Gem City Journal

Defense Projects for Dayton

2007-07-26T13:27:00.001-04:00

The Dayton region is on track to receive nearly $50 million in earmarks for Dayton-area defense projects, including a $1 million appropriation that could bring 400 jobs to the community.

The House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday passed a bill that included the funding, part of a larger $459.6 billion bill funding defense programs.

Dayton's share represents an increase from last year, when the House passed $43.45 million in funding for regional defense projects. Michael Gessel, vice president for governmental affairs at the Dayton Development Coalition, said the number of regional earmarks has also increased since last year. That's a surprise, he said, because the Dayton area's Republican congressmen are now in the minority party, and there is pressure in some quarters to reduce earmarks, which some refer to as "pork."

Among the regional earmarks approved: $1 million for a Toledo-based nanotechnology company that wants to set up a new facility in Dayton. The company, NanoSperse, had been courted by a variety of communities, Gessel said, but wanted to locate in Dayton because of the proximity to the National Composite Center and the University of Dayton Research Institute. This earmark, he said, will make that happen.

NanoSperse has estimated that its Dayton location will bring 400 jobs to the region in the next five years, Gessel said.

The bill also will give a funding boost to the Air Force Institute of Technology thanks to a $4 million earmark for the Advanced Technical Intelligence Center, which would train government workers in intelligence skills.

The funds still must survive a vote of the full House, as well as a conference with the Senate version of the funding bill, before they are passed into law.

A number of these earmarks do smell like pork to me. I'll put an email in to Mike Turner and see if I can't get some answers and report back any response I might get.

UPDATE: Well, Mike Turner's webform refuses to accept my ancestral home's address as being in his district...which it clearly is... More problems with constituent services plaguing Republicans in Congress... Mike, if you are read this, email me at wmdtvmatt - at - yahoo - dot - com.

Dayton's Emplyment Woes Lands the County Third in National Job Decline

2007-07-26T13:18:00.001-04:00

Dayton Daily News:

Montgomery County is third among the top four counties nationwide to have the largest decline in fourth-quarter employment levels from 2005 to 2006, according to a report Wednesday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The county, however, also saw a 6.4 percent increase in the average weekly wage during that same time, according to the report.
...
According to the BLS report, Montgomery County in fourth quarter 2006 saw a 6.4 percent increase from 2005 in the average weekly wage, when it had a 0.5 percent decrease in the average weekly wage.

Montgomery County's average weekly wage for the fourth-quarter 2006 was $828, up from $777 in the fourth quarter of 2005.

For once the paper doesn't editorialize a conclusion... I wonder why... The conclusions I draw don't look so good for the liberal/socialist agenda that the paper pushes.

Teradata HQ Coming to Miami Valley

2007-07-26T08:35:00.000-04:00

WDTN reports:

Officials say they're building the foundation for technology in The Dayton Region.

Monday, company executives and public officials broke ground for Teradata, an NCR spin-off that specializes in data warehousing.

Teradata headquarters will be located on 741 in Miami Township and officials say it will bring high paying jobs to The Miami Valley.

Lieutenant Governor, Lee Fisher said, "We want Dayton and The Dayton Area to be world-class leaders in technology, and Teradata is known around the world. And, we want people to say Teradata is an Ohio company."

Fisher says Teradata's decision to stay in Ohio was a coup for the state.

He said, "I have no doubt that when the world sees that Teradata has chosen Ohio over other states to be their world class headquarters, they're going to look at Ohio more seriously."

Officials say the decision to remain in The Dayton Region means employees won't have to deal with the stress of relocation.

Teradata Vice President, Bob Fair, said, "We'll be able to spin out and start our own new company with zero distractions to the employee base. So, we get a jump start on going out and growing the company even faster."

When finished, the building will be two stories high and cover 40-thousand square feet.

Teradata hopes to move its 250 employees to the new building by the end of the year.

This is excellent news for the Miami Valley, which has been struggling in the job market. The Dayton area has a long tradition of excellence in technology and innovation and it appears that there is a commitment to keep it that way.

Gem City Journal is Back!

2007-07-25T19:23:00.000-04:00

I'm going to try the hyper-local political blog experiment up again! Most of the material that you will find here will probably be cross-posts from WMD, but I will at some point focus in on getting content specifically for GCJ. Thank you for your patience and your patronage.

I live in Butler County these days; so if you have tips about what's going in Dayton and Montgomery County, email them to wmdtvmatt - at - yahoo - dot - com

And yes, I'll probably be firing up a Butler County version of GCJ in the near future...

Montgomery County GOP Endorses Candidates for Ohio House

2007-07-25T19:19:00.000-04:00

I caught this tidbit in the Dayton Daily News:

[Kettering City Council Member Peggy] Lehner was endorsed Monday by the Montgomery County Republican Party's central committee to fill the 37th House district seat being vacated by Jon Husted, R-Kettering.

Peggy was a guest for an hour on the WMDtv cable access show a few years ago and I found her to be an able politican with plenty of smarts and skill. She should do well in that race. I would be proud to support her in this race.

UPDATE: Another article (H/T: Jill) has a few more names to add to the list:

The Montgomery County Republican Party's central committee endorsed Kettering Council Member Peggy Lehner for the seat, but former state Rep. Don Mottley and Miami Twp. Trustee Deborah Preston said they are considering running in the March primary. They have agreed that only one of them will run, avoiding a three-way race, but have not decided which of them will withdraw.

And in two other races:

The central committee also endorsed Huber Heights City Council Member Seth Morgan for the 36th House seat now held by state Rep. Arlene Setzer, R-Vandalia, and endorsed Washington Twp. Trustee Terry Blair for the 38th House seat being vacated by state Rep. John J. White, R-Kettering.

Morgan was selected over German Twp. Trustee Greg Hanahan, who is also Miami Twp. administrator.

Blair was chosen over financial planner Tom Young, the only candidate who came to the night's meeting having been recommended by a screening committee set up by Party Chairman Greg Gantt.

Dayton Daily News editor Ellen Belcher adds a few more details to the list of names reported earlier:

Jon Husted's successor (District 37)

• Peggy Lehner is familiar with local government issues because of her job on Kettering City Council. She's worked hard to become known as more than a pro-life advocate — that's how she got her start in public life. But if Roe v. Wade is ever reversed, she'll be under tremendous pressure to help lead the charge to outlaw abortion in Ohio.

• Don Mottley is smart, digs into complicated issues and is paying a price in the party because he and state Sen. Jeff Jacobson don't get along. Both men had to leave the House at the same time because of term limits and both wanted the Senate seat that Jacobson now has. Mottley is the only candidate running in the three contests who has legislative experience.

• Miami Twp. Trustee Deborah Preston has been itching to move up. While she's been waiting, she's been in the thick of development decisions at the Austin Road interchange. She is one of just three elected officials who gets to decide which developers will be helped or hurt by a pending agreement that allows for revenue sharing among several local governments. Some businesses will end up paying a city income tax even though they'll be in a township, and they're poised to fight that.

Arlene Setzer's successor (District 36)

• Seth Morgan, 31, notes on his Web site that he was re-elected to the Huber Heights City Council in a "landslide," and he asks friends to join the "Morgan Machine." He justifies that description on the basis that last year he got more votes in his district than GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell. (He doesn't mention that Blackwell was stomped all across the state.)

• Greg Hanahan, a German Twp. trustee and the Miami Twp. administrator, has township connections galore.

John White's successor (District 38)

• Tom Young, a financial planner, is trying for this third office. He has run unsuccessfully for county treasurer and, in 2005, for Washington Twp. trustee; he has the unanimous support of the screening committee and Jacobson is pushing his candidacy.

• Washington Twp. Trustee Terry Blair feels he's been snubbed because he was elected multiple times for an office that Young lost. A small businessman, he thinks he has a nice combination of experience.

You might consider reading the whole thing. I actually don't care for her tone, but you have to admit that she's is somewhat justified due to what County Chairman Greg Gantt did...that sort of thing is exactly the sort of behavior that the Ohio GOP as a whole needs to knock off...

Resnick-aquiddick

2005-02-10T14:30:00.000-05:00

From the Washington Times:

In the video, shot by a camera on the dashboard of the patrol car, a police sergeant questioning Justice Resnick tells her that he can smell alcohol on her breath.

Justice Resnick assures the officer she can drive safely, but he asks her to take a portable breath-analysis test. She then lowers her voice and says, "I did have something to drink."

The justice also repeatedly asks to be let go, saying, "My God, you know I decide all these cases in your favor. And my golly, look what you're doing to me."

Justice Resnick's blood-alcohol content registered 0.22 percent, almost three times Ohio's legal limit of 0.08 percent.

[Emphasis added.]

So in addition to being a schmuck, this Supreme Court Justice thinks she should be able to abuse her power too? This is rich...is this the Democrats' idea of justice? This is taking a liberal view of crime too far in my opinion...

State of the State Address

2005-02-08T14:55:00.000-05:00

From ONN:

Overhauling the tax system that Ohio uses to pay for everything from schools to hospital care for the poor dominated Gov. Bob Taft's seventh State of the State address Tuesday.

The Republican proposed a sweeping change in business taxes so that more companies pay, but at a lower rate. He also proposed to cut by 21 percent the rates on personal income taxes, paid by individuals and businesses. Ohioans who make less than $10,000 a year would pay no state income tax, he said.

"We must slow our spending, get the broken tax code off our backs, and release the powerful energies of this great state," he said.

In his second to last annual address as governor, Taft called on lawmakers to stand tough against industry lobbying groups as they replace a Depression-era system that continues to focus on goods while the state's economy is increasingly services-based.

"We'll all hear the chorus of complaints from the special interests who feel threatened by change," Taft said. "So we must have the courage to prevail. We must remain committed to the very end."

The tax plan would raise $800 million less over two years, for a budget that already will be taking in $4 billion to $5 billion less than the one passed in 2003. He'll look for savings by reducing spending on the state's Medicaid program and keeping budgets tight at most agencies.

Taft, 63, tried to change the tax system two years but was stymied by lawmakers who balked at the price tag and felt they weren't consulted early and often enough.

I'm not impressed. The governor has to get something done. The goal is to reduce taxes altogether, not spread them out over more people.

The article is short on details...I'll have to see what else I can dig up...

3:40PM Update

The Dayton Daily News has the text (registration required) of the speech...I am still unimpressed.

Resnick Update

2005-02-07T13:30:00.000-05:00

The only Democrat on the Ohio Supreme Court changed her plea from not guilty to guilty in her appearance in court today. Get the details from ONN:

Justice Resnick plead guilty to the charges against her, OMVI and a marked lanes violation.

Judge Resnick was fined $1,000 for the OMVI and $100 for the marked lanes violation. She was also sentenced to three days either in jail or an alcohol treatment program. Resnick will also be placed on probation for two years.

'Major Development' in Erica Baker Case

2005-02-04T15:35:00.000-05:00

From ONN/WHIO-tv

A major development in the disappearance of Erica Baker was announced Friday when the Montgomery County prosecutor’s office said an indictment was made in the case.

The Kettering girl disappeared almost six years ago. Investigators said Baker was walking her dog near the Kettering Recreation Center when she suddenly vanished.

Charges have been filed against 33-year-old Christian Gabriel for gross abuse of a corpse and for tampering with evidence. Authorities said they do not exactly what his involvement in Baker’s disappearance was, but believe he may have been the driver of a van that struck Baker near the rec center.

Investigators said that is a theory that has been going around for quite some time.

Now, authorities said Gabriel was in prison on an unrelated charge, but was brought to Dayton and questioned in the case late last year. They said Gabriel was one of 10 witnesses that testified before a private grand jury.

It would be good to get some closure on this story...we had all hoped she would be found alive but after all this time...

College Student's Bill of Rights

2005-02-04T08:35:00.000-05:00

From the Dayton Daily News (registration required):

Concerned that Ohio college students' young minds are being indoctrinated by left-leaning college faculty, four Republican state senators have introduced an "academic bill of rights for higher education" that would limit what professors could say in their classrooms. It also would give students and faculty a formal grievance procedure if they feel they've been discriminated against.

"I think it's accepted knowledge that most of the faculty at our universities, particularly in the humanities and the social sciences, has a left-wing bias," said state Sen. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana. "Eight or nine out of 10 are Democrats or of the left-leaning persuasion."
...
The president of Wright State University's faculty union called the proposal "ridiculous" and predicted it would not gain enough support to become law.

The bill "threatens the fundamental principles of intellectual freedom by putting restrictions on teaching and academic inquiry," said Paulette Olson, WSU professor of economics and president of the Wright State chapter of the American Association of University Professors. "It is based on the weak premise that faculty members are out there indoctrinating their students with left-wing ideology."
...
Sinclair Community College President Steven Lee Johnson is skeptical that a state academic bill of rights is needed.

"The proportion of faculty squandering their gift of tenure and academic freedom on ideological demagoguery is so small that it is on the very bottom of the list of real problems that we have within our colleges and across our society," Johnson said.

The Sinclair president said the legislation "could very easily be used as a weapon against good and skillful professors."

Wow! What would this all powerful legislation do?

The bill — spearheaded by state Sen. Larry Mumper, R-Marion, and co-sponsored by Jordan, Cates and State Sen. Lynn Wachtmann, R-Napoleon — would require every state-supported college and university in Ohio to:

• Prohibit faculty members and instructors from "persistently introducing controversial matter into the classroom or course work that has no relation to their subject of study" and that serves no educational purpose related to the academic subject;

• Hire, fire and promote faculty based on their "competence and appropriate knowledge in their field of expertise" rather than on their "political, ideological or religious beliefs;" and

•Adopt a grievance procedure by which students or faculty could "seek redress" if they feel they've been discriminated against based on their beliefs and to disclose the grievance procedure in course catalogs, student handbooks and Web sites.

Good God! We're shredding the Constitution! Call off the football game, man, we got serious problems! Cancel classes, we must protest this horrible stomping on of rights!

(smack)

What? Oh...the liberals are just trying desperately to defend their echo chamber? Well, then...surely that's alright.

Uhhhh.....no.

Justice Alice Resnick Arrested After Driving Under The Influence

2005-02-01T13:30:00.000-05:00

From NewsNet5:

A state Supreme Court justice was arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence after several motorists called to report an erratic driver on an interstate.

Justice Alice Robie Resnick also was charged with driving outside marked lines, a minor misdemeanor.

Lt. Rick Zwayer, a State Highway Patrol spokesman, said Resnick, 65, of Toledo, was pulled over on I-75 south of Bowling Green. He said she failed field sobriety tests and was arrested at 2:02 p.m. Monday in Wood County in northwest Ohio.
...
Resnick's driver's license was automatically suspended because she refused to take a blood-alcohol content test, Zwayer said.

Court officials said there is no automatic disciplinary action when a judge is charged with driving under the influence.

Resnick has been a justice since 1989 and is the court's only Democrat. The court was scheduled to be in session Tuesday.

As Al Gore would say, "Justice Resnick ought to resign IMMEDIATELY!" Or something like that...

2/4 Update

Resnick will NOT face additional charges...just the DUI. (story via ONN):

A northwest Ohio prosecutor says he won't pursue any additional charges against Ohio Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick.

Bowling Green prosecutor Matt Reger had been considering whether to charge Resnick with failing to comply with a law enforcement officer's order after she drove away from officers.

Any guesses what party this prosecuter is affiliated with? Just asking...

Just Playing Games

2005-01-06T14:35:00.000-05:00

National Review Online quotes the Dayton Daily News as saying:

Dayton Daily News
Monday, December 20, 2004

EDITORIAL

Did votes vanish in Miami Valley?

Specific complaints about the Ohio vote count keep getting aired - especially on the Internet - and keep getting laid to rest, but then just keep on getting cited by some diehard Democrats.

The supposed outrage in Republican Warren County? There the authorities closed off the vote-counting site on election night. Turns out, however, the local Democratic authorities were there, inside the building, and were fine with what went down, seeing no shenanigans.

The fact that many ballots in Montgomery County showed no vote for president? Turns out there was an electrical malfunction, and the counts have been changed, with Republicans benefiting.

Votes showing up late in the process in Miami County? Turns out the original state reports were wrong.

Similar phenomena in other parts of the state have similarly turned out not to amount to much.

Yet 12 Democrats on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee have posed questions about these alleged irregularities to Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. The strategy seems to be throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

Several Miami Valley issues are at the center of this national squabble.

Some committee questions are just nonsense: How can the secretary of state explain that Sen. John Kerry did no better in Warren County than Al Gore did in 2000, even though Sen. Kerry spent more money and Ralph Nader wasn't on the ballot this time? Please. This is nothing. Republicans are leaving central urban counties for places like Warren, making the places they leave bluer and the new places redder.

Perhaps the most intriguing question is the one about the race for chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court. Democratic challenger C. Ellen Connally ran worse than Sen. John Kerry statewide, by about 3 percentage points. But in some counties in Southwest Ohio - Miami, Darke, Butler, Claremont, Brown - she ran ahead of him. Why?

Is it possible, as has been charged, that some 60,000 Kerry votes somehow disappeared in those counties?

Consider: Party labels do not appear on the ballots for judicial candidates. So, in these very Republican counties, one would not expect Judge Connally to have the kind of problem that Sen. Kerry had.

But why did Judge Connally run behind Sen. Kerry statewide if she ran ahead of him in these counties? Probably because the Moyer campaign - the only well-funded one - focused its commercials and mailings someplace other than small, Republican counties.

To ask the secretary of state to explain these things is absurd. Any response he offers will be treated by the Democrats on the House committee as partisan. Nonpartisan think tanks could do this work more credibly and with more expertise.

The partisan Democrats know that. They're just playing games.

I couldn't agree more...this is nothing more than theatrics. It serves no purpose at all and will not effect the outcome.

Looks like DDN got another one right.

DDN's Jeff Bruce: 'Mission was worth the sacrifice'

2005-01-03T16:15:00.000-05:00

Here is a column I can agree with 100%...

"I am not the type of person who enjoys being in the limelight," she replied. "I would rather be the person who helped get the limelight for someone else. I am truly happy and amazed by all of the public support I have received. I want to thank everyone who has written letters on my behalf to the senators, congressmen/congresswomen, President Bush, Lt. Gen. Metz (who will decide if she is eligible for clemency) and everyone else."

Does she see broader implications in how she has been treated for the message it might send the troops?

"I do not want to send the wrong message that it is OK to break the rules because it is not," she replied.

"The message I want to send to the troops (is) do the best job possible. When faced with situations that seem impossible, look around, ask for help and be resourceful. Never forget there are consequences for every action and decision you make."

Of course, it was for being too "resourceful" that Maj. Kaus got in trouble, using vehicles not assigned to her and not fessing up to that. While she acknowledges that she broke the rules, was what she did wrong in the moral sense?

"Morally, as the company commander, I am responsible for 150 soldiers and needed to ensure that they had resources available to complete the missions. The vehicles that were taken were left behind by units that had moved north into Iraq ahead of us. The broken down vehicle that was stripped for parts was left abandoned because it was broken. We took stuff that other units and soldiers left behind and put it to use for the Army."

Since she won't say so directly, I will: No, what she did was not morally wrong. Indeed, a strong case can be made that it was, in fact, just the right thing to do.

It was the right thing to do...be sure to let the President, your Senators, and Congressmen know how you feel about it.

DDN: "Bush, like Democrats, on diversity push"

2005-01-03T16:00:00.000-05:00

In an editorial that was intended to look fair and balanced, the editorial board can't resist taking a slam or two at the President.

They start by firing off a roster of Bush appointees that are minorities:

Look at all the big appointees, nominees and advisers who fit into one "minority" or another: Colin Powell, Condeleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Alberto Gonzales, Ann Veneman, Carlos M. Gutierrez, Norman Y. Mineta, Elaine L. Chao, Gale Norton, Rod Paige. There are others. According to a tally by Washington Post writer Terry M. Neal, the Bush record is even better than Bill Clinton's if one factors in the "prestige" of the various positions.

They then spend a good bit of time explaining a number of complaints about the President and his staff:

To some people, this shows only that Republicans are trying to pretend that their party is more diverse than it really is, trying — for political reasons — to live down the charge that the party, at its heart, is for the privileged and the white. (Actually, a remarkable number of the president's appointees also come from decidedly unprivileged backgrounds. He likes up-by-the-bootstraps people.)

Bush critics also insist that the real power has always been with the white guys: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, various generals, John Ashcroft.

And they will say, sure, there are people to represent plenty of demographic categories, but these people are deeply unrepresentative of those categories, meaning far more conservative.

But they just can't resist taking a dig...

There is truth to all the complaints.

What would the Dayton Daily Democrat know about truth?

The truth is that the Bush administration is diverse...but it isn't because of affirmative action. These folks have all been qualified to be where they are in the administration...you don't get that with affirmative action.

At least they recover well...sorta...

And yet the larger fact is that this conservative president has accepted one of the central thrusts of modern liberalism: its emphasis upon American diversity, its insistence that the country's leadership must do more to embrace that diversity and foster it. He has, at least, accepted that Democrats have a good issue.

It is a good issue. It is an important issue. One party (the Republicans and the Bush administration) is doing something about it...the other (Democrats) is pandering.

But here is the one nugget of truth in the editorial:

At any rate, if the symbolic gestures are what voters want — simply the presence of their group in the high councils of government — fine. If the voters aren't focused on the policies those appointees actually follow, that's the Democrats' problem. It means their stands on issues aren't compelling enough.

The Democrats' position is pandering...that doesn't resonate well with the American people. Demnocrats seem content to keep people poor and stupid...maintaining the status quo, as it were...with their programs and handouts. It has to be about the American Dream...the Democrats still don't understand this very simple concept.

"On Heroes and Infamy"

2004-12-10T13:55:00.000-05:00

My latest column for the Miami Valley Conservative Alliance is up a little early...you can get it here. In this week's article, I discuss what it is I look for in a hero and discuss heroism in the context of some recent events.

Column Update

2004-12-03T13:45:00.000-05:00

I have the MVCA column up a little early today. You can read it here. It is all about The Groningen Protocol, the Netherlands new method of killing babies and the otherwise defenseless.

Column Update

2004-11-26T13:31:00.000-05:00

My latest column for the Miami Valley Conservative Alliance is up...it's all about what I'm thankful for this year.

Article Update

2004-11-19T13:15:00.000-05:00

My latest column for the Miami Vally Conservative Alliance's Commentary and Journal is up. It's all about alternative tax plans...probably the first of a series... You can get it here.

And of course, I'm writing up a storm over at Weapons of Mass Discussion.

Update

2004-11-13T21:30:00.000-05:00

My weekly article for the Miami Valley Conservative Alliance is up at their place.

While we're on the subject of MVCA, Brian Duffy has two great pieces you should check out: one on Ashcroft and the other on Specter.

Some fascinating conversation has been struck up on my article... Immigration. Various alternative tax policies. The importance of judicial nominees. And even a liberal wackjob! This post has EVERYTHING!

What's At Stake?

2004-10-29T15:54:00.000-04:00

My first column for the Miami Valley Conservative Alliance's Commentary and Journal is up. You can get it here.

Gottlieb on Jane vs. Turner

2004-10-05T16:05:00.000-04:00

Here is our old friend Marty (registration required) talking about Jane Mitakides who is up against Congressman Mike Turner on Nov. 2:

Overarching all that is her talk about, of all things, Turner's voting record. She deals with it statistically, noting a study which showed him siding with the majority of legislators in his party 98 percent of the time. She sometimes refers to this as siding with the notoriously right-wing Tom DeLay (Republican majority leader of the House, from Texas) 98 percent of the time. Actually, their agreements would be a little less frequent. But, anyway, to the degree they vote alike, especially on big issues, it's because they're both supporting President George W. Bush. He's the one driving things.

In truth, Turner isn't a DeLay Republican. DeLay is always trying to pull the party to the right. Turner isn't.

But nobody will be surprised that Turner generally supports Bush. (Exceptions: Turner opposes partially privatizing Social Security, and he voted to extend unemployment benefits when the party leadership was opposed.)

Turner's response to the Mitakides' charge is partly that high support of a party is the norm in Congress, even to the point that Strickland himself is over 90 percent by the count of Congressional Quarterly. So is Rep. David Hobson, the congressman from Springfield, who is often thought of as a moderate among Republicans (having, for example, supported abortion rights and a minimum-wage increase).

When pressed on the issue, Mitakides turns out to be complaining about the prevailing hyperpartisanship. She calls herself a blue dog Democrat. The Blue Dogs (capital B, capital D) are the most conservative Democrats. She's not ready for the capital letters.

She thinks the public wants relatively nonpartisan voters in Congress. She points to Hall, who diverged from the Democratic mainstream on abortion and gay rights.

But can Turner be painted as a hyperpartisan? He was twice elected (and once defeated) as mayor of a Democratic city. He defeated a Tom DeLay Republican for the congressional nomination in 2002. He has nudged the party gently to engage in urban issues, which is something like nudging it toward the center. So this handle is a little slippery.

First of all, don't let anybody be fooled by Jane's attempt to paint herself as some sort of conservative Democrat. Does she sound like Zell Miller? Or Joe Lieberman even? Check out the Jane On... series in the sidebar for an assessment of just how "conservative" Jane really is... She is liberal on healthcare issues. Liberal on defense and veterans issues. Liberal on energy and conservation issues. Liberal on education issues. And, yes, liberal on economic issue such as taxes and jobs.

Martin appropriately takes Jane to task for trying to paint Turner as a partisan. Turner, unlike most politicans, does what he feels is in the best interests of his constituency and his voting record evidence of that assertion. It should be pointed out that Jane received support from the uber-liberal blog The Daily Kos. Kos had some particularly nasty things to say about those Americans who died in Fallujah. While she eventually did the right thing in that case (she pulled her advertising from his site), she didn't condemn him or his views (references to the incident have been removed from her site). That is the kind of Democrat that Jane is in my opinion. The effort to malign Turner as a partisan is the typical sort of projection that Michael Moore Democrats like Jane have been engaging in this campaign season.

Mr. Gottlieb gets bonus points on this one...

Gottlieb on Bush's Guard Service

2004-10-04T11:30:00.000-04:00

A recent editorial by Martin Gottlieb that appeared in the Dayton Daily news:

I wrote most of this column in 1988. It's about politicians of my generation and their service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War. I suppose I will write it again in 2020, when some 70-something baby boomer runs for president or vice president, and we all honor the tradition of fighting about Vietnam.

Okay, Mr. Gottlieb is going to address Mr. Kerry's continual references to VIETNAM! Finally, somebody is going to set the record straight! Not exactly...

In 1988, the column was about Dan Quayle; this time, George W. Bush. Quayle was a candidate for vice president who, it turned out, had avoided service in Vietnam by having an employee of his wealthy, newspaper-owning family get him into the Guard.

Sigh. Okay, let's just see where he goes with this tired story...

This sort of thing, as former Daytonian Lawrence Korb notes on the page opposite this one, happened all the time. Guard spots were hard to come by, because the Guard was not fighting in 'Nam, and there was a draft. To dodge the draft, you tried to get into the Guard.

Sure, the ARMY Guard. Air Guard units WERE deployed to Vietnam.

Obviously, at various stages various people have had other reasons for joining the Guard. But, really, during Vietnam that was the predominant reason.

Who are YOU to assign motivation for someone signing up to serve their country?

But there seemed to be no system for determining who got in and who didn't. You just tried whatever.

And you, apparently, didn't get in the Guard. Let's talk about that a bit...

I was in roughly the same position as Quayle and Bush. I had just graduated college. I really, really, really did not want to go to Vietnam, but seemed likely to be drafted because I wasn't married. So, like them, I tried to get into the Guard.

And of course, this is all about YOU.

Unlike them, however, I didn't know anybody. My parents didn't know anybody. I didn't even know anybody who knew anybody. Neither did my parents.

That's too bad. Really. Some of my regular readers are going to accuse me of being sarcastic here, but I mean it.

So I just went around knocking on doors. It wasn't only the Guard. The various services had deals much like the Guard's, wherein you would serve six months of active duty, then five-and-a-half years in the Reserves, training on periodic weekends. As in the Guard, you knew you would not be sent to 'Nam.

Okay...we get it, you didn't want to go and you were looking for an easy way out. So, naturally, you project your feelings on others. I get it.

Nothing. Closed doors everywhere. All these units were full, for obvious reasons. Maybe if I had planned ahead, I could have landed something. I don't know. All I know is that as graduation approached I tried a lot.

So, rather than being about the facts of this particular case, Mr. Gottlieb takes us on a ride through his personal issues. This is what passes for useful commentary on the issue.

I ended up getting drafted, which meant serving two years. At that, I was one of the lucky ones, never being sent overseas.

Excellent! It worked out for you afterall. So, Mr. Gottlieb, let me ask you a question: Do you, like Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh, feel that you "betrayed your country because you didn't serve in Vietnam"? The reason I ask is that we've gone through this entire story and it turns out that, like Bush and Quayle, you didn't go to Vietnam, yet you served your country. And, I am assuming, was honorably discharged from your service, just like Bush and Quayle.

Being among the lucky, I never entertained any resentment toward those, like Bush and Quayle, who were luckier still. I knew that luck is the most powerful force in the universe, and that, as the physicists say, it's total quantity is negative. So if you've got some, shut up.

So, naturally, harboring absolutely no resentment, you have penned this very same editorial TWICE.

But then Quayle went and got all self-righteous. He could have said, "Hey, what can I tell you? I was one of the lucky ones, and I thank God every day." Instead, he pretended that anybody who took note of his war-dodging behavior was dissing the National Guard.

Because of course, you know why Dan Quayle served in the Guard because that's what you wanted to do...

He went and spoke before the Guard and talked about how he was proud of serving his country, and how the Guard has a noble history, and all that, which is true, but which had nothing to do with why people like us wanted in.

And you know this...how? Because you sat down and had a chat with the Vice President, right? Psychologists have a term for this sort of thing, you know. They call it 'projection.'

Earlier this year, it was reported someplace that Quayle had sent advice to the White House that Bush should follow his lead in handling the Guard issue. Sure enough, Bush recently went before a meeting of Guard people and talked about how proud he was to serve.

"Someplace"? Mr. Gottlieb, come on...you don't know for a fact that Quayle did this. And you are assigning motive to people you know nothing about. Have you had a conversation with either Quayle or Bush about this?

[Full disclosure: Prior to writing this rebuttal, I emailed Mr. Gottlieb and had a pleasant conversation with him. I got an understanding of the motivation behind the writing in just a couple of emails. I'm not going to criticize Mr. Gottlieb for serving his country in whatever capacity; he did what was asked of him. But I am going to hold him accountable for what he writes that is intended to influence the American people against President Bush.]

All across the country, eyes rolled in the deteriorating bodies of the early baby boomers, male variety.

Especially the Air Guard guys who died in Vietnam and at home serving their country, Mr. Gottlieb. Don't do them the dishonor of speaking for them, sir.

And it became time to break out a vintage column. The thing, after all, is not that he dodged; who cares, anymore? If I were on a ballot someplace, I might even consider voting for me, which would be worse than voting for a draft dodger; it'd be voting for a failed draft dodger.

Okay, let's review: Mr. Gottlieb thinks that what Bush was trying to do by joining the Air Guard was to drill on a couple weekends and that's it. The reality is this: when you signed up to be a pilot, you signed on for a nearly two-year full time commitment just to be a pilot. And pilots, regardless of whether they served in the Guard or not, were being sent to Vietnam. This doesn't sound like an easy way out to me...

The thing is the relentless phoniness of it all. Bush pretends to be a straight-talker. In his speech at the Republican convention, he self-servingly listed this as one of his problems. But he can't bring himself to acknowledge what the Guard was to him.

And of course, Mr. Gottlieb knows this because he's sat down and had a conversation with him about it.

Nevertheless, a lot of guys know.

Guys like First Lt. Warren K. Brown, Maj. Bobby G. Neeld, Capt. Mitchell S. Lane, and Capt. Michael T. Adams. (source)

Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News. He may be reached at 225-2288 or by e-mail at mgottlieb@DaytonDailyNews.com.

Here are a few more points that Mr. Gottlieb failed to mention:

Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam in a program called "Palace Alert" but was told that he didn't have enough flight experience at the time. It also turned out that the plane he was certified to fly was being phased out of service. In my email exchange with Mr. Gottlieb, Martin wasn't too impressed with this because it has been reported that Bush merely "inquired" about the program. Riddle me this: Why would a guy who is trying to take the easy way out of Vietnam "inquire" about serving in Vietnam?

Mr. Gottlieb also indicated privately that the LA Times reported that Bush had checked the "do not volunteer for overseas duty" box on a form he filled out while serving in the Guard. Where is this document? My research (read Google) has a limited number of reprints of the Times story, a Kerry/Edwards press release dated a couple of days before the Times story, more "commentary," and a link to the Kerry/Edwards website making the same claim.

Now the press release alludes to a "Application for Extended Duty With The United States Air Force, 5/27/68" but there is no link to such a document and I have been unable to locate any such document. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, but I am saying that I haven't been able to find it and I have been researching this story for quite a few days. If anyone out there does manage to find this document, please email me a link.

Mr. Gottlieb, again in our private exchange, then attempted to attribute a motive of "draft dodging" to Bush by using a recollection of a quote from the always objective Village Voice. Even he had a hard time accepting that, but I think he believes it because he wants to...and that is the problem that I have with this piece.

As some of my regular readers know, my father served in Vietnam in the Marine Corps. He doesn't talk about it much. But in my few conversations with him about Vietnam and its impact on this election, one thing is crystal clear: John Kerry was responsible for destroying the legacy of an entire generation of honorable veterans. If we're going to make Vietnam an issue in this election, we have got to get to the heart of this issue. In 1971, John Kerry lied to Congress when he claimed that atrocities were committed by every soldier and officer in Vietnam. He has never apologized for smearing those guys. He has never admitted that he and his anti-war buddies made it up.

John Kerry has exaggerated his entire life. He did not spend Christmas Eve 1968 in Cambodia. Nixon didn't send him there because Nixon became President in 1969. He did not ferry any CIA guys into Cambodia, or anywhere else for that matter, for which Kerry received a "Magic Hat" as a souvenir. And if John Kerry had a pet dog in Vietnam, why on Earth would he name the dog "VC"? VC was the ENEMY! I'm not going to get in to the whole medal/ribbon issue, but if he is going to lie about this stuff, why not file a false report or two...

How can you trust John Kerry? If Vietnam is your hot-button issue, how can you trust a man with such a history?

Much has been written about Bush and his time in the Texas Air National Guard. Many of these "journalists" have accused the President of having been "AWOL" or a "deserter." Mr. Gottlieb seems to think Bush was some sort of "draft dodger."

Why won't anyone ask John Kerry the tough questions about HIS service? Mr. Gottlieb?

Questions for the Candidates

2004-09-30T14:15:00.000-04:00

One of my old English teachers from high school has some questions for John Kerry and George W. Bush that I think are worth taking a look at in the Dayton Daily News...

Questions for Kerry

• You have been accused by Republicans of changing your mind on some of the major issues of this campaign. To what extent do you agree with this portrayal? Is the ability to change one's mind a plus or a minus for a leader of this country?

• You were a decorated war hero on the one hand and one of the Vietnam War's leading critics upon your return. In what ways does your Vietnam experience influence your thinking about the role of the Department of Defense?

• Your voting record is coming under close scrutiny, as it should for any candidate. What have been your greatest contributions as a senator? Your greatest shortcomings?

• Abortion may be the most controversial issue in this country. In your heart of hearts, how do you reconcile your private stance against abortion with your public stance in support of a woman's right to choose to have one?

• Money and how it is spent is always a key issue for American citizens. Will it be possible to enact the programs you have proposed without raising taxes or increasing the national debt?

I won't pretend to know how John Kerry would answer these questions, but I can hazard a good guess or two.

Personally, I don't think John Kerry could answer the first question without clarifying the meaning of "nuance." Every issue seems to be "complicated" for John Kerry. There are some issues that just aren't complicated, but Kerry seems to make every issue harder on himself with his stunning ability to nuance. (That is not a compliment.)

Outside of character issues, Vietnam really should not be an issue in this campaign at all. Our military has changed dramatically since Vietnam specifically BECAUSE of the impact of Vietnam. Whatever John Kerry's answer to this question would be would be out of date with the reality of the modern military.

The answer for question three would be rather entertaining. No bill bearing Kerry's name as a sponsor has ever passed. Part of being a lawmaker is, you know, making laws. Kerry didn't do a whole lot of that.

Re: Abortion. John Kerry is a liberal Democrat. THAT is how he lives with himself on the abortion issue. He'll try to take both sides of this issue too. The better question would be whether or not John Kerry believes abortion is a sin.

That last question is a hoot. I think Kerry would say his goal is to reduce taxes on the middle class, but there is no way he'll be able to pay for the programs he's promised without either raising taxes on the middle class or raising the national debt.

Questions for Bush

• The governor of Illinois stopped utilizing the death penalty when reliable research showed that a significant number of innocent people convicted of capital crimes were put to death. During your tenure as governor, more people were executed in Texas than in any other state. How do you feel about the possibility that innocent people were put to death during those years?

• Credit problems contribute heavily to the ruin of individual lives and family relationships in this country. Shouldn't the federal government be a model in this regard instead of accumulating the staggering sums known as our national debt?

• What was running through your mind during those first seven minutes when our nation was under attack on Sept. 11, 2001?

• The gap between the rich and poor is ever-widening. How can you justify tax cuts when ever-increasing numbers of Americans live without any form of health care?

• What has it been like to serve in the shadow of your father? What have you learned from him about what to do and what not to do as a political leader?

The first question is all about capital punishment, which I think the President would be open to discuss. The problem with capital punsihment is that the punishment has to fit the crime. Capital punishment is intended as a deterent. The alternative is life-long sentences which would bankrupt the system and be a tremendous waste of taxpayer funding. It is tragic when we learn that an innocent person has paid for a crime they didn't commit, but that's why the appeals process takes as long as it does.

I think the President would address the national debt problem like this: The national debt is currently a very small percentage of our GNP. With the war on terror and the state of the economy at the beginning of Bush's term, drastic measures needed to be taken. The President has in his budget, a plan to reduce the deficit in half in five years. The trick is that in order to do it, we're going to have to be smart about what our government spends its money on for a few years.

As for the Michael Moore question, Bill O'Reilly asked the President that very same question in an interview aired just last night. I'm paraphrasing here, but the President asnwered that he was collecting his thoughts and didn;t want to emotionally disturb the children. As an educator, Mr. Brooks, I'm sure you can appreciate that answer.

The federal government was never supposed to provide health care for the citizenry. Where that idea ever come from I have no idea, but it is a crazy one. Remember the asnwer to your first question? We're going to have to watch our spending. The Bush administration spent a tremendous amount on health care in its first term. What we need for health care is medical liability reform and the ability to personally invest money in health care that the government can't touch.

(As a side note on that last question, the rich/poor setup to that question really isn't appropriate. Comparatively, our poor have it pretty good in this country. Is there still room for improvement? Sure, but let's not place the blame for whatever "gap" there may be between the rich and poor on the President.)

That last question is really a good one. I have no idea what the President would respond with to that. I know that he learned a lot about campigning from his father (both what to do and what not to do). But I'm not sure about what he learned about the Presidency itself from his father.

• If you had known then (March, 2003) what we do now about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, would you still have favored going to war against that country?

• How does a person of affluence who has been given so many opportunities for education and advancement become a viable advocate for those who have not?

• Name one religious conviction that has greatly influenced your political policies and one that you have violated or compromised in public office.

• How have your wife and children influenced your political thinking?

• How do you really feel about gay marriage, and what is the best way for political leaders to proceed with this issue?

• How can we best improve race relations in this country? What personal story can you share that would inspire others to help with this issue?

• What has been the proudest moment of your life? How has it inspired you?

• What was your greatest failure, and what did you learn from it?

• Who or what makes you laugh?

• Is it possible for the federal government to have a significant impact on American education? And is it possible to reduce poverty in urban areas such as our own?

These are all great questions and I think the American people would benefit from hearing the answers.

I'm not going to go through all of them, but the first one has the most significance.

Diane Sawyer recently asked John Kerry this question and his answer left a lot to be desired:

DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

DS: So it was not worth it.

JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.

DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?

JK: No.

DS: But right now it wasn’t [ … ? … ]–

JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

DS: But no way to get rid of him.

JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.

DS: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .

JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don’t twist here.

Diane asks the real question at the end...

DDN's Jeff Bruce Starts the Excuses

2004-09-30T13:20:00.000-04:00

Check out Dayton Daily News editor Jeff Bruce distancing himself and the paper from their endorsements:

Election editorials are commonly called "endorsements," although I dislike that term as it implies a closer relationship to candidates and causes than is intended. A more accurate word is "recommendation." In that sense, a recommendation for a candidate is really no different than the opinions expressed on this page on a host of other issues ranging from war to water rates.

Except that unlike a lot of what goes on in public life that seems beyond the direct influence of ordinary people, come Election Day every vote counts.

The best way to choose isn't by casting ballots based on a candidate's political party, but on his or her qualifications.

Readers of this page know that the newspaper over the course of many elections has recommended Republicans and Democrats alike. We've twice recommended the candidacy of GOP Gov. Bob Taft over his Democratic opponents; in the last presidential election the nod went to Al Gore over George Bush. In fact, despite the general impression that this is a "liberal" newspaper, in recent years we've recommended more Republicans than Democrats.

Jeff, the "fact" that the DDN has "endorsed" or "recommended" more Republicans than Democrats doesn't absolve you or the paper from charges of bias.

How many conservatives are ON the editorial board of the Dayton Daily News? Where does the local conservative voice get heard?

Some critics of the newspaper say that's because we place too high a value on experience and incumbency in a state that, of late, has been dominated by Republicans. In fact, we do believe experience counts.

We also realize that the higher the race on the ballot, the less influence our recommendations are likely to have. I would be surprised if our eventual editorial on the presidential race will change many voters' minds. On the other hand, most people won't have paid much attention to a wide range of lower-profile races, such as the Ohio Supreme Court contest we editorialize on today.

Well, Jeff, if you are endorsing...I'm sorry...recommending John Kerry, you would be correct.

Here is something that we do agree on, Jeff:

Even if you don't agree with our conclusions, our editorials might stimulate you to engage in the election debate. And that's a good thing. We want these pages to be a forum not only for our views, but others, too.

Discussion is important. I encourage everybody to check out every candidate as much as possible.

DDN Endorses John White

2004-09-30T13:15:00.000-04:00

From the Dayton Daily News:

State Rep. John White has spent four years proving he didn't run for legislative office so he could go on a pro-life and religious tear. Without abandoning his religious principles, he's tempered the overzealous instincts he showed early in his political career.

Rep. White, who is running in the 38th Ohio House District for a third term, deserves to be re-elected. Though part of a Republican majority that has been timid to spineless about confronting important problems, Rep. White has been a voice of reason in his party. The GOP-dominated Legislature needs Republicans who aren't itching to jerk their knees.
...
Rep. White's experience counts. And the fact that he's willing to try to temper Republican ideologues who want to posture rather than govern makes his service all the more valuable.

Is the Dayton Daily News trying to get me to call John White a RINO? Surely not.

While I disagree with a lot of the caricature of Rep. White presented in the piece, I wholeheartedly agree with the editorial board on this one: John White deserves to be re-elected.

DFD Begins Charging for Services

2004-09-30T13:00:00.000-04:00

From Ohio News Network:

When firefighters show up at a traffic accident to pry victims out of wreckage, clean up spilled fuel or perform other services, they will send a bill - $550 to be exact.

An increasing number of towns are charging for fire department services as they look for new revenue sources.

"Like a lot of urban areas right now, we're struggling financially," Dayton Fire Chief Larry Collins said. "And it's very difficult to raise taxes at this time given our tax rate."

Susan Smith, who drives to her job at Sinclair Community College in Dayton, called the fee outrageous.

"I think I'll keep a mop in my car and mop up my own spill," said Smith, 39, of suburban Miami Township. "It's going to cause a lot of people to be upset."

Smith said she will be less likely to vote for a tax increase to fund the fire service now that this fee is being imposed.

I discussed this issue breifly with Montgomery County Commission candidate Peggy Lehner on episode 15 of the "Weapons of Mass Discussion" television show. It doesn't sound like the county will be able to pitch in and solve this problem, so it is up to the Mayor and the city to get it done.

My reasearch team has learned that there are only five ambulances for the entire city of Dayton. It is unclear if that number was a reference to the number of actual vehicles or the number of crews available to man the vehicles. Either way, city management and the mayor have a serious problem on their hands.

What has caused this critical shortage of funds? And more importantly, what is the mayor going to do about it? Will she cut some of her beloved social programs in favor of fulfilling the city government's responsibility to provide for the safety of its citizens?

Enquiring minds want to know...

2004-09-15T15:00:00.000-04:00

I've been a little wrapped up over at WMD, but I haven't entirely forgoteen about the Dayton Daily Democrat and their sneaky editorial board.

Here's our old friend Marty Gottlieb taking a jab at Republican strategists:

It's 1988 all over. A vulnerable Republican has surged by painting a Massachusetts liberal who was strong in the polls but fuzzy on the issues the way the brilliant, experienced and ruthless Republican operatives wanted to paint him.

Last time it was Lee Atwater. This time it was Karl Rove. Both times, the Democratic candidates were slow on the uptake, were caught off guard, unlike the great Bill Clinton, who knew that you must hit back immediately.

As Atwater painted Michael Dukakis as too liberal to be president, Rove painted John Kerry as too liberal and too indecisive.

Going negative works.

Going negative? That is who the man IS, Marty. Funny how there is no mention of the Carville's or Begala's (and, oh, by the way, that whole Clintonista crew is BACK).

And Marty, you really need to talk to some, you know, actual Vietnam veterans if you think they are all part of some Vast Right Wing Conspiracy getting marching orders from Karl Rove.

True — the experts will say — Rove got some help from the anti-Kerry swift boat veterans. They got Rove the denunciation of Kerry that he wanted without saddling him with the task of defending the indefensible charges against Kerry. But, all will acknowledge, that was really Rove, whether it was Rove or not. His wealthy Texas friends knew what he wanted. Everybody knew.

These guys are seriously ticked off at John Kerry, the man who incited civilian hatred of the military in general and of Vietnam veterans specifically. We lost an entire generation of heroes. Even the ones that survived were scarred by what happened when they came home. Don't denigrate their service, Marty.

At least Marty gets this right:

[I]t's not the strategy that matters. It's the underlying circumstances of the year.

But what Marty doesn't tell you is that the partisan media is doing everything they can to create "news" that is negative for the President. They downplay the economy all the time. We hear more casualty statistics than good stories from Iraq (for some good stories, try Defend America - a journalist worth half his weight in donuts could find some stories that focus on the positive effects of our being in Iraq). CBS' Dan Rather just passed off forged documents in order to create a scandal.

I think Marty is running out of material. This is the second or third article in my recollection involving Dr. Lichtman and his predictions. Marty, get out there, man, see the world and, you know, report on it. Or opine if that's what you call it...

Jane on Taxes

2004-08-30T15:10:00.000-04:00

From Jane Mitakides' website:

Fair, Balanced Tax Cuts
It is painfully clear that the current administration's approach to tax reform has unfairly benefited the wealthiest Americans and left most of Ohio's working families with a still-unacceptable tax burden. Tax cuts work best when they reach the maximum number of Americans. We need a tax code for America that is fair and balanced in its approach, and prioritizes the needs of America's middle class families.

When elected to Congress, I will work to:

* Support tax cuts that reach the maximum number of Americans, for true economic stimulation

* Update the Alternative Minimum Tax to avoid the unfair burdening of the middle range of taxpayers

* Revise, not eliminate, capital gains cuts and dividend taxes, to include professional and small corporations – not just the giants

It is painfully clear that Jane really doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. The top 20% are paying 80% and we're not talking millionaires here. It's more like "thousandaires." The top 50% in 2001 made $26,000 and up if they filed jointly.

Tax cuts do work best when they reach the maximum number of families. Failure to extend the President’s tax cuts permanently would mean a massive tax hike on America’s families. For example, in 2005, the tax burden on a family of four earning $40,000 would increase by $915. Raising taxes on the American people would hurt families and hurt our economic recovery.

To learn more about the Alternative Minimum Tax system, go here.

If Jane will back up her claims with some proof and some details about her plans, it would be helpful for determining her position. The thing is, she slams the President, but doesn't really proivide an alternative.

President Bush reduced the tax burden on the 90 percent of small businesses organized as S corporations, partnerships or sole proprietorships and who pay their taxes at the individual income tax rates. Small businesses create 7 out of 10 jobs in our economy. Cutting marginal income tax rates allows small businesses – America’s job creators – to invest more of their money in their businesses to expand and create more jobs.

Another thing: I thought Jane was running against Mike Turner for this seat, not President Bush. I think Jane doesn't know who her opponent is...either that or she thinks Bush hatred is going to get her somewhere. It isn't enough, Jane. Substance wins over style...

Jane On...

...Veterans
...Energy and Conservation
...Education
...Health Care
...Jobs

Youngstown Mayor (D) Endorses Bush

2004-08-24T20:10:00.000-04:00

Check this story out. Here is my favorite line:

"What has our community received in return for the past loyal support for Democratic presidential candidates? Dare I speak the answer? Nothing."

Mayor George M. McKelvey

Say, remember that tour of Ohio by the "bi-partisan"/"non-partisan" group of mayors? Here is the president of that group:

"I'm shocked, given the huge number of job losses that have occurred in Youngstown, unless the mayor knows of a policy statement the Conference of Mayors doesn't know about," he said. "I don't see he (Bush) is willing to do anything to help cities in Ohio."

Mayor Don Plusquellic

What a lying windbag that dude is...non-partisan... Heh. That's a good one.

Jane On Veterans

2004-08-23T10:55:00.000-04:00

From Jane Mitakides' campaign website:

America must say to our veterans: "We made you a promise, and we are going to keep it." It's time to stop deducting disability benefits from the retirement pay of any veteran. Veterans should never again have to wait months or years for the health care they earned in the service of our county and the defense of freedom. Unlike my opponent, I would never support the 2005 budget that not only underfunds veterans' medical care next year, but cuts funding below current inadequate levels in the four years that follow. It is a budget that the Veterans of Foreign Wars calls "a disgrace and a sham." We need to end cuts and caps right now.

When elected to Congress, I will work to:

* Fully fund veteran's services, to assure we can provide not only for our current veterans, but for the 150,000 soon to join their ranks

* End the deduction of disability benefit from retirement benefits

* End lengthy waiting periods for health care benefits and determinations

* Help the 250,000 homeless veterans in America today

As with the last update, this one is a bit short on details. Here's the thing though, Jane seems to think that veterans are somehow getting the shaft in regards to benefits, but that just isn't so...

Funding for veterans is up 27%, yet Jane and other more prominent Democrats continue the charade of a "cut." But don't take my word for it, here's FactCheck.org:

In Bush’s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.

In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%

Those figures include mandatory spending for such things as payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities, over which Congress and presidents have little control. But Bush has increased the discretionary portion of veterans funding even more than the mandatory portion has increased. Discretionary funding under Bush is up 30.2%.

If this is an argument you keep hearing from our liberal friends, you should arm yourself with the facts from the folks at Annenberg.

Just because veterans groups didn't get everything they wanted doesn't give Jane and her friends the right to distort the record.

I think we'd all like a reduction in "lengthy waiting periods for health care benefits and determinations." Is Jane advocating privatizing these functions? If so, I applaud her, but I don't think her Big Government friends in the Democratic Party are going to like that idea. We all know that the only thing government excels at is bureauocracy.

The plight of the homeless is tragic, especially for veterans; but help is already available. What is Jane proposing here? I don't know. But it sounds good.

Once again, Jane is high on style, low on substance. If she has real ideas worth exploring, she doesn't seem to want to let anyone know what they are...

Jane On...

...Energy and Conservation
...Education
...Health Care
...Jobs

Jane on Energy and Conservation

2004-08-17T13:30:00.000-04:00

A day late on this "scheduled" feature, but here goes...

According to the Issues section of Jane Mitakides' website:

Preservation of our natural environment and protection of our national interests increasingly rely on our ability to find meaningful, long-term energy solutions.

When elected to Congress, I will work to:

* Support research and development of clean, renewable sources of energy

* Put a stop to the pillaging of our national parks for corporate profit

* Work with business and environmentalists to find ways to preserve our water, air, and soil without unduly burdening business

That is the whole shebang. No details, no ideas to explore...

Well, let's give it a shot anyway...

Support research and development of clean, renewable sources of energy

Question: what does "support" of research and development entail? Who's going to do it? What sort of clean, renewable sources of energy do you advocate?

Put a stop to the pillaging of our national parks for corporate profit

Jane, are you running for a position in the forrestry service or Congress? What exactly are you proposing?

Work with business and environmentalists to find ways to preserve our water, air, and soil without unduly burdening business

Business and environmentalists don't often "work" together without much "burden" placed on one or the other. How do you plan to accomplish this feat? Are you simply suggesting the arrangement of a meeting or do you have an agenda of goals to accomplish? If so, what are they and how do you forsee getting them achieved?

On this subject, Jane leaves us asking more questions than finding answers...

Jane on...

...Education
...Health Care
...Jobs

A Response to Jeff Bruce

2004-08-16T13:47:00.000-04:00

DDN editor Jeff Bruce:

Specifically, the mayors want the federal government to focus on job creation and to help more with the cost of public safety and homeland security. They want the feds to knock off issuing unfunded mandates. And the ailing infrastructure of cities is in desperate need of attention.

For instance, a recent report by the American Society of Civil Engineers shows that nearly 28 percent of the nation's bridges are "structurally deficient or functionally obsolete," 75 percent of the nation's school buildings "remain inadequate to meet the needs of school children," and the number of unsafe dams has risen by 23 percent.

Public works projects that address these issues are needed and, as McLin pointed out, also would serve to boost local economies through the jobs they would create.
...
The mayors want the candidates to make their cities' needs a priority. They want those bright lights in the night sky to keep burning over Ohio. And they want voters to let the candidates know that it's not just the economy, stupid, it's the local economy.

I hate to break it to Jeff and the rest of the liberals, but "public works projects" are not what the federal government is for. First and foremost, the federal government is charged with protecting the citzenry; and if the mayors really want to make sure those bright lights to keep burning over Ohio (which I think is a refence to a "story" at the beginning fo the editorial about seeing lights from space), they'll want the federal government to be focused on Homeland Security.

Talks of unfunded mandates (why do I always think of No Child Left Behind when I hear that cute little phrase?) and programs that for all intent and purposes are State welfare (think Taxachusetts' Big Dig here). The mayors appear to be advocating for things that the federal government is not good at providing.

If the mayors want their bridges fixed (and I assume we aren't talking federal highways here), shouldn't the communities get together and do what needs to be done? Shouldn't the mayors find a way to make that happen within their budgets? Isn't that what the mayors are elected to do?

Email to Jeff

I've sent an email to Jeff with the above commentary. Let's see if we get any sort of response...

3:00 PM Update

I just checked my email box and got an auto-reply from Jeff:

I am out of the office but will gladly respond when I return.

Oh...good...I look forward to that.

An Email to Marty

2004-08-13T16:26:00.000-04:00

Mr. Gottlieb,

I have to take exception with this assertion in your
latest editorial posted on DDN's website:

"“As our (domestic) opponents see it, the problem
isn’t the thugs and murderers we face — but our
attitude.”

Shouting that line wouldn’t make it any sillier;
saying it softly doesn’t make it any better."

It does make sense. All I ever hear from liberals and
Democrats is how "arrogant" this President is. That
sounds an awful lot like "attitude" to me.

And ask yourself, what does it mean that John Kerry
has admitted that he would have voted for the war even
knowing what he knows now. To me, that says the
problem isn't the "thugs and murderers we face."

And then there is this:

"At another point in the speech, Cheney said,
according to the text released beforehand, “In the
aftermath of the first terrorist attack on the World
Trade Center, Sen. Kerry put forward two measures to
gut the intelligence budget by $7.5 billion.” (Here’s
guessing that some people thought he meant after 9/11.
I did.)

He doesn’t say that the big picture at the time of the
1993 bombing was the end of the Cold War and that just
about everybody was still looking for cuts in military
and intelligence spending."

Republicans are well aware of the 1993 bombing of the
WTC. President Clinton's "response" (for lack of a
better word) is part of what makes this President's
action mean so much more. al Qaeda didn't declare war
on the United States on September 11, 2001, we were
already at war. That a journalist of your stature
didn't know that is astounding.

I appreciate your work; I've read you for quite some
time. I rarely agree with everything you have to say
and this time it just appears you're out of your
element covering a Republican.

Is my assessment incorrect?

Sincerely,
MATT HURLEY
www.gemcity.blogspot.com

8/16 Update

Marty reponds:

Thanks for the note.

You're welcome...I think.

Letter to the Editor

2004-08-12T14:55:00.000-04:00

Presented without commentary:

Honesty needed about Kerry record

As a former naval lieutenant who commanded special warfare patrol craft in the Middle East as recently as three years ago, I at first resisted criticism of Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam War record as inappropriate. However, as his campaign has made this one of its main issues, I feel that it is proper to speak out.

Most real war heroes that I have met are humble and do not like to talk about their accomplishments. Kerry cannot stop talking about his medals.

Second, a naval officer who brings a movie camera into combat is much more interested in building his resume and his legacy than taking care of his men and accomplishing the mission.

Lastly, a naval officer who leaves his men in combat and goes home early after only four months is not a real leader.

Vietnam really did not need to become such a big campaign issue, but now that it has, we need more honesty about the nature of Kerry’s war record.

ANDY SAVERY, KETTERING

DDN Editorial Wrong on Education

2004-08-12T14:30:00.000-04:00

David Bohardt (executive director of the Home Builders Association of Dayton) writes:

At the end of the day, we should be clear on two things.

First, the fate of Ohio’s public schools depends on the state government and state leadership, not on local government and PTAs.

Second, every other challenge we face pales in comparison to the need for radical and equitable reform of public school funding.

Mr. Bohardt, you are wrong on both accounts.

First, while state leadership can help fix the problem; local government and PTAs have a significant role to play in determining the fate of our public schools. More accurately, the school's administrations hold the fate of their schools in their hands and have the responsibility to meet the challenges. If that means they have to take a pay cut and knock off some perks, so be it. When you treat education like a government service, the establishment becomes government employees and the People have the right to be angry at what they are getting for their investment.

Second, every other challenge we face pales in comparison to the need to be safe and secure. National security and homeland defense are the priority issues of the day. Providing for the safety of the citizenry is the government's most important duty. Suggesting otherwise is irresponsible.

It is awful that the failed levies may have hurt your bottom line, Mr. Bohardt, but you are overstating the case. Taking pot-shots at Republicans in general and the President specifically is not going to help your cause.

Marty Gets Another One Right

2004-08-12T14:20:00.000-04:00

COMMENTARY
Grading on a ‘curve’ saves Bush
Connection between Bushisms and Bush policy apparent only to Bush-bashers

So far, though, the connection between these Bushisms and Bush policy is apparent only to Bush-bashers. This may be because things aren’t going quite badly enough on the Bush watch. If the economy were unmistakably tanking, and the administration were in chaos, more voters people might see a competence issue.

It’s like the Monica Lewinsky deal: If things had been going badly for the country back then, Bill Clinton’s critics would have gotten a good hearing for this: “Well, what do expect, when the president is spending his time?” As it was, though, nobody want to listen to their gripes.

If Bush’s communication snafus cause him any political problems, they are undone when he acknowledges them and pokes fun at himself. People love that kind of schtick coming from a president. Even Democrats laugh with him.

Sometimes, as has often been noted, he even seems to be helped by his reputation, because in most appearances he doesn’t say anything that strikes people as all that ludicrous. He benefits from being misunderestimated, kind of like John Kerry gets a star every time he isn’t ponderous and boring.

Marty, I take back some of the nasty things I've said about you...you've earned it. This time...

Swift Vets Strike Nerve at DDN

2004-08-12T14:00:00.000-04:00

I don't recall reading an editorial condemning Michael Moore and DNC Chairman Terry McAwful for accusing President Bush of being AWOL and a deserter.

They are, however, condeming the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Why?

The perpetrators of the ad are questioning the validity of four out of five of Sen. Kerry’s medals. This is the old lawyer’s tactic of just throwing up everything and hoping something sticks. It is not to be taken seriously.

Which is sort of like the exact same tactics being employed by the Left with charges of HALLIBURTON! and AWOL...

Anybody who doesn’t recognize all this as mere opportunistic, after-the-fact political spin has not been paying attention to the way politics is conducted these days.

Uh-huh...save it for the judge...or the ombudsman.

President George W. Bush has separated himself from the ad, but has not denounced it. It is partially funded by one of his supporters.

MoveOn.org is supported by a LOT of Kerry supporters, George Soros for one. Has the Dayton Daily News suggested that Kerry denounce ANY of their ads? Not that I can recall.

Today Vice President Dick Cheney is to address veterans in Dayton. It would be a great time for him to stand up for what is right and say the ad is an abomination.

Same question with Mr. Edwards and MoveOn.org? Again, not that I can recall.

Partisan bias in the media? Shocking...

These men have as much right as MoveOn.org and ACT do to speak their mind and try to influence the American people. As usual, liberals only like free speech when it suits their needs.

Never mind that the Swift Vets have already gotten a victory out of all this. John Kerry had to admit he lied about "Christmas in Cambodia" and how much longer will the "Magic Hat" story hold water? If you don't know what either of those stories are, you should read the Swift Vets website and/or radio guy Hugh Hewitts blog.

Mayors Tour Ohio

2004-08-11T08:47:00.000-04:00

The supposedly bi-partisan US Conference of Mayors will be toring Ohio with stops in Columbus, Dayton, Cincinnati, Toledo and Cleveland. For all intents and purposes, they are stumping for John Kerry because they are going to continue to distort the jobs situation and downplay our economy.

Here is a list of who is on the tour:

-- Akron (OH) Mayor Donald L. Plusquellic, USCM President [unable to tell party affiliation by his bio]

-- Hempstead (NY) Mayor James A. Garner, USCM Past President [Republican]

-- Dearborn (MI) Mayor Michael A. Guido, USCM Advisory Board Chair [unable to tell party affiliation by his bio]

-- Columbus (OH) Mayor Michael Coleman [Democrat]

-- Dayton (OH) Mayor Rhine L. McLin [Democrat]

-- Toledo (OH) Mayor Jack Ford [Democrat]

-- Cleveland (OH) Mayor Jane Campbell [Democrat]

-- Tom Cochran, USCM Executive Director [unable to tell party affiliation by his bio]

A 4 to 1 ratio with 3 unknowns.

Whatever you might hear from these folks, you should take with a grain (or a pound) of salt...

Here is their schedule:

Thursday, August 12, 2004:

Columbus Press Conference - 10 a.m.

West Edge Business Center, 855 West Mound Street, Columbus, OH (corner of Mound and Harmon)

Dayton Press Conference - 2 p.m.

Select Tool, 240 Detrick Street, Dayton, OH

Friday, August 13, 2004:

Toledo Press Conference - 8:45 a.m.

Chrysler Jeep Plant, 4400 Chrysler Drive, Toledo, OH

Cleveland Press Conference - 1:30 p.m.

City Hall - Red Room, 601 Lakeside Avenue, Cleveland, OH

(Source) (Resource)

4:45 PM Update

Who's agenda does this sound like?

1. Jobs and Public/Private Partnerships: Keeping America Working

The federal government must be responsive to the new realities that current and future workers face with shrinking manufacturing jobs, the slow job recovery, and global competition.

-- Tax Incentives: Provide targeted tax incentives to attract investments in the nation's 600,000 brownfields, to help build low- and moderate-income single and multifamily housing, and to foster private investment in modern infrastructure development including transportation and water projects.

-- Modernization of Infrastructure Financing: Develop a new, modern infrastructure investment plan using pension funds, insurance guarantees, infrastructure bonds, and creative public/private partnerships to help finance major projects in U.S. metro areas such as water, wastewater, transportation and school projects.

-- Small Business Incentives: Shut down corporate tax loopholes that help move jobs overseas and apply revenues to small business incentives that will encourage innovation, create new, real jobs, and train workers.

-- Improved Public Schools: Improve public schools through increased funding for the creation of smaller public high schools, Head Start and other early childhood education, early reading readiness and adolescent literacy, and after school learning and other related activities. In addition, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act should be fully funded, and there needs to be continued support for education standards and accountability.

-- Workforce Training: Increase investment in workforce training, out-of-school and after school training and workforce preparation for youth, and summer youth employment.

2. Smart Investment: New Infrastructure for a New Economy

Our metro economies need modern infrastructure to secure the nation's future economic growth, yet the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the vast majority of U.S. infrastructure a dismal overall grade of D-plus.

-- Transportation Investment: Invest no less than $318 billion over six years for reauthorization of the nation's surface transportation law (TEA-21) to build a 21st Century Transportation system with modern transit and high-speed rails, Amtrak, bridges, large-scale transportation infrastructure projects, and metro highway systems with new technologies that link major metro areas, cut the time people spend in traffic, create more jobs, and move goods and services more productively.

-- Brownfields Redevelopment Action Grant (BRAG): Establish a new Brownfields Redevelopment Action Grant (BRAG) investment program that can be used by cities to leverage private investment in brownfields -- underutilized and/or contaminated properties -- and help preserve farmland and open spaces.

-- Homeownership and Rental Housing: Support a comprehensive agenda to promote homeownership and the construction of affordable rental housing. Continue to fully support the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and other housing programs, fully fund every section 8 voucher currently in use across the country, and continue full funding of Section 8 vouchers currently allocated.

-- Energy Self-Sufficiency: Develop a new, innovative energy plan that frees us from dependence on oil and helps secure our economic future.

3. Public Safety and Homeland Security: Keeping America Safe

As a nation, our future requires a strong, comprehensive public safety system to continue the ongoing fight against crime and protect every American community from the new threat of domestic terrorism.

-- Fighting Crime: Support the ongoing fight against traditional crime with increased support for deployment, overtime, prevention, equipment and training programs. A new focus must also be placed on fighting rising gang crimes as well as the continuing problem of gun violence, drugs, and cyber- crime. Support the renewal of the assault weapons ban.

-- Homeland Security/First Responder Funding: Immediately enact the recommendations of the recent Department of Homeland Security Task Force on State and Local Homeland Security Funding including: exemption from reimbursement provisions; flexibility for overtime; funding for incremental operational costs such as the protection of critical infrastructure and major events; and obligation deadlines from one level of local government to another. And, as reauthorization of the federal first responder program moves forward, include direct funding for cities, as is the position of the nation's mayors for all major federal-local partnership programs.

-- Intelligence Sharing: Create a new communication and coordination system that links Federal officials with local officials and effectively uses the 600,000 local law enforcement officers.

-- Drug Treatment and Prisoner Re-Entry: Provide drug treatment to every American who needs it, and institute a comprehensive agenda on prisoner re-entry with more than 600,000 ex-offenders re-entering America's communities every year.

4. Restrict Unfunded Mandates and Cost Shifts: Improve the Intergovernmental Partnership

Despite the passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Congress has continued to impose new mandates in areas such as the No Child Left Behind Act, special education, homeland security, election reform and environmental protection without following through on supposed commitments to provide federal funding. These new unfunded and/or underfunded federal mandates are putting enormous pressure on already stressed city and state budgets. Action must be taken to protect state and local revenues, and to restrict mandates and other federal cost shifts and preemptions.

-- Fully Fund Mandates: Support full funding of the No Child Left Behind Act, special education, homeland security, election reform, environmental and other existing unfunded and underfunded federal mandates.

-- State and Local Sales Tax Revenues: Support federal legislation that protects state and local sales taxes by enacting streamlined sales tax legislation, which will correct a federal preemption and authorize state and local governments to collect taxes due on remote sales.

-- State and Local Telecommunication Tax Revenues: Support the enactment of federal legislation that will allow state and local governments to continue collecting taxes and fees on telecommunications services regardless of the medium, whether it's voice over a traditional telephone line or Internet Protocol based services.

-- Federal Preemptions that Erode State and Local Revenues: Oppose federal legislation, regulation and policy that would redefine Internet access and telecommunication services in a way that will erode state and local revenues, or restrict their authority to tax or charge rights-of way fees.

For a "bi-partisan" organization their playbook sure sounds a bit familiar...

DDN on Gay Marriage Debate

2004-08-09T15:22:00.000-04:00

In response to this editorial, I have the following to say:

The gay marriage activists knew EXACTLY what they were doing. The Massachusetts Supreme Court knew EXACTLY what they were doing. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome knew EXACTLY what he was doing. They were all pushing an agenda and it is time for those who support the traditional family to insert themselves into the debate.

Don't bother pontificating to me that judicial activism isn't the threat that it has been painted to be; it is EXACTLY the threat it has been colored. This whole thing got started by an activist court engaging in legislating from the bench.

And don't bother telling me that Ohio is safe from judicial activism because conservatives are well represented. This isn't just about Ohio, the Full Faith and Credit Clause comes into play here. What happens in San Francisco and Massachusetts affects what happens in Ohio and indeed around the nation.

The activists weren't content to have the debate, so why should those who seek to ban gay marriage?

The editorial asks what if we change our minds? I respond, what if we don't? By then it will be too late, Pandora's box will have already been opened. Once rights are granted, they can't be taken away; and one wonders if that isn't why the liberal establishment is playing the "Why Rush?" game. They know it will happen, in time, if the people let it happen.

Ellen Belcher: 527s Bad

2004-08-09T14:59:00.000-04:00

Where was Ellen when MoveOn.org was railing against the President? You couldn't find a statement against 527s with a search warrant when all that crap was going down. I find it very interesting that the Dayton Daily News editorial board can waste so much ink on the likes of Michael Moore and his pathetic movie then turn around and say it is getting out of hand now that a group (they aren't all Bush supporters, but they are Kerry haters - how about that for a phenomenon?! - not everybody loves the guy.) has told their truth.

If it is vitriolic now, why wasn't it then, Ellen? Did you write a column on it? I didn't think so...

DDN on the Importance of This Election

2004-08-09T14:52:00.000-04:00

Source

Three factors, at least, limit the impact of the election.

One is that the two candidates agree on a broad range of important matters. They have different attitudes about Iraq, for example, but they are both proposing roughly the same course now that we’re in the country.

As for the broader war on terrorism, John Kerry would not lie down and play dead. George Bush cannot look for new countries to invade.

Second, a president is not a dictator. He is limited by Congress, the courts, laws and the Constitution. He can set a tone and make some momentous war and peace decisions. But he has to muster a lot of support from public opinion.

Many argue that President Bush manipulated public opinion grossly to win support for the Iraq war. But he can’t always manipulate successfully. He has been battered by the public into agreeing to the creation of the 9/11 commission, into extending its life, into allowing Condoleezza Rice to testify and into talking to the commission himself.

A third factor is simply that some problems don’t care whether the president is a liberal or conservative. Iraq, world trade, the economy, inner-city problems, all these have lives of their own, with no absolute solution depending just on a presidential election.

Well, at least they think it is important. Earlier in the piece they make the argument that whomever wins, the world will go on, which of course it will. But let's examine their criteria here:

One is that the two candidates agree on a broad range of important matters. They have different attitudes about Iraq, for example, but they are both proposing roughly the same course now that we’re in the country.

I disagree with the editorial board on this point. One candidate is being very clear about a wide range of issues (that's Bush for the liberals who happen to stumble upon my humble site) including Iraq; and the other has taken most every side of most every issue (that's Kerry for the same crowd). That's not just a political slogan, it is fact. Sen. Kerry's record can not lie. In the Internet age of Google, you just can't get away with that kind of thing.

Second, a president is not a dictator. He is limited by Congress, the courts, laws and the Constitution. He can set a tone and make some momentous war and peace decisions. But he has to muster a lot of support from public opinion.

True enough, but the problem here is that the editorial board thinks that the President "manipulated" popular support for the war. He did no such thing. Here is the relevant definition of "manipulate" from dictionary.com: "To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously." The burden of proof is one the accuser to show that the President engaged in such behavior. They, and many before them, fail to do so.

A third factor is simply that some problems don’t care whether the president is a liberal or conservative. Iraq, world trade, the economy, inner-city problems, all these have lives of their own, with no absolute solution depending just on a presidential election.

Also true, but the problem with this point is that there is an overriding issue in the campaign this year: national security. I'd argue that it does matter whether or not the winner is liberal or conservative on all of those issues anyway. The President has the ability to influence public policy and opinion, Congress can either step on board and help move the country in the right direction or not. But the influence is there nonetheless...

Is it just me or does it sound more and more as if the editorial board is preparing the liberal masses in their readership that Kerry is going to lose?

Ask Yourself...

2004-08-09T14:31:00.000-04:00

...would this story be in the Dayton Daily News at all if we were talking about Democrats? I don't think so...

WMDtv's producer is currently negotiating an appearance by Mr. White on the show. If it gets arranged, I will ask about this situation and hopefully put it to bed once and for all.

Jane on Education

2004-08-09T11:45:00.000-04:00

From the Jane Mitakides for Congress website:

The future begins anew every day in the classrooms of America and Ohio. We must work harder and smarter to ensure that school administrators and teachers have the resources they need to make our system of public education work for all children. Instead of empty political promises to improve our schools, I believe that our elected leaders should take a hands-on, nuts-and-bolts approach, working closely with educators at every level to understand and overcome real, everyday challenges. As a mother, I know that education isn't about "teaching kids," it's about shaping and changing lives. It is the single most important component in the future of America, and yet it fails to be properly prioritized in budget after budget.

When elected to Congress, I will work to:

* Partner with state and local governments for fair, full funding of education – including higher pay for Ohio teachers
* Provide scholarships for students who commit to teaching as a profession
* Strengthen before- and after-school programs
* Partner with state and local governments to help achieve smaller classes and a more diverse curriculum, including technology, fine arts and music

Right away, I notice one very important word missing from this diatribe: "parents." Jane throws in the Democrat-required jab at the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind, but doesn't really give us an alternative plan beyond the usual talking points. This is a serious issue, so let's break it down:

Partner with state and local governments for fair, full funding of education – including higher pay for Ohio teachers

NCLB is and always was fully funded. Saying otherwise displays ignorance on the issue and panders to a constituency that hasn't bothered to learn about the issue.

Jane will have a tough time partnering with state and local governments on funding issues when said governments can't convince the electorate to pass levies. Educational funding comes down to a taxation issue, and the people have spoken on that time and again. They want their taxes low.

Provide scholarships for students who commit to teaching as a profession

This is just a bad idea and potentially a waste of tax money. Just because a college student intends to persue the education field, there are no guarentees that the student will finish or what the quality of teacher will result. Jane would also need to prove that there is a shortage of teachers in order for this to work too (this is where her last bit about class size comes into play).

Strengthen before- and after-school programs

Like the previous campaign promise, this one is nothing more than throwing more tax money at a perceived problem. "Stregthen" could mean anything: she could be talking about accountability, but if that were the case, she'd be a Republican; so we're pretty sure she means funding.

Partner with state and local governments to help achieve smaller classes and a more diverse curriculum, including technology, fine arts and music

Again with the partnering... Smaller classes and a more "diverse" curriculum are wonderful goals for education, but "partnering" isn't a realistic approach to achieving them. That is going to require legislation and funding; two things Jane can not secure for Ohio in the United States House of Representatives. Consider this from the US Census Bureau:

Education revenues from federal, state and local sources reached $419.8 billion in the United States in 2002, up 4 percent from the previous year, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today. The District of Columbia spent the most money per student ($13,187) of any state or state equivalent.

These findings are from the 2002 Census of Governments Survey of Local Government Finances — School Systems.

State governments contributed the greatest share of public elementary and secondary school funding, $207.4 billion. Local sources followed at $179.7 billion, and the federal government was the third largest contributor at $32.7 billion.

If Jane wants to increase funding for schools, it would appear she is running for the wrong position...

And then there are these findings:

* Public school systems spent $435.3 billion, up 6.0 percent from 2001. About $224.8 billion was spent on elementary-secondary instruction, $125.5 billion on services that support elementary-secondary instruction, $52.9 billion on capital outlay and $32.1 billion on other items.

* School districts received $155.6 billion, or 37.1 percent of all revenues from local taxes and local government appropriations.

* Instructional salaries totaled $160.7 billion in 2002, up 5.0 percent.

Once again, Jane appears to be pandering for votes, but not really offering a realistic vision for the district, its constituency, the state of Ohio, or the United States of America.

Jane on... Series:

...Health Care
...Jobs

Gottlieb on the No-Bounce

2004-08-06T15:21:00.000-04:00

(Source)

"Did ceiling stop Kerry bounce?" Marty asks. Uhh...no. Let's see if we can answer some more of Marty's questions:

The question arises because candidates often do come out of a convention on a nice upswing.

Candidates are often liked by people when they come out of a convention, Marty. This should tell you something.

And this seemed to be a successful convention.

It wasn't successful for John Kerry. By what standard are you using to make such a claim anyway?

Kerry was convincingly celebrated as a military hero.

It is after all, all he has to run on. We haven't heard much about his record in the, you know, Senate.

He gave a speech that far exceeded expectations.

The bar wasn't that high to begin with, Marty.

The party was fully united.

Fully united against Bush, not for Kerry.

[Not] only Democrats declared the convention and the speech successful. Republican analysts generally did, too.

Name one...because I can't think of a single Republican analyst who actually liked that speech.

Yet Kerry gained only a couple of points in the polls, maybe not even that, depending on the poll. Why?

Because nobody cares about John Kerry or the Democratic convention.

The most widely held view seems to be that the public is peculiarly set in its ways this year, and not subject to persuasion one way or the other.

This should keep you awake at night...

David Broder has dissented on this page, arguing that Kerry’s speech wasn’t all it was cracked up to be, that he didn’t offer a pithy message that anybody remembers and didn’t discuss what people wanted to hear about (such as Iraq).

And Mr. Broder would be correct.

Still others have suggested that the absence of a serious bounce results from low viewership of conventions these days.

That should also keep you awake at night. Could it be that people don't care for a liberal message?

But here’s a different possibility: Kerry had already reached his ceiling before the convention. The many months of bad news coming out of Iraq had given him a big boost. So he didn’t need the convention to get him there, the way most first-time candidates need a convention to allow them to show their stuff. He was at his ceiling just as a result of widespread opposition to the incumbent.

I see what's going on here... Folks, Marty is trying to lower the expectations for this candidate.

Regular readers will know where this is going: While most pundits are hemming and hawing about who might win the election, and most of the rest are simply picking their side, this column has reported several times that the best predictive scheme suggests 2004 is a Bush year. The basic reason is that things must be going worse for an incumbent across a broad range of subjects for a challenger to win.

Indeed I do know where this is going: nowhere. The best reason 2004 is a Bush year is that he is the better candidate. But let's hear the distorted reasons why Marty thinks Americans are stupid:

Iraq isn’t enough. The economy is a wash, having been pretty bad during most of the Bush years, but not so bad this year.

Marty, it is this kind of talk that gets characterized as "pessimism." Iraq is going quite well. The recovery from the Clinton/Gore recession took a little longer than expected because of 9/11, but the progress is there for any to see who aren't blinded by partisanship.

If this theory — the work of Professor Allan J. Lichtman of American University in Washington, D.C. — is right, then Bush might get a bigger bump out of his convention, because he is not at his peak, again because of bad news about the war. Highlighting the good news about himself might work better for him than it did for Kerry.

Marty, Marty, Marty... If the media had done their job accurately, the President would have peaked awhile back. There has been plenty of good news to report; but in order for good news to get coverage, it has to be damaging to Republicans in some way. Journalism shouldn't be this way, but it is.

When Sen. George Voinovich was in town this week, he was talking about how hard he has been campaigning. A journalist expressed skepticism that he was really all that worried about his bid for re-election against relatively unknown, unfunded state Sen. Eric Fingerhut. In the course of insisting that he is not taking anything for granted, Voinovich said, "I remember what happened in 1958" in Ohio.

Then he mentioned two other elections well before the 1980s as examples of his point that he should run scared.

That is a very long memory bank he’s developing.

You know, Marty, they say elephants never forget. I'm not real sure what this has to do with the Democratic convention resulting in no bounce for its candidate; but I don't mind some free publicity for a Republican, even if he is a RINO.

Think things are not getting out of hand this year? Ask Ann Boucher of Columbus. She has had pro-Kerry signs stolen from her yard twice.

The first time was at the instigation of a lawyer, a member of the Ohio Crime Victims Compensation Fund board. Neighborhood resident Mitchell H. Banchefsky told his 13-year-old daughter to take the sign. He insists that he was upset because the sign was too close to the right of way. Boucher denies that it was. But, anyway, Banchefsky admits that he shouldn’t have taken the matter into his own hands.

He is described in news reports as “an avid supporter of President Bush.” Boucher is sure she knows what his motives were.

Ohh...those evil Republicans and their HALLIBURTON! masters... Boucher apparently has mindreading skills; must be part of some liberal genetics program or something.

It is not clear whether anybody has asked him whether he would have taken the sign down if it had been for Bush.

Banchefsky insists that a Bush sign had earlier been taken from his own property. He thinks the concerns of the swiper might have been a right-of-way issue.

So maybe he figured that what’s good for the Ds is good for the Rs. Which is the way these things often get out of hand.

After Banchefsky’s daughter took the sign, Boucher replaced it, only to have that sign taken, too. So now she has made a sign herself, and says “I’ll keep replacing them.”

So far, the national guard has not been called in to restore peace to the neighborhood.

And at last we get to the end of another useless Marty column that didn't provide insight in to the issue it was supposed to...

Some job Marty has there, eh?

DDN: Dem Convention Was A Beauty Pageant

2004-08-05T14:14:00.000-04:00

Yes, you read that right. A beauty pageant. Specifically the Miss America Pageant. Read on...:

People just don’t seem to care much about the talent of women who are entered in what everybody thinks of as a beauty pageant, no matter what anybody else says.

Maybe it’s all part of the same phenomenon as what’s happening to political conventions. No, really. Hear this out.

Sen. John Kerry gives a speech at the Democratic convention that blows away the political community, which had heretofore considered him boring, lifeless. So the assumption becomes that by proving himself not so boring, he gained politically. Then the polls come out showing that — even though his speech was the most watched event at the convention — he got little or no boost.

Maybe people just don’t care whether he’s boring. Maybe what they care about is whether he can run the country. And maybe they see no more connection between that and his speech-making ability than they see between talent and beauty.

Then there’s this: When the conventions stopped being the places where politicians fight about issues and decide who will be nominated for president, they stopped having much appeal to the public. They came to be seen — rightly — as something other than news, which is what people used to tune in for.

Ahh...now THAT's a likely excuse for the no bounce convention. Sure...

Gottlieb on Kerry's Militarism

2004-08-04T15:04:00.000-04:00

Marty seems to really understand Democrats...

Carried too far, however, the center-seeking gimmicks can lower the level of discussion, putting empty gestures and symbols too front-and-center.

Kerry sometimes seems to be saying, “I can’t be a liberal. Look at my medals!” That kind of mindless political opportunism — insulting to the intelligence of voters — could do more harm than good.

Time to move on. The pre-emptive strike is over. Now the task is to build something.

...but doesn't really have much of a clue about Republicans...

Kerry has only done about military values what the Republicans have done about race: Sensitive to the charge of being a one-race party, have bent over backward to put their few blacks and minorities front and center at their conventions.

It’s just a matter of each party reaching out to the political center, trying to claim that it is not in the grip of some unrepresentative group.

Republicans DO actually care about African-Americans. Condi Rice and Colin Powell didn't get there because of their color...and isn't that REALLY what Dr. King's dream was all about? Liberals tend to think there is some sort of political motivation about these kinds of appointments, but the fact of the matter is that President Bush believed these two African-Americans were very much so qualified to do the job. And they are.

Marty doesn't seem to think so...

Ohio Campaign Finance Reform

2004-08-04T14:36:00.000-04:00

The first of two editorials focuses in on the evil Republicans quest for total domination of the Buckeye State through shady deals and financial shenanigans. It is the same old story. The DDN Editorial Board wouldn't run this story at all if it were Democrats at the center of the storm. This is the sort of rhetoric you get when a Republican is on the hot seat:

Sen. Jacobson and the politicians who ultimately join him shouldn’t get too much credit for ensuring that elections are paid for cleanly and with complete disclosure. They should expect at least that much of themselves because fair elections are central to the idea of democracy.

If they do nothing else in office, lawmakers should do no harm. Some of them have been trampling on the democratic ideals of honesty and openness with their manipulative and self-interested dealings. Voters shouldn’t have to rise up to make them stop.

I've said it elsewhere, but will repeat it here: the Republicans are supposed to be the good guys. We're supposed to be the party with ethics and values. When our own engages in this sort of tomfoolery, it should be denounced by the Party.

The second deals with Republican state Senator Jeff Jacobson's attempt to clean up his own mess and close the loophole that allowed himself and others to engage in said shady deals and financial shenanigans.

Think of Jacobson as Ohio's own little John McCain and the goal is to create the sort of fiasco that we have at the federal level known as campaign finance reform. People should have the right to contribute however much they want to a campaign and they shouldn't be dragged in to the political fight that occurs when one side wins over the other. Do we really need 527s at the local level? Do we need MoveOnDayton.org? I don't think so...

Gottlieb on Kerry's Liberalism

2004-08-03T13:29:00.000-04:00

(Source)

Martin Gottlieb is one of my favorite of the wacky liberals on the DDN editorial board. He's trying to paint John Kerry as some sort of moderate:

Kerry has had a liberal voting record. Of course. He’s a Democrat who’s not from the South. He’s in the mainstream of people in that category. And that’s what gets called liberal.

Compare him to Ohio’s two most recent Democratic senators, John Glenn and Howard Metzenbaum. Glenn was seen as a moderate liberal. Liberal groups would generally say he agreed with them about 80 percent of the time on their pet issues, or a little less. For Metzenbaum, the number was often 100 percent. The difference between the two can be seen as splitting hairs, because they were fundamentally allies. Kerry’s ratings have typically been between theirs.

As popular as Kerry is with the liberal groups, though, that’s how popular President George W. Bush is with their conservative counterparts. Maybe that’s why the Bush people don’t think they can get very far with swing voters by simply accusing Kerry of being a liberal. They have to go further. They have to make him peculiarly liberal.

To do that, they must distort. They try to do it by positioning him on the edge of the Senate.

Well, first of all, the “far left” is simply not represented in the U.S. Senate. There’s no Michael Moore there. There’s no Dennis Kucinich, no Al Sharpton. Just a bunch of boring white folks. There’s not even a Paul Wellstone anymore. He was the last of the firebrands.

Marty is branding the National Journal as part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

The comparison to Ohio's liberal Democrats is pretty entertaining. The idea here is to compare Kerry to someone we know, but isn't real fresh in our minds. I recall Metzenbaum as being a Kerry-esque liberal. The fact remains that Kerry's record shows him to be the most liberal Senator from 2003. We aren't comparison shopping for liberals and there is no distortion of Senator Kerry's liberal record.

The man the Republicans now accuse of being a “far-left” liberal voted with the Bush administration on the Iraq war resolution, the Patriot Act and the No Child Left Behind Act — three of the biggest issues of the Bush years — all to the horror of even Howard Dean, who himself is no Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton or Paul Wellstone.

What Marty isn't telling you is that Kerry then turned around and failed to support the troops when it came time to fund the operation. The Patriot Act is a neccessary and serious piece of legislation for America, liberals and conservatives are right to be behind it. No Child Left Behind was not wildly popular amongst the Republican base groups; Ted Kennedy co-sponsored it for crying out loud. Marty also isn't telling you that Kerry is now criticizing ALL of these initiatives.

Over time, Kerry has voted for welfare reform, for paying for 100,000 new police on the streets, for serious efforts at deficit reduction, for free trade and for other ideas not typically associated with liberals.

Kerry already has enough medals, Marty wants us to give him another one. I'm not impressed that Kerry did the right thing on four issues when his record shows him to wrong far more often than he is right.

The Economist magazine, working with the National Journal data, says that if you take the last half of the 1990s as a whole, 14 senators had more liberal records than Kerry.

There are 100 senators in each session of the Senate. Think about that for a minute. At least 86 senators where to the right of John Kerry. And this is supposed to be an argument for Kerry's not being a uber-liberal?

The National Journal ranks senators in three categories: social, economic and foreign policies. In 2003, Kerry was on the campaign trail a lot. He didn’t cast enough votes in the social and foreign fields to be rated. But he did go with the liberals on all the controversial economic issues. That’s what got him the top ranking.

Now this is an argument that I have heard for Edwards' ranking as the fourth most liberal senator in 2003. (Hi Jeremy!) You might get away with that on Edwards, but Kerry? No way. One wonders if Marty is transposing Kerry for Edwards. This NYT article makes the argument for Edwards, not Kerry.

In other words, it took an awful lot of odd circumstances to get the Republican warriors their little sound bite about the 2003 rating.

No, at worst, it took a liberal Senator not showing up to do his job to produce the soundbite. Kerry's attendance has to mean something. He has a job that he gets paid for that he isn't doing. I can't imagine not showing up for work and still taking the money for doing so from the American people, but John Kerry sure has...

And, of course, they leave out what the Senate votes were about. Kerry voted against extending the Bush tax cuts to people earning over $200,000; for extending unemployment compensation benefits to the long-term unemployed; against curtailing overtime pay. Most of Kerry’s “liberal” votes would find favor with most people, the baggage of the L-word notwithstanding.

Again, this isn't the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy putting this report out, its the National Journal. The other thing that Marty doesn't tell you is that those ARE liberal issues. $200,000 might sound like a lot to you and me, but try running a small business on that. The unemployment benefits are already thirteen weeks long, an extension of those benefits is akin to a welfare program that doesn't encourage the unemployed to get employed. (I'm all for safety nets; but there is a point where we aren't talking about temporary help, we're being taken advantage of...) And the overtime bit has also been debunked. Turns out that as many low end jobs would have been granted the overtime option as high end jobs would have lost the benefit.

Kerry and others are boring and unconvincing when they reject the use of words like liberal and conservative as too simplistic. The labels are legitimate shorthand. The Bush warriors, however, aren’t using shorthand, but sleight of hand.

Marty just doesn't like being called a liberal. Kerry really doesn't like it either. The fact is, these guys ARE liberals.

Are they ashamed of who they are? Are they aware that they are out of the mainstream and that is the reason for all the cosmetics?

Just asking...

2:40PM Update

Another View...Jeremy (as referenced above writes:

If the editorialist were arguing that Kerry is a moderate, then I'd agree that's he's nuts. He's not. He's saying that JFK is a liberal. It's a statistical anomaly produced by his absences that he is the MOST liberal of 2003, but yeah, the guy is pretty [darn] liberal. I agree with the editorialist--within the context of his party, he is as liberal as Bush is conservative. There are people to the right of Bush in the Republican party, ditto for liberals in the Democratic Party.

The editorialist is just saying, he's not the far out liberal that he's being depicted as, someone who is scarily to the left of Teddy Kennedy. He's a liberal, with certain quirks.

I'm not so sure about that Kerry is as liberal as Bush is conservative bit. The President has done some really unconservative things in this term.

Jeremy is a pretty reasonable guy even for a lefty...

DDN Editorial "Kerry's talk on jobs misleading"

2004-08-03T12:40:00.000-04:00

Source...

Sen. John Kerry and his supporters harp — especially in Ohio — on the loss of American jobs to foreign workers during the Bush presidency.

"We’re going to change that," he says.

The drumbeat continued at the party convention last week and here in the state over the weekend. It is campaign baloney.

The loss of those jobs is not President George W. Bush’s fault. It results from the birth of the global marketplace. To the degree the losses have been fostered by U.S. policies, those policies — favoring free trade — have been adopted on a bipartisan basis with the full support of Sen. Kerry. He is a self-described free-trader.

This is the most truth we've had from the editorial board in regards to Mr. Kerry in quite some time.

The President of the United States has no ability to create or destroy jobs. The best that he can hope to do is provide the economy with enough stability that businesses thrive. Blogger Bill Hobbs has noted that small businesses (LLCs specifically) have grown at an amazing rate in this economy. The problem with the numbers that Kerry has been tossing around is that they do not include the folks who are now self-employed. My initial web search was unsuccessful for finding statistics regarding Ohio specifically, but I have no reason to believe that Ohio has bucked this particular trend.

If anybody is to blame for losing jobs in a state it is the governor and the state legislature. Ohio ranks 47th for its business tax climate. We have a corporate income tax rate that is the 14th highest in the nation (same source). The President has nothing to do with either of those statistics.

Mr. Kerry says he's going to change that. It is misleading.

Jane on Health Care

2004-08-02T15:00:00.000-04:00

Continuing the series, here is Jane of Health Care via her campaign website:

I believe that a nation as great as ours has a moral obligation to care for the needs of our sick and our vulnerable, and yet we continue to fall dramatically short of that commitment. The Medicare bill passed by the last Congress promised much and delivered little but uncertainty, pushing seniors into private plans with no promise of what happens next – and at a time in their lives when they should be enjoying the security they have earned and been promised.

When elected to Congress, I will work to:

* Ensure access to affordable health care for all Americans
* Cover every child
* Make seniors more secure by making Medicare more secure
* Work for a real solution to the high cost of prescription drugs, in a way that benefits people, not pharmaceutical giants

Her preamble is filled with the usual Hillary-lite rhetoric. Her take on the Medicare bill that Congress passed and the President signed in to law is a little confusing: how can it deliver "little but uncertainty" when the bulk of the law's provisions aren't active until January 2006? The plan doesn't "push" anybody into private plans, rather it provides an alternative to those who would rather manage their own care.

Let's break down her goals:

Ensure access to affordable health care for all Americans

What sort of legislation would she propose/support? This blurb is a bit light on the details, but it sounds good...if you don't ask too many questions, that is.

Health care will never be "affordable" until tort reform is enacted and insurance companies and the care providers can get back to business without fear of frivilous lawsuits.

I've seen an interview with Jane where she says she's for the tax cuts (which is good), but one is left asking how she would pay for this benefit without raising taxes.

Jane may have a "secret plan" but if she does, she should run on it instead of leaving us in the dark.

Cover every child

This is traight out of the HILLARY! playbook. The same questions apply. It is one thing to say it, but it is entirely a different matter to find ways to make it happen. Again, the "secret plan" approach really isn't going to get it done.

Make seniors more secure by making Medicare more secure

We'd all like to do that, but I suspect Jane's "secret plan" will involve a "lock box" which doesn't exist.

Work for a real solution to the high cost of prescription drugs, in a way that benefits people, not pharmaceutical giants

I suspect this is another Medicare bill scare tactic. If she's going to "work for" it that means she doesn't have the solution; to which I say, why bother making an issue of it.

In the end, somebody needs to ask Jane just what it is she is proposing for Health Care because it isn't real clear at this point. Her positions leave a lot questions unanswered and all we're left with is flowery rhetoric empty of substance.

Jane on... Series

Jane on Jobs

Jane Thinks She Can Beat Turner

2004-08-02T14:33:00.000-04:00

...Jane is wrong, but her enthusiasm can be appreciated.

She may have gotten the rock star treatment at the Democratic convention, but that sort of thing won't play well back at home.

(Source)

Another Editorial Board Moment

2004-08-02T14:27:00.000-04:00

In this editorial, the board can't figure out that Ohio is in play... It was pandering to the Buckeyes that got a Dayton mention...

VIETNAM! and the DDN Editorial Board

2004-08-02T14:21:00.000-04:00

After reading this editorial, I am left wondering if the board has even heard of the Swift Veterans for Truth, the POW/MIA Families Against Kerry, the Vietnam Vets to Stop John Kerry, the VietNam Special Forces Vets Against Kerry, or the VietNam Vets Against Kerry.

There sure wasn't any mention of them. But there was plenty of praise for the "parade of retired flag officers at the Democratic convention, including two former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff."

The editorial board is sorely mistaken if they think the avergae Viet Name vet is supporting John Kerry. They may not like everything President Bush has done, but they do not care for John Kerry much at all.

Notes from B/C'04 on Ohio

2004-07-30T11:33:00.000-04:00

Very interesting information:

* President Bush and John Kerry remain locked in a close race in Ohio as well. The latest Columbus Dispatch poll (July 14-23) shows President Bush holding a narrow lead over John Kerry, 47% to 45%. The poll also showed that a majority of Ohio voters, 52%, approve of President Bush’s job performance. This is confirmed by the recent Strategic Vision poll (July 17-19), which showed President Bush leading Kerry by 4 points, 48% to 44%.

* The same Columbus Dispatch poll in July 2000 showed then-Governor Bush and Al Gore in a tie as well, 41% to 40%, although George Bush later went on to win the state by 4 points, 50% to 46%.

* Since March 3rd, Kerry and left-leaning 527 groups have spent over $17 million in Ohio, compared to BC '04’s $9 million. Kerry and his shadow campaign have outspent Bush-Cheney by almost a 2 to 1 margin, and have nothing to show for it - the race remains essentially tied in Ohio.

* Despite being massively outspent, President Bush is still in a very strong position in Ohio, and of the reasons is because of our tremendous grassroots organization there. Bush-Cheney '04 now has over 52,000 volunteers in Ohio. Almost two-thirds of all precincts in Ohio (7,575) have precincts chairs, including 88% of target precincts (4,964).

I would imagine we'll start seeing more from the Bush/Cheney team here soon...

Letter to the Editor

2004-07-29T14:12:00.000-04:00

I shall "Hobble" this one:

It was not George Tenet or any of the analysts at the CIA who initiated the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It was President George W. Bush.

Even if there were no pressure put upon the CIA to tailor intelligence to administration predispositions (which was highly unlikely), it was Bush who rushed this nation to war. He refused to allow the United Nations weapons inspectors to finish their job, which would have demonstrated that there were no weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent security threat to the United States. Further, it is Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, either directly or implicitly, who have insisted that Saddam Hussein is linked to al-Qaida and 9/11. This claim has been proven false over and over again.

The most important quality in a president is judgment. If that judgment is faulty, distorted or rooted in notions that lack a factual basis, this nation is in deep trouble. More than 900 American soldiers are dead, 5,000 have been wounded and there are more dead and wounded to come, given our continued presence in a ravaged and anarchic Iraq. All of that is the result of horrific, disastrous judgment on the part of this president.

The United States has lost the respect of the world. Who will trust us or believe us as long as Bush remains president?

Gerald E. Kerns

Loveland

That is all...

Springer for Governor?

2004-07-29T13:34:00.000-04:00

DDN's Jeff Bruce:

He's serious about Democratic politics, having attended every national convention, either as a TV newsman or as a delegate since 1972. Never been to a GOP convention, not once, not even when he was in the news business.

That passion for politics may propel him back into a race for the Ohio governorship when the seat comes up for grabs in 2006. The former Cincinnati mayor flirted briefly with a run against U.S. Sen. George Voinovich, but gave it up. Now his sights seem to be focusing on Columbus.

Oh, what a splendid race that would be...

Springer really shouldn't embarass himself or his party with even considering a run for political office again.

Tony Hall on Darfur Crisis

2004-07-29T13:29:00.000-04:00

An excellent presentation of why Sudan matters to America. Here is the money shot, but go read the whole thing:

First, we should be concerned about a return on our investment. The United States has spent time, energy and resources to negotiate a peace settlement in Sudan. President George W. Bush, Secretary Powell and our new U.S. ambassador to the U.N., John Danforth, all have been involved in ending the civil war in southern Sudan. Sudan has seen conflict since its independence, and the war — which began when President Ronald Reagan was in his first term — has claimed more than two million lives.
...
Second, Sudan is a front in our war on terrorism. Before al-Qaida leaders were sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, they operated training camps in Sudan. If a huge part of the country were to become an ungovernable wasteland, that would be an invitation for them to come back. As we know from nearby Somalia, a "failed state" does not serve the interests of our national security — or regional or global security.
...
Third, we need to honor American ideals. We believe in the value of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; not just for ourselves, but as ideals for everyone. These do not exist if you are pursued by marauders who already have stolen your liberty and want to take your life.

If I weren't already behind taking some action in Sudan, this piece would have convinced me.

The Sunshine Convention

2004-07-27T12:26:00.000-04:00

If the editorial board ever bothered to actually speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about John Kerry and the Democrats, their readership would be MUCH more informed. But alas, we get this:

He wants them to talk about what the party wants to do for the country, not about what awful excuses for human beings the speakers think Republicans are. Accentuate the positive.

Actually, it’s not advice, unless you consider the old Kremlin’s input to Pravda to have been advice. It’s The Word.

The Kerry dictum is the latest nail in the coffin of the notion of a national convention as a place where people of diverse views come together to hammer something out. It is now a place were people of identical political interests come together to hammer away, whether positively or negatively.

The problem is, nobody bothered to listen to him or Terry McAwful. The Bush-bashing carries on...just without mentioning his name. What happened to talking about what the Dems were going to do for (to) us? What happened to keeping it positive?

Last night was not full of flowers and smiles. It certainly was not positive campaigning. Granted it wasn't the frothy venom that we all were expecting, but Howard Dean sure isn't pleased.

Sen. Kerry has concluded that there is no longer any point in trashing President George W. Bush for his alleged incompetence or lies or slavish devotion to the oil industry and the wealthy or whatever. The Kerry campaign, for the moment anyway, has decided that people who haven’t bought that caricature yet aren’t going to buy it, and the time has come to try a different pitch on the few remaining undecided voters. For some of those, the most virulent caricatures of the president just make the Democrats look bad, perhaps worse than their target.

What was that about Pravda?

I think middle America sees right through all this nonsense and will vote accordingly.

AK Steel Lay-offs

2004-07-27T12:18:00.000-04:00

I don't see any Bush-bashing in this article.

[Alan] McCoy [AK's vice president, government and public relations] said AK has reached out to the AEIF for talks on ways to make the company more competitive.

"We have waited patiently" for a response, McCoy said.

Company leaders contend that AK shoulders $30 of costs for every ton of steel produced that AK's competitors in the integrated steel industry don't carry.

Editors must have had the day off...

Punch Card Ballot Suit

2004-07-27T12:07:00.000-04:00

Source

Punch-card voting systems are susceptible to errors, but most of those mistakes are caused by the voter, not the machines, an Ohio election's official testified in the first trial challenging punch-card balloting since the 2000 presidential election.

Dana Walch, director of election reform at the Ohio Secretary of State's office, testified Monday that state studies show the voter makes most errors that lead to punch-card votes not being counted, such as picking more candidates than allowed in a contest.

But the state acknowledges there are some mechanical problems with punch cards, which Walch said are more complex than other types of voting.

The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the state of Ohio, claiming the punch-card machines are not uniform and in several counties are antiquated and don't allow voters to correct mistakes

These are the same types of folks who don't want the electronic machines. Is it just me or is it starting to sound like the liberals don't want ANY method of elections because they will lose no matter which way we do it?

Just asking...

Jane on Jobs

2004-07-26T14:57:00.000-04:00

Jane sounds a bit like John Kerry when it comes to talking about the economy and what she would do if (shudder) she were to be elected.

From the campaign site's issues section on jobs:

When elected to Congress, I will work to:

* Develop tax incentives for keeping jobs in America, and eliminate tax breaks for taking jobs overseas
* Work with business and labor leaders to identify and aggressively pursue opportunities for new job creation
* Support small business owners and other entrepreneurs, the most important source of new jobs for our community
* Put an immediate stop to off-shoring of vital and sensitive government data processing

Let's break that down:

Develop tax incentives for keeping jobs in America, and eliminate tax breaks for taking jobs overseas

This is the old outsourcing argument that Kerry tried awhile back. The reality is that we have far more insourced jobs here in Ohio than outsourced jobs. By engaging in such isolationist activity, Jane would risk losing Ohio's insourced jobs. But don't take my word for it, here's a clip from the Organization for International Investment:

U.S. subsidiaries in Ohio have consistently supported a significant number of jobs in the state. They now employ 242,200 Ohio workers - an increase of nearly 7% over five years.

In comparison to other states, Ohio has proven to be an attractive location for international employers, ranking 10th in the United States in the number of employees supported by U.S. subsidiaries.

In fact, the relative portion of jobs in the state supplied by U.S. subsidiaries has remained strong over time. They provide the livelihood for nearly 5% of Ohio's private-sector workforce.

THAT is what Jane risks.

Oh. I know what's next. Manufacturing jobs. Same source:

U.S. subsidiaries support 116,900 manufacturing jobs in Ohio. Manufacturing companies tend to have a strong "multiplier" effect on the economy-stimulating a substantial amount of activity and jobs in other sectors through their demand for inputs from other suppliers.

Overall, approximately 48% of jobs at U.S. subsidiaries in Ohio are in manufacturing industries.

Back to Jane's site:

Work with business and labor leaders to identify and aggressively pursue opportunities for new job creation

Jane would like for you to think that Mike Turner isn't doing his job. Mike Turner has worked hard for Ohio's jobs. For example, he hosted a manufacturing and jobs forum with...

Congressman Rob Portman (OH-2), Congressman David Hobson (OH-7), Congressman John Boehner (OH-8) and Congressman Phil English (PA-3). Manufacturers and representatives include: The National Association of Manufactures, Ohio Manufacturing Association, Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce, Dayton Tool and Die Manufacturers Association, Ferno, Dayton Mutual Tool & Die, Crown Cork & Seal, CB Manufacturing & Sales, Candle-lite, and others.

[Topics covered included]: Tax policy issues, medical coverage costs, regulatory burdens, Chinese trade practices, research & development, raw materials, education & training, and other ways to stimulate growth in manufacturing and additional job creation.

Congressman Turner said, "Dayton’s manufacturing base has been an important part of our region’s economic engine. This forum is an opportunity to get together a group of some of the leading Members of Congress with the area’s most important manufacturers so we can hear their ideas to take back to Washington. Out of these discussions, I am optimistic we can build on the economic recovery and create more jobs for Ohio’s families."

Back to Jane:

Support small business owners and other entrepreneurs, the most important source of new jobs for our community

Jane wants you to think Mike Turner is under the influence of the evil HALLIBURTON! or some other big business conglomerate. Mike Turner was President of JMD Development, a real estate development company and corporate counsel for MTC International; hardly Enron or WorldCom or whatever other large corporation is considered evil by liberals this week. (Source)

Mike Turner understands small business and entrpreneurship; as Mayor of Dayton, Congressman Turner established a development fund providing more than $19 million in grants for housing and job-producing projects. The development fund sparked investment which resulted in a renaissance of Dayton’s downtown, after two decades of decline, including a $130 million arts center, a minor league baseball stadium, river front development, loft and upscale housing, additional corporate headquarters, and redevelopment of a brownfield area into a tool and die business industrial park. (Source)

Back to Jane:

Put an immediate stop to off-shoring of vital and sensitive government data processing

And we're back to outsourcing which we've already covered.

And if it sounds like Jane is down on Ohio's economic performance (and it does sound that way to me), you might want to check this article out that I wrote for WMD. And my colleague, Mark Garbett, put this one together.

3:56PM Update

NCPA Senior Fellow Bruce Bartlett says, "Restrictions on outsourcing may save a few jobs in the short run, but they will come only at the expense of better jobs in the future." Read the release to discover why he (and I) knows this...

Editorial: "Kerry should reject ways of the movie"

2004-07-26T14:04:00.000-04:00

The editorial board offeers up some unsolicited advice to John Kerry:

At some stage in the presidential campaign, Sen. John Kerry should make clear that the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is not his idea of how to conduct political discourse.

But it is his idea of political discourse. Remember, John kerry didn't need to see the movie because he "lived it."

That might sound like a strange suggestion. It's only a movie, after all. Since when are candidates asked to review movies?

Well, when movies are used as campaign propaganda (officially or otherwise), the candidate should be asked these kinds of questions. That he isn't shows as much about media bias than it does about Kerry's campaign.

But one important question in this presidential campaign is how American politics should be conducted. Things have gotten unduly ugly, now that the left has taken up the right's habit of going through life on a rant. Sen. Kerry has said that he would like to change the tone.

One should ask how it got this ugly. Now the Editorial Board will try to pin this on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy of talk radio and blogs, but the reality is that Michael Moore and Ted Rall are not in the VRWC.

Moreover, this movie is playing a remarkable role. It might not be changing any minds, but it is being used to rev up the Kerry troops. The National Education Association (a teachers' union and a hotbed of Democratic activity) and the NAACP showed the film at their conventions. Other liberal organizations are using it, too.

And what does this say about our teachers and union members that they would buy in to such discredited nonsense? Just asking...

The movie seems to work for some people as entertainment. It does not, however, provide insight. Rather, it uses absurdly cheap manipulations to put the Bush people in a bad light. One example among many: Attorney General John Ashcroft did not lose his Senate seat because voters preferred a dead man. They preferred a dead man's widow.

Of all the errors to pull from this dreadfully inaccurate film, why attack Ashcroft? Because it fits the liberal agenda of the Editorial Board? Isn't this sort of snarky line just the sort of thing the theme of this editorial is trying to avoid? Again, just asking...

As an article in the pro-Kerry New Republic notes, the movie uses "precisely the same weapons as those used by the Republican propaganda machine: disinformation, short cuts, omissions. To portray prewar Iraq as an idyllic country where people danced and had fun and got married, where children played and laughed, borders on the despicable."

What the Editorial Board is doing here by quoting The New Republic is framing the debate in someone else's voice while maintaining "above the fray." The reality is that this is the view of the Editorial Board of the Dayton Daily News, not just TNR. Show me the Republican propaganda machine. Show me the Republican disinformation (and I wouldn't call erroneous intelligence information Republican disinformation). Show me the Republican's short cuts. Show me the Republican ommissions. Demand proof of these folks; don't let them get away with this sort of propaganda.

The point of Mr. Moore's movie is that the president and the people around him are despicable, not just wrong. This is poison to democracy.

It is a poison to democracy...I'll give you that.

To be sure, the emotions that are causing people to like a hateful movie are largely the fault of President George W. Bush. This is what happens when a president pursues a dubious war, offers shifting rationale and turns out to have been simply wrong in his fundamental reasons for war.

Ahh, it's George Bush's fault! There is nothing dubious about the war: Saddam was a threat to our nation, had a history of being a threat to this nation, his neighbors, AND his own people; he was seeking weapons of mass destruction, some of which have been found; Saddam's regime was in material breach of UN resolutions. The rationale for the war has never shifted. The only thing that has shifted is the goalposts for proving what we all took for granted during Bill Clinton's reign in the White House.

Nevertheless, hatefulness is harmful. It can tear the country apart as much as the war itself. It might result in a new presidency, but it might keep that presidency from succeeding.

I can see the Editorial Board breaking out in song...cue the music! Democrats failed to learn the lesson that the Republicans were forced to learn in 1996: voting against somebody rather than for the right guy is not the way to victory. All this talk sounds like the Editorial Board is anticipating a Bush victory yet can't quite seem to say so.

In 2000, during the post-election fiasco in Florida, right-wing radio and right-wing propagandists generally went on an endless tear about how the Democrats were trying to steal an election they had lost. This created a needlessly war-like environment. Candidate George W. Bush refused to distance himself from the ugliness, refused to speak the simple truth: that each party was doing what the other would have done if the situation were reversed.

Ah, it's Sean Hannity's fault. Rush Limbaugh is responsible for George W. Bush's victory in Florida. Don't mind the fact that the President won recount after recount after recount after recount. Liberals have a dangerous tendency to project themselves on to their opponents and this event is no different. They charge that Bush "stole the election" because that is, in fact, what they were trying to do. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric.

If he had taken a different tone then — and consistently — he would have a stronger presidency now and a stronger country. If Sen. Kerry seeks the higher ground now, he will be where an aspiring president ought to be.

The Editorial Board would have supported George W. Bush if only Rush and Hannity played nice while Al Gore tried to make off with the presidency. Anybody believe that?

What political hacks...

"Standards board faces tough task"

2004-07-26T13:39:00.000-04:00

Boo-hoo... Cry me a river...

The newly impaneled Educator Standards Board will have to walk a fine line between establishing ambitious standards for Ohio's new and veteran teachers and driving them away from the field at a crucial time, one board member said.

I believe there is a difference between ensuring that our teachers know their business and forcing teachers to endure unneccessary additional time in the often liberal environment of our colleges and universities.

If the standards are knowledge based and not education based, I have no problem what so ever with the board getting tough.

This doesn't sound all that encouraging to me:

Members of the 17-member standards board were appointed last week by the state Board of Education and were handed the responsibility of developing state standards for teachers and principals. The board also will establish guidelines for educators' professional development and will recommend strategies to narrow the "achievement gaps" in student test scores between racial and socio-economic groups, Ohio Department of Education officials said. And it will be responsible for monitoring compliance with the educator standards and to recommend "appropriate corrective action" to the state Board of Education for those who do not meet the standards.

"Professional development" is liberal for more degrees and endless seminars. The achievement gaps between racial and socio-economic groups occurs because the parents treat the schools like a baby-sitting service instead of a valuable investment in their child's future. Our administrators spend more team creating an environment conducive to liberal indoctrination than actually making sure our kids can read and write.

It will be a delicate task.

I should say...

Already, new teachers face stricter certification and licensing requirements than their predecessors. James Uphoff, president of the Oakwood Board of Education and standards board member, said some form of "grandfathering" of new requirements will likely continue.

What they aren't telling is what exactly those "stricter certification and licensing requirements" are... More certifications and tought licensing requirements doesn't make a teacher.

But the Ohio Department of Education clearly expects that veteran teachers "have a real responsibility not to die on the vine," Uphoff said. Experienced teachers must still seek to improve their methods and embrace new technology and equipment proved to help them teach more effectively, said Uphoff, who also serves as associate director for the Wright State University Center for Teaching and Learning.

You see, it is vitally important for our teachers to utilize computers and stuff. Why? I don't know. Teachers never needed all those gizmos to teach reading and writing before...but we better make sure our teachers are certified and licensed in it.

The other Miami Valley representative to the standards board — Shawn Jackson, who teaches social studies at McKinney Middle School in Yellow Springs — brings his own set of training and mentoring credentials to the panel. Jackson is in his 16th year of teaching, evaluates entry-level teachers and helps train fellow teachers to serve as evaluators, and has mentored young teachers as well.

Now, I don't know Shawn Jackson, but Yellow Springs isn't a bastion of conservatism. I can imagine, without to much effort, what kind of blowhard this is... It comes down to pleasing people like Shawn Jackson so you can get and/or keep your job.

Jackson said he sought the Ohio Education Association nomination to the standards board because he feels teachers should monitor their profession much as medical societies do for doctors and bar associations do for lawyers.

Yes...it is THAT much easier to weed out those evil conservatives that way too.

Legislation signed into law by Gov. Bob Taft in March created the Educator Standards Board and spelled out the board's makeup and duties. The board consists of eight teachers from public schools, one teacher from a chartered private school, four school administrators, one school board member and three representatives from colleges and universities. Nominations were submitted by teachers' unions, the Ohio Board of Regents and education associations. Members receive no compensation other than reimbursement of expenses.

And where are the parents? Just asking...

Go read the whole thing...

Another Letter to the Editor

2004-07-26T11:58:00.000-04:00

Blogger Rob Bernard tears apart a letter submited by a liberal from Oakwood.

It is recommended reading...

"Checking back with top predictor"

2004-07-23T14:43:00.000-04:00

From the Dayton Daily News by Martin Gottlieb:

OK, you’re probably wondering who’s going to win the election.

To put it more precisely, the predictive system that was reported here in January to be saying “Bush,” and again in March, is still saying “Bush.”

That fact is noted here because the system has arguably never been wrong.

It will be wrong eventually, of course. It’s only human. If this is the year, that is not all bad in the eyes of the system’s creator, Professor Allan J. Lichtman of American University in Washington, D.C. He is for Kerry. But he is duty bound to report what the system says.

Okay, I'm with you so far, Marty...

If he is wrong, he will take comfort in being, by his count, 6-1 in presidential elections. And he’ll take more comfort in the prospects of the nation and the world. (He is also predicting that a second George W. Bush term would be a calamity. But he has no system behind him on that one.)

Now dropping a bomb like that is just uncalled for...if you aren't going to explain what the good doctor means, you are better off leaving the comment out.

He bases his elections predictions on systematic study of all the presidential elections in the history of the current two-party system. He has found 13 factors to be most frequently present when the incumbent party wins. None of them is always present. It’s the overall pattern he’s looking for.

This system is better than systems based on one factor — the president’s midyear approval rating in the polls, say, or the state of the economy, or the height of the candidates — because 13 is more than one.

So far so good...

(This isn’t getting too technical, is it?)

Yes, you are so much more superior than the foolish readers who buy your pathetic little rag... This sort of smugness has no place in journalism.

History shows that if eight or more of the 13 factors are present, the incumbent party wins the popular vote. Why eight? No reason; that’s just the way it works out.

Bush has the following factors going for him: (1) His party has gained seats in the House of Representatives over the past two elections. (2) He will breeze to renomination. (3) He is the incumbent president (as opposed to his party putting up a new person).

(4) There is no significant third candidacy threatening him. (5) The economy in the election year is not in recession. (6) There has been no major social unrest — meaning violence — in this country on his watch.

(7) There has been no major scandal (see below). (8) He has achieved a major international success, with the war in Afghanistan going easily (see below). And (9) his opponent is not charismatic or a major national hero.

I'm with you here...mainly because you are spitting out the information from the good doctor...

Some of these are judgment calls, of course. Many Democrats are outraged at the suggestion that there’s been no major scandal, given especially that the Bush rationale for war has collapsed.

Some people, too, question whether the Afghan war should be considered either major or a success, given that Osama bin Laden has not been captured and that al-Qaida lives.

There are Bill Clinton parallels to be made here...

But Lichtman must apply the standards as they have applied in previous elections. He can’t change the definition of “scandal” or “success” now, lest the whole system collapse.

In the past, a military victory need not have been against a powerful enemy to be counted as a success. It need only have advanced American interests in the world in some substantial way. Depriving al-Qaida of its sanctuary was almost universally seen as doing that.

As for scandal, sorry, it has to be about genuine wrongdoing, not about being wrong. And it has to be generally perceived as a scandal, not just apparent to the president’s detractors. And it should be formalized by some institution, meaning indictment, conviction, or impeachment of the president or people near him.

This doctor is smart, yes?

Another predictive system is getting a lot of attention this year. It is based upon presidential approval ratings. Specifically, presidents whose public approval ratings are — like George W. Bush’s — below 50 percent in midyear lose.

However, there has been one exception: Harry Truman, who stood at 39 percent in a May/June Gallup Poll in 1948.

Like polls, approval ratings really don't mean much this early...

Moreover, there have only been a few test cases to look at, because polling is relatively new, and because the approval rating can only be considered when an incumbent president is on the ballot.

By contrast, all of Lichtman’s questions about an election can be answered about every election since the Civil War.

It's confirmed...this guy is smart!

Still and all, some people don’t want to believe. Democrats find all kinds of rationales for seeing a Kerry victory: Iraq is just such an embarrassment to Bush. And Democrats are riled up as never before in memory. And they’ve got money. And the Internet has changed everything. And Michael Moore, Al Franken and the gang are finally fighting back against the right-wing propagandists.

In truth, though, every time there’s an election that even looks like it might be close, people find reasons to believe what they want about the future. It’s easy enough to find them — always.

Which is fine. Sometimes people complain that a system like Lichtman’s threatens to take all the fun out of politics, to make everything seem predetermined and not subject to human effort. But that would be giving the system way too much credit.

The reality is that Iraq isn't an embarrassment. The Democrats ARE riled up...to the point of coming unhinged. The Internet really hasn't changed all that much (and that is coming from a blogger!). And Michael Moore and Al Franken are preaching to the choir while the congregation has left the church.

In truth, as Hugh Hewitt says, "If it isn't close, they can't cheat." And believe me when I say that if it is close, we'll see all kinds of shenanigans. Sometimes belief isn't enough...you have to have the votes.

Lichtman's system appears to be quite accurate. I don't know about taking the fun out politics though, the politicans do that pretty well enough on their own. Human effort is still required in order to win an election. People still have to show up at the polls and do what they need to do to make the prediction a reality.

Those of us who believe in it aren’t betting any houses on its accuracy. I harp because it’s kind of fun, because it’s the best system, and because it offers important insights into how elections works. However, being a system devised by humans, it is fallible.

...or so you hope.

Me? I'm voting for Bush/Cheney and think that you should too.

Letter to DDN Editor: "Edwards an excellent choice"

2004-07-22T14:04:00.000-04:00

Sometimes you read some of these letters and you just have to write back...

We were lucky in Dayton to get one of the first looks at the John Kerry/John Edwards presidential ticket. Edwards was an excellent pick — he brings a refreshing optimism and an ability to connect with people.

Yes, John Kerry picked well. Actually, Kerry picked the only guy he could. John Kerry picked a disingenuous, unaccomplished liberal who is a friend to Personal Injury Trial Lawyers.

Vice President Dick Cheney represents everything that is wrong with politics in this country.

Vice President Dick Cheney is an experienced politican who is serving his country with distinction. Only partisan hacks think otherwise.

Cheney invited the energy industry to help write an energy policy which it benefited from, at our expense. He came from scandal-plagued Halliburton, which got billions of dollars worth of no-bid contracts. He still holds stock options in that company.

This is nothing new. HILLARY invited the health care industry to help write HILLARYcare policy, which it would have benefitted from had it gotten out of committee and actually passed. "Scandal-plagued Halliburton"? I don't think so. The HALLIBURTON! smear has been debunked by people who don't espouse black helicopter conspiracy theories quite so dearly...

Edwards, on the other hand, has consistently prioritized ordinary people over corporations. He’s been an advocate for middle-class values and policies which help millions of families that are scraping to get by.

Yes, the The Daily Oklahoman (Editorial, “Man Of The People?”1/3/03) was so impressed they declared "[Edwards] is just the latest politician to declare himself one of the people, a populist who will fight for the little guy in the circles of power. In reality Edwards is a multimillionaire, his money made as a high-powered trial lawyer. We doubt you’ll find many calluses on that man’s hands."

And here is the New York Times: "He became rich [representing plaintiffs], racking up more than $175 million for his clients from 1985 to 1997 and amassing a personal fortune of at least $38 million, according to North Carolina Lawyers Weekly." (James C. Mckinley, Jr., "A Journey From A Mill Town Ends With A Run For President," The New York Times, 1/12/04)

Here is some more of Edwards' fighting for the little guy style:

Edwards Says We Need "The Backbone" To Fight Against, "Big Corporations, Pharmaceutical Companies, Big Insurances Companies, Big HMOs." "We can’t deal with the health care crisis in America unless we have the backbone and courage to do what I have been doing my entire life; fighting against big corporations, pharmaceutical companies, big insurance companies, big HMOs." (Sen. John Edwards, Remarks At Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

But Since 1997, John Edwards Has Received Over $35,000 From Pharmaceutical Company Employees, Including $25,000 In Soft Money. (Dwight L. Morris & Associates Website; IRS 527 Search Website)

Edwards Received Soft Money From Agnes Varis, President & CEO, Agvar Chemicals -- $25,000 – 2nd Quarter 2002 Report, New American Optimists 527 (IRS 527 Search Website)

Edwards Owns Pharmaceutical Company Stock. According to his 2003 Senate Personal Financial Disclosure Report, Edwards owns stock in Johnson & Johnson and Merck. Edwards sold Bristol Myers Squibb stock, earning between $1,000-$15,000 in income. (Senator John Edwards, 2003 Senate Public Financial Disclosure Report)

President George W. Bush and Cheney have had their chance and failed. This November, it’s time for the American voters to help them step aside, and to let Kerry and Edwards lead us back in a direction we can be proud of.

I guess all that depends on what your definition of failure is. Our economy is recovering from the Clinton/Gore recession. We have liberated millions of people in two countries. Bush and Cheney have done a LOT that this nation is proud of and I see no reason for change now. This November, it is time for the American people to help clue in the obstructionists and naysayers that pessimism is not the answer.

Gary L. Lovings, Beavercreek OH

I'm Matt Hurley and I approved this message.

Gen. Clark Stumps for Jane

2004-07-22T13:23:00.000-04:00

Source:

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark [war criminal?] will appear at a Courthouse Square rally today in support of Democrat Jane Mitakides, 3rd District candidate for Congress.

Mitakides of Washington Twp. is challenging freshman U.S. Rep. Mike Turner, R-Centerville.

Clark [war criminal?], who sought the Democratic presidential nomination this year, will speak during a 5 p.m. public rally, billed as a program honoring American military personnel and veterans. Afterward, he will take part in a fund-raiser for Mitakides at Crowne Plaza Hotel.

"It's hard for me to put into words how honored I am that he's coming in," said Mitakides, who has been active in political campaigns but is making her first run for office. "I come from a family with very deep military roots and I very much admire Gen. Clark [war criminal?]."

Emphasis and bracketed commentary added.

Jane, Jane, Jane...first it was Kos, now it's Wesley [war criminal?]. She just doesn't seem to exercise good judgement. Either that or she is just so desperate for help that she'll take whatever she can get. I'm not sure which scenario is worse...

I'm not all that concerned. Rep. Turner has three times the money Jane does and doesn't appear all that vulnerable.

Crossposted at WMD.

Politics as Pop Art

2004-07-22T12:00:00.000-04:00

The Dayton Daily Democrat's editorial board seems to think it is pretty cool that politics has hijacked pop culture.

They foray in to this field with a mention of OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, a "documentary" about how "fair and balanced" Fox News really is. The problem with this sort of film is that, like the Michael Moore propaganda, if the film maker comes in to the documentary with anything less than an open mind, the film suffers.

Of course, everybody who cares already knows that Fox is out to serve conservatives. The charge that it is serving a conservative White House is not much of a leap.

Here is the thing about FNC: when they do the news, it is about the news; when they do commentary, you know that it is commentary. You can't say the same thing about ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC. Bias in the media wasn't invested by Fox, nor is it being practiced by Fox. You can't tell when Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw stop delivering the news and start serving up their own liberal ideology. Neither of those guys stack up to a Brit Hume when it comes to delivering unbiased news. I'd compare them to the likes of Bill O'Rielly, who's job isn't to deliver the news but rather his commentary on the news. And I'd love to see a Hannity and Colmes-type show on the alphabet networks, but I won't hold my breath.

People apparently love to watch people they hate squirm.

I don't know about that. Moore's latest crockumentary didn't really do all that well when you compare it against other movies. Shrek 2 had a higher box office take for crying out loud. Moore plays the victim card very well and so his "victory" at the box office comes off as much more impressive than it really is.

On the other hand, I'm really kind of looking forward to Michael Moore Hates America so there might just be something to that after all.

Contrary to what the editorial board would have you thinking, the broadcast networks are not meeting to decide whether or not they are going to be "fair and balanced." They have decided to be liberal a LONG time ago and I don't forsee any change in the near future. The echo chamber has resonated their garbage for so long that they have become deaf to reality. Hence Fox is the highest rated news station in the nation.

Hollyweird will never portray Ronald Reagan with the dignity and respect that he deserves. Conversely, Bill Clinton will never be played as the pathetic human being he actually was either. And as for "conservative and liberal crime shows" I don't really see a difference there: a conservative crime show would persue any kind of crime be it corporate or welfare fraud. That's the main difference between liberals and conservatives: liberals care about the social ramifications; conservatives just want the criminals caught and justice served.

The interesting question posed in this editorial is whether or not all this politics injected into pop culture will effect voter turnout. Like the editorial board, I don't believe so. At this point all the bomb-throwing is merely firing up the people who were already partisan.

The best hope is that as intensely political Democrats and Republicans file into their adjoining theatres, they will begin to realize that their interest in politics gives them more in common than they thought.

Yeah, right.

With an attitude like that, peace will never get a chance, man! I know, I know...it's the thought that counts. But really, does it?

DDN Editorial on TrouserGate

2004-07-22T11:27:00.000-04:00

By Matt Hurley for the TIB Network:

Editorial from the Dayton Daily News:

The flap over Sandy Berger is an example of just how ugly the presidential election is in danger of getting.

This is no "flap" (relevant definition: A blow given with something flat; a slap.) but rather a very serious crime. This presidential race was ugly, as you call it, a long time ago. I recall it getting "ugly" prior to the Democratic primaries. In fact, it's been "ugly" since the President won Florida...even with recount after recount after recount after recount.

Mr. Berger, the national security adviser for President Bill Clinton, has messed up. At least.

IS that supposed to reassure us? Whew! At least it wasn't one of John Kerry's advisors! I hate to break it to you, the recently "informal" advisor to Mr. Kerry used to be called a "top" advisor to John Kerry. And yes, he "messed up" alright. He committed a crime. One that he has admitted to committing when he said he "knowingly" took some documents and "inadvertantly" took others.

At the request of the official commission investigating 9/11, he was poring over some classified documents. He left the National Archives with some of them. He can’t do that. They are supposed to remain in a secure area, lest they fall into the hands of the nation’s enemies. He knew that. He says he didn’t mean to take the documents.

Mr. Berger was not requested to steal documents by the 9/11 Commission. Perhaps President Clinton can shed some light on this: What did HE know and when did he know it.

Some of them still haven’t turned up.

And that would be a problem now wouldn't it...

Now the Republicans are calling for an investigation. That’s appropriate. But they’ve gone beyond that. They have gone to the point of having a cow.

You've got to ask yourself what this article would be about had Condi Rice stolen documents from the National Archive... Having a cow? You betcha!

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, once a relatively restrained voice in politics, but lately determined to show that he can sling mud with the worst, said "What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation’s most sensitive secrets (Mr. Berger) was given access to these documents to assist the 9/11 commission, not hide information from them."

I was not too impressed with Speaker Hastert prior to his leadership on this issue. He was a "relatively restrained voice" because the Democrats were able to walk all over him. Now that he's had enough, he's "slinging mud with the best of them"? I say it is about time.

From that, you would never know that no authority is accusing Mr. Berger of trying to hide any information, much less pilfering secrets. He had legal access to the secrets. And the documents in question were just copies. The 9/11 commission has them, and it is not raising a complaint with Mr. Berger.

Copies with handwritten notes on them become more than "just copies" they are seperate documents that may shed light on some things. It is true that he had legal access to the secrets; but he did not have legal authority to remove the secrets from the National archive "knowingly" or "inadvertantly."

Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay called the Berger incident "a third-rate burglary," invoking Watergate rhetoric.

Like no Democrat has done THAT lately...

"This is not sloppy," he said. "I think it is gravely, gravely serious what he did, if he did it, and it could be a national security crisis."

And the Majority Leader would be correct on this point. We need to know what he took, who he gave information to and what he did with it.

Now the right-wing warriors in the media and elsewhere are sending out frantic messages to their troops, stating as facts allegations that Mr. Berger denies (about stuffing documents in his clothes).

The fact is, he got the classified documents out. I don't really care much whether he stuffed his socks or not. This is merely a deploy the smoke screen tactic in order to change the subject. This man committed a serious crime. Just because he has a D after his name doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

Meanwhile, Democrats are pointing out that the Berger incident actually happened last fall and an investigation was begun then. They say the Republicans raise it now to distract attention from the report of the 9/11 commission that’s out this week, and from the Democrats’ upcoming convention.

Which just goes to show that it is in fact a Democratic leak timed so that with the upcoming convention the story could be swept under the run as quickly as possible. If it were a Republican leak, they would have saved it for an "October Surprise" that you liberals keep waiting for...

This whole flap would hardly be worth pausing over — at least in the absence of some new information suggesting a bigger security problem — if not for what it says about the presidential campaign. It seems to be a harbinger.

Again, this is not a "flap" but a rather serious criminal act that is worthy of doing a LOT more than just pausing over. Ask yourself again what this editorial would be about if it had been Condi Rice who had done this. Harbinger indeed...

Really, though, it’s hard to see what the two parties get at this stage out of getting too far down and dirty. Why should they spin passing events so egregiously that nobody will be impressed except the people who are already on board with them?

Good question for the Anybody But Bush crowd, the MoveOn.org 527s, and Moore's Disease infected Ted Rall wing of the Democratic Party that has hijacked the loyal opposition in this country.

The usual purpose of such work is to fire up the troops, to get your side so hopping mad that it gets to work. But this year that’s the last thing that’s necessary. If people start hopping any higher they will soon get above the pull of gravity and will be gone forever.

And who would be responsible for whipping people up in to such a frothy frenzy... I blame the Anybody But Bush crowd, the MoveOn.org 527s, and Moore's Disease infected Ted Rall wing of the Democratic Party that has hijacked the loyal opposition in this country.

Given that the riling up is not necessary, the politicians have the opportunity to conserve their own dignity. Whether that means anything to them remains to be seen.

Democrats aren't interested in dignity...they are after power. Nothing else matters to them. Nothing.

Crossposted on WMD