Tuesday, August 2, 2011

The Other Peter in the US Senate Race: Konetchy Discusses and Debates with West Michigan Politics Readers

  • Ken Cooper Hoekstra or Stabenow; what's the difference...really?
    Sunday at 3:24pm ·

    Jeff King The fallout for Amash has been largely positive. Huizenga, you tell me, but I can't think it is that good.
    Sunday at 3:47pm ·

  • Ken Cooper Huizenga is disappointing. Give him another credit card to max out, and then another. Hoekstra would have voted the same way, he has a voting record to support it.
    Sunday at 4:03pm ·

  • Monte 'Andrea Regan' Blachford Reid's Plan and Obama's Plan have NO support, yet we always have to Compromise? The idiots in charged 'caused the mess, Let the people with guts resolve it.
    Sunday at 4:37pm ·

  • Dennis Lawrence Take a look at Peter Konetchy
    Sunday at 5:54pm ·

  • Ken Cooper Dennis, Peter is very similar to John McCain on occupation, and infiltration, as well as invasion of other countries without a declaration of war. No thank you!
    Sunday at 6:00pm ·

  • Monte 'Andrea Regan' Blachford John McCain? Ken, I think you have the wrong Peter.
    Sunday at 6:03pm ·

  • Ken Cooper Nope, I Have the right one. Unless he deleted our correspondence on his FB page, it is all there.
    Sunday at 6:10pm ·

  • Peter Konetchy I support Justin Amash 100%. I would never vote to raise the debt ceiling. The only way this country will survive in the short term is if we cut spending and balance the budget. Once this is done we need to phase out all non-constitutional federal influence from society and allow the people, through the free market, to address societies needs. Congress has proven time and time again that they are unable to cut spending. Please help elect me so that I can be the "Amash" voice in the Senate.
    Peter Konetchy, Candidate US Senate 2012, Michigan

    Yesterday at 11:02am ·

  • Peter Konetchy Ken, Please post my correspondence in full for all to see. I do not delete correspondence and cannot find any addressed to you. For the record this is how I feel about the military:
    I believe the military should be used to defend the US when we are physically attacked. I do not believe in nation building, a world police force. or use of the military for humanitarian purposes. The primary purpose of the Federal government is to provide for the common defense. I want the most powerful military in the world capable of defending the US if needed. I want a strong military force to deter attacks against the US through the knowledge that such attacks would incur the full force of the US against the attacker. If you disagree with this concept, so be it.

    Yesterday at 11:09am ·

  • Jeff King Peter, OK good reasons to vote for you over Hoekstra . But the Republican party animals are going to want someone who they think can win against Stabenow. Tell us why you are a better person then Hoekstra to win against Debbie?
    Yesterday at 12:13pm ·

  • Peter Konetchy Jeff, of course I want support from the GOP, but don’t expect to receive it till after the primary – if at all. The GOP is often a great part of the problem by supporting candidates they feel can win regardless of ideology. (Remember the Arlen Specter debacle where he received the GOP endorsement hours before he switched parties).

    This election will be a referendum on the status quo vs tea party type reform. To win I need an educated electorate with the courage to vote in the primary for the candidate which best represents their values. Those wanting to rein back, cut, government back to its constitutional limitations will vote for me. Those wanting a safe candidate will vote for the establishment. Franklin's correct when he states” Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I will win if those desiring liberty vote for liberty over safety.

    Yesterday at 1:17pm ·

  • Jeff King OK, but didn't answer my question. It was again: "Tell us why you are a better person then Hoekstra to win against Debbie?"
    Yesterday at 1:25pm ·

  • Peter Konetchy I'm a better candidate for Senate than Hoekstra because I would not have voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, or for the Auto Bailouts. I will actively work to phase out all functions not authorized by the constitution including the departments of Labor, HHS, HUD, Transportation, Education, Energy, and the EPA. As these programs are phased out, I would like to have a complimentary decrease the direct taxes against the individual.

    My long term focus would be to return federal spending to its historical level of less than 5% of GDP. At this level we could eliminate the income tax and once again allowing the fed govt to be indirectly financed as our founders proposed.

    I feel that whoever receives the republican nomination will probably beat Debbie.

    I disagree with your choice of words. Pete Hoekstra is as good a "person" as I. He simply doesn't have the desire to limit government as muhc as I.

    Yesterday at 1:39pm ·

  • Jeff King Perhaps the reason you are disagreeing with my choice in words, is I've asked the same thing twice, yet you didn't answer it, other then suggesting any Republican can beat Debbie.

    Which is not to say your reasons you are better then Pete are not valid, they are, but being able to clearly tell the Republican party animals why you can beat Debbie is going to be real important in getting support. Don't underestimate this...

    Yesterday at 1:51pm ·

  • Peter Konetchy Jeff, I think I've answered the question clearly. The bottom line is that I have a tough up hill battle. We have a year until the primary and I'll work to get me message out. I can't guarantee a win. I don't understand how else I can answer.
    Yesterday at 2:27pm ·

  • Jeff King I was trying to be helpful Peter. Republican party animals are going to be on their hands and knees.... saying how Pete can raise more money then yourself, for example, and how that will be key to beating Stabenow. FUD.... Fear Uncertainly and Doubt. They will also try and marginalize you.

    I really wouldn't treat Hoekstra with kid gloves... your reasons for running against him are dead serious and very focused. With regards to his fiscal performance, I would hope you are a much "better" person then he is. I'm not suggesting he tortures small animals, but I am suggesting principles and fiscal restraint have to matter... alot... and if you need to throw some punches, you should.

    I still don't get it why he quit congress and is running again, the only thing I can figure is he wants to be President someday, and he knew only one President came from congress (most come from either the Senate or Governor). While I didn't agree with some of his positions, he did have good constitute services and he seemed to have alot of power within congress. He was my second choice for Governor, and I'm sure if Cox hadn't been in the race, he would have won (I was a Snyder supporter and the COX/Hoekstra standoff was a gift).

    Yesterday at 2:58pm ·

  • Robert Wells Well as a Pete Hoekstra supporter let me say no one is perfect and we must stop expecting 100% ideoloigical purity in every office older if we do that is how we end up iwth wingnuts only as candidates. Now we have a good field in this primary good rational men who want to help save there nation but I am supporting Pete Hoekstra because not only does he have a clear conservative record but he can get win, he can take a message across the state, raise the money needed, go after Stabenow on her horrible record. I would remind some of you that we control one half of one branch of government so Amash and Huizenga made there choices to Govern. We all want spending reduced and the budget balanced but the reality is we cannot turn a shit 180 degrees quickly it will take time. So let us get the cuts we can get, hold the line on taxes then when we have a Republican Senate, a Republican house and a Romney/Rubio Administration we can make the real changes.
    Yesterday at 3:32pm ·

  • Jeff King So someone trying to live by principles makes them a wingnut? I see.

    I suggest that anyone that thinks Mr. Hoekstra had a "clear conservative record" is the wingnut themselves. He *did* vote for every big goverment program, and more, that Mr. Konetchy mentioned.

    Peter, *this* is a good example of the muddled thinking you are going to be facing.

    Yesterday at 3:37pm ·

  • Robert Wells No I am not saying that anyone who has clear principals is a wingnut I have clear principals what I am saying is this idea that "he once voted a way I didnt like hes a socialist" is silly its the reason that good people dont get into politics, look at Pete H record over his 18 years in congress anyone who is intellectually honest will say it is clearly conservative. Yeah so you would rather have someone you disagree with 95 % of the time like Stabenow then 5% oif the time like Hoekstra that makes sense. What I am saying is we must stop with the idea that 100% compliance with ideology is a deal breaker you have to win an election to govern and Id rather have a guy I m gonna disagree with 5% of the time then feel good beat my chest about nominting a perfect ideoliog and LOSE!
    23 hours ago ·

  • Jeff King First of all Robert, we need to operate from the facts and be speaking the same language. Who said Pete was a socialist? Please answer this question as I saw no reason to make this huge jump.

    Second, I did look at Mr. Hoekstra's record over the last 18. He got a very good start. At one point, he was called one of the more Libertarian like congressman on the hill. But he faltered seriously in recent years. To reiterate Peter's points, TARP, bailouts, cash for clunkers. Tell me, EXACTLY what is the difference between Hoekstra and Stabenow? Sounds the same to me, in fact I understand Stabenow even voted against one of the Bailout bills.

    Robert, if Mr. Hoekstra is your "95% solution" we are doomed. Principles and voting records have to matter. You can call it "wingnuts" or whatever you want to spread fear, but the fact of the matter is, this nation is in trouble, and Mr. Hoesktra was at the helm when it happened. He was in the congress, the Republican congress, that voted us the largest deficient in our history until Obama. That for all their false talk of conservative values, just couldn't stop spending.

    No, I contend to you we must stop with these 5% solutions, and instead of party and the special interests, we must think of our country and children.

    22 hours ago ·

  • Robert Wells Pete is not perfect he made some mistakes in his voting record that is for sure he admits that but his record would look noting like stabenows, he would vote for cut cap and balance, for term limits, to protect the second amendment, to cut spending dramatically, to end base line budgeting, and aside from all that he can actually win the election and have a chance to cast those votes. Rocky in 2002 and Bouchard in 2006 and Jack in 2008 where perfect nearly but they lost so all the take was moot. Pete H can win and will be a good conservative Senator
    22 hours ago ·

  • Jeff King Unfortunately his recent record doesn't support your claims. He had 18 years to cut spending dramatically yet failed.

    According to the Congressional Record, Congressman Hoekstra:

    Voted for over $1 Trillion in new federal spending; (Congressional Roll Call Votes, 1995-2006)
    Co-sponsored the “Bridge to Nowhere”; (HR 3, July 29, 2005, Roll Call Vote 453) and
    Voted for the $850 Billion Wall Street Bailout (HR 1424, October 3, 2008, Roll Call Vote 681)

    The year before he decided to run for Governor, the Club for Growth, a group that tracks up-or-down votes on many individual earmarks, gave Congressman Hoekstra an abysmal 20 percent rating on its annual “RePork Card.”


    22 hours ago ·

  • Ken Cooper Peter K: I'm not going to dig through your public posts on your FB page. I am no longer your "friend" either. I asked you about your foreign policy, and we discussed our involvement in these undeclared wars. In short, you told me that you supported what we were doing overseas. That is a deal breaker for me. Other than that, you sound like a good candidate, and I wish you luck, but without my vote.
    21 hours ago ·

  • Peter Konetchy Ken,
    You don't need to dig through old fb postings. I did support the war on terror. We did have a declaration of war in that Bush did get congressional approval before going to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We had been under attack for many years by Muslim, Al-Qaida, terrorists. For 20 years prior we ignored them as an uncoordinated series of random attacks, in spite of the fact that Al-Qaida repeatedly stated that they were at war with us. 9-11 crystallized the situation. Bush took, what I consider, appropriate action. I wish that we had used overwhelming force, subdued Afghanistan, and then allowed a non-Taliban to form. Same in Iraq. I’m disappointed that during the entire length of the war the Democrats and press vilified Bush for his effort to defeat this enemy, then miraculously stopped the criticism when Obama became Commander in chief.

    20 hours ago ·

  • Ken Cooper Peter, thank you for maintaining your original position.
    19 hours ago ·

  • Peter Konetchy Bob,
    Sorry for the long post.

    If my biggest problem is that I’m an idealist then so be it. I revere other idealists such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, to name a few. They could not live under tyranny, and neither can I.

    Our current government has morphed into as tyrannical a government as was England prior to our revolution. Fortunately, we have a Constitution which secures our liberty - which our congress not only ignores but thoroughly tramples. The only long term solution to our nation’s problems is to purge undue federal influence from every aspect of society, and return this power to the people. When I say “purge”, I mean phasing out the depts of Labor, HHS, HUD, Transportation, Education, Energy, and the EPA to start.

    I agree with our founders that the people, through the free market, or the states (if people desire governmental control) can address these problems much better than the federal government. I do not expect it to happen overnight, but we must start the dialog now. There are currently voices in congress striving to limit government – Justin Amash & Ron Paul to name a few, and I will support these individuals 100%. For the record, my allegiance is to the Constitution, not to party.

    Government desires control, and our constitution is the only safeguard against tyranny. I am in no way inferring Pete Hoekstra was the cause of this problem, but neither was he part of the solution during his term in congress.

    We are a nation of free men with a government of the people. I’m tired of professional politicians, especially status quo republicans, compromising away our liberties. All I ask is a chance to express my opinions throughout this election cycle and let the people of this great state decide who they want to represent them in the Senate. If the people of Michigan support with my “idealistic” views, I’ll win the primary, then go on to win the general. Otherwise, I’ll continue to be a voice of conservatism to whomever will listen.

    Also Bob, Thanks for your friendship. I know you are a good man.

    19 hours ago ·

  • Jeff King Peter, your position on Iraq doesn't make any sense at all. There were no terrorist elements to speak of in Iraq. In fact, it will be one of the most expensive blunders we have made. Iraq was the best counter to terrorism we had in the middle east, and that is why Daddy Bush didn't roll on bagdad in Gulf War 1. Now Iran is our problem, something Reagan knew and played well in propping up Iraq in their 8 year war against Iran.
    16 hours ago ·

  • Robert Wells Pete I think its great that you are idealistic that is a good thing we need more Americans like you to seek public office. I agree with much of what you have to say and I agree we need leaders to stand on principal but I also think that as a leader first you have to govern and second you must understand that while we need serious reform in our Government we cannot expect it to happen over night we must understand that right now we control one half of one branch of government we won the debate in the fact that for the first time in a very long time if not ever we are actually talking about cuts ( I think your idea to get away from base line budgeting is brilliant and must be done by the way)
    9 hours ago ·

  • Robert Wells All I am saying is to the people who say NO NO NO all of it now! That is not realistic. As for our Senate race you are a fine man and would make a great U.S. Senator I simply am Supporting Pete Hoekstra because I have supported him in the past and I believe of the field he is the most qualified of the candidates. You know
    9 hours ago ·

  • Robert Wells that should you be the nominee I will work my guts out for you. I value your friendship and keep running hard and speaking up, viberant primaries are good for everyone.
    9 hours ago ·

  • Peter Konetchy Bob,
    First of all, when did I ever say "NO, NO, NO, all of it now"? I have never said that. All I've ever said is that we have to Immediately - balance the budget. Immediately means that the budget proposed for the next fiscal year should be balanced. Thereafter, in years forthcoming, I support cutting federal spending in real terms. I would like to cut non-constitutionally authorized spending by 8-10% so we can eliminate these programs in a short while - 9-12 years, but I realize I'm working with congress and I need to persuade people to follow the constitution. We cant be content with simply slowing the growth of government. The major problem is that virtually none of our current elected officials think cutting. Your arguing that anyone wanting to cut spending and government influence isn't qualified - a "wingnut", and shouldn't be considered. I can't accept the premise.

    7 hours ago ·

  • Peter Konetchy Robert Wells
    Second, If I'm elected to the Senate, my focus will be to secure life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - (allowance of the people to choose their destiny). I will be an obstructionist in that I will fight to halt the unconstitutional control of government into our lives. This is very much a full time job. Also, holding 1/2 of congress can stop anything. It could have stopped the debt ceiling increase, it could have forced spending cuts, and it can insist on a balanced budget next year. It's just that the democrats and Obama know that the republicans are so weak that they have no fear of being stopped. I, as one person cannot stop them, but I will be a voice they will need to roll over.

    7 hours ago ·

  • Jeff King A sad day when someone who vows to follow the Constitution and live within their means is labeled as "idealistic".
    5 hours ago ·

  • Jeff King Still like to hear your rational on Iraq however Peter.
    5 hours ago ·

  • Robert Wells I wasnt referring that you said those things Pete it seems that is the message being sent by some of my fellow tea party people thats all.


  1. Jeff that is absolute garbage about Iraq, Saddam openly vowed to send 25,000 dollar checks to family's of suicide bombers that bombed targets in Israel and any western targets, also several prominent leaders in Al queda had homes in Baghdad. The troops over there ( I was there in 2005) some of them found rockets with traces of VX and Sarin Gas, Polish troops found other chemical weapons, not huge stock piles as we gave him months to move and destroy them. There was massive evidence of dumping in to the Tigress and Euphrates rivers of chemicals used to build weapons. He was shooting at our planes over the no fly zone every day for years and years, he was raping and torturing and he violated the Cease fire agreement many times over and that by its self was more then enough reason for us to go in there kick his ass and deal with the problem. Lets be honest Iraq was a war that was going to be fought it was just a matter of when.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Ironic that you call yourself "gipper", you might want to review Reagan's policy on Iraq, which I considered brilliant. He supported them just enough to force a stalemate with Iran, our real enemy in the Middle East.

    Too bad the CIA doesn't agree with you about your claims. They did find evidence of some weapons, but what few where left where pre-gulf war 1

    Listen, no doubt Saddam was a rotten SOB, but we can't be the world's nursemaid. Further, presidents that actually had real foreign policy experience, notably Reagan and Daddy Bush, found him a useful SOB. I agree.