Posted on 08/02/2006 3:06:28 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Michael Bouchard was a full-time public safety officer at age 20.
After a few years in police work, he grew frustrated with a legal system he said was sometimes unfair to victims of sexual assault and other crimes. He sought out Oakland County candidates he thought might make good judges and began working on their campaigns in the mid-1980s.
Bouchard soon decided he should dive deeper into politics and run for office himself, helping to make the laws rather than just enforcing them.
“It opened my eyes to another reality,” said Bouchard, now a Republican primary candidate for U.S. Senate. “Pretty much everything I did as a law enforcement officer or as a small business owner was very much related to who was making the laws in the political world. And I felt I needed to get more involved.”
(Excerpt) Read more at lenconnect.com ...
Next week is the primary, and hopefully Bouchard can raise the necessary funds to challenge "Dangerously Incompetent" Debbie Stabenow.
I've pretty firmly settled on Bouchard,
As am I. Butler's new ad saying he is all for affirmative action and univeral health care really sealed it for me.
Wish Brouchard was running here against Kohl in WI.
I knew about the affirmative action, which is a red light for me but univeral health care?
Not good
I'm sure that Keith Butler is a good, honorable man, but Bouchard is better-suited for the U.S. Senate.
Yes, Butler is a good man and has done a lot of good things for people.
I went to Keith Butler's web site and this is his position on two issues that were mentioned on this thread, Affirmative Action, the Michigan Civil Rights bill on the ballot and health care.
And if you want an accurate statement of his position on the issues for yourself, including immigration and our borders, go to his website, butlerforussenate
Affirmative Action
"I do not support quotas or set aside programs for anyone. However, after much study of this issue, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot support Ward Connerly's proposal. I have come to the conclusion that his proposal goes too far and has hidden unintended consequences.
Let's be clear, the U.S. Supreme Court in its decisions concerning the University of Michigan outlawed the use of added points for minority applicants. Regarding the University of Michigan Law School, the U.S. Supreme Court said that an applicant's life circumstances could be evaluated in determining admissions. President George Bush praised the decision saying, "I applaud the Supreme Court for recognizing the value of diversity on our Nation's campuses. Diversity is one of America's greatest strengths." I agree with President Bush and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ward Connerly's proposal will not end discrimination in Michigan. His proposal will not end or outlaw, cronyism, favoritism, `Legacy' admissions, geographic discrimination, or athletic preferences.
This proposal will however terminate many worthwhile programs including, any Michigan program that aims to increase opportunities for women including recruitment, training, and outreach programs in public education and employment.
Efforts to hire more women for certain jobs would be banned. Programs aimed at attracting women to specific educational areas like science or nursing would be banned. Same sex classes for young girls would be banned. Summer job programs, fair housing and lending programs, apprentice programs or any gender-based program for training or outreach would be banned under this proposal. And these restrictions would be put into the state constitution.
This proposal is wrong for Michigan. We still live in a society where some among us still need assistance. We do not need quotas or set-asides for anyone, but is it wrong to encourage young girls to take math and science courses? Is it wrong to support a program that encourages young black men to go to college? Is it wrong to encourage singlemothers to complete their education? I don't believe it is."
Health care costs are rising at the rate of 11-12% annually due to a system based on acute care rather than prevention and wellness; the grave and deadly errors caused by not having a computerized system; no real competition as the consumer is removed from the system; medical liability; and the usage of more expensive medical service by those who do not have health care coverage.
What are the possible solutions:
1. Give everyone in the country some form of a medical savings account at birth. You are already paying for the uninsured anyway. They cannot be denied care when they go to a hospital. Because, they don't have regular care the emergency room is their doctor, which is the most costly health care service, and the costs are charged to the rest of us. And because they don't get regular care, they are sicker when they arrive and require a longer stay. You save money if you give them an account.
2. Make these accounts tax-free. Allow money to be put in from any source and withdrawn without consequences if used for a legitimate health purpose.
3. Give incentives such as cash or other means for people who follow a healthy lifestyle. You get more of what you reward and less of what you punish. 4. Require every health care provider to fully computerize. Require them to post their charge rate on the Internet. Have a rating system for hospitals so the consumer can make choices. Provide liability reform on both time and cost.
5. Put the consumer back in the game. Make them responsible for their care. Empower them with choice and arm them with information; shine the light so that all may see.
6. Competition will be put back into the system driving costs down and quality up. A side benefit is Medicaid and Medicare are health care driven. If you drive the costs down, you save billions on the federal budget.
I agree.
I just hope people will read the FACTS instead of jumping to erroneous conclusions
As far as voting in the primary, do what you can do to get people to the polls!
I don't think its crazy and I wish more people would recognize that this is a very important general election coming up!
If he is against affirmative action and universal health care, he ought to rewrite his radio ads. One I heard on WJR said he was for "affirmative action" and "health care for everyone". If I thought he meant universal health care by "health care for everyone", I can't be the only one.
Post #9 is from his website where he addresses these issues
I am against affirmative action and I was for this to pass until I read the entire language of it.
This particular proposal has issues written into to it that I am against, like banning same sex classes for girls PLUS its written into the state Constitution which should always give you pause and to carefully read the language of the whole proposal
Ward Connerly's proposal will not end discrimination in Michigan. His proposal will not end or outlaw, cronyism, favoritism, `Legacy' admissions, geographic discrimination, or athletic preferences.
From Bulter's site (taken my post #9)
This proposal will however terminate many worthwhile programs including, any Michigan program that aims to increase opportunities for women including recruitment, training, and outreach programs in public education and employment.
Efforts to hire more women for certain jobs would be banned. Programs aimed at attracting women to specific educational areas like science or nursing would be banned. Same sex classes for young girls would be banned. Summer job programs, fair housing and lending programs, apprentice programs or any gender-based program for training or outreach would be banned under this proposal. And these restrictions would be put into the state constitution.
Yes, his web site seems to make him look more conservative and pragmatic on the health care issue. The phrase "health care for everyone" is a something I see as code for universal health care. And that was the what was in his radio ad.
His positions, for the most part excluding MCRI and afirmative action, are very good and conservative. His advertising seems to be trying to appeal to Democrats, but they are probably turning off people like me. The ads being run by his so-called friends are a turn-off for me as well.
Bouchard appears to be against MCRI as well.
It appears that it doesn't really matter who wins.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060728/NEWS06/607280315/1008
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.