Liars cannot be trusted, not because they lie 100% of the time, but rather because one can never be sure about when they are lying. If Granholm cannot be trusted to speak the truth about the most understandable of things, how can she be trusted over points of contention? On CMU public radio this morning, the birthday get together was mentioned as if Granholm had been honest and open about it all along. I accepted it without another thought. There was no mention of a spokesperson's misdirection at the governor's command, of the governor's lie to the MML, nor of poor disguises.  

You are right of course, the issue is not about the birthday party.  It is about lies and truths, and how this Governor seems to value one as much as the other.

They were probably going off the KBH story in the AP.  She reported it the same way.  Just matter-of-factly as if there was nothing going on and no issue at all.  No mention of the lies, the deceipt, the disguises.

And then they wonder why their audience continues to shrivel year after year.

 The Senate Republicans rejected the Governor's plan to balance the budget without one of their own more than a month ago on Feb. 14. When they finally came up with this alleged plan of their own they took such extraordinary measures to keep the Top Secret plan from the public that Senators and staffers could not even write it down for fear of the public knowing about it. And you're criticizing the governor for taking an hour to have lunch with her daughter on her birthday?

 You're sad.

The MML knew her remarks were going to be brief. She was back at the budget meeting after having lunch that lasted until 6 p.m., according to Gongwer. GOP staffers where there having lunch, why shouldn't the Governor be allowed the same privilege?
You're bitching about an hour when Mike Bishop could not find one single hour in the 36 days since the Senate Republicans irresponsibly rejected the EO last month?

You are sad.

Can one of you geniuses tell me what Bishop was doing on Monday - or even one of the GOP flunkies on the Senate Appropriations Committee - that he could not drive to Lansing and meet with the Governor?

I'll say what I just said a moment ago after the first time you posted this and a follow-up...

Ahem...

Got it.  So just flashing back to random insults.  The "petty" and "mean-spirited."  
That's cool.

Look, we'll have to agree to disagree I guess.  I have zero problem with a family lunch.  I just don't like it when the governor lies about it.  And when you say your schedule has been "cleared" and then you tell the good folks at the MML that out of respect for the seriousness of the budget negotiations that you won't be able to stay but decide instead to put on a disguise and sneak out for something else, well, that's a lie.  

I'll say it again.  Noone is arguing she can't have some family time.  Or that she can't have some family time right now in the middle of the budget negotiations.  Which is why it's that much more surprising that she lied.

Simple as that.

Lie? Where? Who says the "governor's schedule hadn't been cleared?" Better yet, what does it matter? You have no idea what the Governor's schedule was, and you don't know what Bishop's schedule was. But I know this: the Governor was in Lansing all day on Monday at work. Session was not held Monday, nor is it ever for the Republician-controled Senate; so where was Bishop? Why could he not have sent a representative to the meeting if he couldn't find time to break away from meeting with lobbyists in the district or sitting at home on his couch in Rochester?

Bitching about taking an hour for lunch is petty at best. Regardless of what her schedule is for the day I would think she is entitled to a lunch break, or it's on the schedule everyday. You are playing word games, and you know it. Legislators and politicians make brief appearances at events all the time. You are not going to allow her to eat lunch and then get back to the meeting? The fact also remains she had at least three qualified people there negotiating on her behalf. The CEO of a company does not deal with every singe detail or they would not be the CEO very long.

Why not just be honest? Good question. Why aren't you?

You were at the MML meeting? You must have been there because I have not read one report that said there was "palpable surprise in the room" when she left, or it was only 30 seconds. I did read where it was understood it would be a brief appearance.

I'm not sure wearing a hat is exactly a disguise, but considering how popular the Governor is it's not out of the question she wanted some alone, quality time with her daughter on her birthday without interruptions because she had to get back to work Would these eight alleged witnesses be the Republican staffers who blew the lid off this hot story? Well, if that's the case there's' no credibility there.
`
The only deceit is on your part. If you want to read the real story come on over to Michigan Liberal or the Conservative Media. You can also get some good ideas on how to run a blog and read some quality writing.

Getting to be a broken record here so I'll make it quick.  The governor lied.  Her schedule was NOT cleared and she did NOT duck the MML to get back to "sensitive budget negotiations."  

Lies from the leader of the state aren't cool.  And of course, that begs the question, if she'd lie about something like a birthday lunch with her daughter, something noone would have the slightest problem with just what else hasn't she been honest about?

Who was it that said "he who is faithful in little will be faithful in much?"

Think the inverse is true?

Just saying.

The only lies here are from you. What the hell does it mean her schedule was cleared, anyway? She was at the budget meeting for almost the entire session, and when she wasn't there three of her representatives were. She did not "duck the MML" because she was there. She did get back to the "sensitive budget negotiations." Her crime is apparently taking a lunch break.

Again, you not only have a problem with the Governor taking a lunch break, you also object to whom she dined with. Why don't you be honest?

Don't know; don't care.

Don't know; don't care.

You're just saying nothing.

No problem with her having lunch with her daughter yesterday either.  In fact, that's actually a pretty powerful statement about how much she cares about her family.  I commend her for it.

Just wish she'd been honest.  

You asked about what "clearing" a schedule meant.  I think the common understanding of the phrase indicates that everything else has been canceled, postponed, moved etc etc etc so that the only thing on the schedule now is what said schedule was being cleared for.  In this case, that would be the budget negotiations.

She did NOT in fact clear her schedule.  

She told MML she had to leave without delivering a keynote speech because of the budget process.  Again, not true.  She left to go have lunch with her daughter.  Which again, is a nice thing to do.  She just should have been honest about it.

Makes me wonder what else she isn't being honest about.  

I mean, we've got the video of her lying to reporters during the second televised debate with Dick DeVos and saying that she would NOT tax services.  But here she is trying to tax services.

I'm starting to notice a pattern.  

Family woman?  Good mom?  Yep.

Honest with the people of Michigan?  Nope.

1-It's someone else's fault.
2-Republicans are petty.
3-(And when 1 & 2 don't work, then) Republicans won't meet with the governor.  

To what matters here...What is the problem with making the Gov accountable for her actions?  There is nothing wrong with celebrating a b-day, but there is something wrong when the Gov. feels the need to lie about it.  If the Gov. feels the need to lie about celebrating lunch with her daughter, what else is she lying about?

Furthermore, this story would not have gotten any attention if WZZM didn't report that the Gov. strangely ran out on the MML, and said she was going to be behind closed doors. Why would all sorts of press show up for a meeting with the Gov...if everyone there knew the Gov. was not even going to address the audience? Come on...

The Gov. called Sen. Bishop out for not being able to meet on Monday, right?  Well, Sen. Bishop first asked the Gov. to meet on Friday (this must be a surprise to you!)...Surprise to everyone else the Gov. couldn't meet on Friday...She was probably celebrating her other daughter's b-day. So, the Gov. asked Bishop if he could meet Monday and he couldn't, and on Friday the Gov. knew this....But instead of just being satisfied that Tuesday would be the day...she played games and made it a story. Oh, and since you asked what Sen. Bishop was doing.  Monday is the Senator's district day. Meaning he was not out having lunch with family, he was working with his constituents, or in more understandable terms, he was being accountable.

Not to mention...Sen. Bishop has been asking to meet with the Gov. for over 3 weeks now.  Once again your communications skills have proven to be the best...You said, that Bishop hasn't had anytime to meet with the Gov....WRONG!  The Gov. was so serious about this budget crisis and meeting with Sen. Bishop that she went all the way to GERMANY for a week to meet with companies that are where, already in MICHIGAN.

I guess you forgot about this meeting...

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070301/NEWS04/703010395/1005/RSS02

Can you explain to me why the Republican's should make their budget proposals public?  Why is that their duty?  The last time I checked it was up to the Gov. to pull together a plan to get Michigan out of the crisis, with the HELP of the legislature.  It's not the legislatures duty to bring plans to the citizens.

Thank you for the representation of a true Liberal...one that ignores the facts, and creates their own.

She attended the budget meeting for most of the day, spoke to the MML and had lunch. I see that as reasonable.

Sorry, after speaking to the MML she went back to the budget meeting, but she had lunch first. Bishop stonewalled for 36 days, and you are crying about an hour. Plus, the fact remains she had three people there representing her in the short time she was not there.

As for Devos, make your case, and I will refute it.

Honest with the people of Michigan? Yep.

Communications Guru!

I guess you forgot about this meeting...

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?ID=/20070301/NEWS04/703010395/1005/RSS02

What is wrong with us supporting Sen. Bishop?

I guess the solution here is for us to close our eyes to the Gov's games..

Now let me just get it right out in the open, because I can already hear the liberals screaming "mean-spririted" (that's their favorite insult)... the issue here isn't that she had lunch with her daughter.

To which the Communications Guru responds:

I know Republicans are anti-family, petty and mean-spirited but this is over the top even for you guys.

Nick says:

Frankly, that's awesome.  I wish more parents would take an interest in their kids that way.  Her daughter turned 16 which means she went to the trouble of getting her an excused absence from her private school just for the occasion and she canceled her own speech at the MML.  Good for her.  Parental involvement is a great thing and too few politicians are as involved as they should be!  She should get a gold star.  And a cookie.

CG:

The Governor had lunch with her daughter on her birthday? That's her sin? You have a problem with that?

First, let's start with the MML.  When you are the keynote speaker for a group that provides very important input to policymakers and you tell them simply "I'm sorry, I have to go back to the all important duties of negotiating the budget."  The MML will undoubtedly understand that as they know how important that issue is.

However, and listen carefully Communications Guru, because here comes the point.  SHE DIDN'T GO BACK TO THE NEGOTIATIONS!  Instead she took a "personal" lunch break with her daughter for over an hour, meaning: She had plenty of time to stay at the MML event and give this important group their due time.  By the way, since you seem to be so well versed on "facts" do you happen to know how often the MML meets like this?  Before you make a fool of yourself again by attempting to answer, I'll just tell that it isn't often.  Instead of giving this organization its due time in the midst of negotiations that affect them so much, Granholm would spend time with her daughter.

Now, is it a crime for the governor to spend time with her daughter?  Of course not and nobody here is suggesting that.  Perhaps you need a new brain in order to fully comprehend this.  Our points are:

1.) Her daughter's birthday was Tuesday, not yesterday, budget negotiations, as the press reported, were done well before 6pm.  Why couldn't the governor do something her daughter then?

2.) What was wrong with having dinner with Cecilia that night?

I could probably go on, but I don't want to have to force you to think, because I know it's hard for you.  Simply stated, there are plenty of times yesterday or even this week, when Governor Granholm could have met with her daughter to celebrate her birthday without it interfering with budget negotiations.

If this situation were as "urgent" as she keeps claiming, then she would have gotten herself a box lunch from Sarah's Lunch Box (or better yet gotten an intern to do it for her) and ate lunch at the negotiation table.  By the way, I'll have you know that MOST legislators do this when debating the budget on their respective floors.  There is no reason why Granholm should think that she's too good to do the same.  She did not decide to have a working lunch and in the process, yes, blew off the MML.  When you leave a meeting earlier than you had originally said because you say you're going to be somewhere when in fact you are somewhere else, that is blowing them off.

If I were to not come into work and tell my boss I wasn't going to make it because I had to go to court to make sure I wasn't going to be evicted when really what I was doing was meeting my girlfriend for brunch, that would be blowing off work.  That is what Granholm did, and I don't understand why this concept is so complicated especially for someone as "intelligent" as you.

Okay, so she had other representatives there, if that is a justification then you are basically saying it is unnecessary for the governor to even be there in the first place.  Let me be clear on this point.  Bob Emerson is going to be at the negotiations anyway, as is State Treasurer Robert Kleine, as is Lt. Governor John Cherry.  So if it's okay for Granholm to be gone, because these three have it covered, what is the point of her even being there according to your "infinite wisdom"?

Mike Bishop does not have a Lt. Senate Majority Leader, Mike Bishop does not have an Office of the Budget Director and Mike Bishop does not have a Treasury Director.  To expect the same from him (at a meeting he already said he was not going to be at) is absurd and narrow-minded.

So you keep saying we're the ones that are lying, though I know this is hard for libs like yourself, please elaborate on that fact.  What have we lied about?  The governor played hooky and we caught her red-handed.  That's all.  Once you realize how stupid you sound, we can all begin to get this one behind us and focus on the issues that really matter, unless of course one of the governor's other children needs to have a mid-day birthday party

Maybe you don't know what the MML is. They are an association that lobbies the government just like hundreds of other non-profits, associations and lobbying firms in Lansing. How often does the MML meet like this? At least every year, and that does not include their annul convention in September and other meetings with Legislators and the Governor and their lobbyist. I have personally seen the amount of invitations to luncheons, breakfasts, dinners and meetings just the chair of a committee in the House gets. I can only imagine the amount of requests the Governor must receive.

Sorry, you are wrong, She did go back to the negotiations after she had lunch. The sad part is that's what it all boils down to. This entire non-story revolved around eating lunch and whom she ate with. That's just sad.

I don't know the exact day of the Governor's daughter's birthday. I don't even care, and it does not even matter. Also, I'm a little reluctant to take anything you say at face value. It's not uncommon to celebrate birthdays on different days. I don't know why she did not have dinner with her daughter that night, but I know the Governor's day does not end at 5 p.m. You are asking me to speculate on the Governor's schedule and her family, and they are none of mine or your business.

She could have gotten a "Sarah's Lunch Box." Wow, and you have the nerve to say I look stupid. Apparently, you have never seen the restaurants on Washington Avenue at lunchtime on session days or the Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association building. No one on this blog has been able to explain to me how you can claim the budget is so urgent that the Governor cannot take an hour for lunch, bit it's OK for Bishop to stonewall everyone for some 36 days with this alleged Top Secret plan of his.

What you tell your boss and your work habits are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Like I have said before and been ignored, no CEO handles every single detail or they would not be the CEO for very long. The budget director, the state Treasurer, the Lt. Governor and the Speaker of the House are more than qualified to talk about the budget, and they share the Governor's vision.

Bishop can have any of the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee there with him, or he could have the chair of the Committee, John Pappageorgeor, or the vice-chair, Ron Jelinek. After all, it was these geniuses who rejected the Governor's plan more than a month ago without a plan of their own that created this crisis. I guess that's the reason he does not trust them even though he appointed them.

1. Governor tells MML she will be going (12:00pm):

From WZZM (IE an ACTUAL fact):

Governor Granholm was scheduled to address the Michigan Municipal League Legislative Conference at noon. WZZM 13 was at that luncheon, when the Governor walked in, stated briefly at the podium that she was in the middle of important budget negotiations, then politely excused herself and rushed out of the event.

2. Republican staffers having lunch at the Olive Garden notice Governor Granholm at Olive Graden at approximately 12:20pm.  This fact is confirmed ot the media by Olive Garden employees.  So, Guru, unless Granholm took a supersonic CATA bus to Okemos, there is no way she went back to the budget meeting BEFORE going to the Olive Garden as you claim.  Therefore, this IS a story.  As we've been saying, the governor cut out to eat lunch at Olive Garden when she could have been acting with "urgency" to come to an agreement on the state's budget.

3. No matter how annoying or inconveinient you might find facts to be, that doesn't justify ignoring them.  Bishop has not been "Stone Walling" Granholm.  In fact, it's been the other way around.  The proof?  Uh oh, now you're in trouble:

"Senate Majority Leader Mike BISHOP (R-Rochester) formally asked Gov. Jennifer GRANHOLM today to sit down with him to discuss a course of action on a Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 that's nearly $1 million in the hole.

But Granholm wrote back this afternoon that she told him (and he allegedly agreed) in a phone conversation last week that the next step in the process should be Bishop and House Speaker Andy DILLON (D-Redford Twp.) agreeing upon a framework for negotiations. Beyond that, she repeated her request that Bishop make public his budget cut proposals."

MIRS Capitol Capsule: (2/28/07):

"Senate Majority Leader Mike BISHOP (R-Rochester) asked Granholm for a face-to-face meeting in a letter Tuesday to discuss a solution to the nearly $1 billion hole in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 budget (See "Bishop, Granholm Swap Budget Meeting Letters," 2/27/07)

Instead of a one-on-one, he got a letter from her suggesting he talk with the House Speaker Andy DILLON (D-Redford Twp.) first, which is apparently what she told Bishop last week in a telephone conversation. Bishop has already met with Dillon on several occasions and has shown Dillon his list of cuts."

Only in Communications Guru's world does formally requesting a meeting three weeks ago constitute "stone walling".

As for Bishop's plan, I think you're completely missing the point.  By even coming out with a plan Bishop is doing the governor's job for her.  The Michigan Constitution clearly states that it is the duties of the governor, not the duties of the Senate Majority Leader to produce a budget plan.  If that plan is rejected, come out with another one.

But Granholm has decided to pout and moan instead.  If they don't like my ideas, then I'm taking my ball and going home.  This is what led to there being to meetings on the issue of the budget.  The fact that Granholm is ignoring the constitution and trying to make the rules up as she goes along.  No deal.

Maybe if Granholm would have "cleared her schedule" instead of taking a staged trip to Germany (which you and I paid for by the way in the midst of this crisis) or cut her vacation to Mexico short, we could have gotten to work on this a lot sooner.  Let's be honest, only when Standard & Poors threaten to hit Michigan's credit rating again did Granholm start "talking tough" again on balancing the budget.

"Oh no, the media is watching?  People are paying attention?  We better make sure it looks like we're doing something."

It's sadly been the typical leadership pattern of this administration.

As for Bishop not making the plan public, he has said time and time again that it would only hamper the negotiations, and he's right.  Getting the public all worked up about proposed plans is only going to limit options for Granholm, Bishop and Dillon.  This is why the meetings this week are taking place "behind closed doors".

Make no mistake Guru, your beloved governor did not publicly release her plan because she is willing to take the heat and the pressure of promoting an unpopular idea.  She did it because she is constitutionally required to.  The same does not go for Bishop and Granholm pretending it does will not change the State's constitution or help the present negotiations.

I close with the specific section of the constitution I reference since you refuse to take what I say at face value:

Michigan Constitution of 1963, Article V, Section 18: