MI-GOV: Pete Hoekstra: Taking public money didn't work for McCain, it won't for you

the general competency of the bloggers.  You're a whole lot better than this fly-by-your-ass assessment, Soren.

Now I can appreciate that you once worked for Nick Smith --who literally defines quirky, tin foil hatted, marching-to-his-own-special-snare-drum mindset of all politicians-- but that doesn't mean you need to be wrong so often in one article... maybe you'll rethink this one?  Former Congressional Office staffers usually don't need to be re-educated --afterall, they're supposedly THE advisors trying to correct the errant Congressionman, but you got it all wrong, Soren.  Maybe that's evidence of why Nick Smith was such a laughing stock in his Caucus -with advisors and staffers like you, he'd end up being wrong all the time instead of just twice a day like the broken clock he was.

Disclaimer here: I am not a Pete Hoekstra fan.  He is just a peg off the Nick Smith variety of politician, in my book. So why do I think you're wrong?

Lets' start here: "Pete Hoekstra did the inexplicable"... no, Hoekstra did what was in his campaign's best interest and in the interests of those who have invested in his race... he is taking "public funding" because this week a larger than life monster-rich fat cat got into the race whole hog... if little ol' former salesman Hoekstra thought he could do battle effectively with someone who literally can spend $100m of his own money and not feel it, then Hoekstra would be seriously disadvantaging his campaign's interests in the race for GOP nomination for Gov.

By the way, Michigan was one of the first states to limit campaign expenditures and bring some sunshine to the process --dating back to the post-Watergate 1976 law that moderate GOP Governor Milliken advanced and signed.  Limits aren't a negative in Michigan... it can be a huge plus, if used effecitvely.  And, by the way, it's likely that conventional wisdom's Dem nominee will be John Cherry and he'll accept public funding in the General --so that squashs you're further error in stating Hoekstra's acceptance of limits will hurt him in the General.

Then, let's go here: "...(t)hat is, for every dollar he raises, he gets 2 (dollars) from the taxpayer".

No. No. No, he doesn't.  Michigan's "public funding" of elections is through any funds raised by voluntary contributions of state income tax filers... not income taxpayers.  It isn't "state taxpayer money" anymore than the $2 bill in your wallet.  It's funds that have accumulated over the years through --get this Soren-- voluntary contributions from civic minded citizens interested in minimizing the adverse impact of campaign spending on elections.  The potential spread of funding for those who agree to limit spending (in this case in a highly contested primary with lots of big money draw-candidates vying for the same shot) is possibly 2 for 1, but it ain't a guarantee.

In any event, the bigger issue is your misinformation about it being "public" or "taxpayer" funded monies that somehow come out of the state's General Fund.  It don't.  It ain't.  You're wrong.

Similarly, let's dispose of your nonsensical 4th claim here " will struggling Michigan voters... really want their taxes going to welfare for politicians?"  Let me hazard a guess?  You never served in Nick Smith's district office?  Have you any experience with Michigan politics?

If you don't and you're completely wrong on such a fundamental point, why would you write an article that is so wrong, so wrongheaded, and so misleading?  Let me guess, Club4Greed has a candidate who wants to run? (wink, wink)

Finally, your claim that Hoekstra's decision to seek public funding and be limited to spending limits in the primary "... displays a certain lack of principle" because he was in favor of many campaign finance reforms and opposed lots of big money, fat cat reforms in campaign finance proposals?

Wrong, wrong, and more wrong.  Hoekstra is demonstrating a rare political act in acknowledging that the entry of mega-rich Rick Snyder into the primary race changes the dynamic.  Pete Hoekstra, to my mind, didn't use his Congressional Office to build personal wealth.  He's a pretty str8 white collar kind of guy.  He also has a long record of opposing Congressional waste and fed govt mismanagement... and being a real advocate for fiscal discipline.  And that all gets wiped out with his acceptance of campaign limits and funds from the Michigan State Campaign Fund?  Ummm, right.  Sure, you run with that.

Whether or not he takes MSCF funds or not, he's acting responsibly toward all those contributors who have already invested in his campaign.  He's being realistic.  He's still beating the heck out of the asphalt, wearing thru his shoes faster than you or most former Congressional campaign staffers, criss-crossing the state building support for his vision for a renewed, post-Engler Michigan.  And he's doing it like all the other campaigners working for the nomination... county by county, Congressional district by district, voter by voter.

You couldn't be more wrong in your assessment or your "facts", Soren.

By the way, Soren... in 2007, the Legislature took about $7m from the MSCF in a one-time raid to help balance the state's horrible checkbook.  The MSCF has been very successful and well-respected influence on statewide office races... so much so, that for several years in this latest recession, voluntary contributions to the MSCF have risen, not dropped.  Michigan citizens like it.  Voters like it.  Tax filers like it.

And when a fat cat like Rick Snyder or Rich DeVos (2006) get into a primary race... it can be a plus.  It can also be a plus when 5 terrific GOP candidates are chasing after pretty much the same dollars that the Senate GOP, the House GOP, the Congressional GOP Michigan delegation campaign committees, the State Party and lots of others are chasing after.

Volunteers and grassroots can only be secured when a campaign has the funds to wage a battle for their attention in a diverse, hotly contested race.  Without money, it's all a waste of the campaign investors' time.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(itenk0mcytlbjiac0dzafimy))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-169-261

...deserves to lose.

Snarky little thing, aren't you, Mountain1?

Peter Hoekstra is simply one of the most radical, irresponsible, stupid right wingnuts in the House.

In 2006, as CHAIRMAN of the House Intelligence Committee, he demanded that all documents dealing with Saddam's nuclear programs (nonexistent) be open to the public on an internet site.  The information was posted hoping that wingnut bloggers would scour through and find a trove of info to support the Bush invasion of Iraq.  Instead, as we found out from people who actually READ the documents, he posted detailed instructions on how to build a nuclear device for several days until a sane person made him take the site down.

Then, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, he put his reputation on the line and said "We have found Iraq's WMD!!" He and Rick Santorum, another wingnut Einstein, called a major Press conference to announce their bomb shell: 

On June 22, 2006, Hoekstra made headlines by announcing at a press conference in the Capitol that WMD had been located in Iraq in the form of 500 chemical weapons and a store of uranium. 

He and Santorum were laughed off the podium.

Just this past February, Pete Hoekstra, the top-ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, sent a string of messages from his Blackberry announcing that he was on the way to Andrews air force base in Maryland and giving continual Twitter updates of his visit to Iraq and Baghdad.

That stupid move endangered the safety of the entire six-member cross-party delegation, which was travelling to Iraq and Afghanistan to examine progress made by US troops, as well as their minders.

I could go on and on, including his current snide support for Birther nonsense, but this should be enough to convince any responsible person that Hoekstra belongs back home screaming and throwing things at his TV rather than anywhere near the levers of power.

I never saw any rule or law stating that politicians have to be rich but it seems that if you do not have money then you cannot win. What happened to the best man winning and not the richest? online casino