I'm Endorsing Mike Behm For Regent
So I'm about to break the no politics rule. I regret this, but…
1. If I'm going to run for regent that has to happen anyway.
2. I am only going to do this for Michigan regent.
3. I don't think regent is a particularly partisan position—see the lack of transparency as to how they operate and the lack of "no" votes.
4. I am not a registered anything. I don't like politics for the same reason I don't like coachspeak. I would strongly prefer regent elections to be nonpartisan, but they're not. This is life.
All right, that said: when the regents' candidate forum was canceled on October 8th (it is now Friday at 4 PM, be there or be square) for scheduling issues, one guy still came into town because he was planning to do so anyway. He did a number of previously-scheduled in-person interviews, then emailed me. We got a couple beers at Ashley's, and we talked about the state of the regents, what was wrong about the current setup, and how to fix it. That guy is Mike Behm, and I'm endorsing him for regent.
This is not because he uses MGoBehm.com for his web presence. Mostly not.
Behm is a lawyer who graduated from Michigan in '89 with a BA in English with deep Michigan roots—his dad played football and ran track in the 50s. He went to the Rose Bowl in '89 as a student, and he reads the blog. I asked him to boil down his philosophy and goals into a few hundred words, and he's done so.
--------------------------------------
Q: What is the most important issue facing the University right now?
A: Affordability and accessibility. Over the past four decades, the State of Michigan has drastically reduced its financial support of the University. Thirty-five years ago, the State of Michigan covered 70% of U of M's costs, with the other 30% being paid for by tuition and endowment. Today, only 30% of the costs are covered by the State. I would like to see the State of Michigan invest in one of its most valuable assets, and increase its funding for U of M. But because of today's economic environment, I don't believe there is going to be a drastic increase of state funding. This being the case, I believe it is very important to examine the present cost structure of the University and cut and reduce unnecessary costs at all levels, including administration and operations.
Next, I would like to investigate ways to lower interest rates on student loans. Presently, banks borrow money at a rate that is nine times less than the average student loan. New legislation that has been introduced recently (Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act) that would help to lower student loan rates. If the government is not successful in reducing student loan interest rates, I would act to direct U of M's newest endowment program (Victors for Michigan) to provide low interest loans to our students.
Q: What are your thoughts regarding U of M's compliance with the open meetings act?
A: While I understand the need to protect individual's rights of privacy when it comes to limited circumstances such as some personnel issues. I am a firm believer that the Board of Regents would benefit from seriously listening to the concerns of the public. In addition to having Regents meetings where decisions are made with public comment and public interaction, I would use other ways for the Regents to gather information. For example, while the composition of the Board of Regents cannot be changed without involving the State of Michigan Constitution, I would propose forming advisory committees. I am in favor of forming small separate committees of students, faculty members, and supporters of the Athletic Department so that they can meet with and advise the Board of Regents when it comes to making important decisions.
In addition to being an attorney, I serve as Chairperson of Business Forward Michigan, an organization that helps local business leaders from Michigan advise Washington on how to create jobs and accelerate our economic recovery. The present Board of Regents seems to conduct business like politicians in Washington, in an isolated and deaf manner. Like what I do with Business Forward, I will work to help the Regents make decisions with the help of many informed and concerned voices.
--------------------------------
While the above issues are obviously more important than the athletic department, we talked about that, too, and he'd support a change at the top there.
The above language is a little stiff, I know, but in talking to him it was clear he deeply cared about the university and was basically just a guy who wanted to help out. He's not much interested in serious political office; the opportunity to help the U out was a different matter. I think you should vote for him, no matter your political affiliation.
-Brian
October 21st, 2014 at 6:33 PM ^
Lots of things.
Before the Supreme Court affirmed the ban, the Regents could have dictated that they would not have supported the University using raced based admissions standards, for example.
October 21st, 2014 at 3:44 PM ^
Hard to win a Regent's seat without blue blood connections.
October 21st, 2014 at 3:26 PM ^
He's a lawyer, so I'm thinking he's a Democrat. But then he's actively involved in expanding buisness through lobbying Washington which makes him a Republican. And now I'm all confused. Which one is he Brian!? Someone help me out here! I can't decide whether he's the scourge of the country, or if he will save us all! Why must politics be so confusing??!!
October 21st, 2014 at 8:03 PM ^
you don't understand that there are Republican lawyers?
October 21st, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^
October 21st, 2014 at 3:37 PM ^
I would encourage everyone not to respond to this post. There's a difference between discussing issues that affect the University of Michigan and devolving into trite political generalizations.
October 21st, 2014 at 3:42 PM ^
My initial URL didnt save as a clickable link. Here is the URL as a clickable link, so people can fairly read Behm's endorsement and judge for themselves (as they should always do.)
October 21st, 2014 at 3:42 PM ^
...I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself...[insert sheepish emoticon]
October 21st, 2014 at 3:39 PM ^
Because Brian endorses a democrat, he's a leftist?
(1) It is possible to endorse people with whom you do not agree politically.
(2) Even if it isn't, who cares what Brian's political affiliations are?
October 21st, 2014 at 4:04 PM ^
And how about...
(3) If you want leftist, I'll show you leftists, and not one of them is a Democrat.
October 21st, 2014 at 4:13 PM ^
But I didn't think that it would go over real well.
October 21st, 2014 at 4:24 PM ^
October 21st, 2014 at 4:29 PM ^
Oh come ON. That's some high-quality kookery right there and I say this as someone who would probably agree with most of your political stances. Dave Brandon sucks at his job and is pissing people off - that is the impetus. Everything else is tinfoil-hat crap.
October 21st, 2014 at 4:30 PM ^
And I support Snyder.
I also believe Brandon should be fired
October 21st, 2014 at 4:31 PM ^
Seek help.
October 21st, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^
It wasn't Castro who killed Kennedy. The mob killed Kennedy because they thought he was soft on Castro. Get your conspiracy straight.
October 21st, 2014 at 4:35 PM ^
The fact that you can't see past politics to have a healthy perspective on life doesn't mean that everyone else has that problem.
October 21st, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^
We want to know.
October 21st, 2014 at 4:54 PM ^
Don't give Adidas any ideas.
October 21st, 2014 at 4:52 PM ^
Will vote for or against Rick Snyder because of anything Dave Brandon did or didn't do.
(And you should hear the hardcore, old-school cigar-smoking Republicans at my tailgate bitch about Dave Brandon.)
October 21st, 2014 at 5:16 PM ^
Genius shit right here. If someone's incompetent and fucking up at their job, it's only OK to support their ouster if you share their political alignment, because otherwise you have a partisan agenda. Wow.
October 22nd, 2014 at 9:33 AM ^
October 21st, 2014 at 6:35 PM ^
I worked on voted for Snyder once, will vote for him again, voted for Obama twice, and want Brandon fired.
TLDR: You're a blithering moron.
October 21st, 2014 at 6:49 PM ^
October 21st, 2014 at 8:10 PM ^
too many generalizations and oversimplications in your post. It's like when people start throwing labels around like "Michigan Man" as if there were just one right answer.
Don't put 2 and 2 together and tell yourself that 7 is the right answer...
October 22nd, 2014 at 10:30 AM ^
My favorite part of Infinite Jest was when DFW wrote out that list of things you learn in a halfway house. My favorite among them: awful people don't think they're being awful; they believe everyone else is.
I've known Brian long enough to be certain of the fact that his strongest political partisanship is anti-partisanship. There certainly are people who let their poltiics dictate everything they think, and these are the people you hear constantly ascribing partisanship as someone else's motivation.
The lesson here--and you seem like somebody in particular need of it--is the bad things we think about people tend to be more applicable to ourselves.
October 22nd, 2014 at 11:49 AM ^
I really need to finish Infinite Jest sometime. Maybe in 17 years when my kids are out of the house.
October 21st, 2014 at 3:39 PM ^
as to why politics are banned on this blog generally.
The mouthbreathers simply cannot help themselves.
October 22nd, 2014 at 11:50 AM ^
The comforting part of this whole incident is how 99.9% of the readership agrees that this blog should remain politics-free, and have joined together in introducing our friend to Bolivia.
October 21st, 2014 at 3:41 PM ^
ONLY COMMIES WHERE HOCKEY JERZIES ALL THE TIME!!!ONE!!!
October 21st, 2014 at 7:33 PM ^
October 22nd, 2014 at 9:34 AM ^
October 21st, 2014 at 9:06 PM ^
#chemtrails
October 21st, 2014 at 3:41 PM ^
You are the reason why Brain hated doing this.
October 21st, 2014 at 3:45 PM ^
Come on guys, this fellow has a point, right? Communist, leftist, Marxist, radicalist, left wing sickos are taking our jobs and national security away and giving us ebola.
*Angrily spits out chewing tobacco*
Back when I was in undergrad, we learned that a pluralistic, measured view of the political process was just part of the pinko conspiracy. Anyone endorsing a democrat is a leftist and should be tossed in Guantanamo.
*Eye twitches alarmingly*
Oh wait. Perhaps he's just endorsing him because he believes that his views and qualifications are best for the university moving forward. That is also a distinct possibility. Who really knows...
October 21st, 2014 at 3:50 PM ^
And you're really helping to elevate the conversation by painting greymarch as the stupid hick chewing tobacco and spouting conspiracy theories, because that's what all dumb conservatives are like.
Hint - you're part of the problem just as much as he is.
October 21st, 2014 at 3:57 PM ^
This post would be SOOOOO much more valid if you'd also jumped on the person who couldn't contain himself and had to introduce talking points from the Blaze. Probably shouldn't go accusing others of bias.
October 21st, 2014 at 4:00 PM ^
It's not really required to criticize every post in order to criticize one. ypsi wasn't accusing anyone of bias, he was accusing someone of not practicing what was preached.
October 21st, 2014 at 4:07 PM ^
I didn't see him doing anything other than mocking grey's hysterical, paranoid response, which was deserved. The guy Brian wants to serve as UM regent happens to be a Democrat. Obviously a Marxist plot!
October 21st, 2014 at 4:23 PM ^
That's because some responses are so hysterical/paranoid that they don't need mocking. They mock themselves.
October 21st, 2014 at 5:05 PM ^
October 21st, 2014 at 5:04 PM ^
He's just calling a spade a spade.
October 21st, 2014 at 6:11 PM ^
... with you when I first read the post generalizaing republicans with a lazy stereotype. But, at 4:24PM greymarch's elaboration comment above fits the stereotype to a T... sadly.
October 21st, 2014 at 3:49 PM ^
This post is probably a good reflection of why it's best to just avoid politics in this endorsement kind of way (and more generally). Another way to handle this kind of thing, Brian, is to offer a few candidates opportunities for Q&As and skip the endorsement. Hopefully the better ones would look better in their responses, and politicians have a habit of avoiding conversations with people they think will make them look bad. There'd probably be a lot to learn if someone refused a conversation about open meetings and the like.
Comments