Tim_Skubick's Blog

To the Commission on Presidential Debates: Thank you for sponsoring these debates. Now ditch that lousy format you used on Tuesday night. It was awful.

If you had never heard a word from Barack Obama or John McCain over the last six months, you loved this town hall format, because all you got was an extended version of their TV commercials and their stump speeches. Blah, blah, blah.

If you have been up to speed on their rhetoric, some differences did emerge but they were few and far between and neither gentleman did much to advance their cause.

McCain needed a game changer. If he had one, he left it in the locker room. If you were a journalist, you were pretty much bored to tears and frustrated at the same time.

A format that allows common folks, God love ‘em, to ask questions sounds very American. But the quality of the questions was weak at best and only allowed the candidates to segue into what they wanted to say. The most frustrated guy in the room was Tom Brokaw, the veteran NBC moderator.

Reporters get paid to ask tough questions, to do follow up questions, and to hold candidates tootsies to the fire. He got to do none of that. He tried but the format rules tied his hands. He was reduced to a glorified timekeeper and he didn’t do a bang up job on that either.

Blame the two campaigns for this. They negotiated the rules and there is one objective in doing so: Reduce the chances of your guy making a mistake. The rule s worked perfectly for Obama and McCain. Not so perfect for the electorate which got warmed over sound bites for ninety minutes.

For the final debate, it would be great if they took health care, taxes, Iraq, energy, and pork barrel spending off the agenda. Isn’t there somebody out there who can come up with some other questions that might give us more insight into who these guys are and what kind of president they would make?

A weird thing is happening in the emotional battle over embryonic stem cell research which is Prop 2 on the November ballot.

One side is trying to extricate the emotion from the public discourse, but is fanning emotions below the radar.   

For years Right to Life of Michigan and the Michigan Catholic Conference have been fought this human research.   

Lobbyists Ed Rivet and Paul Long want to save human life and their side has been winning. 

So when the proponents obtained enough petition signatures to end-run the Right to Life dominated legislature, everyone in town braced themselves for a repeat of the life and death debate.     

However when the first anti-Prop 2 commercial showed up, viewers were told if Prop 2 passed, more of their tax dollars could be spent which has been the case in other states.  

Where was the argument about the sanctity of life?

Now that may show up later on, but it looks like the anti-folks have done some research and discovered that voters are sympathetic to conducting this laboratory work especially if it produces hope for curing some diseases or preventing them down the road.   

Hence rather than argue the merits of the issue, the other side has chosen to argue money instead. 

The anti-campaign has even gone so far as to tell Messer’s Long and Rivet to stop talking to the media.  Somewhat sheepishly, campaign spokesperson David Doyle admits that he “probably” shared that advice with the two life lobbyists.

Some call that a gag order.  Mr. Doyle calls it a good strategy and it is. He also argues the other side is blocking reporters from sources, but it denies the charge.

Meanwhile in a private mailing to Right to Life supporters, the message is strikingly different.

Can you say Dr. Frankenstein? 

In one newsletter, there is a reference to the 1931 Frankenstein movie. Well this document says the BBC has reported research that has created “part human, part animal hybrid embryos….” which might lead to “para humans” or “quasi-humans.”   

RTL President Barb Listing concludes the mailing saying, “We cannot allow these modern day Frankenstein’s to turn unborn children into laboratory rats…not on our watch.”

Mr. Doyle contends the Frankenstein stuff is not over the top.

He points to a U of M document that asks questions about transplanting human embryos into an animal embryo and whether the “resulting creature would exhibit human characteristics that would be ethically unacceptable to find in an animal?”  

“That’s a scare tactic,” counters U of M spokesperson Robin Stevenson.  She contends that the other side is trying to create the false impression that this “highly regulated and useful research for building knowledge is monstrous.”  Plus the U of M is not now engaged in that science according to another source.     

If this is the level of rhetoric now, imagine what it will sound like just before November 4th.

    

 

Can you contribute 360 minutes of your time to our democracy?      

This is not a pitch to do anything partisan.  It is a call to watch the three presidential and one vice presidential debates.       

John McCain and Barack Obama go head to head in the first one Friday, September 26th.      

The debates are so useful because they are unedited, unscripted, and they are not thirty second commercials. The media filters none of it---It’s just you and the candidate.     

Here’s a viewer’s guide on what to look for.     

First of all don’t waste any energy objecting to the anchor’s questions.  In the first meeting PBS anchor Jim Lehrer will handle those chores.  He’ll be fair which is why he was picked.  Viewers get all up in arms because the questioner “seems” to favor one candidate over another.  That’s baloney.     

It is Lehrer’s job to frame questions that break new ground; that give you a chance to see if these guys can think on their feet and evaluate how they handle the stress of battle.

The best debate approach is no rules, no time limits, and the freedom for both candidates to go back and forth.  There will be a little bit of that Friday night, but frankly note enough.

In the first V.P. debate the restrictions are tighter at the insistence of the McCain camp. You can figure out why they did not want a free form free for all involving Sarah Palin.   

Don’t get sucked in if there is a magic moment in the debates.  These tend to dominate the news coverage, but if you focus on the “knock out punch” you’ll miss the rest of the content which gives you a complete picture of the candidate.    

“I knew John Kennedy, and you’re no John Kennedy.” 

“Where’s the beef?”

“I’m not going to exploit for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”      

These classic lines told you nothing about the presidential qualifications of the men who uttered then.      

Finally listen for honesty.  Sometimes the best answer is, “I don’t know."      

Who you want to have a beer with is not an issue. And it is not about who wore the best tie and suit and who performed the best.  After all we are not electing a host for Dancing with the Stars.

Here’s a toughie.  Try to open your mind.  Suspend your biases and just listen.      

You can tune-in the post debate commentary.  These folks can spot flip-flops, inconsistencies, and provide a nuance or two that might help in your final decision.  But make sure you sample a variety of opinions not just your favorite station, and ignore the spin doctors from each camp.      

And bring the kids in to watch even if they can’t vote.  They will someday and you can set a good example and help our democracy at the same time.

Watch and enjoy.

      

     

      

    

This post has been edited by an administrator

Everyone craves predictability in their lives which is why trust in relationships is so important.  You want know if you do “x”, that “y” will happen and not “z”.   

Barack Obama would trust Tina Fay err Sarah Palin to put lipstick on his pig.  He would not trust her with the atomic bomb black box.   

The good folks in Lansing are suffering through another bout of lack of trust-ittis…the same malaise that engulfed lawmakers and the governor last year and placed them on a collision course with history…a rare shutdown of state government.      

Here we go again.  Sure the stakes are not nearly as high but the lack of trust still is.      

Last week Gov. Jennifer Granholm confidently told capitol correspondents that a deal on the new energy package was close at hand.    

But her GOP dancing partner was not waltzing to the same tune.  Senator Mike Bishop informed everyone that was “news to me.”  The stark disagreement is nothing new to them.     

This is the same couple that last year, during the contentious and brutal debate over raising taxes, had big time trust issues.  On two occasions, she walked out of negotiations to announce a deal and Bishop went, “What deal?”      

The trust thing is not unique to these two.  It’s all over the joint.  House democrats don’t trust house and senate republicans and vice versa.  House democrats are even a little shaky on predicting what their own governor will do.  On energy for example, some D’s are worried she wants a deal so badly, she will sell them out to get it.       

Lack of trust is pervasive in the lobby corps.  One veteran confides if a lawmaker says he or she will vote yes on a bill, you’re never sure until you see the green light on the voting board.    

And yes, there is even a lack of trust among newshounds who cover this town.  Years ago if the chair of a committee told you a bill would pass, by God it did.  Now you would be foolish to report such a predication because the story changes six ways from Sunday before you get on the air or into print.  

There is this lack of trust, also in part, because House members are up for reelection. A yes vote on the energy thing could end up being used against that lawmaker.      

It’s already happened in Muskegon where the GOP challenger is running ads against the incumbent democrat. The republican says the democrat voted to raise monthly utility bills, which she did, but there is an explanation. Ah but that will never find its way into the commercial.      

The fact is the state will at some point need more energy.  You can buy it from other states like we do with foreign oil or you can make it cheaper in your own backyard but either way the cost will go up.   

It’s an issue ripe for political exploitation and lots of lawmakers are scared their careers will be over.  Once more savings one’s neck trumps doing what may be best for the public.    

Lack of trust is an ugly thing to behold.

       

Walked into the bookstore literally two hours after Sarah Palin had been introduced to the nation and there was the book, “Sarah.”

“Wow. How did they get that out so fast?”

The smiling book lady noted, “They didn’t. We were going to send it back to the publisher when we found out she was the V.P. candidate for John McCain!”

Well twenty dollars and two hours later, the brief 145 page book was completed with one rather unbelievable conclusion: Gov. Palin and Gov. Granholm have a lot in common.

In this puff piece of a book, author Kaylene Johnson describes Palin as being able to connect with people, has a fierce tenacity, a strong religious faith which includes quoting Bible verses, is highly competitive, a tireless campaigner and has been questioned about having kids and being a high ranking official at the same time.

Now be honest, is that not Jennifer Granholm to a “T?”
And there is more. Johnson writes, “Once she (Palin) reaches a cadence, she expects everyone to keep up.” Ask Granholm handlers about running to keep up with the driven and focused chief executive who waits for no one.

Palin’s sister Molly recalls going shopping and seeing Palin being treated like a movie star. Granholm devotees are fond of referring to her as a rock star.
Palin is a runner. So is Granholm. Palin was a TV star. Granholm tried to go Hollywood. Palin has a First Dude who watches the kids. Granholm has her First Gentleman doing the same thing.

And on that point, when the governor first ran for attorney general she ran into the same “family/career” issue that Ms. Palin has also used to her advantage.

During one TV appearance Ms. Granholm was asked about being a mom and A.G. and she grinned saying, “You’d never ask John Engler that question.”
The career women in the audience applauded and Palin has benefited from the same line of questioning. What’s the word: Sexism?

The two also share a game changing moment that unfolded during debates.
Both went into a critical TV show with the feeling that neither was up to the job and couldn’t stand up to their two male opponents.

Granholm got in a dogfight with Jim Blanchard and David Bonior. And at the right moment, she turned to the camera and said, “Here’s what’s going on here…The polling reflects that I am doing very well and so the object here is to try to take apart the persons in first place.”

It was a rehearsed line but a good one nonetheless and she emerged with a new persona i.e. as somebody who could take it and dish it out. Her handlers believe the debate changed the race.

Palin did the same thing when she lectured her two debate-arguing opponents by saying, “We owe Alaskans a better discourse than this.”

There’s a lesson here for a man named Biden. The rules of engagement when running against female opponents are different. And if the democratic V.P. candidate Joe Biden is too aggressive or too patronizing, she may take him to the cleaners.

Democrat Granholm, who has done that to male opponents, is hoping that she and Palin have nothing in common on that front.

Walked into the bookstore literally two hours after Sarah Palin had been introduced to the nation and there was the book, “Sarah.”
“Wow. How did they get that out so fast?”
The smiling book lady noted, “They didn’t. We were going to send it back to the publisher when we found out she was the V.P. candidate for John McCain!”
Well twenty dollars and two hours later, the brief 145 page book was completed with one rather unbelievable conclusion: Gov. Palin and Gov. Granholm have a lot in common.
In this puff piece of a book, author Kaylene Johnson describes Palin as being able to connect with people, has a fierce tenacity, a strong religious faith which includes quoting Bible verses, is highly competitive, a tireless campaigner and has been questioned about having kids and being a high ranking official at the same time.
Now be honest, is that not Jennifer Granholm to a “T?”
And there is more. Johnson writes, “Once she (Palin) reaches a cadence, she expects everyone to keep up.” Ask Granholm handlers about running to keep up with the driven and focused chief executive who waits for no one.
Palin’s sister Molly recalls going shopping and seeing Palin being treated like a movie star. Granholm devotees are fond of referring to her as a rock star.
Palin is a runner. So is Granholm. Palin was a TV star. Granholm tried to go Hollywood. Palin has a First Dude who watches the kids. Granholm has her First Gentleman doing the same thing.
And on that point, when the governor first ran for attorney general she ran into the same “family/career” issue that Ms. Palin has also used to her advantage.
During one TV appearance Ms. Granholm was asked about being a mom and A.G. and she grinned saying, “You’d never ask John Engler that question.”
The career women in the audience applauded and Palin has benefited from the same line of questioning. What’s the word: Sexism?
The two also share a game changing moment that unfolded during debates.
Both went into a critical TV show with the feeling that neither was up to the job and couldn’t stand up to their two male opponents.
Granholm got in a dogfight with Jim Blanchard and David Bonior. And at the right moment, she turned to the camera and said, “Here’s what’s going on here…The polling reflects that I am doing very well and so the object here is to try to take apart the persons in first place.”
It was a rehearsed line but a good one nonetheless and she emerged with a new persona i.e. as somebody who could take it and dish it out. Her handlers believe the debate changed the race.
Palin did the same thing when she lectured her two debate-arguing opponents by saying, “We owe Alaskans a better discourse than this.”
There’s a lesson here for a man named Biden. The rules of engagement when running against female opponents are different. And if the democratic V.P. candidate Joe Biden is too aggressive or too patronizing, she may take him to the cleaners.
Democrat Granholm, who has done that to male opponents, is hoping that she and Palin have nothing in common on that front.

It is time for John McCain and Barack Obama to practice what they preach.  Mr. McCain claims he is a maverick and Mr. Obama claims this election “is not about me, but about you.”  So prove it.  

They can do that by naming their key cabinet appointments before the election.  That includes secretary of state, attorney general, secretary of defense and even the chief of staff.

Given the performance of Donald Rumsfeld who ran rough shod over the military and dragged the country into the war in Iraq, voters have a right to know who will sit in that secretary of defense seat. 

The current administration has changed attorneys general so many times, it looks like Jim Leyland ranking pitchers left and right. That post is the top law enforcement officer in the country. It’s a disservice to the voters to keep the appointees secret. 

Even the chief of staff should be announced now.  Most folks don’t know this person controls the flow of info and can determine who is the last person to see the president before a critical decision is made.   

Just because this is the correct thing to do, does not mean they will do it.  Watch for their lame excuses: If they claim “It’s never been done before” that’s a dodge.  If they says they don’t have the time to decide, that doesn’t cut it either.  If they admit they won’t do it for fear it might cost them some votes, at least that would be an honest response. 

Reform two would also be groundbreaking. The two men should set aside half an hour a week to talk to each other.  No staff, no spouses, no anybody.  Just the two of them exchanging concerns on what they hear and see on the stump. It might lower the negative rhetoric from both camps if the guys at the top decided enough was enough. 

And in those private conversations they could agree to help each other on some of the false impressions out there.  

McCain is taking some heat for saying he doesn’t know much about the economy.  Be honest, who in the heck does?  But in a recent survey 55% of the voters said it was a major problem for them that he said it.  His remark was simplistic and does not take into account that McCain could select some great economic advisors to complement his weakness.  And while we are at it, the chief economic advisors for both men should be revealed in advance as well.   

Obama could come to McCain’s defense by saying, “Look it.  I will denounce those economic attacks if you’ll return the favor.  You know that my tax increase is not across the board even though your commercials leave that impression.  Just tell everyone, the tax hike is on those making over $250,000 a year.”

Yes all of this is very unorthodox and yes all the campaign advisors would say the two are crazy for adopting these changes.  But if McCain is such a maverick, and if Obama believes the election is about you, then they should just say, “Yes we can.  And yes we will.”

    

   

    

This post has been edited by an administrator

Barack Obama and his running mate share something in common that has gone unreported. Both Obama and Joe Biden were thinking about being president long before it became a possibility.

When his elementary school teacher asked who wanted to be president, little Barack Obama raised his hand. And when the teacher told him “Yes you can” the seed was sown for a slogan and a movement you saw in Denver this week.

For Joe Biden the bug came a little later. In 1974, long before he became a stalwart in the U.S. Senate, Biden was already plotting.

At the time, many democrats around the country were running for Congress and the word went out that if they wanted a headliner to attend a fundraiser, Biden was more than eager to help out because, as one benefactor recalls, “Biden wanted to run for president.”

And indeed on two occasions he ran and lost. Now he could be a heartbeat away from his long-term objective assuming he and his buddy Obama are elected in November.

But now that he is center stage, the republicans are picking away on two fronts. First they smartly ran an ad on the very day Biden was picked replaying his words that Obama was not ready to be president.

In a serious misstep, Biden missed the opportunity to refute the charge before it was launched. He should have said in his speech last Saturday that he did say that, but it was nineteen months ago, and now he believes Obama is ready.

Secondly the republicans correctly point out that Mr. Obama lacks foreign policy gravitas, which Mr. Biden can provide.

While the criticism is no surprise, it misses the point: Obama was smart enough to realize he needed someone to fill in that gap.

In many respects Biden is to Obama as Cheney was to Bush. Recall that the only foreign policy experience George W. Bush had as Governor of Texas was dealing with illegal immigrants from Mexico. Not exactly the kind of foreign policy expertise you want in a chief executive. But the R’s did not blame Bush for picking Cheney who adequately fulfilled that requirement.

Even conservative candidate for governor Dick DeVos last time out reaffirmed the position that if he have a hole in your resume, fill it. DeVos said on the stump that he did not want to be the smartest guy in the room, and he would surround himself with smarter appointees and let them go to work under his watchful eye.

Republicans did not blast DeVos or Bush for that, but now they look two faced for tagging Obama and Biden for the same alleged sin. There is nothing wrong with getting help where you need it regardless of political affiliation.

Rightly or wrongly, one of the knocks against the sitting governor Is that she would rather sing Cumbaya than wade into a controversy.  Her recent actions visa vie a certain Mayor of Detroit are counter to that notion, however.
      
Gov. Jennifer Granholm has not decided to oust the embattled Kwame Kilpatrick, but she is making noises that she may at least consider it.
     
When the Detroit City Council petitioned the governor earlier to remove his honor, the strategy in the front office was to move judiciously and stay at the back of the parade and not at the front.
    
The governor got outside advice to treat her role as a last resort.  In other words, let the courts, city council and the local prosecutor do their thing, before the governor did hers.
     
To avoid any criticism she was dragging her feet, the governor adopted a procedure for interested parties to file legal arguments with her on the charges against the mayor, but than came a letter on July 28.
     
The governor has concluded that it is in the public interest to accelerate the briefing schedule in this matter…
       
Accelerate? What changed?
      
Reports surfaced on Thursday, July 24 that the mayor was involved in an alleged shoving and shouting match with two officers of the court.
      
At first the governors office was not quite sure what transpired, but then the Wayne County Sheriff expressed his concerns and the two officers testified in open court on what they saw.  As a former federal prosecutor, the governor took notice.
      
Even though the mayors barristers played down the alleged incident, the governor moved her foot carefully toward the accelerator.
      
That same weekend the two major Detroit newspapers upped the ante by publishing some scathing editorials calling on Mr. Mayor to get out of Dodge for the umpteenth time.
      
Its a good guess that over the weekend, the governor contemplated the ins and outs of moving up the schedule including reserving the right to hold a hearing on the issue on September 3.
       
She was careful to indicate the hearing on the mayors future would be conducted only if it was warranted based upon  the material everyone presented to her.
        
However all this may be moot. It is anticipated that the Mayors legal team will file a flurry of motions, court actions and who knows what all to forestall her role.
       
If the mayor wins, the governor will be off the hook for the time being making it a win-win for her.  She can say she was doing her part to end the nightmare in Motown, but the courts told her to stop.  There would be no crying in her office if that happened.
       
But if the courts give her a green light, what will she do then? Her critics will be waiting for the blond lady to sing, but don't be surprised if she doesn't.
 

When the historians wade through Jennifer Granholm’s record and they come across July 15, 2008, they will be tempted to merely dismiss it as day 2,687 in office. But a closer inspection would reveal that it encapsulates in a single day the very essence of the Granholm tenure in office.

The Granholm years to date have been plagued by an economy that refused to give her a break. Undaunted, she seeks to do what others did not i.e. diversify the state’s auto dominated economy. She has hit some home runs, but at other times she looked like Gary Sheffield looking at a called third strike. July 15th was that kind of day.

The night before, her inner circle anxiously awaited word on a major project. If she reeled it in, she could boast her diversification mojo was working. Dow Chemical and a petro plastics company in Kuwait, ironically run by women, held the governor’s fate in their hands.

Michigan was up against some stiff competition. Even though Dow calls Michigan home, it had “vacation homes” in Texas and Louisiana where those governors wanted this $11 billion joint venture, too.

As the tension mounted, the call finally came in. Michigan had won! A new world headquarters, 800 super-duper high paying jobs, and a ton of pop were the governor’s bounty.

But the smiles were quickly tempered with bad news from General Motors. GM had been goaded by Wall Street to make drastic cuts in its white-collar work force aimed at ending bankruptcy chatter in the stock market.

Consequently at what should have been a triumphant news conference announcing new jobs from Dow, the governor also fielded questions about the GM “right sizing.” It took the edge off the Dow story.
But the resilient governor, an hour later, bounced into a meeting of the state board that doles out tax credits, and bounced out announcing 19 new projects creating a whopping 6,900 non-auto jobs.

Despite the GM setbacks, she confided that with the Dow deal and these other 6,900 jobs she could honestly say she was changing the job landscape in Michigan, one job at a time.

But in the same interview, she had to explain why Michigan lost the new Volkswagen plant to a state in Dixie. In a more reflective tone, she confessed Tennessee had a plant site ready to go. Michigan did not. When asked if Michigan’s strong union roots were part of the problem, she punted.


“You’ll have to ask the company. I don’t want to speculate.” But she conceded VW had asked “lots of questions about that.”
So there you had July 15th with its thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. A two steps forward and two steps backward kind of day that has haunted this governor from the opening bell.

She’s got about 900 days left. Knowing her, she’s confident things will get better.