Ehlers Retirement in Context
Vern Ehlers has not been one of those members of Congress who makes the national news on a regular basis. Representing the 3rd congressional district of Michigan, Ehlers seems to have preferred to keep a low profile.
The election season of 2010 was not going to allow Representative Ehlers to keep a low profile, however. In most years, Ehlers has been challenged only by weak Democrats who didn’t stand much of a chance of winning in an area where registered Republicans easily outnumber registered Democrats.
This year, there has been no Democrat running against Ehlers at all. There has, however, been a candidate seeking to challenge Ehlers from within the Republican Party. The challenger, Michael Van Kleeck, comes from the libertarian faction of the GOP that has succeeded in getting Republicans involved in politics again, despite their recent defeats, through the Tea Party movement. Van Kleeck speaks to the populist anger common in Michigan’s politics these days in a way that Ehlers cannot.
As a member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Ehlers chose the quiet and easy path, voting mostly with other congressional Republicans, but sometimes supporting solid Democratic legislation as well, such as the effort to ensure an end to torture by the US government by requiring the videotaping of interrogation sessions. Over the last year, Ehlers cosponsored the Clean Water Protection Act, to prevent the dumping of wastes associated with coal mining in mountain streams, as well as the Federal Ocean Acidification Research And Monitoring Act, to combat the growing problem of ocean acidification that’s a consequence of our industrial civilization’s high carbon emissions.
In response to Ehler’s measured conservatism, Van Kleeck has gathered crowds of enthusiastic supporters with sweeping statements of outrage. “With one voice, as one people, as Americans, we must demand that our voice be heard! I need not remind you of the horrific legislation, under the name of ‘Cap and Trade’, that has passed our Congress that is in direct violation of the 10th Amendment. If we do not stand now, there is not a time to stand,” Van Kleeck urges, without needing to explain to his audience how passing Cap and Trade legislation would prevent Americans from taking a stand at any future time.
Rather than take on the angry insurrection of Van Kleeck, Ehlers has opted to bow out. The news today is that Vern Ehlers will not seek re-election this year. He may hope that another more reasonable Republican may now come forward to compete against Van Kleeck’s more extreme tone. However, in a time when Sarah Palin has risen to become the star of the Republican Party, it may be quite difficult for any moderate Republican to be elected to Congress.
Michael Van Kleeck has put his name out there to campaign to make this country better. Just as Rep. Ehlers has campaigned to do over the past 16+ years in the House. But you don’t put your name or qualifications out there. Who are you? A respectable columnist should put a byline on his or he writings and a qualifier at the end of it saying “John Smith is a political consultant who has worked in West Michigan politics for the past 10 years.” But you did not do this. Now, to submit this comment, I am REQUIRED to submit my e-mail addess and name. Where’s your courage, Mr. (or Ms.) Anonymous?
Unless your name is truly “Anonymous”, I think you can see that you are not required to submit your name to write a comment here. As for writing about Congress, I think it’s the content of an article that matters, not the byline of a “respectable” name. Can you respond to the information in this article?
Who are you “Congress Watcher?” Put your name on it. Why tha anonymity. I posted “anonymous” as kind of a joke.
I think Van Kleeck’s statement about “If we don’t If we do not stand now, there is not a time to stand” is just an example of when an overreaching government plan like this goes into effect and the people do not react, there would really be nothing that would get the people upset enough to speak up. Cap and trade is a joke. It is a scheme that just goes to make global warming alarmists feel better like they’re “saving the planet.” Oops. I’m sorry I used the term “global warming” rather than the new, more poitically correct term “climate change.” This movement had to change it name as its data has been found to be more fraudulent.
The philosophy that “you emitted too much carbon so you have to pay money” does nothing to save or clean the environment. And if these carbon emitters are fined or charged or billed for emitting too much carbon, they’ll just pass it on. If my local power company emits too much carbon, it is not just going to say “oh well. I guess we’ve gotta write a check.” No. They will just jack up consumers’ rates.
Republicans in the 2000s got on the wrong track. Just as Democrats are now. Drunk with power: “We control the House, the Senate, AND the White House. We can do whatever we want.”
President Bush never saw a spending bill passed by his Republican Congress he didn’t like. He vetoed nothing.
Fiscally conservative Republicans are what this country needs right now. Rep. Ehlers has served his constituency well. But it is time for new blood. This just isn’t in Michigan’s 3rd district, this is throughout most of Congress. The rate that incumbents are returned to office should be flipped.
Since World War II, 90% of incumbents who ran for reelection were successful. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incumbency_advantage)
Greg, can you explain to me with health care reform and climate legislation how the Democrats have acted as if they can do whatever they want? If you look at the process, it’s pretty clear that the Democrats were compromising with Republicans from the start as if they had the presumption that they could NOT do whatever they wanted to do. Can you provide any specific information to refute this idea, or are you just speaking from a general impression gathered by watching TV news shows?