We will have the distinct pleasure of hosting a conversation tonight (8-9 PM Eastern time) with congressional candidate Jim Marcinkowski of Lake Orion, Michigan. Mr. Marcinkowski has a distinguished history of serving our country.
He started out working in a clerical position with the FBI before enlisting in the Navy. Jim served in a variety of capacities in the Navy, including: as an air controller, and as an expert in anti-submarine warfare and surveillance of the Soviet Navy.
After his service in the Navy, he obtained a degree in political science from Michigan State University and a Law Degree from the University of Detroit. After completing his law degree, Jim joined the CIA and went through their Career Trainee Program and Operations Course with Larry Johnson and Valerie Plame.
He was assigned to operations in Latin America and
Washington D.C. When he left the agency to join the Prosecutor’s Office in Oakland County, Michigan, he received an Exceptional Performance Award.
His most famous accomplishment as an Oakland County prosecutor was in successfully prosecuting Jack Kervokian, the controversial doctor that assisted some chronically ill people in their suicides.
Jim is also a member of Teamsters Local 214.
His district is the 8th Congressional District and it is currently held by Mike Rogers. Rogers serves as “Majority Deputy Whip and as coalitions leader for the whip team; and on two major committees, the powerful Energy and Commerce panel and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.” Rogers also is a veteran of the FBI where he investigated public corruption. For this reason his name was recently tossed out as a potential replacement for Tom DeLay.
We will post a thread at 8 O’clock for those of you that are interested in talking to Jim about his candidacy and the important issues facing the country.
In the meantime, I find it to be an interesting phenomenon that there are an increasing number of veterans of our armed forces and intelligence agencies that are identifying themselves as Democrats and running for office. Some people are uncomfortable with aspects of this. And there are, indeed, many interesting things to discuss about the so-called ‘Fighting Dems’.
We can discuss them in this thread.
From my perspective, the Bush administration represents a radical departure from the traditional Republican Party. The influx of tough guys into the party represents a pushback against the Bush administration’s misuse and abuse of both the armed services and the intelligence community.
The left-wing of the Democratic Party has been critical of the way our intelligence services have been used since, at least, the Vietnam Era. Our biggest concern right now is with how the National Security Agency is being used. So, when we get together with intelligence officers it can make for strange bedfellows. We’ve all experienced this with the posts of Larry Johnson and Pat Lang.
One thing that unites us is a belief in the necessity for good dispassionate and non-partisan intelligence. Another thing that unites us is our belief in taking care of our veteran’s with the very best health care and benefits. Lastly, we are united in seeing the Iraq War as a strategic blunder.
To me, “The Fighting Dems” are not just some stunt to change the perception of the Democrats as soft on national security. They are indicative of a shifting center. Many people that have experience in national security are convinced that the Bush administration is endangering the nation and violating our civil liberties. In the past, they might have considered themselves moderate Republicans or libertarians. Today, they are Democrats. And while we might not share the same priorities, or the same views on both domestic and foreign policy, we do share a commitment to a new course that is significantly different from the one George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have charted.
is a reaction to Bushco’s abuse of the intelligence community and the rank and file military. So while Democratic leadership is somewhat in a muddle over national security issues, they are still the only opposition party with a chance to turn the tide. Hmmm, let me make that clearer: The “Fightin’ Dems” are not necessarily embracing the Democratic Party, they may be rejecting the Republican Party.
Altho, in Mr. Marcinkowski’s case, being a Union member and all, he may have always been a Democrat… I wonder how many of these new “veteran candidates” have changed parties and how many have always been Democrats and now feel compelled to act upon their principles. If they’ve always been Democrats then the shift is not from one party to another but a shift to civic duty. Maybe this distinction doesn’t matter…
I don’t know how Jim has been registered or voted in the past. But I do know that some of the biggest critics of the Bush administration were happy serving Ronald Reagain and carrying out his priorities (for example, in Latin America and Afghanistan). And even though I feel a little awkward making common cause with people that might have been big boosters of the Contras, I still am grateful for a widening coalition of people that are opposed to Bush’s policies and who have the credibility and experience to make a cogent and convincing argument for change.
I think he may have been a Repub in the past, just from what I saw in my obligatory [name of fighting Dem + pro-life] google search. Which, btw, didn’t turn up anything to set my hair on fire.
I am happy to see people turning away from Bush, but really hope that they are also embracing some of what I think are core Dem values.
I think he may have been a Repub in the past
Seem to remember reading/hearing that somewhere…
He participated in Conyers’ CIA leak/Downing Street Memo hearing last July. I think that’s a good sign.
Maybe that was where I read/heard that…
on the upcoming invasion of Iran 😉
But when I find myself aligned with old CIA guys, it feels damned weird. The Republican Party welcomed the old Dixiecrats with open arms and now the grassroots of the Democratic Party is open-armed to former, er, spooks and disgruntled military vets. “Politics makes strange bedfellows,” right?
I see this shift as something coming unglued in DC; the old intra-government alliances and power groups are falling apart. I have no doubt that those Contra boosters adamantly believed they were serving the best interests of our country. They were wrong, of course, but they believed they were serving the US. The difference now is that these fellows are being asked to serve the best interests of the Republican One-Party Rule Machine and that’s where they break ranks.
I need to read The Illuminatus Trilogy again but, as I recall it, we’re seeing the Mad Dog Texas branch pushing out the Mayflower branch. The Mad Dog contingent wants power for power’s sake while the Old Guard, at least, has pretentions to integrity and serving the public good albeit from a condescending elitist perspective.
I don’t mean to cast aspersions on your guest tonight at all. He’s probably a complete good guy. I’m just musing over the strange manifestations of the current total-power grab and the up-right sorts that want no part of it.
Reminder of historical perspective appreciated. Also putting “The Illuminatus Trilogy” on my must read list.
Musing as well.
re: no aspersions–ditto!
The Illuminatus Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, you absolutely must. It came out in 1975 and I re-read it every five years or so because it is so damned prescient about the political and occult (hidden) forces at work in our world. Plus, it is exceptionally entertaining, has great SF allusions and is LOL funny.
Shea and Wilson basically dropped a lot of LSD and conjured up a “fictional” mish-mash that later terrified both of them by being so dead-on true. Twenty-five years later, Wilson told me that he couldn’t believe he hadn’t been killed for inadvertantly revealing how the world really works. His only defense was continuing to pass himself off as a brain-damaged kook.
Never read it before and am definitely going to!!! (From your description, it sounds like a must-read-and-re-read. ) Always love a good read!
The iomportant thing is that at least back then this country had the opportunity to debate the issues, e.g., on-again, off-again, Boland Amendments. Remember that?
Thought that only applied to Central America.
To Cabin Girl and others. I believe Jim is a “reformed Republican”. Could be wrong! But go ahead and ask what issues concern him most. I think you will be pleased with what he has to say.
I’m interested in what he has to say. I didn’t intend to diss him with my comment, I just have noticed that many OTHER fighting Dems that are promoted ELSEWHERE come with atttributes that I find unappealing. No offense meant!
And hey, the more people who turn away from the Rs, the better.
Same here.
Cabin Girl: None taken. It would take a lot for me to be offended by anything you had to add to a conversation.
more powerful if he is a “reformed Republican.” That puts him in a good position to attract crossover votes from true* Republicans who are uncomfortable with current policies.
* Fiscal responsibility + none-of-your-business privacy rights + equality of all citizens before The Law.
January 10, 2006
My name is Jim Marcinkowski and I am running for the United States Congress. And I am especially proud to make this announcement, standing here with a true American patriot, Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Joe, thanks for your outstanding service to America and thanks for being here with me today.
As many of you may know, I used to be a Republican. It was on the campus of Michigan State more than 25 years ago that I first became active in politics, running Ronald Reagan’s campaign for president. I, like many people trying to provide for children and make ends meet, didn’t pay that close attention to politics. But when I did look back over the past twenty some years, I realized that the Republican party had become something I could no longer relate to, that it had left me. But more importantly, I realized that it had left the fundamental ideals and principles that made this nation great.
With Republicans now in control of the entire federal government we, as middle-class, middle-Americans, are in trouble. The Republican-controlled Congress has become nothing more than a rubber-stamp for the many misguided policies of the White House, a White House where any dissent is suppressed; any criticism, crushed; the public media is bought; where any debate, questions or criticisms are portrayed as being un-American or unpatriotic; and where adherence to the law and our Constitution has become relative. They are ignoring the rising costs of health care, sending hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas, placing pensions in jeopardy, damaging our international relationships and placing our long term financial future in doubt.
Both presidents, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, spoke of the United States as being a “city on a hill”, an example for all nations and all peoples of the world.
And now, as we look around, as the entire world looks at this great nation for leadership and for partnership, what has become of that grave trust, of that responsibility?
As a prosecutor here in the state of Michigan, as well as a CIA officer overseas, I am outraged at the current debates in Washington:
The answer to all of the above is an unequivocal “no”. I know because I have dealt personally with each of these issues:
And most importantly, I know that it is because of what this country stands for that we are able to work with and recruit foreign assets to build an intelligence network capable of protecting us against those who seek to harm us. If we do not stand for the rule of law, the ideal of democracy, the principles that distinguish us from other countries, then how are we to convince others to assist us in the war on terror, or to prove for all the world that our system of government is the one worth defending?
In the fight against terror, we must be tougher by being smarter. We simply cannot afford to invade countries because the regime is determined to be “bad”, because, unfortunately, too many regimes in this world are indeed bad, but pose no immediate threat to the United States. And you need not look too far, to North Korea, to Iran or to the genocide in Darfur. Such a reckless policy will result in the endless expenditure of our precious blood and treasure.
But let there be no doubt, I would not hesitate to pull the trigger on any terrorist posing a threat to the United States. To do so would in fact be very easy. But countering the terrorist threat without sacrificing our principles and our Constitution is what needs to be done. If not, then what are we fighting to protect?
We will not look the other way when the White House exposes the identity of an undercover CIA officer for purely political purposes, as we will not look the other way when the White House is exposed breaking the law as it by-passes judicial review.
And we should not tolerate those members of Congress like Mike Rogers, who, standing by the president right or wrong, has said and done nothing.
President Kennedy, when describing the Office of the President once said:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
But that is exactly what this Republican-lead Congress and presidential “yes men” like Mike Rogers, have become: unpatriotic and servile.
Under no circumstance should we allow partisan politics to trump national security and the rule of law. Our security is not relative. The law is not relative, and we cannot allow our Constitution to become relative. We can and we will do better.
The Economy
The Republican-controlled Congress,
has turned its back on working families.
While visiting UAW local 5960 in Lake Orion, I was struck by a mural on one wall with a banner that read “We built this city”. It is true, that the workers of Michigan built not only this city, but this state and this country. It was through the spilling of blood, of sweat and of tears, by our parents and grandparents, that “we built this city” by fighting and establishing:
Through negotiation and contractual obligations, we established the wage and benefit rate for workers not only here in Michigan but across this country. First we set the bar, then we raised the bar and others gratefully followed. But we set more than just the wage rate and benefit level in this country; we established a standard of living second to none.
You shouldn’t have to apologize for that, none of America’s organized workers should have to apologize for that, this campaign will not apologize for that, and I will never, ever, apologize for that
But Mike Rogers and the Republicans have placed all of those achievements in play. The “Republican values plan” is like a horrifying episode of “The Waltons” where all three generations are forced to have to live in one house:
The Roger’s agenda is not the agenda of hard-working middle-class families. The Republican agenda simply widens the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. If the minimum wage had increased since 1990, at the same rate as executive compensation, the minimum wage in this country would be $23.00 an hour instead of its current $5.15.
The economic belief, expressed by both presidents, Kennedy and Reagan, that a “rising tide raises all boats”, has been replaced by the Republican’s belief that “a sinking middle class raises all yachts”!
Whatever you may have thought of Ronald Reagan’s “trickle-down” theory, the only things “trickling-down” under the Republicans today are the loss of jobs, the loss of pensions, the loss of pay, and the loss of any form of economic stability.
This unprecedented race for the bottom is not my idea of what America is all about. It’s not about corporations and profits. America is about people, hard-working people.
Mike Rogers has been in office going on 6 years. What has he accomplished over that period of time?
At the same time, this Republican administration has borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than every administration combined and the Republican Congress has granted $14.7 billion in tax cuts to the oil industry who are making record profits, while we pay $2-3 dollars a gallon for gasoline.
Is there any wonder why the unequivocal facts show that the rich are becoming richer; the poor, poorer; and those in the middle are disappearing?
We simply cannot afford another two years of these kinds of statistics from the failed policies of the Republican Congress.
As you all know, campaigns cost millions upon millions of dollars. I fully anticipate, no matter what amount of money I am able to raise, that I will be outspent two-to-one. But where those millions come from is important. And with Jack Abramoff, we’re just beginning to see the tip of the corruption iceberg. Let me tell you where Mike Roger’s received his money:
The American middle-class is under attack and the time to fight back begins here and it begins right now. We need to become Americans again, where Americans count, where jobs take precedence over stock options, where affordable health care takes precedence over face-lifts, and where “30 and out” doesn’t mean thirty and out in the street.
I am not going to be intimidated, as Ambassador Wilson was not intimidated, by the rhetoric of those who do not respect what this country stands for. For too long now, those who seek only power and self preservation, have falsely cloaked themselves in the flag and patriotic sounding rhetoric, all the while taking advantage of the legitimate fears people have for the safety of themselves, their families and this country. At the same time, they have turned their back on the American worker and working families throughout Mid-Michigan. We can do better. We must do better.
Those are the reason I am running for Congress. Those are the reasons why I am a Democrat. Those are the reasons why, with your help, we can, and we will take back the Congress this November.
I got chills from that!
Looks like he knows what he’s doing. I like how he goes from local issues and connects them to the GOP and their national agenda and corruption. If more Dem candidates could put it all together like this we’d have a Dem congress next year.
I think most “real” Democrats can be identified by the fact that their second toe is longer than their big toe. That is how you know someone is a “real” Democrat. For right now if he isn’t a Republican it works for me.
Welcome to BT, RATQ!
Thank you I feel right at home.
So all those years I thought I was a Republican I was just foolin’ myself? LOL! There probably is some kind of genetic identifier to party identity. Woe is us if the Inquisition comes calling… too many birthmarks — to the stakes; long second toe — to the stakes!
If you own a Drummel you can turn yourself back into a Republican.
It’s disconcerting to me that we’re supposed to embrace candidates into the ‘big tent’ of this party who we know so little about. Is the biggest requirement that these candidates have worn a uniform in a branch of our military? Does it matter how long they have been Democrats? Is it a little preposterous not knowing if they were Republicans before deciding to run as Democrats?
Is all of this about making the Democrats look good on national security?
I see nothing on Mr. Marcinkowski’s website about where he stands on issues except the middle class and business concerns. You can click on a link to donate or volunteer or to read his speeches but there is no link for him to disclose where he stands on any issue.
When I look over the current political landscape I see a middle class that is under attack.
This is true but it’s also true that women are under attack in the current political landscape. Where does he stand on a woman’s right to choose? With states like South Dakota banning all abortions with NO exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the woman, with Indiana following suit and with 13 other states with bills to ban all abortions waiting to be voted on by the legislature, it is incumbent we know who we are voting into office.
Too many of the ‘fighting dems’ websites tell us nothing. The current political landscape too often hides too many things from the American people. If these candidates want to turn the tide of being evasive perhaps they should go out of their way to tell us upfront where they stand instead of waiting until we ask where they stand. Being forthcoming seems to be the higher road, it would also give us greater confidence in who these candidates are, but maybe that’s just me.
that is why Jim is coming on to talk to us. You can ask questions about these issues and see how you feel about them. And it is an opportunity to share your concerns with someone that just might be in a position to act on them a year from now.
Statistically, more women than men are receiving some sort of social program, if not more. That is also a concern.
It’s me too.. I want to know where he stands on abortion, Plan B birth control and access to birth control period. I know that he prosecuted Dr. Kevorkian, but was that because it was his job or because he doesn’t think that we should have something similar to Oregon’s assisted suicide law nationwide? I like what he has to say on outsourcing, Republican corruption, and other topics, but would like to hear more details. If he’s from this area of Oakland County, I’m not surprised that he was a Republican at one time – Orion Township rarely sees a Democrat running for local office. Heck, I used to be a Republican back when the party stood for something other than sticking it to the poor. That ended with Reagan’s reign. I’ve found that the older I get, the more progressive I become.
Absolutely everything you said. As an aside, I’ve been a liberal since I was two and am just as liberal now that I’m 57. It always makes me laugh when I hear someone say we get more conservative with age. If that’s true I hope my ashes are scattered before it hits me.
I was taken aback when it was said his greatest success has been to successfully prosecute Dr. Kevorkian. Of course Terry Schiavo immediately comes to mind, we need to know how intrusive he thinks the government can be in our lives whether it’s deciding to terminate a pregnancy or how we will end our lives.
I’m also interested on his take on the ‘new welfare reform’ that will be up before Congress this year. What about equal pay and Title IX? It’s all of women’s and girl’s rights. Does he have any ideas on how to reduce the incidents of violence against women in his state and/or the country? Where does he stand on subsidized daycare?
Women need to know where each of these candidates stand on our rights to live an equal, safe, secure and a more prosperous life.
My geeatest success are my three children, not Jack Kevorkian.
I prosecuted Jack for assaulting police, not for his “work”. While out on bond on my case however, he did remove someone’s kidney (on, it was rumored, a kitchen/dining room table) and then placed it in a bucket of ice a paraded the bucket in front of the news media. I checked with the transplant folks at the University of Michigan and of course, the kidney was not useable for any reason. There is a lot more to Jack than meets the (media) eye.
Terry Schiavo was a national disgrace – with the Senate Leader (pandering) diagnosing via television. There needs to be less government (Senate) and media (Schiavo/Kevorkian) involvment, and more doctor-patient influence.
Please see my website for my background on Domestic Violence prevention/treatment programs: www.marcinkowskiforcongress.com
Can I ask a question of the candidate here? Mr. Marcinkowski, what do you make of the president sneaking in the privatization of Social Security into this years budget? Don’t believe I heard a word about this in his SOTU address.
I thought I replied earlier, but I’ll give it another shot. These guys are really hell bent on sending money to Wallstreet. They know they cannot get the privitization issue through in the light of day, so they must “sneak” it through. Incredible, and so blatantly disingenuous.
I didn’t hear it either.
Thanks for stopping by to share some ideas.
I just finished reading part of a transcript of testimony you gave in a hearing concerning the leak damage.
The pdf file is Linked Here
You expressed some strong sentiments concerning partisan or political gain at the expense of national security that sounds like genuine concern. That’s great to hear and I also noticed your comments on informants. It appears that through the years there has been a pattern of US agencies being at odds or at times pursuing alternate agendas by exploiting or otherwise sabatoging each other’s informants. Court testimony has been released in different cases that show this. If this has been a factor in the past will returning to past ways, from where we are now, be an improvement?
In trying to make sense of this entire GWoT and Islamic threat, it honestly appears that most of what is ‘accepted knowledge’ is not based on much more than heresay, speculation, legend and repetition. Is there any way to clear up the false assumptions only to get a fresh start? An amnesty for the past with tightly limited but honest disclosure might put the GWoT in a more realistic light and remove the irrational paranoia in which the current political atmosphere is based?
No answer is expected due to the nature of the subject. It’s nice to have a chance to ask though.
I’m always amazed at the perception of the CIA and its people. Of course a lot of that is because the CIA never talks/defends itself in public. I can honestly say that during my time at the CIA, I had come to know some of the most honest and dedicated people in my life. How can I show that? Look at former CIA people, Valerie Wilson, Larry Johnson, etc.
We never would have sabotaged anyone else’s informants. There would be no reason I can think of to do so. What we did do is get as many reliable informants as we (anyone) could so we could verify information. The more informants corroborating information, the more reliable it became. We truly helped each other in this regard.
“Honest disclosure” is what is troubling to the intelligence community today. Honest, forthright information was golden back then. Now they just “cook the books.” Very dangerous, and very stupid if you truly care about this country.
One nice thing about conservatives is that some try to live up to the name. Long term, energy supply should be diversified with more emphasis on minimizing enviro damage ( pollution,… ) . It would be nice to have policies geared to encouraging new directions and protecting sensitive environments. Any thoughts ?
I agree. We will not drill our way out of the present crisis. Motor vehicles account for roughly 50 percent of out energy consumption. Instead of spending (giving to oil companies in the form of tax breaks) $14 billion, I would suggest we use that money for tax breaks to the purchasers of hybrid vehicles equal to the extra cost over a comparable gasoline engine, to bring the purchase prioce down. Once more are produced and sold, the cost to make them would also come down, eventually making the tax break disappear.