Jump to content

Who do we like for Governor?

Yankee Fan

By Yankee Fan
in Grand Rapids Coffee House

Governor Poll  

163 members have voted

  1. 1. Who do we like for Governor?

    • Dick DeVos
      77
    • Jennifer Granholm
      73
    • Other
      13

Recommended Posts

GR_Urbanist Burg

GR_Urbanist

Posted
Posted

For me I see the Granholm supporters as a confused mess of excuse makers.

On one hand she is needed to fix the economy. Then I hear she doesn’t have any control over the economy. Then I hear it’s the previous governor’s fault. After that I hear that it Bush's fault. After that it's the state legislators fault. Then her "fixes" need time to pan out. And after that I hear that the governor is a "strong role model" for women. What?

Now with DeVos I hear even more excuses why you should not vote for him.

He's too rich (Have we ever elected a broke governor?). He doesn’t understand people like me (whatever that is supposed to mean). He works for Amway (like that is some sort of Freemason society). He's too religious (Oh the horrors). He's too conservative (And some people are liberal. Should I avoid voting for them too?). So far none of these excuses are issue based. They seem to be just some jealously mixed in with an anti-Republican bias with a little grasping at straws for dramatic effect.

The majority of people in this state are voting pocketbook. They are not voting environment or religion or abortion. They are looking at a state that is still losing people and jobs by the thousands. A few new Google jobs are already being shadowed by new job loses and other people are still out of work. Like it or not, people are going to look at the current governor as the buck stopper. If the economy isn’t going full blast in 3 months, or has the perception of doing that, then she will be out. It’s just that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 353
  • Created
  • Last Reply
snoogit Town

snoogit

Posted
Posted

The door swings both ways and Granholm's disfunctional relationship with the state legislature is an embarrassment.

How are you supposed to have any kind of functional relationship when all your legislature does is stick its fingers in its ears, and act like its not listening? The legislature has been notoriously bad, and it only acts when the public starts nagging them about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michaelskis Hamlet

michaelskis

Posted
Posted

I guess they balance out the people who like to blame Granholm and Clinton for the way the economy is going. If it's not Bush's fault that he inherited a mess from Clinton, then how can it be Granholm's fault for what she inherited from Engler? :whistling:

Michigan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GaryP Burg

GaryP

Posted
Posted

What has Granholm done incorrectly? I am sincere when asking this, and not just flaming your response.

She made two decisions with her first budget that were terrible. It was obvious that Michigan was going to have problems with the auto industry and that we needed to diversify our economy and she came in and cut higher education budgets and basically eliminated the Michigan Life Sciences Corridor. I thought at the time that these were the two best places to bring Michigan's economy into the 21st century.

Another boneheaded decision she made was to cut tourism promotion spending. The state did a study that showed a 126% yearly return on money spend advertising Michigan for tourism. Every dollar the state spend it got back $2.26. To most people this is the best investment they will see in their life, in Granholm's government we cut the budget :blink:

She can't be blamed for the auto industries woes, but I think she's made enough bad decisions to put our economy behind where it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rizzo City

Rizzo

Posted
Posted

Funny you should mention Portland. Till about a month ago the only time I'd spent in Portland was stopping at the Mcdonald's off I-96 for coffee or stopping for gas on trips between "larger places". But in a quest to find new places to walk I discovered that Portland has got miles of trails that run along the Grand and Looking Glass Rivers and along old railroad right-of-ways. I found an interesting restaurant downtown right next to the river and trail called Duke's Canoe Club. Even took my wife there the next day. Even though Portland is more Mayberry than Detroit, I thought it was a cool little city. From the link I see their Cool Cities grant is to expand the trails more. If I lived there, that would give me something to think about before running off to the bright lights of Chicago.

Charlotte, Mi. A Cool City. I'm not too sure if its officially designated, but to me, a "cool city" is a city that facinates. A cool city shouldn't just be big, but offer that spark of facination and interest. Hell, my girl kids me that I am so facinated with Eaton County and her little towns, I don't know why. It feels as if it's my home away from home (GR.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prankster Burg

Prankster

Posted
Posted

She made two decisions with her first budget that were terrible. It was obvious that Michigan was going to have problems with the auto industry and that we needed to diversify our economy and she came in and cut higher education budgets and basically eliminated the Michigan Life Sciences Corridor. I thought at the time that these were the two best places to bring Michigan's economy into the 21st century.

Another boneheaded decision she made was to cut tourism promotion spending. The state did a study that showed a 126% yearly return on money spend advertising Michigan for tourism. Every dollar the state spend it got back $2.26. To most people this is the best investment they will see in their life, in Granholm's government we cut the budget :blink:

She can't be blamed for the auto industries woes, but I think she's made enough bad decisions to put our economy behind where it should be.

One thing to keep in mind in regards to the auto industry: Even though they are currently taking it on the chin, they are still a large economic driver of our state's economy. Besides the low skilled assembly/factory work often associated with automotive, there are also 1000's of high paying high tech jobs all through SE Michigan. They are using cutting edge technology to advance their industry, and even the transplants (ie - Toyota) have located their technology centers here.

So even though diversifying the economy is smart, ignoring automotive and letting it whither away would be a big mistake too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michaelskis Hamlet

michaelskis

Posted
Posted

What has Granholm done incorrectly? I am sincere when asking this, and not just flaming your response.

She focused too much on replacing industrial operations with more industrial operations instead of diversifying other industries such as medical research, technology, and the promotion of small business. Additionally, the Small Business Tax made it more difficult for many smaller entrepreneurs to start up. She has started to change some of her tone, but it is still limited and marginal at best.

The Cool Cities program is phenomenal and if re-organized could be a tremendous success. However right now, it is like tossing a Dixie cup of water at a raging forest fire. Each year the allocations should be concentrated on a particular location. A wise person once said, a weed may grow in a rose garden, but a rose will not grow in a bed of weeds. She is trying to plant single rose plants in fields of weeds. Without tilling and cleaning, and many more rose plants, the single plant will not succeed.

The focus on transportation has been very one-sided... the Automobile side. I just hope that the next Governor can help persuade the Auto Makers to expand into other transportation, and not let them have such an influence.

Places that have had a strong emphasis of Private and Local Government cooperation have been able to rebound and succeed with amazing results. If you look at downtown Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, and Marquette, they are out pacing the state by leaps and bounds in terms of new development and redevelopment. However, any time there is state influence, the cooperation has become extremely limited, development has been halted, and the state government has become more of a hindrance than a benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suydam Hamlet

suydam

Posted
Posted

Places that have had a strong emphasis of Private and Local Government cooperation have been able to rebound and succeed with amazing results. If you look at downtown Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, and Marquette, they are out pacing the state by leaps and bounds in terms of new development and redevelopment.

Pegging Detroit's failure to rebound on the state government is an easy view to take from 140 miles away.

I attribute this merely to size and the interia of rebounding a big city (D-Town) vs. a small one (GR)

There are nearly 1M people in the city of Detroit. That's 5 times as many as GR.

The metro area is also nearly 5 times the size (or more) of GR/Wyoming.

GR is able to rebound more quicly because a city/region 1/5th the size of Metro Detroit should be able to rebound more quickly.

Kalamazoo is even smaller. As such, Kalamazoo's downtown renaissance picked up steam even faster than GR and was really in full swing a few years ago when Union/Icon-on-Bond/Mariott/GRAM were still in the discussion phase here in GR.

Marquette is even smaller. As such, Marquette was listed as one of America's best cities for outdoor enthusiasts and one of America's most bike-friendly cities even earlier than Kalamazoo's renaissance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
superNOVA Whistle-Stop

superNOVA

Posted
Posted

GR is able to rebound more quicly because a city/region 1/5th the size of Metro Detroit should be able to rebound more quickly.

That really does not make much sense. It is a percentage game, not a pure numbers game. A larger city should rebound at the same rate, unless of course the region is flawed.

Detroit is rebounding much slower because of poor planning, rampant and massive corruption at all levels, and just plain idiocy in the leadership. With the current crop of politicians in that area - it will never rebound. Most people I know that are actively in the politics and policy game (quite a few) have pretty much given up on the area, which means a rebound will be a long ways off. No one wants to risk their career by going up against the Democrat corruption machine in Detroit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michaelskis Hamlet

michaelskis

Posted
Posted

Pegging Detroit's failure to rebound on the state government is an easy view to take from 140 miles away.

I attribute this merely to size and the interia of rebounding a big city (D-Town) vs. a small one (GR)

There are nearly 1M people in the city of Detroit. That's 5 times as many as GR.

The metro area is also nearly 5 times the size (or more) of GR/Wyoming.

GR is able to rebound more quicly because a city/region 1/5th the size of Metro Detroit should be able to rebound more quickly.

Kalamazoo is even smaller. As such, Kalamazoo's downtown renaissance picked up steam even faster than GR and was really in full swing a few years ago when Union/Icon-on-Bond/Mariott/GRAM were still in the discussion phase here in GR.

Marquette is even smaller. As such, Marquette was listed as one of America's best cities for outdoor enthusiasts and one of America's most bike-friendly cities even earlier than Kalamazoo's renaissance.

Who said anything about Detroit?

I think that is one of the other biggest problems. The states economy (and lack there of) is not just limited to Detroit. Just look at Battle Creek, Gaylord, Grayling, Flint, Cadillac, and most of the places in the Upper Peninsula. They are all in need of help. But you raise another interesting point, other than when campaigning, Lansing and Detroit are the only two cities that matter in the eyes of this Governor.

I used those three because I have lived in all three and researched why they succeeded when others had failed. Public/ Private cooperation for success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veloise City

Veloise

Posted
Posted

I think this is interesting. Found it in the late July DetNews article about campaign finance reports:

"The DeVos report shows that On Message Inc., the Virginia-based company that is preparing the ads and placing the media buys, has been paid more than $3 million this year."

Kindof like using a city shot of Toronto or LA or Vancouver in a movie about Detroit, no?

JMG is utilizing the skills of an ad agency in Oakland county.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rizzo City

Rizzo

Posted
Posted

SUVs or not.... The "outrageous" profits are reinvested into the enviroment so we can have more supply. We are pumping profit into the machine so it can pump out more supply. Hell, after the oil companies "outrageous" profits are reinvested back into the American economy we are almost getting free gas with the added plus of more jobs. According to the executives of the largest oil producing companies, their business as a whole dosen't take that much profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunlover38 Whistle-Stop

Sunlover38

Posted
Posted

Didn't Michigan lose a brand new Honda plant to Indiana? What happened there? Why weren't more incentives given to get Honda to locate in Michigan especially considering how many autoworkers have lost their jobs over the years as the auto industry closes plants and opens back up south of the border? Michigan can't afford a loss like that. Not saying it is all JG fault, but that could have been a huge gain for the people of this state. . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
snoogit Town

snoogit

Posted
Posted

Didn't Michigan lose a brand new Honda plant to Indiana? What happened there? Why weren't more incentives given to get Honda to locate in Michigan especially considering how many autoworkers have lost their jobs over the years as the auto industry closes plants and opens back up south of the border? Michigan can't afford a loss like that. Not saying it is all JG fault, but that could have been a huge gain for the people of this state. . . . .

actually the loss of the Toyota plant had nothing to do with incentives, or anything the Governor did wrong. The issue was more of a location issue then anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRDadof3 Ecumenopolis

GRDadof3

Posted
Posted

Didn't Michigan lose a brand new Honda plant to Indiana? What happened there? Why weren't more incentives given to get Honda to locate in Michigan especially considering how many autoworkers have lost their jobs over the years as the auto industry closes plants and opens back up south of the border? Michigan can't afford a loss like that. Not saying it is all JG fault, but that could have been a huge gain for the people of this state. . . . .

The LAST thing we need is another automotive plant in this State. Sorry, been there done that. Automotive assembly is a fleeting industry.

SUVs or not.... The "outrageous" profits are reinvested into the enviroment so we can have more supply. We are pumping profit into the machine so it can pump out more supply. Hell, after the oil companies "outrageous" profits are reinvested back into the American economy we are almost getting free gas with the added plus of more jobs. According to the executives of the largest oil producing companies, their business as a whole dosen't take that much profit.

Just like BP was reinvesting that money back into inspections of the Alaskan pipeline they owned. :rolleyes: Did anyone else read that they hadn't inpected the lines or cleaned them out with the "hog" since 1992?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.