Essay: State of the State - 5/9/2008
First of all, it seems clear that anyone who wants to win Michigan this fall better stop talking about silly side issues, and start addressing our state and our nation’s serious economic problems.
So far the Democratic candidates have spent a lot of time squabbling about who was most against Iraq. Meanwhile, we’ve paid vast attention to a retired preacher whose words have since been repudiated by the candidate who used to go to his church.
Ballard’s survey, which is one of the most accurate in opinion polling, indicates what voters think of those issues. The answer is: Not much. Only seven out of every thousand feel that foreign policy is a top issue in this campaign.
And only two in every thousand think that race relations and diversity should be on the front burner. What about the so-called ‘moral issues” that seem to surface every election season?
Well, they are of concern to precisely one half of one percent of Michigan’s population. We are facing tough economic times this year, and our hearts are in our wallets.
Two thirds of us think the top issues are either jobs or the economy. When you throw in taxes and budget issues, that rises to about eighty percent of us.
When you look at these numbers, it is hard to see how any Democratic candidate for president could possibly fail to win Michigan this fall. A solid majority think George W. Bush has done a poor job.
They don’t much like Jennifer Granholm either, but she isn’t running. What they really worry about, however, could be best summed up by the title of Charlie Ballard’s last book:
Michigan’s Economic Future.
Four out of seven of us say we are worse off than a year ago. Less than one in every four of us thinks we are in better shape. We still are hopeful about the future.
Americans are traditionally the most optimistic people on the planet. But we aren’t starry-eyed. Forty-four percent of us think we’ll be better off this time next year. Thirty-five percent say worse off. And that’s the most pessimistic they’ve been since this survey was started. Voters are going to be looking for a president who can help us get out of this pothole, and avoid bigger ones.
Twenty-eight years ago, I covered another presidential campaign that looked like it would end in a dead heat. Then the candidates had a single debate. “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” the challenger asked, “Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores?”
Days later, the man who said those words carried 44 states, including Michigan. Today, we once again know the answer to those questions.
For the rest of this year, voters are going to be looking for someone who can make them feel better off four years from now.
"Meanwhile, we’ve paid vast attention to a retired preacher whose words have since been repudiated by the candidate who used to go to his church."
That's scant discussion for a topic that caused Jack Lessenberry to attend the Detroit Branch NAACP dinner to hear Rev. Jeremiah Wright speak, and then obligingly write a glowing commentary about that speech for the Detroit Metro Times. (And then, a week later, take a dozen baby steps backward as quietly as possible in his next column.) Mr. Lessenberry wrote that commentary soon after basking in the apparently warm light of Reverend Wright's oratory and dissertation on the differences between the brains of white children and black children. Before, it seems, the author of the study that Wright was ineptly butchering denounced him*, and before an equally-goofy National Press Club appearance caused Obama to disown the man who, two weeks earlier, he "could no more disown than my white grandmother." That be some freaky stuff, y'all.
It ought to be noted, as well, that Jack Lessenberry is incorrect when he says that Obama "used to go to [Rev. Jeremiah Wright's] church." Obama may not still "go" to that church, since most Sundays he is busy campaigning or talking to Tim Russert. But the Obamas are still members of Trinity United Church of Christ. Reverend Wright retired from his position as pastor, but the Obamas are still there. And the new pastor at TUCC is not a whole lot different from Wright, except that he is obviously not going to be allowed to be so careless in his public statements, and he doesn't have a book deal yet.
Mr. Lessenberry's mistake on the Obamas' membership is revelatory in one other way, too. National media diva and Chicagoan Oprah Winfrey really DID "used to" attend TUCC. But she was apparently concerned enough about her national image to get the feeling (appropriatley) that what was going on in that church would not play so well in the wider country. But back then, Barack Obama wasn't 'nationwide' like Oprah; he was just trying to get elected as an Alderman, or a state senator, or (unsuccesfully) trying to beat out Bobby Rush for his seat in the U.S. Congress. (Rush kicked Obama's ass.) So Oprah, Obama ain't.
* http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080508/COL10/805080417/1081
Posted by: Anonymous | May 09, 2008 at 02:52 PM
It looks like Lessenberry has a very amusing Republican heckler. At the very least, somebody is attempting to respond to Lessenberry's blog in a quasi-intelligent manner. But how about trying a spell checker? Not that I agree with your perspective, but spelling errors further undermine your efforts.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 10, 2008 at 09:59 PM
Quasi is a good word for it.
Posted by: Jack Lessenberry | May 10, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Come on Jack-Mr. Heckler did have an interesting insight about the tone of your articles.
I found it interesting that there was a gradual and deepening disdain for the Reverend Wright's comments particularly because of the recognition of the political fallout. I don't recall an immediate repudiation? Does this say volumes about the liberal and centrist democrat view of indefensible yet vote valuable African American pastors in our inner cities? Or how about our ethically challenged mayor? What is Obama's formal stance of the local standard bearer for the 11th largest metroploitan area in the United States?
A good bet is Obama distances himself from any photo or policy discussions from any African American spokesperson with a history of indicting the white community for any and all ills.That is-until the election is over. There will be no Sharpton or Jesse photo ops but can I be sure these black rednecks won't be invited to the Oval Office after the election?
Come on Jack-you felt the heat, joined the resounding repudiation and are now calling the entire event foolhardy and a waste of time. But you did feel that Reverend Wright had a number of good points that were stuffed in between the AIDS argument and several of the other lucid points. You actually thought he had some good ideas until the tsunami of criticism brought you to your senses.
Posted by: Jose Santiago | May 11, 2008 at 09:53 PM
I do not repudiate anything I said; he did have some valid points. I have no idea whether those preachers will be invited to the White House, and frankly don't care. Are you concerned about some of the characters other presidents have invited to the White House?
Posted by: Jack Lessenberry | May 12, 2008 at 10:56 AM