The Hill's Healthwatch: Rep. Gary Peters is being criticized from both the right and the left this week over his support for healthcare reform

Healthcare takes center stage in Michigan
By Mike Lillis - 10/11/10 01:09 PM ET
Healthwatch
The Hill's Healthcare blog

Michigan Democratic Rep. Gary Peters is being criticized from both the right and the left this week over his support for healthcare reform.

In a debate Sunday with his Republican, independent and Green Party challengers, the freshman Democrat was forced to defend his vote against three candidates who all want to see the law repealed, the Detroit Free Press reported.

"Peters defended his vote, saying he still feels it's critical to provide affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, noting that it does a variety of important things, like prohibit insurance companies from rescinding coverage for people who get sick and allow children to stay on their parents' insurance benefits until age 26," the Free Press wrote.

Republican Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski disagreed. "It was a power grab by our government," he said. "I pledge to repeal it."

Meanwhile, Green Party candidate Douglas Campbell says the new law is too conservative. He wants to scrap it in favor of a universal coverage system backed by the federal government, the Free Press noted.

The latest analysis from the Cook Political Report indicates the race is tight but that the district "leans Democratic."

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/123663-healthcare-takes-center-stage-in-michigan

2010 Oakland County Republican Party Voter Guide

2010 Oakland County Republican Party Voter Guide

Statewide
Governor: Rick Snyder
Lt. Governor: Brian Calley
Secretary of State: Ruth Johnson
Attorney General: Bill Schuette

Congress
8th: Mike Rogers
9th: Rocky Raczkowski
11th: Thaddeus McCotter
12th: Don Volaric

Michigan State Senate
12th: Jim Marleau
13th: John Pappageorge
14th: Michael Peters
15th: Mike Kowall
26th: Dave Robertson

Michigan House of Representatives
26th: Ken Rosen
27th: Michelangelo Fortuna
29th: Bret Allen
35th: Michael Weinenger
37th: Christopher Atallah
38th: Hugh Crawford
39th: Lois Shulman
40th: Chuck Moss
41st: Marty Knollenberg
43rd: Gail Haines
44th: Eileen Kowall
45th: Tom McMillin
46th: Brad Jacobsen
66th: Bill Rogers

State Board of Education
Eileen Weiser
Richard Zeile

Regent of the University of Michigan
Andrea Fischer Newman
Andrew Richner

Trustee of Michigan State University
Brian Breslin
Mitch Lyons

Governor of Wayne State University
Diane Dunaskiss
Danialle Karmanos

Oakland County Board of Commissioners
1st: Beth Nuccio
2nd: Bill Bullard
3rd: Mike Gingell
4th: Tom Middleton
5th: John Scott
6th: Jim Runestad
7th: Christine Long
8th: Philip Weipert
9th: Kathy Crawford
10th: Stuart Foster
11th: Bob Kittle
12th: Jeff Matis
13th: Robert Gosselin
14th: Bill Dwyer
15th: Al Zaparackas
16th: Shelley Goodman Taub
17th: Anne Marie Blake
18th: Mark Ellis
19th: Mike Bosnic
20th: David Potts
21st: Mordechai Klainberg
22nd: Ezra Drissman
23rd: Charles Ehrenreich
24th: Antoine Delaforterie
25th: Richard Parisi

*Non-Partisan Ballot*
Supreme Court
Mary Beth Kelly
Bob Young
Probate Court
Kathleen Ryan
48th District Court
Marc Barron
52nd District Court
Michael Martone

Oakland Community College Board (Individuals listed below have had past/present involvement with OCRP)
Fred Mester
Thomas Kuhn
Olga Meyer
Dan Kelly
Debbie Macon

Detroit News: Brooks Patterson on Rep. Gary Peters' Negative Campaigning

Posted by L. Brooks Patterson on Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 11:11 AM
Deflect, Deflect, Deflect
A reporter once asked famed mountain climber Sir George Mallory why he scaled Mt. Everest. He answered, "Because it's there."

A reporter once asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks. He said, "Because that's where the money is."

If a reporter were to ask Congressman Gary Peters why he spends so much money on negative campaigning, he would say, "Because it works."

By "works" Peters obviously means that it deflects the public's attention away from his own extreme liberal voting record - a record Peters hopes the public will forget. Let's be honest, folks, how does an incumbent Congressman run on a record that includes the following votes:

•A vote for "Cap and Trade" (more often called "Cap and Tax"). It raises energy costs so significantly that it will drive American manufacturing offshore.
•A vote for Obamacare despite the overwhelming opposition of his constituents back home. This "let them eat cake" vote will impose trillions of debt upon our children and grandchildren.
•A vote for TARP, the Wall Street bailout. (Obviously, Peters did not want the public to remember that he worked for two major Wall Street institutions for over 22 years and now has the audacity to say he wants to hold those greedy bastards on Wall Street accountable!)
It's all about deflecting the public's attention.

When I was in law school, the professor who taught trial practice must have been thinking of Gary Peters when he told the old story that most lawyers have heard many times. The professor opined that "When the facts are on your side, you hammer the facts to the jury. When the law is on your side, then you hammer the law to the jury." One student raised his hand and asked, "What happens if you have neither the facts nor the law on your side?" The old professor looked at him and said, "That's when you put your opponent on trial."

Congressman Peters has taken this professor's advice to a whole new level. He hopes the public will forget his true voting record and join him in his tawdry effort to put Rocky Raczkowski on trial.



From The Detroit News: http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/brooksblog/index.php#ixzz129xtOyRZ

Detroit News: Brooks Patterson States Gary Peters' Campaign is One of the Nastiest, Negative Midterms Races Ever

Posted by L. Brooks Patterson on Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Tell A Lie, Tell It Big, And Tell It Often
Congressman Gary Peters is spending an extraordinary amount of money funding one of the nastiest, most negative campaigns in the midterm elections anywhere in the United States of America.

He has been running an ad over-and-over accusing Rocky Raczkowski of being sued "by his PARTNERS in a business scheme."

Peters knows that is a lie. But as we learned during the Nazi era under the tutelage of the Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, "Tell a lie, tell it big, and tell it often, and people will begin to believe it."

So let's take a closer look at Herr Peters' campaign ad.

A concert promoter by the name of David T. Rosen (who is now bankrupt and is facing cocaine possession charges) wanted to put on a concert. So he hires a consultant to advise him what to do; he hires a talent agency to line up the musical acts for the concert; and he hires Rocky Raczkowski's company called Star Tickets Plus to handle ticket sales and distribution.

When the concert goes bust (some of the named acts didn't show up), the promoter loses money and decides to sue all the people he had hired. Rosen sued his consultants, vendors, and suppliers, not PARTNERS.

Let me break it down with a very simple example: If I hire you to mow my yard and our relationship breaks down and we sue each other, you're not all of a sudden my PARTNER, you are a guy that I hired to mow my yard. No more - no less.

Peters, as a lawyer, knows the difference between a vendor who supplies services and a partner. Peters also knows that if he can trump up the charges to make it look like Rocky is being sued by his "PARTNER," then it sounds more sinister. (In fact, one of Peters' paid actors in his ad said exactly that: "If he ripped off his business partners, how can we trust him?")

Tell a lie, tell it big, and tell it often. Herr Peters knows his history.



From The Detroit News: http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/brooksblog/index.php#ixzz129vZbgEt

George Soros: I Can’t Stop a Republican ‘Avalanche’ - Note to Gary Peters' Supporters Your Guy is Going Down in November!

Soros: I Can’t Stop a Republican ‘Avalanche’
By SEWELL CHAN
George Soros, the billionaire financier who was an energetic Democratic donor in the last several election cycles but is sitting this one out, is not feeling optimistic about Democratic prospects.

“I made an exception getting involved in 2004,” Mr. Soros, 80, said in a brief interview Friday at a forum sponsored by the Bretton Woods Committee, which promotes understanding of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

“And since I didn’t succeed in 2004, I remained engaged in 2006 and 2008. But I’m basically not a party man. I’d just been forced into that situation by what I considered the excesses of the Bush administration.”

Mr. Soros, a champion of liberal causes, has been directing his money to groups that work on health care and the environment, rather than electoral politics. Asked if the prospect of Republican control of one or both houses of Congress concerned him, he said: “It does, because I think they are pushing the wrong policies, but I’m not in a position to stop it. I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/soros-i-cant-stop-a-republican-avalanche/?hp

Rasmussen: 55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law; Voters trust Republicans more than Democrats, 48% to 40%, on the handling of the issue of health care

Health Care Law
55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law
Monday, October 11, 2010 Email to a Friend ShareThis.AdvertisementThe majority of U.S. voters continue to favor repeal of the new national health care law but are slightly less emphatic about the impact the law will have on the country.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the new health care law. Only 39% oppose repeal. These figures include 41% who Strongly Favor repeal and 32% who are Strongly Opposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Since Congress' passage of the bill in late March, support for repeal has ranged from a low of 53% to a high of 63%.

But 41% now say the new health care law will be good for the country, the highest level of optimism measured since early July. Forty-nine percent (49%) still believe the law will be bad for the country, but that's the first time that belief has fallen below 50% since March. In prior surveys, those thinking the law will be good for America have ranged from 32% to 41%; in those same surveys, 49% to 57% have predicted it will be bad for the county.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on October 8-9, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Consistent with findings since passage of the bill, 79% of Republicans and 56% of voters not affiliated with either major party favor repeal of the health care law, while 59% of Democrats hold the opposing view.

Similarly, 75% of Mainstream voters favor repeal, but 53% of the Political Class are opposed.

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of those voters with health insurance say it’s likely the new health care overhaul will mean they have to change their insurance coverage. Fifty-two percent (52%), however, disagree and say it’s not likely they will have to switch their coverage. These findings show little change since mid-June.

Among those same voters who have health insurance, an overwhelming majority (82%) rate their coverage as good or excellent. Just four percent (4%) rate their health insurance coverage as poor. These findings, too, have been fairly consistent since June.

With midterm elections scarcely a month away, voters rank health care second just behind the economy on a list of 10 important issues on voters’ minds this November.

Voters trust Republicans more than Democrats, 48% to 40%, on the handling of the issue of health care.

Detroit News Editorial Page: Rocky Raczkowski for Congress!

Editorial: Candidates best suited for U.S. House of Representatives
These candidates are best suited to serve Michigan residents in the House of Representatives
It's a strange year in Michigan for congressional races, as it is across the country. One incumbent congresswoman — Democrat Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick — was booted by voters in the August primary, and three more face unusually spirited challenges.

Meanwhile, voters also have the chance to fill three seats left open by retirements. We offer these endorsements in the most competitive races: 9th District (Oakland County): This is among the most-watched races in the country because it is a microcosm of the national election trend. Democratic Rep. Gary Peters of Bloomfield Hills won his seat during the 2008 Obama tsunami. Now, Peters is at risk of becoming a victim of the tidal wave that's expected to wash out Democrats. His opponent is Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski of Farmington Hills, an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran and former state lawmaker. Like many other moderate Democrats, Peters abandoned his stated commitment to fiscal discipline and bowed to pressure from House leadership in backing questionable big-spending initiatives. It is only since the campaign intensified that he has returned to the economic positions he championed while seeking the office in 2008.

Raczkowski promises to make reducing the debt and spending his top priorities in Congress. He backs a pay cut for federal employees, who have seen their incomes rise while workers in the private sector have sacrificed pay and benefits.

And in an unusual twist for a conservative, Raczkowski says he would advocate an immediate end to the war in Afghanistan, where he says the hugely expensive attempt at nation building is doomed to failure.

In a year in which controlling spending and reining in the deficit to foster a better climate for job creation top the concerns of voters, Rocky Raczkowski is the better choice in the 9th District. 15th District (western Wayne, Washtenaw and Monroe counties): Democratic Rep. John Dingell of Dearborn, who is seeking his 29th term in the House, also faces a tough challenge from a fiscally conservative Republican opponent, Dr. Rob Steele of Ypsilanti. Dingell's name is on the unpopular health care bill, he wholeheartedly backed the stimulus and would raise taxes on high-income earners. But in a district that includes Ann Arbor, Dingell's views are not so out of line with those of the people he represents.

Yet Dingell has hardly marched lock step with the House leadership. In fact, the far-left wing of his party, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, conspired to oust Dingell from the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

He was targeted for the same reason we feel he should remain in Congress: because he fought for the domestic automobile industry. Dingell has often been the only thing standing between Detroit's automakers and the coastal liberals who would regulate them out of business. He vows to continue to do so, and Michigan will need him to keep that vow.

The industry is not out of danger. Just this month, the Obama administration floated the possibility of raising the mileage mandate to 60 mpg by 2025. Dingell understands the cost of such regulation, and insists that any environmental benefits be balanced against the impact on automotive jobs. Michigan can't afford to lose his reasonable voice. John Dingell should be returned for another term.

13th District (Detroit, Grosse Pointes): State Sen. Hansen Clarke, D-Detroit, upset Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick in the primary and now faces Republican John Hauler, a Grosse Pointe Woods businessman.

We gave Hauler a hard look because we believe Congress needs the balance of more fiscal conservatives. But we found his support of protectionist trade policies curious and were disappointed that he wouldn't consider a private investment option for Social Security.

Clarke takes similar positions on those issues, but it's what you'd expect from a candidate who has never pretended to be anything but liberal. We are intrigued by Clarke's enthusiastic commitment to attack deficit spending, and without raising taxes. He says he is a disciple of anti-debt financial planner Dave Ramsey in his personal life, claiming to now live debt-free. That sort of discipline would be useful in the Democratic caucus.

In truth, we've often been critical of Clarke's performance in the Senate. But there's no question about his integrity, his deep affection for the people of his district, or his understanding of their challenges. Hansen Clarke will give the 13th District a better representative than it's had in decades.

7th District: (south, mid-Michigan) This race is a rematch of the 2008 election, when Democrat Mark Schauer of Battle Creek defeated the first-term Republican incumbent Tim Wahlberg of Tipton. Neither candidate is perfect for the district's moderate, swing voters. Schauer is too liberal and Wahlberg is too conservative.

But his commitment to fiscal discipline and deficit reduction gives Wahlberg an edge this time. Schauer has been one of the most loyal votes for Pelosi, and that has often placed him at odds with the people he was elected to represent.

Wahlberg would make the 2001 tax cuts permanent to bring some certainty to the economy, and he would roll back the spending explosion of the past several years. He pledges to fight to keep Republicans from repeating their mistakes after winning the House in 1994, when they abandoned their pledge to be fiscally responsible. He says he will stay focused on economic issues and not actively pursue a socially conservative agenda. Tim Wahlberg is the best choice for the 7th District. 1st District (northern Michigan, Upper Peninsula): The last-minute retirement of veteran Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak left this seat wide open. A vigorous campaign is being fought between Republican Dan Benishek of Crystal Falls, and Gary McDowell of Pickford.

McDowell, a farmer, has experience in the state Legislature, where he voted against reforms that would have restructured state spending. He would likely do the same in Washington.

Benishek is a physician who would bring experience working in the medical industry to the rewriting of the health care bill. He calls himself a deficit hawk, and would vote against tax hikes that would threaten the nation's struggling economic recovery. Dan Benishek should be elected in the 1st District.

2nd District (west Michigan): Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra retired from this seat to run for governor. It's being sought by Republican Bill Huizenga, a term-limited state senator from Zeeland, and Democrat Fred Johnson, a Hope College professor from Holland.

Huizenga was an advocate of reform in the Senate, as well as for measures that would spark economic growth, such as the Michigan film incentives. He would vote to hold the line on spending in the House, but he could also be counted on to offer innovative ideas for growing the economy. Bill Huizenga would serve the 2nd District well.

3rd District (Grand Rapids area): Another retirement, that of Republican Rep. Vern Ehlers, leaves this seat open. The contenders are first term state Rep. Justin Amash, R-Grand Rapids, and Democrat Pat Miles, a Grand Rapids attorney.

Miles is a bright and engaging candidate. But he backs most of the initiatives passed by Congress over the past two years, and that places him out of step with much of this conservative district. He would also raise taxes in the face of a faltering recovery.

Amash says he would encourage job creation by establishing a more certain tax and regulatory environment. He also would hold the line on taxes and spending. Justin Amash is best for the 3rd District. The remaining congressional seats in Michigan are held by incumbents who face less vigorous challenges.



From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20101011/OPINION01/10110314/1008/Editorial--Candidates-best-suited-for-U.S.-House-of-Representatives#ixzz123SiiyDc