Saturday was interesting.

[IdaBriggs]

I was sick on Sunday, but Saturday I spent running all over creation taking care of business. (I was twice as busy as normal, because I was supposed to be at an Election Reform meeting on Sunday, but as I said, the virus kind of laid waste to that plan. Sigh.)

Anyway, everywhere I went, politics came up. (Yes, I confess I was frequently an instigator.) I think I talked to at least twenty different people -- at the hair salon, the bank, the retail stores, and even the movie theater -- and here's what they *ALL* said:

They hate Bush, and they aren't too happy with Granholm, either.

I had nothing bad to say about Granholm, and defended her (I thought) fairly vigorously by pointing out that she's stuck with a Republican House and Senate who block her at every turn, but the skepticism this argument was being met with was disheartening. The fines for things have gone up ("But we need the revenue," I pointed out) and the job situation completely bites ("She's working on it -- she got the minimum wage increased!"), and they think after four years she should have accomplished more.

Not *ONE* person who was a fan. Not ONE.

And every single one of these folks *hated* Bush, and the Republicans.

But they aren't planning on voting for Granholm again, either.

[SharonRB]

1. Sounds like a good news/bad news kind of day, Ida

At least it bodes well for the mid-terms and possibly '08, but we need to change a lot of minds on the home front before November.

[IdaBriggs]

2. I agree. I just don't know how we're going to do it.

Part of the problem she has is that as an incumbent, if things are bad, she's going to get all the blame. All Dickhead has to do is say, "we need a change." Then, when he gets in, he gets the benefit of all the work she's already done, and bang! He's re-elected on the strength of her hard work.

:banghead:

[SharonRB]

3. Exactly.

The campaign needs to stress the mess she was left from Engler and the Republican legislature who stopped her at every curve.

[LisaM]

4. Yeah - she has to under THREE terms of Engler's BS

How that man consistently got elected is possibly another cause for speculation. But this could happne on a national level too, as anyone elected in 2006 and beyond will have to spend so much time undoing Bush's messes that they too will seem to not be getting anywhere.

[LisaM]

6. I meant to say UNDO, sorry, n/t

[IdaBriggs]

7. Its going to be a problem. I am also concerned that "normal" people

are as angry with her as they are at Bush. This may simply become a "throw *ALL* the bums out" referendum on incumbents.

[gasperc]

5. hey, this is going to be a tough race

the economy is in the toilet, the legislature could care less as long as they don't get blamed, and the inablity of the state democratic party to capitalize on this shows how weak the organization is in the state. without the deep union roots, the state may not have gone to Gore or Kerry. The progressive resurgence is much weaker here than in PA, NY and OH. Although it could and should be much stronger with a coalition of labor and green technology pioneers. And not just with transportation but across the board, from wind, solar and other solutions to help reduce home heating bills. With some of the fiercest winters in the nation, MI could easily become a pioneer in technology that could make individual homes energy sources sending power back to the grid by various innovations. The future starts today, let's sieze it

[IdaBriggs]

8. "the inability of the state democratic party to capitalize on this --"

I wish I knew what to do to help. I don't think its a money issue (because I think they are getting a lot), but *something* has to change. It seems to be more on how they spend it. Then again, I've never looked at their books, so what do I know? :shrug: I keep basing my opinion on them thinking that making a bunch of phone calls is the way to go (as opposed to bumper stickers and yard signs). :shrug: As one of the people receiving all those dratted phone calls, I find them just as irritating as any other telemarketing scheme.

[gasperc]

34. how they spend it,

I agree, mis-judging poor targeting, the parties infastructuure has been left on the vine to hang and shrivel up. The republicans come in with their 4 day last minute GOTV push in the final week. The GOP knows that most people don't have the time or inclination to volunteer or be really connected to the party but throughout the year hit them with hot button issues like abortion, gays, war(patriotism) to keep them engaged for party identification reasons then pings them around election time when it's time to vote.

Progressive voters are not pinged in the same way but we are winning many of the young people over. People that were say 25 in 2000 and DIDN'T VOTE. They are 31 now, and WANT TO VOTE, we must engage these people, get them to identify themselves as siding with the democrats and voting democratic on election day.

So your right SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE. Let's keeping throw each other ideas and send them up to the MDP officers and get action before we end up with Depressing Dick as our next governor.

[1gobluedem]

9. I did my part

By explaining to a couple of people who felt the same way as those you talked to that what they were complaining about was either the fault of Engler and/or the Republican legislature or the Republican Secretary of State. They didn't realize that.

We have a LOT of educating to do.

[UrbScotty]

10. ALWAYS tie DeVos to Bush.

Rather than just talking about Granholm, don't forget to discuss DeVos, and how he put 1,400 people out of work and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in a communist country instead of the USA.

[skipos]

11. If you love Bush, you will love DeVos. Otherwise, vote Granholm.

Devos = Bush with less experience and more money.

[livvy]

12. I don't get it either. People who hate the pretzelnut and his policies....

yet somehow believe that DeVos is the answer for Michigan. It makes no sense. Obviously people are only seeing the ads, and not researching the man. What he really stands for is not getting out, and people are just not thinking it through and making the connection.
I think we have a lot of work to do before the election.
I met Granholm at the Summer Sizzle last Monday in Detroit. (I was one of the volunteers at the event.) She comes across as such a warm, sincere person. She thanked me for helping out at the event, and it was a sincere, look-you-in-the-eye, shaking-one-hand-with-both-of-hers kind of thank you.
How can people not realize that DeVos has so much to gain personally, if he gets control of our government? The financial gains for him and his mafia-style family of cronies is tremendous. He will do the same or worse than Engler did, and exactly what the pretzelnut and his malicious troop are doing to the country, and then walk away with the financial gains, without a single thought about who or what programs have been hurt in the process.
How do we get people to think past the two-dimensional screen of the TV?

[michreject]

13. I've never voted for a republican

But will not be voting for Granholm. She lost my vote with the helmet veto. I will not vote for Governor at all.

[skipos]

15. You have no problem letting MI fall into the hands of Bush style repub?

It is not unrealistic that the repubs in our MI government would try to ban abortion like the repubs in SD, or make leaving the state for an abortion illegal like some repubs in OH would like, or make Christianity the offical religion of the state like repubs in MO want. I am surprised that is fine with you, and I can't relate at all. If I sat around and did nothing to stop republicans from taking over and ruining our country, I couldn't live with myself.

Hillary Clinton is my absolute last choice for the dem nomination, but I would never withhold my vote from her in a general election. Doing nothing and increasing the odds that we have 4 to 8 years of President Jeb Bush or President Frist... that would weigh too much on my conscience. Just as aiding a DeVos win in anyway shape or form would weigh on my conscience.

Look at all those people who thought that there was "no difference" between Bush and Gore in the 2000 election. It only a few months of Bush in office to realize how wrong they were. By 2004, 85% of Nader voters learned their mistake and bailed on him. Most people only learn the hard way, and I guarantee that people who don't vote for Granholm (unless you are a big fan of Bush style republicans of course) will learn some hard lessons if DeVos wins.

[michreject]

20. I can and will fight for issues that I believe in

BUT I will not vote for a politician who ignores my wishes. No lesser of two evils. If both are evil, toss them both.

[skipos]

23. Granholm is "EVIL?!?" That is FUNNY!!!

As for "tossing them both" that isn't going to happen, as any Nader 2000 voter can tell you. DeVos or Granholm will be Governor of MI in November. It makes no difference to you which it is, I understand. You are comfortable with our very own Bush wannabe running this state, I am not.

[michreject]

29. Suggest you take a remedial reading course

Where did I say Granholm was evil. What I wrote was "If both are evil, toss them both". Nothing implied. SHEEESH!!!

[IdaBriggs]

24. I've got to ask -- do you have any respect for her, because she stood up

for what she believed in? Seriously -- she did something that she knew would make some people angry -- in this case, she took away the option of them getting their heads bashed in on our freeways -- and you don't like it. For you, I'm guessing its about "personal freedom" and "personal choice" and if someone is old enough to ride a motorcycle, then they are old enough to take the risk of splattering their brains all over the pavement, so, what's the problem?

But, I ask again: do you truly have NO RESPECT FOR HER because she put MORE VALUE ON YOUR SAFETY than you do?

[SharonRB]

27. Well put, Ida

It's impossible for any officeholder to agree with us on every single issue. Some issues are more important than others, and this one, in the broad scheme of things, is minor. I think the governor made the right, brave decision on this one.

[SharonRB]

26. I'm with you, skipos

I would never vote for Hillary in the primary, but if she somehow manages to get the ultimate nomination, then I will support her with all my hear and soul. The alternative would be impossible to bear.

[IdaBriggs]

16. Explain, please. nt

[michreject]

18. It is my preference to go without a helmet

and I should vote for someone who is against what I stand for? I will not vote for DeVos.

I donated my hard earned money to defeat the helmet law and now I should consider that donation a wasted effort and vote for the person who went against my wishes?

[IdaBriggs]

21. I'm sorry you feel that way; I agree with what she did, and think it is

in the best interest of the people of Michigan. I have issues that are "deal breakers" for me, too, so if you want to join the "No Granholm" crowd, that is your right.

Are you unaware of the physics involved with your skull and an accident, or do you plan on being one of the people it wouldn't happen to? I'm just curious. :)

(And, on a lighter note, I came up with a really good ad campaign for life insurance: "Life Insurance -- When Immortality Isn't An Option" -- :rofl: )

[Strawman]

19. Does a post like that really require explanation?

I think it speaks for itself.

Whatever, dude. Don't wear a helmet and don't vote for the Democrats based on that ONE issue. (Incidentally I think that anyone who is an adult should be allowed the liberty to ride without a helmet. Just like I think people should generally be allowed the liberty to do other stupid shit that only harms themselves.) And then one day when you're lying in the hospital with your brains half-hanging out of your head after an accident and some doctor at the private for-profit hospital (owned and operated by the Frist family) says they can't do anything about it because you didn't put enough money in your medical savings account (the Republican answer to health insurance) I guess you'll be s.o.l. unless you can sell enough soap and paper towels out of your garage under the Devos economy to foot the bill.

[IdaBriggs]

22. Actually, it did, because I hadn't been paying attention to the issue,

and didn't realize she'd vetoed the law -- God Bless Her! :) I flip flop between "well, we need more organ donors," and "but I have to pay to scrape them off the street, and then take care of the drooling idiots" which puts me in the "wear a freaking helmet, moran" category. I also like seat belts, child safety seats, and air bags. Call me crazy! :eyes:

[SharonRB]

25. How can you in good conscience withhold your vote from

Granholm over an issue such as this? Her veto will help save lives, will not hurt the economy, will not take away jobs, will not take away health care from anyone, will not hurt the schools, and on and on. I understand that some people think wearing a helmet should be a personal decision, but if wearing a helmet saves lives and prevents injuries (which not only hurt the injured person, but put an additional strain on the health care system), then this veto was the right decision and I applaud it.

[michreject]

30. Granholm over an issue such as this? Her veto will help save lives

I disagree and so did a lot of other people. I ride. Helmets get hot, heavy, and impedes your vision and hearing. To me this piece of mandatory equipment is not a benefit to your continued good health.

[1gobluedem]

31. Well, if there is a caveat that MY insurance won't go up..

...then ride helmetless all you want. But, the problem is that insurance rates go up for all of us when someone cracks his head open riding helmetless. So, it's not just a matter of your rights; it affects all of us.

[SharonRB]

32. Exactly! n/t

[TahitiNut]

33. That's right. It's not enough that someone suffers head trauma...

... as a punishment. We The People think they should pay for the risks they take by not being as wise as Us. Let's extend this 'logic' to taxes. Let's not pay for the medical care for anyone who 'chose' to become indigent. It's their fault.

Furthermore, it's not enough that smokers die of a horrible disease. We need to add on to their suffering by increasing the taxes and health insurance premiums they pay. Nevermind the economic data that proves smokers actually cost 'society' less by dying early, it's about the suffering. It's just not enough. Pile on.

However ... DON'T TAX MY RISKY BEHAVIOR! I scuba dive. Don't tax me more. I ride a bicycle. Don't tax me more. ETOH-related illnesses? Heaven forbid the doubled and trebled rates of liver disease and brain damage affect a drinker's health insurance premiums!

We should NEVER have to share the costs for the freedoms of others! Only our own freedoms' costs are worth sharing.

Never! (People who died fighting in the military were stupid.)

See? The GOP is right. Get rid of all them taxes for 'welfare'! It's THEIR fault!

[1gobluedem]

35. I don't think this smacks of GOPish behavior

OF COURSE I will never stoop to that level. But let me ask you this? Do you scuba dive in flip flops and your regular bathing suit? Or do you use the proper equipment? It's apples and oranges. If a person KNOWINGLY takes this risk; knowing it's risky for him/her to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, crashes, and winds up a vegetable why should my insurance go up?

Does a person knowingly become indigent? No. Smoking is addictive and many smokers began to smoke before the health affects were widely known. Sure, I think we need to help them. Freedom is one thing but deliberately putting oneself at risk is another.

[TahitiNut]

36. The entire 'philosophy' of refusing to share or ameliorate the tragedies

... that our fellow human beings - our relatives, friends, neighbors, or fellow citizens - suffer, based on some choices they might make that we ourselves don't make, is the basis on which divisions and alienations become a cancer in our body politic.

Where do we draw the line?

We began by advising and educating people regarding the risks and hazards of various activities. The primary rationale? Compassion for the person - a desire to equip them with the information (and willingness to bear the educational expense) to make an informed choice. The activities include driving cars (auto design and equipment), tobacco use (cigarettes, cigars, pipes, chewing), riding motorcycles (helmets), and a host of other activities that don't gain the continued public discussion.

We weren't satisfied. We disapproved of the choices people made, even when "informed."

We then used the police power of government to impose requirements on products. We mandated collapsible steering columns, not just product disclosure. We mandated seat belts, not just product disclosure. We mandated carrying helmets for the rider and passengers on a motorcycle. We mandated warnings on tobacco packaging.

We weren't satisfied. We disapproved of the choices people made, even when "equipped."

We then used the police power of government to impose requirements on behavior - behavior that is not, in and of itself, directly harmful to others, except in an indirect statistical of diffuse economic sense.

It's a new rationale for criminalization of behavior - behavior that is not, per se, directly harming another person but, through diffuse statistical correlations, often very thin, has some indirect impact on either the health or, more often, the economics of others. Without question, however, the consequential impact on the individuals themselves totally dwarfs the impact on any other person.

Furthermore, where do we draw the line on whose tragedies we walk away from? To whom do we say "Fuck you! It's your fault and I'm not paying!" Our children? Our parents? Our cousins? Our spouses? Our lifelong friends? Our neighbors? Our coworkers? Our employees? Our employers? People with whom we share racial, religious, or other demographics? Or just "them" - those evil strangers? How many tobbacco-nazis refuse to visit a parent or sibling or child who smokes, merely because they oppose the behavior/smell? How many tobacco-nazis act with the same venom toward a parent, offspring, sibling that they do toward strangers?

When, if we're lucky, we finally pass a national health care system how much do we run amok criminalizing the behaviors of others (never ourselves, of course)??

Quite frankly, when I look at how Control Freaks are codependently destroying a liberal democracy in this country, I'm glad I'm childless and, at 63, won't have to live long enough to suffer the Hell we're very obviously headed toward.

[bleedingheart]

39. Until you star quarterback nearly dies and the public figures out

that helmets may have saved him head and facial trauma...

Our gov in PA approved the helmet law...then when Big Ben nearly gets killed and it is literally a no brainer that if he had been wearing a helmet he would have been okay....the public gets a bit queasy about the new law.....but hey...I bet there are far more organ donations now...

If you are okay with the likes of Betsey and Dicky DeVos turning Michigan into some sort of freaky pyramid scheme with the poor folks (as always) on the bottom and the smarmy friends of DeVos on the top...well go ahead and do so..


***note I have family in Michigan and like to read your forums to keep up on politics in the state.

[weeksbr1]

38. I had a brilliantly composed post inside my head...

But then I began to write it and realized I didn't know how to say it nicely. The following is the revised post: How in the hell is the helmet law THE most important issue for you in this election? It's unfathomable to me! I can (in theory) understand being a motorcycle enthusiast (sorry if that's not the p.c. term) and wanting the freedom to ride without a helmet. But does motorcycling so consume your life that it blinds you to the horror of a DeVos governorship? Prioritize, and if the helmet law comes up as numero uno, re-prioritize. And if it does the second time around, that's just frightening to me. PLEASE!!! It's time for a reality check. How much fun is it going to be to ride the motorcycle helmetless if your job goes to China and you can no longer afford to pay for the gas? (this was previously posted in the wrong spot... sorry, I'm new.)

[vanboggie]

40. As you know there are two ways of looking at that

I have a nephew who just survived a motorcycle accident. He sailed 15 feet over a van that pulled out in front of him and landed on the pavement. Fortunately it was a very good helmet, but the digs and scrapes on it now make me shudder. He has a broken leg, but would have been dead or severely brain injured without the helmet. He is just 18 and may not have worn a helmet without that law.

My brother and sister-in-law have traveled extensively through the U.S. and Canada on their bike, and he says it's more dangerous out there in the past two years than ever. People in vehicles are not paying attention when they drive anymore.

[Strawman]

14. It's hard for an incumbent executive to run against a bad economy

Your assessment of latent public opinion looking even more bleak than the current numbers squares with mine. I posted about this yesterday also:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1508091&mesg_id=1508091

And it's hard for a "New Democrat" to seem credible using the rhetoric of an economic populist. That's our winning narrative this year, and she just isn't right for the part.

I'm beginning to think she should have stepped down and ran for Levin's seat in 2008 if he retires. Can we draft Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to move to MI and run for governor?

[IdaBriggs]

17. Part of the problem was her letting DeVos "introduce" himself to the voter

in an unchallenged fashion. I screamed bloody murder about it here a month or so ago, but nothing has really changed. There was another NPR story yesterday, and he got talked about first -- this time he wants to limit lifetime welfare benefits. :eyes:

[SharonRB]

28. Even if she gets re-elected, that could still happen

IF Levin steps down in '08. I don't know that that's going to happen, though. I've been wondering a lot myself lately if she will run for his seat when he does finally retire. I think there's a good chance she will, but that's just my opinion. She'd make a great senator.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.