you not be original? Do yo have a thought born of your own exisistence or is it all talking points?

    Why not tell us of the "wide field" of "so-called strong,,,lol,,,liberal candidates"?

    ReplyDelete
  40. So now the Detroit Free Press is not a reliable source in your mind, but Fox "News" is? Is that what you're implying?

    John Cherry looks to be the Democratic candidate and even with all that that implies, he will wipe the floor with any of the Republican candidates.

    I think the Free Press lays out the story very well. If I gave you my opinion, you'd say the same thing, only you'd say, "that's your opinion, Bruce."

    ReplyDelete
  41. This clown Bruce Fealk is too much. He actually says has the audacity to say "This is the weakest field of Republican candidates I've seen in a long time." (Nov. 14 7:11 pm)

    I guess Bruce has been instructed by his Moveon.org handlers to say stupid stuff like that. The unions are all lining up to support their chosen candidate John Cherry and the big Democrat party contributors like George Soros and Jon Stryker will be trying to "buy" Michigan for the Democrats.

    I think the voters are getting wise to the liberal agenda of the unions. They are starting to figure out that they would rather elect someone who will take care of the taxpayers, not the unions, and bring jobs back to Michigan.
    2010 is shaping up to be a VERY bad year for tax-and-spend Democrats in Michigan. As Jennifer Granholm would say "Next November ... you'll be blown away".

    ReplyDelete
  42. Bruce Fealk said... "John Cherry looks to be the Democratic candidate and even with all that that implies, he will wipe the floor with any of the Republican candidates."
    Now my prediction. No matter who the Republicans nominate for Governor, they will
    beat the Democrat nominee by 10 points. ( 55-45 sounds pretty doable, in a year that promises to be a BIG REPUBLICAN YEAR ...)
    Some things money can't buy Bruce, and Moveon.org money isn't going to be able to "buy" this election Bruce. The voters are "MAD AS HELL, and they're not going to take it anymore !"

    ReplyDelete
  43. So Bruce,you too are showing your cards early,,lol.

    As for the freep,,lol again,DNC-paid rag.

    Fox? I was not aware they were so closely covering the MI guebenatorial race? Please fill us in.

    ReplyDelete
  44. So Bruce I twisted your words? Why didn't you fix what I twisted if that is true? I think it is your way of running away. It must be getting to Bruce knowing that he doesn't get much support for his crazy Liberal Taliban ways. I'd like to make a predictions. Bruce will be on Lithium by the end of 2013. I remember when these debates were 3 to 1 in the favor of liberals. Now it's just Bruce and JoeC. Their liberal world is colapsing. Bwahahahahaa

    ReplyDelete
  45. Brian, you seem to forget Governor Granholm was significantly behind Dick DeVos in 2006 and he ended up losing by 14%. I see a repeat of that coming and Mark Brewer will have some great commercials showing the weakness of the Republican candidate whoever it is.

    Not all voters are as mad as your little merry band here in Brian Pannebecker world.

    Christopher, prove that the DNC give one cent to the Free Press.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Bruce is cracked bwaahahahahahaha. The pressure of having all his liberal theories go down the toilet has sent bruce over the edge. Bruce why don't you allow anyone from the right to post on your blog anymore?Pussy.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Just for the record, I've never been so presumptuous to say I "endorsed" anyone. I have only said who I "support". There's a big difference Bruce ... Only a pompous, egotistical clown like you would think they are influential enough to offer an "endorsement". I have only said who I would be "supporting", and when I "support" someone, I actively work to help them get elected.
    My readers here are smart enough to decide for themselves who they want to vote for and why.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Brian, first, this is the quote from your entry on this subject. Maybe you don't read what you write.
    "But I have chosen to support Mike Cox, the current Attorney General."

    I'm not so sure about your readers being smart enough to decide for themselves.

    Given Mike Cox's professional lapses and possible criminal involvement in covering up facts and evidence in the Tamara Greene murder, I have a feeling Mr. Cox will have a short run for governor.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Chris, let me clear all the misconceptions John and Brian have spun about me. I hold people to the standards they set themselves to. If they don't choose to support and elect people who meet their standards then they are hypocrites.

    Brian, I'm not angry, so please stop insinuating that i am. Perhaps it makes the slappies like john that follow you blindly happy to make broad ass-umptions of people who don't agree with you, but i haven't shown any anger.

    John, your post did not show me being hypocritical, it showed you deflecting. Lets talk about the subject not if i voted for Clinton 13 years ago. (I did) If you wished to show support for Brian and i think you did, attacking me doesn't do it. You haven't shown Brian to have been any less hypocritical nor have you opened your mind to any other realities.


    Oh and by the way Brian, if you wish to talk high out of wedlock birth rates why aren't you discussing rural, mostly white counties such as Lake which has a strong republican pressence and more than 50 percent rates also. Why announce the problem as Democrat and urban black problem? Possibly because like many republicans there is a race issue in your politics?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Bruce - Thanks for the compliment on my researching skills. I COULD have looked it up, but as I stated a while ago, I really do get tired of doing all the liberals' research for them. I DO sincerely appreciate you providing links and a reply regarding the deposition and your theories. I will check out the articles you provided.

    Side note Bruce, I don't know that you should be talking about number of readers on a blog (I haven't been to your non-O.P. one, but I'm assuming you have about the same content, and therefore number of readers, as that hate-fest blog), nor about who is stating their support for whom. As I recall, your O.P. blog had an open letter to Barack Obama? And I remember seeing on the Democratic Underground an open letter to Hillary Clinton? Seems a little egotistical to me.

    When you make statements about Brian's blog, you remind me of the people who write in to say that nobody reads it anyway. If that was the case, why would you care? Why take the time, and why continue to comment? Makes no sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Bruce - I checked out those articles, they are only about Cox agreeing to the deposition, and requesting that the deposition be made public (that is up to Rosen, the presiding judge). "Thanks" for the "in-depth" articles... I guess when I compare my researching skills to yours, I AM superior. Hell, my dog is a superior researcher.

    As I understand it, Cox had nothing to do with investigating Tamara Greene's death. He was looking into the rumored party at the Manoogian Mansion. So it will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes from the deposition. Sounds like a waste of time and taxpayer money to me.

    Again, I don't see what Cox would have to do with a box of tapes locked up by the Detroit Police. Can you clarify that?

    As for him being at the rumored party... I know you were just putting that out there because it is a rumor, but could you see Cox partying with KK??! LOL. For that matter, that rumor smacks of the thing with the "Rev". Al Sharpton accusing the A.G. of being involved with the kidnapping of that black girl, the incident that turned out to be a hoax. Another classy moment for the Democrat party.

    ReplyDelete
  52. John, I went back and re-read my comments and I never said that Cox had anything to do with the tapes.

    The Detroit police officer that testified talked about the tapes and the fact that Cox impeded the investigation into Tamara Greene's murder, which Cox denies.

    His deposition should be interesting and I do hope they make it public.

    ReplyDelete
  53. John said..."Side note Bruce, I don't know that you should be talking about number of readers on a blog (I haven't been to your non-O.P. one, but I'm assuming you have about the same content, and therefore number of readers, as that hate-fest blog), nor about who is stating their support for whom. As I recall, your O.P. blog had an open letter to Barack Obama? And I remember seeing on the Democratic Underground an open letter to Hillary Clinton? Seems a little egotistical to me. "

    John, excellent comment. I'm glad you call our boy Bruce on this stuff. Bruce is delusional and needs someone to snap him back to reality occasionally.

    As far as Bruce's claims about Cox, he's way off-base. Attorney General Cox urging his investigators to wrap up the investigation after over a month, and interviewing over 120 people does not constitute " criminal involvement in a cover-up" as Bruce would like you to believe ... Like I said, thanks for calling him on his absurd allegations, he's delusional.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Gee, I wonder who has more credibility, a Detroit police officer or Brian Pannebecker? I'll go with the Detroit Police officer.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Good call Bruce. Go with an officer who averages a 25% chance of solving a crime in Detroit. You might want to ask a citizen who lives in Detroit about who they would trust more.

    ReplyDelete
  56. John, so now you're disrespecting police officers and the hard work they do. Good call. As usual, you call into question your respect for the law all you good conservatives say you support.

    Also, Brian, some key witnesses were not interviewed, like Carlita Kilpatrick. So, even though the State Police interviewed many witnesses, if you don't interview the right people or key people, that still means the investigation is incomplete. If you have a rape case, but you don't interview the victim, is that a complete investigation?

    John, so, you're saying Detroit citizens would trust Brian Pannebecker more than a police officer? Right. Got it.

    ReplyDelete