You can tell when a politican has no accomplishments to run on. That's when they talk about where they were born.
So it is with Carol Griffith, Republican incumbent for Livingston County Commissioner from District 7. The pitch in the campaign literature she mailed to voters says "A lifetime resident. A lifetime of leaderhsip in Livingston County!" That's it. Nothing about what that leadership amounted to, just the fact that she's never lived any place else.
How persuasive can that be considering that Livingston County likes to brag about being the fastest growing county in the state, meaning that lots of people have moved here from someplace else as opposed to living here their entire lives? Griffith apparently thinks these people are lesser human beings.
On top of that, she's made plenty of money selling homes to those carpetbaggers who have dared to move into her home county. But now she thinks they're good enough to vote for her, but not good enough to serve themselves.
What does Griffith's "I've never lived anywhere else so I deserve to be elected" pitch mean for people like Griffith's fellow commissioners Maggie Jones or Jim Mantey, who are not native to the county? Guess they don't deserve to be on the county commission either.
Anybody who has moved into this county in the last 20 years is bound to find Griffith's pitch insulting. And there's a ton of those folks out there. Democrat Kelly Raskauskas should be able to capitalize on the resentment that Griffith's insulting campaign mailing will engender.
4 comments:
What's insulting is when people move to this county, and then try and change this county to the county they moved from. If you want to be like Ann Arbor, Detroit, Boston, or Los Angeles, move back there.
I'm a county native. My parents are not. They left the city. They do not want Brighton to turn into the big city, with its big government, big city restrictions, and different values. These transplants knew what the big city is about and do not want to see it here. They don't vote straight tickets (nor do I), but Carol will certainly get their support, and I'll be voting for Jack.
The problem with big government statists is that they live in one area, destroy it, then move out to the country to turn that back into the place they destroyed. It happened with Detroit starting with the Jerome Cavanaugh era, and it's happening in suburban Wayne and Oakland Counties (as it changed from GOP to DEM) currently. It can not happen in Livingston County, and until Democrats change back at least to the old farmer era here, it won't happen as voters don't want any part of big city liberalism.
Hi, RM -- do those "small-town values" include part-time elected officials giving themselves county health benefits, dental benefits, life insurance and county pensions (in addition to receiving their salaries)?
Is it only "big city" taxpayers who believe that they should be able to learn the details of how their money is being spent without having to file a FOIA?
And regardless of party affiliation, do you really believe that years of uncontested elections and unchallenged groupthink are good for a community?
Hi Kelly: I don't agree with everything done by the commissioners. They know when I disagree or have an issue too. I do support the low tax rate and high credit ratings, although I'm more hardline on spending then even Don Parker was. We're in much better shape then our neighboring blue counties.
There isn't lockstep thinking on the board. All of the members have their own views, and have differences among them. Jack's well known as a moderate. Domas has his area of emphasis, as do Jay, Maggie, Steve, Carol, and Dennis. Ronald's probably the most conservative, now that Don Parker stepped down.
I don't have a problem with contests, but you lost me (as you're running as a slate) with two things. Wally and "Smart Growth." Even Democrat County Commissioner Ken Schwartz (represents Northfield) has doubts on costs while supporting the idea with Wally. It's a Richard Florida style of pipe dream.
As for Smart Growth, I'm well aware of the "Smart Growth" new urbanist theory from Portland (Oregon) and unless I see details of Smart Growth that say otherwise from the media press releases and speeches online (which I've read), I see it as the same old song and dance with more property restrictions, car unfriendliness, high taxes, and push towards forcing people to live closer to big cities.
You're an excellent dancer, MR ;-)
Post a Comment