The Modern Esquire

Kasich finally forms campaign committee, still has no plan for Ohio

2009-05-02T17:34:00.002-04:00

As conservatives and conservative-sympathetic editorial writers attack Strickland for "not balancing" a budget that doesn't even exist yet for a time period that is BEYOND his current term of Governor, John Kasich has offered only one solution for all of Ohio's ills: a repeal of the Ohio income tax.

Except that Kasich REFUSES, absolutely REFUSES to explain how he'll pay for a proposal that would equal a 40% reduction in state government revenues.

John Kasich has no plans; he has platitudes. While he claims he's more than a one-issue candidate and that he also cares about education, Kasich has been completely AWOL during the debate on Strickland's education plan. You'd think the top of the ticket candidate would be at the forefront of the Republican's alternative education plan. But perhaps Kasich's absence is that the Republicans have no alternative plan for education.

Kasich relies on partisan, ideological studies that claim the State is 47th in competitiveness and taxes, when objective studies put Ohio far more than the median. The conservatives studies he relies on also are based on data before the State went on a five-year reduction of their income tax rates. Taxes that continued to be cut under both of the Strickland's budget.

Strickland has reformed Ohio's energy polices to put Ohio on the frontlines in the development and utilization of alternative energy technologies to end Ohio's dependance on foreign oil. He's cut taxes every year he's been in office. He's frozen tuition at Ohio's colleges and universities after nearly two decades of unchecked sky-rocketing tuition under Republican rule.

His education reform plan is simply revolutionary.

John Kasich's talking head-ness at Fox News tells you what to expect from him as a candidate. Promises and platitudes, but not serious plans or the ability to lead.

Kasich will raise alot of money. And he'll lose by at least twenty points. Strickland hasn't been one to toot his own horns. The campaign will, unfortunately, need to do some public education as to what Strickland has done the last three years as a result. But despite that, he's got strong job approval numbers that suggest no Republican candidate can be a credible threat.

And John Kasich has never given a "fiery" speech in his life. He's bland, boring, and predictable.

This race is going to be painful to follow. John Kasich couldn't even carry his old Congressional District now.

Dear GOP, it's still not 1994... not by a long shot

2009-04-29T14:59:00.002-04:00

Bizarre. While there was a sizeable number of party switchers leading up to and through 1994, it was mostly politicians switching TO the Republican Party, not prominent long-standing members switching AWAY from the GOP.

I guess this means that Specter's switch is no longer "just a Pennsylvania story" anymore?

John Boehner's an idiot: his comments on the first 100 days of the Obama Administration

2009-04-29T11:32:00.003-04:00

You ever wonder if the Ohio GOP debates putting these things up on their website:

"The President's first 100 days can be summed up in three words: spending, taxing, and borrowing."

Name me a government that didn't spend, tax, or borrow. I guess you could say the same thing for Reagan. Every government spend, taxes, and borrows. Boehner is phoning this thing in. He's already checked out.

Then he repeats the lie that Obama has raised taxes on the middle class when he's actually CUT them. He also repeats the lie that their alternative plan would have created twice as many jobs. The economists they cited as their basis of the calculation has even publicly told them that their math is completely wrong.

Then it gets weird.

"I support the President's responsible plans to bring our troops home from Iraq . . . "

This would be the same plan John Boehner nationally called a surrender to terrorist just last year. The plan he said shows Obama "surrendering" to terrorists. For years, Boehner blasted the very notion of a timetable for American withdrawal. Now it's a responsible plan that Boehner supports? Elections do funny things to people.

John Boehner's last term in Congress?

2009-04-29T10:02:00.004-04:00

The Hamilton Pulse Journal is reporting that Republican Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones has taken out petitions to run for the Republican nomination in John Boehner's district. Jones told the paper that he is not yet announcing a candidacy but has only picked up the paperwork to run if decides to do so. He is forming an exploratory committee to consider a run.

In the story, there's this curious quote from Sheriff Jones:

"Timing is everything," Jones said. "The three commissioners we have now won’t be leaving soon. The 8th Congressional District is a conservative district (that) I do well in. We'll have to see."

This tells me that Jones believes that John Boehner may not run for re-election, as he's essentially saying that he's not considering other offices because they aren't vacant. I've heard talk in Republican circles that Boehner may retire "soon," but that has always been portrayed as being possibly at some point in the next few terms.

A retirement by Boehner isn't implausible. At the end of this term. Boehner will have served in Congress for twenty years. He's not on any short list for a Senate seat race or any other statewide race, but he'd easily fit in on K Street as a lobbyist.

Boehner is not a popular figure in Washington. Since becoming House Minority Leader, the Republicans have gone through two straight brutal election cycles and predictions are that 2010 is not going to be a Republican rose garden, either.

Boehner wants to avoid the embarassment of being removed from the House Republican leadership for the second time in his congressional career. He barely hung on as Minority Leader this Congress. He did so by convincing rising conservative stars like Eric Cantor to serve in lower positions instead, leaving the disaffected Republicans no viable alternative to organize and support.

Boehner cannot afford a third bad political cycle. The national dialogue about how the Republican Party lacks a national leader is an of indictment to tenure of Boehner's lack of leadership. A retirement does not put a seat at risk and allows Boehner to gracefully exit without suffering the indignity of being outsted in a coup and forced to spend his time in Congress as a politically impotent member of the House minority caucus.

Jones, by the way, is a media whore who has stoked people's fears about undocumented immigrants (a real problem in the county) and actions designed to humiliate and degrade jail inmates as a way to appear to the public as being tough on crime. He's very much like Arizona Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio who Jones have mimiced many of the same actions as that attention-seeking sheriff. So, don't think that Jones would necessarily be an improvement.

While Politico and the Pulse Journal are reporting this as a possible primary challenge, I think Jones' comment suggests growing confidence in the GOP Congresisonal candidate pool that John Boehner will not run for re-election in 2010 and it's time his potential successors start staking out their claim to his seat.

Republicans voted against stimulus money to prepare for swine flu pandemic

2009-04-29T04:04:00.003-04:00

This borders on political malpractice. First, the vote itself, and then RNC Chairman Michael Steele's attempt to defend the vote which, I'm sorry, took place two months ago, not six.

They voted against keeping police on our streets, tax cuts, and preparing our nation in case of a swine flu pandemic. That's the Republican Party today. That's the spending and tax cut plan (one of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history) you guys had your lil' Tea Party whinefest over.

Don't run from it. Deal with it! You're the pro-tax, anti-law & order, and anti-public health party.

Arlen Specter (D)- PA: Smart move conservatives.

2009-04-28T13:33:00.002-04:00

Democrats are one vote away from a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate once Al Franken is FINALLY seated. The Democrats control the U.S. House and the White House. George W. Bush and Carl Rove prayed for that kind of majorities just eight years ago.

So what does the conservative Club for Growth decide to do? "Let's take on a moderate Republican in a brutal primary that the moderate cannot win! What's the worst that can happen?"

Well, you could force the Republican to switch parties giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority, a major recruiting coup and further evidence that the country is tending to left-center. This is going to discourage top Republican challengers across the country to run. Making taking back the Congress, or even making a sizeable dent in the majority, of the Congress all that harder. Rob Portman's race just became the Republican Alamo of the Midwest.

But the Republicans could now get Joe Lieberman! So what? You think Droopy Dog is going to give up his committee gavel to be the ranking minority member of a subcommittee? Nope. No Democrat is going to switch themselves into political oblivion.

I'm amazed that the Democrats could keep this a secret so long. When Jeffords broke, it was already old news by the time he actually announced.

As if on cue, Bizzyblog goes nuts, having to dig back forty years to criticize Specter for work he did as a private attorney to suggest he's the favorite of serial murders or something. So his non sequiturs syndrome apparently isn't limited only to comments on the recession. His condition is worse than I feared. Oh my!

The conservatives will too easily write this off as part of Pat Toomey's primary bid, but that's a surface analysis that misses the big picture. There's a reason Pat Toomey was ahead- because the Pennsylvania Republican Party has been reduced down to the most conservative of elements (sound familar, Ohio?) The Party has scared or pushed out its moderate wing who is forced to become independents who split tickets... or, gasp, moderate Democrats. You know why John McCain thought he could pull up an upset in PA? Because he believed there were still Arlen Specter Republicans who'd come home. Palin scared them away, meaning that the only Specter Republicans left in the PA GOP was Specter himself (his family's allegiance to the McCain/Pail ticket last year is undocumented).

They never really were in contension because the Republican brand had been identified as being so out of touch with voters that McCain could not overcome the bad branding. Midwesterners no longer consider the Republican Party a viable option to them because of the party's dedication to an out-of-touch extreme conservative ideology that is hostile to moderates and compromise.

Branding that was the conscious choice of conservative organizations like Club for Growth. They are leading the Republican Party deeper into the political wilderness and off the cliff.

Welcome to the Democratic Party, Senator Specter. BTW, I love your voiceover work on "This Week in Baseball" (j/k).

Disproving the "Going Gault" conspiracy theory: Exhibit A: Its proponents

2009-04-28T10:22:00.002-04:00

I'm starting to wonder if Bizzyblog should be declared mental incompetent for his own protection. He's still clinging to his newest conservative conspiracy theory as to why the economy tanked: people started last summer "going Gault" (think rich people on strike) in order to avoid Obama's crushing three percent increase on the top marginal income tax rate (you know, returning them to the pre-Bush/Clinton levels in which nobody "went Gault" when instituted.)

I could not possibly detail the exact number of ways this is completely asinine. But here's some of the top ones:
1) An "alternative theory" as to why federal revenue collections dropped starting in last summer could have more to do with a global economic recession than an unorganized, uncoordinated plan to protest a three percent increase on the top marginal tax rate... especially when the control of Congress and the White House was far from certain. In fact, anyone who reads Bizzy's posting at the time would see that his rants then was that the Democrats and the media were falsely representing the state of the national economy and they'd be revealed as frauds when the fourth quarter showed 4% GDP growth (it instead showed -6% shrinkage... and yet, Bizzy still maintains there has been no recession at the time.)
2) The only ancedotal evidence cited by its supporters have people pledging that this year they will cut back on their business because they don't conceptually understand marginal tax rates. This pledge by people to go Gault in the coming future would seem to be strong evidence AGAINST a theory that people have been going Gault since June 2008.
3) The offshore drilling ban. This is the entire crux of Bizzyblog's "going Gault" theory:

Starting in June and all the way through to Election Day, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Harry Reid repeatedly told the country that they were ready, willing, and would soon be able to starve the country of the conventional sources of energy it needs to keep its economic engines running, regardless of the consequences, bowing before what may be the greatest hoax in human history.

Never mind that Obama favors coal energy and the development of clean coal technologies. Never mind that the very "cap and trade" proposal Obama was supporting was also part of the McCain/Palin platform.

Beyond that, the only energy issue that meets this description is the federal offshore drilling ban... which was lifted under a Democratic Congress in September, a month BEFORE the stock market crashed. A ban which had existed for decades and went unquestioned during the prior six years of Republican rule in the White House and Congress. How lifting the offshore drilling ban equates to "starving the country" of conventional sources of energy which explains the following collapse of the capital markets is beyond even insane human comprehension.

4) Conflating typical recessionary actions with political motives. Here Bizzy couldn't be more transparent as he confuses the reader to ascribe political motives ("going Gault") with rational economic actions in an economy where GDP is shrinking 6% (at the same time Bizzy thought it was growing 4%), credit markets are frozen, capital is vanishing in the stock market, etc.:

"As a result, they took steps that businesspeople, entrepreneurs and investors ordinarily take when a serious recession takes hold — not hiring, not expanding, letting people go and not replacing them, making worn-out equipment last longer instead of buying new, and others — before the serious recession took hold."

These things all took place in the fourth quarter.... at the beginning of the recession. (Tomorrow, it is expected the First Quarter GDP will be announced, expectations are that it will show a negative 4-5%. Expectations are that the second quarter of 2009 will show another 2% loss in GDP before the economy begins to grow again.) The economy didn't shrink because Obama said the economy was bad. It's the opposite: Obama said the economy was shrinking because the economy was shrinking.

Again, this, and the global size of the economic crisis, suggests that the slowdown in the economy has more to do with macroeconomic trends than a bunch of rich folks protesting having to pay higher taxes. The fact that Bizzy is compelled to conflate the two so obviously reveal what a fraud the "going Gault" theory really is.

5) Dumb people don't stay rich. The top wealth producers in the economy clearly lost more wealth in the stock market crash beginning in October than any tax proposal by the Obama Administration. If the rich stopped hiring, producing, and investing to protest a three percent increase on the top marginal rate, then this was the most foolish waste of money in the history of economics. It's like detonating dynamite in your house to kill a fly.

6) Do as I say, not as I do. Almost not the the strongest evidence of what utter nonsense th "Gault theory" of the 2008-2009 recession, it certain is the most amusing. If, as Bizzyblog opines, the Tea Party protests earlier this month were about the collective Gaults of the nation expressingly their anger. Then where was Ohio's leading advocate that all things economic are Gault?:

"It is my pleasure on this Tea Party Day (which I will regretfully have to miss because of personal and business commitments) to introduce a new and hopefully fairly frequent poster here."

In other words, "While y'all go Gault, I'm going to work." How very un-Gault-like. Tell me, what are the titles of the books Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin won't be publishing this year because they're "going Gault?" (One reason why I totally support both of them if they decide to actually practice what they preach.)

After spending months claiming that there was no recession, Bizzyblog cannot fathom the idea that he was just simply wrong on the economy and wrong for attacking Obama for truthfully talking about the bad economic conditions. Nope, in his fevered partisan mind, the only conclusion is that the Trilateral Commission or some other shadowy, power conservative group wrecked the economy to get Obama elected President and make things so bad that Americans were willing to permit an extensive federal involvement in the means of production in our national economy in order to protest a tax increase at the top marginal rate (returning it to its levels permitted, without a Gault-like strike, in the 1990s), thus making Obama's prior comments on the economy a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yeah, that's far more plausible than Bizzyblog doesn't know what he's talking about!

Coughlin's coverup: Falsely tell the sources they'll be outed and sued

2009-04-27T12:04:00.003-04:00

So if you've been following the story about Kevin Coughlin's extramartial affair which began while she was a student of his at the University of Akron, you've noticed the tendacies of anonymous commenters who have been suggesting all sorts of crazy things without any evidence, including things like Coughlin has "verified" with the paramour's former roommate that she did not tell the reporter she clearly overheard Coughlin have noisy sex with her roommate.

At 1:30 a.m. this morning, I had an apparent Coughlin loyalist explain that the reason his lawyers aren't coming after those of us who have actually published and promoted this story is because "we're not important" and that he's going after the sources in the story themselves.

Add to that, this unusual e-mail from State Senator Kevin Coughlin himself, dated March 9, 2009 that is now posted over at Blogger Interrupted:

Anticipating legal action, he has repeatedly reminded Scene Magazine of it’s obligations to save all records that will help lead us back to the source of the defamatory comments and allegations:

“As I communicated in October, please make sure that your company and all its employees preserve all information, electronic and otherwise, they have or will have in their possession pertaining to this or any related matter. We will want to trace very carefully how all information has been used for any story being planned, what information was not used or followed up, and what individuals have been interviewed or contacted. Information concerning all alleged confidential sources should be preserved, also. No electronic information should be overwritten.

All drafts should be saved. Backup tapes should be preserved. No paper or other hard information should be discarded.”

Again, I thank you for your assistance and regret the harassment. Know that, if needed, we will be prepared with guns blazing and a proper response. In the event that our action gives us insight into the sources of the defamatory information, I will share it with you.

Except one thing, it's one thing for an attorney to claim that if litigation ensues they're entitled to certain information-- it's quite another to say that they're legally entitled to learn the identity of such sources.

Ohio's courts, and indeed the very legislature State Senator Kevin Coughlin serves, have recognized that journalists have a legal privilege from disclosing the identity of confidential sources. Don't believe me (even though I'm a lawyer?), then how about this handy-dandy publication from the Ohio State Bar Association:

Reporter’s Privilege Allows Journalists to Keep Sources Confidential
Created: 11/28/2008 12:56:54 AM

Q: Do journalists have a right to keep their sources confidential?
A: Most states, including Ohio, recognize some form of a “reporter’s privilege” that allows journalists to refuse to disclose their confidential sources. The Ohio legislature has enacted statutes called “shield laws” that protect print and broadcast journalists from being compelled to disclose the identity of their confidential sources. Ohio courts also have recognized a constitutional protection for non-confidential notes, drafts, video outtakes and other non-published or non-broadcast materials.

Q: Who is covered by the privilege?
A: Journalists are covered by the privilege, but “journalist” is defined differently by different courts and state statutes. Ohio’s shield laws define a journalist as a person “engaged in the work of, or connected with, or employed by” a broadcast station (radio or television) or newspaper or press association for the purpose of gathering, editing and publishing or broadcasting news. Courts in other jurisdictions have more broadly defined a journalist as someone who is gathering news with the intent to disseminate it to the public.

Q: Is it true that news reporters never have to reveal their sources?
A: No; the privilege is generally not absolute in most states. Ohio’s shield laws may not protect a reporter who is asked to reveal confidential sources to a grand jury or in a criminal trial when the criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial are in danger. In civil lawsuits in which a party seeks testimony or documents from a journalist concerning non-confidential sources, Ohio courts sometimes require the
journalist to disclose the information if the party seeking the information can
show it is relevant, it cannot be obtained from alternative sources, and there
is a compelling interest in obtaining the information.

In other words, under R.C. 2739.04, Coughlin's unlikely to get any information from Scene Magazine, or James Renner, as to the identity of Renner's sources. It's only been the law of the State of Ohio since 1977, so it's easy to see how Coughlin and his high-priced attorney could make such a glaring mistake. (Snark.)

Don't get me wrong, if I were Coughlin's lawyer, of course I'd be insisting on this information. But Scene magazine, if it has any journalistic credibility would assert the journalists' privilege from non-disclosure and Coughlin would be hard pressed to dent it.

So why send out the email suggesting that Coughlin is going to learn about who the anonymous sources are if he is unlikely to legally be able to do so? Four letters: STFU! He's broadcasting to the legally ignorant, those who cannot afford to go against Kevin Coughlin, his well-greased money machine and his high-priced lawyers, and threatening them that if they don't stop talking he's coming after them with guns blazing. He's sending it out to people he knows, or should know, won't realize that it's all a bluff. He's got nothing but blanks for his six-figure legal artillery.

It's a standard, "if you aren't with me, I'll find you out and expose you" and if you are with me, you'll be a loyal footsoldier and report all contacts by the "outsiders" so I can defend myself. It's downright cult-like. Veiled threats coupled with group-identity solidarity in the force of sinister, outside forces that only Coughlin will protect you against if you stay loyal to him.

This is what made those of us in the know on media law so shocked by the decision of Scene not to publish the story of Coughlin's apparent extramarital affair. If they were willing to kill a legally defensible piece of journalism to avoid litigation,would Scene be willing to waive its journalistic privileges and disclose confidential sources also in order to avoid litigation? Where is the line in the sand that Scene magazine has declared that it is not willing to compromise its journalistic integrity in order to avoid defending against a frivolous lawsuit?

Will State Senator Kevin Coughlin's campaign of legal bullying and intimidation actually work? And what social responsibility will Scene magazine bear in being complicit to Coughlin's legal strategy?

Weeks after Coughlin sexual affair story breaks, no lawsuits

2009-04-25T10:48:00.002-04:00

Three of Ohio's law school graduate bloggers (Tim Russo, Pho, and myself) agree that the story written by James Brenner for Cleveland Scene magazine alleging that GOP gubernatorial candidate/State Senator Kevin Coughlin began an affair with a student while teaching at the University of Akron and continued for a considerable amount of time and included using campaign funds to pay of hotel stays and a repair to her car is pretty much judgment proof on libel grounds under the NY Times v. Sullivan standard. Like my earlier post, Pho calls the decision by Scene to spike the story because of a simple threat of a lawsuit by Coughlin an "abject surrender" that is "puzzling."

To date, despite the best efforts of anonymous blog commenters who somehow have unprecedented level of knowledge of both the inner workings of Scene magazine and Camp Coughlin's activities (or are just pretended to), I've yet to see any evidence to give me a reason to doubt my initial assessment that any threat of a lawsuit by Coughlin was an empty threat and that any such lawsuit based on libel of Coughlin was groundless.

Also to date, neither myself, Tim Russo, or Pho has been contacted by Coughlin's attorneys to demand that we retract our posts or else be subject to litigation for libeling Senator Coughlin. And do you know why? Because Coughlin's lawyers know they have no case. They also probably know that I am a lawyer, that if I were sued, I would likely countersue Coughlin for malicious prosecution/frivolous conduct and seek to sanction Coughlin and his attorneys for trying to use private litigation to intimidate me from exercising my constitutionally protected First Amendment rights. If they didn't realize it before now, they do now.

So please, sue us. I could use the money. And it gives us all an excuse to write more about Coughlin's extramaritial affair with a campaign worker while going around the State and calling "gay marriage," not "adultery," the greatest threat to the institute of marriage. Posts about Cleveland Scene's spiking of the sourced newsstory about Coughlin's alleged affair is traffic gold.

I can't wait to depose Kevin Coughlin. And if I believe he committed perjury in such a deposition, I'll forward it to the General Assembly to consider impeachment proceedings against him.

Right now, Old Media is holding its fire because Coughlin is not a credible challenger for the GOP nomination and most people don't know who he is. That, and they hate to give credit for blogs for breaking any kind of story and they're using the excuse that a story about his affair is too "tabloid" for them after going gaga for Monica and the lil' blue dress.

This story is far better evidenced and sourced that what Matt Naugle had when he first alleged (and was proven right) that Marc Dann was carrying on an extramarital affair with a young staffer and using campaign funds to fund those activities. And yet, not one conservative blogger has even MENTIONED this story. Hypocrites. Kevin Coughlin supported the impeachment inquiry and thought Dann waited too long to resign. Coughlin's double standard on resigning over extramarital affairs in office can go unnoticed only so long.

But the embargo by Old Media collapses the second Coughlin sues us. That and other dams will then break. And Team Coughlin knows it. Which is why they'll continue their campaign to privately try to call the credibility of the story into question without ever actually suing.

It's your call, Kevin. But my prediction is that you'll get behind John Kasich as Governor and use his candidacy as an excuse to slither back to the obscurity he so richly deserves.

Ohio Supreme Court finds little fault in Strickland Administration's response to massive public records request

2009-04-24T16:54:00.004-04:00

The Ohio Supreme Court, in an unanimous decision by the all-GOP court, found that the Strickland Administration has largely properly handled the massive public records request by fresman State Representative Seth Morgan (R-Montgomery Co.) requesting just about any record dealing with the formation or the Governor's public education funding reform proposal.

Morgan filed suit in less than a month after requesting that the Governor produce, for example, every email regarding the governor's evidence-based model and education funding. A request that alone generated over 74,000 pages of data alone.

The Governor's office claimed that it was already in the process of responding to the request, but that some of the request was too broad and the rest was under review for redaction of information that under state and federal law is exempt from disclosure in a public records request (since the Governor is pointedly NOT claiming executive privilege, I can only assume we're talking about personal addresses, Social Security Numbers, D.O.B., that kind of information.) The Administration said that it would take them some time to review the materials to redact such protected information before disclosure.

Although the Court granted the writ ("order") that Morgan was seeking, it was under the weakest terms possible. The Court today essentially ordered the Strickland Administration to continue to do what the Court found it was already doing and review the records, redact, and produce them within a "reasonable" amount of time. The Court unanimously agreed that the Strickland Administration's response to Morgan's "comprehensive" request was lawful and reasonable. The Court also found that Morgan's request was overbroad and that Morgan was being unreasonable in his expectation in how quickly he expected the Governor's office to respond to what even State Rep. Morgan conceded was a wide-ranging request of a massive amount of documents.

Furthermore, the Court also found that the Strickland Administration's claimed reason for the delay-- the need to redact information exempt from public disclosure under state and federal law-- was legitimate and reasonable.

The Court, and in the concurring opinion of Justice Pfeiffer, also referenced the political theater motivating the litigation. Political theater like State Representative Morgan and the Ohio Republican Party using the politically inspired lawsuit as grounds to allege that the Strickland Administration was engaged in a "cover up" regarding the Governor's plan to reform public education.

Morgan even lamely tried to label the whole thing as "Evidencegate." He falsely stated that he had gotten no response or information from the Administration when , in fact, it had contacted him and told him that it was working on a complete response but provided a bibliography of sources the Administration relied on in crafting the education plan.

The most laughable line of attack the GOP, and Morgan specifically, have been trying is to say that the plan was crafted in secret. This after a year of publicly held and reported town hall meetings with interested parties to discuss various proposals and then to discuss the plan itself.

Strickland's education plan was crafted in the most public ways possible. It's now also being publicly debated and altered in public legislative committee hearings. Hearings on committees that Rep. Morgan is actually a member of.

What is not public is any Republican alternative to anything Strickland has proposed. The Republicans have no plan to reform public education. None.

The Republicans have to manfacture something to be "outraged" about because they have no plan. They can only hope that by taking potshots from the sidelines they can convince Ohioans that they can do better for Ohio with no plans than what Strickland will do with his.

The Ohio Republican Party is just simply brain dead.

[UPDATE:] The Governor's Office just released this statement from the Governor regarding today's court decision:

"I appreciate that the Ohio Supreme Court acknowledges the considerable efforts my office has taken to be responsive to a legislator’s broad public records request. My office has released thousands of pages of documents in response to this request.

"Each of four document releases included letters inviting the representative to further refine or clarify his request so we could more quickly provide materials focused on any substantive concerns about my education proposal that he may have. To date, my office has not received any indication of any specific education policy areas in which he is interested.

"I appreciate the Court’s finding that the overly-broad request should be further refined, narrowed and clarified. I continue to believe that this effort is little more than a disappointing attempt to detract from, rather than enhance, the ongoing legislative discussion about modernizing Ohio’s education system. My staff will continue working to provide responsive records as quickly as possible.”

Yet another stupid Republican bill: Eliminate the income tax for college graduates

2009-04-23T12:03:00.003-04:00

(HT: Weapons of Mass Discussion... even though no discussion ever occurs there... let alone a mass of it.)

There's apparently an epidemic among Ohio Republicans to suddenly repeal the state's income tax.

State Representative Cheryl Grossman has now introduced House Bill 44 which would eliminate all State income tax liability to any resident in Ohio with a Bachelor's degree for the first five years after graduating:

“The state of our economy in Ohio is burying our college graduates with an alarming amount of debt,” Grossman said. “Eliminating graduates state income tax liability will allow them to use their extra funds to help pay for their student loans and other debts incurred during college. This bill will also attract college graduates from other states.”

House Bill 144 specifically allows individuals who graduate from any institution of higher education, and who are residents of Ohio, to claim a state income tax credit equal to the individuals’ net tax liability for up to five years. Graduates will have one year from graduation to apply for the tax credit through the Ohio Board of Regents. If a graduate leaves Ohio within the five years, he or she will be required to pay back the amount of tax credit received.

“The loss of jobs throughout the state is creating a panic among college students and recent graduates who are looking for employment,” Grossman said. “It is well known that the lack of jobs and taxes are causing our states brightest individuals to take up residencies in other states. This bill is an incentive for our graduates to stay in Ohio.”

Um, and after five years, what happens? If this is a bill to "keep our kids" in Ohio, then why do people who get degrees outside of Ohio and never lived in Ohio until after they graduated get to claim the credit? You know what would keep students in Ohio? Make in-state tuition in Ohio less expensive than going to school out-of-state. You know, like Governor Strickland has been doing after a decade of largely unchecked skyrocketing tuition in Ohio under Republican rule where students could get a quality college education cheaper outside of Ohio than in it.

Incidentially, here's Cheryl Grossman on Governor Strickland's proposal for a high-speed passenger rail in Ohio during the recent transportation budget debate:

"I'm not saying that I'm opposed to passenger rail, but show me the numbers," said Rep. Cheryl L. Grossman, R-Grove City.

Yeah, how does Grossman plan on balancing the budget with this massive tax cut? She doesn't. This is the Republican playbook. Publicly question the Democratic Administration's fiscal responsibility while debating a balanced budget while introducing massive financial commitments with absolutely no plan on how state government can afford them.

It's simply laughable to hear this woman talk about fiscal responsibility to justify opposing a transportation budget which will create jobs and is fulling funded and then turn around and introduce a major income tax cut with no plan on how the State can compensate for the obvious loss of revenue.

Incidentially, when she was Mayor, Grossman actually applauded not just federal government spending for transportation, but getting earmarks for such projects (but earmarks are okay if they're Republican earmarks.) You can't watch these video clip in that context and not laugh.

This is the Republican Party's plan to power: 1) Hope people forget what we've done; 2) Sound to people that our criticism is genuine and an alternative approach that is more responsible; 3) Repeat step 1.

In Warren County, ideology trumps intellect

2009-04-22T11:31:00.003-04:00

So, in order to show "solidarity" with the Tea Party Republicans, the Warren County Commissioners are refusing any state money funded by the federal stimulus package... maybe. From the Pulse Journal:

Commissioners rejected $373,000 in stimulus money to buy three new transit buses and upgrade their fleet, citing their opposition of deficit spending for buses and vans. Commissioner Mike Kilburn said he refuses to take any stimulus funds.

“I’ll let Warren County go broke before taking any of Obama’s filthy money,” Kilburn said. When asked about stimulus money being used to help improve rural transportation and job creation, Kilburn said he was tired of government handouts.

“I’m tired of paying for people who don’t have,” he said. “As Reagan said, ‘government is not the answer, it’s the problem.’”

Says a guy who is the government in Warren County. Refusing the money won't reduce the deficit at all, as the funds will simply be given to other communities for their projects.

[UPDATED]: As predicted, Lucas County has already written Warren County Commissioners to call "dibs" and to thank them for giving more money to other communities. (Source: Columbus Dispatch)

What's even more insane is the lengths 1) that they are going to refuse this money; 2) the ignornance they show in trying to justify their actions:

Commissioner David Young said the commissioners also are looking for a way to
give back $1.8 million in stimulus money allocated for energy efficient windows
and roofs on government buildings.
“We are working with the prosecutor’s office to find a way for us to give
back the money and make sure that no one else spends it,” said Young. “We want
to make clear that we are saying ‘no, thank you’ to spending this money and we
are reducing the $787 billion being spent by $1.8 million.”
...
“I understand the federal government should be doing some spending in a down
economy,” said Young. “But, it should be on big projects like highway
improvements. We might not like deficit spending, but at least we could live
with it if the funds were being used for those things. To use it for vans?
That’s crazy.”

Look, genius, you honestly can't think of how buying new vehicles might stimulate the economy. Even after manufacturing companies like Blackhawk in Warren County has folded due to problems in the auto industry?

Who the hell do these mental midgets think they are? They're actually promoting higher utility bills to be paid for by the county property owners because these guys don't want to use federal money to install energy efficient technology (most of which is produced here in the United States)? Why should your ideology keep me from paying higher sales and property taxes to support the county government's unnecessarily higher utility bills every month?

And Commisioner Kilburn wants to justify this by saying that seniors and the disabled already have enough handouts already, they don't need more assistance in transportation in the county? Good luck with that one, fella.

Maybe the Republican Party isn't entirely politically dead in this country, but it sure looks like it's politically brain dead in Warren County.

BizzyBlog knows less about national intelligence than he does about economics...

2009-04-16T10:42:00.005-04:00

This video clip pretty much refutes the entire misplaced outrage by conservatives over a recent DHS report:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Here's BizzyBlog today about the current conservative outrage of the moment:

That’s okay,I’m sure the one about left-wing and Islamofascist groups upset that Obama didn’t walk away from Iraq and pull all aid to Israel is coming out any
day (/sarc).

Except that there was a similar report issued by the DHS within the first week of the Obama Administration that got no attention from people like Blumer. It's title? Leftwing Extremist Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade. Ironically, the copy of the report on left-wing domestic terrorism is downloadable from none other than Fox News.

Of course, Blumer uses the Washington Times (a hack of a newspaper if there ever was one) to allege that the DHS report on right-wing extremism calls "returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S." What the report accurately warns is that returning U.S. veterans will likely be targets by right-wing extremists for recruitment. This is hardly a controversial theory:

Timothy McVeigh was a Desert Storm vet recruited by right-wing/anti-federal government zealots who preyed on McVeigh's military training and likely PTSD and other psychological issues as a result of his military service to turn him into a willing matryr footsoldier of the radical right army. 168 Americans, including children died. To not keep OKC in mind as a potential illustration of a domestic terrorist threat would be disgraceful.

And, no, Rusho, the report doesn't label the right-wing a greater threat than Al Qaeda. That's yet another made up conservative myth to justify the phony outrage.

Just last month, three Pittsburgh police officers were killed in the line of duty by a lunatic who thought his guns were going to be taken away by Obama so he lay in wait to kill as many police as he could before he would go out in a blaze of glory. The shooter, Richard Poplawski, survived. By the way, Poplawski was tossed out by the Marines during boot camp, returned to his home and began his own right-wing internet radio talk show. He was a regular poster on white supremists sites like Stormfront. He followed fringe liberterian conspiracy theorists. And he killed three cops. Shooting two of them in the head almost instantly and without warning.

Tom Blumer, you don't know what you're talking about.

Coughlin's coverup? EPIC FAIL

2009-04-15T18:11:00.003-04:00

Tim Russo over at BloggerInterrupted is absolutely correct. The effort by Coughlin to use the threat of litigation may have kept the news about Coughlin's extramarital affair out of print (for now), but the story has gotten a far greater distribution through the Internet than the circulation of one hyper-localized print weekly alternative newspaper.

In the last twenty-four hours, the newstory about Coughlin's extramarital affair has doubled my traffic. And, according to the information provided by SiteMeter, it's all due to people looking for information on Coughlin's alleged affair (although alleged is probably unnecessary since multiple sources in the story confirm the existence of the affair, including at least one who confirms that Coughlin himself acknowledge the existence of an inappropriate relationship.) Google "Coughlin affair or Cleveland Scene" and you've been coming here.

The only reason it hasn't crept into print media is because 1) it's a story broken by blogs and Old Media hates to acknowledge anything legitimate coming from blogs (the same thing occured during the Marc Dann affair, so it's a bipartisan conspiracy; 2) Coughlin just isn't that important. Most Ohioans don't know who he is, and although he's running for Governor, he's polling in the single digits among Republican primary voters.

Coughlin was already a joke BEFORE the story about his affair was written.

Amazingly, the editors at Cleveland Scene are getting downright pissy with Tim about the whole thing. Tim reached them for comment, they alleged the reporter was fired for "gross insubordination," Tim prints that response and then contacts them for specifics, and they refuse because Tim isn't interested in hearing their side of the story?!?

Coughlin, of course, one time called Dann's affair and improper use of campaign funds in facilitating the affair a "Culture of Corruption" in which Dann should have resigned immediately... I'm just sayin'.

Attention Tea Baggers....

2009-04-15T17:33:00.002-04:00

The stimulus bill wasn't a government bailout. The TARP was a government bailout. Just about every Republican politician who's running to T.V. cameras to capitalize on today's foolishness voted for TARP. In fact, one has to wonder why it tooks six months before conservatives began protesting government bailouts. Of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that it was Republican Administration with the support of the Republican Congressional leadership that did the bailouts at the time and now it's a Democratic Administration that's administering them. No, the partisan change in Washington has corrolation to the selective outrage today.

Again, you have no less than FoxNews conflating the TARP legislation in October, a pure bailout legislation, with the stimulus package in January which was not a bailout unless you consider giving the middle class tax relief a "bailout". Of course, this idiot is given a national platform and apparently has no idea what the meaning of fascism is, either. (Yeah, Hitler was a fascist because he was in bed with the corporations.) Nor does he apparently understand what was in the stimulus package as there was nothing there for corporations. It was tax cuts and government spending. It was not a corporate bailout package.

Also, if you're for lower taxes, and I'm tired of having to say this again, then you should be AGAINST repealing the stimulus package which had one of, if not the largest, tax cuts in American history.

And speaking of people using labels who have no idea what the hell they're talking about: let's go to CNN for the "Obama is Hitler" guy! Of course, when asked how Obama is a fascist, this Fox News obeying drone can't give a reason.

This is what 24/7 FoxNews coverage of Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Michelle Bachman gives you. An angry white mob who thinks the black President is Hitler, but cannot explain why. It's what happens when you have a nation-wide cable television network that presents itself as an objective "journalistic" institution calling the democratically elected President of the United States a "fascist, socialist, and communist" 24/7. Glenn Beck is on Fox News with Penn of Penn & Teller fame preaching non-violence. In fear of what he has sown, but it is too late. You cannot demogogue the President to be an inhuman monster one day worthy of being hunted like Hitler or removed in a revolution and then say you're for non-violence. Own it, Beck, you coward.

This is irresponsible for anyone, let alone something that passes itself off as a "news" organization. It's dangerous rhetoric. I feel bad for Tim Russo and others who went expecting to get an exclusive on the insanity of these misguided, uninformed, and actively mislead people. The truth is already out there and it's on every television screen in America.

It's the face of the conservative movement in America. It's angry, racist, and frightening, even to people like Glenn Beck.

Why is the conservative movement protesting lower taxes today?

2009-04-15T11:16:00.004-04:00

The Tea Parties were chosen today because today is the deadline to file fedderal income taxes. The protests are supposed about "repealing" the stimulus package; something nobody honestly believes is going to happen.

The stimulus package had one of the largest, if not the largest, tax cuts in American history. So, again, I must ask, why does the conservative movement think their path to power is to support higher taxes at a time of a global recession?

Conservative bloggers, both locally and nationally, have been spinning wildly to try to make the Tea Parties protest something larger than it is. They adamently chafe at anyone who suggests this is a partisan sham. And yet, while Republican Congressman and congressional candidates like Steve Chabot are conveniently slated to address Tea Party crowds today, I can't find a single Democratic offical slated to speak at a single Tea Party event. Not one.

[Update: The Columbus Dispatch is reporting that rumored GOP '10 Gubernatorial candidate/Fox News host/former Goldman Sachs executive John Kasich may be speaking at the Columbus Tea Party today. Kasich is running against Governor Ted Strickland, who has reduced taxes while in office and has kept state government spending at its slowest growth rate of any governor in modern Ohio history. I'm sure Mr. Kasich's speech will be non-partisan and will offer nothing put praise for the fiscal conservatism of the Strickland Administration.]

Glenn Reynolds, conservative blogger, and now, apparenly, Wall Street Journal columnist, breathlessly claims "There is no political party behind these rallies, no grand right-wing conspiracy, not even a 501(c) group like MoveOn.org."

I guess that depends if you consider Dick Armey's 501(c) group, FreedomWorks, "like MoveOn.org" or not. (HT: Tim Russo at BloggerInterrupted).

The Tea Party defenders, suffers of that conservative malaise known as ODS ("Obama Derangement Syndrome") claim that this is spontaneous grass-roots uprising that defies labels, at least that's what's they've been saying non-stop on FoxNews as that channel has pointed its viewers to fundraise and promote these entirely grassroots events being promoted by, yep, Dick Armey.

What nobody has pointed out in Dick Armey's Tea Bagging is that his organization supports higher taxes for middle class Americans on two fronts: they oppose the Obama tax cuts in the stimulus package. And his FreedomWorks organization supports instituting a federal regressive "flat" tax that would raise the effective tax rates an all but the wealthiest Americans by eliminating most, if not all deductions and credits. (According to Turbotax, my federal return shows my family paid an effective tax rate of 7%, a flat tax would require triple that rate.)

As I write this, the Cincinnati rally has the same number of people as the last one. In other words, it's the same people. And there is a sameness of these people that the Tea Partiers are dishonestly trying to deny. This is not a diverse group of people, politically or social-economically. They are virtually the same people who turned out at McCain-Palin rallies (more specifically Palin rallies) who are now only different in that they are unchained from supporting a particular candidate. Support for the stimulus has actually gone noticeably up since this Tea Party protests began. (It probably has something to do with people noticing that they're paying less in taxes as a result.)

While BizzyBlog writes stories about tax receipts "mysteriously" dropping from a year ago, the sane world knows that it's because taxes are lower today than they were a year ago and the self-employed are taking it on the chin harder than anyone. Nobody's gone "Gault," they're going broke in a deep recession.

They claim to be the "no longer" silent majority, but they aren't even in the majority. The organizers of the Cincinnati party could only manage to find 1,700 signatures for people to ask the City of Cincinnati not to accept federal stimulus funds (funds that have, I believe, already been received). It's the same crowd; different day. It's the 10% of the country made up of conservative activists struggling for political relevancy in the absence of any leadership.

Cleveland Scene reporter fired over written story alleging GOP gubernatorial candidate engaged in extramarital affair

2009-04-14T15:51:00.003-04:00

Except the reporter had multiple sources, campaign finance records showing questionable expenses, and Senate phone records showing an unsual habit of calling the alleged mistress after calling his wife at the end of the day. Tim over at BloggerInterrupted has the whole story that Cleveland Scene decided to fire the reporter over rather than risk the lawsuit GOP Gubernatorial candidate Kevin Coughlin was threatening.

According to the mistress' roommate at the time, the affair began while the mistresss was a student of Coughlin's at the University of Akron. It continued during his first campaign for State Senate. Multiple witnesses recall seeing Coughlin's vehicle at the mistresses apartment for long periods of time, sometimes even at 1 a.m. His campaign paid for damage to her car, hotel rooms in the district and in Columbus. Former campaign staffers and friends admit knowledge of the affair. A former political candidate even alleges that Coughlin once blew off campaign activities because, in Coughlin's alleges words, he was busy "canoodling" with the alleged mistress.

Coughlin, curiously, says he doesn't "have any extra-marital affairs going on", which is a rather peculiar choice of using the present tense when talking about event which allegedly transpired five years ago. He had the high-profile law firm of Roetzel & Andress alleging that any reporting of the alleged affair is false and would defamatory if published. Not content with that litigation threat, Coughlin later had his lawyer threaten litigation, even if the Cleveland alternative weekly never published any story on it, if it continued to "harass" Coughlin's associates by continuing to look into the story any further.

In what has to be one of the worst case of journalistic cowardice ever, the CEO of the company which owns the Cleveland magazine decided to fire the reporter who was working on the story.

Incidentially, the story also presents one allegation that is bipartisan:

And according to two fellow state representatives who spoke on background,
Coughlin once got into a public shouting match with Representative Ray Miller
outside a committee room at the statehouse over their mutual attraction for
Christina Cooney, a Democratic Caucus staffer.

That would be now Senate Minority Whip Ray Miller, who's under investigation for countless campaign finance violations. Nice to know what an outstanding guy he is.

I don't see why Cleveland Scene allowed itself to be bullied by Coughlin's threat of litigation. The story is sufficiently sourced to defeat any libel action. The fact that Coughlin threatens litigation for merely looking into by calling it "harassment" should have gotten a true journalist's blood up.

During my brief stint as a newspaper reporter covering politics and crime (sometimes in the same story), I often was threatened with litigation, sometimes by lawyers (one time by a lawyer who was upset that I covered a sentencing hearing the day before he demanded I cover). I was never sued.

I wrote stories about how court clerks pocketed payments on fines and how the city's auditor once had the city pay for repairs to his personal vehicle while police chief. I once wrote a store headlined "What Jesus Wouldn't Do" about a guy who shoplifted a WWJD bracelet. I later learned that he, too, went to law firm after law firm looking for someone willing to sue me. They all laughed him out of their offices. Every day, someone was calling the managing editor and publisher threatening to sue over something I written. Nobody ever did.

And I remember that when a subject of a story goes from complaining about not asking so-so and such and such and then complains that I'm "harassing" so-so by asking them about such-such, there's smoke in the air.

This is a complete abandonment of journalistic integrity by the owner of Cleveland Scene. And I look forward to reading about this reporter's wrongful termination lawsuit.

And Kevin Coughlin has some s'plaining to do.

National "Tea Party" protests held while Americans' views about income taxes hits all-time high

2009-04-13T19:13:00.002-04:00

The conservative movement cannot get a break. After spending months hyping the upcoming national day of conservative protests centered around April 15th- the federal deadline to file income taxes (who waits until April 15th, anymore? Who doesn't file electronically anymore?), Gallup reports that Americans' views on the federal income tax is at an all-time high:

A new Gallup Poll finds 48% of Americans saying the amount of federal income taxes they pay is "about right," with 46% saying "too high" -- one of the most positive assessments Gallup has measured since 1956. Typically, a majority of Americans say their taxes are too high, and relatively few say their taxes are too low.
...
The slightly more positive view this year may reflect a public response to President Barack Obama's economic stimulus and budget plans. He has promised not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000, while cutting taxes for lower- and middle-income Americans. The latter has already begun, as the government has reduced the withholding amount for federal income taxes from middle- and lower-income American workers' paychecks.
In this year's poll, slim majorities of both lower- and middle-income Americans say they pay about the right amount of taxes, while upper-income Americans tend to think they pay too much. The views of upper-income Americans have not changed in the past year, while both middle- and lower-income Americans are more likely to say they pay the right amount of tax.

So after all the hype over the Tea Parties, all we're seeing is an ideology that is becoming further and further away from the mainstream.

Protest Obama's stimulus package on April 15th? Well, then you're also protesting the tax cuts that were a big component of that stimulus package. I'll say it again-- a protest against the stimulus package is a protest for HIGHER taxes.

If the conservative movement thinks it can become politically relevant again by protesting for higher taxes, please be my guest. Teabag yourselves to your hearts' content.

GOP talking heads attack Obama's failure to resolve pirate/hostage situation; hours after it had been resolved

2009-04-13T13:02:00.002-04:00

This is just embarassing. Poor Newt Gingrich is out there on Sunday's talk shows about how Obama's unwilling to "pull the trigger" and make the hard decisions while being completely unaware that the President had authorized that lethal force be used if the Captain's life appeared to be threatened and the triggers, three to be precise, had already been pulled.

FoxNews and the conservative talking head crowd just can't understand Obama. They're the only ones who would compare Obama to Bush and find Obama lacking. Now was the time for the grownups to be in charge. You don't need the President publicly swaggering on television talking about "Dead or Alive" or some nonsense that if you can't deliver on (ala OBL), then you wind up looking incredibly weak and impotent.

Only in the game "Civilization" would a lifeboat be able to defeat a Navy Destroyer. But pure firepower wasn't going to solve the problem unless you didn't care about killing the American hostage in the process. So, you let cooler heads prevail. You keep the pirates busy trying to negotiate their way out of the situation, hook up a tow line to the Navy ship to drag them further out to sea, and at the first sign of serious trouble with a clear line of shot, you already have clear rules of engagement that authorize the necessary and immediate action.

You keep the pirate you already have in custody and charge and prosecute him with piracy. That's how a grown up Administration acts.

It was the Republican Party which took the tragic and heroic deaths of 18 Army Rangers to capitalize as a foreign policy criticism of then-President Bill Clinton's effort at nation building in Somalia which forced the Administration into a hasty retreat from the region. Because Al-Qaeda had supplied organizational/tactical training in the region, the Somalia event emboldened the terrorist organization into planning 9/11.

Why Somalia became a haven for Al-Qaeda and international piracy is going to become the next focus. And that's not something Republicans should particular feel comfortable about. Their policy that stable and orderly nation-state in Somalia was not in our national security interests in 1990s is at root to how this crisis occurred in the first place.

"Crybaby" Boehner: Voted against more money for our troops

2009-04-09T17:11:00.003-04:00

That's House Minority Leader Boehner protesting a Democratic proposal to end the Iraq War.

He didn't come to Congress to be a Congressperson, he came to do something. And yet, what has my Congressman done so far this term?

He voted against one of the largest tax cuts in American history. He voted against health insurance for children. He voted against giving victims of gender-based discrimination in the workplace justice. He voted against extending unemployment benefits to those hit hard by the worst economy since the Great Depression. And last week, John Boehner voted against more funding for our troops.

How do Republicans justify voting against more funding for our troops? Well, first you lie and claim that Obama was actually CUTTING defense funding instead of increasing it:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Full Metal Budget

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

And then you pray that that the lazy media buys your justification for voting against a military budget that increases troop spending during a two-front war and misinforms the voters back home so nobody finds out what a phony asshat you really are.

John Boehner has voted against tax cuts, healthy kids, and our troops. And so has almost the entire Congressional Republicans. It's about time people started pointing out that not only is Boehner the leader and architect of "the Party of 'No,'" but exactly what Boehner and the Republican Party has been saying "No" to.

GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Kevin Coughlin: Moron? Nutbag? Both?

2009-04-07T12:16:00.003-04:00

It's scary to think this is the kind of person writing Ohio's laws. It's even scarier to think this is the kind of person the Republicans think should be our Governor!

So in the middle of the biggest global economic crisis, Ohio GOP Gubernatorial candidate/State Senator Kevin Coughlin believes the three most important issues facing Ohioans are:

Making sure the Republicans keep control over the Apportionment Board.
Making sure the General Assembly express its disproval over non-existent federal legislation that died in committee under the last Congress (which was also Democratically controlled.)
Making sure Ohio's constitution prevents non-existent proposals for single payer health care from working.

Basically, the entire rationale for his campaign is to be the Anti-Obama. He has no solutions. No ideas. Without Obama and the Democrats in Congress, Kevin Coughlin cannot politically breathe. In fact, Democrats are so vital to his political survival that he has to actually invent Democratic proposals to survive on.

Did he really call requirements that legislative districts be drawn "compactly" as "goofy?" He apparently isn't aware that's a constitutional requirement for legislative districts. Coughlin should rename his redistricting constitutional amendment the "Mary Taylor Amendment." Because the only problem it solves is the Republican's problem that if only Mary Taylor wins a seat on the Apportionment Board, the Democrats will still have a majority on it. All Coughlin's amendment would do is ... well, what? Add more seats in what will still be a Democratic-majority Apportionment Board? He does know, by the way, that the people of Ohio don't elect the Speaker of the House, Senate President and the House and Senate minority caucus leaders?

Oh wait, he doesn't even know that districts are already constitutionally required to be compact.

The Freedom of Choice Act doesn't exist. It's a social conservative boogeyman used to raise campaign money and seem politically relevant. It's hardly on the fast track to the President's desk either. In the last Congress, it never even made it out of committee. Like almost all federal legislation it went nowhere. And yet, Coughlin believes one of the three most important things he's doing in the state legislature is sponsoring legislation to protest federal legislation that went nowhere whenever it's been introduced and presently doesn't even exist.

I should take Coughlin snipe hunting because he apparently loves going after things that don't exist. His third priority is another constitutional amendment to try to thwart something nobody is proposing: single-payer health care. It's downright agonizing to watch Coughlin try to conflate Obama's health insurance reform package into something it's clearly not. You can watch his body language and tell even he knows he's lying. He resorts to the old slippery slope cliche. First they required univeral private health insurance, then it became government single-payer. If that were the case, why doesn't Ohio have government provided single-payer auto insurance yet?

The ironic thing is that Coughlin doesn't realize that every tried and poll tested slam against single-payer government health care can be said about the current system. The insurance rep who denies coverage of medical procedure is just as much as a bureacrat interfering with "patient choice" whether they collect a government paycheck or one from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. I'll spare you the irony of a guy who talks about patient choice after just ranting about all Ohio has done to restrict a patient's constitutionally protected right to have an abortion.

With reimbursement rates, provider networks, etc. health insurance has done more to restrict patient choice than any government-run health care system has done. Of course, since Coughlin is able to choose among a variety of health care plans as a member of the State legislature (a choice most people in his district are denied but would be actually be given under Obama's health care proposal), choice is in the eye of the beholder.

Since most people cannot even "choose" the medical care they need because they lack insurance, and even more cannot "choose" the health care they and their doctor believe is medically necessary because of their health insurance, framing "patient choice" around Coughlin's constitutional amendment is nothing more than clever political marketing. I guess Coughlin has never heard about the federal supremacy clause, either?

This is the future leadership the Ohio Republican Party can offer this State: Clueless Coughlin and the Fox News host/Lehman Brothers executive. Pathetic.

Let's hope she doesn't Run Like She Writes

2009-04-02T15:48:00.002-04:00

Yes, I understand the extreme irony if not outright hypocracy for me making fun of how long Jill's posts are.

That being said, I'm glaad to hear fellow blogger Jill Zimon is running for the City Council of Pepper Pike. Apparently, Ohio Daily Blog got the exclusive (Jill, you can write about yourself, you do it all the time! :):

OhioDaily spoke to Miller Zimon as she fought her way through a crowded
parking lot at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections. When asked if she was
ready to go public with the chatter previously whispered behind-the-scenes,
Zimon said, "I'm doing it. I'm pulling my petitions right now."

Anyone predict an announcement speech less than twelve words? Yeah, whoever had their money on that got some great Vegas odds. But I can't talk I've already written more words about Jill's twelve than her actual announcement.

My question is: why isn't Jill running for Josh Mandel's State Representative seat? After all if Josh is giving it up to run for State Treasurer, who's the Democratic candidate that would be stronger than Jill?

I'm sure Jill would do fine as a City Councilwoman for Pepper Pike, but I think it would be more interesting to see her in the State Representative.

I'd start a legislative drinking game... Drink everytime you hear "Representative Zimon returns the balance of her time."

Sorry, Jill. Somebody had to say it! Good luck! :)

Brunner breaks the 300 barrier

2009-03-31T16:30:00.003-04:00

In the month and a half since Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has announced her candidacy, she's had over 300 people donate to her campaign. Most of those donations have come in the past week alone. Brunner has gone from a 2:1 online donations disadvantage to actually raising more than Fisher has online.

Surprisingly, a number of blogs, Buckeye State Blog and Ohio Daily Blog are trying to downplay the significance of this development. Yes, of course, offline donations will be a far greater share of campaign donations than online ones.

Yes, it's early.

But you know why online donations matter? Well, do you know what kind of person donates online? Nobody, that's who. The nobody who is willing to take a weekend to go door-to-door without being asked. The nobody that talks to his or her friends and neighbors about a candidate. A nobody is someone who donates to someone and expects nothing personally in return. Which is why all the conventional wisdom is to say all this attention is undeserved. Nobody warrants this kind of attention. Nobody cares about nobody.

You know what kind of person writes a check for the maximum donation within the first month of campaign. Well, that's a somebody. But a somebody is too important to do GOTV, or talk to his country club set. A someobody's notion of sacrifice is overpaying for a chicken dinner to hear the same tired stump speech and dinner jokes from the same candidates year after year. A somebody is someone who donates to someone and expects something personally in return.

There's something good about being a part of a campaign of nobodies. And that's why online donations matter.

Brunner's amazing online cash haul...

2009-03-30T23:30:00.003-04:00

Literally a week ago today, David Potts at Buckeye State Blog posted a story showing that Lee Fisher had raised over twice as much money as Jennifer Brunner had so far ($41k to $17.7k).

As the first FEC reporting deadline since Brunner and Fisher announced their candidacies approaches, both campaigns are quickly trying to bring in as much cash as they can for their first campaign report.

Since David's post, Brunner has gone on an online fundraising tear. In the past week alone, Brunner has more than doubled the number of donors to her campaign (over an additional 130 online donors; Fisher has gotten thirty additional donors during the past week.)

What had been over a 2:1 fundraising advantage for Fisher has been totally erased. Fisher's fundraising advantage wasn't a flash in the pan either. I've been monitoring both candidates' ActBlue pages and Fisher had his online advantage for nearly two weeks. Last Monday, Fisher had raised over $23k more online than Brunner. Today, that cash advantage is down to only over $1k.

While online fundraising is still a small part of overall fundraising, and I still expect Fisher to show substantial advantage fundraising, the fact is that Brunner has doubled her grassroots fundraising in just the past week compared to what she raised over the prior month is very impressive.

Earlier today, Brunner sent an email to her donors stating a goal of 250. Six hours later, she exceed that goal sooner than the campaign's stated deadline of the following day.

BizzyBlog claims today's housing market news is evidence market is recovering on its own... EPIC FAIL.

2009-03-25T16:34:00.005-04:00

This is just sad. I mean, it's getting too easy to predict this guy. As I stated just last week, here's Bizzyblog Tom Blumer's ridiculous world view: 1) Everything that happened in the economy that was bad (even though at the time Bizzy adamently denied it was bad) since July 2008 is the Democrats fault not because of anything they actually did, but because of what they were saying they were going to do once Obama became President seven months later; 2) Conversely anything positive that occurs in the economy during Obama's actual Administration is in spite of anything the Administration actual did.

And as if right on cue:

The above good-news cites are examples of the economy attempting a recovery on its own, thanks largely to lower energy prices and lower mortgage rates.
Certainly no one can legitimately claim any stimulus/Porkulus-related impact on the above results. Based on estimates of when the mislabeled “stimulus” money will actually be spent, no one will be able to do so until sometime this fall, if even then.

Sigh. So there's absolutely no way today's news about a better-than-expected rise in 22% increase in new housing starts and an increase in durable good orders by 3.4% last month could have anything to do with the Democratic leadership in Washington? (Both of which were expected to show DECREASES by 3 and 2% respectively.)

Absolutely none, Bizzy? Is that your FINAL answer?

So, I guess the housing bill that the Democrats passed over Bush's veto threat last July might not having anything to do with today's news, then? Not only did that bill restore investor confidence in housing lenders FannieMae and FreddyMac by bailing them out and forcing significant reforms in their operations and oversight, the bill also:

"Provided some $15 billion in housing-related tax incentives, including a $7,500 tax credit for first-time home buyers who meet certain income qualifications.
Permanently increased the so-called conforming-loan limit, which typically qualifies mortgages for lower rates, to $625,500 in the nation’s most expensive housing markets.
Granted authority for state and local housing agencies to issue $11 billion in tax-exempt bonds to refinance bad mortgages,
Called for stricter oversight of mortgage brokers; and
Set new disclosure requirements to make loan terms more transparent.

Of course, Bizzy stated in his blog post that nobody could claim the recent stimulus package passed by Congress this year was responsible for it. But that's a strawman's argument. Because nobody has claimed that the most recent stimulus package was responsible. However, whether the Democratic housing bill passed last summer is responsible is not so easily dismissed.

The fact that last month's stimulus bill couldn't be responsible for today's positive economic news doesn't mean that recent positive economic signs are not the result of earlier, less recent government actions. Let's not forget that the FannieMae/FreddieMac bailouts in July predate even the TARP program enacted in October.

Much like the stimulus package, the Democratic housing bill was passed despite widespread Republican opposition that it would not help the housing market improve. Opposition dittoed by idiots with keyboards like.... you guessed it, Bizzyblog! People who would have preferred a further paralysis of the housing market by allowing Fannie/Freddy to fail, but now applaud the news of a post-bailout housing market in recovery as evidence of the free market at work!

Bizzy will continue to delude himself and his tiny band of sheeplike readers that when the economy is bad, Obama is to blame, but when it's good, it's not Obama we should thank. What's utterly sad is to see such a delusional mind twist and contort itself to try to make sense in an economy that continues to debunk him.

After being a recession-denier, Bizzy now has added bailout-denier to his opus.

Brunner states the obvious; Fisher's blogger goes nuts

2009-03-25T11:16:00.006-04:00

I'm glad that Nick D. finally admitted that he was in the tank for Fisher. Nobody, not even Nick, honestly believes that it only started AFTER he resigned BSB in disgrace after revealing that he had given editorial control over BSB to the Fisher campaign.

But Nick drives me nuts when he takes a rather benign quote from Brunner and tries to label it as unfair, below-the-belt criticism of Lee Fisher.

Here's what Brunner said:

Some Democrats, including Governor Ted Strickland, have indicated they'd prefer that Brunner stand down so that Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher can be the Democratic nominee without a contested primary.
"Take one for the team?," Brunner responded. "Even if the other guy can't win? I don't think that makes sense."

Lee Fisher has won only one statewide election in his career. And that was by only 1,200 votes. And by the time the 2010 elections roll around, it will have been twenty years since that victory.

To not point that out is political malpractice. Lee Fisher is hardly a Democratic statewide juggernaut. There's a reason that despite being tied to the hip of the most popular politician in the State (Governor Strickland) polls still show Fisher in a neck-to-neck race among Democratic primary voters where the race is clearly up for grabs. More Democratic candidates announced they were running after Fisher announced. There's a reason for that, too.

But Nick apparently never watched his own video (maybe he let the campaign film it, too.) If he had, he would remembered that it was FISHER that said the reason Brunner supported Chairman Redfern's idea of keeping ODP neutral and not issuing an endorsement was not because of opposition to strong-armed political machine boss politics, but because she couldn't possible GET the endorsement of her own political party. Nick has yet to write that "tut-tut/shame on Lee" post on that one.

It's not amazing that Nick can't see where Brunner says Fisher can't win. He's young, and wasn't involved in Ohio Democratic politics during the 1990s. Brunner was. I was. Tim Russo was. And we all know the Lee Fisher campaign script: come out of the gate looking strong, tire easily, starting making missteps and lose in a squeaker.

I'm more than willing to write-off Fisher's loss in 1994 as no Democratic could be expected to win in that political environment and the top of the ticket was a disaster. However, 1998? That was hardly a pro-Republican year. Sure, Republicans swept all the statewide offices in Ohio, but that's because of the incredibly weak bench the Democratic ticket presented. A ticket lead by Lee Fisher.

Why did Lee lose in 1998? Why did we get Bob Taft as our Governor? Nobody has explained it to me except to suggest that neither candidate really ignited the passions of the electorate.

Nick's post is ironic because while he's denouncing potshots against the Democratic candidates, he continues to engage in them.

What was the context of the question that lead Brunner to suggest Fisher can't win?:

Some Democrats, including Governor Ted Strickland, have indicated they'd prefer that Brunner stand down so that Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher can be the Democratic nominee without a contested primary.

Well, first of all, that's not true. Governor Strickland has never said, publicly at least, that he'd prefer Brunner to stand down so that Fisher would have an uncontested primary. All Governor Strickland has said is that while he admires both Fisher and Brunner, he's giving his full support to Fisher. Brunner has publicly stated, and Governor Strickland has not denied it, that Governor Strickland has never tried to dissaude her from running. After the "out-of-line" Brunner quote, Nick reprints the blog post that criticizes Brunner's candidacy for putting the Apportionment Board seat vulnerable if her replacement is not able to win election.

Nick then repeats the "pot shot" again:

Two, I think Brunner owes it to Ohio Democrats everywhere to seek the best possible candidate for SOS, no matter their gender, since her candidacy does put at risk Democratic control of the apportionment board. Obviously, Brunner would have the advantage of incumbency if she were to run for SOS in 2010, and her replacement won't have that luxury in a race against Slick Jonny Husted.

Nick thinks it's apparently inappropriate to point out Fisher's less than impressive statewide win/loss record. But it's completely appropriate to attack Brunner as being somehow "selfish" that she's running for the U.S. Senate instead of "taking one for the team" by staying put as Secretary of State in order to give the Democrats the best chance of getting control over the Apportionment Board. (Never mind that just today, Brunner announced her support for her replacement as Secretary of State, Franklin County Commissioner Marilyn Brown.)

That seems to be more of a pot shot than anything Brunner said, Nick.

And what about the "selfishness" of Lee Fisher, who resigned as the Director of the Ohio Department of Development in the middle of one of the greatest economic/unemployment crises in Ohio history, so he could run for Senator? Yeah, that's would be a pot shot, I guess.

Which is going to matter more to the average voter: that Jennifer Brunner, after doing a terrfic job of cleaning up Ohio's broken electoral system is seeking a promotion, or that Lee Fisher is willing to go AWOL during an economic crisis so he can try to improve his win/loss record?

There's a reason, Nick, that alot of folks who were involved in Democratic politics in the 1990s are rather gun-shy about Fisher's candidacy. We've seen that show before. If Lee Fisher couldn't beat Bob Taft, how's he going to beat Rob Portman?

DOW regains almost half of its losses since Obama took office in today's trading alone

2009-03-23T18:09:00.002-04:00

The DOW Industrial gained nearly 500 points in today's trading alone. Since Obama took office, the DOW has only loss 5% of its value. Economic pop scientist Tom Blumer over at the inappropriately named, "Bizzyblog" continues to put the entire loss of the DOW on Obama, Pelosi, and Reid by fraudulently claiming that they somehow had control over the economy since June 2008, when Obama wasn't even yet the official presidential nominee.

In response to my request to prove that this isn't a baseline he's using purely for his partisan motives, Blumer claims that the markets began to fall in October 2008 (why then, use June? Don't ask me, or Tom, he still hasn't answered that) because a new Democratic budget began at time in which government spending increased by 9 to 11 percent (I believe this was actually only discretionary spending that increased that much. I'm still looking into it.)

If you believe that President Obama is entirely responsible for the DOW (A rather hypocritical position made by Blumer who apparently believes the President is not responsible for the DOW when he's a Republican) since Obama took office, the DOW has lost 6% of its value since it's most recent close before Obama's inauguration. Given that it lost over 25% of its value in the preceeding three months, that's actually an improvement. Today alone, the DOW regained nearly half the value it lost today.

Why? In part because of continuing news that the housing market is rebounding. The second reason is approval from Wall Street with the announcement by the Obama Administration about what it intends to do about the toxic assets which have frozen the global credit market.

But Blumer can't bring himself to mention that. He still believes that the Gingrich revolution of 1994 was responsible for economity prosperity during the 1990s even though it was President Clinton, against the uniform opposition of Congressional Republicans, who began stimulating the economy by introducing additional spending and targeted middle-class tax cuts. It was Clinton's first budget, that Republicans opposed, that began bringing the federal budget in balance leading to surpluses that President Bush, aided and abetted by Congressional Republicans, turned into massive deficit spending that wasn't even offered as being done to stimulate the economy. It just happened.

Blumer lives in a conservative fantasy world where only Democratic officeholders can be blamed for the economy when it's bad, and only Republican officeholders can be held responsible when it's good. Unfortunately, history has shown Blumer to be wrong (flunking both economics and history, Tom may want to considered new subjects). By most economic standards, the national economy historically does better when Democrats are in control, and worse when Republicans are.

While Blumer is furiously trying to blame Obama for the problem, he's also laying the groundwork to say that the economy will recover in spite of Obama's policies in order to deny Obama any credit now that the economy is starting to show promising signs of an economy in recovery by the end of the year. Here's been the essential themes of every Bizzyblog post for the past four months:
1. Everything bad about the economy is Obama-Pelosi-Reid's fault because they control the national economy before Obama was even the Democratic nominee for President. (Please ignore the prior four months when I continually posted that everything in the economy was fine, and that there was liberal media/pro-Obama conspiracy to scare Americans into falsely believing there is something wrong with the economy.)
2. Obama is trying to push through all these things to fix the economy before the economy fixes itself. (Because deficit spending is bad, unless it's done by a Republican like Ronald Reagan.)
3. Even though I said Obama's powerful enough to wreck the economy before he's even President, he's not powerful enough as President to be credited for the economy when it approves. (And this makes perfect logical sense to me.)

I think the "South Park" Election 2008 episode is more plausible than Blumer. (Boom, baby!)

He's nothing more than a partisan hack who's lost all credibility on this issue with his transparent attempt to paint Obama as this mythical all-powerful creature who can do anything to the economy, except, of course, fix it.

I don't even know why I bother writing about him. His approval of obvious racist, white supremacist theories as to why "Multicult" newspapers are dying was disturbing enough. But he's constant drive to try to convince the small-minded conservatives that everything is Obama's fault, and that's why we oppose him is no different than the "Big Lie" theory of political messenging.

When the best defense Tom Blumer can give is that he's "not in a courtroom," and therefore, isn't bound to prove his assertions (even the central thesis of most of his posting), you know you're dealing with a crackpot who knows he's a hack. He's just afraid his readers might actually start catching on to the farce.

Democratic AIG bonus tax bill likely constitutional; John Boehner's... not so much.

2009-03-21T10:31:00.002-04:00

Here's a good Bloomberg article that explains why the Congressional Democratic bill to tax the AIG bonus will most likely survive a legal challenge. In other words, all the Senate Republicans who are hiding behind constitutional arguments are just using it as a dodge to avoid justifying why they're against this highly popular tax.

Matt Hurley over at Weapon of Mass Destruction has lost all sense of sanity left trying to thread the needle of attacking the AIG bonuses while justifying John Boehner's unpopular (even among his fellow Congressional Republicans like Jean Schmidt) vote against recapturing the bonuses.

Matt can disrespect the office of the President and use his juvenile name-calling all he wants on his blog. All it does is reveal the immature mind.

While Matt has been busy slandering veterans like John Boccieri while praising corporate shills like John Boehner. He's revealed another troubling aspect of his defense. The Republic bill that John Boehner and Matt Hurley swear would have recouped the AIG bonuses within the year simply wouldn't. There's no reason to believe it. All the bill did was require the Secretary of Treasury to do whatever he could (and since the Secretary, prior to the Democratic tax bill, had no legal authority to recapture it) to get it back. It was essentially a mandate with no real power. In fact, if Geithner wasn't able to get the bonus money back, there was no consequence. It was completely toothless. And yet, John Boehner and Matt Hurley are trying to accuse the Democrats of being too soft on this issue while making claims about their bill that simply are untrue.

But, ironically, why the Republicans try to label the Democratic bill as unconstitutional, the amazing thing is those constitutional arguments fit the Republican alternative far better. The Republican bill targeted the AIG bonuses by identity. It was clearly designed to be punitive. It had none of the careful considerations that the Bloomberg article make clear. In other words, on constitutional grounds, the House Republican alternative was the offensive bill, not the Democratic bill that passed.

Matt Hurley and John Boehner can try to portray that this is why they opposed the stimulus bill all along. But that's all nonsense. The Republican alternative had nothing on such bonuses. Not once did a single Congressional Republican say at the time that they opposed the stimulus because of the bonus language. Not once.

Congressman Boccieri votes to condemn and recoup the AIG and other TARP-paid bonuses

2009-03-19T17:20:00.002-04:00

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader John Boehner votes the opposite: he opposed a bill that passed that recaptures the money by having the federal Treasury tax it 90% (with the expectation that state and local governments will recover the rest through taxes) and opposed a sense of Congress resolution condemning such irresponsible bonuses. (Putting Boehner outside the "mainstream for even fellow Ohio Congressional Republicans like Jean Schmidt.)

So, naturally, Matt Hurley at the conservative Weapons of Mass Discussion then attacks Congressman John Boccieri for voting to "block a bill that would have helped the government recoup the taxpayer-funded bonuses AIG executives received!" Naturally, that's what makes sense. . . to nobody but partisan hacks like Matt Hurley.

What Boccieri voted to table was a toothless resolution that merely demanded that the Treasury Secretary "recoup" the bonuses somehow (the Republican resolution actually gave the Treasury no real power or authority to do so, it just mandated it). What he voted FOR, and what actually passed was a bill that gave the Treasury Department the means to forceibly recoup the money by creating a tax on the bonus.

I think Matt must have gotten his Johns confused. Naturally, there's no criticism of John Boehner who voted against giving the Treasury Department the authority to recover this money by taxing it, or condemning it. No, because although John Boehner never wore a military uniform, he's a "great American;" but John Boccieri, an Iraqi Freedom vet who served our country with honor in uniform overseas in a combat zone, he's "anti-American."

I'm starting to wonder if Matt Hurley comes from the Bizarro World. Because the truth seems to always be the opposite of what he says.

"The Cincinnati Bible Wars": Things I should have learn in Ohio history class, but didn't

2009-03-18T14:27:00.003-04:00

I'll admit that I'm a lecture nerd. Find me a good topic, and I'm hooked. On April 1, at 5:30 p.m., the Ohio Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society are hosting a lecture from Notre Dame Associate History Professor Linda Przybyszewski regarding the "Cincinnati Bible Wars."

The video gives a good overview of how a fight over the requirement of the teaching of the Protestant Bible in a heavily Catholic city at the Cincinnati Public Schools lead to one of the groundbreaking decisions that has been the foundation of the constitutional jurisprudence on separation of church and state.

How many people knew it wasn't the athiests that got the Bible out of the public classroom, but because the school districts couldn't decide whether they should teach the Catholic or the King James Bible?

This remains me of a story about when I graduated from high school. Along with our hood and gown, all the graduating students at our high school got a slip of paper (this is 1993, btw), asking us whether we wanted a copy of the Old Testament or the New Testament as our graduation gift from the members of the school board (in a totally unofficial capacity, I'm sure.) So, I asked, why did we have to choose between the Testaments? I was told that they offered the Old Testament for any Jewish students we might have so not to offend anyone (although I don't think we had a single Jewish student in our school... ever.)

So, I wrote in my vote... the Koran. I was called to the principal's office the next day. The principal knew I was the President of the youth group at the local Methodist Church. I was told I'd be getting the New Testament, and I should cut out the pranks if I wanted to graduate at the end of the week.

Ahh memories...

Anyway, for more information on the "Cincinnati Bible Wars," including how to register to attend, click here. If I were in Columbus, I'd definately go. Sounds like it could be a really interesting presentation.

"None of the above" leading GOP candidate for Governor

2009-03-18T11:08:00.004-04:00

So, the latest Quinny poll came out yesterday. If you read the Columbus Dispatch's reporting on it, you'd think Strickland was doomed. I think what Josh Marshall at TPM has been saying about the Beltway media in Washington is true for the Statehouse media in Ohio: they're still wired for Republicans being in power. Most of these reporters never covered politics with the Republicans this far out of power, at least not for a very long time. In fact, the case can be made that it's even worse in Ohio than it was in Washington. The GOP dominance in this State was so long and so great, reporters simply didn't bother developing relationships and sources with the Democratic side of politics. We were, in reality, politically irrelevant for nearly twenty years.

So despite the fact that Democrats now have a near monopoly on statewide, non-judicial offices, control half of the General Assembly, and in parity in Congressional representation, the media is still wired to report with a strong Republican perspective. The Dispatch's coverage of the Quinny poll is indemic of that outdated political wiring for media to gather spin on stories. That, and reporting on conflict is exciting. Telling the truth that Strickland looks incredibly strong for re-election and the GOP looks politically irrelevant in stopping Strickland from re-election just doesn't sell newspapers.

Here's my takeaway from this, after six months of pushing the potential candidacies of former Senator Mike DeWine and former Congressman John Kasich as messiahs to guide the Ohio GOP out of the political wilderness, the Ohio GOP finds itself with potential matchups that, to date, would do worse than Ken Blackwell did in 2006. Undecideds rarely break monlithically to the challenger, particularly when the incumbent has nearly 2:1 favorability/unfavorability and approval/disapproval job ratings. Yet, even if every undecided voter broke for the Republicans, Strickland would STILL win re-election comfortably against either candidate.

Strickland would easily beat either DeWine or Kasich by sixteen to twenty points respectively. (Given DeWine, high voter identification numbers, I'd suggest that DeWine might represent the ceiling for any Republican candidate for Governor.) Either candidate is presently polling worse that the vote Ken Blackwell got in 2006. Right now, after hearing the list of the potential Republican candidates for Governor, even Republicans favor "I don't know/No Answer" by a five-point margin. That's what the Dispatch failed to report.

Also, incumbents with above 50% favorability and approval ratings simply don't lose elections. They don't. Period. End of analysis. He is not doomed. Nor does this portray a troubling trend. Strickland's favorability rating was actually below 50% back in December 2008. So even though it's dropped a little from its recent high last month, it's still above his most recent and historic low. Strickland's only sub-50% job approval rating was back in February 2007. Since then, Strickland has consistently fluctuated between the mid 50s and low 60s on job approval. Guess what the next poll will show? I bet a Strickland improvement. It's becoming statistical noise.

The real takeaway from this poll is that while there are areas where Strickland is politically vulnerable, the overall favorable political environment for Strickland appears to be static. And as much damage as the Republicans think they might be able to inflict, so long as they are required to run a candidate in opposition, they're very likely to lose as not even Republicans are showing much excitement for their options. Incidentially, to the extent DeWine might have thought that announcing his candidacy might dissaude Kasich from actually running, the mushy, softness of the Republican vote with its high undecideds suggests this is a wide open race where anyone (but Coughlin) has a legitimate shot on being the GOP nominee. That again, was another story the Dispatch failed to report in regards to this poll yesterday.

What's not getting reported at all is the chatter among conservatives who are getting frustrated of Kasich's "is he, or is he not" actually running. Kasich sees in these numbers an opening, but it also says that the GOP very likely cannot bloody Strickland up enough to make him vulnerable. And when running for Governor would require a massive paycut, you start to understand exactly why the Kasich for Governor campaign hasn't yet launched.

BizzyBlog's obsession with race while economy starts remarkable comeback

2009-03-17T18:12:00.005-04:00

If you're going to brand your blog's name to reflect a focus on a particular topic, then don't you think you should focus on that instead of favorably post an e-mail of an obvious racist white supremacist's thoughts as to why a newspaper is going out of print?

The DOW Jones Industrial is in its second week of rallying. Inflation is well under control. New home construction and inflation is both favorably beating expectations. And yet, this rationale is why Tom Blumer at Bizzyblog wants to write as explaining why the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is going out of print?:

The Seatte PI (and the Times) are filled with columns by Black nationalists, Asian nationalists, Mexican nationalists, Jewish nationalists, Hindu nationalists Muslim nationalists and drip with hatred for the European-American middle class who buy the newspapers.

Gang rights, Gay rights, Illegal Immigrant rights…. celebrations of gang attacks on European-Americans…. and censorship, censorship, censorship….….. And so why did so few people buy the Seattle PI?

Because we, as a community, despise the PI, and everything it stands for. We, as a community, have killed this Multicult hate organ and it dies a deserved death. May all its minions rot in Hell. May it begin for them with unemployment.

The Death of each such Multicult [sic] organ is a blow for freedom. [Ed. note: I added the link to sites that use similar rhetoric. The link was not in the original.]

Okkkay... Did Tom not realize that this email is from an obvious white supremacist? People who talk about European-Americans being attacked by minority "nationalist" is the language and m.o. of a white supremacist world view, especially the intentional use of the phrase "Multicult." The whole email suggests that the Seattle paper folded because of its multicultural values and censorship of the "European-American" world view.

It's not just the term "European-American," that makes this so obviously racists. Its the ranting of multiculturalism, the attacks of other minorities as "nationalists," and the notion that "white" Americans are censored by political correctness fueled by multiculturalism.

This is why the Seattle paper failed? Because it was liberal? In Seattle? So the conservative former national news weekly "U.S. News & World Report" did the same thing because??? The Christian Science Monitor? The New York Sun? Is multicultural liberal bias why the Chicago Sun-Times is on a death watch? The weekly conservative Sacramento Union folded earlier this month. (I guess conservative Internet media company Pajamas Media also failed because of its devotion to the "Multicult," Bizzy?)

The American Spectator, a conservative publication in high circulations in the 1990s is a shell of its former self. Ruppert Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal was largely because the current ownership wanted to shed its stake in a publication that was losing value rapidly. News Corp., Murdoch's flagship and THE company of conservative media, reported a $6.4 billion loss(!) fueled mostly from it having to massive write-down in the value of its assets, namely the WSJ just last month.

The newspaper industry isn't dying because of bias. It's dying because it's outdated technology. People get their news 24 hours a day from the Internet and cable news networks. That's why most of the papers, like in the case in Seattle, are coming back as solely Internet publications.

The fact that Blumer would rather focus on the ranting of an obviously racist mindset as justification for an industry who is simply outdated for today's IT environment rather than focus on the actual, pardon the irony, "news" in the economy is telling. Blumer doesn't want to admit that the actual Obama-Pelosi-Reid economy is showing a comeback from the Bush economy. He'd rather write a ditto to a guy who sees a white economic rebellion behind newspapers failing rather than the fact that newspapers are losing classified ad revenues to craigslist and news circulations to blogs. Hopefully, for the sake of the Republic, not to blogs like Blumer's.

Just sayin' Part II: Inflation vs. Deflation

2009-03-17T14:04:00.002-04:00

Remember how all those "Tea Party" protestors were complaining that Obama's stimulus plan would lead to out-of-control inflation? Yeah, so far, it's not happening. Last month, wholesale prices increased a whopping .1 percent. That's a fourth less than economists predicted. And down from an .8% increase in January. Compared to a year ago, wholesale prices are still down 1.3% from a year ago.

Say it with me: the recession we are dealing with is deflationary, not inflationary. That's exactly why government spending that puts pressure to keep prices from dropping out-of-control is a GOOD thing.

Inflation is safely in check, and we're seeing the bottoming out of deflation. The housing market and even some financial companies are starting to show signs of strength. The Dow gained 10% in last week, and has shown continued growth this week. It's what we'd call a sustained rally. While conservatives have been screaming to blame the roughly 1,500 points the Dow has lost this year on Obama, the market is showing a rebound. There's still the roughly 5,000 points that the market lost during the Bush Administration to make up that almost nobody points out in comparison.

Now that the Obama Administration, particularly Treasury Secretary Geithner, are finally cracking down on short sellers, we can expect a continued rally in the market, especially once uncertainty about the fate of trouble banks is resolved.

I'm actually getting rather upbeat about the economy. Maybe it's the extra coin in my pocket and signs of an economic rally. But I bet the Republicans who went all-in on betting Obama to fail are beginning to feel a little queasy right now. Because if you bet your party's remaining political fortunes that the economy wouldn't rebound in time for the 2010 elections, you better be right. Otherwise, well, it's going to be a long hard political winter for the Republicans if they're wrong (again.)

I'm just sayin'

2009-03-17T11:57:00.002-04:00

Not alot of the conservatives in the firm are talking about the Tea Party or blasting the stimulus package today. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that we all saw less taxes withheld on our paychecks we got today.

The Executive Secretary even told me I had more on my check because of the "Obama tax cuts." Gotta luv that.

And, no, I don't think a single one of them is going to send the extra money to pay down the debt in protest.

Funny how quickly political rhetoric breaks down once you start to see a personal benefit of the thing you were just attacking. I'm just sayin'.

Marcus Fiesel died in the custody of a two-parent home

2009-03-16T19:38:00.002-04:00

There was a time when conservatives would denounce unelected, activist bureaucrats who made substantive law that should instead be made by the elected legislature. I guess that only applies when the policy at question is not one that gives heterosexual, married couples preference in adopting children in foster care.

Matt Hurley at Weapons of Mass Discussion (an ironically named blog that has rare, if any, discussion at all) sees no problem with the new policy. Matt betrays his supposed conservative philosophy in doing so.

First, a clarification. Mike Fox, who has virtually no training or experience in matters of child custody. He has, to my knowledge, no background in social work. After the tragic death of Marcus Fiesel, Fox resigned as Butler County Commissioner to be appointed the new Director of the Butler County Children Services agency. The agency is responsible for largely enforcing state law regarding the treatment and assistance for abused, neglected or dependent children. The jurisdiction and responsibilities of agencies such as Butler County Children Services is spelled out in state statutes. On top of policy set by the popularly elected state legislature, the local policies of the agency are also set by the elected county commissioners or by a board appointed by elected officials (county commissioners and juvenile court judges).

With no public notice, Mike Fox, upon learning that his agency had approved an adoption of a child to his same-sex foster parents, decided to change the agency's policies to create a preference of heterosexual married couples over single-parent and same-sex couples. The county commissioners were, apparently, never told or consented to the creation of such a policy. As far as anyone knows, Butler County is the only county in Ohio where such a policy exists. Fox's policies make the county ripe for equal protection and due process lawsuits.

Mike Fox is an unelected bureaucrat who defends this policy by claiming its backed up by various studies and objective data. However, Mike Fox has never revealed what studies and data he's referring to, nor did he ever soliticit or permit anyone in the public to offer review of these studies or present contrary evidence.

If Ohio wants children services to prefer placing abandoned, neglected, or abused children with heterosexual, married couples, then that should be the verdict of the elected General Assembly. It has not done so, and it's unconsciousable and likely unconstitutional for a county bureaucrat to make such a profound determination that creates a different standard for adoption in one county versus another.

Regardless, such a policy should be made in an open and transparent process that permits others to present all the evidence. As opposed to a secretive, unknown process that by all accounts appeared to be "create the policy first, justify it later."

Conservatives scream when elected and politically-appointed judges "make the law." But at least the judiciary is a creature found in the constitution. Where are the bureacrats in the Constitution? If Fox is a member of the Executive branch, then his job is to "execute" the law created by the legislative. If he's legislating, then he needs some legislative authority that suggests that the legislative intended such rule-making to be made by the unelected bureacrats. No such legislative deferment exists, however.

Mike Fox rode the death of Marcus Fiesel to garnish headlines and to justify his career switch. (It didn't hurt that Mike Fox also got a nice raise that he needed to help pay for mounting legal fees incurred as a result of a still pending FBI corruption probe regarding Fox's tenure as county commissioner.) Fox was hired over candidates who actually had experience running such an agency. On both the education and experience front, Fox was sadly lacking.

Fox's policy is puzzling because it was the death of Marcus Fiesel that led Fox to head this agency. But Marcus Fiesel died in the custody of married couple. To date, I am unaware of any child dying in the care of a same-sex couple in Butler County. Fox paints a policy with a wide brush that seems to whitewash over that fundamental fact. And he did so with no public notice or input. I wonder what Mike Fox the former state legislature would make of Mike Fox the unelected bureaucrat if he were still in the legislature?

"Tea Party" protestors are partisan hacks. Period.

2009-03-16T16:33:00.004-04:00

Apparently, I'm supposed to be impressed that 4,000 people showed up in Cincinnati for the area's "Tea Party" protest. I'm not. That's about how many showed up regularly for McCain/Palin events in the fall, which isn't surprising since it's the same people in both crowds.

There's nothing grandiose about these protests. The whole reference to the "Boston Tea Party" is nothing more than to take a partisan, ideological whine and hide it in the American flag. As a historical analogy, there is nothing similiar to these protests and the actual Boston Tea Party. The fact that they seem to have Republicans speakers lined up like former Congressman/rumored '10 Congressional candidate Steve Chabot (who also voted for TARP and every Bush budget), Jean Schmidt and John Boehner at the ready all suggests that this is nothing more than ideological whining from a group threatened with political extinction.

The Boston Tea Party was a protest by the willful destruction of crates of tea that were subject to new taxes enacted by the British Parliament to raise revenues to pay for debts England incurred in defending the British colonies during the French-American wars. Since the American colonists were the biggest benefactors of that war, the English reasoned that America should be the primary payer of the war debt.

The taxes and scope of the taxes occurred at a time when the Crown was also trying to scale back the quasi-automony that the early colonial governments had developed as well. The tea tax, in part, was also enacted to promote the use of tea shipped by the British East India Tea Company over its foreign rivals. So, there was a monopolistic, protectionist angle as well.

Because English political thought at the time didn't conceptualize that a MP from London wasn't any less able to represent the views of the colonial lords than an MP from Richmond (at the time, there was still nothing "common" about the House of Commons, parliamentary elections were only decided by the white, landed gentry class), the English missed seeing that to the colonists, the depowering of the colonial governments and the lack of representation tied to the colonies themselves (the gentleman class of colonists were still viewed to be representated by the terrorities in England where they haled) lead to a widespread feeling that the colonists had all the liabilities of being a citizen with none of the civil liberties that came with it. So they revolted. The goal of the Tea Party was to foster a growing boycott of all the goods being taxed. It was marginally successful.

What does that have to do with TARP and the stimulus package? Not a damn thing.

But that didn't stop Screamin' Mean Jean Schmidt and John "I'm a man of the people because I've played on a public golf course before" Boehner from joining in the 4,000 "tea protestors" in decrying government spending (the Enquirer notes that the turn out was several thousand below expectation. Most of the camera shots and interviews suggests that many of the protestors were nothing more than young children dragged to an event that they have no understanding about.)

Now, from everything I can gather in the press coverage in these tea events, the general messages is opposition to government bailout of the banks. The protestors, in particular, say they'd prefer that the government let these banks fail rather than "rewarding" them with taxpayer money raised from people that did nothing wrong. Even John Boehner seems to understand this:

Except, of course, both John Boehner and Jean Schmidt voted FOR the TARP bailout package. The stimulus package is not a government bailout; TARP is. That means to the extent that these Tea Parties are protesting government bailouts, then they're protesting Jean Schmidt and John Boehner's votes in Congress!

Not since Maria Antoinette offer desserts to starving rioters in Paris has a political figure been so disconnected from the political message of a crowd it tried to embrace. Antionette offered dessert; the crowd took her head instead. History is silent as to the fate of the royal pastries themselves.

If tax cuts coupled with massive government spending on infrastructure and energy projects is socialism, then Barack Obama is Adam Smith compared to what Boehner and Schmidt supported during the Bush years. And if using taxpayer dollars to bail out failing banks and the financial sector is communism, then John Boehner's next column should be in Pravada, not the Wall Street Journal.

If this crowd is upset about AIG executives obscene bonuses while getting a bailout, then someone should warn John Boehner and Jean Schmidt that the money for those bonuses came from the TARP bill they supported, not the stimulus package they opposed.

But tosses a few teabags is a meaningless sacrifice (the real Tea Party dumped an estimated 90,000 pounds of the stuff.) If the Tea Party protestors really want to boycott government spending because of concerns about the growing federal debt, then the stimulus bill gives them an opportunity to do something about it. Simply mail your federal and state tax refunds to the U.S. Treasury Department's Bureau of Public Debt:

Attn Dept G; Bureau Of the Public Debt; P. O. Box 2188;Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

Then you can say you've done your part to reduce the debt, now Congress should do the same! Or heck, just calculate how much of the tax cut you're getting from the stimulus package, and just send that in. I know Congressman Strickland used to send in all of his Congressional raises to the Bureau of Public Debit. I think he even did that with the Bush tax cuts.

So do what our Founding Fathers did. If 1770s tea is equivalent to 2009 Obama tax cuts, then boycott the tax cuts, I say! Put your money where your mouth is!

Today's misleading headline of the day

2008-11-25T01:04:00.002-05:00

From the Hamilton Pulse Journal: "Convicted killer may walk free"

That's the headline. Now when I read a headline like that, I expect that the news article is about how some guy was recently found guilty of murder, but through some weird technicality, is going to walk free without spending any time in prison for murder. Correct me if you think that's an unreasonable presumption.

However, that's not at all what the story is about. It's about a guy who was sentenced in 1984 to die for a murder he committed in 1983. A murder he committed while on parole for stabbing his wife to death in 1970. The guy is a double-murderer who committed his second murder while on parole for the first!

Regardless, it's a crime that happened 25 years ago. So how is he going to "walk free?"

Well in 1988, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the three-judge panel (which heard the case in lieu of a jury... three-judge panels must hear any bench trial in a capital case) misapplied the law in Ohio and considered criminal acts as aggravating factors (reasons to sentence Davis to death) things that the Ohio legislature did not specifically permit a sentencing court to consider as an aggravating factor. Because the court found four mitigation factors against death but five aggravating factors (including the ones not authorized by the death penalty statute), the Ohio Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for a proper sentencing. However, despite the prior improper death penalty sentence, the Ohio Supreme Court specifically permitted the trial court to still consider a death penalty sentence on remand.

In January 2007, a federal court found that the trial court, during the resentencing, failed to admit into evidence that should have considered as mitigating circumstances against the death penalty and again remanded the case to the trial court for yet another resentencing in which the death penalty could be considered.

Under the law as it existed in 1983 (which is what Davis must be resentenced under), he can either be sentenced to death, life with the possibility of parole in thirty years, or life with the
possibility of parole in twenty years.

And that's how the paper concludes that this twice-convicted killer could, theoretically "walk free." Since he's already served twenty-five years in prison, the trial court, on the third bite of the apple, give him the minimium sentence possible and the guy could be released on parole at his earliest opportunity. Only under that specific scenerio can anyone legitimately claim that multiple murderer could "walk free." He walks free after serving his sentences and being released on parole based on a positive recommendation that he be released by the Ohio Parole Board. A highly improbable event for a guy who committed murder while on parole.

And yet, that didn't keep the headline writers in the local paper from panicing or Butler County Prosecutor Robin Piper for fearmongering:

"It is a very important case," said Butler County Prosecutor Robin Piper. "It's
scary important, because this man could conceivable be released if he is given
one of the life options."

The Sicilian from "The Princess Bride" had a better understanding of the inconceivable as Piper understands the term conceivable.

Would it be theoretically possible? Sure, Ohio law at the time allowed for someone who committed aggravated murder in 1983 to possibly be released by now if the Adult Parole Board felt it prudent. However, that ignores the fact that Ohio's laws even then only created the possibility of parole, it did not require it. And even under 1983 Ohio law, guys who committed murder while on parole don't then get released on parole, especially on the earliest possible moment.

There are plenty of valid reasons to argue that the State of Ohio should be allowed to stick a needle in Von Clark Davis' arm and pump him with a cocktail of drugs until he is dead. Lord knows it would be a more merciful death than he's ever given either of his victims. However, the mere fact that he could, in theory, be released on parole at some point unless he's sentenced to death has to be the oddest argument I've ever seen for a death penalty in a particular case.

It sure as heck doesn't justify the headline. A more accurate headline would be "Twenty-five years after murder, Ohio trial court has still failed to adhere to Ohio's death penalty law in capital murder case." Or, "County Prosecutor believes Ohio Parole Board might release twice convicted murderer."

However, where's the real journalism in this story? Where does a reporter ask the real question: how likely is it that this guy would ever really be released on parole? He's 62 now; he was 37 at the time of his last offense. Why would the county prosecutor make such a ridiculous claim? (Other than lower the expectations he'll know he'll beat, only then to trump his "major" victory when the court... shock.... sentencing the guy to death again. Pumping drama in a story that lacks it.) Why no focus on the fact that this guy has been sent to death row twice for the same crime only to have the courts later reject his sentence as being legally invalid both times? Does anyone honestly believe that a twice convicted murder, who committed his last crime while on parole, would be released again? How many defendants who have the kind of record as Davis has are sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence and serve the statutory minimum amount of time after committing their last crime while on parole? Has anyone ever gotten that kind of treatment?

Let me answer that question. No, nobody knowledgeable about the law honestly believes that this guy is going to "walk free" unless he's sentenced to death again. And that's just an example of how tradition media fails in its coverage on reporting on the law more often than not.

The idea that this guy would be released on parole would be laughable if it weren't been made as an argument to kill him as an acceptable alternative.

Thanks for visiting, Dave Hickman

2008-08-12T14:18:00.002-04:00

One week since the re-launch, and this site has already been visited by none other than Progressive blogger pest Dave Hickman- the man who believes he's better than every other blogger there is, even though nobody listens to him.

Dave, I'm not going to post your abusive comment because I don't have to. This isn't a forum for you. If you want a forum to express your childish taunts and rants, start your own blog. This is mine, and I chose what comments do and do not get published.

Another reason I didn't post your comment is that it simply isn't true. For the record, I've been offered to administer BSB every time its changed administrators. I've turned it down because I don't have the time or technical expertise the job requires. I still have front page posting privileges and even posted today. That's as far as I've have ever asked to go with BSB.

And, frankly, I don't know why you hate me so much. All I've ever disagreed with you about was your contention that '06 Green Party gubernatorial candidate Bob Fritkas was a threat to Congressman Strickland for the progressive, urban vote, thus allowing Blackwell to potentionally take the African-American vote. I said it was nonsense, and you called me a racist for it.

And, yet, history proved me entirely right. Fraudbuster Bob (who lied about the Governor having the power to block the nationalization of the Ohio National Guard for use in Iraq), had the worst showing of anyone on the ballot. The Liberterian candidate for governor got twice as many votes as your candidate did.

Since then, I've largely ignored you. To date, I'm the only Ohio blogger who has reported about the defects in electronic voting in Butler County which led Secretary of State Brunner to find a serious flaws in electronic voting. And yet, I'm chided because I'm not a "stolen election" guy.

BWAHAHA all you want, Dave. Nobody listens to you. Oh, and if you don't like this blog, don't read it. I could care less if anyone does. That's the point of it.

I've done nothing to you, Dave. Nothing at all, but disagree with you about a third-party candidate for Governor. And I was right. You've yet to acknowledge that. Regardless, I've done nothing to deserve your "attention." Just go away.

Signed,
-The Management

P.S.- Comments are welcome to this site so long as they actually related to the topic of the posts. I will not let personal attacks or mindless ridiculing remarks be posted here. I will not stifle respectful and thoughtful dissent, only ridicule. I trust you all can tell the difference between the two.

Unstoppable constitutional right meets immovable political object

2008-08-11T22:37:00.002-04:00

Nobody likes criminals. Well, maybe mystery writers. Security system salespeople. Gun manufactures (for the same reasons as the security system.)

You'll never find a politican running on a soft on crime platform. You'll never have a politican suggest that we need to reduce the criminal penalities for crime. If there's an inequity found in the system (such as the sentencing difference between crack cocaine and powder cocaine), then the result is to increase the less harsh result to remove the "inequity."

This wasn't always so. There was a group of politicians, long since gone, realized that there was no area where government regularly places enormous restraints on liberty than in the criminal justice system. But they also realized that people accused of crimes are politically vunerable group. So, they enshrined the most imporant protections in our Constitution, so that they would be almost impossible to be eroded by the political will.

And that is why the Founding Fathers, those bleeding hearts of liberty, enshrined the right of counsel in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. If only the Framers had the mindset to mandate that the right of counsel in defense was equal to the public resources dedicated to seek the person's incarceration.

In Ohio, indigent defendants can receive their legal counsel from one of two methods. The first is that the County can establish a Public Defender Office where the county employees salaried attorneys solely to serve as defense counsel for indigent defendants. The other is that court can have a list of private attorneys who can be appointed to represent you at a reduced costs (in most areas roughly $40 an hour for out of court to $50/hr. for in-court legal work.) Oh, and there's a cap to how many hours your attorney can charge under this second system. In Butler County, it works out that your court-appointed attorney can spend less than a full work week on your case. Which is great, unless your case goes to trial (which normally takes at least two to three days.)

Ohio law requires that if a county has a Public Defender Office, then it must appropriate as many resources as it does for the county prosecutor's office. So, what the political consequence of this mandated equity? You guess it. Most counties don't have a Public Defender's Office (which I could write a separate post on the problems with them as well.

Lately, two Butler Common Plea judges have criticized the current private appointed system in the county. They have complained that the current system is too expensive, that some of the 50-odd attorneys on the list are inefficient and padding the billing leading to waste and taxpayer fraud leading to criminal investigations and bar complaints. Right now, one attorney has a pending indictment for billing for work other attorneys did (she reportedly left the country for Mexico before she was indicted.)

So the judges (elected officials), want to create a hybrid system. They want to fire all but fourteen of the court-appointed attorneys. Assign two defense attorneys per judge, and pay those attorneys a salary as opposed the hourly rate. The judges claim that this new system will (somehow) save money from the current system and that these 14 attorneys (who will handle over one hundred felony cases a year) will still have time for a part-time private practice despite handling the same number of cases currently managed by over fifty attorneys. Not surprisingly, the Butler County Bar Association has expressed concerns about this plan and expressed downright skepticism about the judges' claimed savings and benefits.

Surprisingly, the local paper, the Hamilton Pulse-Journal, seemed to see right through this proposal for the politics it is. I was impressed with the paper's understanding of this issue:

Butler County's seven common pleas judges say the current system of providing defense attorneys for indigent clients is too expensive, is often abused by attorneys who overbill the county, is inefficient and is just plain "broken." Currently public defenders for felony cases are appointed from a list of about 50 attorneys who are paid $50 an hour for courtroom work and $40 an hour for work outside the courtroom — at an annual cost of about $1.1 million to the county.
Judges Michael Sage and Keith Spaeth are pitching a plan to commissioners for reducing the costs — to about $700,000 annually — and reducing the number of attorneys appointed by the county. Their plan calls for only 14 defense attorneys to be hired on a part-time basis — each earning an annual salary of $46,000 — and to be assigned to specific courtrooms. In other words, each judge would have two public defenders assigned to his court, serving the clients who need legal representation.
Ohio Public Defender Tim Young and Greg Howard, president of the Butler County Bar Association, have criticized the plan on a few points with which we tend to agree:
• Young contends that public defenders' loyalty will be with the judge for whom they effectively work, not with their clients. "If an attorney is handpicked by a judge to service all of the cases in front of the judge, and if the attorney is compensated through a contract approved by the judge, and if the attorney's continued employment is conditioned upon the judge's satisfaction with the attorney, there is more than a fair chance that the attorney will be in a position, whether intended or not, that loyalties will be compromised between the judge and client," he said in a letter to county leaders recently. We think he's correct.
• Howard, in noting that the proposed system "would not provide effective representation for the indigent population of Butler County," said the 14 attorneys would be spread too thin. (The 14 "part-time" defense attorneys will be permitted to continue their private practices on the side. To which cases do you think they will devote the most time and energy?)
• Howard also notes that the judges will not be able to hire the "14 best attorneys on the (current list) ... They're also going to get ones they don't want, that don't have the experience, and they'll have the same problems they're experiencing now." In other words, it's likely indigent clients will wind up being represented by less successful (and presumably less skilled) attorneys who need the work.
That hardly seems fair in a county that already spends twice as much on a Prosecutor's Office.

As they make their decision, county commissioners need to consider the right of an individual — innocent until proven guilty — to receive a fair trial, with legal representation that is not inherently overmatched by the prosecution. The judges' proposal seems to stack the deck against the clients, and in favor of one that's merely easier for the judges to manage.
...
We understand that judges are trying to avoid the creation of an official public defender's office — by suggesting this "hybrid" plan — but we think commissioners should give thought to whether the time has come to establish such an office. Certainly the current economic times aren't right for adding expenses, but the judges' proposal appears as flawed as the current system.
...
As much as we appreciate the efforts of the judges and commissioners to control expenses and be good stewards of the taxpayers' money, the bottom line in this discussion must always be providing the best possible and affordable legal representation for those who cannot afford their own attorneys. If the current system is broken, then let's fix it — but not at the expense of those awaiting trial and counting on a fair shake from the county's judicial system.

It's not easy to write that a person who is accused of a felony should have as much in taxpayer resrouces dedicated to his defense if he cannot afford his own counsel than being used for his prosecution. Most papers wouldn't have the courage to point out the obvious: that without the parties on equal footing, a fair trial cannot be had.

Kudos to the Pulse-Journal's editorial board. You would have made our Founding Fathers proud.

The pathology of the criminal legal mind

2008-08-04T23:27:00.002-04:00

Nowhere has the disciplines of psychology and the law been more deeply and unhealthily wed together than in criminal law. From the first law that attempted to separate the consequence between an avoidable tragic accident to a cold-blooded plan, society has become an attempt to unlock the criminal mind with a taxinomical approach to label every sin with its own statute. Incidentially, anyone who complains about hate crimes statutes because it bans "thought crimes" hasn't apparently given much thought from the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter.

Our sexual predator statutes are entirely based on an unquestionable faith that psychiatry can determine within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty which sexual offenders are likely to reoffend and which ones aren't. But that's a topic for perhaps a later post.

Perhaps someday, the criminal jurist will put itself on the couch and realize just how insane the state of criminal law can be.

Imagine that you are accused of murder and are facing the possibility of life in prison without parole. Imagine that you are told if you go to trial, the State will insist on the maximum penalty, but if you plead guilty they'll agree to a life sentence which allows for the possibility of parole. You don't have an education beyond high school. You are indigent and have a court-appointed attorney who advises you to take the deal as it's the only likely chance you could ever see life outside at prison again.

Now you are given a form to sign in which to make your plea. Both the form and the judge accepting the plea tell you if you are ever released on parole, you'll be on parole for five years and if you violate the terms of your parole you could be sentenced for up to nine months in prison. Based on that representation, you agree to waive all of your constitutional rights, including the right to require the State to prove your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to a jury trial, your right confront the witnesses against you, the right to compel the testimony of any witness in your favor, the right to object to the admissibility of the evidence, the right to be represented by counsel, the right to appeal your case, and your right to be silent.

You are sentenced to prison. You later learn that if you are ever released on parole, you will face a lifetime of being on parole and that if you ever violate the terms of your parole, you can face re-incarceration for the rest of your life, instead of up to nine months as your judge told you.

Do you believe that such an error would mean that your decision to waive your rights and plea guilty was a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent decision?

If you're a three-member minority of the Ohio Supreme Court, the answer is tragically yes, your plea is knowingly and intelligent even given the mistaken information provided by the Court when you made your plea. In the Ohio Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Clark, 2008-Ohio-3748, this three-member minority held that since the Court correctly informed the Defendant as to what the maximum sentence would be and informed him of the constitutional rights he was waiving, the erroneous information was not a prejudicial issue to render the Defendant's plea invalid, but instead should still be considered a knowing and intelligent decision.

What did the four-member majority rule? Well that such an erroneous instruction to a Defendant as to the full consequences of his pleas may have been prejudicial (i.e.- he may not have plead had he had accurate information), but the majority did not vacate the Defendant's plea. Instead, it remanded it to the trial court to determine if the court's erroneous information prejudiced the Defendant in making his plea.

But before I get into the insanity of that, let me point this out. The majority opinion actually advises Ohio's trial judges that they could potentially avoid the risk of this particular error by simply avoiding to inform Defendants as to the consequences of their plea might have as it relates to parole and possibilities penalities for violating their parole. This judicial wisdom comes from no other than the United States Supreme Court in the case of Hill v. Lockhart (1985), 474 U.S. 52, 56, where the highest Court in the land ruled that Defendant need not be told of the consequences of his plea may have on becoming eligible (if it all) for early release under parole and the possible consequences for violating the parole. Such information is not necessary to make a plea, apparently, knowingly or intelligently.

But let's take a look at the real insanity of the majority. Besides chastising the trial court for trying to inform the Defendant about how his plea may make him eligible for parole and what parole would mean, the Ohio Supreme Court held that his case should be remanded because the mistaken information might have prejudiced the Defendant's decison to enter the plea. But the court's confidence in mind reading is so strong, that it remanded it to the trial court so that it can determine if the erroneous information prejudiced the Defendant into making his decision.

Think about that. A guy who is charged with aggravated murder and is facing the possibility of life without parole if he goes to trial, has appealed his plea all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court because he says that his plea was not knowing and intelligent because of the obvious mistaken information the Defendant was given by the trial court judge-- someone the Defendant obvious had reason to believe was giving him accurate legal information about the consequences of his plea.

If the Defendant's sentence was vacated, he is back facing trial or trying to reach a new plea agreement. Why would the Defendant give the State the opportunity to possibly sentence the Defendant to life without parole, appeal his case to the highest court in the State, if he himself didn't believe that the erronous information affected his decision to make such a plea?

And why does the Ohio Supreme Court believe that the trial court can better judge whether the Defendant was prejudiced into the Defendant's decision to plea than the Defendant's own determination that the erroneous information lead to him to make a plea he might not have entered if he had correct information. Can one truly make a knowing and intelligent decision with faulty information? Unfortunately, we were one vote away from that being the law of Ohio.

But the majority's decision is as dysfunctional for it suggests that a person can make a knowingly and intelligent waiver of their constitutional rights if the person is given less information about the consequences of such a waiver and that a Defendant would actually appeal a decision to vacate his guilty plea over an issue that he truly didn't believe prejudiced his decision to waive his rights.

And that is why criminal jurisprudence needs to put itself on the couch and under the microscope just as often as it put the criminal mind.

Memories

2008-08-04T17:40:00.002-04:00

This is where it all began. This is where I first began to blog. Sometimes, you have to back to the beginning, to remember where it was you wanted to go in the first place.

It's been a year and nine months since I've posted here. This site has been dead, and yet, I find myself compelled to come back here, as if there is unfinished business here. As if this site was more an unfinished work rather than a monument to a blogging past.

I left here to go to BSB because my writing became focused on the '06 elections, and its traffic gave me an audience I never had on my own. But in so doing, I found the scope of my writing became more and more limited the bigger the audiences were. "Modern Esquire, " the guy who wanted to write about life, the law, and politics, became "Modern Pundit," yet another white guy writing about politics.

Nobody grew to hate your posts more than I did, until the Clinton-Obama primary wars came. And I never understood how powerful a mob the cyber world could be until I saw it turn on me. The one who was once listened to, linked to, and generally respected quickly became the object of scorn and ridicule for no other sin than whispering the name "Clinton."

I hated the Spring. I hated the petty attacks. But most of all, I hated myself for becoming part of it all. I hated my writing and the pettiness of it all as much as the "message" of the people I responded to. And I thought about walking away, and to a large degree I have. Family, the law, and life came back into balance, and I remembered that I was just as happy in the real world as I ever was in this.

And now I'm back here, staring at this site nobody ever sees anymore. And I remember what it was like two years ago. When I just wrote. And without thinking, I felt compelled to write this post.

Maybe I don't need to blog every story, every hour, every day, or ever again. And suddenly, I realize what went wrong. I went onto BSB to be heard as M.E.; but I came here to be me. All this time, I thought I had to choose between the two. But nobody ever told me I had to chose. Nor do I have to choose, either.

So, now, I realize what I can do. I can continue to be heard on BSB, and I can come here to be me.

So, I can continue to write about politics at BSB when it suits me. But I can still come here for everything else. To write about the other passions such as the law. And maybe nobody will read it here. And that's fine with me, because nobody was reading this anyways.

I came here to shout into the void; I didn't expect an answer. Progress is cyclical, and sometimes you have to go back where you started to make the next evolution.

Welcome back.

Election '06

2006-11-09T15:08:00.000-05:00

Misleading Statewide Issues

2006-11-05T18:44:00.000-05:00

Okay, I am going to make some endorsements on the statewide ballot issues since they aren't Republican and Democratic issues.

ON ISSUE 2: Minimum wage: I support the constitutional amendment to increase the minimum wage and then tied it to inflation. If Members of Congress can get an annual raise for their six-figure salaries and having them automatically adjusted for inflation without wrecking our economy, why shouldn't those working in our service industries? Nobody talks about the economic cost to taxpayers which shows how overstated the arguments are made by the opposition. The attack based on personal information is a red herring.

ON ISSUE 3: Ohio Learn & Earn:If there's been a more dishonest issue campaign in Ohio than this one, I can't recall it. First, there's the allegations that petitioners mislead voters into signing the Ohio Learn & Earn petitions that it was solely about creating college scholarships, and not about legalizing slot machines. Then there was the above-average number of signatures that were invalidated because they were fraudulent. Then, it's been the several month long paid media campaign that talked only about the scholarships, and didn't mention the issue about slot machines until the last few weeks. Now, seeing the popularity of Issue 2 & seeing the opposition to Issue 2 on its own, the campaign is now running ads promoting both issues as if they are both about creating jobs. Hogwash.

First, the campaign has been caught flat out lying about how much money it will exactly generate. Then, it lied about the support (they oppose it) of the Ohio Board of Regents. Now here's what the Issue 3 campaign doesn't tell. Whether you support legalized casino gambling or not, this is about our constitution. And this amendment to our constitution that creates an industry gambling monopoly to a select few. Then, it mandates that a certain percentage of the proceeds from the gambling goes to subsize the purse prize money offered by Ohio's horseracing tracks. So, it's corporate welfare. Third, it mandates that the owners of slot machines get a certain percentage of the proceeds generated from the slot machines, and that the money kept by the race track owners and other slot machine operators get to keep that money FREE FROM STATE TAXATION!!! So you have a state-created monopoly with a mandated corporate welfare provision and a sweetheart tax-exemption for the entire monopology. Got that? It's not about the scholarships or creating jobs. It's about saving the horse racing tracks with a constitutional monopoly, corporate subsidies, and tax-emption enshrined by our Constitution.

ISSUE 4: Smoke Less Ohio The fact that Issue 3 is more intellectually dishonest than Issue 4 is a testament that the Issue 3 campaign is more intellectually dishonest than the tobacco-industry supported Issue 4. Despite it's advertisement, Issue 4 does not feature common sense smoking regulations. It actually takes away the ability for local governments to set limits on public smoking that current exist and allow more smoking than currently accepted. If it and Issue 5 passes, Issue 4 overrides it as it is a constitutional amendment and Issue 5 would enact a statute. Issue 4 is less public health protection and, like Issue 3, enshrines these limits in the state constitution, making repeal more difficult.

ISSUE 5: Smoke-Free Ohio This is the initative supported by the American Cancer Association. 'Nuff said. This initiative doesn't radically change the availability of public smoking, but takes it further. For those who think it doesn't allow smoking in restaurants, it doesn't. It just requires the smoking section to be in separate area where smoke doesn't drift into the non-smoking area and limits how much space can be dedicated to the smoking area.

Vote for Issues 2 & 5, and against Issues 3 & 4.

Final predictions for Ohio's elections

2006-11-05T11:27:00.000-05:00

I'm not going to do a last minute endorsement piece, because I think everyone who reads this blog knows I'm a Democrat. Therefore, it would be hardly shocking to find that I'm endorsing a straight statewide Democratic ticket. I will, however, try to make some objective predictions as to the races which includes the potential for some Republican surprise upsets.

Governor: Ted Strickland wins in a landslide. After a year of polling data, the best Ken Blackwell can say is that "polls are just a snapshot in time, and elections are about closing on a one-day sale." What Blackwell doesn't say is that if you took all those "snapshots" in chronological order and flipped through them fast enough, you'd see an animated Strickland campaign go from the low 40s up into the 60s while Blackwell looks like a mime running in place in the mid-30s. For a politician that has won three straight statewide campaigns by significant margins, the fact that Blackwell is behind, by most measures, by twenty points means that GOTV isn't going affect the outcome of this race.
U.S. Senate: This race is over. Brown wins over DeWine, but I predict it'll by the margin in the low teens, not twenty-point margins recently predicted in Rasmussen's latest poll. Nobody shows this race within the margins. DeWine could only win if the polls seriously have the turnout makeup wrong, or DeWine's latest attacks about a former Brown employee from twenty years ago is more relevant in voter's minds than I think they are.
Attorney General: This is probably one of the tougher races to measure. Betty Montgomery has been the prohibitive front-runner for so long both in the polls and in fundraising, it's hard to imagine the race has tightened. But it's an inescapable conclusion that the race has tightened remarkedly. First, we heard rumors reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer of an internal Montgomery poll showing Dann slightly behind, but within the margins, of Montgomery. Then, the Cleveland Plain Dealer's own poll, conducted by the nationally respected Mason-Dixon poll firm, showed the race tied at 44% each. Today's Columbus Dispatch poll reports Dann winning by ten-points 55%-44%, but this poll is a mail-in response poll which had a heavier response rate among Democrats than typically seen in actual voter turnout. Does this mean that Democratic voters are more energized than Republicans? Could be.
Although Montgomery is currently State Auditor, the fact that she used to be State Attorney General and has been in statewide office since 1994, I am applying the rules regarding polling usually used on incumbents. And that rule is that when an incumbent is polling in the mid-40s shortly before the election, that candidate is in trouble, especially when their opponent is polling at or near the same level. By that measure, regardless of which poll numbers you believe is accurate, the picture becomes clearer. Undecided voters over the past month have been overwhelmingly breaking towards Dann as Dann began to introduce himself to voters with his ads highlighting his newspaper endorsements and attacks on Montgomery's as being "asleep at the switch" in regards to Tom Noe, a political contributor of Montgomery's who currently is being tried in the Coingate scandal.
What's interesting is that you can take the Plain Dealer poll, which reflects more of the partisan turnout from the 2004 Presidential election, and look at the Dispatch poll which may reflect a more Democratic favored turnout in 2006, and you'll see Montgomery polling in the mid-40s in both. It's clear that Mongtomery's campaign has lost their swagger as the teflon has worn off, and are genuinely concerned. If Dann wins, it looks like Strickland's lopsided victory affected the turnout enough to help Dann surpass Montgomery. If I were the Ohio Democratic Party, I hope they dumped a ton of money to get Dann's ads in heavier rotation. They clearly have had more of an impact than hers which have been criticized by current Attorney General Jim Petro and the Ohio State Bar Association for insinuating that Dann was unqualified to be Attorney General because he represented accused child molesters.
State Treasurer: This race has been exciting to predict as any race for State Treasurer can be when the front-runner is a former Jeopardy champion. Rich Cordray has run an impressive campaign both on the ground and in fundraising, Cordray is uniquely qualified, and his opponent is the complete opposite of Cordray in just about every aspect. It's two days before the election, and Cordray has been on the air for a few weeks, including with an ad with former U.S. Senator/American hero John Glenn. Remember that memorable ad by his opponent? Remember her name? Yeah, I don't either.
State Auditor: I promised a Republican upset, and this is it. I predict that Republican Mary Taylor will win the State Auditor's race if Strickland doesn't create an overwhelming Democratic tsunami. Taylor's use of being a CPA has framed the race about qualifications. Lately, Democrats have accused Taylor was engaged in a "pay-to-play" scandal where she lobbied for state appropriations for a project based on its desire by Republican donors who then donated to Taylor shortly after sending the letter. It turns out that the funding project may or may not involve Taylor's husband's company that Taylor herself had earlier claimed to have a financial interest in? Get that? Yeah, and most voters haven't heard about it, either.
Taylor gets the edge because her ads are effective (as regards to framing the campaign on experience) and are in heavy rotation. If Sykes has ads in Southwestern Ohio airing, I am somehow missing them completely.
Secretary of State: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. In other words, just as I think the experience issue gives Taylor an edge, so does it give Jennifer Brunner an advantage. Again, the Plain Dealer/Mason-Dixon poll gives Brunner a nine-point lead 41%-32%. The Dispatch poll shows Brunner winning 58%-37%. Again, comparing the two polls shows that differences in turnout doesn't help her opponent, but that Brunner could be safely elected in a high Democratic turnout. The PD poll makes it closer, but has a 25% undecided rate. That also explains the huge difference between the two polls.
Hartmann's ads have been hitting Brunner solely on some her sentencing decisions while a Franklin County Common Pleas judge. Most observers don't how that criticism is relevant to her becoming Secretary of State, and apparently, neither do the voters. In fact, the ads have a side benefit for Brunner, as it reinforces that she is a former judge, a qualification that voters probably tend view as someone who is objective, independent, and highly qualified. Her opponent's ads also repeatedly use Brunner's name. In fact, you'll hear Jennifer Brunner's name in her opponent's ads more than you'll hear his. I'd bet you'd even hear her name even more than in her own ads.
Congressional races: This is probably the most unpredictable part of the night. Currently, Republicans have a 2:1 edge in Ohio's Congressional delegation. There are, at least, four seats that national pundits say in Ohio are hotly contested races which could change hands, and all seats are currently held by Republicans. If Democrats win three of those seats, then the Ohio Congressional delegation will be evenly split between Republican and Democrats. If Democrats pull off a complete sweep, then Ohio's Congressional delegation will have a Democratic majority. The four races are: OH-18 (Ney) Padgett vs. Space; OH-15 (Pryce) against Franklin County Commissioner Mary Jo Kilroy; OH-01 (Chabot) against Cincinnati City Councilman/U.C. Law Prof. John Cranley; and OH-02 (Schmidt) against Dr. Victoria Wulsin.
OH-15:The conventional wisdom seems to suggest that Democrats are likely to take OH-15 and OH-18, which would be historic. Deborah Pryce is the fourth ranking Republican in Congress, but her district has grown more and more Democratic each year. Kilroy is a popular County Commissioner from the most populous county of the district, and ran a great campaign. Pryce has gotten so desperate that she's actually stalked her opponent to challenger her to more debates, not the actions of an incumbent who's ahead.
OH-18: The Padgett-Space race is very surprising to me. During the gubernatorial primaries, Joy Padgett was Jim Petro's running mate, and many credited Padgett being on the ticket as being the reason why Petro carried the counties in OH-18. When Padgett won the special election, everyone expected that Space would fall behind because he didn't have Bob Ney's corruption anymore, and the district is a Republican district. Padgett's personal bankruptcy, and questions about it and a SBA loan Padgett just got shortly before the bankruptcy, became issues. Also, Padgett got tagged as Bob Ney's "hand picked" successor. To top it off, Bob Ney pled guilty to the very corruption he repeatedly denied to his constituents. And in what can only be described as the final kiss my arse to the Ohio Republican Party, Ney waited until this weekend to resign his House seat, infuriating Republicans who knew the story would hit the final news cycle before the final weekend of the campaign. The RNCC dropped its financial support a few weeks ago, and several stories suggested that they hung in as long as they did simply to force the DCCC to continue to spend money in the race. Space wins, but he enters Congress with a big target on his back.
OH-01: John Cranley leads the most recent polls in the race, but Steve Chabot has made a career of surviving races while be the most heavily challenged Ohio Republican in Congress over his career. The only thing that might make this race different is the toxic environment overall for Republicans, and the fact that the traditionally Republican reliable Cincinnati Enquirer actually endorsed Cranley in this race. History favors Chabot, but the current environment favors Cranley. Whomever wins, it's a tight victory.
OH-02:I want to write that Victoria Wulsin wins. The reports on the ground suggests that Victoria Wulsin is getting a good response in the district, and Jean Schmidt is about the most politically toxic politician in the Ohio delegation. One year after winning a closer than expected special election to replace hugely popular Rob Portman, Schmidt may have actually lost ground. Her attack on Murtha makes her a cause celeb among movement conservatives, but turns off moderate Republicans, independents, and fires up Democrats. Her public support of turning parts of her district into a "toxic waste" dump (for spent nuclear fuel recycling) has had an immediate impact on the eastern part of the district where Paul Hackett carried, and will likely have a huge turnout for Strickland since those counties mostly comprise of Strickland's old Sixth Congressional. Vic Wulsin will carry those counties by wider margins than Hackett. If she wins there, and decisively in Hamilton County, it may overcome Schmidt's advantages in Clermont and Warren counties. If the Republican candidate was anyone other than Schmidt, this race wouldn't be on anyone's radar. I believe Wulsin has a real chance, but she needs a stiff Democratic breeze to her back in the district to win. If she does win, she's the Republican's top target in 2008 nationally.
Ohio General Assembly: I don't predict either houses to change hands, but I must note that recent news suggests that a Democratic takeover of the Ohio House could be possible for details, see my post on Buckeye State Blog. I believe that a Democratic takeover is improbable, but on the outer limits of the possible. The State Senate will remain in Republican hands.

So, Democrats will likely win almost all of the statewide races, but I predict a tradeoff of upsets with Marc Dann squeaking by Betty Montgomery but Mary Taylor doing the same over Sykes. Worst case scenerio I can see is Montgomery and Taylor both winning, but I think a complete Democratic sweep is more likely. I predict that Democrats will pick up three Congressional seats in Ohio leading to a parity in Ohio's Congressional representation. A fourth pickup is more possible than a two-seat pickup because I predict turnout strongly favors Democrats because of the weakness on the top of the ticket. If Democrats don't pick up at least those two seats, then it suggests the prediction of a Democratic wave was overstated.

Marc Dann for Attorney General

2006-11-02T23:00:00.000-05:00

As a proud defense attorney and a strong believer in our due process rights as guaranteed to all citizens under the U.S. and Ohio constitutions, I am appalled at Betty Montgomery's attack against her opponent. Representing the rights of the accused does not disqualify someone to serve as our Attorney General, and current Attorney General Jim Petro and the Ohio State Bar Association was correct in condemning this line of attack.

Watch Marc Dann's latest campaign commercial and spread the word. Five days to go!

Nice final ad.

2006-10-30T17:44:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the lack of posting, but you can always find me over at Buckeye State Blog.

This is the final ad for the Strickland campaign. I like the plea to the voters to support him so that Strickland can bring Ohio together and address Ohio's problems. One component of leadership that has been in short supply that voters have been wanting are politicians who can bring people together and develop common-ground solutions.

Blackwell doesn't even proport to offer that. His leadership style is more reflected by opportunism, inflexible dogma, and leadership by edict. I think voters have seen enough of that type of leadership in Washington and don't want to see more of it in Ohio.

Congrats Ohio Bar passers

2006-10-27T11:50:00.000-04:00

Being one year removed from today's announcement of the July Bar results, I remember what a great day (crappy weather aside) this is.

Tip O' the Hat: When I was deciding on law schools, I was torn between the University of Cincinnati and the University of Toledo (who offered me a conditional full-ride.) I chose U.C. Glad to see both law schools had the highest bar passage rate among Ohio law schools for first-time takers this summer at a record 93% passage rate, beating The Ohio State University which has traditionally single-handedly held that distinction for the past few years, but drops to a tie in third place with Cleveland State University behind Case Western Reserve University.

Wag O' the Finger: The University of Dayton cannot be proud that their July bar passage rate for first-time takers was 78%, behind Ohio Northern's 81%. The overall bar passage rate for first-time bar examiners in July was 85%, which means these two Ohio schools did worse than average on getting their students to pass the Ohio bar exam than students did from law schools outside of Ohio.

I know I'll take alot of heat for this, but I think it's ridiculous that Ohio has nine law schools.

But congratulations to the 1,000 soon-to-be newly minted Ohio-licensed attorneys!

The national Republicans HAVE abandoned the DeWine campaign

2006-10-23T20:18:00.001-04:00

It's been nearly a week since the RNC Chairman denied the New York Times report that the party was pulling the financial plug on Mike DeWine's campaign. Scott Pullins and RAB derided the story and pointed out a Federal Election Commission Report showing the RNC making a $727k ad buy (the RNC publicly committed to spending at least another million on the race.)

So now that we're 14 days until the election, what has the RNC and the NRSC done with its money since then?

Well, according to the available FEC reports, the two groups have spent money on four different Senate races: Missouri, Tennessee, Ohio, and Rhode Island.

Since the RNC's last paid media purchase for DeWine, the RNC has had to report six separate notices of expenditures in Missouri, three in Tennessee, and one in Ohio. The NRSC has filed two notices of expenditures in Missouri, one in Tennessee, three in Rhode Island, and ZERO in Ohio.

Now, what's the dollar figures?

Well, again, since the RNC's last ad buy for DeWine, the RNC has spent an additional $1.9M in the Missouri race, over half a million in the Tennessee race, and less than $8,000 in Ohio. The RNC has spent nothing in the Rhode Island race lately.

And the NRSC? Well, they've spent nothing on DeWine's race. Over $87k in MO, almost $120k in Tennessee, and a little over $215k in Rhode Island.

So national Republican Party spending on Senate races since the RNC's last ad buy for DeWine looks like this:

Missouri: $2,030,106.21
Tennessee: $673,856.85
Rhode Island: $215,057.86
Ohio: $7,964.74
(Source: 24-Hour Notices filed by the RNC and NRSC as of close of business 10/23/06.)

If I were Senator DeWine, I wouldn't be waiting by the mailbox for that check to come in...

R.I.P.- "Stay the Course" Campaign '04-10/22/2006

2006-10-23T19:03:00.000-04:00

"Success has a thousand fathers; failure is an orphan." -President John F. Kennedy on the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

May peace find you during your eternal rest, "Stay the course," we hardly knew ye.

Blackwell's campaign is sliding backwards

2006-10-22T19:45:00.000-04:00

Don't blame me, that's the lede in the weekend Blackwell campaign road report from the Associated Press:

BELLEFONTAINE, Ohio - Ken Blackwell is campaigning backward.
In the two weeks leading up to the Nov. 7 election, the Republican candidate for governor is concentrating on his base after weeks of trying to cut into Democratic leads in Ohio's urban counties. The move comes amid reports that conservatives have grown weary of the GOP in light of scandals in Washington and Columbus.
On Saturday, he rallied the faithful in Logan County, which voted better than 2-1 for President Bush in 2004. Over the weekend, he also visited Marion, Findlay, St. Marys and other GOP strongholds, as well as a couple of Columbus churches.
Recent polls have found Blackwell trailing Democrat Ted Strickland by double digits. The winner will give his party an edge in the 2008 presidential race in the state that gave Bush the push he needed to win re-election in 2004.
Blackwell is running in a difficult year for Republicans, with scandals surrounding U.S. Reps. Bob Ney of Ohio and Mark Foley of Florida and Ohio Gov. Bob Taft. Recent reports have Republicans worried about turnout, especially among Christian conservatives who were instrumental in Bush's success in Ohio and elsewhere two years ago.
Blackwell gave a motivational speech to Logan County Republicans on Saturday, telling his troops that polls have been wrong before. Indeed, in a late October poll in 1994, when he ran his first statewide campaign for treasurer, Blackwell trailed his opponent by 5 percentage points. He won that election with 54 percent of the vote.

To see why Blackwell's tale of 1994 is misleading (Some would say, a lie, be sure to read this story I posted on Buckeye State Blog.

"People don't understand your neighbor-to-neighbor, church member-to-church member, family member-to-family-member networking," Blackwell told the crowd of about 100 at Logan County Republican headquarters. "Once again, the pundits are saying it's a miserable year for the GOP."
He said he wasn't making any special pitch to religious conservatives, as he did in his primary victory over Attorney General Jim Petro. He typically winds up campaigns reminding Republicans of the importance of getting out the vote, he said.
"My strategy in all my campaigns has been to work back to my strength," he said.
However, some party stalwarts have noticed a difference.
"There is no doubt in Ohio that we have been kind of kicked down," said David Knight, 63, who is unopposed for re-election as a Logan County commissioner. "That notwithstanding, what we're about is the future, not the past."
It's not just Ohio Republicans who are getting kicked. National Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman was compelled to send a pick-me-up e-mail to supporters and the media last week after reports that the GOP's conservative base is less than enthusiastic about campaigns this year.
"Despite the media hype, an examination of all the facts makes it clear: the Republican base is active and engaged," Mehlman wrote.
Religious conservatives in Ohio have less enthusiasm for the ticket this year than in 2004 because Bush is not running and Taft's approval rating has sunk to the low teens, said John Green, a senior fellow in religion and American politics at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
Strickland also has made some headway with those voters because of his status as an ordained United Methodist minister, Green said.
"He (Blackwell) has worked very hard in appealing to religious voters, but the political winds are blowing in the Democrats' direction," Green said. "It's not as easy as it was in 2004 and 2002."
Blackwell discounts the notion that his base is restless.
"As I've crisscrossed the state over the last three weeks ..., we've had record turnouts. So it's news to me that we've lost any intensity or enthusiasm. It's even more than we saw in 2004," Blackwell said after his speech.

Does anyone believe this? After national exposure of his upcoming rally in Cincinnati, Blackwell only got roughly 200 people to show up. Did Bush ever have a crowd that small in Ohio in 2004? And do I need to remind everyone of this post, too?

Strickland plans to wind up by visiting 72 of Ohio's 88 counties over the next two weeks. He spent Sunday in GOP-rich rural Ohio.
"One of the things that gives me hope for having an effective administration if I win is the fact I've received so much support from Republicans. Ohioans want someone who will be a unifying force instead of a divisive force," Strickland said Sunday by telephone en route from Delaware to Newark in central Ohio.

So to recap, both nominees are running in heavily Republican areas. Blackwell it trying to tell folks that this is just like 1994, except polling showed him ahead at the time. And Strickland is going to visit 81% of the counties in Ohio during the remaining weeks. This is not a campaign that is letting up at all.

I'm a Democrat

2006-10-22T19:17:00.000-04:00

Best political ad that hasn't been aired:

Which campaign do you think is in better shape?

2006-10-15T18:41:00.000-04:00

Blackwell's campaign rally:

Strickland campaign rally:

I report, you decide. (But to me, I don't think the Republicans "legendary" GOTV efforts can turn the tide on this race.)

Canton Repo Endorses Strickland

2006-10-15T17:03:00.000-04:00

"Ted Strickland is The Repository’s choice to be the next Ohio governor. We urge readers to elect him on Nov. 7.

"Ohio has been through a lot in recent years. An anemic Democratic party has contributed to one-party Republican rule. Too much of one thing for too long led to sloppiness, excess and criminality. The scandals in state government were the result. The same could have happened under one-party rule by Democrats. It is a function of too much unchecked power.

"Voters have a sense for knowing when enough is enough. That is why public opinion favors so many Democrats in their races for statewide office. Heading this change is Strickland, a veteran U.S. congressman who has a good record of accomplishment by cooperating with Republicans, the majority party in the Congress, to solve problems for his district.

"This ability will serve him well if he becomes governor and has to work with a legislature that probably will remain in Republican control.

"Strickland’s opponent, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, is a hard partisan with extreme views, often about the control he should be able to exert over local matters. His Tax Expenditure Limitation amendment, which might have been on the Ohio ballot this fall if his fellow Republicans had not saved Blackwell from himself, is an example. Not only would it have limited Ohio state government spending, but it also would have imposed a straitjacket on local governments.

"Fortunately, knowing that TEL would be a political catastrophe, the Legislature gave Blackwell his controls on the state but declined to impose spending limits on townships and villages and school boards. Blackwell withdrew TEL.

"More ideas involving exercise of state power over local matters are in Blackwell’s briefcase. One of them is his assertion that 65 percent of every school dollar should be spent in classrooms. In many cases, the percentage already exceeds 65 percent, yet elected school boards, not education bureaucrats in Columbus or Blackwell, ought to make local spending decisions.

"Blackwell’s ties to the religious-political right wing of his party, in Ohio and nationally, make us nervous. Strickland, while an ordained minister, doesn’t flaunt his faith or exploit the political fringes. We think Ohio is fed up with that kind of politics anyway.

"This is a time when Ohioans need to be invited toward a moderate middle place where the extremes don’t dominate debate and serious people of good will can solve the state’s education, economic and social problems. Strickland is the leader for this effort."

2006-10-14T21:06:00.000-04:00

From the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Does Deborah Pryce love pedophiles?

2006-10-11T19:03:00.000-04:00

I must admit that I am amused by the conservative movement's sudden and recent outrage (again) over the re-discovery (for the tenth time) of Congressman Ted Strickland's "present" vote in 1999 on House Concurrent Resolution 107 "Expressing the Sense of Congress Concerning the sexual relationships between adults and children." To hear the conservatives phrase it, this piece of congressional legislation earns a spot next to the Civil Rights Acts, Title IX, ADA, and the PATRIOT Act. Frankly, anything that comes out of Congress claiming the Congress has the sense of anything, common or otherwise, is a farce. And so is this legislation.

Like so much of what Congress has been "legislating" this very Congress, H. Con. R. 107 in 1999 was all fury, signifying nothing. What, other than create a political attack that Republicans have been using against Strickland for the past seven years, did passage of this resolution achieve? Did it provide any additional counseling to victims of pedophelia? Did it strengthen any criminal penalities for pedophelia or even child pornagraphy? Can anyone truly say with a somber face that by passing this resolution Congress had done something to protect our children?

Would it matter if I pointed out that while Mark Foley was likely in between sending House pages instant messages "grooming" them to be his next sexual conquest, he bothered to take a long enough break to go down to the House floor and vote in FAVOR of this resolution? Does his vote on this resolution make anyone think any better of Mr. Foley?

Which gets me to Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, fourth ranking Republican in Congress, who, just a month ago. told a Columbus magazine that Mark Foley was one of her closest friends in Washington. Deb Pryce, who now, suddenly says that with all her facetime with Foley she had absolutely no forewarning of Foley's predatory habits of House pages despite the fact that apparently Tom Reynolds knew, his staff knew, the Speaker's staff knew, John Boehner knew, Congressman Kolbe knew in 2000, the Republican chairman of the Page Board knew, and the past House Clerk all knew for quite some time. Apparently, so many Republicans knew for so long of Foley's "inappropriate activities" that they have just assumed, without any evidence, that the Democrats by now knew, too, and waited to pounce on it at the opportune political time. Oh, and Congressman Alexander knew, too.

If Ted Strickland's "present" vote makes him "soft" on pedophilia, what's Deborah Pryce's relationship and lack of leadership on Mark Foley make her? Are we to believe that in all the time Pryce and Foley hung out, she not once heard any rumor of her good friend's drunken late-night vists to the pages' dorms? She didn't see once some vaguely young familiar face with the Congressman? That in all of those leadership meetings, not once did she hear any discussion about the issue? That in all those flights back from Washington, D.C. she and Boehner not once talked about it?

The manufactured blustering and outrage over Strickland's vote in 1999 would seem more realistic if the bombastic conservatives had enough present mind not to direct it solely to Strickland alone and included one of their own for similar outrage. After all, if this legislation truly was a watermark day in history when politicians were forced to either stand up for or against pedophelia, then what do you say about Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, who didn't even bother to show up to vote at all on H. Con. R. 107.

Where's the conservatives bluster and outrage that one of their own leaders is not only a close personal friend of Congressman Foley, but didn't even bother to show up to work to take a stand on this vital piece of legislation? And not only Deborah Pryce failed the victims of pedophelia, mind you, countless other Republican leaders at the time didn't even bother to vote on this resolution. In fact, although several other members who were not present for the vote later placed their votes into the Congressional record, here we are, some seven years since, and we still don't know where these Republicans stand on this vital issue for Ohioans.

Here's the list of the Republican Wall of Infamy, remember their shame well:

House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Congressman (and Clinton Impeachment manager) Bob Barr, Sonny Bono, Helen Chenoweth, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Congressman (and now disgraced Kentucky Governor) Ernie Fletcher, Paul Gilmor, (Fox News Host) John Kasich, and as I mentioned, Deborah Pryce.

Burn their dishonored names into your brain!

I look forward to Matt Dole (Lincoln Logs), Tom Blumer (Bizzy Blog), and Matt Hurley's call that Deborah Pryce immediately resign her leadership position in Congress and not wait until the election for her to do so. The children of American cannot permit a coddler of pedophiles a place of such vital leadership in the people's House. After all, as Tom Blumer said, "[t]here’s a big difference between serving 600,000 people in Congress and governing an entire state of 11 million people." Deborah Pryce is seeking to serve 300 million people of the United States as a leader of Congress!

I know they'll do the right thing. It's not like their "outrage" over this seven-year old resolution is one of political expediency.

Blackwell campaign attempted to use phony journalist to shape media coverage

2006-10-10T19:42:00.000-04:00

Apparently, an attempted dirty trick by the Blackwell campaign has further called the presently scheduled fourth gubernatorial debate in doubt. Here's the story from the Cleveland Plain Dealer's Openers blog:

Moments later, Strickland sounded like he wasn't willing to face Blackwell again as he accused his opponent's campaign of "breaking faith" and "engaging in behavior that is unacceptable" at last week's debate in Cincinnati by sneaking a Blackwell supporter into the post-debate "spin room" reserved for media members only.

The unidentified Blackwell supporter who posed as a reporter was removed by security at the Cincinnati event, according to reporters who attended.

"It's just the fact that when you make an agreement you ought to honor that agreement, " sniffed Strickland.

Ken Blackwell's campaign has gotten so desperate that they've been reduced to trying to plant their own supporters as phony journalists at press conferences to shape the coverage they want.

Is it any wonder why people don't trust Ken Blackwell?

National Republican Organization ditches Blackwell

2006-10-09T16:45:00.000-04:00

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer's Openers blog, the Republican Governors Association, the national Republican Party organization dedicated to electing Republican Governors, is no longer focusing their efforts in Ohio.

In other words, the RGA has decided that Ken Blackwell's campaign is a lost cause. He's not turning the corner, but like a true Bushite, he's stayed the course to defeat.
In recent email to supporters, RGA chairman and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney urges volunteers to work in critical battleground states in the final four to six days before the election.

“The lesson of the 2002 and 2004 Republican victories is that volunteer efforts the weekend prior to election day will make the difference between winning and losing close elections,” Romney writes.
Romney, who helped Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell with his health-care plan, recommends six states.
And Ohio is not one of them.
Strickland has consistently led Blackwell by double-digit leads. In a Rasmussen poll published last week -- the most favorable of the recent surveys -- Blackwell trails by 12 points.
About the six states – Iowa, Maine, Oregon, Illinois, Arkansas, and Michigan – Romney writes: “All of them are states where a strong Republican '72 Hour' get-out-the-vote effort can make the difference between winning and losing.”

So it would appear that as far as the RGA is concerned, the Republicans '72 Hour' GOTV effort is not the difference between winning and losing.

This is an embarassment to the conservative wing of the party. Ken Blackwell was supposed to be a sign of a new kind of conservative Republican emerging on the national scene. As one of only three African-American Republicans running in statewide contests, Blackwell was supposed to symbolize a turning point in Republican racial politics. During the primaries, Blackwell supporters crowed about how Blackwell was a national figure in the Republican Party of such influence that he would automatically be on the short list for running mate of any serious Republican contender in the 2008 Presidential election.

In the end, Ken Blackwell will be remembered like T.O. was this weekend in Philly: All mouth, no real delivery.

[UPDATED] For Ken Blackwell, it's the worst week ever

2006-10-08T15:26:00.000-04:00

Here's the week in review of what matters in the Ohio Governor's race. All in all, it's a bad week for Blackwell with precious little time left to change things around.

Foley: It has to be said. Has there ever been a major party candidate in Ohio who has built his campaign strategy relying on turning out the evangelical conservative vote more than Blackwell (perhaps Bush/Cheney '04). Having Bob Woodward's book suggest that the President called Blackwell a "nut," and have the Foley scandal erupt leading many to believe that the evangelical vote will stay home aren't the kind of things the Blackwell campaign wanted to see.

Money race: The September fundraising figures came out earlier this week, and it showed yet another month where Strickland's fundraising has continued to be solid while Blackwell's ability to raise money has continued to drop off. Blackwell raised nearly half a million dollars less in September than he did in August. Strickland, on the other hand, raised $2.5 Million, thus raising over twice what Blackwell did. As I've said, this is the second consecutive month showing Blackwell's fundraising has been dropping. It should also be noted that if it weren't for in-kind and monetary donations from the Ohio Republican Party. Blackwell's fundraising would look actually much worst.

Strickland goes into the last few weeks of the campaign with a multi-million dollar cash advantage, so he can counter Blackwell's message. Also, Blackwell's drop in fundraising suggests that national leaders and other outside conservative groups probably won't be coming into the district to help Blackwell out. The people who write the checks for Republican candidates have increasingly decided that their money would be better spent in other races, such as Ohio's closer Senate race.

Ad buys: During this phase of the campaign, retail politics takes a back seat to paid media. This is the time period where the air campaign is at its climax. According to the Columbus Dispatch, the Blackwell campaign is "lagging in the polls, money raised and crucial television advertising time purchased," and therefore, is "losing momentum."

Blackwell, it appears, is currently been running a small TV buy in his political base of SW Ohio (which, if true, demonstrates that Blackwell's campaign is more concerned about protecting his strong showing in SWO than becoming more competitive elsewhere in the state. This is the actions of a defensive campaign looking to avoid embarassment on election night, not a campaign on the march to victory.) Strickland is buying up ad time like he's the one who gets the commission. He's buying roughly $40,000 per T.V. station in Columbus for the final month.

Blackwell's campaign has bought no ad time for much of October in Columbus, which is normally a battleground. He's spending 80% of his entire general election paid media budget in the final week of the campaign in Columbus. Blackwell will run 272 commercials during that week in Columbus compared to Strickland's 186.

Strickland also bought TV time throughout the end of September and October, and nearly doubled the amount spent by Blackwell for TV ads for the entire fall campaign. While it's true that the Republican Governors Association is running ads in northern Ohio, those ads are on gay marriage, and have been largely panned as ineffective to reshape the race to make it more competitive.

Debates: The debate on the economy earlier this week in Cincinnati may be the final debate, unless a sponsor for the already scheduled Columbus debate can be agreed upon in time. Although the third debate, this was the only one which occurred after business hours, and therefore, was probably the most watched debate.

The debates were supposed to be where Blackwell would turn the race around. He hasn't, and his campaign knows that it didn't. Sure, they did the usual press release praising the race. But when your campaign blog's only comment on the debate is a self-congratulations on how well the Ohio College Republicans was able to stage a "rally" of College Republicans from across Ohio, you know that they don't believe what actually occurred at the debate helped their cause.

Polls: Rasmussen latest poll shows that Blackwell has closed the gap, but it still shows Strickland with a double-digit lead over 50%. It also shows that over a third of voters have a highly unfavorable opinion of Blackwell. While 48% have an unfavorable opinion. That creates a strong amount of resistance for Blackwell to break into victory while Strickland's popularity is very strong. In the end, the poll may suggest that the results in August were too optimistic, and this is a correction as they tend to follow the numbers throughout the campaign since the primary.

The more significant poll comes from the Ohio Poll of the University of Cincinnati which shows that likely voters give Democrats double digit leads on which party can be trusted to improve Ohio's economy, create jobs, and improve public education. In fact, Democrats have advantages with voters on tax and controlling government spending issues as well, traditionally Republican issues.

Endorsements: A month ago, Strickland got the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, a traditionally expected endorsement for Republicans. Strickland also got endorsed by the Ohio Associated of General Contractors, another traditional Republican endorsement. Blackwell hasn't gotten any endorsements that Republicans aren't expected to always get (unless you're radioactive like Mark Foley.)

Today, Strickland was endorsed by the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the Columbus Dispatch. Remember the last time the Dispatch endorsed a Democrat for Governor? Me neither, and that's the bigger point.

Here are the highlights.

From the Columbus Dispatch:

"[Ohio]requires a governor who can work with red and blue Ohioans, who can cool the fever of partisanship with moderation and common sense. Between Strickland, who currently represents Ohio's 6th Congressional District, and Republican candidate and Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, Strickland is the one who has exhibited these qualities to a much greater degree. Blackwell has proclaimed that he is the candidate of bold ideas. That's true. But his ideas alarm a significant portion of the electorate, including many in his own party. Boldness is not the test of leadership; sound judgment is.

"His proposed constitutional amendment to limit government taxing and spending spoke to Ohioans' frustrations with the state's outdated tax structure. But as people began to examine the measure closely, they could see it meant devastating cuts to police, fire, education and other local services.

'The weaknesses were so obvious that fellow Republicans in the General Assembly rushed through legislation to remove the embarrassment from the ballot and replace it with a face-saving but toothless statutory replica.

"Because this plan was not a careful, thoughtful piece of work, it calls into question the thoughtfulness and care of its creator. Blackwell's suport for the so-called 65 percent solution, which proposes to fix problems in the state's schools by ordering every district to devote 65 percent of its budget to classroom instruction, is a similar big idea that simply brushes aside the details, such as the myriad differences in need among more than 600 Ohio school districts.

"Strickland acknowledges that his ideas lack the flash of Blackwell’s. But they are more carefully conceived. Strickland proposes to continue and to expand some of the best policies to come out of the governor’s office and the legislature in recent years. He has endorsed Gov. Bob Taft’s Third Frontier proposal, which uses state money to nurture 21st-century technologies and proposes to expand such efforts. He also wants to allow the tax reform passed last year to play out until its effects can be judged. He pledges that all of his initiatives, including changes in health care, contain the means to pay for them and do not require tax increases.

"On K-12 education, Strickland proposes to lead an effort to reach a consensus solution on how to retool funding. Yes, this could become just another go-nowhere, blue-ribbon commission, but given the emphasis each candidate has put on this issue, Strickland would be held accountable if he fails to follow through as governor.

"Of course, anything the next governor proposes will require the cooperation of the General Assembly, and on that score, too, Strickland has the edge. Blackwell is a polarizing figure, even within his own party, and his bull-in-the-china-shop approach to politics is as likely to alienate the legislature as win it over. Strickland's moderation and consensus-building style are more likely to be effective regardless of the legislature's political makeup.

"Strickland also has the superior running mate. Lee Fisher, who served well as Ohio attorney general, state senator and 1998 Democratic nominee for governor, is experienced and knowledgeable. Tom Raga, Blackwell's running mate, is a third-term state representative who is bright and promising but untested at this level.

"Ohio's future will be built one brick at a time and will require all hands. Strickland is best equipped to lead the state forward."

Cleveland Plain Dealer:

"Blackwell reeks of recklessness. His long record in public office suggests that he would freely engage in the exploration of potentially destructive ideas, even as he uses the governorship to make political mischief and sow social division on a grander scale than ever.
"The deep contrasts in their temperaments and level of political maturity should make Strickland's election a fairly easy call. Besides, the ideas Strickland has been willing to advance so far are solid, and we are relatively confident he will continue to surround himself with smart people who can help him implement and expand upon them.
"The same cannot be said of Blackwell.
"We believe Strickland has a better chance to accomplish good things for Ohio because he and his running mate, Lee Fisher, understand the state's needs better than their Republican opponents. Fisher is an urban Democrat from Greater Cleveland who has long championed the needs of cities and knows the challenges of job creation. Strickland, a product of Appalachia, has lived the struggles of rural Ohio and grasps the troubles of the poor.
"Together, these men have a chance to take the helm of a state that has become known for too many of the wrong economic indicators. Doing so will require active political imagination, keen economic vision - and a certain amount of care.
"The question before Ohioans is, which candidate for governor is best equipped to carry the state forward without dropping it. The only answer, then, is Ted Strickland."

[UPDATED:] I apparently missed the Toledo Blade's endorsement of Strickland today as well. The editorial basically writes off Blackwell's attempts to claim that he is a Republican outsider from a Republican Party that has lead this state for the past twelve years with Blackwell on the ticket.

He truly would be a governor from the “Other Ohio,” and it’s about time. Moreover, his running mate, Lee Fisher, is extraordinarily qualified to serve as governor if ever needed.
We certainly understand how difficult it is for many Ohioans, and many good Republicans, to accept what has become of their party. They put their faith in Republicans for 16 years, and that faith was badly abused.
Here in Ohio, the Party of Lincoln has become the Party of Noe. For the Republicans, the Three C’s have become “Complacency, Corruption, and Coingate.” Ohio is enduring a true crisis of ethics, and it can only be fixed by change.
Forget about party labels. Democrats, Republicans, and independents should understand that they have a greater calling than partisanship this time. They need to join together to give their state a fresh start.
They can do that by electing Ted Strickland as Ohio’s 68th governor on Nov. 7.

Although the Akron Beacon Journal hasn't made it's endorsement in this race. Today's editorial regarding Ken Blackwell tax platform is as much of an indictment against his candidacy as the endorsements were. The ABJ calls Blackwell's part of his "easy answers" which proposes to do something that states which also lag behind the rest of the nation in economic growth do.

Blackwell's plan would lead to eventual tax increases on the middle class and require nearly a billion of dollars in cuts in state spending (which Blackwell has yet to explain where he would make those, nor the spending cuts he would need to make for the promised increase of the percentage of general revenue funds dedicated to public education.)

With only four weeks left, Blackwell can't afford a week when his campaign is described as floundering, his ability to govern questioned, and his platform highly criticized as a stealth tax increase on the middle class.

Republican bloggers' legal malpractice

2006-10-05T21:55:00.000-04:00

Cross-posted at BSB:

First, Lincoln Logs recycles the same evidence he was using three months ago about the Stricklands claiming a property tax credit for their condo in Franklin County as a "new development." Then, he tried to whip the entire right-wing blogsphere in a frenzy over a complaint being filed in Columbiana County over Strickland's voting registration in Lisbon, where the Stricklands also reside in an apartment. (By the way, despite assurances to the contrary for months now, nobody has offered any evidence that the Stricklands do not also reside in their Lisbon apartment.)

Second, despite Matt's assurances to the contrary, the person objecting is hardly the "objective" Democrat he claims:

"[Columbiana GOP county chair] Johnson said he was pleased with the actions of Ms. Long, whose son, Larry Long Jr., is an outspoken supporter of Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell."

The person's complaint would have seemed less partisan if it was immediately joined by a press release from the Columbiana County Republican Party and pushed by Matt at Lincoln Logs, RAB, Weapons of Mass Destruciton, and then by the Blackwell's campaign blog.

The article also establishes that Strickland, in fact, frequently stays at the Lisbon apartment:

Dennis Johnson said the elections board will give the complaint a fair hearing, but he said anyone who lives in Lisbon can tell you that Strickland stays at his apartment when in this part of the district, especially the employees at the Steel Trolley Diner, which he frequents.“You can talk to the people at the diner who would see him late at night” when Strickland stopped in for a piece of pie, he said.

WARNING: BORING LEGAL CONTENT AHEAD

Matt then asserts, with no legal authority, that Strickland is guilty either of voting fraud or tax fraud simply because Strickland applied for a tax credit for the condo as an owner-occupied home. Dole asserts that the form shows that the Franklin County property is Strickland's primary residence. However, Ohio election law doesn't require you to vote from your "primary residence." In fact, there's nothing in the Ohio Revised Code that comes anywhere near the term "primary residence" for voting purposes.

Also, apparently Matt doesn't know the definition of "residence," or else he'd know that a person can have only one domicile, but can have more than one residence.

So for the purposes of the uneducated, here's the difference between the two:

Residence: Bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place.
Domicile: Bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place with the intention of staying permanently. [Source: Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed.]

The Ohio Revised Code provision that lays out the standard for voting residency, R.C. 3503.02, states that a residence is a person's habitation which is fixed and, whenever the person is absent, has the intention of returning. Note, it doesn't say the place where the person intends to permanently live. The Stricklands said they bought their Columbus condo to have a place to stay whenever they were traveling outside of the district while he was in Congress. Since Strickland will not be in Congress much longer, I'd say his stays in Columbus is pretty temporary. Also, as the article above points out, Strickland does return to the Lisbon apartment quite often. Statute satisifed.

In State, ex rel. Lakes v. Young, (1954), 161 Ohio St. 341, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a candidate, whose wife and child lived in Dayton, received mail in Dayton, and a registered letter address to his voting address could not be delivered, and the fact that other people were currently renting his voting residence, was not sufficient to find that candidate was not eligible to run for office in the precinct where he was registered to vote. The candidate ate, slept, and received visits from his wife within the precinct, and planned to return to the premises after the current tenants moved out. In that case, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned a Board of Elections decision to remove the candidate from the ballot.

In State, ex rel. Klink v. Eyrich (1952), 157 Ohio St. 338, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the Hamilton County Board of Elections' decision to affirm the right of a candidate to run for office from his contested voting residence. The Court affirmed the Board decision. In his concurrence, one noted justice of the Supreme Court found that the evidence in the case required the conclusion that the "place where . . . [his] family . . . resides is in Franklin County." However, the justice noted that the question still remained if Franklin County was the only place where the candidate could vote.

The justice wrote:

"[T]hat very evidence discloses that, whenever [the candidate] is away, even when he is in Cincinnati, he has the intention of returning to Franklin County. On the other hand, [R.C. 3503.02] represents a modification of paragraph a of that statute. Admittedly, [the candidate] at one time fixed his habitation in Cincinnati.
There is also substantial evidence of [the candidate's] intention eventually to return from Franklin County to Cincinnati. Also, there is evidence that he has not gone to Franklin County for permanent purposes. If the antithesis of 'permanent purposes' is 'temporary purposes, and the words in [subsection] c of the statute tent to indicate then the rule stated in [subsection] b of the statute would support the board's position."

The justice then looked at what is now R.C. 3503.02(F) which states "if a person removes from this state and continuously resides outside this state for a period of four years or more, the person shall be considered to have lost the person's residence in this state, notwithstanding the fact that the person may entertain an intention to return at some future period."

The justice wrote:

"This paragraph provides only for the effect of 'remaining . . . an indefinite time' where there is removal 'to another state,' not to another part of the state. There is no similar provision [to R.C. 3503.02(H) which holds that a person loses their Ohio residency upon exercising their right to vote in another state] about losing a residence in one part of the state because of going into another part and voting there. Therefore, even if [the candidate] could have voted in Franklin County, it would not follow, under the words of paragraphs f and h of the statute, that he could not later vote in Cincinnati, even though he was living in Frnaklin County for an indefinite period.
"In making provision for the place where an elector may vote, the General Assembly has not specified that he may vote only at his place of domicile. Instead the words "resident" . . . and "residence" . . . have been used. A man may have more than one residence although he can have only one domicile.
"The mere fact that the ordinary meaning of the provisions of the applicable statutes may give a particular individual a choice of more than one place as his voting residence is no reason for determining that those statutes should be so construed as not to permit that. Obviously, such individual can vote only once at the same election.
"Apparently, the General Assembly, in providing for voting at the residence and setting forth rules for determination of such residence, recognized that there would be instances in which it would be difficult for an individual to determine where his domicile was or what his only voting residence was, if no leeway was given him to determine that for himself within certain limitations. The rules which the General Assembly specifed were apparently intended to enable an individual in such a situation to select as his residence some place which fairly conformed with one or more of the several rules specified, even though it might not conform with some of the other rules so specified or might not be his domicile."

And who was that Justice? None other than Justice Kingsley A. Taft. (Poor Ken Blackwell. The Taft family is a curse upon him!)

Oh, and before the Republicans think that even if their challenge succeeds means that Ted Strickland won't be able to vote in four weeks, they really should have read R.C. 3503.30 which states:

"When by mistake a qualified elector has caused himself to be registered in a precinct which was not his place of residence, the board of elections, on full and satisfactory proof that such error was committed by mistake, may, on his personal application and proof of his true residence, correct his registration form. The board may correct all errors occurring in the registration of electors when it finds that the errors subject to corrections were not of fraudulent intent."

No wonder the Cleveland Plain Dealer has already called Lincoln Logs legal malpractice "lame."

Poor Matt Dole, he's been wrong about Bob Ney's innocence, Chuck Blasdel's electibility, the NRCC's promise to pump paid media dollars in OH-06, and this (yet again.)

Can't imagine what he'll say when this complaint fails. And I sure as heck hope Matt and all these other Republicans never voted absentee while away from college. Unless, they intended to move back home with his parents after college, they're guilty of a fourth degree felony under their radical interpretation of this statute which has already been rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Shouldn't let Blackwell be Blackwell

2006-10-01T23:33:00.000-04:00

When the first polls in the gubernatorial race came out, they showed Secretary of State Ken Blackwell winning the nomination, but doing poorer against Congressman Ted Strickland in the general election. But you can't count on polls seven months out, said the Republicans. And once people get to know Strickland and his record.

When the first polls came out after the May primary, they showed Congressman Ted Strickland with a healthy six-point lead over Ken Blackwell. But you can't count on polls six months out, and once people get to know Strickland and his record . . .

Over the summer, as Strickland began making himself known to Ohioans and launching his Turnaround Ohio plan, his lead in the polls doubled. But you can't count on polls three months out before the campaign starts in earnest after Labor Day, and once people people get to know Strickland and his record . . .

Now, it's post-Labor Day, and the Blackwell campaign and its allies have spent millions advertising on their version of Ted Strickland's record. In the past week, we've seen six different polls which all show Strickland with an average 18-point lead. For awhile, the right-wing blogsphere discounted any poll that wasn't the Ohio Poll (until it became "unreliable" upon showing a double-digit lead.) Show us Mason-Dixon polling, so we can show the non-believers the true nature of the race . . .

And not only does the Mason-Dixon poll show Strickland with a crushing seventeen point lead and confirms the basic finding of just about every other poll, but it confirms last week's Columbus Dispatch poll showing Blackwell dragging the entire ticket down. But you can't on polls . . .

Six weeks out, and it's difficult to imagine a scenerio in which Blackwell can win. He still has an unfavorability rating nearing 50% and substantially higher than his favorability rating. He's losing nearly a quarter of the Republican vote while Strickland has his base and the independent vote solidly behind him. Blackwell's effort to threaten Strickland's hold on his base by getting the African-American vote never materialized.

Now the why. Blackwell was able to win statewide elections handily for the past twelve years. What's the difference? Well, this is the first time we've truly seen Blackwell the open social conservative run. While some think the Blackwell is having trouble with his parties base because he's an extremist, I believe a bigger problem is he's an opportunist. Blackwell likes to talk about himself in Reaganesque terms, but nobody has violated Reagan's 11th Commandment of not speaking ill of another Republican than Blackwell. Whenever it was politically expedient for Blackwell to do so, he was more than happy to push another Republican under the bus, whether it was Governor Bob Taft or primary opponent Attorney General Jim Petro.

You can't push that many people from your party under the bus and not get some payback. And, also, his positions are outside the mainstream of a significant segment of his own party. Together, that makes it very unlikely that there was anything Blackwell could do to get his base back. If there was, he would have done it by now.

And second, and this can't be said enough, Blackwell was more myth than an actually strong candidate. Before his statewide tenure, Blackwell wass mreore successful getting political appointments than winning elections. At best, he was able to win open seat races for Cincinnati City Council, but he lost more races than he won.

I have no idea where Blackwell the Closer ever came from. If there's evidence that Blackwell is able to be a strong closer and come from behind in a race, I'm not aware of such a campaign. And, second, Blackwell the Communicator has turned out to be an overstated characterization of Blackwell's political strengths. So long as the gubernatorial races remain a draw, Blackwell loses, and it doesn't appear that Blackwell is the Debate Heavyweight his supporters made him out to seem. His campaign has been uninspiring and has not had an effective communication strategy since winning the primary (an achievement that Blackwell has been plotting for the past twelve years.)

Blackwell must have assumed that the Democratic Party would be in no position to mount a strong campaign this cycle. He must have assumed that the winner of the Republican gubernatorial primary would coast to an easy win in the general. After all, the 1990, 1994, 1998, and 2002 gubernatorial elections would all bear it out. Unfortunately, this election cycle is a break from that 16-year trend. Ted Strickland is no Robert Birch or Tim Hagan. And 2004 is nothing like 1998. How else do you explain Blackwell's "go for broke, win the primary at all costs" strategy?

Blackwell clearly thought winning the primary and throwing Taft under the bus would be enough to guarantee him an election. It wasn't as people can't ignore Blackwell's history with Tom Noe and the Ohio Republican Party, and not even Republicans can ignore what lengths Blackwell would go to win. In the end, it's not which candidate has the "right" position for the moment, or even which has the best plans for Ohio. In the end, it's a matter of character. And in five weeks, the people of Ohio will end this campaign with a verdict. It should be a short night.

Who-Dey!

2006-09-24T19:53:00.000-04:00

How big was the Cincinnati Bengals victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers today? Consider this: If Baltimore kicker Matt Stover missed his 52-yard field gold with 20 seconds left to play, Pittsburgh would have gone into their bye week a quarter into the season sitting last in the AFC North (although Cleveland and Pittsburgh's overall records would have been tied, the divisional record would have given Cleveland the number 3 spot.)

After the 9-0 loss last Monday to Jacksonville, the Super Bowl champs find themselves 1-2 and two games behind two caliber teams in their division. It's starting to appear that those who predicted that the losses Pittsburgh incurred since last season was going to have a more noticeable impact in the super-competitive AFC and AFC North division were right.

I'm concerned at the lack of protection Carson had this game. The line must protect the blitz and pass rush better than they did today. I did not see what I was encouraged to see against Kansas City. However, that's probably because I was seeing a Pittsburgh defense instead of the Chiefs defense, which is still retooling under their new head coach this season.

Can Cincinnati beat New England? Psychologically they need to win against both New England and the Colts this season. But with a revitialized Ravens franchise that is have a franchise record start and an improving Cleveland team, the AFC North race is so tight that every division game is going to be so tight with such profound consequences.

I predict that we're going to read a lot of "loss of luster" about the Steelers and questions about whether this team has the maturity and depth to become a dynasty and not a one-hit wonder.

Why 2010 may be a more important election for Ohio than 2008

2006-09-24T18:06:00.000-04:00

Some have said that this election is so important because whomever wins the Gubernatorial race will be a necessary asset for their party to win Ohio as a swing state for the 2008 Presidential race. Notice I said "some" as I am not one of those people who actually believe it. I can't think of a single swing state in 2004 that was decided based on who was Governor (with perhaps the exception of Florida, but that had more to do with a family connection to the candidate than which party was in control.)

Instead, if the predictions are correct, the present election could make the 2010 elections far more political important. First, the news update: Five polls were released in the past week, and all showed Ted Strickland with monster leads over Ken Blackwell (Rasmussen, Survey USA, The Ohio Poll, Quinnipiac University Poll, and the Columbus Dispatch):

SurveyUSA 9/21
Strickland 56% Blackwell 35%

Rasmussen Reports 9/20
Strickland 54% Blackwell 35%

Ohio Poll 9/20
Strickland 50% Blackwell 38%

Quinnipiac University Poll 9/19
Strickland 55% Blackwell 34%

Columbus Dispatch 9/24
Strickland 52% Blackwell 33%

These poll all show Strickland with large advantage in almost all demographic groups, and a significant advantage among women voters. Some polls shows that Strickland is now competitive within Blackwell's home base of southwestern Ohio.

The Columbus Dispatch polling shows that not only is a Strickland victory likely, but that Democrats are favored in capturing the office of State Treasurer, Auditor, and Secretary of State, leaving only Betty Montgomery's campaign to retake her former office as Attorney General as the only favored statewide race for Republicans now. If these numbers bear out on Election Day, some six weeks hence, then not only will the Republicans 12-year monopoly be broken, but it would be a partisan turnover of the Executive Branch we have not seen since, 1994.

However, if Betty Montgomery wins her election, she becomes the prohibitive favorite to challenge Ted Strickland's re-election in 2010. As a challenger, Montgomery doesn't come to race with the extremist baggage that Blackwell voluntarily brought into the race. As a moderate, Montgomery could pose a problem for Strickland. As the first female gubernatorial candidate, Montgomery's challenge for female voters could prove more problematic than Blackwell's ineffective play for the African-American group, a much smaller voting group of the electorate.

The 2010 race is important because as Ohio law stands now, which party wins those statewide offices will dictate the partisan composition of the bodies which draw the new state legislative and congressional districts for Ohio after the 2010 Census. Under current Ohio law, the Ohio State House and Senate districts are redrawn by a body comprised of one legislative member from both parties, the Governor, the Secretary of State, and the State Auditor. Therefore, if Strickland, Sykes, and Brunner all win in 2006 and are re-elected in 2010 (or Democrats win those races in 2010), then Democrats will have the ability to redraw the legislative districts of the General Assembly, making it possible that the Democrats could compete in enough districts to take over the state legislature as well.

Sound too far-fetched? Well, just remember that it was the victories of George Voinovich for Governor and Bob Taft for Secretary of State in 1990 that gave the Republicans a 3-2 majority of the Apportionment Board. That Board redrew lines that lead to the Republican majorities in the General Assembly in subsequent elections which, in turned, changed the national perception of Ohio as a Democratic leaning state to a solid Republican state.

With the potentional of Democratic majorities in both the Executive and Legislative branches by 2012, the Ohio Republicand Party (which will likely see a change in leadership before the 2008 elections) may find itself with as thin of a bench for the 2012 statewide elections that the Democratic Party found itself in in the disasterous 1994 election (and every election until 2006.)

That's why the 2010 election is more important to the Democratic Party than 2008. Whomever the Democratic Presidential candidate is, he or she will need to win Ohio on their own. A Gov. Strickland doesn't give that candidate any home field advantage.

Blackwell's support is soft (and other things the Right doesn't want to see in a poll with only 7 weeks left)

2006-09-19T09:47:00.000-04:00

Cross-posted at: BSB.

The conventional wisdom on the gubernatorial race both on the left and right is that with Blackwell's higher name identification, Strickland's support is soft as he is an unknown and with an effective Blackwell offensive "branding" Strickland's identity in voters' minds, Blackwell still has room to close the gap. After spending what must have been millions this month attacking Strickland (who, apparently, has decided to sit on his money for now,) a recent poll has shown that the hopes of RAB of Strickland's support being soft and easily peeled away is pure bunk.

A Quinnpiac poll released today (showing Strickland with a 21-point lead of 55-34. See a pattern?) shows that it is Blackwell's support that is soft:

Among Strickland supporters, 84 percent say their mind is made up, with 78 percent of Blackwell supporters saying they are locked in.

Also, the poll shows that Blackwell's ads aren't doing much to scare Republican voters back home under his banner. This poll is also the first poll, I believe, to show that Blackwell has a gender gap problem. (Yep, that Ted is smooth with the ladies...)

Rep. Strickland leads 88 - 6 percent among Democratic likely voters, and 54 - 31 percent among independent voters, while Blackwell leads 71 - 18 percent among Republicans, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds. Men favor the Democrat 51 - 40 percent, while women back Strickland 60 - 28 percent.

So Strickland enjoys a solid lead among indpendents, has his base strongly behind him, and has three times the partisan cross-over vote than Blackwell. I've been saying all summer that for Blackwell to win, he'd need to fundamentally alter these demographics by uniting his party and blunting Strickland's advantages with independents and reducing Strickland's cross-over appeal.
This is the first poll to show that corruption is a significant issue for Ohio voters, and in that Strickland has a huge advantage:

By a 48 - 29 percent margin, Ohio voters think Strickland would do a better job ending corruption in state government. A total of 83 percent say the issue of
political corruption is "extremely important" or "very important" in deciding their vote. Among Democrats, 85 percent say the corruption is "extremely important" or "very important," with 79 percent among Republicans.

This probably explains Strickland's appeal to Republican voters. Voters just don't believe that Blackwell is going to stand up to the culture of corruption in Columbus after being there for twelve years. Also, for all of you who questioned the wisdom of Strickland advertising on Christian radio stations a few months ago:

The Republican leads Strickland, a minister, 53 - 40 percent among self-described white evangelical Christians, normally an overwhelmingly Republican voting bloc. In 2004, for example, President Bush received 76 percent of the white evangelical vote in Ohio, according to the exit polls.

Reformation Project? Dead.

Also, have I mentioned enough that Blackwell's biggest problem in improving his numbers is that people just don't like him and love Strickland?

Blackwell has a negative 27 - 32 percent favorability rating, with 24 percent mixed and 15 percent who haven't heard enough to form an opinion.
"Rep. Strickland's lead is solid and uniform. He is ahead among men and women and the critical independent voters. And his supporters are more likely to say they won't change their mind than are Secretary of State Blackwell's," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
"Given that the vast majority of voters say they have made up their minds, Blackwell has a steep hill to climb. More Ohioans view him unfavorably than favorably and changing a voters' mind is a difficult task for candidates once the voter has formed an opinion."
"It is hard to win an election when more voters don't like you than do," said Brown.
By comparison, Strickland gets a 41 - 13 percent favorability, with 22 percent mixed and 22 percent who haven't heard enough to form an opinion.

Couldn't have said it better myself! SEVEN MORE WEEKS!!!

Thank goodness the Ohio Democratic Party didn't think like this in 1994...

2006-09-18T20:50:00.000-04:00

Recently, Congressman Ted Strickland's gubernatorial campaign launched "Republicans for Strickland." At the kick-off of the new group last week, Congressman Strickland was joined by former Republican AG candidate Charles "Rocky" Saxbe, former Mason Mayor Betty Davis, and Columbus Developer Daniel Slane.

With polls already showing that Blackwell has less than average support within his own party (nearly a quarter of identified Republican voters in polls are supporting Ted Strickland), the Blackwell's campaign and Ohio GOP response was toxic. Within minutes they had a Bullwinkle cartoon with Bullwinkle Ted pulling Rocky Saxbe out of the "Ohio Corruption Tax" hat. (Nevermind that Rocky has represented Secretary Blackwell and other statewide candidates and Republican causes for decades. Now that he's supporting Strickland, he's a corrupt attorney!)

Now, this was an endorsement by just three Republicans. That's it. Instead of finding three Democrats to publicly endorse Blackwell or to downplay the significance of the endorsements, the Blackwell campaign decides to give the story even more legs and media play.

Bowling Green State University political scientist Tom Wiseman suggests that such negative attacks against these Republicans by Blackwell and the ORP has a significant chance to backfire:

"It's self-preservation from the party's point of view, preservation of the organization," he said. "They needed to take a strong stand on this, but sometimes less is accomplished with a negative approach than one might hope."

On top of that, Blackwell's attack of the group just highlights his biggest fundamental weakness in the election right now, not even his political base is united behind him:

Wiseman said the moderate Republicans Saxbe represents seem to be trending toward Strickland, which is bad news for Blackwell.

"It's not so uncommon to see individuals from the other side supporting the other candidate from time to time, but this appears to be a movement with direction," Wiseman said.

And to make matters worse for Blackwell, he's spokeman responds with the most vitrolic response of them all: Any Republican not supporting Blackwell is no longer a Republican.

"As far as we're concerned, he's no longer a member of this party. He decided that yesterday," LoParo said the day after Saxbe's event.

Saxbe sees it differently.

"I think they're making the case against themselves with these attacks," he said. "I think it's unfortunate that the message the party is sending out to Republicans is if you don't agree with these fairly radical beliefs of Ken Blackwell then you're scum."

Not the message you want to be sending in the last seven weeks of the campaign. I'm surprised the Blackwell campaign allowed itself to get so distracted and off message and consciously decided to do something that actually highlighted their candidate's biggest political problem during this campaign.

In other news, the latest Rasmussen Report poll for September shows Congressman Strickland
with a strong nineteen-point lead going into the final seven weeks of the campaign. While the Blackwell campaign can claim they've swung the race six points since the August 27 poll, they can't be too ecstatic about this swing.

First, because the change is well within the margin of error, it's statistically possible there's been absolutely no change whatsoever. Second, the Blackwell campaign has been spending considerable amount of money running ads attacking Ted Strickland while it appears the Strickland campaign has been sitting on their cash-on-hand advantage this month. For Strickland to still be solidly in the mid-50s and Blackwell still stuck in the mid-30s with only seven weeks left, Blackwell would need to continue to get the same swing he's gotten over the past month every two weeks for the rest of the election in order to close the gap. In other words, Blackwell needs to not only continue to get a swing in the polls, but needs to get double the swing he got this past month for the next two.

That's a tall order against an opponent who already had more cash-on-hand, has been consistently outfundraising Blackwell, and has not yet begun their paid media campaign, especially when you consider that Blackwell has appeared to have a 39% ceiling in most of these polls. If Blackwell continues to attack in his divisive manner in which only those that agree with him can call themselves Republicans, he's bound to lose even more Republican support, let alone begin to chip into Strickland's overwhelming advantage with independent voters.

How's Blackwell going to create jobs? (Taxes)

2006-09-12T19:17:00.000-04:00

A screen shot from his own campaign blog:

That just about wraps up this race. Over the weekend, several state newspapers noted that Blackwell's promised increase spending for education could not possibly paid by "savings" in Medicaid, even if such savings included such luxury items such as coverage for nursing homes, prescription medication, hospitials and coverage for children.

Gee, I wonder where Blackwell would come up with the rest of the money?

On a national day of reflection, unity, and mourning, Bush tries to peddle his political wares

2006-09-11T21:54:00.000-04:00

I remember 9/11.

I remember that morning all too well.

It was a beautiful morning as I drove into work at one of Congressman Strickland's district offices. It had been a quiet morning. Until Ted's district scheduler had called and told all the district offices that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. We got on the Internet and tried to find out what was happening. I had just left my apartment from watching the "Today" show. New York looked beautiful, so weather couldn't have been a factor. At the time, I thought it was a single engine Cessna, not a powerful, lumbering passenger jet liner.

We turned on the T.V., and like so many of us in the country, collectively wondered how could a plane accidentally hit such an imposing building. And then, my stomach sank, as I saw a plane. God, it looked like it was crawling. At first, I thought it was just some flight passing through the airspace, but then I realized, I've never seen the WTC flying in to NYC or Newark. It was at that precise moment, we all realized. We were under attack. Our phones never stopped ringing the rest of the day as it seemed like everyone in the district collectively had our office number on speed dial. The D.C. office calls and people reported hearing the explosion at the Pentagon. Then, later, someone in the office announces that the D.C. office called again and was told to evaculate the office building, but they hung up before they told us where they were evacuating to. We learned later even they didn't know at the time, but we quickly learned that no phone tree of D.C. staff cell phones was going to get us the answer anytime soon. But even if we had gotten a hold of someone, nobody knew where they were supposed to go.

The phone rings. I pick it up. It's Frances, she's worried and can't get a hold of Ted. I tell her that the D.C. office just called and said they had to evacuate.

"To where?"
"I don't know."
"I can't get a hold of Ted on his cell, either. Where was he?"
"I don't know." And I feel a knot in my stomach and a lump in my throat. All I can think to do is to transfer Frances to our district director in the hopes he knows more than I.

Every Strickland relative I've ever met calls. We know nothing, and we're the only people anyone can reach. The constituent calls are frantic. "Is it Saddam?" "We've heard that there was a car bomb that exploded near the Capitol." "Is the uranium enrichment plant safe from attack?" These are just the conversations I can reprint. I remember anger, fear, and hatred like I've never heard.

Before I know it, the phone calls start to taper off. It's late evening, well after hours. I drive home and it's like I'm the only person left in town. I've never noticed the air traffic above before, but I feel its emptiness and silence now. Everyone is inside their homes glued to their radios and TVs. I come home and watch lines of people pouring out of Manhattan. And I see people forming lines to give blood. At a time when we all felt we needed to do something, it was all that anybody could suggest was needed. The response was amazing. In a day I had seen the worst and best humanity can offer. I remember how odd it was that the President of the United States was AWOL and the comfort we took from Mayor Giuliani. He was our comforter-in-chief.

Five years later, the chief architect of that vicious attack is still alive, still plotting, still operational. And the President of the United States, in remembrance of this day of mourning and unity, uses a primetime speech to the nation to give a partisan, political address that despite the fact that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and had no relationship with the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks (something his Vice-President seemed to continue to maintain on "Meet the Press" just yesterday,) Saddam was still a significant enough threat to justify pulling our soldiers from Afghanistan prematurely. While it's nice for the President, some three years later, to admit that Iraq was not cooperating with the terrorists who attacked us and did not have WMD to supply to them, that is not the message the President told us to get Americans to support his decision to go into Iraq.

Now, we are lectured as if we are the cowards hiding from the terrorists and that we cannot dare change course. Unfortunately, President Bush is right, but for the wrong reasons. You cannot change the course of a ship once the captain has already run it aground. "Stay the course" is not a mantra of leadership, a sign of unwavering principle as much it is a concession of the obvious. "I broke it, so America bought it," President Bush is essentially saying, quoting the ignored sage warning of his then Secretary of State Colin Powell who, unlike most people in this Administration, knew a little something about winning a military campaign in the region.

President Bush took this austere and sober occasion and tried to capitalize on it for political gain. And, yet again, he tried to justify his failed Iraq policies with a plethora of false choices. In the fight against terrorists, the President lectures us, we must either fight them overseas or on our homefront, as if the War on Terror can be won or lost on the President's pretended power to choose the war's venue. As if terrorists cannot fight their side of the war on multiple fronts. Our choice to fight the terrorists wasn't, as the President has so often suggested, a choice between fighting them in Iraq or here in the United States. It was a choice between Iraq, where they weren't, and Afghanistan, where they were, where they trained, where they plotted, where they had safe haven. And the President chose Iraq.

It's like if Marvin Lewis told the Bengals that his strategy to beat the Browns this weekend is not to play them at home, nor in Cleveland, but in Toronto, and keep playing until they decide to show up. Despite no WMD, evidence that there was no relationship between Iraq and 9/11, tonight the President tells us that Saddam was a clear threat that posed "a risk the world could not afford to take." I ask why, Mr. President? How, with no connection to 9/11, no capability or apparently willingness to arm those who actually did attack us, was Iraq a risk we could not afford to take, and yet, apparently, Iran, Lebanon, and North Korea are?

The President says we are in a fight for freedom, but which side is he on really in this fight? After his comments tonight, of his Vice-President yesterday, and his Secretary of Defense last week, I get no sense that they have any real sense of what a free society truly means. For in their minds, and in their very public words, they apparently define "free society" as where one has the freedom to agree and unite behind their country's leadership and unfalteringly support their leaders as infallible beings. It has not been the terrorists who have suggested that America is weak because citizens question the wisdom and need for American sacrifices in Iraq. It is your Administration, Mr. President, that has done that. The terrorists have not called American dissent as a sign of weakness or appeasement, but your own Administration.

Liberty has no meaning if the powerless have no right to demand accountability and responsibility from the powerful, especially when the powerful ask the powerless to make all the sacrifices in this fight. To your Administration, public dissent is our greatest weakness. To me, it's our most sacred right from God.

How dare you, Mr. President, use the loss of life of 9/11 as a political prop to shield you from criticism and to question the moral courage and resolve of those who want to finish the fight with Osama Bin Laden. We don't just want our troops to come from Iraq; we want them to finish the job in Afghanistan and bring OBL to justice. And because of your choices, you have allowed the trail of OBL to grow "stone cold." You demand our loyalty and our unity, and yet we read:

Terrorism has been a potent political issue for Republicans, and they hope to capitalize on it in the elections. GOP lawmakers are anxious about holding control of both houses of Congress.

For yet another election, your party has decided that your only hope of holding onto power is to use our fears from 9/11 to divide us and seeks ways use our fear of our enemies to consolidate your party's power at the expense of unity. Only half of the 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to improve homeland security have been implemented. And yet, your party claims only it can make America safer.

In a free society, unity and loyalty from the people to their democratically elected leaders is earned, Mr. President, it cannot be imposed, not even with the memory of over 3,000 dead Americans. If you do not learn that lesson, Mr. President, then, sadly, the terrorist will have already won.

Prof. Larry Sabato's Crystall Ball foresees Governor Strickland

2006-09-07T21:44:00.000-04:00

Cross-posted at Buckeye State Blog:

In the latest edition of University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato's "Crystal Ball" Report, Professor Sabato changes the Ohio Governor's race from Leaning Democratic to Likely Democratic, making Congressman Ted Strickland as likely to take the governorship as New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer will take the NY Governorship.

Professor Sabato writes:

"At this point, it appears to be less a matter of whether Democrat Ted Strickland will win, than by what kind of margin he will triumph. Will he win by enough to also carry in liberal Democrat Sherrod Brown for the U.S. Senate? Will he be able to generate coattails for some of the Democratic House candidates in an exceptionally rough year for the GOP in Ohio? Republican nominee Ken Blackwell simply has too many burdens that are too heavy to prevail in this year, absent a miracle."

Well said, Professor. (Sherrod Brown's race is still considered a toss-up as both it and the House races don't appear to have been updated as recently as the Governor's race.)

Tort reformer Blackwell caught in his own frivolous complaint, then laughs off suit to force him to enforce Ohio's campaign finance laws

2006-09-07T18:43:00.000-04:00

Ken Blackwell hypocracy knows no limits. He accuses his opponent of "political schizophernia," yet he's the one to abandoned his own platform from the primary, reverse his position on prevailing wage and "Right to Work" laws. Ken Blackwell's platform for economic development calls for tort reform to "reduce the amount of frivolous claims that are clogging our courts and hurting our economy." And, yet, what has Ken Blackwell done recently?

A week ago, Blackwell filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission alleging that Congressman Ted Strickland's ad criticizing Blackwell's mandatory health insurance proposal will be too costly to Ohio's families was false and misleading. The second Blackwell announced he was going to file this complaint, the Ohio conservative blogsphere jumped on the Blackwell bandwagon and opened their choiral hymnals to condemn Strickland's honesty and integrity in feined indigination.

Here are some of the posts regarding Blackwell's complaints in the past week:

"Strickland campaign ad not fully accurate"- Right Angle Blog
New Strickland ad provokes OEC complaint- Also, Right Angle Blog
Strickland in Hot Water over Ad- Lincoln Logs
Ohio Governor-Strickland Gets Sloppy- Pullins Report

And what did the Ohio Elections Commission rule on Blackwell's claims that Strickland's ad contained false and misleading information? In an unanimous, bipartisan vote, the Ohio Elections Commission ruled that there was not even probable cause for the Commission to investigate Blackwell's complaint, and so, they dismissed it. The short-hand word for that: Blackwell's claims were frivolous. Perhaps before enacting yet another round of tort reforms, Secretary Blackwell should institute reform to prevent candidates from filing frivolous complaints that their opponents are lying when, in reality, they're telling the truth.

But Blackwell's hypocracy goes even further. After pledging for years that "transparency" and "disclosures" are mandatory components of a healthy election, Blackwell now is utterly silent on the issue now that a group called "Common Sense Ohio" has used a campaign finance loophole to hide its contributors (and therefore, their compliance with Ohio's campaign contribution laws) from public scrutiny.

[If you're already familiar with the "Common Sense Ohio" fundraising scheme, skip to the next paragraph.] Here's how Common Sense Ohio's fundraising scheme (one could say it's the political equivalent of campaign finance money laundering) works. A group of Ken Blackwell supporters decides that they want to financially help elect Ken Blackwell as Governor, but they don't want to be limited to the $10,000-a-person contribution limit, or worse, control entities like corporations that they can't use to legally make a direct donation, or they just don't want people to publicly know that they are financially supporting an attack group's identity. So they create two organizations: one is a 501(c)(4) IRS non-profit entity designed to "promote social welfare" (think labor unions, Planned Parenthood, or Chamber of Commerce entities.) These groups don't have any donation limits, public reporting requirements, or prohibition from receiving corporate donors. Then they create a separate organization that will do all of the "electioneering" activities (they actually pay for the attack ads against Congressman Strickland while praising Ken Blackwell). The "electioneering" group is subject to campaign finance disclosures, but it can accept money from the first group and does. So, when the "electioneering" group reports it's donors, all it has to report is that it's received donations from the first group, and nobody has to report where the first group received its funds to donate to the electioneering group. The second group "discloses" the first group as it's sole donor while nobody really knows who is donating to the donor group and whether its all a scam to circumvent the contribution limits in Ohio's campaign finance system. Got that?

So, here's what Secretary of State Blackwell has said in the past about the need for full disclosure and transparency in campaign finance: "Without knowing who is behind these ads, voters are forced to make decisions without being fully informed,” Blackwell told lawmakers considering campaign reforms in November 2002. “The secrecy surrounding the funding of these advertisements contributes to the erosion of voter confidence in the political process."

Here's what Ken Blackwell has said now that he's the beneficiary of over $1.6 M in paid campaign advertisements in his favor by Common Sense Ohio: Nada.

As has been reported at Buckeye State Blog and now, finally, The Cleveland Plain Dealer:

"The legal architect behind Common Sense Ohio and Common Sense 2006 is Columbus attorney Bill Todd, the brilliant master of the campaign-finance loophole. Todd also did the legal work for Citizens for a Strong Ohio, the group that ran the brutal "Lady Justice" attack ads against Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick, and Informed Citizens of Ohio, the secretive nonprofit that former House Speaker Larry Householder used to drive public policy."

The situation has gotten so bad that today the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in the Ohio Supreme Court asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Secretary of State Ken Blackwell to take action in order to get actual disclosure of who is funding Common Sense Ohio. And what has Ken Blackwell's response been to this obvious fraudulent scheme to circumvent Ohio's campaign finance disclosure laws after spending years championing that every dime used in a political campaign be disclosed? He laughed it off.

In one day, Blackwell is revealed to have filed one false claim against his opponent and shrugged off a genuine complaint about an intentional circumventing of Ohio's campaign finance laws because it politically benefits his desire for higher office. This is a testament of Ken Blackwell's true character, and it's not one fit to be our Governor for the next four years. We don't need a politican with no true values other than a self-absorbed sense of political self-perservation and ambition. We deserve better than that from our next Governor.

Random thought of the moment

2006-09-05T21:40:00.000-04:00

What's the economic savings for a company of stocking the spork if Popeye's is still going to give me two of them with my meal?

Ken Blackwell: Master Debator?

2006-09-05T18:30:00.000-04:00

Dear Secretary Blackwell: I know Ronald Reagan, I've heard Ronald Reagan, and Mr. Secretary, you're no Ronald Reagan.

Well the first gubernatorial debate is over. Didn't you all watch it today at noon on the first day after a three-day holiday on the Youngstown-area only TV media outlet? Of course, you didn't. And even if you did, since the debate rules made initial responses only 60 seconds and rebuttals only 30-second responses, you didn't miss much even if you did bother to watch it. (Incidentally, if you do have an hour to kill, you can still watch the debate on WFMJ's website by clicking on the video link at the immediately left of the story.)

Since the primaries, the right-wing Blackwell base has been almost like a kid waiting for Christmas for these debates. Blackwell was supposed to be the smooth Communicator, next to not-ready-for prime time Strickland (as the Ohio GOP called him just before the debate.)

Am I saying Strickland KO'ed Blackwell? No. But Blackwell didn't KO Strickland, and given the state of the race, he needed a clear-cut victory in this debate. Strickland had to show basic competency (a very low burden); while Blackwell had to show that he wasn't the polarizing, extremist the "liberal media has falsely" portrayed him to be. Or at least, that's what I would have said his campaign needed to do.

Instead, in attempting to rebut Strickland's point that Blackwell is so extreme on abortion that he opposes abortion even in the event that the mother's life is in danger by the pregnancy, Blackwell made a false assertion that current medical technology makes such a situation impossible, and then concluded by asserting that abortionists promote abortion as a means to exterminate the African-American race. Seriously. (If you don't believe me, pull up the video and fast-forward to 55:09.)

And if the Blackwell campaign wanted to paint Ted Strickland as not having a grasp of the issues, Blackwell failed to demonstrate such mastery when asked the obviously predictable question of what he would do as Governor for the Mahoning River Valley. Congressman Strickland was able to talk about what has worked in the valley and how local, state, and federal partnerships have brought important economic development projects and developed entrepreneurialism in small business incubators. Blackwell only talked in broad, vague, terms about tax code and regulatory reforms without specifically demonstrating any grasp of the local challenges of the area.

Yes, Blackwell again and again called Ted Strickland a "tax and spender." He couldn't give an answer without using the term. But to a point, the attack loses its sting with repetition and stops sounding like a critique, and more like childish name-calling. Especially after Strickland promised that his Turnaround Ohio plan does not include tax increases and that he opposes raising Ohio's taxes. Yet, Strickland was able to deliver body blows to Blackwell by pointing out his flip-flops with concrete examples. Blackwell was asked point-blank about his recent reversal on "Right to Work" laws. He fumbled it poorly. Strickland used it to point out how Blackwell has reversed his position on his own campaign platform and how his TEL amendment proposal would have been a disaster for the local government to deal with the economic challenges in the region.

In the end, Blackwell seemed like the divisive extremist he's been portrayed. He repeated ridiculed Strickland as a "goes along, get along" leader, but then claimed he changed his position on Right to Work because the General Assembly would never support his position. His constant refrain reenforced Strickland's portrayal of himself as a consensus leader who will work with Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. Blackwell appeared as a "my way or the highway" leader who can admit no mistakes, misteps, or judgments in error. He acted and sounded more like President George W. Bush than Ronald Reagan while Strickland looked more like the "uniter" W. always promised he'd be, but never was.

How do I know that the Republican base is not satisfied with the result of this debate, though? Well, after any debate of this importance, it's tradition that the Democratic Party and its candidate issues public statements declaring victory while even the Republican Party and its candidates do the same. Even after the disasterous first debate between Bush and Kerry, the Republicans tried to put their best foot forward.

And yet, at the time I write this post, it's been seven and half hours since the debate began. Strickland and the ODP's websites declare victory on the debate. But neither Blackwell nor the ORP's websites even mention that they've occurred. And all those conservative bloggers expecting Christmas? They're silent hoping nobody notices the calendar and that their stockings, instead of overflowing with presents, have nothing but coal in them.

Blackwell's political obituary already written?

2006-09-04T12:14:00.000-04:00

Over the weekend, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's gubernatorial campaign tried to engage itself in the same kind of bus tour that Congressman Ted Strickland successfully had with the rest of the Democratic ticket just a few weeks earlier. Except that Blackwell's bus tour didn't have the rest of the Republican ticket. And it stayed in relatively safe, heavily Republican areas . . . and it didn't do anything really to help his cause as the press coverage was benign or worse.

In the traditionally conservative Cincinnati Enquirer, while Congressman Strickland's tour in traditionally Republican areas got prominent coverage and several sidebar stories regarding traditional Republican voters seriously considering voting for Strickland, Ken Blackwell's lonely hearts tour, got well, less prominent placement. In fact, the story was buried right next to the Sunday paper's obituary notices. And the story noted that the crowd in solidly red Lebanon was rather small.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer noted that Blackwell's attempt to demonstrate that the party was finally uniting behind him fell on deaf ears:

And, in perhaps the most conciliatory gesture of his campaign, Blackwell stood before a large crowd of Cuyahoga County Republicans in Independence on Saturday to make amends.

There, he linked hands with his wife, Rosa, and Cuyahoga County party Chairman Rob Frost, who supported Petro in the primary.

Raising their arms, Blackwell, a maverick within the party and critic of Republican Gov. Bob Taft, said, "There is no way I get there by myself."

Holding the pose, the room still silent, he continued: "What you see represented here is a unified Republican Party, from whose shoulders I will spring to the governor's office." (emphasis added.)

Hardly a "rally around the flag" moment. The only other news Blackwell made reiterated his most damaging political flaw: his need to pander to audiences to gain their support. In Lima, Ohio (Allen County), Ken Blackwell promised to reopen the Lima Correctional Institution, a state prison closed due to budget constraints. Despite not describing in any way how he's going to pay for it, Blackwell is promising that if Allen County votes Blackwell into office, he'll come up with the $90 million to reopen the facility and bring those jobs back.

Now, Blackwell has already promised that an additional 10% of the state's general revenue fund will be shifted into education, and thanks to Blackwell's TEL legislation limiting state spending, one has to wonder where a "Governor" Blackwell is suddenly going to find $90 million dollars in the state budget. He's either going to have to cut other programs' funding further or he's going to have to raise taxes.

Blackwell is the worst type of politician: a self-professed fiscal conservative who buckles upon sight of the first audience he sees who criticizes his opponents for his own sins.

Just how popular is Ken Blackwell's Turnpike privatization plan?

2006-08-29T21:11:00.000-04:00

Well, according to Pho From Akron, not that popular in neighboring Indiana, the state who Ken Blackwell personally used as evidence in support of his corporate giveaway.

According to a poll by the Indianapolis Star, only 30% of Indiana residents thought the lease was a good idea. 60% of Indiana residents thought it was a bad idea. And how popular is the turnpike lease among the communities most directly affected by it? Well, in northern Indiana where the turnpike is actually located, 73% of the residents there believe the turnpike privatization was a bad idea.

How much political capital has the turnpike privatization costs Governor Mitch Daniels, who campaigned with Ken Blackwell in support of Blackwell's similar privatization plan? Well, his approval ratings have plummeted to the lowest level for any Indiana Governor in their first year in the history of Indiana polling, and a majority of residents now believe the state is on the wrong track.

Luckily for the Buckeye State, we have a choice this November which can prevent our State's transportation channels from being sold to the highest foreign bidder under this disastrous and highly unpopular corporate giveaway. Vote for Ted Strickland for Governor.

Blackwell admits he lied about Strickland's record on taxes

2006-08-29T20:44:00.000-04:00

First, Ken Blackwell releases an ad accusing Ted Strickland for being for the marriage penalty and against all kinds of tax cuts.

Then, Ted Strickland issues a rebuttal ad that demonstrates that he has, in fact, supported on numerous occasions the very kind of tax cuts Blackwell's ad alleged Strickland opposed. The ad ends with a claim that Blackwell's mandatory health insurance plan is going to cost families money they don't have under Blackwell's one-size-fits-all mandatory insurance scheme. Because Blackwell's plan doesn't detail how much the mandatory plans will costs Ohio families, Strickland's campaign relies on a third-party source for a market-based equivalent estimate.

The Blackwell campaign publicly cries foul and accuses the Strickland campaign of putting forth a false ad about how much Blackwell's health insurance tax will be under his mandatory insurance scheme. There's no complaints about the ad's accuracy in demonstrating the previous Blackwell ad as being misleading and untrue.

Instead of reporting on how the Blackwell campaign was publicly revealed to be lying about Strickland's record on taxes, the media instead reports on Blackwell's claims (which have yet to been supported with a contrasting estimate of his mandatory insurance tax) that Strickland is misleading voters on how much Blackwell's plan will costs Ohio's families.

Caught red-handed in a lie, and Blackwell escapes by accusing his opponent (again, with no corroborating evidence) of lying. How much will Ken Blackwell's mandatory insurance tax cost Ohio's families? We simply can't afford to wait until January to find out.

Blackwell bleeding Republican support

2006-08-27T16:39:00.000-04:00

The breakdown of the latest August Rasmussen Reports polling on the Strickland-Blackwell race shows that Blackwell is getting more and more hampered in his ability to turn this race around. In short, with each passing month, Blackwell fundamental numbers are getting worse, making it far more difficult for him to be able to overcome the sizeable lead Ted Strickland has been building.

In my last post, I theorized that one or two possibilities as for the fourteen-point swing. Either more Republicans became undecides and some previously undecideds became Strickland supporters, or more Republicans became Strickland supporters. It appears from the latest data publicly released that the latter is the case.

Over at conservative blogs like Right Angle Blog's post, "Is Ken Blackwell Destined to Lose?," what began as a passing along the ORP's rallying cry turned into a rather hostile discussion about whether Blackwell has started to run to the center and betrayed the conservatives or whether the voters, tired of Republican rule, will suddenly become Blackwell Republicans because he's somehow a different type of Republican than the rest of the Republican leadership team he's been apart of for the last 16 years and even though he has the endorsement and fundraising support of highly unpopular Governor Bob Taft.

What becomes of this debate and it's impact on the election is unclear. However, what is clear is that for yet another month, Ken Blackwell's negatives have increased despite no attack ads against him. From June to July, according to Rasmussen, the percentage of Ohioans who view Ken Blackwell very unfavorably increased six percentage points. According to Rasmussen's latest poll, it's increased another 4%, leading to a 10-point increase in the number of people viewing Blackwell very unfavorably over the summer. That kind of increase despite no negative or comparison ads is rather surprising. Currently, 40% of Ohioans have a favorable view of Blackwell, and 55% have an unfavorable view (leaving only 5% as undecided or with no opinion). In contrast, 59% of Ohioans have a favorable view of Congressman Ted Strickland.

Conservatives, like those at RAB, are trying to spin the race that people aren't so much voting FOR Strickland, but AGAINST Blackwell, and that therefore, support for Strickland is soft. Even if this were true, under these numbers even if Strickland's support WERE soft, it's clear that opposition to Blackwell is very strong. Blackwell's net favorability rating is currently -15%. If you compared his entire favorability rating to just his very unfavorable rating, Blackwell's favorability is only +5%, which is technically within 4.5% margin of error.

Furthermore, Blackwell continues to lose support among Republican voters. Less than 60% of Republican voters currently plan on voting for Blackwell according to the most recent Rasmussen Reports poll. This is lowest amount of support Ken Blackwell has received among Republican voters. Strickland's base is largely in tact, with less than 10% of Democratic voters crossing-over to vote for Blackwell and he has large leads among independent voters where he gets 55% of the independent votes. Although the most recent Rasmussen release did not say how much Strickland is capturing an Republican cross-over vote, the Rasmussen poll from late July showed Strickland getting an impressive 24% of the Republican vote.

This Rasmussen poll is by far the worst polling numbers Blackwell has received as well as the best for Strickland. With such high unfavorabilitity ratings, and such a hugh lead among independents, Blackwell has a Herculeian task in front of him.

Nor will all disapproving Republicans will vote for Strickland. Many, and apparently, increasing number, of Republicans may decide in this hostile political election, to stay at home instead of voting for Strickland. If they do, that could make things even more problematic for the lower ticket and local races for the Republican Party this November.

To win, Blackwell is going to have to do something that has eluded him for the past three months since his primary "victory," he needs to reunite the Republican vote behind his candidacy, fundamentally alter the public's view of both him and his opponent, and neutralize Strickland's cross-over appeal and Independent voter advantages.

And he has less than 73 days in which to do this.

Strickland steams ahead while Blackwell falters at critical moment

2006-08-24T21:54:00.000-04:00

There's just no other way to say this: Ted Strickland is creaming Ken Blackwell.

The August edition of the Rasmussen Reports is out, and my nervousness about how Strickland's numbers had stagnated over the summer was replaced by joyous shock.

57%-32%

That's a 25-point lead. What happened? Well, apparently both campaigns numbers took some rest between the end of the primary and the fall. But then suddenly, it's like the electorate kicked into gear now that Strickland begun his TV ads about saving steel jobs in his district by working with leaders in both parties and the successful Turnaround Ohio bus tour through Republican parts of the district. For Blackwell, this poll couldn't be a worse result at a worst possible time.

Just how bad is it? Well, first there's the obvious 25-point margin. Then if you compare it to the July Rasmussen poll, you noticed that the race has widened by 14-points with Strickland gaining seven points, Blackwell losing seven points, and undecideds remaining static. Blackwell is down to the final three months of the campaign and he finds himself losing ground, instead of gaining it. This is the first poll that shows Strickland significantly over the 50% magic line.

Also, it's the first poll that Blackwell can't argue he could still easily win. Until now, Strickland has been low enough that although he was at or slightly over 50%, Blackwell was high enough to say that if he got ALL the undecided votes (a virtually impossible task for him), then the race is statistically a dead heat. In this result, Blackwell has to not only capture all of the undecideds, but take away over 7% of Strickland's support in a race that is hostile to his party and where Strickland has nearly twice the campaign resources. Blackwell's negatives continue to hold him down. While Strickland's support may have been soft, it's because there's is still room for him to either grow or fall depending on how he handles voters getting to know him still. Blackwell is stuck with been a known polarizing and unpopular individual.

And it is impossible for Blackwell to get more of the undecided votes. The fact is that Blackwell has near universal name recognition in Ohio because he has been in statewide offices for over 16 years. Ohioans, though, are ready for a change in statewide leadership. And Blackwell, as top of the ticket and 16-year state officeholder, is the best candidate to receive the brunt of the electorate's displeasure at Republican rule. So chances are that 11% undecided vote has already decided that it probably won't vote for Blackwell, but hasn't been sold on Strickland. If the undecideds start to break, chances are it will be mostly towards Strickland.

In short, these numbers make it very difficult for Blackwell to say that he's really still in this race. What made this 14-point swing happen? Largely, Blackwell himself. Lately, Blackwell's public comments have been very pointed about claiming that if he can keep this race about himself and Ted Strickland he can win, but if the race is about Iraq, the President, or Bob Taft, then Ted Strickland will probably win.

I agree that Blackwell's best shot is to keep this race between himself and Strickland. But, Blackwell hasn't exactly done much to keep this race from being about anything other than himself. In the past month, Blackwell 's biggest public action has been a multi-million dollar fundraiser with President Bush. He's also had fundraisers with highly unpopular Governors Bob Taft and Mitch Daniels (most Ohioans probably don't know who Mitch Daniels is, so it was somewhat odd that the Blackwell campaign thought his support and endorsement of Blackwell's Turnpike privatization plan would do much.) Just yesterday, Ken Blackwell had another fundraiser in Toledo of all places (while the Noe Coingate trial is beginning to gear up) with Karl Rove of all people. Therefore, through no effort by Ted Strickland or the Democratic Party, Ken Blackwell has tied himself to the most unpopular state and national Republicans to Ohioans.

What's so bad about the timing? First, it's less than three months from the election and Blackwell has shown no momentum to show he's close to winning this. In fact, he's doing worse than Bob Taft's last opponent did. The campaign season starts in earnest on Labor Day weekend, and this will be the last poll (or one of the last polls) right before that season. At this time, the national and state parties and looking to re-evaluate the political landscape, reassess these races and dedicate resources to get them through the final stretch. Already some national political forecasters were ready to call this a likely Democratic race from a leaning Democratic race. This poll may be the tipping point, and Republicans may decide it's time to cut bait on Blackwell.

Return of the Blackwell 30% Republican Support Club

2006-08-23T00:55:00.000-04:00

Almost three weeks ago, I posted how Ken Blackwell's fundraiser with President George Bush could be called the meeting of the Ohio and National "30% Support Republican Club" since both currently only get approval ratings in Ohio in the 30s.

As I stated then, later this month, Blackwell would hold a meeting with the President Emeritus of the Ohio 30% Support Republican Club when Blackwell would be the guest of honor for a fundraiser hosted by Governor Bob Taft. Well, the fundraiser was Monday, and you couldn't find even one write up of Bob Taft's fundraiser or public support.

Nope, in a rare moment of campaign genius, the Blackwell campaign realized that Ohioans just wouldn't get Bob Taft's support of Ken Blackwell. So instead, the campaign rolled out the support of Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.

And it truly was a shrewd maneuver. After all, why get stuck with the public support of the nation's most unpopular governor when you can instead appear with the public support the nation's fourth most unpopular governor? And what better idea is there than to publicly state that you have the same plans as the guy with a 39% approval rating?

Blackwell B.S. Alert!: Recently, Blackwell's campaign has been signaling that Blackwell might be willing to include caps on toll increases in response to his controversial turnpike privatization plan. This means that Ken Blackwell supports caps on the tolls on roads, but opposes caps on increases in tuition. Does that make any sense? Neither does Blackwell's apparently assertion that placing caps on the toll hikes the private companies can levy will have no effect on his promised $6 billion the privitatization of the Ohio Turnpike would generate.

[UPDATED:] Blackwell's campaign blogger mocks African-Americans, opposes hate crime legislation

2006-08-15T10:06:00.000-04:00

Boy, if you're going to be an official blogger for a Republican candidate trying to peel away the African-American vote, you'd think you'd be smart enough to scrub your own websites of your racist rhetoric.

Matt Naugle, Blackwell's official campaign blogger, has a facebook account that Buckeye State Blog recently captured for prosperity.

After recently claiming that Congressman Ted Strickland's outreach to African-American voters was somehow insincere (despite the fact that Strickland is introducing the only plan in the race for urban renewal), Naugle's membership to the "OSU White People" Club and his mocking comment that the lilly-white Naugle was "born a poor black child" screams of hypocracy.

UPDATE: Apparently, Mr. Naugle also opposes hate crime legislation as well. (Hat tip: Oberlin JJ at Buckeye State Blog.)

Scott Pullins caught in yet another lie about the Stricklands

2006-08-11T17:11:00.000-04:00

Conservative blogger/attorney Scott Pullins of the Ohio Taxpayers Association is caught in yet again another lie in his continual attempt to smear Congressman Ted Strickland and his wife.

Pullins, desperate to rehabilitate himself in the conservative community after lending support to Republican tax increases in Ohio, now is trying to earn the good graces of the grassroots conservative movement by attacking the personal lives of Congressman Ted Strickland and his wife. First, Pullins spread the false rumors about Mr. and Mrs. Strickland's marriage and love life. Now, despite all evidence to the contrary, Mr. Pullins is hell-bent in continuing to push his ridiculous theory that Congressman Strickland and his wife do not actually live in the Lisbon apartment that they are registered in (despite knowing that the building they reside is owned by corporate entity renting out residential apartments in Lisbon and that they own the apartment building at 320 Market Street North in which the Stricklands live and are registered to vote.)

Here's the latest of Pullins' bold, yet completely unproven claims:

"The Pullins Report has fully documented any allegations that we have made about his residency using publicly available records. For example:
He and his wife are registered to vote at 320 North Market Street, in Lisbon, Ohio. But he has refused to document who pays for this location and it was formerly used as a campaign office according to records from the Federal Election Commission.
His candidacy petitions filed with the Ohio Secretary of State lists the address of 370 North Market Street, Lisbon, Ohio. The United States Postal Service lists this address as undeliverable. Additionally, Project Vote Smart lists this address as a campaign office." (emphasis added)

So, you've really done a thorough investigation, Pullins? You sure you have fully documented all of your allegations about your residency claims? Well you are asserting that Ted Strickland represented in his candidacy petitions, filed with the Ohio Secretary of State's office, that he certified, under penalty of election falsification, that his voting address is 370 North Market Street and that such an address in undeliverable according to the United States Postal Service.

If you examined the public records at the Secretary of State's office, as you claimed, then you surely would have seen that Strickland's petition shows his voting address as 320 North Market Street in Lisbon, Ohio, the very address that he is registered to vote according to the Columbiana County Board of Elections, and the very address of the residential apartment that the Stricklands reside.

I mean, in your thorough investigation, you did review these documents, correct?:

So much for Pullins' rock solid investigatory skills. I don't know why he's so obsessed with finding out who paid the Stricklands' rent (my guess: the Stricklands, and no, I don't expect the campaign to put out a press release saying, "Ted Strickland pays his own rent," just to satisfy Pullins.) He's obviously reviewed Ted Strickland's congressional campaigns' campaign finance reports with the Federal Elections Commission and found nothing. Where did the 370 North Market Street address come from? Because someone in Ken Blackwell's office screwed up and can't tell the difference from a "2" from a "7."

As I've posted in the past, the Stricklands used to rent part of the building for the congressional campaign and have been renting a separate part of the building (with the same address) for their residential apartment. The campaign paid for the campaign office, and the Stricklands have paying for their residence. I honestly can't even imagine what else Pullins imagines could have been the case. Regardless, he has presented absolutely no evidence of anything to the contrary.

Yet again Pullins is caught in a bold-face lie.

Yet another poll shows Strickland with massive lead and gaining six points since May

2006-08-09T01:12:00.000-04:00

So much for saying that Strickland's support has plateaued during the summer. The most recent SurveyUSA poll out today shows Congressman Ted Strickland leading by twenty-two points. This is the second poll since the Columbus Dispatch's poll showed Strickland with a twenty-point lead over Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell.

Applying the Ken Blackwell method of spinning polls, this means that Ted Strickland has widened his lead eleven points since the most recent Rasmussen Reports poll from last week.

The SurveyUSA poll of 503 likely voters shows Strickland safely above 50% support and well on his way to the 60% mark. And just as practically every poll has shown, Ken Blackwell continues to be stuck in the mid to upper-30s with only three months left in the election. Despite bringing in a reported $1.5 million from a political fundraiser with President Bush, Blackwell also reported raising only $2 million to Strickland's $2.5 million in June and July.

Just as other polls have shown, Blackwell continues to lag behind based on a divided Republican base and a complete lop-sided loss of independent voters and all other demographics except, predictably, Republicans and conservatives. In the battle of cross-over votes (Strickland grabbing moderate Republicans vs. Blackwell's capturing of the Democratic African-American voter) Strickland continues to win. Strickland is grabbing nearly four times the share of the Republican vote than Blackwell is grabbing a share of the Democratic vote. And as I've repeatedly said, since the Republican vote is larger than the Democratic vote, Strickland's cross-over advantage means he will get more than four times the cross-over votes than Blackwell. Therefore, Strickland is effectively counterbalancing any alleged advantage Blackwell is gaining by getting a larger than ususal share of the African-American vote for a Republican.

Although Blackwell does slightly better with male voters, there is no real gender gap in the race. Across the board, Strickland is dominating. Strickland is getting nearly three times the Independent vote to Blackwell. As all other cross-tabbed polls have shown, Blackwell is losing a quarter of the REPUBLICAN vote to Strickland, and is getting blown out of the water with Independent voters.

Prof. Larry Sabato, who runs his nationally known "Crystal Ball" series of political predictions, has stated in his most recent report on the race that he is tempted to move the race from Leaning Democratic to Likely Democratic. Badly trailing in the polls, unable to exceed the fundraising pace of his opponent who has a 5:3 cash-on-hand fundraising advantage, Blackwell should expect that his political fortunes will get worse as Republican strategists start to turn their attention to more contested races such as U.S. Senator Mike Dewine's race against Congressman Sherrod Brown and Cincinnati Councilman John Cranley's challenge to Congressman Steve Chabot. It also appears the downticket races may also be more competitive as well.

For Blackwell, time is almost up to demonstrate that he can still make this race competitive again as poll after poll demonstrates that Ohioans are rejecting his out-of-touch, extremist agenda.

Introducing the 30% Support Republicans Club

2006-08-04T15:45:00.000-04:00

Here we see the Presidents of both the National and State chapters of the 30% Support Republicans Club. Sure, nearly two-thirds of all Ohioans oppose Ken Blackwell and President Bush, but only in such a lonely environment can true friendships bloom.

Obviously, this is before Blackwell learned that Ted Strickland still raised more money than he did in July, despite (or perhaps because) of the President's support.

But fear not Blackwell fans, Blackwell is planning another big fundraiser with the President Emeritus of the Ohio Chapter of the 30% Support Republicans Club: Ohio Governor Bob Taft.

Strickland continues solid lead, Blackwell has had no positive movement since Nov. '05

2006-08-01T14:03:00.000-04:00

According to the July Rasmussen Reports, Congressman Ted Strickland continues to maintain his double-digit lead in the Ohio gubernatorial race with 50% to Blackwell's 39%. Now three months from the general election, Ken Blackwell's campaign has got to be getting nervous. As I stated back in May, Strickland's numbers had been rising and Blackwell was stuck in the upper-30s. Over the summer, it appears Strickland's support has plateaued around the magic 50% mark while Blackwell has stayed around the same numbers he's had since Rasmussen began polling the race in November 2005.

So, not only is Strickland's double-digit, magic 50% polling numbers causing Blackwell's campaign considerable heartburn, but the rest of the Rasmussen July poll should leave them an inconsolable wreck.

Among the eye-popping details of the poll:

Strickland is leading the Cross-Over Appeal Award. Strickland captures 23% of GOP voters and continues to do better with unaffiliated and independent voters. On the other hand, Blackwell only attracts only 9% of the Democratic cross-over vote. This means that Strickland is far more attractive to traditionally Republican voters while Blackwell is not managing to do any better with Democratic voters than any other Republican typically does. (This result has been found in several other statewide polls as well, using different methodologies than Rasmussen.)
Blackwell is up since June in one category (but not a cause of celebration.) The number of people who view Blackwell "very unfavorably" has gone up six points since last month. That's the only reported change in the poll that is statistically significant since June. 31% of Ohioans view "very unfavorably." These voters are unlikely, therefore, to change their minds before election day.
Ohioans really don't like Ken Blackwell. Overall, Blackwell has a net favorability rating of -5%. 48% of all Ohioans view Ken Blackwell unfavorably.
Ohioans really like Ted Strickland. In contrast, Congressman Strickland is viewed favorably by over 50% of Ohioans.
It's the economy, stupid. Ohioans rate the state's economy, by far, as the most important issue. After sixteen years of Republican control, dissatisfaction with the economy is not going to help Blackwell or the Republican Party.

In order to win, the Blackwell campaign is going to have to do something in the next three months it has failed to do in the past nine months. Blackwell's campaign is going to have to substantially rehabilitate the public's view of Blackwell while substantially redefine Ohioans' perception of Ted Strickland negatively.

Because of his near-universal name recognition and net negative favorability ratings, it's not enough for Blackwell to win over the remaining undecided voters or voters who feel that Strickland is an unknown. Blackwell must reverse the mass exodus of his party's base to Strickland, change his negative favorability ratings into the positive column, and drive Strickland's high favorability ratings down. Blackwell cannot catch up to Strickland while he's weighed down by his negative favorability ratings. They are the reason Blackwell has hit a ceiling in his support from which he has not been able to move from since November of last year. While Blackwell will likely have the resources to wage an effective campaign, Blackwell has failed to quiet growing Republican skepticism that he has the strategy and ability to execute a campaign which will continue the Republican Party's political dominance in Ohio.

And regardless of how many polls Republicans try to discredit, the inescapable conclusion is that Blackwell has done nothing to bridge the schism caused by his divisive primary with Attorney General Jim Petro and is too extreme and polarizing for the Ohio electorate. In short, people just don't like Ken Blackwell, and he's not done anything in the last nine months to suggest that he can convince people to change their minds about him.

Yet another poll shows Strickland with a double-digit lead

2006-07-31T15:51:00.000-04:00

Although the Rasmussen results aren't available to anyone but their subscribers yet, it appears the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in Ohio shows Sherrod Brown with a slight lead. Apparently, Ted Strickland continues to have an unspecified (at this time) double-digit lead over Blackwell. So on the one hand we have Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, and the Dispatch polls all consistently showing Strickland with a double-digit lead. On the other hand, we have a rather dated Ohio Poll and a recent Zogby poll showing Strickland with a five-point lead.

What tips the polling conventional wisdom in favor of the first camp? Blackwell's own pollster shows it to be a double-digit race.

I'll update this once Rasmussen makes the general numbers available to the non-subscribing public.

Blackwell gets hit with a Ted x Twenty" poll

2006-07-23T11:11:00.000-04:00

DISCLAIMER: I have always been very critical and skeptical of the polling methodology, but as Republicans have historically defended this particular poll as being an accurate predictor of head-to-head races, who am I not to crow?

In today's Columbus Dispatch, their first poll for the general election gubernatorial matchup shows Congressman Ted Strickland with a twenty-point lead over Sec. of State Ken Blackwell.

Taken into consideration other polls, this recent polling data would suggest that Congressman Strickland continues to pull away from Blackwell as the election approaches Election Day.

The analysis in the linked article seems spot-on except for one point:

"A personal appeal from Bush — already coming to Ohio for an Aug. 2 Blackwell fundraiser near Cleveland — could push many of the president’s supporters into Blackwell’s camp."

This quote seems to ignore the very results of the poll. One of Blackwell's biggest problems is that he is getting a cold reception from Republican voters. The poll shows only 61% of self-identified Republicans plan on voting for Blackwell in the fall, and only 53% of those who voted for President Bush in 2004 plan on voting for Blackwell this year (Strickland's numbers 81% and 78% among self-identified Democrats and Kerry voters, respectively.) So Blackwell has problems with his base, and I don't think that the President is the solution.

According to the last Ohio Poll, President Bush has hit an all-time low in his approval rating in Ohio with only 35% approving and 63% disapproving. With Blackwell's biggest liability being he is too extreme and polarizing, I don't think having Bush come in is going to suddenly drive those Republicans who have become disenchanted with the President and the Republican Party come charging into the ballot booths for Blackwell in November.

And appearing side-by-side with President Bush is going to harm one of Blackwell's supposedly greater strengths: his ability to attract African-American voters. Let's face it, how else do you explain why the former Ohio chairman of the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign has no pictures of the President on his campaign website? Because his campaign knows you aren't going to win over skeptical African-American voters when they realize that Blackwell is a dye-in-the-wool defender and champion of the Bush Administration.

I predict that the Bush-Blackwell campaign fundraiser will be an unseen disaster for the Blackwell campaign. It will do nothing to help the rift in his party's base, and will alienate Blackwell from the African-American vote. Furthermore, as the recent federal campaign finance reports of the Republican Congressional and Senate campaign funds reveal, the President's once-vaunted ability to raise massive amounts of cash has substantially weakened. In fact, despite early claims that President Bush raised over $17 million for the Republican House and Senate campaign funds, the recent reports indicated that the much publicized fundraiser raised substantially less than claimed. Therefore, I will be watching to see if the Blackwell campaign's finance reports actually show the $1 million it claims Bush's visit will raise.

Not only does this poll show that Strickland's lead is growing while Blackwell's base has yet to heal from the divisive and bitter primary, but it shows Strickland dominating in almost all demographics. Strickland has substantial leads in all regions of Ohio except for southwestern and western Ohio. Except for a tie in 18-24 year-olds, Strickland has substantial leads in all age groups. He has a gender advantage with both male and female voters. He leads in all faiths, and among those of no faith. Overwhelming advantage in union households and substantial leads in non-union households. And Strickland has strong leads among all income levels of voters.

Given these leads, it seems that the 24% of undecided voters are not sold on Blackwell, but Strickland has not yet closed the deal on them. However, given the polling trends showing Strickland building his lead as Ohio voters get to know him and Blackwell, it's difficult to imagine anything the Blackwell campaign can do to get the 84% of the undecided votes it needs to close the gap and pull ahead.

Blackwell's lying about his inability to do anything about the Cuyahoga Board of Elections mess

2006-07-22T20:54:00.000-04:00

Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell's official spokeman, denies that Secretary of State Blackwell can break the tie in the Cuyahoga Board of Elections' vote to remove Cuyahoga Board of Elections Director Michael Vu.

As was reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Blackwell spokesman James Lee said that Ohio law says that ties involving elections board directors or deputy directors are not matters for the secretary of state to decide and that Blackwell's office would not get involved. A tie in such cases means the proposal to remove Vu fails, Lee said.

But that's not the whole story.

Under R.C. 3501.16:

"The secretary of state may summarily remove or suspend any member of the board of elections, or the director, deputy director, or any other employee of the board, for neglect of duty, malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance in office . . . vacancies in the office of chairperson, director, or deputy director shall be filled in the same manner as original selections are made, from persons belonging to the same political party as that to which the outgoing officer belonged. If those vacancies cannot be filled in that manner, they shall be filled by the secretary of state."

So Blackwell's office is ducking the real question. Nobody really cares if Blackwell feels he has the statutory authority to break the Board's tie on issues regarding the director. What they want to know is if Blackwell will use his express statutory authority to remove those responsible for the Cuyahoga Board of Elections disaster, regardless of what the Board has decided or failed to decide.

Sad when a simple blogger has to cite Ohio Election law back to Ohio's two-term Secretary of State.

[UPDATE]: If someone can get me the legal authority the Secretary of State's office is relying on for their interpretation of Ohio law, I'd like to review it. Under R.C. 3501.09, the Secretary of State determines who the Director and other positions will be in the event that the Board of Elections cannot decide on who to appoint. It would, therefore, make little sense that the legislature would not give the Secretary of State authority to determine whether to remove a Director when the Board of Elections is tied on the matter.

Yep, the Blackwell campaign sure does respect African-Americans.....

2006-07-19T19:16:00.000-04:00

So this is the flyer that the Blackwell campaign is spreading around the East Side of Cleveland. They'd like you to think that it's just a coincidence that the guy in it is African-American and that they started passing it out only on the East side of Cleveland.....

After reading the people at Right Angle Blog whine and moan about how comments about Blackwell are representative about how Democrats truly feel about African-Americans, Blackwell's "diverse" staff puts this crap out. Yeah, Blackwell sure respects African-American voters.....

And most importantly, Blackwell apparently has no respect for African-American voters' intelligence either.

For example, the "wrong on education" line. According to the flyer, Strickland is wrong on education because he voted against an 1998 amendment to an education bill. What Blackwell's campaign flyer fails to mention is that Strickland voted against the amendment because it would eliminate affirmative action policies in college admissions. Does Blackwell think that Strickland is wrong to support affirmative action in college admissions? If so, the campaign refuses to publicly say so? Does the Blackwell campaign honestly think that African-Americans would oppose Strickland because he voted to protect affirmative action in college admissions?

I doubt it. And I wonder when Blackwell will publicly put out fliers applauding his role as chief defender of President Bush's decision to have the federal government argue that the U.S. Supreme Court should declare affirmative action policies in college admissions are unconstitutional?

I'm sure those flyers will be passed out by the Blackwell campaign on the East Side later in the campaign. And how is Strickland wrong on crime? Because he supports gun rights? Strickland is wrong on marriage rights? Really? Who does Strickland think shouldn't have the right to marry?

Wrong on religious freedom? Why? Because he supports the constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state? Strickland doesn't oppose prayer in school. He opposes school-sponsored prayer because he thinks government has no business running religion. You'd think that's a concept anti-government conservatives could comprehend. Wrong on small business? Why? Because he opposed NAFTA and unfair trade agreements? Or because he has supported the President's fiscally reckless policies?

What does this flyer really tell me? That Ken Blackwell really has no plan to help African-Americans in particular and has no faith that his vision can win over African-American voters on their own.

Iraqi Sovereignty: The Coming Conservative Explosion Over Iraq

2006-06-25T16:44:00.000-04:00

At some point, the Administration's commitment to "staying the course" and promoting democratic sovereignty in Iraq are going to be tested in the face of overwhelming conservative outrage. Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki is proposing a reconcillation plan to reunite his country and begin the process of nationalizing a new Iraq, free from America's presence.

His currently plan, which is still lacking key details and seems to be a rather shifting proposal, has two key components which is likely to cause some conservative heartburn for the Administration. The first proposal has already been very controversal, and has already gotten some attention, and that's the Prime Minister's plan to offer amensty to insurgents for killing American and Iraqi security personnel. Amazingly, several prominent conservatives in Congress has already publicly stated their support for granting amensty to the killers of our forces overseas.

And I can't understand how conservatives on one hand argue against "amensty" for illegal immigrants who have not committed any crime (being illegal in the United States is not a crime, but a civil violation of a statute), not killed our men and women in uniform, and then applaud granting actual amesty to the terrorists who have been killing our soldiers.

The second issue is a timetable to have American forces leave. Apparently, the Iraqi Prime Minister does not believe continued American presence is necessary to avoid looking weak or that to pull out is the equivalent to "cutting and running." However, a little noticed aspect of the plan is to have U.S. forces under Iraqi command before they leave, as a means to bring the security interests of the country under Iraqi stewardship, and not American.

Remember the 90s? Remember the right-wing paranoia about American troops under U.N. command? How do you think the far right wing is going to react when this Administration proposes that American forces are placed under the very command of those that wish to grant amensty to those killing our sons and daughters?

Can you imagine if a Kerry or Gore Administration had proposed such a thing?

When you start seeing polling showing conservatives are leaving the President on Iraq, remember this post. And you'll be able to say that you saw the reason why first!

The ugly resurrection of Ohio v. Roberts

2006-06-19T18:06:00.000-04:00

For those of you who care to read about politics at this blog, check me out over at Buckeye State Blog. I occasionally prefer to write about the law purely, even if they are posts nobody ever reads (much like the rest of this blog.)

Today, the United States Supreme Court released its anticipated decisions to Davis v. Washington, and its companion case, Hammon v. Indiana, (Case Nos. 05-5224 and 05-5705, respectively, soon to be cited as 547 U.S. (2006). The case was a clarification of the Court's ruling about the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation as articulated in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) in which the Court overruled, in part, Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980).

Crawford, a decision written by Justice Scalia, derided Roberts and its unreliable, inconsistent, unpredictable progeny for permitting the testimonial evidence of an unavailable witness because it met some legal standard of "reliability" despite no constitutional or legal historical basis that the right to confrontation contained such a "reliability" exception.

In tearing apart the precedent of Roberts, the Court stated:

"Where testimonial statements are involved, we do not think the Framers meant to leave the Sixth Amendment's protection to the vagaries of the rules of evidence, much less to amorphous notions of "reliability." Certainly none of the authorities discussed above acknowledges any general reliability exception to the common law rule.

"Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty. This is not what the Sixth Amendment prescribes."

With Roberts effectively dead, where evidence is testimonial in nature, reliability is not the key to admissibility, but the presence of the opportunity to confront the witness about their testimonial evidence by the Defendant was key. The only unanswered question left by Crawford was: What constitutes testimonial evidence?

Although that question left unanswered, legal scholars thought they understood the Court's admonishment to the courts when it stated:

"The Framers would be astounded to learn that ex parte testimony could be admitted against a criminal defendant because it was elicited by "neutral" government officers. But even if the court's assessment of the officer's motives was accurate, it says nothing about Sylvia's perception of her situation. Only cross- examination could reveal that."

And now we come to today's Davis decision where the revolutionary thoughts of Crawford are replaced with the practicality considerations that led to the confrontation clause disaster that was Roberts.

In Davis, the relevant statements at issue was the recorded statements the alleged victim made during her 911 call where she identified Davis as her attacker. However, the victim did not appear at trial, and the only evidence that Davis was the cause of her injuries was the recorded 911 conversation. Davis objected to the playing of the tape as it was being offered as testimony of the victim in a manner in which Davis had no opportunity to cross-examine her.

The United States Supreme Court upheld the playing of the 911 tape and held that there was no Sixth Amendment violation because the tape was not testimonial (even though it was clearly played by the State for the purposes of substituting the victim's actual testimony.)

By classifying the tape as "non-testimonial" the Court committed the same sin it had committed in Roberts. Although the Court agreed that the statements were made in the course of a police interrogation, the Court held that they were not testimonial "when made . . . under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency."

If there is any historical precedent to understand the Framers' intent in protecting the right of confrontation to be subject only to those statements made when police are not responding to an ongoing emergency, then neither the Court's decision in Davis or Crawford cites it. What Crawford did state was:

"First, the principal evil at which the Confrontation Clause was directed was the civil law mode of criminal procedure, and particularly its use of ex parte examinations as evidence against the accused. It was these practices that the Crown deployed in notorious treason cases like Raleigh's, that the Marian statutes invited, that English law's assertion of a right to confrontation was meant to prohibit, and that the founding-era rhetoric decried. The Sixth Amendment must be interpreted with this focus in mind."

The civil law mode of criminal procedure allowed justices of the peace or other officials to examine suspects and possible witnesses before trial and then, occassionally, those examinations were read in court in lieu of live testimony.

How does that practice, which Crawford strongly condemned, different from the practice playing a 911 tape as in Davis? In the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia, there is no direct answer, but an inference that a statement made during the contemporaneousness of an emergency is somehow not "testimonial" but the same statement made a mere few minutes later, magically becomes testimonial even though it is made by the same speaker, to the same listener, and for the same purpose.

Of course, there is no historical precedent for the court's new "emergency" non-testimonial finding because the ability for the government to learn and investigate crimes as they occurred was largely impossible given the techonology at the time of the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause's historical founding.

However, if a hypothetical inquistitor at Sir Walter Raleigh's trial (the focus of much of Court's thoughts as expressed by Justice Scalia in Crawford), were asked, the inquistitor would no doubt say that the statements made by witnesses against Sir Raleigh were made during the ongoing emergency of the State trying to respond to an alleged treasonous plot.

Instead, by finding the statements in Davis to be non-testimonial, the Court has essentially found that as technology makes it easier and quicker for the State to learn what its citizens are doing, that technology waters down the protections that have been the bedrocks of our judicial system.

Davis ignores the history of the right to confrontation that were so revered in Crawford, and ignores the basic fact that why a statement was made is not as key to whether it is testimonial as much as how the statement was used. To Davis, the issue was not when the statement was made, but the fact that he was being convicted by the testimony of a tape recorder instead of a live witness who should have been available at trial.

Blackwell's free-market ideas aren't worth much on the free market

2006-06-15T11:13:00.000-04:00

Three months ago, Republican Gubernatorial candidate Kenneth Blackwell published a book titled Rebuilding America which he co-authored with "Unfit for Command" Swift Boat author, Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.

Here's the marketed description of the book:

After four decades of failure of the welfare state, Blackwell and Corsi argue for its phase-out through applying new techniques of public finance—not dependent upon new taxes—to enlist financial institutions in deploying new urban capital into rebuilding our cities. The goal is to work with established and newly formed corporations that integrate jobs and re-training programs to advance an "ownership society" in which families can thrive.
Rebuilding America is meant to be a blueprint for John Kenneth Blackwell's campaign for governor of Ohio. In it, he argues that as governor of Ohio he can implement the action plan described in the book as an alternative, conservative model for attacking urban poverty that can be applied in other states as well.

So how is the book doing? Despite being heavily promoted on Blackwell's blog and in Blackwell's appearances on national conservative talk radio, not so well. It ranks at #263,298 on Barnes & Noble's site which curiously has a cover that does not plaster Ken Blackwell's photo on the cover. On average, the major online book retailers have already slashed the book's price by nearly 40%.

This conservative clearinghouse site is offering the book at half-price and three free issues of WND's (World Net Daily's) monthly print magazine, Whistleblower, if you buy Blackwell's discount rack political treatise.

And on that free-market nirvana, e-bay, you could buy the book for $2.50, if you don't later get outbid in the next two days.

So not even the free market supports Ken Blackwell's extreme, out-of-touch political ideas . . .

Does Ken Blackwell think he's running for Governor of Colorado?

2006-06-14T18:07:00.000-04:00

Why does Ken Blackwell think whatever is done in Colorado should be done in Ohio?

First, Blackwell introduces TEL as a constitutional amendment because it's been so popular in Colorado the voters have voted to freeze its effectiveness.

Now Blackwell wants to change Ohio's financial aid programs to be like Colorado. Unlike TEL, Blackwell's new financial aid platform is lacking in details, but given what is known about the Colorado plan, it should prove to be as popular as TEL was.

According to the Toledo Blade, Blackwell's proposal is to mimic a college voucher program recently enacted in Colorado. How does it work? Well, the Colorado system basically gives financial aid in the form of a voucher instead of giving the aid to the school. The recently graduating high school student could then use the voucher at any public or private school of higher education.

And how does this voucher help with the rising cost of college tuition? It doesn't.

"In fact, the tuition they pay will be the same. It doesn't make college less expensive; it is just a different funding mechanism," said Pam Shockley-Zalabak, chancellor of the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs, who supports the voucher.

And how has the program worked in Colorado? Well, thanks to Colorado's own version of TEL, tuition has continued to increase at the rate of 10 to 15% a year as state funding for universities has fallen roughly 12%. Meaning that Colorado students have had to pay more to get the same education. That's about the same result already occuring here in Ohio. So, the vouchers have no positive impact whatsoever on slowing the increasing costs of tuition.

So why would Blackwell support such an initative? Well in Colorado.....

Under the voucher program, schools would no longer be technically state funded, and could pursue enterprise status - freeing them from a wide variety of state regulations regarding hiring, firing, tuition, contracts, and more. Some say it will allow schools to operate more like a private business.

In other words, Blackwell wants the voucher programs to end collective bargaining, break up unions, end tenure, and prevent the legislature from setting caps on tuition increases.

There's a better way. And it's a proposal DESIGNED to provide actual assistance for families struggling with the increasing costs of higher education. It's Congressman Ted Strickland's plan for an Ohio Knowledge Bank.

If Ken Blackwell loves Colorado so much, maybe he should have run for Governor there.

Blackwell flip-flops on whether he's flip-flopped on abortion

2006-06-14T11:10:00.000-04:00

Cross-posted at: Buckeye State Blog

In today's Right Angle Blog posting by jamesrhodes, the blog attempts to defuse the allegations leveled here and elsewhere that Ken Blackwell is yet again flip-flopping from the extremist positions Secretary Blackwell took during the primary.

The defense is not that Blackwell has changed his position, but that he just wants the current "pro-life" protections such as parental notification, etc. to remain in place during any possible court challenge of Brinkman's bill.

So they're saying that Blackwell is 100% Pro-Life and hasn't changed his position.

Again, here's Ken Blackwell in January:

Q: If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, would you sign a law that would outlaw abortions in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother?
A: Yes.
Q: Including the life of the mother?
A: Yes.

And here's Candidate Blackwell's campaign statement from today's Toledo Blade:

Democrats yesterday accused Mr. Blackwell of backing off on support for a total ban voiced during the GOP primary.

Blackwell spokesman Carlo LoParo said the candidate would support the bill if amended to protect current Ohio regulation of abortion if a court strikes it down and if it includes the exception for the life of the mother.

Mr. Rhodes, I believe those aren't just sandals, Mr. Blackwell is wearing.......

Ken Blackwell: He's consistently inconsistent.

What does Ken Blackwell stand for???

2006-06-13T11:56:00.000-04:00

First the Commerical Activity Tax (CAT), then his own Tax Expenditure Limitation (TEL) amendment, and now Ken Blackwell is reversing his position on abortion since the primary.

(Hat tip: Buckeye State Blog)

Five months ago, the following dialogue took place in an interview with Ken Blackwell by Columbus' Other Paper (article not archived on its site, so I have to cite to this other blog):

Q: If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, would you sign a law that would outlaw abortions in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother?
A: Yes.
Q: Including the life of the mother?
A: Yes.

Now comes House Bill 228 which would criminalize all abortion, including transporting a women across state lines for an abortion.

And what does Ken Blackwell say about this bill?
From today's Cincinnati Enquirer:

"Yes, if amended. The legislation removes current pro-life protections in the law because it enacts a total ban. I would support an amended version with pro-life protections reinstated if the legislation is later challenged and overturned in court."

So, which is it, Ken?!? Also, can anyone crack Blackwell's conservative code to decipher what he means by saying "pro-life protections are reinstated"? What the heck is he referring to?

I'll say this, at least, Blackwell is consistently inconsistent.

Strickland's numbers rising, while Blackwell is stuck in neutral

2006-05-19T15:06:00.000-04:00

From Rasmussen Reports:

Election 2006-Ohio Governor
Three-Poll Rolling Average

	Mar-Apr-May	Feb-Mar-Apr	Jan-Feb-Mar	Nov-Jan-Feb
Strickland	51%	50%	47%	44%
Blackwell	37%	37%	38%	37%

"The candidates began the year much closer than they are today with Strickland leading just 44% to 40% in our January survey. Since then, his lead has been in double digits every month. Our last three surveys found the Democrat at 50% or above each time."

The convention wisdom has been that Strickland has been ahead of Blackwell in the polls because of the brutal primary with Jim Petro. However, six months of polling shows Blackwell's support stuck in the mid-30s while Strickland's support has jumped seven points over that period. Blackwell's numbers wouldn't have much of a bruising back in November when most were still thinking about OSU football than a primary election half a year away.

But this is just the rolling averages of these months, if you look to some of the month-to-month totals, Strickland's rise in the polls is all the more impressive. In the January poll, Rasmussen showed Strickland-Blackwell at 44-40. That means Blackwell has remained statisically flat while Strickland has seen an eight-point raise.

This is largely due to Strickland's improving of his name recognition over this time. As more voters have gotten to know who Ted Strickland is, the more they have supported him. And that's bad news for Ken Blackwell. After twelve years in state office, there isn't much improvement he can make in his name recognition, and it only gives him more than a third of the vote.

This poll was commissioned the day after the primary, so if Blackwell has gotten any lift from any possible mending within the Republican base it couldn't show in this poll. Conversely, if Blackwell has suffered any backlash from his sudden post-primary reversals on TEL and CAT we don't know that either. Additionally, with a 79% victory, Strickland doesn't have much of a "fence mending" bounce. But as independants start to pay attention to the race (and given the national trend of independents breaking towards Democrats this cycle), Strickland's numbers have a greater likelihood than not of improving.

In the end, the convention wisdom is right about one thing. In order to win, Blackwell is going to have to make a convincing "anti-Strickland" case rather than a "pro-Blackwell" message.

Conservative swoon over Republican standard bearer's amazing ability to have Republican legislature pass his conservative legislation

2006-05-18T16:46:00.000-04:00

It wouldn't be so funny if it wasn't so true. In equally shocking (but in no way analogous) news, OSU football fans says that Scarlet's victory over the Grey team in the OSU Spring Game shows how much Jim Tressel is an amazing leader. This is the spin being raised to declare that after nearly a year promoting TEL, the constitutional amendment to place stringent caps on state and local government spending by tying it to inflation and population changes, Ken Blackwell's sudden abandonment of the amendment in favor of a legislative proposal, which only limits state government's spending, is a testament to his glorious leadership.

Surely, this isn't a flip-flop, the swooning conservatives say because Ken Blackwell himself says: "I am not going to stand before you and try and re-create myself for the general [election]. I am who I am and I am who you get."

Sure, the new proposal is a repealable and freely amendable statute, unlike a moreingrainedd constitutional amendment, but that's not a flip-flop. After all, in recent days, Blackwell had publicly said he would consider abandoning TEL if "a better proposal came along." And this is clearly a better proposal. Right? Right?!?

Well, it's hard to tell since the legislative proposal that's better than TEL hadn't even been written by the time Blackwell already endorsed it.

We do know that Blackwell is supporting a legislative proposal that completely abandons Blackwell's promise to constrain local spending. But, the swooning conservative says as he basks in the pseudo-Reaganesque glow of Blackwell, that's not a flip-flop. As the editor of the conservative blog, Right Angle Blog, stated:

"In all fairness, until the TEL was brought up Ken Blackwell always talked about state government spending, he never really mentioned the local spending."

And that's true. Well, except, of course, for the times when Blackwell really did mention local spending:

"State and local government in this state have been spending money like drunken sailors," Blackwell told Dayton's WHIOTV in April.

But, the nervous conservatives say:

We don't care whether the principles of TEL are enacted in a constitutional amendment or statute, what matters is that this legislation achieves the restraints on state government spending that we wanted.

Except the watered-down legislative proposal doesn't restrain all state government spending, either:

"But unlike Blackwell's amendment, which would limit the annual growth of government spending at the state and local levels, the new law would apply to only state general-revenue funds and not spending from other sources such as fees." From The Columbus Dispatch.

But, hey, at least a gap on limiting growth of the state's general revenue fund will achieve the conservative's goal of limited government creating sustainable economic growth, right? Right?!?

"A statute referring only to state (general-revenue funding) is only addressing part of the problem and not even the worst part of the problem," David Hansen, president of the conservative Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, said. (emphasis added).

But isn't it unfair criticize a candidate for changing his position on an issue, even if it's the centerpiece of his campaign. One issue alone doesn't make a person unprincipledled waffler, does it?

During the primary campaign, this is what primary election candidate Ken Blackwell said about Ohio's new Commercial Activity Tax (CAT):

"What would make someone create a new tax on commercial activity when we need more commercial activity?" he asked during a rally at Lima's Veterans Memorial Civic Center. "That CAT must go.""

Now, general election candidate Ken Blackwell says that he's ok with CAT.

So, in the end, what do we know?

"I can hold a position on an issue longer than six months without getting exhausted."- Ken Blackwell.

We know that CAT and TEL must have been at least seven months old.

"I think the Republicans got Blackwell out of a big mess."- William C. Binning, chairman of the political-science department at Youngstown State University and former Mahoning County Republican Party chairman.

Maybe, sir. But don't betray your conservative leaders, by calling this something it's not. It's not a retreat. It's a bold, visionary reverse strategic deployment.

The issue Ken Blackwell hopes we don't talk about

2006-05-09T20:24:00.000-04:00

Much speculation has been made as to whether Secretary of State Ken Blackwell may get a 3 to 4 percent boost in the general election by attracting larger amounts of African-American voters than what GOP candidates typically get (that's how much Blackwell would gain in the general by getting over 40% of the African-American vote in Ohio versus the 12% GOP candidates typically get.) Blackwell's strategy is to create a coalition between social and fiscal conservatives within the GOP with African-American voters who tend to be more socially conservative than white Democratic voters. And so long as Blackwell can stick to gay marriage and abortion, they'll be few problems in his coalition.

However, there's one issue that if it gets any attention could disrupt and destroy this harmonious coalition. One issue that if any attention is given to it could leave both potential white and African-American voters reconsidering their support for Blackwell. So far, this issue hasn't registered so much as a blip in voter's minds. As long as that doesn't change, Blackwell is fine.

That issue? Affirmative action.

For Blackwell's white conservative supporters, Blackwell's support for affirmative action would be considered heresy. To them, affirmative action is part of a litmus test. It's part of what defines a person to be conservative, it's not an issue where you can be a conservative with this notable exception. And Ken Blackwell has not left himself much room to try and wiggle out of his past support, either. Blackwell opposed enacting a state law that would forbid the use of race as a factor in state government contracting, employment, and admission to Ohio universities.

However, his record in supporting affirmative action isn't going to excite supporters of affirmative action, either. The last time affirmative action was seriously in the American's political dialogue was during the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of the Michigan affirmative action cases, Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger in 2003. Although the White House could have avoided the issue altogether, President Bush ordered that the federal government submit briefs in both cases opposing the University of Michigan's use of race as an admission factor. And instead of respectfully disagreeing with the President's anti-affirmative action views as he did with Steve Forbes, Ken Blackwell sided with, and publicly defended, the President's position.

During the President's announcement of the federal government's opposition to the University of Michigan's affirmative action program, President Bush said:

"At the law school, some minority students are admitted to meet percentage targets while other applicants with higher grades and better scores are passed over. This means that students are being selected or rejected based primarily on the color of their skin. The motivation for such an admissions policy may be very good, but its result is discrimination and that discrimination is wrong."

A few days later, Ken Blackwell applauded the President's stance.

"He was silent on whether it was a compelling national interest to advance diversity, and I think his silence means on that matter the status quo is sufficient."

Months later, the United States Supreme Court gave its voice to replace the President's silence. In a 5-4 decision in Grutter, the Court reiterated that advancing diversity is a compelling national interest.

Therefore, during this campaign, as both candidates talk about jobs, it'll be interesting to see what Ken Blackwell specifically says about changing the course in this state for how minority-owned businesses have done in Ohio, and how he'll try to chart a course to keep both his conservative and African-American brethren on board.

Cordray's impressive fundraising led to GOP incumbent's defeat

2006-05-04T18:58:00.000-04:00

This.... is..... fascinating...... Talk about tactical errors.

According to the Columbus Dispatch, Ohio GOP chair Bob Bennett encouraged the Bradley campaign three weeks before the primary to conserve financial resources for the general election against Richard Cordray who had over $1M on hand to Bradley's $400k in the last campaign finance report filed weeks before the primary.

So instead of have a moderate incumbent GOP candidate who had roughly $300k on hand, the GOP nominated a Blackwell firebrand with little name recognition and less than $2k on hand.

As the guys from Guiness would say, "BRILLIANT!"

Now not only do the Democrats have a strong, moderate candidate with the financial resources to compete, but he's facing a candidate who thinks it's more important to talk about abortion and gay marriage than what she'll do as State Treasurer and will be a financial drain on the ORP to help catch up to Cordray's financial advantage.

This race is now likely Democratic.

The longest hour in a man's life

2006-05-02T18:37:00.000-04:00

How fast did today fly by for you? What about the last hour? Think about one hour out of your day and what you were able to do during that time.

Now, imagine spending that time strapped to a table while the State tried, rather ineffectively, to find a vein in your arm to inject the combinations of drugs to be used to kill you.

Imagine sitting there remembering the long drive to Lucasville, Ohio the day before to prepare you for the execution. The solemn walk into the death chamber. They strap you down, you see the IVs. You feel the needle, and you're finally ready for the reality of the moment, and then nothing. And then you feel it again.

Nothing.

And then again.

For an hour.

If you don't know what I'm referred to, read this story. And then think about it for the next hour. Sometimes, we get lost in the gamemanship about turnout and number crunching we forget. For one hour today, one man received the full brunt of the State's power. Politics isn't a game.

I don't mean to start a debate on the death penalty, nor should you take this story as any indication of my views. But sometimes we need to have some perspective, and I think this story brings today into a new perspective for me.