First Look at Second Spot

July 2, 2010

Next time you bump into one of the guys running for governor, ask him about his running mate. And then duck.

Inquiring about the second spot on the ticket is like talking to somebody pitching a no-hitter. It is best left alone.

Candidates are loath to discuss the issue because it might jinx their chances to win the nomination. “First things first” is the typical dodge.

But don’t kid yourself, the issue is discussed in private. And while no screening committees have been formed, you can bet the lieutenant governor thing does come up from time to time.

In fact, in the Rick Snyder brain trust it has come up — and one major decision has already been nailed. A source familiar with the Ann Arbor businessman’s thinking reveals a strong indication that he will select a former legislator for his second in command.

Much like Jennifer Granholm, who brought little legislative savvy to the table when she first ran for governor, Snyder, the self-avowed political outsider, would be well served to pick someone who has been there and done that in the Capitol.

With a spanking new state Senate with 30 new members and at least 55 newcomers to the Michigan House, the Snyder administration, if there is one, needs a John Cherry, who, of course, Granholm picked because of his impressive legislative resume.

Since it is highly unlikely that Snyder would ask, and even less likely that Cherry would accept, where does the Nerd turn for that experience he lacks?

On that front there is no intel to share except for these names that have probably been floated inside the Snyder inner circle.

Two they could consider are currently GOP candidates for secretary of state: Sen. Cameron Brown from Southwest Michigan and Sen. Michelle McManus from up north. Either would be available after losing the nomination.

Sen. Jason Allen, who from time to time has flirted with lt. governor, could be a contender if his bid for Congress falls flat.

You’d have to toss in former Sen. Joe Schwarz, who now considers himself an independent; former House Speaker Paul Hillegonds; and even Senate GOP leader Mike Bishop, who may also be courted by Pete Hoekstra, another Republican seeking the governor’s job. Or how about West Michigan former lawmaker and budget director Don Gilmer?

And somebody mentioned former Senate GOP leader Dan DeGrow as a guy who could fill the bill.

When informed that his name would show up in this column, DeGrow literally laughed out loud.

“I’ve never met the man,” DeGrow began his graceful rejection of maybe running with Snyder.

He did note that “out of respect” for the office, “I would always listen,” and quickly launched into a laundry list of why he would not jump at the chance.

“I like what I’m doing,” he opened. Running the Intermediate School District in St. Clair County allows him to be 15 minutes from home, he is getting stuff done on the education front and, to boot, “I’ve moved on.”

Yet DeGrow is the prototype Snyder needs, i.e. 22 years combined service in the House and Senate and a finely honed bipartisan philosophy so desperately needed in this town.

“You never say never,” he confesses, but as you read this he wants you to know: “I’m not lobbying for it.”

And at this point, neither is anybody else. But if the candidates tell you the running mate thing is not on the radar screen, check to see if their noses are growing.

Tim Skubick is Michigan’s Senior Capitol correspondent and has anchored the weekly public TV series “Off the Record” since 1972. He also covers the Capitol and politics for WLNS-TV6 in Lansing.

Tim Skubick Extra Extra… (A weekly bonus only for Dome readers)

Vanilla or Chocolate?
Vanilla or chocolate? Baseball or football? Tennis or golf?

You can bet your bottom dollar the two Democrats running for governor had never been asked to pick one or the other. And when they did, you could tell that Virg Bernero and Andy Dillon really don’t have much in common.

Thanks to Frank Beckmann over at WJR for asking them. He also inquired as to the most influential person in their political and personal lives. Again, a 180 difference.

Bernero selected the women in his life: his aunt Betty, who runs the Waterford Township clerk’s office, gets credit for turning him into the politician he is today; and on the personal side, his mom and his wife get the nod.

Dillon felt his father had shaped him the most on both counts. The House speaker says Judge Dillon had “discipline and compassion” and a good balance of both.

Even more differences emerged as the radio interview went on.

What did you want to be as a kid?

Bernero, like many, wanted to be a cop and then later on “maybe president.” No sense shooting too low.

Dillon was more cerebral as a kid, hoping to land a job as a businessman, work in government and finance. “I’ve done them all,” he told Beckmann.

The radio guy asked about practicing in front of a mirror to prepare for a political assignment. Dillon said no and tacked on, “I probably should have done more of that.”

And what would you change about yourself?

Bernero has said this before: “I always strive to be more diplomatic…I can ruffle some feathers.” He’s got that right.

And Dillon blurted out, “get out of government.”

What?

Maybe he was joking, maybe he wasn’t thinking, but the answer was probably spot on. He really does not like politics that much, and almost never got into it, and here he is running for governor.

It was a telling answer, and it leaves some wondering if he’d be crushed if he lost. Bernero, who has wanted to do this all his life, probably would be.

As for the questions in the first sentence…Bernero is vanilla, baseball and tennis. And, you guessed it, Dillon is chocolate, football and golf.

Two peas in a pod, these guys ain’t.

Name Names
It’s a straightforward inquiry, but you should have seen them squirm.

Can you list all the candidates running for governor?

Out on the rubber chicken circuit, the audience is asked to write down all those names and, time and time again, the bulk can’t name all seven.

In fact, you are probably thinking right now, could I?

With the August 3 primary inching closer, it’s probably about time that you got in the game and at least get to know the names of the candidates. The next assignment is to find out who they are and what they stand for. But first things first.

At a recent conference, 39 attendees were asked to list the names. You could hear the moaning and groaning as they struggled.

And they should have been embarrassed, because one of the basic precepts of participating in the democracy is to at least know the names of those who are running.

Ten-percent could only name one candidate, and each time it was Rick Snyder. TV advertising does have its advantages.

Six of the participants could list four of the candidates. Mike Cox was known by all of the six. Pete Hoekstra got five, as did Snyder. Mike Bouchard received four. Democrat Andy Dillon checked in with three, and his opponent, Virg Bernero, got one. Tom George got zero.

Oakland County Senator Mike Bishop got one, but he’s not running for governor. Major points off for that.

Thirty-three percent turned out to be well informed, as they remembered all seven names. In most groups, the number is less.

But here’s the sorry conclusion to all this: the overwhelming majority of voters won’t bother to learn the names, because the overwhelming majority won’t vote on August 3 anyway.

If the state is lucky, under one million “citizens” will show up at the polls. That means about five million others will head for the beach, the ballpark or work and not even feel guilty about sitting this one out.

If you told those folks they will lose their right to vote if they don’t use it, they’d go nuts.

It’s not a bad idea.

Peas in a Primary Pod

May 21, 2010

At first blush, Andy Dillon and Rick Snyder have zilch in common.

Blush again.

They both emerged from the private business sector into politics. They are more cerebral than they are political animals, by a long shot. If given a chance, they would blow up all the TV cameras, microphones and notepads used by reporters.

They are both running a brilliant general election campaign; problem is, they should be running a primary strategy instead.

Both of these guys do have appeal to independent voters and have benefited from attacks from special interest groups, which makes them look more independent. For example, every time “Official Lansing” takes a swipe at Snyder, it plays right into his image as the non-politician running from the outside hoping to get inside.

The Ann Arbor business guy is taking some hits for not participating in the final two Republican Party-sponsored televised debates. Everybody that plays the game in this town knows that candidates have to debate.

Tell that to Team Snyder.

“If you look at all these comments, they are coming from the career political people,” Snyder observes, which just gives him another chance to tell the voters, “I’m a non-politician. I’m doing things a different way.”

Likewise with Mr. Dillon. One of his calling cards is that when it’s time to stand up to the special interest groups (read organized labor), he has the guts to do it even against the advice of his political brain trust.

Independent voters admire candidates who think for themselves and don’t go along to get along, so both gentlemen are onto something. But it’s the wrong something for a primary election, where those voters don’t decide the outcome.

In a general election the impact of unions, chambers of commerce and a wealth of other special interests is diluted because more unattached citizens vote to mute their power. But in a primary, special interests wield more influence.

Snyder, for example, refuses to fill out questionnaires from a host of special interest groups, even though some of them would give him a second look. He’s not even getting the first look, and while he may be cool with that, the special interests aren’t, and some think he is arrogant for not playing the game.

Snyder either doesn’t get it or he doesn’t care, but if he wins, these are the very groups he will have to influence to move his agenda. To stiff them now is either shortsighted or just plain ignorant.

Dillon faces the same challenge as he struggles with his perceived organized labor opposition. “I’m not the devil,” he likes to say, but it doesn’t matter what he says. The bulk of the labor guys are behind Virg Bernero, and that will count for something and trumps Dillon’s independent cache.

Being from the business sector, it should come as no shock that neither of these candidates is a whiz-bang with the media. Raised in a cloistered boardroom where the glare of TV lights and snoopy reporters are verboten, they were not trained to be 10-second soundbite wonders.

Snyder is more content hawking his 10-Point plan, which takes more than 10 seconds to digest. Dillon is more into thinking in his head than thinking on his feet to combat some snotty question from an equally snotty reporter.

Two peas in a pod? Maybe not, but they’re closer to that than you think.

Tim Skubick is Michigan’s Senior Capitol correspondent and has anchored the weekly public TV series “Off the Record” since 1972. He also covers the Capitol and politics for WLNS-TV6 in Lansing.

Tim Skubick Extra Extra… (A weekly bonus only for Dome readers)

Bleed Him Dry
GOP candidate for governor Mike Cox is on a mission. He wants to bleed all the money out of the Pete Hoekstra campaign before the August 3rd primary.

Now, you might ask, how can one candidate do that to another?

Simple. You run attack ads, which puts your opponent in a box with two options: sit on your money and don’t purchase any ads to counteract the attacks, or spend your money now to counter them. By exercising the latter choice, you run the risk of running out of moola the closer you get to the election, when more voters are paying attention.

Cox knows this and so do the Hoekstra people. So far, Hoekstra has made a modest effort to mute the Cox ads, which suggest the Michigan congressman is a big spender of your tax dollars in Washington.

Last week came the first ad, and the Hoekstra camp scrambled to assemble a tepid response that did not get a ton of exposure compared to the bigger ad purchase made by the Cox folks.

This week a new attack ad and, so far, no response from the Hoekstra camp. It’s unclear if their first commercial continues to air around the state.

The popular wisdom in town has Hoekstra struggling to convert his grassroots support in West Michigan into checks. So he is not overflowing with money, while the Cox campaign coffers are looking better.

The commercials are an act of “desperation” decries Hoekstra mouthpiece John Truscott. J.T. contends Cox is losing support in the polls and has to act now to salvage his candidacy by trying to slice into Hoekstra’s lead.

Team Hoekstra expects to take a hit as a result of these ads.

Over in the Cox shop, campaign manager Stu Sandler argues the ads “are a show of strength,” not desperation.

So in all likelihood, those attacks will continue and the Hoekstra folks will have to decide to shut up or cough up. Either way, it’s a roll of the dice for the congressman, and the smiles you see over there are from Mr. Cox and company as they monitor the blood flow out of the Hoekstra campaign.

New Guy Gets It Right
You know the drill: politician screws up; has to convene his inner circle; they commence a protracted and secret discussion to decide what to do about it; and, eventually — sometimes days, weeks or even months later — the admission of guilt comes.

Think Bill Clinton and Monica what’s-her-name.

Say hello to David Palmer, who just proved you can do this turnaround in a matter of hours. Smart guy this Mr. Palmer.

Palmer is on a mission to win the House seat soon to be vacated by Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith. As such, he found himself handing his card to a Capitol correspondent as the two got on the elevator just off the House floor.

It was not out of the ordinary. A picture of the bearded Mr. Palmer with an engaging smile on his mug and over there on the left, in bold print his name, David Palmer. Underneath it, in smaller print, “State Representative 54th District.”

The reporter thought for a second. The guy’s been in town for 18 months and this is the first time Rep. Palmer has appeared on the radar screen?

Something didn’t compute.

Finally, this exchange as the smarty-pants reporter finally figured it out. “This state representative thing is interesting,” in that you are not the state representative.

Palmer sort of chuckled as the elevator reached its appointed stop and off he went into the night.

About three hours later an unsolicited email arrived. “I’ve asked my graphic designer to add the word ‘for’ on my card so that it would now read ‘David Palmer for state representative.’”

Funny thing what one tiny little word can do.

Palmer “got it” even though he confesses a “fairly large and diverse group of supporters” looked at the thing and raised no objections. But upon quick reflection he concludes, “It could be misleading.

So into the recycling bin go 950 of the offending 1,000 calling cards.

Making a mistake, correcting the mistake, and not taking a lifetime to do it. Mr. Clinton and other more experienced pols, are you listening?

Budget ‘Cuts’ vs. ‘Reforms’

by John Lindstrom
Gongwer News Service
February 12, 2010

With Governor Jennifer Granholm’s release of her final proposed budget, the lyric from a ridiculously popular ’60s tune comes true: second verse, same as the first.

The legislative response, especially from Republicans, mirrors that verse as well.

Since fall, since the ill-fated agreement between Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop and House Speaker Andy Dillon (remember that thing?), the tune Ms. Granholm has warbled has called for the state to boost revenues to make up for cuts considered unfair. Officially, she has never wavered from that score, though the volume has been turned down to imperceptible as she prepared to deliver the 2010-11 budget.

In response, legislative Republicans have countered with a different melody, a sort of 12-tone discordant refrain of cutting spending, cutting government, that makes its point even as it lacks nuance. While Ms. Granholm’s vocals have dropped off, their chorus has stayed fortissimo throughout.

Now with the new proposed budget, Ms. Granholm sounds a variation on her theme. New revenue is needed, but not necessarily to stave off unwarranted cuts.

Instead, new revenue is needed to help cut business taxes, by about $1 billion. Oh, yes, and help prevent future cuts to education.

For Republicans and business the tune has not changed: not enough cuts, not enough cuts, the cuts here ain’t enough. Surprisingly, not all Republicans immediately rejected Ms. Granholm’s sales tax on services proposal (though enough did that its passage is less likely than a basso profundo hitting a high-C).

Of course, generally their complaint is not framed as not enough cuts. Sen. Wayne Kuipers (R-Holland) did say the budget needed to cut more. Then he retreated to the politically correct language of budget: common sense solutions and reforms.

Reforms, the budget does not reform enough, according to its critics. Basic reforms, structural reforms, common sense reforms, necessary reforms, required reforms, reformed reforms, fully formed reforms, reforms formerly reforming forms — that’s the language of budget cutting these days. Who, after all, is opposed to reforms?

No, we all love reform. Even Ms. Granholm calls for reforms. Reforms are the altar call of budget discipline, and once we are born again — reformed, shall we say — to the gospel of reforms, our souls will be cleansed and our characters mended and the budget, yes by God, will be right again.

Until we fall again, as we will, as we must, being formless and forlorn and all that, until we later reform yet again. Yeepers.

Okay, everyone loves reform, especially budget reforms. Former President Ronald Reagan ticked off the basic reforms — eliminating fraud, waste and abuse — even as the federal deficit doubled, tripled, quadrupled maybe under his watch. We all love reform.

But do we love budget cuts? Because reforms could mean anything, they could even mean tax increases, depending on the politician. But the crowd largely calling for reforms is not a tax-increasing crowd.

So, why not just say cut the budget? More to the point, say where to cut the budget. And while one is saying cut the budget, say what services and programs should be eliminated, because that is what will happen. And say how many state workers will lose their jobs, and how many cops and teachers and firefighters will lose their jobs, and what it will take for the economy to pick up those jobs and how communities will have to change to account for the changes in services.

These are hard, hard times. And if hard, hard decisions are required, then it is time to use language that reflects those decisions. Lawmakers and the public have to face the hard realities that reforms could mean cuts in their schools, their road repairs, their restaurant inspections, their ambulance service, and have to decide that those are cuts they are willing to live with if not die from.

Saying we reform says nothing. It makes us feel good and hides what might make us feel bad. Saying we “cut” at least allows us to gauge the cut, assess if it is proper and prepare for it.

So as the state struggles through this budget, it is reasonable to hope the choristers reform and sing budget plainsong, simple and direct and painfully true.

John Lindstrom is publisher of Gongwer News Service. For nearly 50 years in Michigan, Gongwer News Service has provided independent, comprehensive, accurate and timely coverage of issues in and around Michigan’s government and political systems. For subscription information, including a free trial, visit Gongwer online.

Reality State of the State

by Tim Skubick
February 12, 2010

If someone could finagle a way to collect it, we could eradicate the $1.8-billion state deficit the governor has unveiled. Just collect a dime for every time the word “change” is mentioned in the race for governor this year.

Every election features a plethora of candidates (except the incumbents, of course) belly aching for change. That never changes.

Mr. Obama did it in 2008 with his “Change You Can Believe In,” and all the Ds and Rs fixin’ to replace Gov. Jennifer Granholm have already finely tuned their “change” mantra. The only guy who was not going to run on that platform is now on the sidelines licking his wounds. Name: Lt. Gov. John Cherry.

2010 will be the year of change. There will be a new governor. There could be a new constitution. There will be a brand new state Senate with at least 30 new senators, and who knows what the Michigan House will look like as change sweeps through it.

Last week we witnessed a slice of history that itself needs to be changed: the governor’s State of the State Address. It has basically remained unchanged for as long as anyone can recall. In fact, the only alteration came when Jim Blanchard was elected governor and the speech moved from 11 a.m., when nobody saw it, to 7 p.m., when the statewide television audience was first created.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm delivered her final SOS and, with a new governor coming to town, this is the logical juncture to revamp this outdated form of communication and create something that will grab and keep the public’s attention.

Try this on for size: the governor gets 30 minutes to deliver the speech. Just like the old format, it is unedited and allows the governor to speak directly to the folks at home without a media filter. It’s a tradition that should be retained.

But for the next 30 minutes, the governor chucks the teleprompter and takes questions from the assembled House and Senate members from both sides of the aisle.

Obviously, this is not a new notion. President Obama waded into the lion’s den the other day and took an hour of hardballs from the House GOP conference in Congress. It was riveting stuff and was good for both the prez and the Rs.

Of course, the British have been doing this for years as the Prime Minister gets a weekly going over in the House of Commons across the pond.

Ms. Granholm would have been the perfect governor/host to inaugurate such a dramatic change. And it would have given her a chance to hang onto her TV audience. Traditionally, by the 45-minute mark of the typical SOS message, the TV-radio audience gets antsy and goes hunting for a game show or one of those “insightful” cable offerings.

They would stay for an unscripted SOS reality show.

And even though the next governor may not possess Granholm’s style and verve, it is still a challenge he or she should risk. The governor could get high marks for taking the questions and performing under fire.

Yes, it is tampering with tradition. But if the next governor is boasting about wanting change, this would be a great starting point to prove he or she is sincere about it.

Tim Skubick is Michigan’s Senior Capitol correspondent and has anchored the weekly public TV series “Off the Record” since 1972. He also covers the Capitol and politics for WLNS-TV6 in Lansing.

Tim Skubick Extra Extra… (A weekly bonus only for Dome readers)

Nerd is the Word
Say what you will about the Rick Michigan campaign, but either these guys are pasa-tootly geniuses or absolutely clueless on how to elect this guy governor.

For the second time this election season, the Snyder crew has broken the mold. It is doing just the opposite of what the political manual suggests.

Last June they trotted out the Ann Arbor tie-less business guy who had no name recognition, and they introduced him with the sign Rick for Michigan. Only the preposition was so tiny that it looked like Rick Snyder’s name was really Rick Michigan.

The primer on building name identification with the voters suggests you use THE GUY’S RIGHT NAME.

It was such an obvious miscue, as noted in this space, that it defied explanation. But turns out the Snyder crew made no mistake; they did it on purpose. (Maybe he will change his legal name to Rick Michigan later on in the campaign.)

That was last June, and now the Snyder boys are at it again as they once more defy political logic, cast caution to the wind and go on the tube with an introductory commercial in which the candidate says, “It’s time for a nerd” to be governor and Snyder is just the nerd to do it.

What were these guys smoking?

And when challenged that perhaps having a nerdy governor was not high on the want list of Michigan voters, the campaign called it a condescending assertion.

Condescending? This is Michigan: a shot and a beer, sports loving, anti-elitist mass of men and women, very few of whom aspire to be a nerd or have one as a friend, let alone governor.

Pollster Bernie Porn, who knows a nerd when he sees one, suggests it’s the wrong label to use on a guy whom nobody knows and may not want to know since he is, after all, not one of us.

The campaign confidently explains this was an attempt at self-deprecation…or did they mean self-desecration?

But maybe these hot shots know something the rest of Michigan does not. After all, Snyder hails from Ann Arbor. Nuf said.

By defying conventional wisdom, the candidate has set into motion one of the most historic campaigns in modern history. If Rick Michigan, the nerd, gets elected governor, he can gloriously say, “Told ya so!”

If he doesn’t, however, he should ask for his money back from his supposed inner circle of political wise guys who sold him down the river.

Cat and Mouse Politics
There’s a silly little game that politicians and political correspondents play from time to time. It’s I-know-something-that-I-know-you-know-but-I’m-still-not-going-to-tell-you.

The latest persona to play is Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero.

He was in Detroit last Friday night attending a cattle call put on by the Michigan Education Association, which invited all the potential candidates for governor to meet at the Marriott Hotel.

With his elementary school principal spouse at his side, Bernero waded into the crowd pressing the flesh, smiling for the cameras and doing all the other stuff a candidate for governor would do.

But when it came time to appear on camera to talk about his decision, Bernero, like others before him, suddenly lost his ability to tell it like it is.

So you are announcing on Monday you are running for governor?

“I’ll have an announcement on Monday,” began his song and dance.

Well, if you were not running, why would you be here on a Friday night when you could be home?

“I have not been compared to the other candidates, and this is a chance to do that. Maybe I will bomb here,” he said, as his nose began to grow ever so slightly.

Your website says, “I’m running for governor.”

“You know how campaigns make mistakes.” His nose grew even longer, and on and on the game went for about two minutes.

Finally, he gave a little ground.

You are 90 percent there?

“That’s a fair statement,” the mayor reflected.

And on Monday you’ll be 100 percent there?

“I hope so,” he observed.

See how stilly this stuff is. It underscores how most politicians want to control their own agenda, and understandably so. But come on, all he had to do was look in the camera and say, “Off the record, I’m running for governor.”

On the record he said it in Detroit, Grand Rapids and his hometown on Monday.

Mid-Michigan readers can hear Rick Cole every Wednesday at approximately 6:35 a.m. on Lansing radio station WILS 1320’s “am Lansing” program hosted by Walt Sorg.

Memo to Next Governor

by Richard Cole
January 16, 2010

To: Anyone Considering Running for Governor
From: Richard Cole
Subject: The Winning Strategy

Considering running for governor? You should be asking yourself if you need your head examined. No sober adult should hope for this job without great trepidation.

More than 30 years ago, American psychologist Martin Seligman (Helplessness, 1975) informed us that much of mental illness, especially depression, can be explained by “learned helplessness.” Humans are eventually overwhelmed, sometimes to the point of paralysis, when we view life’s circumstances as beyond our ability to control them.

Former Michigan Governor George Romney and I talked about this concept when, in his twilight years, we collaborated on a bipartisan volunteerism coalition in Detroit. George saw opportunities where other people would see despair. Get people making differences in other people’s lives and they will “unlearn” the helplessness that restricts their own development.

That’s the secret benefit of volunteerism, we would say. By helping someone take even one small step that makes a difference in another person’s life, you show him/her that he/she is not as helpless as the circumstances might otherwise suggest. Here is why that might matter to you.

You are going to have to be a miracle worker to be successful as Michigan’s next governor. To begin with, you’ll have to be a shameless Michauvinist — not afraid to say what makes Michigan special. That’s table stakes.

Cheerleading is important for any leader, but it’s going to take more than cheerleading to restart this state. Many of us already live in despair. We see the challenges as overwhelming. And we will greet anyone with a positive message with cynicism that could kill off the enthusiasm of even the most inspired leader. You have to stand up to that.

The election will be here in the blink of an eye. The key to your success hinges on your ability to design a strategy that flows seamlessly from the campaign into your four-year term. Cutting to the chase, you need a strategy that harnesses the energy of the state’s leading special interest groups. Political consultants and partisans will tell you this strategy won’t work. They’ll tell you that the electorate needs controversy to get interested in you. They’ll say: “Get elected first. After that you can decide how you want to manage.”

Consultants run campaigns pitting one interest against another, after all. But there’s no percentage in a politics-as-usual approach here. You need everybody rowing in the same direction. If you can get the state’s special interests behind a common vision for rebuilding Michigan, you have half a chance to be successful.

Get out there and provide the surge of energy to get the state on track to a new future. You can’t do that by pandering to the special interests. Give them more credit than that. Your shot at success requires telling them that you’ll have to take some actions that they perceive to be in conflict with their political interests. We can’t afford to write off any special interest groups. We’ll need them all.

But their support has to be on terms that make sense. And no matter how much you need political money, you can’t afford to finance your campaign in trade for promises of political protection. Remember, winning the election without preserving the freedom that will allow you to lead the state through a four-year rebuilding process would be the worst thing you could do.

Your success — and Michigan’s — must begin with the recognition that these special interest groups have two characteristics that make them extremely valuable. They are well organized, and they aren’t going anywhere. Phase one in this strategy requires that you stand up to them, appeal to them for help, talk to them about what they will do to help you turn the state around, and give them real roles they can play right now to help you get ready to put the state on a new track. But don’t back down.

Don’t worry about building an election campaign. You need to spend the next 60 days building a campaign to awaken Michigan’s network of established special interest groups to the reality that the only way their interests survive here is if the public interest is served first. You have to get them on a higher road, now.

Don’t count on the legislature to be of much help in this regard. The limitation we imposed on the length of their terms of office created a condition under which it is unfair for us to expect the legislature to have either sufficient historical perspective or vision to do anything other than get in your way. Show them the respect they deserve, and give them the benefit of the doubt, but don’t expect them to put the state’s interest ahead of partisan politics.

To have any hope of making this governor’s job worth taking, you should spend your energy on building a diverse coalition of state interest group leaders who are committed to excellence in a few key arenas like:

• Building an education system that looks toward the future;
• Modernizing the state’s transportation and technology infrastructure;
• Making the state equally hospitable for job seekers and job producers; and
• Providing a sufficiently stable and robust tax base needed to reverse the state’s downward spiral.

That’s right — taxes.

To have any chance for success, you are going to have to use this brief campaign period to negotiate a wide-scale agreement among the 75 to 100 key special interest groups in Michigan. Get them to agree to set aside, for the next four years, those wedge issues that divide the center. And get them to agree to avoid raising the incendiary issues that incite the lunatic fringes.

These special interests will need convincing that there is a possibility of success. Listen to how they talk to themselves. They preach business models in which “anything is possible,” and then they act as if the downfall of the state is inevitable. You need to slap them in the face, tell them to get a grip, and get them cutting some firewood to use to build the platform.

Don’t be surprised if these interest groups express the helplessness-induced paralysis Seligman identified as the source of psychological depression. Think about George Romney. Show them how to overcome their paralysis by taking control of the state’s destiny. If you can’t convince them that the state is worth recreating, and convince them fast, you might still win the election but you won’t have a chance of governing.

Use the upcoming campaign to build a purple coalition — the best blend of our red and blue, ticket-splitting state — and make it a permanent coalition to create a future for our state and its children. This should be the first and, arguably, your most significant function as the next governor.

And you need to make it clear that without this kind of bipartisan support, you don’t consider the governor’s job to be a job worth taking.

In addition to serving as professor and chairperson of the Department of Advertising, Public Relations and Retailing at Michigan State University, Richard Cole is co-founder of Michigan’s Next Governor Project (see August Dome feature).The opinions expressed reflect his individual viewpoint and not that of the university.

Still Addressing the Economy

by Gongwer News Service
January 01, 2010

Governor Jennifer Granholm’s final State of the State address is set for Wednesday, February 3. We can guess that much of it will deal with the state’s ongoing economic malaise, the unfortunate condition she has had to deal with during her entire tenure.

It will also mark four years, roughly, from what will go down as — unfortunately for the governor — her most memorable and quotable remark during a State of the State address: the 2006 statement that the state’s economy will be so altered that in five years the state would be “blown away.”

State of the State addresses rarely result in memorable positive statements, to the misfortune of the governors having to deliver them. One of former Governor John Engler’s best known comments came in his first address, when he vowed the state would not see General Motors close its Willows Run plant, only to learn shortly after that GM was closing the plant. At former Governor James Blanchard’s first State of the State, his announcement that the state would have to seek an income tax increase was greeted with silence broken only by the solo applause of former Sen. Basil Brown.

The “blown away” comment, joined later that year by Ms. Granholm’s assertion that she was “thrilled” with the progress her economic plan was making, became a constant Republican theme during the 2006 election. As the state’s economy struggled further and collapsed with the world’s economy, it still shows up in partisan digs, especially on Facebook and Twitter postings. Should Lt. Governor John Cherry Jr. be the Democratic nominee for governor in 2010, count on the “blown away” comments being replayed throughout the campaign.

There’s no question that the comment was a political flub, Ms. Granholm’s equivalent of former President George W. Bush’s “mission accomplished” banner. But what made it a flub, and why did she say it in the first place?

Why it was a flub is obvious and evident: the state’s economy collapsed further. With 2009’s unemployment rate bound to average somewhere above 12 percent, we would be desperate to have back the 2006 unemployment average of 6.9 percent.

Could Ms. Granholm have had any inkling of the severity of the ongoing collapse when she promised a blowing away? No. No one did. The dimensions of the upcoming collapse were so dramatic, so total and so novel that virtually no one could have anticipated how bad things would become. The economic collapse of 2007-09 was triggered largely by real estate, by the collapse in housing, the record number of defaults. One literally has to go back nearly two centuries to find similar collapses triggered by land speculation.

And it is time finally to face political reality on the dimensions of the economic collapse. For all the hyperbole that cutting taxes and cutting spending would therefore assure economic success is nonsense. How would have cutting state taxes in any way made General Motors better manage its company, better design and build cars, better sell them so it did not end up in bankruptcy? How could cutting taxes have prevented record home foreclosures and collapsing home values? Or blocked massive energy cost increases that forced people to curtail spending?

This is not to say that state fiscal and economic policies are impotent in terms of boosting a state’s economy. In normal economic times they can be a big incentive to a state’s fortune. These were not normal economic times. What we have and are enduring is a major systemic failure that even national governments had trouble controlling. The best any state could hope for in this tsunami was to hold on and manage as best as possible.

Not often considered, however, was whether there was any reason for Ms. Granholm to make the “blown away” comment in the first place. The answer is: sort of.

Remember that the state had already struggled with five years of recession. It needed a positive jolt to the system, it needed hope and some optimism. And, in fact, there was actually reason to think the state had finally approached a corner it could turn. Job losses had shrunk dramatically in the previous two years. State revenues had grown. The stock market was strengthening. The national economy was firmly in recovery and there was reason to hope Michigan would catch up. In addition, Ms. Granholm and her economic team had settled on the dimensions of a policy calling for development in alternative energy, bio-sciences and other industries.

It was reasonable, and proper, for Ms. Granholm to be positive in her 2006 address. Even then she should have been cautious in expressing optimism, but the governor likes to speak in broad strokes and scumble the words later.

We can still hope that in a year we will be blown away by economic developments. We know it is unlikely, but we can hope. We’ll certainly think about it during the governor’s final State of the State.

For nearly 50 years in Michigan, Gongwer News Service has provided independent, comprehensive, accurate and timely coverage of issues in and around Michigan’s government and political systems. For subscription information, including a free trial, visit Gongwer online.

Pick Your Conventional Wisdom

by Tim Skubick
December 11, 2009

Popular wisdom is often unpopular and often wrong, but what the hey. The popular wisdom is Andy Dillon can’t beat John Cherry for the Democratic nomination for governor.

Here’s why the Dillonites reject that notion: (1) Cherry has only 20-percent support in the polls, which means he doesn’t even attract the Democratic Party base that makes up about 35 percent of the electorate; (2) 54 percent of Democrats are undecided; (3) Voters are fed up with career politicians and there is nowhere to hide Cherry’s 25-plus years in this town; and (4) Cherry is linked at the hip to a very unpopular governor and her policies.

Add it all up and Dillon can win…or so the popular Dillon version of popular wisdom goes.

Not so fast.

Pollster Bernie Porn from EPIC-MRA offers a different take: if Dillon gets in, it actually helps Cherry solidify the nomination.

Porn figures most of organized labor is with Cherry, and it provides “boots on the ground” to get out the vote and raise money. “Dillon has no boots.”

Next, that 54 percent undecided is a sizable chunk. In theory, if Dillon took his current 6-percent support and captured about 40 percent of those on the fence, he wins.

However, Porn reports the bulk of those undecided Ds favored a tax increase to balance the books. Dillon did, too, but he never got it in the budget “deal” he cooked up with former buddy Mike Bishop, the headstrong, anti-tax-at-any-cost leader of the GOP Senate.

If Dillon runs, Porn figures, Cherry will have commercials denouncing Dillon for being foolish to make a deal with the GOP devil.

“Dillon made a bad deal. I think he is most vulnerable just in terms of how he tried to portray himself as a leader. Cherry will be able to point out how he made a bad deal,” which, according to Porn, “doesn’t make Dillon a leader.”

Not only can Cherry bang Dillon for making a bone-headed move, he can argue Dillon was told this would happen, but he did it anyway. So not only was it a lousy deal, it was one Dillon could have avoided.

Plus Porn says this kind of argument could move undecided folks into the Cherry camp and even allow Cherry to put badly needed distance between himself and Gov. Granholm, who, despite her opinion to the contrary, is a huge drag on Cherry’s bid.

Having said that, Dillon’s ace in the hole is the mood out there. It is angry, it is anti-incumbent, it is anti-anything that even looks like a life-long politician. It is eager for change.

Dillon has strong appeal to independent voters, as he proved he could take on special interests in his own party when he was strongly advised by his political inner circle not to do it. He did it anyway.

Dillon could effectively contrast his independence with that of Cherry, who has carried the water for labor without spilling a drop. Plus, he can hammer home the point that Cherry can’t win because of Granholm. That notion scares Democrats.

But Cherry’s gang is confident that Dillon can’t secure enough independents and moderate Republicans to cross over into a Democratic primary to win.

The speaker makes his decision about all this in January.

Tim Skubick is Michigan’s Senior Capitol correspondent and has anchored the weekly public TV series “Off the Record” since 1972. He also covers the Capitol and politics for WLNS-TV6 in Lansing.

Tim Skubick Extra Extra… (A weekly bonus only for Dome readers)

Pay to Play
There’s a little fussin’ and feudin’ unceremoniously unfolding in the state GOP concerning so-called Pay to Play Straw Polls.

Here’s how that nifty little game works. A candidate running for office tries to influence the outcome of a straw poll by making sure his or her supporters show up to vote. And to make sure they do appear, financial considerations sometimes come into play — which amounts to backdoor pay.

For example, GOP candidate for governor Rick Snyder won a straw poll by offering free transportation, room and board, and other considerations for those who agreed to vote for him.

Attorney general candidate Bill Schuette recently defeated his GOP challenger, Sen. Mike Bishop, 360 to 247 in another straw poll, which prompted the Oakland County senator to not only denounce the poll but promise to stop participating in future polls.

Then secretary of state candidate Anne Norlander, the Calhoun County clerk, issued a self-righteous news release blasting the “Pay to Play” concept as a “fundraising activity [that] goes counter to everything I believe in [and] I can no longer participate in ‘Pay to Play’ voting fundraisers.”

And, in case you missed her indignation, she tacked on: “this is counter to one person one vote and defies everything we believe in as Republicans” concerning the “integrity of the ballot.”

She called on other Republicans to join her in renouncing the process. It’s likely that the statewide candidates who don’t have a ton of money to spread around will join her, and the ones who do have a ton won’t.

Virg for Governor?

by Tim Skubick
December 4, 2009

If the political press corps were given a secret vote to install the mayor of Lansing as a Democratic candidate for governor, betya the vote would be an overwhelming yes. That’s not necessarily because Virg Bernero would make the best governor, but he’d certainly be the most fun to cover.

Bernero is known for his short fuse, his hot and sometime vitriolic rhetoric and a shoot-from-the-lip mouth. He’s sort of Geoffrey Fieger without all the money.

“I have to be interested,” Bernero confided the other day as he launched a trial balloon that will draw pot shots from all corners, including labor leaders, John Cherry backers and a list as long as your arm of folks he has offended during his years in the political trenches.

His announcement comes as no shock. For months he’s been asked to embrace the candidacy of Lt. Governor John Cherry, and for months good Democrat Bernero has said nice things … but refused to deliver the goods.

Actually, this whole Bernero boomlet took root at a time when the domestic auto industry was taking one brickbat after another on the talking-head cable networks 10 months ago.

Bernero took up the cause and found himself on national TV more than the president as he ratcheted up his anger, rhetoric and blasts of the naysayers for attacking the industry. He was tagged “Angriest Mayor in America” and loved every minute of it.

In the midst of this, Bernero conveniently revealed that he was fielding calls from undisclosed sources urging him to run for governor.

But when pressed about doing it, he offered, “No. Absolutely not. I have no plans.”

So much for that.

During his re-election bid last fall, he was asked during a radio debate about serving out his four-year term. He said he would.

Now, safely re-elected with no fear of losing votes for office climbing, Bernero can safely explore a bid for governor while his opponents claim he was thinking about running all along.

Bernero was asked to categorically deny that and he offered, “Pretty much, yeah.”

“Pretty much” is not a categorical denial and he knew it, so he conceded that every politician thinks about running for governor, but “I never gave it serious consideration.”

A quick check revealed that his nose was not growing…at least not at that precise moment.

Last weekend in the Detroit Free Press he described a run as “very unlikely.”

But something happened between “very unlikely” and the decorating of the Bernero family Christmas tree that same weekend, as Bernero emerged ready to give “serious consideration” to seeking the nomination.

Bernero “became convinced” to take a look at it because he, along with others, has concluded Cherry can’t win — and the early polling data suggest that is a Cherry problem.

Now Cherry’s got another one: Bernero, who is going around saying, “many people have that feeling” that Cherry is toast. But Bernero refuses to join in the chorus directly by lamely suggesting, “I don’t know.” Regardless, he is doing the dirty work for Republicans, who can use Bernero’s words against Cherry should Cherry get the nomination.

Some will be tempted to just pass this off as another Virg-being-Virg gambit.

At first blush, he can’t be counted out. But bet on this: he will milk this thing for all it is worth, and in the end he’ll join the Cherry team — where he may be politely asked to stuff it.

Tim Skubick is Michigan’s Senior Capitol correspondent and has anchored the weekly public TV series “Off the Record” since 1972. He also covers the Capitol and politics for WLNS-TV6 in Lansing.

Tim Skubick Extra Extra… (A weekly bonus only for Dome readers)

This Will Get Their Attention
School administrators across the state are in a deep holiday funk. Instead of decorating the schools, they are dismantling them.

With a hefty $292-per-pupil cut staring them in the face, they are forced to do one of two things: dip into their rainy day fund to restore the cuts, or start slashing here and there to balance the books.

It’s the “here and there” that is getting all the attention, and here’s a sure fire way to balance the books: eliminate school buses and athletics.

That giant clunk you just heard was from administrators falling off their chairs.

Eliminating transportation and high school sports would get the parents to lobby Lansing for more money, but it’s a risky strategy due to schools of choice.

Schools of Choice was invented years ago on the Gov. John Engler watch and gave parents all over the state the power to move their kids to another district. If they were stuck in lousy district B, they were free to move their kids to district C if there was room.

Thus was born “competition in the school marketplace,” which is impacting the decisions that superintendents are making right now regarding budget cuts.

As one insider lamented the other day, “if I cut sports, all my parents will move their kids to some school that doesn’t.”

It’s a valid point. That would only plummet the district deeper into debt, as about $7,000 walks out the door with every kid who skedaddles somewhere else.

At a recent education conference, the keynote speaker suggested if the assembled administrators had any guts, they would cut out sports — and the hoots and hollers were deafening.

“Friday night football is a social event in our town.”

“Sports are the reason some kids stay in school.”

“I’d like to keep my job…and life.”

The laments were serious, but if we are serious about reducing the cost of education, which is more important: preserving what goes on in the classroom or on the gridiron?

Yeah, in Michigan, unfortunately, we know the answer to that.

Ah, Sweet Vindication
It was November 2001, one year before the Democratic primary for governor involving five hopefuls. In the hunt: a former governor named Blanchard, a former congressman named Bonior, two lawmakers named Peters and Smith, and the state’s first female attorney general named Granholm.

The quintet had agreed to do their first televised debate on Michigan Public TV, and it was not long into the broadcast that the subject of “experience” was raised by the anchor.

Of the five sitting there, Jennifer Granholm had the least. It was only four years earlier that she decided to take a shot at elective office for the first time, and now here she was trying to become the state’s first female governor.

She felt she had enough experience to be governor, but the woman sitting next to her came to a different conclusion.

State Sen. Alma Wheeler Smith had a ton of legislative experience, but when first asked if she felt Ms. Granholm had enough to be governor, Smith demurred. Unfortunately for Smith, the moderator had quotes from an earlier interview during which Smith did reject Granholm’s experience as insufficient.

Reluctantly, Smith confirmed that was what she said and, with Granholm looking at her, Smith in effect argued Granholm was not up to the task.

Suffice it to say, Granholm was not happy with the remark.

Fast forward to last week.

Gov. Granholm during a one-on-one interview conceded that one of her major “flaws and liabilities” in becoming governor was her lack of legislative experience.

Color Ms. Smith, now a candidate for governor again, vindicated.

Cherry the Alternative

by Gongwer News Service
November 13, 2009

Right now there are at least 11 people running for, or thinking about running for, governor in 2010, and in the last two weeks the one who has done the most interesting stuff in the still-nascent race is the one who already has a governor tag to his name: Lieutenant Governor John Cherry Jr.

Before reflecting on some of those developments, note how much more publicly intense already the election has become now that there is at least a temporary resolution to the 2009-10 budget and that the 2009 election is done.

On the Republican side alone a potential controversy involving Attorney General Mike Cox and the fallout from the investigation into an alleged wild party at the Manoogian Mansion in Detroit is brewing (and one lobbyist is already taking bets the issue will force Mr. Cox to drop out of the race early), Oakland Sheriff Mike Bouchard is starting to rack up endorsements, and Rick Snyder, a favorite candidate of top business people in the state, is becoming more aggressive in pushing his economic proposals.

Among the Democrats, House Speaker Andy Dillon (D-Redford Twp.) has said he will make a decision on running soon. The speculation on whether he will, in fact, get into the race has led Democratic discussions for some time. He has met with former political officials for President Barack Obama (leading to speculation the White House is worried about Mr. Cherry, something Mr. Cherry’s campaign calls useless rumors). There is no word about whether the White House has met Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith (D-Salem Twp.), former Rep. John Freeman and former Michigan State University football coach George Perles.

But while Mr. Dillon is speculating, Mr. Cherry has taken some significant moves to assert himself more forcefully as a candidate.

He says he will not formally announce his candidacy until early 2010. These days, however, a formal announcement of candidacy is essentially boilerplate to the fact that he is running and making himself a more difficult candidate to catch.

Early on, Mr. Cherry took aim at Mr. Dillon with a completely unsubtle attack on the speaker’s agreement with Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop (R-Rochester) on the 2009-10 budget. In an email message and web post, Mr. Cherry raised the question of what do Democrats stand for if not for funding education and social services.

Then, practically at the same time Mr. Dillon said he would make a decision soon on running, all four of the last Democratic speakers of the House — Bobby Crim, Gary Owen, Lew Dodak and Curtis Hertel — came together in a press conference to endorse Mr. Cherry. Intentional or not (and why would anyone think it was anything but intentional?), the move was a slap at their successor speaker. It was especially so, given the primary stated reason the four backed Mr. Cherry: experience. He has the experience to understand issues, they said, the ability to work with people, understand their needs and concerns, and work out needed agreements.

In other words, Mr. Cherry has what Mr. Dillon does not.

Mr. Cherry made headlines of his own, with a speech before the Lapeer Economic Club calling for a business profits tax. Should such a tax be enacted it would be one of the most significant changes in state tax policy since the state dropped a profits tax in favor of the value-added Single Business Tax (which was replaced by a similarly complicated Michigan Business Tax).

Okay, it’s fair to say business will always opt for no tax at all if it could get that option, but would they like a profits tax? After all the ahemming and hawing and timid comments about definitions of profits and rates imposed and credits allowed and devils and details and all that, the answer is damn tootin’.

So Mr. Cherry has held out an olive branch to business, and in so doing pointed out another difference between himself and Mr. Dillon. After all, it was Mr. Dillon who in the depths of winter called for the state to change its tax structure, and with another winter approaching what has happened with that call? Mr. Cherry has, at least, tossed out a possible tax alternative.

One last highlight from that Lapeer speech: Mr. Cherry said the current Michigan Business Tax could have been designed by “paranoid schizophrenics.” Now that does include Governor Jennifer Granholm, Treasurer Bob Klein and all the folks in the administration, but it also definitely includes Mr. Dillon.

And Mr. Cherry went further when he told reporters that he doubted the legislature could enact major tax changes, that it had become more risk averse than it was in 2007, and that a solution may come from the public that would go on the ballot. Again, while not specifically directed at Mr. Dillon, it was a criticism that gathered Mr. Dillon into its net.

One of the great ironies with these positions and actions is that Mr. Cherry is helping position himself as the alternative as well as the traditional Democrat. Remember, the knock on Mr. Cherry winning the nomination was that he would be too tied to labor and traditional Democratic interests. Mr. Dillon was the alternative Democrat, willing to challenge labor with his proposed health insurance reform for all public workers.

Mr. Cherry is approaching the alternative label in an alternative way, not by distancing himself from labor but by reaching out to business.

All in all, should Mr. Dillon get into the race, it will make for a lot more fun leading up to the August primary. Should it help Mr. Cherry win the nomination it should also help relieve Republicans who, after all, have spent all this time preparing for a campaign in 2010 against the lieutenant governor. No one wants to waste a lot of good campaign rhetoric in these days when everyone is preaching frugality.

For nearly 50 years in Michigan, Gongwer News Service has provided independent, comprehensive, accurate and timely coverage of issues in and around Michigan’s government and political systems. For subscription information, including a free trial, visit Gongwer online.