Dick DeVos has laser vision

I promised a post this past weekend, and I'm one day late. I'm running into a problem that conisists of saying the same thing over and over again in different and hopefully entertaining ways. I was pondering why it's been so difficult to explore at length the flaws with the Republicans and their vision of the future. As I meandered about the internet searching, honestly, to find something to raise a stink about that I hadn't either already blogged about or that hadn't been blogged better elsewhere (click links to the right), and I came across Wizardkittens brilliant post over at the Daily Kos. It's as if the Republican party has been left to pandering to whatever fears they think play best to their stregths, without any basis in reality. Some are to be expected, some are downright, well, lame.

For example, it's difficult to argue the case against Dick DeVos because people like this exist:
"I don’t know about the rest of the world, but the mere fact that Jennifer is considering solving the jobs problem by using the state to employ the out-of-work, makes me shake right down to my Buster Browns. It means three things. One, we’re going to have a lot more road construction, which, if the current road construction is any indication, will go on for the next thirty years until my children are wondering how hard it really is to dig a hole. Two, any time anyone is employed by the government, their ambition to do anything else (and their productivity) takes an inverse relation to their pay, with the added bonus of being completely unable to fire them. And then there’s three. Who on Earth is going to pay for all of these public works programs? Apparently, me, at least until I move out of the state to follow the jobs. Taxpayers pay for state work. Right now, we don’t have a lot of money to pay for this kind of stuff, so it follows logically that taxes will go up, which, we were under the impression was the problem in the first place. Higher taxes, less business. Less business, less jobs. Less jobs mean more state programs trying to hire people who don’t have jobs. More state programs, higher taxes."

This is from "American Princess" who blogs over at Got Detroit? and Conservative Princess, and is probably the most coherent thing i've heard from any conservative in, well, weeks. And it still makes no sense.
She's shaking in her shoes because of road construction? Really? That's the boogie man now? Take a deep breath AP, in through the mouth out through the nose, and follow very carefully because I don't want to confuse you (based on this post you seem easily confused).
1. Take a road trip and then tell me our state infrastructure is in tip top shape. Tell me business leaders want their drive to work to be filled with potholes, and have an overwheleming sense that things are falling apart.
2. Maybe you should focus more on painting than writing, because you seem to be fantastic at the all encompassing broad strokes that are offensive and untrue. "any time anyone is employed by the government, their ambition to do anything else (and their productivity) takes an inverse relation to their pay, with the added bonus of" being completely unable to fire them." Such a sweeping and ignorant statement. With a statement like that it would take only one (of many) examples to the contrary to refute. How about this. I used to work for the Michigan Department of Transportation. I was productive while I worked there. My personal ambition drove me into the post production field that i enjoy and find personal satisfaction in.
3. Who will pay for this? Roughly half will come from the federal government, and yes we will have to make up the rest. Which is why making up for ALL of the dreaded SBT revenue is essential, so that it doesn't fall directly on the average resident. I think you'd probably agree that a solid community with strong schools, solid infrastructure and a business friendly environment will help with business growth, which is what you're all about, right AP? That's worth something, isn't it?
Bottom line: seriously, if this is part of your case against Granholm, that part of her plan includes putting more people to work through building up our outdated and crumbling infrastructure, then your case is weak and illogical. I find it hard to believe that employing people to do construction is long overdue could in any way be considered a negative in any circumstance. If this is what has you shaking in your boots I recommend locking your door tomorrow night and turning off the lights, because all kinds of nasty creatures will be lurking about demanding some form of handout or another. Better safe than sorry, right AP?

Briefly

Hey all,

real quick note here. Been slammed at work, so I haven't posted in awhile, and again i apologize.

Michigan Liberal contacted us regarding the robocalls we've been getting. I direct you to this link if you recieved these calls and still have them somewhere. The AFL-CIO is looking into a lawsuit and your help is needed.

Also, over at Leftyblogs and Michigan Liberal, polls are looking good for our side.

I recommend checking out the blogs and getting caught up, lord knows that's what i'm about to do. I'll post more this weekend. I pinky swear.

"Michigan Working Families" identify yourselves

Yesterday I posted a message from a group called "Michigan Working Families", well, friends of mine have recieved two more robocalls from them.
I still can't find any information on them and am very curious to know just who they are and who funds them.

Call 1:
"Another broken promise by Jennifer Granholm. She promised smaller class sizes, instead she cut funding for public education. Class sizes are now bigger under Jennifer Granholm. But breaking a promise isn't all. Granholm opposes proposal five, solutions that could move one billion dollars to the classroom. When you look at the record and beyond the hype, Jennifer Granholm is no friend to our public schools. This message has been brought to you by Michigan Working Families."

Link.

Proposal five would effectively force either a tax increase somewhere, or roughly $500 million in cuts from other departments or services. While we all agree that public education funding is a critical need for helping the state move forward, mandating funding levels without thought to need seems reckless. At least to me.
And by the way, that's rich coming from the family that wants the state to help fund christian education through the voucher system and effectively take money OUT of public schools.
Jackass.

The tone of the second one is downright crude.

"Wow. So first we find out that Granholm makes empty promises to autoworkers, and then today Jennifer Granholm's campaign says on WJR radio that they have no regrets for supporting NAFTA. Frankly I'm pissed at watching another politician lie to us and do nothing to help us. This November I'm voting for a change. I'm firing Granholm and voting for MY job. This message brought to you by Michigan Working Families."

LINK.

Whew. Huh. I wasn't listening to WJR so I have no idea if this was said, what was said or what context it was in, but here's the thing, Governor Granholm has been consistently for enforcing our current treaties in order to make the playing field level for the auto industry.

I ask again: who are you "Michigan Working Families"? Who funds you? Where are you located? Where are you headquarters? Who is on your board? Who is writing your copy? Where are you recording at? Who are you using to robocall, because your number keeps popping up as "caller unknown"?

Someone with more resources than me needs to do some digging, because this smells rotten. I'll keep looking, but i'm just a guy. The more help the better.

Saul Anuzis = Karl Rove

I honestly don't know how seriously to take this article in Newsweek Online.

Saul Anuzis is Dick Devos' campaign manager. In this article he claims that the Republicans are targeting "snowmobilers" as one of the micro targets for the election.

"“We have the largest population of snowmobilers in the country. We were able to get licenses, etc. and identify 400,000 registered snowmobilers and we added that to their voter file,” Anuzis said.

Last year Granholm vetoed a bill that was replacing a seven-mile stretch along a highway necessary to complete a 2,000-mile snowmobile trail."

Uh huh. So, what, is this a red herring? We'll get Governor Granholm thinking we're insane enough to believe that with all the problems we've got going on in this state that we think snowmobiling will be a determining factor in the race?

I remember reports coming out of the 2004 presidential campaign talking about Karl Rove's genius, and how he had all of the voting records on all of the precincts with their GOTV efforts all on his PDA or blackberry. I remember that was the year of the "values voter" which is, of course, code for racist bigots who wrap their beliefs in the cloak of Jesus. But that was a "real" demographic. You could count on someone with those beliefs to be convinced that Democrats would ban the bible, mandate gay marriage and attack the christian nuclear family.

If you said the majority of people who shop at organic whole food stores were more likely to vote Democratic, yeah I could see that. But SNOWMOBILERS? I mean, that's like going after bicycle enthusiasts. I'm guessing their politics don't just skew heavily in one direction. It seems like a rather bizarre group to "micro-target".

What are your thoughts?

Update: now crossposted at the Daily Kos, for national enjoyment purposes.

Did you just accuse Granholm of murder?

I recieved yet another robo-call against Granholm. This time it's from "Michigan Working Families", an deliberatly fuzzy name of a group I had difficulty finding any info on after a fifteen minute search on the googleweb (trademark pending). At first brush it sounds like the caller accused Granholm of being directly responsible for the death of 7 Year Old Ricky Hollands tragic death.

"Good news is the debates are over. Bad news, Granholm is still Governor. But Granholm has shown that she can't let go of her looney liberal policies. Granholm is even trying to cover up her mismanagement resulting in the death of Ricky Holland. And on top of that is her failure at jobs. Granholm doesn't support the jobs bank and keeps vetoing drug testing for welfare recipients. Jennifer Granholm has also made Michigan one of the only two states that has no time limit for welfare. This message brought to you by Michigan Working Families."

LINK.

This time i wasn't able to get the number on caller ID. It came up as "Unkown Caller".
Several things jump out at me: first, like i said, at first brush it sounded as if Governor Granholm was directly responsible for the death of Ricky Holland. Even on his own site DeVos posts an editorial in which, in part, the author says that DeVos' claim is 'ludicrous'. Although, they claim fair in context of the political fight. (how?)

Second, in whiplash fashion it switches to an attack on the Michigan welfare system. The charges leveled on this front are, well, silly and petty, as though they needed something of minor substance to throw in along with this charge of allowing Ricky Holland to be murdered. The final thing I got from this was a real sense of curiosity as to who the "Michigan Working Families" are. If anyone's got any information on them, I'd love to see who it is and where the funding comes from.

crossposted at dailykos

Granholm/DeVos Debate 3 analysis

I'm a professional. Just not at politics. My medium of choice advertising. I've picked up a sixth sense when doing "animatics" as to whether an idea is well conveyed, coherent and most importantly clever.
Dick DeVos was none of that last night. I didn't blog the previous two debates, but I did watch them. And I watched last nights as well. Enough yip yap, let's analyze.

Dick DeVos: his opening statement was the only good part of his debate. He was on message and speaking coherently and clearly. I actually give him credit for donning the prop glasses, because subconsciously it is associated with intelligence, and as a visual cue it was a nice touch. Ideally he was looking to convey a confident, competent, aggressive CEO who has ideas and solutions for what ails Michigan. What came across was, I think bizarre. There was a lot of visibly false bravado, stumbling while remembering prepared responses to expected attacks, and he had an odd bob-and-weave thing going on while standing at the podium that was unnerving. He also came across as quick to anger in the way that he rapidly sped up his speaking when either defending himself or attacking Governor Granholm.
In Conclusion: he came across as an ill-tempered, mean, uncomfortable bully/brat. He doesn't seem like the type of person who would give one prescription pill about how YOU are doing.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: just watch the debates and tell me this is who you want representing us to the Democratic Majority in both houses of Congress. His body language alone reads petulant child.
And the substance of his debate? When he wasn't dodging or ignoring a specific attack of Governor Granholms, he was levelling blame of the ills of the auto industry at her feet. Truly boring and asinine shit.

Governor Granholm: She was good through most of it. She connects better, whether its asking specific questions of audience members to get a better idea of who they are or that brilliant 2 minute closing statement, she came across well. I wouldn't call the debate flawless, in that a few of her responses were either vague or off topic, but on the whole she read as confident, competent, well intentioned caring and above all engaged. She seemed to have a clear grasp of what is going on in our state and what she planned to do to correct it.

I don't know how anyone can say DeVos did anything but shoot himself in the foot with these three debates. Both the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News have declared that it was DeVos' best performance to date, and truly it was, but that's like giving the kid a lollipop for using the potty correctly. Your supposed to be better as you go along, and it serves to reason that the last one would be his best. But his best was nowhere near competent. Granholm buried him like he was Jimmy Hoffa. Period. There should be no debate about that. Anyone who takes their partisan glasses off has to see that.

Stay tuned, this is going to get exciting.

It's been awhile, I apologize

Things got crazy at work, and kinda crazy at home too, so, I took a time out. A long one. A lot has happened since then, so, lets take a look, shall we?

Polls are showing Granholm momentum going up, and heading towards 50% here and here.

Debbie Stabenow voted to repeal Habeas Corpus, turning the Magna Carta on it's head. I still prefer her to Bouchard, but I'm not forgetting this in six years, I promise.

Dick DeVos seemed clueless and confused during his second debate, which makes me happy, but also makes me wonder why Granholm isn't beating him like he's a detainee in Guantanamo.

So, let's see what we've learned about Dick DeVos so far:

1. I've tried to come up with a clever nickname for him but his first name suits his demeanor so suitably that I have nothing.

2. He wants to teach public school kids (and probably believes) in Intelligent Design.

3. He was in favor of eliminating the Single Business Tax (SBT) without offering any sort of replacement (known fact), but also wants to have EVEN MORE TAX CUTS FOR BUSINESSES. Because if they don't pay their taxes, you will. Seems fair, right?

4. The best way to provide everyone with healthcare is for them to go out and find a job. Because last i checked there's hundreds of thousands of jobs all across Michigan with great wages and benefits just WAITING for someone to apply. So, you know, hop to it, right?

5. Dick DeVos hates women.

Bottom line for me is this... Dick DeVos has no real plan to lead. I'd mention his school voucher baloney, but seriously, I don't think that's a big issue this year. At the end of all the rhetoric and posturing, Dick DeVos is the candidate that's out to screw the average Michigander. In business and in his and Betsy's (and Richard and Helen's) financial support of whackjob initiatives, he has proven over and over again that the only people he cares about are his wealthy friends. And if that doesn't appeal to your sense of civic duty not to elect Dick DeVos, how about this: go and re-watch his debates, and tell me that he is who you want representing you and your interests in Washington, D.C. and abroad. He's flustered, angry, and speaks poorly, like it's some sort of junior high debate team practice.
One more thing; everything he stands FIRMLY behind, everything, is about keeping the priviliged wealthy and goes against the beliefs of your average Michigander. I submit to you this: whether or not you're better off now than you were four years ago, unless you're already independently wealthy, you will NOT be better off four years from now than you are today. And condsidering where we're at as a state, that's a scary proposition.

Sorry for the long post. It's good to be back.