LANSING – In case you missed it, the Detroit Free Press reported that Pete Hoekstra recently told a Tea Party audience in Clarkston that he supports a plan to drill for oil in the Great Lakes. Hoekstra’s support for directional drilling in the Great Lakes was captured here on video.  A Hoekstra spokesman then reiterated to the Free Press that Hoekstra opposes the current federal ban on Great Lakes drilling, saying that the states should have the authority to allow drilling if they choose.  The Hoekstra campaign also reiterated, according to the Free Press, that Pete Hoekstra believes that directional Great Lakes drilling “holds promise and could allow for drilling if states deemed it safe”.

While Hoekstra’s campaign seemed to attempt to backpedal from Hoekstra’s comments initially in the Free Press story, they went on to double-down on the fact that Hoekstra does not want a federal ban on Great Lakes drilling and thinks states should be allowed to approve directional drilling–presenting a stark difference between Hoekstra’s position and that of Senator Debbie Stabenow.  Stabenow authored the federal ban on Great Lakes drilling in 2001–the very first bill Senator Stabenow passed into law when she began serving Michigan in the United States Senate in 2001, and, according to the Free Press, “has been a prominent force for keeping drilling out of the Great Lakes ever since.”

Stabenow’s Great Lakes drilling ban, which Hoekstra is opposing, was passed with a bipartisan vote in a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Bush.

“Hoekstra’s desire to end the federal ban on drilling the Great Lakes for oil is totally out of the mainstream and completely outrageous,” said Mark Brewer, Chair of the Michigan Democratic Party. “Even most Republicans have supported the ban on drilling in the Lakes because they recognize that a disaster like the BP spill in the Gulf or the Enbridge spill in Michigan could destroy the Great Lakes–and the jobs and industries that depend on them. Pete Hoekstra’s dangerous plan to allow Big Oil’s drills into the Great Lakes would threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and our state’s most important natural resource.”

Studies show that allowing drilling for oil in the Great Lakes would produce a very small amount of oil–the U.S. Geological Survey says that even if oil companies got every drop of oil possible out of the Great Lakes, it would provide the country with a little over two weeks (16 days) worth of energy (USGS estimates that there is about 312 million barrels of oil recoverable in the Great Lakes, and the US consumes 19 million barrels per day).  An amount that small would have virtually no impact on world markets or affect the price of gas at the pump.  But while the benefits of Great Lakes drilling would be incredibly small, the risk of a spill could be potentially devastating to the Lakes and the multi-billion dollar tourism, boating and fishing industries that depend on them. Risking the Great Lakes’ devastation for literally a few days worth of oil is widely viewed as a risk not at all worth taking–which is why so many in both parties are against Great Lakes drilling.

Along with passing the federal ban on drilling in the Great Lakes, Senator Stabenow has also continued to pressure the Obama Administration to pressure Canada to implement a similar ban. Senator Stabenow continues to lead efforts to stop the spread of invasive species, like Asian Carp, from getting into the Great Lakes, and has remained a tireless advocate of common-sense conservation efforts that protect one of Michigan’s most important economic assets.

###

“A deep organization like the one Romney has built in Michigan in two election cycles, including a hard-fought primary this year, is going to be key if he hopes to win a state that hasn’t supported a Republican presidential contender since George Bush in 1988.” – Detroit Free Press, 4/16/12

LANSING, MI – As the general election begins to take shape, press accounts this week took the lay of the land in Michigan. While there is little dispute that the Obama campaign has a much more robust local grassroots presence, some pundits and Romney supporters sought to boost their candidate’s standing in Michigan, touting a ‘deep organization’ that includes wealthy campaign contributors and longstanding ties to the Republican establishment. Curious, the Michigan Democratic Party took a look at that organization this week, and this is what we found:

Mitt Romney’s grassroots campaign operation, April 20, 2012:

“Obama already has eight ‘regional grassroots offices’ in Michigan, with plans to expand to a dozen in the coming weeks. Mitt Romney, by contrast, apparently shut down his Michigan office soon after he won the primary on February 28th. A call to Romney’s press office to arrange a visit to a field office in Michigan produces only puzzlement. ‘In Michigan?’ a bewildered spokeswoman tells me. ‘We obviously had one. I don’t even know if I still have the address.’” [Rolling Stone, 3/29/12]

Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer issued the following statement:

“Michiganders will never forget that Mitt Romney turned his back on our state when we were laid low, suggesting that the auto industry ‘go bankrupt,’ and there’s not a so-called ‘deep organization’ in the world that can change that fact. For all of Governor Romney’s fundraising and Republican establishment support, the best he could do in Michigan was to eke out a three-point victory over a deeply flawed and underfunded primary opponent – and his campaign has since pulled up stakes. No, Governor Romney will not be enjoying any sort of ‘home field advantage’ in Michigan, any more than the Colts would in Baltimore or Art Modell’s Ravens would in Cleveland. In fact, I’d suggest a famous photo of another NFL venue says it all about Mitt Romney’s campaign in Michigan: nobody’s home.”

A visual approximation of Mitt Romney’s “Deep Organization” in Michigan.

###

Lansing – According to newly released FEC reports obtained by the Associated Press, Pete Hoekstra’s campaign for U.S. Senate is in serious trouble. In an attempt to bury the announcement of his fundraising totals, Hoekstra posted on his Facebook page late last Friday night that he had raised $700,000 during the quarter. No official press release or comment was made by his campaign, although his lackluster total was reported on by both national and Michigan outlets.

But what “Penny-Pinching” Pete didn’t mention on his Facebook page is that reports revealed today show that he had actually brought in only $695,000 since the start of 2012…and that he spent a whopping $677,000 of it, blowing nearly everything he brought in. In spite of having almost no campaign presence around Michigan, Pete “Spend-it-Not” has magically turned into Pete “Spends All He’s Got”.

“It looks like Pete Hoekstra is spending like a drunken sailor,” said Mark Brewer, Chair of the Michigan Democratic Party. “While I’m sure divisive Super Bowl ads are expensive to make, it’s clear that if Hoekstra can’t keep spending under control on his own campaign, there’s no way he’ll be able to deal with the struggling economy in Michigan or effectively advocate for middle class families.”

One of Hoekstra’s main expenditures during the first quarter of 2011 was a divisive Super Bowl ad that was heavily criticized even by fellow Republicans.  The ad caused a surge in Senator Stabenow’s fundraising and suppressed Hoekstra’s fundraising.  Hoekstra’s mismanagement has set his campaign off to a rocky start to the election year.

Hoekstra’s $695,000 quarter is less than half of what was raised by Senator Stabenow (over $1.5 million) and a significant decrease from the $983,000 Hoekstra was able to raise in the last quarter of 2011.

Clark Durant, Hoekstra’s leading opponent for the Republican nomination, reported raising $558,000 and spending $234,000.  According to the Associate Press, Durant now has $1.51 million on hand, practically matching Hoekstra’s on hand total of $1.54 million.

Meanwhile, Senator Stabenow has approximately $7 million on hand.

###