Tim_Skubick's Blog

How in the heck do they get away with this stuff, year after year after year?

Now all you second amendment gun folks, don’t go reaching for your heat. This is not an anti-gun dissertation, but it does have to do with how lawmakers close up shop for two weeks to go hunting.

Years ago, you could actually hold a session of the Michigan legislature up North because so many guys went off into the woods in search of who knows what. There was some grumbling about the “tradition" in the media, but it never went much beyond that.

Nobody has done a head count, but it doesn’t appear that many lawmakers partake anymore but the non-hunters apparently are more than happy to have the time off while a handful of their colleagues sit out in the cold looking for Bambi.

Enough already . The state’s economy is in the tank. The state budget deficit could approach a billion dollars next year. The lame duck agenda has a load of critical items, some of which might actually create a job or two, and the entire legislature takes a hike for two weeks.

The solution is simple. Those who want to hunt, go hunt. There’s a phony legislative excuse system already in place for them to disappear and no one would be the wiser. Then everyone else could stay in town and do the people’s business. At last glance that’s what the legislature was designed to do, but apparently, they’ll do it on their time, but on your dime.

You’re running for a statewide office and for the first time on the night before the election you see a TV ad that cost you reelection.

Say hello to Cliff Taylor the soon to be ex-Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and the so-called sleeping commercial.

Taylor thought, “no one would believe it” because it was “ludicrous” to think he would dose off during a hearing. Voters thought not. “It struck a chord with the public,” Taylor reflects during an exit interview on Michigan Public TV.

But he refuses to denigrate the intelligence of the voting public.
“I think they’re smart. I fell victim to an untrue ad.” While Taylor was generous with the public, he was not nearly so generous with one of his colleagues, Justice Betty Weaver.

She has been a frequent critic of the Taylor court calling it the “Gang of Four” which included Taylor and fellow conservative Justices Markman, Young and Corrigan.
Weaver’s whacked the quartet for being unprofessional, disorderly and imposing gag orders on the three remaining justices among a host of other charges.

“I think she really has some problems (and) made it such a difficult place to work,” he opined. Taylor traces the internal dissension to Weaver’s dethroning as Chief Justice years ago. Taylor and the other three informed her “she was not up to the job” of leading the court with Taylor concluding, “she was incompetent.” And when she lost the Chief Justice title, Taylor concludes she spent eight years “at war” in an attempt to “get even.”
“Even her voting pattern changed to get even,” he argues.

“There was no dealing with Betty,” he continues. “Betty had been injured. Her ego had been injured on the Chief Justice business and there was no working with her.”
She counters, “Such false accusations are nothing new. They are unworthy of Chief Justice Taylor and those who repeat them. I wish him well.” Warm letter to follow.
Taylor contends, “I have never done her a disservice” but he did manage to yank her Traverse City personal office out from under her.

Taylor and the other three recently voted to close the satellite offices that Justices Weaver, Corrigan, Kelly, and Young had used for years. Described as a cost saving move, Taylor says this was not an “in your face” slap at anyone as he was walking out the door.
Weaver objected to the decision.

As for his tenure, Taylor has no regrets. And while he concedes he was not perfect he concludes I “painted with bold colors.” Through it all he has maintained his sense of humor noting that now that he was looking for work, he might become “an endorser” of a pillow or mattress company.

Or maybe he could be Ms. Weaver’s campaign manager if and when she runs again in 2010?

“I’m not a quitter,” she put a point on her comments in ‘07. However she is not saying that anymore.

She has successfully ingratiated herself to the Obama folks even though she started out as a staunch Hillary Clinton backer. And the Obama folks like her. She played Sarah Palin to prepare V.P. candidate Joe Biden for his debate with his GOP counterpart.

Then she was off to Florida to appear on a panel with Obama. Next he personally invited her to the last debate where she waxed on his behalf in the spin room afterwards. That stuff adds up and as one informed source puts it, “She’s going to be offered something. Absolutely.”

Given a chance the other day to repeat her earlier observations about not wanting to go to Washington, the governor turned on the fog machine…full blast.

“Will you promise you will not take an offer to go to Washington?”
“I want to serve with a president in the White House who knows Michigan’s issue,” she began her dash to the SUV.

She was asked to make the promise again. She gave the same answer again and then jumped in the car and shut the door.
First Gentleman Dan Mulhern has a cryptic four-word response, “I don’t think so.” Notice he did not say no way, no how.

There’s one guy in town who is hoping Mulhern is wrong: Lt. Governor John Cherry will run for governor but he’d rather be governor when he does. If she leaves, he gets an audition and a leg up on all the other D’s who want the job, too.

But one guy who could toss a monkey wrench into the works is former Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer. He is very close to Obama and he could ask his pal to deny Granholm a post just to prevent Cherry from getting hers.

Only one thing wrong with the theory Archer says, “I don’t play those kind of games.’ In fact he adds, “I would promote her.” Now the question is, will the President elect do the same thing?

This post has been edited by an administrator

Final score: Passion-1 and John McCain-zero.

You could feel it. The democrats had passion and showed up at the polls in huge numbers to prove it, and while the McCain supporters liked their guy, they did not have the "P" word and sort of BLEEP-hummed him into the loss column.

The hand writing for this was on the wall. All you had to do was look at the crowds each candidate attracted. Obama with his rock star persona waltzed onto the stage in one venue after another and the crowd went nuts. McCain took the podium and got applause but the contrast was striking. It wasn't until the hockey mom showed up that the noise and excitement meter went up a couple of notches only to falter after most voters figured out she was not ready for prime time.

Of course the McCain loss went deeper than passion. It looks like he had the whole deck stacked against him: George B. Bush, a rotten economy, the Wall Street crash, his economic blueprint looked tattered and worn, and of course he was up against the agent of change, Barack Obama.

As Republicans wake up to a splitting political headache, they now have a chance to open a much needed discussion on where this state and national party is headed. Obviously the old playbook of tax cuts, wedge issues such as gay marriage, and fiscal responsibility are not making it. In fact the GOP brand on balancing the budget was destroyed by the soon to be ex-prez "W" who hands over to Mr.Obama a staggering sea of red ink.

Meanwhile having successfully navigated a grueling campaign, the president-elect now confronts and even greater challenge: Governing.

Elections are so much more than picking winners and losers. Underneath it all we get a rare glimpse at ourselves: Who are we, what do we stand for, and where are we going?

Take the two Michigan ballot proposals. They are a classic tug-of-war between our hopes and our fears.

Those promoting a yes vote on embryonic stem cell research and those favoring the use of grass to relieve pain and suffering are selling hope. The other side is selling fear; fear of the unknown and fear that the unintended consequences will trump any benefits to society.

Take the contests in the Michigan House. A year ago the republicans were licking their chops. They were mighty confident that all those D’s who voted for tax increases would be booted out and the R’s would ride the anti-tax wave back into control.

This issue will reveal how voters think. Will they buy the argument that even though taxes are never popular, in this case they were a necessary evil? Or will the other side, the anti-government and anti-taxers convince voters to get even with all those lawmakers who thought they were doing the right thing?

In the presidential race look first at the youth vote. Democratic candidate Barack Obama has them right where he wants them. For the first in modern times, this block of voters could deliver the White House, and they’ve been making noises they want it.

To date they have knocked on doors, stuffed envelopes, dialed the phone and registered voters at a record clip. But will they vote?

What about the rest of the voting population? Michigan has registered an unbelievable 98% of all eligible voters, but betcha 30% of them will come up with some excuse not to vote.

You can hear the rationalizations already: Had to take the kids to soccer; it was raining/snowing; I hate government so this was my way to protest; or I didn’t like any of the candidates.

The founders of our democracy did not write those “excuses” into the constitution, but yet many so called citizens will trot them out nonetheless.

And finally what we will we learn about ourselves on the race issue? Michigan voters in 1972 voted for a segregationalist for president. Can those same folks vote for an African-American in 2008 and will race decide the outcome in this state?

If Obama loses, how will the black community respond? Some police agencies are preparing for trouble in the streets and while they are at it, they might think about what happens if he wins?

It’s over used and perhaps overstated, but this state and country are at a historic cross roads, and what we do on November 4th will answer the questions: Who are we? What do we stand for? And where are we going?

Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made-up.
       
Fact: Before you vote for anybody you should know something about who they are and what they stand for.
       
Fact: At the very least you should know their name.
       
Fact: The vast majority of Michigan voters don’t have the foggiest notion as to who the nominees are for the state’s top education posts.
       
Fact: Therefore the system for selecting these candidates is broken and needs a long overdue fix.
       
But despite those facts the two political parties have their “minds” made up and the elective system of allowing you to pick these office holders will not change.
       
In less than two weeks everyone will head to the polls and after you vote on the high profile races, you’ll wade down the ballot and find candidates for the State Board of Education, and the three governing boards at MSU, the U of M and Wayne State.
       
If you listen closely, you’ll hear this in the polling booths across the state, “Who the heck are these guys?”
       
These mostly unknown folks are running because they have good connections to the state Democratic and Republican parties.  This does not imply they are incompetent or party hacks, but without the connections they’d not be on the ballot.
       
Occasionally a recognizable name shows up. An absolute expert on the gridiron but somewhat of a novice at the game of politics former MSU coach George Perles parlayed his statewide name recognition into a seat on the MSU board.
       
For years die-hard reformers have wanted more accountability by allowing the governor to appoint these folks.
       
Ah, but the aforementioned political parties don’t have the word “accountability” in their playbooks.  They want the power to reward party workers with these plumb jobs and then, if need be, parties can exert influence over the nominees once they get elected.
       
Years ago the former President of the State AFL-CIO, Gus Scholl, went to the democratic members of the MSU Board and told them he wanted former Gov. Soapy Williams for university president.  The gruff union boss reminded the D’s on the board that he put them there and he could remove them if they did not cough up the votes for Soapy.
       
Long story short, one of the board members refused to cough and while Don Stevens never got a medal for his courage, he was fired from his AFL-CIO job for not toeing the line, but Soapy did not get the job.
       
If you like that system, continue to be ignorant about the candidates and let the big shots run the game. If you don’t, tell the two party chairs, Mark Brewer and Saul Anuzis, to get out of the game.

Correction:  In a recent column it was incorrectly reported that the Tommy Dorsey band was dead.  He is.  The band is not.

GOP candidate John McCain finally found the right answer: “I’m not President Bush and if you wanted to run against him, you should have run four years ago.”     

You could hear the collective cheers across America as underdog McCain delivered his best line of the third and last presidential TV debate…albeit six months too late.     

After being battered back and forth by a very effective Barack Obama ad campaign that had McCain and the current president joined at the hip, you gotta wonder why it took the McCain camp so long to find a good retort.       

And, of course, Obama did not allow McCain much time to enjoy the zinger as moments later he shot back that if McCain were elected he would support the failed policies of the last eight years.

As presidential debates go, the one Wednesday night was by no means a barn burner, but it was better than the first two meetings, but that’s not saying much either.    

We did learn that McCain wants to use vouchers in depressed school systems and Obama does not, but the two did agree that introducing more charter schools into the education system would provide more competition and choice for parents.  The leadership at the National Education Association was groaning over that.  Conservatives were going, “Yes!      

McCain promised he would wean us from an unhealthy dependency on foreign oil within seven, eight or ten years and Obama said ten years was his goal.        

Obama punted when given a chance to denounce the GOP Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s qualifications to be president saying, “That’s up to the people.”  McCain admitted that Democratic V.P. candidate Joe Biden is “qualified in many respects” but quickly added many of Biden’s foreign policy decisions were wrong.   

The most contentious exchange was over campaign attacks as McCain finally, face to face, raised the issue of Weatherman radical Bill Ayers with Obama deflecting it saying, “Ayers is not involved in our campaign” and then he neatly segued into what most Americans were thinking i.e. they were not interested in Ayers but wanted to know what these two candidates would do on the key economic issues.    

Both candidates put on their Fred Astaire dancing shoes as they waltzed around appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Roe V. Wade abortion question. 

Both said they did not favor a litmus test for picking nominees but then left the clear impression that a nominee’s handling of that issue would be just that.   

At times McCain had some verbal slip ups.  In whacking Obama’s government run health care blueprint, he said, “That is government at its best” when he meant worst and then two minutes later he called Obama “Senator Government.’  Maybe that wasn’t a slip?  

When you add it all up however McCain did not get his game changer that all the know-it-all pundits claimed he needed to turn this contest around.  He got in some licks, but Obama took none of them lying down.   

Those who loved McCain and Obama going in, felt the same coming out of the debate and for those on the fence, they didn’t hear much to move them either way.

      

      

      

     

        

        

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.