« Obama Linked To Houston Voter Fraud Scandal | Main | Where are the women's rights activists? »

The Chicago Way comes to Michigan's First Congressional District

The Michigan Democratic Party has taken a page from Barack Obama's election playbook in their effort to keep MI01 in the "D" column. Dropping all vestiges of common decency, they are trying to do to Dan Benishek what Barack Obama's thugs did to Jack Ryan in Chicago.

Just as Obama used Jack Ryan's custody battles with his former wife Jeri Ryan to sail to his Senate win 2004, the Democratic Party in Michigan is using Dan Benishek's custody records from more than 20 years ago as a weapon by trying to convince voters that he tried to bilk his kids of child support. Dan Benishek did no such thing. Here's the ridiculous story that showed up in some rag called the Michigan Messenger:

Court records from Dickinson County show that Republican congressional candidate Dan Benishek underestimated his income by $100,000 during legal arguments over child support with his ex-wife.

Benishek, an Iron River surgeon who is running on a platform of reducing government spending, filed for divorce against his wife of 15 years, Jody Benishek, in 1989. The couple's three sons were 7, 10 and 12 at the time and the couple agreed that they should live with their mother.

In February 1990, Benishek filed a request for actual physical joint custody of the children, and for a lowering of his $2,550 per month child support payment.

Benishek, who at the time owned four homes and three vehicles and an estimated income of $250,000 per year, claimed that the costs of maintaining his ex-wife and children were unfair. He later dropped the request for lowered child support payments.

In 1995 child support again became an issue for the Benisheks. Jody Benishek -- now going by her maiden name, Jody DePuydt -- was a registered nurse making $23,000 dollars a year working for the county health dept. and she represented herself in court as she urged a judge to reexamine Benishek's finances.

She claimed that Benishek set up a company, Wild River Land Management and Marketing Inc., to receive unrecorded and untaxable income. She said that Benishek had transferred assets and income into the company (which employed his new wife) and was deducting his living expenses from the amount of money that would be considered in determining his child support.

Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer is using this story to impugn Benishek's integrity. According to Interlochen Public Radio, he said, "Hypocrisy is always relevant." So is knowing what you're talking about and Brewer clearly doesn't.

I asked my husband, a family law attorney, to read this article and give me his thoughts about the Democrats' accusation that Dan Benishek tried to hide income to reduce his child support payments. He scoffed at the idea. Yes, people try to hide income, but the court always finds it because it conducts its own independent investigation. And from what we're seeing here, there wasn't any hidden income so much as there was a disagreement between parties as to what income should be included for child support payments. This is typical in divorce and custody cases when one person is self-employed, which Dr. Benishek was.

As anyone who own a business knows, filling out your tax returns is a complicated endeavor. It's not an exaggeration to say ten different people can fill out the tax returns for the same business and get ten different results. So it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that the Benisheks didn't agree on what Dan's income was. Disagreements like the Benisheks' are the norm more than they are the exception, so the court has a process to determine the income that will be used for child support. To do this, Dr. Benishek was required to submit all his tax returns, personal and corporate, to the court. As I mentioned earlier, the court doesn't take anyone's word regarding his or her income, so it does its own independent investigation to make sure all income is reported. Dan's attorney surely would have known this.

Each side made its arguments in front of the judge regarding what should be considered income. Dan and his attorney argued his income was X and provided documentation that supported their view. His wife and her attorney argued that that Dan's income was Y and provided documentation to support their view. After listening to both sides, the judge made his decision. In this case, the judge ruled in Dan's ex-wife's favor, which Dan complied with fully, a point Dr. Benishek made in a statement about this personal attack:

Out of respect for my former wife and our now adult children, I have no plans to discuss the personal details of our separation over 20 years ago. As with any divorce proceeding, there were hearings and there was a judge's decision on child support that I complied with 100%. I am not a career politician like my opponent, but I guess I'm learning that these personal smears are what pass for a campaign when you're on the wrong side of the voters' concerns.

The author of the Michigan Messenger article deliberately mischaracterized Dan as a selfish bastard who manipulated his finances to bilk his kids out of child support, a perverse lie that is now being pushed by a Democratic Party after they bilked the American people out of trillions of dollars for their own pet projects. Dan's daughter was so outraged by this hit piece and the Democrats' attempts to use it against her father, she issued this justifiably angry public statement:

"I saw the article that was printed in the Michigan Messenger today and it makes me very angry. The details of a child support dispute between my parents--that took place 20 years ago--are nobody's business and have nothing to do with my dad's campaign for Congress. My dad is a great father and has always been 100% supportive of my two brothers and me. My mother was able to work part time and was able to be there for her kids, thanks in part to the $50,000 per year she received in financial support from our dad, as well as additional settlements. In addition, he made certain we had a nice home, and we never felt that we were in need of anything. He also named all of us kids as trustees and beneficiaries of his company, to ensure our security should anything ever happen to him. The fact that my dad's political opponents are trying to use us to damage the reputation of a very good man is disgusting. Any news outlet that entertains this story is not concerned with the reality of the situation."

Dan's ex-wife is equally outraged that the Democrats are trying to use her and her kids as pawns to destroy her ex-husband with whom she has an amicable relationship:

"I am saddened that the nearly twenty year old details of child support issues between myself and my former husband are being used as fodder for tabloid-style politics in this campaign. The published court records reflected a very difficult time for our family. A divorce with young children involved is difficult for everyone. While Dan and I have had our differences, we've always agreed to put the children first. And, like the majority of divorced couples, we've sometimes disagreed on the best method to do so. At this stage of our lives, we have an amicable relationship that allows us to enjoy our grandson, celebrate our grown children's achievements and consult over their occasional problems. I judge Dan for who he is now, not for his actions 20 years ago. I would suggest that the media focus on legitimate issues in this campaign. Health care, illegal immigration, economics, the environment and the threat of terrorism may not be as sensational as twenty year old divorce news, but they actually impact the lives and futures of Americans."

This attempted smear proves that Michigan's Democrats - like Barack Obama - are so power hungry they don't have any qualms about using Chicago style thug tactics to personally destroy their opponent to win elections. Because they can't engage Dr. Benishek on the issues, they dug up records of the most painful time in Dan's and his family's life and deliberately twisted the facts to suit their political ends. The Democrats are trying to make Dan Benishek's divorce appear to be so scandalous that it was something outside of the American mainstream. They seem to have forgotten that millions of Americans over the past 20 years experienced messy and hurtful divorces, too, and I imagine they would be just as furious if someone made their divorce records public in order to sabotage their chances at getting a job.

The lesson we need to learn from this sorry episode doesn't have anything to do with Dan Benishek at all. It's that the Democrats use political tactics that are so sleazy and dishonest that we can't help but come to the conclusion that they will sink to any level that is necessary in order to fulfill their own political needs. Barack Obama proved this during the 2004 Illinois Senate race when his thugs worked with the media to unseal the Ryans' custody records. Barack Obama proved this again during his presidential campaign when he promised fiscal discipline, tax cuts for the middle class, and a stronger and more unified country, but when he came into office he governed against the will of the American people and rammed through policies that crippled our economy and put the American taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars. Alan Grayson proved this when he slandered his political opponent Daniel Webster in a political ad by editing comments Webster made in such a way that it sounded like Webster was saying the opposite of what he actually said. And now the Michigan Democrats are proving this by twisting Dan Benishek's divorce and custody records in order to paint a portrait of him that is disconnected from reality.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (11)

And if the constituency ele... (Below threshold)

And if the constituency elects a Democrat based upon smear tactics such as this, the constituency should expect the same quality of leadership the current president is showing. These type of tactics are a measure of the man.

Leftist have no problem dig... (Below threshold)

Leftist have no problem digging in to your privacy if they can gain a crimelord seat for the effort.

Deception of the lackwit kind.

Fun question: which do we k... (Below threshold)

Fun question: which do we know more about -- Benishek's divorce or Obama's academic career?


"The lesson we nee... (Below threshold)
"The lesson we need to learn from this sorry episode doesn't have anything to do with Dan Benishek at all."
Bravo, Kim Priestap. You deftly went to the heart of the matter: moral bankruptcy and intellectual dishonesty is a Liberal's calling card and the politics of personal destruction is a Liberal's tool of choice.

Liberal fascism is what I call it.

Dan Benishek's(R) website can be found here.

Politicians will only do th... (Below threshold)

Politicians will only do this as long as it works, that's to me the bigger issue. Dan should not defend this he should use it to go on the offense. If this sort of thing works it is shame on us (not us the people here who don't have their heads up their a$$ the collect us that gets all their information from the entertainment industry)

Color me unsurpris... (Below threshold)

Color me unsurprised--these ARE Democrats, after all.

Really, the only person to ... (Below threshold)

Really, the only person to blame for all of this is Jeri Ryan. She could have been as classy as Ms. DePuydt, but used the episode to further her career (and get in good with all the Hollywood liberals). And now, POTUS Barack Obama.

These are the same Democrat... (Below threshold)

These are the same Democrats who balk anytime Republicans discuss Obama's associations with Ayers and Rev. Wright. You can only have it one way.

Either you talk about people's past associations, or you don't.

I just wonder if one day so... (Below threshold)

I just wonder if one day some smart politicain, maybe even a politican with some sense of fair play (it could happen) will stand up and turn this sort of smear to his/her advantage by denouncing it in no uncertain terms. I don't mean to give ideas to the opposition but suppose Dan's opponent stood up in a press conference and reamed the paper for pulling this stunt. He would gain a lot of respect and might even turn this to his advantage without participating in the smear leaving Dan with nothing to say.

Well either way, the MSM wo... (Below threshold)

Well either way, the MSM would have to report it. If they don't report it, it didn't happen. Just look at the most recent testimony on Capitol Hill re: the DOJ and the Black Panthers.

what exactly is the smear o... (Below threshold)

what exactly is the smear or lie?

left out of the factual recitation is what the ex wife said in open court in 1995:"Dr. Benishek stated under oath and testimony during our custody case that his gross income for 1994 was $130,000. His gross income is well over $400,000, your Honor," The Dickinson County court then sanctioned Benishek for this "extremely significant" discrepancy and ordered recalculation of support obligations. i would submit that contemporaneous comments are more accurate than today's attempt to help your ex husband get elected.
Now we know where Benishek got his campaign slogan: "Enough is Enough".

Divorce is very personal, but lying under oath in court to reduce child support! Most Republicans thought that lying in a deposition about a victimless affair was a high crime and misdemeanor deserving impeachment.

I now understand why millionaire Benishek wants to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 annually--adding about $700 billion to the deficit over the next decade. Back when tax cuts were temporarily enacted, some questioned reductions for the rich during wartime. The response then was Cheney's famous quote: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter!" and that "trickle down" will, for the first time in recorded history, stimulate the economy.

What's that tea you've been drinking?-- smells like almost pure hypocrisy with just a hint of lemon!






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy