Hot air- the 87th District GOP debate

As I did with the live radio debate on WBCH, I offer to you my take on the recent forum for the 87th District State Rep. GOP primary inside the sweltering Thomas Jefferson Hall in Hastings on July 27, 2006. I figure I might as well start at one end of the table as they appeared that night and work my way down.

Mark Doster — I know some people disliked Doster’s appearance, considering he wasn’t even there to ask for anyone’s vote, but I felt different. While it was bothersome Doster took up valuable time in the forum if, as he even admitted, he’s not in the race to win, I was glad he showed up because at times he gave interesting perspectives and offered a sharp contrast between himself and the other candidates. Doster even had a “Jimmy Stewart moment” or two, especially when discussing the effects of poverty and lack of education and how it results in crime and a continued cycle of social neglect. If Doster really was in this race, I’d have to consider giving him my vote just for his understanding that the education system is a key ingredient in which we need a level playing field where we try to give each student the same tools to function in this society. To maintain our democracy, we must continue to fund this essential element. Too many of the other candidates fail to grasp this basic concept. Which brings us, most notably, to...

Tom Lower — While I found myself actually liking his understanding of the need for regulating farms as well as some statements on other issues, it was the cringe-inducing moments that lost me, like the several occassions when Lower cribbed his answers from the right-wing Mackinac Center and suggesting he supported “life from the moment of conception to natural death.” While I don’t argue anyone’s genuine belief in any particular faith, I have to wonder exactly where the rubber meets the road when a candidate says stuff like this. Obviously he means that he is against abortion and euthanasia, but also I would imagine Lower not supporting use of tax dollars to fund research using embryonic stem cells. Lower was but one of the people continually talking about “high taxes” and a bad business climate in Michigan while ignoring the fact that if Michigan continues to impose restrictions on medical and scientific research our economy can’t expect to see much improvement or advancement in the health sciences sectors the governor has been courting for the last few years. It’s another sign that a large number of Republicans wish to impose their own views of life and death on other citizens in his democracy as we saw when the national GOP shed all illusions of “natural death” when it sought to artificially extend the “life” of Terri Schiavo, a women who had been in a vegatative state for years and whom an autopsy confirmed had ceased any real kind of natural state of living many years ago when her brain filled with spinal fluid. The real gem came when Lower was challenged on his assertions in favor of private school vouchers. Though Hastings Banner editor David T. Young was rather boorish in his calling Lower on his ignorance, Lower was obviously shaken when confronted on his specious arguments in favor of public money for private schools. Indeed, as Young argued the reason private schools cost lesss per pupil to educate kids is that they can refuse special needs children, recent immigrants who can’t speak English, and others who require special attention. Also, private schools also don’t need to maintain the amount of facilities that public schools do since they don’t offer the same programs, and because of their smaller size, many private schools don’t need much in the way of administration which is often where bloated salaries can start to have an effect on the budget. Even more disturbing to me, was how many people I’ve talked to since that were impressed by Lower’s appearance. Maybe Calley doesn’t have the “lock” on Ionia some people have indicated here and elsewhere. After all, a certain amount of the local GOP primary vote is actually looking for a guy who thinks the way Lower does- let's hope they are a minority or they split their vote among the several wingnut candidates vying for this seat.

Brian Calley — He had a good performance and that was all I'm sure he thought he really needed — to not stumble or say something so horribly wrong as to cause a meltdown of his campaign — but Calley left the contest a bit more bruised and battered than before. Lower and Wade Trombley had a good tag team effort that seemed to take the perceived “front runner” down a peg or two. At times it was almost hard to see Calley sitting there but some of that may have come from being sandwiched between two of the larger people at the table or perhaps he was trying to avoid being noticed so as to not draw any more fire from his opponents. Calley also suffered from an unfortunate tendancy to “filibuster” and use each question to tackle a dozen issues, though in this regard he wasn’t as insufferable as Susan Vlietstra. And while Calley certainly gave some good answers — I think his answer on 911 was the best of the night because he noted that even if a State Rep can't legislate a solution to a problem he can at least play a role in getting both sides to come to the table— he also gave some horrible ones. Calley seems intent on killing the DEQ and was scornful of the need to regulate corporate farm pollution (his rather insane notion that pollution is economically unsound is a bit silly when you consider that it’s always cheaper to throw garbage in the ditch than it is to dispose of it properly- just ask anyone who has old tires or engine oil they need to dispose of). But he followed the Farm Bureau company line wonderfully and no doubt earned a treat from his masters in trying to claim he was looking out for small farmers when it’s the large corporate farms who have him at the end of their tight leash. Calley came off as a bit bothered that he was being challenged on all his PAC endorsements and his tactic to “take the high road” was a transparent attempt to deflect criticism of his big money backers as ”negative campaigning.” Lower even shoved the knife deep when he pointed out that Calley’s endorsements have come chiefly as a result of his loans to himself, which give the perception he has raised a lot of money, which helps fuel the perception of a winner, a bit like a bird who puffs up his chest to scare off the other birds.

Jim Bailey — At times Bailey seemed to be genuinely apologetic in the way he handled himself as County Board chair and came across as a sensible choice, but then at other times he came off as a typical right wing GOP loon. He endorsed the unpopular school voucher scheme rejected by Michigan voters just a few years ago, he seeemed intent on cutting taxes beyond the pale which is one reason Michigan is in the financial mess it’s in now. As Brian Reynolds correctly pointed out, quality of life is a big issue to companies relocating to other states and often plays bigger role than the base tax rate. Bailey’s continued attempts at convincing the audience of his notion that all Michigan needed was to lower our taxes even more was similar to a medieval doctor who sees the symptoms the patient has and prescibes a “cure” that will only kill the patient.

Wade Trombley — I just can’t understand why Wade considers himself a serious candidate in this race. Without some more meat on the bones of his campaign, he can’t ride this whole “I’m not a politician” schtick to Lansing. I’m not even sure it’s enough to get him home from Grandville. As with the others, I cannot support any politician who wishes to rob public education to set up a parallel system of private school madrassas which seek to educate kids about stuff they can easily learn at Sunday school. Michigan voters said loudly they saw the voucher system was a way for state Republicans to kill the teachers’ union (who just so happen to be a fairly reliable base of support for Democrats) and for religious fundamentalists to counteract the evil effects of a liberally biased education system which dares to teach children about evolution or that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Unless a new argument is drafted or opinion polls sway dramatically, this discussion is pretty much over. The most troubling thing about Wade is that despite his perpetual claim of not being a politician, he continually acts and sounds like one. In his Battle Creek Enquirer interview, Trombley stated "None of the other candidates have a clue what it means to make payroll and what it takes to make a business succeed," ignoring Brian Reynolds, who owns a local surveying company — part of a weird pattern where Wade seems distinctly focused on belittling or downright ignoring the Reynolds campaign. Even in his answer on why he ran, Wade ignores that Reynolds was already in the race and as anyone who has seem him can attest, Reynolds can certainly fill the bill as an atypical politician.

Susan Vliestra — At times, Vlietstra came off as intelligent, serious and credible but at other times she seemed to “green” and rambled on her answers in an unfocused way that would often seem to contradict her original statement. While Vlietstra did a good job on many questions (her handling of Fred Jacobs’ questioning of her campaign issues as listed on her original web site was succinct and damning, as it showed that whoever wrote that question probably had their opinion formed by reading my original criticism of her campaign when the filing deadline passed and had not visited it since or perhaps not even looked at it at all). Should Vlietstra be able to shorten her answers a bit and polish her resume a tad more, she could seriously contend for this seat down the road. And as one of those who has reasons to loathe Debbie Smith, I note that Vlietstra would surely make an excellent County Clerk and shouldn't wait for a retirement and the likely anointment that might alienate her from voters.

Brian Reynolds — As anyone who has been here before knows, I’ve already voiced my support for his campaign (and some of you supporting other candidates are no doubt sick of hearing it). Like the Lansing State Journal in their endorsement of Reynolds, I see Brian as the one guy who will go to Lansing with new ideas and new answers and who won’t be taken hostage by the various factions that seem to replace local citizens with pod people who do the bidding of the big money power brokers and get government to jump through hoops to further their agenda while ignoring the people who sent them there. We had this for six years with Gary Newell and it’s time for a change. That said, I was a bit disappointed that the Brian I’ve met face to face never seems to show up in these public forums. As anyone who has met him can attest, Reynolds is a vibrant personality with an infectious laugh who knows Michigan political history as well as anyone and who has a fierce passion in trying to improve government and make it work for people. Alas, what we saw on display was a Reynolds who perhaps wanted to set himself apart with short and sweet answers that after the night wore on only helped to give more time to others to ramble on at length. Reynolds impressed me the most as someone to support for his answer on the SBT. As I said before, the tax structure of Michigan is in the middle of states around us and is NOT a major factor in our current economic woes. As Reynolds correctly stated, should Michigan keep cutting taxes, we will end up being like Arkansas, unable to bring new business because no one wants to live here. The recent location of Google to Ann Arbor shows that liveable cities with highly educated workers and walkable streets with low crime are the biggest incentive to the businesses this state needs to attract to flourish. In fact, Ann Arbor’s high tax rate entirely disproves the notions advanced by candidates like Jim Bailey and his Citizens for Tax Reform agenda. We need someone like Reynolds who understands this. And, like the Lansing State Journal editorial board, I may not agree with all of Reynolds’ proposed solutions, but he’s the one I trust most to fix the problem and not be a part of the problem.

Having heard from all the candidates during two forums and having reviewed the campaigns, I think the voters of this district should take their best deal and vote for Brian Reynolds.

That's my opinion, now feel free to offer yours by joining the discussion in the comments section...