Change

Unless you were living under a rock last summer and fall you probably know what President Obama's main campaign platform was. Change. Throughout his commercials, speeches, and public appearances he advocated change after change after change. The majority of voters embraced this idea and he soundly defeated John McCain in the election. Michigan was one of the states that clearly supported Obama and the "change" he advocated.

We stand here now in July 2009 with a little over a year before Michigan's gubernatorial elections. Just as Michigan voters embraced change in the recent presidential election, it is time for them to embrace change in the executive branch of government. Michigan is slated to lose 300k jobs this year which will be the biggest single year job loss since the 1950's.

Michigan currently sits at an unemployment rate of 14.1% which is the highest unemployment rate in the country. It is also about 2% higher than the second ranked state (Oregon, 12.4%) and 4.6% higher than the national unemployment rate of 9.5%. It is true that the entire country is experiencing a recession, but Michigan has been hit extremely hard and our governor has been ineffective in raising the state up.

Come November 2010 Governor Jennifer Granholm will have been in power for eight years. In those eight years Michigan has been in a downward spiral with no signs of stopping. Furthermore, during her time in power Michigan has experienced political crises such as an inability to come to an agreement on the budget which led to a shutdown of the state government. Granholm has also shown an inability to capitalize on economic policies that have been proven to work. The state of Michigan has offered numerous incentives and tax breaks to film makers and studios to film in Michigan. These incentives have brought revenue and jobs to a beleaguered state. However, we have not seen similar incentives made for other businesses which could accomplish the same things that the film industry has. Instead Michigan maintains a ridiculous business tax that does not accomplish anything other than drive businesses away from the state.

During Granholm's time as governor the state of Michigan has faltered and stalled. There is no reason to believe that proposed Democratic candidates such as Lt. Governor John Cherry will do anything but continue what their party mate has started. In November 2008 Michigan very willingly embraced change. In November 2010 it will be time for voters to once again embrace change.

Politics: The Attacks

The modern day American presidential race is an interesting one. Millions of dollars from donors and the candidates themselves are poured into the campaign machine which spits out numerous promotional ads, candidate visits, and attacks on the other candidate through all forms of media. Both sides do it, and often times both sides also condemn the other for doing so. Anybody who turns on the TV in the late summer and fall of an election year has seen them. Obama is a Muslim extremist with a crazy pastor. McCain is an ancient warmonger who wants to keep our troops in Iraq for the next eight years, at minimum. Which begs the question, why can't America focus on the positive?

To me it seems simple. It is much easier to attack the views of an opposing candidate than to lay out one's plans for the next four years. One thing I distinctly remember from the 2004 election was John Kerry's ads. There were two types, the attack ads and the ads promoting Kerry's views. The attack ads were very specific, attacking Bush for his actions regarding this, or his views regarding that. However, Kerry's ads that supposedly informed the public on his views and plans were incredibly vague. The ads centered around a grand 'plan' that was to be enacted when Kerry was elected to office. The average voted was not informed of anything that may be included in this plan, just that it existed. Which leads to the question, why are these politicians so vague?

Personally, I would like to see ads from both Obama and McCain stating their exact views on issues. But that is for debates, newspapers, and political shows. The average American who just watches TV for his/her weekly fix of 24 or Grey's Anatomy doesn't get this. I think this results from a reluctance from politicians who don't want to make statements that can come back to bite them later. It happened to George Bush. Think he regrets telling the public, "read my lips, no new taxes?" I imagine he does, he took a major hit and I believe that was a major helping factor in Clinton's win. Presidential candidates since then do not want the same thing to happen to them. And the thing is, people's views change. There is nothing wrong with that. However, we hold our politicians, the president most of all, to a higher standard. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant, the fact is changing one's views is frowned upon. Especially when those views may have helped one get elected. As a result, politicians protect themselves from this in the best way possible, by force feeding vague promises and attack ads down the public's throat. Unless you pay close attention to politics, that may be all you get. And that is a crying shame.

politics

Brian and I differ greatly on political views.  Almost completely really.  And perhaps Brian will respond with his own post to this and any readers can watch our debate.

Look at what is said about politicians in todays times.  Right wing scare tactics call Obama the anti-christ, just like they claimed about Al Gore and John Kerry.  Left wing nuts accuse Generals of betrayal.  Obama is called a muslim even though he calls himself christian, and some even go so far as to call him a terrorist.  The group Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry which was the precursor to the swift boat ads are now the Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain, and have unleashed outlandish attacks on the Senator.  I think they just don't like guys named John.

Why do people think that outlandish attacks do anybody any good.  Take for instance the Jeremiah Wright scandal.  I know that if my pastors ever said anything that offended someone I wouldn't be held responsible for it.  Why then is Obama?  People want to know how could Obama sit in the pews and listen to Wright and not leave that church.  Here's an idea, take the 4 or 5 couple second long clips divide them into the 4 or 5 20 minute sermons that they came out of and then divide that into how many sermons Obama has heard. 

How about I do it for you?  I'll be generous and say that there are 20 seconds of clips. I divided that by 60 for 60 seconds in 1 min.  I divided that by 20 for 20 mins in a sermon.  divide by 1 for one sermon per week. divide by 52 for 52 weeks per year.  divide by 20 for years Obama has attended the church.  that equals .0000155086849, or roughly .000155% of the sermons Obama heard.  It's hard enough for me to remember the sermon I heard yesterday.  Come on people be smart here.

People have attacked McCain saying that he was treated "softer" than the other POW's that he was with.  They use this as an attack.  But just by looking at him you can realize that if they were "soft" on him it still wasn't a pleasant thing to go through.  But they're using this as an attack.  FOR SHAME.  McCain was offered freedom due to his status but he stayed behind. Maybe they went soft on him as a kind of consolation to his staying there, I don't know, but if they did that is not his fault an is certainly no judge of his character.

Maybe later I'll post some more views.  Brian is probably upset cause I defended both candidates, but I offer it up to you Brian to start the debate, or add any thoughts to this