I first met House Speaker Andy Dillon three years ago in Grand Rapids and was impressed with his candor and honesty.

After a gutsy political move last week that either was a stroke of genius or political hari-kari, Dillon earned even more of my respect and perhaps, support, if he runs for governor.

Wrestling with how to address a $1.7 billion deficit in Lansing, Dillon suggested the state could save $900 million a year by placing public employees and retirees into one statewide insurance plan instead of all the splinter plans that now exist for city and county workers, teachers, police and firefighters, college professors and lawmakers.

Dillon knew full well by suggesting the move, he would be staring eye-to-eye with of one the state's strongest labor unions - the Michigan Education Association. The road to the governor's mansion in Lansing for a Democrat must first go through the MEA, yet he chose to forego political ambition for an alternative solution to the budget problem, knowing full well the possible consequences.

"The goal is to make sure Michigan succeeds in the 21st century. To do that, we're going to have to change the way this government is structured," Dillon said in an Associated Press story.

Alpena News Lansing columnist Tim Skubick shared on this page Friday that the MEA's response was quick and sharp, with MEA President Lu Battaglieri saying in a memo that the union was at war with Dillon. He said Dillon's plan was "anti-labor, anti-union, and anti-collective bargaining."

Battaglieri said Dillon might be a nice man, but in his house upstairs there is nobody home.

Ouch.

I would respectively disagree, instead equating Dillon's move to a bold chess game that unless Battaglieri is careful, could result in a check-mate to he and his kingdom.

I first met Dillon and Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop together at a function of the Michigan Press Association. The two had the hard task of following charismatic Gov. Jennifer Granholm to the podium - not an easy assignment. Despite sharing gloomy economic news about the state budget, Granholm nevertheless had delivered one of her captivating luncheon addresses. Dillon and Bishop were the next group to meet with journalists.

During the next hour or so the two men candidly shared with the gathering their impressions and opinions on a wide range of subjects. What struck me the most, however, was how well the two worked side-by-side and their sincerity at wanting to make the state stronger through their leadership and actions. Both left me with the impression that if the right issue came before them, and they believed 100 percent in a course of action to address it, they would abandon strict party partisanship if that was the action needed to make it succeed.

The way I see it, Dillon's plan is one of those issues.

I believe Dillon knows better than most the behind the scenes negotiations of the past several years involving budget solutions. Facing even worse revenue projections for the new budget year, he knows the reality of being able to pull any more rabbits out of the hat. And, he understands that as a legislative leader with his sights on the governor's seat, a lot of eyes are on him to offer solutions, not the same old status quo.

Dillon knew the move would be unpopular, but he knew where a lot of savings rested.

And, by doing so, Dillon also knew that while he would put himself on a limb within his party, he also was creating an uncomfortable place for Lt. Gov. John Cherry, a possible foe for that governor's seat. Most residents are going to look at Dillon's plan and think "why doesn't the state do this?" Does Cherry really want to explain "why not" from the MEA's perspective?

No, I think Dillon's plan a stroke of political genius that indeed, should be strongly considered to help bail out next year's budget.

Dillon earned a great deal more of my respect this past week.

For the record, I wouldn't want to play him in a game of chess.