Hmmm

MIRS Article, April 4, 2005

After reading your article...I'm assuming it was yours, I just wanted to make a few comments and set the record straight.

We are thrilled at the prospect of candidates the caliber of Jane Abraham, David Brandon, Keith Butler, and Nasser Beydoun (and there may yet be others) exploring runs for US Senate from Michigan, and I can tell by the mood among our Democratic friends that this race worries them already. There's eighteen months until election day, and they're already at work criticizing Abraham and a recent survey that was commissioned by her Senate exploratory committee.

The story revealed by Abraham's survey, and other recently conducted studies, is that voters are keenly aware that under the guidance of Jennifer Granholm and Debbie Stabenow, Michigan was the only state in the union to lose jobs in 2004. The only state! Michigan is now the only state in the U.S. not to have rebounded from the post-9/11 recession, and Granholm and Stabenow have yet to offer solutions.

The recently published account of the Abraham survey seemed to cast doubt on the credibility of the firm and the pollster that conducted the research. In Wilson Research Strategies (WRS), Jane is working with a company that works for over 100 of the Fortune 500, represents over 120 members of Congress, has been involved in the past three Republican Presidential campaigns and has been tremendously effective electing Republicans around the nation. I have full confidence in Chris Wilson's ability to conduct research and analyze the data.

The Michigan Republican Party is serious about defeating Debbie Stabenow. President Bush and our party leaders in Washington are too. They believe, as I do, that the GOP will field a tremendous candidate, and that that candidate will be the next Senator from Michigan. Even more important, the people of Michigan are ready to replace Debbie Stabenow because they realize Michigan cannot afford six more years of skyrocketing unemployment, liberal tax hikes, and partisan obstructionist politics. And that, friends, is why Debbie Stabenow is vulnerable in 2006.