On the Ground in Ohio

cross-posted from Sum of Change

COLUMBUS, OH: I am on the ground in Ohio, here to cover the protests for the couple days that I can afford to be away from DC. Today, despite a persistent rain, demonstrators lined the sidewalk outside of the Capitol Building in Columbus to voice their opposition to Senate Bill 5 which threatens state employees' bargaining rights. Today's protest was a lead up to tomorrow, when thousands are expected to descend on Columbus.

I also want to include the full interview I did with one of the teachers:

Some helpful facts about Ohio and collective bargaining (from the Examiner , not directly quoted)

• Ohio public employees make the same or less than their counterparts in the private sector (although a higher percentage of state workers have college degrees)
• In the last 9 years, state workers have taken 5 years of pay freezes (that's with collective bargaining)
• Budget gaps are higher, on average, in states that do not allow collective bargaining
• State employee payroll in Ohio equals only 9% of the state budget

We'll be here for part of the protest tomorrow too!

Republican Manipulations in OH-15th

 

This morning's Columbus Dispatch has a letter to the editor from a former Republican candidate for Ohio's 15th district, John Adams, who explains how he was approached to drop out of the primary to clear the way for Steve Stivers, Republican and former bank lobbyist. Adams did not drop out of the primary. Another candidate, David Ryon, a former Republican turned Constitutional candidate, had also been approached to drop out.

Dispatch:

...On Oct. 28, 2009, Doug Priesse, chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party, asked to meet with me concerning my candidacy.

During our meeting, he pointed out that Steve Stivers, a Republican candidate for the same office, would prefer “to conserve his money and efforts” for the general election in November 2010 and not be subjected to a primary campaign....

......According to Ryon, Stivers met with him the next day to discuss Ryon’s Constitution Party candidacy. This is particularly disturbing for a candidate of the Republican Party to cross party lines and attempt to “clear the field” of a candidate in the Constitution Party....

Stivers has expressed his plan to repeal/eliminate the 16th & 17th Amendments and the Health Care Reform Law.  Stivers is making his second attempt at capturing the seat for Ohio's 15th congressional district. He failed in 2008 when Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy defeated him.  Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15th-Dem) has been the target of the Tea Party Republicans, Stivers, and the good old boy Republicans and lobbyists.

(Follow the politics of central Ohio at http://ohio15th.blogspot.com )

 

Primary Day: IN, OH, NC

The Fix has a precap. I am rooting for Jennifer Brunner to pull an upset over Lee Fisher, against the odds, in Ohio for the Senate nomination. Although, I think Fisher will be a good candidate too. Thats been part of Brunner's dilemma-- that and not having enough funding. Regardless, compared to the throw-down happening in the Senate primary in Arkansas, the Ohio contest is a timid mediation dispute.

Indiana has a lot of Republican primary action. Both in the open Senate seat, and in primary challengers to incumbents:

Thomas -- like many Republican primary challengers -- has also scored points in hitting Souder for his vote in favor of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in late 2008.

Its amazing to me that there is more support now in the Democratic Party ranks than there is in the Republican Party ranks, for the justification of those bailouts (even though it benefited Republican constituencies). Its ironic how "the recovery" has benefited only the upper class. The unemployment and lack of money among millions and millions of Americans has been barely effected. If it were not for unemployment benefits being extended, we would be seeing riots in major cities about now.

The notion that we needed to spend $1 Trillion plus and the $100's of billions of TARP bailout funds, nearly all going to Wall St insiders, is ethically and politically bankrupt. I am not on board with anyone that is going down that road of support, and I'm glad to see opposition to that no matter where it happens.

A competitive Senate primary in NC that I have just had no time to follow. Secretary of State Elaine Marshall is favored. She's run before for the US Senate and lost, and has won re-election to the SoS multiple times. I expect her to run with a pretty good chance; if she runs a populist campaign against Burr, she could win in NC.

Also, there are a number of Republicans vying to face Democratic incumbents. I won't go through the whole list. Fix covers a few of them for todays' primaries. Conservative Jim Geraghty views their being about 90 vulnerable Democrats. Know what? I don't think Alan Grayson is going to be one of them. He's showing the path for future Democrats.

The mood is sour. People know there's been a shakedown and that they got bilked. And now, the DC insiders are rumbling, both sides, post-election, about cutting back on public services. In the past 7 years, a trillion has been shuffled to the bailout and profited the banks alone and a trillion has been sunk to needless years of military occupation of Middle East lands; yet, not enough money for public services-- now the deficit matters. Its absurd and revolting.

Ras Swing State polls--let's not panic

Here are the Rasmussen swing state polls:

CO--O 49, M46
FL--tied at 48
OH--M 51, O 44
PA--O 47, M 45
VA--M 49, O 47

All taken after the GOP convention.

What's remarkable is that Florida is tied.  Maybe there's a Palin backlash there.  

Ohio is slipping away, though Rasmussen has been bearish on Obama's Ohio propects.  The other thing to note is independents;
in OH and VA he's down double digits, in the other states, he's up double digits.

Obama may not win Florida (and the election), but I'd say his percentage there will higher than in Ohio.  We'll have to see what tomorrow's trackers will bring.

There's more...

Vetting the Veep's. Just a thought.

First. To MeganLocke and others who read this diary:

Hope you had a great weekend and Happy Monday!

Yes, I know, I'm supposed to be fishing. I should be on the beach but I made the mistake of listening to the Sunday "spin cycle". Then I read comments to my post here at myDD.

One pissed me off and the other got me thinking and well...

I was reading another diary about picking the Vice Presidential candidates. You may see the first part of this diary in the comment section elsewhere in myDD. I'm greatful to MeganLocke for reminding me of the subjective part of picking a VP. Her reminder caused me to reexamine my own thoughts of the process. This diary, that started out as a comment, is a result. This is a comparison between two women for the office of VP. They are Gov. Sebeliius of Kansas and Sen. Clinton of New York.

On the point of choosing a VP, I like the fact that reasonable people can peacefully disagree. Nice.

With Sen. Obama's recent shift to a campaign that looks more and more like a Sen. Clinton primary? To skip over Sen. Clinton for a 2nd tier option? He'd have to hate the woman's guts to skip her now. How do you explain it?

Before you read my opinion after the bump, there's something I'd like for you to consider.

You see something troubles me. There's this undercurrent arguement that I find troubling for the Gov of Kansas or any woman running for political office. This is the argument that Sen.Clinton is too qualified for the office of Vice President but Gov.Sebelius in not. But, hey no worries, they're both women aren't they; they must be interchangeable. The reasoning is that the office of VP is nothing more than a do nothing job. The thought is that any idiot can do it. It seems that this is the reason why it would be okay to nominate the unknown Gov. of Kansas. She wouldn't be doing anything anyway. Doesn't matter what her qualifications are because, again, any idiot can do it. It doesn't seem to be important what skills she brings to an administration. As long as she knows her "place" and  is not someone who'd out shine Sen. Obama? She is considered highly qualified. Oh and if she can bring in Ohio all the better.

(Sounds like how they used to arrange marriages for Old World kings and queens. Give me your dowry(votes) and then go back to exile in that cold castle(vp office) far, far away. You've served your function. Well unless the VP was required to birth an heir. There would be one obligatory night of sex and a beheading if you don't produce a future king. Lucky VP.)

What does this say about the VP selection process? What does that say about the Gov.? What does that say about Sen. Obama and his views on women in governent? What does that say about the future of women in general in the White House?

Doesn't do anything for either Sen.Clinton or Gov. Sebelius does it. This arguement doesn't do anything for Sen. Obama either. There is a danger of him looking petty and yes weak. Don't get me wrong folks. I'd love the idea of having more than one highly qualified woman to chose from. The more qualified women candidates the better the future for women in general. But saying that Sen. Clinton is too qualified and Gov. Sebelius doesn't have to be because the VP job is a do nothing job? To me, it looks less like picking a qualified candidate. Looks more like trying to get around picking the qualified person who is a woman to pick anyone else as long as they know "their place" and don't out shine the man.

There has to be a compelling reason to skip the highly qualified candidate other than, "Well I just don't like her." or "Well let's pick another woman, any woman, as long as she's not as strong as the guy. After all any idiot can do that job. Not a problem if she's less qualified." You can't do that in the "real world" folks. It wouldn't pass Human Resources. I believe it is considered an unfair hiring practice. As a matter of fact, it would probably trigger a lawsuit. It has in my state. In that case, it was a matter of race not gender. My understanding though is that race and gender would have been equal in status. In this case it was an issue of passing over the qualified candidate because they did or did not want to hire someone because of their race NOT their qualifications. Insert gender for race? Looks like the same arguement to me.

I'd be interested in your opinion.

For me? I'm looking at the folks who ran in the presidential primary first. These people would be the first tier candidates. They have national support and actual dollars spent in the primary to promote their name and issues. Democrats then put confidence in these people by voting for them. The governor of Kansas doesn't have these qualifications. The Senator from New York does.

Regardless of their gender.

I kind of thought that was the point of equality.

Again I'd really love to have your opinion.

Regards from an old feminist RedNeck from the Deep South,

12 dogs

Oh and there's more after the bump.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads