Thursday, September 28, 2006

Jim Marcinkowski interviews and lays another egg

Recently, Jim Marcinkowski had an interview with Burl Schwartz of the Lansing City Pulse on an East Lansing Radio station. I’m not sure if it was Impact or the Edge, but it was one of those. I was just given a transcript of the interview and am posting excerpts of that here. Jim once again does not answer questions well, similar to his interview with the leftist Booman Tribune blog.

BS – Burl Schwartz
JM – Jim Marcinkowski

BS: How are Democrats taking to you given that up until 2000 you were a Republican?
JM: Well I don’t know at what point I switched exactly.
BS: Well didn’t you run for a township office in 2000?
JM: Yeah I was put up by the slate because of a political battle we were going on and I did not put enough effort into it. It was kind of a neighborhood ground support. It was a small position but I wasn’t really that into it.
BS: Was that a slate of Republicans or a non-partisan ticket?
JM: I don’t know. I was thinking that was, I really couldn’t tell you. Well Republican or Democrat it doesn’t really matter here. I just think that the Republicans have become very radical and that the middle class just cannot connect with them anymore. If you look at their disasters on international relations such as the war on terrorism and the economic policies that are affecting the jobs here, it’s not working. You look at those policies and you see what’s really important for the country and partisanship becomes secondary.


This is horse manure, Jim. Either you are a LIAR, have a really bad memory, need to retake a civics class, need to read a ballot, or as I suspect - all of the above. Orion Township is solidly republican. You were not on a slate, since the winner of the primary has an easy ride to election there. You ran and finished dead last in the Republican primary. It was a partisan primary in August as all township offices are. As for the Republicans becoming radical, that’s even more horse manure. 1994’s Republicans were much more conservative than today’s crowd.

BS: You’re running against a well-moneyed candidate. How are you doing in fundraising and try to be specific with me if you can.
JM: We’re doing better than any challenger in the State of Michigan. We’ve probably gotten around four times as much money together as the last couple sets of challengers against Mike Rogers. Of course, as you indicated, he is well-oiled monetarily, he’s a machine, and where that comes from is a whole other story.
BS: Tell us that story later but how much money have you raised so far?
JM: We’re approaching some 400,000 dollars.
BS: And what do you think it’s going to take to beat Mike Rogers?
JM: Well I don’t think money is going to be the bottom line it’s going to be people on the ground. If we raise a million dollars, Mike will have raised two (million). If we raise two, he’ll raise four.
BS: Well aren’t you going to need a lot of money to run television commercials, which is really important?
JM: Well stand by, you’ll see in four days.
BS: And what are you going to be saying in it?
JM: Well bottom line is we’re going to hold Mike to his record and indicate what that record is as far as the impact on the State of Michigan.


Jim, why not tell us where YOU stand. I don’t need to hear why Mike supposedly sucks. What is Jim Marcinkowski’s plan? The truth is that there is no such thing. His only message is that “I’m a hanger on of Joe Wilson, vote for me!!”


BS: And what part of his record?
JM: We’ll be talking about gasoline profits, record oil profits and I’m sure a lot of people know that in fact the oil industry was handed a multi-billion dollar tax relief within the last year. They’re making record profits, we’re paying record prices, and Exxon Mobil recorded profits last quarter of 1328 dollars per second. And you got to remember when you pull up to the pump that Exxon Mobil is making 1328 dollars per second.
BS: That’s an impressive number.
JM: I don’t think they need a tax break what do you think?


What are you going to do about it, Jim?


BS: Jim on another topic, the Republicans have accused you of being a flip-flop on abortion. They say that when you were a Republican running for the state legislature you were strongly anti-abortion and now they say you’re pro-choice. Are they right?
JM: Well I don’t think it’s a flip-flop that’s changing their own position. I’ll give you an example. I don’t think anybody when you start out, I mean no one likes abortion, alright, I think that’s just a given. It’s something that’s sought and I don’t think it’s something anybody seeks unless they find themselves in a particular situation that they can’t get themselves out of. That being said back in the ‘80s and ‘90s if you recall the fight you know was over abortion. What’s happened with that movement and it’s become very extreme and the debate today revolves around contraception and that whole debate has changed. The bottom line is you see more legislative action being proposed that would ban contraception and it seems to me that when the debate moves to such an extreme, it is a clear signal to me that the government now needs to get out of that question altogether and let individuals decide. The bottom line is that the movement has become very extreme going now in attempt to regulate contraception and because of that extremism that signals that the government needs to get out of that decision making altogether.


Jim, I know you have to kiss the ring of Emily’s List and NOW to get any support among democrats, but this is ridiculous. The fight over abortion today is the same as it was then, and every year since 1973 when 7 tyrants in black robes led by Harry Blackmun disregarded the constitution and created law that did not exist thanks to Doe v Bolton and Roe v Wade. The problems are Roe V Wade, Planned Parenthood v Casey, and Stenberg v Carhart. It has not changed since then, despite what you say.


BS: But also to get out of it in the sense of undoing Roe v. Wade or keeping Roe v. Wade?
JM: Roe v. Wade is a law of the land and that’s going to be up to the court to decide. What I mean to say is that the argument when you look at the abortion area we’re talking about restricting stem cell research, making contraceptives harder to get at, we’ve had debates going on for years about the morning after pill. It all tells me that this movement has become such an extreme movement that they’re stepping into an area they don’t belong in and the only way we’re going to end it is if they listen. Those are the kinds of decisions that should be made by the individual. The government shouldn’t be involved at all, therefore you should have your own personal choices.


So you support 9 month abortions? Sounds like it from what you said. And as for stem cell research, the fight at the federal level is over FEDERAL FUNDING of EMBRYONIC stem cell research. Stem cell research isn’t controversial at all.

BS: Jim, do you think that the Supreme Court should continue to support Roe v. Wade?
JM: Well it’s been the law of the land since 1973. Seems to me that most people don’t really have a problem with Roe v. Wade; it doesn’t prohibit abortion, simply restricts abortion. I think your average citizen out there doesn’t really have an issue with Roe v. Wade and it’s one of those issues that should really go back to the individuals and we don’t really need to change the constitution and its individual choice.


Jim, again you said a lot, but didn’t answer the question.

BS: Finally, Jim, in City Pulse this week, you were quoted as saying you were opposed to gay marriage, why is that?
JM: Well I don’t think it’s an issue that should be decided by the Congress on.
BS: Well I’m not asking whether Congress should decide or not but you were asked whether you were for or against gay marriage. You said you were against gay marriage, why?
JM: Well I don’t think it should be decided by the Congress.
BS: Jim! I’m not asking you what Congress is doing. I am asking you why you’re against gay marriage.
JM: Well I have to represent everybody within a district and I think that there is mainstream thought here that perhaps we ought to have something along the lines of civil unions and not have gay marriage but provide the rights the people need to have a family.


This shows that Jim Marcinkowski is full of so much horse manure that his eyes are turning brown. Why not simply be honest and say why you oppose it?

This guy's a joke. After all the hype, I think Mike's going to have a much easier race than expected.

20 comments:

Stands Right said...

Can you post the whole transcript? Or tell us where to get it?

Communications guru said...

Jim hit the head right on the nail. It will be nice to see a race since the repubublicians gerrymandered the district. Something has to keep mr honest. That's a big task, and maybe an actual election will remind him who he is supposed to represent. By the way, are you working for mr, dan? I know you would never tell us if you were. That's called dishonesty.

Communications guru said...

It just occurred to me. Where’s the link to this alleged interview? With your track record for dishonesty, dan, if you said it was night I would think it was day.

Republican Michigander said...

Well, if anyone would know about dishonesty, it would be you Kevins - going back to your days at the Argus.

And no, Mike Rogers is not a client.

Republican Michigander said...

Stands - If you want to see the whole thing, email me - removing the no spam part.

republicanmichigander@NOSPAM.hotmail.com

Communications guru said...

Well, show me some allaged dishonesty on my part. I can show yours.

armywife1 said...

Slick Jimmy is hard to pin down. He is more than a flip-flop. He is a joke.

Communications guru said...

That’s more spin, Ms. Day. There are plenty of people coming over to the party of people because the republican party has left them. That does not make Jim unusual in any way, nor does it make him a “flip-flopper.”
I’m still waiting for dan to provide a link to the transcript to this alleged interview. If it’s you that’s providing the transcript….

bluzie said...

Hey Army wife, I hope you are watching 60 minutes tonight.

We all now know who is the joke, and people are dying as we speak.

Wake up!

Stands Right said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Stands Right said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick Flynn said...

Oh it would have been so good to have been able to face Jim in this election.

Dang those primaries!

Communications guru said...

I agree.

Big Kahuna said...

CG, you agree cause your candidate doesn't have a prayer against Mike. Maybe a different opponent would have been a possibility for your guy, huh?

Communications guru said...

He has more than a prayer.

Communications guru said...

I'm still waiting for the link to the transcript, or did you just make it up, dan?

Republican Michigander said...

There is no link, kevins. It was emailed to me.

Communications guru said...

So diaregard the entire post becuse it's made up.

Republican Michigander said...

No, unlike Kevins "facts" from his Argus editorial, this wasn't made up. Kevin is about as truthful as he is when he said he was kicked off the blog.

McGonegal needs to be more careful about who he associates with.

Communications guru said...

How many times do I have to prove you kicked kevins off this blog before you stop with the lie that you did not. I guess your training tells you that if you keep telling a lie often enough some people start to believe it.

As for the Argus editorial, I have heard many of mike’s stories, but I have never, ever met any of the subjects of one of them. In this case, he tells a story he knows cannot be proved or disproved. If Jim is lying so is rogesr because rogers didn’t prove it’s true. Jim Marcinkowski is an ex-CIA agent who knows how case officers operate, so I’m going to take his word over one of rogers feel good stories that illustrates his viewpoint.

As for the transcript of this alleged interview that is the entire reason for this post I have asked time after time for the link of this transcript, yet you cannot produce it. Yet you question my honesty when you have never, ever been able to produce one example where I did not tell the truth.

I really don’t know what Mike McGonegal has to do with this. I am working for him, with no pay, so I’m not hiding anything. Ward is paying you but try to hide it. Who’s the honest one? dan? Not you.