Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Saul: Frist is out

According to Saul Anuzis, Bill Frist isn't running

Frist is Out!!!
I just talked to Bill Frist's political folks...he is out of the presidential sweepstakes. For a variety of reasons, the Senator made the decision not to run and just "go home" and spend some time with his friends and family.


Senator Frist was one of the nicest guys you would ever meet. He was smart, competent, insightful and pretty funny. He cares deeply about our country and took his role as Senate Majority Leader very seriously.

Personally, I think that was his biggest obstacle.

Bill Frist didn't get to be Bill Frist. He had a job to do, a role to play, and a President to support.

So let's let Bill Frist be Bill Frist...thanks for a job well done! My guess is we haven't seen the last of him!!!

Tom Tancredo in Michigan

I just got word that possible 08 Presidential candidate and current Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo will be in Michigan this week.

Tancredo is speaking Thursday night at 8:30 pm at Michigan State University (4th floor of the law college building), at a pastor's luncheon in Flint Friday, and at a fundraiser for the Bloomfield Republican Women's Club Friday night

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

County Party Leadership

Both the Republican and Democrat parties will have new county chairs. From the Argus

Pine said she won't run for a third two-year term at the helm of the county Republican Party (snip)

Joe Carney, chairman of the county Democratic Party for the past 13 years, will step down next week to make way for new leadership


Joe Carney was a bad loss for them. I met him a few times and while I don't agree with him on most matters, I really respect his work ethic. I always saw him and/or Kathy working the booth for the democrats. He was always active and made us work harder than we had to in the past.

Personally, I hope "Kevins" aka "communications guru" replaces him.

On the Republican side, there are rumors of several candidates who may or may not be running. The democrats like "Kevins" want us to pick a "moderate". A "moderate" to them would be someone on the level of extreme leftist John Kerry. We don't need that type of so-called "moderate" or their/media's definition of a "moderate" here which usually means Big Government (outside of Bush who they slap on the "extremist" label). Our party has moved too far to the left anyway - look at the government spending and government increase. That's leftist. We need a less government conservative.

For our chair, we need a mainstream conservative with limited government values and strong leadership abilities to lead the way to keep what's great about Livingston County here and not move us to what goes on in Ann Arbor or Wayne County.

One candidate for certain for the chair position is Allan Filip. Allan would do an excellent job for us. He's not an extremist, nor a liberal. He's a mainstream conservative and oftentimes filled the role being a consensus builder while he was vice-chair. That's what we need in a chair.

Some think the bickering during the past year is "conservative vs liberal" within the ranks. That couldn't be further from the truth. The infighting wasn't ideological and those who think it was are uninformed. There were no battles within the party over those issues. All the battles were over tactics and strategy (What races to get involved in, money etc).

While nothing is set in stone until convention, I don't expect there to be major battles or problems at the convention. I expect there to be strong leadership at the top over the next two years. I expect some much needed improvement in organizationand in the structure of the party to happen over the next two years. I expect more aggressiveness and activity in our county, and a much better PR system.
It's time to us to stay ahead of the democrats and make them beat us instead of beating ourselves. Let's do it.

Duncan Hunter in 08?

Right now, I'm looking for choice "C" in the primary. I think he's right more often than not on the issues of which I'm aware. His anti-NAFTA/GATT/Most Favored Trade status with China stances are also a positive. I'll have to check his spending record more, but I'll take him over McCain, Rudy, and at this point, Romney. I'll consider voting for Hunter.

One thing that 2006 showed is that the socially conservative blue collar independent vote is not entitled to any party. The democrats lost it bigtime in the 90's, and we were whacked there in 06. Someone like Hunter may be a shot at winning them back. Being an Army Ranger doesn't hurt either.

The major weaknesses is name ID and being in Congress (as most presidents are governors). That being the case, it's smart to announce a run early to gain the name ID. Right now it is a battle for the activists.

From the Washington Times
Rep. Duncan Hunter considers himself the Republicans' best bet to reconstitute the blue-collar coalition that helped the party win the White House in the 1980s.
Mr. Hunter, who is seeking the presidential nomination in 2008, says he can rebuild that coalition by campaigning on defense, traditional values and fair trade.
"Keeping American jobs in this country is a strong tie between the Republican Party and working America, Main Street America -- that's a portion of our constituency I aim to retrieve, because I stand strong with them," the 13-term congressman from California said in a recent interview, pointing to votes against almost every free-trade agreement during his 26 years in the Capitol.
Mr. Hunter, the first to announce officially that he is exploring a run for president, presents a curious figure among better-known candidates.
Combined with a tough stance on border security -- he was the author of the original amendment proposing 700 miles of border fence included in the House's 2005 immigration bill -- he fills a niche among the candidates lining up for a presidential run.
"I stand for a strong national defense, strong border enforcement, fiscal conservatism and traditional values, and lastly, keeping American jobs onshore," he said as he sprawled in an armchair in his Capitol Hill office during the interview, propping one foot on the edge of his cluttered desk.
Mr. Hunter said he expects the next election to turn on security. He said his experience as an Army Ranger during the Vietnam War and as the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee puts him squarely in the middle of that debate.

(Snip)

Friday, November 24, 2006

Redistricting Editorial in the Argus

Dan Meisler of the Argus had an interesting editorial on redistricting.

I cringe whenever politicians start talking about "the American people," as if they know what we all want, or assuming that we all speak with one voice.
In fact, the obsessive concerns of the Democrats and Republicans don't overlap much with those of "the American people" I spoke with over the course of covering the election.


I've touched on the redistricting issues a few times in the past, and usually there are four different scenarios.

1. Current in Michigan - The state legislature and governor in power control redistricting. When one party is in power, the other is usually screwed. The GOP was screwed in the 70's and the dems were screwed with the last maps. When there is split control, usually there is either an incumbent protection map (Status Quo), or it goes to the courts which decide the maps. The pros of this system is that we elect the state reps, state senators, and govenor, so we can send them home theoretically if we do not like their map The cons are usually hyperpartisan redistricting.

2. Revenge. Republicans lost in court by judges in the 2001 Texas Map. In retribution, once the Republicans took the state legislature there, they redistricted in 2003/2004, breaking the customary once, every ten year pattern. This may lead to a pattern in other states, and has in Georgia. Democrats screwed the GOP in 01, and the GOP screwed them back when they took control. There's no pros here as all sides will get theirs as the time comes. The cons are screwjobs every few years.

3. So called "nonpartisan" Commissions (and variations of). I don't like commissions in general as all it usually does is give some has-been political hacks a soapbox and power. It also passes the buck away so there is no recourse for screwjobs. There is still plenty of biasness which does not go away when one leaves office. Unless there are plenty of safeguards regarding county breaks, this is only slightly better than scenario 2. I expect a lot of "Status Quo" and Incumbent protection maps from this.

4. Computers - Currently, computers are a redistricter's best friend. It is how you see the crazy maps of some districts, especially in Georgia 02 (Dems), California (Incumbent protection), and Texas (GOP). This can used also for the basis of reform.
My own recommendation is a computer system. It takes the human biasness and removes it as much as possible. There should be 5-10 maps with the smalled number of municipal breaks (County, City, Township) for each position. The maps are availible for public viewing before the drawing and the winning map comes from that group. Drawings are open to the public. Regardless of the winning map, it will be one with minimal municipal breaks.

I'm not for "nonpartisan" redistricting. I do support "nonbiased" redistricting based on geography. Trying to create 15 50/50 districts is impossible without creating strange maps. What there needs to be are maps with minimal municipal breaks. Our congressmen, state senators, state reps, and county commissioners should be from our communities. The democrats didn't like Oakland County being carved up into four different districts. I don't want to see the democrats split Livingston County three ways. Municipal breaks favor Republicans in some areas (Kent County, Livingston County) and democrats in others (Wayne County, probably Oakland County).

It's too early now to tell what will happen in 2011. The state house and state senate could go either way, and the governor's spot is wide open. Anything can happen.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Gun Grabber Mayor Convicted of Gun Crime

More hypocracy from the Guns for me, not for you crowd

CNSNews.com) - A Mississippi mayor has pleaded guilty to misdemeanor weapons charges after carrying a handgun on church and school property, and a gun rights group thinks now would be a good time for him to step down from Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG).

Jackson Mayor Frank Melton, a Democrat, pleaded guilty Nov. 15 to the misdemeanors to avoid felony charges that would have cost him his job. Instead of jail time, he was fined $1,500 and put on a year's probation.

Lawrence Keane, director of the gun rights lobbying group National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), on Tuesday called Melton a "hypocrite" for violating gun laws while maintaining membership in MAIG.

MAIG is a coalition of American mayors headed by New York Republican Michael Bloomberg. On its website, the group says it "respect[s] the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns" and that their "only interest is in fighting crime."


How about banning gun grabbing politicians instead like the rich leftist RINO Bloomberg and convict Melton?

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

More Big Government Statism from the Democrats

From the Lansing City Pulse.

Governor pledges to approve a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants

It was the most definitive sign yet that Michigan could soon join a growing number of states that have banned smoking in bars, restaurants and other public places.


In the third gubernatorial debate against challenger Dick DeVos, Gov. Jennifer Granholm told Michigan voters she would make Michigan smoke-free if legislation to ban smoking was presented to her.


“I think the governor said it,” said Liz Boyd, press secretary for the governor, who was re-elected Nov. 8. “If legislation arrives on her desk, she’ll sign it.”


House Bills 4624 and 4625 and Senate Bills 394 and 395, introduced in April of 2005, would prohibit smoking in bars and restaurants. The bills, which stalled in committee, were aimed at reducing the third-leading preventable cause of death in the United States.


With Granholm entering a second term and Democrats now in control of the state House, another push to ban smoking in bars and restaurants could be on the way.


For the record, I'm not a ciggy smoker. This isn't about smoking to me. This is about property rights. This is about another push from big government to tell PRIVATE owned business how to run their establishments. I have no problem with business owners deciding on their own to ban smoking. The Copper Pickle in Howell is non-smoking on their own. That's the proper way to make a decision.

Nobody forces anyone to go into a pub or restaurants around smokers. That's an individual decision one makes on his/her own. Because an individual doesn't like how a business runs its establishment, he/she's now running to government to change how it runs it. That's unacceptable, and frankly - UnAmerican.

Time for "Big Government Conservatism" to end

Two good editorials from the right. One from Human Events, and the other from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. I have excerpts here, but recommend the full editorials.

One thing we all need to remember. It was the republicans who balanced the budget once before, and for all the (well-deserved) complaints on fiscal irresponsibility from republicans in the past 5 years, the democrats complained that we didn't spend enough. That said, "The other guy is worse" is no excuse and it is time for the rest of the party to follow the lead of the "Republican Study Committee" wing of the party and balance the budget - no excuses. Did Congress learn from losing the house? We'll see.

Human Events:

The single-best thing the lame-duck GOP Congress can do is vote in a spending-limitation bill with balanced-budget targets for the next couple of years. This would be a spending-cap pay-as-you-go, which means that any increased spending must be offset by lower spending in other parts of the budget. Not higher taxes, reduced spending.

This policy action would send a clear message to disaffected Republicans and independents (think Ross Perot voters) that the GOP is moving to regain the high ground on limited government and budgetary restraint.

The era of big-government conservatism must come to an end. And right now.

In the new Congress next year, Democrats will push a revenue pay-go. This means any new spending initiatives could be financed through higher taxes. And Democrats want to spend. Just take a look at their wish list: student loan subsidies, a major expansion of No Child Left Behind, more money to fill so-called “doughnut hole” (Medicare Part D) prescription-drug assistance and an expansion of health care for the uninsured on the way to universal health coverage.
(Snip)
During the Newt Gingrich congressional years, and particularly during the fight for the balanced-budget amendment of 1997, limited spending coupled with low tax rates was the winning message that gathered both conservatives and Ross Perot independents into the GOP tent. Now is the time to return to these very same principles


And from the Tribune-Review

Money can't buy me love," the Beatles famously sang. That should be the lesson conservatives take from the Nov. 7 elections, because the real story of this year's midterm vote is that the supposedly conservative majority spent as if it was a liberal majority.
"The greatest scandal in Washington, D.C., is runaway federal spending," Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., said after the election. In recent years, he notes, the Republican majority "voted to expand the federal government's role in education, (added new) entitlements and pursued spending policies that created deficits and national debt."

(snip)

Earmarking is nothing more than an attempt by members of Congress to show folks that they're "bringing home the bacon." Conservatives should focus on the lesson of this election: This sort of federal spending is wrong. It doesn't work, and it should be stopped.

The other side of the spending coin is entitlements. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are on a path to bankrupt our country. Medicare spending alone is projected to leap $112 billion over the next two years to nearly half a trillion dollars. There's a crisis looming.

Yet instead of addressing these problems, in 2003 our lawmakers made them worse. They passed the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, adding trillions of dollars in costs to an already flailing program. It was the largest entitlement program passed since the Great Society of the 1960s, and many saw it as nothing more than an attempt by lawmakers to buy senior citizens' votes by giving them "inexpensive" drugs (to be paid for by their children and grandchildren's taxes).

The buy-off failed. Its author, Nancy Johnson, was ousted in Connecticut, while key supporter Clay Shaw lost his Florida seat after his opponent made the costly benefit a campaign issue.

Monday, November 20, 2006

DiShaw drops out, endorses Saul

I can't believe I missed this earlier. From Saul's blog

Dave's a good guy who does a good job over in West Michigan. I wish him the best. Currently, Saul is officially unopposed, although there are two months before the state convention, so anything can happen. Nothing is in stone until the final vote.

Dear Republican,

Our party had a very rough Election Day, and the grassroots leaders of our party have begun the process of examination and analysis.

We believe that when things go badly, change is a necessary step. That is why I announced my campaign for Chairman of the Michigan Republican State Committee. Within days we received the support of 5 District Chairs, 33 State Committee Members, 18

County

Chairs

, and the National Committeeman. Clearly the grassroots of the party wanted to have this conversation. At all levels, this is a discussion worth having.

But we have to ask: To what end? The goal is not a long and protracted fight for control of the party. The goal is to fix the party and win elections. No more, no less. It has become clear in recent days that although there was significant support for a new Chairman, there was not overwhelming consensus that change at the top was the only way to achieve our aim of a rededicated, renewed Michigan Republican Party.

The following concerns, as well as your feedback, need to be part of an improved operation in 2007-2008:

1) Act on the concerns of the local grassroots leadership. Local elected officials and grassroots leaders should have a say in who their field representatives are, how they function, and what strategies are used in local races.

2) Create better strategies with regard to the Election Day Operation program, particularly the credential and challenging logistics.

3) Communicate with grassroots and party leaders via regular phone consultation and make sure that all party leadership is a part of the decision making process.

4) Use more caution in selecting GOTV lists that are based on micro-targeting data.

The good news: In both public and private settings these last few days, the Chairman and I have been in agreement on these and other issues! I know he will stay committed to these improvements, and I will stay committed to being a part of the solution as well.

To my friends and supporters who have stood with me, to the grassroots leaders who are willing to fight for a better Michigan GOP, you have my undying gratitude. I can only hope to repay the debt I owe you with an increased focus on winning in November of 2008, and with my constant appreciation of all you have done for me.

In the spirit of Party unity, and confident that he will do a good job, I endorse Saul Anuzis for re-election as Chairman of the Michigan Republican State Committee and encourage my supporters to do the same. Saul and I agree there is much to be done—now is the time to move forward. Now is the time to unify. I am confident that is in the best interests of our party, and I am confident that together we will turn this blue state red in November of 2008.

Sincerely,

Dave Dishaw

Sunday, November 19, 2006

No Spambots allowed

One individual chose to post the same exact advertising message on at least 8 different threads. Spambots are not allowed here. One post here or there I'll overlook. The same one on every single thread is not allowed. As such, I deleted all but one of these messages.

Democrats push to reinstate the draft

Remember when Hanoi John Kerry suggested that Bush was going to bring back the draft? Well, it's the other party that wants to do so - again.

From Bloomberg News

Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic Representative Charles Rangel said he will again introduce legislation to revive a U.S. military draft when his party takes control of Congress in January

Friday, November 17, 2006

How To Turn '08 Into '94, By Newt Gingrich

How To Turn '08 Into '94, By Newt Gingrich
An Open Memorandum to House Republicans

By Newt Gingrich
Posted Nov 15, 2006

RE: Reflections on being back in the minority and how to become a governing majority.

As we think about the 2006 election and where House Republicans go from here, I want to suggest a few principles and actions that might be helpful.

When I was first elected in 1978, House Republicans had been in the minority for 24 years. Despite our best efforts to win enough seats to gain the majority, it took us 16 more years. If we do not want to return to a possible 40 years in the minority, it is essential that we spend time now thinking about the lessons of 2006 and what has to be done. If we do this, we can accept 2006 as a corrective but necessary interruption in our pursuit of a governing majoritarian party.

In 1946 and 1952, the Democrats found themselves in the minority. On both occasions it only lasted two years. They found the methods to recover, even though in the second case they were operating under a very popular Republican President Eisenhower.

When the Republicans lost their brief majority status in 1954, they could not recover it two years later, despite the fact that Eisenhower was winning a massive re-election. Similarly, they could not regain the majority even in the landslides of 1972 and 1984.

There are some key questions and key principles to keep in mind as we work through the process of earning back the majority.

1. Republicans lost the 2006 election. Do not hide from this. Do not shrug it off. Our team lost. Why did we lose? What do we have to do differently?
2. Are House Republicans electing a leadership team to be an effective minority or a leadership team to regain the majority? These are very different roles and require very different considerations, very different strategies and very different leaders.
3. To regain majority status, we have to focus on the country first and on Washington and the Congress second. If we are responsive to the country, they will support us and return us to power. If we are focused on action in Washington (whether White House action, legislative action or lobbyist and PAC action), we are probably entering a long period in minority status.
4. Are House Republicans electing leaders to represent House Republican values and strategies to the White House or leaders to represent the White House to House Republicans? Over the next two years, House Republicans and the White House will have very different institutional interests and very different time horizons. If we want to regain majority status, we have to focus on the building of a grassroots coalition which supports real change in Washington.
5. From a House Republican standpoint, the center of gravity should be the 54 Blue Dog Democrats. If we and the Blue Dogs can find a handful of key things to work on together, we can almost certainly create a majority on the floor just as the Reagan Republicans and conservative Democrats did in 1981. Bipartisanship can be conservative and back bench rather than liberal and establishment leadership defined. What did the Blue Dogs promise to get elected? What was the nature of their coalition back home? They give us the best opportunity to create grassroots efforts to pass solid legislation. Remember, the liberals will find it very hard to write a budget acceptable to the grassroots that elected the Blue Dogs. We have real opportunities if we are creative.
6. House Republicans should establish new principles for appointing people to the Appropriations Committee. Nothing infuriated the Republican base more than the continued process of earmarks, set asides and incumbent-protection pork. There is no reason for the House Republican conference to reappoint a single appropriator unless they agree to be part of the Republican team. First establish the principles of representing Republican values on appropriations and then ask each appropriator to commit themselves to living by those principles or accept appointment to another committee. There is a legitimate role for set asides in the legislative-executive branch process, but there is no reason to give the executive branch a blank check. There has to be some limits, and those limits should be set by the Conference and not by the committee members.
7. All of this will take time. As rapidly as possible there should be a three-day member-only retreat to discuss issues like this and to set strategies for the next two years. These kinds of decisions should be a key part of thinking through who should lead House Republicans for the next Congress and how they should lead.

One Last Note

Do not underestimate Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi and her team. She and Rahm Emmanuel finally put together a disciplined recruiting system that allowed a lot of Democrats to run as conservatives, even while they were planning to elect the most liberal Speaker in history. Pelosi is a tough, smart, disciplined professional. She is not going to be easy to beat, and she and her team are going to work hard to keep you in the minority for a decade or more.

This is going to be hard work and will require a lot of dedication and a lot of thought.

With best wishes for a return to majority status as quickly as possible.


Your friend,

Newt Gingrich

GOP house blunders

from the AP

Republicans Friday chose Rep. John Boehner as minority leader, succeeding Speaker Dennis Hastert in the top GOP leadership post for the Democratic-controlled House that convenes in January.


Nothing against Boehner, but when your party takes an arse-kicking due to the actions of congress, it's time to make a change in its leadership. When one of the major problems is overspending and a straying from the limited government ideas which we won on in the 1980's and mid 1990's, then we need to elect leaders like Mike Pence, Jeb Henserling, and John Shadegg as leaders who will bring us "back to the future."

I hope Boehner proves me wrong. We'll see.

My parent's backyard

I don't see this too often. Too bad I don't have time to hunt this year, then I'd pray it goes across the street to state land.....


Thursday, November 16, 2006

More on the State Chair race

A couple of developments in this race. I don't like to post a lot of internal information here, and did not post some of the underlying currents involved in this race outside of the John McCain element, which is already public knowledge

1. Jack Lessenberry had some good things to say about Saul. Jack and I don't usually see eye to eye on most issues, but he had some good things to say about Saul here There's a good audio clip there as well.

2. Some endorsements have been rolling in for Saul. Mike Cox endorsed him, and he wasn't originaly a Saul backer two years ago. St Senator Ken Sikkema over in Grand Rapids.

3. I also received an interesting email forwarded to me that cleared up a major controversey. Much of the hype has come from a rather infamous ad from one of the two Grand Rapids state rep districts which flipped from GOP to Democrat. The mailer was an attack ad against the democrat, which some people considered race baiting. Saul took a lot of blame for this ad - but was not behind the ad. State Party has a lower postage rate, so much of the ads from caucus and other GOP organizations goes through them. He took the hit before the election for the team. I heard this from two sources now.

Personally, I think much of this hype (which started before the election) is an effort from some of John McCain's top supporters to get control of the state party and have a coronation instead of a primary. McCain is not popular with the base (especially gun owners), so they want to dillute it. This is a pre-primary for 2008.

Monday, November 13, 2006

Rudy is in for 08

From NY1 - Rudy is in

Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has taken the first steps toward a 2008 White House run.

Documents obtained by the Associated Press show that Giuliani has established an exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money and travel the country in support of a presidential bid.


While I personally like Giuliani, he's too left wing to get my support in the primary. That said, I'm glad he's running since he'll take votes away from Mr. McCain who I could not support for dogcatcher. I'd like to see Giuliani in a cabinet position - preferably in a Mike Pence administration.

Saul Anuzis for Michigan GOP Chair (and Stop McCain too)

I am endorsing the re-election of Saul Anuzis as state party chair.

This was a tough year, and I don't think most of Saul's work did anything but help us for not having it worse than it was. Indiana and Ohio (and I think Wisconsin) got hit worse than we did. We kept our Congressional seats, and didn't get smoked as bad as Ohio did - even though they are usually 4% more Republican than we are.

Saul is also the most accessible and active chair we've had since I've been active in Michigan politics. He organized more victory centers than any other time during a gubenatorial election. There were a record number of contacts made this election cycle. Saul is active on the grass roots websites for conservatives, such as redstate. With the rise of blogs and internet in politics, we need chairs who embrace the netroots, not reject them. Saul keeps us informed every day on his own blog and in his emails with a large collection of the current events around the state and country. The infastructure and groundwork was in place to win. That was Saul's job this year, and he did his part. It was simply a bad year for Republicans, the blame mostly deserves to be placed over in DC due to lack of leadership, poor strategy, and straying from the conservative values that brought them there in the first place back in 1994. Hopefully that changes and we can start with Mike Pence as Minority Leader, setting an example for us nationwide.

Besides Saul, the other names mentioned for chair have been Dave DiShaw, Jerry Zandstra, and Chuck Perricone. DiShaw is a good guy, as is Jerry Zandstra who I supported for senate before the primary. I have nothing bad to say about those two individuals. On the other hand Chuck Perricone destroyed the once formidable 2nd Amendment group - MCRGO. I won't go into all the details, but if you want to know what happened with MCRGO (since July 2002) under Mr. Perricone's reign as Executive Director - go to the CARE site or CPLTRAINER. I should also mention that Mr. Perricone is a John McCain guy. McCain is strongly anti-2nd Amendment and has a well deserved F rating from Gun Owners of America. What is a supposed gun rights leader doing supporting someone like that?

What this race is about, is the 2008 primary. McCain's people in Michigan are trying to rig the system so that McCain wins Michigan in the 2008 primary. As Hotline reports:

Allies of Sen. John McCain in Michigan have launched an effort to oust party chair Saul Anuzis, who they view as biased against McCain and beholden to established financial interests in the state party.

Today, in an unusually personal letter to Michigan Republicans, Anuzis announced his re-election campaign and blamed "presidential politics" and "personal agendas" for the opposition.


Let's not have a coronation in Michigan, especially for a guy like Mr. McCain.



Does this sound like a mainstream Republican or a RINO?

1. He's a gun grabber and wrote anti-2nd amendment legislation banning gun shows. If GOA isn't good enough, even the more mild NRA doesn't like him.

2. He opposes the 1st amendment with his draconian campaign finance law.

3. His "global warming" stance is hostile to the automobile industry.

4. He is part of the gang of 14 on judges. I can not trust him to appoint good judges.

5. He pushes for government involvement in areas it doesn't belong. He tried to ban the UFC (Competition for the boxing industry where he has ties) and stuck his fat in the baseball steroids dust-up.

6. He's a member of the Keating 5. Remember them? We had our own Keating 5 member in Don Riegle.

7. He supports Ted Kennedy and George Bush's amnesty bill for illegal aliens.

Americans rejected "Big Government" conservatism on November 7. We can not let Michigan have a coronation for another Big Government Republican in Mr McCain, who makes George Bush look libertarian. We need a limited government conservative as our nominee, and McCain is not it. Let's not have a coronation for him at our next State Party Convention.

Saul will build on his infastructure, expand the right-netroots, and will get us ready for 2008 - whoever the nominee is - not just the favorite of a few individuals.

Based on both Saul's record, as well as McCain's interests, I am endorsing Saul Anuzis for Michigan GOP Chair.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Human Events : Pence for Minority Leader

Human Events, an influential conservative newspaper endorses Pence.

Pence for Minority Leader:

When the now-defeated Republican majority in the House of Representatives was led astray on key issues by President Bush, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, it was Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana who rallied backbenchers to fight back in defense of conservative principles.

That is why Pence should be elected minority leader for the next Congress. Under Pence’s leadership over the next two years, HUMAN EVENTS believes, House Republicans can put themselves in position to retake the majority in 2008. More importantly, they can be counted on to fight for what’s right. Pence, after all, opposed President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, which the President is now hoping to re-authorize with the help of the Democratic majority. Pence also led the gang of conservatives who stood up against the bullying of Republican leaders who tried to make them vote for Bush’s $8-trillion Medicare prescription drug entitlement. He also led the conservatives who forced Congress to make spending cuts to offset at least some of the profligate spending President Bush suggested in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Many conservatives rightly criticized Pence when, in the midst of the battle over immigration reform this year, he offered a compromise plan that would have made illegal aliens return to their home countries before they could qualify to come back as guest workers (and would have required the President to certify that the border had been secured before a guest-worker program was initiated). Still, Pence did support the tough border-security and immigration-enforcement bill that passed the House last December and counts now among his supporters for the minority leader post top GOP immigration hawks Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Steve King of Iowa.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Livingston Results

Dick DeVos - 57.01%
Mike Bouchard - 54.43%
Terri Land - 71.47%
Mike Cox - 69.42%
Mike Rogers - 63.63% (in county)
Valde Garcia - 61.60%
Chris Ward - 65.87% (in county)
Joe Hune - 61.56%


We can't let the numbers here fool us. We ran 6% behind our Bush 04 numbers, 5% behind our Posthumus numbers, and 2-3% behind our Bush 2000 numbers. To me, a 57.01% win is a defeat - as there's no way we win statewide without getting 63%+ in Livingston.

The DeVos numbers here were weak, but Bouchard's were extremely weak. It was the worst numbers in the county candidate since the sacrificial lamb campaign against Carl Levin in 2002 (a 52% "win"). I think he would have been a stronger candidate if he had help, but the lack of help before the last week, along with the national tide hurt us badly. What happened happened, and as I said before - Time for us to get up, walk it off, and be ready to fight.

Two exceptions to the setbacks were Terri Land and Mike Cox. They both won easily. The good news is that despite the setbacks, all of our county level candidates received over 60% of the vote.

We took our biggest damage in the Pinckney area. As a county party, I think we need to be more active out there and in areas around our entire county. There's too much of a disconnect between Brighton/Howell areas and the other areas of the county. With term limits hitting us hard in 2008 (house) and 2010 (senate), we better prepare for a tough race, as no open seat is 100% safe. Ask Bill Sali who had a close call in Idaho, or John Hunt/Terry Brown in the thumb. I'm taking our two open seat contests seriously.

Being followers does not work unless there are leaders to follow. Instead of looking for leaders to follow, I've always believed that we need to be the leaders ourselves. It is time for our county party to be the leaders. Will we step up to the plate as a party. That's for our committee to decide and I hope we as a committee make the right decisions over the next two years. Our communities are looking for strong positive leadership. It is time for us to provide it. Once we do, we won't be getting only 57% here in bad years, living and dying with out national and state partners.

On the county level, we got hit in the chin, didn't get knocked out, and survived a "decision". That said, it is too much of a close call here for my tastes, and I don't want to see this again any time soon. What are we going to do about it?

Up North Values. The key for winning Michigan

I saw the brutal state results as well as results from our own county. Overall, we underperformed by about 5-6%, and dems overperformed by about 5-6%. The 5-6% cost us the house. Based on the county results, the worst hit was among socially conservative and economic moderate independents.

I haven't seen the areas within the county outside of Livingston. I'll get to there later.

We lost areas we had no business losing, and got massacured in the swing areas outstate. The UP counties were often 60% democrat. The Northern Lower Penninsula also went democrat for the mostpart outside of the 4 or 5 Republican strongholds up here. Even those areas were narrow. Instead of their normal 58-62% GOP numbers, they were down to 50%-53% (Grand Traverse, Emmett, Antrim) Even some of the strong leaners flipped. Leelanau County flipped. Crawford County (Grayling) flipped.

The thumb was another disaster. The Conservative Populists flipped. Huron was split 50/50, as was St Clair County. Lapeer should be another Livingston County, but dropped to 52%. Tuscola flipped. Sainilac's still Republican (outside of Espinoza), but usually goes over 60% - it was 56%. That's not good enough.

Midland went Democrat for the first time since probably Bill Lucas. I'm not sure it was the city or rural areas which hurt us more. Saginaw and Bay are usually semi-close, but broke 60% democrat. Bush's 04 gains in Genesee County were eroded as well. 66% Democrat - 6% ahead of the recent numbers. Saginaw and Bay county are democrat, but not liberal. They prefer moderate democrats there like Jim Barcia. Socially conservative and populist.

Central and West Michigan's rural areas severely whipped us as well. Barry County was a narrow win. That's a 60% county most years. Ionia and Gratiot Counties were defeats. Clinton and Eaton Counties are tougher in off-years, but were disasters for us this year going 54% and 58% for Granholm. State workers are a part of that, but not all of it. Shiawassee was a disaster going 57% for Granholm. Bush won all three of those counties in a big way.

Anyone seriously contesting Michigan or recruiting a candidate needs to ask themselves a few things before telling the candidate to run. Can he win in places like Grayling, Cheboygan, St Ignace, Newberry, Escanaba, Alpena, Clare, Gladwin, and Roscommon. Those areas are conservative - but not necessarily republican. Can they win in Shiawassee County and get Clinton and Eaton to come home? Can they win in the thumb.

These are some of the most independent voting areas around. They are conservative, but not republican. Granholm won here. Bush won here. Stupak won here. Spence Abraham won here. Stabenow won here. A lot of areas there are locally democrat/republican, but split their tickets higher up. They are intelligent voters and it takes more than talking points to earn their vote.

Elitism = defeat. The 2004 attitude among democrats killed them here. How often did you hear them complain about people "voting against their best interest." No they didn't. They didn't then. They didn't in 2006 when they sent us a message either. We can not take them for granted.

If I was running a candidate up there, I'd find a good speaker with a working class background, is socially moderate/conservative with a libertarian streak, is pro-2a and pro-life, is fiscally responsible, is tied to small business, but isn't 100% tied to big business. Most importantly, he has to be REAL on those issues and not a phony, nor even have the appearance of a phony by taking some bad advice by Washington 'consultants'. Until next season, I think our party should spend a lot of time up there and simply listen to the concerns there.

This should work more than just Up North. Those same values that will win us Up North and in these rural areas work in a couple of other key counties in Southeast Michigan. One is Monroe County. The other is the epidomy of a swing county - Macomb County.

To sum it up into one sentence - we need to win back the "Reagan Democrats."

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Mike Pence for Minority Leader!!

It's no secret that I'm hoping that someone like Indiana Congressman Mike Pence or South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (Both election day surviviors by a good margin) step up to the plate and run for president in 2008 as they have walked the walk when it comes to limited government principles. Indiana was a very rough spot due to the unpopularity of Mitch Daniels there, as well as the national picture. We lost three seats, two in seats which went heavily for Bush. Pence survived the dem wave due to his strong message and consistency.

Now Mike Pence is running for minority leader and would be a strong, principled voice against Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, and worst of all - the fascist Henry "Ban everything" Waxman. After too many years of Bill Kristol's "Big Government Conservatism" and the "Prescription Drugs and No Child Left Behind" wasteful spending, it is time to go back to the good ole days of what gave us our majority in the first place - common sense conservatism based on limited government. As President Reagan says - "Government is the problem."

Go Pence!!!

Dear Republican Colleague,

I am writing to announce my candidacy for Republican Leader in the 110th Congress and to ask for your support. I will make every effort to speak with you about this personally before our leadership elections, and I am anxious to hear your thoughts and counsel.

Like all of you, I was deeply disappointed with the outcome of Election Day 2006. I am saddened to think of the men and women who will leave our ranks and cannot reflect on the names without emotion or ask, as Gideon did in defeat, "why has all this happened to us?"

I urge you to consider this specific question as we return to the Capitol to choose the men and women who will lead us back to the Majority. I look forward to your analysis but, as Sen. Phil Gramm once said, "I've got an open mind, but not an empty mind." Here is my take.

I am running for Republican leader, because I believe that we did not just lose our Majority-we lost our way. We are in the wilderness because we walked away from the limited government principles that minted the Republican Congress. But there is a way out. "The way out of the wilderness," author Mark Helprin wrote, "is the truth; recognizing it, stating it, defending it, living by it." Here is the truth as I see it.

The Truth:


After 1994, we were a Majority committed to a balanced federal budget, entitlement reform and the principles of a limited federal government. We delivered on balanced federal budgets, welfare reform and responded to a national emergency with defense spending, homeland security and tax cuts that put our economy back on its feet.

However, in recent years, to the chagrin of millions of Republicans, our Majority also voted to expand the federal government's role in education by nearly 100% and created the largest new entitlement in 40 years. We also pursued domestic spending policies that created record deficits, national debt and earmark spending that has embarrassed us and caused many Americans to question our commitment to fiscal responsibility.

This was not in the Contract with America.

Our opponents will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision. I say the American people did not quit on the Contract with America, we did. In so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our party and millions of our most ardent supporters.

As we choose who will lead us in the days ahead, it is essential that we learn from the lessons of 2006. It is more important that we move forward with a renewed commitment to our principles and the vigor to do our duty.

Our mission has now changed. Our mission in the Majority was to pass legislation reflecting Republican principles. The duty of the Republican Minority in the 110th Congress is to defeat the liberal agenda of the Democrat Party and become the majority in Congress again. We will only defeat the Democrat agenda by presenting a positive, conservative message in vivid contrast to the big government liberalism of the new Majority.


New Vision:

To renew our Majority, we must offer this nation a compelling vision of fiscal discipline and reform. It is written "without a vision, the people perish." What is true of a people is also true of any political movement. Our new Republican minority must rededicate itself to the ideals and standards that minted our majority in 1994. Only by renewing the promises of the Republican Revolution will we attain Majority status again. Now, as then, we must pledge ourselves to promote and defend the agenda the American people elect Republicans to advance; defend our nation, our treasury and our values. We must again embrace the notion that Republicans seek the Majority not simply to govern but to change government for the better. We are the agents of change and we must return to that reformist vision.

New Voices:

I have great respect and appreciation for the hard work and leadership provided by our current leadership. Like most members of our conference, I have stood behind our leaders through good times and challenging times. However, in this new time of challenge also comes opportunity. I believe we must confront this moment with new leadership and new voices. We must take a page from the playbook of President Ronald Reagan who taught us that it is not enough to believe great things, we must effectively communicate great things to the American people.

In various roles, over the past six years, I have worked to provide a credible and persuasive voice for the Reagan agenda. Credibility will be essential for our primary task these next two years-to expose, dismantle and defeat the Democrat agenda. Without the votes necessary to stop the advance of their liberal priorities, our mission will be one of persuasion and tactics. Each of us must commit ourselves to using our voices and areas of expertise to dismantle Democrat arguments and expose their liberal, big government agenda at every turn. I see every Republican member as a leader, with unique gifts and talents, and I am asking for the privilege of serving this team of leaders.

These are anxious times, and we all feel the pain of opportunity lost. I encourage you to act without fear or inhibition, to be bold in your choices, and return this conference to the ideals and standards that created our national governing Majority. To retake our Majority, we must "be strong and courageous and do the work." We must renew our commitment to the agenda of the Majority of the American people, and defend our nation, our treasury and our values for ourselves and our posterity.

I am ready to work with you to restore and renew the Republican Congress. I ask for your support to serve you as Republican Leader in the 110th Congress.

Most sincerely,

Rep. Mike Pence

Time for us to get up, walk it off, and be ready to fight

If you read this site, you've followed what happened in the elections. It looked like a Detroit Lions game against the Bears.

What we first need is an honest look in the mirror to why this happened. The democrats didn't win the house. We lost the house. IMO, these are the biggest reasons.

1. DMFs giving everyone a bad name. D stands for dumb. I'll let you fill in the rest. With people like Mark Foley, Don Sherwood (Losing a 60%+ GOP seat), Bob Ney, Curt Weldon, and Tom DeLay - we have a real weakness at the top. This killed us in the last month of the election.

2. Iraq. What's the plan? If there is a plan, it need to be communicated to the populace.

3. What has Congress done? What's the plan?

4. Most important. Republicans forgot where we came from. First of all, the leftward movement within the party needs to STOP and stop now. Spending is out of control. We need a return to fiscal sanity. People like Mike Pence and the Republican Study Committee need a more active role in setting the agenda for the party. What do Republicans stand for nowadays? I have to clarify myself these days by saying that I'm a 1994 Republican.

As for the governor's race, I had a bad gut feeling after the first debate. DeVos was simply too nice of guy. He had a plan on his website, but he should have been more specific on his plan in the debate and in TV ads. This was a repeat of 1996 with the losses Up North and weak showing across the board. From what I saw across the state, the biggest loss was among social conservative independent voters.

I'll go more into detail in the future. Until then, I'll just say that it is past time to return to our roots of limited government, low taxes, low spending, protecting our rights, and supporting life. We have to stand for something. We fell for anything and it cost us.

One we go back to where we come from, we'll take back the house. It's time to stop the "They suck, we suck less" and go back to "They're wrong and we're right."

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Update

Reports:

High turnout in the Brighton side of Genoa Twp. High absentee turnout in Green Oak.

Weather - Rain in Ann Arbor and Brighton areas. Reported rain in Detroit area.

Monday, November 06, 2006

Election Results

I'm going to be away from a computer for much of tomorrow.

For election results, here are two sites to check out.

Secretary of State

Livingston County Clerk

And last buy not least.

FIRE MILLEN! FIRE GRANHOLM!

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Chris Ward - Legislator of the Year

Chris has always fought hard for education here in Livingston County (As well as Milford which is also in his district). The Michigan School Counselor Association awarded him as legislator of the year.

Earlier, he was given the Make a Difference Award by the Huron Valley School District Milford) due to his efforts to close the funding gap.

While Chris Ward's opponent has tossed negative after negative attacks led by his blog spokesman Kevin Shopshire (also known as Communications Guru/Kevins), Chris has taken the high road and got things done for us. The stealth school elections are no more. The effort to close school funding gap is lead by Chris Ward and Joe Hune, who have passed several bills through the house addressing this problem. While we didn't get all we wanted, we took what we could get, and it is much better than what we had before Chris and Joe were in office. Over 50 measures introduced by Chris have become law, despite a passive state senate and hostile governor.

For those who support the Second Amendment, Chris has been there. On life issues, Chris has been there as well. He walked the walk. If it wasn't for Governor Matt Millen, I mean Jennifer Granholm, we would have had the road funding here as well. That will change in two days. Chris did his part there.

Chris is now continuing his work at cleaning up the elections here in Michigan. This is project he's worked on for at least 4 years. Most parts of his plan I agree with, including requiring an ID to vote. This shouldn't even be an issue here, especially when there is no "poll tax" involved in it.

If we want to finish the job and close the gap in school funding, we can elect someone who has walked the walk. If we want to bring Michigan back against a governor who is fighting everything our leaders are moving toward, we can elect someone who has walked the walk. If we want to protect life and our Second Amendment freedoms, we can elect someone who has walked the walk...or we can elect someone whose spokesman only says how bad he sucks without giving us a plan. For the readers here, do we want to elect "Communications Guru" or "KevinS" as our state rep?

I'll stick with Chris Ward.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Dumb-arsed infighting

The last thing we need right now is infighting over the state chair position. Yet, it already made DC's Hotline and the LSJ. This is ridiculous. We have an election Tuesday. The other stuff needs to wait till December and January.

I'll have a lot more to say on this stuff after the election. All I'll say now is that it isn't the time for it right now, especially for this crap to be in the Lansing State Journal.

I agree with the Giuliani Blog take on this for the most part. That's all I'm saying on this matter for now.

(Disclaimer - I'm not a backer of either McCain, Romney, or Rudy currently - and in McCain's case, never will be)

Friday, November 03, 2006

Election thoughts.

Election thoughts.

It’s now election weekend, and here’s the last minute post for 2006. Due to law school stuff, I won’t be able to update the site until late Monday at the earliest, so here goes.

Governor – DeVos has my vote hands down. We have the Matt Millen of governors and that needs to change. I expect a typical very close race within 3% either way. DeVos has the business background, right values, and right leadership to get the state back in the right direction.

Senate – Bouchard. While there were some gun questions related to Bouchard, he earned GOA and SAFR’s endorsement. Those two are more reliable and less “internal political” IMO than NRA when it comes to this. He’ll be alright there. We can have a do-nothing obstructionist (who voted for outsourcing in the past BTW – Most Favored Nation trade status with China) who is to the left of Chairman Mao. We can have someone with mainstream Michigan values. I’m going with Bouchard. I think this race will be close as all strongly contested races tend to be. Stabenow is a weak incumbent and weaker senator. I think this could be the upset special of the election.

Attorney General – Anyone who supports the 2nd amendment needs to vote for Mike Cox. He’s has been above and beyond for us gun owners. He promised to improve reciprocity agreements for concealed carry holders and he kept his promise. He did not promise to improve NFA clarifications in this state, but he delivered there. I have high expectations, but they were exceeded. Amos Williams is the “Butch Hollowell” of 2006 – a sacrificial token black man the democrats need to bring to the ticket. While that’s harsh, he certainly hasn’t gotten a lot of real support from the party, and could have been a strong candidate if he had some help. I don’t expect this to be close, about an 7% win, which is a landslide by Michigan standards.

Sec of State – Terri Land won easily in 2002 against Butch Hollowell. She’s improved the system quite a bit and is working on election reform measures. I was impressed at the quick update of the election precinct results from the 04 races. Her opponent (Sarbaugh?) brings Macomb to the table, but I doubt it will be enough as it is a non-existant campaign. I expect Land to win by 10%.

Unfortunately, the University Board of Trustee decisions are often decided on straight ticket decisions. The politics here is more internal than partisan and only in rare circumstances are “cultural wars” fought at the trustee level.

Michigan State Trustees – Dave Porteous needs to stay. He’s IMO the best member on that board. Dee Cook is the other incumbent and received my vote. Academics are getting stronger there, and MSU seems to be moving in the right direction.

Former AD and football coach George Perles is challenging them. He needs to lose. Perles put MSU Football on probation when he was doing double duty as AD and coach. For that reason, I don’t want him meddling with the new football hire. I wish Joel Ferguson was up for election so I could vote him down too for running his mouth and meddling in the football affairs.

UM and Wayne St. Trustees/Regents – I didn’t go to those schools, so I won’t comment on them.


Congress – Mike’s a good guy and should win big. Marcinkowski has a lot of bluster, but no substance whatsoever beyond “You suck” and “I’m Joe Wilson’s hanger-on, vote for me.” Marcinkowski has temperament issues, and loses by at least 15%.

State Senate – Valde Garcia has done a good job for us. He is probably the most active rep in our community. I see him everywhere.

State Representative – Joe Hune’s one of the most practical reps I’ve ever worked with. He’s not a guy who caves when the pressure hits. Chris Ward is a strong leader who simply gets things done. Don’t take my word for it, go to the michiganlegislature.org site and see for yourself what Chris (and Joe for that matter) has gotten through. On school funding, Chris and Joe did their parts and got bills through the house. On a voter ID law, Chris is working hard there to get it passed to clean up the vote fraud. On life and second amendment issues, both are solid. I’ve been disappointed in Chris Ward’s opponent and his all-negative campaign. I think he took some bad advice from kevins/Communications Guru. This reminds me of the old saying about “the company one keeps.” If you go to McGonegal’s blog, 99% of it is saying that the other person sucks.

County Commission – While I personally like most of our commissioners, I’ll be honest. Our commissioners need some close races to wake them up when it comes to spending and tax issues. I have not been impressed over the past two years from a fiscal conservative standpoint. We need more David Hamilton types there. His watchdog role on the board is sorely missed. He’s going to kill me for saying this, but I wish Bill Johnston would run…..

Judges
Supreme Court – I voted for Maura Corrigan and Kerry Morgan. Corrigan is one of the best on the Court. Morgan could be the next Alex Kozinski. http://revivetherepublic.com/ With this much, I am taking a chance on the Libertarian here.

4th Appeals – Both unopposed. I left O’Connell blank over his anti-gun ruling on conceal carry back in 01 as a symbolic protest. Not that it matters.

Circuit – LaTrielle and Russell both seem like good people, but I went with LaTrielle. He’s shown himself to be a straight shooter, especially over the Island Lake firing range. He deserves one more term.

District – I’m going to copout and say I think McCririe and Reader both would be excellent judges. I like both of them. While I made my personal decision here, I’m keeping this one quiet.

Probate – Between Carol Garagiola and Bob Parker, I went with Garagiola. I’ve been impressed with Garagiola’s work ethic on her campaign. I am still troubled with Mr. Parker over his 2004 campaign against Dave Reader.

District – Last but not least, Jay Drick. Jay would be an excellent judge with his calm demeanor, strong work ethic, and strict constitutionism. He’ll follow the law and not legislate from the bench, and is second to none in his knowledge of district court issues.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Robocalls

Robocalls. Personally, I'd like to drive down with my shotgun and shoot all the equipment of the people behind this things. I can't do that though, so I'll voice my displeasure here instead. I got about 20 of those robocalls from "American Family Voices" alone, a thinly-disguised DNC front group. I don't like them, and if I ever run for anything, refuse to use robocalls. IMO, they cost as many votes as they gain. They offend people more than the phone banks.

The reason they are used is because they are CHEAP. They are about 5 times cheaper than a mailing. Until either that changes or until those numbers are added to do-not-call lists, they will continue to be used. It doesn't mean I have to like it.

From the Argus.

Plenty of hang-ups surround 'robo-calls'

The recent blitz of recorded political messages, or "robo-calls" as they are called, are "ripe for a lot of dirty tricks," according to one local legislator.
State Rep. Chris Ward, R-Brighton Township, opposes the use of the typically 30-second ads that are being telephoned to residents and left on answering machines throughout the county, state and country.



"It's an environment that's ripe for a lot of dirty tricks, people calling and saying things that aren't true or are unsubstantiated," Ward said, adding there is no law requiring a tag line of who paid for the messages.


State Rep. Joe Hune, R-Hamburg Township, recently recorded a robo-call in support of Republican gubernatorial challenger Dick DeVos.
"I think that they work if you can't get out and meet the voters yourself," Hune said. "I should apologize because everyone opens their mailbox (and) it's full of literature. Every time they answer the phone, it's a politician. But soon it will be all over."

Neither Ward nor Hune are using robo-calls for their own re-election campaigns, with the latter saying he has received a "couple of anecdotal things" about robo-calls from people he's met while out in the field.

Both have said they wouldn't be opposed to adding robo-calls to the list of prohibited calls on the National Do Not Call Registry.