Does Michigan Matter in the Big Political Picture? How About Economics?
|
||||||||||
| Printer Friendly Story View |
Michigan could be the home of Rodney Dangerfield.
This state just doesn't get no respect.
Michigan bashing seems to be a favorite pasttime of pundits and TV comics alike.
The Big Three, GM, Ford and Chrysler, get pummeled regularly. State subsidized foreign auto companies get the spotlight, and the sales, while our government kicks the Big Three when they're down.
The other day one political strategist on national TV even blamed Gov. Jennifer Granholm for a tax that was ended before it began. Either he didn't know, or didn't care, that his facts were wrong.
Then, the Republican Party scratched off the names of half the state's delegates to the national convention.
And the Democrats erased all the delegates from Michigan.
The reason? Michigan didn't follow the rules and dared to try to get in the way of Iowa and New Hampshire's lock on early primaries.
We have said before: what the heck does it matter that Michigan's primary comes a week after New Hampshire and two weeks after Iowa?
To be sure, Michigan has been getting some more or less positive headlines in the news media.
And Mitt Romney says if he's elected the one-state recession (meaning Michigan) will be over.
That statement presupposes the President of the United States has the power to wave off globalization, trade imbalances and unfair international competition by government subsidized foreign companies.
If that's true, why wouldn't either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush have made sure the nation's most important industrial state was preserved?
The destruction of Michigan's economy, almost gleefully watched by economic gurus and political ideologues alike, is a self-destructive act to the nation's industrial infrastructure.
Now we're told it's all been the fault of the workers. They should have worked for less, not been unionized, not have benefits like adequate health insurance, unemployment and worker's compensation.
Who do you suppose granted those benefits? Management, of course, because everybody was making money and why stop the train?
Some would accelerate the race to the Third World for Michigan and their motives are not entirely clear. Without a strong industrial base in Michigan our national security is at risk. These policies need to be rethought, in my opinion.
Michigan will vote, sort of, next Thursday, Jan. 15. The nation will be paying some attention but a meaningless cameo primary may make us look even stupider than we already have been made to look.
The Michigan politicos behind the early primary may have the last laugh. The whole primary system may be changed, and Iowa and New Hampshire will no longer have their publicity stranglehold on the nation's politics.
Pundits say if Hillary Clinton doesn't get at least 60 percent of the Michigan Democratic vote next Thursday it will show weakness.
Jesters are having a ball with Hillary's claims that her eight years in the White House as First Lady qualified her to be President. If that's so, they say, then Deanna Favre, wife of Brett, is qualified to be quarterback of the Green Bay Packers. And the pastry chef who spent more time in the White House than Hillary perhaps should be the next President.
Supporters of Barack Obama and John Edwards are urging their compatriots to vote "uncommitted."
Romney needs to win big in Michigan to have a chance in future primaries against John McCain.
The former governor of Massachusetts seems to be the only political figure willing to stand up for Michigan.
It's time we in Michigan got together, Republicans and Democrats, to fight back before it's way too late. I've been to Third World countries but frankly, my dear, I'd rather be in Michigan.###
| Printer Friendly Story View |
|
|
Dave Rogers |
|
|
|
Printer-Friendly Story View
0200 Nd: 04-22-2024 d 4 cpr 0
12/31/2020 P3v3-0200-Ad.cfm
SPONSORED LINKS
12/31/2020 drop ads P3v3-0200-Ad.cfm