Feb 16, 2010

Rightwing newspaper continues to trash Michigan Democratic Gubernatorial candidates


We know one thing for certain, the conservative Livingston County Daily Press & Argus will not endorse the Democratic candidate for Michigan Governor in November whoever it is.

For the second straight day the rightwing editorial page has taken shots at the Democratic candidates for governor. On Monday it said Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero its second shot at him in less than two weeks – should not run because he was just reelected as Mayor, and today it gleefully editorialized on the decision of former state Treasure Bob Bowman to drop out of the race.

Monday’s editorial came from the Lansing State Journal, another newspaper in the corporate change, but since it ran in the P & A it’s obviously their position, too.

Monday’s editorial on President's Day was titled “Lansing mayor should stick to the job he has.” Now, some city residents might have a right to grumble about that, but the situation has change significantly since he was elected a few months ago. The decision by Democratic front-runner Lt. Governor John Cherry to drop out of the race last month change the dynamic.

The editorial takes the Mayor to task for saying he had no intention for running for Governor, and that was true then, saying “When Virg Bernero ran for the mayor of Lansing last year, most voters didn't expect him to run for the governor a year later - partly because he promised them he wouldn't do that.”

The charge seems even more ridiculous when you consider every single Republican gubernatorial currently holds elective office but one. Take Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard, for instance. The former state Senator left that office in 1999 before his term ended to take the vacant Sheriff position, and he was elected to the post himself to serve until 2013. But that did not stop him from running for U.S. Senate in 2006 when U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-East Lansing, kicked his ass. Where was the Gannett chain editorializing that he should not run because he made a commitment to the residents of Oakland County then?

Now, he’s running for Governor. When can we expect that editorial from the P & A?

Today’s snarky editorial was titled “GOP hopes must be rising as more Dems sit out race.” In the same edition that the news that Bowman dropped out of the race ran, over a holiday weekend, they have an editorial prepared already.

The insulting lead is, “Will the Democrats have anyone left to run for governor this fall?” The answer is yes, and we have the best candidate from both parties, and his name is Virg Bernero.

It goes on to say, “That leaves two announced candidates for the Democrats, state Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith, D-Salem Township, and Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero. Neither appears ready to mount a strong statewide campaign.”

More misinformed crap from an editorial board that did not even know state Sen. Hansen Clarke, D-Detroit, had dropped out of the race. The fact is Bernero has already mounted “a strong statewide campaign.”

Obviously, the newspaper has abandoned all pretenses of being neutral, fair and nonpartisan.

15 comments:

Johnny C said...

For those who support Virg Bernero(myself included) this gotta be the first clear sign that the forces on the far right in this state are worried. Usually the right wing don't take time out to attack people if they don't view them as a legitimate threat.

And if Bernero secures the nomination I would love to see how Bouchard,Cox or the tough nerd handle Virg in a debate. A fiery passionate Democrat against very generic Republican challengers could equal another Democratic term.

皮東 said...

先告訴自己希望成為什麼樣的人,然後一步一步實踐必要的步驟。........................................

Communications guru said...

I agree, but the problem here is that newspapers are supposed to be liberal or impartial. I have known since I became a reporter that the media wasn’t liberal, but it was always impartial; until recently.

I am looking forward to a debate, too.

Not Anonymous said...

It's obvious you've got a problem with the paper. You've written about six or seven complaining posts about the same paper. I'm guessing that you wanted to go back and work for them and they turned you down. Doesn't matter. You've reached the point of obsession with them.

Keep deluding yourself with the prospects of Bernero all you like. You've made excuses for him running for Mayor a second term and then justifying his running for governor within days of starting his second term.

The socialist democrats in this state are showing real signs of desperation. The election in November is going to be nothing more than the liberals getting an ass-whupping.

Let me guess. You disagree. Surprise surprise.

This is going to be a fun year.

Communications guru said...

Surprise, surprise you can read, anonymous. Yes, I have a problem with the paper; specifically the content. You are, as usual, wrong. I am where I want to be. Considering the P & A is the newspaper that’s in my driveway every morning, it’s only natural I would blog about them more than any other paper. I notice you can’t debunk a single point I made in those “about six or seven complaining posts about the same paper.”

When I was there, the editorial board was truly nonpartisan. That’s obviously not the case now.

How have I made excuses for Bernero? Again, every single Republican gubernatorial candidate currently holds elective office but one. Mike Bouchard left a term in the Senate to take another elective office, and he ran for elective office twice – twice – while serving in his current office, but I have not seen a single editorial calling him out.

First, anonymous, there is no such thing as a socialist Democrat in this country, and that is just a fascist republican talking point. Second, the party in power generally sufferers in the mid-terms, and that will happen here too. But considering the Republicans are nothing but obstructions with no ideas and less people call themselves Republicans than ever before, the damage will be minimal.

It will be a fun year, and I expect to spend lots of weekends and evenings knocking on doors. I care too much about my state and country to allow your party to plunge it back into another recession.

Johnny C said...

Not Anonymous I've been hoping to rip into ya again and thanks for providing me with a chance. I've been following the right wing movement since your hero G.W Bush was install as president in 2000 and the one common trait that pops up from right wing media hacks, right wing activists and right wing politicians you attack things you fear.

I can see why you guys would jump on a guy who hasn't even won the Democratic nomination. Virg Bernero from his appearances on Fox News and Ed Schultz show has display he's a passionate, pro middle class and strong progressive Democrat.

And for Republicans who's deciding which stiff empty suit to run for governor that isn't something you hope to see on the other side.

Now to the national Democrats as I see whatever gains Republicans make would be very short term when President Obama and his machine goes to war with the Republicans in 2012. And like Guru said not too many people are claiming to be Republican and top of that with the tea party movement they could cost the Rethugs seats.

Not Anonymous said...

Little Johnny, you're still whining about the elections of 2000? It's been ten years, time to find a new line. Tell you what. Find a recount that Gore won. There were plenty of recounts and more recounts done by a couple of publications following the inauguration. Find me one that Gore won.

As for jumping on Bernero, I didn't and won't jump on him. I don't give him any thought at all. I realize it's difficult for you because this entails thinking, but the fact is that my comment was about guru's paranoia and obsession with the Livingston Co. paper.

I'm not the least bit worried about Bernero. My concern lies with the Republicans. I don't like Mike Cox so I'm hoping he loses big time. Bouchard I could live with, but neither he nor the others excite me at all.

Obama isn't up for election until 2012. I'm not at all concerned about that election right now. I'm looking at the 2010 midterms. Republicans could take 60-70 seats in the House and possibly 9 in the Senate.

Obstructionists? That's really a good one. Tell me how the Republicans could obstruct anything. The Socialist Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate.

The Republicans have been irrelevent this past year. Now that Brown has taken the Massachusset's Senate seat, the Republicans can stop health care and all of the other socialist programs that the Democrats try to put out there. But prior to this month, the failure has been solely on the part of Obama and the other socialist democrats.

But I understand your need to blame others for your failures, so feel free to continue your whining.

Communications guru said...

He’s not “still whining about the elections of 2000,” little anonymous, he’s just stating a fact; Bush was installed as president. In any recount Gore won, in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. He only lost in the Supreme Court.

As for my obsession with my hometown paper, once again, little anonymous, I notice you can’t debunk a single point I made in those “about six or seven complaining posts about the same paper.”

The fact is the dirty politics the Republican candidates are already whipping out will ensure Bernero’s victory. Like I said before, the party in the White House always suffers in the mid-terms, but we will keep the House and Senate.

Yes, obstructionists. Perhaps you’ve heard about this thing called a filibuster. Stop playing stupid, little anonymous, or maybe you’re not playing. Once again, little anonymous, there is no such thing as a Socialist Democrat in this country, and that’s just a fascist republican talking point.

I wouldn’t consider lifting the country out of the Bush recession a failure, and neither will the American people.

Not Anonymous said...

Let's see. Have I heard of the filibuster? Apparently, you have a problem understanding the filibuster.

Please name me one time in the past year that the Republicans filibustered.

You see, to break a filibuster, you need 60 votes. Now, let's see, what was the make up of the Senate the past year. 58 Democrats, 40 Repupblicans and 2 Independents.

The two independents caucus and vote with the Democrats. They are Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders (an admitted socialist).

So let's see how many times did the Republicans filibuster the legislation in the past year?

The answer is none because it was mathematically impossible for them to filibuster. So you can suggest that I'm "playing stupid" but for you to imply, if not outright state, that the filibuster was used during the past year by the Republicans only shows your ignorance of the facts. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding ignorance although I don't think you deserve the benefit of the doubt. Your comment is the one that is stupid.

There is no filibuster in the House because that's a majority vote.

Regarding "debunking" what you said about the newspaper, there is no way to debunk it. It's an opinion, however warped, that you have about one paper that you used to work for. My comments about your whining about the same paper over and over has nothing to do with the issues, just the fact that you have singled out that paper and keep on whining about their editorials.

Not Anonymous said...

By the way, there was never a recount that went in Gore's favor. Not one recount ever came out with Gore on top. Since you said there were prove it.

Since he never won a recount, he didn't win Florida. Since he didn't win Florida, the electoral college never came out in his favor. In fact, he could have won had he carried his own state of Tennessee, which he didn't.

This has been viewed, reviewed, studied, restudied and never once did anyone say that Gore won any recount that took place, during nor following the election and the Washington Post and New York Times did their own recount following the inauguration and they too couldn't get enough votes for Gore.

Recently, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was interviewed by Wolf Blitzed and when asked about this, she also said that all recounts had been found to be in Bush's favor.

It took 35 days to get through this election. Even Katherine Harris, then Sec. of State in FLorida was guilty of violating the election laws by not validating the election in the time required by Florida law because of all of the court hearings.

You can claim that the Supreme Court installed Bush, but to do so, you would also have to admit that the Florida Supreme Court constantly ruled in Gore's favor to give him every chance to come up with even just one recount that worked in his favor.

The only thing accomplished by going to the Supreme Court was that they ruled that the people do not have a right to vote for President. They only have the right to vote for the electors who then choose the President. But then, if you ever read the Constitution, you'd find it in there, if you can read.

Communications guru said...

There is no filibuster in the House because that's a majority vote.

Let’s see, there’s Richard Shelby placing a hold on every single Obama nomination. The fact is the Democrats do not have a filibuster proof majority, and they have never had a filibuster-proof majority. Democrats have a much bigger tent, and not all 57 Democrats vote in lock step like the leadership tells them to vote, like Republicans. That still has nothing to do with the post, or the fact that the obstructionist Republicans have no solutions to the problems they caused. All they want to do is say no and stop the President at any cost.

There’s no filibuster in the House because the rules only require a simple majority.

Again, you have neither debunked nor even addressed the one-sided editorials, anonymous. Pointing out facts is not whining, and this is the only paper I read every single day.

Communications guru said...

You are wrong, anonymous, about the recount, and that’s why Bush went to court to stop the count.

Not Anonymous said...

I'm not exactly sure why you repeated (Twice) that there is no filibuster in the House. It's the same thing that I'd already said.

Putting a hold on a nomination is not the filibuster. Any Senator can put a hold on a nomination. It was Shelby that blocked every nomination. In fact, not ever nomination has been blocked. Senator DeMint did put a block on one a couple of weeks ago, and then there was a block put on about 50 more nominees. I'm sure you don't know why that was done. You might want to look that up, but the answer is not because Republicans don't like Obama. There is a reason for the holds, but I doubt you'd ever understand them.

You're wrong about the Democrats not having a filibuster proof majority. They have from July of 2009 until February 2, 2010 controlled the Senate 60-40. They had a 59-41 majority the first half of 2009 until Arlen Specter, the Democrat turned Republican, turned back to Democrat again. Then the socialist Democrats had a 60-40 majority (Filibuster proof) until the election of Scott Brown and his eventual seating in February.

Let's see, you think saying no is being an obstructionist. It doesn't matter why "no" is said, just the fact that "no" is said makes it obstructionism. So let's put that to the test. You should vote Republican. Your answer would be "no". That makes you an obstructionist.

You also said that the Republicans haven't had solutions to what they've said no to. This makes you a liar. They had a solution to the economic problems. But Obama and the socialist Democrats wouldn't listen. The Republicans have a published solution to the Health Care problem, but the Socialist Democrats won't acknowledge it because it doesn't socialize health care which is what the socialist Democrats want.

Saying I'm wrong about the recount is not giving proof that Gore ever won a recount. Perhaps you should look up the definition of proof before trying to find any evidence that Gore won any recount anywhere in Florida.

You might also want to look and see how many times Bush took Gore to court and how many times Gore took Bush to court during that 35 day debacle.

But, if you do that, you'll find out that you've been lying, so I don't expect you to provide any proof. It's been fun, but unless you can prove your crap, there just isn't any sense in continuing this 'my dad can beat up your dad' crap.

Communications guru said...

I said there is no filibuster in the House because there is no filibuster in the House.

Yes, putting a hold on a nomination is a filibuster. Again, there is no such thing as a socialists Democrat in this country, and that is just a fascist Republican talking point, and Democrats have never had a filibuster-proof majority.

I think blocking even debate is being an obstructionist, and I think just saying no without offering a solution is being an obstructionist.

Johnny C said...

It seems right wingers skip civic classes, glad Guru already explain it to you saves me the trouble..

I gotta apologized to guru because I gave you an out with my Bush was install comment, because you change the subject. Another tactic right wingers use when they can't come up with a logical argument to counter whatever the subject is.

Back to the subject Virg Bernero getting trashed by that newspaper again If Bernero secures the nomination you and every other right winger in Michigan should start worrying. The Republicans have nothing to offer and that's going to show up in a debate.

While Virg Bernero is running on a pro middle class and reform contrast that with a stiff, unappealing Republican candidate using very vague and vanilla rhetoric.

Going back to that Bush, when our lazy media actually did the research after the fact they conclude this: If Gore got what he wanted a selected recount he would lost.. But before you go a ha not anonymous they go onto say if Gore got a recount state wide he would defeated George W. Bush.

But the bright side of suffering through the eight years of junior Bush he made it tough for Republicans like him or Sarah Palin get elected president.