Thursday, August 30, 2007

David Nacht Is Out

This comment was left on Walberg Watch:
david has left a new comment on your post "Questions For Mark Schauer":

This is David Nacht. I am withdrawing from the race because I do not believe I have a realistic likelihood to defeat Sen. Mark Schauer in a Democratic Primary. I cannot in good faith ask for donations to support such a long odds effort.

I want to thank my wife and sons, my parents, my friends, volunteers and staff for the support over the past several months. Over 300 people made generous financial contributions. These will be returned to the donors on a pro-rata basis.

I intend to do whatever I can to assist the Democratic nominee in this race.

I am humbled by the outpuring of support. I have learned a great deal in the past several months. I will continue to be active in civic life, although I look forward to spending more time with my loved ones.

David Nacht
I was looking forward to seeing David in action next year, but he has to do what he feels is best. Thank you, David, for your hard work and enthusiasm in taking the fight to Tim Walberg.

Labels: , ,

Send Tim Walberg an email and let him know he dodged a serious bullet now that Nacht is out.

Keep up the pressure and best of luck to David in his bright future.
I met Nacht at YearlyKos, he seemed like a really nice (and funny) guy. I'm sure he'll be great at whatever he does in the future.
According to Susan Demas at the Enquirer, there is a Schauer staffer who had a really interesting comment on Mr. Nacht. He manages to insult Jim Berryman too. So, the next time some Schauer fan gets on this website and cries about someone giving Marky a rough time, they will be reminded by me of this article:
Susan J. Demas: Making government good again

Amidst breaking news of a fly fluttering onto Sen. Chris Dodd's Brillo-pad white hair during the 286th presidential debate this year, our primary system was imploding.

Michigan wants to play in the big leagues with a Jan. 15 primary, ratcheting up the absurdity level in an already ungodly long election season.

It's a domino effect, forcing New Hampshire to nudge its primary to Jan. 8 and Iowa to catapult its caucus to somewhere in December — almost one year before the general election.

Both the Hawkeye and Granite states have laws jealously enshrining their first-in-the-nation status. After reporting on 2004's contest there, I can vouch that you'll pry their pre-eminence from their cold, dead hands.

Critics say it's patently unfair for two small, white, rural states to hold so much electoral sway.

And they're right.

That's why we need wholesale election reform — because the primitive primary skirmish is just the tip of the iceberg.

Here's what we need: publicly financed elections over 120 days. That's it — primary, conventions, general election — we're done. Kind of like how they do it in France, where 85 percent of people turned out in May's presidential vote, shaming the United States' five-decade high of 64 percent in 2004.

Four months is enough time for politicians to get down to real issues while voters actually are paying attention.

While we're at it, let's restore the Fairness Doctrine. Then the nattering talking heads would have to give equal time to positions and candidates, and adequately inform the electorate. (No word on which job(s) City Commission candidate/U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg aide/WBCK host Chris Simmons would have to surrender.)

And let's go for broke: Redistricting by nonpartisan panels from coast to coast, not by the party that controls the Legislature when the census is taken, as is the case in Michigan. The idea that most congressional seats are safely Republican or Democratic, leaving only about 40 competitive seats per cycle, seems kind of undemocratic ... don't you think?

Of course, the sheer sanity of these measures means they're doomed.

But schemes like those of bitter conservative lawyers aiming to capture California's elusive Electoral College votes (because that whole "permanent Republican majority" thing didn't work out so well) probably will make it to the ballot. And it could pass.

During the past few decades, the Supreme Court has decimated any hint of good government reform in redistricting, equal time reporting and elections.

In their most audacious decision, justices this year spayed and neutered the modest campaign finance act known as McCain-Feingold.

Money equals free speech in elections, the 5-4 decision says, just as the Founding Fathers intended.

How proud Thomas Jefferson would be to see senators spending more time raising money than raising issues — or making policy.

It's a warped system that rewards those who don't have their priorities straight. Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton smirk while shoveling barrels of cash into their campaigns, seeming giddy that we're on track to have our first $1 billion presidential race.

Here in the 7th District, fundraising is a way of life for Walberg, R-Tipton, who used to drum up dough for the Moody Bible Institute. If all else fails, he always has his steadfast sugar daddy, Washington anti-tax lobby Club for Growth.

Democratic state Sen. Mark Schauer is psyched to take him on, vowing to amass $3 million by next year. His chief of staff, Ken Brock, seemed to channel the odiousness of Karl Rove earlier this month, bragging that only Schauer can raise that kind of money, unlike "liberal, Jewish trial lawyer" David Nacht or "lazy" Jim Berryman, for whom Brock twice worked.

Meanwhile, in the district ... Kids are in danger of being kicked off a federal health insurance program, we could lose our Amtrak service and thousands more people are out of work.

Seems like there's a lot more work to be done besides hosting golf outings and $1,000-a-plate dinners.

Seems like we should be electing people who know better.

Susan J. Demas can be reached at 966-0697 or
"liberal, Jewish trial lawyer" David Nacht or "lazy" Jim Berryman"? I want Walberg out and I'm not a 7th District political junkie but where did these Ken Brock come from? Does Senator Schauer have any comment on this? Is this the kind of staff member he plans on taking to DC when he wins the election in a landslide? Not so fast...He needs to address this immediately.
All of the talk about 'no candidate should be ordained' and so on is total nonsense.

Real world says Schauer is by far our best chance to oust Walberg.

Intelligence, like that of David Nacht, sees this.

Devotion to beating Walberg is the goal.

Lots of money to be raised, and saved to achieve the goal.

Persons who ruin the chance to reach the goal do not share the goal.

An expensive primary is a great advantage to Walberg.

Again, Nacht sees this and makes the sacrifice to help reach the goal.

Nacht would have made a solid and worthy congressman. Schauer will do the same.

David Nacht for State Representative in 2010!
Schauer WON'T be the best candidate if he has a Chief of Staff who continues to make ignorant, cocky and overconfident statements. Beating Walberg isn't going to be a slam dunk, trust me. Still waiting for the Senator to address the comments his COS made.

"Persons who ruin the chance to reach the goal do not share the goal."
I totally agree. Not convinced Schauer doesn't fit into that niche just yet.
I'm guessing the anon above is a Schauer employee, because defending anyone who makes anti-Semitic comments is wrong.
"Real World says", well, the real world said Joe Schwarz was going to beat Walberg a year ago, and what happened? People were lazy and didn't vote. Or, did Sen. Schauer want to win so badly in this upcoming election he told people to vote for Walberg so that he wouldn't have to face Schwarz?
I'm tired of Schauer now. There is no way he will get my vote. Call me a GOP troll, or call me whatever you want. But the truth is, I'm a resident of the 7th District, and I cannot vote for someone who employs anyone who would be willing to employ someone who makes anti-semetic comments.
In addition, Brock calls his former employer LAZY! Ask any teacher if Jim Berryman is lazy and they will tell you he is incredibly hard working and dedicated.
I'm going to reserve judgement on any candidate until I see what Schwarz does. Schwarz is by far the best candiate, if he runs. I don't care which party he choses, he's a true leader.

Schauer is charismatic and popular but I'm not quite sure about his substance. Many of his "accompolishments" are because of collaborations with other lawmakers.
I agree 100% about waiting for Schwarz. He jumped into the race when Nick Smith retired around Christmas and it seemed to have worked out just fine. I'd say he needs to get cracking raising money sooner than back then, but I am going to hold judgement until I see what he does.

I joined this community when Schwarz lost, totally disgusted with that campaign. I am still a Joe Schwarz fan and I think I have my second choice lined up, but it does no good to talk about it this early. I think we should focus on Walberg and leave the campaigning to the candidates.
This is a practical political calculation people.
Schauer is the best candidate because he already has a constituency in a significant part of the district, where as Nacht had none (name me another Democrat in the 7th district that has this advantage...I can only name "possibly" one other-- Dudley Spade). Berryman is too far removed from public service to really count. His fund raising numbers demonstrate this.

As for the "comment" by the staffer...anti-semetic? --no, insensitive-yes. Voters won't really remember it come election day.

Reality is Timmy won't have an opponent in the Primary. Dems must be united before the Primary so that a consensus candidate with a full compliment of weapons can use them against Timmy in the General and not waste it in the Primary.

This is still a majority GOP district, and it will take someone that can raise the funds and put people on the ground to overcome the GOP straight ticketers in the South. Schauer can do this, he has done it.

Go ahead, challenge Mark. Go to forums, caucuses and make up your mind--you should do this. But a Primary war = a Timmy victory.

As for "waiting for Joe", go ahead. I agree Joe is an excellent lawmaker--terrible campaigner. He couldn't beat Smith or Timmy head to head, so why is he the savior now? Joe's exploratory committee said run Dem (before Schauer announced). I say Joe will defer to Mark. After all, Mark is holding Joe's old seat now.

and to those that said my prediction that Schauer would get into the race was off-base and nonsense...(see past posts) I told you so.

Do you wish to modify your second comment? Fitzy has pointed out that Ken Brock apologized for the statement, and David Nacht wasn't offended.

I think people jumped to calling names too quickly, and then forget that the internet, thanks to google and the way back machine, will keep this over-reaction around for decades to come.

--a voter in Jackson Cty
Anonymous 6:41 p.m. asked Sarah:

Do you wish to modify your second comment? Fitzy has pointed out that Ken Brock apologized for the statement, and David Nacht wasn't offended.

I really don't see why Sarah has to modify any of her comments. First of all, her indignation over Ken Brock's statement was made prior to his apology. And although his "remorse" may be genuine, it does not compel anyone who was offended by his remarks to have to rescind their comments. Secondly, anytime the type of off-the-cuff remark such as the one made by Brock is spoken, it's usually indicative of how the individual really feels--whether or not he or she apologizes. When Don Imus described the Rutger's girls basketball team as nappy-headed ho's, that is exactly what he meant, whether or not he apologized.

Ken Brock should know that any incendiary remark might be catapulted into the media and he should keep his thoughts to himself, particularly if he is representing a political candidate.

You are correct, 6:41 p.m. anonymous, we do not need to belabor this point; Brock did apologize. But he is on notice to keep his REAL feelings to himself by keeping his overactive mouth shut.
As someone who was concerned about the Ken Brock comments, I actually got a phone call from Mr. Brock Friday apologising to me personally for the statement, I got an email reply from David Nacht to an email I sent him (thanking him for his campaign and wishing him good luck in the future, etc.) where he explained Brock had called him, saying he didn't think Schauer and Brock were anti-semetic but just talking electability (I hadn't even mentioned the topic in my message)and...I'm convinced the off the cuff comments weren't meant as anti-semetic or racist, just not too terribly smart and ok with Brock's apology and ready to move on.

I have a few questions/issues for Schauer as part of this primary process but haven't lost track of the REAL purpose of everyone here--to toss loony tune congressman Walbery onto the scape heap of history by helping defeat him in 2008.

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008