Domino's Pizza Inc. CEO David Brandon will head Republican Dick DeVos' campaign to unseat Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm.
What bothers me about the Domino Pizza/DeVos alliance are these few lines at the very bottom of the article:
The pizza chief will be overseeing the first Republican gubernatorial campaign in two decades to have its own field staff rather than relying on the Michigan Republican Party's, said DeVos campaign manager Greg McNeilly.
"We are going to have the most mammoth political structure anyone has ever seen. And David's the head of it," McNeilly said.
The GOP is pulling out all stops to unseat Granholm, and they apparently find the Michigan GOP lacking. What bothers me is the fact that once again our political process is being tainted by money and big business. Candidates no longer get elected because they're the most qualified, but simply because they had the best campaign money and influence could buy.
It might be time for Michigan voters to consider BOYCOTTING Domino's Pizza and send the CEO a message: Big business and politics don't belong in bed together.
UPDATE: Here's some more background on David Brandon that I received from Matt over at Michigan Liberal:
Brandon also happens to be a MAJOR contributor to the Republican party, Republican candidates, and causes...including Southfield million dollar megachurch preacher Keith Butler. Last year, Brandon explored the possibility of running for the U.S. Senate himself (he decided not to). Perhaps a reason he didn't is that he'd have to take a bit of a pay cut: in 2003, Brandon reportedly received $5.8 MILLION in salary, bonuses, and other forms of compensation.
MORE: Christine Barry lists some of DeVos's fellow Amwayans, who also happen to be Abramoff associates as well:
George W. Bush
Rick Santorum
Tom DeLay
Bob Ney
Grover Norquist
Ralph Reed
This list tells me everything I need to know about DeVos and the direction he'd take Michigan: "Corruption is Us" will become the new state motto.
9 comments:
I just want her out !!!!!!!
I'm not 100% sold on Granholm either, but you have to admit she's been blocked every step of the way by a very hostile state Republican party. Granholm also inherited a state headed into decline thanks to Engler's mismanagement, and she's had to govern under national conditions that exacerbated our state's problems.
On the other hand, I'm not comfortable with billionaire DeVos who was so willing to ship jobs over to China. We have to ask ourselves if this billionaire will represent his constituents (the little guys) or his big business alliances. The fact that he and his party are pulling out all the stops and pushing aside the Michigan GOP to get him elected worries me.
Besides, what has DeVos really done for Michigan workers? The measly number of jobs he created hardly compensates for the billions of dollars he's made.
I'm not 100% sold on Granholm either, but you have to admit she's been blocked every step of the way by a very hostile state Republican party. Granholm also inherited a state headed into decline thanks to Engler's mismanagement, and she's had to govern under national conditions that exacerbated our state's problems.
I would add that she has been mostly in over her head from day one.
She is governor, first and foremost, because she was a popular one-term attorney general who beat a lieutenant governor who was a weak candidate before he was ever saddled with Engler's baggage. And she was only attorney general because then-Wayne County Executive Ed McNamara ensured that she would get the nomination at his last state Democratic convention for a position that -- before Mike Cox -- had been held by Democrats for at least 40 years (37 by Frank Kelley), through Democrat and Republican administrations alike. Before that, her only public position was as Wayne County corporation counsel. Granted, that's no small job, but it's hardly substantial preparation to run the state.
When Granholm's most memorable policy proposal of the last four years has been "Cool Cities," that's a function of more than just an uncooperative Republican legislature and less than ideal national conditions. After all, it's going to take a lot more than a cool city (like the one I live in now) to lure me back to state where I was born and raised.
Like, say, economic growth that is sustainable over the long term and that recognizes that traditional industry, an essential element, will never be the whole solution again.
Say what you will about your misgivings about DeVos; that's fair, after all. But Granholm has shown me absolutely nothing to instill confidence that she has any kind of workable plan for long-term recovery.
Exile, I'm pressed for time today so I can't get detailed, but I plan on blogging more about Granholm later and mention some of the accomplishments I've seen during her term in office.
It's no secret that I tend to cheer for the underprivileged and poor, and in that respect Granholm has been a champion. She stood up to our mean-spirited legislature when they tried to put a lifetime limit on welfare benefits. Granholm put them to the mat and threatened a veto unless they changed it to reflect those people like the mentally, emotional or physical challenged who faced starvation if welfare time limits would have been enforced.
I'll write more later, but to get back to DeVos. This is what the media quoted him as saying recently: "The problem with Michigan's economy is that Michigan workers are paid too much."
That just about sums up his agenda. He is too aligned with corporate America to be trusted with our troubled economy in Michigan. His answer will be to send the rest of our union jobs to China.
One final thing, to take a page from the GOP play book, Michigan is better off with what we have now (Granholm) rather than the unknown (DeVos). Wasn't that the line the GOP gave us when it was Bush vs Kerry?
Let Jenny have another shot at it. Besides, we'll have a new president in 2008 and hopefully a more honest, ethical and balanced House and Senate this year. Those two changes alone could improve the situation in this country and pull Michigan along with it.
Exile, I'm pressed for time today so I can't get detailed, but I plan on blogging more about Granholm later and mention some of the accomplishments I've seen during her term in office.
That's fair, and I look forward to reading it when you get around to it.
When you do, though, might you reflect on not only the social welfare issues, but also on the broader economic ones. You've shown me your misgivings on DeVos (and they are hardly surprising); show me how Granholm is working to make Michigan competitive again. After all, if this year's midterm elections follow your prediction, that's just one less excuse Granholm and her supporters could use for cover.
One final thing, to take a page from the GOP play book, Michigan is better off with what we have now (Granholm) rather than the unknown (DeVos). Wasn't that the line the GOP gave us when it was Bush vs Kerry?
Perhaps in some cases, but the way I looked at it was that Kerry had not made the case to me - a Republican - for why I should give him my vote (futile though that action may be in this city). So, it's not quite the same thing and I don't think I would have made that argument to anyone who didn't already lean in my direction or, for that matter, to someone who was a citizen of another country and had no vote at all.
Besides, I don't have a horse in this race; I have been a registered voter in Massachusetts for over three years and don't have any plans for a permanent return, however remote (though I sorely want to sometimes). But, it does pain me to see the state where I lived the vast majority of my life continue to lag economically. (Michigan was the only one of the fifty states to lose jobs in 2004, a dubious distinction for which Granholm will likely have to answer this year unless the 2005 numbers are materially better.) So, if you could consider that when you argue for Granholm later, and show me not only how she has grown into this role, but also what concrete steps she has taken (with or without the legislature's cooperation) and what measurable effect those steps have had, I'd be in your debt.
In an interesting postscript to this discussion (and in light of your description of Governor Granholm as a "champion" for the poor), I asked the Lady Exile how her father feels about Governor Granholm. As you probably know, the Lady is a liberal from a predominantly Democrat family. This is not surprising, since her father is a benefits manager for the Family Independence Agency (or whatever they have since re-named it) for a southern Michigan county.
As I'm sure you imagine, he loved Jim Blanchard, and his office never wanted for much of anything in those days. By that same token, the name "Engler" is all but a dirty word in their house for obvious reasons.
His take on Granholm: He's lukewarm. While she has been more generous to his agency than Engler was, he thinks her spending priorities are out of whack. He figures, for example, that the state's purchase of laptop computers for elementary school students are a good thing - or they would be - if the welfare budget wasn't still more reminiscent of the Engler administration than that of his predecessor. I don't often agree with him (especially on budget policy, though he's a great guy), but I do see his point here.
In any event, I thought you might be interested in a little reporting from the trenches on the welfare front.
Exile, thanks for giving me the views of someone who works in the welfare trenches. I agree that the Granholm administration has not done enough to beef up the welfare budget. However, I think its a miracle she's accomplished what she has in that area. The Republican leadership in Michigan (and the nation) are so hell bent on ending entitlements for the poor (in order to divert the funds into corporate welfare) that its next to impossible to get them to vote on increases - let alone agreeing to leave levels where they are.
I have to say that I'm only lukewarm about Granholm too, but I do think she's a better fit for our state (which I will blog about later). Would I like to see a stronger candidate? Sure. I'd like to see two better candidates!
Ask yourself this question. Why does a billionaire like DeVos want to run for governor? He's not Bill Gates who really cares about improving people's lives and health. He doesn't have any experience in government, unless you call influencing Washington in order to gain favorable trade legislation for his company experience. In fact, the only reason I see a billionaire like him running for office is to gain the leverage to wheel and deal for all his connected friends and cronies.
Sorry, I may sound jaded, but the GOP left a bad taste in my mouth when they crawled into bed with big business. In fact, the Democrats are showing signs of being in bed with the rest of them too. How else to explain the fact that no one is listening to what Americans want?
I'm sure Granholm wheels and deals too, but she's also taken time to care about the little guy along the way. She appears to have more integrity than most. DeVos hangs out with the elite of the corrupt.
BTW, there must be some interesting conversations in your household with you on the right and Lady Exile on the left!
DeVos simply never said "Michigan workers are paid too much." Try looking something like that up, instead of blindly reposting from Christine Barry. As far as "shipping jobs to china?" Check that one out too, it simply didn't happen-not one job was shipped, driven, flown, or generally moved. A suggestion: try to make arguments that don't rely completely on rants from other bloggers, who themselves simply string together long lines of party-line lies, innuendo, and guilt by tangential assosciation.
Anonymous defender of Devos, I posted an answer to your questions hereif you care to read it.
Thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment