Monday, November 06, 2006

One last thought before you vote

So I've been keeping an eye on the TV ads that have been coming out for this election. Given that I used to be looking into a career in broadcasting it's been something of interest for me. But anyways, I've come to notice one thing about Granholm's ads. And I think it's one of the main reasons why we have to vote for DeVos.

The focus of Granholm's ads are around DeVos and his business practices at Amway. This is except for her ad in regards to abortion (which I've already proved to be irrelevent). Not once does Granholm make a legitimate attack on DeVos' platform. It's all about China, how much he's invested overseas, how many jobs he's cut in Michigan. Stop and think about that for a moment.

I don't know what's all behind the China deal or any of the other business practices made by DeVos. But let's assume all of Granholm's attacks are right. DeVos sent jobs to China and cut employment here to save a buck.

The fact of the matter is DeVos made all his business decisions based on the economic of Michian. The economic state Granholm helped make. DeVos' position at Amway meant making the best deicisions for Amway. So if anything, the attack ads by Granholm are pointing out an example of a company leaving Michigan because of better business opportunities elsewhere. Because Granholm couldn't help get Michigan's economy working well, the people in charge of Amway had to move their business elsewhere.

And if these attacks on DeVos are right, then that makes him an even more prime candidate for governor. He would know WHY his company moved to China and what factors would have changed that decision for his company. I would imagine those reason would transfer over to many of the other businesses that left Michigan.

So if Granholm is right and DeVos' company sent all these jobs over seas, then I think DeVos is easily the best candidate for governor. He knows why companies are leaving our state. And we haven't even brought up all he did for Grand Rapids as part of the economic development committee (and I've heard nothing but good things in regards to what that committee did). So I would like to thank Jennifer Granholm. She's pointed out to me why it's so important to improve our economy. Jobs are being sent outside of our state. Who better to get to the root of why than someone who supposedly did that very thing?


Anonymous said...

We can complain all we want about her ads. The point is though.... they are clearly working. I think the real question is why the people bought what she was selling?

Anonymous said...

In my view, because Devos is the least impressive Republican candidate the party has fielded in my lifetime. He just never seems to be able to stay consistent on an answer to anything, and it's really hard to not feel like he's just throwing money at the campaign in hopes of buying himself a victory.

Sutpen said...

Hey Dan- Just so you know, Dick DeVos was the CEO of Amway/Alticor from January 1993 to August 2002. However, Governor Granholm didn't enter office until January of 2003. So all those problems that you cite, the ones that supposedly caused Amway to move its operations overseas, were caused by Republican Governor Dick Engler who was in office from Jauary of 1991 until January of 2003. Just thought you should know-

A.J. said...

Hey Sutpen- just so you know. Engler's first name is John, not Dick. Just thought you should know.

Sutpen said...

You're right, AJ. Engler's first name is John, not Dick. That's my fault for typing too fast, but luckily my mistake was immaterial to my argument, unlike Dan's imaginary time line.

Anonymous said...

how is the argument relevant? whether granholm or engler was in office, devos did what he thought was best for his company. Even if Dan doesn't have all his facts right, sutpen's argument doesn't negate Dan's main point.

Dan Roth said...

So maybe my timeline is incorrect. All that negates is that DeVos' actions taking place during Granholm's time in office. But the main arguement is still valid. According to Granholm, DeVos made business decisions that were negative to Michigan jobs. He made business choices based on the economy (which liberals are so quick to blame Angler for). So my arguement that getting someone who knows intimately why jobs are going overseas is still valid.

And if DeVos was in charge of Amway during the time frame you've stated, then Granholm's latest ad where she presents a teddy bear bought from Amway also becomes a joke. Because if I recall, the ad suggests they just bought it from Amway. But I'd have to check the ad to be sure.

Dan Roth said...

P.S. Why is it every time I blog here it starts a firestorm?

Anonymous said...

Because you brought it on yourself. For too long, the WMU Republicans have lived in a world of ignorance, this is a glimpse into reality - Welcome my friend.

A.J. said...

You know what "anonymous"? We really don't care if you think we have been ignorant or not. Seriously. But ask yourself; who's ignorant? Is it the Michigan electorate who reelected a governor who's driven us to the worst unemployment in the country? Is it the the people that wanted to vote out artificially constructed equality in favor of true equality? Or maybe it was the people who returned a senator to Congress who has done nothing but vote to raise taxes and rename a federal building. This vote was about one thing: equating all Republicans with George Bush, Tom Delay, and Jack Abramoff, and nothing else. Why didn't they attack their opponents and their records? Because their plan to demonize the Republicans worked, and the Republicans had no counter.

Anonymous said...


First, please keep in mind that not all "Anonymous" are the same person. Given that people have suggested elsewhere that they know who "Anonymous" is, I wanted to point that out. You can call the electorate ignorant if you want. As I have commented to the Pissed off Republican Student, however, it suggests you have no faith in democracy at the fundamental level and think people who feel differently from you are somehow less educated or less sophisticated. The logic leads you to dictatorship my friend. There is no other path. The Republicans lost because their national and foreign policies are in tatters. The American people recognized this and it probably helped Democrats in some of the governor's races. All I will say is that DeVos was a very unimpressive candidate, unable to answer direct questions put to him and one who could only talk about how bad things have been under Granholm. Whatever he may have had on his website, he never once laid out a coherent plan for Michigan’s recovery beyond simply saying taxes on business have to be lowered. He lost the race not because the electorate is ignorant but because he came across as someone with a hidden agenda. And finally, your last point is totally hogwash. I am still waiting for one of you to post a blog repudiating Bush’s equation of a Democratic victory as a victory for the terrorists. That is the game of politics my friend and you better be dammed the Republicans did it just as well all across the country! The Republicans had no counter because they could not counter. The Republican Revolution is over and the party is limping away. The results are clear: bigger government, bigger deficits, and a weakened American abroad.

A.J. said...

1. Why don't you identify yourself?

2. I never said that a win for Democrats is a win for terrorists. Howard Dean has had some real zingers over the past couple years- can I equate everyone on the left with him? Bush said something stupid, and I disagree with him. (That's called intellectual honesty, by the way)

3. What hidden agenda are you speaking of? Oh, well I guess you don't know what it is, since it's hidden. Maybe he thought he could make a real change. Why do people demonize him just because he has money?

4. Are you denying that the Democrats ran a campaign saying things like "a vote for (insert Republican here) is a vote for Bush"? I hope not. I'm not saying it's dirty, just saying it was effective, and the Republicans were ineffective in combating it. Can you name a Republican anywhere in our state that said that a vote for the Democrat was a vote with the terrorists?

5. Why do you always derive something outlandish from what I say? I say I'm mad at the electorate, you say I want dictatorship. How are those connected?

6. This is my last comment on the subject. Can we move on and argue about something else now?

Anonymous said...


1. Does it matter one way or the other?

2. I never said you said that either. The titular head of the Republican Party did, however. I also disagree with all such ads, regardless of who runs them.

3. This was my observation of DeVos. You are right that I cannot say what such an agenda might have been but that's not the point. My point is that politics is perception and DeVos (to me and many I spoke with) came across as hiding something. Based on the turnout numbers, it seems many people you would have expected to support him did not (perhaps because they were also not sure where he stood). You may suggest I feel this way because he has money. I would suggest that his being wealthy is simply correlated with his political platform and my rejection was of that platform and not his having money.

4. Of course not. Are you denying Republicans ran ads saying a vote for Democrats is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and all she stands for? Whether or not any in-state Republicans may have ran such ads, I confess I do not know. My focus was on the national elections and not on races in Michigan, which were not expected to change hands (and indeed did not).

5. That's where such statements lead in the end. If you are beholden to the opinion that the electorate is not competent enough to decide what it wants, you are saying it is not competent to decide at all. Read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.

6. Sure. What's the topic?