It's nice to know that the DCCC is now just taking notice!!!! Why they wouldnt do that for Sharon Renier we may never know!

NICK SMITH
 

The DCCC would not support her because The MDP would not, Labor would not, and most of the key Dems in her district and across the State would not.
 

I'm hoping Schwarz will run again. I don't think he will run as a Dem, even though he is completely fed up with the GOP's incompetence, especially after losing everything in this last election.

He may run as an independant. He wouldn't have to deal with a primary, but that would give him no clout in Washington. In the best case scenario, Schwarz can capitalize on Walberg's incompentency and blow him out in the GOP primary. I think Schwarz is the GOP's best hope for bringing the party back to the sane middle. With a lackluster field of Dem's and Sharon leading the charge, hopefully many Dems would cross over and help elect him.
 

Why didnt he run as an independent in 2006? Walberg would've never won! Hopefully Joe will run as a Dem or an Indy or maybe a republican in the primary. See whoever that is in 2008!!! I CANT WAIT!!!!!

Nick Smith
 

Schwarz didn't run as an independent in 06 because he thought he would win the primary. The deadline to file as an independent was before the primary.
 

Yeah, but Joe COULD have supported Sharon and persuaded his friends not to write him in as a candidate. Those votes would have put her over the top.
 

Sharon lost by almost 10,000 votes, Joe received 2,614 write in votes. There was no way Sharon Renier was ever going to win.
 

Most of us will never trust Schwarz to vote for him as an independent or as a Democratic candidate.

No way, no how!

The guy voted WITH BUSH and the neoCONS 85% of the time.

When push came to shove, you wouldn't know which Joe would show up in DC. The weakling little neocon who voted the party line and wouldn't take a stand or the 'new and improved Joe' who looks better than Walberg only because with Walberg you know what you're getting.
 

I consider it responsible to change positions when information and conditions change. Yes, Joe may have "flip-flopped" as some have said, but I consider that a sign of intelligence and enlightenment, its what we need in politics today.

If you want someone guided by ideology and doctrine stick with Walberg. You know what you are getting and that's the problem. The guy has never had an original thought in his life.
 

Doug said...

Sharon lost by almost 10,000 votes, Joe received 2,614 write in votes. There was no way Sharon Renier

Doug, you are absolutely correct and I was wrong. I do think Joe could have made the disparity a little closer, though.

My apologies.
 

"If you want someone guided by ideology and doctrine stick with Walberg. You know what you are getting and that's the problem. The guy has never had an original thought in his life."


That may be true. And I wouldn't go so far as to say Joe would flip-flop because yes...changing your opinion upon receiving facts is a sign of intellegence. My problem is that the facts were the same fact in 2005 and 2006 yet Joe allowed his own constituents and his beliefs to be usurpted by party 'loyalty' and by doing this, he has caused 1000's more deaths in Iraq and has done nothing to hold this regime accountable for a war based on lies and an incompetently run war as well.

But my oh my...he did a great job of telling Bush 'behind closed doors...' which led where?

He allowed Murtha to get swiftboated. I drove by one of our little towns, where 3 more of our kids were murdered in Iraq.

Joe could have stopped that.

Walberg we know won't stop that.

On a different topic, Joe Schwarz SHOULD HAVE GOTV for Renier after he lost. He made a choice for all of us once again! Party over people. How many lives would be saved if Renier was there instead of Walberg?
 

Whoever the anonymous poster is blaming Schwarz for Reniers loss is a moron. She is nearly as crazy and radical and exterme as Walberg is. No sane person should have supported or voted for either of the two party candidates. It's not his fault, it is our fault for allowing both parties to be captured by extreme, sigle issue groups. Right to life, social conservatives and big business on one side and unions, trial lawyers, and environmentalists on the other. (Oversimplification, for sure, but please take these as a few examples.) Our parties suck and their leaders are totally content with a primary system which gives us these crappy choices. That is the problem,a nd if Schwarz needs to run as a independant to win, I say I am an independant.
 

I considered Sharon the lesser of two evils. The reedeming thing about her is that she would actually listen to constituents, while Walberg would simply follow his own agenda, irregardless of what people think. He's a radical ideologue. Fact is he isn't relevant in the big picture in Washington and she wouldn't be either if she had been elected.
 

So, why would Joe Schwarz GOTV for her? One poster claims he should have stuck his neck out for her but Mark Schauer and most other self-respecting dems did not, twice. I will repeat, Walberg and Renier are both radical extremists with wild ideas which don't really fit in with mainstream (you and I) dems and GOP's. Most of us are somewhere in the middle and the parties don't care that their primary system in Michigan is providing us a choice between the lesser of two evils. Our party system is broken and I'd vote for an independant if Schwarz or some other wise, strong-minded, statesman were to run that way. I personally consider myself a republican, but I am not pleased that a sensible moderate would have an uphill battle to win a primary. As the fringe elements in both parties continue their reign, those of us in the middle find fewer reasons to vote in August. It is a cycle which must be broken and maybe an independant victory in November would wake one of them up to the fact that there are 40 or 50% of the general population which don't really ID with one of the parties.
 

Anon at 10:49 PM

First--It totally takes away from your 'argument' to resort to name-calling.

I'm not impressed and I doubt anyone else is either.

Second, Renier may be an ideologue--as all of us are--however to call her an extremest is really over the top. (As over the top as calling an anonymous poster "moron" just because they disagree with you.

Name calling gets you nowhere.

Let's look at Renier's ideas.

National Health Care.

Hmm...More than 1/2 of the American people support National Health Care.

End the Iraq War--Close to 70-80% of the population believe the war (occupation) should end, which means that it's actually quite mainstream to work towards this goal.

More than 70% want an increase in the minimum wage including 65% of Republicans.

Once again...ordinary, middle of the road thinking there.

So let's see...I've named three major issues in which Sharon Renier is mainstream.

So what could make you say she's extreme?

Hmmm...Sharon Renier says we should overthrow the gov't in a coup? hahahaha Not likely. She never said that.

Sharon Renier said we should send our kids to kibbutzes and boot-camp and establish communist rule? hahahaha again! Not likely

Sharon Renier said we should advocate rounding up people by their color or religious sect and imprison them and torture them to death? Ummmm...no! That's not Renier saying that. That's our dear pastor Walberg who promotes torture.

More than 1/2 of Americans disagree with torture, illegal wiretapping, and more than 1/2 disapprove of how pResident Bush (and company) is handling this country's policies.

So apparently despite the name-calling and the lack of any solid argument on your part, Sharon Renier is quite mainstream.

Next time you decide to post, why don't you drop the name-calling and instead provide factual information because as it stands right now, nobody will respect your point of view when you can't substantiate it.
 

Anon--4:20 PM

Fringe? Extremest?

Where's the facts that show these namecallings are accurate?

It's quite clear that the label doesn't fit Renier.

Is our system broken by having two parties?

In a sense, yes but in a sense no.

Prior to the civil war, we actually had 4 parties. That gave people plenty of choices. Yet, in the end of the day, two parties ended up standing in each election.

Eventually, the four parties were dropped because the people ended up voting for the same two parties.

What's broken is our election system where corporations and 'think tanks' can buy their way into our legislator's office. Then, after they donate thousands of dollars, they expect payback for their money and aid.

Perhaps publically funded campaigns would do more towards fixing the system than counting the number of parties. What do you think?
 

On a different topic, Joe Schwarz SHOULD HAVE GOTV for Renier after he lost. He made a choice for all of us once again! Party over people. How many lives would be saved if Renier was there instead of Walberg?

My only comment to that is "what the...???" Joe is #1 loyal to his constituents and #2 to the GOP. Running as a write-in or doing nothing were his only options.

What this poster and the DCCC bloggers fail to see is the demographic realities of the 7th. The southern counties will always hold sway in a two person race and prevail for the Republican. Most years the DCCC sees the light, and talks a good talk, but fails to give any support to a candidate. I don't think is name calling or out of line to state that as long as Renier continues to do what she does, she will lose. She is an idiot if she doesn't realize this.

If Democrats want to win they need:

1. A moderate that can court moderate Republicans and independents. [*note - candidate can not be too conservative and scare away Labor]

2. A candidate with (or ability to raise)$250K, if not $1 million.

3. A candidate not afraid to campaign in the southern trenches.

So far, I have yet to see a candidate even come close to this criteria. Tunnicliff had some of this, but made the challenge in the wrong year against Smith. Schauer could have this, but needs to raise the funds now. We have yet to see if he will take the leap, let alone raise the money. If a credible, financed Democratic candidate does not come to the floor look for losses by Renier or another no-name candidate, in '08 and 2010.

Relief may come via redistricting in 2012--but don't hold your breath.
 

Joe Schwarz followed the rest of the Republican sheep in Congress from 2004 - 2006; Joe also supported the idiotic, illegal, immoral, unjustifiablE war in Iraq; Joe voted for all the pork-barrel spending.

I HOPE HE DOESN'T RUN..

BTW: IF HE RUNS AS AN INDEPENDENT HE WILL HAVE TO CHOSE WHICH PARTY - DEM. OR REP. TO CAUCUS WITH.
 

Schwarz supported pork-barrel spending? I'm afraid that's just one of Walberg's lingering lies. Funding for I-94 was not "pork." Which by the way Walberg has vowed to discontinue. Schwarz also co-sponsored the bill to place the Reps. name next to a "pork" line item in a bill.

I guess when a lie is told long enough and frequently enough it becomes the truth. Like Walberg is a man of character and principle.
 

I guess when a lie is told long enough and frequently enough it becomes the truth. Like Walberg is a man of character and principle.

10:10 PM


... Or like Renier is extreme and Schaer is moderate. And Bush is "Christian" and there's such thing as compassionate conservatism. And blue sky's initiative, and there's WMD in Iraq and so on...

Darn good framing from the conservatives, the neocons, and the Republicans.

The Republican party is gone. Their ideas and their moderate stances are gone. They've been usurped by the religious fundamentalists (as proven by McCain's detouring his straight talk express to fundy-land instead of independent-land). They've been usurped by people who were so damn incompetent they broke the bank more than any other spending Democrat ever came close too.
The party of self-responsibility became the party of irresponsibility and outright no responsibility or accountability.

And that whole statement isn't given only from the extremest on the left--it's believed by the majority of people-including independents!
 

Schauer is not a moderate? How can you say that and what do you have to back it up?
 

I am the accused "moron" and although whoever branded me with that term might have a different conception of me if he/she met me, I admit that I made an overstatement. In fact, I apologized in a subsequent post.

So, call me moron. I would rather have been called "misinformed" but I have thick skin.

However, my present comment regarding Renier is that, although I was a bit ill at ease during her debate performance at Siena, I don't believe that she is an extremist at all. Her positions listed by "anonymous" at the 10:49 comment (and thank you for defending me, anon) are decidedly the very reason for the '06 Democratic takeover in the House. Health care, end to the war, making education available to everyone, improving Social Security, et al. Her problem during the debate was her lack of polish and experience. Tim was SMOOOOOOOOTH. Sharon was shrill and mocking but her facial expressions in response to Tim's positions were exactly the reactions you and I are guilty of because of our distaste for his brand of politics. It's just that we are not in the public eye and could get away with it. She could not because she was in view of a large public audience. I chalk up her not-so-lovely responses to #1) lack of political finesse and experience and #2) an honest, angry disagreement with Tim's positions.

I would hate to think she should require a coach to tell her how to smile, how not to protest, how to pretend that the opponent's idealogy shouldn't bother her, or how not to be herself, but I guess that's exactly what will have to happen if she's to be considered a viable candidate.

Personally, I like her positions. She's honest--maybe to a fault--and that has been her downfall.