« Sustainable Grand Rapids | Main | Who I am »
Michigan 2006
February 16, 2005
I hear rumblings around Ann Arbor and from a couple friends in Grand Rapids that Granholm is amazing. That’ll she’ll win big in 2006 b/c she can speak so well and knows what she’s doing.
Speaking from a political and campaign standpoint, I clearly think she’s facing an uphill battle. Michigan is tied with Alaska for the highest unemployment in the country. That in itself will be THE deciding factor in the next election. Her Cool Cities initiative has disappeared from the news lately (thankfully). Her focus on “Fix It First” has alienated many West Michigan voters (not me, by the way, nor many farmers). While her current approval ratings are above 50%, I don’t think that will last long come campaign time. When people start hearing the “jobs lost” mantra, she’ll take a nose-dive.
I know it’s somewhat early to be thinking about it, but it’s upon us. Republicans are making themselves known as candidates: State Senator Valde Garcia, also a US Army vet and State Rep. Jack Hoogendyk have declared. Dick DeVos has been mentioned as another male contendor, and Terry Lynn Land, current Secretary of State, and Candice Miller, former Secretary of State have both been mentioned as possible candidates.
Personally, I love her “Fix it First” program, and I hope the US 31 bypass is permanently sidetracked. But, I think the Cool Cities program is a joke (doesn’t declaring something cool automatically make it not cool?).
And I recently heard that she introduced much more bureaucracy to the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, essentially reducing its effectiveness in retaining and/or attracting business (this came from the head of a local economic development group). The MEDC is now much slower because of increased staffing and paperwork. NOT what we need when trying to attract jobs. Supposedly, there are a couple make-or-break job events in the works right now. If they fail, Governor Granholm will as well.
In this day and age, winning an election is highly tied to the economy, and, if Michigan continues the way it is… well, she’s screwed.
Posted by paul at February 16, 2005 10:28 PM
Post a comment
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.meermacatawa.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/60
Comments
Brian Ryckbost said on February 17, 2005 11:43 AMI too have heard some talk about Granholm here and the conclusion here is that most people love here. for some reason, I just can't get over the fact that she has a mole the size of a penny on her face. it really botheres me. I dont have much to say on the political end because I have'nt done any reserach yet, but. . . that mole, it -uhh- needs to really be removed or something.
zac said on February 21, 2005 04:20 PMI like Granholm. Mostly because I find her far more inspiring than any Michigan Republican I've heard from so far.
It's true – the Cool Cities initiative makes the cities uncool. But I like the idea behind it. The grants are good, the thrust of it all is good. They just shouldn't put up "cool cities" signs. Let the government fund it from the background, so each area can develop itself without being declared cool but decidedly uncool people (50 yr. old politicians).
Brandon said on February 25, 2005 01:02 AMYeah, but the economy was in the shitter before she took office... it's deindustrialization, baby. And "Cool Cities" is a good thing, however solid or not the theory and (lack of) funding behind it are, especially after Engler's long tenure of completely ignoring our core cities. And I think our lack of many really attractive and livable cities is one key reason why so many of our educated young people move off to New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, and Austin. But on the other hand, voters are idiots and will blame her administration for the economy of Michigan, when maybe they should be blaming much larger global processes. She's got little to work with, you realize.
I know you're a Republican and will probably vote that way, but do you really think any of those candidates are truly going to be better for the future of our state than the (severely constrained by fiscal crises and political deadlock) governor is? More good has happened (modest as it is) in terms of good planning policy during the past few years than anytime over the previous few decades. "Fix it first," MLULC (the average Republican governor you're gonna get in this state is NOT going to even consider "sprawl" an issue), "Cool Cities," legislation regarding land banking and regional planning enabling that she signed... she doesn't have much to work with here, but this is surely a hell of a lot better direction than Engler's veto of the DARTA!
And yes, the f-ing "Cool City" signs (and name?) need to go... they're in Ypsi, Jackson, GR... every damn city I see. At least Detroit has been smart enough not to put them up (at least that I've seen yet)...
Dean said on February 27, 2005 09:51 PMPaul,
Brandon said on February 27, 2005 10:15 PMThis is completely off-topic, but I was wondering if you or your classmates had been following the Kelo case before the Supreme Court. It seems like something that would be particularly relevant to those interested in urban planning, since it could possibly reverse Poletown, or severly broaden the opportunities for eminent domain. I would be interested to hear if you have any insights about it.
Dean, Poletown was actually reversed last year by the MI Supreme Court... yeah, this case is essentially Poletown at the Federal level, though. And yes, planners are watching it closely...
Dean said on February 27, 2005 10:31 PMMy bad, thanks for the clarification Brandon.
peter said on March 3, 2005 09:49 AMkeeping in mind that I don't know shit about shit, I'd say Granholm's reelection chances will hinge quite largely on the presence or lack thereof of a convincing opponent. Not unlike our little presidential extravaganza this year. I can see her winning but we've got some time first too.