The new U.S. policy, which will be formally unveiled Monday, calls for a campaign of “pressure and incentives” to cajole the government in Khartoum into pursuing peace in the troubled Darfur region, settling disputes with the autonomous government in southern Sudan and providing the United States greater cooperation in stemming international terrorism, according to administration officials briefed on the plan.
[...]
In an interview last month with The Washington Post, [U.S. special envoy Scott] Gration said he wanted to give “cookies” and “gold stars” to Khartoum, infuriating human rights advocates and congressional officials. Under the new policy, Gration will not be authorized to negotiate directly with Bashir, and Sudan will not be removed from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism in the immediate future, officials said.
"Pressure and incentives". "Cookies" and "gold stars". After nearly nine months in office, that's the grand plan to stop a full-on genocide.
Pardon me if I'm not blown away.
How long until we start seeing this poster from the left?
Rasmussen's poll of likely Republican voters' preferences for the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination provided a bit of entertainment across the blogosphere today.
Here are the results:
Not much of a surprise, really.
Huckabee seems to have gained from the some of the public's increasing negative opinion of Sarah Palin. Meanwhile, Romney has remained relatively stagnant from Rasmussen's last poll.
Pawlenty gets a little bit more love than before, but likely not what he was hoping for considering his massive PR effort this past month.
But what strikes me is the unfortunate reliance on 'retreads' for the nomination. Other than Pawlenty, there are no new names on the list.
Well, I like to consider the 3BP reader more educated than the regular voting public. After all, if you're reading this blog 13 months before a midterm election, you must really like politics.
Below you'll see that I've created a poll that includes a larger variety of potential GOP candidates for the nomination than you see in the above Rasmussen poll. I imagine most of you will have a good idea about each of these individuals, but here is a little cheat sheet on each, in alphabetical order:
Haley Barbour: Governor of Mississippi currently in his second term. Recognized for budget successes as well as solid leadership in Katrina aftermath. Former RNC Chairman during the 1994 GOP revolution. Some concern regarding age and lobbying history.
Liz Cheney: Daughter of the former Vice President. Served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State For Near Eastern Affairs during Bush Administration. Founder of KeepAmericaSafe.com. Well spoken intellectual, but with little background in governing. May not be interested in 2012, but clearly is working to build her profile.
Mitch Daniels: Governor of Indiana currently serving in his second term. Recognized for keeping Indiana in high standing during recession and putting the state on good economic footing. Former OMB director under Bush.
Newt Gingrich: Former Speaker of the House. "Idea Man" within the Republican Party. Personal life includes potential pitfalls.
Mike Huckabee: Former Governor of Arkansas and Presidential candidate. Current host of his own show on Fox. Some concern among conservatives regarding fiscal management during tenure as Governor.
Bobby Jindal: Governor of Louisiana currently serving first term. Known as a brilliant policy man, but received bad reviews of his response to Obama's first nationally televised speech. Faces difficult campaign calendar with gubernatorial re-election campaign running into the 2012 primary season.
Sarah Palin: Former Governor of Alaska and VP nominee. You already know all you need to know.
Tim Pawlenty: Governor of Minnesota currently serving in his second term. Has already signed a number of campaign veterans for his 2012 run and set up a PAC to promote his potential candidacy. Consistently balanced state budget without raising taxes, but some concern about possible moderate tendencies such as a flip-flop on cap & trade.
Mike Pence: Current Congressman from Indiana and favorite of budget hawks. Considered a dark horse, but has shown interest in running for the nomination.
Gen. David Petraeus: Current commander of CENTCOM. The great unknown. While he has shown little to no interest in running, his name has been thrown into the hat by many political commentators.
Mitt Romney: Former Governor of Massachusetts and presidential candidate. A favorite of many fiscal conservatives. Some concern regarding flip flops on social issues and creation of Romneycare, his health care reform effort from his time as Governor.
John Thune: Current Senator from South Dakota. Ousted Tom Daschle in 2004. A well-spoke conservative, but not well known and has shown little indication of creating any organization to advance his candidacy in 2012.
Alright, there you have it. Feel free to add other options in the comments. I'm looking forward to seeing the results.
Despite working to represent a constituency roughly 18 times their size, U.S. Senate candidate Jennifer Brunner failed to raise as much in the 3rd quarter as congressional candidate Steve Stivers and Congressman Pat Tiberi.
Here's the headline from the Cincy Enquirer this morning:
It was bad enough when unemployment has shooting through the roof. But at least Ohioans were sticking it out and waiting for jobs to come around.
That isn't the case anymore.
Since Governor Strickland took office, Ohio has experienced a 6% drop in actual employed individuals.
This is despite the working age population increasing by 50,000 people since January of 2007.
For comparison's sake, from January 2001 to September of 2003, the working age population increased by 172,000. That's almost 3.5 times the rate under Governor Strickland.
The facts are clear: Americans are giving up on Ohio.
It's bad enough when Ohioans lose their jobs in massive quantities. But it's much, much worse when they give up looking altogether and leave the Ohio workforce for greener pastures. At least when they were looking for work in Ohio, we knew the state could get them back as a contributing member of Ohio's taxpayer revenue stream.
Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner’s (D) Senate campaign is going through a staff shakeup as a crucial third-quarter financial report is about to be filed.
Brunner has replaced her finance director, deputy and assistant, as many continue to question whether she will have enough money to compete with Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D) in the primary for retiring Sen. George Voinovich’s (R-Ohio) seat.
Sounds bad, doesn't it?
It is. But it also means Brunner feels that she's viable past the 3rd quarter fundraising report.
In 6 months Brunner raised less than $500,000 to Lee Fisher's $2 million.
For comparison's sake, John Kasich raised $500k in just one month.
But, if Brunner's team is firing and hiring, that means they are fighting on into the final quarter of 2009. If the new team fails to improve on the rate of fundraising, then we may see the end of the Senate campaign by January.
Despite being in her job since May, Strickland's Director of Development is highlighted in the latest issue of Columbus Business First in an article strangely titled, Development Chief Ready to Sell State.
You've been on the job since May and just now you're ready? Well, considering Lisa Patt-McDaniel is a 19-year career bureaucrat at the Department, apparently five months is speedy in government-speak. It's all relative, I guess.
But I digress.
In the interview of McDaniel, she states the following:
...things like business tax reform have made companies from outside Ohio definitely look at us. We have lower taxes than most of the states around us. We have to promote that.
My retort?
Last. Last in the entire region. To borrow a phrase from our President, 'let me be clear' - that is pretty much the opposite of "lower taxes than most of the states around us."
This is exactly why NCR left Dayton for Georgia (18 places higher than us) and Carbon Motors chose Indiana (35 places higher than us) over Ohio for their manufacturing plant. Ohio simply doesn't provide an attractive business climate.
Patt-McDaniel goes on to elaborate on her grand plan to solve the infamous brain drain plaguing Ohio: a promotional campaign called "Ohio Means Home".
Apparently Ohio is suffering from a dreaded motto-gap.
The facts are these, Ohio is facing the sharpest decline in its labor force in years. This isn't because Ohioans don't love their state or aren't loyal Buckeyes. In fact, a Fordham study on the Ohio brain drain found that 88 percent of the state's higher ed students are proud of Ohio.
Almost nine in 10 Ohio college students (89 percent) say good jobs and career opportunities will be a very important criterion to them when they decide where to live during the first few years after graduating. Yet only 11 percent of them give Ohio an excellent rating on this front.
In short, they understand Ohio businesses don't have any jobs to offer, so they are going elsewhere to get them.
Grandiose government-sponsored public relations campaigns won't fix this perception. Jobs will.
Fix Ohio's business climate. Create an environment that welcomes all businesses and inspires innovation and competition.
...for any Democrats that may reluctantly read this blog:
Do you believe corporations really pay taxes, or do they pass the costs to consumers in the form of higher prices or lost jobs and economic opportunities?
When I think of Ohio's job crisis, I think of Jack and Rose in the movie, Titanic.
(I know. Stay with me, here.)
After the ship has gone down [read: Ohio jobs], Rose [read: Jello Ted Strickland] makes Jack [The Federal Stimulus] promise to never let go. [as seen here in this ridiculous photo]
Back in February, Governor Strickland said about the federal stimulus, "these resources will save or create more than 130,000 jobs for Ohioans."
Now, eight months later, with just 18.8% of Ohio's stimulus funds even disbursed, Ohio only has 13,144 jobs to show for it.
At that rate of job per dollar spending, Ohio will only have "saved or created" about 66,000 jobs upon exhaustion of the funds.
That's barely half of the jobs promised when Governor Strickland came back from begging Washington to save him from the mess he created.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's give Jello Ted a break and pretend all 66,000 jobs are created, and not "saved". That still would only account for 1/5 of all the jobs lost under his administration.
Earlier this afternoon, John Kasich was joined by Mike Huckabee for a town hall forum on Ohio State's campus.
But it wasn't just any town hall.
Streaming on their KasichforOhio.com website, a reported 5,000 people tuned in to watch Kasich and Huckabee answer questions from their college-aged audience, as well as via twitter, the Kasich website, and e-mails.
Surrounded by a set-up that showed the campaign already in October 2010 form, Kasich reiterated his support for an income tax phase out and a restructuring of state government. And once again, the candidate showed his ability to mix substance with style in communicating his points to the audience.
After speaking to a friend in Huckabee's camp, they came away thoroughly impressed with the Kasich operation, how well the event was run, and the innovative way they are working to communicate directly to Ohio voters.
For those that showed pessimism about Kasich 'starting late', events like these and his current lead in the Rasmussen poll have shown his campaign to be well ahead of the curve.
Beyond Ted Strickland's proposed tax hike, Democrats in the Ohio House are proposing raising taxes even more.
A lot more.
Reps. Mike Foley of Cleveland and Robert F. Hagan are proposing returning the state tax rate on incomes over $200,0000 to 7.5 percent, the rate in place in 2004, prior to the five-year, 21-percent income tax cut approved by GOP lawmakers in 2005.
The bill also would create a new top tax bracket, taxing income over $500,000 at 8.5 percent. Foley said the plan would raise about $1.4 billion over two years, more than filling the $851 million budget shortfall created when the Ohio Supreme Court dashed Gov. Ted Strickland’s plan to place slot machines at Ohio racetracks.
“It raises revenue on the percentage of the population that can afford to pay it,” Foley said. “It’s a more progressive way to raise money, and the income tax should be a progressive tax. And under (the 2005 income tax cuts) people who made $200,000 and above have really benefited. They’ve made lots and lots of money.”
Wow. There is so much dumb here that I don't know where to start.
Probably best to repost something I brought up just last week when tax hikes were suggested for Ohio.... and with the proposal to raise taxes even more on those making over 500k, this is even more appropos.
There are two real-life and current examples of the absolute and utter stupidity of Foley and Hagan's proposal.
1) I give you Democrat and soon-to-be ex-Governor David Paterson of New York speaking last month on his state's tax revenue problem:
"You heard the mantra, 'Tax the rich, tax the rich,' " Gov. David Paterson said Wednesday at a gathering of newspaper editors at an Associated Press event in Syracuse. "We've done that. We've probably lost jobs and driven people out of the state."
Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."
One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.
And these Ohio Democrats want to do the same thing to Ohio.
How obnoxiously vapid. Especially in this economy.
And how precious is Foley's quote about those making over 200k post tax-cut, "they've made lots and lots of money."
This is the problem with liberals in a nutshell.
No, Rep. Foley, they got to keep the money they earned. Period.
Roll Call is out today with an intriguing article highlighting how Ohio GOP standard bearers John Kasich and Rob Portman will assist in close congressional races in 2012.
Public polling shows Portman trailing both of his potential Democratic opponents, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, although more than a quarter of voters are undecided in the recent Quinnipiac University survey. But the same September poll also showed Portman receiving favorable marks from 51 percent of survey respondents in southwest Ohio, where Chabot and Schmidt are running to win back and keep their House seats, respectively.
The same Quinnipiac poll of 1,074 Ohio voters also showed Gov, Ted Strickland (D) ahead of Kasich, 46 percent to 36 percent, but the Republican was in a statistical tie with the governor in his central Ohio geographic base.
While the last Quinnipiac poll wasn't nearly as favorable to Portman and Kasich as the more recent Rasmussen poll, it was the only one broken down geographically. And utilizing the geographic crosstab, as Roll Call does, clearly highlights the benefits gained by Republican congressional candidates.
However, an aspect of the article did give me chuckle:
Gabby Adler, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, defended Democrats’ chances in the Buckeye State. Democrats also pointed out that Obama is still relatively popular in parts of the state, and Democrats have a voter registration advantage in Kilroy’s district.
“Democrats are energized and ready to mount a strong and well-organized effort to turn out and persuade House voters in 2010,” Adler said.
Oh Gabby, Gabby, Gabby.
First off, Obama isn't on the ballot in 2010. Second, Democrats who registered for the 2008 election won't turnout in the same numbers. To think otherwise is simply laughable.
And Democrats are energized?
HA!
In the same Quinnipiac poll, 48% of Democrats said they aren't satisfied with the way things are going in Ohio.
48%!
So to think those same Democrats will be "energized" to come out and support the Governor running for re-election and the Lt. Governor running for Senate is downright ludicrous.
The Des Moines Register notes that the "relative quiet" among prospective 2012 presidential candidates "could signal a fateful shift for Iowa: Republicans less identified with the right wing of the party might think they can win the nomination without betting it all on the Iowa caucuses."
"The traffic is far lighter than in 2005, when a half-dozen Republicans made multiple trips to the state, meeting with advisers and planning 2008 strategy."
And there is one person Iowa can blame - Mike Huckabee.
In 2008, Huckabee won Iowa with far less money and paid-for organization than his main rival in the state, Mitt Romney.
Well, it turns out other potential candidates don't want to risk wasting money or precious time campaigning in a state that Huckabee may already own for the 2012 primary season. In addition, by ceding Iowa, other potential 1st tier candidates don't risk the same embarrassment that drowned Romney's campaign. Instead, they can mitigate the Huckabee Effect and focus the race on New Hampshire and beyond.
If the less socially conservative-oriented candidates do in fact bail on Iowa, it doesn't make the state worthless. Other social cons considering a candidacy for President, like Rick Santorum, would be well served betting the farm (pun intended) on Iowa. If they can beat, or even come close to beating Huckabee, they would steal away massive amounts of momentum as the candidate who brought down the Huckabee machine.
Tomorrow, John Kasich and Mike Huckabee are co-hosting an online town hall.
Kasich is the latest in a long line of candidates of whom Huckabee has loaned his conservative star power.
But, that doesn't come without some minor concerns.
On twitter, blogs, and facebook, some Kasich supporters have shown their unhappiness with the partnership.
During the 2008 campaign, as Huckabee become a viable contender for the GOP presidential nomination, he faced a flurry of criticism from fiscal conservatives that questioned the former Arkansas Governor's record of restraining the growth of government and the so-called 'nanny state'.
Those accusations aren't completely without merit, but if you're going to make the effort to make those criticisms, you have to take the Governor's entire record into consideration....namely adding 110,000 jobs, helping the youth population grow, and decreasing unemployment.
But this endorsement isn't about Huckabee's record as Governor or his campaign for President, it's about electing John Kasich Governor in the state of Ohio.
Without question, Huckabee wields considerable force with such grassroots powerhouses like Huck's Army, and similar Huckabee-centric organizations. Upon Huckabee's recent endorsement, a quick search of twitter showed a surge in the Huckabee Nation already coming to bat to support Kasich.
At the end of the day, this means increased financial and grassroots support for Kasich as he continues his campaign for Governor. But will Huck's endorsement frustrate some fiscal conservatives? Sure. Will it be enough to keep them away from the polls? Hell no.
If anyone is frustrated at what has been going on at the statehouse, it's fiscal conservatives. They recognize a Kasich Administration is the best hope they've had in years to return fiscal discipline to Ohio.
A family photo that shows a little girl beside her father and his fellow soldiers in uniform as they prepare to go to war has resonated well beyond the tight knit Bennethum clan.
Four-year-old Paige Bennethum really, really didn't want her daddy to go to Iraq.
So much so, that when Army Reservist Staff Sgt. Brett Bennethum lined up in formation at his deployment this July, she couldn't let go.
The Obama Administration's continued effort to surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban took another leap forward today in the New York Times:
President Obama’s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States, officials said Wednesday.
Key word: Direct.
Believe it or not, Mr. President, but indirect threats are just as dangerous. For example, from this past May....
The United States has once again expressed fears about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of the Taliban, as the extremists continue to expand and establish their writ over new areas in the country and inch closer towards Islamabad.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said he is “gravely concerned” about the “crisis” Pakistan is facing.
Are we to believe it's acceptable for the Taliban to obtain nuclear weapons? Is it ok for the Taliban to "inch towards Islamabad"?
More from the New York Times:
The [White House] official contrasted that with the Afghan Taliban, which the administration has begun to define as an indigenous group that aspires to reclaim territory and rule the country but does not express ambitions of attacking the United States. “When the two are aligned, it’s mainly on the tactical front,” the official said, noting that Al Qaeda has fewer than 100 fighters in Afghanistan.
Are we completely forgetting the role the Taliban played in enabling terrorism to flourish? Are we really ready to surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban?
I leave it to Obama's own words from just two months ago:
"This is not a war of choice, this is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9-11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaida would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."
Former President Bill Clinton has endorsed San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's campaign for governor and will come to California to fundraise for him next month, officials confirmed Tuesday.
[...]
Newsom's campaign believes the endorsement could pay off in a big way for the mayor, who has lagged in money and early polling behind another potential Democratic rival in the 2010 contest, state Attorney General Jerry Brown.
"This is a very important endorsement for us and I think that there are a lot of people out there who still have a great deal of respect for President Clinton, what he did as president and what he's doing as a senior statesman now in country," explained Newsom campaign manager Nick Clemons.
With support like that, you'd expect Newsom to close the gap between him and Moonbeam.
A new Field Poll shows California Attorney General Jerry Brown with a strong lead in next year’s race for governor, even before he’s declared himself a candidate and despite months of campaigning by his Democratic rival and three Republicans vying for their party’s nomination.
[...]
Among Democrats, Brown has a comfortable 20-point lead over Newsom with a quarter of voters undecided.
Classic Auto Group's GMC dealership in Streetsboro, which opened to fanfare including a visit from Gov. Ted Strickland in May 2007, will soon be a Kia dealership, according to a Classic Auto Group official.
This post comes straight from today's WSJ e-mail Political Diary:
"I don't spend most of my life thinking about an election and what my opponents may or may not say about me." That's how Ohio Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland responded to the Associated Press recently when asked if he was risking his re-election chances by pushing the state legislature to delay a 4.2% state income tax cut scheduled to go into effect shortly. His fellow Democrats can be forgiven for thinking Mr. Strickland has just doomed Democratic chances of holding onto power in the state.
Three years ago, the Ohio Republican Party looked deflated and in retreat. Mr. Strickland had handily beaten Ken Blackwell, a rising African-American GOPer, to win the governorship, and Democrats saw a good chance to take the presidency in 2008 by taking Ohio -- which is precisely what Barack Obama did. But it now appears that the Democratic ascendancy in the state could be short lived. We've spoken with several Republican operatives on the ground and there is little of the residual defeatism we've seen among other Republicans elsewhere. For one thing, the GOP has a slate of candidate who have no connection to the scandals and out-of-control spending of previous GOP years. For another, John Kasich, a former congressman and Fox News anchor, is running for governor and has quickly established himself as credible alternative to Mr. Strickland.
A Rasmussen poll late last month found Mr. Kasich leading 46% to 45%. In Congress, he served as chairman of the House Budget Committee and was known as a hawk on spending. All this makes him a candidate perfectly positioned for the tax issue, arguing that the Strickland plan amounts to an $844 million tax hike in the midst of a recession. Democratic State House Speaker Armond Budish has been reduced to trying to split hairs over whether a tax cut delayed is tantamount to a tax hike: "When you look at the numbers, the numbers don't lie. Nobody is paying more than they did in 2008, in 2009. I don't see how that can possibly be viewed as a tax increase."
Mr. Budish clings to a slim seven-seat majority in the state House. Republicans already control the state Senate. If Mr. Kasich is able to sweep Mr. Strickland from office next year, his coattails might be long enough to flip the state House to the GOP. Suddenly Ohio is looking a lot more like the red-state it used to be.
Clever Alias, Esq. is back with an analysis of Brunner's latest embarrassment. Check it out.
Having read the Supreme Court’s latest scolding of Jennifer Brunner I have to admit something; I completely underestimated how completely and utterly wrong Jennifer Brunner was on her Husted decision. My previous post on this issue guessed there was a 70% chance of Brunner being reversed. That number should been 100%. (I guess that’s why this is on a blog and not a Supreme Court opinion.)
Here is the Court’s introductory paragraph. I have annotated their comments [in brackets] with what I view as their lay term equivalent.
“Because the secretary of state erred in canceling Husted’s existing Montgomery County voter registration without following any of the statutorily prescribed methods for doing so [This crazy woman literally made this @%^& up! We’re not kidding!] and further erred in concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence that Husted is not a Montgomery County resident [even if we bought her first line of bull, everything else is wrong, too!], we grant the writ and order the Montgomery County Board of Elections to treat Husted as a Montgomery County resident for election purposes [now stop filing residency challenges, ProgressOhio!].
Perhaps that’s a bit flippant, but it’s not too far off.
As best I can tell, here are the Supreme Court’s reasons for reversing Jennifer Brunner:
1. The entire process, beginning with Chris Redfern’s.....er, a concerned citizen’s complaint and ending with Brunner’s tie breaking vote, failed to follow the necessary procedure in Ohio law for cancelling a person’s voter registration. Brunner thought that R.C. 3501.11(Q), which gives boards of elections the authority to “[i]nvestigate and determine the residence qualifications of electors,” allowed her to cancel Husted’s voter eligibility after a hearing. However, nowhere in that section does it provide that the board is allowed to cancel a person’s registration. The Court took the position that you can’t simply make up the authority to do something that isn’t in the law.
a. Of note, the section that does allow a board to cancel someone’s registration has several other requirements [such as sending a notice to the address and not receiving a response] that no one bothered to follow.
2. To add insult to injury, the Court outlined that even if Brunner did have the made up authority to cancel the registration of voters whose address had changed, Husted is a resident of Montgomery County!
a. “First, the secretary of state erred in concluding that Section 3, Article II of the Ohio Constitution is inapplicable.” The residency exception for state legislators in the Constitution applies in this case. Give credit to the Ohio GOP and Jason Mauk for being all over this from the moment Brunner announced her decision. One would think that if non-lawyers get it, a former judge would too.
b. The Court said that where a person intends to return is a key piece of evidence. Brunner shouldn’t have ignored this!
c. “By effectively treating the R.C. 3503.02(D) factor as the exclusive factor applicable to Husted, the secretary created an irrebuttable presumption to classify Husted as a nonresident of Montgomery County, which is not constitutionally permissible.” This is the most important paragraph of the opinion. Essentially this means, “you blatantly cheated in order to disqualify Husted. You can’t do this, idiot.”
If you read Brunner’s statement that was released after the decision it appears that she has a good PR advisor and is just trying to save face. Take this nugget:
“Whether it's a decision by a Democratic Secretary of State or an all-Republican Supreme Court, someone will question the motivation behind such a decision.”
What Brunner wants to say is “the stupid Republicans on the stupid Supreme Court get the last say. They’re playing politics too. I wasn’t wrong, I just wasn’t the one with the last word.”
She can’t say this because she’s a lawyer. Insulting the judiciary (e.g., the Supreme Court) can get you disciplined or disbarred. She knows she has to accept whatever they say and not blast them like she would a decision from Bill Harris or Mary Taylor.
Whether Brunner runs for SOS, Ohio Supreme Court Justice, or U.S. Senate, the ads will basically write themselves. “Jennifer Brunner can’t follow Ohio law, can you trust her to….”
In the upcoming 2010 Ohio gubernatorial campaign you'll hear one thing over and over from Ted Strickland - "I invested in education."
No, Governor - you didn't.
It's so incredibly simple that all I'll do is post this one simple graphic from Ohio's Legislative Budget Office that details Ohio appropriations over the next two years:
(click to enlarge) In this budget as signed by the Governor, state funding for education in Ohio decreases by 4.8% in 2010, and again by 4.4% in 2011.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled today in favor of state Sen. Jon Husted in a residency dispute, overturning a decision by Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner that Husted does not live in his Montgomery County district for voting purposes.
The court ruled 7-0 with separate opinions to require the Montgomery County Board of Elections find that Husted is a resident of the county for election purposes and to maintain his name on poll books as properly registered.
As I said back on September 22nd, "interestingly enough, Brunner just can't help putting herself in the position to once again lose out to the Ohio Supremes. She's going to lose. The question is how embarrassing it will be."
7-0 answers that question.
Since she likely will drop out of the Senate primary due to lack of funds, and since she clearly has no idea how to interpret Ohio law thereby ruling out a run for the Ohio Supreme Court, maybe my prediction of a SoS re-election campaign isn't so far fetched.
Charlie Crist raised $4 million in the previous quarter and is expected to raise $2 million this quarter.
And yet it's Rubio with the momentum.
In the Florida Senate race that is being billed as a battle for the GOP's soul, it has "never been Rubio's goal to outraise Crist...Rubio just needs enough money to compete in Florida's closed Republican primary in August. And this seems to put him on pace to do just that."
Charlie Crist ought to start worrying. The Marco Rubio campaign says the underdog Republican candidate Natrev for U.S. Senate raised nearly $1 million in the last fundraising quarter — a giant improvement over his last quarter and a number sure to help eliminate doubts about his viability.
Now that the media is running with the story that Rubio is indeed a viable candidate, his ability to raise money will only improve.
What I had once deemed a longshot seems that much more possible now - Senator Rubio.
With Rep. Mike Castle deciding to run for the Senate in Delaware, some are already questioning whether Beau Biden, the Delaware AG and son of the Vice President, should even run against the Congressman.
If he doesn't, it will say quite a bit about the 2010 political environment. When the son of the former Senator who has served Delaware for decades is tepid of running just two years after his Dad's election to VP, and in a state that went for Obama/Dad by 62-37, clearly there has to be a concern among Democrats hoping to hold onto their massive majority.
A specialty police car may be a lot closer to being made in Indiana. With the unemployment rate jumping to 9.8 percent nationwide, Connersville is looking forward to 1,500 new jobs. The project took a major step forward Friday when Mayor Leonard Urban signed on the dotted line with Carbon Motors.
Connersville knows how to put its best foot forward, at least when it comes to attracting new business. Carbon Motors announced it had selected the 1.8-million-square-foot vacated Visteon plant to manufacture its new high tech police cruisers.
I don't think it's that crazy to imagine Ohio has a few vacated manufacturing plants itself. But did we even hear about an effort by the state to attract this growing manufacturing company to the Buckeye State?
Just how Ted Strickland was AWOL when NCR was making its decision to leave its longtime home in Dayton, it seems he was AWOL once again in bringing 1,500 manufacturing jobs to Ohio.
But why would Carbon Motors choose Indiana over Ohio? I can't imagine why... Ohhhhh. Ok. That makes more sense now.
While there has been some discussion about Joe Biden's solution for Afghanistan, there is one talking point I've yet to hear from Republicans critical of the strategy.
It's simple: The Vice President's plan for Afghanistan is nothing short of surrender.
The vice president's plan: Scale back the overall American military footprint in Afghanistan, drop the mission of rescuing the country from the Taliban, focus on strikes against Al Qaeda along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border -- the real threat to U.S. national security -- using special forces and Predator missile attacks.
To be clear, Biden is accepting Taliban control of Afghanistan.
This is the definition of pre-9/11 thinking.
For argument's sake, let's say Biden's plan is implemented and does the impossible and all Al Qaeda are eliminated. Does anyone honestly believe a Taliban-run Afghanistan won't enable alternative islamofascist terror cells to prosper?
President Bush wasn't kidding when he said we were in this for the long haul. It's unfortunate the White House is trying to take what they believe to be the politically safe way out, rather than considering the long-term ramifications of their proposal.
In addition, make no mistake, the Biden plan is the White House plan. The proposal never would have seen the light of day for public and political scrutiny otherwise.
I say again, as I've said many times before, Afghanistan will prove to be a political disaster for the Obama White House.
Still, a promised "unified economic development budget" to increase transparency in spending and a scorecard to monitor progress of development remain works in progress.
Critics also point to another executive order related to economic growth that Strickland issued in February 2008 for "common-sense business regulation" and say that although the goal is laudable, the failure to deliver a promised Web site to track the process is glaring.
But the unified development budget, meant to compile state spending on development projects to help track the state's investments and evaluate its impact, still is being prepared.
Even so, the order called for a centralized electronic system to allow interested parties to receive notices about any new rules or changes. That system isn't expected to be ready until the end of the year, nearly two years after the order was issued.
Clearly, this is yet more ammo for the Kasich campaign as it prepares for the 2010 election season. But it's not only Strickland who will be damaged...
The group is led by Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, the former state development director who is running for U.S. Senate next year, as well as the leaders of key state agencies and entities.
Recent Rasmussen and Quinnipiac polls indicate many voters still don't associate presumptive Senate nominee Lee Fisher with Ohio's job crisis or Toxic Ted. That's nothing a few well-placed advertisements can't cure.
The New York Times notes that General David Petraeus no longer has "one of the biggest voices at National Security Council meetings" as President Obama seeks a broader range of advice on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than did former President Bush.
[...]
"The change has fueled speculation in Washington about whether General Petraeus might seek the presidency in 2012. His advisers say that it is absurd -- but in immediate policy terms, it means there is one less visible advocate for the military in the administration's debate over whether to send up to 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan."
I think it's one helluva stretch to consider his lesser role under Obama an indication of his Presidential ambitions. To infer such a claim, a potential candidate needs to make some kind of move that is indicative of someone considering the Presidency.
Per The Weekly Standard, Gen. Petraeus, the architect of the US Military's surge in Iraq, has accepted an invitation to deliver the commencement address at the University of Iowa in 2010.
Now if you consider the fact that he has no past connection to Iowa, it's an interesting speech to accept, and one he had to know would turn heads.
Petraeus could be an interesting prospect if things in the region begin to sour. There is a reported schism between him and the President regarding Iraq/Afghanistan strategy, and the General would clearly be an intriguing alternative.
I'll give Petraeus a year. As much respect as his military resume provides, a Presidential candidate in this modern political environment needs time to show he knows more than defense and foreign policy. He'll need time to speak across the nation and on Sunday morning talk shows about domestic issues in order to give voters at least an indication that he is prepared to speak beyond his comfort zone on issues of importance to them in their everyday lives.
If he resigns and makes this effort, his candidacy is virtually assured.
Sometimes it's the little things that say so much.
Last week's lighting of the Empire State Building to commemorate 60 years of Chinese communist rule drew some questions from across the nation. After all, what business do we have in celebrating communism in any shape or form?
"I regret that our respective travel schedules will prevent us from meeting during your visit to the United States this month, but I wanted to take the opportunity to reassure you of my highest respect and support for you, your mission and your people at this critical time. I hope that this letter and your meeting with Senator McCain will make clear that American attention to and backing for the people of Tibet is widespread and transcends the divisions of our politicla contest in this important election year...
People of all faiths can admire what you are doing and what you stand for, and I look forward to meeting you at another time."
In an attempt to gain favor with China, the United States pressured Tibetan representatives to postpone a meeting between the Dalai Lama and President Obama until after Obama's summit with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, scheduled for next month, according to diplomats, government officials and other sources familiar with the talks.
For the first time since 1991, the Tibetan spiritual leader will visit Washington this week and not meet with the president. Since 1991, he has been here 10 times. Most times the meetings have been "drop-in" visits at the White House. The last time he was here, in 2007, however, George W. Bush became the first sitting president to meet with him publicly, at a ceremony at the Capitol in which he awarded the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress's highest civilian award.
Giant spectacles atop a great symbol in our nation's largest city. A Heisman-worthy stiff arm of the Dalai Lama.
It brings to question how far we are willing to go as a country to improve relations with China. Is our usual unbreakable support for freedom something we are willing to forgo?
One of the most ridiculous criticisms I've seen of John Kasich since he entered the Ohio Governor's race has been an obsession with demanding details of his policy initiatives were he to become Governor.
Yep, with 396 days still to go until election day, some are actually saying, "he has no plan."
No kidding.
As we've discussed before, it's politically advantageous for Kasich to take a back seat to Strickland's bad press and allow the Governor to become saturated with negative media without the distraction of an opponent to peel away the heat.
But for argument's sake, let's ignore the purely political perspective and honestly compare Kasich's policy rollout timeline, or lack thereof, to Strickland's when he was running for Governor in 2006.
The Governor's plan to enhance the state's economic well-being was known as Turnaround Ohio. It included a number of policy initiatives and was rolled out in several steps, beginning with a focus on Early Education.
And he released the first part of the plan only 37 weeks out from the election.
Pledging to restore vision and leadership to Ohio government, U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland, the Democratic front-runner for governor, yesterday outlined an early-education plan that he said will produce more socially responsible and economically viable future adults. Joined by his running mate, Lee Fisher, at the St. Stephen's Community House in Columbus, Strickland included the plan in an initiative dubbed "Turnaround Ohio," which he said will link education, health reform and the state's economic strengths to rescue Ohio from its economic doldrums.
So, if we go by Ted Strickland's own timeline when he ran for Governor, Kasich shouldn't even consider rolling out any major policy initiatives for five more months.
Of course, starting that late didn't exactly mean Strickland had any actual specifics for his plan to "Turnaround Ohio."
Don't believe me? See for yourself:
The Plain Dealer, Editorial: “Ohioans deserve to know more from Strickland on these and other issues.” (The Plain Dealer, 4/9/06)
Michael Douglas, Akron Beacon Journal: "The U.S. House member and Democratic candidate for governor isn't sharing details. He doesn't have specifics." (Akron Beacon Journal, 9/10/06)
Joe Hallett, Columbus Dispatch: "So far, Strickland has played it safe, eschewing sweeping proposals for fixing Ohio’s economy and schools in favor of a series of relative baby steps encompassed in his 'Turnaround Ohio' plan." (The Columbus Dispatch, 9/3/06)
Phillip Morris, The Plain Dealer: "The far greater issue is, can the man lead? And on that score, he remains a mystery - and vulnerable, despite his lead in the polls. Strickland has yet to evidence anything approaching talented, senior-level leadership, either in his past or in his current uninspired and timid campaign for governor.” (The Plain Dealer, 8/29/06)
Dennis J. Willard, Akron Beacon Journal: "Beyond those platitudes, however, Strickland admits his plans are still in the developmental stage." (Akron Beacon Journal, 8/27/06)
Aaron Marshall, The Plain Dealer: " The Democrat offered no plan to fix school funding… Strickland offers only 'basic principles' and the promise to create a blue ribbon task force involving all of the stakeholders to fashion a school funding solution." (Openers: Plain Dealer weblog, 8/18/06)
Jim Tankersley, Toledo Blade: "In a brief press conference afterward, Mr. Strickland struggled to answer a basic question about the plan: How much would it cost? He told a television reporter the figure was on his Web site, and that he couldn’t remember it — not because he didn’t know it, he said, but because he didn’t have it in front of him." (Toledo Blade, 9/5/06)
Jim Siegel, Columbus Dispatch: “He provided no details, and asked afterward when he would unveil those details, Strickland said, ‘I will do that if I win this election.’” (The Columbus Dispatch, 8/18/06)
Bill Cohen, Ohio Public Radio: “Strickland almost admittedly doesn’t have as great a grasp on state issues. You won’t hear him give a lot of details or offer risk-taking ideas.” (Middletown Journal, 8/18/06)
Toledo Blade, Editorial: "He needs to put a little more meat on the bones of his Turn Around Ohio plan. ... He will need to show that he offers more than the Jimmy Carter formula of good looks and a bit of a southern accent." (Toledo Blade, 7/30/06)
Jim Siegel & Joe Hallett, Columbus Dispatch: “[State Sen. Eric] Fingerhut struggled to give Strickland’s ‘Turnaround Ohio’ ideas high praise, calling them ‘thoughtful.’ ‘Do I think it’s a comprehensive platform yet? No,’ Fingerhut said.” (The Columbus Dispatch, 8/3/06)
Matt Hutton, Norwalk Reflector: “Hans Hoffman, a Norwalk resident who said he always votes Democrat, wanted to hear more specific details of the Democrats plan to ‘turnaround Ohio.’ ‘I was disappointed with the partisan rallying. I wanted to hear about actual issues and solutions,’ Hoffman said. He still is voting Democrat, but added, ‘It just makes it hard to convince my Republican friends.’” (Matt Hutton, Norwalk Reflector, 8/21/06)
In retrospect, Ohio's current situation makes so much more sense after reading these concerns from across the state. In reality, Ted Strickland never had a plan. And that's why Ohio has been floating aimlessly into the economic abyss.
But that didn't stop the President from heading to Copenhagen. When I first heard he was heading there the morning of the announcement, I figured it was in the bag. After all, coming away empty handed would only make the President look weak not only nationally, but globally as well.
Alas, here was the scene in Chicago two seconds after the announcement.
"YES WE......AW S***!!!!!"
You can stop laughing now.
And yes, I laughed when I heard the news. Why? Because it was funny. It was funny because Obama created such an overbearing spectacle of his efforts. As Ed Morrissey said, it was because "the stakes for the country were so low and Obama’s ego so overweening that an unforced error this dumb can be laughed at." And why? Half of Chicago didn't even want them there.
In reality, the bid was over-reliant on 'temporary' structures and white elephants that would have no long-term benefit whatsoever. They weren't even going to use Soldier Field! Look at Vancouver's experience right now: massive cost overruns, almost a complete neglect of non-Olympics infrastructure, every red cent going to the boondoggle of the Games. Chicago doesn't need it, it's already a major tourist attraction. This would simply displace normal traffic, perhaps with some miniscule additional traffic over the two weeks, but at the risk of a lag afterwards. No upside, lots of downside, and the entrenchment of the Daley Machine. This was the Daley Keep Me in Office effort, pure and simple.
Of particular amusement to me was Taegan Goddard's rationalization over at Political Wire:
That's an embarrassing political miscalculation by the White House. However, it's likely to be a short term blow. Almost no one blames New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for failing to bring the 2012 Olympics to his city.
Except the President isn't also the Mayor of Chicago. He's the leader of the free world. Well, at least he used to be.
But there were two aspects of the piece that I wanted to briefly discuss.
First...
In sports, when a team is losing, a typical move is to fire the manager or coach, regardless of whether that person is at fault.
In politics, when a state is in trouble, voters typically blame those in leadership and vote them out of office.
This is what Strickland is facing a little over a year from his November 2010 re-election bid.
Skolnick is extremely close with this metaphor, but it misses on one essential point. In Ohio's case, the "coach" hasn't even made an effort to modify the playbook. He's kept running the same plays that made everyone want to get rid of the last coach.
Thus, Ted Stricktaft.
Second...
It was only a week ago that [John Kasich] scoffed at the five-year, 21-percent income tax cut that is in its final year.
“It’s not been enough,” he told me. “It’s not getting anybody’s attention.”
It’s interesting that Strickland is proposing to freeze the last of that tax cut, 4.2 percent, this year [and in 2010] to fill an expected state deficit of about $850 million.
I think people are paying attention to it now.
Skolnick seems to be trying to get a little too cute with his word play here. Clearly, Kasich meant that the tax cut wasn't the type of tax reform that provides motivation for businesses and individuals to come to Ohio - not that it simply needed more publicity.
But one thing has become clear as I read newspapers from around the state as they discuss Ted Strickland's plan - they aren't picking sides. Newspapers aren't depicting it solely as a tax "freeze" or a tax "increase", pending on which side is explaining it.
That means it will be up to the candidates and messengers on each side to convince the voters which it really is. And that's the challenge.
By now you've likely heard about the 9.8% national unemployment rate as announced this morning.
But did you know that number could have been much higher had not the labor force massively decreased?
Once again, the unemployment rate would have risen by a much larger amount if the civilian labor force hadn’t lost 570,000 people since last month. As we mentioned in previous posts, the labor force normally increases by ~ 150,000/month, so that’s a huge, very unusual, decrease. In fact, had the labor force size simply remained the same, the unemployment rate would have jumped to 10.2%
Well, that sucks.
Even more depressing is a look at the actual number of jobs out there right now.
1) "Quit job" was the reason for 5.5% of the unemployment numbers this past month. That's the lowest percentage in the data set that goes back to Jan of '99.
For comparison's sake, in August, September, and October of last year that number was at 10.5, 10.1, and 9.5, respectively.
This clearly indicates how scared people are to quit their jobs.
2) Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs (read: stimulus jobs) hit their highest level as well.
Once again, for comparison's sake, in August, September, and October of last year that number was a full 10-14 points lower.
Thank you, Stimulus. But can we have our money back now?
Governor Strickland, would you consider decreasing spending to $6 billion and save your constituents from a tax hike while in the middle of a recession? Considering you yourself said any kind of tax hike would be "counterproductive" during this economic crisis, it seems to be the least you can do.
Hillary Clinton, defending Obama's Afghanistan policy this weekend: "Now, the decision that was made to add troops in the Spring has not even been fully implemented yet. You know, you don't get up and just deploy the 82nd airborne, and they get there the next day."
Actually, Madame Secretary of State, yes they do. With six hours to spare, in fact: "Army Brig. Gen. William Mayville shared his concerns as the division’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team trains to re-assume its role in June as the U.S. global response force. In this capacity, the brigade will be on 24/7 standby, ready to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours."
Now, I'll admit to not having a pulse on the state of Democrat down-ticket politics, but I would be surprised if the other Democrat left in the race, Jennifer Garrison, isn't far behind.
So how long til Jennifer Brunner leaves her race....and joins another?
When Ted announced his plan to raise taxes, I assure you he was hoping he'd be deemed courageous by some of his critics at the Columbus Dispatch. After all, for months they had been calling on the Governor to do exactly what Ted ended up doing.
Alas...
"Despite his best efforts to evade fiscal reality and the demands of leadership, Gov. Ted Strickland -- cornered -- finally has faced up to both."
"Despite a promising start, the Strickland administration has turned out to be one of the most dysfunctional in Ohio history."
"Saddest of all is that a governor who entered office as man of principle, opposed to expanded gambling, ended up caving when the going got tough."
"He diminished himself and he diminished Ohio, only to find himself forced to do what principle should have dictated that he do from the start: make the hard choices that a leader is supposed to make."
"At no time in memory has Ohio been so poorly served by its elected leaders."
This is what the front page of the Akron Beacon Journal looked like this morning.
Governor eyes freeze on tax cuts? Postponing last year...would raise about $850 million?
But then take a moment to look at Dennis Willard's column in the ABJ on the same issue:
Willard goes on to state:
Gov. Ted Strickland did not unveil a tax-neutral plan Wednesday or a temporary freeze on the income-tax reduction.
Strickland proposed raising income taxes, plain and simple, to generate $844 million in the next 21 months.
The vast majority of people working in Ohio this year will pay more income taxes in 2010, and again in 2011, if the state legislature goes along with Strickland.
And that is a tax increase.
Makes me wish the ABJ columnists would get together with their editors to make sure everyone was on the same page.
