Since Senator Schauer hasn't announced whether or not he'll run for Congress, I thought I'd post samples of the two most common and most compelling cases for and against a Mark Schauer candidacy that I've heard.

I'll preface this with two statements and explanations of each.

I like Mark Schauer.

Senator Schauer, I think, has been a phenomenal leader in the state Senate, despite being shut out of just about everything by Republican Majority Leader Mike Bishop. Schauer's been reaching out to bloggers like me, campaigned hard for Democrats across the state, and has represented Calhoun County well. Schauer would be a great addition to the race, and he'd run a fantastic campaign.

I like Jim Berryman, David Nacht, and Sharon Renier, too.

The other three announced Democrats are all great candidates, too. They're smart, dedicated people who would be more than willing to work hard to defeat Tim Walberg in 2008, and they'd work hard for our district in Washington (unlike Congressman Walberg, who's more interested in the Club for Growth's agenda). I'm absolutely satisfied with the three candidates we have. I'm undecided for the Democratic primary, but I'd gladly vote for any of them in the general election.

With that out of the way...

Mark Schauer should run for Congress.

From the comments:

Ken said...

Schauer is the complete package as far as I am concerned:
1) Progressive
2) Smart
3) Politically Savvy
4) Willing to stand on principle
5) Established Base -- His Senate District is wholly contained within the Congressional District
6) Proven vote getter -- won three times in a 50/50 House seat, twice in a leaning Repub. Senate Seat.
7) Proven Fundraiser -- raised over $6 million for the Senate Dems last cycle.

We should do everything we can to encourage him to run. Spread the word in the online community, and talk it up in the broader political community. Let Schauer, and the "powers that be" know, that we, in the online community, are ready to help win this and help in a big way.

Mark Schauer should not run for Congress.

From an e-mail I received, which also appeared as a comment on a Battle Creek Enquirer story:

We need to calm down a little about this one.

While it would be great if Senator Schauer ran, it would also be bad for these reasons:

1) Schauer would have to vacate (or spend much less time at) his post as Senate Democratic leader, leaving us rudderless in the Senate when he's needed most.

2) If Senator Schauer were to beat Walberg, that would create a vacancy in his Senate seat. At least temporarily, that gives Republicans a larger majority in the State Senate.

3) Worse, there would have to be a special election for his senatorial seat. The sad truth is that Right to Life and conservative zealots are much more effective about getting their core people to the polls during special elections. Given that he holds a Republican seat, it is more than likely that a Republican will regain that seat in the special election. Since it would be less than half a term (4 years) until the next election – 2010 – that Republican could run for reelection in 2010 and 2014. You would have Republican control of the seat for almost 10 years!

I say this not to take a shot at Schauer. But we need to slow down a second before the "Run Mark Run" hysteria takes control of our reason. There are two impressive candidates in the field already.

Now, I don't make the claim that either of these are necessarily the complete arguments for each position, and neither comment on his merits as a candidate for Congress. Rather, this seems to be representative of reasons why he should or should not run for Congress.

There's a poll on the Enquirer's website, if you'd like to voice your opinion to a larger audience.

Labels: 2008 Election, 2008 Speculation, David Nacht, Democratic Party, Jim Berryman, Mark Schauer, Sharon Renier, Tim Walberg