The cost is not in the message development, it is in the message delivery. If you could develop a system of using volunteers to deliver progressive newspapers, it would not take that much money or time to develop and publish such newspapers. It is the delivery that drives you nuts.
There will be a primary in May in Ohio. Sherrod Brown or Paul Hackett will win that primary. Then there will be a second election in November against DeWine. The only thing that counts in this game is getting the votes. If Hackett can't get the votes, then he doesn't deserve to win the nomination. To quote former Democratic Governor of Ohio Richard Celeste: "There are no turns in politics."
It is that there is no effective way for a public figure to sue for defamation. What should probably happen is that when a liberal politician is smeared, he/she should sue the person who did the smearing alleging that there was a reckless disregard for the truth. A few lawsuits here and there might have a very salutary effect.
The frame here has got to be that Jean Schmidt is a person who doesn't like veterans unless they are Republicans. Her campaign attacked Hackett and now she attacks Murtha. She doesn't really value veterans' service to our country, she only wants to use them as political props.
A lot of people who post comments on this blog act like political change is easy work. That all they have to do is rant and rave about some topic and change will happen. That, of course, is absolute bullshit.
Political change is hard work. It takes time. It takes commmitment. It takes reaching out to people who may not agree with you on everything and finding common ground.
Political change does not come from the political masturbation that often takes place on blogs. The reason why I use that term is that like masturbation ranting and raving on the blogs feels good, but like masturbation, it creates nothing.
ever ran a campaign or been an candidate? I am not saying that such experience is necessary to write either a comment to a diary or a dairy itself, but such experience would be enlightening.
There is no right to a nomination either for Mr. Hackett, Mr. Brown, or any other candidate. If they can win the primary, they deserve the nomination and if they can't, then they don't. All the postings of this site isn't going to change the fact that Ohio's Dem voters will decide these questions next May.
Like the writer of this posting, I was also struck by how southern states aren't in the list of states where Bush's approval is over 50%. After I thought about it, though, I wondered if it is because mountain and "farm belt" states don't have a lot of black or hispanic residents.
Also southern states may be suffering more from the Iraq war in the sense that they may be losing a bigger percentage of troops in Iraq.
What we need is a Democratic narrative that ties it together. We need to tell a story.
Here is my reasong: in the committee hearings the Dems won't go after her as hard as the conservative Repugs, which will lead moderate GOPers, like Chaffee and Specter himself, to back her in an up or down vote on the Senate floor. I think she will clear the Committee, and then prevail in the Senate by a relatively safe majority, PROVIDED that Bush doesn't ask her to withdraw.
The question becomes: does Bush have the guts for this fight, which ironically may be the only fight I have wanted him to wage since I fear that her replacement will be so much worse.
Having said that, I must admit that I did not think of your analysis on how Bush would react if he had to withdraw her name. Your analysis is quite thought-provoking. Thank you for posting it.
The reason why the budget was balanced in the late 1990s was that you had a Dem president who made sure that tax cuts were done intelligently and a GOP congress who didn't want him to spend a lot of money and build up support.
No, what I am saying is that you and I have a much different view of what is going to happen in 2006. I believe that Brown can raise more money, has a better organization, and would more likely make a better candidate. I think your analysis of Ohio is more defeatist than reality dictates.
No, I don't hold Brown accountable for the problem with the Democratic Party in Ohio. If blame has to be assigned, I would lay it at the feet of the party structure. I think that too many people involved in Ohio Democratic Party politics concern themselves with their positions in the party and do not concern themselves with winning. That is, there is no accountability for losing. It is not the role of elected officials to build up the party structure/organization, that is the role of party officials.
The problem goes beyond funding, it goes into having people on the ground who will do the grunt work of delivering literature, calling voters for GOTV, putting up yard signs, and manning headquarters. Funding is important, but it is not all of it.
One thing that I agree with you on is that organized labor's problems have contributed to the Democratic party's problems in Ohio. The ODP got into the habit of depending on labor to provide the ground troops and didn't develop their own volunteer force.
You and I can argue electroncially all we want, but in the final analysis the voters in Ohio next May and then in November will decide who wins and who loses. Neither Brown or Hackett, both of whom would make fine candidates, are going to make their decisions on what is written on the blogs. They are going to make it based on their own calculations. The question for us, that is those who post here, is what are we going to do? Are we going to do what we can or just post comments on these blogs and stop at that?
I just don't think that Ohio is as conservative as you seem to think that it is. Now that is not to say that I think that it is a liberal state because it is not. Ohio, unless givern a reason, defaults to the GOP. That is, all things being equal, Republicans will win. Dems have to run better races and have better candidates to win, but, next year is shaping up as a real big problem for Ohio Republicans.
In Ohio there are only two state-wide races that matter: Governor and Senator. Every other elected state-wide office is just the undercard. Losing the Governor's office in 1990 was a very big blow. So yes while Brown was part of the government then, I don't think you can say he contributed to the meltdown in 1990. I lay the blame right at the feet of the Celebrezze campaign. He never flips on abortion, stays pro-life, and he would have won.
I disagree about Celeste. Given the fact that he inherited a really miserable situation with the Homestate Savings and Loan situation, he was pretty effective. His ethical problems were greatly overblown by a vindictive Plain Dealer, led by MaryAnn Sharkey, who seemed to have a personal hatred for Celeste.
But the one problem is that the statewide Democratic organization is in a shambles. That is going to be a problem for any Dem running for state-wide office.
I am not too worried about polls right now since the three GOP candidates have been on the ballot in the nineties and in 2002. Right now polls are mostly about name recognition.
The theme against the GOP trio is very simple: Do you want to elect Taft's Secretary of State/Attorney General/Auditor Governor? They also need a plan to revitalize Ohio's economy.
Moderate Dems like Fisher and Hyatt don't win in Ohio. They don't excite the base and they don't get votes from moderates because no one knows where they stand. Since 1970 we elected two governors, Gilligan and Celeste, both liberals, and we elected two senators, Glenn and Metzenbaum. While Glenn was a moderate to liberal Dem, Metzenbaum was a very liberal Dem who was beating Voinovich in 1988 while Bush was carrying Ohio.
You need a liberal Dem who is articulate and can speak to motivate the base and get people to work for him/her. Wait a minute? Doesn't that sound like Sherrod Brown?
for a lot of reasons, but one big reason is that he overlooks the total meltdown of the Democratic party from 1990 to the present. If you want to blame anyone for the take over of Ohio by Republicans, you can start with Tony Celebrezze, Jerry Austin, and Joel Hyatt. Here's why I say that:
In 1990 the Democrats had every state-wide office and both Senators, but Richard Celeste couldn't run for re-election. Tony Celebrezze, the Ohio AG, was set to run for Governor. He was pressured from the left, by Hyatt, to change his position on abortion. Hyatt was threatening to run against him in the primary if he didn't swith from pro-life to pro-choice. Supposedly Austin talked Celebrezze into making the switch. The result? Celebrezze went from 8% point up to about 11% down against Voinovich. With Voinovich at the top of the ticket, the GOP took every office but one in 1990, and then took that state-wide office, AG, in 1994 when they defeated Lee Fisher.
We also lost our two senators, Glenn and Metzenbaum, who got old and retired. We didn't have good candidates ready to replace them. We lost control of the redistricting in 1990 by losing Governor, Secretary of State, and Auditor, which led to losing the General Assembly and that led to not being able to develop good candidates for state offices out of the General Assembly.
Solution to all this: develop a more effective state-wide organization and take some state-wide races. To do that we need to stop worrying about liberal social issues and start concentrating on economic issues such as decent jobs at decent wages.