Hoekstra's No Genius

I just read an op-ed in the Lansing City Pulse, our local alternative newspaper, that irks me a tad.

The writer, who also edits a well-respected political newsletter on state government/politics, opined that Republican U.S. Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra’s offensive anti-Stabenow ad – the one that ran during the Super Bowl and featured a Chinese woman with a straw hat riding a bicycle in a rice paddy and speaking broken English – might in fact have been a stroke of genius.

I’m surprised that the writer – an astute and talented fellow who enjoys greater respect and a bigger paycheck than I get – would justify a truly offensive commercial and provide cover for a candidate with obviously flawed judgment by asserting that the ad got him some much-needed national attention and helped position him to fundraise more successfully.

Not a genius

If enabling your opponent to raise $150,000 because of your commercial, as Debbie Stabenow (or “Debbie Spenditnow” as the ridiculous Hoekstra ad referred to her) did, and effectively dooming your candidacy in front of tens of millions of television viewers are the actions of a genius, I don’t want to be smart.

In the words of Nathan Triplett, a local elected official and Facebook buddy, “Apparently, shameless appeals to xenophobia aren't as effective an electoral strategy as Pete Hoekstra thought. Senator Debbie Stabenow leads Hoekstra by 14 points, 51%-37%, in the latest Public Policy Polling survey.”

The City Pulse writer also wrote, “Hoekstra needs small contributions from a large number of people.” That’s just silly. It’s safe to assume the candidate would welcome large contributions from a small number of super PACS too.

And he pointed out, “Now people are paying attention....” I’m pretty sure most voters aren’t yet paying attention to this race – especially since Stabenow’s Republican challenger hasn’t actually been determined yet. If he’s referring to the GOP’s behind-the-scenes money bags and puppet masters, are they really going to decide that someone who’s alienated and perturbed a sizable segment of the country’s population is just the kind of guy they want to get behind? They may be evil but they’re not stupid.

Stabenow is a smart, charming and formidable incumbent who’s about to complete two terms in the U.S. Senate and served in the U.S. House and both houses of the Michigan legislature before that. She’s amassed a sizable campaign war chest and is known to be a hard worker, credible lawmaker and adept politician who’s relatively scandal-free (her second husband turned out to be sleazy but she divorced him in 2010).

In 2009, it was suggested that President Obama nominate her to become Secretary of Health and Human Services after Tom Daschle’s nomination imploded but it wasn’t to be. (Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius snagged the job.) She currently sits on the Senate Budget, Finance, and Energy and Natural Resources Committees and chairs the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. (For information on Stabenow’s position on specific issues, click here.)

Hoekstra, on the other hand, represented Michigan’s 2nd district in the U.S. House of Representatives for 17 years and became known to many as the guy who publicly attacked the Islamic Society of North America, lied about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, sponsored a website that provided “detailed information that could potentially be helpful to those seeking to produce nuclear weapons” and had to be taken down, and joined then-fellow Congressman Rick Santorum at a press conference in June of 2006 to erroneously insist that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq (the Pentagon begged to differ).

It’s probably not fair to list Hoekstra’s position on specific issues and not do the same for Stabenow. But it’s my blog.

Hoekstra voted against human embryonic stem cell research, opposed U.S. aid to other countries if any of it went toward family planning, and supported granting equal protection under the 14th Amendment to unborn babies. He voted against modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures, regulating the subprime mortgage industry and prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The guy voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, make the Patriot Act permanent, give federal aid only to schools that allow voluntary prayer, and provide vouchers for private and parochial schools. He also voted to authorize military force in Iraq and impose sanctions on Iran because it’s developing nuclear technology.

But wait. There's more. He voted against letting shareholders vote on executive compensation and providing tax incentives for renewable energy. And he earned a lousy 10 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters and a solid 100 percent rating from the Christian Coalition.

Hoekstra decided to run for governor in 2010 instead of seeking re-election to the House and was clobbered in the Republican primary by the eventual winner, Rick Snyder. He then signed on to the Washington law firm of Dickstein Shapiro – I know, right? – and became a "distinguished fellow," whatever that means, at the Heritage Foundation before announcing that he wasn’t going to challenge Stabenow this year and then reversing himself.

Hoekstra’s old U.S. House district is Michigan’s most Republican – John “Am I Drooling?” McCain won it in 2008 with 51 percent of the vote – but the rest of the state leaned blue in 2008’s presidential election and in the midterm elections of 2010. In my view, it’s clear that Pete Hoekstra doesn’t belong in the U.S. Senate – and he’s clearly no genius.

A true genius

Sources: Lansing City Pulse; Public Policy Polling; Eclectablog; Ontheissues.org; Politicsusa.com; Mark Newman, Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems at the University of Michigan.