Buckeye Punditeers

Forum non conviens

2009-11-20T16:25:00.002-05:00

My friends in the legal community will note that this Latin phrase means "inconvenient" forum.

It has been a real joy writing on Buckeye Punditeers, and allowed me to give voice to a number of issues I hold dear (judicial and education reform among them). That said, my workload in private life and my new bloggging gig at OhioDaily have kept me from these pages, and it has become just that. It's time to declare an official break.

Thank you for reading my thoughts here, and if you're foolish enough to want to keep reading, you can find me at OhioDaily: Blue Collared Blog, Blue Colored State.

Fox News Pushing Cartoon Porn

2009-10-09T15:23:00.002-04:00

I realize that picking on Fox News for their lack of journalistic integrity is like picking on the fat kid at camp because he takes a second helping at dinner, but this is just too much.

In reporting today that Marge Simpson will grace the cover of Playboy Magazine and feature in a pictoral in November (yes, really), Fox goes on to list a number of other cartoon ladies Playboy is "considering" for a similar treatment, including Wilma Flintstone, Scooby Doo's Daphne, and Betty Boop.

Two others that you might find interesting:

Aladdin's Princess Jasmine: "There is some question about Princess Jasmine's age, but once they find a valid birth certificate, this one is a go." Seriously? A birth certificate comment? Orly Taitz would be proud. This, to say nothing of the racial overtones.

Beauty and the Beast's Princess Belle: "Playboy has offered to let Belle move into the mansion with Hef, but it reminds her too much of her time trapped in the castle with "The Beast," and is hedging (sic)."

While this article is clearly meant as a spoof and a Friday puff piece, it's shocking on several levels. First, it glorifies Playboy's forray into cartoon porn, shameful in its own right.

But let's take this a step further. The Simpsons is a cartoon with an adult audience, and you can at least argue that featuring Marge Simpson plays to that audience. But focusing on the Disney princesses and characters from children's shows like The Flintstones and Scooby Doo?

In a world where sex slavery, human trafficking, and child pornography and sex abuse are very real, this sort of line blurring by a major American "news" organization simply cannot be permitted.

As if you needed another reason to change the channel.

Surprising No One, Ohio Supremes Say Husted is Montgomery Co. Resident

2009-10-06T21:52:00.004-04:00

...Or, not.

To paraphrase one of cinema's all-time greatest lines, "I'm shocked, SHOCKED, to find partisanship at the Ohio Supreme Court."

In a move that thoroughly qualifies as "not news," the Ohio Supreme Court today unanimously overturned the ruling of Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner on the residency of the man who wishes to succeed her. The 7-0 opinion is available here.

The Supreme Court's opinion says that Brunner's reading of the relevant election law statutes is incorrect, and that the residency of the spouse is not a dispositive factor but merely one of many to be considered in determining residency. They also chided her for issuing this opinion on voting residency, saying that casting a tie-breaking vote on this issue (as she did) at the county Board of Elections level is not the appropriate means for challenging a voter's residency.

The opinion largely adopts the arguments posited by Husted's camp, and relied on Husted's "intent to return" to Kettering eventually as the dispositive fact in his favor.

Apparently, "intent to return" doesn't require any timetable. Husted would likely live the next 8 years in Franklin county if elected and then re-elected Secretary of State, to say nothing of his eventual and inevitable run for higher office in Columbus or Washington that could extend that period exponentially.

This, to say nothing of the suspicions raised by Husted's wife's employment in Franklin county, his children's schooling in Franklin county, and the "I Heart C-Bus" tattoo on his lower mid-back.

We're basically where we all thought we'd be here. This issue is neutral politically, as the right-wing angst generated against Jennifer "ACORN" Brunner and the left-wing upset over "Slick" Jonny's lasted slide past accountability will offset. It has no impact in the Secretary of State's race, and less in the Democratic Senate primary.

What today's decision may do, however, is illustrate again to the committed among us how important balance is to the administration of justice. We don't have the luxury we did in Bush v. Gore of railing against a partisan decision by appointed elites. The 7-0 hole we face on the current Court is the result of poor candidate recruitment, worse fundraising, apathy, and a system heavily slanted toward the status quo.

Fortunately, 2010 gives us an opportunity to move toward a more balanced and just high Court. There are 3 races out there for us, and a golden opportunity to pick up at least two of those seats. While 5-2 isn't something to write home about, it's a hell of a lot better than 7-0, and a hair's breadth away from a very competitive 4-3.

Until reform efforts (like those we discussed here) take effect, we're stuck with the broken system we've got. Let's hope this baldly partisan ruling moves the Party to work harder on recruiting serious candidates, and our activists to give Ohio's judicial races the attention and energy they've long neglected to.

To quote Aaron Sorkin (through Michael Douglas' The American President):

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight."

Let us prepare for the fight, and next fall, let's win it.

Photo credit: www.progressohio.org

BREAKING: Ohio Supreme Court To Host Judicial Selection Forum

2009-09-08T12:22:00.005-04:00

As long time readers of this blog realize, the cause of judicial reform in Ohio has long been a passion of mine. The rallying cry "Justice Requires Balance," and my assertions that a system of judicial appointment far better serves Ohio's citizens than our current elective model, apparently hasn't fallen on deaf ears.

According to a joint press release today from Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, the League of Women Voters of Ohio Education Fund, and the Ohio State Bar Association, the Ohio Supreme Court will play host on November 19th and 20th to "A Forum on Judicial Selection: A Time for Action."

The event, headlined by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, will be moderated by former Ohio Attorney General (and Dean of the Ohio State Moritz College of Law) Nancy Hardin Rogers, and will make a vigorous case that utilizing the political process to elect judges unduly damages the cause of justice.

Choice quotes from the release:

“The time has come to do something to address the widespread perception that campaign contributions influence judicial decision making,” said Chief Justice Moyer. “Our goal is to determine whether to pursue a new selection method for Supreme Court Justices and to explore the various reforms that other states have implemented.”

“If the public believes that judges are not fair and impartial, then the integrity of the third branch is compromised, and this undermines the strength of our entire democratic system,” said Meg Flack, president of the League of Women Voters of Ohio Education Fund.

Among the leaders who have indicated that they will participate either in person or through a representative are Gov. Ted Strickland, Ohio Senate President Bill Harris, Ohio House Speaker Armond Budish, Ohio Senate Minority Leader Capri Cafaro, and Ohio House Minority Leader Bill Batchelder.

We'll have more on this event as it develops, and will make every effort to attend and bring you live coverage of what could be a paradigm shift in the judicial and political landscape in our state.

2010: Let's Go Horse Racing!

2009-09-01T13:47:00.006-04:00

NOTE: A correction has been made in the piece below, as an astute reader points out that Republican Treasurer candidate Josh Mandel actually has a fundraising edge on incumbent Kevin Boyce. The projection has been altered to reflect that reality. -BLC

By most accounts (and judging by historical trends), the 2010 election may well be a bumpy one for Democrats. Current projections have Democrats losing around 20 seats in the House of Representatives, several governorships, and a Senate seat or two.

For Ohioans, the stakes couldn’t be higher. In addition to races for the Governor’s mansion and the first open Senate election in Ohio since John Glenn retired, our state will elect an entirely new slate of executive branch leadership (including Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer and Auditor). Combined with the first House elections since Democrats retook the majority in 2008 (and the little matter of the Apportionment Board), these races make 2010 an unusually important mid-term election.

With that in mind (and putting on my lawyer hat), I’d like to make a few assumptions arguendoabout Democratic prospects and strategies in 2010. Let me make this clear: this in NO WAY means I have insider sources at ODP, and is not meant as reporting. This exercise is conjecture, and but one of many scenarios the party could face in building on the gains we made in 2006 and 2008 and move the progressive agenda in Ohio forward.

That said, let’s dig in…good news first.

Despite the hubbub within Democratic circles regarding whether Jennifer Brunner or Lee Fisher should be tabbed to take up the progressive mantel in the race to replace retiring Sen. George Voinovich, the most recent polling available has Fisher beating presumed Republican candidate Rob “T-1000” Portman by 8 points, with Brunner similarly positioned at a 6 point advantage. Though trends this early in a contest can be skewed by a great many factors (including the low-level expenditures each campaign has made and the correspondingly low level of public awareness of the campaign), these numbers bode well for a Democratic victory next November. Portman’s ties to the Bush Administration (his service as W.’s Budget Director chief among them) continue to prove a potent drag on his numbers in polling. Even given the negative overall climate, this seat looks to be one of our best bets for gains in 2010.

In the 2008 election cycle, Democrats picked up 3 Congressional seats in traditionally Republican districts (John Boccieri in Northeast Ohio, Mary Jo Kilroy in greater Columbus, and Steve Driehaus in Cincinnati). Two of those candidates (Kilroy and Driehaus) face rematches with their 2008 opponents (“Steves” Stivers and Chabot, respectively). While Kilroy faces a difficult reelection battle (her stances are marginally more liberal than those of her district generally, and the third party candidate whose presence wounded Stivers’ efforts is likely out for 2010), the relative conservative stances of Boccieri and Driehaus will hold them in good stead in their centrist districts (D+1 and R+4 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index). In a mid-term election, even a net loss of one seat (which is in no way guaranteed) in a state like Ohio bodes well for the party nationally, and could be considered a “win” in an expected adverse climate.

The governor’s race is a different matter. Despite enjoying a 25 point lead in polling as recently as February, Gov. Strickland now stands on precarious ground for an incumbent with an edge of only 6 points and an overall support figure under 45%. While it’s true that Strickland’s numbers may be artificially deflated by the stagnant economy and the present health care debate, it must be cause for concern for Democrats. That said, this race still leans Dem at this point (the incumbency advantage is a strong one, and one assumes with projected continued economic recovery and the end of the health care debate Gov. Strickland should be in a relatively stronger position to start the new year).

For the remainder of the races we’ll discuss here, polling at this point in the process is scarce, and making sound determinations based on hard statistics is for that reason nearly impossible. That said, it is possible to project the conventional wisdom as it stands today, and what that might mean for Democratic prospects down ticket.

The best opportunity for a pickup of a statewide office for Democrats in 2010 is (by default) the Auditor’s office. As the only current statewide Republican office holder, Mary Taylor should be benefiting from ruling party fatigue and her status as a relative outsider. Yet, the most currentpolls available show her with an approval rating of only 5% (17% disapprove, and a staggering 78% have no opinion). The likely Democratic nominee, Hamilton County Commissioner David Pepper, is also a relative unknown. That said, however, his prolific fundraising prowess on the local level, clear support from the Democratic establishment, and centrist stances on most issues position him well to unseat the divisive and very conservative Republican.

In the race for Attorney General, incumbent Democrat Richard Cordray should face a tough challenge from former Lt. Gov. and Senator Mike DeWine. DeWine is sure to make the Marc Dann corruption scandal a focus of his campaign, and tout his long record of public service. Cordray, for his part, should be able to do a serviceable job of distancing himself from Dann (thanks in large part to the deft handling of the situation by Gov. Strickland and the party when that story broke), and can focus his campaign on a “new era” of Ohio leadership (subtly turning DeWne’s long record into a liability rather than an asset). This will likely be the most closely matched race of 2010, but at the end of the day Cordray’ youth, enthusiasm, and predominately positive campaign style will likely hold sway.

The greatest unknown quantity for 2010 is likely the race for Treasurer, pitting Cordray’s replacement Kevin Boyce against State Rep. Josh Mandel of Lyndhurst. On paper, this race should favor the Republicans. Josh Mandel is a relatively young “rising star” in the Ohio GOP, and won his seat in a heavily Democratic district in Northeast Ohio. Mandel also boasts a sizable financial advantage right now, with approximately $1.3M in the bank to Boyce's $486,000. For his part, Kevin Boyce has never won or run for election outside his native Franklin County, and his brief tenure as a placeholder Treasurer confers little in the way of an incumbency advantage. Though Boyce has been present on the Fair circuit this summer, he has yet to establish a more permanent presence. Count this race as "Leans Republican” for now, with the possibility of moving into the "Toss Up" column with improved messaging and/or fundraising from Kevin Boyce.

Presently, the race causing the most consternation in Democratic circles is the race to replace Jennifer Brunner as Secretary of State. With each passing day, the likelihood increases that State Rep. Jennifer Garrison of Marietta will be the Democratic nominee for this office (her endorsement today by the Ohio Teamsters being only the latest in a string of power-solidifying endorsements). Garrison will face off against uncontested Republican candidate and former Speaker of the Ohio House Jon Husted. Husted’s fundraising prowess, charisma, connectedness, and Teflon-like ability to avoid controversy have earned him the title “Slick Jonny” in certain Democratic circles, and make him an incredibly formidable candidate. As has been discussed ad nauseam in this and other forums, Garrison’s campaign has faced a backlash from the progressive Left for her stances on gay marriage, DOMA, and women’s choice rights. Attempts have been made in recent days to whitewash those stances, and the ultimate success or failure of her candidacy depends on the success of those efforts. Facing a gap in base enthusiasm and massive fundraising deficit, Garrison’s campaign has far to go to reach viability, and as of this writing this race is the Republican Party’s best chance for a pick up.

If the above proves true (an admittedly big “if”), the outcomes of elections in the Ohio House become the single largest determining factor in who controls state government (and the all-important Apportionment Board, which determines where district lines are and has the potential to create institutionalized party control for the next decade). Democrats won 7 seats in the 2008 election, gaining a 53-46 edge. Many Dems heading into that election expected a pick up of only 3 seats, and hoped for the 4th needed to re-take the majority. The “bonus” 3 seats, many claim, resulted from the wave of support for now-President Barack Obama. Obama is not on the ballot in 2010, prompting questions about the sustainability of those gains in an off year. While facially this sounds like a problem, further examination proves it to be a false concern. Of the seats gained in 2008, 6 were in what most concede are strong Republican areas (Reps. Pryor, Phillips, Pillich, Moran, Schneider, and Garland). Democrats won those seats largely by running on centrist platforms and economic issues (rather than more divisive social concerns), and in many cases out-performed Obama locally. While replacing the abnormally conservative Garrison in Marietta will prove a daunting task, Democrats are well positioned to hold gains elsewhere. The Ohio House majority is relatively safe.

(The Ohio Senate, frankly, isn’t worth discussion. The Republican edge here is huge, and excluding a combination sex/finance scandal involving the entire Republican caucus is unlikely to change.)

So, to summarize:

Likely Pickups: Senate, Auditor
Likely Holds: Ohio House
Lean Hold: Governor, Attorney General, 2 Congressional Seats
Lean Loss: 1 Congressional Seat, Treasurer
Likely Losses: Secretary of State, State Senate

Though admittedly these projections are speculative, they are at very least based in the conventional wisdom as it stands today. This outcome is generally positive for Democrats. Despite the potential loss of two important statewide offices, this alignment would preserve continued control of the state agenda and the Apportionment Board. These results would give Democrats an opportunity to draw Congressional and Legislative districts for the first time in over 20 years.

Obviously, much can change between now and November 2010. Still, the overall political climate in Ohio and in the vast majority of individual races will likely buffer Democrats in our state from the losses expected by most observers nationwide. There remains much work to do, but at a moment when inside baseball dominates the news cycle, it is important to remember Democrats have real reason for optimism. If we keep our eyes on the ball, there is little reason the progressive agenda in Ohio won’t continue to move forward through the next election cycle and beyond.

Health Care: Why Tort Reform Isn't The Answer

2009-08-24T11:30:00.003-04:00

What tort reform is really all about...

I’ve been avoiding writing this piece now for a while. As a law student (and future attorney), I’m reluctant to speak on the topic of tort reform because A) I feel my words will be perceived as biased by my future profession, and B) there are frankly a great many issues surrounding health care that deserve our attention more (the lies about government-funded abortions, which were never a part of the bill, and "death panels” chief among them).

That said, recent calls for tort reform from Sarah Palin and attendees at Sherrod Brown’s town hall on the issue (including one of the panelists) have forced my hand.

A brief primer: “tort law” is a body of law that addresses civil complaints not stemming from contractual disputes. If, for instance, I slip and fall outside of your business on ice you had a legal duty to clear, my suit would be a tort suit. This matters in the health care context because malpractice lawsuits against doctors also fall into this category.

Calls for tort reform as a solution to our health care troubles have been out there as long as the debate, and in fact have led to sweeping tort reforms in the past decade which include reducing maximum jury awards for a number of tort claims and reducing the amount of eventual awards attorneys can claim in legal fees.

Despite those victories (which have, in many cases, have discouraged worthy plaintiffs from bringing suit and created disincentives for seeking justice), the claim that reforming tort law will fix the problems in our health care system endures. The arguments are tried and successful: jury awards continue to rise, malpractice insurance costs are passed on to consumers, and very few patients with valid claims actually sue.

There’s only one problem: these arguments are, to quote my granddad, “absolute hooey.”

A great deal of scholarship has been devoted over the past 15 years or so to 1) identifying whether or not a tort crisis exists, and 2) discussing possible outcomes of reform or inaction. Scholars on this topic are in near universal agreement that there is no tort crisis, and that proposed reforms would not solve the problems that are inherent in the current system.

Briefly, why there is no crisis…

-The national average of tort complaints related to malpractice suits is around 4.8%. of all tort complaints.

-Defendant doctors win malpractice suits around 69.3% of the time.

-Commercial legal reporting services, where most data cited comes from, tend to report a higher percentage of those cases where plaintiffs win (particularly those with large jury verdicts). This skews the data commonly cited in favor of tort reform.

-The actual average plaintiff recovery in malpractice suits is 1/6 that of the average commonly cited in commercial reporters. 1/3 of all recoveries are less than $50,000, and ½ are less than $200,000.

-Plaintiff settlement demands (and jury awards) correlate strongly to the severity of the harm caused by the doctor’s malpractice.

-Punitive damages (those meant to “punish” the doctor for his actions) are exceptionally rare (and in the case study cited, none occurred over a 12-year period in Franklin County).

-Filings have not increased dramatically over time, and verdicts have actually decreased since their peak in 1992.

…and why proposed reforms won’t solve the problems that do exist:

-The current system heavily favors defendants, and most proposals for reform are meant to further insulate defendants from suit.

-Current proposals for reform are “as likely to depress verdicts and settlements for seriously injured negligence victims as to discourage frivolous nuisance suits.”

-Past tort reforms had the effect of making malpractice cheaper to defend, but do nothing to increase the safety and reliability of health care.

-Tort reforms “reduce incentives for providers to invest in measures that protect patients from harm” by making litigation rarer and less expensive.

-Proposals that do not create incentives for improving care and remove bad actors from the market will cause premiums to continue to rise, which in turn continues to elevate the cost of health care.

-The most effective proposals remove bad actors, discourage frivolous suits, and cause economically rational action. None of the empirical data on tort reform proposals indicates they would achieve any of those goals.

So, while Sarah Palin and others rail on about our “out of control tort system” and tout the “vast savings” legal reforms would mean to consumers, the numbers and nearly all serious scholarly opinion tell a different story. The tort system is not, in fact, out of control, and efforts at reform may actually impede legitimate malpractice claims.

Like “death panels” and “government funded abortions,” the calls for tort reform are just another misdirect by the opponents of reform on behalf of the real culprit in our national health care crisis: the insurance industry.

Insurers are presently making massive profits despite the economic climate, largely on the backs of exorbitant premiums charged to doctors and to patients. By exercising their currently legal prerogative to deny coverage and to increase premiums charged to doctors based on sketchy “trends” in malpractice litigation, those profit margins increase even more. To our great detriment, they are then used in highly effective lobbying, which killed the 1993 reform movement and threatens the current one.

Unless and until we as a society chose to stop using heuristics and mental shortcuts in place of real research and deep thought, we are doomed to repeat this debate (as we’ve done for nearly a century) a decade hence.

Does this mean that I believe the President should get a pass on this issue, or that legal reforms of some kind cannot be a part of the solution? Not at all. What it does mean, however, is that the time for allowing fear to guide our public discourse must come to its end, and in its place must rise an era of reasoned discussion and earnest hope. Without that reform, what change can we possibly believe in?

So Pelosi and Hoyer Walk into a Bar...

2009-08-18T11:31:00.004-04:00

Dear Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer,

This letter is in response to your August 10th op-ed in the USA Today. I am shocked and dismayed by what you said, but I’ll defend your right to say it – and anything else you’d like to say – as a fundamental guarantee of our American society. Our nation is built upon the foundation of dissent, from the first cries for freedom from the tyranny of the crown from Boston and Williamsburg to the modern-day representation of folks like Fred Phelps by the ACLU. We may disagree about the best uses of our federal government or its resources, but I sincerely hope that we will never disagree about our democratic principles or our nation’s reliance on the rule of the majority and the right to public dissent.

That is why the sentence in your article that declared that those that opposed the healthcare plan introduced by President Obama and other democratic party leaders were being “un-American” because they were vocal in their opposition to the proposal was so offensive as to be comical, leading me to believe that you will be joining Tom Delay in the world of reality television as contestants on “Last Comic Standing.” In that context, it was hilarious! How cynical and biting, to say something that’s so reversed and dishonest that any 3rd grader after perusing his Weekly Reader would know is untrue about America! Everyone gets it – great work.

Wait…what? It wasn’t a joke? You really believe that there is something un-American about making sure your government knows how you feel about how it is spending your money and running your life? You really think there is a vast right-wing campaign that incites crowds to shout you down just because you’re a democrat? You really believe that anyone who is against the government taking over 17% of the economy and stands up to you is a plant? Seriously?

But wait, they have to shout you down because that’s the only way you’ll listen (or at least the media will listen). This “town hall” tour is a fraud – it’s not to see how America feels about the healthcare plan, it’s a way for you to tell America how they feel about the healthcare plan. How can I tell? Because your representatives lose their minds with rage when they are challenged and accuse those who oppose them of being insiders of the other team.

You see, most of us don’t have the sort of access to the media that you do. You get the microphone in the front of the room and the rest of us wait to be called on. The rest of us write populist blogs originating in our home states that only a few hundred people read while you can write an op-ed for one of the largest newspapers in the world whenever you want and call people names.

I agree with your conclusion – we need debate about this issue. There is no doubt that some people have gone too far (like those who have brought guns to the rallies, talk about a powder keg waiting for a match) and that’s unacceptable in every sense of the word. But most of the rage is real because the concern is real. Most of us feel like you and everyone else in Washington doesn’t listen. Some people like the healthcare plan and some people hate it, all for their own reasons, and they all deserve the right to be heard.

Please do your job as representatives of the people and listen to both sides. Not doing so is the un-American part of this equation.

Astroturf: Back In Style

2009-08-18T10:33:00.003-04:00

I, like most of us, believed very firmly that astroturf stopped being cool during the reign of Gerald Ford, disco, and swingers clubs.

If you've been reading any political commentary or blogging on the health care debate, however, you have probably been witnessing the same renaissance I have.

In addition to the lovely electric green faux grass that adorns your grandmother's patio, astroturf also has a political slang meaning: "formal political, advertising, or public relations campaigns seeking to create the impression of being spontaneous or grassroots behavior." That is, faking it with the hope of one day making it.

Debating health care has revived the term in our political conversation, with references to right-wing groups spending into the tens of millions to create fake movements in McClatchy and accusations from certain right-wing blogs in Ohio that everyone from the White House to liberal bloggers are doing the same.

The accusation that one political party or other is manufacturing their support is as old as democracy, and has the virtue of being completely impossible to disprove. Unfortunately for our political discourse, is has the added trait of deepening the already gorge-like divisions within our society, and makes any substantive debate next to impossible.

For that reason, I'm calling for a moratorium on acussing either party of "astroturfing," or using any other term that similarly evokes drumming up false opposition (or support) of health care reform. While its certainly possible (and highly likely) that both sides are engaging in some political gamesmanship in the hope of controlling the media story, its equally possible that there are informed and intelligent people who simply disagree about what direction is best on this important issue on both sides.

So, please: let's encourage intelligent debate and thoughtful discourse, and leave the astroturf, like Steve McQueen and Shaft, to a bygone era.

Obama Admin: Public Option "Not The Essential Element" To Reform Efforts

2009-08-16T22:14:00.004-04:00

So much for Dick Nixon's "silent majority" winning the day.

On the same day President Obama's op-ed in The New York Times spoke of the "millions upon millions who quietly struggle" under a health care system that strongly benefits insurers, his Administration took the rhetorical first steps in killing the only part of current reform plans that had any hope of combating their formidable power.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (daughter of former Ohio Governor John Gilligan) uttered the phrase quoted in this piece's title today. These words, though obviously a trial balloon from a lower-ranking Administration official to test liberal reaction to talk of abandoning a public option, are likely the beginning of the end for the sort of sweeping reform many of us hope for.

The alternative now on the table? The health insurance "co-ops" proposed by Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, which according to HuffPost are "consumer-owned non-profit cooperatives" that would sell health insurance in competition with private companies. The parallel apparently used in drafting that idea is to agricultural and electrical co-ops so prevalent in rural America.

As someone who grew up in rural Logan County, Ohio, let me tell you that while eletrical co-ops and agricultural co-ops have done a great deal for rural folks, they simply cannot compete with the likes of AEP or big agri-business in terms of lobbying prowess, advertising ability, and in many cases, price manipulation.

Think about it...do you really think that a large group of consumers paying into a car insurance cooperative could hope to compete with the clout of State Farm, Geico, and Progressive? Why, then, would we expect a similar group focused on health insurance to be able to compete with Aetna, Signa, Blue Cross, and the rest?

This piece from Business Week a few days ago is, I fear, too accurate: the health insurers have already won.

I am not sure if the Obama Administration is cowing to the literally tens of Americans disrupting town halls nationwide on this issue, to slopping accusations of socialism from the political Right, or to the pressure of an immensely powerful and well-funded lobbying interest. What I amcertain of is that this sort of language is cowing, and flies in the face of a central tenet of the Obama campaign's raison detre.

After all, didn't candidate Obama's much-maligned prime time infomercial during the campaign focus heavily on the plight of the un- and under-insured in our country?

Following the co-op model preferred by Conrad (a "Blue Dog" if ever there was one) rather than a true public option might provide a political win by convincing the few remaining moderate Republicans to support reform, but at what cost? Hasn't the Republican Party proved time and again in the first 200 days of this Administration that they are unwilling to provide any ideas of their own, and are content only to snipe at the suggestions of others?

While the Obama Administration continues to duck questions about how essential a public option is to reform efforts, the window for real reform continues to close (and in fact may already have slammed shut).

The answer seems clear enough. Any victory on health care reform that doesn't reform health insurance by 1) competing with private insurers to lower prices, and 2) ensuring that pre-existing conditions and preventative care are covered for all Americans is a pyrrhic one.

The public option is a "make or break" choice, and we can only hope and pray that the Obama Administration truly is as indecisive as they appear. It's only remaining hope we seem to have for real and lasting reform that benefits all Americans.

Want to see what I (and Nate Sliver of fivethirtyeight.com) believe is the clearest and best option for health care reform remaining in America? Visithttp://www.standtallforamerica.com/issue/health_care/, and sign up to show your support for true and lasting change. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than co-ops.

Deep Thoughts At Midnight

2009-08-15T01:09:00.007-04:00

Is it just me, or does this 1980s sitcom character...

...look an awful lot like this 1980s political figure?

Note the exaggerated wrinkles, prominent ears, and dark, deep set eyes. The clear acting ability. The reliance on suburban, middle-class families from California for survival. The fear of nuclear warfare. The bizarre eating habits (Jelly Bellys are bizarre...please don't write).

A question to ponder: if America only gave "ALF" four years on the air, why did it give The Gipper eight in the Oval Office?

This observer isn't sure, but somehow the aliens from "Cocoon" must be involved.

More on this breaking story as it develops.

RECAP: Sen. Brown's Columbus Health Care Town Hall

2009-08-12T15:29:00.004-04:00

Video highlights (I apologize in advance for the poor quality...I'm learning on the fly):

Despite what happened at prior health care town halls in Florida and Pennsylvania, and a concerted effort by conservative bloggers in our own state to drum up opposition, today's health care town hall on the campus of The Ohio State University Medical Center was a relatively civil affair.

The event began with introductory remarks from Sen. Brown, as well as from a panel including OSU Medical Center's Dr. Steven Gabbe, the hospital's Senior Vice President for Health Services, a representative of Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, and four Ohio citizens.

Not surprisingly, the doctors offered insight into the need for health care reform from a medical perspective, and the citizens recounted their own difficulties with the expensive and labyrinthine insurance procedures currently in place. The panel’s physicians (well represented in the audience) focused their remarks on the need for preventative care, and stressed the importance of including those measures in any final bill. Dr. Gabbe, in particular, listed some sobering statistics, stating that the nation’s academic research hospitals (like Ohio State) treat more than 70% of uninsured patients who require urgent care, and that 80% of our nation’s health expenditures go to 20% of our population suffering from chronic and preventable illnesses.

Sen. Brown added to those remarks, assuring the crowd that under any version of the final bill, the public will no longer be subsidizing the uninsured through increased premiums (as we presently do). Rather, with all Americans required to carry insurance, overall costs to the consumer would be lowered and coverage extended.*

*Though Sen. Brown did not make this parallel, I believe the historic example of requiring all citizens to carry car insurance is one that serves us well in trying to understand the impact of that particular provision. -BLC

Sen. Brown also renewed his support for reform now, and his pledge to not accept government insurance through Congress until all Ohioans are covered. Asked at the end of the event if he himself would take the public option being discussed, he said, “There’s a pretty good chance that, if it works out like I think, you’d see me take the public option.”

The town hall also featured passionate pleas for reform from the crowd, well thought out questions about what reform could mean for those currently insured, and yes, a few crazy ramblings (some of each are highlighted in the videos above).

As remarkable as the content of this town hall was what was absent from it. Despite clear passions on both sides, for the most part the crowd remained respectful of the positions being taken, and listened closely to the points being raised by the opposition. In a world where Congressmen call audience questions “bullshit” and audience members physically assault one another, it’s refreshing to see that, just occasionally, the machinery of Democracy works as the Founders intended.

* * *

In the interest of covering the story fully, and of satisfying demand for coverage of protests, there WERE some folks who were unhappy with the day's events. The photos below contain images taken just before and just after the event. As you'll note, the number of protesters is relatively small, and thus the blog made an editorial decision to run the photographs of opposition last and focus on the event's general civility. Though today's events are a good sign, it's clear we still have miles to go before achieving reform, and these signs are a good reminder that we cannot rest on the opposition.

Sua Sponte: Gahanna Vice

2009-08-11T20:56:00.003-04:00

Contributor's Note: "Sua sponte" means "of its own will" in Latin. From time to time in this space, I'll take a look at cases from Ohio and around the nation showing that, sometimes, our justice system truly has a mind of its own.

Beautiful Gahanna, Ohio.

One of Money Magazine's 2007 "Best Places to Live" in America.

Since 1972, the official "Herb Capital of Ohio."

A self-proclaimed "bedroom community."

This week, however, it’s fair to say that the city and one of its employees wishes it could give that last title back.

In early 2008, the lovely Beth Fithen, a mother of four and soccer mom, starred in a pictoral for Playboy Magazine’s 2008 “Hot Moms Special Edition.” Mrs. Fithen called the photos “the final stepping stone,” and the achievement of a life-long goal. Her moment of air-brushed glory earned her additional, shall we say, exposure in The Newark Advocate (her hometown paper), and more, um, in depth coverage at web sites we will not mention by name here.

Unfortunately for Mrs. Fithen, however, over a year of the Bunny lifestyle and Uncle Hef’s parties appear to have worn thin on her husband, Gahanna Officer Ron Fithen.

Why, I’m sure some of you are asking?

According to papers filed last week in Franklin County court, requests from Officer Fithen’s co-workers for copies of the magazine, autographs, and one can only imagine what else led to “a humiliating and intolerable working environment” for him.

In case you didn’t read that correctly, I’ll rephrase it: Officer Fithen is suing the city for humiliations he suffered as a result of his wife’s choice to pose for Playboy.

The city, which claims a week after filing to be unaware of the lawsuit, responded essentially as one might expect. After a pregnant pause, city law director Brian Zets was heard to utter: “We deny all claims made by Officer Fithen’s counsel, and can easily explain those receipts our wives keep finding in our pants pockets.”

The long delay, if accurate, may present Gahanna with an easy escape from this suit on procedural grounds. Too bad, because this is one observer who was looking forward to hearing Officer Fithen’s explanation of how the city talked his wife’s clothes off.

The moral? When you or those you love chose to take it all off in the public arena, don’t be shocked to find yourself, in ways myriad and unexpected, exposed.

Anything You Can Draw, I Can Draw Better

2009-07-24T15:42:00.006-04:00

In an attempt to paint Democratic health care reform plans as too complex, Rep. Boehner (pronounced "Boh-ner") and Co. in the House Republican Caucus put out a flowchart demonstrating the complexity of the proposal being bandied about (viewable here).

The flowchart pictured above? That's not it.

What the image above does depict (courtesy of The New Republic, where you can see a higher resolution version) is our present health care system, as TNR put it, "in all its convoluted glory."

The moral? Health care in America is a complex thing, and reforming it will be an equally complex process.

The moral, continued? Despite the success of 1994's version of the flowchart* in scaring the American public away from Bill Clinton's reform agenda, Republicans will need to build a deeper playbook if they hope to defeat reform a second time.

*If anyone can find the 1994 version, I'd love to see it. You'll even get a shout-out in these pages...

Ohio Wins Race To 1,000

2009-07-24T15:37:00.001-04:00

As noted here, yesterday Ohio earned a somewhat dubious distinction.

In executing convicted murderer Marvallous Keene, our state correctional system dispatched the 1,000th inmate executed since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in America in the landmark Gregg v. Georgia case in 1976.

Four years prior in 1972, the Court had made history in suspending all death penalty laws in the U.S. as cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment in Furman v. Georgia.

Apparently whatever qualms they had about the cruelty of the death penalty were solved just four years later.

So, Georgia got all the case law recognition, and yesterday Ohio executed the 1,000th inmate to die under the new legal regime.

Somewhere, Texas is very, very jealous.

The U.S. is the only member of the G-8 list of wealthy, industrialized nations still practicing the death penalty. Methods employed in the U.S. include lethal injection, electrocution, the gas chamber, hanging, and firing squad.

Can't Get a Penny From the Block

2009-07-16T12:15:00.002-04:00

As Anthony from Ohio Daily pointed out in his piece here, the fundraising numbers for Jennifer Brunner were again not what we'd hoped this quarter. I personally adore Jennifer Brunner for all that she stands for (and have given money to her in support of this campaign), and I want to believe the Brunner camp's right when they say "the polls are a dead heat" and they're "certain to do even better next quarter."

Then again, I wanted to believe that last quarter, too.

The political reality speaks otherwise. While it's true that Mike DeWine beat Sherrod Brown in the money race and still got his butt kicked last time out, the margin (or "Diff" for you Cavs fans) in that race was $15M to $10M, or a 3-2 ratio. That's pretty close in the grand scheme of things.

Right now, Fisher leads Brunner in fundraising at a $2M to $500,000 clip, or a 4-1 ratio. Portman has $4.3M in the bank, or what would be near a 9-1 deficit for Brunner.

Projecting the current pace ahead into the next quarter, we would see Rob Portman with around $5.5M in the bank, Lee Fisher with approximately $3M, and Jennifer Brunner with $750,000. Her deficit ratios to Fisher and Portman would be 4-1 and 7-1, respectively.

My point? At this pace, math and time are not on Brunner's side.

In the political horse race (as in real horse racing), "show" simply isn't good enough to bring home the prize. Brunner has about one more quarter left to show that she can rake with the big boys (so, until the end of 2009). If she's not within 50% of Fisher's haul by that time, it may be time to start thinking about the "good of the party" and her own political future.

While it's true that the protracted presidential primary had the effect of keeping the Dems in the news and raising both of them extra cash, this Senate primary is different. News coverage of this primary hasn't been about a party that "can't decide between two great choices," it has been "insurgent won't concede to entrenched party stalwart." That's not a good meme for our side, ladies and gentlemen. Another lackluster quarter, and Brunner's campaign will go from a grassroots driven, Obama-esque drive for a "better way" to a drag on Democratic hopes in our state for 2010.

And a word about the close polling...those of us who follow politics closely sometimes forget that the majority of the sane world does not. While it's true that Brunner and Fisher both edge Portman in polls now, and that Brunner and Fisher are in a dead heat, all of the polling we're currently seeing is before any real amounts of cash have been spent. Politicians do all of this fundraising to purchase advertising, and advertising works. While time will tell if these polling numbers hold up after the spending begins, precedent is not on former Judge Brunner's side.

Yes, Brunner's camp correctly points out that Fisher lost in two races while outspending his opponent by nearly $1M each time. The missing part of that story is that the Republicans in those races were not trailing in fundraising by even the 3-2 margin Sherrod Brown overcame in 2006. Brown's election, too, came in the Democratic wave of 2006, not during a mid-term election following a presidential win (where the party in power historically loses ground).

All of the signs are pointing to one thing, something I think many of us would rather not acknowledge: these fundraising numbers will spell Brunner's early exit without drastic improvement.

So Jennifer, as someone who deeply respects you and believes you're probably the better candidate, I implore you: kick this fundraising mechanism into gear now. Use Chris Celeste's business connections. Use Ken Blackwell like the boogeyman he is. Camp out at the State Department until Hillary promises to surrogate for you in every county in Ohio. Otherwise, your own bid for the Senate in 2010 may be effectively over before we reach the election year's first day.

Thoughts on the Ohio Budget

2009-07-13T16:47:00.003-04:00

As the long-awaited 2010-2011 Ohio budget finally makes its way out of conference committee today, details continue to emerge on the budget's contents including further information on the impact of the reduced budget on various programs and the shape and scope of video slots gambling provisions.

It remains unlikely that the final budget will reach Gov. Strickland's desk before the current temporary budget expires on Tuesday (meaning that $14M cost associated with the delay is likely to go up a few hundred thousand dollars while the House and Senate debate and vote on the compromise bill). Still, we will have a state budget (which is good news for all Ohioans), which will look very similar in its final form to this version.

As they say, however, the devil is in the details, and this budget's horns seem to grow by the day. A look at positives and negatives (with comments):

Full disclosure: As an advocate of Legal Aid programs, I am saddened to see the state budget contains no provision to support legal services for the state's poor. I understand that cuts must come, but taking monies away from protecting Ohio's poorest citizens from exploitation to me seems the wrong place for a trim. I'll leave my commentary on the legal services count at that, and move on to general positives and negatives of the compromise bill.

Positives.

Institutes all day kindergarten. This is a cornerstone of the Governor's education proposal, and will go a long way toward addressing the state's education shortfalls. Still need to figure out a long-term solution to Ohio's unconstitutional funding model, but focusing on the front end of education (where changes have the most impact) is a start.

Eliminates proposal to lease state land for oil and gas drilling and coal extraction. It's bad for ANWR, and it's bad for Old Man's Cave.

Makes permanent earlier laws on continuation of health benefits. As this fall's election demonstrates, health care reform (and greater access across the board to affordable health care) is a huge priority for voters in Ohio and across the nation. Allowing the continuation of health benefits is, again, a good first step. As the federal health care proposal hits some rocky ground, however, it is important that the Governor and legislature look hard at how Ohio can bridge the gap on this critical policy issue. Gov. Strickland speaks often of being a leader in education and energy, and as Ohio plays home to many of the nation's premiere health care facilities and largest insurers, this blogger believes health care should be at the top of that list, as well.

Minimizes cuts to libraries. Perhaps no issue got so much press as the proposed deep cuts to library funding. Apparently, the Governor and Legislature agree that ignorance is expensive, as the cuts have been reduced to a more manageable $84M over two years. That's not ideal, but it's much better than what we were looking at.

Increases funding for mental health services. From the outset, it appeared very likely that the first cuts in a reduced state budget would come in mental health services. Perhaps noting that these kinds of cuts can have drastic impacts on the social health and well-being of the state, the conference committee voted to increase funding by $65M over the proposed framework levels. Win-win.

Negatives.

Allows Sunday liquor sales starting at 11am. I'm no prude, and I do love a good glass of Woodford Reserve or Four Roses Bourbon on occassion, but c'mon...does drinking earlier really solve any of those problems? Maybe this provision is in there to allow state legislators to pretend there isn't a fiscal crisis, at least for a little while...or, maybe it's for recovering from this hellish budget process.

Allows furloughs at public colleges and universities. I'll need to read up on this further, but if this provision is along the lines of California's recent mandatory furloughs for state employees (amounting to an average loss of up to $14,000 per person), then I'm not on board.

Cuts higher education funding. I've said it many, many times before, and I'll say it again: any comprehensive education plan must contain provisions investing in education on the front end in early childhood, and on the back end in higher education. As our economy moves further away from our manufacturing roots and into the "knowledge" economy, we'll need to encourage the pursuit of higher education wherever possible. Cuts in this area (and to programs providing Choice Grants to Ohio high schoolers choosing an Ohio college) hurt our ability to attract and retain college educated folks to the state. Those same college educated citizens have higher earning potential and pay higher taxes across the board. Long term, we should be doing everything to encourage the pursuit of higher education in Ohio, and cutting funding is no way to do that.

Doesn't address long-term revenue stream issues. The higher education piece is just one part of the puzzle. Even with the cuts provided here and revenue from gambling (more on that below), this budget does not yet show me that there is a real plan for identifying stable new revenue streams and balancing state spending responsibly based on those new revenue sources. Modern Esquire has beaten this issue to death on BSB, and his analysis of the political realities preventing a tax increase are spot-on. And yet...does anyone see a long-term solution to Ohio's budget woes that doesn't include some kind of tax increase? I recognize that a magical tax on the upper 1% of wage earners that solves Ohio's problems doesn't exist. What about passing a smaller, short-term tax on income on the top 50% (which probably includes a slice of the middle class)? What about a tax on real estate transactions (slowing home foreclosure rates), or an increase in estate taxes on large transfers at death (focused on estates worth over $1M)? There are ways to skin the tax cat that don't involve huge political risks if they're handled correctly, and sooner or later we're going to have to come up with a creative solution along these lines or deal with another protracted fight like this one that leaves many gaps in government services to Ohioans.

The gambling stuff is still there. Which brings us to the gambling issue. Gov. Strickland and his team get my respect for thinking creatively and taking a political risk on this issue with an eye toward solving a problem. Still, gambling is at its core a regressive form of taxation, and preys upon addiction (not unlike tobacco taxes, which I find equally troubling). Video terminal gambling is "victimless" in the sense that the terminals are going it at racetracks, and presumably being used by people who would already be gambling anyway. But, is this really behavior we want to encourage? Government at its best provides an atmosphere that allows citizens to excel in a safe and supportive environment, and at its worst preys on the weaknesses of those citizens to support itself. The gambling proposal is a hybrid, using exploitative means to provide what I think most of us will concede are needed services. This proposal, like so many other parts of this budget, can only be chewing gum on a radiator leak: it might work for a little while, but sooner or later it's going to explode, with disastrous results for the engines of state.

So, in a not-so-concise nutshell, that's this man's view of the budget proposal. Do your thoughts differ? What should be we considering to get to fulfill Ted's promise and turn around Ohio? As always, I welcome your ideas and thoughts.

States Rights and Gay Rights Unite

2009-07-13T13:49:00.003-04:00

So a quick check-in from bar study land (I'll be back writing several times a week starting in August - I really miss it, especially when compared to the Rules of Statutory Intestate Succession).

The State of Mass has filed suit against the federal government claiming that the Federal DOMA Statute (Defense of Marriage Act, for those of you non-acronym-types out there) violate the state's constitutionally protected right to define and regulate marriage. This "state's rights to regulate privacy" argument has it roots is the Roe line of cases, but that's not really relevant to the current discussion. What is relevant is what I think this means to those of us who are non-moral based libertarians who are always excited about state's rights and for those out there that are supportive of gay rights as a basic human rights issue.

This challenge may be the best positioned legal argument since the housing discrimination "test" cases of the early NAACP. The state is claiming that its right are violated, not the rights of the individuals that are the typical plaintiffs in these cases (i.e. the homosexual individual claiming that they are being denied due process or claiming sexuality as a protected fundamental right akin to race or gender). This repositioning of the plaintiff repositions the argument, but most importantly, repositions the votes on the high court.

While the high court has yet to hear a case on the gay marriage question, I strongly suspect that an argument based on individual challenges to due process or marriage as a fundamental right to be decided in the typical 5-4 Kennedy driven split that will refuse to add sexuality to the laundry list of protected classes (again, I may be wrong, but that's where politics seems to point).

However, an argument based on state's rights flips the question on its head. Those who would be most opposed to the individual rights question (Scalia and Thomas in particular) are also the strongest proponents of state's rights on the current court. We may see a split dicta, but this case could easily be decided in favor of Mass by a 7-2 type decision that would have Brown type implications for our society, much to the chagrin of the 29 states that have passed constitutional amendments outlawing gay marriage and the 13 others that have statutory prohibition on the practice. There are two main provisions of the federal DOMA law (one exempts the issue from full faith and credit and the other defines marriage in the federal context) and this challenge could find the law constitutionally invalid on either or both provisions.

If the court acts how I anticipate they will, assuming of course the case gets there, it would leave the daunting federal constitutional amendment process as they only option available to those dead set on forbidding the practice as an abomination to American society. I don't think the nation will stomach writing a group out of the Constitution with that wide a stroke, but who knows. Either way, it'll make for a great issue in the 2012 Presidential Election (think Obama will take a firm position on it? For a change, I hope so...(see what I did there, recall humor)).

Ok, now back to Civil Procedure and the rights of joinder...

Blinded By the Right

2009-07-09T13:59:00.003-04:00

Manfred Mann's not blinded by the Right. Jeb Bush, on the other hand...

This is a post for my wife. See, each month a glossy new edition of Esquire magazine shows up in our mailbox, full of insights on politics, style, literature and cuisine that she finds more than a little pretentious and annoying (despite excellent writing by the likes of Tom Chiarella, A.J. Jacobs, and Cleveland's own Scott Raab). It wouldn't be a stretch to call it the greatest source of tension in our young marriage.

Thankfully, yesterday the remarkably unremarkable Tucker Carlson's article in Esquire finally gave us something to agree on from that publication: Jeb Bush has been blinded by the Right.

How else does one explain his insistence that his brother was more popular than Obama at this point in his term? (He wasn't; at this point in his first term, Bush's approval ratings were in the high 50s to low 60s, compared to Obama's in the mid to high 60s).

His disbelief in global warming? (Choice quote: "...science has been politicized." Evolution denial, apparently, no longer qualifies as "politicization").

His "I don't know" answer to whether or not Obama is a socialist? (Good to know McCarthyism is still alive and kicking).

His insistence that the only reason the Republicans failed to retake the White House was the "sin" of not advocating the Right's position well enough to win? (Hint: The real reason's first name rhymes with "gorge," and his second name rhymes with "push." As in, the gorge your brother pushed your party into).

Yes, most of what Jeb had to say was simple boilerplate conservatism. There's one piece of that, though, that he (and the rest of the Republican party) still deeply believe, and it's one that will doom them to a permanent minority if they don't recognize it soon: the fallacy of the "center-right country."

Much typeface has been dedicated to the debate over what Sarah Palin cringe-inducingly referred to as "the Real America" actually looks like. Since the Reagan Revolution (when I was negative 4 years old), it has been taken as an order of faith on the Right that America is a fundamentally Christian, socially and economically conservative place.

The Left, though issuing mild protest, has never articulated a sufficiently succinct and cogent response. So, every few weeks we get to hear about how America is "center-right," and how the Left wins elections not because it possesses a message that connects with the electorate but because it's better at demagoguery and sleight of hand.

Oy.

I'm not a statistician, but it doesn't require an advanced degree in mathematics to see that America (which probably most accurately can be called a "center-center" country right now) is actually moving left in most every measurable way. Barack Obama won election in November with 365 electoral votes, and 53% of the popular vote. Hispanics are projected to be 25% of the American population by 2050. Obama won five of the ten fastest growing U.S. states (Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, and Delaware) and was closer than expected in three others (Arizona, Georgia, and Texas). Tucker Carlson's own question to Jeb in this interview admitted 1/3 of young voters self-identify as Socialists. According to Gallup, the GOP has lost ground in nearly every demographic group (retaining 2001 levels of support only among frequent church-goers, and losing with even conservatives and seniors).

I could go on.

The point? All the statistical and anecdotal evidence points to a trend leftward. If ever the fallacy that America is a "center-right" nation was true, it certainly isn't any more. And the more the GOP listens to the Bushes and the Limbaughs (Jeb called him a "hugely important force in the conservative movement") rather than the Joe Scarboroughs and the Andrew Sullivans, the longer their time wandering in the desert will be.

Which is good for Democrats.

So, Jeb Bush, keep lettin' that socially conservative "silicone sister (with a manager, mister)" tell you ya got what it takes. The longer you (and your party) stay blinded by the Right, the less likely we'll have to look back on a day our collective "calliope crashed to the ground."

Turner & Hooch

2009-07-06T10:32:00.003-04:00

Rep. Turner: "Nice to meet you, little girl..."
Little Girl: "Maybe you should read Wickard v. Filburn..."

Apparently Congressman (and former Dayton Mayor) Mike Turner was hitting the sauce a bit harder than normal in celebration of our country's birthday this past weekend.

How else to explain this recent story, wherein he suggests a constitutional amendment to prevent government investment in the private sector?

Rep. Turner proposed the amendment to stop a government he feels is "creeping towards socialism" from repeating attempts to save GM, the banks, and other private institutions the Obama Administration (and the Bush Administration) deemed "too big to fail." His proposed amendment received 103 original co-sponsors.

As anyone who watched Saturday morning cartoons in the 1980s can tell you, a proposed constitutional amendment has some serious uphill climbing to do to make it into our law. (Would the same were true in Ohio...maybe then we'd stop seeing interest groups use our state's constitution like a beach ball to bat around passing issues...but, that's a topic for another post.)

What's disturbing about Turner's bill is not its likelihood of passage, but its complete blindness to how government and the private sector historically interact in America. Much of the wealth that exists in this country today is the by-product of investments made during Franklin Roosevelt's reorganization of the American banking system during the Great Depression. The thinker widely credited as the forbearer of the conservative movement in America, Alexander Hamilton, penned a Report on Public Credit while Secretary of the Treasury. That document suggested that the United States assume all state debts incurred during the Revolution, essentially making the federal government the "largest stockholder" in state governments.

This, to say nothing of the fact that taxation and public spending of any kind is de facto government investment in the private sector. The stuff of commerce--roads, bridges, even the internet--is the direct result of the investment of government dollars in our national economic best interest. There's also a little thing called the Commerce Clause which (according to the Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn) gives the Congress near carte blanche to intervene in the economy where activities have a "substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." It might just be me, but I think that the prospective failure of the banking and auto industries in this country qualifies.

Perhaps rather than attempting to amend our Constitution willy nilly, Rep. Turner and his 103 sponsors should consider reading it. Novel, but probably worth doing if, you know, you intend to govern.

The Gov's Gambling Crapshoot

2009-07-02T14:56:00.000-04:00

They say that politics makes strange bedfellows. In Ohio, it's increasingly looking like economics makes dysfunctional marriages.

Gov. Ted Strickland (yep, that one...the Methodist minister) is standing behind a plan to place slot machines at all Ohio horse racing venues as a way to generate revenue for our increasingly crippled economy. According to the Administration, that proposal would likely generate at least $900M, and help pay for things like, say, library funding in our great state.

So, we all get to have a little fun playing the ponies and dropping quarters in the slots, and folks have access to books and jobs and roads. Everyone wins...right?

The problem here is that this is an incredibly risky political choice for a man who holds his ministerial credentials in high regard, and who has openly campaigned against the latest proposal to bring full-scale casino gambling to the Buckeye State. Already, Senate Republicans are taking advantage of the opening, creating a "task force" to examine the "viability" of Strickland's proposal. Sen. President Bill Harris (he of the wicked buzz cut) is already playing the move for political points, saying he won't approve of any gambling plan that doesn't come before Ohio's voters first.

The disconnect here isn't tough to grasp. One the one hand, we have a $3.2B hole in the state budget to plug. On the other, we have the repeated votes of Ohioans to kibosh prior gambling plans, concerns about the regressive nature of gambling as a tax revenue generator, and the Governor's own history of opposing gambling proposals.

It's a pickle.

Despite this blogger's prior lambasting of gambling proposals as precisely the wrong kind of revenue for reviving a crippled economy, we have to remember that we're living in desperate times. Whether it's fair or not, ultimately the responsibility for steering the ship of state falls on Gov. Strickland's shoulders. In this economic storm, there are hardly enough buckets to bail water fast enough, and anything and everything that will help Ohio stay afloat until we can get this thing fixed has to be considered. California is going to start issuing IOUs for its debts, and a great many other states are struggling to keep their collective heads above water. For now, the Governor's decision, though tough, is the right one. Do what you've gotta do to stay afloat, and deal with the fallout later.

For better or worse, Strickland is now inextricably married to the gambling plan. For his sake (and ours), lets just hope that in addition to this quick fix he can identify what put us in this position in the first place, and come up with an economic recovery plan that sets us on the path to long-term economic stability.

For all the crowing Bill Harris and the Senate Republicans are doing right now about gambling, rolling the dice on a long-term plan for recovery (in addition to the slot machine band-aid) might just give them more crow to eat than even they can stomach.

Ohio Politics. Daily.

2009-07-02T09:55:00.004-04:00

That's where you'll find me...

Today begins an exciting new chapter in this blogger's experience. Starting today, yours truly will be a front page contributor to Ohio Daily Blog, one of our state's oldest, most respected, and most-read outlets of internet opinion and commentary.

I'll be posting my content there here, as well, so feel free to stop by either place and share your opinions of...my opinions.

The Empire Strikes Back: The Return of Triangulation

2009-06-15T15:06:00.005-04:00

Has President Obama turned his back on campaign promises?

Before we get into the meat of this post, a word on the status of Buckeye Punditeers. Since its inception last summer, the premise of this blog has been hosting a spirited debate about state and national politics from both sides of the cultural divide, and allowing our readers to draw their own conclusions. Though we've had spurts of great activity, we've suffered through two major transitions already in our young history.

As such, this blog has taken a little break, and one that I don't see breaking anytime soon. As for this blogger, I'm still planning on offering insights here from time to time, but nothing near the regularity with which I formerly posted. Who knows...you might see me pop up from time to time in other places, but for now I feel I can better serve the political discourse by participating in other (potentially less "ecumenical") ways.

That said, on with the post...

Two pieces of news today shocked this blogger awake from my recent slumber. As reported by Ben Smith on Politico.com, it appears that the Obama Administration has taken two large steps backward from what has to this point been a very progressive agenda by tacitly backing DOMA and rejecting the single-payer healthcare option. For a president many on the right claimed would be a One Termer as a result of his "radical leftist agenda," these are stunning developments.

In defending DOMA in a pending federal district court case, the Administration cites to the 48 year-old precedent in Catalano v. Catalano (170 A.2d 726 if you'd like to read it yourself) reaffirming that incest is not valid marriage because it is contrary to public policy. The problem? They cite Catalano in a brief supporting a state ban on gay marriage. While Barack Obama has never portrayed himself as the great champion of the gay rights movement, he has allowed others to (seemingly) overstate his support for gay rights. As a man who swept to power on the support and overwhelming energy of young voters (58% of which support gay marriage outright), this sort of stand is beyond perplexing.

While the DOMA brief would itself make today a bad news day for the Left, Obama's AMA speech in support of health care reform took off of the table an option a great many on the Left believe is the only way to achieve true and lasting healthcare parity in this country. By taking what I can only guess is a preemptive stand to avoid the fate of Hillarycare, Obama ends an opportunity for engaging in a fundamental debate about what might be best for the health of our nation, and reduces the debate to a squabble over the extension of existing programs.

Why is it that we only seem to "leave all the options on the table" in this country in the military context, and are so unwilling to go to war over social issues at home?

Already, this renewed healthcare debate is raising the spectre of former losses, and one can't help but wonder if the presence of so many Clintonistas in the Administration is resulting in PTSD-related decision making on this crucial issue. It was, after all, the failure of the Hillarycare proposal that led a once-ambitious President Clinton to engage in what we now derisively call "triangulation."

In the early days of his Administration, Barack Obama has moved our nation forward on a number of fronts, including stem cell research, equal pay, and energy. My prayer for him, and for all of us, is that today's hiccup on DOMA and single-payer is just that. Else, we may continue to find ourselves reliving the debates of the 1990s in these eerie ways.

For a President elected on a platform of "audacious hope" and "change we can believe in," today's developments are shockingly conventional and concessionary.

BP After Hours: Tappin' the Rockies

2009-03-14T16:42:00.006-04:00

After a 2 week hiatus, BP After Hours returns in true Big Ten fashion. Pull up your barstool, wipe the week-old Coors from the sticky counter, and dig in...

Well, bud, here we are again. It's been a while...why have I been away? Well, it's the simple matter of PILF (no, not something you'd like to "If You Seek Amy," you sick bastard). This week, I've been neck deep in a cause higher than Ohio politics. See, I'm involved in this group that gives fellowships to students to help poor folks get access to legal services...we had our annual fundraiser this Thursday, and we raised over $30,000. Yeah, in this economy, that pretty much rocks.

To celebrate, the Columbus branch of BP has taken its time enjoying what it means to attend law school at a Big Ten institution. What does that mean in March, right around St. Patty's Day? That means riding the Silver Bullet to Tap the Rockies and root on THE Ohio State Buckeyes in the Big Ten hoops tourney. Not sure you got to this shitty little bar in time, but you just missed the Bucks thrashing Michigan State 82-70 to make their way to the Big Ten tourney finals and cement a spot in the Dance.

Wait...what's that? You don't give a damn about PILFs or the Big Ten, you want to talk politics? Fine. Have it your way.

From a blogosphere perspective, there hasn't been a more interesting happening this week than the implosion of Buckeye State Blog. In a little under 3 days, the blog lost their Brunner homer and their Fisher homer. Poor David Potts...left to fend for himself, all alone in the mad, mad world of Democratic Ohio political blogging. David, if you want some help, this Brass Collar Buckeye is always free (anyone else suddenly thinking Abba?). Same goes to ModernEsquire or Nick D...the front page is always open here at Buckeye Punditeers. Come on board, fellas.

Surprisingly, for all the hub-bub at BSB over the Brunner/Fisher race, things have been pretty quite in the Ohio Senate campaign. I mean, we've seen increased commentary from Zack Space (asking for a rural policy from the Obama administration) and Tim Ryan (asking for constituent commentary with lame hip-hop), but other than that, things are quite. Too quite...

...Which, brings us to the economy. Again. This week's best? That'd be Jon Stewart ripping Jim Cramer apart on The Daily Show, and Cramer's subsequent ratings nosedive. Don't know about you, but the power Jon Stewart has over our political discourse scares me. A lot.

This week's economic worst? Toughie here, but I'm going to make a call and say that the political hot potato with the economic crisis ranks first. The Obama administration can't say often enough that the crisis was "inherited from the Bush Administration," while the Republicans are getting fond of calling this crisis the "Obama economy." As a loyal Dem, I'm going to say Obama has the better part of the argument here...still, is it really constructive to engage a party like the Republicans right now?

I mean, this is a group of folks who can't even decide where they stand on abortion and homosexuality. Just ask Michael Steele. I'm starting to feel bad for this guy...I mean, he's already lost a face-off with Rush Limbaugh, and offended the crucial "one-armed midget" demographic. If he survives until Memorial Day as RNC Chair, I'll buy you a steak dinner. (Hell, I'll buy all five people who read my blog steak dinners. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.)

It's not just the national Republican Party that's lost in the woods, either. The Ohio GOP must feel pretty queasy right now, given that their only statewide officeholder, Auditor Mary Taylor, made a giant ass of herself this week in Bellefontaine with the Logan County GOP. Her message? "Government isn't the answer; government is the problem." Ah, 1980...good times, good times. Just guessin', but she was orobably introduced to Lady by Kenny Rogers or The Captain and Tennille's Do That To Me One More Time, too. So long as this party continues living in the past, they'll never be viable again...

One more gem from that meeting, a quote from former State Rep. and current Logan County Commissioner Tony Core: "...we need to educate people about the dangers of socialism and the rights you'll lose."

Ahem.

I'll put this in simple terms, because I know the Republican Party somehow found a time warp this November: Barack Obama NOT EQUAL TO Joseph Stalin. Ted Strickland NOT EQUAL TO Karl Marx. The quicker they get that, the quicker they become relevant again. The name calling simply diminishes the party, and in a system that thrives when both parties present cogent ideological arguments, pushes the date of future Republican relevance further into the future.

What else? Boehner's man-tan is still scary...Rush Limbaugh is still a big, fat idiot...

Oh! That reminds me...Al Franken might finally (FINALLY) be seated as the new Senator from Lake Wobegon next week, as Norm Coleman's halting and sputtering quest for judicial relief from the voter's choice finally rested yesterday. Whatever the outcome, Minnesotans deserve adequate representation, and soon. Here's hoping the Supreme Court of the Land of 1,000 Lakes sees it that way, too.

What's that? You've gotta go? Something about the World Baseball Classic and USA v. Puerto Rico?

Fine. Quick, here's what to look for next week:

-Gov. Strickland's education plan is going to continue its vetting...so far, so good, though.
-The Ohio Casino plan backed by Dan Gilbert (Cavs owner) is going to get more coverage.
-The Columbus Dispatchwill publish a ridiculous right-leaning op-ed piece criticising, well, everything.

I guess until then, that's it. Go Bucks, and drive safely.

The 4th Amendment and the Bailout Plan

2009-03-06T16:38:00.002-05:00

So here's an academic Constitutional Law question for you to chew on:

Everyone, no matter their party affiliation, has some very public love for the protections of the 4th Amendment. For those that need a refresher, here's the text:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In other words, this was the addition to the Constitution offered by the founders who were concerned that their new government would revert to the aggressive and controversial police tactics that had plagued the colonist under British rule. The main concern was illegal searches and seizures, but the amendment has created a whole line of cases dealing with these issue, probable cause, oaths by police officers, particularity of affidavits, and how all of these rules apply differently depending on if the search was at home, in a car, at the boarder, or on the street.

I tell you that so I can ask you this: How does the government's involvement in private organizations through the bailout and economic stimulus plan effect the rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government?

We've long been ok with private companies collecting information about us if we consent to the search - think about the AdSearch program used by Yahoo mail that targets all of the ads in your inbox based on keywords in your messages, that "shoppers card" you signed up for at the market to save a few bucks, the "recommender" tools on Amazon and E-Bay to direct you towards similar purchases, and so on an so forth. (As an aside, I used to work for a marketing company and it's shocking how much we knew about everyone on our mailing list).

However, we've been hesitant to allow the government to collect the same sort of information, seeing that as an unnecessary and undesirable intrusion by the government on our privacy rights. (And yes, I'm one of those wackos that doesn't see the word "privacy" in there and has a problem with including it as a fundamental right, but that's a different fight for a different day.)

So here's the rub - when the government buys interest in private companies in the name of economic stabilization (as much as 80% interest in some cases so far, with dozens more buyouts on the near horizon), how do we rectify the privacy guarantees of the 4th Amendment with the explicit government access to the banking, communication, and other records of private citizens?

This isn't something I've heard anyone mention when talking about the buyouts. No one - on either side of the aisle, as far as I can tell.

I wish I had an answer - I'd be rich if I did (because I'd be on the federal bench somewhere letting a clerk do my work and sitting poolside in FL like Justice Stevens). But I just wanted to bring it up and see what everyone else thought. Are "safeguards" good enough for our constitutional protections? How does the left rectify an absolutely terrified approach to government involvement on one hand (from abortions to religions to etc) with blatantly allowing the government direct access to all of the private records of citizens on the other hand? Or is this an indication that they've given up on privacy in favor of involvement?

BP After Hours: Bellinis and Beneficence

2009-02-27T00:44:00.004-05:00

It's the end of another long and eventful week, friend. Pull up your comfortably appointed leather chair, and drift once more with us into the BP Smoking Room...

Welcome back, old friend. It may be closer to midnight than breakfast, but bellinis are a morning drink...and it's morning so far as I'm concerned, dammit.

Besides, you'll forgive me if I'm feeling festive. Bellinis, like the fair-haired girls of our youth, kiss the lips lightly and linger on for hours afterwards...not unlike the melodious tones of one Barack Hussein Obama. Not sure about you, but I thought the address he gave to Congress this week was nothing short of inspired. I read a piece by Jonathan Alter this week that said his main job moving forward in this recession is to inspire confidence in the American people...seems to me, he accomplished that mission in spades.

He said he wanted to be "frank" with us, and he was. There were no soaring words until the end...just calm assurances that everything will be alright. He even handled the derisive cheers of the Republicans well, parried, and thrust forward with his commentary. Brilliant.

About the Republicans: is it just me, or does John Boehner's February tan frighten you too? The man looks like he's overdosed on Jack LaLanne carrot juice or something. Creepy.

You know how much I hate to bash the Republicans (about as much as I hate a good bourbon). Still, if Bobby Jindal's the best they've got on their bench, they're just not trying hard enough. Did you hear that folks are comparing him to 30 Rock's Kenneth the Page? At this point, I'm not sure Kenneth wouldn't handle the spotlight a little better. When the governor of a state wrecked by a national disaster derides programs meant to protect others from a similar disaster...well, that's not only bad politics, it's just plain bad.

I was a little fuzzy when you walked in last week, but I'm pretty sure I told you something hilarious would come from the Axis of Weasel...forgot Jindal there. Oh, yeah, one more, too...Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Crazyville). You remember Michael Steele's promise of an "off the hook" hip hop revolution for the hephalumps? Nuts, right? Bachmann one upped him today, by congratulating him on the plan. She told him, "You be da man!" Yikes...this is about as street as...well, as this bellini I'm drinking.

Speaking of street, you've gotta love that Jennifer Brunner came down to our level a bloggers this week and posted her rationale for running on Buckeye State Blog. Jenny from the Block took questions from posters, too...and you and I both know how crazy blog posters are. Still, I like the move a lot for her. This buys her endless street cred with us new media types, and lets her test market positions on issues without having to fully commit.

What else, what else...well, it's never too early to think ahead to next week.

Barack introduced his budget the day after the address to Congress, and that is going to be a firecracker this week. Look for the terms "redistribution" and "class warfare" a lot in the papers on this one. Don't buy the bull, though...Obama's plan, which is exactly what he campaigned on, cuts taxes for 95% of Americans, and reinstitutes Clinton Era tax levels for the upper tier of taxpayers (those over $250,000 annually). I'm guessing the mainstream media folks make that...just saying, follow the dollars and you'll see why the narrative goes where it does.

There's also the issue of Obama's Iraq withdrawl plan (popular with Gates, Petreaus, and McCain, unpopular with Pelosi and Reid). Bottom line here? Most troops are still out by the end of 2010. Call it draw...hell, call it bipartisanship, it's probably the only thing we'll see any Republican love on for a long time to come.

Oh, and I guess there's a rumor that Citigroup is going to be nationalized soon (some hack paper called The Wall Street Journal had that up today). Not sure if this is the tip of the iceberg on nationalization, but if the Swedes can do it and give it back, so can we. Those bastards still haven't returned my sauna spoon...

What about Ohio? Well, The Dispatch will remain in the tank for Republican office seekers, and those seekers will continue shrill attacks on the Governor and any mayors that take stimulus funds. Memo to these folks, in three parts: 1.) No one cares. 2.) Folks want government to do something right now, not just hope it gets better. 3.) Whether you say it or not, you're definitely on the Limbaugh "I want him (and the stimulus) to fail" train, and that's just sick.

You have a Republican friend or two; deliver that message for me. And get me another bellini while you're at it...I'm beginning to feel the warm spring sunshine on my skin, and I get the feeling that happy days might be closer than any of us think.

There's No Place Like Home

2009-02-26T13:11:00.005-05:00

Nice porch, Jonny. If only it were in your district...

Home is where the heart is. Home, sweet home. You can never go home again...

If it seems we here at BP have home on the brain, you'll have to excuse us. We're just overcompensating for Slick Jonny Husted, who can't seem to remember where his home is.

Those of you who routinely follow the road less travelled by that is Ohio politics know that Former Speaker Husted has been fighting the spectre of an election law violation ever since his announcement of his candidacy for state Senate. The problem? Well, he has more or less lived in Columbus since his election as Speaker of the House, but must claim a legal residence in Kettering (his home town) to represent it at the Statehouse.

His proverbial "moment in court" on that issue came yesterday before the Montgomery County Elections Board. In a party-line vote, the Board split 2-2 on the issue of Husted's residency. Who decides ties? The Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner. Just to remind you, Husted wants to runfor SoS in 2010. Hmmm...

If I'm Jennifer Brunner, I punt this thing back to the county sooner than the paper can settle on my desk. The last thing her nascent candidacy needs is a claim of partisan impropriety in elections, especially given her good work in this last cycle. Plus, it's probably moot, anyway.

Thanks to the good folks over at Election Law @ Moritz (leading scholars nationwide on election law issues), we at BP feel comfortable in our claim that Slick Jonny's probably safe. In order to disqualify Husted from his current seat (and potentially from a run for SoS) on the basis of residency, Democrats would need to prove three things:

1. Husted is not eligible to vote in Montgomery County because he's not a statutorily recognized "resident" there.

2. If (1) is proven, someone would need to find a judicial avenue to have Husted disqualified.

3. The Ohio Supreme Court would have to conclude that the result of Husted's ineligibility to vote is that he doesn't "possess the qualifications of an elector," and is therefore ineligible for office.

Big hurdles, indeed.

Even if the first two are cleared, the third (a decision from an all-Republican Court that Husted is ineligible) is about as likely as this blogger leaving his wife for the Octo-Mom.

Republicans tried this against Ted Strickland in 2006 in a desperate attempt to find a legal way to appoint Ken "NAMBLA" Blackwell, to no avail, and it's likely we Dems are going to have to bite the bullet, accept Slick Jonny's eligibility, and find a candidate we think can beat him. Soon.

For now, at least, Husted's home free.

Carnival of Ohio Politics #156

2009-02-25T15:04:00.003-05:00

Jeb Bartlett doesn't make the Butter Rushmore of Ohio Presidents...

The 156th edition of the Carnival of Ohio Politics is now posted, and dedicated to my all-time favorite TV show, The West Wing.

Take a look here, and see "what's next."

Rolling the Dice that Everyhing Old Is New Again

2009-02-25T14:25:00.002-05:00

Banking on the desperation created by the foundering economy, a group of rival casino backers (including, oddly, Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert) is proposing a plan to place casino gambling on the Ohio ballot again in the fall of 2010, according to an exclusive in The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

In the offing are four destination casinos in Ohio urban centers (Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo, and Cincinnati). The plan is noteworthy becuase the sour economy (and a provision of the plan that gives state government a $50M startup payment and a 33% cut off the top of all receipts, not just profits) gives gambling a legitimate shot at passing this time.

Everything old is new again.

Elsewhere in these pages, we've criticized the Governor's support of Keno, and we remain convinced that gambling is precisely the WRONG kind of revenue to fix the problem with becuase it's regressive and exploits addiction. Still, it's hard to fault Strickland for keeping "an open mind...to whatever argument that may be brought...regarding gambling." Thousands of jobs are thousands of jobs, and tax revenue is tax revenue.

Economic crisis often puts us at odds with our better angels, and this recession may be no different. If this initiative moves forward, we'll likely be choosing between secure revenues in the short-term and long-term public welfare. These sorts of decisions are the peril of public service.

Brunner's a Blogger!

2009-02-25T13:41:00.004-05:00

This got buried yesterday in the hub-bub over Obama's address (more on that in these pages in the coming days), but Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner posted (posted!) on Buckeye State Blog yesterday with her reasons for running for Senate. She came back later in the day and answered questions from commenters.

While BP doesn't endorse, you've got to respect Brunner's use of new media in this campaign, and her willingness to listen to regular Ohioans.

If she makes it out of the primary, Rob Portman should be very, very worried.

Check out Brunner's full commentary here.

Dispatch and Kasich Team Up, Take On Common Sense

2009-02-25T13:10:00.004-05:00

Well, we knew this was coming. The Columbus Dispatch, theoretical paper of record in our fair state, officially declared itself a Republican instrument of mass deception today by publishing an editorial by undeclared (if he were gay, he'd be in the proverbial "glass closet") gubernatorial candidate John Kasich.

Not surprisingly, the editorial snipes at Barack Obama's stimulus, and even less surprisingly, at our Governor's planned use of those funds to help turn around Ohio's bleak economic condition.

Kasich hisses, "Strickland consistently refuses to make tough decisions, and his two-year budget plan puts the state's long-term economic future at risk." He proceeds to lay the blame for Ohio's job losses and falling tax revenue at the Gov's feet, and blames "gamesmanship" and "gimmicks" in the budget for our problems.

What's Kasich forgetting? First, the vast majority of the 116,000 jobs our state has lost in the last two years are casualties of the Bush Recession (a large number of those are in the auto and supporting industries). Second, when fewer people have jobs, consumer spending, payroll taxes, and income taxes all decline. Net? Budget shortfalls.

The math here is apparent even to a student who scored a C in basic economics, and yet it seems to escape Kasich. His solution to our problems? A "sound fiscal plan" that allows Ohio to "live within its means," rather than what he calls "a misguided plan" which pins our economic future to handouts from Strickland's "friends in Washington." He says the problem with the stimulus is that it is merely a bandage for our financial woes, and not a long-term solution.

Memo to John: that's the point.

Without deficit spending in this economy, we'd experience the Incredible Shrinking Government...weakening infrastructure, disappearing social services, and yes, lax regulation enforcement. Once the economy recovers, deficit spending will disappear with growing tax revenues that attend growth. The spending is not a long-term solution, but it will stop the bleeding and let the American economy provide the long-term solution.

Kasich's "solution" is typical conservative mantra: government is the problem, and all we need to do is get out of the way and let the free market fix it. Recent history should put this to bed once and for all: John Maynard Keynes was right, and Kasich's message comes about 20 years too late to catch the Reagan Revolution.

Ordinarily, an editorial would not drive me over the edge. The editorial page, after all, also carries the "Opinion" title. At the same time, however, the Dispatch only very infrequently features Democratic writers. Of those, very, very, VERY few are candidates or prospective candidates for office.

The Fourth Estate is supposed to be an impartial arbiter of public information. By allowing Republicans to snipe from the cover of "journalism," though, our own local paper seems content to be the QVC of news...selling public opinion to the highest bidder.

What a pity.

Standing Outside the Fire

2009-02-22T21:09:00.002-05:00

So BCB has done an outstanding job of outlining the Democratic Party's picks for the US Senate, but I have a hugely radical idea - let's look outside of the usual suspects.

By that I don't mean just looking past Fisher and Brunner, who at this point have made this a two-very-predictable-and-reliable-and-baggage-laden-horse race against Portman and any other brave Republican who would dare step into his heat-melt vision path. And I'm not talking about Tim Ryan or any other the other "thanks but no thanks" Obama-ites that will try to join the show only to be pushed aside for the predictability of Fisher by the machine in C-bus.

I'm talking about looking outside of politics completely... for someone with some actual real world experience that not in politics over the past two decade...someone who's, ummmmm, not unnecessarily in bed with anyone who's anyone. Why do we always look to lawyers with prior significant political experience when we're looking for politicians? What makes them the most qualified, beyond the fact that they've made themselves ridiculously available for public consumption by announcing their intentions to run for offices 2-3 years in advance?

I've always been highly suspicious and slightly disgusted by career politicians. Lots of people fit my model - gentlemen, roll the tape!

Ben Franklin - Scientist/Philosopher/Printer
Sam Adams - Merchant
Josiah Bartlett - Physician
John Hancock - Merchant
Robert Morris - Land Speculator
Caesar Rodney - Soldier
John Witherspoon - Pastor

and oh yeah,

George Washington - General

That's a pretty good list of key founders who weren't part of the "legal/political establishment" of the Eighteenth Century. Somewhere along the way, we got our collective brain stuck on the fact that a significant amount of prior political experience was needed to be qualified for federal office. I don't think that's how we were intended to select our leaders. But it's not their fault - we're all just too lazy to find candidate that don't fit the "they've held office before so they must be qualified" mold that we've become so accustom to. The parties love how things are now because there is control in predictably, and selecting candidates the way we do creates leaders who can be predictably controlled.

So Dems, all I'm asking is that you look outside. Republicans - you too. The PD recently ran an article about Chris Celeste being interested, and while his Dad's a big name in the Ohio game, he's spent his whole adult life as an entrepreneur, which in my book makes him far more qualified than the career politicians who will destroy him in a primary (if they even let him get that far, which they won't).

It's estimated that Ohio has around 900K businesses (including the entrepreneurs like Celeste and his firm Playaway. So that's 3m CEO's, FO's, & OO's that might be great candidates. There's also 10K college professors, 100K teachers, and 15K pastors that might be good. We're so quick to jump to nominate those that have "paid their dues" to the party system, rewarding sacrifice more than talent - a sad testament to what a meaningless game this has all become.

It's time for the party of the people to start thinking more "people" and less "party" - here's your chance Dems - find someone I've never heard of and I might cross over. If we're really in a period of "change" and "hope," I really hope we can change who we see as qualified to lead our nation.

Similarities Between Brunner and Blackwell? Their Names Start with "B"...

2009-02-22T15:34:00.003-05:00

...and that's about it.

You had to wonder how long this was going to take. After all, it's been a whole week since Jennifer Brunner announced her candidacy for U.S. Senate, while at the same time serving as Secretary of State.

Well, on a slow news Sunday, The Columbus Dispatch (R) has given you an answer.

In an article that begins comparing Ken Blackwell's decision to delegate when he ran for Governor in a favorably to Brunner's stated intention to stay on the job, the Dispatch officially launched a meme the Ohio GOP has been stewing on since the non-existent ACORN issue this fall: Jennifer Brunner is corrupt and cannot be trusted.

Phooey.

While I feel dirty even dignifying this tabloid-level journalism with a response, I'll paraphrase a famous political quotation: "I know Kenneth Blackwell, ma'am, and you're no Kenneth Blackwell."

First and foremost, Blackwell's improprieties in office began long before his quixotic bid for Governor in 2006. In 2004, while serving as Secretary of State, Blackwell served as George W. Bush's re-election committee chairperson. The main job of that person? To elect the candidate, no matter the cost.

In pursuing W's re-election, Blackwell instituted a number of rules meant to limit the number of poor and minority voters, including the now-infamous "paper thickness" requirement for voter registrations. Those were baldly political decisions.

While it's true that Democrats brought up the issue of Blackwell's position in the 2006 election, it had more to do with his partisan decision making in 2004 than the fact that he was currently serving as SoS at the time of his bid.

How am I sure?

Well, for starters, all complaints regarding electioneering improprieties are handled by the non-partisan, independent Ohio Elections Commission (and it's federal counterpart). In other words, decisions regarding a candidate's actions aren't handled by the Secretary of State's office, they're handled by an outside group, minimizing the potential for corrupt action.

Second, Secretaries of State in Ohio and across the nation have a long history of running for another office while holding the elections chair title (no fewer than five have announced bids so far for 2010), without incident or taint of corruption.

When did this become an issue?

According to the Dispatch, "the question has become more prominent after the national controversies over election administration during the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections." Who was in charge of Ohio's elections then? Oh, yeah...

As a "thing that makes you, hmmm...", it's hard to beat this. Brunner's so-called greatest transgression to date (the ACORN thing) consisted of fulfilling her constitutionally mandated duty to process all submitted voter registrations (the invalid ACORN registrations were screened out largely by the systems she put in place to prevent these sorts of things). Blackwell's probably constitutes fraud, and at very least carries with it the taint of serious impropriety.

All this, not to mention Brunner would need to escape the Democratic primary for the partisan question to matter at all, anyway.

The Columbus Dispatch: bringing you unvarnished right-wing bullcrap since 1871.

Clinton Pussy, 18, Dies

2009-02-21T00:12:00.005-05:00

Socks the Cat, former beloved pet of Chelsea Clinton and longtime companion of Bill and Hillary has died at the age of 18.

Recently, Socks had fallen on hard times. Spurned by an Administration fearful of stories about pussy patrolling the Oval Office in the wake of the Lewinsky Scandal, Socks was banished to the Hollywood, MD home of Betty Currie (official White House pussy watcher).

Socks developed cancer in late 2008, and succumbed late Friday night to the ravages of the disease. Preceding Socks to the Great Litter Box in the Sky was Bush White House cat, India, who died on Jan. 4th, also at the age of 18.

Memorial contributions can be made in Socks' honor to the Pussy Control Foundation, (Prince Symbol), Treasurer.

NEW FEATURE: BP After Hours

2009-02-20T18:19:00.005-05:00

Politics is hard, and we work hard at it. With that in mind, and in a nod to the smoke-filled rooms of eras past, BP would like to debut a new weekly feature we're calling "After Hours." It's our chance to take a lighthearted look back on the week that was, and prepare our readers for the week ahead.

So, with that in mind, pour yourself a glass of Woodford Reserve, light your Padron, loosen your tie, and let the dulcet tones of the BP Smoking Room Band draw you into contented reflection...

Hell of a week.

Since last Friday, we learned that Jennifer Brunner is setting the agenda on the Democratic side of the 2010 Senate discussion, while Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher struggles to keep up. It might be the bourbon talking, but Lee Fisher had better get his act together if he thinks he can waltz his way to this nomination. He showed this week that his campaign (which STILL lacks a website) is slow-footed and reactionary...not exactly leadership traits there, Chief.

While I'm on that topic...aren't you just the slightest bit worried now about 2010? Our best Senate candidate (Brunner) probably won't make it out of the primary, what with the party machinery set in Fisher's corner. That, and Brunner's entry makes it less likely we Dems hold the Secretary of State's office in 2010, too. I'm a Clevelander, so I'm used to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We had The Drive. The Fumble. The Choke. Now, we've got The Cluster*&^@.

Downer #2: the economy still sucks. Yes, we passed a stimulus package (I'm guessing ole Teddy Strickland's ulcers are a little less active this week). But, the stock market took a dive to an 11-year low, the Obama housing rescue program fell kinda flat, and we still haven't heard Geithner tell us how he plans to make TARP II less depressing than the first installment.

On the bright side, at least Spring Training is underway. This is my favorite time of year...every team's fans think the boys have a shot at the World Series (I've got $20 on the Indians, straight up). Hell, even the Reds are talking hope, and they haven't had a winning record in, oh, a decade. And yet...

Even in the shiny apple of the week, there's a rotten spot. Aflex Roidriguez is taking the focus off of the game, and putting it squarely on the scandals that have plagued baseball since the 'Roid Era began in the mid-90s. My take? Baseball is a game of records, and anyone who sullies those records by cheating to get an edge doesn't belong in the game (that means Rodriguez, Bonds, MaGuire, Clemens, and all the rest). At least Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe didn't cheat.

Like I said...hell of a week. The only real bright spot was Michael Steele making an ass of himself in public, and once again proving that Republicans are completely clueless when it comes to minorities. Can you give a group of around 50 million people simultaneous sensitivity training? That, and getting to watch MC Rove do his thing again...dumbass.

Well, this glass is empty. Let's talk next week before I head back to the rail....

The dark cloud of the economy will still be with us, but President Obama will give his "Oh my God, don't call it the State of the Union" speech Tuesday. Don't know about you, but generally I feel better after Obama speaks (even if I probably shouldn't).

I'm also willing to bet that one of what we call around the office the "Axis of Weasel" (Boehner, DeWine, and Steele) will do something hilarious. Like fall asleep tanning. Or maybe insult black people, Democrats, the uneducated, the educated, Hispanics, Biggie Smalls, and midgets, all at the same time.

Whatever's ahead, we'll be there. Now, leave me the hell alone with my glass and my cigar...you know how hard it is to find a bar that'll let me do this now? Thank God for the Smoking Room.

GOP-izzie Down Wit Stereotypes

2009-02-19T14:46:00.006-05:00

In its quixotic quest to remain relevant, the GOP has taken some pretty bold steps: "0" votes on the stimulus bill (which many Republicans are now taking credit for), theatrics on the Senate floor...they event went to far as to find their own "Barack Obama" by electing Michael Steele GOP Chairman.

The problem here? While Obama (and, for that matter, Eric Holder) uses his race to open a dialogue on our nation's rocky relationship with racism, Steele apparently is content to baldly play stereotypes for electoral gain.

CNN.com has an article up right now in which Steele proposes an "off the hook" plan to attract young black and Hispanic voters to the GOP. Some choice quotes:

"...the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-suburban hip-hop settings."

"I don't do 'cutting edge.' That's what the Democrats are doing. We're going beyond cutting edge."

"We need to uptick our image with everyone, including one-armed midgets."

"People who say I can't make the trains run on time never gave a reason. I say to them, 'Stuff it.'"

This, after Steele called Obama's stimulus package "bling-bling."This, from a man whose own Senate campaign distributed flyers in poor black neighborhoods with the intent of deceiving them into voting for him (by listing him as a Democrat!).

Putting aside the sheer crazy they contain, Steele's statements don't do anything but reinforce the notion that the GOP is out of touch at best, and moderately bigoted at worst. I may be a middle-class white guy from a rural area, but I can't see how anyone would buy into this as anything but a cynical ploy.

After all, the GOP has already had one hip-hop makeover, and that turned out great for them, right?

(The video link is much, much funnier...take a look and see what I mean.)

Judge: What's in a Name?

2009-02-18T18:54:00.003-05:00

A famous judge once said, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." I couldn't agree more.

Head honcho of the High Court John Roberts made some waves earlier this week when comments he made last month surfaced regarding the importance of having Supreme Court justices with prior judicial experience.

Looking squarely into his navel, Roberts said that since the 1960s and the Warren Court, "the method of analysis and argument shifted to the more solid grounds of legal arguments," and away from "the realm of political science." He claims that his Court has moved beyond the fracas of mere politics, utilizing "a more legal perspective and less of a policy perspective."

The CJ's obvious hubris would be justified, but for one small fact: it's bullshit.

Leaving aside the Roberts Court's policy-oriented (and thus contradictory) decisions in Heller and Washington v. Seattle School District #1, the notion that this court, or any court, could free itself of policy decisions and politics is laughable. As a 1L at any accredited American law school might tell you, policy considerations are a part of all court decisions, and the "legal perspective" Roberts touts has as an element...say it with me now...policy.

Dumb. Dumber?

Roberts' supposed justification for his Court's new-found legal clarity: the appointment of more justices who have previously served as federal jurists. While I will grant that judicial experience is an invaluable thing in our federal system, and that justices on our high court should have a working grasp of our nation's constitutional principles, prior judicial experience is far from a prerequisite.

Where do I get off? Well...history, mainly. The names and prior titles of every Chief Justice in U.S. history, in chronological order:

John Jay, Governor of New York

John Rutledge, Governor of South Carolina

Oliver Ellsworth, U.S. Senator (CT)

John Marshall, U.S. Secretary of State

Roger Taney, U.S. Attorney General

Salmon Chase, U.S. Secretary of Treasury

Morrison Waite, Ohio State Senator

Melville Fuller, Illinois State Representative

Edward Douglas White, U.S. Senator (LA)

William Howard Taft, President of the United States

Charles Evan Hughes, U.S. Secretary of State

Harlan Fiske Stone, U.S. Attorney General

Frederick Vinson, U.S. Secretary of Treasury

Earl Warren, Governor of California

Warren Burger, D.C. Circuit Judge

William Rehnquist, U.S. Justice Department Attorney

John Roberts, D.C. Circuit Judge

So, in U.S. history, how many eventual Chief Justices of the Supreme Court first served as a federal court judge? Two. How many before 1969? Zero.

While we might debate the merits of the terms of Roger Taney or Morrison Waite, I think it's safe to say that some of those other non-jurists did alright. This, without mentioning that the "legal perspective" Roberts says is his Court's crowning glory is based in its near-entirety in law made by, you guessed it, folks who weren't previously judges.

Am I saying we shouldn't care what background appointees to the Supreme Court have, that their legal training matters for not? Not at all. I am saying that at this high level, the issues in play are constitutional ones, and the decisions are made in the margins of already established legal doctrine. There are a number of ways to arrive at constitutional conclusions, including service as a judge, but also as an attorney or even an elected official.

What John Roberts was really saying was "Our Court is the best, due in large part to my omniscient presence on it." Don't sweat it though, folks....after all, when has unchecked hubris at the highest levels of government ever caused trouble before?

Things Fall Apart. The Center Cannot Hold.

2009-02-17T13:58:00.002-05:00

This should be an exciting day for me. One of my favorite politicos, Sec. Jennifer Brunner, announced via web video today that she's officially in for the U.S. Senate race in 2010.

Later today, it's widely expected that Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher will announce, as well.

Why then the sense of foreboding?

Put succinctly, I'm exceptionally worried about our prospects for holding onto Brunner's current seat, Secretary of State, which will play an immense role in determing the balance of power when apportionment time rolls around in 2010. Say what you will of Slick Jonny Husted, but he's no patsy. The fundraising machinery he put in place as House Speaker, and the love affair The Columbus Dispatch has with him, both bode well for his campaign for SoS.

Meanwhile, who is in the Democratic stable for this job? Unless we can come up with an outside-the-box candidate who has made a cogent statement on Ohio's elections (Mark Mallory? Jay Goyal? Joyce Beatty?), we face an uphill climb in this race now. Underdog is a role Democrats play well in Ohio, but one I think most of us had hoped we'd have a longer vacation from.

All of that, to say nothing of the fact that a contentious primary takes dollars and press away from tying "Robbie P" Portman to the 23rd letter of the alphabet (it's "W.," folks). Oy.

`06 and `08 were the years our party reasserted itself in Ohio. Let's hope `10 doesn't prove to be the year we collapse under the weight of our own successes.

Ground Zero in the Culture Wars

2009-02-16T12:42:00.003-05:00

Lest anyone doubt that evolution isn't necessarily progress...

It's home to Rod Parsley and Antioch College. Bob Taft and Sherrod Brown. Gloria Steinem and Tom Cruise.

If ever you doubted that Ohio sits at Ground Zero of the culture wars raging across America, you need look no further than the Columbus suburb of Whitehall for confirmaiton. On February 12th, Ohio and the nation observedthe 200th birthday of our most revered President, Abraham Lincoln, and while much of the world was also celebrating the birth of Charles Darwin on the same day, Whitehall abstained.

Why?

Well, that answer is not entirely clear. Despite a move by a local councilwoman to recognize the day in the city as Darwin Day (and to use the day to educate folks on the theory of evolution and have an intelligent discussion on the issue), the council voted no. When pressed for a rason why, Whitehall Mayor John Wolfe told local reporters that "We are a Christian nation," and dismissed constitutional complaints from local humanist groups because "They're atheists, they're antagonists and they're a minority."

The atheist and humanist groups supporting a Darwin Day did antagonize, posting a billboard in town with the message "Praise Darwin: Evolve Beyond Belief," and repeatedly protesting the city's annual nativity display on the grounds that it violates a constitutionally-mandated separation between church and state.

The culture war lives.

Ohio's state school board has done little to clear the air surrounding the evolution debate over the past decade, intermittently encouraging doubt about the merits of evolution and strengthening the theory's hold in science classrooms.

I'm married to a scientist and future doctor, so my household's place in the trenches on this issue is fairly easy to determine. That said, I have a modest proposal for an armistice, one I believe might bring lasting peace. It's simple, and it's biblical:

"To everything, there is a season, and time to every purpose under heaven." Ecclesiastes 3:1

What to I mean by this? Evolution, as a scientific theory, deserves a place in science classrooms. Creationism, as a theological principle, should be taught philosophy or theology classes. This is a controversial position, but I must ask, why? Viewed divorced from personal ideology, through the lens of rationality, this makes perfect sense. Yet, for whatever reason, we appear to have difficulty providing our students with information in context, and allowing them to use their rational capacities to make their own decisions. Theories melding faith and science abound in myriad forms (even the Holy Father has posited that evolution has a place in the holy cannon)...let's trust our children to make their own decisions.

I'll go one better: though the Supreme Court has found that nothing in our constitution requires cities and states to take down nativity displays and other overt public displays of religiosity, they've also found nothing requiring them to put them up in the first place. Stick with me, folks...wouldn't we all get along much better if cities stuck to government, and left religion to individuals?

Religion complicates things, and the stunted nature of this post speaks to the difficulty I personally have addressing the issue. Still, if we wish to evolve (or, if you like, to serve the immutable will of the Creator), we must as acommunity, state, and nation come to a place of accomodation.

Part of the great mythos of America is our status as melting pot, where Jew, Muslim, and Christian can live side-by-side in harmony. Our system is designed to protect us from the tyranny of the majority, and the protection of minority rights occassioned the establishment of our Bill of Rights.

On the shared birthdays of the father of modern science and the Great Emancipator, dreams of a truly free and equal society are wholly appropriate.

We have no national religion, but I would submit that tolerance must be our creed if we are to continue living as a free and open society. Without it, we may find our system of government's great dreams and aspirations going....well, going the way of the Dodo.

Rob and Lee, and Jenny B Makes Three

2009-02-13T20:44:00.002-05:00

Multiple sources today are confirming that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is throwing her chapeau into the ring to be Ohio's next junior senator.

Buckeye State Blog regular modernesquire has a terrific analysis up on why he thinks folks ought to consider Brunner, and I'll spare you too much more of that here. Frankly, he's hit the nail on the head, and there's little else to say.

The lay of the land right now has either Dem beating Rob "W. Who?" Portman. What I will say here is that I can see Jenny B's candidacy in two lights.

On the one hand, Ohio's never had a female senator, and the historic nature of her candidacy would draw national attention (and dollars) into what's sure to be a hard-fought race. Emily's List is already in town, and I'm sure others will soon follow.

On the other, though, Jenny B's candidacy will bring dollars into this race for Portman, too. Rush Limbaugh & Co. on the screwball right are even less fond of Brunner than of a generic Dem over the way, way, way overplayed ACORN thing, and if Naugblog's post about that issue is any indication, her candidacy could give "partisan witch hunt" an entirely new meaning.

Brunner and Fisher both bring strengths that I think help us against Portman, and they should play relatively nice with each other given that the party needs them both (the loser will play a key role at Development or during reapportionment).

Bottom line? It's a good day when your biggest worry is that your candidate's might be too strong.

That's New Hampshire

2009-02-12T17:14:00.002-05:00

Folks from New Hampshire pride themselves on being contrarian. It's why they picked John McCain in 2000, despite knowing that The W. Show had already aired its pilot and was on its way to an 8-year run.

Maybe that's why they like Judd Gregg.

Minutes ago, Obama's 2nd nominee for Commerce Secretary withdrew his nomination, citing conflicts with the administration over the stimulus and the 2010 census. This, after he campaigned for the job and despite having had conversations about these very issues when he was first considered.

Huh.

New Hampshire's top exports are industrial furnaces, machine tool parts, and optical media. Maybe they should add crazy to that list, too.

No. 2 exporter of crazy? Today, that honor probably goes to Kentucky, whose native son Mitch McConnell calls Gregg's move "a principled decision."

So, back to the drawing board for Obama. Who do you like for Commerce now? My Top 3:

1. Bill Richardson. Yeah, that federal grand jury thing is still over his head. But he's not indicted, and his taxes appear to be in order.

2. Penny Pritzker. All that complaining folks did about too many "Chicago connections" seems misplaced now.

3. Warren Buffett. The Oracle of Omaha seems a title the guy in charge of American commerce should have right about now.

Pitchers and Catchers, Report!

2009-02-12T11:06:00.002-05:00

Today, ladies and gentlemen, marks the official start of Spring Training. As the Boys of Summer begin again the quest for October glory, it is appropriate to pause and take stock of the state of the game. Unfortunately, due to the antics of "Aflex Roidriguez," baseball again faces the spectre of a summer spent in hearings before Congress, blanket denials, and mea culpas with Barbara Walters.

What's the problem with this?

While my inner baseball fan would make the case that if Steroid-era players reach the Hall of Fame, Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson belong there too, this is a blog about politics. So, I'll say this once, and once only: Congress has more important things to deal with.

As our nation faces the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, growing unemployment, a Mideast on the brink of collapse (again), two wars abroad, and entitlements badly in need of reform, what do our lawmakers call victory?

A confession from Miguel Tejada that (shock!) he too took 'roids and lied about it.

Awesome.

It's not just Congress, either: President Obama has repeatedly called for reform of the BCS, college football's much-maligned excuse for a postseason.

Why this preoccupation with purifying our nation's pastimes?

Outside the obvious (voters like sports), I can find no justification for the time we spend on these issues. Don't like football's playoff? Hold the NCAA to account (once), and move on. Disgusted by the presence of performance enhancing drugs in baseball (and other professional sports)? Create a Commission to oversee professional sports in America, and call it a day.

There are other ways to get votes, folks: like, say, finding a way to create jobs or end a war.

Congress needs to stick to the business of government, and leave the game-playing to the professionals.

I feel silly saying this, but no, Grady Sizemore is not and has not been accused of using performance enhancers. He's worthy of our man crushes all by himself.

Looking for the CJ

2009-02-10T16:44:00.003-05:00

Let's take a step back from the question of finding a new CJ for a second and return to 7th grade Ohio History Class with Mr. Baughman and his overhead projector...

Despite the love for appointed judges by the Federalist, Tocqueville, the Founders, and most philosophers over time that were concerned about the political ramifications of electing judges just like every other office in the land, Ohio decided to amend the Constitution in 1851 to require the election of judges to the state Supreme Court. As a futile attempt to protect the sanctity of the positions, they did decide to provide us the safe-guard of leaving the (R) and (D) off the ballot, but the modern party machines have decided that the office of supreme court justice is just another lever for establishing control over the state government. We should have appointed justices, confirmed by the Senate, just like the federal level, and it's very troubling as a citizen of the state that my rights are as fleeting as a shift in the political winds or a change in the depths of the coffers of the state party systems. Judges under this system are forced to consider self-preservation in every decision, making us far more likely to arrive as a judgement that is popular but wrong than a judgement that is hard but fundamentally sound.

Ok, rant over, so here we are. While I understand and appreciate BCB naming names likely to be installed to further the dominance of the Dems on the state level, I don't see the issue as that clear cut. The electorate seems to look as judges differently than the other elected officials at the state level. As cosmopolitan as we pretend to be as a state, we are still at the heart a center-right, christian dominated, law-and-order state that fits the role of political follower more than political leader. Under that as our framework, assuming a somewhat informed electorate, we will more often than not see a conservative jurist elected over a more liberal option. While we're willing to trust our policy to the party in vogue, we don't trust the courts with the same genetic make-up. The court is currently all right and that's not something that I'm generally prefer as a fan of a government that considers all sides, but I think it represents the state's overall preference for jurisprudential philosophy more than we give it credit for (I know, I know, it's absurd to think that our largely uninformed and apathetic electorate has a jurisprudential philosophy, but hang in there).

So let the Dems put up any of the candidates mentioned by BCB. Heck, let's put up Strickland and Senator Brown. My point is that it really won't matter. It's ironic that the "party of the people" that generally loves the election of judges is getting hammered by the same system. Want balance? Push for an amendment that makes justices appointed. Until then, and unless there is a huge swing in the electorate of Ohio, we're set to have a right dominated court. The Dems should be happy that they've effectively tossed the Republicans out of the two political branches on Obama's coat-tails and be willing to abandon control of the courts to the mercy of change-terrified electorate and their preference for what they know.

A Word on the Economy

2009-02-10T11:42:00.005-05:00

"A toast! A toast! A toast to Mama Dollar and to Papa Dollar, and if you want to keep this old Building and Loan in business, you better have a famly real quick."

Yesterday, Speaker Budish announced that Ohio's House Democrats will push legislation calling for a six-month moratorium on home foreclosures in the state, coupled with dramatically increased filing fees for foreclosures once that moratorium expires.

This is exactly the kind of model the Feds should follow to start digging us out of this finanical mess we're in. Remember, folks, the sky began falling because of home foreclosures and bad loans...

The approach Budish & Co. are proposing cuts the head off the snake by requiring banks to deal with the glut of foreclosures they're already processing, then penalizing them for subsequent foreclosures. Moral: don't make bad loans.

What does this remind me of? Well, the financial crisis in the 1930s was caused largely by banks making poor decisions, which led to the devaluation of money, which led to Wall Street's fall and bank runs. FDR shut down the banks temporarily, then put in place a number of measures to stabilize money's value and insure investments and loans. Moral: don't make bad loans.

If only Tim Geithner got it. His approach? TARP, The Sequel, which slaps banks on the wrist for making bad loans by buying them from them, then attempting to sell them in the same overinflated market that caused the collapse in the first place. Moral: do as I say, not as I do.

What makes the proposal he made today worse is that the teeth in the original plan, severely limiting executive pay at bailed out firms and truncating how those dollars are used, have largely been removed.

Sigh.

I think the stimulus is ultimately going to spur the economy (Keynesian theory is necessary sometimes, folks...hate to break that to you), but until we change the coporate banking culture in this country (which Geithner is a creature of), we're setting ourselves up to repeat this same movie in 10 years or so.

I'd propose a different film. Think It's a Wonderful Life...that George Bailey may have been on to something, after all.

Fisher All But In, Say ODB, BSB

2009-02-08T21:29:00.002-05:00

Nick D of Buckeye State Blog and Anthony Fossaceca of Ohio Daily, two stalwarts of the progressive blogosphere in Ohio, are reporting on the strength of a sit-down interview ODB had with Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher that he's all but in for the 2010 Senate race against Rob "T-1000" Portman.

Though Fisher at no point said the words "I'm running," he talked at length about the election and why folks run, touted his own record in primaries ("never lost"), and said unequivocally that it would be "best for the party" if we didn't have a contested primary.

This is a definite shot across the bow to would-be Dem challengers Jennifer Brunner and Tim Ryan, and Big Lee's strongest indication yet that he wants to join Sherrod Brown in D.C.

It's early, but based on Quinnipiac's polling this week, you've gotta like Fisher's chances. And Publius...the man's from Beachwood, so you should probably think about votinng for him too. Who knows, it could even bring a job or two to your neighborhood!

Ohio Chief Justice: O'Connor, Petro...Who Else?

2009-02-07T16:19:00.006-05:00

Justice Maureen O'Connor announced this week that she's in. Jim Petro, too. Are there any Dems out there who stand a chance in the face of the Republican judicial machine?

This week, Ohio Supreme Court Justice Maureen O'Connor announced that she's running for Chief Justice when the current Chief, Thomas Moyer, rides his golden gavel off into the sunset at the mandatory retirement age of 70 in 2010.

Jim Petro, erstwhile Ohio Auditor and Attorney General, has been mulling a bid for the same seat since at least 2007, when he declined to take on the juggernaut Cordray campaign for return engagement as AG.

That should make for an interesting Republican primary, what with O'Connor having gotten more votes than Obama in Ohio in November (due in large part to token opposition), and with Petro having an unexplainable allure in the Republican Party not unlike Mike DeWine.

Still, what's missing from this picture?

If you answered A) Any credible Democratic challenger for the same seat, youwin!

Those of you who follow this blog regularly know that the current composition of the Supreme Court in Ohio, a 7-0 Republican oligarchy, is a sticking point with this blogger. Though Joe Russo got his butt kicked this fall worse than Nicholas Von Stein, his slogan hit the nail right on the head:

Justice Requires Balance, and right now, we ain't got it.

With that in mind, I'd like to start a dialogue about potential Democratic challengers, with the hope that we can encourage some folks to start running now. Like it or not, Ohio's judicial races skew toward those who have run before, and who can raise the most cash. We're sitting 0-7 right now because we can't seem to figure out how to check either of those boxes effectively as a party. Using those markers as my criteria, here are my Top Five Dems, in order:

1. William O'Neill. Bill served as a judge for years in Northeast Ohio, so his legal bona fides are sound. Not only would he not embarrass us from the bench, he's also run for the high court before, losing in 2004 and 2006 to Terrence O'Donnell. Name recognition, check. What makes Bill my #1, though, is his blogosphere street cred. Through his recent campaigns for Congress and constant presence in the liberal blogosphere in Ohio, O'Neill has the makings of a massive donor base and a ready media microphone. In the "dollar takes all" world of Ohio judicial elections, those can be deal makers.

2. Ben Espy. Ben is well thought of in the state's legal community, and his long career in state politics points to an ability to leveragerelationships made into dollars for a campaign. His candidacy has the added potential benefit of mobilizing Ohio's African American community in a judicial election, something that's never effectively been done in this state. Add that to his close loss in 2006 for a place on the Bench, and you've got the makings of a sleeper.

3. C. Ellen Connally. A life-long jurist, Connally lost a very close race to Chief Justice Moyer in 2004 (a race that some say may have been tainted by the Blackwell election controversies that year). Her 23 years on the bench, name recognition from a recent campaign, and list of donors that brought her to the cusp of victory all make her a name to watch.

4. Gary Tyack. Tyack ran for the high court in 1998, and lost. That said, he's been an Ohio Appellate Judge for nearly 15 years, has funding connections in Franklin County, and is an alum of the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. What's not to love?

And just for fun....

5. Richard Cordray. Think about it: a guy with over $2M left in the bank from his special election campaign, serving as Ohio's top lawyer, who is smart enough to have been Jeopardy Champion five times. He was urged to run for the Court before, and served as a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justices Kennedy and White. Sure, Rich probably has bigger fish to fry (read: Cordray for Gov, 2014), but what better way to address Ohio's biggest pressing issue, education, than to address it on the Court and then run for Governor to implement the change?

* * *

What's my point here? A contested primary can only help the Dems at this point. The "best-sounding warm body" approach has netted us a 7-0 deficit, and a potentially massive roadblock to actually putting in motion a plan to turn around Ohio.

Justice requires balance: if we're smart as a party, we'll seek that balance by putting out real opposition to the Republican heavyweights, and soon.

Did we miss someone you think should be a Dem candidate? By all means, post away in the comments section! Debate can only help.

How Do I Spend Thee, Let Me Count the Ways

2009-02-03T16:45:00.004-05:00

Ok, so it's probably not a huge surprise, but I'm really worried about this concept of "let's spend our way out of this economic downturn" that it currently under consideration by the Congress.

For the record, I was against the Bush bailout as well, but at least that money was sought under the auspices of providing liquidity for the banks to free up the credit markets a touch. I know before it's even said that some of the money was used for Wall Street bonuses and revamping corporate offices, but hey, that fits the "spend our way out" model now doesn't it?

From CNN, here are some of the more terrifying applications for this $825 billion that's under consideration:

(CNN) -- On Monday, Congressional Republican leaders put out a list of what they call wasteful provisions in the Senate version of the nearly $900 billion stimulus bill that is being debated:

The Senate is currently considering the nearly $900 billion economic stimulus bill.

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
• $850 million for Amtrak.
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

The New Deal didn't end the great depression, the War did. Since we're already in two of those, that doesn't seem to be the answer this time around, but I'm not sure that some of the spending on this list will put us any closer. Here's an idea - let's give that same amount of money to small business owners instead of to the government. As least we know that way that someone will be paying taxes on their sports cars instead of just letting the government spend it on themselves tax free.

The plan was created to stimulate job growth, but the estimated 400,000 jobs that will be created will cost the tax payer, wait for it, over $350K for each job. That represent a total cost per job that is almost 10x what it cost the private sector to create the same job.

I am really thinking about writing our President with the following question:

"Dear President Obama,

Can I have my $350,000, create my own job by starting a small business, and then give you the credit?

Thanks,

Publius"

As long as I don't mail it on a Saturday...

TrimSpa for State Government?

2009-02-02T20:27:00.005-05:00

Cutting the fat helped kill Anna Nicole. Might it do the same to state government in Ohio?

We all know the saga of Anna Nicole Smith: Playboy bunny-turned-golddigger-turned-overweight reality star-turned-pill salesman-turned-cautionary tale. If you'll remember the gossip surrounding her death (sure to feature prominently on I Love the `00s on VH1 in a year or so), many attributed her early exit from the pop culture stage to a dependence on Trimspa weightloss supplements, a desperate attempt to shed her Anna Nicole Smith Show poundage and remain relevant.

With the way things are going in Columbus right now, we have to wonder: is a similar fate awaiting state government in Ohio? Wait for it...I promise this is going somewhere....

I don't think anyone worries that Gov. Strickland or Sen. President Bill Harris is going to suddenly develop an unhealthy concern about his physique and start touting guys named Howard Stern to run for AG. But as we struggle to find a way out of this economic morass and develop a budget that trims the fat, we may soon be looking at a state government spectacle worthy of E! Entertainment Network. There it is!

The highlights (or lowlights, depending on your point of view) of today's budget proposal from the Governor's office:

Across the board pay cuts of up to 6%. While Across the board pay cuts of up to 6%. While the Governor himself is taking a cut, and promises that the pain will be lessened for the lowest wage earners on the state's payroll, you have to figure that a haircut of this magnitude is going to have some serious impact on kitchen tables across the state. Based on recent Census data, that means roughly 189,679 homes in Ohio are likely to see a decline in income during the life of this budget.

State revenue is expected to decline through 2010. Quote: "Ohio's economy will bottom out in the second or third quarter of 2011, but not return to 'normal' until 2013 or 2014." Yikes.

Fines and fees will increase. After the point above, it's no wonder that fines would increase as a way to offset losses in tax revenue. The plan includes a $892 million increase in fees charged to nursing homes and hospitals (solving the healthcare crisis, apparently, is low-priority for the next, oh, 5 or 6 years), and an increase of $5.75 per vehicle registration. As one astute commentator put it: "we may not be increasing taxes, but increasing fees on services used everyday by poor Ohioans is the same thing." Indeed...and this kind of revenue is regressive, making it all the worse.

Budget cuts of up to 20% at some agencies, and the elimination of six. Haven't been able to get the goods yet on which state agencies are walking the Green Mile, but my inclination is that it would be those on the periphery (Board of Landscape Architect Examiners, I'm leering in your direction). All kidding aside, though, some service elimination is inevitable in times like these...I just hope that the Department of Mental Health doesn't bear the brunt of these cuts, as has been rumored.

And despite all that...

4.4% budget growth, 5% of which comes from the Feds. Relying on funds that haven't been assigned, much less those that haven't been agreed to, iscause for alarm.

Growth in the education budget. After this, are you really surprised?

* * *

Clearly, my fretting my be premature, as the budget has to first pass the Ohio House (controlled by Democrats, who are likely to fight for spending to drive the economy) and the Ohio Senate (controlled by "tax cuts make everything better" Republicans). Whatever the case, let's hope for all our sakes that our elected officials can come to some kind of an accord on this and get the stalled economy in this state moving again.

The alternative? I don't think any of us want to deal with Judge Larry.

Hello Everybody!

2009-01-28T19:52:00.004-05:00

First off, let me welcome myself to this blog as a regular poster. After months of pestering by BCB (Brass Collar Buckeye), I've finally found the time in my day to make this something that I'm able to do as often as I'm able to do it.

By way of introduction, I am a card-carrying member of the populist-libertarian-confused-republican party who knows that there must be a better way to go about government than the way we do it and hopes someday to be part of the system to try and change it. I am heavily influenced by history and philosophy (as is BCB), so don't be shocked if most of my post contain more than one thought borrowed shamelessly from someone smarter than me. I'm glad we're in a new era under President Obama, and I hope that you'll never find me to be one to come on here and give you the straight-from-Rush party line. I really like intellectual discussion and you'll always find me in the middle of a conversation with those I find interesting, which sometimes is those who agree with me, but most of the time are those that disagree with me. Which is why I'm here - I respect the hell out of BCB, but as you can guess by his invitation of me to this blog, we have two different ideas about the proper way to go about things. I'll be right sometimes, he'll be right other times, but I think that our society could vastly improve if they committed to walking away as friends as myself and BCB always manage to do.

Enough fluff - bring on the issues -

Publius

Quick Thoughts on the State of the State

2009-01-28T13:15:00.004-05:00

Today, despite blustry January weather that claimed Sen. President Bill Harris' leg, OhioGov. Ted Strickland delivered his vision for the state of Ohio in 2009.

The weather outside was an appropriate backdrop for the Governor's remarks, which reminded Ohioans of the economic storms we face and the challenges inherent in overcoming them. On the same day Ford announced it would cut 70 jobs at its Lima engine plant, and the day after Honda of America Mfg. in Marysville announced it was cutting production by 14,000 vehicles in the coming year, Gov. Strickland's remarks focused in most depth on what he has termed the "valuation of my administration's successes or failures" and "the way forward from our economic peril": Education.

On the whole, one cannot help but be impressed by the scope of the Governor's plans. After a months-long process of fact finding and information gathering, it is apparent that the Governor has done his homework on theentire system, and the resulting plan addresses the system in Ohio from the bottom up. The highlights:

Expanding school year to 200 days. Gov. Strickland noted in his remarks that this number is the "international average," and would expand Ohio's present school calendar by 20 days annually. Extra school days mean more time immersed in subject matter, and greater flexibilty to teachers in innovating in the classroom with unique projects.

All-day universal kindergarten. This measure puts a focus on what Strickland called "our most impressionable students," and will likely be welcomed by parents statewide who previously had to find a way to transport children to and from half-day kindergarten or babysitters for every-other-day models.

Eliminating Ohio's graduation tests, replacing them with the ACT and other measures. This was the Governor's only standing ovation from both sides of the aisle today, and one he deeply deserved. Ohio's present method of evaluating high school seniors does nothing to prepare them for college, and barely tests competency. In addition to forcing all Ohio seniors to clear the first hurdle of college admissions processes, the Gov also stated that seniors would be required to complete a senior service project and senior capstone. This dovetails nicely with President Obama's inaugural remarks on the "price and promise of citizenship" by requiring students to invest in their communities and mandating service. While mandates don't create civic spirit, they can't hurt.

Making teachers and school districts accountable. It is not easy for a Democrat to take a stand against the interests of teachers unions, and Gov. Strickland's bold declaration today that teachers can be fired for "good cause" and ineffective teachers should be removed from the classroom was certainly brave. He uped the ante by telling school districts that they will be audited by the Department of Education, and that the criteria used to evaluate them will now include fiscal and operational measures. Those evaluations will have sharper teeth, too, with the state promising to take over poorly run school districts and, in extreme cases, shut them down. Call it an "education bailout," with actual consequences and follow-up.

Tuition freeze at Ohio's four-year public colleges, and 2-year freeze for community college tuition. Anything that reduces the student loan debt Ohioans carry is a good thing. Period.

On the whole, the proposals above are likely to pass with little trouble from Republicans, and present some real and radical changes that might allow Strickland to make a real claim to the title "Education Governor." Other parts, of the proposal, however, present challenges to passage, and leave some questions unanswered. Questions and concerns exist about:

Boosting state contribution to funding to 59%, eliminating "phantom dollars" as calculation. This is the biggie. The state Supreme Court has, many times, ruled our funding model is unconstitutional and unfairly biases rich districts. Gov. Strickland seeks to address that problem by no longer making school districts accountable for "phantom revenue." Phantom revenue happens when property values within a district go up, but the taxes on those properties do not. Previously, school districts were expected to count those dollars, even though they didn't receive them. Under Strickland's plan, they won't be.

This leaves a pretty big matzah ball hanging out there, and it's this: school funding in Ohio will still be based on property taxes. While it is undoubtably a good thing that school districts won't have to account for funny money, and that this will take a step toward providing them levels of state funding according to their actual need, it does not address the Supreme Court's main issue with our current model: the poor/rich disparity.

Increasing the state contribution to all schools to 59% will go a distance to mitigating that difference, but it will not eliminate it "in as much as is pracitable." Until we come up with a plan that provides state tax dollars evenly on a per pupil basis, we're going to fall short of full equal protection.

Four-year teacher residency program. This proposal, which requires all new teachers in Ohio to complete a four-year residency before become full-time teachers, is the kind of innnovative thinking that has real potential to make our schools better over the long term by institutionalizing best practices.

That said, there is a small problem: compensation. The reason doctors can afford to take four years at the beginning of their careers to learn from experienced and accomplished peers is that their eventual compensation provides an offset to their lost earning potential. As long as Ohio's teachers can expect a median salary of only $40,000 over their entire careers, this proposal will not succeed, and has the potential if left an "unfunded mandate" to drive quality teachers out of the state.

The extent to which any of these concerns matures into a problem depends largely on how cooperative Senate Republicans wish to be. The Governor's commitment to education in these difficult economic times is sure to win him plaudits from parents and education advocates, but the cuts needed to other areas of the government to pay for them (up to 20% reducation in some programs) will be painful. Add that to likely Republican concerns about the on-going costs of implementing the plan long term, and the bumps in the road begin to come into focus.

Governor Strickland ended his remarks by talking about why geese fly in formation, and asserting, "Surely, we are as smart as the goose." The extent to which the House and Senate exercise their "goose sense" will determine how successful the Governor is in implementing his bold plans. In the depths of our economic winter, however, today's proposals give Ohioans cause to hope for warmer and brighter days ahead.

Change Has Come to America

2009-01-20T20:26:00.002-05:00

The text of President Barack Obama's Inaugural Address:

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

National Day of Service, Rememberance

2009-01-19T13:50:00.004-05:00

"This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected."

-Barack Obama

In the spirit of the above quotation, Buckeye Punditeers would like to offer you excerpts from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Birth of a New Nation" speech, given in 1957 at the beginning of the civil rights movement that would make him a national and world figure. We invite you to read it carefully, to reflect, and to remember that though the United States may never in the truest sense be "one nation," we are indivisible, with the promise of liberty and justice for all...and that we still have miles to go to reach that calling, to fulfill Dr. King's dream of a nation united in freedom.

The Birth of a New Nation (Excerpts)

...There is something in the soul that cries out for freedom. There is something deep down within the very soul of man that reaches out for Canaan. Men cannot be satisfied with Egypt. They try to adjust to it for awhile. Many men have vested interests in Egypt, and they are slow to leave. Egypt makes it profitable to them; some people profit by Egypt. They vast majority, the masses of people, never profit by Egypt, and they are never content with it. And eventually they rise up and begin to cry out for Canaan's land.

..."Freedom! Freedom!" They couldn't say it in the sense that we say it--many of them don't speak English too well--but they had their accents and it could ring out, "Free-doom!" They were crying it in a sense that they had never heard it before, and I could hear that old Negro spiritual once more crying out:

Free at last! Free at last!

Great God Almighty, I'm free at last!

They were experiencing that in their very souls. And everywhere we turned, we could hear it ringing out from the housetops; we could hear it from every corner, every nook and crook of the community: "Freedom! Freedom!" This was the birth of a new nation. This was the breaking aloose from Egypt.

...There is a great day ahead. The future is on its side. It's going now through the wilderness. But the Promised Land is ahead.

...That's the beauty of this thing: all flesh shall see it together. Not some from the heights of Park Street and others from the dungeons of slum areas. Not some from the pinnacles of the British Empire and some from the dark deserts of Africa. Not some from inordinate, superfluous wealth and others from abject, deadening poverty. Not some white and not some black, not some yellow and not some brown, but all flesh shall see it together.

...And that it will come in this generation: the day when all men recognize the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.

The End of Jack Bauer Legal Policy

2009-01-15T15:37:00.002-05:00

Quoth the future AG: "Waterboard is torture."

There's a lot to say on this count, but it all boils down to this: finally, it appears the United States government's legal department will look to the Constitution as something more than rough guiding principles.

'Bout time.

Now Playing Left Field: Ohio Daily Blog

2009-01-15T13:26:00.009-05:00

Where are they getting this stuff?

First, let me say that I don't want to make a habit of sniping at other blogs. The glory of the blogopshere is that it gives folks outside the mainstream media a voice with which to impact the political world we live in, to project their unique vision for a better life for all of us and how to get there. There isn't a more democratic forum available, and the marketplace of ideas is only richer for the vast diversity of opinion we get every day from cubicles, worksites, and Blackberries across the state.

Second, I want to say for the record that Ohio Daily Blog in many ways is my inspiration for joining the blog movement. Jeff Coryell's steady prose always asked us the right questions, and I credit him with giving cogent voice to the progressive movement's netroots in Ohio.

With the turn Ohio Daily Blog has taken since Jeff's announced departure this fall, though, you have to wonder how long the venerable forum will continue to be taken seriously.

The recent post pushing Paul Hackett as a serious Senate option has been lampooned elsewhere to great effect, so I'll leave it alone. The view was out there, but I was under the impression that ODB, like so many of us, just had an off day.

Then came this.

Today's post, talking at length about potential wild cards for the Democratic Seante nod should Tim Ryan and Lee Fisher decide to stay home, is simply ludicrous. Yeah, if those two guys decide to sit it out, the Dems will need to come up with someone to run against Portman. I'll even stipulate that some of the names there (Coleman, Sutton, Mallory, even Celeste) make sense, under the right scenarios.

But these?

Kucinich (both of them?!?!)? Plusquellic? Cafaro? DiPiero? Redfern?

This is a list of Democrats that aren't even that popular within the state party, and they all have major defects that would prevent them from winning a statewide general election. In one sentence:

Kucinich & Kucinich are, respectively, a leprachaun who sees aliens, and, well, an alien (in the non-American sense).

Plusquellic faced a recall campaign as late as November, and quite frankly, any guy who has been mayor of Akron since 1987 is bound to have a few skeletons in the closet (or bodies in the landfill).

Cafaro (or as Buckeye Punditeers affectionately refers to her, "Short Pants") may be the Ohio Senate minority leader, but she has never won a contested election. Besides, do we really want to run someone from the Mahoning Valley so soon after the Dann Debacle?

DiPiero is the mayor of Parma, which makes him just slightly more eligible to run for Senate than the mayor of Bellefontaine.

Redfern has done an admirable job running the Ohio Democratic Party. Still, would anyone self-respecting Republican want Kevin DeWine or Bob Bennett running? The same argument applies.

As for President Gee...

The Bow-Tied One makes more money than Jesus doing a job he clearly loves. He's the most-recognized public figure in the state of Ohio, and many say holds more sway over the course of public discourse and policy making than any other person in the state doing his current job. It's like saying Woody Hayes should have coached the Browns.

Adding injury to the insult here is a comment on the posting by Bill Sloat, ODB contributor and author of the Hackett piece. He asks (he actually asks!), "Is Rob Portman really the guy?" Sloat doesn't want us to forget Pietro.

Fine.

While no one expects a blog to deliver New York Times worthy journalism, I don't believe it's too much to ask for political bloggers in the state to at least address the issues of the day with thoughtfulness.

The Dispatch is in the tank for the Republican Party. PolitickerOH.com is dead. With reduced political journalism budgets all over in this tight economy, the blogosphere owes a duty to the citizens of our state to generate intelligent debate on topics that really matter. ODB's recent streak of questionable stories and left field analysis amounts to no less than negligence, and the political discourse in our state has suffered great injury because of it.

Senate 2010: Fisher Casts Wide Net

2009-01-13T21:47:00.005-05:00

If he doesn't get "Rob"d, this man may be the junior senator from Ohio.

This week George Voinovich, like so many of his Senate colleagues, decided now's the time to abandon the S.S. GOP and retire.

Not surprisingly, the Ohio political blogosphere has been lit up with information about possible replacements, from the not even a little surprising (Rob Portman has been angling for a Big Time job since the day he left Bush's Budget Office), to the common (don't we always here Mike DeWine's name floating out there?), to the just plain silly (Ohio Daily Blog's assertion that Paul Hackett is viable is, put mildly, hackish).

Now that Rob Portman has announced his official candidacy (and in the process spit in the face of John Glenn and The Ohio State University), the Republican side of the 2010 equation is pretty much figured out.

On to the drama of the Dems' pick, right?

Hate to break this to you, folks, but that one's probably a done deal, too.

Despite the hand-wringing being done on the Left right now about who'll face off with the Mighty Rob (evidenced by modernesquire's well-sourced post yesterday on BSB), the role of Democratic challenger is filled. Your nominee in waiting is...

Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher.

Yes, Politico says Tim Ryan is mulling a run. Yes, The Plain Dealer says Gov. Strickland favors Ryan. Still, the Lt. Gov.'s in the driver's seat here.

How can I be so sure?

First, let's look at why Tim Ryan won't be running. As modernesquire rightly notes, "If Ryan thought he could 'clear the field,' he'd...(announce) his candidacy." Obviously, there is some fear in the Ryan camp that a bruising primary fight with other well-financed, high-profile Dems might do damage to Ryan's pristine status as the Left's "Next Big Thing." Bringing Ryan's dirty laundry statewide--any dirty laundry--might indeed cut too close to the misdeeds of other Mahoning Valley residents in the news. This is an association he can and should avoid.

That consideration, coupled with his recent cherry appointment to the House Appropriations Committee and his role as breadwinner for Northeast Ohio, makes it a solid bet he stays where he is this time. (As for the Gov's "endorsement," while Strickland is certainly a Ryan booster, it's not clear at all to me from his statements that he means to push Ryan now. It's my personal belief he sees him more as an eventual replacement in the Governor's Mansion.)

So, Ryan's out. Why Fisher?

For starters, Lee Fisher is the only Democrat being discussed who has run for and won statewide office (albeit by a tiny, tiny margin). He has proven that he's not afraid to tackle a "big name" Republican (remember the Fisher/Taft election in 1998?), and he craves the limelight (his partnership with Strickland, with whom he shares fewer positions that most would find comfortable in a running mate, proves the point). He can run both as a centrist (partner to the moderate Strickland and friend of law enforcement), and as an acceptable liberal (graduate of Oberlin College). His resume is impeccable, and anyone who has spent five minutes in a room with him knows he bubbles with the kind of effusive energy that can empower a statewide campaign.

In essence, if Lee Fisher wants to run for the Senate, there isn't a Democrat out there with the right clubs in the bag to beat him. His entry certainly would "clear the field," and just might clear the way for a return to Senate glory the Ohio Democratic Party has sought since the heady days of Glenn/Metzenbaum.

As for his prospects against Portman?

He's better than even money, and here's why: history and geography.

Portman locks down Southeast and Northwest Ohio, and Fisher is all but certain to control traditional Dem strongholds like Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Lucas counties. That leaves the battle to be fought in the Southeast: Strickland Country. Whatever the personal feeling between Strickland and Fisher, the man folks in Appalachia call "a leader from our parts" is certain to work the area hard for him. That, coupled with the residual of the Obama machine in the state, makes Fisher my early favorite for the seat.

A lot can happen, of course, between now and November 2010. As it stands, though, look for Portman/Fisher, with the early advantage giving Dems in the state "Lee"way to feel optimism.

Another One Bites the Dust

2009-01-09T17:12:00.002-05:00

PolitickerOH.com, following a long illness marked by slow posting on the Kilroy/Stivers recount and a transition to "news feeds" from other blogs, officially died today. It was two years old.

A source close to the deceased, Politico.com's Michael Calderone, tells us that joining PolitickerOH.com in death are nearly all her sister sites in the Politicker Network, apparently all victims of epidemic poor management and fundraising. The Network is survived by its parents in New York and New Jersey.

Services are pending. Memorial contributions can be made in PolitickerOH.com's honor to the readership of this blog, and to other blogs in the Ohio political blogging community.

Congrats, All

2009-01-06T03:34:00.003-05:00

Just a quick word here of congratulations to all the new and returning members of Ohio's General Assembly.

Today marked the official start of the 128th gathering of the august body, and 2009 promises to be a year full of battles and compromises as they seek to find the best way forward for Ohioans.

For now, though, Buckeye Punditeers wants to take a moment and recognize all the hard work that went into campaign season, and offer the 128th a "best of luck" from both sides of the ideological spectrum. God knows they'll need it.

(And we can all be thankful we don't live in Minnesota.)

Quick Hits: Of Swans and Ugly Ducklings

2008-12-18T08:04:00.004-05:00

In honor of the close of the 127th General Assembly (and the end of more than a decade of Republican House dominance), I feel it's appropriate to look at some of the lame duck legislation the General Assembly passed before heading home for nog and yule logs.

Some of it was good...some of it, not so much. So, without further adieu, here it is: the 1st Annual "Swan or Ugly Duckling" Lame Duck Review.

Swans

HB 320: Requires Booster Seats for Children 4-8 years old or under 4'9"

This legislation is on the books in 38 other states, and while that alone doesn't justify its existence, it does point to a reasonable likelihood it serves some purpose. Not only will this bill keep your kids safe, if they happen to be "late bloomers" you can humiliate them long into their teen years.

HB 196: Tax Credits for Movies Made in Ohio

Easy one here, folks. Scenes in Spider-Man 3 were filmed in Cleveland. Downtown Cleveland. Why? Well, because if a car happened to destroy part of Euclid Ave., no one would really notice. Or care. Also, who could resist a chance to bring Ohio natives Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes back to the Buckeye State?

HB 7: Making Adoption in Ohio Easier

Nothing funny about this...just good, sound Legislation.

HB 450: Allows Veterans 18-21 years old to purchase handguns

If we give our troops guns to kill foreigners at this age, why not trust them with firearms at home? Besides PTSD? (KIDDING...please no hate mail.) Now, if we could only work on that drinking age thing...

HB 209: Making Pervert Cops Sexual Predators

This bill makes any peace officer having sex with a minor (who they aren't married to) guilty of sexual battery, and a sex offender. Pervs Out!

Ugly Ducklings

HB 273: Makes "Support Our Troops" a License Plate

This smells like a Republican legislature trying to score brownie points and giving up any pretext that "support our troops" is more than a slogan to them. This would make it to "Swans" if they added another option: "Bring 'Em Home."

HB 280: Mandates Signs in Abortion Clinics: "Can't Force You to Have One"

Again, this would be fine if they'd add something...namely, requiring a sign right below this one that says "Can't Force You NOT to Have One."

HB 267: Mayor's Courts Ok, No Matter How Small

This one is a folly by inaction. Despite the suggestions of nearly the entire legal community in the state, the Legislature failed to move here to prevent small town mayors from ruling on certain cases. Though justice is best served cold, it appears to have given our Legislature brain freeze in this particular case.

And, last but not least...

HB 380: Holy Crap, We Lost!

The 127th's coup de grace? Narrowing the window for early voting, killing the "Golden Week" they invented earlier this decade, and rushing changes a bipartisan panel said should be carefully worked through over a series of months, not hours.

Hey...what's the franchise among friends?

* * *

Well, folks, there you have it: my review of the best, and worst, of Lame Duck 2008. Buckeye Punditeers is going on a little break to celebrate the holidays, but we'll be back in session with the 128th General Assembly (when we'll unveil that long-discussed new Conservative voice). Thanks for a great year, and Happy Holidays to you and yours!

BREAKING: Kilroy Wins Ohio 15th After Stivers Concedes

2008-12-07T19:35:00.003-05:00

Ohio's newest Congressperson.

So, I was initially planning on posting today with a deeper analysis of the Ohio Supreme Court's botched decision this week on the counting of ballots in the Ohio 15th. Thankfully, the voters have made the point moot.

Despite the potential disenfranchisement of nearly 1,000 voters in Franklin County, the recount in this race concluded today with Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy edging Republican State Sen. Steve Stivers by 2,311 votes, a margin of .76% of the total ballots cast. No automatic recounts here.

Job well done to the Kilroy campaign for their tenacious pursuit of a complete and fair count, and kudos to Sen. Stivers for his quick concession. After a campaign as nasty as this one got, it's refreshing to see the eventual loser handle his defeat with class.

Being the legal-type that I am, I'm still planning on filleting the high court's decision later this week. For now, though, let's just enjoy that this election has FINALLY reached its conclusion, and raise our glasses to Congresswoman Kilroy.

Justice Requires Balance: Initial Reactions to Today's Ruling

2008-12-05T16:49:00.009-05:00

What's wrong with this picture?

Cuyahoga County Judge Joe Russo, on his way to a 67-33% shellacking this fall, ran for office on the sole premise that a Supreme Court wholly dominated by one party was bound to make some decisions on a partisan basis. The American ideal of "justice for all," the argument went, cannot abide the invasion of partisanship into our courtrooms.

Judge Russo, outgunned in a "non-partisan" election by an opponent funded by Republican Party donors, lost his election bid. Today, the Ohio Supreme Court proved him right.

Writing an opinion contrary to that of Federal Judge Algenon Marbley (discussed here in our pages), the Court found in favor of the Stivers camp and the Republican Party, saying Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner acted improperly in instructing the Franklin County Board to count approximately 1,000 provisional ballots that lacked a signature and printed name. The campaign of Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy was counting on these ballots, and the ruling deals a major blow to her prospects of coming out ahead in the final tally.

What makes this ruling particularly galling is that the Ohio Court appears to have followed the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore. The parallels:

1.) The question of which courts should deal with this issue, federal or state, is at issue here (Judge Marbley deferred to the Ohio Supreme Court in his ruling, but the issue regards a federal election).

2.) The Court issued its opinion per curiam (fancy legal talk for "as a whole," preventing any one judge or set of judges from having to claim full responsibility).

3.) The vote broke down along partisan lines (in Gore, the vote on the final outcome of the election was 5-4, conservatives-liberals. Here, it was 7-0, conservatives-empty chairs).

As the good folks at Buckeye State Blog pointed out earlier this week, our Justices know they're getting away with something. Before hearing oral arguments in the case, Justice Robert Cupp spoke to the Dispatch, assuring Ohioans that "the partisan bit never comes out in any of our discussions" about pending cases. Why did he feel the need to do so? Could it have been that a decision based at least in part on partisan motive was coming?

As an aside: why would the partisan bit come out in discussions where all the members are from the same party?!?

I said earlier in these pages that it would be inconsistent for a Court that scolded Brunner for disqualifying improperly filled out Republican voter registrations to scold her for attempting to follow the prior ruling and count improperly filled out provisional votes where the voter's identity can be determined. Nothing in the Court's opinion today changes that.

Judge Russo failed in his attempt to make the case that "justice requires balance" this fall. Today's ruling, in ways more eloquent and myriad than any candidate ever could, makes the case against one party domination of the justice system. Where no minority voice is heard, there injustice rules.

* * *

A more thoughtful presentation of my argument will follow later this weekend...possibly accompanied by the debut of our new Conservative writer's counterpoint...

Flowers for Algernon

2008-11-21T15:45:00.003-05:00

Mary Jo Kilroy and the Ohio Democratic Party owe one Judge Algernon Marbley a bouquet.

Last night, to the surprise of almost no one, the Ohio Republican Party (in the form of State Sen. Steve Stivers' campaign) was reminded by yet another federal court that Ohio election laws, in fact, apply to everyone.

See, this is the same group of folks who sued Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner for not counting voter registrations submitted by the McCain campaign in the state because they contained insufficient information. The courts ruled Brunner was wrong (the only time that happened during a campaign even the Columbus Dispatch had to admit created "no major controversies," quite the hat-tip from the leading voice in the campaign to discredit her).

Fast-forward a couple of weeks, and we got this: a suit by Stivers to stop the counting of provisional ballots that were, you guessed it, insufficiently complete. The problem here? The voters in question did not both sign and print their names.

Thank God that even the conservative-dominated Ohio courts occasionally recognize hypocrisy, like hard-core pornography, "when they see it."

The opinion? The duty to verify that provisional voters have correctly filled out their ballots falls to the poll workers, not the voter. If voter identity can be verified, and the voter is a qualified elector in the proper precinct, the vote must count.

Sanity. How refreshing.

Like the title character from the short story lending its title to this post, however, it appears the ORP and the Stivers campaign are suffering acute mental regression. An appeal was filed immediately in the grounds that if the state legislature had wanted poll workers to do their jobs, they would have included that expressly in the statute.

Huh.

For a party that complains all too often of the litigious culture in America, and blames trial lawyers for the pains of a nation, the ORP sure likes lawsuits...do you think they'll ever get tired of contradicting themselves?

* * *

I leave you with this quotation....I find it apt:

"It had been all right as long as they could laugh at me and appear clever at my expense, but now they were feeling inferior to a moron. I began to see that by my astonishing growth I had made them shrink and emphasized their inadequacies."

-Daniel Keyes, Flowers for Algernon

BREAKING: New Ohio House Dems Leadership Announced UPDATED

2008-11-18T22:02:00.003-05:00

Your new Ohio House Democratic Caucus Leadership (HT, BSB, with one small correction):

Speaker: Rep. Armond Budish (D-Beachwood)

Speaker Pro Tempore: Rep. Matt Szollosi (D-Toledo)

Majority Floor Leader: Rep. Jennifer Garrison (D-Marietta)

Ass't. Majority Floor Leader: Rep. Tracy Heard (D-Columbus)

Majority Whip: Rep. Jay Goyal (D-Mansfield)

Ass't. Majority Whip: Rep. Allan Sayre (D-Dover)

Hard to quibble with any of these choices. Budish is a proven fundraiser, Szollosi and Garrison are energetic and respected, Heard and Sayre are trusted hands.

The most exciting appointment? Rep. Jay Goyal, who at 28 is the emerging face of Ohio's Democratic Party (young, diverse, and talented).

The most exciting, Part II? Gov. Strickland finally has the partner he needs to turn around Ohio and fix the mess left by Taft The Daft.

Obama's "righteous wind" is blowing, from the shores of Lake Erie to the Ohio River. Change is coming to Ohio.

* * *

A final point: what do you notice about that list? If you answered "geographic diversity," you win (it's no steak dinner, but you're the smartest person reading this blog right now, so good for you).

Senate Dems, TAKE NOTE. While Northeast Ohio is hugely important, the Ohio Democratic Party cannot be a strictly regional party and expect a seat at the big kid's table (hmm....where have we heard that before?).

Welcome Back, Clinton!

2008-11-17T19:08:00.010-05:00

Just like classic television from the 1970s, it seems some political families find new life in syndication.

There's been a great deal of chatter this week about the prospect of former First Lady, Senator from New York, and erstwhile presidential contender Hillary Clinton joining Obama's "team of rivals" as Secretary of State.

While I'm initially inclined to like this move on the "pissing in/pissing out" corollary (HT: LBJ), Obama would be better served to fill this seat with someone else for two reasons:

1.) Hillary, and
2.) Bill.

Part 1: Hillary

Shouldn't we be at least a little bit concerned that folks like Henry Kissinger and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Jesusland) are actively advocating Clinton's appointment? These are folks who not only embody the Washington establishment, but that establishment's right flank. The most flattering reading of those endorsements would be that these men have put partisanship aside in what they feel are the country's best interests. Find me three people who think that's even remotely true a week after a very partisan election, and I'll buy you beer for a month.

In addition to my Kyl-inspired unease, I think we need to remember that this is a woman who FALSELY CLAIMED SHE'D BEEN FIRED ON IN BOSNIA. We can talk until we're blue in the face about Hillary's experience as a back-channel diplomat as First Lady, and her hard work in the Senate on issues of foreign relations, but the fact that she herself purposely, knowingly, and recklessly inflated her credentials speaks volumes. She perceived foreign policy as a weak spot on her resume during the primaries, and nothing that has happened in the last six months convinces me that has changed.

Let me be the first to say it: Hillary Clinton would be the best Secretary of Health and Human Services this country's ever seen.

Bill: The Sequel

Without re-hashing the colorful particulars of the Clinton years, having the Big Dog as a player on the national and world stage (and folks, Hillary always comes with Bill) doesn't jive with the conciliatory and "different" tone Obama is trying to strike. Appointing Hill S.O.S. would have the effect of dredging all of Bill's demons back up, and hurt both Obama's prospects for successfully pushing his agenda and the party's chances in the 2010 election. And that's to speak only of the demons we know about...

I don't know what Bill's been doing in Kazachstan, and I don't know what kinds of deals the Clinton Foundation has had to make with local potentates in Africa to deliver the good services it does. What I do know is that is anything even smells of impropriety, the press is sure to find it. If past is prologue, Bill is sure to make the situation worse by denying wrongdoing, which will reflect poorly on Hillary and...you guessed it, President Obama.

Better to leave the Big Dog on the porch.

Epilogue

Bill and Hillary Clinton have served this country admirably. In tandem, they've done more to move the domestic agenda in the direction of the downtrodden than any pair since FDR and Eleanor. Foreign policy? Bill's record can be debated, and Hillary's credentials are speculative.

Let me be the first to say it: Hillary Clinton would be the best Secretary of Health and Human Services this country's ever seen. If she's serious about serving her country, she'll set aside the famed Clinton Ego and stay in the Senate or take this very important (but less flashy) post.

A final point: Obama's main shibboleth in this campaign has been...say it with me now...CHANGE (the "hope" thing got lost somewhere...probably a passenger on the Straight Talk Express). Hillary Clinton is talented, ambitious, perhaps even qualified. Change, she is not.

Who might be a better choice? Cowboy diplomacy may be dead (thank God), but there's a certain cowboy who just might fit the bill.

* * *

Personal Note Time!

It's good to be back. To those who've continued checking the blog over these months, I'm thankful for your continued attention, and I can promise you more interesting content from here on in.

To those looking for the conservative viewpoint, the blog is currently in a state of flux on that point. Our original GOPer is considering a return, but in the meantime, if you're interested in filling that role, let me know. Send a link to your own writing, or include a sample in the comments section of this post.

Thanks for reading, folks. A new Administration, lame duck session in the Ohio Legislature, and counting down to 2010...there's so much to talk about, and I'm looking forward to exploring all that Ohio politics has to offer with you in the coming months!

It's Coming...

2008-11-09T20:20:00.004-05:00

Buckeye Punditeers is relaunching.

Soon.

Tell your friends and neighbors.

Fighting the Good Fight

2008-08-19T14:46:00.002-04:00

As each of you knows, Michael and I have endeavored in these pages to provide you with insight into the world of politics from the legal perspective. We've worked very hard to be as fair and balanced as we can, while still providing you with our real and unfiltered opinions about the best direction for our state and our nation.

I have recently been offered a position working with the Ohio Democratic Party to serve as a Political Field Director in a state legislative race. After careful consideration and much thought, I've decided to take a leave of absence from law school and this blog to devote myself to that effort.

I plan on returning to my regular schedule here following the election, when we'll have plenty to talk about (what happened, who's doing what, and what the results mean for our state). In the interim, we'll find another legal liberal to continue providing you helpful insights and opinion.

I very much appreciate your support, and look forward to a fruitful fall and my eventual return to the blogosphere.

John Edwards: who cares?

2008-08-11T15:26:00.002-04:00

Well I guess it is time for me to comment on the John Edward’s scandal since every media source out there has beat it to death. First of all, I feel bad for his whole family -- in particular his wife, whether she is ill or not. I do not see why it is such a big deal to the American people since John is not the nominee and was not close to being the VP choice again for the Democrats either.

I guess he could have been a good pick for the Attorney General job or a Supreme Court nominee later down the road, but other than being a great lawyer who made a lot of money in his past, I think John’s career is over anyway. He has tried twice and failed and I do not believe this affair should be given the attention it has been given. He did the wrong thing to his family and to the young woman he had the affair with -- as many other men in politics have done over time. If the child is his, he should support it and be a father, if not then it really is no one’s business.

But yet the media continues to hammer him and drag it on. That to me is the real story here. Is there nothing else going on in the world such as the war between Georgia and Russia, the murder of an American outside the Olympics in Beijing, the improvement in the war in Iraq, the drop in oil prices since the announcement of possible off-shore drilling in the US along with the soaring of the stock market last week or the untimely death of Bernie Mac (yes, that is more important to me than this) that we need to focus on an old story that is really no one’s business and has no impact on what happens in America tomorrow?

How's the Groom? Why, He's Slightly Fried

2008-08-06T09:34:00.003-04:00

The liberal half of the Buckeye Punditeers, Brad Cromes, is headed to the Cleveland area today to prepare the way for his wedding this weekend, and won't be back from his Honeymoon until August 19th.

Until then, he leaves you in the capable hands of his compatriot...

...but don't believe anything Michael says.

Guaging the Energy Debate

2008-08-05T11:13:00.005-04:00

Yet again this week, the Great Energy Debate of 2008 continues on the Presidential campaign trail. The latest plot device? A slender piece of aluminum and plastic central to any car's maintenance program: the tire gauge.

As reported earlier by Mark Halperin at The Page, the McCain campaign has busied itself this week distributing tire gauges in an effort to lampoon Sen. Obama's admonition that Americans can help solve the energy problem by taking such small steps as properly inflating and aligning their tires. McCain's camp is "practically giddy" according to reports, apparently self-congratulating on what they consider a clever slam as subtle as the Hillbilly Calculator.

The only problem? McCain's own supporters agree with Obama.

The list, by no means complete:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, Gov. Charlie Crist, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sen. George Voinovich, the Bush Department of Energy, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., and my personal favorite, NASCAR.

Despite clear bipartisan support for Obama's suggestion as a legitimate way to immediately save the country up to one million barrels of oil per day, the RNC and the McCain campaign plan to continue fundraising using the utilitous little device. More power to 'em...

While Obama's proposal here isn't exactly earth-shattering, it is the kind of practical solution that in the aggregate can make a real difference in helping the country change its approach to energy. After November 4th, we may look back on this week and the "tire gauge" snafu as the moment McCain lost the battle on energy, and with it this election.

* * *

(While I'd typically resist bald partisan comments, I just can't hold back here...)

McCain thinks inflating your tires is a suggestion below the gravity of the energy problem. In related news, he recently announced his campaign's new initiative in the war on cancer following his recent biopsy results: wear sunscreen.

* * *

Happy Tuesday.

A Good Run of Bad Luck

2008-08-05T09:49:00.004-04:00

Yesterday marked a step back for the state of Ohio. With the introduction of Keno gambling statewide, an expansion of the Ohio lottery meant by Gov. Strickland to boost flagging education budgets, the state continued down the path we began in 1971 with the sale of the first Ohio lottery ticket, a path that can only worsen our state's already shoddy economic status.

Why so glum over a few numbers on a card?

One need look no further than the focus of the Dispatch article on the subject in today's paper. That piece focuses on the luck of Keno players on the game's first day. Said one: "I love to hate this game. It's a long shot, but once you hit, you're addicted." (Emphasis mine.)

Gambling addiction is a particularly nefarious addiction because it is often not recognized until the gambler has done irrevocable harm to his personal finances (and often, that means to his personal and professional life, as well). Gambling addiction starts with a win (the "once you hit" part of the quotation above), and devolves into a process of buying tickets to win again, and buying more on the hope that the gambler will "hit a run of good luck" and recoup his losses.

Most of us know that's not how gambling really works. The state runs a lottery precisely because that's not how gambling really works. Indeed, our state budget counts on gamblers losing money, tying those funds directly to education dollars. This is not only a terrible way to fund education (see my previous post about education funding here), but it also puts the burden of paying for education on...

...working-class white men.

Despite the lottery's claim to target "white-collar men" with the game, the reality is that it is the working class who most often partake in games of chance (the quote above was from one such gentleman). My qualm with lotto games and gambling is that, like cigarette and alcohol taxes, they tend to be regressive. Each of these methods of raising revenue places the burden on the lower rungs of our societal ladder, on those least able to afford it. They prey on addiction, and amount to tacit encouragement of "sin" behaviors in this demographic group by the state. With little extra effort, one can see that putting extra burdens on those in our society least able to afford them weakens our economy (less taxable income and higher rates of dependency on government aid) and our social institutions (though obviously not dispostive, gambling has more than a little to do with home foreclosures, absentee parenting, and even the sad state of modern marriage).

I don't envy Gov. Strickland. He's come to office during one of the steeper economic downturns our state has ever faced, and is trying to get creative to help bridge budget shortfalls. I also have no doubt that both he and the Ohio Lottery Commission believe that this game will attract a "new clientele" to the game. That said, as a long-serving Congressman from southeast Ohio, one of our state's poorest areas and largest loci of gambling addiction, Gov. Strickland should know better. This particular effort to fix the state's budget woes may succeed in the short-term, but its larger implications for our state's economy and social fabric leave much to be desired.

Perils of the High Road

2008-08-04T14:51:00.003-04:00

The above image, one of many depictions of the junior senator from Illinois as "Saint Barack," speaks to the massive success of the McCain campaign in setting the narrative for the fall campaign, now only 92 short days away from its terminus.

"What?" you say. "The McCain campaign? You mean the campaign that can't keep applesauce from ruining a photo op? You mean the campaign whose foreign policy grasp includes routinely confusing Iraq and Iran with respect to Al Qaeda, seeing a problem at the non-existent Iraq/Pakistan border, and worrying about trouble in (also non-existent) Czechoslovakia?"

Yep...that one.

"How did they achieve such a stunning success in the face of continual blunder?" you may ask.

The answer is simple: they've turned Obama's strengths against him.

As we've mentioned before in these pages, McCain has sought throughout the campaign to portray Obama as out of touch, elitist, and presumptuous (going hand in hand with the "inexperienced" narrative). This was evidenced more blatantly than ever in the past week, with the emergence of the "Celebrity" ad comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, and with the internet "Chosen One" video. Both of these pieces (which several independent fact checkers have proven spurious at best) seek to imbue Mr. Obama with what Michael called "the Messiah complex." Thus, the stained glass art above...and, if recent closing in the polls between the two men are to be believed, the success of the effort.

What's fiendishly clever about McCain's new tack is that Obama's own strengths feed the narrative. For every eloquent speech Obama gives on the need for America and our European allies to come together to address the problems of a new century, McCain has an equal and opposite spin regarding "thousands of screaming Germans." For every considered and nuanced position, McCain can counter with the accusation of flip-flopping and unpreparedness. Millions of enthusiastic voters, excited about the prospect of a new direction, become in McCain's description legions of blind followers projecting their own hopes and dreams onto a blank slate.

Even Obama's recent trip abroad, meant to shore up Obama's relationships with the leaders he would interact with as President and further his understanding of world issues, was in McCain's telling presumption: Obama was "acting Presidential" before being elected, removing the American electorate from the decision and anointing himself ruler.

What began for the McCain camp as paranoia over Obama's obvious edge in charisma and positive media coverage has solidified into a narrative he's selling (with some degree of success) to the American people. If we've learned anything from the past eight years, it's that the Republican party is more than adept at using the politics of fear to motivate voters. It appears those same fear politics now spur on the nominal leader of their party.

Successfully.

As Michael correctly notes, an assault has begun. The recent race debacle (though McCain began the race discussion, in much the same way Clinton did during the primary, accusations of the use of the "race card" now fly almost daily) only illustrates how successful McCain has been in changing the subject in the campaign from policy to personality.

In 2000, Karl Rove managed that change for President Bush because, as history has proven, Bush did not have the "right stuff" when it came to policy. McCain, that tactic's victim in 2000, now appears bent on doing the same (despite arguable voting edges in certain policy areas, like off-shore oil drilling). The politics of "say it often enough and it becomes true" is back, and with it attacks on Obama's character of varying degrees of "truthiness."

The McCain campaign is spoiling for a fight, and by that act alone is making progress. Take the bait, and Obama's claims to "a new kind of politics" and post-partisanship disappear. Refuse, and Obama is weak, inexperienced, unprepared, and in keeping with the theme, an elitist Messiah presuming victory without fighting for it.

These are the perils of the high road. It's these times, when polling is tight and victory uncertain, that test leadership. How Obama responds under the pressure of the coming weeks will tell us much about the type of leader he is (and will be).

Romney for Vice President

2008-08-02T11:40:00.001-04:00

A year ago, if you had heard me say this, you would've wondered what was in my morning cup of coffee.

I did not like Romney one bit. I thought he was inauthentic. I didn't believe his "conversion" to being pro-life. I thought he was a manufactured candidate and that he'd go down in defeat to Hillary Clinton.

My, how a year changes things. While I still don't think Romney is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I must admit that I have come to a grudging respect for the man. He has truly been out there every week since he dropped out, urging people to vote for John McCain. He has worked hard to secure his place on the ticket. He is a talented spokesman and debater. I think this is exactly what John McCain needs on his ticket.

While he may very well bring Michigan to the Republican fold in November, this is not the main reason for choosing him. I think choosing Romney would be the least likely to upset conservatives and would not harm McCain's ability to reach out to moderates, given that Romney was governor of Massachusetts and that he used to be a moderate himself.

Ultimately, McCain's pick doesn't matter as much (for the short-term) in this campaign as Obama's does. McCain will only win the presidency by proving to Americans how undesirable Obama is. Obama's choice could reinforce negative views of him, or it could provide a balance that allows him to rebut any such criticism. McCain's choice must first do no harm. I don't believe Romney provides any risk. He's been thoroughly vetted, he's experienced, and he's a decent campaigner. He is not be the "wow" pick that someone like Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin would be, but I don't think McCain needs to take the risk of that. If the election is at all about McCain and his ticket, he will lose. Romney allows the focus of the campaign to remain on Obama.

Do I think he will pick Romney? Conventional wisdom says yes, but I have my doubts. I wonder if this is just a shell game to distract attention from the real pick: Ron Paul. I am kidding on the latter, of course, but it's possible that McCain's campaign wants everyone to think it'll be the boring Romney or Pawlenty, so that when they choose X person, the media will really focus on them.

I just don't think that's the right strategy.

Obama's Tank Moment

2008-08-01T15:44:00.003-04:00

Obama may still go ahead and win this election. However, the seeds have been planted for a 100 day assault on him that his campaign may not be able to survive.

If Obama had gone to the Middle East, visited the troops, then had private meetings with several foreign leaders, I think his trip would have been an unqualified success. However, he just had to have that speech in Berlin, didn't he? People of the world - citizen of the world - President of the world.

I think in 10 years we may look back on this as his "tank moment." A moment that, at first, is designed to showcase the nominee but ends up backfiring because it is just so unbelievable. (On a sidenote, when did hundreds of thousands of screaming Germans become a good way of picking leaders?).

I think the McCain campaign has found its opening. It's what I've been suggesting for months - that they need to go after his messiah-complex. Inevitably, most Americans will be turned off by such things. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Before Michael Gets To It...

2008-07-30T11:01:00.003-04:00

About this quote from Obama, where he claims he's "become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions"...

In its full context, it sounds a lot less audacious:

"It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. I have just become a symbol..."

Thanks to MSNBC's FirstRead for that. The "Obama is arrogant" narrative is already set, and this doesn't help his cause. Still, context matters, and it's important that people don't buy into the narrative just because it's easy. I'd say the same about all the "McSame" floating around out there.

Heuristics are dangerous in politics. After all, the "Guy You'd Rather Drink With" shortcut got us two terms of the Texan.

Attempting to Dispatch Kilroy in OH-15

2008-07-30T09:41:00.003-04:00

If Mary Jo Kilroy doesn't win the race in the Ohio 15th Congressional District this fall, she will not have lost the race to Republican opponent State Senator Steve Stivers. No, friends, if Mary Jo Kilroy loses, she will have been dispatched by, well, The Dispatch.

I'm not saying here that Mary Jo should necessarily win this race in a walk. After all, this is a seat that has been held by the 4th ranking Republican in Congress for 16 years, and covers a district that tilts Republican by a small margin in a generic race.

That said, Mary Jo has $1.6M cash on hand as of today, compared to her opponent's $880,000. She's been running for this office ever since her narrow defeat to Deborah Pryce in one of the last election cycle's nastiest campaigns. She's served for years as a county commissioner, and has greater name recognition than her opponent. It's a year in which the generic Democrat trounces the generic Republican in nearly every opinion poll taken, and a year in which a dynamic candidate at the top of the ticket will help drive Democratic turnout in races like this one. The cards, it seems, would all seem to be in her hands.

...makes the paper look like Don Quixote, with Sen. Stivers their all too willing Sancho Panza.

Save one. Her coverage in our esteemed local paper of record, The Dispatch, has from the outset been far less than, shall we say, even. While the paper continues to publish puff pieces about her opponent (a recent blog discussed how he received paper windmills from environmentalists and lauds his commitment to "look into it," code speak for ignore the issue), the paper's editorial board seems to have it in for her.

Focusing on the ballpark being built in the Arena District for Columbus' Triple-A team the Clippers (and funded in part by Franklin County taxpayers), the editorial board has taken to impugning Kilroy's motives and methods in awarding county contracts. Her great offense, according to The Dispatch? Awarding contracts to a company that employs union workers at prevailing wages.

What the editorial fails to note is that many county governments throughout the state of Ohio, and throughout the nation, make it a practice to award contracts preferentially to companies in several categories before awarding a contract to a low bidder: local, minority owned, and union. (I know, because I've worked on county government contract bids before, most recently on the in-progress Lucas County Arena project.)

The local category is easily explainable...we want to keep local dollars local. The racial justification, while slightly less easy to justify, nonetheless complies with greater affirmative action policy nationally. The issue here, at least according to the paper, is the prevailing wage/union component of county policy.

On that...my father works in construction in a non-union position. Thankfully for my family, his employer is scrupulous enough to pay company employees prevailing wages of his own volition. Sadly, many companies in the industry do not. The availability of cheap (read: illegal) labor, and the rich payoff government contracts bring, make it all too tempting for contractors to cut corners and improve their bottom lines. The county policy Kilroy was enforcing here is meant to protect workers, and to protect the county from liability. It's a sound policy, used by many others.

While the editorial goes on to lambaste the company eventually awarded the contract, its claims largely center on the deeds of one poor past president's actions and an accident that, tragically, killed a worker and brought OSHA fines. Let's be clear folks: construction is a dangerous gig. The OHSA fines could happen to any company, at any time, despite efforts to minimize risk. Part of that is due to the personalities construction attracts (my father, for one, is prone to risk-taking), but the fact remains that enforcement of OSHA guidelines often falls to employee discretion. As for the actions of a past president, an entire company cannot be held accountable for the actions of one person, who they have since terminated.

Despite all of that, the editorial's implicit complaint is that the costs of building the stadium have run over their allotment, and that it's Kilroy's fault via this contract. FALSE. Construction costs rise because of delays in the building process, not because of a particular contract. If the company Kilroy hired is to blame for delays, then that might be a justification for complaint (though again, blaming Kilroy directly is a tough sell because those sorts of issues often are unknowns at the time contracts are made).

In short, the Dispatch editorial is a hatchet job, and not a very convincing one. Coming after Kilroy for something she did herself? Fine. Coming after her for something she's responsible for? Also fine. Coming after her for construction delays? Tf this isn't yellow journalism, it's certainly in the saffron-lemon-cornflower color range.

If the Dispatch wants to do an interesting editorial, it should look into Stivers' lobbyist ties and where his fundraising dollars are coming from instead of writing about how he's receiving paper windmills. Coming after Kilroy this way? It just makes the paper look like Don Quixote, with Sen. Stivers their all too willing Sancho Panza.

The people of central Ohio deserve more from their only real old media news source. Like, say, impartiality...now that would be news.

Quick Observation on Obama's trip

2008-07-26T00:20:00.002-04:00

Who does this guy think he is?

It's one thing for a President to be speaking overseas in such a setting. But Obama already thinks he is President, doesn't he?

On another note - who do you think he's going to choose to be his VP? Personally, my thoughts are it'll be either Jimmy Carter or Michael Jackson.

With credit to NRO for pointing me to this - doesn't it remind you of an Obama speech?

Love Child? Never Meant to Be

2008-07-23T12:57:00.003-04:00

Your faithful bloggers here at Buckeye Punditeers have two words to describe the "breaking news" regarding John Edwards and his alleged love child: National Enquirer.

Is it really such a slow news day that the Drudge headline needs to focus on something this blatantly questionable and unsourced? If we're dragging the name of a man who has dedicated his life to serving the less fortunate through the mud, we ought to at least have some DNA evidence. Oh, and we have a scoop of our own we'd like to break now:

BREAKING NEWS: BOBBY JINDAL EATS BABIES.

Let's see if that gets legs.

It's Hot! Damn Hot!

2008-07-23T12:55:00.002-04:00

Maybe you should head over the Carnival of Ohio Politics to cool off....

I hear they make a wicked snow cone!

The Education Governor?

2008-07-22T15:07:00.005-04:00

First, let me say this: Gov. Ted Strickland is perhaps the shrewdest Ohio politician I've seen in my life. His ability to weather a terrible economy without so much as a scrape on his approval ratings, and his deft handling of the Marc Dann scandal, demonstrate a political acumen I frankly hadn't expected from the man I met in a Garrettsville diner four years ago.

That said, the biggest hold in The Gov's resume to this point has been his inability to live up to his campaign pledge to be the "education governor." Everyone makes that promise, it's true...but for Ted, it was a central tenet of his run. As a student looking over $100,000 in post-degree debt in the face, his ability to come through on that promise has some serious repercussions for me personally.

Today, with the launch of his "Conversations on Education," The Gov takes a serious step toward addressing the education question, and puts his political skill to the test. These "conversations" are politically risky, it's true. Why? When the conversations conclude, Gov. Strickland will be near the mid-point of his term of office, and will still not have addressed the education dilemma in Ohio substantively. For anyone planning to run against him in 2010, that is sure to be a talking point.

Despite the fact that these conversations are "just talk," this is the kind of measured and deliberate decision making that has marked some of this administration's finest moments. The appointment of Eric Fingerhut as Chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents was a political coup, yes...but as you'll recall, it took Fingerhut more than year to produce a strategic plan for the university system of Ohio. As a former employee in that industry, I assure you that Fingerhut's deliberate proposal will be a turning point toward stopping "brain drain" and dramatically improving the business of higher education in our state.

Strickland needs to accomplish two things by January 2009 to make a strong claim to the title "education governor." The first of these is to come forward with a coherent plan to address what we're teaching our students (workforce and life skills v. mere standardized test taking procedure). The second is to address how we're teaching them (focus on testing v. learning qua learning, and the funding model).

Ideally, the education system of Ohio will provide all Ohio public school students with equal access to higher education, and provide college instruction responsive to the needs of Ohio's economy.

Ideally, the education system of Ohio will provide all Ohio public school students with equal access to higher education, and provide college instruction responsive to the needs of Ohio's economy. That means addressing on a fundamental level a funding system the Ohio Supreme Court has twice ruled unconstitutional, and convincing college and universities that it's in their best interests to play well together despite decades of competition.

No easy task.

The education issue not only inflames parochial battle lines, but also raises the basic issue of how equal education should be, and what equality actually looks like. In this state, that means partisan battles over school vouchers, No Child Left Behind, and yes, funding.

...On the funding question, a suggestion. Currently, we pay for education in this state on the basis of property taxes by school district, as voted on by residents of that district. This system inherently disadvantages some students, whose schools are in low-property value areas (which, in addition to being a smaller tax base, are statistically less inclined to approve levies). In a world where education is increasingly an economic necessity and not the luxury it once was, why not simply pool all those funds in a state pot, and distribute them to schools on a per-pupil basis? That way, all students are equally supported by the state, and given equal footing during the critical early development years.

My solution doesn't completely solve the problem, I know. There is not a direct correlation between funding and attainment, and it doesn't get at the root of the issue (referendum-based property taxes are a dumb way to fund education, because they make an essential service optional at the whim of the electorate). Still, my plan would be a step toward equality and a vast improvement for those most "left behind" by our current system. We can't hope to truly improve Ohio education (and by extension the long-term viability of our economy) without doing something drastic, and soon. My idea would be the first, but probably not the second...

And Governor Strickland knows it. In addition to the fact-finding benefits of his "conversations," they buy him time. The Democrats are likely to pick up enough seats in the Ohio House to re-take the majority there in November, and may be able to do the same in the Senate. Any plan the Governor puts forth to fix the education system long-term will require the cooperation and consent of a friendly Legislature, and he's making sure that his eventual plan will have the best chance of success by waiting out the election.

Shrewd? Yes...and if successful, Governor Strickland's "conversations" may just be the most inspired political maneuver sin FDR's fireside chats.

Follow Up: Ohio in 2008?

2008-07-22T00:50:00.004-04:00

RealClearPolitics.com is up with the follow-up piece to the one Michael linked last week. In it, they discuss Ohio voting patterns, and what a candidate needs to do to win the state. (Nothing new on the CW, really: Dems need the large cities, a few moderate cities, and the eastern, southern, and northern border counties; Republicans need the rest).

With Obama currently polling at +8% in our fair state, this is a topic worth revisiting (and I promise, links to other websites as the entire post have been and will continue to be rare here...just when they're relevant).

While I don't agree with Michael that Obama can't win without Ohio (he can win Colorado and perhaps Nevada by winning progressives, rather than needing to rely on union Dems as he does here), I do think it's important to take it away from McCain. An 8% lead at this point in this state isn't enough to keep me from being nervous (Kerry had a 6% lead at this stage of the game in 2004). We all know that no Republican has ever won without Ohio...unfortunately, no Democrat since FDR has, either.

David Wilhelm, who ran President Clinton's successful campaign here, told a meeting I recently attended just what RCP printed. He added, "The great failing of the Kerry campaign was thinking that they could win Ohio by winning the 'Three C's' by landslides. That kept it close, but you can't win here that way."

Experience, like an overzealous nun with a ruler, has pounded Ohio Democrats with lessons in recent presidential elections...let's hope they stick for the Obama campaign.

How Alan Gura Saved the 2nd Amendment

2008-07-19T23:04:00.003-04:00

I thought this was a fascinating read. As a future attorney, it should come as no surprise that I dream of arguing before the Supreme Court someday (my dreams often involve me verbally sparring with the brilliant (yet very wrong) Justice Breyer over whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned). Anyway, since we have been talking 2nd Amendment the past few weeks, I thought this was an appropriate article to share.

A Big, Hairy, Audacious Gore...Er, Goal

2008-07-17T17:35:00.005-04:00

Get it? He's got a beard! I crack myself up...

Ok, now for the serious post.

Today, Al Gore decided to go all JFK on us and challenge our nation to accomplish the seemingly impossible: produce all U.S. energy using clean energy sources. In 10 years. You can read the full article here.

Not surprisingly, I love this. As someone whose values are largely shaped by my experiences in the Scouting movement as a young man, I have a deep appreciation for the importance of conserving our natural resources. This announcement by our former Vice President now puts the impetuous on both McCain and Obama to respond (though his timing could have been better, as both men are now embroiled in a foreign policy debate surrounding Obama's World Tour `08). Both men have expressed their belief that global warming is real and our fault, so maybe this will cause a real conversation about how we address it.

And now, a digression...

A word to the "skeptics": man-made global warming is a real thing. Despite concerted misinformation campaigns not unlike the pro-smoking movements of the 1960s (did you know more doctors smoke Camels?), the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is a real threat, and that we're causing it. That assertion has been backed by current events over the past year, like the break up of glaciers and rapidly chaning weather patterns, notably in Europe.

In other news, evolution is real (despite well-financed assertions otherwise), and the sun rose today.

Now, back to it...

What Gore's speech today does is bring the energy crisis, our flagging economy, and the very real ecological threat of continuing our current way of business into clear relief. Without addressing all three of these issues immediately, our society and our civilization face the very real threat of collapse (you know it's serious when a Texas oil tycoon jumps onboard the alternative energy bandwagon). We need to address the issue now, and we need to address it forcefully. While I don't believe in his heart of hearts Gore believes we'll achieve the goal he launched today (one could question whether Kennedy actually thought we'd reach the moon), he must know that this will bring this issue to the fore again. We're facing perhaps our biggest economic rut since the Carter administration, and unheard of fuel issues, so his timing in that sense is fantastically shrewd.

My only real quibble with Gore's remarks today is that he claims that John McCain is way ahead of the curve on the energy and global warming issue. This is the same Sen. McCain who has made offshore drilling an increasingly central part of his stump speech, and who believes deeply that the solution to our energy crisis is to increase our production and use of fossil fuels. I applaud the Senator for his recognition that global warming is serious. That said, can a man who believes that increasing our reliance on fossil fuels is a serious answer to our economic woes really be trusted to lead the charge toward sustainability?

Lastly, I think it's important that we discuss Sen. Voinovich's reaction to Gore's speech today. While I normally give Ohio's senior Senator grudging respect for his independent thinking and seeming dedication to our state, his reaction to Gore's speech today was, well, ridiculous. While he's right that it will take more than just increasing our reliance on carbon-free energy to solve the energy crisis we're facing (some gap filling measures are going to be necessary in order to sustain our economy), the assertion that we can't run our economy on clean energy is just bogus. The world's top five cleanest economies are:

1. Finland
2. Norway
3. Sweden
4. Iceland
5. Canada

That's right folks: those crazy Canucks, whose natural resource and economic profiles closely mirror our own, are one of the world's cleanest energy countries. We get our comedians, our musicians, and even a large number of our cars from Canada. Maybe it's time we looked to them as a model for sustainability, too.

Obama: naive and dangerous thinking?

2008-07-16T17:48:00.005-04:00

One has to wonder whether Obama actually believes the stuff he says, or whether he's got such incapable and ridiculous aides who guide him down the wrong path. Either way, Obama today said during his first term he will eliminate all nuclear weapons.

Besides the parallels between McGovern and Mondale, who both indicated wishes of doing so, the truth is this is fundamentally naive. The world is different than it was even ten or twenty years ago. Rather than it mainly being the United States, the Soviet Union, China, and a few in Britain and France, we also now have India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and probably pretty soon, Iran to add to the list.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the dream of it. I would probably prefer a world without nuclear weapons, or at least a world where only this country has nuclear weapons. That being said, it is naive to think you can eliminate the weapons in your first term, or even in your two terms. These countries are just not going to do it.

There's also the fact this is dangerous talk, too. The truth is that nuclear weapons have been one of the most stabilizing factors in the past 50 years. In the hands of rational actors such as the United States, China, and Russia, the weapons keep us out of major wars between these countries. The democratic peace theory would seem to indicate that eventually we will go to war with Russia and/or China (since neither are democracies), but if the nukes are still in place, the chances of this happening are much smaller than without. Of course, it remains possible that an accidental launch or a coup could alter this course, but this is still a small chance.

Nuclear weapons are only dangerous in the hands of irrational or extremist governments, such as North Korea or Iran, and if Pakistan's government were to be overthrown - a very real possibility - the Sunni extremists who attacked us on 9/11 would be in control of up to a dozen nuclear weapons. That is a frightening possibility. Iran, while actually controlled by fairly rational elements who understand that they would be destroyed should they ever attack Israel or us, still could be provoked or subject to rogue members of the Revolutionary Guard who could set off a war. That is also a frightening possibility.

I would like to see President Obama promise to rid the world of nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue nations and terrorists. If Obama could accomplish this in his eight years as president, it would be a huge triumph and a great advancement for our world. Only after that, and when we know that these weapons will not likely come back into their hands, should we address the idea of a world-wide elimination. We are many years away from that. First we must make sure terrorists and nutjobs can't nuke our Capitol.

I admire his desire, but I question his judgment and his naivete. Of course, it is more likely he does not think he can do this, and is only saying this in order to win votes. I don't know if that's a smart ploy, but only time shall tell.

I Have a Dream...A NIMBY Dream

2008-07-16T15:02:00.005-04:00

This story from the New York Times sums up my greatest fear about the Obama candidacy:

"White voters, much more so than black voters, are divided in their political loyalties. Mr. Obama draws significant support among white Democrats. Yet still, among just Democrats, blacks were more apt than whites in the poll to express positive views of Mr. Obama across a range of questions."

So many white voters I talk to in Ohio, including Democrats, express some variation of the same view: "It's great we have a black nominee for President...and I'd vote for him, too, except..."

Fill in the blank.

That whole "judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" bit? When you latch onto perceived character flaws, no matter how spurious the source or patently untrue they may be, that kind of character judgment...just isn't. Sure, we can have legitimate policy disputes and character discussions, but maintaining stereotypes in the name of comfort is not progress.

"Absolutely, we can have a black President..." too many seem to say. "Just not in my back yard."

Messin' With Texas

2008-07-16T10:37:00.006-04:00

On a day when soaring consumer pricing and our fiscal crisis are painting a less than rosy image of the good 'ole USA, now this. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the U.N.'s highest court, has ordered a stay of the execution of several Mexican citizens currently sitting on Texas' death row.

For those unfamiliar with the case, which law scholars are watching very closely nationwide for its precedential value, a quick refresher. The Medellin case centers on the gang rape and brutal murders of two American girls by undocumented Mexicans in Texas. The Mexicans were condemned to die by Texas' high court. At that point, the Mexican government intervened on behalf of Medellin (the case's namesake and a leader of the gang) and his compatriots, and asked the ICJ for an order forcing the U.S. to review the case (though it's complicated, Medellin claims his right to assistance from the Mexican consulate was denied in violation of international law).

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument (and President Bush's effort to enforce the international ruling), claiming that state court decisions are beyond the reach of the ICJ. The reviews did not take place (despite the urging of the federal government) and now the ICJ has ordered a stay of the executions.

Messin' with Texas, it seems, may create a much bigger mess than we ever could have anticipated.

There are innumerable legal questions here, as well as geopolitical ones. A few biggies:

1. Can the federal government force a state to adhere to an international ruling? (According to SCOTUS, no.)
2. How much weight does international law have on domestic policy? (According to SCOTUS, not a lot.)
3. What are the legal consequences if Texas decides to disobey the order?
4. What are the geopolitical ramifications of that fallout?

The Hague court is, in many respects, the most powerful arm of the U.N. It enforces international trade and criminal law, and is a large component of the fabric of post-WWII world order. If a state's sovereign law under our Constitution can trump the ruling of the international court, what standing does that court ultimately have? Texas' continued defiance, though perfectly within its constitutional rights, jeopardizes our participation in that larger global order, and could in the long run deeply weaken our ability to effectively lead. After all, if Texas, as a mere provincial sovereign, can defy the World Court, why can't an African dictator or an extremist theocrat, whose claim to international sovereignty arguably bears more weight?

A state government here, for really the first time since the outbreak of the Civil War, is challenging the power of the federal government on a fundamental level and having some substantive success. For the first time ever, a state is challenging international government, with the outcome presently hanging in doubt.

It's an astounding thing to witness from the legal perspective, and a troubling one politically. Though time will certainly tell us what impact Medellin's final outcome will have, it is certain that it will vastly alter our credibility with the world and our own legal system.

Messin' with Texas, it seems, may create a much bigger mess than we ever could have anticipated.

Ohio in 2008?

2008-07-16T01:12:00.003-04:00

I wanted to share this link, because it is an interesting analysis of Ohio politics. Plus, there are pretty maps (I prefer this one).

I don't know how Ohio will go this time around. My gut instinct tells me that Obama will not win it, but that has to happen only if it is a close election (<2% popular vote nationally, and again, with Ohio being the decider). So if Obama does not win the presidency, I think it will once again be Ohio that hands the keys to the evil, err, Republicans. If Obama cannot win Ohio, I fail to see how he can win Colorado or Virginia, in hopes of making up the Ohio loss. It's possible, but if I were on the Obama team, I'd be placing my bets on winning with Ohio rather than without it.

Happiness Is a Warm Gun

2008-07-15T00:08:00.005-04:00

Mea culpa.

Yes, my post about the slain Twinsburg officer focused on too small a sample size. I cherry picked. The post was intentionally biased, and meant to illustrate a point I deeply believe is accurate: concealed carry laws in general put the population at greater risk of harm by placing armed vigilantes in the role of law enforcement. The example was poor, and did not do a proper job of illustrating the greater point. I used it only because it put concealed carry in the headlines today, and I wanted to discuss it.

The post was, to use this cycle's buzzword, "inartful." My apologies to our readers and to Michael for a poor representation of my more nuanced stance. Allow me to attempt a remedy.

Do I hate guns? No. Remember, I own two, for the rare occasion I might hunt.

Do I think it's a good idea for folks to be able to carry them around, hidden from view? No.

Why? A hypothetical: Which of the following scenarios is more likely?

A) Eric Harris (or any other armed crazy) shows up and the day is saved by vigilante justice.

B) An armed vigilante accidentally shoots and kills an innocent while attempting to "play hero."

If our readers can produce statistics on this front, I welcome them. Otherwise, we'll have to proceed on gut response. If you answered (A), you probably agree with Michael. Me, I think (B) is probably more accurate. Thus the opposition to concealed carry law, and to extending it.

To conclude: I don't want to take your gun. I just want to prevent your gun from killing me or some other unarmed person because you think you can save the day in a situation you're not trained to respond to.

I did not intend to fearmonger, and any appearance to that end I deeply regret. I also did not intend to trivialize the great risks peace officers take in the name of protecting all of us each day. I honor the service and mourn the loss of Josh Miktarian, and all who fall in the line of duty.

We shouldn't be afraid of guns. We should be afraid of their misuse: a misuse I believe concealed carry law encourages.

Michael and I have spoken. Your response, O Reader, we welcome.

On concealed carry laws

2008-07-14T23:28:00.003-04:00

Biased sample/spotlight fallacy
Ignoratio elenchi
Nirvana/perfect solution fallacy
Cherry picking/anecdotal evidence fallacy
Hasty generalization

All of these things apply to the argument that "because X improperly [used his concealed carry permit] to murder someone, [concealed carry permit] should not exist."

The same type of fallacious reasoning can be applied to a whole host of things. Knives are not even regulated, yet many murders are committed by people who lawfully purchased knives. A sixteen year old committed vehicular homicide because they were talking on their cell phone while driving, so therefore we should ban cell phone use while driving a car. The list goes on.

This is the argument made by Brad and advanced by those on the left who do not wish to see people have a right to own a gun. It's based on the false assumption that because someone went crazy, we shouldn't let anyone have the right to a concealed gun. It has nothing to do with that. People will be murdered. Police officers risk their lives when they pull a person over for a traffic stop; they know this. If this man did not hold a concealed carry permit, what is there to stop him from having a concealed weapon anyway? Of course, there is nothing. Criminals do not follow the law, by definition.

Yet the 99.9% of Americans who are lawfully abiding citizens are to be punished and inhibited from exercising their right to own and carry a weapon for self-protection...because a bad guy did a bad thing?

This gun phobia is what has continued to harm the Democratic Party every election. I most certainly hope it continues to, because damnit, you'll take my gun from my cold, dead hands. And you're damn right, I want to be able to carry my gun into school so I can shoot the Cho Seung-Hui or Eric Harris when he comes in to shoot me.

Buckeye Punditeers

Forum non conviens

Fox News Pushing Cartoon Porn

Surprising No One, Ohio Supremes Say Husted is Montgomery Co. Resident

BREAKING: Ohio Supreme Court To Host Judicial Selection Forum

2010: Let's Go Horse Racing!

Health Care: Why Tort Reform Isn't The Answer

So Pelosi and Hoyer Walk into a Bar...

Astroturf: Back In Style

Obama Admin: Public Option "Not The Essential Element" To Reform Efforts

Deep Thoughts At Midnight

RECAP: Sen. Brown's Columbus Health Care Town Hall

Sua Sponte: Gahanna Vice

Anything You Can Draw, I Can Draw Better

Ohio Wins Race To 1,000

Can't Get a Penny From the Block

Thoughts on the Ohio Budget

States Rights and Gay Rights Unite

Blinded By the Right

Turner & Hooch

The Gov's Gambling Crapshoot

Ohio Politics. Daily.

The Empire Strikes Back: The Return of Triangulation

BP After Hours: Tappin' the Rockies

The 4th Amendment and the Bailout Plan

BP After Hours: Bellinis and Beneficence

There's No Place Like Home

Carnival of Ohio Politics #156

Rolling the Dice that Everyhing Old Is New Again

Brunner's a Blogger!

Dispatch and Kasich Team Up, Take On Common Sense

Standing Outside the Fire

Similarities Between Brunner and Blackwell? Their Names Start with "B"...

Clinton Pussy, 18, Dies

NEW FEATURE: BP After Hours

GOP-izzie Down Wit Stereotypes

Judge: What's in a Name?

Things Fall Apart. The Center Cannot Hold.

Ground Zero in the Culture Wars

Rob and Lee, and Jenny B Makes Three

That's New Hampshire

Pitchers and Catchers, Report!

Looking for the CJ

A Word on the Economy

Fisher All But In, Say ODB, BSB

Ohio Chief Justice: O'Connor, Petro...Who Else?

How Do I Spend Thee, Let Me Count the Ways

TrimSpa for State Government?

Hello Everybody!

Quick Thoughts on the State of the State

Change Has Come to America

National Day of Service, Rememberance

The End of Jack Bauer Legal Policy

Now Playing Left Field: Ohio Daily Blog

Senate 2010: Fisher Casts Wide Net

Another One Bites the Dust

Congrats, All

Quick Hits: Of Swans and Ugly Ducklings

BREAKING: Kilroy Wins Ohio 15th After Stivers Concedes

Justice Requires Balance: Initial Reactions to Today's Ruling

Flowers for Algernon

BREAKING: New Ohio House Dems Leadership Announced *UPDATED*

Welcome Back, Clinton!

It's Coming...

Fighting the Good Fight

John Edwards: who cares?

How's the Groom? Why, He's Slightly Fried

Guaging the Energy Debate

A Good Run of Bad Luck

Perils of the High Road

Romney for Vice President

Obama's Tank Moment

Before Michael Gets To It...

Attempting to Dispatch Kilroy in OH-15

Quick Observation on Obama's trip

Love Child? Never Meant to Be

It's Hot! Damn Hot!

The Education Governor?

Follow Up: Ohio in 2008?

How Alan Gura Saved the 2nd Amendment

BREAKING: New Ohio House Dems Leadership Announced UPDATED