Jefferson Jackson Dinner

In Michigan, there are a series if events that act as a coming-together and fundraiser for each party. The Republicans do a Lincoln Day Dinner. Every county party in Michigan hosts a dinner on this particular day. The Dems do one big huge inner in Detroit for as many people as they can get. It's called the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner; Jeff-Jack for short.

The usual fare transpires. Stabenow and Levin speak, and one or two of the Congressional delegation speaks, along with the State Party Chair and, since our Guv is a Dem, the Guv and Lieutenant Guv. Blah blah blah. We all eat part of our salad, some rubber chicken and rice combo and cake with the Michigan Dem Party logo on it. Yea. And as a lobbyist, whatever my political leanings may be, I have to go and "be seen."

But this year, the keynote speaker was more interesting than in the past. This year our speaker was John Edwards. I gotta say, I was duly impressed.

He really seemed more serious than last year, despite his "shoo-in" chances. He certainly came with prepared remarks, but completely discarded them in favor of unveiling his plan. What really struck me this year was not just that he "has a plan" and that he "has written it down;" he actually gave details. He described a dual-payer universal health care system and a funding mechanism. He described an investment method to create business opportunities for the development of alternative energy as well as a goal of reducing emissions by 80% by the year 2020. He discussed a long-term stragtegy for the Middle East, involving of course Syria and Iran in promoting a stable Iraq. It wasn't just "withdrawal and timeline" stuff. It actually involved troops, investments and diplomacy.

He dropped some big pro-union statemnts as well. I say this because you have not yet heard, nor do I suspect you will hear, massively pro-union statements from the other Dem candidates. They'er too chicken because of how polarizing that can be. But Edwards seemed unafraid, because, to paraphrase, unions really still form the backbone of the middle-class American workforce, and thus if they form the backbone of his voters, he's happy. One of the strongest statements he made was not just the since-I'm-in-Michigan-I-support-unions statement. It was to promote as a priority of his administration the Freedom to Work act, which makes it much easier to join a union, and anyone, regardless if employment, can choose to join one.

This will make much political hay amongst Republican challengers, but we'll see if he has the nuts to keep backing his statements and priorities. The response is that with corruption and problems within unions of keeping members, a vote among those who wish to unionize is still the best way to do it, not just signing a card.

All in all, it wasn't just a standard stump speech. He actually laid-out real priorities and discussed funding mechanisms. Of course, one of his funding mechanisms is to roll back the Bush tax cuts. That may be easy for Republicans to answer as a fairly populist idea with no real support, but if it's just politically expedient enough to get him in office, that' how it goes.

So again, it was much more than a stump speech and I am interested to hear the actual details of plans the other Dem candidates have put together and, besides for the pro-union stuff, how similar they all are. Is that a sign of party unity, or fear of stepping forward with different ideas? My money's on the latter.