Nancy Skinner announces her candidacy today

[SharonRB]

Nancy has placed a number of ads on 1310 AM over the next three days to announce her candidacy for the U.S. House in the 9th District.

For details, to volunteer or to donate to her campaign, go to www.skinnerforcongress.com.

Here's Nancy's statement on why she's running (you can listen to the ads and the audio of this by going to the website):

Why I’m Running

It certainly was a difficult decision to make.

It took a great deal of soul searching to come to my decision. I know what I’m in for, having run as the Democratic nominee from the 9th Congressional district in last November’s election. I was told then that it was a suicide mission to take on 14-year incumbent Joe Knollenberg, who walloped his previous Democratic challengers by 20 points. I believed differently and asked myself if people like me, who were so passionate about bringing about change, didn’t run for office, who would? So with the help of the entire Skinner for Congress team, we worked past exhaustion to get our message out – that alternative energy and advanced technology is the solution for our troubled auto industry and imperative for our national security and environment. And we nearly won, getting 47% (127, 690) of the vote to Knollenberg’s 51% (142, 390).


The race for November 2008 has begun, and with the early announcement of former lottery commissioner Gary Peters, some have argued that a primary should be avoided at all costs and that I should not run again, ironically, even for a seat I nearly won. While I can somewhat understand the argument behind “we can’t afford a primary,” recent developments in Washington, DC have persuaded me that we can’t afford not to have one.


There is a serious divide among Democrats on some big issues, including the war in Iraq and our energy future. I believe that too many Democrats, boxed in by their fear of the perception of being “against the troops,” have acquiesced to continuing this endless war.


President Bush is now asking for $190 billion more – bringing this historical travesty to nearly a trillion dollars. Even former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says candidly that this war was about oil. Greenspan predicts great turbulence in the oil markets ahead and that shocking oil prices may force Americans into driving plug-in electric vehicles.


Imagine if just $20 billion of that amount had been allocated to Michigan’s auto industry, to make a rapid transition to advanced technologies like plug-in hybrids or fuel cell vehicles and the hydrogen infrastructure to accommodate them. Instead of fighting change, Michigan could have led the way to energy security.


The fact is, too many politicians on both sides of the aisle are too fearful to be courageous and take the path of least resistance. Government is too big and bureaucratic and increasingly it is serving only the special interest groups that fund political campaigns. As we saw in Lansing, the process itself is broken.

Do I relish the idea of running again? No. The truth is that modern campaigning means the candidate will spend most of their time in a small room, on the phone, begging for money. This is to be able to afford the most thirty-second spots on TV attacking your opponent. And running in a primary is even more difficult because it feels like a family spat. The bottom line for me, as someone who has been very passionate and active in progressive politics for most of my adult life, is that the stakes are too high and the time is too short for me to walk away from what I know needs to be done.

We need courageous, progressive members of Congress willing to follow their conscience - even when it conflicts with their party leadership. And we do need more women. We have only two women among our 15-member delegation. That’s sad, but it’s understandable. It’s harder for women to mobilize the resources in the political arena, which is mostly controlled by men.

A primary election will allow voters to test their would-be leaders. Will you vote to de-fund the war in Iraq and safely bring the troops home? Yes or no? No blurry lines and messy middles. There is no need for bruising or negative personal campaigns. The Democratic presidential campaign has offered us a great choice of candidates who are competing on the idea battlefield, not the personal. No one says Senator Barack Obama shouldn’t run against Senator Clinton because he might hurt her chances against the GOP nominee? It’s called democracy – it’s called America.

So let’s allow each candidate for this great office to voice their ideas and actually let the people decide who they want to represent them in Congress; not the big donors, not the party insiders, but the people. It’s not an easy personal choice for me to make, but in my heart I know it’s the right decision.

That’s why today I’m announcing my candidacy for the Unites States Congress.


Nancy A. Skinner

[maddogesq]

1. The 4 1/2 pdcast brought me to tears.

I don't cry much about anything, but hearing her say something like "this is about Democracy, this is about America" brought me to tears. She was in rare form when she recorded that.

[bfealk]

6. Oh, god, give me a break

[bfealk]

2. And look at what Joe did already

http://www.petersvskinner.com As if I couldn't see this coming. Good job, Nancy.

[bfealk]

3. It's so hypocritical...

As the frontrunner last year, she took all the benefits of the state party supporting her, the Governor's endorsement, labor endorsement, which made her candidacy inevitable. But when all that turns against her, she just can't let it go and endorse Gary Peters, a legitimate progressive candidate.

Many people practically begged her not to run, not because she doesn't deserve credit for her close call last year, but because we have a better candidate this time around. Gary has already raised half as much money in six weeks as Nancy did the entire race last time around. Many of her former staffers are now supporting Gary Peters, but can Nancy grasp reality and graciously endorse Peters? No.

Now she decries the establishment supporting Gary Peters. Boo-hoo.

http://www.petersforcongress.com

[maddogesq]

4. Hate to say this, but your comments are without merit.

First of all, we don’t care what Old Joe does. Those tactics are expected from Republicans, so why worry about them. If you go through life thinking they will play fair about anything, then you will never succeed at anything. The Neocon/Fourth Reich scare tactics have worn off. The tactic of making the word liberal a four-letter word tactic has been neutralized. Why? Jeebus H., you have a president with a 30 percent approval rating, and you can hang Old Joe for voting with Jr. Shambles almost 100 percent of the time.

Now let’s address your comment about state party support:

I do not –and granted we are all getting older—ever remember getting emails in support of Nancy Skinner early in the last campaign season like the ones Brewer was sending out so early about Peters. I guess they still had ethics then. I also remember that Nancy carried almost all the fundraising load herself, and got little help from the state party until after the primary. The early MDP support Peters seems to be getting is both unprecedented and unethical, and I wrote Brewer the following letter expressing my concerns:


“I am writing today to express concern over early endorsements of
candidates by the state party that occur long before primaries are held.

First, a little about myself: I am a very active member of the
Farmington/Farmington Hills Democratic club. I sit on the club's
executive board, and serve as a precinct delegate (Farmington Hills
pct. #6). I have been quite active in the past several elections
cycles, and have often had letters to the editor published in several
local publications.

My complaint is this: Being that there will be a primary involving
several candidates for the U.S. House seat in the 9th Congressional
District. I feel the constant barrage of emails by you in support of
Mr. Peters is unprecedented, unethical, and a violation of
Long-standing party guidelines prior to primary elections.

I have always supported the Democratic candidate for any office who
wins a primary election, regardless of whether I supported that
candidate in that particular primary. I will give 100 percent support
to Mr. Peters if he is the victor in the primary process. However, I
feel the state party should remain neutral during primary campaign
season to be fair to all potential Democratic candidates. I am not
alone as to where I stand on this issue, and worry that if this
continues, things could get quite divisive amongst the party faithful.

Your interest in this matter is greatly appreciated.”

OK, I may get in big trouble for posting this, but I think we need to get things out in the open now.

As to your comment about people begging Nancy not to run, I cannot respond with a concise answer, other than the fact that I would say 9 out of 10 people I talk to have not made such statements.

Normally I don’t like to get involved in matters that tear in to the fabric of our party, but in this situation, I felt compelled to do so. Your charges of hypocrisy and your distaste for a primary challenge to Peters are without merit. Primaries are a necessary part of the election process for the political system called democracy, as Nancy so poignantly pointed out in her long podcast.

[bfealk]

5. I predict Nancy will drop out after January reporting date

I also predict Nancy will raise less than $10,000 and won't even make it to the primary.

Of course that prediction does not include any money she loans to her campaign.

[maddogesq]

9. How much you wanna bet?

I will mark that you said this, and we shall talk again come January.

[PassingFair]

23. Well MY money and vote will go to Nancy.

I think it was SHAMELESS the way the MDP shilled
for Peters using the STATE WEBSITE before filing
deadlines had even been reached.

S-H-A-M-E-L-E-S-S.

Maybe you think we shouldn't HAVE primaries?

[bfealk]

7. And how much money do you think she can raise?

If she had everything going for her last time and this time the party, the DCCC is I'm sure looking favorably at Gary's third quarter fundraising, the endorsement of most if not all local politicians, major union support, where and how is Nancy going to raise the kind money needed this time around if she couldn't raise more than $420,000 last time around?

What makes this time more favorable than last time around?

[maddogesq]

8. I would expect no less from Joe.

So now you call Nancy a jinx because she gets into the race. Come on, Joe will do and say whatever he wants, whether it is true or not. Like I said, if you worry about what your opposition does all the time and forget to think about how your team plays the game, then you will losse.

For example, look at the problem with the Dems in Congress: They are so afraid of the Bushies calling them unpatriot they won't get some real balls and stop the funding of the Iraq mess.

See, you play right into Joe's hands by showing animosity towards Nancy for doing what she is a right to do: run for office. If anyone else gets into the primary race, will you show the same angst towards them as you do towards Skinner? I doubt it, because you weren't a Skinner person last year, and you made the same old losing arguments then as are doing now.

[bfealk]

10. She has every right to run

But I would have expected her to realistically look at the race like John Ashcraft did when he bowed out and endorsed Nancy. She had more money, more endorsements, including the governor's, union support and he graciously stepped aside. It's just a hard dose of reality.

Now Gary has more money, local political endorsements, union support and what does Nancy do? She decides to muddy the waters.

[maddogesq]

12. Muddy the waters, or has every right to run. You cannot have both.

You cannot have your cake and eat it to. If she has the right to run, then she has the right to run. End of story.

And by the way, note that I have not said one thing against Peters. Gary has the right to run too. He will make a good run at it, as will Nancy.

Yes, I think Skinner is better on issues, which I will break down in another thread that is about issues. In a nutshell, she is more informed on environmental issues because of her experience, and she certainly showed her communications skills the last time around. Those skills come from years of working in radio. Bill Clinton had those skills, and look what a great job he did. I value the ability to communicate a lot.

[bfealk]

13. Sure I can

She has the right to run, absolutely. Should she have run, in my opinion? No.

If she thinks it was an uphill battle last time, this time she'll be climbing Mt. Everest with a 100lb pack on her back and no oxygen.

And now she has lots of baggage. Her firing from Dan Mulhern's office. Her ex-staff exposing her poor management style and I'm sure there's more out there.

Oh, by the way, Why did Nancy get fired from Mulhern's office? I've heard some rumors, but I'd love to hear from Nancy. She sure left suddenly.

[maddogesq]

14. They are just rumors.

As with Republicans, I have seen people saying stuff on this and other boards that is not true. To my knowledge, she left her position to run.

Yes, she will have an uphill battle when she has to fight crap like thia...tactics of what I like to call Republican lites. 1/3 less the lies and bullshit than your regular Republicans.

See you next week.

[bfealk]

15. Are you sure they're rumors?

I haven't heard Nancy say herself why she was fired? You think she left of her own accord to run?

[SharonRB]

16. You're right, maddog

She was not fired. She resigned to get ready to run. If someone wants to confirm it, they can ask Dan Mulhern himself. If she was fired, why would Dan have had her on his radio show a couple of weeks ago? This is an absolute lie and fabrication.

[bfealk]

11. If there's a better candidate out there than Gary

I'm sure I would support them. But Gary has done the hard work of raising money, $217,000, half as much as Nancy raised in over a year and Gary did it in six weeks. Gary has the right position on the issues and Nancy's entry adds nothing that I can see to the race.

What is Nancy going to say, that she would irresponsibly pull the troops out today, all of them, which is not physically possible and we all know it.

Is she going to say she's better on the environment? No, in my opinion?

Is she better on health care? I don't think so.

So, tell me, what issue or practical aspect of campaigning is Nancy on?

[JNelson6563]

17. I do not think we should discourage people from running.

I've seen a lot of discussion on this particular race and I am saddened to see so much bashing of Skinner because she is running.

I thought we were all about leaving the smokey back room stuff behind and doing things the democratic (yes, small "d") way.

If Peters is so "all that" then what's the worry?

Lastly, it is especially disheartening to see fellow Dems giving credence to unsubstantiated rumors about one of our own. Nancy Skinner deserves better than that from her own, no matter who one is supporting in this race.

Julie

[bfealk]

18. I'll give you a concrete example

Howard Dean is coming to town for the Phil Hart Dinner in Oakland County. He was scheduled to appear at a fundraiser for Gary prior to the dinner, and as soon as Nancy entered the race, he had to cancel the fundraiser for Gary because now there's a primary possibility. Those would have been dollars that could have been used to defeat Joe Knollenberg.

I'm not concerned that Gary will prevail, but this is one example of how it hurts Democratic chances in 2008.

[maddogesq]

19. Dr. Dean is doing what is proper and ethical.

Mr. Brewer could have learned a thing or two from this. Rmember, the primary is earlier than it was in 2006. Fundraising is important, but ethics and a primary are important too. By the way, I personally want this to be Nancy's theme song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwc5YSAc-7g

Sorry Bruce, but she is running, damn it. Let the chips fall where they may. You may be surprised at the outcome.

[bfealk]

20. My prediction stands...

... she won't raise more than $10,000 and will drop out after the January financial reports come out.

[michreject]

21. She'll win this one

[bfealk]

22. She'll withdraw the same way Richardson will

Although Richardson is a fine man, he will end up withdrawing, the same way Nancy Skinner will and for the same reason, they'll both run out of money and support.

It's only a matter of time.

[bfealk]

25. Based on what evidence?

You make a statement that she'll win this one. What evidence or theory do you have under which she'l win. I've already put forth my reasons she won't. A feeling, a hope or a wish are not good enough in politics. Give me speicfics why you think Nancy can overcome all the negatives she brings to the race.

[Strawman]

24. Interesting discussion

Initially I was excited about Skinner running again, but upon further review, I don't really see anything wrong with Peters. bfealk does have a point. The goal is to unseat Knollenberg. Unseating an incumbent is incredibly hard. I can see the warrant for entering a primary when there is a substantive difference, but as much as I like Nancy Skinner I'm not so sure it's a great idea.

So I decided to take a quick look at the empirical evidence on the effects of divisive primaries. Kenney (1988) finds that divisive primaries have no effect on general election outcomes in Congressional elections.

Ok, so no harm in Nancy Skinner challenging Gary Peters then, right? I'm not so sure. bfealk makes another good point about the importance of early money to congressional challengers in his example about the cancelled Dean fundraiser for Gary Peters. Krasno, Green and Cowden (1994) find that early money is absolutely essential for challengers to be successful at raising money later on. It provides a signal of candidate viability to donors. It seems like there are two implications to this: 1) Nancy Skinner has little chance of raising the amount of money needed to be competitive and 2) She's hurting Peters' fundraising effort which will harm the viability of our general election candidate.

There's nothing ideal about this. It's not the way things ought to work, but barring a genuine substantive difference, I don't see the warrant for a primary challenge. I don't like "the establishment" at all. My gut reaction is to side with Nancy. But good intentions aren't good enough. There's enough evidence of a risk to the general election candidate here to suggest that making the sentimental choice here is irresponsible.

[TahitiNut]

26. Out of curiosity, just how much active support from Peters and others did Nancy get in 2006?

I don't recall Peters doing any campaigning for SKinner. Indeed, I don't recall much in the way of GOTV activities or campaign appearances from prominent Dems during the attempt to unseat Joe. I though Skinner did a damned good job with what she had, but I really question the hypocrisy of claims that the highest objective is unseating Joe. Seems that others have had higher objectives in the past.

Maybe I'm misremembering. (I'm not a partisan liberal.) :shrug:

[bfealk]

27. I personally phone banked for Nancy and Jennifer

I spent several evening at the phone bank in Rochester Hills phone banking for our Democratic candidates, even though I was never a big supporter of Nancy's. So, from where I stand, I did my duty. As far as Gary, he was not really in the political arena as Lottery Commissioner. I would call him a civil servant and I don't think his supporting Nancy would have been of any benefit from his position as Lottery Commissioner. I do know for a fact Governor Granholm gave her a very early endorsement that Nancy sent out to the unions, becuase I was working for John Ashcraft's campaign at the time and it really screwed up our campaign when we got wind of the Governor's endorsement of Nancy.

[SharonRB]

28. Nancy got no help from Peters or from the party itself

The Governor was very supportive and they often appeared together on the campaign trail, but Nancy got no money from the party -- and that was with no primary. To come with 5% after being outspent like she was is quite an accomplishment and she deserves better than what she's been getting from the MDP.

[maddogesq]

29. And phone banking in Rochester ain't enough either.

I can tell you what I personally did for both Nancy and other local stuff last year, but bragging about how "loyal" we are avoids the main issue: Was there "real" support from MDP for Nancy? Based on what I saw, NO. Did we work our asses off? YES! Mr. Bruce (all of a sudden, late in a thread that has gone on for 2 weeks now) is now our loyal hero, getting Nancy over the top to nearly beat old Joe. Nancy did that herself, and we were the wheels on which her Sebring rolled...although I was prolly just a toy spare tire.

Come on Bruce, the view of watching you talk to yourself is getting real old.

Randi is coming...wanna take her on Mr. Fealk? I doubt it.

[bfealk]

30. This is old too

Nancy complaining that she got no party support. She got no support from the party, most likely, because she didn't raise enough money on her own. That's how it works, unfortunately. They don't just throw money and support your way, you have to earn it and Gary's earned it. He raised over $200,000 on his own and Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have already donated to his campaign. But it didn't just fall in his lap.

I would love to see Randi Rhodes. I listen to her almost every day, but I won't contribute to Nancy's campaign. Nancy seems to be running just because she is bitter that she didn't get party support last time around and she's pissed off with something to prove.

I am a loyal Democrat and I pitched in for Nancy, just like I did for every other Democrat on the ticket, including canvassing with her literature in Auburn Hills with the Rochester Democratic Club.

And I was also protesting at Knollenberg's office during the last cycle, doing what I could to knock Joe down a notch or two, so I won't stand for questioning my party loyalty. I just don't believe Nancy should have jumped in the race if she was truly looking out for the best interests of the party. She is not the strongest candidate and there isn't enough of a difference on policy to make her a better candidate.

No one has ever answered my question about where Nancy is better on the issues than Gary. Someone, I don't remember who, said they were going to lay it all out for me, but never has.

[bfealk]

31. Skinner did get money from the party

Here's the link to her campaign finance report. Best I can figure, it looks like she got about $16,000 from the state party. http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/H6MI09146 It is a little curious that the Sierra Club only gave her $10.

[ray of light]

32. Excellent question.

In Michigan, there were two very competitive districts that we could have won if the party would have sent more money. One is the district where Sharon Renier was running against Mr. Tim-the unBaptist-former-minister-nowabigfatliar-Club-for-Growth-Walburg. The other was Skinner's district.

I know it's difficult to remember things back then. It does seem as if it was ages ago!

But in Skinner's district, it had been one of the districts where the Republicans felt they desparately had to win. So with things so bad in so many Republican areas, they opted instead to toss massive amounts of money in the last 6 weeks to a few districts. This was one of them. Remember? They sent the money, the experienced big-wigs, and the big criminals at the top--like Cheney to do lots of campaign appearances or fundraisers. They had the late night prank calls with a woman pretending to be Skinner. They had their usual bag of dirty tricks. But the point is that they sent their money system and their political hacks in droves to this district.

The Democratic Party did not respond. The national party had their other 'key picks', places like Webb or Tester and so on. So the money wasn't there.

Now on the other hand in Renier's district, they had Club for Growth who donated and sent out campaign mailors and made dirty trick phone calls all in support of the now incumbant liar, Walberg. They had Cheney taking trips to G.R. earning $2500/head for Walberg-the-lying-exminister, while Renier was lucky to get $5.00 per head at local grassroot fundraisers. Yet, despite the huge fundraiser difference the MDP and the National Dem Party was nowhere in sight! NO WHERE!


The problem with the issue of Skinner and Renier needing more money was that the DNC had so many years of not enough money and the Republicans had such a huge stockpile of money that the national and state party divied out the minimum they could to these people, but they gave MASSIVE amounts to people like Lamott, Webb, Tester, and so on.

Now getting to the original point of your question, Peters did not go out and canvass for Skinner, just like Schuer (sp), the current candidate in Renier's district, who did not canvass for Renier. So they 'allowed' these people to run, but didn't give them any support because they figured they would be able to be run the state Rep. as the candidate in 08 and take the money-guys with them. And for Schauer (sp) after so many years in the state office had to either run as governor or run as State Rep. The choice is clear. If you were a democratic politician, would you opt for running for the governor of our state right now?!!! Regarding Peters, I do not know if he had timed out of the state-house and had to move on or retire or run for governor.

That's how in effect the money guys are following the state reps in both of these districts even though in both of them, they came within 4-5 percentage points of winning.

[JNelson6563]

33. Ok, this stuff really irks me

While I can see that Skinner certainly would've benefitted from the sort of publicity Peters is getting so early on from the MDP I absolultely draw the line at "if only the MDP had given more money..." This turns my stomach in regard to any race but a state wide race i.e. Governor). It is not up to the MDP to fund state House, US House, state Senate or US Senate races. It's not their job.

Also, I would like to remind everyone, since we are going for a ride in the way back machine, there was a certrain race two years ago in MI that literally sucked all the money out of the state political machine, you may recall, a little someone with deep pockets named Dick (fittingly I might add) challenging our Gov.

I used to think living in Traverse City was a disadvantage because up here we are rarely on anyone's radar for funding. On the other hand, I never ever suffer bitter disappointment due to my misplaced sense of entitlement.

My advice to anyone considering a run, don't listen to those who know no better that tell you the state party or the DCCC or whoever will give big bucks. Plan on getting no big sums from such groups and plan to do it all yourself. Strong organization is key and aggressive fundraising by you and your team is what is to be depended on, not any sort of entitlement from some Big Daddy entity somewhere.

Julie

[bfealk]

34. I agree Julie

Julie,

You and I totally agree on this one and this is something that Nancy has been emphasizing in her campaign appearances and big time on line. Everywhere Sharon posts she makes mention of the fact that Nancy didn't get any help. And I've been trying to make the point that as a candidate, you cannot count on the DCCC to help with money or the state party. But that seems to be the clarion call of her campaign, that she could have won had she gotten financial support from the DCCC and the MDP, but that support is not given, but earned, based on the candidate's fundraising and polling.

To my knowledge, Nancy never even did any polling of her own for her race, I assume due to lack of funds, but she took John Ashcraft's polling that we did the October before the election and that was the only polling data Nancy had access to.

[JNelson6563]

35. I've not heard it so much as you think

and frankly, I've yet to hear anyone officially linked to her campaign bemoan lack of funds from the MDP. As to other support, I can't help but wonder if Skinner had gotten the early efforts Peters has (he's obviously been given access to some important data not to mention lots of promotion) she may have won last time 'round. Of course we'll never know for sure.

I wrote that post not as a slam to Skinner and her supporters so much as a general complaint. I hear it even in our own 4th District and that's laughable. We haven't had a viable candidate since these districts were drawn but so many (with no clue) drink from the cup of "if only the MDP would've kicked in money!" Oy.

The sooner candidates realize that ain't how it works the better off we'll all be.

Julie

[ray of light]

36. JNelson,

I do know that two of the 08 candidates have access to traditional big donors that a new face doesn't have and wouldn't have had in 06. Of course that's an advantage of having someone already in office running for a new office.


Secondly, before I cam into the MI forum that one day and saw Ffeake's smears all over the place, I didn't give a hoot about Peters or Skinner, nor do I work for either of them.

[JNelson6563]

37. No offense was intended

I probably should've started a new thread on the topic, mea culpa.

Cheers,
Julie

[ray of light]

39. I wasn't offended. I was just clearing my own 'record' of comments here.

Because I just hate seeing someone use a scortched earth policy to try to get their candidate in power. It tells you something that they're willing to use any rumor and innuendo and smear it all over cyberspace--and bfeake does that! Shame on him!

And my original problem with it was that I came in the MI forum to find out more info about how to vote in the primaries, and I had to swim through a bunch of his smears to find the information I needed.

So I'm sorry if my post to you sounded abrupt. I hadn't intentended it to sound that way.

[maddogesq]

38. Every time I see one of those smears, I am reminded....

of this immortal rock lyric:

“Dirty Deeds, DONE DIRT CHEAP!”