Kwame Kilpatrick offers Detroit Mayor advice on good government

No not really. That would be stupid. Instead we’ve got Mike McGuinness (MM) giving us advice on the next MDP Chair. From the comment on Michigan Liberal:

The current chair of the Michigan Democratic Party cultivated the fake Tea Party political party to draw votes from Republicans in 2010. … When the state party emissary started calling this county party leader at the last minute pleading to help find candidates for their tea party farce, I should have stopped to actually consider the moral implications of it all, told them to go jump in the lake and shouted from the mountaintops about it.

I don’t know and I don’t anticipate he did anything illegal, but it was and is unethical.

I suspect that if Mark Brewer wasn’t already weakened by the apparently already anointed Lon Johnson, MM wouldn’t have had the balls to say anything about Mark Brewer right now. Though if you look closely, he didn’t specifically say much of anything about Mark. Mark ‘cultivated’ the fake tea party, some unnamed “emissary” contacted him about it, and Mark probably didn’t do anything illegal.

So Eclectablog follows up with a question: why now?

So, McGuinness’s sudden desire to “come clean” rings a bit hollow, particularly since there was a full grand jury investigation when the scandal was discovered and, oddly enough, McGuinness didn’t make these accusations then. His defense of that in further comments at MichLib are even more lame.

McGuinness goes on to say that he couldn’t bring up Mark Brewer earlier because he was busy defending himself. Yeah. If you believe that reason, here’s your sign.

Now Mark Brewer is a sonofabitch sometimes, but he isn’t dumb. If he had a hand in what McGuinness was doing then McGuinness would not have been so stupid about it and he probably would not have been caught. The operation would have been much better executed. That’s not me defending it; that’s just a fact. Mark wouldn’t have had people openly notarizing forged signatures.

And what’s with the anonymous “state party emissary” who contacted him about the fake candidates? Why not identify this person in the comments? MM says we should know about Mark’s role in his crime. Do we not have the right to know about this other person?

It should be noted as well that Mike McGuinness has been pretty quippy at Michigan Liberal, Eclectablog, Mark Maynard, and probably other websites where there is no real accountability factor for him. But he didn’t talk to the police about this, and he refused to comment to the media. So he’s not so much interested in taking a stand as he is a nice comfortable chair.

This is nothing more than Mike McGuinness casting aspersions. He’s made no specific accusation that could be investigated by any of us, he’s not spoken to anyone other than bloggers, and he’s provided no evidence.

Vote for Mark Brewer or don’t vote for Mark Brewer, but for the love of [whatever], don’t let it be Mike McGuinness who makes up your mind.

There are no cover bands in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Follow me on Twitter - @christinebarry
Christine
View all posts by Christine   
Christine Website   

Comments

  1. St. Jimmy says:

    Dammit, Christine! You made me read the comments at MichLib!

    I hate reading comments in diaries, and it’s because (as MichLib proves), the pie fights are dumb as fuck.

  2. Michael McGuinness says:

    1. Hello. Happy Thursday.

    2. My last name is spelled ‘McGuinness’ — you have it spelled both correctly and incorrectly at points in this post.

    3. Your Detroit comparison is clever and I deserve it.

    4. You wrote: “If he had a hand in what McGuinness was doing then McGuinness would not have been so stupid about it and he probably would not have been caught. The operation would have been much better executed. That?s not me defending it; that?s just a fact. Mark wouldn?t have had people openly notarizing forged signatures. ”

    I wrote on the statewide Tea Party strategy as having his hand in it — not on illegal election paperwork.

    5. Your statement about me not talking to the police about it is inaccurate.

    6. I have responded to every press inquiry that reached me. Since the Grand Jury was sealed and any divulgence of its contents could be grounds for legal repercussions, however, I wanted to defer to what I wrote in order to be iron-clad about not violating any Grand Jury terms.

    7. You wrote: “MM says we should know about Mark?s role in his crime.” False. I say Michigan Democrats should know about Mark’s role in state party activities. There was no crime committed by Mark, to my knowledge. I am commenting here primarily to reinforce that point. I spoke out so that the party could make a better informed decision.

    8. My timing is based on (1) the ending of my probation and (2) the time-sensitivity of the chair’s election. Yes, I am sharing my personal opinion and perspective on my personal time frame. I would share it whether he was opposed or not; its not exactly as though I fear what the backlash would mean for my chances of being named to state central alternate, et cetera.

    9. In today’s world, what we have is our reputation based on our name. My name and reputation are self-immolated, but that accountability factor remains. Me posting it under my name, enduring the further personal strain, confirming it to all inquiring sources and going to lengths to clarify with authorities, press and disaffected online comments demonstrates that I am still accountable (not to mention the previous accountability still being felt with those felonies, fines, probation, legal bills and so forth). I am taking a measured stand that still puts me in rough territory, but does not solicit further legal woes.

    10. Again, the issue I raised is the statewide strategy. I didn’t attempt to get the Tea Party on the ballot in 2010. I didn’t pay to get those signatures collected statewide. I didn’t hire the Lansing election law attorney. I didn’t pay him. I didn’t recruit those Upper Peninsula, Northern Michigan, Jackson area, Genesee area, other areas and statewide “candidates”…

    The Tea Party ballot diversion wasn’t my idea, although I thought it was a good one at the time.

    11. I’m not stating a legal case or writing a doctoral thesis. I am sharing my personal perspective and opinion. By all means, since it has no credibility with you and carries no weight with you, do not give it credence or weight. That is your right.

    12. I agree with you that the party members should decide themselves. I sincerely hope they make up their own minds and whatever they decide the party would be better for it.

    13. Have a good day.

Trackbacks

  1. […] McGuinness answered my last post here. Since it was a lengthy response, I’d like to answer him inline. Hence and thus, new […]

Speak Your Mind

*