Breaking it Down: The 12/10 Rasmussen Ohio Senate Poll

Some Democrats like to question the reliability of Rasmussen.

They claim he doesn't accurately poll voters until right before an election, and that's why he's always rated one of the most accurate pollsters in the nation.

No, really. They're serious.

These same skeptics should ask the famous left-wing number cruncher, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com, what he thinks of Rasmussen:

In summation, none of these tracking polls are perfect, although Rasmussen -- with its large sample size and high pollster rating -- would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island.

In other words, Rasmussen should be respected as an accurate poll.

But I digress.

This post is about Portman and the Dems, so let's get to it...

1) The Topline(s)
Portman leads Fisher 38-36 and Brunner 40-33.

Obviously, leads are good. But Portman is far from in command of this race. Remember, the magic number is 50, and Portman has a ways to go. In the meantime, the two state officeholder Dems both getting just about a 1/3 of the electorate is extremely weak - particularly against someone who has only run in a single congressional district.

2) The Gender Non-Gap
Sure, we're seeing the usual males preferring the Republican and females preferring the Democrat. But what's interesting is the lack of support Jennifer Brunner is getting from women, relative to Lee Fisher. In fact, Fisher wins 4% more women than Brunner. This kind of result may be why Emily's List has shied away from supporting Ms. Brunner.

3) Party ID
Brunner and Fisher are both suffering the same major challenge facing Strickland - only 2/3 of self-identified Democrats are supporting them. The different being that rather than the other 1/3 supporting Portman, they're simply saying they're unsure. In other words, the Democratic nominee shouldn't count on their vote in 11 months.

Additionally, Brunner has to be disappointed that she loses by two points to Fisher among self-identified liberals/progressives. She has tried to frame herself as the choice of the far left, and it's clearly not working.

Portman utterly dominates among Independents, winning 41-19 vs. Fisher and 45-13 vs. Brunner. If that rate continues through the election, Portman will win Indies 68-32. In other words, Portman wins.

4) Name ID
Amazingly enough, despite their status as elected statewide officeholders, Fisher and Brunner both have virtually the same Name ID as Portman with all three averaging about 70%.

The difference is what these folks think about them.

Portman's favorable/unfavorables are 48/21. Fisher is at 36/35. And Brunner is at 34/36. That's a net difference of 26 and 29, respectively.

So with the fierce attacks on Portman's record as a Bush appointee, how does he fare among the most targeted audience - Independents? 43-17. Among those that know Portman, the attacks aren't sticking.

5) Where's Ganley?
How insignificant is Tom Ganley's primary challenge versus Portman? So insignificant that he wasn't even included in this poll. If Ganley wants to mount any kind of serious challenge to Portman, he better start dropping a hefty sum of that cash he claims to be willing to spend.

6) Conclusion
Obviously, it's a close race. Brunner has to be discouraged yet again by failure to perform better than Fisher among women and progressives. Fisher clearly hasn't yet been tagged as a lackey of the poisonous Governor Strickland. I wish Rasmussen had included a question asking opinions on each specific candidate's record on the economy. It would have given an indication of how much the electorate associates Portman with Bush and Fisher with Strickland.

Still a long way to go, but considering Portman is performing this well without having ever run statewide as his potential opponents have, he has to be feeling pretty good.

Ted Strickland will be on the ballot in November 2010.

We've all heard the rumors. Some went so far as to blog about them.

I never did. I never saw the point.

But whether some Republicans like it or not, Ted Strickland will be John Kasich's opponent on November 2nd, 2010.

Or at least according to the man himself today. [click here for video]

I, for one, am thrilled to hear it for two reasons:

1. With the exception of very few, I wish ill on no one. I'm glad to hear the Governor feels he's healthy enough for another run.
2. I wouldn't want any other person on the ballot.

The fact is this - there is not a more beatable Ohioan in the state than Ted Strickland.

• It's his wrecked budget.
• It's his job crisis.
• It's his education mess.
• It's his crooked Administration.

Now let's focus on his record, not his health, and go whoop some butt.

So much for Strickland's best-case scenario....

According to the Governor's own economic forecasters, Strickland's Turnaround Ohio plan has failed:

The consensus forecast for 2010/2011 remains stable. Leading indicators show positive signs; lagging indicators continue to show negative signs. The economy has yet to show consistent, positive signs of recovery because of the negative wealth effect on consumers and the lack of access to credit for businesses, particularly small businesses. As a result, the economists continue to believe Ohio and the nation will experience a slow recovery.

In November I highlighted Strickland's best-case scenario for a turnaround:

What if we get particularly generous and give Strickland the average rate of improvement from the best nine month period of economic recovery in Ohio since 1976 – January through September of 1983.

That improvement averaged 0.3% over nine months. At that rate over the next nine months, unemployment over the next goes down to 7.8%, or 44% higher than when Strickland came into office.

It looks like even that not-so-great scenario is ka-put.

As are Strickland's chances for re-election.

Thank you, Ohio Democratic Party

Your Party estabishment, run by Governor Strickland and Chris Redfern, saw it fit that Lee Fisher be their Party's Senate nominee. Not with an endorsement, mind you - but with behind the scenes efforts designed to slide the race to Fisher.

This meant Jennifer Brunner wouldn't have the financial, grassroots, or organizational support afforded to her primary opponent. And it has cost her the race.

Now, she may stick it out. And if so, good for her.

But minus a game-changing development, she won't be the nominee.

Her fundraising has been pathetically weak, making it impossible for her to communicate her message to the masses, and her lack of quality staff have led to disaster after disaster - the latest being her strange flip-flop on Afghanistan.

It makes you wonder what could have been, had Brunner enjoyed Party support. If major donors had the go-ahead to contribue to her. If the right staff was sent her way.

It's no shock to anyone that she is the less vulnerable candidate between her and Fisher. Sure, she has had her problems in the Secretary of State's office, but none has been as high profile as Lee Fisher's achilles heel - his stint as Jobs Czar under Strickland at the Department of Development where he oversaw the loss of hundreds of thousands of Ohio jobs.

The attack writes itself. In the #1 issue facing Ohioans, Fisher has had his chance - and failed. It's an attack that will be used effectively and constantly in the Senate campaign to come.

And Brunner will have to sit back and watch it all go down on TV next Fall. She'll have the time.

Breaking it Down: The 12/9 Rasmussen Ohio Governor Poll

72 times.

That's how many times Kasich's name was mentioned on Twitter within two hours of Rasmussen's latest poll on the Ohio Governor's race being released. A far greater reaction than September's poll showing Kasich up only one, this news gave Ohioans, and others from all over, a clear indication that Ohio was far more winnable than national pundits had been claiming for months.

Quickly, word of the Republican's 9-point lead over Strickland spread among the thousands who saw those tweets. In other words - this was big.

So, beyond the obvious good news, what do the numbers mean?

1) The Topline
With 48%, Kasich fell just short of the magic 50% that every candidate wants to achieve in a poll. Once you've hit that 50, you know you're in very good shape. Close, but not quite.

But it was Strickland hitting only 39% that drew the biggest gasp from me.

39.

That's just plain awful and shows that Strickland has an extremely long way to go to regain the trust of Ohioans.

2) The Age Groups
The only major change from the last Rasmussen poll in September was among older Ohioans. Kasich saw a 21-point turnaround among 50-64 year olds and a 26-point turnaround among the 65+ age group. Can we thank Obamacare and Strickland support thereof for this? Most likely.

3) Party ID
Despite the constant negativity and attacks coming from the Ohio Dems, Kasich only became stronger among Republicans and Independents. Among Indies, Kasich went from +14 to +25. With GOPers he went from 81 to 88 support.

Compare that support from the base to that of Strickland. The Governor receives just barely over 2/3 of Democrats' support - 69%. That's down from 80% just two months ago. As I've been mentioning since Quinnipiac started coming out with polls in July, Strickland's extremely weak support among his base will be the most important challenge of his to overcome. Unless he turns these numbers around to something closer to Kasich's mid-to-high 80s, Strickland will simply not be able to win.

So who are these Democrat voters supporting?

John Kasich. Nearly 1/5 of Ohio's Democrats currently support the Republican. It seems our presumptive nominee may have his own version of Reagan Democrats - Kasich Democrats.

Now, don't count on these numbers sticking. But this small group is fun to enjoy while we can. Either way, at worst we can assume these Kasich Democrats will have relatively little incentive to go vote at all, let alone for Strickland.

4) Name ID
Kasich still suffers from lagging name ID. Clearly, that doesn't seem to matter. Despite 31% of the electorate not knowing enough about him to have an opinion, they still have no problem supporting him. Not surprisingly, Independents are the least likely to know Kasich, with only 60% having an opinion of him. But it's Independents who will be most open to the Republican candidate's campaign narrative - a proven fiscal problem solver here to clean up the mess. And it's also where Democrats will try to attack. Despite their current offensive tactic seemingly blowing up in their faces so far, they don't have much of anything else to use for ammo.

5) My Favorite Stat
In September, Kasich has only a -4 net favorability among Democrats. As of this new poll, that's down to -3.

34% approve - 37% disapprove.

For comparison's sake, Strickland's approval among Republicans is -57 and -20 among Independents. Think about that for a second - Kasich's favorability among Democrats is nearly 7 times greater than Strickland's among unaffiliated voters.

6) Conclusion
Ultimately, there is nothing within these numbers that would cheer me up if I was sitting in a cubicle at the ODP. I'd know my organization's line of attack wasn't working. I'd know the leader of my Party can't inspire 1/3 of Democrats to vote for him. And I'd know Kasich hasn't even started his offensive yet. On top of it all, I'd know my Governor has yet to even announce his candidacy while Kasich already has his entire grassroots organization in place.

If I was sitting in my cubicle at the ODP, I'd be depressed.

Could this day have gone any worse for Ohio Democrats?

First, Jennifer Brunner's day is ruined when Obama's campaign manager endorses Lee Fisher.

Then, the Democrat state standard bearer, Governor Ted Strickland, learns he's down 9 points to an opponent who has yet to run one advertisement.

And now it's Fisher's turn....

Perhaps Plouffe is just working overtime, but his firm -- AKPD Message and Media ­-- also does media consulting for Fisher, who is the frontrunner in the Democratic primary where he faces Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. According to campaign finance reports, the Fisher campaign had paid more than $3,100 for media production to AKPD so far this cycle through Sept. 30.

According to a top Fisher aide, the campaign approached Plouffe independently about writing an e-mail in support of their candidate. The Fisher aide also said Plouffe has not worked on any campaigns this fall and instead has been traveling to promote his book.

What's more, another top gun at AKPD, Larry Grisolano, is the principal on Fisher's media campaign. A phone call to AKPD for comment was not returned.

According to the AKPD Web site, Plouffe is a senior adviser for the firm.

It's hard to understate how obnoxiously embarrassing this is for the Fisher campaign.

Not to mention, amateurish.

3BP has not heard any word yet on whether Fisher is going to try to get TARP funds to pay for Axelrod's endorsement.

BREAKING: Kasich takes massive lead versus Strickland!

48-39 in Rasmussen.

That's huge.

Analysis to come tomorrow....so stay tuned.....

Obama endorses Fisher.

Ok, not really.

But he might as well have.

Today, David Plouffe, the President's chief campaign manager in 2008 announced his endorsement of Lee Fisher for Senate.


Why is this significant? Well, we all know the White House can't endorse in a competitive primary, and the DSCC has learned its lesson from watching the Republicans mess up their Florida primary race - so if the Obama Administration wants to make a move to indicate who it would prefer as the nominee, Plouffe is not only the most likely, but the only choice to do so.

Indicating the President's preference in a race this high-profile is incredibly helpful for Fisher when it comes to building momentum in the primary.

But with the President's support, the Democratic establishment has effectively eliminated any possibility for Brunner to raise any significant amounts of cash. In addition, it will make it that much more difficult for Brunner to implement any kind of grassroots campaign when Organizing for America is either sitting this one out or helping Fisher.

So there it is.

Yet another nail in the coffin that contains Jennifer Brunner's Senate campaign.

Maybe he's trying to reach China.

If you're stuck in a hole, do you tend to try to go up or dig yourself deeper?

Exactly. Up.

Well, not our President.


The definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

One thing is for sure - not only will this strategy not fix the economy, but with a headline like this it's also not going to turn the President's ever-sinking poll numbers around.

Forget R's and D's for a second.

It's important to note that in March of this year - a month out from the passage of the stimulus - Independent voters in Ohio had bought into the President's plan to fix our fiscal mess. According to Quinnipiac, these Indies approved of his work on the economy by a sizeable margin.

But since then, as they've seen the country recess even further and unemployment go far beyond what the President promised under his grand spending plan, things have changed.

Ohio's most recent Quinnipiac Poll in November showed Independents had seen enough.

Compared with March, a month out from the stimulus passing, the economic approval numbers for the President among Independents have seen a 28 point turnaround in the negative.

So what does the President propose? 'Let's do it all over again.'

Mr. President, you can't sell them on this again. These are the same tired arguments you've used for months, and evidence shows that they haven't worked.

The all-important Independent voter ain't gonna buy it.

And if you want to continue making the same mistakes, you won't have as nearly a friendly majority as you have now come January 2011.

Don't forget the Cristal, Mr. Redfern.

Apparently Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern likes to travel in style.

While reviewing their most recent financial report, this little gem was discovered:


I hope donors to the Ohio Democratic Party don't mind their Party leaders being chauffeured around on their hard-earned contributions.

3BP cannot confirm nor deny this as the limo in question:


Pretty sweet neon.

The Governor Almost Gets It.

The Manufacturing & Technology eJournal yesterday ran an article highlighting some job news in Ohio:

Governor Ted Strickland and Lisa Patt-McDaniel, Director of the Ohio Department of Development, have announced that the Ohio Tax Credit Authority has approved Job Creation Tax Credits for 15 businesses involved in projects that, if located in Ohio, are expected to create 1,412 positions and retain 2,613 jobs for Ohioans.

These kind of tax credits sound good, right?

Not so much.

Unfortunately, the Governor is going about it all wrong, and we just have to look to a study conducted on our enemies up north to see why:

The authors inspected credits awarded from 1995 to the end of 2004 and found that while MEGA deals were expected to produce 61,043 jobs, only 17,971 were ultimately created. Hence, the actual job count was just 29 percent of the expected total - less than one-third.

And why was this?

Michigan has a terrible business tax system. Rather than fix that, their focus has been on giving select businesses exemptions from it. So rather than welcoming all investment and job creation, the state's politicians and their MEGA officials pick and choose what gets special treatment at the expense of everyone else. Given Michigan's seemingly perpetual recession, that strategy doesn't seem to be working out.

Sounds awfully familiar, eh?

Ok, so how do we fix it?

Unfortunately, a lot of other states seem to be heading down that path, lured by the hopes of easy "job creation." What should matter is wealth creation: capital flowing into the state and creating meaningful jobs that contribute to long-term economic growth. The MEGA strategy of handing out cash and goodies to the politically connected probably won't ever achieve that.

Michigan should get rid of its politically-motivated picking winners-and-losers stuff. Offer a simple, neutral, transparent, stable tax system-apply it to everyone equally at a low rate-and junk all the targeted credits and special giveaways.

Strickland almost gets how it works. With lower taxes come incentive for businesses to come to Ohio. Unfortunately, we're going down the same road as Michigan.

And we all know how well that has worked out.

I'm glad you're reading.

Some may have seen this headline in the Columbus Dispatch yesterday.

I'm glad they read the blog. :-)


We've been hitting Strickland for months on this very issue. It's great to see mainstream Ohio media has caught onto the Governor's own ninja campaign.....on the taxpayer dollar.

I told you he was a campaign ninja.

Yesterday, the Kasich for Ohio campaign tweeted the following:

@KasichForOhio: KFO Team wrapped up its final regional mtg in Tiffin. 12 regions, 88 counties and over 200 leaders ready for a new way!

For those without much campaign experience, this kind of massive grassroots organization while still 11 months out - is good.

Real good.

And it exemplifies exactly what I was talking about waaaay back in February in one of this blog's most popular posts - John Kasich: Campaign Ninja.

302 days ago, there was some minor fretting from some wondering if Kasich was even going to enter the race. Even a facebook group (with a grand total of 36 members) was created with design to pressure Kasich into announcing his candidacy earlier than planned. Interestingly enough, it still exists today - some of you folks may want to change your membership status.

My post in response to this fretting was designed to calm those nerves. Here are a couple excerpts:

Beginning in 2007 and through March of 2009, Kasich has spoken or will have spoken at 45 County Lincoln Day Dinners or similar Party activist events. Attendance at these events has averaged out at about 400. That's 18,000 people. What's important to note is that these 18,000 aren't just regular voters. These are Party leaders, grassroots coordinators, fundraisers and combinations thereof. The very people that need to be inspired to work hard to make sure victory is assured in November of 2010.

It would be easy to say that these people can be counted on already. There is no need to waste time courting folks that will already help you, just as they help each campaign cycle, right? But as a campaign veteran I can tell you there is a ginormous difference between Party activists who feel obligated to help you and Party activists that WANT to help you.

[...]

This 'flirting' [...] is so much more than that. It is the establishment of a campaign firmly rooted in inspired Party activists who will work their asses off at the grassroots level and into the development of a well-networked fundraising base.

Well, one thing is unequivocally clear - with Kasich's solid grassroots organization already in place, it is certain that these are the kinds of "inspired Party activists that will work their asses off". And it's in large part due to John's efforts going all the way back to 2007 in visiting with Party members across the state to gauge their interest in his campaign and to communicate his vision for Ohio.

Will the fundraising come with it? Well, I'm reasonably optimistic - but that's another post that must wait a little less than a month.

But without question - Kasich's strategic vision has worked perfectly.

While Strickland suffers under the glare of a failing state, Kasich has taken the time to prepare and motivate a massive groundswell of grassroots activists ready to take advantage of the perceived voter enthusiasm gap expected for 2010.

And they're waiting for their signal:

Ladies & Gents, the Leader of the World's Senior Legislative Body...

By now you've likely heard about the absolutely ridiculous and embarrassing statement exclaimed yesterday by Senate Leader Harry Reid.

I could slam him, but I'm gonna let a master do it for me.

Here's Ramesh Ponnaru in yesterday's WaPo online:

On the Senate floor, majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada said, "Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

The offensiveness of Senator Reid's comments should not blind us to their stupidity. If he is right, then it is always wrong--it is always wicked and immoral--to slow down or to rethink. This is, however, exactly the right course of action on many occasions. The senator should take it each time he opens his mouth.

Perfect.

Ted likes giving presents.

Strickland has been in the Christmas spirit of giving as of late.

But he didn't pay for the gifts.

While I'm still blocked from following him on twitter, I still was able to review his latest tweets.

As of last night, the Governor had posted four tweets since November 20th. (sidebar: four tweets in 17 days? way to really utilize social media, person who manages Ted's twitter account!)

Of those four, three are about Strickland awarding $61 million in federal stimulus dollars to different industries in the state.


In other words, the Obama Administration is calling up Ted's press office and telling him to take credit for giving money that isn't even state sponsored.

Now, you may wonder what I'd prefer to see on a Governor's twitter account.

Well, how about the posts provided by Mitch Daniels of Indiana, where he regularly updates his constituents on the hordes of new companies coming to the Hoosier state to do business.

In fact, going back a couple months, not one of his tweets highlight Daniels taking credit for federal dollars being spent in Indiana.

And why are these jobs coming to Indiana? Is it because of the stimulus dollars being doled out by the federal government?

No.

It's because going back to 2006, Indiana has had a consistently positive business tax climate index. Most recently, they were ranked as having the 12th best in the nation, and the best in the Midwest.

Oh, what it must be like to have a good Governor.

I can't wait for a new day and a new way.

Portman wants a new holiday.

And since it includes more money in my pocket, I'm all for it.

Kevin over at OPO was the first to get my attention re: OH SEN candidate Rob Portman's latest proposal:

The Cincinnati Republican spoke in Cleveland Friday afternoon. Among his proposals was one that he maintains would jump-start both hiring, and spending.

Portman said “to spur immediate investment by employers and encourage consumption by employees; I support a one year payroll tax holiday. Beginning immediately...for workers and employers on the first $50,000 of income.”

Upon first hearing of the idea, I recalled reading a post from the Tax Foundation blog that discussed some of the problems with such a proposal. It pushed the idea that a payroll tax cut wouldn't be enough to spur the economy back into gear.

Well, I decided to ask Jessica Towhey, Portman's press secretary, about these concerns. Her response:

Critics are missing the point...clearly this won't "repair" the damage done by the Strickland-Fisher administration in Ohio, and it’s not intended to be silver bullet – there isn’t one “silver bullet.” This is a way to bring some relief to small businesses and working men and women with a small amount of the unspent money that was used for those institutions deemed too big to fail.

Well first off, any policy that pulls my tax dollars away from the "too big to fail" institutions is already a winner in my book. And putting that same cash back into the hands of those who earned it in the first place seals the deal.

Props to Portman. Maybe one of Ohio's GOP representatives in Congress could give the idea a little more publicity and introduce a bill in the House or Senate. Sure, it has no chance in hell with the crew we have in there now - but it deserves to be heard.

Will Mammogramgate damage Democrats?

Back in mid-November, the story broke:

For many women, getting a mammogram is already one of life's more stressful experiences.

Now, women in their 40s have the added anxiety of trying to figure out if they should even be getting one at all.

A government task force said Monday that most women don't need mammograms in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50 — a stunning reversal and a break with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position. What's more, the panel said breast self-exams do no good, and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

Unbelievable.

Now, the point of this post isn't to debate the merits of the policy, but instead to discuss what kind of political effect it will have in 2010 and 2012.

The fact is, the issue will have political ramifications. And it should. It's difficult to find anyone who wants to defend the new recommendations, and the criticisms have been valid.

But I digress.

Soon after the news broke, I tweeted the following:

Pondering how mammomgram-gate is going to effect women's approval of Obama.

Then, as I saw some objectors to the new policy using it to highlight the realities of rationing under Obamacare, I wondered if they were focusing on the right issue:

While using mammogram-gate to highlight rationing is a +, breast cancer is a serious issue. Can't allow Dems to minimize its dangers.

In other words, the dangers behind the policy are large enough that the issue does not need to be nuanced into the Obamacare debate.

Now, I imagine many would disagree that breast cancer is an important issue to most women.

As of last night, "Breast Cancer Awareness" had 1,009,177 fans on facebook.

The 2009 Race for the Cure had 45,000 participants and raised $4.3 million for breast cancer research.

And even the NFL had players wearing pink shoes for a week to increase awareness.

In other words, a lot of people care. And they care a lot.

In the meantime, the Obama Administration sent a very simple message back - we don't care.

And the GOP is going to make sure you know about it.

Here is the latest Weekly Video Address from the Republicans. It's given by Carly Fiorina, a Republican candidate for Governor in California - and a survivor of breast cancer:



According to Gallup in mid-November, Obama's approval among all women was 51%.

After this kind of message is properly, and justly, utilized by Republicans in 2010 and 2012, we could very well see Obama's number plummet further among females.

And that will severely damage the electability of Democrats everywhere.

Transparency, Transchmerency.

Last week, the White House blocked the subpoena from Congress that requested the appearance of White House staff for a congressional hearing on the infamous White House gate crashers and the frightening breach in security.

Obama's Press Secretary stated: "I think, you know, that, based on separation of powers, staff here don't go to testify in front of Congress."

Well, as the Epic Journey blog picked up on, that doesn't exactly jive with what we heard from Candidate Obama:

Last year, the president took a very different position. A reporter asked about congressional efforts to get Bush White House aides to testify about the firings of U.S. attorneys. Then-candidate Obama said:

I think that nobody is above the law. If there are specific assertions of executive privilege, then, you know, those can be examined. But I think this notion, this blanket notion that you can't subpoena White House aides, where there's evidence of genuine wrongdoing, I think is completely misguided.

You know, as I recall, Richard Nixon mounted similar arguments. That's not how we operate. We're a nation of laws and not men and women. So, you know -- and my -- that's a precedent I don't mind living with as president of the United States.

Oops.

Is this the hope and change you were looking for, fellas?

You've had 4 months, Paula. Why do you still hate the 12th district?

122 days ago Paula Brooks announced her candidacy against Pat Tiberi.

Amusing, I know.

Back then, we knew she didn't live in the district she claims she wants to represent.

Apparently, nothing has changed.

For the past four months, Paula Brooks has maintained her home, campaign office, and fundraising firm in the 15th district.

Maybe Mary Jo Kilroy should be getting nervous.

The whole thing is actually pretty amusing. Here is a screen capture of Paula Brooks' "contact page" from her website:


Wow. Thanks for all the info, Paula. Glad to see you're making yourself so available to the congressional district you claim you want to represent.

But, fortunately for Ms. Brooks, her logo does ensure she won't get confused when talking about her candidacy. It tells ya right there which district she wants to represent - just in case Steve Stivers comes knocking on her door to hand out some campaign lit for his race in the 15th.

I mean, seriously....is your campaign staff even trying with this logo?

"Ohio's 12th District" just looks stuffed in there. It looks ridiculous. I think even my horribly shabby photoshop skills could come up with something better.

But I digress.

Now in all seriousness, it's a wonder Democrats have put any money into this race.

Their only rationalization? Obama won the 12th district in 2008.

Yeah? Well Tiberi won his district by 13 points in the same election. On top of that, he won by 14 in 2006 and 24 in 2004.

Now consider the downright atrocious political environment for Democrats that we've discussed previously, namely the recent poll from the Daily Kos:

Two in five Democratic voters either consider themselves unlikely to vote at this point in time, or have already made the firm decision to remove themselves from the 2010 electorate pool. Indeed, Democrats were three times more likely to say that they will "definitely not vote" in 2010 than are Republicans.

In other words, there is no comprehensible reason why Democrats should consider investing any money, time, or manpower into Brooks' race.

With that being said, as a former Tiberi staffer and a big fan of Pat's, let me be the first Republican to plead with Democrat contributors - please give Paula Brooks money.

I want her to at least have some smidgen of legitimacy in her campaign so it becomes easier for Tiberi to raise money for his own efforts.

No, really. Give her money. In fact, I'll even give you the link. Toss her five or ten. It'll make me happy.

Thanks. You're the best.

Armond Budish, Harvey Keitel thinks you're a loser.

In one of the best worst movies in the past twenty years, From Dusk 'Til Dawn, Harvey Keitel plays a preacher who has lost his way. Keitel and his two kids get kidnapped by George Clooney and his brother Quentin Tarantino as the two criminals attempt to flee to Mexico.

Once they cross the border they enter an old trucker bar where Clooney can't help but continue to cause a ruckus and have an attitude, despite the fact that they've escaped the cops and gotten away scott free [well, sans the vampires, but that's superfluous for the purpose of this post......and I told you it was a bad movie].

As Clooney scowls, Keitel leans over:

Harvey: Are you so much a f***ing loser, you can't tell when you've won?
George: What did you call me?
Harvey: Nothing. I didn't make a statement. I asked a question. Would you like me to ask it again?
George: Umm-hmm.
Harvey: Are you such a loser you can't tell when you've won?

And that's the question I'd like to ask Armond Budish.

Are you such a loser you can't tell when you've won?

Senate Leader and Republican Bill Harris offered the following budget solution to the House:

Harris, R-Ashland, has offered to provide five votes to delay the 4.2-percent income tax cut that took effect this year, in exchange for some extras, including changes to Ohio’s 132-year-old public construction laws and some criminal sentencing reforms, such as more ability for prisoners to get out early through earned credit, and reduced mandatory drug sentences.

The income tax plan would fill an $851 million budget hole.

Budish's reaction?

He said no.

Budish claims the changes to the public construction laws should be revisited at another time.

In other words, "screw you, Bill."

The crazy part? Governor Strickland is supportive of the changes.

So even though the Governor and the Senate are ready to pass the budget, the House wants to hold things up likely because some labor unions said that the public construction laws have to stay put, even though their reform could save the state up to $300 million.

In other words, unions are holding House Democrats hostage.

And considering the damage to Ted Strickland increases with each additional day without a budget solution, I imagine the Governor is awfully pissed off at Speaker Armond Budish right about now.

The fact is this, House Dems - you aren't going to get much more of a victory than this. You were able to get a few squishy Republicans to support the tax hike - so be happy and take it.

Each day this budget goes without a solution, the more likely Harris is to pull it and let the Senate conservatives give it a go - so by all means, Mr. Speaker, keep stalling.

Cash for Crap.

Leave it to the government to not learn the lesson Cash for Clunkers taught us:

Ohio will use $11,000,000 federal stimulus money to provide rebates to people who buy energy efficient appliances for their homes.

The U.S. Department of Energy approved the state plan Thursday.

Ohio aims to provide about 90,000 rebates to consumers who replace old appliances with Energy Star certified refrigerators, clothes washers, dishwashers, gas heaters and electric heat pump water heaters.

The rebates range from $100 to $250, depending on the appliance.

Not only is this a horrible waste of our tax dollars, but it's going to further damage Ohio's economy in the long-term.

Don't believe me? Ask this Harvard economist about how horrible Cash for Clunkers was for the national economy:

Did [Cash for Clunkers] sell more cars? Maybe in the short term but, in reality, the promotion stole largely from future sales with taxpayers subsidizing over half a million new car sales that would have occurred anyway.

C4C disrupted the even flow of supply and demand. New car buyers held back in advance of the launch of the program; in fact, many prenegotiated with dealers to do so. And, now the promotion is over, expect year-on-year sales to be lower than they would have been because so much consumer demand has been concentrated in the promotion period.

And there is every reason in the world to believe this exact same thing is going to happen again with Ohio's appliance retail industry.

For all that's holy, what's so wrong with freeing up the market and letting capitalism work?

It takes a special kind of stupid.

Ted Strickland's new Director of the Department of Development is off to an amazingly awful start.

First there was the hiring of an unqualified 20-something filmmaker of something called "Johnny Appleweed" to run one of the divisions within the Department.

And now.....this:

A slick new online magazine designed to promote Ohio features Grand Haven, Saugatuck, East Grand Rapids and other cities you won’t find on an Ohio map.

The featured places are actually in the much-hated state up north.

The bi-weekly magazine is a product of the Ohio Business Development Coalition, which is funded by a grant from the state Department of Development.

Unbelievable.

With royally moronic gaffes like this, it's no wonder Ohio is in the middle of a job crisis. If Strickland's Administration can't handle a "slick new online magazine", how can they be expected to develop policy to attract businesses?

Is there any hope for Kilroy or Driehaus?

This week, renowned political analyst Stuart Rothenberg revealed his "Dangerous Dozen" House seats for 2010.

Of the 12 seats rated most vulnerable, two are in Ohio - the 1st and 15th.

Ohio’s 1st: Rep. Steve Driehaus (D) knocked off then-Rep. Steve Chabot (R) last year, and now Chabot is trying to return the favor. Expected lower turnout among Democratic core groups, especially younger voters and blacks, places this district at great risk even though Obama won it with 55 percent.

Ohio’s 15th: Freshman Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D) has many of the same problems — and the same challenges — that confront Driehaus in the state’s 1st district. Unlike Driehaus, Kilroy faces a rematch against an opponent who has never won district-wide. But former state Sen. Steve Stivers (R) should be a formidable foe.

Additionally, Kilroy and Driehaus both are listed as two of the top 15 Democrat "toss-ups" by the other guy everyone listens to - Charlie Cook.

While reading through the list of Representatives, I began pondering just how many seats the GOP could possibly win next year.

Historically, on average the President's Party loses 16 seats in the first midterm cycle.

Beyond that, and if memory serves, there have been no estimates from reasonable predictors that have the GOP winning back less than 15 seats. In fact, after some internet scouring, I was hard-pressed to find anyone of significance suggesting the GOP would win less than 20.

Even Nate Silver, the lefty numbers-guru from fivethirtyeight.com, thinks the Dems could lose anywhere from 20-50 seats:

It's fast becoming conventional wisdom, but statistics wonk Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com reiterated that Democrats should be nervous about the 2010 midterm elections. "I don't think you should feel at all comforted by 2010," said Silver. The political prognosticator predicted a 20- to 50-seat loss in the House for the Democrats...

20-50.

Lest I remind you, Rothenberg had Kilroy and Driehaus in the top 12 of all vulnerable incumbents. And Cook had them in the top 15.

And conventional wisdom, from lefties no less, have Democrats losing 20-50 seats.

So, is there any hope for Kilroy or Driehaus?

Without a massive unknown game changer, it doesn't look that way.

On a side note, there was no discussion in any of my research of Tiberi's race in the 12th.

That means the only folks focusing on it are lefties with money.

Perhaps they should take a little more advice from Silver:

Certainly, if I were the Democrats, I'd be adopting a fairly defensive posture, putting money into defending seats -- especially those held by non-Blue Dog incumbents -- rather than getting cute and trying to pick off more than a handful of potentially vulnerable Republican seats.

But hey, if you folks want to spend hordes of money trying to "pick off" Tiberi, be my guest. Because it's money wasted.

Do young voters matter?

The short answer? Yes.

Did they vote for Obama? Yes.

Can Republicans win many of them back? Absolutely.

A piece from Kristen Soltis drew my interest recently:

For those who are focused on the short-term fortunes of the Republican Party, young voters seem an irrelevant distraction. It's also easy to dismiss these margins as inevitable. But 18% of the electorate breaking 2 to 1 for your opponent creates a steep uphill climb to victory no matter how you slice it.

Remember, while the conventional wisdom is that young voters are "always" more Democratic, that's definitely not the case; take a look at Patrick Fisher's excellent work on the age gap. He notes that young voters were the strongest supporters of Reagan:

"Dividing the electorate by age into 18-34, 35-64, and 65 and older age groups demonstrates that younger voters tend to vote differently from the rest of the population, but not necessarily more Democratic. In every presidential election from 1960-1976 the 18-34 age group was the most Democratic age group, but in the presidential elections from 1980-1992 the 18-34 age group was the most Republican age group."

But how do we win them back?

By focusing on fiscal responsibiliy, low taxes and smaller government.

Take a look at the economy and jobs, where 60% of Republican voters 18-34, 61% of Republican voters 35-64, and 59% of Republican voters 65 and up all say the Republican Party should focus more on the economy. How about federal spending? With 57% of young Republicans saying the GOP focuses too little on spending (60% overall), it seems to me that the fiscal and economic issues are really where the heart of the potential is for the Republican Party to win these voters back without getting tripped up in the GOP's generation gap.

And this is why the Tea Party movement has done a great service to the conservative cause. Their focus on smaller government, rather than social issues, have provided an opportunity to reach out to those wanting less government control of their lives. As evidenced above, that's how we win back at least a good portion of the younger electorate. And that could be just enough to turn the tide.

And that tide is ready to turn. Just this morning, Rasmussen came out with new numbers highlighting an ever-shrinking gap in Party ID - down to just 2.9%, with Democrats down to 36% and Republicans up to 33.1%. For reference, this gap was nearly three times as large during and after the 2008 election.

The message is resonating. And young people want to hear it.

Yost is staying put.

A conservative Ohio blogger recently pushed a rumor via twitter that Dave Yost was considering ending campaign operations.

Well, I decided to ask the man himself.

Yost's response? "Absolutely untrue."

Yes, Yost's campaign to defeat Mike DeWine is quite a hill to climb, but that's why we have primaries - to battle it out and determine who the voters wants to have as their nominee.

Both candidates have their own specific obstacles to overcome - and both would be better than Richard Cordray.

It's my hope that both will see it through until the May primary, and that all Republicans can unite behind their candidate, whomever it may be.

"Jobs, Jobs, Jobs."

Thank you, Lee Fisher.

You've chosen your most vulnerable deficiency as your primary campaign message.

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Lee Fisher said he would focus on "jobs, jobs, jobs" for Ohio and said the current administration isn't being aggressive enough in that department.

First off, we'll ignore Fisher's swipe at the Obama Administration. That's for later.

But this focus on jobs highlights one of the reasons why Lee never won statewide office with his name leading the ballot.

He sucks at campaigning.

"Jobs, jobs, jobs."

Want to talk jobs, Lee? Fine. Let's talk jobs.

From January of 2007 until February of this year, you were Ted Strickland's Director of the Department of Development. On the Governor's website, that job responsibility is defined as such:

Development promotes economic opportunities to improve the profits and prosperity of Ohio's citizens. The Department acting in a support role provides financial, informational, and technical assistance to those making an investment in Ohio's future.

In other words, Lee Fisher was Ohio's Jobs Czar for over two years.

So, how did he do?

Well, when Fisher started, unemployment was at 5.3%.

When he left, that rate had jumped by 77%.

And overall under the Strickland/Fisher Administration we've seen 328,400 Ohioans lose their job.

Ohio, is that someone you want developing policy to solve the jobs crisis?

Kiddos, I can't wait for campaign season. These ads are gonna write themselves.

Attacking Portman - A Test in Futility

Ohio Democrats have picked their strategy for 2010.

Go negative.

From a New York Times article back in October:

...Mr. Corzine’s strategy for a comeback victory has turned into a template for Democratic candidates to survive in the 2010 midterm elections. Its shorthand description: winning ugly.

Now that Democrats control the White House, Congress and most governorships, voters’ discontent with the status quo represents their burden, which has Democratic strategists considering tactics to push back challengers.

“Very often the instinct for an incumbent party is to defend and justify,” said Geoff Garin, a pollster for Democratic candidates. “But in this kind of environment, the best defense is a good offense. This needs to be a cycle where Republican vulnerabilities are a central part of the debate.”

Of course, that didn't work very well for Mr. Corzine, did it?

But we all know that won't stop them trying to do the same thing against John Kasich and Rob Portman.

Now, we've already covered the blatant inaccuracies of the attacks on Kasich - but what of the attacks on Rob Portman - specifically, his time in the Bush Administration, and in particular his role U.S. Trade Representative?

Want to talk about his record? Fine. Let's look at his record.

Portman served as the Trade Representative for a year from May 2005 to May 2006. As a Cabinet-level position, the appointment requires Senate confirmation, and Portman was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate for the job. In his role, Portman was responsible for promoting policy and U.S. goods to foreign states.

Now, surely during his time in the evilllllll Bush Administration, he must have promoted policies that damaged his home state of Ohio, right?

Um. Not so much.

• The value for Ohio exports (in millions) has steadily increased since 2005:

2005 - $35,110
2006 - $38,161
2007 - $42,562
2008 - $45,628 (7th largest export total of all 50)

• Ohio's agricultural exports have increased 80% between 2004 and 2008. Value of state agricultural exports between 2004 and 2008 (in millions):

2004 - $1,611
2005 - $1,575
2006 - $1,752
2007 - $2,196
2008 - $2,915

• Ohio is the only state in the country whose exports have increased every year since 1998.

• Between 2004 and 2008, Ohio's exports rose $13.9 billion, the 10th largest dollar increase among the 50 states.

Don't want to take my word for it?

Fine, we can always ask Lee Fisher and Ted Strickland how Ohio's exports have done after Rob Portman's disastrous tenure in the Bush Administration:

Ka-blammo.

But what particularly amazes me is that despite Ohio's massive job crisis that began in 2008, the state was still able to perform well.

It's almost as if trade conditions were of such a state that Ohio was able to overcome its economic deficiencies.

And we now know we have Rob Portman to blame.

Ha.

So Dems, as you move forward with your attacks, you now do so with full knowledge that Rob Portman promoted trade policies that benefited Ohio exporters.

I know this won't stop you from your offensive, but at least it will give you something to think about as you try to sleep at night - knowing that you're trying to b.s. the entire state of Ohio.

But at the end of the day, what matters is whether the attacks connecting Portman to Bush will work from a political perspective.

Well, as we've discussed previously, all evidence suggests the tactic will fail.

Just ask Jon Corzine.

More Stimulus I Told Ya Sos....

One of the biggest complaints from conservatives about the Stimulus was that it didn't encourage investment or long-term economic growth.

Rather than addressing the job crisis by bettering the business environment, it relied on temporary funds to pay for temporary jobs.

And now we're seeing it come home to roost.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Highway-construction companies around the country, having completed the mostly small projects paid for by the federal economic-stimulus package, are starting to see their business run aground, an ominous sign for the nation's weak employment picture.

Tim Word, vice president of Dean Word Co., a heavy-construction company in New Braunfels, Texas, said his income is now coming mostly from projects that are winding up. He said that in normal times he has about $100 million of signed contracts in hand. But that number has fallen to $30 million, and the pipeline is empty. In the past two years, his work force has shrunk nearly 40% to 260 from 420.

Did the stimulus fund some jobs? Absolutely. No one on any side will deny that.

But were temporary jobs lasting months or days really worth spending more than has been spent on the entirety of the Iraq war since its inception over six and a half years ago?

For those on the left still pondering that question, the answer is no.

The stimulus was a boondoggle from the beginning, and anyone with common sense knew that.

And for that the Democratic Congress should be punished in 2010.

What's going on up on the 30th floor?

Earlier this week we highlighted how Strickland's team hired a 20-something director of an Indie movie called Johnny Appleweed (no, that isn't a typo) to run one of his divisions in the Department of Development.

And somehow while focusing on that story I missed something far worse than hiring unqualified staff.

Appointing corrupt officials.

This time? Newly resigned Youngstown State trustee Liz Bernard.

Had Atty. Liz Bernard not resigned as a trustee of Youngstown State University, the governor’s office would, in all probability, have asked her to step down.

Why? Because of the controversy that was swirling around Bernard from the moment Gov. Ted Strickland announced Oct. 30 her appointment to succeed Dr. H.S. Wang.

On Nov. 2, this writer received a call from a veteran law enforcement official who posed the following questions: Do you know that Liz Bernard is involved with Phil Chance? Will Chance be accompanying her to YSU events and sit in the presidential suite during football games? Did the governor’s office know about Bernard and Chance?

[...]

For those readers who have forgotten, Phil Chance is a former Mahoning County sheriff who was convicted on July 13, 1999, by a federal jury of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, RICO conspiracy, obstruction of justice and two counts of extortion. He resigned as sheriff three days later.

Now, this isn't quite as bad when he hired someone with a history of sexual harrassment to be one of the senior officials at the Ohio Department of Health, but it's close.

Is anyone in the Governor's office in charge of background checks? What's going on up there? Have you guys just given up?

"Where's your Moses now?" Part 3

When I started writing today's posts, I had no idea they would have a theme based on one of the most ridiculously read lines in cinema history.

But man, when it rains, it pours.

And this time, it's a failure of a nature much more personal to many on the left.

AIDS funding.

...the Obama administration is facing large criticism from global AIDS and Africa solidarity organizations – today smacking the White House with a D+ rating on the work President Obama has done so far in office.

“With new data showing that worldwide the number one killer of women of reproductive age is HIV, aggressive scale up of AIDS treatment is needed more than ever for the health of communities,” said Asia Russell, Health GAP Director of International Policy. “We are disappointed to report that on his first World AIDS Day in office, President Obama has not made good on his promises to increase funding for effective, life saving programs to fight AIDS around the world.”

Considering the enormous amount of credit President Bush received for what he did for victims of AIDS worldwide, and especially in Africa, this has to come as quite a shock for Obama supporters.

But hey, at least it wasn't an F, right fellas?

Confusing Surrender with Surge

This morning the Washington Times confirmed our surrender of Afghanistan.

The pullout of U.S. forces, planned for July 2011, will be unconditional, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, who is Senate Armed Services Committee chairman.

Folks, when there are no conditions necessary for the transfer of our troops out of Afghanistan - when no levels of success must be met before abandoning our mission - that is surrender.

Plain and simple.

And as Rich Galen pointed out in last night's Mullings, Obama used semantics to highlight how the mission doesn't need to be successful, only our exit must be....

Shortly after the President finished, my phone rang. It was Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt (Ret.) calling to ask me what part of speech the word "successfully" was in this sentence:

"I will end the war successfully."

"Successfully," I said, "modifies the word 'end' which is a verb. Hence 'successfully' is an adverb."

This military man immediately understood that the President's goal is not to succeed in Afghanistan, but to end the war in Afghanistan.

End, without victory, and without achieving objectives = surrender.

Plain and simple.

"Where's your Moses now?" Part 2

That line from the Ten Commandments is just too perfect, I gotta use it again for this post.

Another Afghanistan story caught my eye as it highlights yet more hypocrisy from the Obama Administration and, if they support such an effort, the left.

From The Guardian:

The US is seeking to extend its control over the day-to-day running of Afghanistan with the appointment of an international "high representative" in Kabul in an attempt to bypass Hamid Karzai's much-criticised government.

The initiative, being pushed by the US special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, has caused a split between Washington and its closest Nato allies, who believe it could further undermine the Afghan president's legitimacy and the United Nations' role in the country.

Wasn't it liberals that kept scolding the Bush Administration and its supporters for what they falsely interpreted as attempting to set-up a shadow government that controlled Iraq?

And yet, here we are with Obama not even trying that hard to hide it from sight.

Unfortunately, we have to rely on a British paper to provide us the story.

If true, this goes beyond all that Obama claimed to be in 2008.

And those that supported him have to be wondering how much more they'll have to continue rationalizing their support of his Administration.

"Where's your Moses now?"

I won't bore you with a summary of last night's speech. If you read this blog, you've likely read plenty about it already or watched it yourself.

And one thing is clear - the sheeple have lost their shepherd.


Of all demographics that make up the electorate, the few that haven't seen a drastic drop in support of the President have been African-Americans and those that identify themselves as Democrats or progressives.

In other words, America's left.

If you had asked these same people a year ago if they could ever imagine Barack Obama following a similar strategy to President Bush by implementing a surge in Afghanistan, they'd think you were crazy. Any liberal who says otherwise is fooling themselves.

This isn't who they voted for.

And yet, while abandoning the left, Obama has also found a way to completely tick off the middle and right by going about the surge strategy in an incredibly obtuse way.

By announcing an exit strategy that will be completed just in time for the 2012 general election to start revving up, he has enabled the enemy in a way far beyond any logical comprehension.

Think of it in a way similiar to how 3BP contributor Union Station discussed:

If your local police force announced they were permanently evacuating a high crime area in 24 hours, how likely is it that the criminals would continue breaking the law until after that deadline? They wouldn't. Instead, they'd sit tight and wait for the fuzz to head out before raising hell.

Now imagine if those criminals are instead religious fanatics who feel they are destined to further their cause of expanding Islam throughout the world? Think they'd go headfirst into the beast? No, they'd relax their efforts and wait until their enemy had voluntarily left.

In other words, it's without question that we'll see a decrease in enemy activity as the surge is implemented through our complete withdrawal.

But once we're gone? Ka-boom.

As I mentioned on twitter yesterday, does anyone think FDR had a timeline for an exit strategy?

Didn't think so.

A Charlie Brown Afghan Surge

When I heard that last night's speech was going to bump A Charlie Brown Christmas from my evening viewing, I was livid.

I took it out by youtubing a few clips. And I found that quite a few lines were frighteningly appropos to the President.

A few actual lines I picked out:

• Linus Boehner: Charlie Brown Obama, you're the only person I know who can take a wonderful season like Christmas and turn it into a problem.

• Charlie Brown Obama: I've killed it. Oh! Everything I touch gets ruined.

• Linus Olberman: See? You wouldn't hurt an innocent shepherd, would you?

• Charlie Brown Obama: Everything I do turns into a disaster. I guess I really don't know what Christmas is all about.

• Lucy Cheney: Are you afraid of responsibility? If you are, then you have hypengyophobia.

• Linus Teleprompter Obama: I can't memorize these lines. This is ridiculous.

• Lucy McChrystal: I know when I've been insulted. I KNOW WHEN I'VE BEEN INSULTED. Charlie Brown Obama: Good grief.

• Sally: All I want is what I... I have coming to me. All I want is my fair share....[of stimulus dollars.]

And the best for last:

• Lucy Van Palin: You've been dumb before, Charlie Brown Obama, but this time, you really did it.

Is it getting hot in here?

No. It's not.

Strickland's Green Menace

Ted Strickland's obsession with failure continues.

What now, you ask?

Green jobs.

The silliest part, he can't even take credit for the mess.

Governor Ted Strickland today announced that 25 Ohio projects will receive more than $13 million in grant awards funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s State Energy Program.

“We are shaping Ohio’s future by strengthening our advanced energy economy today. Supporting the growing wind and solar industries creates jobs, creates energy and reduces costs for hard-working Ohioans,” Strickland said. “These Recovery Act-funded projects take the state another vital step toward our goal of making Ohio a world center for advanced energy.”

Strickland is taking credit for Ohio "green" businesses receiving $13 million in federal cash, not state dollars.

While I'm happy Strickland isn't wasting what little money the state has left on this particular project, this hasn't stopped his repeated excursions throughout Ohio propping state funding of so-called green jobs elsewhere.

So the question is, how worthwhile is it to subsidize the green industry?

Well, while many of us know the answer, new evidence out of Massachusetts shows inefficient it really is:

[G]overnor [Deval Patrick] helped cut the ribbon at the opening of Evergreen Solar’s new plant in Devens, built with $58 million in state funds.

“We love the jobs, and we love that the jobs include manufacturing jobs,” Patrick said. “I look to this facility as a symbol of the kind of industry we want to build, as a symbol of the future.”

But half a year later the forecast for solar’s future — not to mention the governor’s other green initiatives — is looking cloudy with an increasing chance of failure.

Earlier this month, Evergreen Solar shocked everyone by announcing it is cutting up to half of the 800 jobs at the brand-new, taxpayer-bought Devens plant and shipping them to China. Solar panel materials will still be manufactured in Massachusetts (at least for now), but they will be assembled in a locale with much cheaper costs.

This shock came on the heels of Boston Power Inc. canceling plans to build a 600-job factory in Auburn. It had failed to win a $100 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to develop advanced battery technology. No government cash, no manufacturing plant and no jobs.

In other words, without a demand for the product, there is no market, and when there's no market, there's no jobs.

Ohio, as Massachusetts has learned, can't manipulate the market to a point where these kinds of businesses are profitable. Only when the demand is there can it happen.

The Tax Foundation compiled another great example of this doomed venture:

Here is a report from Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, on green jobs:

Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain's experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.

And this:

The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 to create each "green job", including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job.

You can quibble with those numbers for a long time but when you admit opportunity cost basically he has the right idea. This topic came up a few times in Edmonton and in the U.S. there is a guy named Bracken Hendricks pushing the "green jobs" argument. To be sure, there are very real benefits from limiting climate change. But if it takes more jobs to produce "green energy," that is a net cost to the economy, not a benefit. Hendricks notes:

We estimate this sustained expansion in clean-energy investments triggered by the economic stimulus program and the potential implementation of Federal climate and clean-energy legislation, can generate a net increase of about 1.7 million jobs nationally.

We're dealing now with something beyond the Keynesian short run and so those extra jobs are a drain of resources from elsewhere. If you wish, sub out the word "energy" and sub in the word "agriculture" and then reevaluate the sentence from the vantage point of 1900. Would it truly create net jobs -- much less good jobs -- to trash tractors and industrial fertilizer? The ideal situation would be a technology where very few jobs were required to create and distribute the nation's energy supply. Remember Bastiat's candlemakers' petition against the sun? It's turning out to be a better hypothetical example than Bastiat himself ever realized.

Indeed.

But will Strickland learn?

Don't bet on it.

Who do you trust?

Whoever it is, it probably matches up with who ya voted for last year.


Do you trust government, or do you trust the guys with a vested interest in improving their revenue?

This shouldn't be that tough a question.

Kasich and capitalism

Recently, John Kasich had an opportunity to sit down with Dick Armey, Howard Dean, and Arianna Huffington to discuss the future of capitalism.

Kasich's performance highlights just how articulate he is not only on the big ideas, but focusing on unique and specific concepts in an intelligent and substantive way.

And that's why Democrats are scared of him.

See a clip of John's performance here.

The funniest thing you'll see today.

Well, provided you're into zombie humor.


Zombie Reagan Raised From Grave To Lead GOP

Getting it from both ends on Afghanistan.

I’ve been saying it for months.

Afghanistan will be a political disaster for President Obama.

His indecision has dug for him a hole in which he can’t escape.

Need proof? Look at left wingnut Michael Moore’s “open letter to the President”:

…[tonight] you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.

Emote much, ya whiny schmuck? Yeesh.

Think this letter would have come no matter what the President decided and no matter how long he waited? Nope. In the spring when Obama first increased the number of personnel in Afghanistan, there was no such outcry from the far left.

But now, after the increased focus that indecision brings, he’s getting it in spades.

In addition,…

According to Tom Ricks, a strong proponent of counterinsurgency doctrine and author of Fiasco and The Gamble, it could be the difference between one and two terms for President Obama.

"If Obama uses the phrase 'exit strategy,' or dwells on the subject, then you'll know you're probably looking at a one-term president. In other words, file under 'Jimmy Carter,' not 'Abe Lincoln.'"

So Obama should avoid implementing a timetable for an exit strategy? Where have I heard that recently?

It's time to say, "Enough." It's time to employ more than military and mercantile strategies in Afghanistan and set a timetable to bring our troops home from Afghanistan.

Ah, that’s right. It was Jennifer Brunner in the Huffington Post.

She also had this doozy:

I doubt that General Stanley McChrystal is the leader whose advice we should follow without significant validation of his recommendations. Gen. McChrystal recommended the deployment of additional troops in a "surge" modeled after the one in Iraq.

Right, that Iraqi surge really messed things up, eh?

So, there ya have it. Obama is getting it from the left, the right, and the left again.

In other words - what a mess!

No matter what your thoughts are on the implementation of McChrystal’s plan, I think it’s hard to say anything less than a massive and swift turnaround in Afghanistan will help Obama politically. And strategically speaking, any pushing for ‘off-ramps’ or timetables will make the mission that much more difficult.

He done draw good.

Steve Harpster recently completed his cartoon portrait of John Kasich.

Props on a great sketch.

For more, check out his blog here.