A dialogue with Mike McGuinness

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

1. Hello. Happy Thursday.

Hello, thank you for stopping by.

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

I have corrected the single time that it was misspelled. Sorry about that, but it was spelled correctly about a half-dozen times compared to incorrectly once, so please excuse it as a typo. I did check into the spelling before I wrote it.

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

Linkbait.

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.

Well you said something about getting felony convictions while he got re-elected. So it sounds like you see an equivalency here.

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

That was based on this quote from this article:

And Oakland County Undersheriff Mike McCabe, whose department investigated the case, said, “We explored all leads and potential suspects. If McGuinness has information that he didn’t share before, he should have contacted us. If he has information that somebody else was involved with the crime, we’d want to interview him.

I didn’t look at the police paperwork, so if that’s incorrect then I will update & retract that part.

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.

So due to your legal situation, you can’t give us anything more than what you have?

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.

Well the phrase “his crime” referred to yours, not Mark’s. And Mark’s role in state party activities, according to you, was to take some level of a role in this incident.

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.

Ok.

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.

I know it’s a shit storm, and probably a disproportionate shit storm at that. But this isn’t just about your reputation. What you did as a party operative reflected poorly on all of us, and we all have to deal with it. Appreciated that it’s not to the personal extent you’re dealing with, but we had to deal with it on a social level.

Additionally you’ve made the false comparison between Mark Brewer and Bolger-Schmidt fraud. Mark is paid with private dollars to win elections. Bolger & Schmidt were paid with public dollars to govern. There is no moral equivalency here. And “cultivating” something is not equivalent to paying beefcake to put his name on a ballot so his opponent can raise cash. So there’s no situational equivalency there either.

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.

As far as I’m concerned the tea party was a good idea, and every county has someone (especially Republican) who is willing to put up fake candidates on a ballot to draw votes away from the real ones. The Shiawassee Republicans do it to us every time we have a good Democratic candidate out here for a county level office. If that’s what you think Mark did then maybe that’s why there aren’t more people showing concern over it. Not because it’s a really ethical thing to do, but because it’s such a common practice.

Anyone remember how we got our butts kicked by the GOP funded Green Party in 2006?

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.

You had credibility with me back when I was fighting off Chet Zarko and insisting that there must be some mistake.

13. Have a good day.

You too, and thank you for the response.

Related: Ruth Johnson: Girl Detective

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. Michael McGuinness says:

    “I know it?s a shit storm, and probably a disproportionate shit storm at that. But this isn?t just about your reputation. What you did as a party operative reflected poorly on all of us, and we all have to deal with it. Appreciated that it?s not to the personal extent you?re dealing with, but we had to deal with it on a social level.”

    I understand that 100 percent and, again, I am truly sorry.

    “Additionally you?ve made the false comparison between Mark Brewer and Bolger-Schmidt fraud. Mark is paid with private dollars to win elections. Bolger & Schmidt were paid with public dollars to govern. There is no moral equivalency here. And ?cultivating? something is not equivalent to paying beefcake to put his name on a ballot so his opponent can raise cash. So there?s no situational equivalency there either.”

    I don’t view them as equivalent on any level, but I stated that when I read the state party chair proclaim outrage for the sake of good and ethical government / politics, it does ring very hollow to me.

    It reinforced my motivation to call out ‘hypocrite’ and ‘fake’ about his pronouncements. He isn’t an honest broker for improving the process, as I see it. By no means am I of all people the person to turn to for advice on this front, that is just how I feel about it.

    If the Speaker and the former Representative violated the law (conspiracy to commit fraud alone seems applicable), believe me, I hope they get their just desserts.

    My fate was pending while the Indiana Secretary of State was cooking up his election fraud.

    My fate was already rendered when my least favorite Republican Congressman’s tenure and prospects self-imploded with the nominating petitions cluster.

    And the Bolger-Schmidt imbroglio also adds to the post-2010 pile that is always growing.

    I acutely feel it when there is selective outrage and sporadic pursuit of enforced election laws.

    … But when you deserved the outrage and you received just enforcement of the election laws, well, there isn’t too much you can do about it except observe it all and say a little prayer that human beings will instead appeal to their better selves.

    “Not because it?s a really ethical thing to do, but because it?s such a common practice.”

    That may be and that was how I approached it before. I don’t any more.

    • “I acutely feel it when there is selective outrage and sporadic pursuit of enforced election laws.”

      You’re right, given what you’ve been through that’s got to hurt like a bitch. I wasn’t thinking of it in those terms, just looking at it from my perspective of constantly fighting Republicans.

      I appreciate the conversation. I hope you can put this whole thing behind you soon and just move forward toward good things. Let me buy you a beer sometime and tell you about some of the dumb things I did in my twenties. If nothing else it will be good for a laugh!

      • Michael McGuinness says:

        Oops, I had meant this to be a reply to you on this thread (mea culpa):

        I don?t consume alcohol any more, but I do enjoy a frothy mug of diet cola. May our paths cross when the sun is shining, our health is strong and our fortunes are favored. Cheers!

  2. Michael McGuinness says:

    I don’t consume alcohol any more, but I do enjoy a frothy mug of diet cola. May our paths cross when the sun is shining, our health is strong and our fortunes are favored. Cheers!

  3. St. Jimmy says:

    “What you did as a party operative reflected poorly on all of us, and we all have to deal with it.”

    Exactly. Lon Johnson certainly doesn’t need the help of people like Mike McGuiness. It took the Oakland County Democratic Party years to fix its tarnished reputation because of the fraud committed on McGuiness’ watch, and many of his strongest supporters felt betrayed when it was all said and done.

    I’m going to vote for Lon, just it’s got nothing to do with McGuiness’ statements. I’ve been hoping Brewer would get removed for a long time. In the meantime, Mike McGuiness would do well to stay out of Michigan politics. His name is synonymous with corruption.

Speak Your Mind

*