Friday, July 16, 2010

The debate (Joe Hune v Paul Rogers)

Full Disclosure: Joe has my vote.

You can find the Argus article there and the debate.

I was at the Joe Hune v Paul Rogers debate last night. It was a different format than usual, and I thought it was a good format. Mike Mallot and Rich Perlberg asked a bunch of questions and then followed up on questions with opportunity for rebuttal or comments from the other candidate. It was a more loose format than usual debates.

It was generally peaceful with few attacks. Joe dug at Paul's conservatism at the end, and Paul dug at Joe being part of the legislature, but that's the only thing that some would consider negative. Both candidates mostly concentrated on the issues and what they said they were going to do, or what they have done.

The debate was a contrast of styles. One thing you can say about Joe Hune. You know where he stands. I've known Joe for years, and he has a very low tolerance of bullshit. He says what he means and means what he says. He'll also say where he screwed up, and he did on the film credit bill. Paul Rogers on the other hand was tougher to pin down on issues, especially fiscal issues. I've heard the tax answer of "last resort" one too many times. Jim Blanchard said that and raised them. Jennifer Granholm "did not want" to raise taxes. We know what happened. They went up. Paul supported the tax increase for Howell Cityscape.

Joe's big comment. Reign in Spending. Private sector creates jobs, not government. Government needs to get out of the way.

Paul campaigned heavily on his leadership and not being recently in Lansing.

On the governor's race, Joe is leaning towards Bouchard. Paul is deciding between Hoekstra or Snyder.

With the WALLY train, Paul supports the concepts (and did on City Council). Joe doesn't support the subsidies. Paul talked about concerns of subsidies.

Both oppose the big government smoking ban. Both oppose gay marriage.

Paul mentioned the 10th Amendment prominently referring to the health care bill which both Paul and Joe oppose.

Joe mentioned his support of the 2nd Amendment, referring to threats from the UN Small Arms treaty proposals. The previous version of the treaty had registration concerns as registration leads to confiscation. What Joe should have mentioned more is that it takes only one more judge and enough senators to ratify a bad treaty. That's the threat.

The biggest reason I support Joe is that I know where he stands, especially on fiscal issues. I don't have to worry about Joe caving on tax votes or fee increases if a Granholm or Rick Johnson pressures him.

4 comments:

Communications guru said...

“He has a very low tolerance of bullshit?” He was sure slinging a lot of it, like the black helicopters coming for his gun, and he didn’t know the movie incentive package included a rebate.

You mean Joe's big, tired talking points: “Reign in Spending. Private sector creates jobs, not government. Government needs to get out of the way.” Blah, blah, blah.

As for WALLY, Hune doesn’t want to subsidize mass transit, but he will continue – at least in theory – to subsidize roads.

The workplace smoking ban is not about “big government” it’s about protecting public health. They are both on the wrong side of that issue.

The bottom line was Hune was in Lansing for six years – four of them when his party controlled both the House and Senate – and he did little more than show up. He certainly offered no solutions. That’s really the only thing Rogers, with the exception of WALLY and taxes, got right. Since 2001 we have had structural budget deficits, but he has no structural changes, like changing the tax system to keep up with the changing economy. Privatize prisons? Please.

He needs to stop spending so much time with teabaggers and spend some time with the mainstream.

蔡舜娟蔡舜娟 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
俊宏淑松 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
錢靜怡錢靜怡錢靜怡 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.