Arbor Update

(Dale, you had me doing data entry for the State Rep race – where’s the product of my labor?!)

State rep analysis will come out this afternoon, due to technical difficulties.

Wow – this is great work, Dale!

I see that Suarez has out-fundraised Roberts, and that Ralph has out-fundraised Kunselman.

Also, I am intrigued that the AA Council members who have raised a lot of money have done so across the city, not just in their ward.

Can you tell how much of the 30% out-of-AA money came from relatives?

Divestment Platform – there are some quite active threads on the subject at present. See, for example, http://arborupdate.com/article/1342/ .
And you’ve now asked the question multiple times here. Maybe you’ll get an answer in this venue, but I doubt it – few of the candidates are very visible online. I suggest you contact their campaigns directly.

Most questions you can answer by downloading the Excel spreadsheet and searching or sorting. I’m not trying to evade the question, David, but anyone who has questions not answered in the maps or report can find the answers in the spreadsheet. That question can be answered clearly in the spreadsheet.

In most cases, the largest contributor to each campaign is the candidate him or herself because of loans they give themselves.

An interesting thing about the 3rd ward is that Ralph got a lot of support from the 5th ward and a lot from out of town, while Kunselman was much stronger within the ward and 100% of his funds were from Ann Arbor addresses.

An interesting take on the contribution breakout is to correlate it to residents (i.e., voters). In that analysis, the Ypsilanti campaign by Pierce reports 68% of its contribution by non-residents (who cannot vote in the election). While you can have a vested interest in a municipal election, the vote is exclusively determined by those holding residential status.

Right, I did check the database with regard to relatives, etc.

Your database and maps are unique achievements!

I can’t open up the .xls files right now (my technical circumstance), so could someone comment on the apparent distinction between “donors with Ypsilanti addresses” in the original post, and Ypsilanti “residents”. Either there’s a semantic difference here I’m failing to appreciate, or else I think one of the reported conclusions from the data is mistaken [AU: 68% of Pierce’s funds raised from donors with Ypsi addresses; Gawlas: 68% of funds raised from non-residents]

And as I typed that, I wonder: does the sematic difference here lie in contributions from entities that can’t actually vote (even if they have Ypsi addresses). So a union, for example, is described as a ‘non-resident’? If that’s the basis of the conclusion that 68% of Pierce’s money comes from non-residents, that strikes me as somewhat misleading. If the point is to observe that a lot of Pierce’s money came from some unions, there’s a straightforward way to say that: Pierce received a lot of money from unions.

In any case, I’m left wondering, working from a balky machine that won’t open up .xls files.

Fantastic maps. Very impressive.

John: My calculations establish that for contributions coming from outside zip codes 48197 and 48198, about 1/3 of Paul’s money came from outside Ypsi, and (setting aside the UAW contribution of $2,500 because I don’t know how many UAW members reside in Ypsi), that just about 1/5 of Steve’s contributions came from outside Ypsi. Even if you count the entire UAW contribution as non-Ypsi money, that only takes Steve’s percentage to about 2/5, not the 7/10 you’ve arrived at.

Also, the map graphics don’t seem to visually portray your breakdown either.

Are you breaking your analysis down differently? How did you come up with that?

And, btw, the Ward numbers are, I believe, wrong on the Ypsi map.

Beautiful maps. The wards in Ypsilanti are mislabeled, however. Rotate them clockwise one unit to get the proper i.d.

In the interests of not cluttering the comments with explanations, let me refer you first to the report, which should answer some of your questions.

Post office addresses and zip codes do NOT match political jurisdictions.

Something like 2/3 of people with 48197/48198 addresses are NOT residents of the city of Ypsilanti. The majority of people with Ypsilanti addresses live in Ypsilanti Township and Superior Township.

Roughly 1/2 of the people with Ann Arbor (4810*) addresses live outside the city of Ann Arbor.

“In most cases, the largest contributor to each campaign is the candidate him or herself because of loans they give themselves.”

Really? If you’re a candidate with community support, you generally don’t have to self-finance your campaign as the contributions cover the costs of the campaign. It’s always good to see the candidate have money in the race but someone who is spending a lot of their own money is often lacking support in some way.

Thanks – that did clear it up. I see now that John had it backwards. Contrary to his comment, 68% of Pierce’s money came from inside Ypsi, which is closer to my calculations.

Thanks again.

I wasn’t trying to obliquely critique the UAW PAC money. Taking that amount out of the equation results in cash contributions from non-residents totalling 58.79%

This was correlated to addresses within the city reported as “homestead” (Principal Residence Exemption is the current terminology). I also did not include the amounts contributed directly from the candidates themselves, nor any in-kind contributions…it was simply the cash portion.

What happened to Jeff Meyers, who is also running in the 3rd ward in Ann Arbor – no campaign finance documents?

I actually think it is fine for some campaign contributions to come from out of town residents. It seems some of our potential city council members have never set foot outside of Ann Arbor, and it might do them some good to do so occasionally!

“What happened to Jeff Meyers, who is also running in the 3rd ward in Ann Arbor – no campaign finance documents?”

I’m still here and going strong. I filed a waiver, which means I will keep my expenses and donations under $1000. Contributions have pretty much covered the entirety of what I’ve spent. I’ve just been very frugal.

If I win the primary and need to change financial strategies, their are processes for doing so… or so my excellent treasurer tells me.

My overall strategy was/is to walk the neighborhoods and go door-to-door. Old fashioned, I know. But to me, it seems like the most important aspect of running for office—meeting people face-to-face whenever & wherever you can. To date I’ve been to over 1000 homes. If they’re not there or don’t want to chat, I leave literature.

My biggest expense has been sending letters to everyone in the ward who applied for an absentee ballot.

Hope that clears up the mystery.

Lisa, if you read the full document, you will see that is says “Jeff Meyers is not included in this analysis because he filed a waiver, promising not to raise or spend more than $1000.00.”

I am amazed that Easthope and Schmerl raised so much money. $20,000+ for a Ward primary for City Council seems way over the top to me. It is about as much as the Ann Arbor Mayoral candidates raised and about $15,000 more than any other Council race. Schmerl alone raised more than any other Council race and Easthope raised double what she did. What exactly are they spending this money on?

How many registered voters are there in each ward?

Jeff – sounds like a good strategy. Unless a candidate is a total nut case, the one who knocks on the most doors, wins.

Divestment Platform, I’m guessing that no candidates have taken a stance on Divestment from Israel because it is too controversial of an issue, and this town has both large pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli constituencies. Unlike the Iraq war, which is likely overwhelmingly unpopular among local voters, there are surely large numbers of local voters who are either strong Zionists or even just enough so that they don’t dig the idea of divestment. It’s politics. I mean, really. It’s obvious. Answer your question?

John Q: Candidates (even those with community support) contribute substantial amounts to their own campaigns for a number of reasons.

(1) Fundraising is time and energy consuming. Either you schedule and plan and put on an event, and do a mailing to publicize it, or you call people up and try to convince them to send contributions—and hope they follow through on their promises. Under time pressures, it’s a lot quicker and easier to just write the campaign a check.

(2) As I have often observed, if you are running a serious campaign with a genuine chance of winning, you can raise enough money to put on a campaign. However, especially for a non-incumbent, that’s usually not enough to assuage the candidate’s own anxiety about the race. So the candidate puts in money to allow the campaign to do the additional things that help reassure the candidate.

My own campaign for County Clerk in 2004 raised about $13,000 from donors, and I put in about an equal amount myself, for a total of about $25,000. In retrospect, I probably would have won without putting in my own money, but it really helped assuage my anxiety to get that countywide mailing out.

Juliew, don’t despair about the seemingly large amounts raised/spent on a few Council races.

Check out Chris Easthope’s or Leigh Greden’s campaign finance reports. You should see that most of their expenditures are for printing and mailing. They are mailing several times to each likely voter.

In the First Ward in the 2002 Democratic primary, Kim Groome spent about $7,000.00. Almost none of it was her own money. She focused on going door to door. This year, in the First Ward primary, Ron Suarez has raised less than $4,000.00. Again, he is concentrating on door to door work.

Each campaign has its own peculiar mix of printing/mailing and door to door. (Interestingly, there has been almost no advertising this election cycle in the AA News.)

Looking ahead to your Fourth Ward race next year, if you spend most of your effort going door to door, you will need a lot less money than if you spend most of your effort on expensive lit.

So far, they won’t even divest from Sudan, where conditions are far worse; so “”“good luck”“” with what you’re trying to do….

By the way, I wish Rebekah Warren would “divest” her campaign photos from the UM account she is using for most of them and put the photos on some private account, see my post at Arblogger about it.

(Off topic: Larry, why do you have to mail things to people when you could just blog? (heh))

I don’t really think our city council members need to take a stand on international issues. And I wonder

I’d just prefer they focus on local problems like affordable housing, green space, transparent government, smart development downtown, making sure our local taxes are well spent, etc. Easthope helped the process along for putting up better signs for a pedestrian crosswalk on Liberty used by kids going to Eberwhite. That’s what I want my councilmembers dealing with.

As for divestment issues, I think I’d rather have Dingell, Levin, and Stabenow deal with those.

I don’t mind AACC doing international stuff (just as Providence, Rhode Island recently divested from Sudan), but within limits, etc.

I agree with YOWSIDER, is anybody in Washington listing when the city council does that stuff? And if you can’t prove they are, then why do it? Besides, it is just the city council speaking, not the same as it would be if it were a referendum of voters.

Small strokes fell great oaks; the more cities do something, the more it resonates, even in the legendary D.C. Beltway.

“Small strokes fell great oaks”

This is only true if you’re actually swinging an axe at the right damn tree.

Asking City Council to divest from Israel is like storming into Burger King to complain that the Big Mac you purchased across the street was undercooked. Yeah, you can do it, but it’s not going to solve the problem, and you’re going to confuse the hell out of the Burger King workers.

The first thing that I did when Israel started bombing Lebanon was contact my State Rep. in Washington, DC. You know: the place where foreign policy decisions are made? I spoke my piece about, you know, peace.

It wasn’t hard, and it didn’t annoy anyone. And it did 1,000 times the good that petitioning the Ann Arbor City Council ever will.

I, like Todd, contacted a relevant elected official to state my opposition to the bombing (and, now, invasion) of Lebanon.

But, hey, look what’s at the top of this page! Local campaign financing data!

Nice investigative work, Boyle. I don’t exactly understand why you are trying to pick-apart Warren over something so silly. Are you working for Greden? Why is this such a major issue for you?

Blaine,

That’s between me and my Rep., bub.

Or more likely, my Rep’s intern, but why split hairs?

But I will say this: if you actually stopped lecturing us, and actually read what other posters have written, you’d know that like Chuck W., I am against sending military hardware and knowhow to any foreign entity. I am for US military divestment from all nations. Either we should send our troops, or nothing at all.

In short: I want peace everywhere.

(cue the violins)

Oh, and how about that: Murph and I actually did a small bit of work, and managed to find our Representative. And he actually has a say in US Foreign Policy! Neat!

Blaine, Dingell is your man. He’s where you should focus all your efforts. Tell him I said hello.

An email from Rene and Matt Greff of Arbor Brewing Company that is going around:

“Hi everyone,

In case you ran across a mean-spirited and deceptive lit piece going around town, I thought I’d provide a little background information. The piece was authored by Doug Cowherd and is sadly being distributed in the 5th ward by people Matt and I thought were our friends from the old Dean for America now Democracy for America group. And I am sure that many of you who were founding members of DFA are going to be as saddened as I am to have our organization connected to this kind of activity.

The gist of the piece is that incumbent 5th ward councilman Chris Easthope is in the pocket of downtown developers and the evidence for that is that he lined his pockets at a big fundraising event held by downtown property owners and developers who don’t even live in the city.

So in case you were scratching you head trying to figure out which big, evil, most likely right-wing out-of-town developer it was that raised $8,000 for Chris’ campaign – it was me and Matt.

Now first of all, I wish we were property owners in Ann Arbor (if we were maybe we’d have a car with air conditioning). And second, while it is true that we don’t live in the city, we live within easy biking distance (9 miles) and have certainly spent more time and money in Ann Arbor over the past 11 years than anywhere else. It’s not like we live in Santa Barbara and collect rent checks from the Arbor Brewing Company. We’re committed owner-operator-renters who are very involved with our business and our community.

To imply that we are carpet-bagging developers only interested in maximizing our own profits at the expense of the city is unfair and, frankly depressing. Ours is a great community of activists and I certainly don’t mean to imply that our efforts are greater than anyone else’s, but like many local progressive business owners, we have spent many tens of thousands of dollars and hours using our business to support progressive causes and candidates like Michigan Peaceworks, Planned Parenthood, Ecology Center, Sierra Club, Alma Wheeler Smith, Liz Brater, Lynn Rivers, and of course Howard Dean to name but a few. We have always tried to give more back to Ann Arbor than we have taken, have readily agreed to serve on boards and task forces, have worked to expand commercial recycling and composting downtown, and have fought against spending tax dollars to support developers. And have hosted and supported DFA for over three years.

Now since the smear flyer doesn’t mention us by name, this really isn’t about us, of course. To me, however, it is a frightening harbinger of things to come. I don’t know Chris’ opponent Sonia Schmerle personally but I have to assume she is a good and decent person who truly wants what’s best for her ward. But unfortunately, she was either unwilling or unable to stand up to Doug Cowherd and refuse to distribute his divisive and misleading message. It is so ironic to engage in republican-style dirty tricks to try and convince voters that you are the more progressive candidate. And I should also say that I was appalled to hear that the person distributing the flyers was also taking down Chris’ lit pieces. If this isn’t illegal, it is certainly not a shining example of our democratic process.

The reason I supported Chris Easthope strongly enough to hold a fundraiser for him – even though he opposed the parking structure I fought for – is that he is a true progressive in the best sense of the word. True progressives are not knee-jerk ideologues doing the bidding of any group that we might label pro or anti-development or anything else. And true progressives don’t use republican style black and white rhetoric to bully voters. (That’s probably why we lose so often – we feel compelled to acknowledge that the issues are complicated and not easily encapsulated in 30 second sound bites.) Chris is smart, creative, compassionate, and honest. He is a strong leader and I have seen him stand up to the mayor and his colleagues on council many times. He has fought for affordable housing, living wage, and the rights of the disenfranchised in our community. He has also listened to the concerns of independent owner-operators like us and understands the careful balance between encouraging urban growth and protecting the charm and character that makes ours one of the best downtowns in the state. He is not afraid to be the lone voice –but he also doesn’t relish it. He has tremendous leadership and a depth and breadth of knowledge that the city needs now more than ever as it faces tough contract negotiations and difficult decisions about the future of our downtown.

Just wanted to make sure that the truth isn’t the big loser in tomorrow’s election.

Thanks for your time

p.s. come celebrate our democracy at the Rebekah Warren election night party at Arbor Brewing or the Paul Schreiber election night party at the Corner Brewery.

Cheers!

Rene & Matt”

Reason #824 that I love the Greffs.

And these would be reasons #174 and #175 why I don’t like Rene Greff (never really heard Matt speak so I can’t say anything about him).

Now first of all, I wish we were property owners in Ann Arbor (if we were maybe we’d have a car with air conditioning).

That particular line pisses me off to no end. Come on, they bought a house for $250,000 in Ypsi (3 years ago) and you can easily find one under that price in Ann Arbor now (and most people do), even right downtown. So acting like everyone in Ann Arbor is rich and she and Matt are these poor people who can’t even afford air conditioning in their car is more offensive to me than any perceived political highjinks.

I don’t know Chris’ opponent Sonia Schmerle personally but I have to assume she is a good and decent person who truly wants what’s best for her ward.

Um Rene, that would be SCHMERL, not Schmerle. At least you could get her name right if you are going to hold a fundraiser for her opponent.

(Like the Todd Leopold thread, a comment was deleted here. Assume that the same comment, if continually reposted, will continue to be removed. Sorry.)

you can easily find one under that price in Ann Arbor now (and most people do), even right downtown

False. The median home sale price in Ann Arbor for the last few years is over $250k, according to the Observer. Therefore, “most” people are not buying houses for less than that. Not even half are.

Interesting:

Thanks so much for posting that email from the Greffs. The council race is still one I’m a toss up on, and I see the positives and negatives of each candidate here in the 5th Ward. The lit from Easthope has been mostly positive, and there’s a somewhat angry tone to some of Schmerl’s lit. But I saw that piece this weekend and wondered who the out-of-towners were. Who knew they were progressive business owners who are great supporters of liberal causes?

Thanks, Murph.

FYI Julie, I didn’t post the Greff’s letter. I would have used my own name.

I hear what you’re saying about that passage, JulieW, but I think that she’s just sort of countering the Schmerl Greenway platform which assumes that you’ve got the $$ to live here and enjoy what will, no doubt, be a very expensive project.

As I emailed you privately, I mistakenly made the same “wealthy downtown homeowner” charges when the subject of the 3 site plan came up, and you and Larry K. started posting home prices in your area. None of those homes were for sale, but point taken.

I just got this e-mail from Doug Cowherd:

Quite a few people are asking me who I favor in Tuesday’s Ann Arbor elections. If this interests you, here’s a summary of my views for whatever value this might have to you.

Whatever your views, I hope you vote on Tuesday, so the outcomes best represent the public’s true views. The polls are open from 7am to 8pm.

If you’ve got further questions, or you’d like to offer a volunteer hour or two to work on any of these candidate campaigns before the polls close at 8PM on Tuesday, feel free to reply to this email.

Doug

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My views on local Ann Arbor elections are reflected nicely, though not identically, by the endorsements and articles in the newsletter of Progressives of Washtenaw (POW!), which you may have seen as it’s being dropped at local doors. The material in the newsletter can also be found as below on the web:

http://progressivesofwashtenaw.org/articles/pows-take-on-the-ann-arbor-mayoral-primary/

For further information, the POW! web site has links to the web sites of their endorsed candidates (Warren, Schmerl, Ralph, Suarez—see below).

I’ll be voting for Warren for State Rep in the 53rd District and Schmerl for City Council (Fifth Ward). I strongly support both.

I support Ralph in the Third Ward and Suarez in the First Ward, though I can’t vote for them as I live in the Fifth.

I think all four are clearly superior candidates. They represent my values quite well in terms of the policies I think would be best for the community, and the transparency and openness that I think we deserve from our government.

I’ll also vote for Wendy Woods for mayor, as she’s the best of the two candidates and the one campaigning on a theme of transparency. But her track record while in office is not so much better than John Hieftje’s that I’ll endorse her. My understanding is that POW! shares this view, so check their website if you want a fuller perspective from a similar viewpoint.

Woods has little chance to win the mayoral race, as she will be hugely out-spent by the developer-backed Hieftje, and her campaign themes don’t include a focus on being for moderate development that is balanced by parks, a real Greenway, public arts facilities,and other public amenities. I think this is what the public wants, and if she’s in favor of this approach she’s not communicating effectively on this topic.

But Woods’ public focus on government transparency and openess during her campaign make a vote for her—at least—an effective “protest vote” against the insider clique that runs the town to the detriment of the public interest, and with disregard for truth and honesty. The latter is understandable—if they made their decisions in the light of day, saying what they believe, they would be quickly voted out of office. Secrecy, and big money from business and development interests, is all that keeps them in business.

Each of the candidates I mention as people I support above are running against either an incumbent who is part of the radically pro-developer insider clique, or is backed by them (Third Ward). They all have a realistic chance to pull off what some would call an underdog win through running vigorous grassroots campaigns. I personally like some members of the insider group that I oppose in this election. To my regret, they’re doing things while in public office that in my view are bad for the community and violate fundamental ethical standards. Sadly, politics and self-interest can lead even good people astray.

These are my personal views, not those of any organization. Feel free to share this email with anyone you like.

Doug Cowherd

Sorry, Murph, cut-and-paste error on my part. I originally had “most of my neighbors and friends have bought under $250,000” and then changed it around. Nonetheless, there are many, many houses available under $250,000 in Ann Arbor and they aren’t all crappy.

I just looked at realtor.com and 541 of the 1,979 total properties currently listed in Ann Arbor are under $250,000 (I put $100,000 as the minimum just to keep out anything that might be a lease rather than buy). Of those, 213 are single family. Plus add in the FSBOs, which tend toward the lower price-range. So not the majority, but certainly quite a few to choose from.

“My views on local Ann Arbor elections are reflected nicely, though not identically, by the endorsements and articles in the newsletter of Progressives of Washtenaw (POW!), which you may have seen as it’s being dropped at local doors.”

Ha. I’m guessing he isn’t connected to that publication. At all. Just like he has nothing to do with Schmerl’s campaign. And I’m guessing that publication exists for a reason other than to endorse a certain “clique” of anti-urban faux-progressives.

”... part of the radically pro-developer insider clique”

Oh, radically. Hell, they’re paving paradise and putting up a parking lot. Strip malls and McMansions everywhere. And 30-story skyscrapers. Think of the bunnies. It’s like Manhattan mixed with Levittown. The Man is totally taking over. We need a Real Greenway™.

Nobody listens to you anymore, Cowherd. Give it up.

In all seriousness, I predict Suarez is the only one of the “outsiders” who wins at council tomorrow, mainly because he is running against a really weak opponent. It’s hard to say who’ll win at state-rep. Hieftje has a shoe-in.

I’m moving to New York in 3 weeks, FYI. I’m guessing one can get-away with some 15-story buildings there.

Brandon – Hey, I listen to Cowherd. (Candidates: take note.) Historically, I have often considered his opinion – as a black mark against any candidate who accepts an endorsement from him. Failing to reject a Cowherd endorsement is an indicator to me that a candidate may have a myopic view of things like “the environment”. (Actually, myopic isn’t the right word. What do you call, “Of course I care about the environment at a large scale! I’m not just opposed to infill development; I’m also opposed to drilling in ANWR!” Oh, right – that’s called “confused”.)

That’s as much of an endorsement as I plan on making this election, in any race.

rene wrote: “Now first of all, I wish we were property owners in Ann Arbor (if we were maybe we’d have a car with air conditioning).”

juliew reacted this way: “That particular line pisses me off to no end.”

In the context Rene was writing, I took this to be an allusion to the fact that ABC does not own the building that houses it (it’s rented from Ed Shaffran). In any event, seemed to me like a harmless rhetorical flourish, even if parsed as a statement about why their home is located where it is. Obviously, though, reactions across reasonable people diverge.

Er, Brandon, I think “Hieftje has a shoe-in” should be “Hieftje has a shoo-in”. Shoo-in is a reference to shooing animals into a given area. Of course, I could be wrong. “Shoe-in” could be an obsure reference to the importance of door-to-door work…8-)

David, Wikipedia says: it’s either

Todd, I was not supporting divestment from Israel here, though divestment from Sudan is a capital idea. Just as divestment from tobacco stocks, apartheid South Africa, etc., was a great idea.

...As for someone else: it is not “silly” to wonder why someone is drawing on public resources for her campaign, when her opponent is not doing so at all, to my knowledge. That’s a notable difference between candidates. Just as are other differences, e.g., Warren using far more negative attacks than her opponent. (See my latest Arblogger post, featuring Travis Radina’s statement on why he quit the Warren campaign, largely because of her tendency to “go negative” .) And I am not working for, donating to, or endorsing either candidate: I’m just trying to see what good or bad points each candidate has. Warren seems the clear winner on bad points, from what I can see.

David,

Thanks for sharing Travis’ letter, but it sounds like sour grapes to me. The Warren campaign didn’t do the couch-in. So how can that be a negative attack? It didn’t happen, so it wasn’t an attack. And according to him it sounds like it was her staff planning it. So why’s he complaining? Oh, and he’s tarred and feathered her as the “abortion queen” who will worry about nothing else, too. That’s a stretch to say about someone—especially when that someone has been endorsed by so many who actually get out there and fight for the environment or against the anti-gay Proposal 2. I mean, the owners of the Aut Bar (who were very involved in working to defeat Prop 2) said she was the single most involved straight person in this state working to defeat it. That says a lot. She’s also been endorsed by lots of environmental groups and many, many gay rights groups. Leigh hasn’t.

I’m concerned that the person running Leigh’s campaign apparently knowingly drew false connections between the deaths of local law enforcement officials and the need for a new and improved communications system right here on Arborupdate, or was it aaio . . . A planned but never put into action couch-in doesn’t even compare.

First, my new Arblogger post shows John Roberts’ unattended campaign sign on UM property , though it may be removed by now…why not just hang a 100’ x 100’ banner from the Big House? That would be worse, but still, same basic principle…

As for Warren etc.: sour grapes if Travis’d been kicked off the campaign, not resigned, maybe. (I don’t think he was kicked off) ...The “attack” was seriously planned (by Warren staff and/or Warren herself…though Warren knew about it, it seems), there was just some logistical difficulty in getting it to succeed, though.
Warren has focused on stuff besides abortion, but maybe she’s expanded her emphasis (in public or private) since the time Radina was on her campaign. And, I don’t think the Greden campaign had a sinister plan to improve communications by claiming false deaths, but claim what you like!

David,

I’m not saying Greden’s campaign had anything to do with claiming that very real, though unrelated, deaths were reasons why we needed a new communications system. I’m saying his campaign manager apparently decided to do that. She was, I believe, acting more in her role as county commissioner.

Was the Roberts sign outside the Michigan Union polling place David? It’s more than legal to put your yard signs outside the night before the election. I’m sure by the morning everyone’s signs will be out there.

There will doubtless be signs outside Markley, the Coliseum, South Quad, and other polling sites on U of M property, hope it doesn’t cause too much stress.

Well, Brandon, there is another hypothesis: “shoe-in” refers to an obscure foot fetish.

It looks like it was on the side of the polling place (Michigan Union), and I do remember people putting their signs out, historically…though more on the front than on the side.—Isn’t there something about not putting the sign within 100 feet of the polling place, though? Or is that just ignored by people? (Or is the 100 feet measured from the actual polling tables, as opposed to the walls of the building enclosing the polling place? Just curious. I suspect it may be the latter, i.e., the doors/walls of the building, not the particular polling room…)

David—
The 100 feet is from the front door of the polling place, I believe. At least at Slauson that’s the way it seems to operate. The poll workers are always very aware of the 100 feet rule and put out a sign marking the place where people may stand or place signs.

Thanks! ...Fascinating. It would still be nice to see people avoiding using public property at ALL for their campaigns, but reality doesn’t always work that way…(heh) Nor do I claim John Roberts is worse than anyone else; but the whole “campaign signs on public property” question is interesting.

Sure thing. What I find interesting is how many people overestimate what a 100-foot distance looks like. I’ve stood outside polling places before (for the Dems in 2004, most recently) and had to inform folks that, yes, I was 100 feet from the polling place and there’s the sign showing that I’m legal.

If we have polling places in public places, though, they should be able to put up their signs the day of the election. There haven’t been any signs placed at Slauson . . . or at least there weren’t any there as of 8pm tonight when I went by.

I’d be happy with a ban on such; I thought I saw something saying East Grand Rapids (to name one place) forbade political signs in public places, though am not completely sure.

How come no-one has addressed the issue as to Rebekah Warren for State Representative campaign violating the law regarding the Stephen Ranzini fundraiser, David Cahill what is your thought on this?

What happened? ...Oh, Googling the names of the two players (the AU internal search function doesn’t work), I see this on Arbor Update from a couple days ago (with “Rebekah Warren” and “Stephen Ranzini” highlighted), here (and I haven’t seen this before!):
—-
I’ve been involved in local Democratic politics for a long time, and I am disgusted by the smear campaign being waged by Rebekah Warren’s campaign, including some posts here. I know both Rebekah and Leigh and I am neutral in this race because I no longer live in Ann Arbor, and I gave money to both campaigns. I had hoped to stay out of this, but feel compelled to speak up.

This week I filed a complaint with the Secretary of State because I believe that Rebekah’s campaign violated State election laws in order to hide the fact that a big Republican donor raised several thousand dollars for her.

On October 27, 2005, Rebekah held a kickoff fundraiser at Stephen Ranzini’s house at 101 N. Main at 5pm. Tickets cost $100 each. I have a paper copy of the invitation. Later that night, at 7pm, she held a free party at Arbor Brewing Company. There was an e-mail inviting people to both the Ranzini fundraiser for $100/ticket at 5pm and the free party at Arbor Brewing at 7pm. I copied a part of the e-mail below so you can see that the Ranzini event was a $100 fundraiser, but the Arbor Brewing event was free.

State law 169.226 says a candidate must disclose on their campaign reports the name, address and other information for every fundraiser they hold. Rebekah’s January campaign finance report did not list her fundraiser at Stephen Ranzini’s house. Instead, she claimed the fundraiser was held at Arbor Brewing, even though both the invitations confirm that the fundraiser was at Ranzini’s house. Here is a link to Rebekah’s January campaign finance report showing that she listed the Arbor Brewing party as the fundraiser on October 27, but did not list the Ranzini event at all.
http://tinyurl.com/jatyz

Here’s the link showing that Ranzini and Lisa Schwartz, who I think is his wife or his girlfriend, each gave Rebekah $500 on the date of the fundraiser at his house.
http://tinyurl.com/z3p2t

I believe that Rebekah may have tried to hide the Ranzini fundraiser, in possible violation of State law, because Ranzini gave thousands of dollars to conservative Republicans like George Bush, Spencer Abraham, Nick Smith, Brad Smith, Mike Rogers, and the Republican Committee. Here are two links showing his donations.
http://tinyurl.com/ztw5p

http://tinyurl.com/z83xg

When Rebekah’s campaign started accusing Leigh of ethical violations about his fundraising and started bad mouthing him for taking money from Republicans, I became very upset because that appears hypocritical to me, considering she may have violated State law to hide the fact that a conservative Republican not only gave her a lot of money, but held her kickoff fundraiser at his house.

I am disappointed that Rebekah’s supporters made this campaign so negative and that one fellow Democrat would behave this way against another Democrat. But as I said before, I felt compelled to speak up because Rebekah’s campaign is waging a negative campaign.

***

Support a Noble Cause! Send Campaign Contributions to Rebekah Warren
for State Representative, 234 8th St., Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Friends, neighbors, political leaders and activists invite you to join
Rebekah Warren
Democratic Candidate for 53rd District State Representative for her Campaign Kick-off

Thursday, October 27th
7:00 ? 9:00 p.m.
Arbor Brewing Company
114 East Washington Street Ann Arbor

It’s a Halloween Celebration!
Meet the candidate and enjoy fun Halloween games and treats.
Kids welcomed and costumes encouraged!
There is no cover for the event, but campaign contributions are gratefully accepted!

Or, stop in for a drink and hors d’oeuvres with Rebekah before the Kick-off.

Thursday, October 27th 5:00-7:00pm
101 North Main Street #1004
Ann Arbor
Tickets for the pre kick-off reception are $100.

[Image] For more information, please contact Sarah at (734) 717-2748 or sarah_curmi@yahoo.com or Rebekah at (734) 662-0268 or rebekahwarren@comcast.net.

Margie Teall asked me to forward this along in response to some anti-Leigh Greden mail that’s circulating, also from the Progressives of Washtenaw group.

thanks

Ed

The e-mail being distributed regarding Leigh Greden’s so-called ethics problems is outrageous and filled with lies. Please allow me to elaborate.

· Leigh Greden has made clear from the day he joined his law firm that his firm represents the Broadway Village developers in some matters, and thus he has not voted on any Broadway Village matters, or participated in Council meetings or deliberations regarding the project.

· Janis Bobrin, the County Drain Commissioner, told the Ann Arbor News that Leigh’s meeting with her and the Broadway Village developers was absolutely appropriate and routine. It’s important to note that Janis is an elected County official, not a City official, and thus it’s absurd for anyone to imply that a City Councilmember could exert influence on her. In other words, there is nothing unethical about the meeting with Janis Bobrin, and it’s absurd to imply otherwise.

· The e-mail also chastises Leigh for receiving money from some individuals who have also given money to Republicans. The truth is that Rebekah Warren also takes money from Republicans – a lot of it. In fact, her kickoff fundraiser was held by a man who has donated thousands of dollars to conservative Republicans. But, Rebekah never filed a campaign finance statement disclosing her Republican fundraiser, as required by law. An individual who discovered this discrepancy has filed a complaint with the Secretary of State against her campaign. So, both candidates take money from Republicans; the difference is that Leigh followed the law by disclosing his contributions.

I have been involved in local politics for many years. It has been disturbing to see such a disingenuous, negative campaign filled with lies and misinformation. This has the effect of being extremely divisive within a party that really needs to bring people together, and should stand for that principle. I hope that voters will carefully examine the records of the candidates rather than listening to rumors and innuendo.

Thanks for listening.

-Margie Teall, City Council and, for the sake of full disclosure, Campaign Manager: Leigh Greden for State Rep.

The polls are now open. Be sure to VOTE TODAY!

I would like to say that I fully agree with Margie Teall. Leigh has been open and honest throughout the entirety of his campaign. He has served Ann Arbor on City Council with dignity and respect.

Now as he is looking forward in his political career, and ready to take the next step toward representing Ann Arbor residents, his name has been dragged through the mud. His opponents have misled voters, misrepresented his record, and have attacked the very principles that we should all be proud of.

As Democrats we should support clean and issue-based primaries. In a time of Republican control, we should be uniting behind common goals and real platforms. Petty smear campaigns only serve to hurt the party and the potential candidates that we will be supporting in November. If Democrats are willing to trash one another for their own political gains, we will be a minority party for a long time, because every time we sling mud, every time we attack one another, we are helping Republican challengers gain ground, we are weakening our own candidates, and we are dividing our base.

Leigh’s record speaks for itself. His campaign has focused on platform rather than politics. He is exactly the type of Democrat that we need more of. Going negative in a Democratic Primary will NEVER help our party.

I support Leigh Greden for State Representative, because he has had enough respect for the voters of Ann Arbor to focus on the issues that matter!

Please, remember to vote.

That Stephen Ranzini and Rebekah Warren article is what I posted a week ago. NO-One who supports Rebekah has answered as to how they feel about it. They are ducking the issue and turning around and bad-mouthing Leigh Greden. Why don’t some of Rebekah supporter’s address this issue.

After Sabra and I voted, at 8:25 this morning, at Precinct 1-6 (Northside School), there had been nine votes cast. That is about 1.4 hours of voting.

The polls opened at 7:00 a.m. and close at 8:00 p.m., so there are 13 polling hours. Voting in AA is steady throughout the day, without any morning or evening surges.

Therefore, if present trends continue, there will be about (9/1.4) x 13 = 84 votes cast in our precinct today.

This is extremely low turnout, even for a primary.

So every vote counts.

You are right David that is a very low turnout. I bet more people will vote and your precinct will get atleast 100.

Cowherd is really blowing some smoke here. Most of Hieftje’s campaign money comes from environmentalists. Check out his finance report.

Just about every other enviromental leader in the city/state is backing Hiefjte. Mike Garfield, Director of the Ecology Center is quoted in his Lit., he is also backing Easthope and working on his campaign. Lana Pollack, former State Senator and President of the Michigan Environmental Council, the major enviromental lobby in this state, is quoted in Hieftje’s lit.

I got an invitation a while back to an “Environmentalists for Hieftje” fund raiser. Garfield and Pollack were hosting the event along with the Directors of the Huron River Watershed Council, the Michigan League of Conservation Voters and the Great Lakes Office of the National Wildlife Federation. Last week, Gwen Nysteun, local Sierra Club luminary, wrote a letter to the paper supporting Hieftje.

Why doesn’t Cowherd just come out and say he hates any building anywhere, admit he will never forgive the council for not putting him on the greenbelt commission and be done with it.

Hey gang,

I wish I had time to engage earlier on these things, but I’m not a very good blogger, tending toward verbosity. As you know, I like to provide LOTS of information, rather than delving into rhetoric. That said, I’d like to clear up a few things.

First let me address the campaign finance issue.

1)Rebekah has always reported every single contribution ever donated to her campaign. If it were otherwise, the Secretary of State would have issued an Error and Omissions letter, which they have not.

2)The “missing” campaign finance statement that so irks Ms. Teall and Mr. Boyle, in fact was filed at the appropriate time in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of State. You can access all of Rebekah’s finance records at http://miboecfr.nicusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/com_det.cgi?com_id=512476.

The “missing” form does not, as Ms. Teall suggests, disclose contributions. Rather, it provides exactly this information: date, attendance, type of activity, address, whether that is a private residence (for privacy purposes), total contributions less than $20 each, total contributions greater than $20 each, a subtotal, other receipts (such as in-kind contributions), gross receipts, and total cost of the event.

Every contributor at the event is individually reported as a donor on separate forms. As Mr. Greden’s campaign manager, I’m sure Ms. Teall is aware of all of these facts.

Rebekah reported all of this information as part of her annual filing for 2005, submitted this January 2006.

Ms. Teall and Mr. Boyle raise the point that Stephen Ranzini’s pre-party, which preceded the kick off at Arbor Brewing Company was not listed in the report. The two venues were part and parcel of the same event, as noted in the email so kindly provided by Mr. Boyle above. The Secretary of State requires that state-level candidates use their electronic filing system to report events. That system allows only a single address to be reported. Since attendance at ABC was significantly larger than attendance at Mr. Ranzini’s home, we listed the brewpub address.

I recognize that this is a lapse in the campaign finance reporting system previously unidentified, and I will communicate that problem to our county clerk and the Secretary of State.

To clarify, there is no violation of state law here. Every contributor to Rebekah’s campaign has been reported and recorded by the state and is a part of the public record. This event was reported months ago, publicized almost a year ago, celebrated on plenty of electronic venues where it was obviously captured. There was no intent to deceive anyone, and complaints to the contrary are spurious.

3)Regarding the partisan identity of Rebekah’s contributors, I urge you peruse the list of them at the Secretary of State’s website. There may be a Republican or independent among them, but the vast majority will be identifiable unabashed liberals. I will note that there is at least one, likely more, contribution from a pro-choice Republican who values Rebekah leadership on that issue. One of the great things that the State system allows is searches by contribution date (http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1633_8723_8751—-,00.html). If you are concerned that the Ranzini pre-party was a “Republican fundraiser” as Ms. Teall suggests, I encourage you to search for contributions on that date. Briefly, of the $4,900 raised, you’ll find that $1,600 right off the top came from elected Democrats (from precinct delegate to state representative). The balance is mostly from folk who regularly contribute to Democrats.

4)On a personal note, I don’t actually know that Stephen Ranzini, a friend with whom I’ve enjoyed a very competitive game of Risk, is a Republican. I’ve never asked him; he’s never told! He is certainly a banker and a savvy lobbyist who has contributed significantly to elected officials on both sides of the aisle – particularly to members of Congress making decisions about banking issues, as far as I can tell. I will note a few things about Stephen: 1) he fought Right to Life to keep a pro-choice voice on his bank board; 2) he is actively recruiting an LGBT board member; 3) his VP is an African American; and 4) he crafted an innovative rent-to-own program that facilitates Muslims purchasing houses because, in accordance with their religious tradition, they may not take out loans
He might be a Republican but he has a very strong civil rights ethic, which matters a great deal to both Rebekah and me.

Last, I’d like to clarify the claims about Rebekah’s campaign engaging in “disingenuous, negative” tactics. Neither Rebekah, her staff, nor her core volunteers have advanced this important community discussion about Lowertown. In fact, when approached by the petitioners opposing the bond issue, Rebekah deliberately excluded herself and her campaign from the debate. The discussion here on Arbor Update will evidence that the whole thing was not connected to the state Representative campaign until it was covered by a Political Notebook column in the Ann Arbor News (http://www.mlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-0/115425433527800.xml?aanews?NELX&coll=2).

The most interesting thing to me here is that this might not have been a campaign issue at all had not Mr. Greden’s campaign – presumably led by his treasurer Leah Gunn – chosen to attack Rebekah’s endorsement by the organization she has led with distinction for the last six years. Their campaign, disturbed that the MARAL Pro-Choice Michigan candidate list did not include Mr. Greden, initiated a letter writing offensive to the MARAL board and pressured Art Aisner for a story in the paper, claiming that Rebekah had in some way inappropriately influenced the endorsement process. In brief response to that, Rebekah was completely segregated from the process this year and it is common practice for MARAL to endorse one pro-choice candidate over another – in fact that happened in other races this year, such as the 2nd Senate seat where they endorsed one official with a 100% pro-choice record over another. The issue is leadership. It should come as no surprise that their PAC board also figured that Rebekah would be stronger leader on their behalf. Incidentally, every pro-choice organization involved in this race has supported Rebekah.

When Mr. Aisner decided to cover this issue, he was clear that the reporting would be balanced – that in investigating Rebekah, he would also investigate Mr. Greden. Because the Lowertown issue was itself so contentious, there is an active citizen group studying the process of decision-making around that development. And they’re upset. In my opinion, rightly. After conversations with some of them, most notably Tom Weider (who was quoted in the article), it was Mr. Aisner who broke the story about Mr. Greden’s involvement in meetings between city and county staff (please note that city staff attended the meeting that Ms. Teall suggest was only with Janis Bobrin) around the development. You’ll see in that column that Mr. Greden was quick to insinuate that something sinister was afoot, while Rebekah respectfully declined to comment on the Lowertown issue.

Since then, yes, many people have raised many questions about Mr. Greden’s involvement – from how he was engaged in decision-making to where his funding for this campaign is coming from. Rebekah, her staff and her campaign are not among them. Are the people raising these questions supporters of Rebekah? Lord, I hope so. I want you all to support her! It makes intuitive sense, however, that if they have a distaste for Mr. Greden over this very local and very personal issue, that they would in turn support Rebekah in whatever way they choose.

For those of you involved in campaigns and elections, if you have discovered a way to control all of your independent supporters and hold them on message, let’s talk publication rights, because you are sure to make a mint selling that book!

In short, if Mr. Greden’s campaign had not launched their unwarranted attack on Rebekah over the MARAL endorsement, it is possible that this whole thing would have stayed under the table. I personally think we should be glad, however, that the facts are out there and that the debate is underway. The News and the citizens have raised serious issues for voters to evaluate. While Mr. Greden broke no laws, apparently, the community’s ethical standard may have indeed been violated. Perhaps not. I hope you will each give the question some fair and balanced consideration.

Then, I hope you will take a close look at who is negatively campaigning against whom. Whose campaign staff is posting inflammatory critiques on the blogs? Whose campaign purchased an ad focused on negative criticism of their opponent?

In summation: stones, glass houses.

My precinct had 140 voters at 10 am.

Putting aside politics for the moment, if anyone who knows about the rent-to-own thing Ranzini set up, could you explain why a land contract would not be sufficient in this case? With a mortgage, the resident/borrower takes title to the asset from the first and makes payments on the money borrowed. With a land contract, the developer or lender retains title of the asset while the resident makes payments, eventually taking title of the asset. This seems to me (at a basic level) exactly what was necessary. What was the complicating factor that made a land contract not applicable?

Oh, in interest of full disclosure, particularly for Dave Boyle, I’m Rebekah’s fiancee. She and I live together. We’ve been together nine years. We got engaged in a delightfully public and web-available way. I’m a Washtenaw County Commissioner. I’m the son of Alma Wheeler Smith, grandson of Al and Emma Wheeler. I like cheese fries. And no one helped me write this.

Dave, are you that guy who hangs out on the computers in the basement of the Union?

Conan Smith wrote: “Stephen Ranzini, a friend with whom I’ve enjoyed a very competitive game of Risk, ...”

You serve up this morsel and fail to disclose who actually won the game??!! Glaring omission!! Jeezus, Conan, two screens worth of information (serious aside: nice to see a another post from someone on County Commission) and you can’t find the space to spell out for us how you whipped Ranzini’s butt at RISK? Or maybe, IT WAS THE OTHER WAY AROUND?!

Maybe he’ll have to get on the totter…

David Boyle = that guy in the basement of the Union, yep.

If the financial disclosure process needs to be improved (“lapse in the campaign finance reporting system”), good that you mentioned that, Mr. Smith.

Also good that you mention your relationship with Warren, so we better know how the local power structure works…

I don’t know about the timing of the MARAL thing, but your fiancee’s campaign has been so relentlessly negative on so many things: the insulting remarks towards Greden (at least by implication) by supporters; the planned “couch-in”; etc., that she is in little position to complain about any negative remarks by others. Stones, glass houses, etc. (And don’t get me started on her donation from a Lansing lobbyist PAC , Travis Radina’s comments above, etc.)

And last but not least: Brandon’s poor manners and judgment aside, what is your interest, Conan, in finding my physical location? Are you and some friends going to “pay me (and maybe Margie Teall, if you find her address??) a little personal visit”? (The ultimate form of “negative campaigining”...) You’re lucky if I don’t file a formal complaint about your disgraceful (and as per your first name, barbaric) behavior here, “”“Commissioner”“”. Your poor manners, bordering on open thuggery and utterly unacceptable for a public official who enjoys his privileges on my taxpayer money, are not unexpected; but they are not acceptable even so.

David B.: “Are you and some friends going to “pay me (and maybe Margie Teall, if you find her address??) a little personal visit”? (The ultimate form of “negative campaigining”...) You’re lucky if I don’t file a formal complaint about your disgraceful (and as per your first name, barbaric) behavior here….”

Please tell us that you’re kidding around, Dave.

This was the year of creating your own little PAC so you could endorse yourself and/or your friends and more importantly so you could use the PAC to do the dirty work. Conan and friends created the WARD 5 PRECINCT 4 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE so they could make it sound like a 3rd party when they endorsed Mr. Smith and Ms. Warren and others.

POW, created by Mr. Collenback and Mr. DeVarti did the same but took on an even heavier load of negative spin. Schmerl worked with both and with Mr. Cowherds help, did a lot of negative stuff on her own. It all shows how far these folks are willing to go and how little they really value, the values they talk about in their official campaigns.

Holy cow, Boyle. Like you, I definitely read a threatening tone the question Conan asked.

What is your paranoia? He obviously must have seen you around before and wanted to know you were the guy he thought you were. Have you ever met Conan Smith? He is about the least intimidating person I have ever met. Jeez.

“Please tell us that you’re kidding around, Dave.”

Come on, Todd. You haven’t noticed yet that Boyle has no sense of humor? I mean, he thinks he does, but he doesn’t. I think he may have Asperger’s.

From Wikipedia: “People with Asperger’s Syndrom lack the natural ability to see the subtexts of social interaction, and may lack the ability to communicate their own emotional state, resulting in well-meaning remarks that may offend, or finding it hard to know what is “acceptable”. The unwritten rules of social behavior that mystify so many with AS have been termed the “hidden curriculum”. People with AS must learn these social skills intellectually rather than intuitively.”

So learn, already, Boyle.

Conan, give me a break. Your post about Rebekah’s alleged violations confirmed that the events were separate events. They were at separate locations. They were held at separate times. One event (Ranzini) cost money; the other event (ABC) was free.

Your fiance listed the FREE event as the fundraiser. In fact, if you raised money at BOTH events, you should have listed BOTH events separately… and the campaign finance system WOULD allow you to do that because they occurred at SEPARATE addresses. In fact, the law requires it because they are separate addresses with separate terms for admission. That’s the law. If the ABC event did not raise ANY money, then you should not have listed it at all.

Even if your interpretation of the law were accurate (which it is not), and you could only list one event because of that pesky computer software, why did you choose to list ABC—which was free—and NOT Ranzini—which cost money? Perhaps because Ranzini has given a lot of money to Republicans and is very controversial.

You spent all that time crafting a detailed (and, frankly, embarrassing) response on this blog when you should have simply said, “we screwed up.” It appears that, in reality, you started this silly debate when you attacked Greden for taking Republican money… and then you got caught doing the same thing. I think it’s you who was throwing stones from your glass house…

Dustin raises some excellent points too about that silly 5-4 group… but that’s for another day.

“Come on, Todd. You haven’t noticed yet that Boyle has no sense of humor? I mean, he thinks he does, but he doesn’t. I think he may have Asperger’s.

“From Wikipedia: ‘People with Asperger’s Syndrom[e] lack the natural ability to see the subtexts of social interaction, and may lack the ability to communicate their own emotional state, resulting in well-meaning remarks that may offend, or finding it hard to know what is ‘acceptable.’ The unwritten rules of social behavior that mystify so many with AS have been termed the ‘hidden curriculum.’ People with AS must learn these social skills intellectually rather than intuitively.’”

So learn, already, Boyle.

PSD: The same definition easily covers Blaine who as usual has hijacked yet another discussion with his favorite—and only—obsession (after all, isn’t that what obsession is all about?). Oh, sorry, his syndrome is something else: sociopathological obsessive disorder. But really, many of the symptoms you cite for AS fit his case, too. Only I don’t think he’s ever going to learn how to behave rationally in normal social interaction. I wonder if he’s ranting on every thread in Arbor Update and every other discussion group in the blogosphere. Wouldn’t put it past him by any means.

Oh, for cryin’ out loud, it sounds like you’ve never been involved in a political campaign.

Campaign kickoff events are usually billed as “free”, but the whole point of holding the event is to raise money. There’s a basket for checks, and the hope is that plenty of checks land there.

It is also typical, especially where there are celebrity guests, to hold a private reception just before the big-crowd event, and call it part of the same thing. Buying in to the reception covers you for the main event. The county Democratic Party did this exact same thing at their annual dinner a few weeks ago. Reception over, the doors open up, and it’s one event.

In this case, the reception was about 300 feet away from the main event, instead of in the next room. But calling it one event is hardly unreasonable. Nor do I see any attempt to keep it secret. Indeed, that would be the opposite of what any campaign is trying to do.

I’m pretty disgusted by the baseless charges against Leigh and Rebekah, both of whom are friends of mine. Both sets of spurious accusations came from outsiders to the campaigns, but it bothers me that spokespeople for both candidates have spoken of the charges as if they were genuine issues.

It’s late in the game, but clear disavowals would be a lot better.

Are y’all coming to the unity breakfast on Saturday?

I mentioned to someone recently about Smith’s asking me about my location, and, unbidden, I believe, she said something like, “That’s crazy!” about his asking. People upthread notwithstanding, there is no reason, even in jest, for someone closely associated with the Warren campaign (and an elected official to boot) to inquire about where I am found. After all, a common motif in films and such is for “nosy journalists” or whoever to be asked by unsavory people, “Hey pal, where do you live?”, etc. I don’t find it amusing at all in real life to have my physical location inquired about under the present circumstances.

I don’t mind Larry’s reminder about “party unity”, but there is some mess to clear up first, too. (Not to mention people’s new questions or assertions about the Warren campaign above, since my last comment…)

Margie Teall asked me to post this. (ever the messenger, never the message…)

From: Margie Teall

Hi Ed: Would you mind posting this for me in the same thread where the last one went? Thanks.

First of all, what I wrote yesterday was a response to the POW campaign against Leigh, not a response to Rebekah’s campaign itself, although she and Sonia have not distanced themselves from POW or from Doug Cowherd. So the “negative, disingenuous” aspect is directed not at Rebekah, but at POW, whose efforts I see as extremely divisive.

Second, the MARAL flap is not over endorsements. Leigh fully expected that MARAL, and every other pro-choice organization would, in fact, endorse Rebekah. She deserves that, no question. The issue is the “Primary Voter Guide of 2006 Pro-Choice Candidates”. This is a list of pro-choice candidates, not endorsements, for the entire state. In many races there are more than one candidate listed as being pro-choice. For instance, in the 4th House District there are four candidates listed, both men and women. In the 9th House District there are three listed, both men and women. In some, there are Republicans listed. The fact is, Leigh Greden is as pro-choice as anyone, and was left off of the list (which was also being distributed at Art Fair). After this was published, we began getting phone calls from other supporters who are pro-choice, asking if Leigh was not pro-choice, as the list seems to indicate. We had to assure them that indeed he is, and we sent them some of the following information from his MARAL questionnaire, including the 100% positive pro-choice answers to their questions:

Leigh Greden is pro-choice. He is a member of NARAL Pro-Choice America. As our State Representative, Greden will be a strong voice for reproductive rights and progressive policies to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies:

“I grew up in Ann Arbor, and when I was young, my mother worked for Planned Parenthood here in town. In my family, a woman’s right to choose is a fundamental family value.”

Perhaps this will clear up some of the confusion involving what happened with MARAL.

Thanks. -Margie

David Boyle: ” I don’t find it amusing at all in real life to have my physical location inquired about under the present circumstances.”

Dave, I’ll tell you what: if Conan Smith tries to hurt you, I promise that I’ll storm over to his house, (all 30-feet-tall of me) smash up his house but good, and throw any pets that he has into the next County. Except his dogs. I like dogs.

How’s that?

(Note to Conan: I’m not really 30 ft. tall. I just thought that you should know that.)

While you are a humorous guy, I think that the situation in question is not really conducive to humor.

David…

1. If the situation “isn’t conducive to humor” (and I disagree) then I wouldn’t make silly jokes regarding Mr. Smith’s first name; I OVERWHELMINGLY suspect his query as to your physical location was not intended with any homicidal intent.

2. I think it would be a little odd for Ms. Warren to suddenly transform into a Republican cheerleader on election (assuming this is the source of the outrage over her campaign contributions) after she’s helped to lead an organization which so publicly stands against one of the GOP’s main planks…

Happy primary day, folks!!

This sure is odd, waiting until election day to unload all of this wackiness. Why didn’t you guys get this out of your system earlier. I guess everyone figures they have until 8 PM to get it out because no one will care tomororw.

Boyle – if you’re going to place your public rantings online with your name, you’re going to need to quit being so paranoid.

Where’s the humor in someone with apparently intense ill-feeling towards me, asking my physical location? And someone who’s an officeholder who’s part of a powerful local political family? I fail to see the humor (although castigating someone acting badly is acceptable here, I think, even using his first name) here.
See also my new Arblogger post on the threatening guy in sunglasses who just accosted me verbally a little while ago.

And of course no one’s a “Republican cheerleader”, but she shouldn’t call Leigh Greden one either, or even come close, e.g., complain overly about his funding, when her own may not be completely “pure” itself. ...Make sure to vote, polls close at 8. Go democracy.!

Sorry for superfluous period after “democracy”; got posted before I could catch…

David Boyle,

My reading of Conan’s remark (right after he informed us he likes cheese fries and that he had written that post his very own self) was an allusion to what I thought was a common cultural touchstone (perhaps not, as no one else has noted it), namely “the basement of the science building”. So in non-literal terms, I took Conan to be asking mirthfully: “Are you that nerdy-guy who spends too much time in front of a computer screen and who maybe should go above ground more often?”

Or if that wasn’t the intended allusion, I think what he was innocuously asking was if you were the guy he thought he’d seen before (as Brandon suggests). As in, Hey guy, I think we might’ve shared space in the same room before, so maybe you’ve seen me, too, huh, so next time how’s about you introduce yourself, or maybe if you tell me that’s you, I’ll introduce MYSELF, and maybe we could probably actually have a friendly conversation, huh?

Otherwise put, try as I might, I am not able to wring out an understanding from his comment that has him alluding to (cue scary music) ‘where he could find you’, even as a joke.

Maybe. That is a cultural touchstone, like you say. But I’m not sure it’s as “innocuous” in this case as you seem to think. ...And I have the terrible suspicion that “The Commish” probably doesn’t find his way down to UM computer basements that often; therefore, I doubt he’s seen anyone much there, myself or anybody else. (I certainly don’t remember seeing him anywhere around UM, though I saw him at at least one off-campus political event…)

As per my Arblogger post , some early returns show Hieftje, Suarez and others winning. (Not vouching for the accuracy of these, and results may have changed greatly; posted c. 9:09 p.m.) Looked like a tie, or close, in 3rd Ward.

Boyle, I voted this morning for Greden, partially (very partially—the Cahill connection clinched it) because Smith used to hit on my girlfriend (insert paranoid fantasy—I thought he was slimy) back in our R.C. Players days, but you, buddy, are currently in meltdown. Have you, seriously, been checked for Asperger’s?

Glad to hear about your vote choice (ha ha about Cahill), but keep the asparagus syndrome to yourself…

PSD, who was your girlfriend? Is she still around?

David, apologize for my insensitive inside joke. I don’t really care where you are or have been. I promise to keep at least 100 feet away from you whenever possible, although mostly just to protect my historic family home from todd.

HD, I was obliterated in that game of Risk. Although I played with verve, I think I’m too soft for that game. I feel bad for the little soldiers.

Dale, I don’t know the answer to your question about the difference between University Bank’s program and a land contract. I’ll touch base with Stephen and ask him to post a description.

Dustin, in retrospect, the PAC thing is a very interesting shift in Ann Arbor politics. Your initial analysis is way off, but your concern is valid. P54 was created not by me or Rebekah, but by some of our neighbors in response to the lack of aggressive Democratic organizing after the ‘04 elections. She and I have been active participants, listening carefully to our neighbors and sharing our own insights. It think local precinct committees should run rampant and get involved in primaries. One of the intents of P54 is to help draw the party to the futher Left by supporting candidates who evince that kind of liberalism. I was glad for their endorsement and the gracious support of the neighborhood, which I’m sure Rebekah would echo. I’m not so sure the group was all that influential though. Only 2 of their 4 endorsed candidates won, and each of the victors by very wide margins.

POW started more than a year ago as well, following a similar theme. There’s abundant concern over Ann Arbor becoming a one-party town and the “Democrat” label becoming fairly meaningless. POW had a lot of influence in certain races where that drift to the right is felt more acutely (e.g. Rebekah’s and Ron Suarez’s). They stayed out of the Mayoral and few voters gave credence to claims that Easthope was turning into a right-winger. POW, I think, has the potential to be an essential critic of city politics from the perspective of the progressive left.

As with all nascent political groups, they are each feeling their way toward doing their endorsement and electioneering in a sophisticated way. I expect that there will be more factual analysis in future election cycles from each of them.

Cheers.

I won’t be attending the unity breakfast (not a Dem), but I hope, Larry, that you’ll use the opportunity to talk up IRV among your fellow party members. If this Democratic party primary isn’t the poster child for IRV, I don’t know what is. (OK, maybe the 2000 presidential, or the 2004 presidential, or … Well, how many elections have there been since the year Al Wheeler was elected using IRV?)

Divisive rhetoric, rancorous debate (among the voters, yet!), and, ultimately, low turnout. Do we want our democracy to be most influenced by those who have no reservations about ‘going negative’? They may not control it, but it’s getting closer to that being the case, even here at the local level.

Rebekah, Conan, John H., Ron, Stephen, and Chris—in victory will you support IRV so that voters like myself won’t have to hold our nose while we cast our ballot? (Now don’t make me reference all that “leadership” verbiage in your campaign materials.) Don’t want to have to raise (and spend?) $20K to keep a council seat, Chris? Guess what?

Jeff I., Joan, Margie and other unopposed incumbents—in victory will you support democracy above your own re-election chances by supporting IRV and the likelihood that more candidates will run and more issues will be addressed?

Leigh, Steven, Wendy, John R., Alice, Jeff M., Sonia, and Richard—in defeat will you support IRV so that those who offer a different perspective, and perhaps have less affluent supporters, have a better opportunity to be elected and represent a more diverse constituency?

Democrats in general—will you risk losing complete control over local politics for the benefit of all citizens and the possible revelation that your party may not represent all of us as well as you might think?

Republicans, independents, and “minor” party members—will you support IRV to increase citizen interest in government and increase the potential for a more representative government body in city hall, the county building, and our state capital?

IRV isn’t just about avoiding spoilers, it’s about improving the quality of the campaigns, increasing voter awareness and involvement, and getting qualified candidates to run without the fear of irrelevant personal attacks on their character, among other things. It’s about replacing politics with democracy and building, rather than fracturing, community.

Has POW! done anything to establish “progressive” credibility? Or are they just calling themselves “progressive”. Yes, I know. Just slinging the label around is plenty for some people, but, Conan Smith, I would expect you can explain what exactly POW’s “progressive” stance means, and how exactly they’re stemming a “lean to the right” in Ann Arbor.

After all, I have enough respect for you that I believe, if you’re taking POW seriously, you must know something about them that I don’t – as the material I’ve seen from them so far gives absolutely no evidence that they’re any further left than Leiberman – and you’re not just supporting them in a mutual backscratching after they endorsed Rebekah. Right?

Conan: Thanks for responding. Not many thought you were going to work

POW and 5/4 share some of the same members. They are active on the left and POW’s whole focus seems to be trying to influence voters against the council. The funny part is the mayor and most of council are on the left as well. The only explantion I can come up with is that POW and 5/4 would like to be the folks on the left calling the shots rather than the people on council now.

Sorry left something out. 108 should read: not many thought you were going to work “David over”...

Indeed. “Progressives of Washtenaw” appeared to be just a smokescreen for such questionably “progressive” folks as Doug Cowherd, David Cahill, the “full scale Greenway” crowd, and others who aren’t getting their way in the current Council. Seems like an attempt to mislead those who fancy themselves part of the Left into voting against urbanism, density, and Smart Growth, linking such things with the interests of “greedy developers.”

POW ENDORSED A REPUBLICAN? I heard last night that Schmerl worked for Glenn Ziegler, who ran against Easthope back in 2000. Ziegler ran against the homeless shelter while Easthope supported it in a very tight race. Schmerl had a campaign sign in the yard of Ellmann and Assoc. Attorney next door to the Delonis Shelter on Huron. Ellmann spent $15,000? trying to defeat the shelter in court and has really never given up. So POW endorsed a candidate that worked against the shelter, the most “progressive” accomplishment in this town in the last 20 years. This was much more about POW wanting to be in power than it was about anything progressive.

Brandon—here’s a few comments based on some rather indirect, anecdotal experience: POW is not a front/smokescreen for Cowherd & the full-greenway crowd, although there is a degree overlap among these activists. I’ll hazard to guess that the POW members who are not full-greenway supporters feel politically too weak at this time to adequately separate the group’s public identity from the full-greenway proponents. They may not feel POW could easily survive the divisiveness that could result. As a result, I think they have created a serious public relations problem for themselves, which (based on conversations and Arbor Update comments) I’m not convinced they fully appreciate or understand. Those of us who see a strong dose of Republican/subdivision-style thinking among key full-greenway activists are baffled and dismayed to see them linked in POW materials to “progressive” and left-of-center traditions.

Steve – your statements above on IRV thoroughly deserve support.

I don’t belong to any party – but I’ll cry if I want to.

Thanks for your note about IRV, Steve.

Ann Arbor’s Ward 3 in particular seems to me a perfect example of how IRV would have enriched the process. All three candidates had some different things to say about where they wanted Ann Arbor to go, and some similar things. I would have loved to been able to rank them when I voted. I’d venture some of the supporters of either Ralph or Kunselman voted for them in opposition to the other, which left the 3rd candidate, Jeff Meyers, kind of hanging in the middle. Probably explains why there often isn’t a 3rd candidate running!

With IRV, I’m positive we’d end up with candidates that had more community support, as well as MORE candidates, which would be great.

Come to think of it, this would have been great in Ypsilanti’s Mayor elections as well…

There has been a lot of support for IRV here on AU, but didn’t Ann Arbor voters toss IRV a while back?

The “Progressives of Washtenaw” will surely endorse IRV, right?

Oh, wait, I forgot. They aren’t actually progressive.

In the 1970s, Ann Arbor had three parties with significant support, the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Human Rights Party. The Dems and HRP together usually had a majority of the votes, but the Republicans usually won.

So IRV (for mayor in the general election only) was instituted with clear political goals: to elect a Democratic mayor. The HRP voters could vote for their candidate with the Democrat as a fallback second choice, so that when the HRP candidate was eliminated, the Democrat would get those votes. And it worked to elect Al Wheeler as mayor.

Naturally, Republicans, who had dominated the town politically for decades (in 1961 the mayor and city council were 100% Republican), didn’t like this system. The city clerk didn’t like IRV, and portrayed it as a complete mess. So Republicans got a petition drive together to amend IRV out of the charter, and their amendment was adopted.

At the same time, the HRP was dying out, so perhaps IRV was seen as no longer necessary from a political standpoint.

If the 1970s amendment were brought back, and the mayor’s race was conducted using IRV among partisan nominees, that would make zero difference. No matter how you count the votes, the Democrat still wins.

I like IRV in principle, but I don’t want to oversell it. Many people assume that structural changes would make an enormous difference in politics, bringing about more candidates and better choices. But no matter how the election is organized, the same activists and the same factions and the same interest groups are all still contending for the same goals. Voters will still find plenty of reason for disappointment and cynicism. You can’t change that with mere structure.

Larry, you are a walking encyclopedia of local politics. Thanks.

“Larry, you are a walking encyclopedia of local politics. Thanks.”

I agree 100%. He has an amazing mind.

Hat’s off to you, Larry.

“PSD, who was your girlfriend? Is she still around?”

Ah, Conan, I’m afraid she’s moved away to Texas, is married, and has two, maybe three kids. We’re both out of luck there.

And I doubt you’d remember her, or me. We were Freshmen, and it’s all a bit fuzzy now, and I’m not even sure about the R.C. Players aspect, just that East Quad was involved. Probably I was just insecure then, but old resentments die hard I guess. Even really petty ones. I really shouldn’t have made that post.

Mrs. Structure-Dude assured me that I was being silly, and she voted for Rebekah and you both. Next time, in all likelihood, I will too.

Take care, and congratulations on your election. If I spot you at ABC I’ll buy you a beer. No hard feelings I hope.

“You can’t change that with mere structure.”

Sure you can. Change is change, not necessarily complete reversal or replacement. Democrats—prime proponents of incremental change—would understand that, I would think. Greens—proponents of future focus—may have a clearer perspective on it, but it’s not difficult to imagine the positive effects if one gives it some thought. (Or folks could just consider what I wrote, which spelled it out pretty well, I thought.)

I wouldn’t want you to oversell IRV either, Larry. But please keep it on the shelf at eye level if not in a prominent display.

In regard to POW and their endorsed candidates,with the exception of R.Warren,none of the candidates used union printers for their literature or their signs. How “progressive” is that? Way to support the working person POW! Where was/is their little ‘newsletter’ printed? At the same place The Current is printed? Is that a Union shop?

Good observation. I just checked the Hieftje and Easthope literature in the recycling bin, both have the union label. Schmerl’s does not. Does anyone have Suarez and Roberts literature to check?

“In regard to POW and their endorsed candidates,with the exception of R.Warren,none of the candidates used union printers for their literature or their signs.”

That’s because POW is not a ‘progressive’ organization. It should stand for Partisans of Washtenaw!

POW is a group of people that have recognized (quite correctly) that the small clique of vocal conservatives that currently dominates the Republican Party is willing to do anything to get and maintain (often personal) power. Their rationale being- “the end justifies the means.”

The knee-jerk response chosen by POW is to adopt the same tactics. And, for some period they will think they are successful. Perhaps they already do. This is an understandable response. After all, who likes getting beaten up on all the time?

However, in the long run we all lose. Smear campaigns and ‘swift boating’, the favorite tactics of groups like the neocons and POW, provide the public with the perception that politicians are slimy and selfish. Participation wanes and apathy waxes. We can already see the cracks forming in the national Republican Party. Do we, as Democrats, really want to adopt this model?

This is not to say that we shouldn’t ‘play hardball’. True liberals like Soapy Williams and Neil Staebler were as hard-nosed as politicians come and widely feared by their opponents. But, they were as principled about their politics as they were about their issues. They recognized that the process is sacred, participation is key, and politics is not personal!

I believe these are the lessons we should be focusing on as we ponder the future of our Party. Groups like POW, however well-intentioned, do little but damage the fabric of our Party and our society.

DCED—
I agree partly with what you’re saying. There’s an apparent schism in the local Democratic Party. But I don’t think pointing out factual differences should be called being “partisan” and neither should pointing out legitimate concerns in a thoughtful way. I’m not saying you think that, of course. I just wanted to throw that out there.

How did this schism develop? Why did it? When did it? I think the root of the problem is one worth talking about. And I’d welcome anyone else who knows about this to chime in since I’m a relative newcomer, and this is a stab in the dark.

As I see it, there are some involved in the upper levels of the local Democratic Party who did heroic work over the past couple decades organzing the Democratic Party. Because of their amazing efforts Ann Arbor has become a one party town. But somewhere something broke down. The mechanisms that were so useful in organizing and providing for information flow gradually faded away. People running for office in largely uncontested races or primaries merely had to have a D behind his/her name to get elected. Citizens get lazy. Officeholders can get lazy, too. Thus the participation you so rightly mention regarding Staebler and Williams doesn’t happen as much any more.

With the rise of Howard Dean in 2004 you had lots of new blood entering the process. There were new ideas and new people—and lots of those folks were precinct delegates and participated in the county convention and state convention. These folks are energized and excited and are hungry for change. The people who spent lots of energy and many years organizing and are now possibly local elected officials are surprised by this new influx of energy/people/ideas since they’re used to being in control and perhaps even feel that the local party might owe them something.

Problems ensue.

I realize this is a gross simplification, but I’m trying to encapsulate what I get from people when I talk to them. I disliked how crazy this primary got. But I think it’s a sign that something along the line went wrong.

I agree that extreme partisanship can be damaging. But we should ask ourselves why this partisanship has arisen. The partisanship, I think, is merely a symptom and not the disease itself. The disease itself is a lazy public and a lazy elected class that tend not to communicate anymore. And politics has turned personal. Why else would you have a local elected official turn her/his back to people she/he doesn’t agree with? If that’s not personal, I don’t know what is.

YOWS, consider how many hours each week elected officials spend in meetings, receiving and replying to phone calls and emails, talking with constituents on the street, campaigning, etc. I don’t think the word “lazy” can possibly apply to any of these folks. Yes, some don’t put in as much time as others, and they tend to lose their seat, as John Roberts did.

“Why else would you have a local elected official turn her/his back to people she/he doesn’t agree with?”

Could you be more specific about what you’re referring to here?

YOW-

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree that

“pointing out factual differences should (not) be called being “partisan” and neither should pointing out legitimate concerns in a thoughtful way.”

If facts and reasonable discourse were the tactics of groups like the neocons and POW, I would have no problems with them as political entities.

For example, Joe Schwarz and I disagree about many issues (he’s no liberal!), however, the manner in which he pursues his agenda is thoughtful, logical, and respectful. I may disagree with him, but I respect him and feel that despite our differences, we would be better off with more politicians like him.

POW and the neocons, on the other hand, deal in deceit and innuendo bordering on (or sometimes spilling over into) slander. They honestly believe they are doing good, of course. However, their tactics of personal attacks and libelous accusations are harmful to the very system they profess to defend.

“politics has turned personal”

Absolutely, but that doesn’t mean we need to stoop to that level. You and I learned in kindergarten that ‘everybody’s doing it’ isn’t a good reason to do anything.

POW and the neocons can assault good Democrats all they want and I don’t think we should respond in kind. Don’t, however, think I’m playing the martyr. I have no intentions of turning the other cheek. There are ample ways to fight the good fight without resorting to lies and personal attacks. In the long run, no one (especially the voters) likes a group who uses underhanded tactics at every turn. POW and their ilk will have their 15 minutes and then be relegated to the scrapheap of history.

At one of the meetings at the beginning of the 1st Ward selection process last year, I remember somebody asking, “How much time does a Councilmember usually spend on City business every week.” Bob Johnson’s response was, I believe, “Well, you can get by with only 20 hours a week or so.”

Not what one could call “lazy” – though I imagine that, with everything else a Councilmember has to worry about, getting out and campaigning in a virtually uncontested race probably isn’t a priority. And, “tend not to communicate anymore”? What I’ve found most interesting about this particular primary is that some of the people being challenged on grounds of “transparency” are some of the Councilmembers I’ve always found most approachable – Hieftje and Easthope.

[The screed below starts out more or less in reply to #121 and #123.]

In the mind’s eye, I am at home scanning the recycling bin. I do recall having seen a “union bug” on POW’s newsprint mate