Republicans turn their back on the disastrous Terri Lynn Land, concede Michigan Senate race to Gary Peters


It’s being reported today that the Republican party is pulling their financial support for Michigan Senate candidate Terri Lynn Land, and reallocating their dollars to other races around the country which are felt to be more winnable. This decision, not coincidentally, follows Land’s disastrous appearance on a Michigan Radio call-in show by just a few days. Apparently, even if you happen to be the wealthiest Republican running for Senate, there’s a limit as to how far you can rise in American politics with a single catchphrase (“I’m a mom”).

By the way, I don’t think it’s a bad thing that Land is a mom. I think that’s a good thing. I think we need more moms in the Senate. I’d just prefer that said moms would be able to articulate a thought without first stating, “Well, as a mom…” I get that it’s probably the one thing about Land that polls well, and that she’s likely been told by numerous consultants to keep bringing it up, but it just comes across as laughable when everything she says, whether it’s about ISIS or the condition of Michigan’s roads, is preceded by a reminder that two little human beings traveled through her birth canal. I don’t know if he’s kidding or not, but a friend who suffered through Land’s entire Michigan Radio segment said that she used the phrase “I’m a mom” twenty times. And maybe that wouldn’t be so bad if everything else that she said wasn’t incomprehensible gobbledygook. But it was… It was so bad that even the Republicans knew that it was bad. And that’s really saying something, given how tone-deaf the Republicans have been lately.

Speaking of Republican tone-deafness, I have a question for those of you reading this right now who are women. Which of the following ads resonates most strongly with you, the one where Rick Snyder is presented as a stylish wedding dress, or the one where you’re asked to choose your leaders (who are always male) as though you were choosing a future husband?

I know the ads sucks, but at least, in the top one, they found a real black person to be in it, and didn’t just use stock photos, which is a step in the right direction.

I’d love to see the ad ideas that they didn’t go with… Rick Snyder as a new mop? Rick Snyder as a pair of control-top pantyhose? Rick Snyder as a box of bon bons and an episode of Days of our Lives?

The whole thing makes me sick… not just the fact that they think women are stupid, but the fact that, in spite of things like this, women continue to vote Republican. But I guess that shouldn’t be a surprise. If women were willing to stick with them when they started closing down reproductive health centers, why would they stop supporting them now, right?

One last thing… For what it’s worth, I have a piece of advice for Terri Lynn Land. The next time you’re introducing yourself, Terri, stop when you get to the part where you say, “I grew up in a trailer park.” That next part, where you say, “…owned by my millionaire grandparents,” doesn’t really resonate with regular Michiganders.

Oh, and one good thing about the Land campaign… While the Republicans may have finally cut her off, they’ve already wasted a lot of their money in Michigan, trying to get her into office. In fact, the Koch brothers, though their front organization, Americans for Prosperity, have already spent $3.6 million in support of her campaign. And that’s money that they could have spent in other races… Thank you, Terri!

Another last thing… As polls show Gary Peters up by over 7% in the polls, with a 92% chance of taking Michigan’s open Senate seat, I’d like to suggest that now might be a good time for use to start moving our money as well, either to other races in Michigan, or out of state. At present, there are at least 7 winnable Senate races that are leaning Republican, most notably the races in Colorado and Iowa, where it really could go either way. (The way things look right now, the Republicans, after this election, will control 52 seats and the Democrats will control 48. If we could just swing back Iowa and Colorado, it would make an incredible difference.)

[If you like the drawing of Land at the top of the page, it was done by our friend Pete Sickman-Garner, and, if you want more, he’s got you covered.]

This entry was posted in Michigan, Politics, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. John Galt
    Posted October 8, 2014 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    Women are so easy to manipulate. That’s what I love about them.

  2. anonymous
    Posted October 8, 2014 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    Want the female vote. Turn their back on a female candidate.

  3. Kim
    Posted October 8, 2014 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    I like the ad where I get to daydream about being The Bachelorette, choosing between a viral Republican and a drunken monster. It’s empowering. I like the fantasy that I have a choice.

  4. Eel
    Posted October 8, 2014 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    From Wikipedia.

    In 2014, Land gave $3 million to her own campaign. Land stated that, “You can’t ask other people to invest in you if you don’t invest in yourself.” In her federal financial disclosure form, she had not listed any bank accounts or other assets in her control worth that much. Her campaign said that it had mistakenly failed to disclose a joint account she has with her husband. A Detroit Free Press review of financial disclosure forms showed Land and her husband had assets between them worth $35 million in 2014, with $1.5 million belonging to Land, and that “candidates may typically tap liberally into joint accounts with their spouses.”

  5. Anonymatt
    Posted October 8, 2014 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    They should try to market Rick Snyder as a floor wax and a dessert topping. But not Rick Santorum.

  6. Lynne
    Posted October 8, 2014 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    I *hate* the whole “I’m a mom” thing that so many female political candidates engage in. I have yet to hear a man running for office play up being a father except to occasionally have photos with the family to show off being a “family man”

    There is too much in our culture that still seems to value motherhood above other conditions a female might find herself even though it should seem obvious that becoming a mother does not actually make people superior or better able to govern in anyway. I eagerly await the day when “I’m a spinster” has the same social value as “I’m a mom” but I am not holding my breath.

    There are women out there who really buy into the notion that having children gives them esteem and privilege in our society. It might even be central to their identity especially if they were raised in a very conservative environment where women really are valued more as married mothers than they are as single women. In that world, being a mother gives one some privilege and status and that really is the world more dominated by the right than the left. So, it might actually not be too much of a bad political strategy if one is trying to appeal to the base of the right to constantly emphasize being a mom.

    Both of those ads you posted are very offensive to me but I am not the voter they are trying to reach.

  7. idea man
    Posted October 8, 2014 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    I realize that I’m probably giving her campaign too much credit, but is it possible that she said “I’m a mom” so many times in order to get this response from Democrats, so that she could go after them as anti-mother?

  8. Posted October 8, 2014 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Oh Lynne, you are wonderful! I await the day when a woman says, “I am childfree by choice!” and it is applauded but, like you, I’m not holding my breath.

    I applaud Terri Lynn for not taking birth control, lying back, taking her husband’s throbbing hot schlong into her and then squeezing out a kid nine months later. I truly do. That’s quite something there, but on its own it doesn’t qualify anyone to hold office.

  9. maryd
    Posted October 9, 2014 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    This is just more mommy wars bullshit. Divide and conquer so women can remain divided over this non issue. I made a conscious choice to be a mother and a step mother. My choice…not a privilege (unless you talk to a woman who cannot conceive but desperately wants to). I never have and never would tolerate anyone condemning any person who chooses not to become a parent. It is an exhausting, often thankless task of unpaid 24 hour a day labor. I cannot even conceive of how I survived it all. I believe parenthood should be planned and a choice (in that perfect world eh?). I admire anyone who knows their mind and follows their dreams. And thank God too for people who do choose and plan for parenthood! Their children have much better outcomes…better for all humans

  10. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 9, 2014 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    Lynne and TeacherPatti,

    Parenthood is a huge project to undertake. It is like volunteering full time at a non profit that you also donate a huge portion of your income to. I have a lot of respect for anyone who takes on huge (not for profit) projects whether it be related to parenting or not. You both appear to want to minimize the scope and importance of the task of raising children. If you were running for office wouldn’t you highlight the fact that you had a career in politics AND you successfully undertook other full time projects and felt proud about it? Her repetition might be annoying but you seem to be arguing that “I am a parent” does not belong on the resume. I disagree and I bet a lot of under appreciated career mothers, stay at home mothers and single mothers also disagree with your sentiment.

  11. Mr. X
    Posted October 9, 2014 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    Being a parent, in and of itself, is not a qualification. Mike Hucakbee is a parent, and his son tortured and killed a dog. There are good parents and bad parents.

  12. Lynne
    Posted October 9, 2014 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    TeacherPatti. I once heard someone at a party say, “Being a parent is the most important job in the world? Then how come they pretty much let *anyone* do it?” I mean, I get it that to someone experiencing it, it *seems* like it is the most important job in the world and when people mess it up, it can cause problems in society but a. it isn’t a ‘job’ and b. it really isn’t that important and c. it doesn’t really require any special skills. So why do people feel that experience makes them better than those who don’t experience it?

    maryd, yes this is just more mommy wars bullshit. I don’t have anything against people who have children. I really don’t. I have a problem with the idea that being a parent makes someone a better person or that those who are not parents are somehow less qualified to participate in society. I completely acknowledge that parenthood is a huge thing to undertake and that it can be rewarding and wonderful and whatever else. I do not object to people having children. I also agree that when people do it because they want to, it makes our world better.

    I also have issues with how this particularly seems to be applied to women, i.e. men aren’t penalized for not having children in the same way women are. We have serious cultural problems with child rearing and the primary one is that it is often a responsibility which falls to women. We have a culture that elevates the status of motherhood much higher than it should, certainly higher than it elevates the status of fatherhood. We make motherhood a woman’s raison d’etre. Less so now than in the past, thank goodness but I think Land’s “I’m a mom” at every opportunity illustrates how much this is still going on.

    Frosted Flakes, I object to comparing parenthood to donating time to a non-profit because having children in this day and age is not good for our planet as a whole (especially if they are American children) and simply is not the same thing as selflessly donating time and money to a charity. Helping out and caring for the welfare of your own family is wonderful and all but not the same thing as doing something altruistic to improve the world or at least not more than say, my choice to own a couple of dogs. To me, someone going around bragging about being a parent is akin to someone going around bragging about being a pet owner. Neither thing is something which in any way qualifies someone for office as Mr X says so well. If Land were saying “I’m a dog mom” at every opportunity, I would find it equally ridiculous.

  13. Posted October 9, 2014 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    Having been failed by parents, I put zero faith in a parent’s ability to do anything at all. How much skill, knowledge or wisdom does it take to put a penis and a vagina together without birth control?

    Given that somewhere around a third of all children are accidental, you have to question their judgement as well.

    I just listened to this Terry Land interview. What an absolute moron.

    Michigan is a sad place if this is all they had to put up for a Senate seat.

    Is she going to say that she not a witch next?

  14. kjc
    Posted October 9, 2014 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    “Parenthood is a huge project to undertake. It is like volunteering full time at a non profit that you also donate a huge portion of your income to. ”

    except for being nothing like that at all. what did i tell you about using those dubious powers of reasoning and splashing them with condescension to boot?

  15. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 9, 2014 at 6:55 pm | Permalink


    I will gladly edit my comment if you show me that I am not making sense or using a condescending tone. I am trying to express my opinions in a reasonable way… I would never intentionally use a condescending tone, especially with Lynne because she is one of the more interesting commentors here and i appreciate the fact that she almost always responds with her sincere opinion in a straightforward and polite way. On several issues Lynne has helped me see a new side of things in a way that changed my mind to some degree… I haven’t really engaged with teacherpatti but the same applies in terms of respect and all that…So, kjc do you have anything to add aside from calling me a stupid jerk? I would like to hear your take on things… Why is being a parent nothing at all like being a volunteer at a non profit that you also donate money toward?

  16. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 9, 2014 at 9:27 pm | Permalink


    I have raised children and dogs. The investment of time and energy is not comparable. A guy I know single handedly took care of 300 rescue greyhounds. It was not easy but he was able to do it for years. How many children do you think one person could care for?

    Being a caregiver to a baby and child is difficult. Raising a child is an important experience among many different kinds of experiences that might inform one’s judgment and add to a person’s wisdom. Why would you want to dismiss care giving as a valid part of the resume?

    Let’s put it this way: Remember when Amanda Edmonds was running for Mayor? We all heard a bit about her association with Growing Hope. Wouldn’t you find it odd if people were running around saying just because ” she throws seeds into the ground” that does not make her qualified to be Mayor. Wouldn’t you find that to be an odd characterization of a peice of her resume and a cause for objecting?

    I agree with Peter. Terri Lynn Land sounds idiotic and based on her reactions to questions is totally unqualified to run for just about any office I can think of. I just don’t agree with the reaction to the “I’m a mom” thing-It sound like a 1940’s male chauvinistic type backwards reaction–at least that is what it sounds like to me…I don’t get it…

  17. Lynne
    Posted October 10, 2014 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    Frosted Flakes,

    Thank you for your kinds words.

    I totally understand that raising a child is more involved than caring for a dog. I used to be a nanny. My awareness of the difficulties (and expenses!) of raising a child are pretty much why I don’t have children of my own although I will say there really is a “golden age” where children become as easy as dogs. My point wasn’t that caring for kids is exactly the same as caring for dogs or cats but rather that the skills one gains from such experiences are more or less the same and not really relevant to political office. I would find the skills one gains from running a non-profit to be very relevant even if I don’t think the actual farming experience is. I don’t know Amanda but if every time I heard her say something, she was saying “I’m a gardener” like it mattered to her campaign, I would question why that would make her more qualified than a non-gardener to be mayor.

    The only possible advantage that I can see to being a parent is that it might convince others that you are invested in the future more than someone without children might be although even there, I think you’ll find that childless people are just as invested in the future as those with children. I know I find myself worrying about the state of the world in a 100 years even though I wont personally be around to experience it and even though I don’t have children who will either.

    Anyways, I probably have a different relationship with the whole “I’m a mom” thing than you do simply because I am a childless woman who gets told everyday in very subtle ways that my value in society is less than someone who has children. There is a cult of motherhood in our country and like it or not, women are valued more if they have children. There is a privilege of motherhood (although imho, the benefits in no way outweigh the poopy diapers, screaming, teenaged attitudes, etc) Now, if Land were saying something different like “I’m a mom and that has taught me X, Y, Z which will make me a better Senator”, then it would be different but that isn’t what she says is it? No, she is totally invoking the status of it only.

  18. Brainless
    Posted October 11, 2014 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    “having children in this day and age is not good for our planet as a whole (especially if they are American children)”

    Um, fuck you sideways from my whole (American) family.

    How the hell did bashing this asshole (former) senate candidate become a bunch of people spouting off about kids? You folks who don’t have kids: Shut the fuck up about those of us who do. You don’t know shit about it and sound like a bunch of children yourselves. You immediately dug in here and became defensive before anybody said a goddamn thing. Unlike you dipshits, I know what it’s like both to and not to have kids. You don’t know squat about anything but your tiny little life. Some opinions are worth just keeping to yourself.

  19. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 11, 2014 at 4:28 pm | Permalink


    You have given me something to look out for regarding status linked to motherhood. I haven’t really recognized it as an issue. I would never think less of you or anyone for choosing to not have children. In fact, like you suggest, it is kind of difficult to argue that another human being is good for the earth…I would hate to take that idea to its logical conclusion, however…Regarding Land, I didn’t see her invoking status rather she seemed to be just doing the “word salad” thing that was very Palinesque. She just doesn’t have much to say on issues probably because she does not understand the issues. I do think it is interesting to think about the unique set of skills required for office beyond just understanding the issues. It is tough to say exactly where one could develop the skills for office. Knowing the isssue, EXPERIENCE, judgment, and a taste for THE GOOD–it is hard to say what vocations would lead to those skills/attributes. I would not necessarily count out the experiences that accompany parenting as experiences that could be adding to those skills and reinforcing the necessary attributes for office.

  20. Mark Lee
    Posted October 12, 2014 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    Hi –
    Could you use your social capital to leverage yourself an interview with Peter Larson on the subject of Ebola. His blog doesn’t mention it and it seems to be such a conservative bludgeon this election season – Thanks!

  21. Posted October 12, 2014 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    ““having children in this day and age is not good for our planet as a whole (especially if they are American children)””

    I don’t understand this statement at all. I’m assuming that this person is making some misguided statement about resource consumption in developed countries and, of course, expressing some level of self loathing.

    I would invite this person to come out to Lake Victoria in Kenya (where I work) and see how badly poverty impacts the environment as well.

  22. Lynne
    Posted October 13, 2014 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Brainless, if you think that having kids makes you better than those without kids, then fuck you right back. I am NOT against people having children but I do object when they act like their choice to do so is something the rest of us should be grateful for or that it is something people do as a form of charity towards others. That was the context in which I made that statement and I stand by it.

    Considering the way first world citizens use resources, every first world child born is a detriment to future sustainability. Yes, yes, we can change and I hope we do but lets not pretend that this isnt true. Is there is any reason other than the selfish to have children? I can’t think of one. That doesn’t mean that I don’t understand that it can be a very rewarding and meaningful experience for those who make that choice. It just means that making that choice in and of itself does not make a person better than another. That does not mean that I think the childless are superior either, btw. I am just saying that having children or not having them is irrelevant when deciding if someone would be a good Senator. On that point I might add that if Land were younger and if her children were younger, her being a mother would be held against her on the grounds that a good mother would stay home and not take on a job as demanding as being a Senator and I would defend her then too.

    Peter, you don’t understand that statement? It means that there are too many people consuming too few resources. We have too many people and we especially have too many of the sort of people who live in the USA in that Americans tend to consume more of the finite resources than others. There is no reason to encourage people to have children. Luckily, we aren’t yet at a stage where we need to discourage people from having children either. Regardless, I don’t see how viewing African style poverty first hand will change my opinion. If anything it would support it.

  23. Frosted Flakes
    Posted October 13, 2014 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    Small point regarding the context of the conversation: When I compared parenting to volunteering at a non profit I did not mean to imply that choosing to raise a child is like giving a gift to the world and that everyone should be grateful. Tax exempt status does not mean the social aim of a non profit is even desirable. Some non profits are evil…Rather, I was simply trying to point out that parenting is a huge project and that valuable experiences arise from taking on huge projects.

  24. Lynne
    Posted October 13, 2014 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Yes, FF, I had originally thought that is where you were going so my comment was in that context. I should have mentioned that my original context was wrong in that I wasn’t responding to your actual meaning. I still feel that Land was going for some status as mother with all of her mentions of it which of course implies that being a mother is somehow superior to not being one. I don’t think it was the word salad you do but I guess as neither of us can read minds, we can’t know for sure.

    I dont doubt that for some people, being a parent has led them to engage in activities they wouldn’t otherwise have engaged in which may have taught them skills that later on would help them in political office. However, I don’t think that happens automatically. I also think that many childfree people use the extra time for personal growth of their own. Seriously, until someone saying “I’m a spinster” carries as much weight as “I’m a mom”, seeing as how both paths can lead one to the sort of growth which would make them a good public servant, I won’t be satisfied with the state of our culture on that subject. Why should a woman’s marital status or status as parent/non-parent matter at all in terms of her running for office? It matters for men too, btw. Why are “family men” seen the way they are?

  25. Meta
    Posted October 14, 2014 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    Not so quick. They’ve got one more card up their sleeve. Swift Boating.

    With Terri Lynn Land looking like a goner, Republicans are throwing a wild Hail Mary—using 2004 tactics to gain a Senate seat. But this effort won’t work the way it did on John Kerry.

    So what were Republicans to do, when they realized that their once highly touted candidate couldn’t take down Rep. Gary Peters at the ballot box? Resurrect a successful 2004 strategy, of course. Lagging in the polls, they’re raising questions about the details of the Democrat’s military service record in an effort to disqualify him for a U.S. Senate seat. That was the playbook the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth used to discredit then-Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, when they found officers who tangentially served alongside the candidate, if at all, and muddied up his record.

    In the latest Republican strike, the conservative website Breitbart devoted nearly 4,000 words to a story about Peters’s service in the U.S. Navy Reserve. The site says Peters received a “sharpshooter” designation rather than the “expert” designation he claims; that he worked alongside the Navy’s Seabee construction battalion rather than as a Seabee, as he says; and that he had a mediocre and undistinguished service record.

    Breitbart cites two major sources to back up its claims: a commanding officer who served in the Seabees but whom Peters did not report to directly and the Republican National Committee’s “military expert.” But even the Seabees officer says Peters’s service qualifies the candidate to call himself a Seabee. And the RNC’s military expert appears to disparage Peters’s overseas service in Bahrain simply because he was not stationed more closely to a war zone.

    To rebut the Breitbart story, the Peters campaign provided The Daily Beast with a document signed by a commanding officer showing that the candidate qualified as a Seabee Combat Warfare Specialist on August 5, 1998. Peters qualified as an “expert” on the M16A1 in 1993 and the .38 revolver in 1995. He qualified as “sharpshooter” on the M1911A1-45 ACP handgun in 1994.

    Read more:

  26. anonymous
    Posted October 14, 2014 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    Not surprisingly, more women are gravitating away from Snyder. I guess they liked the Schauer wedding dress more.

  27. Posted October 15, 2014 at 6:04 am | Permalink

    “Regardless, I don’t see how viewing African style poverty first hand will change my opinion. If anything it would support it.”

    Wow. You’ve really outdone yourself here.

  28. Posted October 15, 2014 at 6:13 am | Permalink

    I’d really love to see you come out here and say that to people.

    It might go over really well.

  29. Lynne
    Posted October 15, 2014 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    No really, Peter. Please explain to me how seeing first hand the poverty in Kenya will change my opinion that having children is not a charitable act or even my opinion that having children has an environmental impact. Or would you rather just keep fighting straw men?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative ryan