Michigan Democrats need Real Gubernatorial Leadership

Now two Sunday Op-Eds in the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News seem to call attention to a major problem that the Michigan Democratic Problem has right now and that is the fact that for the upcoming 2010 gubernatorial election, they are missing key leadership and strong ideas. Right now Lt. Governor John Cherry is the front runner for the Democratic nomination for Governor but what hasn’t been seen from him is any new ideas or solutions to the problems that plague Michigan. Therefore Stephen Henderson’s article in the Free Press says that “State Democrats really do need Dillon to run for governor.” Henderson acknowledges that he is not sure Michigan House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford Township, would be a good governor. And Dillon publicly insists he won't run, even though a lot of what he's doing these days suggests he's at least thinking about it.

However I am like Henderson in the sense that I, too, am certain that the state of Michigan needs Dillon to jump into the race so there will be a competitive Democratic primary in 2010. We need it badly, like Popeye needed spinach, or Samson needed his hair. With Lt. Gov. John Cherry running unopposed so far, the party's weakest elements have been making the loudest arguments, and there's no indication that they'll be reined in (or, even better, just squashed) as the campaign heats up. To wit: Last week, Mark Gaffney, president of the Michigan AFL-CIO, said if Dillon follows through with his plan to pool all public employee health plans, he's "not a Democrat."

"It is not adhering to the principles of the Democratic Party to be trying to cut benefits and eliminate collective bargaining rights," Gaffney brayed. Then this week, Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer had a batty conniption after seeing Republican Attorney General Mike Cox's 92-point plan (yeah, I know, he really is trying too hard already) to better Michigan's fortunes. "Cox should be focusing on a two-step plan," Brewer said. "First, he needs to explain how, as governor, he would be different from South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. Second, Cox needs to practice what he preaches and fully disclose his role in the Manoogian Mansion party cover-up."

OK, so that's a little funny. But it's totally obnoxious and inappropriate coming from the titular head of the Democratic Party. And Gaffney's threat to kick Dillon out of the clubhouse for daring to introduce a new idea is equally absurd, a foolish and brutal narrowing of the party's interests and image by someone who represents, well, very narrow interests. Of course, Gaffney and Brewer have no real interest in Dillon getting into the race. They're afraid he'll run, in fact, because he'd spoil their chance to set the Democratic agenda without challenge next year. They own Cherry, who probably couldn't win a general election without their support.

But that's unhealthy for the party, and for Michigan politics. Democrats need to have a robust argument about what direction the party will take in 2010. They need to debate about the tension between the party's union roots and proposals like Dillon's health care plan, which places other interests above collective bargaining concerns. They need to coalesce around a strong set of ideas, rather than a checklist of personal attacks, to launch against whoever wins the Republican nomination.

You build that strength in a primary. You build it with a competition, rather than a coronation. This state desperately needs two rock-solid choices for governor next November, from two parties that have indulged an intellectually honest debate (yes, I know I'm pipe-dreaming a bit here) about the state's problems and how to solve them. A hard-fought primary on the Democratic side seems the only way to assure that party will uphold its end of that bargain. Dillon can do everyone a favor by jumping into the race, and forcing some new ideas into the Democratic gubernatorial debate.

Then to add misery to Henderson’s comments is the fact that Nolan Finley of the Detroit News says that Michigan will have to resolve its budget crisis without its Governor. With the clock ticking toward a budget meltdown in Michigan, Governor Jennifer Granholm left the Capitol for a three-day trip to Japan. Nolan says, “It doesn't matter. She won't be missed.” However I think it does matter because what does that show about leadership in the state and what makes matter worse is the fact that Granholm is a Democrat and from all indications her Lt. Governor John Cherry has not shown any real leadership the last 7 years under Granholm. Therefore with the Governor missing in action, what does that really mean about the need for Michigan Democrats needing real leadership in the gubernatorial race for next year.

Nonetheless the budget talks continue at an intense pace. There's a very good chance an agreement will be reached in her absence and without much of her input. Democratic House Speaker Andy Dillon and Republican Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop are close to a deal that would do what many thought impossible this year -- produce a balanced budget that doesn't rely on big tax hikes and is reached without the threat of a government shutdown. "We need to do this with or without the governor," says Bishop, who was unaware of Granholm's trade mission. "I give all the credit to Andy Dillon for stepping up and providing leadership. He wants to do what's right."

Clearly, with statements like that coming from the GOP leadership of the Senate, it is clear that if a budget is to be resolved, it will be because of Dillon and Bishop not our governor. Anytime lawmakers say they can get a budget balanced with or without the governor in any state should make citizens question the leadership of the Governor of the state. Still Dillon and Bishop won't comment on what they're up to. But those close to the talks say Dillon has persuaded his caucus to accept the Senate's $1.3 billion spending cut target. If that's true and it holds up, budget bills will begin moving out of conference committees this week. The sticking points are the Promise scholarships for college students, revenue sharing for communities, Medicaid and early education.

To get past those blockages, Dillon will offer a supplemental spending bill after a budget is passed to fund the programs with a variety of small tax hikes and other revenue. The supplement will be taken up separately and won't impact implementation of the budget. The goal is to drop a balanced budget on the governor's desk before the Oct. 1 deadline. "This puts her on the spot," Bishop says. "If she vetoes a budget we send her, she'll be responsible for shutting down government."

The strategy changes the dynamic in Lansing. Both Bishop and Dillon have been frustrated by the refusal of the governor to make firm budget commitments. They've been held hostage to her whims and indecisiveness. Last week, Dillon's frustration became public when he accused the governor of grandstanding by offering a thinly detailed plan that includes $1 billion in tax hikes, saying she knew he couldn't get it through the House Democratic caucus. Dillon's willingness to untie himself from the governor at the risk of alienating her allies in the Democratic base reflects a courage first exhibited when he proposed pooling health insurance coverage for all state employees.

Dillon won't talk about Granholm or whether he's running for her job next year. He says only -- and rightly -- that there's no more room for avoiding hard decisions. "We know that next year's budget is going to be even worse," Dillon says. "We have to build goodwill with the public by getting the job done this year." Dillon has stepped firmly into Lansing's leadership void. If he can stand there, and find another country or two for Granholm to visit this month, it's quite possible that he and Bishop can craft the first realistic state budget in seven years.

So with articles and comments highlighting the fact that Michigan Democrats need real leadership in the gubernatorial seat than it is clear that Andy Dillon might offer that. Dillon has ideas and he has plans that are not the status quo but are more so aimed toward improving Michigan’s government which has been behind the times for several decades now. Michigan Democrats need Dillon more than Dillon needs them. In fact the state of Michigan needs Dillon to run for Governor to offer an alternative to the ideas that we are hearing so far which sound like grandstanding and old ideological practices rather than real concrete substantive and practical solutions to the things that plague our state. Dillon gives us the people of Michigan that and more than that he gives Democrats an alternative to the status quo of the Granholm mantra which seems to be what Cherry is running on.

Therefore, Michigan Democrats need real leadership in the gubernatorial seat if they want to retain it after 2010. No more grandstanding from the Governor and political trips that produce little to no change in the economic status of the state yet alone no new jobs to key areas of the state that have been suffering for years. Michigan Democrats need Dillon to run because he has ideas and offers a new vision of leadership that so far has been missing from any of the other gubernatorial candidates on the Democratic side.