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.
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.
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