Devos v Granholm Debates

[Michi]

I wonder what it would be like if NOBODY voted? I guess Bush would have to govern Michigan.

[Ka3kab]

I'm thinking about it, and you know what? I don't buy this crap that if you don't vote, you don't have a right to beotch. I've voted since I was eighteen, where has or what has it got me. Nothing really. Because I'm just some poor, dumb, middle-class, working drone, I get nothing. If I was poor, then I would get something. If I were a business owner or gigantic corporation, then I would get something. But, I don't. Like an idiot, I go to work every day, pay my ever increasing taxes and get by on what I can. No free college, have to pay for it myself because I make to much money, because really, 13 bucks an hour, Jesus I think I might go out and buy myself a private island tommorow. I personally believe it is time for change in this country. And I don't mean from Republican to Democrat or vice versa.

Note: Just because I have a quote by Gorbechev, the last Soviet Premier, does not in any way mean I'm some kind of wacky communist.

Last Note: I'm really sorry about even posting about this s#&@ on this site and this will be the last time, I promise. GO TIGERS!!!!!!!! and did the Red Wings start playing yet, kind of nice being able to pay attention to something else in October.

[tracer1138]

I'm thinking about it, and you know what? I don't buy this crap that if you don't vote, you don't have a right to beotch. I've voted since I was eighteen, where has or what has it got me. Nothing really. Because I'm just some poor, dumb, middle-class, working drone, I get nothing.

And so, with those words we see the slow disolving of Democracy in America...

What happens when all that's left is apathay?

Democracy requires vigilance and participation to survivie.

[Ka3kab]

I lied, one more word. There is no Democracy in America. We are not a Democracy. We are a Federal Republic.

Last time I speak on this issue.

[tamias6]

I lied, one more word. There is no Democracy in America. We are not a Democracy. We are a Federal Republic.

Last time I speak on this issue.

Ancient Greece was the only true democracy that I know of. As for today's America, I say it compares to the Roman civilization late in the Republic Phase of its history just before it turned into an Empire.

[RustTown]

It's one thing to be constructively critical of our society, it is another to work against everything it was founded on by purposefully choosing and loving being a total cynic. There is nothing more dangerous to the United States than complete and utter cynicism and apathy, not even 10 9/11s.

[Michi]

Yet, Ka3kab you echo what a many, if not most American's feel. You either keep up with the shrinking richest-of-the rich or you fall to the doledrums of the rapidly growing poor. The middle class is phizzing away in America and your frustration is not unique.

But it still does not forgive the shortsightedness of not thinking your vote matters. There's a reason why there is still a middle class in America and that is because people have taken a stand for what they believe in, and with power in numbers have faught against the overpowering trend of "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer".

Granholm has a purpose when she says she identifies more with every citizen, because unlike her opponent, she IS the everyday citizen. She doesn't need, nor can afford 2 boats at her summer cottage worth more than what most of us make in a lifetime surrounded by multi-acre gate to keep out the poor people who are obviously less than.

If you can't tell, I'm very critical of DeVos and his wealth and his smug way of demanding a presence in this election. That's why (for the sake of caring), it's upsetting to hear you just giving up and giving in to what the current national administration stands for and what DeVos obviously supports...and at a more extremist level.

...Those are just my humble thoughts, not to offend anyone...

[Ka3kab]

The only think I found cynical in my original post was what I said about Devos giving political favors to the people who gave him money for his campaign. But honestly and seriously, can you sit there and tell me that it won't happen. Look at Bush/Cheney and the links to Haliburton and numberous other companies that gave him tons of cash for his election. This country was founded a certain way, and yes, I think that it was a good model to go off of. Unfortunetly it has turned into something completly different and those who have the money to sway things their way are the ones making it that way.

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."

Ronald Reagan

"George Washington was the only President who didn't blame the previous administration for all his troubles."

Hubert Humphrey

That about sums it up for me.

[gvsusean]

Ancient Greece was the only true democracy that I know of. As for today's America, I say it compares to the Roman civilization late in the Republic Phase of its history just before it turned into an Empire.

a democracy where only free, land owning, males got to vote

[francishsu]

Well, I like the least common denominator for voting in this election and that's the reason stated at stopdevos.com:

It ultimately doesn't matter if Granholm hasn't been perfect, or if DeVos has "new ideas." Being President of Amway is, by itself, an absolute disqualifier for holding public office.

[monsoon]

We are only going to allow one topic per political race. If there are subsequent debates to be discussed, it has to be in this thread.

[egrguy]

Anyone watching the debate.... oops. Looks like the Tigers are up! What poor planning for the debate, albeit who would have thought we'd have the Tigers in the playoffs.

[RustTown]

This may sound like sin to some, but I'm not much of a baseball fan, at all, so I ended up watching this debate, as well.

DeVos was improved and that's really all he needed to do, as no one expects him to win any of these debates. Granholm layed on thick her passion, as usual, and extra thick, this time, but not to the point where it was overdone.

As for each of their faults, again, Granholm was long-winded, and had a hard time getting to the point, if even she was full of specifics. In fact, she ran out of time for her close at the very end and it turned up being very awkward, though you could tell she wanted to badly she wanted to go on. DeVos' problems were his usual, aloof, trouble bringing together his thoughts, looking down at his notes right in the middle of answers. He also came off as very harsh, I think to most voters, when he specifically said that Michigan needed to break the bad news to the governor and should "fire" Granholm. It seemed too much and harsh.

Again, Granholm won simply because it was simply a foregone conclusion that she's the better speaker and debater, but all DeVos has to do is to continually improve to score points with his base, and he did that. He went from being a total pushover to looking maybe not like a governor, but probably city council material.

[Michi]

The "we need to fire the governor" comment took me over the edge too. I was thinking, you DO realize that less people support you than her, right? To me that's like saying, you fire the governor, you fire me...and all the other supporters of her. I guess that means I have to leave the state too.

*Pardon my childishness*

[RustTown]

When he said that I was thinking "maybe she should be fired, but you sure as heck aren't good enoug for the job." lol Again, though, he'll win with his base just for improving, as he was "best improved." But, that's only because he was so horrible in the first place. There was little place for him to go but up. I also laughed when one of the panelist brought up the fact how "disappointed" he'd been in the last debate. It's funny, because I really don't remember that sticking out.

[GRDadof3]

Uhh, I think this answers the "You're fired!" sentiment for most people:

Why did Granholm wait until just this past year to start "planting seeds"?

Hopefully you don't have to leave the State Michi, but I think a lot of people don't fully realize the situation and that thousands are leaving the state. When the Free Press trumpets 900 jobs created in Ann Arbor last year as a "bright spot in Michigan", yet even small cities in obscure states like Arkansas are creating 10,000 - 20,000 jobs/year, you know we're in trouble. Everyone was clammoring about the impending implosion of the Big 3 automakers when I worked in automotive 7 years ago. Most likely Granholm may not have had much impact on helping them, but where was she in helping to create 100,000's of jobs to offset those losses?

Devos is right. Nothing personal Granholm, but we would be negligent to keep her there.

[Michi]

I don't doubt your graph, GRDad, but I was associating the "you're fired" to a comparison between DeVos and Granholm. I'm not debating job loss under Granholm, because Michigan has lost jobs starting before her. I do believe, however, that the policies of the Bush administration, supported heavily by the DeVos interest, has had a heavy toll on the State of Michigan's economy. He can believe she should be fired, but likewise, I don't believe he should be hired.

[francishsu]

Uhh, I think this answers the "You're fired!" sentiment for most people:

Actually, your graph was a poor choice to use. Except for the sudden dip at the end, it makes it look like things were turning around for the better, starting with when Granholm took office. And even with the sudden dip, the graph still shows a net positive gain from when she took office (January 2003).

[ZachariahDaMan]

I turned 18 this past summer and I just registered to vote today. Now I just need to decide who I should vote for. I might have to go with Devos.

[snoogit]

Anyone watching the debate.... oops. Looks like the Tigers are up! What poor planning for the debate, albeit who would have thought we'd have the Tigers in the playoffs.

The debates are planned only months in advance, so I'm guessing sometime around July, whien it was obvious the Tigers would be in the playoffs.

[GaryP]

Why did Granholm wait until just this past year to start "planting seeds"?

Not only did she wait to do this herself, but she also destroyed the 'seeds' Engler planted before her. Engler may have done a lot of things that were bad, but the Michigan Life Science Corridor wasn't one of them. Why did Granholm destroy this program?

DeVos is right. Nothing personal Granholm, but we would be negligent to keep her there.

I agree. I missed the first debate, but caught last night's. DeVos is a horrible speaker and I don't want to vote for him, but I can't vote Granholm again. She has been a disaster.

[GRDadof3]

Actually, your graph was a poor choice to use. Except for the sudden dip at the end, it makes it look like things were turning around for the better, starting with when Granholm took office. And even with the sudden dip, the graph still shows a net positive gain from when she took office (January 2003).

No, I think it was a good choice. The job growth during her term then from Jan. 2003 to Jun. 2006 (pre-dip) was 92,000, or 1.9%. A job growth percentage of 1.9% is pretty low for a one year job growth figure, not less a 3 1/2 year period. Keep in mind too that 36,000 of those 92,000 jobs were in Grand Rapids. I don't recall her bringing too many jobs to West Michigan over the past 3 years, so can she be credited with bringing ANY of the 92,000? Keep in mind the Googles, Toyotas and United Solar Ovonics have not added any labor force yet.

Just go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics site and pick any state. Go to the Backdata (dinosaur icon) on any of the four parameters at the top (labor force, employment, unemployed, unemployment). It's quite interesting how Michigan doesn't stack up.

Again, my issue is not that there are job losses in the automotive industry. It should not have been a surprise to anyone. The Big 3 are continuing to put out cars that fewer and fewer people want, but they don't seem to get that or they just aren't bold enough to fix it. My question is why is she just recently doing anything about it. It's almost like she's just trying to keep her position, not be a leader. If she were governor of Idaho, she could probably get by with that level of effort.

If not Devos, then Michigan should be declared in a state of emergency and a new governor appointed.

[francishsu]

No, I think it was a good choice. The job growth during her term then from Jan. 2003 to Jun. 2006 (pre-dip) was 92,000, or 1.9%. A job growth percentage of 1.9% is pretty low for a one year job growth figure, not less a 3 1/2 year period. Keep in mind too that 36,000 of those 92,000 jobs were in Grand Rapids. I don't recall her bringing too many jobs to West Michigan over the past 3 years, so can she be credited with bringing ANY of the 92,000? Keep in mind the Googles, Toyotas and United Solar Ovonics have not added any labor force yet.

My point was that the graph, in of itself, was not a good indicator. You're having to explain it, when any person just looking at the graph would see a huge job loss from 2000 to 2003, and a recovery after that. If you wanted a graph that would make it obvious, you would do something like show the graphs of other states and contrast them with Michigan's.

And I think you need to do more explaining about your attempt to blame her for slow job growth, while at the same time denying her any credit for the jobs that were created. Granholm's recruiting of companies to invest in Michigan is only one way of creating jobs. Obviously the companies already in Michigan are the ones hiring new jobs. Nobody is making the claim that those 92000 jobs gained were all from the recruitment method. My argument is that under the economic policies of her administration, 92000 jobs were in fact created in the face of massive job cuts in automotive and manufacturing.

Oh, and let's not forget that Engler saddled her with a $4 billion deficit.

[Jasoncw]

The number of unemployed people did get higher, I'm sure. So I don't doubt that graph, but I also think it's misleading because it doesn't take into account the population growth. I can't find any straight numbers right now, but I think the population growth from 96 to 06 is at least 400,000 (if anyone has the actual number that would be good), and the change in unemployment from then and now looks like about 100,000.

So unemployment has risen, but slower than the population.

[tracer1138]

An attempt at a balanced, rational opinion

I think it should be noted that there isn't much a Governor can do when the Opposing Party has a stranglehold on the legislature.

Remember, the legislatures are supposed to be the primary power holders and vehicles for change in State and Federal Governement. The Governor is in a leadership position to help focus the efforts of the legislature, and that's certainly not easy when your legislature casts aside everything you say, not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of partisanship!

I'm not saying things would be better if a single party controlled the legislature and governorship, in fact, I would argue exactly the opposite. Because things are slower moving in a split party state like ours, it keeps us away from extremism and reactionary decisions of a signle party holding all of the power (example, the federal government).

Just remember if Republicans, or any party for that matter, gain total control of state government...

1. they're not going to listen to any opposition/alternative viewpoints

2. they're going to exercise their power to oppress the minority party

3. it's going to be very hard to undo any changes they make (vis a vis Granholm and Engler)

4. they will change the rules to favor the continued dominance of their party, regardless of actual public opinion.

5. corruption will ensue

Choose Wisely

Vote Nov. 7