It's no surprise that Mike Turner voted with the president and the GOP today against the amended FISA bill that denied blanket, retroactive immunity to telecoms who participated in illegal spying against Americans. It's a pattern of Turner's votes that follow the party line against the best interests of his district.
For starters, Turner has repeatedly voted to maintain an open ended, unlimited military presence in Iraq. He voted against a bill that "requires the president to submit a "comprehensive strategy" for Iraq to certain congressional committees by January 1, 2008 and requires him to update that strategy again in July, 2008 and every 90 days thereafter" (HR 2956). Over and over again, Turner has voted against accountability for the president's handling of the disastrous war in Iraq. He also voted against an appropriations bill for military operations (HR 1591) that included funding for healthcare for veterans and hurricane recovery. But because it too held the president accountable for progress in Iraq, Turner voted no.
Mike Turner pretends to be a defender of American workers, but he voted to create a Central American free trade zone, enabling coporations to transfer American jobs to Central America and the Dominican Republic.
While oil companies reap record profits, Turner voted against a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for big oil companies. Here's the Post's summary of the bill Turner voted against:
This bill would repeal tax cuts to oil companies and mandate that they pay a fee to remove oil from the Gulf of Mexico. It would also fund renewable energy programs. The act would repeal a tax break that oil and gas firms received in 2004. That break effectively lowered their corporate tax rates. It would also bar oil companies from bidding on new federal leases unless they pay a fee or renegotiate improperly drafted leases from the late ‘90s. Those leases did not require royalty payments on Gulf of Mexico oil production. Oil firms would pay a “conservation fee” for oil taken from the gulf. Additionally, the bill would set aside an estimated $13 billion to $15 billion in revenues over a five-year period for tax breaks relating to renewable energy sources
Sounded like a bad idea to Mike Turner and President Bush. (HR 6)
Turner joined the Republicans in voting against a bill which would have allowed the government to negotiate for lower drug prices (HR 4).
When a bill banning the degrading treatment of detainees in American captivity came up for a vote (HR 2863) Turner again voted with President Bush, and voted against the bill. He voted against accountability for the Director of Intelligence.
Turner voted for restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research (HR 810) and voted for the courts' intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.
In a further display of loyalty to the party, Turner voted for ethics changed designed to benefit Tom DeLay (HRes 6, 2005). He voted against a reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine so that broadcasters could continue to spew partisan hate on the radio.
Turner voted against prohibiting discrimination based on sexual preference.
On other occasions, Turner has simply not shown up. He refused to hold Bush accountable again when he didn't vote on contempt of Congress resolutions last month. Overall, Turner has voted with the GOP 88% of the time.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Mike Turner: Key Votes Show Loyalty to Bush, Party First
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Space called out by progressive blogs on FISA; Mitakides on right side of issue
Zach Space was called out big time today on the big progressive blogs. Specifically, FDL named Space as one of the six worst Democrats on FISA for his pledge to stand with Republicans on the measure. I haven't followed Space's work closely, and I know he has some big fans in Ohio, but I know he's on the wrong side of this issue. Maybe his Democratic constituents can write him and set him straight.
FDL says this is part I only of the effort, with part II targeting Republicans. One of the first they target should be Bush lackey Mike Turner. Mitakides stated her position on telecom immunity during the primary, telling me in my interview with her that she opposed blanket immunity.
I support the FISA bill as passed by the House. I am against blanket, retroactive immunity. I understand the intent of the Feinstein Amendment (which seeks to determine whether some telecoms acted in “good faith” believing their actions were legal. However, giving the power of that determination to the FISA court keeps a cloud of secrecy over the issue. Unless the Senate can provide a better alternative, the House version should stand.
Prophetic quote, because in fact the House is working on a compromise modeled along the Feinstein amendment Jane talked about, allowing telecoms to argue their case in a FISA court. As Jane says, it's too secretive, but that seems to be where the House negotiators are now, as it's reported by the Times:
Instead of blanket immunity, the tentative proposal would give the federal courts special authorization to hear classified evidence and decide whether the phone companies should be held liable. House Democrats have been working out the details of their proposal in the last few days, officials said, and expect to take it to the House floor for a vote on Thursday.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Ohio 3rd: Two New Mitakides Interviews
Thrilled to see and interview with Jane Mitakides on the great Ohio Daily Blog. I'm jealous but then again unlike me Jeff actually knows how to conduct an interview, so of course the results are better than mine.
An excerpt:
YDS: Since you aspire to be a legislator, I have to ask this. Who would you regard as your role model, the person you would look to as an example for how to conduct yourself in that role?
JM: That's an interesting question. There are a couple of people who come to mind. Certainly, the late [U.S. Sen.] Paul Wellstone, in his conduct and dedication, I think he was just a living example of a person who understands the difference between politics and public service. His politics were far more liberal than mine, but as a role model, as a person who fought to do the right thing and represent the people of his district, certainly Paul Wellstone.
And Daniel Patrick Moynihan is another thoughtful, intelligent person who served our country so well.
Go read the whole thing.
Another interview with the Greek News posted on the Mitakides for Congress site. Reposted below.
But first: A little business to conduct. I've created an Act Blue page to support Jane. If you can afford $5 or $500 please drop by and make a contribution.
By Vicki J. Yiannias
Voters in the 3rd Congressional District of Ohio gave Democrat Jane Mitakides a resounding victory on March 5. Jane won more than 54% of the votes cast in OH-3 Democratic primary, more than the other candidates combined.
Jane Mitakides, a successful businesswoman and community activist who was born and raised in Dayton, Ohio, has been married for 25 years to John Mitakides, a dentist who has practiced in the Dayton area for over 30 years.
“This isn’t just about picking the Democrat,” she said to the media after her victory, “It’s about picking the winner in November. The people of this district want a representative who will listen to their ideas and find solutions to the challenges they face everyday. That’s what I plan to do in this campaign and in Congress.”
“With the primary behind us, it’s time to come together and focus on the serious issues facing our families,” said Mitakides, adding, “It’s time to end the era of no-bid contracts and ‘pay-to-play’ politics and put our community first.”
Mrs. Mitakides took some questions from The Greek News on the major points in her campaign message of “renewed opportunity and real solutions to challenges including the economy, fair trade, education, and healthcare.” The questions address these issues as well as border control and the Iraq war. The interview began with her opinion on trade policies and the problem of NAFTA in Ohio.
TGN: Do you think NAFTA should be renegotiated?
JM: Unlike some border states, Ohio has seen no substantial benefit from NAFTA, just jobs lost. We need fair trade, not just free trade policies. In Congress, I will only vote to ratify trade deals that include enforceable environmental and labor standards. While I understand the importance of free trade and reject isolationism, I also know first-hand the challenges faced by American workers and their families, many of which live right here in my district, who have lost their job to unfair trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA.
TGN: What are your specific ideas to change the health insurance program?
JM: There are 43 million Americans who do not have health insurance. That is simply unacceptable. Health care costs more in America as well – nearly double the cost of other countries, per capita. Working families are struggling to afford the most basic health insurance while those without any insurance are often crippled by the debt caused by necessary but expensive medical procedures. In Congress, I will support a health care plan that provides for universal coverage and lowers healthcare costs for small businesses and individuals.
TGN: What are your specific plans for veterans’ affairs?
JM: When America’s brave young men and women put their lives on the line to protect our freedom, we must ensure that America is fulfilling our promise to them when they return home. In Congress, I will work to update the GI Bill of Rights so that it meets the needs of the 21st century to offer expanded education, training, housing benefits. We must also ensure that all of the components of the armed services are guaranteed equal access. This includes the National Guard and Reserve forces who have served this country in combat operations.
I will also work tirelessly to ensure that the 1.8 million veterans who are uninsured in this county have access to quality and affordable healthcare. We must also cut the red tape and streamline the system so that our veterans are no longer forgotten in the backlog of claims that exist today. We must not overlook the emotional needs of those returning from war, as well.
Of every issue I face, there is none that I feel more passionate about than keeping our promises to our veterans. My family has a long history of military service and I will work tirelessly to help our veterans receive the benefits they have earned in the service of our country.
TGN: What is your opinion of the present status of US involvement in the Iraq war; do you support a pullout of troops? If so, at what rate and timetable?
JM: Our brave men and women in uniform rid Iraq of a terrible dictator, and now it is the Iraqi people and leaders who must stand up and seize the opportunity they have been given to create a free and functioning Iraq. We must bring these brave young men and women home in a way that is both responsible and safe. We must refocus our efforts from a military offensive to a diplomatic one, working to bring stability to the region while bringing our American heroes home. It is past time for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country and begin seeking long-term solutions to the divisions within their county.
TGN: Since Ohio is a border state, what are your opinions on border security? Is Ohio protecting its border?
JM: The Ohio-Canadian border stretches 158 miles through the middle of Lake Erie.
I support the Northern Border Initiative, which is a collaborative law enforcement effort lead by the Ohio Department of Public Safety’s Division of Ohio Homeland Security. Created by Governor Strickland, the initiative provides the resources necessary to protect Lake Erie and the citizens of Ohio. While there are relatively few travel restrictions between the U.S. and Canada, there is a need to ensure that those who cross any of our borders are doing so legally, to curtail drug trafficking and any possible terrorist activity. That is exactly what this imitative achieves and why I will continue to support it.
The Mitakides for Congress Campaign has unveiled a television and radio spot, both of which can be found on the Campaign’s website, www.Jane08.com. The campaign plans to open campaign offices and continue building on an already-strong grassroots organization.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
More Post-primary Analysis on Democratic Voting Patterns in Ohio
I'd like to think the reporters at Dayton Daily News are reading this blog. Their piece today on the blue Ohio map follows up perfectly on what I wrote Wednesday after the Ohio primary.
The trend I noticed in the Ohio 3rd occurred state wide as well--66 of Ohio's 88 counties cast more Democratic ballots, according to the DDN. Their piece specifically describes Mercer County, and having lived there for a couple of years, I know it's not as solidly Republican as some would have you believe. The DDN cites the Ohio GOP feeling pretty secure about Mercer County:
"I don't think we're looking through rose-colored glasses by saying that Mercer County is a Republican county, no matter what the primary results may show," said John McClelland, a spokesman for the Ohio Republican Party.
I don't disagree--but the point remains that presidential candidates depend on large margins in places like Mercer County to win Ohio, and any substantial cut into those majorities seriously undermine GOP chances in November. The interesting results are that large numbers of independent voters crossed over to vote in the Democratic primary. According to the National Election Pool Exit Poll by Edison/Mitofsky, 9 percent of the ballots cast in the Democratic primary came from voters who identified themselves as Republicans, while 22 percent said they were independents.
Those are substantial numbers, and they appeared to be even higher in SW Ohio. The other important point to remember is that this follows a "bluing" of Ohio that began in 2006. The DDN quotes Sherrod Brown on that fact: But Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, isn't so quick to dismiss the theory of shifting political sands. He argues that a Democratic sea change began in 2006, when both he and Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland were elected. "People want change and John McCain is going to lose," he said. "This mountain is too high for him to climb."
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Mitakides for Congress: This is a Dem-leaning district
With the primary settled, it's time to get down to the business of defeating the Bush enabling, ethically challenged Mike Turner. I posted a piece a few weeks ago arguing that the Ohio 3rd was, far from a safe GOP seat, in play. We started in 2006 to turn Ohio blue, but my little corner of it is painfully red. Now, with a well funded campaign and a great candidate in Jane Mitakides, it's time to turn the rest of Ohio blue.
Following up on my earlier post, some of the numbers from the Democratic primary are encouraging. Here's a look at some of the voting from the counties that make up the Ohio 3rd.
In Warren County, in spite of 41,377 to 12,440 advantage in registrations, 28,683 R ballots were cast as opposed to 27,855 D. It's also important to note that 77,000 Warren County voters are registered as non-partisan.
In Clinton County, the results were more lopsided, but the Republican advantage of 6,807 registered voters to 2,062 Democrats is dwarfed by the total number of independent voters at over 17,000. When we look at ballots cast in the primary, the number of voters identifying with each party is evened out at 5,066 to 6,005. Clearly a large number of independent voters lined up with the Democrats in the primary.
In Highland County, a similar pattern emerges. Although the total number of registered partisans isn't available in their summary report, 5223 Republican ballots were cast for president as opposed to 5611 Democratic votes for president.
Meanwhile, in Montgomery County, a whopping 96,000 ballots were cast for the Democrats, while only 41,000 were cast for Republicans.
Granted, this is a primary, and there are crossover voters, and there's no guarantee that the Democrats voting for president in this primary are going to vote Democratic in the fall congressional race. Over 20,000 Democratic ballots didn't register a vote for the congressional primary, and those voters have to be brought on board. But when you look at these numbers, it's hard to accept the conventional wisdom that this is a solidly Republican district. In the current environment, and with the history of 06 in mind, the Ohio 3rd is very winnable for the Democrats.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Ohio 3rd: Mitakides' First Ad
Here's Jane Mitakides' first ad.
I think it's a terrific ad. It does a few important things at this stage in the primary:
1. It teaches people her name. I think her name recognition is pretty good anyway, because she ran in 04, but I hear people pronounce it wrong a lot. (watch the ad to learn the pronunciation)
2. She looks serious, and if I can use the word this way, "congressional" in the way that presidential candidates are said to look "presidential." She plays the part well.
3. Great voice. She sounds convincing and strong.
4. She even manages a shot at Turner when she says, "end the days of no-bid contracts." Unfortunately, I'm not sure enough people will quite get it. The eventual nominee needs to hang that story around Turner's neck over and over, and it's never too early to start. It's also never too early to start tying George Bush's name to Mike Turner. After a while, it should be automatic: When people hear Mike Turner, they should think "George Bush."
Friday, February 22, 2008
It's not just McCain: Lobbyists and Legislators are Too Cozy
Update: Lots of others making the same points better than I.
In Henry IV, one of Shakespeare's villains says, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." If Shakespeare were writing today, he might have said "lobbyists."
American media is so obsessed with sex that it overlooks the real importance of the John McCain-Vicki Iseman story. It's not really about whether McCain and Iseman were sleeping together. While it's fun for some to tut-tut about the septagenarian having a romp with a woman thirty years his junior, the more important question for our democracy is why are John McCain and other legislators so easily bought with flattery and charm of lobbyists selling their influence to the highest bidder? McCain's story is no different than John Husted's or Mike Turner's.
Over and over again we see stories of people in the legislature having cozy personal relationships with people trying to influence their votes. This is what should outrage voters--the friendly relationships that grant the rich and powerful access and influence that the rest of can't dream of having.
Look at just a couple of the recent examples, starting McCain's long history of bumping and grinding with lobbyists.
First, read the CPI's invaluable 2000 report on McCain. It reads like a dummy's guide to St. John the Deceiver. Here's just an excerpt, dealing with the Keating S & L scandal. Notice the first graph below on McCain's close personal relationship with Keating: McCain got more than just campaign money from Keating. McCain, his family, and their babysitter flew on Keating-owned or -chartered jets nine times, including three trips to Cat Cay, Keating’s vacation estate in the Bahamas. And in 1986, Keating cut Cindy McCain and her father into Fountain Square Shopping Center, a strip mall that American Continental Corporation built and managed, for a $359,000 investment. (emphasis mine)
It was just a matter of time before Keating called in his chits. When he did, it was over Lincoln Savings and Loan, a thrift in Irvine, California, that he’d bought in 1984. It turned out that Keating was raiding the assets of Lincoln’s depositors to finance posh real estate projects such as The Phoenician, a $300 million, 654-room hotel and spa in Scottsdale, Arizona, and his own lavish lifestyle. By 1986, Edwin Gray, the chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, grew worried that Lincoln had strayed too far from its core mortgage business, and began to clamp down. Keating turned to his friends in Washington for help.
On March 19, 1987, Keating appealed to McCain in person to meet with federal regulators on his behalf. At first McCain balked, but then, on April 2, he joined Senators Alan Cranston of California, John Glenn of Ohio, and Dennis DeConcini of Arizona in DeConcini’s office to meet with Gray. On April 9 the four senators, joined by Don Riegle of Michigan, sat down in San Francisco with four more regulators from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Following the meetings, the board delayed its seizure of Lincoln Savings and Loan for two more years.
When the federal government finally took over Lincoln in 1989, the bailout cost taxpayers $2.6 billion, making it the most expensive S&L bailout in U.S. history. About 17,000 small investors also lost a total of $190 million.
Here in Ohio, the leader of our State House was caught doing the very same things. John Husted was caught by Ohio papers travelling back and forth on fishing trips and to college bowl games as the guest of corporate lobbyists. These revelations amounted to little more than a minor embarrassment for Husted, who simply explained that the lobbyists in question were friends of his and that should settle it.
And then there's the case of Ohio 3rd Rep. Mike Turner, whose GOP cronies in Dayton first created a slush fund to pay for his consultants under the table, then most recently directed a million dollar no-bid contract to his wife.
Stories like this happen day after day after day in Washington and Columbus. When it's a good looking blonde and a presidential candidate, it makes front page news. But the run-of-the-mill, day-to-day, instititionalized corruption doesn't seem to generate the same kind of interest.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Dayton Daily Publisher: Republican Shill
(UPDATE: Visit Daytonology for more on the DDC and their partisan leanings.)
Mike Turner's wife, Lori, CEO of Turner Effects, pulled the company out of the Dayton Development Coalition's marketing effort yesterday.
Tom Beyerlein of the DDN has done a terrific job of reporting on this story. So it's unfortunate that Lori Turner took a cheap shot at him in her resignation letter, and it's also unfortunate--disgusting, actually--that Doug Franklin, publisher of the DDN and Beyerlein's boss, decided to carry water for the Turners by defending them in print.
(However, Beyerlein missed a major aspect of this story: Turner was recently turned down for a seat on the House Appropriations Committee. More on that in a sec.)
Turner went after Beyerlein personally, accusing him of in accurate reporting. Today's front page story includes the following quote from Turner's letter to the DDC:
"During the past several weeks, the Dayton Daily News has knowingly and publicly misrepresented my involvement in the Dayton Development Coalition community branding process..."
That's a cheap shot, especially since, as Beyerlein notes in the article, she doesn't specify how she was misrepresented, and she didn't respond to his calls for comment. Without defending her accusation, Lori Turner's assertions are little more than playground name calling.
But what disturbed me most about the article wasn't Lori Turner's predictably weak facing saving parting shot, it was Publisher Doug Franklin's ridiculous quote defending the Coalition.
Franklin said: "I think everybody involved has been well-intentioned to advance the Dayton region. And while everything was done aboveboard, I think people have to understand there was a perception — and I emphasize perception — of conflict."
It's interesting that Franklin's quote is inserted in this manner. There's no context, no lead in, such as, "asked about the conflict, Franklin said," etc. Since Franklin is Beyerlein's boss, it leads me to wonder whether Franklin's comments were inserted at his instructions. There's no way to know, since Beyerlein isn't going to say, but the simple lead in of "Franklin said:" is curious, to say the least.
It's also curious because the publisher of the DDN is going out of his way to defend the Turner's actions in the quote. "I emphasize perception." Well, sorry to disagree with you Mr. Franklin, but it isn't simply a matter of perception. Maybe you should read your own paper, and start with Mary McCarty's excellent column on the subject:
But these circumstances are far from ordinary. In 2006, the Dayton Development Coalition chose — without competitive bidding — the Turner Effect as the lead branding contractor. The company has been paid more than $300,000 so far. Former Development Coalition staffer Evan Scott, who coordinated the project, explained that the Turner Effect was "the only local firm with the capacity to do the job."
Really? Dayton is so small-town there's only one competent marketing firm? Kind of goes against the branding concept, doesn't it?
"That argument is ludicrous," said M.J. Leman, president of the Beavercreek-based Implications marketing, communications and Web development firm. "And it's flat-out inexcusable that it was not put up for bid, when there are several good firms with more expertise in brand design or brand strategy. They had to know it was going to create the appearance of being a slush fund for Mike Turner."
Hiring the congressman's wife, Leman said, provides exactly the wrong kind of branding for the Miami Valley: "It tells people you have to have connections to make it in this town."
Turner Effect's choice for the campaign is a problem because the DDC lobbies Turner on behalf of the community. And with community development the wealthy benefactors of the DDC benefit. That isn't the perception of a conflict of interest, it's a real conflict of interest. I don't know Doug Franklin's politics but he seems awfully interested in defending the Turners' integrity. It might have been better if he had let Pete Luongo speak on behalf of the Coalition, even if his company is one of Mike Turner's largest contributors.
If Turner had been selected for a spot on the House Appropriations Committee, which he had sought, the conflict of interest might have drawn more attention, and perhaps that explains the timing of Lori Turner's decision more than the DDN's reporting. The Hill lists Turner as one of the Republicans who had been turned down for the seat. Too bad Turner wasn't asked about this--even though his response would be predictable enough. Or, maybe the timing was based on the fact that the DDN and local bloggers like David Esrati, who has questioned Turner Effect's work in other areas, were getting a little too close to a bigger story.
In a separate piece on the Dems' response, Jane Mitakides said, "They knew there would be political blowback, I think what they misunderstood was the amount of the blowback." The always blunt David Esrati was quoted also: Turner's resignation also "doesn't change the fact that Get Midwest/Be Midwest stinks" as a slogan.
That about sums it up. This whole story stinks.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Ohio 3rd Candidates Profiled
The Dayton Daily has a profile today of the three candidates running in the March 4 primary to take on Mike Turner in November.
Two of the three candidates, Jane Mitakides and David Esrati, have been profiled here (see "recent interviews" in the left sidebar).
Unfortunately the piece today makes no mention of the fact that wealthy Dayton businessmen funneled a $1.5 million contract to Turner's wife. However, in a response, Turner does brag about the federal business he's brought to Dayton.
In a written statement, Turner said he had "worked hard to bring jobs to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, protect Medicare benefits for seniors and secure over $20 million in economic development funds for downtown Dayton."
Excerpt below from the DDN profiles.
The candidates criticize Turner, of Centerville, as a "rubber-stamp" for the Bush administration and say he is out of touch with his constituents.
"I'm not sure his voting record reflects what would be best for the people in this district," said Jane Mitakides, a Washington Twp. businesswoman who lost to Turner in 2004.
Dayton businessman and activist David Esrati and former Waynesville Mayor Charles Sanders agree.
The candidates criticize Turner, of Centerville, as a "rubber-stamp" for the Bush administration and say he is out of touch with his constituents.
"Let's look at the big important issues. Our economy is going to hell. We're in a war that we shouldn't be in," Esrati said. "Is Mike Turner doing anything? Is he saying anything? No."
Saturday, February 16, 2008
DDC Should Be Politically Neutral, Not a PAC in Disguise
It was interesting to read the statemtents in today's Dayton Daily News and on Lori Turner's website suggesting that there is nothing improper about the $1.5 million contract awarded to Congressman Mike Turner's wife. The DDN piece today begins,
Leaders of local business groups have slammed the Dayton Daily News for its coverage of a no-bid contract of more than $300,000 to a company owned by U.S. Rep. Mike Turner's wife, and asked the chairmen of the Montgomery County political parties not to "politicize" the issue.
So... they hire the wife of a sitting GOP congressman and they accuse others of "politicization"? To hear the local GOP-leaning business community tell it, they didn't even know Lori Turner had a husband. Huh? A congressman? Who knew?
Likewise, Lori Turner is simply aghast that anyone would imply an improper connection between her work and her husband's.
When the Coalition hired Turner Effect and Real Art Design Group to staff the regional brand project, the Coalition unanimously approved the involvment of both firms based on the recommendations of their professional staff and the approval of brand committee co-chairs Doug Franklin, Publisher of the Dayton Daily News, and Pete Luongo, retired CEO of the Berry Company.
In Doug Franklin's own words, "One of the reasons we determined that there was not a conflict is because the DDC advocates with the federal government for the community and not for its operations."
(To see Mrs. Turner's letter, go to Turner Effect and click on "News", then "Response to recent articles in the DDN")
Franklin seems to be admitting here that Turner Effect has been employed by an organization that lobbies--"advocates"--her husband, but that it's ok, since they aren't benefitting personally from it. Really? Is he serious here? It's OK for a lobbying group to employ a congressman's wife? The publisher of the DDN thinks that's ok? And we supposedly have a liberal local paper here in Dayton?
Let me get this straight. Franklin and the DDC want the Dayton area to get more business. More defense business, especially. Which in turn will benefit business leaders like Franklin. So they lobby Congressman Turner for government business in the area. And they wonder why hiring his wife is a conflict of interest?
There's a further point that Franklin and the DDC are missing.
The DDC says they think the watchdog groups like CREW (funny how the watchdog groups aren't named in today's DDN piece) are "politicizing" the issue. If the DDC is politically neutral, why are they hiring the wife of a Republican Congressman? If the DDC and its members aren't getting preferential treatment from Turner, and so far there is no evidence I've seen that they are, then at the very least it appears that Turner is getting favorable treatment from the DDC. As a politically neutral organization, if that's what they are, they should not be funneling lucrative contracts to the spouse of a Republican Congressman. It sure gives the impression that they have a cozy relationship with the Turners, and would like to see him returned to Washington in the fall. So is the DDC a politically neutral community development organization, or is it a political action committee in disguise, whose work for community development merely masks is support for GOP candidates like Turner?
The Berry Company, incidentally, whose former CEO co-chairs the DDC, is one of Turner's top donors in this election cycle, having given $8,000 so far to Turner's uncontested primary bid. Let's not forget also that Clay Mathile was reported by the DDN to have financed much of the contract to Turner Effect, the same Clay Mathile who has a history of financing a secret slush fund used in part to fund a previous Turner primary bid for the House.
It certainly appears that there is a cozy, to say the least, relationship between the DDC and the Turners. It certainly deserves more scrutiny.
By the way: See some great digging by Jeffrey at Daytonology on Turner and the Defense industry.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Here's What $300,000 Gets You
As I wrote Monday, Clay Mathile directed a $1.5 Million contract to Lori Turner, the wife of Mike Turner, a GOP Congressman who Mathile and the rest of the Dayton Development Coalition hope will bring lucrative federal dollars to the Dayton area.
So far, a reported $300,000 has been spent, and this is what Mrs. Turner and her company, Turner Effect have come up with: 
Seriously. I think it's a bad rip-off of the "Got Milk" campaign. Anyone have an idea what the orange thing around "get" is supposed to be?
But I'm no marketing specialist. Maybe I should see what the experts have to say:
"It doesn't mean anything to me," said Jack Trout, principal of Trout & Partners, a Greenwich, Conn., marketing strategy firm that serves Fortune 500 companies. "You put an ad out there and say, 'I want you to come here.' That's obvious ... I'd much rather hear or see important news about what's happening in the area."
Anyone else?
Branding campaigns must deliver a focused and comprehensible message to attract consumers, said Shashi Matta, an Ohio State University assistant professor of marketing.
"What's missing for me when I look at this logo is, 'What is it telling me?'" Matta said. "It needs to be specific to Dayton. 'Think Midwest,' 'Be Midwest' or 'Get Midwest' is way too broad for Dayton.'"
"In branding, it's a heck of a lot more effective and cost-efficient to build on what you have," said Lightle, who previously worked for years developing brands for Thailand, Colombia and Taiwan to help them sell goods in the United States. "The coalition has taken the position that they're going to start with something all new. That's inherently more risky."
Seems unanimous.
Thanks to the guys at DaytonMostMetro for the image. They generously included the "Dayton Region" part of the logo, although it doesn't appear to be part of the plan. Dayton Most Metro have also come up with a list of other suggestions (wonder how much they're getting from Mr. Mathile) you should go read and judge for yourself. I decided to add my own:
Dayton: Ever heard of it? (One I use frequently when travelling)
Dayton: We're better than Lansing (based on personal experience)
Dayton: Someday, we will stop messing with I-75
Dayton: Our river never caught on fire (Take that, Cleveland)
Get Midwest?: Get out!
Feel free to add your own snark in the comments. Who knows, you might get a $300,000 contract out of the deal.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Ohio 3rd: Turner's Ethical Lapses Questioned
(Update Below)
Overview: Big GOP donors funnel a $1.5 million contract to Rep. Mike Turner's wife
Representative Mike Turner has enjoyed a good reputation in Dayton and, for the most part, has appeared to be at arm's length from the scandals that have rocked Ohio politics in recent years. While the rest of the Ohio Republican Party fought for their political lives in 2006, Turner's seat remained relatively safe.
However, the ethical lapses discussed Sunday in the Dayton Daily News by Tom Beyerlein could change all of that. Beyerlein shines a light on the Turner Effect, a marketing firm operated by Mike Turner's wife Lori. According to the DDN article, Turner's firm was contracted by the Dayton Development Coalition (DDC), a group that promotes the Dayton area and which lobbies members of Congress. The DDN article says that there's nothing illegal about Turner's wife's firm receiving a $1.5 million no-bid contract from people who occasionally support the Republican Party and have lobbied the congressman. But it doesn't pass the sniff test.
According to the DDC's own website (more after the jump), getting federal contracts is a big part of what they're about. And hiring a Congressman's wife is the next best thing to hiring the Congressman himself.
It's worth noting that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) list Turner Effects as one of the biggest recipients of campaign cash among relatives of members of Congress, with over $51,000 rolling in between 2001 and 2006. That alone raises alarms, but there are more questions raised by the Dayton Daily piece that need to be answered. Among them:
1. What is Turner's relationship to Clay Mathile, the billionaire who funded a slush fund for the Montgomery County Republican Party, and whose funding of a "marketing concept" led directly to the no-bid contract received by Turner Effect?
2. Why does Turner's 2007 disclosure form report that the Turner Effect generates no income, when it has been paid $300,000 for its work for the Dayton Development Coalition?
3. Why does the Turner Effect's website advertise its specialty in working with government and offer NAISC codes for how to pay for services if they aren't lobbyists, or if they aren't selling access to Lori Turner's husband?
4. Looking beyond this episode, What is Turner's connection to Jack Abramoff, and the tribes represented by him, and Bob Ney?
More, much more, after the jump, including some background not provided by the Dayton Daily News piece.
For several years, the Republican Party in Montgomery County, under the direction of Jeff Jacobsen, operated a secret fund. The donors to the fund were kept secret, and even though Ken Blackwell's office began an investigation into the matter, nothing--predictably--was done until Jennifer Brunner came into the office. She concluded the investigation, and exposed billionaire Clay Mathile as one of the fund's major donors. Among other things, this fund was used to fund Mike Turner's campaign. Jacobsen wrote a letter to fellow GOP members explaining that the funds supported Turner's campaign, and this financial support from the secret fund was not revealed in 2004 FEC reports. Jacobsen also admitted that Nathanson in turn hired two other consultants, Kyle Sisk and Brett Buerck, who wrote a leaked memo describing how to launder campaign money.
In a recent interview with The Plain Dealer, the Dayton-area Republican concealed the extent of his relationship with the two consultants, denying that they’d done anything other than offer friendly advice.
Two days later, he admitted they’d done much more. Jacobson acknowledged that he had used the Montgomery County Republican Party’s operating account, which he controlled, to hire Dayton political consultant Jim Nathanson. In turn, he said, Nathanson hired Buerck and Sisk to promote Jacobson’s campaign for the Senate presidency.
“I know, I know, I know. All right. I am a jerk,” Jacobson said when asked why he had repeatedly denied that Nathanson had hired Buerck and Sisk to help him become Senate president. “I’m sorry I was cute.”
The question for Turner is, why didn't he disclose the funds he received from the Montgomery County secret fund, and how those funds were used? Why was Turner's consultant seeking advice on how to launder money?
After all of this, you would think Clay Mathile, one of the major funders of the Montgomery County secret GOP slush fund, would be radioactive. But he has also funded a "marketing concept" which promptly led to the Dayton Development Coalition's award of a no-bid $1.5 million contract to Turner's wife's firm. As CREW and Public Citizen point out, at the very least the appearance is bad: Past and present coalition officials say the Turner Effect was hired in 2006 without competitive bidding simply because it was the best choice among local companies. But two congressional watchdog groups in Washington said the situation creates, at best, an appearance of conflict of interest. "There is an appearance of impropriety," said Naomi Seligman-Steiner, spokeswoman for the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "It's not illegal, but it is problematic."
Craig Holman, legislative representative for Public Citizen's Congress Watch, said, "That's something we've seen over and over again. If a lobbyist can find a way to funnel money to a member of Congress, they'll do it — even if it means hiring the congressman's spouse."
Lori Turner can say the Dayton Development Coalition doesn't lobby her husband--not formally anyway--but that doesn't mean they won't do so in the future, and that's a clear conflict of interest. The Coalition's website says as much: Once the various priorities have been developed, we want to maximize our region’s ability to secure funding and other needed support from our state and federal government delegation. We facilitate the effort to ensure that the Dayton Region speaks with one voice to this end. We recognize that a collaborative approach is the key to success. Nowhere is this more evident than in pursuing the involvement of the state and federal governments. It allows us to maximize the regional benefits when new initiatives are unveiled in the community, and enables the Dayton community to leverage past successes to achieve future success. (emphasis mine)
Pretty clear then, that the DDC is looking to influence federal dollars, and to that extent, employing the wife of a Congressman would be a pretty clear conflict of interest in anyone's book. This is exactly why Ohio Republican politics have gotten a bad name, and why the culture of corruption has continued unabated.
Turner's past contributors deserve some scrutiny as well. Turner has received contributions from Bob Ney and Jack Abromoff and tribes represented by him, which according to the National Journal he hadn't returned as of 2006. He's a big recipient of De Lay money, to the tune of $20,000. (I've emailed Turner's office asking if those contributions have been returned.)
What do these donors get in return? A loyal Republican who's voted with Tom De Lay 94% of the time and a loyal Bush partisan who attacks witnesses baselessly when they dare to criticize the President. He may not have done much to help Dayton, but he sure has helped himself and his Republican cronies in Washington.
FINAL POINT related to this story. The concept Turner Effect came up with to promote Dayton? "Get Midwest." Seriously. That's what 1.5 million gets you. "Get Midwest." Wow, businesses will be flocking to Dayton now, with a great slogan like that. Every consultant interviewed by the Dayton Daily agreed: it's a dumb slogan.
Update: Good diary here at Kos on the same subject.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Five Questions With Jane Mitakides, Candidate in Ohio's 3rd
Jane Mitakides ran a good but ultimately unsuccessful campaign in 04 against Mike Turner, and sat out in 06 while Richard Chema took a turn. Now she is back and seeks the Democratic nomination to run against Turner again.
As Mitakides explains below, things could be different this time around for the Democratic nominee. I want to thank Jane for taking the time to answer my questions. She responded favorably to a couple of my own personal "litmus test" questions, e. g., the FISA question below. Also, check out her extended answer to why this seat is favorable to a Democratic pickup.
Jane's site is up and running now, with more content every day.
The full interview appears below. In case you missed it, I also interviewed Jane's opponent David Esrati a few days ago. Charles Saunders is the third Democrat in the primary.
As for the last question: C'mon, Jane, you can tell the truth. Don't give the safe answer. You're an Edwards supporter, aren't you?! I can just tell.
1. Assuming you supported the other aspects of a FISA bill, would you vote for a bill that included telecom immunity?
I support the FISA bill as passed by the House. I am against blanket, retroactive immunity. I understand the intent of the Feinstein Amendment (which seeks to determine whether some telecoms acted in “good faith” believing their actions were legal. However, giving the power of that determination to the FISA court keeps a cloud of secrecy over the issue. Unless the Senate can provide a better alternative, the House version should stand.
2. You ran against Turner in 2004. What will you do differently this time if you win the primary? Are conditions more favorable now to make this a Democratic pickup?
As the unanimously endorsed (Montgomery County Democratic Party) candidate, I look forward to winning the primary. Following that, I intend to run a hard, competitive race district-wide.
Several factors make this race very different: Most important, it is proven that a Democrat can carry OH-3, because Ted Strickland carried it with 56% of the vote. Sherrod Brown did very well. The vote totals needed for me to win in each county ( Montgomery County is 75% of OH-3’s votes, Warren is 15%, Highland and Clinton are each 6%) were achieved by a Democrat just two years ago. When I ran in 2004, not one statewide office was held by the Democrats, now they ALL are, except one.
Moreover, if Democratic turnout is even slightly increased (Iowa was up 90%, New Hampshire 31%, South Carolina was DOUBLED, with no such matching enthusiasm on the R side), the race becomes highly winnable.
Also, women are turning out in record numbers, and the 18 to 30 demographic is breaking all records. With 12 colleges and universities in or near OH-3, that is an earthshaking development.
Challengers win when there is a shift in voting trends coupled with strong issues. My opponent is saddled with one of the most partisan voting records in the House, supporting the war over and over, voting for CAFTA, against rural Medicaid funding, and more. This is wholly out of step with this diverse, moderate region. Being a Bush rubber stamp was a plus in 2004, but it surely isn’t in 2008.
I think the voters understand that you can’t trust the Congress that created this mess to solve it.
Look at it like this: In January of 1932, if you had looked only at 10-year previous GOP performance as a formula, Roosevelt wouldn’t have had a chance in the November election. Voting patterns and important issues make the difference. I believe the Democrats are going to run the table.
3. What is your opinion of the economic stimulus package just passed by the House? Would you have voted for it? Why or why not?
I certainly support the stimulus bill, but I don’t believe it goes far enough. It misses seniors as well as relief for small and mid-size businesses, which need help if they are to grow and create jobs. We need a large, comprehensive plan, including funding for development of a “green collar” industry that would be perfectly suited for our area.
4. What are your goals as representative? What do you hope to accomplish for the Ohio 3rd?
My goals in the House include shifting our economic focus, and stimulating growth in America and OH-3 with a comprehensive plan as noted above. I will be a majority voice for Wright Patterson Air Force Base.
We must quickly address the home foreclosure issue, as part of an economic package. We need more than empty press releases about “Saving our Cities.” We need action.
We must educate our children, make college affordable, finally accomplish universal health care, keep our promises to our veterans and seniors, and confront the intertwined issues of oil dependency and global climate change. I also believe in fair trade, and in supporting industry in our country. It is a matter of national defense to keep strong manufacturing capability within our borders.
As a majority voice for OH-3, I will be able to speak up for investment in our region. An entire “green industry” will develop, and with our work force, resources, available land, technology and “tool town” history, we are the idea center for it.
All of this needs to be achieved with an equal focus on controlling spending. We need to invest in each other and our country, making choices wisely and with the best return, so that we have a genuine return to fiscal responsibility.
Most of all, I want to be a true representative, putting the needs of our community ahead of a partisan agenda.
5. Whom are you supporting the presidential race?
In the Presidential race, I’m supporting the Democrats!
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Five Questions for David Esrati for Ohio's 3rd District
Below the jump is my interview with Dayton's David Esrati, a candidate for the Democratic nomination to take on Mike Turner in the Ohio 3rd District, Into My Own's home cd, which is represented by a Republican much to my shame and horror. I wrote about Esrati's response to the Dayton Daily's endorsement interview yesterday; I was shocked that Esrati reported that both Jane Mitakides and Charles Saunders claimed to have been approached by influential Republicans about switching parties. Now, Mitakides is a well-spoken politician who ran a credible race against Turner once before...trying to get her to change teams makes sense if the GOP has no one to field who has a chance to win. But trying to persuade Saunders, the area's perennial also-ran, with an eccentric history (as mayor of Waynesville, he accused his own police force of racial profiling him, and was recalled by the voters with a 59% vote against him), really smells of desperation.
Turner is, of course, a horrible representative for Ohio, a George Bush apologist and corporate stooge, so even the hapless Saunders would be a huge improvement. But Esrati is making his case with the voters, and his responses below, and his website, are interesting to say the least.
Esrati produces his own web videos, and even though the whole "priceless" theme has been overused, this ad is pretty damned good.
The interview follows the jump.
1. First I have to ask you something you wrote in your blog piece about the DDN. Did Charles Saunders and Jane Mitakides both say they had been approached by the GOP about switching parties? That's really a damning critique of the lack of confidence that they have in local potential Republican candidates. What did you think when they said that?
Mitakides said she had been approached by a local Republican power broker, not the party chair, in the DDN endorsement meeting. Sanders chirped in that he had too.
I mostly sat in disbelief as I listened to Jane talk about herself- and how she's the answer for OH-3. I don't think the voters want to trade one person who talks like a politician for another.
2. Do you have any staff at all? Who's helping you with your campaign? What has been the response from the county and state party?
I have no "paid staff" for my campaign. I have some very dedicated volunteers and a shrewd campaign treasurer in Mike Robinette. I do have a great network of supporters within the blogging community, who have helped with research, and spreading the word. I haven't so much as heard a peep from the State or National party, who is too wrapped up in the Presidential race. The local parties- no word from Highland or Clinton County- except from the exceptional Chuck Watts who is running an organized site in Clinton- http://www.unionnorthdcc.com/
Warren County bailed on a screening last night. Montgomery County held their screening last night- with the answers to come this evening. Considering they didn't endorse Jane in December, I'm wondering if they will endorse at all. All seem to have conceded the District to Turner.
After the primary, I'll gear up and hire staff. Right now, all money needs to go to getting my mailing out and using phone banks. I have some more tricks up my sleeve, but I'll save those for maximum effect.
3. What do you think is the biggest issue for consituents of the 3rd to consider in 2008?
It's the economy, stupid. (I'm not sure I deserved that! -ohdave) Followed by the giant sucking sound of money leaving for Iraq. I think the issue that will differentiate the campaign is simply if voters want more of the same, or something new and improved. I think the voters are sick of broken promises, being hammered with stupid nasty TV spots and candidates being sold to the highest bidder. Jane Mitakides clearly showed that she's just another operator on the election circuit yesterday at the DDN endorsement screening. I think the voters can keep Mike Turner if they just want another insider.
4. Whom if anyone do you support in the presidential race?
The presidential race is one of the most interesting we've had in my lifetime. When I take the "which candidate are you" tests- I always come up with Mike Gravel first and Dennis Kucinich second. I think that's because I believe Iraq is a repeat of Vietnam. We won the war, we're losing the occupation. Both of them say it's enough. The current financial crisis isn't being helped by this war, unlike other wars, because this one was concocted to bolster the bottom line of the military industrial complex.
However, on one of my walks in the cemetery with the dog, I took a different approach to a choice in candidates: I asked myself what would be the boldest move America could make to try to say we've changed directions and want to mend fences with the world? When I looked at the contenders that way, the only choice becomes Senator Obama. I think he carries a lot less baggage than anyone else. He's smart, he's radically different than any of the other candidates in his social upbringing. I believe he has the potential of being a statesman, not just a president. The reality is, running for president is in itself a Catch-22, if you have the ego to run for the job, you are probably unfit to do the job well anymore. There are no perfect candidates. I think Senator Obama is our best choice.
I still wouldn't rule out some wildcard options: Al Gore drafted after the candidates have made a mess of each other. Michael Bloomberg as an independent, or the Republicans not being able to reach consensus and having to do a do-over (real long shot).
The economic crisis is going to get a lot worse. I don't think we've seen the really hard questions asked or answered yet.
5. My last question was about Esrati's background, and he referred me to his campaign bio. Essentials: Cleveland Heights grad, Wright State grad (my favorite joke: Wright State, wrong college!), local businessman, dog lover.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Ohio 3rd: Turner is vulnerable to Mitakides, Esrati
Mike Turner is a George Bush apologist and partisan hack running for reelection in 08. The Democrats vying to go against him include David Esrati and Jane Mitakides. Charles Saunders of Waynesville launches yet another quixotic campaign.
Mitakides ran a credible campaign in her last attempt, but this time Esrati wants to be the nominee. Today the Dayton Daily News wrote a blurb on their editorial meeting with the three candidates, the pre-endorsement ritual. The three mostly heaped abuse on Turner:
"I think this is going to be like the bloodbath of '94, except this time the good guys win," Mitikades said, referring to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.
Esrati and Sanders also said they believe Turner is vulnerable.
"I think people are fed up with Republicans. People are fed up with Mike Turner," Esrati said.
He said Turner is out of touch with his district and too beholden to donors.
While all three candidates spent most of the interview criticizing Turner, they also each contended they are the best candidate to replace him.
Mitakides said she has a deep knowledge of business and military issues, will look out for the district and, most importantly, is the one who could beat Turner.
Esrati had an interesting writeup of the meeting on his campaign blog:
The first question was “What’s wrong with Mike Turner” and Jane was given the floor. After a bunch of meandering, she finally said that he’s taking credit for BRAC when in fact he had little influence, and that he’s only a junior congressman in the minority party at the end. When pushed for specifics, it was as if we were listening to C-SPAN analysis in the 2 minute report.
I talked about the Turner, Perception/Reality distortion field, and tried to focus on:
He’s voted with GWB 90% of the time.
He’s totally bought, sold and paid for by the special interest groups
He’s disingenuous.
He’s not representing us.
Jane “jumped in” to help me out. And from then on, it was Jane, Jane, Jane.
Sanders showed up at 11:30 in a hat, which didn’t come off. I don’t know what military he was in, but mine always told me that hats come off inside, unless you are armed (maybe he’s packing?). This was my first meeting with him. He was loud, angry, and 100% Union, all the time. He managed to get in that he “won Highland and Clinton Counties” last time out- which was wrong- according to my 2006 data he won Highland with 455 votes. The editors asked him if it was true he had also filed on OH-2, which he blamed on “bloggers, who just pay for internet access and can say anything.” Sanders thinks he can turn the district into the next Silicone Valley.
If this is any indication, Esrati doesn't pull any punches. This guy is worth watching down the stretch, especially since he's running to be MY congressman.
I'd say he would be an improvement.
