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
Why Levies are Failing: Not Because Voters Hate Schools
One of the best sources of information on tax policy as it relates to education and local property taxes is the Education Tax Policy Institute (ETPI). Their analysis is an excellent way to understand why Ohio voters are rejecting school levies, at a 50% or higher rate. The answers they provide show that it's not because voters hate education that levies are failing. In fact, it's just the opposite. Voters have taxed themselves locally to one of the highest rates in the nation. So it's no wonder that voters are tired of shouldering so much of the burder through local property taxes.
If you google "property tax burden" or any other combination of "tax" and "burden", you're likely to come up with a list of links to the Tax Foundation (or one of the ubiquitous news reports that rely on the Tax Foundation to push the theme that darnit Ohio's taxes are just too high). One of those unfortunate news pieces is here, at the PD site from just last December.
But the ETPI debunks the methodology used by the Tax Foundation pretty thoroughly, and shows that the ranking the Tax Foundation annually uses and which show Ohio's "tax burden" as being one of the top ten in the country are misleading to say the least. As ETPI explains, the TF rankings lump a lot of taxes together and weight them. But what interests me, and probably a lot of other voters, is how much of our taxes for schools come not from corporate and personal income taxes or sales taxes, but instead from local property taxes. As the ETPI shows, Ohio's statewide income tax is fairly low, or at least average, while our property tax rates, which are voted on directly and locally by the people who pay them, are actually very high. Interestingly, Ohio’s state-levied taxes (i.e., those enacted by the state legislature) amount to $1,733 per capita and rank 34th, lower than all but 16 states. Conversely, Ohio’s local taxes are $1,283 per capita, 9th highest in the nation. (It might also be observed here that,under Ohio law, much of this local burden has been imposed directly by local voters rather than elected officials.) Combining these state and local burdens yields the figure of $3,016 in per capita state and local taxes, and the ranking of 20th, explained earlier. (my emphasis)
Go to the ETPI site and click on "Ohio's tax ranking: setting the record straight" for the full PDF that the above came from.
So, as I've said before, it's up to the governor and legislature to change the system. Voters have taxed themselves at a high rate. But they can't take anymore. The system has to change.
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."
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Strickland, Legislature Face Decisions on Education
An editorial from NE Ohio captures it perfectly. Strickland doesn't have time to bask in the glow of Clinton's win in Tuesday's primary. He has other things to attend to: like the overdue and promised plan to overhaul school funding. As levies on Tuesday across the state proved, voters are impatient and unwilling to approve new property taxes. They want the state to act:
Strickland and his fellow leaders in Columbus should take notice.
Voters throughout the state are angry that it's already been a full year since the governor took office after pledging during his campaign that he'd fix school funding. Sadly, he said it will be another year before he releases his plan to solve the crisis. You're making us wait, Gov. Strickland.
We hope you're paying attention to the disappointment your inaction has fueled.
As you sit by and watch more districts fall into financial trouble, you should be hopeful our disappointment doesn't turn into resolve to make some fixes ourselves.
There's another decision pending. With Democrats in Washington insisting they'll wait for a new president rather than go along with Bush's voucher proposals built into his education budget.
Will Ohio continue to go along with NCLB? The states are becoming increasingly outspoken in their opposition to it, and Virginia is the most recent, sending messages that would indicate it might pull out of the federal compact all together and tell Margaret Spellings to take her money and stick it.
What about Ohio? Our arcane "accountability" system is getting almost as hard to understand as the funding formula for Ohio schools. A lot of it could go away if NCLB were not reauthorized, of if Ohio decided the federal money weren't worth the hassle. The governor and legislature need to decide where they stand on NCLB and school funding. It's been long enough.
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.
Tuesday's Biggest News: Democratic Identification in SW Ohio
It's worth remembering that the wide margin for George Bush in red southwestern Ohio is what allowed him to carry Ohio, and ultimately the nation. With that in mind, the biggest news from Ohio's primary may be the astonishing turnout and the fact that in traditional Republican strongholds, registered Democrats now outnumber Republicans.
That's significant, because we aren't simply talking about crossover voting. In Ohio, you have to be somewhat serious about crossover voting. If it's proven that voters aren't doing it legitimately, they could be subject to prosecution.
Barack Obama's attempts to upset Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary on Tuesday rely - at least partly - on an Ohio law that allows independents and Republicans to vote a Democratic ballot.
But voters beware: Ohio's system is not a true "open" primary. And the law discourages voters from whimsically switching parties each election to vote in a more exciting race - or to create mischief.
Ohio law allows independents - or those who haven't voted in a partisan primary since 2005 - to cast a ballot in either party's primary. Any voter also can cast an issues-only ballot.
But a registered Republican who wants to vote a Democratic ballot must swear - under threat of criminal prosecution - that he "desires to be affiliated with" and "supports the principles" of the Democratic party. The same goes for registered Democrats who want to vote Republican ballots.
Prosecutors and election lawyers say indictments of fraudulent crossover voters are extremely unlikely, and perhaps unfathomable - absent some organized effort by one party to tamper with the other party's result.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the crossover isn't an attempt to game the system, but a disgust with GOP politics that the party ignores at its peril.
Take Lincoln Ware, a talk show host on the African-American-oriented radio station WDBZ. He cast an early vote with great fanfare on his radio show Tuesday.
Though a longtime registered Republican, he crossed over to vote for Obama in the Democratic primary. As a matter of law, Ware is now a Democrat.
"I'm not declaring that I am a Democrat," he said later. "I consider myself a Republican locally. The only reason I switched over is I wanted to vote for a national Democrat. I'm disgusted with the national Republican party."
That was enough to satisfy Hamilton County Elections Director John M. Williams, a guest on the show (and a registered Republican). He accepted the ballot.
Hamilton County Democratic Chairman Timothy M. Burke, who also chairs the Board of Elections, said he would happily welcome independents - and even Republicans like Ware - into the fold.
"If they believe that - in this year's election - the Democratic candidates offer the best choices, the law permits them to (cross over)," he said.
It's not just Hamilton County, either. Across Ohio, Democratic voter turnout was almost twice that of Republicans, a fact that should give the eventual nominee a leg up in November.
Results showed that the Democratic contest dominated the night in Ohio, with many unaffiliated and Republican voters choosing to vote on the Democratic side in this perennial swing state that has made a habit of picking presidents. With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Democratic candidates received more than twice the number of votes than Republicans, 2.23 million votes for Democrats to 1.02 million for Republicans.
There's even bad news for John Boehner. In solidly red Butler County, which went for Bush by a 66-34 margin in 2004, Democratic ballots outnumbered Republicans by 48,991 to 39,747. Previously, there were 45,711 Republicans compared to 21,640 Democrats. No one should be naive enough to think that the Democrats will carry Butler County--but they can easily cut into the margin there and in the rest of Ohio that helped George Bush carry Ohio in 2004. That news alone shows what an uphill battle McCain has in Ohio, and exactly how hard he will have to campaign. With his recent dust up with Cinninnatian Bill Cunningham, he's not off to a good start in winning the conservative base here.
In Hamilton County, Democratic registrations now outnumber Republicans for the first time ever, according to the Enquirer.
For the first time ever, registered Democrats will outnumber registered Republicans in Hamilton County, as a surge in turnout for Tuesday’s presidential primary brought at least 84,000 new voters under the Democratic banner.
“What yesterday speaks to is some incredible excitement in the Democratic primary -- whether you were supporting Clinton or Obama,” said Hamilton County Democratic Chairman Timothy M. Burke. “And you just didn’t have that kind of excitement on the other side.”
Though New York Sen. Hillary Clinton won the majority of Ohio’s delegates – and the coveted momentum that comes with winning a critical bellwether state – it was Sen. Barack Obama who carried Hamilton County.
Countywide, Obama won 62 percent of the vote, according to final, unofficial returns from the Hamilton County Board of Elections. In the city of Cincinnati, it was 72 percent. He took 25 of Cincinnati’s 26 wards.
All this means that come November, it's the Democrats' game to lose.
And as they say, as Ohio goes...
(PS: If you're an election supergeek, the Hamilton County precinct breakdown is an interesting read.)
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Don't Cry for Bill Cunningham, Victim Extraordinaire
(Updated below)
(Second Update below)
Bill Cunningham was asked today by the McCain camp to introduce McCain at a rally in Cincinnati's Over the Rhine district. His comments made national news when he repeatedly used Obama's middle name "Hussein" and said Obama in 2009 will have "just got back from a meeting with Ahmedinajad, has a meeting next week with Kim Jong Il, and then he's gonna saddle up next to Hezbollah." (my transcribing)
McCain pretended to be shocked, and apologized. But if John McCain bothered to do any research he would know that Cunningham engages in these kinds of personal attacks on a regular basis as a way to generate controversy that will create headlines for himself and WLW. On CNN McCain is being roundly lauded for apologizing and "taking responsibility." John King of CNN reported that McCain's staff had no idea that he would be headlining the event. In fact, the Enquirer reported it as follows:
Cunningham, a conservative Republican who also hosts a Sunday night syndicated radio show, said he was asked Monday “by a McCain operative” to introduce the Republican front-runner at Memorial Hall.
Of course, now McCain wants credit for repudiating the comments that his own campaign knew were coming. Meanwhile, Cunningham is feeling used, and now says that he repudiates McCain, and won't support him in the election. But McCain obviously staged this event very carefully. He waited until Cunningham was gone to enter the hall, and claimed not to have heard the remarks. Now the offensive remarks from Cunningham are making the regular news cycle, all while McCain is shown distancing himself from it. It's all very clever, and it's exactly how the GOP will use surrogates like Cunningham to attack Obama in the coming months while keeping their hands clean.
This is par for the course for Cunningham. He assails the character of Democrats (or other celebrities) and generates controversy, then cries on the air at how unfairly he's being treated, just as he's now crying that McCain had the nerve to repudiate his character assassination of Obama. But Cunningham is a classic shock jock--in fact he helped invent the genre--using the most outrageous language he can, as loudly as he can, seeking to create interest through innuendo and insult. He calls himself "The Great American" and wallows in shallow patriotism and sanctimonious self congratulation all while serving as the shrillest note of the GOP's mighty whirlizter.
I was listening to Cunningham's show in 2004 when he made remarks about John Kerry and the raping of little girls in Vietnam. I called the station but was placed on hold, and finally hung up when it was clear the producer had no intention of taking my call. Last summer Cunningham accused the Reds' Adam Dunn, a power hitting outfielder with poor defensive skills, of being drunk in the outfield after a misplayed ball cost the Reds a game. When the 6' 6" Dunn challenged Cunningham, he relented and became contrite, but the station played up the controversy for days, replaying over and over again the controversial statements that had caused the hard feelings. Likewise, now, WLW will replay Cunningham's remarks again and again until the primary and after, giving the "honorable" John McCain valuable free air time attacking his November opponent while pretending to be above the fray himself.
Cunningham roundly attacks the mainstream media for failing to report on Obama the way they've reported on Bush, but the irony is that WLW in Cincinnati is the mainstream media. It is one of the largest radio stations in the country, certainly one of the top 4 or 5 in the entire midwest, and easily the largest in Ohio in terms of audience, reach, and influence. WLW puts out hours and hours of unabashed right-wing cheerleading day after day, indulging in the most vicious political attacks like the one Cunningham engaged in today, and railing about taxes, Democrats, homosexuals, war protesters and so on. It's red-meat Republicanism in its most extreme form, 365 days a year.
And McCain didn't know what was coming? Puh-leaze.
Update: Here's how Rob Portman praised Cunningham (h/t Crooks and Liars):
Willie, you’re out of control again. So, what else is new? But we love him,” Portman said. “But I’ve got to tell you, Bill Cunningham lending his voice to this campaign is extremely important. He did it in 2000, he did it in 2004. It was crucial to victory then and it’s even more important this year with his bigger radio audience. So, Bill Cunningham, thank you for lending your voice.”
Second Update: As predicted, WLW is using the Cunningham/McCain spat as promotional, running the clip or news about the clip on a repeated basis. In an interesting twist, Cunningham is disputing McCain's assertion that they've never met, claiming on the air that he has dined with McCain on more than one occasion, and that Joe Deters and Mike DeWine were in attendance. Cunningham views himeself as part of the GOP mainstream, and won't tolerate being treated as a fringe member of the party.
AND SOMEONE needs to tell the Obama campaign to rethink their ad buy. After Cunningham was on the radio this morning repeating his smears, an Obama ad played during the break. What an outrage.
Here's how it was reported on CNN:
A supporter of John McCain, speaking at an official campaign event in Ohio attended by the Arizona senator, called Barack Obama a “hack, Chicago-style Daly politician,” and told the crowd “all is going to be right with the world when the great prophet from Chicago takes the stand, and the world leaders who want to kill us will simply be singing Kumbaya around the table of Barack Obama.”
“At some point in the near future the media, the stooges from the New York Times, CBS (The Clinton Broadcasting System), NBC (The Nobody But Clinton Network), The All Bill Clinton Channel (ABC), and the Clinton News Network at some point is going to peel the bark off Barack Hussein Obama,” said controversial conservative commentator Bill Cunningham, an Ohio native.
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.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Holocaust and Pedagogy in France--and Lessons for Ohio
I’m fascinated by the proposal—directive—from French President Nicolas Sarkozy that every French 5th grader will learn the history of one of France’s 11,000 children murdered in the Holocaust.
And for my Ohio readers, there is a lesson here in the value, or danger, of a state Director of Education reportable to the governor, as Ted Strickland has proposed to replace Ohio’s state Board of Education. I’ll get to that at the end of this post.
First, some background.
Recently French President Sarkozy, the recently divorced, the recently remarried, the controversy-stoking right wing America lover, created even more controversy in France with a radical education initiative: he has instructed, via his minister of education, schools to ensure that every French fifth grader learn the personal story of one of France’s 11,000 child victims of the Holocaust. This ambitious proposal has met with a mixed reaction according to the Times’ reporting. “Every day the president throws out a new unhappy idea with no coherence,” said Pascal Bruckner, the philosopher. “But this last one is truly obscene, the very opposite of spirituality. Let’s judge it for what it is: a crazy proposal of the president, not the word of the Gospel.”
The initiative has also pitted some Jews against one another. “It is unimaginable, unbearable, tragic and above all, unjust,” Simone Veil, a Holocaust survivor and honorary president of the Foundation for the Memory of the Holocaust, told the Web site of the magazine L’Express. “You cannot inflict this on little ones of 10 years old! You cannot ask a child to identify with a dead child. The weight of this memory is much too heavy to bear.”
Ms. Veil was in the audience when Mr. Sarkozy spoke, and said that when she heard his words, “My blood turned to ice.”
It’s easy to see the political dynamics here. Opponents of Sarkozy will use any controversial stance as an opportunity to attack or denounce. We see the same kinds of dynamics in this country, of course. When Michelle Obama says she’s proud of her country for the first time, for example, it’s all to easy to turn the line into a cheap political attack. But Sarkozy’s educational initiative is something that should rise above partisan politics and the fault lines of left and right; after all it’s impossible to extricate this idea from the enormous national trauma of the war, France’s complicity in the Holocaust, her resistance to German occupation, her ongoing struggles to come to terms with the past and make peace with it.
Reading the statements attributed to Ms. Veil above, however, is baffling. We can, and do, in this country, ask young children to identify all the time with a dead child, or at least with children in difficult and trying circumstances. This is what art asks of us: to identify with others, to learn from their despair, their bravery, their ingenuity, their curiosity. It’s what literature asks of us, good literature anyway, when it makes us uncomfortable and challenges our assumptions.
For many years I taught Elie Wiesel’s remarkable memoir Night. It describes Weisel’s incredible journey from the ghetto to Auschwitz and Buchenwald. Anyone who’s read the book remembers the lengths Wiesel and his father go to stay together. They succeed, and as the Russian troops move in and the camp is evacuated to deeper inside German territory. Wiesel explains how he had been in the infirmary due to an infection in his foot, but in order to avoid being left behind away from his father, he joins the march, in the bitter cold, his foot wrapped merely in a blanket, enduring unthinkable agony simply to stay with his father:“My father’s presence was the only thing that stopped me (from giving up). He was running next to me out of breath, out of strength, desperate. I had no right to let myself die. What would he do without me? I was his sole support.
“These thoughts were going through my mind as I continued to run, not feeling my numb foot, nor even realizing that I was still running, that I still owned a body that galloped down the road among thousands of others.”
Do these words traumatize a young reader? Or, do they create an understanding of the sufferings of the victims of the Holocaust? That empathy, that connection to the narrator that makes a book come to life? In my experience teaching the novel, albeit with much older students, I found that students were genuinely moved, occasionally tearful, but rarely overwhelmed. The Holocaust wasn’t yesterday. There isn’t an immediacy to the story that makes students feel threatened: they know this story is, for them, in the distant past. It might as well be medieval England as far as they are concerned. For that matter, try convincing students today that segregated schools have only existed for a couple of generations. Fifty years ago to a young person is as far away as the moon. But the power of seeing a narrator not unlike themselves, 15 and vulnerable, is like a telescope.
So Sarkozy’s proposal, to me, has a tremendous appeal. In creating a national assignment he’s managed to honor every single one of the 11,000 victims, to personalize them, to give each victim his or her own sphere of attention. Somewhere in France, each victim is going to be remembered, researched, and honored by one of France’s young scholars. It’s a noble, beautiful idea.
Unfortunately, Sarkozy’s proposal has been infected by his own flawed leadership, and according to my fellow blogger Microdot who lives in France, it now is dead in the water. I don't think he'll mind that I quote him: "Like most of the projects by the man who had too many ideas, it incited more controversy and was condemned by the very groups he was pandering to." Rather than developing the plan in coordination with educational leaders around the country, the plan was announced by fiat, a top down dictatorial decision that in spite of its merits suffers from being a non-negotiable command. Instead of seeking alliances and compromise, Sarkozy expects to be obeyed as a king.
Furthermore, Sarkozy’s penchant for imitating the American religious right causes him to lose support by alienating the France’s secularists. From the Times:
Adding to the national fracas over the announcement, Mr. Sarkozy wrapped his plan in the cloak of religion, placing blame for the wars and violence of the last century on an “absence of God” and calling the Nazi belief in a hierarchy of races “radically incompatible with Judeo-Christian monotheism.”
France has a long history of secularism, going back to the Revolution, when the country’s cathedrals were turned into “Temples of Reason” and nationalized by the state. In the ensuing years, the state developed an uneasy relationship with the church. Religious sentiment in public spheres is all but forbidden in France, a prohibition that expresses itself for example in the banning of headscarves in schools. Sarkozy’s attempt to reclaim religious dialogue as he pursues his educational ideas leads to distrust. And the timing: Microdot also tells me that the proposal comes on the heels of another proposal to overturn the 100 year old law mandating strict separation between church and state. It leads to the skeptical question:f Is he helping students understand the Holocaust? Or using the Holocaust cynically to advance religious causes in modern day France? It’s an opportunity lost.
Of course, it’s hard to imagine a similar scene in the US: A president with a controversial new idea, giving an order, and having teachers implement it.
But wait: it could happen in our state. If Governor Ted Strickland gets his way, the state Board of Education would be eliminated in favor of a governor-appointed Director of Instruction. Predictably, the state board here is resisting, arguing that by vesting power over the state’s instruction in a single governor-appointed official, education in the state would be unduly politicized. And it’s a valid concern. What’s happening in France, under Strickland’s proposal, could have its complement in Ohio. Even though I like Sarkozy's idea, the model for implementing a controversial education law wouldn't be welcome here. What if the next governor appointed a creationist, who suddenly ordered the state’s biology teachers to discuss creationism alongside evolution? Who suddenly outlawed sex education in Ohio?
Not a hard scenario to imagine, with the political power over schools vested in a single entity. It’s why even Strickland’s most ardent supporters should seriously question his move to consolidate power over the schools. He argues that it creates greater accountability: but it also creates greater risk that a bad leader could turn the schools into a political battleground. Ohio doesn’t need that.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Post Secondary Enrollment and the Governor's Plan for HS Seniors
Eric Fingerhut made some statements in the DDN today that I disagree with strongly. He's either uninformed, making stuff up, or both.
Interviewed by Stephanie Gottsclich, Fingerhut said that high schools discourage partipation in post secondary enrollment option, or PSEO. I would argue that schools don't discourage it at all.
For those who are unfamiliar with the concept, PSEO allows a high school student to leave campus and visit a college campus for coursework that earns college credit and possibly fulfills high school credit at the same time. It would seem to be a model for the dual enrollment programs the governor promoted in his state of the state program.
As Gottschlich points out, PSEO already allows students who choose to go from "senior to sophomore". So when he mentioned this, many educators were scratching their heads, thinking, "we already do this."
Fingerhut argued in the DDN piece that the cost of the program causes schools to downplay it.While participation in PSEO has steadily increased to more than 12,000 students in fall 2007, the number accounts for only 2 percent of all Ohio high school students, according to a March report from the KnowledgeWorks Foundation, a Cincinnati-based nonpartisan education policy research group.
The report, "The Promise of Dual Enrollment: Assessing Ohio's Early College Access Policy," found that participation rates were not equal throughout Ohio and that high schools lose money for every PSEO course taken by their students.
In 2004-05, the state redirected about $17.8 million in state funds from Ohio schools to pay for PSEO courses.
That causes high schools to downplay the program, said Ohio Board of Regents Chancellor Eric Fingerhut, whom Strickland charged with carrying out his plan. "Some are working around it altogether and using different programs," he said.
Problem: I don't buy it. Just not true. Schools do a lot of things to counsel students into appropriate options. As a high school teacher, and as a community college instructor who's had PSEO students in class, I know that Fingerhut is wrong about this.
There are lots of reasons students might not take PSEO. Social reasons. Lack of transportation. Or the fact that their high school offers excellent AP programs and arts programs during their senior year.
There is a pilot program that would certify hs courses for college credit by having senior year courses (say, fourth year Spanish) align with courses taught at a local college like UC or OSU. The classroom teacher becomes an adjunct faculty member teaching a college course within the HS walls. Maybe that's what Strickland was talking about. If so, I'm all for it. But it will take a great deal of administrative support.
But it's disappointing to have the governor propose something so poorly defined and have the chancellor speak about it with such ignorance.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Strickland plan uninspiring: Deal with school funding NOW
I have to confess I was a little disappointed in Governor Strickland's proposals in his state of the state address. For starters, while I support the jobs program he proposes, it's so essentially the same as Bob Taft's plan from a few years ago that it's a little embarrassing. But if Strickland can convince Ohioans to go along with it, something Taft couldn't do, it could be great for Ohio's economy. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
I found Strickland's education proposals mixed. I hated his plan to eliminate the Ohio Board of Regents, and I have the same feelings about his plan to eliminate the Ohio Board of Education with a single political appointee. Do we really want the state education system under the control of a single person? A single ideologue? The plan might lead to greater efficiency for Strickland, sure, but I'm thinking down the road to a future Republican administration. What powers will the person have over curriculum decisions? Over charters and vouchers? Over a whole host of hot-button education policy ideas that are part of a radical right wing agenda? I guess I need to see the details, but on the surface this would seem to be a dangerous and radical proposal.
Scott Elliott of the Dayton Daily News makes a similar point (Scott has a terrific, balanced article on the subject, so go read the whole thing):
With direct-line control over education, what’s to stop him from junking (charter school) programs? That may sound great to some Democrats, but consider the the scenario in reverse. How quickly might a Republican governor’s appointee be able to expand those or other pet education programs? It seemed pretty clear from the speech that Strickland is not a fan of Superintendent Susan Zelman and her department. What sorts of reforms his new appointee might institute remains to be seen.
I love, and fully support, the idea of allowing students to complete their first year of college during their senior year. However, kids can do that now. The post-secondary enrollment option allows students to gain a full year or close to it depending on their level of participation in the program. If Strickland is looking at expanding this program I'm all for it, but there are a lot of issues here, and I'll keep track of them as Strickland unveils the details of this part of his proposal.
What's most disappointing, though, is that Strickland has further delayed his promise to propose a new way to fund Ohio schools. This is the most critical issue facing the state, and it shouldn't be put on the back burner any longer. We need a fix, and we need it now.
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.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Can a gay judge rule on gay rights issues?
In Montgomery County, a Democratic challenger to Mary Wiseman for Common Pleas judge argued in front of the Dayton Daily News' editorial board that Wiseman couldn't hear gay rights cases, and would have to recuse herself.
I wish I were kidding. James Piergies then dug his hole even deeper by saying that Thurgood Marshall should have recused himself from civil rights cases. This is the kind of nonsense that is usually heard on the right, but Piergies, I'm sorry to say, is a Democrat, challenging Wiseman in the primary.
Later, Piergies apparently realized he'd put his foot in his mouth:
Asked to elaborate later, Piergies said he hadn't really given the issue a lot of thought prior to answering.
Just what you want out of a judge, right? Idiotic and impulsive answers?
There's an excerpt from the painful exchange after the jump.
Wiseman, who was appointed by Gov. Ted Strickland to replace retiring Judge John Kessler, said the fact that she is Ohio's first openly gay judge should be encouraging to other gay people. But she said it will play no role in how she considers cases, including those involving gay rights, because judges must be impartial in applying the law.
Wiseman took issue with Piergies' remarks, which were made during an editorial board meeting at the Dayton Daily News.
"If that were the rule, then Thurgood Marshall would never have presided over a civil rights case," Wiseman said.
Piergies said the situation was different for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Marshall, who more than a decade prior to being named to the court, argued the civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education. But after acknowledging Marshall's support of civil rights prior to joining the court, Piergies then said perhaps Marshall should have recused himself from such cases.
One more time: Piergies then said perhaps Marshall should have recused himself from such cases. Ok, buddy. If you say so.