Monday, October 02, 2006

DeVos Granholm - Debate 1

Some good news and bad news. The good news is that this is only the first debate and that the debate does not affect my vote. The bad news is that the first debate was brutal. I'm not even going to spin this one.

I don't know how else to explain this. It was brutal and painful to watch, especially since I've seen DeVos speak several times in person - and have spoken with him several times. He's better than that. Much better.

It wasn't due to Granholm's not lacking any openings. She kept attacking, but led with her chin and was open to a good political counterpunch. DeVos should have countered with "We've had 4 years of your plan. It hasn't work. Here's my plan" and then go down the list with the plan right there. I expected all attacks as that's all Granholm had. She's done about as good of job running the state as Matt Millen has running the Detroit Lions.

I did not expect DeVos to beat Granholm (a lawyer who also went to acting school) in a TV debate. I did expect DeVos to rise above Granholm's slogans and attacks with more substance than was at the debate. What's worse though is that he HAS a plan, and did not mention it at the debate. I was waiting for the next step in the debate after "We need new leadership." Both candidates had too many dodges, too much politispeak, and not enough substance. I expected that from Granholm (all flash, no substance), but not from DeVos. I've see the other DeVos, and that's what the rest of the population needs to see.

I know it's easy to armchair QB, but if I was DeVos' debate prep team, I would just trash the slogans completely, be all business, and be himself at the next two debates - treating the crowd as 5 million Board of Directors members. Just be straightforward, no slickness, answer all the questions, and go forward with the Michigan Turnaround plan. That's just my own opinion.

There's two more debates to go. We'll see what happens.

19 comments:

armywife1 said...

I guess I have to agree. I thought he did a good job sticking to his talking points. He just needs to get mad and not be afraid to spar back. It is a really fine line because he can't "bully a girl". Tough spot.

I do think he should keep reminding folks that he isn't a polished lawyer.

Republican Michigander said...

" I thought he did a good job sticking to his talking points."

I agree, and think that was the problem. It reminded me of Bush's "It's hard work" and John Kerry's bad imitation of MacGuyver - "I have a plan!".

Defense wins championships, and I was expecting more counterpunches - especially when Granholm was hitting below the belt. DeVos didn't have to bully, but he didn't have to be as much of 'nice guy' as he was either.

Granholm did come off as an icy cold "rhymes with witch".

Curley Sue said...

Michigander, don't worry, the public saw Granholm as an icy cold witch too. That's the feedback I've been hearing anyway. She evaded the questions with non specifics and attacked his every answer with interruptions and screeching. It was a sight to behold for the DeVos team. We got to watch her self destruct. Beautiful!

Communications guru said...

Wow, a little honesty from dan, that’s a change. But the wishful thinking and other spin made up for it. So, we were really going to hear about the Amway guy’s secret plan? And darn Gov. Granholm for not buying more cars from the Big 3.

Calling the governor “a lawyer who also went to acting school” is funny. What does one have to do with the other? Clearly, the amway guy is not equiped to run anything, not even his trust fund.

Page Field said...

Devos speaks with too many platitudes. The governor is guilty of this too but atleast she gives some details. Devos has too quick staring into the camera. It instantly reminds me of Nixon and Kennedy 1960. Devos should be looking at Tim Skubick or Jenni. You only look at the camera directly for opening and closing remarks. His media handlers should be fired. Jenni had her gaze directed naturally, it was motvated naturally. Devos steely look into the camera was not becoming. Deer in the Headlights.

Big shocker was WZZM (Grand Rapids) polled 500 people and clearly had Granholm on top.

Pogo said...

DeVos turned in an unexceptional performance but he learns fast and I expect him to do better next time.

Granholm was obviously the more experienced of the two, no surprise here.

Granholm used the debate as a platform to launch vicious personal attacks on DeVos. Probably DeVos expected the debate to be somewhat negative but I think he was thrown off balance by the nastiness of the personal attacks. He used much of his time trying to defend himself from these personal attacks but would have done better to simply ignore them so that he could focus on presenting his ideas.

Talking to people and listening to the radio today I heard many people express shock over the viciousness and personal nature of Granholm's attacks.

Overall, I would not call DeVos a winner but Granholm was definitely a loser. Granholm forgets that these attacks appeal to the Democrat base, i.e. those who already plan to vote for her, but not to the independent voters that she should be courting. The real shame is that DeVos failed to capitalize on her mistakes by showing the clear contrast of their personalities.

bluzie said...

DeVos was plain and simple was awful. It certainly makes for a dull debate when you have one person with nothing to say but how dissappointing the other person has been. He was the huge disappointment. He couldn't debate! He wasn't up on the issues and could not articulate his plan or vision.

Communications guru said...

How is pointing out the amway guy's awful record a "personal attack?"

Keith Richards said...

It was a side of Granholm that the general public has not seen before and it definitely was not pretty. When a candidate refuses to debate the issues and instead resorts to nasty personal attacks it is a sign of desperation, not of leadership. After that performance I would not vote for Granholm in an election for dogcatcher.

DeVos did good for someone with no prior political or debating experience.

Communications guru said...

Keith, too many years on the road with Mick and the boys is still effecting your judgement. I’ll ask it again, since you and dan have a nasty habit of ignoring what you can’t answer, How is pointing out the amway guy's awful record a "personal attack?"

anonymous said...

The discussion here is just too funny.

I think for Halloween I'll dress up as an attack dog on drugs, with drool dripping down the chin of the Granholm mask.

And yes, it will be a female dog in a family way.

Communications guru said...

Shame on her for revealing the amway guy’s extreme views and sorry record. She must be a bitch.

Pogo said...

Granholm herself will top the attack dog costume. For the 31st she is going to dress up in black, put on a tall pointed hat, and go to parties as herself. She will be carrying with her a book of ideas to fix Michigan's economy and a bag of tricks, which will be used to distract voters from noticing that the book is filled with blank pages. And if someone asks her about doing nothing while hundreds of thousands of jobs have fled Michigan, she will blame Republicans as she explodes a handful of snap & pops and vanishes in the smoke.

Communications guru said...

Again, you're right. She should have bought more cars, and she made it easier and more attractive for companies to outsource jobs by failing to enforce the fair trade agreements.
She has a plan. Where's the Amway guy’s plan? A pyramid scheme, move to Communist Chinas or should we all have our daddies give us a company?

bluzie said...

The Governor showed DeVos who is boss. It's over, DeVos will lose and it won't even be close.

DeVos appeared to be a bit of a girly man. Isn't that a Republican term?

Big Kahuna said...

While it pains me to say so, DeVos did a poor job. He allowed the Gov to get him off balance and forced him to defend himself instead of articulating his points. However, it wasn't a knock out blow. The Gov showed that she can be mean-spirited and nasty. Also, I was amazed at how often she interrupted him. I would have politely told her to not interrupt and to give him the same courtesy he showed her. That scores big with the viewers. There is a reason why there are three debates. He was not prepared, but I am sure he is working on that now. He MUST stick to his plan and not let her bait him into a defensive posture. When he calms down he will do fine. I continue to believe the voters will respond to someone who articulates their plan, doesn't take cheap shots, and asks them if they are better than they were 4 years ago.

bluzie said...

Plan? What plan?
Please tell me his plan!
We all would love to hear it.

LiberalLucy said...

All that money, and Amway Guy still can't learn how to speak comfortably in front of the camera. He can't get on Joe Citizens level as hard as he tries, even after all three debates. His second performance was his best, and that's not saying much at all. I saw him at the Detroit Economic Club and he was much more at ease there speaking to 1200 of his crohnies (big money, big business, but you got to wonder how many Alticor/Quixtar folks were there??) than he was with a camera stuck in front of him. Even at the third debate, he was literally shouting at the live audience members. Poor, poor Dick. All that money and still can't connect with voters. Well, that and he's got a secret plan that no one will know till after the election...Michigan voters are smarter than that.

JHuck said...

This is the post that Michigan Straight Talk wouldn't allow to be posted on the McCain site. It is interesting to note who censors free and intelligent dissenting speach:




"McCain Booed For Gay Marriage Stance"

At 10:46 PM, Michigan Straight Talk said...

The family is the backbone of the American society, which we must preserve with one mother and father. We have a deep philosophical difference. These social issues need to be decided by the people as they are the ones that form communities. If enough people want the issue on the ballot, then by law, it is our democratic right to vote on it in November.

College students should show respect for other people's view points. There has been a growing trend in the liberal academia world that it is okay to use dissent to those that are different than you. I respect your opinion and disagree vehemently, but choose not to put you down or insult your intelligence.


At 9:30 PM, Jayhuck TRIED to say:

I am writing regarding a response of yours to a message I posted on your blog.

Its all fine to say that "the family is the backbone of society", but what does that really mean? And what is the definition of family? There are millions of families that have only one parent, and there hundreds if not thousands of gay parents. Add to that that there are thousands of "traditional families" that not only emotionally abuse their children, but physically do as well, and one has to wonder what the best kind of family for a child really is - after all, millions of gay people were reared in traditional homes.

Are you saying that single-parent families aren't deserving of the same protections as two-parent families? And what about the families WITH a husband and wife that give no love or support to their kids, or who abuse them outright? - Do you allow them to have all the rights and benefits of marriage, simply because they are a male and female couple? What about all the gay parents who do have kids, are they not worthy of protection? Are those families not worth giving equal rights to?

I'm sure you're definition of family is a limited one, and that is somewhat sad, because there are so many good and loving families out there that deserve these rights, and SO many families that have these rights that don't deserve them at all.

I'm sorry, but hiding discrimination under the guise of "we need to respect other people's opinions", or "we need to let the people decide (because we know a public largely uninformed about gay people will vote our way)" really only goes so far. I too will respect the right of a member of the KKK to voice his or her opinion on the topic of interracial marriage or African Americans in general all I like, but to say that kind of speech shouldn't be booed is another matter entirely.