I’m Just a Girl

by Susan J. Demas
October 1, 2010

Suppose I wrote horribly misspelled stories that messed up basic facts, like claiming that the Capitol is in Escanaba and the state constitution was crafted by elves.

And suppose I managed to get a gig as a pundit on TV and radio, where I would play the part of the resident airhead. I couldn’t tell you how much the state budget was worth or who the lieutenant governor was.

But I was young, blonde and had a decent pair of sweater puppies.

Naturally, people would question my qualifications — and not just the barely literate folks who spend their days leaving comments online in all caps.

But thanks to my role models, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell, I would know what to do: shout sexism as loud as I could.

Clearly, they would all be targeting me because I was a woman — and a pretty one at that.

You see, it doesn’t matter that Palin doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is and can’t name a single newspaper she reads. Armed with her naughty librarian glasses and leather boots, she urged her tea party minions to “refudiate” President Obama’s policies. That ignorant gaffe wasn’t greeted with chortles, no. The Weekly Standard, once a bastion of snotty conservativism under the late William F. Buckley, hailed Palin’s stupidity as a stroke of populist genius.

Why? Well, consider National Review columnist Rich Lowry’s reaction to the Alaskan Princess’ 2008 debate performance:

“I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, ‘Hey, I think she just winked at me.’ And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling, it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.”

Um, let’s just say Palin’s male fan base isn’t thinking with their heads.

Meanwhile, Palin’s dimple-faced protégé, O’Donnell, is the GOP’s new It Girl, down to her auburn hair and shimmery eye shadow. She has a long history of spinning interesting theories as a teevee personality, like shooting down evolution because “monkeys aren’t still turning into people” and arguing Bill Clinton should have been investigated for Vince Foster’s murder. O’Donnell also has declared war on masturbation (don’t tell Mr. Lowry) and mused that we shouldn’t call those with AIDS “victims.”

Conservatives heralded Sarah Palin as a big plus in ’08, bringing much-needed star power to Old Man McCain (although polling indicates she cost him a whopping 2 percent of the vote). O’Donnell, however, has the unfortunate luck to be running in true-blue Delaware, where most folks aren’t terribly concerned if their neighbor rubs one out.

Most Republican Party poobahs like Karl Rove backed her opponent, long-time U.S. Rep. Mike Castle (and all-around good guy), so their party could actually take back the Senate. When O’Donnell triumphed, Rove made the mistake of being honest on Fox News, declaring she was unelectable because of her “nutty ideas.”

Well, Sarah Palin had a conniption fit that Mr. Man would dare insult one of her “Mama Grizzlies” (although O’Donnell is single and cubless). Rush Limbaugh, the thrice-divorced feminist icon, jumped on the bandwagon and ordered Dittoheads to go “balls to the wall” for the Divine Ms. O.

Michigan tea party activist Wendy Day picked up the baton with this embarrassingly weak argument on The Detroit News’ new conservative spinoff, The Michigan View:

“They are beginning to think that Christine O’Donnell isn’t the great candidate we had hoped for. Frankly, I have no idea if she is a great candidate or not. But I find it frustrating that good ol’ boys like Karl Rove are trashing her because she may have been struggling financially and doesn’t have an Ivy League background.”

And there it is. Not even Day can tell you if Christine O’Donnell is qualified, but it doesn’t matter. Mean old men like Karl Rove are picking on her ’cause she’s a girl (and a Real American, to borrow a favorite Palinism). That’s just not right.

If this is feminism today, count me out.

I guess I’m just old school. I want to be the best I can be in my career. And I feel immensely lucky to be gainfully employed and have a wonderful family. The last thing you’ll hear me do is whine about how hard it is to be a girl nowadays.

It’s what conservatives used to call taking personal responsibility.

Look, I’m not naïve enough to deny that gender has affected my career. Does it help that I’m a relatively young (blonde) woman writing about politics, a field dominated by middle-aged men? You betcha.

But there’s also the fact that three months after I started my first newspaper job, I became pregnant with my first child. Nine months of morning sickness and assorted other delights followed, but I couldn’t let on to my editors about the horrors — lest I get stuck covering the quilting bee instead of the 9/11 memorial. While I was on maternity leave, the cute intern took my place and soon won the police beat I had wanted.

I’ve had a half-dozen wonderful male mentors and only one female. Competition amongst the fairer sex is fierce and few women really want to help their younger counterparts.

I’ve been paid less than my male colleagues with less experience at almost every job I’ve had. I’ve been treated to some lovely bouts of sexual harassment from several of my former colleagues and bosses. When I had a miscarriage several years ago, the only thing my editor wanted to know is if I’d have my Sunday package finished on time.

And you know what? It sucks.

In an ideal world, things would be different. God bless groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) that are still fighting the good fight.

Unfortunately, in talking with other women in journalism, I don’t think my experience is terribly atypical. So I decided a long time ago that I was going to concentrate on what I could control within my career, which has meant writing as much as possible, reading a lot of history and racking up a fair number of awards and fellowships along the way. It sure beats playing the victim a la Sarah Palin.

But that’s the difference between being a girl and being a grown-up.

Susan J. Demas is a 2006 Knight Foundation Fellow in nonprofits journalism and a political analyst for Michigan Information & Research Service.

Reckless Love Affair

by Susan J. Demas
September 1, 2010

Attention, teenage girls. Are you bored? Not sure what to do with your life? Do you want your boyfriend to marry you so you can live happily ever after?

Better yet, do you want to be popular? Have magazine covers devoted to you? Even end up on a kickass reality show and make lots of money?

Then go ahead. Have sex with your boyfriend. And whatever you do, don’t use a condom. Think of the beautiful kids you crazy kids will have.

It’s hard not to take away that message when you look at the life of Bristol Palin, 19, the eldest daughter of failed vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Even for those of us bored silly by the Alaskan apple-cheeked teen mom, it’s hard to get away from her with the constant stream of magazine covers and “news” stories.

Two years ago, Bristol’s pregnancy was inauspiciously announced in the middle of the presidential campaign. It was hard not to feel sorry for the then-17-year-old then and even her oafish high school dropout boyfriend having their poor judgment dragged into the national spotlight.

One had to wonder why Bristol’s parents and John McCain’s campaign would want to subject her to that. When I read that some McCain staffers were pushing a fall wedding to boost the ticket’s chances, my stomach turned.

But my, my, has Ms. Palin recovered nicely. First there were Us Weekly and People magazine spreads on the whole Palin clan. Thanks to her mom’s $150,000 campaign shopping spree, Bristol had a very stylish maternity wardrobe. Bonus.

After giving birth to her son, Tripp, she made a boo-boo and let it slip that abstinence isn’t really practical for teens (she should know). But as soon as the pro-abstinence Candie’s Foundation came knocking, she changed her tune. Now she makes up to $14,000 per speech telling teens not to get it on. And she appeared on some ABC Family Channel sitcom playing herself.

Not bad for a Wasilla girl with no college degree.

And now, by golly, she’ll be on “Dancing with the Stars.” No one has bothered to say why Palin qualifies to be a “star” (but then again, they’ve also enlisted some orangish reality teevee meathead who actually goes by the moniker “The Situation”).

But it’s clear why Palin signed on. She told the E! channel that she “wants to have fun in California for awhile.”

Awesome. One can only hope that Sasha and Malia Obama are taking notes. I’m sure the world will embrace a couple of African-American gals having babies out of wedlock and would never dream of blaming their parents.

Good thing the media aren’t actually reporting the facts on teenage pregnancy as they breathlessly detail Bristol’s fun and flirty wardrobe. That would be a bummer.

So here’s the deal. Kids born to teen moms are nine times as likely to be poor. Half of all teen mothers end up on welfare — three-quarters if they’re not married. Teen childbearing costs taxpayers more than $7 billion each year.

That’s right. If your mom isn’t the former governor of Alaska with a multimillion-dollar book deal and a contract with Fox News, you might not be on easy street if you get knocked up during your sophomore year.

But wait, there’s more. Babies born to teen moms are 21 percent more likely to be underweight and less likely to receive sufficient health care. Child abuse rates are 50 percent higher for teen moms.

And their kids do worse in school — they are 50 percent more likely to have to repeat a grade. So their chance of escaping the life of poverty you’ve so generously provided them is slim.

As for your life, well, forget it. Only one-third of teen moms get their high school diploma. And only 1.5 percent have a college degree by 30.

I haven’t seen the statistics, but I’m guessing your chances of appearing on a sleazy network teevee show are worse than winning the lottery.

If the tabloids and celebrity mags want to ignore this grim reality, that’s not a surprise. But when Politico, The Washington Post and Newsweek glorify Bristol Palin in the name of capturing more almighty page views, that’s a sad commentary on the state of the media today.

Funny, with as much as Sarah Palin whines about the awful liberal media, she never seems to mind the fawning coverage of her daughter.

So how would the Michigan media report on a governor’s teenage daughter getting pregnant? Honestly, I can’t see this being something the Capitol press corps would salivate over. Maybe some newspapers would play coverage high online, but that’s about it.

Actually, I could see some papers using it as the backdrop for an issue story on teen pregnancies. About one-third of all births are out of wedlock now. In some Michigan communities, that statistic is far higher — something of which groups like local United Ways are very conscious.

Out of fairness, Bristol isn’t the first rich teen mom the national media have glorified. There was Jamie Lynn Spears, best known as Britney’s younger sister, who got pregnant at 16 and graced several magazine covers. Cantankerous conservative Bill O’Reilly blasted her for destroying America, but declared everyone needs to leave poor Bristol Palin alone.

That’s been the message from much of the right-wing media, which fervently defend their own. Decades ago, conservatives would shame teen moms, who would often stay with nuns or relatives through their pregnancies and selflessly give up their babies for adoption. Now that teen pregnancy is so prevalent, even in the Bible Belt, the rules have changed. Right-wingers choose to celebrate young girls who show off their baby bumps because they haven’t had abortions.

So Bristol Palin is a hero. And she looks to have lost most of the baby weight.

Looks like I just found a new role model for my 8-year-old.

Susan J. Demas is a 2006 Knight Foundation Fellow in nonprofits journalism and a political analyst for Michigan Information & Research Service.

Children of the Spill

by Annie Scott
June 16, 2010

Here’s what’s going on in a land far away but not so far apart from the Mitten …

When I read Sarah Palin’s recent quote that the people speculating about whether she’s had a certain figure enhancement should “grab a shovel, go down to the gulf, volunteer to help, clean up and save a whale or something,” it was the first spill-related news that actually put a smile (okay, smirk) on my face. What a welcome change!

Every other new piece of information from the Gulf is worse than the last. “Depressing” and “disturbing” are inadequate descriptors for the gut-punch feeling invoked by the stories, videos and photos from the escalating catastrophe.

Go ahead and call me naïve, but I know something good will come eventually out of this gargantuan-scale tragedy. Something must, since we don’t appear to have gotten much wiser or more safeguarded against these situations by repeating our mistakes — largely substituting faith in new technology and acceptance of greased assurances, instead of demanding by-the-book safety and accident prevention regulations and legitimate preparedness plans.

At any rate, the newsclips really take me back to the event that largely inspired my tree-hugging passion.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska happened just before I turned seven. I have a pretty poor memory, but I clearly remember being horrified and somewhat traumatized by that disaster. I couldn’t get the images out of my head of all the various forms of innocent, oil-coated wildlife and the helpless looks on the clean-up workers’ faces. Even at that age, I remember feeling powerful sadness, anger and exasperation at how much was destroyed and how long it took to clean up the area.

Later, still haunted by those pictures, I wanted to learn more about ways to keep another oil spill from happening and how to better protect the animals and environment if one did. I read every word of 50 Simple Things Kids Can Do to Save the Earth and tried earnestly to figure out how many I could implement. These marked the first steps in my quest to Make A Difference (how cute!) and learn about how humans interact with the environment.

I never forgot that oil spill or the images burned into my brain. I had a child’s simplistic wariness of oil drilling. Oil Drilling = Bad! Exxon = Bad! Oil-Free Animals = Good! Nuance need not apply.

I wasn’t the only kid so deeply affected by the Exxon spill. It made such an impression on my significant other that he chose to do his big sixth-grade science project on simulating the effects of an oil spill on a beach ecosystem. A Southern California native and avid beachgoer, he was extremely motivated to learn more. In time, we both pursued environmental education and a green career path.

The Exxon spill was also a recurring topic in my college environmental classes. I couldn’t help but wonder if maybe all of our shared interest stemmed from the impression that spill left on us at such a formative age.

Another vivid memory is from our annual family vacations at my grandparents’ Santa Barbara home. Every walk on the beach was followed by a mandatory, painfully brisk foot scrubbing to clean off all of the sandy tar that would accumulate on the bottoms of our feet. I had a lightbulb moment when someone explained that the beach tar was a result of the oil drilling that happens a mere six miles off the coastline of Santa Barbara. (Not knowing better, I figured that was how all California beaches were. I must say, it always made it even nicer to go home to the Great Lakes.)

Of course, Santa Barbara and Southern California are no strangers to oil spills. In 1969 there was a massive spill from a Union Oil platform off the coast of Santa Barbara. Until the Exxon-Valdez spill, it was the largest such accident in U.S. history. Touched off by a failed maneuver similar to the one that started the current Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, the 1969 accident leaked roughly 100,00 gallons into the Santa Barbara Channel. It caused so much environmental and economic damage that it led to a moratorium on new offshore drilling and is often credited as a major catalyst for the U.S. environmental movement. It even inspired the first Earth Day.

All the accidents and eyesores from the Golden State’s on- and offshore drilling over the years have turned many California residents and politicians firmly against new oil drilling projects. But desperate times (like a crippling state budget deficit) can do funny things to politicians and public opinion.

Last July, as a way to boost California’s revenue (including a nice $100 million upfront payment), Governor Schwarzenegger proposed expanding drilling in part of the Tranquillon Ridge oil field, just offshore from Santa Barbara County. In exchange for the rights to expand drilling for the first time in decades, the developers picked up support from some local environmental groups by offering a “deadline” for when they would stop drilling.

Though defeated by the state legislature, the hot-button and highly politicized proposal still had Schwarzenegger’s support…until May 3. Apparently it was the pictures that did him in, too. Citing the BP spill, the Governator said at a news conference: “I see on TV the birds drenched in oil, the fishermen out of work, the massive oil spill and oil slick destroying our precious ecosystem. That will not happen here in California, and this is why I am withdrawing my support for the T-Ridge project.”

That’s a start.

What other good can come from this?

The other day I was trying to imagine how today’s children are viewing the menacing leak that just won’t stop. I wondered how they’re responding to the constant, alarming videos and pictures.

We’ve all heard about Malia Obama’s plea to her dad to plug the hole. And I am holding out hope that something this devastating is powerful enough to inspire a new generation of environmentalists and lawmakers who are driven to protect the earth and can resist letting myopic “Drill, Baby, Drill” temptations set their priorities whenever oil inevitably skyrockets in price.

Who knows, maybe this disaster will inspire some kids to create a science project. Maybe one of them will even come up with an idea BP could use to greater effect than the nonsense it has tried to date. (At this point, when they’re enlisting Kevin Costner as an expert, I’d suggest they keep looking at new suggestions.)

Who knows, maybe some of these kids will even go on to study environmental engineering and design safeguards that actually prevent future spills. Maybe some of them will run for office on the platform of mandating such safeguards.

Who knows, maybe they’ll even save a whale or something.

Annie Scott lives and works in San Diego and sends dispatches back to her beloved Michigan.

Granholm Reflects on Palin Act

June 4, 2010

70 million and one viewers watched the V.P. debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin on October 2, 2008. That “one” had a huge vested interest as she watched intently from her Lansing home with her hubby and friends gathered around the tube.

Periodically there were shouts: “We anticipated that!” “He nailed that!” “We practiced that!”

As everyone now knows, days earlier Governor Jennifer Granholm had actually been impersonating Gov. Sarah Palin during Mr. Biden’s prep for the debate of his life.

Now that it’s debate season again and the bestseller Game Change is out, the authors talk about the Michigan governor’s role in all this. But they don’t reveal the whole story. Now, for the first time, she does.

At first, the governor, who has been on the national stage more than any other Michigan chief executive, treated it like any other gig.

“It didn’t quite hit me how historic this was until we arrived at the hotel and saw the amazing set-up. Then it became really clear that this was very historic,” she reflects.

Team Obama created an exact replica of the debate stage, down to “every inch and color.” Granholm remembers it as “breathtaking” when she sauntered in for five “intense” days of debate prep.

First, the Obama folks drilled the governor in a pre-prep prep against a fake Biden.

The ultimate competitor, Granholm was on her game. The authors of the book report she “glutted herself on YouTube videos of Palin’s Alaska debates.”

“I became a Palintologist,” the stand-in reports, and authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann write, “The result was a perfect Palin: charming, folksy, disciplined, flirty…and mean.”

Granholm confirms, “We were tougher on him in practice than Palin was in the actual debate.”

She went to school on both Palin and Biden. She learned that one of his soft spots was his family, and when Granholm/Palin made cracks about his son Hunter’s lobbying history, “Joe turned defensive.” And when Granholm “dangled bait by playing dumb, he turned scornful and chauvinistic,” the authors contend.

Initially, campaign insiders David Axelrod and David Plouffe were “scared.” If he couldn’t beat Granholm, what would Palin do to him?

As some 40 persons looked on, Granholm did practice questions in the morning and two full dress run-throughs each afternoon and evening.

“It was also a challenge,” the governor reveals, “to be tough on Joe Biden, ’cuz he’s such a nice guy, but we had to prepared for all possibilities.”

But why Granholm?

“I was the only other woman governor with kids still at home. It wasn’t that difficult a stretch to go from ‘basketball mom’ to ‘hockey mom.’” Plus Biden’s Chief of Staff, Ron Klain, had been a classmate with Granholm at Harvard Law School. Need more be said?

The governor, a consummate Democrat, admits the “toughest part at first was parroting all of the standard Repub lines convincingly! I’m pretty sure I said ‘maverick’ a lot.”

But when the debate was over, Mr. Biden was on the horn to his sparring partner.

“We laughed at how we had anticipated so much of the debate,” she recounts. “He had to be knowledgeable but not patronizing, not defensive, gaffe-free, and gracious. He succeeded on all counts,” the stand-in concludes.

But they did miss one thing, Ms. Granholm sheepishly admits.

“I didn’t anticipate that she would wink so much.”

What a hoot. How could this governor winker have possibly missed that?

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)

Larry the Lobster
John Engler had his nickel. Pete Hoekstra has his penny and Mike Cox has his lobster.

Symbolism counts for a lot in political campaigns.

Recall that when candidate Engler ran for governor the first time, he carried around a five-cent piece, and whenever the issue of property tax relief came up, out came the nickel to demonstrate the weekly savings on incumbent Jim Blanchard’s property tax relief plan.

Current GOP candidate for governor Hoekstra carries a penny in his pocket and whips it out to prove he can “make a penny squeal,” which is just another way of saying he is a West Michigan tightwad.

And now you’re probably wondering what in the world GOP governor candidate Mike Cox is doing with a lobster suit.

He intends to use “Larry the Lobster” to taunt Mr. Hoekstra.

If you’ve been watching the tube, you’ve seen the reference in the recent Cox commercial to the congressional money that went to a lobster institute in Maine. And, sure enough, the ad contends Mr. Hoekstra voted for that.

Never mind that “tightwad” Hoekstra has an explanation. Cox is fixin’ to sic this “symbol” on his opponent and perhaps “claw” him to death with the imagery.

Now the Cox folks will not confirm any of this, but let’s just say it would not be appearing in print or on the air if it weren’t so.

Of course, how you use the lobster can be a dicey issue.

Do you ask Larry to show up at the docks on Mackinac Island for all the big shot business leaders disembarking for a leadership confab this week?

Do you ask Larry to work the crowd at Hoekstra events beginning this week as Hoekstra and Newt Gingrich rally near by?

Or do you just ask the lobster to weasel his way into a photo opportunity with Hoekstra, which most assuredly would end up in another Cox TV commercial?

This could get interesting and nasty, depending on how the Hoekstra team responds. Do they try to escort the lobster out of the rallies and make a scene for the TV cameras?

Which raises the question, does Larry have free-speech rights?

Not So Favorite Son
Oakland County’s favorite son turns out not to be much of a favorite in the contest for state attorney general. This is not good news for the Mike Bishop for A.G. campaign, which continues to play second fiddle to front-runner Bill Schuette on the GOP side.

In the latest polling data (from The Rossman Group, The Perricone Group and Denno Noor Research), which are not statewide but focused only on Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties, undecided wins in a landslide, with 42 percent of the folks in that column. No big shocker there, since finding a replacement for Mike Cox is not exactly making headlines these days.

Nonetheless, you would expect that Mr. Bishop, who has served Oakland County in both the House and Senate, would gobble up more than the “whopping” 19 percent he got from his home county. Schuette, who did not grow up anywhere near Oakland County, is within striking distance at 12 percent of the Oakland County tally.

However, it is not all bad news for the “favorite son.” With hardcore GOP voters in those three areas, Bishop rounds up 33 percent of the vote to Schuette’s 20 percent. And that finding is significant in that those hardcorers (if that is a word) are the ones who will pick the A.G. nominee at a GOP state convention this August.

On the gender front, Bishop does better with males as 45 percent of all female voters sit comfortably on the fence.

At this juncture, to be frank, any polling is not only a snapshot, it’s probably no indicator of the outcome, because the candidates are not vying for the public’s attention. They need delegate support, since those are the ones who will pick the winner.

BTW, the lone Democrat, David Leyton, who defeated Richard Bernstein for that party’s convention nomination, beat both of the Rs — by a 29-17 percent margin over Bishop and 29-9 percent over Schuette.

Leyton is the Genesee County prosecutor, in case you’re wondering who the heck he is, too.

Know Nothing Journalism

by Susan J. Demas
December 1, 2009

A few weeks ago, I covered Sarah Palin’s pop-star-worthy greeting by more than 1,000 screaming fans gathered in Grand Rapids for her first book signing.

It was quite the media event, evidenced by the fact that “Access Hollywood” was on hand. MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell was embedded for some reason at that fated Barnes & Noble (remember when we used to have ethical debates about reporters who covered real news, say those stationed with troops in Iraq?). She happened to interview one of the Palinites camped out, a 17-year-old swathed in a top with a cartoon that read: “The U.S. government spent $700 million on the Wall Street bailout and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.”

O’Donnell asked the young woman, who said her name is “Jackie” and is apparently an intern with the Michigan Republican Party, if she was aware that Palin supported the bailout. To be charitable, Jackie did not have a clue. But she, like everyone else with a pulse and a grudge, has a blog, so she turned an episode that should have made her want to study harder in school into an excuse to bash the “liberal media.” Naturally, right-wingers at The Weekly Standard and Newsbusters.com chivalrously came to the dim-witted damsel’s defense.

Personally, I think this episode demonstrates the pointlessness of man-on-the-street journalism. Most people, even the politically engaged, are staggeringly ignorant of public affairs. So what do we really learn by interviewing people who can’t find Afghanistan on a map about how many troops we should send there? Perhaps only that our educational system is worse than we thought.

I wrote my weekly political column on the Sarah spectacle (how could I not?) and was treated to my fair share of motley e-mails from her admirers. When one reader yawningly accused me of being a no-good liberal Democrat for failing to see the brilliance of Palin and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (and, yes, she managed to misspell their names), I remarked that they were heirs to the Know Nothing Party.

The gentlelady was ebullient at the clear evidence of my bias, as she determined that I had just slandered the collective intellect of the GOP. After I advised her to explore the history of the 19th century Know Nothings, best known for whipping up irrational nativist and anti-intellectual fervor, I never heard back.

In today’s fragmented media, my fan could slap her disjointed thoughts together in a website that nets millions of hits — with a bit of help from well-placed links on The Drudge Report, of course. At the very least, she can post her comments after my column and there they likely will remain unfiltered, unless they’re particularly vulgar.

That’s all well and good and is heralded by some as the democratization of the news. My curmudgeony position on this is well established. We have a handful of active political blogs in Michigan, all of which are rabidly partisan, that can be entertaining and occasionally informative. Now the Associated Press is down to a two-person Capitol bureau, to the detriment of all citizens in this state, who now know even less about what their employees are doing in Lansing. So do I believe any of these blogs will fill that void?

Well, no. I make a point not to drink until after my column is done.

I’ll cop to having fun at bloggers’ expense, mainly because of their utterly predictable, over-the-top reactions like Pavlov’s dog. The mainstream-media-sucks meme is a staple of blogs, both right and left. Odd that they can dish it out but can’t take it.

But what has actually disturbed me is the uncomfortable parallel between some of these blogs and the luddite defenders of Mrs. Palin.

RightMichigan.com dismisses anything in the Detroit Free Press (which they rip as the “Ivory Tower”) as naturally being liberally biased. I suppose that derives from the fact that it used to be a Democratic rag back when there were seven newspapers in Motown and their respective politics were nakedly woven into every story. Those days are long gone. The Freep now has a vaguely center-left editorial page, although anyone familiar with journalism knows there’s a wall between that and news.

Not surprisingly, Democrats, particularly Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Attorney General candidate Gretchen Whitmer, are generally dismissed as whacko. The same can certainly be said for Republicans on the liberal sites (as well as their public enemy No. 1, House Speaker Andy Dillon, who, yes, is a Dem). Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop (and his coy aquamarine eyes) is routinely pilloried as the anti-Christ.

Fine. There will always be a place for partisan carnality. But blogs lose me completely when they stoop to trashing experts just because they don’t espouse the correct beliefs. On Michiganliberal.com, the smartest people in the state — those committed to seeing it succeed — are idiots. Tom Watkins, Phil Power, Jack Lessenberry — morons all.

Watkins, the former state superintendent who sounded the alarm years ago on the benefits crisis breaking K-12 education, is an internationally renowned consultant who travels to China as often as Michiganders escape to Chicago. Alas, he is routinely ridiculed as a “Very Serious Person” for having the gall to support Dillon’s public employee health care reform.

Power is the former HomeTown Communications magnate now spending his fortune on the ultimate good government project, the nonpartisan think-and-do tank, the Center for Michigan. He, too, is a VSP, although he can be somewhat forgiven, as he slammed Bishop in a recent column.

Lessenberry is Michigan’s most prolific journalist over the last four decades who has won an Emmy for his reporting on Jack Kevorkian. Although MichLib eagerly links to Lessenberry for his frequent fisking of Republicans, the site savages him for his praise of Dillon and criticism of Granholm. It’s amazing how Jack is utterly brilliant when he agrees with the blogger boys, but evidently downs stupid pills whenever he doesn’t. Such sophisticated analysis.

I understand that blogging is romantically viewed by some as speaking truth to power. Go for it. But that’s not what’s at work in mindlessly deploring those with impeccable credentials who constructively contribute to the political discourse (as opposed to flamethrowers like Glenn Beck) because they’re “wrong” on an issue.

Sure, everyone needs to vent. Just don’t expect folks to buy that Tom Watkins, who has written hundreds of pages of research on educators’ benefits, is less learned on the subject than some dude with a computer and a political ax to grind against Andy Dillon. That, too, is Know Nothingness on display.

Some of the finer qualities of liberalism, I’ve always thought, are a thirst for knowledge and diversity of thought.

It would be sad to see that crushed by the Information Age, right alongside civility.

Susan J. Demas is a 2006 Knight Foundation Fellow in nonprofits journalism and a political analyst for Michigan Information & Research Service.

Thanksgiving Postscript

by Tim Skubick
November 27, 2009

There’s a good reason why political columnists rarely offer up anything remotely connected to Thanksgiving: there is so little for which to give thanks.

Should everyone be rejoicing at the professional manner in which lawmakers and the governor resolved this year’s budget?

Or better yet, should we be thankful that they took two weeks off for hunting season and Turkey Day because, as the old saying goes, if they aren’t in town they can’t do anything to harm you?

You get the point.

However, now that you are feasting on leftovers from the TG feast, let’s see if it’s possible to write a thanksgiving postscript.

Thank you to Sarah Palin. She has provided a nice distraction from the gargantuan health care debate, two wars, and the sorry state of the economy around here.

1,500 souls showed up to buy her book in Grand Rapids, and by media accounts the turnout was enough to launch her bid for the White House in four years.

A little perspective please: Michigan has nine million people who did not go roguing, and that mere handful of Palintologists does not a movement make…media accounts notwithstanding.

Thanks to the Gang of 44 in the Michigan House. After spending almost 10 months in hibernation, this freshman class has shown signs of life as it tackles a rewrite of how we fund our schools and pushes a long overdue effort to revamp the state’s gawdawful term limits law. To be sure, they have not produced any results, but their heart is in the right place even if the votes, so far, are not.

Thanks to House Speaker Andy Dillon. Not for his proposed rewrite of the state’s health care system, but for providing the long-running “Will-He-Or-Won’t-He-Run-For-Governor saga.” He and his minions have managed to keep the thing alive for months, but the end is in sight, for which we can also be thankful.

Thanks to Governor Jennifer Granholm for scrubbing the holiday parties at the executive residence this year. The time-honored tradition dates back to former Gov. William Milliken, who was so enthralled by having the Capitol Press Corps over to the house that he had his staff flick the lights on and off precisely at 7 p.m. when the bash was scheduled to end. This governor, of course, would never be so tacky, but she could use the rest as she prepares to enter her final year in office.

Thanks to former Gov. John Engler, who is secretly plotting to influence the outcome of the next race for governor. What’s a political dogfight without the ultimate in political dogfighters sticking his nose into the fray while reports circulate that he and his wife are looking for a new home back here.

Thanks to the Senate Republicans for teaching our children that the word compromise is a four-letter word and that it is better to avoid seeking the middle ground on anything if it damages the GOP chances of winning the next election. Kids, don’t do as they say…compromise in the legislative process is not a dirty word.

And finally, thanks to those political bloggers who add to the discourse and manage to do it with total disregard for any journalistic standards, including pursuit of that little thing we call the truth. You make the rest of the media look pretty good…which in and of itself is quite an accomplishment and something to be thankful for.

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)

Biting Off a Lot
Talk about a mouthful.

For months, this lawmaker and that have chatted about revamping the state’s tax system. Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith is tired of all the talking and took matters into her own hands this week.

She wants a graduated income tax.

She wants to close $3 billion in tax loopholes.

She wants a sales tax on services and a new state sales tax rate of 5.5 percent instead of 6 percent.

And when she has nothing else to do she wants to wipe out the 22-percent business tax surcharge.

In other words, she wants the moon, the sun and the stars and, unfortunately for the Democratic candidate for governor, she is not likely to get any of it by her self-imposed deadline of January 31.

But give her credit for trying and having the guts to announce that state government needs more revenue…about $6.5 billion more.

Her biggest hurdle, of course, is rounding up the votes from House and Senate members to pass all this stuff, not to mention convincing you to support the graduated income tax if it makes it to the November ballot next year.

Her second biggest hurdle is fighting off the opposition, which will be strong, loud and well financed.

“This is not going to be an easy sell, but it’s a sell that has to happen,” Smith argues.

“It looks like its dead on arrival from my standpoint,” counterpunches Chuck Hadden, who runs the Michigan Manufacturers Association that includes the major automakers.

Smith’s assignment is to “educate” citizens on why all this money is needed. She can’t do it in a 10-second sound bite, but the opposition can. It will say Lansing wants to take $6.5 billion in new money out of your pocketbook. End of story.

You can see who has the easier job trying to “educate” the citizenry.

But Smith is not conceding defeat. There’s plenty of time for that later on.

Did She Really Say That?
There is one common trait among avid hunters. They are so passionate about the sport that occasionally they lose touch with reality. Just ask Rebecca Humphries, who for the last five years has been the governor’s Department of Natural Resources director.

Nobody knew she had this problem until the news guys at the MIRS newsletter interviewed her the other day.

Ever since lawmakers decided to take two weeks off for hunting season and Thanksgiving, they’ve taken some well-deserved heat for not showing up in town. Think school funding crisis, economic mess, and college kids screaming for their $4,000 state scholarship…all of these placed on hold for this two-week traditional break.

The governor has been relatively mild in her public rebuke saying, “Lawmakers should come back” and work on these issues. Dollars to donuts that in private she is seething.

Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing) has been more blunt. “I am appalled and disgusted” by this time off.

Enter one Ms. Humphries, who proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that she’s from another planet.

Asked in the interview about lawmakers taking time off to hunt, Humphries opined, “It is part of our heritage…I hope we never see a day when the legislature decides deer hunting isn’t important enough and so they just stay in Lansing and continue their business.”

Ah. Hello. Earth to Humphries.

Deer hunting trumps doing the citizens’ business?

This is not a close call. Lawmakers who hunt could do it on the weekend. OK, maybe let them go on opening day if it falls during the workweek, but after that it’s back in the saddle.

The DNR director has, on balance, done a respectable job. So maybe she (1) had an off day; (2) was misquoted; or, perish the thought, (3) really believes that stuff about hunting being more important than lawmakers working for the people first.

Let’s go with number three.