|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 57 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 25 of 57:
| 
Apr 8 01:48 UTC 2002 |
Larry didn't say Bonior is "vastly superior". He prefers him, but is
quite clearly saying that their differences aren't so huge. If
Granholm gets nominated, Larry will be campaigning for her. He's
trying to avoid exactly the kind of divisiveness that has lost the
Democrats the governorship many times. During the primary season,
Democrats are supposed to campaign each against each other. But they
are also supposed to all end up supporting one candidate come election
day. Larry did point out some of the specific things about Granholm
that he was less than thrilled with, including weakness on internet
free speech issues.
|
polygon
|
|
response 26 of 57:
|
Apr 8 01:59 UTC 2002 |
Re 24. There is nothing wrong with having a vigorous primary campaign.
So far, this one has been quite civil, and I do *not* see polarization
or enmity developing among the camps.
The Democratic Party is more varied and less disciplined than the Republican
Party -- that's why Democrats have more primaries.
|
bru
|
|
response 27 of 57:
|
Apr 8 14:29 UTC 2002 |
the thing is, Granholm appeals to both republicans and independents as well
as to democrats. None of the others do.
|
gull
|
|
response 28 of 57:
|
Apr 8 14:58 UTC 2002 |
Re #24: You can't vote 'straight' anything, this election. Well, I
guess you can, but you have to do it manually. There are no straight-
ticket votes.
|
polygon
|
|
response 29 of 57:
|
Apr 8 20:02 UTC 2002 |
Re 27. If Bonior didn't appeal to independents and Republicans, how
has he managed to win again and again and again in a 54% Republican
district, over furious and very well funded opposition?
Of the five people running for governor -- Jim Blanchard (D), David Bonior
(D), Jennifer Granholm (D), John Schwarz (R), Dick Posthumus (R) -- it is
the likely Republican nominee, Posthumus, who is conspicuously lacking in
crossover appeal.
If the Republicans wanted to win, they'd nominate Schwarz, a moderate who
is liked and respected across the board. But the powers-that-be want to
punish him for the heresy of supporting McCain. That's why Schwarz is
being frozen out of money sources, party events, etc.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 30 of 57:
|
Apr 8 21:03 UTC 2002 |
I thought the Secretary of State was going to go for the Republican
nomination. I'm glad to hear they're nominating Posthumus like good little
fanatics, because it means they've got a good chance of losing the
Governorship.
|
polygon
|
|
response 31 of 57:
|
Apr 8 21:18 UTC 2002 |
Re 30. No, no, they got her out of the race by promising a congressional
seat.
Republicans I know are all very glum about Posthumus's chances in the
general election.
|
jp2
|
|
response 32 of 57:
|
Apr 8 23:50 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
senna
|
|
response 33 of 57:
|
Apr 9 01:03 UTC 2002 |
No surprise there, Larry (at least they're realistic), but then if they have
that sort of perspective, why are they giving him all the money? :)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 34 of 57:
|
Apr 9 02:52 UTC 2002 |
Re #32: Dick Posthumus. No, really.
Re #33: Engler owes him, is what I've heard. Larry will probably know more.
|
jp2
|
|
response 35 of 57:
|
Apr 9 03:21 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
senna
|
|
response 36 of 57:
|
Apr 9 07:52 UTC 2002 |
Another amazing example of party politics gone wrong, except this time the
reps will pay for it. I'll probably vote dem just to get a different party
in the governor's seat, and it really helps that the candidate pool is much
stronger than it has been the past couple of elections.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 37 of 57:
|
Apr 9 13:26 UTC 2002 |
Plus, Posthumus is farther to the right than Engler. As in religious right.
|
polygon
|
|
response 38 of 57:
|
Apr 9 14:33 UTC 2002 |
Re 33. The Republicans who talk to me are not running the party. :-)
|
russ
|
|
response 39 of 57:
|
Apr 9 22:32 UTC 2002 |
I'd feel a lot better about having a Democrat in the governor's
mansion if the candidate wasn't a bought-and-paid-for lackey of
the labor unions. The union's picks are about as lively and
colorful as Dick Posthumus (who's he again?) and have nearly as
much independence from the left's agenda as Posthumus has from
the right's. 'Sides, the candidates who pass the union bosses'
litmus tests have barely a chance in the general election; they
have trouble beating Geoffrey Feiger in the primary!
If the Republicans don't like Posthumus' chances in the general
election, they can always ditch him in the primary. To do
anything else reveals a party death-wish, but I expect that the
likes of Dick DeVos (sp?) would rather have a loss if they don't
get a candidate who meets *their* litmus test.
|
polygon
|
|
response 40 of 57:
|
Apr 10 05:55 UTC 2002 |
Re 39. In Democratic primaries and other intraparty contests, I often
find myself (along with other pro-reform folks) supporting one side, with
the labor unions supporting another. Yes, too often labor endorsements in
recent years have gone to weak and inoffensive candidates, and the 1998
gubernatorial primary was just the most dramatic instance of that.
But Bonior is the exception that explodes those stereotypes, and he has
gotten support across the board, including from those of us who are often
exasperated with the UAW. He's pro-labor, sure, but he's not anyone's
"bought-and-paid-for lackey". If he were, I wouldn't be supporting him so
strongly in the primary.
Republicans don't like primaries and don't like upsets. When the party
establishment makes a selection, the other candidates come under pressure
to drop out. Those who refuse are ridiculed and ostracized, and usually
lose badly. On those rare occasions when the insurgent wins the primary,
it's generally either due to Democrats crossing over (McCain over Bush in
2000), or because the establishment candidate was insufficiently right
wing (Knight over Lumm for state rep in 1998).
|
richard
|
|
response 41 of 57:
|
Apr 11 02:28 UTC 2002 |
I dont think you have to get "bought and paid for" to get a union endorsement,
thats a stereotype polygon and others buy into. Polygon do you assume that
a union endorsement means deals have been made? Not to say that doesnt
happen, but even if deals are made it doesnt mean "bought and paid for"
those are pretty harsh words. Is Alma Smith bought and paid for because
she cut a deal to potentially improve her chances of being lt. governor?
I don't think its fair to labor unions to assume they arent necesarrily
looking for the best candidate, but the one who will most clearly do their
bidding. Indeed, as many candidates have found out in the last two decades,
the union bosses cant always deliver their rank and file anyway. You can
be pro-union without cutting deals. And if Bonior had been running on
a statewide level all these years instead of running in one district, in
Michigan, maybe he'd have the history with the unions that Blanchard and
Granholm do. The unions are a political force, you have to deal with
them. Doesnt mean you have to make deals.
|
senna
|
|
response 42 of 57:
|
Apr 11 03:40 UTC 2002 |
I don't think that's what Larry is saying at all.
However, it should be noted that richard is from Georgia and lives in New
York. Larry lives in Michigan and got a degree in Detroit. I'll leave it
to the audience to discern what potential differences there may be between
the locations, particularly relating to unions.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 43 of 57:
|
Apr 11 04:12 UTC 2002 |
They can also take into account the fact that Larry's been involved in state
politics for some ten years.
|
senna
|
|
response 44 of 57:
|
Apr 11 11:38 UTC 2002 |
Oh, I thought that went without saying. :)
|
polygon
|
|
response 45 of 57:
|
Apr 11 12:40 UTC 2002 |
Probably richard didn't notice that I was quoting russ.
|
polygon
|
|
response 46 of 57:
|
Apr 11 12:52 UTC 2002 |
Also, richard has some strange notion that running in a Macomb County
district full of auto workers, as Bonior has all these years, doesn't give
a person "history with the unions," as he puts it.
I didn't even suggest that a candidate getting a union endorsement
involves making any kind of deal. I myself have gotten union endorsements
from time to time, and no "deal" was involved.
That being said, I'm convinced that these endorsements carry next to no
votes at all. They don't give a candidate anything that he or she didn't
have already. Union members are quite independent, and I think better
informed about candidates than nonunion members of similar age and
education.
On the other hand, if you get an endorsement from a labor union, you might
get some campaign money from them.
|
russ
|
|
response 47 of 57:
|
Apr 12 04:16 UTC 2002 |
I take richard's cluelessness as a given.
|
senna
|
|
response 48 of 57:
|
Apr 12 05:53 UTC 2002 |
The devotion of the unions to the democrats is one of the most peculiar event
paths in the history of politics.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 49 of 57:
|
Apr 12 19:08 UTC 2002 |
I'mnot sure what time frame you are considering, but it doesn't seem
at all peculiar to me for the past few decades given the business
devotion to the republicans.
|