This is the first of any "substance" I have found on Sharon Renier. So far her campaign has been lackluster at best, I was hoping for much more from her, especially facing a wingnut like Walberg. He can be defeated.

Two things I find troubling. She's one of those who support our troops, but not the war. Can't have it both ways. You cannot support the troops by opposing what they are doing. It makes no sense whatsoever, liberal cliche-ism.

"Tax cuts for the rich" is another cliche out of the liberal playbook. That's simply a class warfare slogan. If she's going banter about cliches like this I have touble supporting her. Using that term signals an incredible ignorance of economics.

I think she is right on about her assessment of Walberg and the lies he told about Schwarz (no T). From her orginal statement, she doesn't seem to have much regard for Schwarz which also troubles me. If I were her, I would be getting to know him and his supporters and learn all you can about what he has done and what she can continue for our District. There is a huge population like me that cannot morally vote for Tim Walberg after what he did and who he aligned himself with in the primary.

I'm really hoping she can beat Walberg, he's a disingenous, morally corrupt, ideologue who will do nothing for our district. She needs to be smart; bantering about liberal cliches will not attract the middle. She needs to understand the center and know what is important to the district, especially economically. She needs to run a smart campaign of substance not rhetoric.

I'm an independent, but I deeply admired Schwarz and zealously supported him in the primary although I didn't always agree with him, I trusted him. I'm sickened by that happend in this primary and the outside influences that meddled in the race. But having to make a choice between both extremes isn't appealing either.

I MAY vote for Sharon, but I know I WILL NOT vote for Walberg. She needs to look at what Schwarz has done and follow his lead...if she is serious about winning.

We face serious issues as a nation, especially in the arena national security, which is undoubtedly the keystone issue in the 110th Congress.
 

I echo the sentiments of the last post almost to a "T." Or, "no T" (Hahaha...Um...Nevermind...)

Seriously, it is pretty dead on and really goes to the core of how democrats have failed to capitalize on republican mis-steps. Renier sounds like she is reading a Nancy Pelosi crafted set of talking points. They are worthless in this district unless Renier thinks her base is soft (it is not.) She got the democrat base in the last general while Schwarz got pretty much every independant/ moderate vote along with the sane republican voters. (The fringe, radical conservatives followed him and his instructions and voted for David Horn, the Constitution Party candidate in '04.)

So, Renier needs to get off the slogans and engage the moderates. I do not believe for one second that she is moderate. I believe she is nearly as fringe as Walberg is, but I believe the liberal fringe has an opportunity to soften their radicalism here and appeal to some anti-establishment sentiment. Walberg is lock-step with the big-money, win-at-all-cost machine which has created gridlock in Washington and given us nothing in return.
 

You guys are the ones who sound like a cliche machines, not Sharon Renier. How is supporting the troops but not the war a cliche? Maybe you're not old enough to remember the aftermath of Vietnam, but when those soldiers came back home, they were directly blamed for what had happened. They were shunned, spit on, ignored. Renier's point is that it is not the fault of the soldiers that they're fighting a destructive pointless war and getting killed for nothing, worse than nothing. She is a strong supporter of the military, including expanded access to jobs and education, for those coming home. If you call that having it both ways, fine.

The same is true for tax cuts for the rich. When an administration and Congress enacts massive tax cuts which only have any meaningful effect for people earning well into six figures, I call that a tax cut for the rich. It's true that these things get labeled in shorthand, but that doesn't make them cliches. Sharon's point is that she wants to see taxes cut for those who truly need the tax cuts, and that those at the very top should pay more. Is that being out on the liberal fringe? A cut from the Pelosi playbook? Sharon’s an NRA member, and strongly against any amnesty for illegal immigrants. Does that sound like Nancy Pelosi? You might want to look up cliche in the dictionary.

The other thing is that I know there are things that Joe Schwarz started that Sharon admired and would like to finish. She has great respect for him. But her name is Sharon, not Joe.
 

You guys are the ones who sound like a cliche machines, not Sharon Renier. How is supporting the troops but not the war a cliche? Maybe you're not old enough to remember the aftermath of Vietnam, but when those soldiers came back home, they were directly blamed for what had happened. They were shunned, spit on, ignored. Renier's point is that it is not the fault of the soldiers that they're fighting a destructive pointless war and getting killed for nothing, worse than nothing. She is a strong supporter of the military, including expanded access to jobs and education, for those coming home. If you call that having it both ways, fine.

The same is true for tax cuts for the rich. When an administration and Congress enacts massive tax cuts which only have any meaningful effect for people earning well into six figures, I call that a tax cut for the rich. It's true that these things get labeled in shorthand, but that doesn't make them cliches. Sharon's point is that she wants to see taxes cut for those who truly need the tax cuts, and that those at the very top should pay more. Is that being out on the liberal fringe? A cut from the Pelosi playbook? Sharon’s an NRA member, and strongly against any amnesty for illegal immigrants. Does that sound like Nancy Pelosi? You might want to look up cliche in the dictionary.

The other thing is that I know there are things that Joe Schwarz started that Sharon admired and would like to finish. She has great respect for him. But her name is Sharon, not Joe.
 

I disagree Jim. She recently stated she is living in poverty and had to cash in pop and beer cans to put gas in her car. Cry me a river! If she can't manage her own finances, what will she do when faced with a multi-billion dollar budget. This is not the kind of person who should even be on the ballot as far as I'm concerned. It's a terrible campaign strategy to plead poverty.

Unfortunately, Walberg won't be any better. He will be a loose cannon and will be forced to sit on his hands for two years by the GOP leadership. We loose with either candidate.
 

We lose less with Renier. I am sure of this. While they both have little to offer in terms of competency, Renier does not have a malicious bone in her body. I believe she has the heart to represent us. I do not feel comfortable with Mr. Walberg's ethics (his work ethic or his moral ethic). I believe Renier is working her butt off to win and I trust her more than Walberg.
 

I agree with Sharon Renier you certainly can support the troops by bringing them home. Sending troops to war for trumped up reasons as happened in this war was a misuse of our military. Regarding the comment about "spitting" on returning vets that is a cliche out of the conservatives playbook, an urban myth. I refer you to The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam, by Jerry Lembcke (New York University Press, His research examined newspapers from New York and San Francisco, as well as police reports detailing the interaction between protesters and veterans. No spitting incidents were reported, and the observers noticed that over time the veterans assumed leadership positions among the protesters. Lembcke did find newspaper reports of spitting during demonstrations in the late 1960s, but they referred to hawks spitting on anti-war protesters.

Reinforcing his myth hypothesis, Lembcke cites a Harris poll reported to Congress in 1972 that indicates 93% of returning veterans found their homecoming friendly, while only 3% found it unfriendly. The poll also reported that over 75% of returning vets were opposed to the war.

The first documented reports of being spit upon don't begin to appear until the early 1980s. According to the author, who is currently an associate professor of sociology, the time delay is a strong indication that the story is a myth.