Declining special interest groups' endorsements

After my candidacy for mayor became public record a lot of things started happening. First, there's the official correspondence from the county clerk warning me to be careful about campaign finance laws, advising me of the limits, due-dates, and other lines I'll be careful not to cross.

What I didn't expect were letters I received from special interest groups and political action committees (PACs) asking me to complete a questionnaire to test if I qualify for their endorsement. If sufficiently impressed (or if craftily completed) I may also have received contributions to the campaign. I know this because campaign contributions are public record and I've seen these groups' contributions on other Ferndale candidates' finance statements.

While I was filling out the forms a curious thought came to me--none of these groups can actually vote. While their endorsements might persuade some voters they could just as easily upset others. The only entity that represents all of a voter's interests is the voter. On election day votes are the only endorsements that count.

So for this election I've decided not to seek any special interest group or PAC's endorsement. If I can't raise the money I need from Ferndale businesses and citizens there's little reason to sell a piece of my office to special interests for a mere couple thousand dollars.

I sent four letters last week, one each to The Triangle Pride PAC, Right to Life of Michigan, Sierra Club, and the Michigan Consolidated Association of REALTORS® (MCAR). Each one started with the same paragraph. Here's the one I sent to MCAR:

Thank you for the invitation to respond to MCAR's questionnaire for candidates seeking its endorsement for November 6's election. I've decided not to seek any special interest groups' endorsements to avoid the appearance of impropriety or suggest I may need to return the favor of the endorsement after elected to office. I believe the most important endorsements I will receive are from Ferndale's business owners, its residents, and ultimately its voters.

Following the introduction I included a paragraph-or-two summarizing my position regarding each group's cause, then included a closing paragraph with a thank you for their dedication to the issues most important to them. Here are selected paragraphs from each.

MCAR

Be assured a major part of my platform gives attention to Ferndale's tax base. Both commercial and residential real estate play important roles growing our tax base, lowering our millage rate, and attracting new businesses and residents to our city. This is not only critical when the market is down, but to planning Ferndale's future as a healthy real estate market is an important ingredient to any community's business and residential vitality.

Thank you for your interest in Ferndale politics, your dedication to our business and residential communities, and your understanding.

Sierra

Ferndale already provides curb-side recycling as well as other environment-friendly services and policies. To promote a “greener” city it is my intention as mayor to encourage citizens to do what they can to reduce their carbon emissions, to recognize citizens' accomplishments and reducing their power or water consumption, recycle, and reward those citizens that have gone above-and-beyond to protect the environment.

Thank you for your interest in Ferndale politics, your dedication to the environment, and your understanding.

Triangle Pride PAC

My commitment as mayor is to treat all Ferndale's citizens with respect and insist that all city employees and contractors do likewise. Every visitor to and resident of Ferndale should be treated professionally and courteously no matter what special interest groups they may identify with or may advocate for them.

That promise extends to not leveraging Ferndale's GLBT community or other minorities to score points with outsiders or further my political career or personal agenda.

Thank you for your interest in Ferndale politics, your dedication to civil rights and our community, and your understanding.

Right to Life of Michigan

As important as abortion and choice are to individual Ferndale citizens, municipal government is an inappropriate forum to address these issues. Attempts to do so can only be symbolic, and as such have no impact on state and federal legislation or Supreme Court rulings.

I was adopted by loving parents when I was four-weeks old and appreciate both the gift I received and my mother's choice of adoption. I'm committed not to squander either.

Thank you for your interest in Ferndale politics, your dedication to the unborn, and your understanding.

Sure, I may regret not having multiple Good-Housekeeping®-like Seals of Approval on my website or campaign literature and their contributions in my committee's bank account, but I won't be obligated to or need to excuse my actions as Ferndale's mayor to anyone other than Ferndale voters.

I can live with that.

Campaign kick-off party Wednesday, August 15, 6:30PM

I've sent email notifications and dropped-off invitations to lots of folks, but for everyone that doesn't know I want you to know we're having our campaign kick-off party today at 6:30 at the Geary Park Pavilion in Ferndale.

I'm hoping for a great turn-out. I've prepared a short speech about why I'm running for mayor, which was much more difficult to write than many of the articles I've posted here. Later tonight or tomorrow, I'll post the text of my speech both here and at www.GagneForMayor.com.

See you tonight!

GagneForMayor.com is open for business

It's hard to keep good news from leaking out. As of July 30, I'm an official candidate for Mayor of Ferndale.

I'd originally intended to keep the news quiet until August 15, when we're having an announcement party at Geary Park (6:30-7:30PM), but that plan didn't work for a lot of reasons. First, we'd collected over 100 signatures for my nominating petition last month, so all those people knew. Everyone in my family knew. The other mayoral candidates knew (there was four, but now there are only two), and finally yesterday's Free Press published a brief item about the mayoral race:

FERNDALE: Councilman, activist are in mayor's race

City Councilman Craig Covey, 50, said Monday that he'd been notified over the weekend of the acceptance of his petitions to run for mayor.

Thomas Gagne, a Republican activist, is also running, Covey said.

Gagne could not be reached Monday.

How about that, I'm an activist!

The reporter, Bill Laitner, was correct--I couldn't be reached for comment. He left a message at home Monday afternoon which I didn't hear until it was too late. He and I did talk briefly Tuesday morning and have made plans to talk again.

Please visit our campaign's website, www.GagneForMayor.com, and send me comments and suggestions for its improvement.

Like any political campaign, we need money for postage, printing literature, voter lists, lawn signs, bumper stickers, renting pavilions, and finally pizza and pop while we watch November 6ths election returns. To that end, I am grateful for any contributions you may be willing to make. Checks and credit cards are both accepted and all the information can be found our donations page.

And of course, keep visiting this and the campaign website for progress reports and information about the candidate, me.

Blaming others... again

I just finished reading nine letters to the Free Press editors scatter-shooting blame for the collapse of the I35W bridge in Minnesota. After reading them I was reminded of a saying, "Those that say what they think should be careful to first think." The same can probably be said of writing letters to the editor (or blogs for that matter).

A writer from Farmington Hills complains elected officials are too busy bringing pork back to their districts to attend the mundane task of maintaining roads and bridges. The writer conveniently ignores how too many Americans believe their representatives are in Washington for the purpose of bringing home as much bacon as possible, rather than addressing themselves to the job of acting and voting in the country's best interest and not just their district's.

A man from Lansing blames a right-wing philosophy advocating tax cuts and smaller government, then exploits the tragedy of the bridge's collapse to complain the rich aren't paying enough taxes. He's certain if only the top 10% of income earners would pay more than 65% of our country's taxes all our roads and bridges would be made safe. Besides being blatantly partisan it is also non sequitor because it matters little from where the money comes--it matters where it goes. But why should anything like a bridge collapse require we start thinking logically now?

Southgate blames the federal government and points to Hurricane Katrina as proof. The feds knew the levees weren't up to the challenge just as they knew the bridge would collapse last Wednesday, killing at least 5 people. Apparently, all the residents living below sea-level, their mayors and state representatives have no responsibility to think or act for themselves and must wait for instructions from Washington. It may make you wonder why people bother with local government at all.

A Wayne State University professor of engineering blames it on--engineers! Actually, I'm not certain what his point is because he's one of the guys teaching. The bridge was constructed in 1967, when America was arguably at one of its engineering peaks. As far as anyone knows its design wasn't out-sourced to China. And if he thinks we should graduate more scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians (STEM) he should protest secondary and college curricula long on political correctness and short on academics.

Finally, after a letter from Lake Orion placed the blame squarely on Minnesota's Scrooge-ish Republican governor and legislators for twice rejecting a tax increase, Royal Oak's Kevin Lucas writes:

The bridge collapse in Minnesota was tragic, and adding even more to the tragedy are the media and politicians claiming it happened because Gov. Tim Pawlenty didn't raise taxes on gas to fix the roads.

Pawlenty vetoed the tax because the state had a $2.1-billion surplus. The state is instead building new stadiums for the Twins and the Vikings, building bear exhibits at zoos, light-rail systems, fixing a theater, building a Viking ship, and subsidizing ethanol producers to the tune of some $950.5 million. I don't know which party controls their Legislature, but somehow all this was more important than fixing the roads.

All the states, including Michigan, scream about the roads and infrastructure. But the states decide what gets fixed and what does not. So look at your state budget and tell the governor and the legislators what you want your taxes to go for.

Put another way, Mr. Lucas said government is run by the people that show up; the people that show up to vote and the people that show up to be voted for. Remember that. You'll be hearing it again in a few days.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox scores points from both sides of his mouth

If you think the presidential campaign started early, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has already started campaigning for governor in 2010. He hopes democrats will reward him in three years for chastising President Bush for commuting Scooter's sentence for lying to federal investigators and a grand jury.

In a Detroit Free Press op-ed, Bush wrong to commute Libby's sentence, Mike Cox wrote that Bush has damaged the criminal justice system by letting a convicted lier escape jail time.

Cox knows as well as anyone that justice was served. No crime was committed regarding the release of Plame's identity (justice served: innocent) and Scooter was found guilty of lying to investigators and the grand jury (justice served: guilty).

The only thing that wasn't served was jail time, which is the president's constitutionally-guaranteed prerogative. It is not unlike the freedom prosecutors enjoy to prosecute whichever crimes they wish and make the deals they feel they must to get the convictions they want. It's called prosecutorial prerogative.

Surely, anyone that watches NBC's Law & Order or has spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express knows that.

In this instance, Cox's hypocrisy may go mostly unnoticed. Some Republicans will complain he's Bush-bashing for political gain, but will likely vote for him anyway. Some Democrats (there are more of those in Michigan than there are Republicans) will believe he's being honest and exercising his independence from Michigan's Republican machinery, and may even consider voting for him.

And who could blame Cox for distancing himself from the state Republican leadership? After recruiting billionaire Dick DeVos that machinery suffocated all other Republican candidates until they promised not to run or dropped out of the race. They then squandered the opportunity to beat a beauty queen presiding over one of our state's worst economies.

Cox isn't an idiot. He's a bright man, and I suspect his op-ed was more about politics than the risks of perjury. But some who can't detect his duplicity might be more disposed to vote for him as Michigan's governor with this superficial op-ed on-record than if it weren't.

I guess we'll have to wait three years to find out.

Al Gore III scores trifecta in latest publicity stunt

Much of the press is mis-reporting former vice-president Al Gore's son's run-in with the law yesterday. Most are reporting it as an arrest for drug possession. It was really a publicity stunt that failed only because a famous Hollywood celebrity wasn't involved.

This is how the facts were supposed to be reported had Darryl Hannah shown-up for their date:

• Driving over 100 MPH in a Toyota Prius Hybrid: Few people are aware a hybrid can go that fast. That's important to know when merging with highway traffic. Obviously, most have underestimated the power under the hood of those electricity-and-gas-propelled green machines.
• Possession of Marijuana: Marijuana has legitimate medical uses and Al Gore III was exercising civil disobedience in protesting its illegal possession as an impromptu spokesman for NORML.
• Possession of prescription drugs Valium, Xanax, Vicodin, Adderall and Soma: Though Al Gore III is only 24-years old, he was demonstrating his empathy for senior citizens' having to cross the border to attain less-expensive prescription drugs in Canada than are available here in the states. His was an act of selflessness, willing to become prescription drug reform's new poster-boy (an opportunity wasted by Patrick Kennedy).
  

This unfortunate stunt-gone-wrong will be soon dismissed as a big misunderstanding. The former vice-president won't need to hire a criminal defense attorney for his son, but will instead replace the family's publicist with one of Paris Hilton's, Britney Spears', or Anna Nicole Smith's.

The Fairness Doctrine my be doctrine, but it's not fair

Sunday's Oakland Press explored the now-much-discussed resurrection of "The Fairness Doctrine" between two opinion columns. Rich Lowry wrote against the mis-named rule's return by stating the obvious, that conservative talk shows are successful because people listen to them. If liberal talk was a profitable enterprise then perhaps Air America, the gravitational center of liberal talk, might be more profitable.

Arguing in favor of the doctrine's return was nationally syndicated radio host Bill Press. As he puts it, ".. for every one hour of liberal talk broadcast, there were eight hours of right-wing propaganda." Mr. Press, hardly a disinterested advocate for liberal talk radio, seems to believe the public would be best served if every "controversial" political topic received as much spin from the liberal perspective as they do from conservatives. Of course, his argument avoids the inconvenient truth that commercial radio operates inside the free market system, and more people simply choose to listen to conservative shows than choose to listen to liberal ones.

Regardless, liberals' idea of fairness has to do with force-feeding more liberal doctrine on radio audiences than listeners have otherwise tuned-in to. But if they really wanted to be fair, as the doctrine's name suggests, why wouldn't they insist on equal time for socialists and libertarians as they demand for Democrats? What about the Green Party, Communist Party, or Worker's Party?

Heck, Mitch Albom has a two-hour show every afternoon from 5-7PM. WJR cuts-short Sean Hannity's show to make room for him. I've often wished that instead of Mitch's regular side-kick, Ken Brown, that I could have a mic -- either to counter Mitch's naivety or to hit him upside the head. That would be equal time (for me), but I'm not who listeners want to hear (not yet, anyway).

Toyota outsells Volvo, Windows outsells Apple, and Amazon outsells King's Used and Rare Books. I expect Volvo, Apple, and King's would each like the government to require their products be purchased in equal quantities to the market leaders. If it did, then they'd be relieved the burden of making their products competitive-enough for the public to choose them willingly. With The Fairness Doctrine, they'd be compelled to make their purchases "fairly."

But that's not what the free market is about. Ideas, like cars, operating systems, and books, must succeed or fail by the rules of capitalism. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work in The United States of America. Rumor has it capitalism works that way in Canada, the UK, and many other places as well.

Of course, if Democrats are really committed to The Fairness Doctrine, I expect them to push for it in Venezuela and North Korea as passionately as they seem to be advocating for it here.

Democrats are not about leveling the playing field to make things fair for all political parties. They only want it made more fair for themselves--which is to say their commercial radio hosts can't compete without government intervention.

If nothing else Democrats are consistent. Having failed the equal-opportunity test they promote a "fairness doctrine" to guarantee equal-outcome. Equal-outcome doesn't require that the skills are possessed, the experience had, the work done, or the tests passed. Equal-outcome doesn't reward hard work or risk taking, it rewards failure. Equal outcome dilutes success by meting it out in equal proportions so that no one's success can be greater than any other's. When that's the case, what becomes the measure of success?

Personally, I wouldn't bother watching a sporting event if there wasn't going to be a winner. I wouldn't listen to Rush Limbaugh if I didn't find him simultaneously interesting and entertaining. I don't like listening to Sean Hannity because his manor seems arrogant and his arguments shallow. However, I keep listening to Al Sharpton, Mitch Albom and reading Free Press editorials not because they're persuasive, but because I find their rationalizations fascinating, and when they do say or write something I agree with I savor both the sense of surprise and the pride for having been there when it happened.