For those who voted Republican, you just screwed democracy.

**Whitehouse** · April-07-12, 08:23 PM

This report by Rachel Maddow is sickening.

Occurrence · April-07-12, 08:31 PM

LOL @ people who think Democrats and Republicans aren't the same thing.

**Whitehouse** · April-07-12, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Occurrence

LOL @ people who think Democrats and Republicans aren't the same thing.

True, but it seems the Democrats usually do it to repair the damage Republicans did.

Occurrence · April-07-12, 08:45 PM

Bahh, it's just a title. They are all the same.

**313WX** · April-07-12, 08:54 PM

Rachel Maddow did bring up something about the EFM law.

The point she brought up alone should be enough for every single town that's impacted by the EFM to appeal it and have it repealed.

It's getting very obvious that laws no longer matter in the state of Michigan, especially when it concerns issues involving the poor and minority citizens. It's also sad that many in Michigan don't even care that this is the case, because Snyder should have been out of a job last November if what that report says is true.

What a sad place this has become.

**jtf1972** · April-07-12, 09:28 PM

I really don't see how we would be in any place different with somebody in Lansing with a D next to their name. It's not like Granny noticed Detroit existed while she was there. Maybe if she had done a bit to help...

Oh wait, wasn't she the one who had appointed the EFM's around the state for a while? I guess the only thing that has Madden all in a tither is that it's a Republican now.

Here's an idea... instead of passing law after law & act after act that is to the detriment of cities, maybe we need to look at what we can do to at least level the playing field.

**JBMcB** · April-07-12, 10:44 PM

What partisan tripe. Democrats did the *exact same thing* when they didn't have a 2/3rds majority when Grandholm was in office. Maddow is a less talented but equally obnoxious Democratic version of Rush Limbaugh.

**Wesley Mouch** · April-07-12, 10:55 PM

Partisan politics is boring.

**KJ5** · April-08-12, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

What partisan tripe. Democrats did the *exact same thing* when they didn't have a 2/3rds majority when Grandholm was in office. Maddow is a less talented but equally obnoxious Democratic version of Rush Limbaugh.

So, wait, you're trying to suggest that Rush Limbaugh has some kind of talent? What would that be?

**coracle** · April-08-12, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by KJ5

So, wait, you're trying to suggest that Rush Limbaugh has some kind of talent? What would that be?

He's right 99.7% of the time.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · April-08-12, 08:29 AM

Yes, urban dwellers should continue to vote for liberals. Let the century of success continue!

**coracle** · April-08-12, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Yes, urban dwellers should continue to vote for liberals. Let the century of success continue!

You mean like the continuing success experienced by a half century of voting for liberals by urban Detroiters?

**Zacha341** · April-08-12, 01:39 PM

Say what! Don't you know bad things occur only under the repubs! --

--

I learned different only when I started to think more independent... and not to bound by my democratic voting card!!

Originally Posted by coracle

You mean like the continuing success experienced by a half century of voting for liberals by urban Detroiters?

**Zacha341** · April-08-12, 01:42 PM

Yep! And we take our medicine better when a dem dolls it out. Yet, protest when the repub dispenses it.

Originally Posted by JBMcB

What partisan tripe. Democrats did the *exact same thing* when they didn't have a 2/3rds majority when Grandholm was in office.

**Pam** · April-08-12, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Whitehouse

This report by Rachel Maddow is sickening.

Why do you care? You don't live here.

**Fiddler** · April-08-12, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Whitehouse

Rachel Maddow is sickening.

Fixt !

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · April-08-12, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by coracle

You mean like the continuing success experienced by a half century of voting for liberals by urban Detroiters?

Precisely. Why change a good thing, right? Detroit government has been run exclusively by lib dems for decade after decade after decade... If the City and it's government are in rough shape [[putting it mildly), it is only logical for Detoit voters to seek more lib dem policies, right? We wouldn't want evil CONSERVATIVE ideas like getting our kids out of shit hole schools with a voucher system! Hell no, we won't have the suburban oppression happening to us! Instituting late-20th century police practices like most other cities [[Broken Window Theory & CompStat programs) is just an evil way to send more black people to jail! Cutting taxes & and expediting permitting for small businesses, so that when Detroiters open their own businesses they don't feel obliged to immediately move out of the city to stay afloat? Heresy! Let private businesses bid to plow snow, operate public lighting, and pick up trash at a lower cost to taxpayer? That slits the throat of the working man!

Jackass suburban oppressors KEEP OUT of the liberal Utopia that is Detroit! Keep on rocking in the unfree world!

**Jimaz** · April-08-12, 08:24 PM

Here's a previously posted monologue by Maddow on the subject: Michigan is screwed.

I find it highly suspicious that, because of an emergency requiring additional powers not currently held by an elected official, those additional powers must be given to an unelected official instead.

Why not simply grant [[only for the term of the emergency) those necessary additional powers to the bona fide elected official?

Is it that the elected official hasn't the power to solve the problem or is it simply that he was elected?

Attempting to rectify the former by reversing the latter seems disingenuous at best.

What am I missing here?

Occurrence · April-08-12, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

Maddow is a less talented but equally obnoxious Democratic version of Rush Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh doesn't have any talent. They are both equally worthless.

**coracle** · April-09-12, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by Jimaz

Here's a previously posted monologue by Maddow on the subject: Michigan is screwed.

I find it highly suspicious that, because of an emergency requiring additional powers not currently held by an elected official, those additional powers must be given to an unelected official instead.

Why not simply grant [[only for the term of the emergency) those necessary additional powers to the bona fide elected official?

Is it that the elected official hasn't the power to solve the problem or is it simply that he was elected?

Attempting to rectify the former by reversing the latter seems disingenuous at best.

What am I missing here?

What you may be missing here Jimaz is that decades of elected officials have proven by continuous results that they couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery. Why give one of them another chance to screw up when the unelected official will do it just as well [[and take the blame). I don't think its about elected or unelected that's the controversy; its about the color of the [[unelected) official.

**everglade carl** · April-10-12, 03:07 AM

If you think Maddow and Limbaugh are simply opposite sides of the coin, with equal talent, you obviously don't watch Maddow.

Having listened to both, as a former conservative, and converted liberal:

1. Presentation: Maddow is a genius in the way she sets up her main point in a show. It's usually not direct, and is built upon telling a parallel story or digging something up that no one else is using as a talking point. She can build to the main point with sometimes over 15 minutes of set-up. You wonder how all the pieces will fit. Only after the eventual point being made, you get a fresh take on it.
Rush: I don't hear a creative approach to Rush's style. Hit you over the head with the point, and then revisit it as he talks himself through it. He often seems unprepared. I know radio and TV are different mediums and require different pacing, but Maddow's radio show was similar to her TV show.

2. Personality: Both are tough interviewers, but Maddow always presents an undertone of old-school respect. She invites opposite viewpoints by strong conservative people, where Rush brings on unknown call-in stooges who many times are uniformed and are perfect foil to carry on his rants. There is an overwhelming sense of hubris in Rush that I don't hear in Rachel. Again, they are both harsh critics of each other's ideologies and parties, but Rush especially lately has cemented his legacy as an unapologetic bully. Rachel is a duck-and-weave spot fighter where Rush head butts you.

This post is already too long and this is enough to set a good distinction between the two. In closing, Rush is on the far end of the conservative spectrum where Rachel is very much in the middle of the liberal end. A far left politician would be one who wants all buisness controlled by the state with an elimination of capitalism. Rhetoric aside, name me an MSNBC personality who belives in that.

A better equivalent to Maddow might be David Frum. Her conversations with with him tend to be rational, calm, intelligent, leaving you more informed and entertained. I would watch a TV show of his. Rush leaves you entertained in a far-right Jerry Springer way. In that I mean it's all about shock value. Maddow's show demands that you have a basis of knowledge to work from, where Rush just demands you have irrational fears and paranoia to be exploited. Ed Schultz would be the closest type of Rush commentator, but even he has way more class. There's much more, so a direct comparison of Rush and Maddow is pretty short-sighted and in my own opinion a subtle way of marginalizing a first-rate personality with someone who is considered by millions to be a villain and bully. If you need further proof, read Rush's last literary offering and Maddow's new book. It says it all.

**Fulcanelli** · April-10-12, 04:23 AM

I heard about a segment Rachel Maddow did on her tv show, about how the Republican state reps are illegally passing laws and putting them into immediate effect. It's something we all need to know, no matter what your politics are about.

http://bloggingformichigan.com/2011/...y-of-the-year/

**mikefmich** · April-10-12, 04:32 AM

I just looked to see if there was a popcorn smiley on the list here.

**detroiter62** · April-10-12, 04:38 AM

Did anyone see the story on Rachel Maddow, about how the Michigan House of Representatives is putting laws into immediate effect even though the house does not have a 2/3 supermajority ?

I believe this effects Detroit and a number of other cities because this includes the emergency financial manager law, isn't this is contrary to the Michigan constitution ?

**Hermod** · April-10-12, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by detroiter62

Did anyone see the story on Rachel Maddow, about how the Michigan House of Representatives is putting laws into immediate effect even though the house does not have a 2/3 supermajority ?

I believe this effects Detroit and a number of other cities because this includes the emergency financial manager law, isn't this is contrary to the Michigan constitution ?

The only requirement for a "super-majority at federal level is because of the rules of the US Senate where debate con an issue can only be stopped by a 60-40 vote. There are a few constitutional clauses, such as impeachment, which require a 2/3 majority. Also you need a 2/3 majority to override a veto.

Does the constitution of Michigan, any of its laws, state senate rules, or state house rules require a supermajority? any of the law