Guest blogger points out Cleary and Rogers unhealthy relationship

(This is a guest post from Michael Motta that was first posted on Michigan Liberal. I agree with his basic premise of the unhealthy relationship between the Cleary University and the Livingston County GOP - and even the Gannett corporate media, but I strongly believe Clearly is a good institution that fills a needed niche in the community. But for one more example of that unhealthy relationship Mr. Motta may not be aware of, the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus endorsed Rep. Chris Ward, R-Brighton and a Cleary graduate, during the November election without even an endorsement interview, the only candidate not to have one.
If you look at the list of earmarks Mike Rogers was asking for Cleary to receive they don’t even make sense. For example, he asked for $325,000 “for the training of technology workers, to be done at Cleary University to provide job training opportunities for Livingston county workers.” That ignores an underutilized state partnership with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation that does the same thing called the Livingston Regional M-TEC. The M-TEC, one of 18 in Michigan, “is a not-for-profit Technical Training Center operated by Mott Community College – a public institution - and advised by a board of local businesses and community representatives.”)

Mike Rogers Wants over $2.15 million for ClearlyNotA University
By: Michael Motta
We all know that politics aren't pretty and that the money flows right along with the greasy grimy hands. The hope is that there is still enough around of that cynical yet practical idea of the Founders that "ambition counteracts ambition" and that pluralism wins in the end.
But what happens when a single Congressional District has at least two of its largest media outlets, a private college, a county economics club and its U.S. Representative all on the same page? Well, you get a greasy gravy train.

Most of you have by now read of the Livingston Economic Club, Cleary University, and the Livingston Press & Argus co-sponsoring a lecture series that pays ridiculous amounts of money bring in such speakers as Ann Coulter ($30,000).
Many of you have also read of former Lansing State Journal publisher Leslie J. Hurst's breach of journalistic ethics (far more heinous than the state databases) regarding her fabrication of the LSJ Editorial Board's "non-endorsement" of a candidate in the 8th Congressional race last autumn. In fact the Board had voted 5-1 to endorse Marcinkowski over Rogers and others.

Some fewer of you may have added up the recent federal funding requests of Mike Rogers for Cleary University and found that they run in excess of $2.15 million. Some may realize that the student body of Cleary is likely smaller than many elementary schools, with figures I've seen ranging from the 400s to the 600s. So we're talking about three to four thousand dollars PER STUDENT that Rogers is requesting for a private school that had a right wing agenda even before Rogers started feeding it, and probably more so now that he has.

If you doubt that Cleary has a political agenda, it actually states one right in its president's greeting: "Welcome to Cleary University! I am especially proud to be affiliated with Cleary University, an institution committed to teaching the American free market economic system . . . " http://www.cleary.ed... And of course some of you may have read about the various ties between Cleary administration members and the Republican Party, such as Janet Filip, the development director for Cleary, being married to the chair of the Livingston County Republican Party.

First of all, the Federal Government has no business funding a private school, especially one that has such an obvious agenda. Cleary doesn't even save face by offering traditional conservative "Great Books" styled liberal arts programs - it flat out markets itself as a quick way to move up the corporate ladder (about halfway I imagine in most cases), shunning an actual education in the process.

Perhaps equally unnerving to Rogers wanting the Federal Government to toss millions of dollars at this "school" of three digits of students, is this whole chain or consortium of cohorts scratching each others' backs.

Let's see, the LSJ's Hurst helps Rogers by lying during his campaign, the LSJ's Gannett sister the Press & Argus co-sponsors the Coulter and friends lecture series (as its former publisher becomes publisher of the LSJ, replacing Hurst who simply moved her act to a Gannett paper in Louisiana) along with Cleary, and then Rogers wants a cool $2.15+ million for Cleary.

Doesn't all of that sound even greasier than usual?

I give credit to this blog http://liberalmedian... for some of my information, though the gentleman who runs it seems to defend Cleary much more than I do. In the face of the details it strikes me as a non sequitur to defend Cleary in the abstract.

Column gives blog a shout out

Thank you to Livingston County Daily Press and Argus political reporter Dan Meisler for a shout out to our blog today in an opinion column on the Iraq fiasco.

There seems to be no middle ground on which to hash out the issues — only high-pitched rhetoric bordering on the paranoid.
Take, for example, U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers' recent appearance at a funeral for Andrew Daul, a Brighton soldier killed in Iraq. As reported in this newspaper, Rogers, a Republican from Brighton, read aloud from a letter written by the mayor of an Iraqi town.
"Their sacrifice was not in vain," Rogers read from the letter. "Let the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity."
Sounds harmless enough to me, but in the hands of our local liberal bloggers, it's further proof that Rogers has politicized the war (as if that hasn't happened already). See rogerswatch.blogspot.com for their criticism.
They seem to think that praising the sacrifice of a dead soldier is political. What was Rogers supposed to say? "Gee, now that I think about it, the war was a bad idea and your son's death was unnecessary. Oops." Maybe that would have pleased them.
From reading his comments, it sounds to me like Rogers' speech was appropriate.

Sorry Dan, but I respectfully disagree with you. The full quote that appeared in the Dec. 31 edition of the newspaper was this; “Andrew Daul helped Iraqis while serving in that country. Because of soldiers like him, Rogers said, Iraqis would talk about the greatness of the U.S. soldier, and he read a letter from a mayor of an Iraqi town liberated by U.S. soldiers.”

What could he have said? He could have talked about his bravery in answering the call of his country, his willingness to serve and his dedication to his fellow soldiers. I would have talked about the extraordinary courage that makes a man so young get up every morning knowing the dangers that await him and strap on combat gear and patrol the streets when the risks are so great, and he does this day after day for at least a year. Instead, he chose to continue to try and spin this mess as a war of liberation, but the fact is Rogers has been nothing but a cheerleader for both bush and this fiasco.

The column goes on to say, So where would those bad old bloggers get the idea that Rogers would politicize Iraq?
Perhaps some of his past comments, like one from the floor of the House, equating anti-war politicians with the insurgents in Iraq. Or maybe this one, from an interview with the Press & Argus on the Iraq Study Group's report: "This has been a two-front war ... at home, we've been trying to win people's support for our efforts."

Here’s some more reasons I believe he politicized the funeral that Dan did not have space to mention that came from his own newspaper. “The involvement and support of U.S. efforts in Iraq now will pay off down the road in bringing stability to the region, according to U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton. (P and A 8/29/2003)

(On the 9/11 Commission Report) "They could not find a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9_11 attacks," he said. "The task of this commission, even though it became highly political, was to look at one event." Rogers said many media reports have distorted the commission's finding by saying it is more far-reaching than it actually is. Rogers said, that the FBI agents he talked to on a recent visit to Iraq have found al-Qaida training manuals and other materials many times when they apprehended bomb-makers in Iraq.
"They found it laughable there was any debate" about the connection, he said.
Rogers added that intelligence from the Department of Defense, FBI, CIA and other agencies indicated contact between Iraqi agents and al-Qaida going back years, in the Sudan, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"The overwhelming information indicates there in fact was" a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida.” (P and A 6/18/04)

We make progress everyday," in response to a statement by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a Marine veteran, that the U.S. is not making progress in Iraq. Rogers asserted that only terrorists and "some politicians" wanted the U.S. to withdraw troops from Iraq. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch 6/16/2006)

Again, Rogers should be commended for taking the time to pay his respects as a U.S. Congressman because we know no one from this Administration ever will, but his decision to politicize the funeral was a bad idea. Dan’s also correct when he says there is “no middle ground on which to hash out the issues,” but I say the fault lies primarily on the right. If anyone suggests anything but “stay the course - what ever that is – you are called a traitor and a terrorist. I have been debating the Iraq fiasco with one of our two wingnut blogers in Livingston County, and you cannot even get them to acknowledge that there were no WMDs and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The biggest obstacle to overcome is one that they cling to that the Iraq fiasco is the reason we have not had a terrorist attack in the five years since 9/11/2001, ignoring the fact there have been only two terrorist attacks in our country’s 216 year history.