Thursday, December 15, 2011
Ohio's Abominal Congressional Map: Final 2011 Edition
I have written here previously about Republican attempts to gerrymander Ohio's U.S. congressional districts to the extreme. At the time, Democrats blocked the effort promising to put the map before the voters in the form of a November 2012 referendum ballot issue. Well, that effort is dead as Ohio Democrats caved to the GOP, agreeing to a map that had roughly the same ratios as the original proposed map: 12 safe GOP districts and 4 safe Dem districts.
What happened? Well, it appears that the GOP was able to buy some support by consolidating urban areas in Cincinnati, Toledo, and Columbus. That, and serious questions arose as to whether Dems would be able to collect enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot.
According to the Plain Dealer:
"The legislative deal came Wednesday as lawmakers adopted an alternative congressional map offered by Republicans last month, which replaces a map Republicans approved in September that Democrats opposed. Democrats had originally rejected the revised map when it was offered by GOP lawmakers last month because they said it did not go far enough, and they threatened to take the issue to a referendum. The new map creates what appear to be 12 solidly Republican districts and four Democratic ones....The revised congressional map incorporated some changes sought by black Democrats, drawing districts that keep urban areas in Toledo, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati together. It also squeezed U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland by adding more than 90,000 Lucas County voters into a solidly Democratic district that follows the Lake Erie shoreline from Westlake to Toledo, resulting in more-favorable turf for Toledo Rep. Marcy Kaptur. Kucinich and Kaptur have filed to run against each other in a Democratic primary because their districts were consolidated in the original map."
Regardless of what party made out with this map, it is a tragedy that in a 50-50 state like Ohio, one party will have 75% of the Congressional seats. Ohio is not alone as most state congressional districts are gerrymandered if that state has one party control. It's a system begging to be fixed.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Sherrod Brown to Speak to Akron Press Club as Josh Mandel Reneges
In 2009, the Akron Press Club invited the declared candidates for the Ohio U.S. Senate seat to be vacated in 2010 by the retiring George Voinovich to come to the Martin University Center at The University of Akron to speak. It was a joint venture with the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics and all four candidates from both sides of the aisle visited the Akron Press Club that autumn. With another U.S. Senate seat on the line in Ohio in 2012, we decided to try again and this time we added the League of Women Voters of the Akron Area as another co-sponsor. I'm pleased to announce that Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who is running for a second term, will be speaking to the group January 6.
Unfortunately, his Republican opponent, Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, will not be. Despite the fact that I have attempted to schedule Mandel for a separate appearance since May, and despite the fact that his staff indicated in September that he was willing to come in, his political director informed me last week that he is too busy.
There was a time when a candidate running for a major political office would do anything for free media--the kind generated by appearing in front of a group like the Akron Press Club, giving a speech, and opening themselves up to questions from the media and public. Those days are rapidly coming to an end as candidates prefer fund-raising events and controlled-message venues to the unpredictability of an open forum. Well, at least the sitting Senator is willing to show, speak his mind, and open himself up to questions.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Payroll Tax Politics: Playing With Political Dynamite
Politico Arena Topic: Payroll Tax a Winning Issue for Dems?
Support for extension of the payroll tax cut really isn’t a role reversal because the Obama administration has always been for middle class tax cuts which the GOP is not very interested in (I believe Paul Ryan used the term “sugar high” to describe the payroll tax cut). Republicans have begun to realize, however, that opposition to middle class tax relief heading into an election year is not only political dynamite, it is hypocritical and paints the GOP as a party only interested in helping the rich.
Permalink to Politico Arena comment
Support for extension of the payroll tax cut really isn’t a role reversal because the Obama administration has always been for middle class tax cuts which the GOP is not very interested in (I believe Paul Ryan used the term “sugar high” to describe the payroll tax cut). Republicans have begun to realize, however, that opposition to middle class tax relief heading into an election year is not only political dynamite, it is hypocritical and paints the GOP as a party only interested in helping the rich.
Once the GOP decides it cannot withstand the political backlash, the argument will shift to how to pay for the payroll tax cut extension. The Obama White House and Congressional Democrats make the case that it should be paid for by the ultra-rich—a popular method according to polls—and force Republicans to go on the record against that offset. Republicans will likely counter with offsets via entitlement reforms or other spending cuts. It is interesting though—what offsets were used to pay for the Bush tax cuts? Or how about the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq ? Or the Medicare prescription drug benefit? None. These were very expensive programs which were simply added to the national debt yet the GOP jumped at the chance if it meant their priorities would pass.
In the end, an extension of the payroll tax cut is inevitable—it is too politically damaging to the GOP brand for it not to pass. I expect Congress and the President will have something worked out by the end of the year otherwise the GOP will be handing Democrats and the Obama campaign a big fat Christmas present to campaign on.
Permalink to Politico Arena comment
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Cain Cain't
Politico Arena Topic: Cain't Gonna Happen?
I am less troubled by the accusations of a long-standing extramarital affair between two consenting adults than I am by the multiple allegations of sexual harassment. A Herman Cain nomination was already a long shot; this new allegation amplifies questions of character and will probably be the final stake in the heart of his candidacy (though this doesn't mean he'll necessarily drop out).
I am less troubled by the accusations of a long-standing extramarital affair between two consenting adults than I am by the multiple allegations of sexual harassment. A Herman Cain nomination was already a long shot; this new allegation amplifies questions of character and will probably be the final stake in the heart of his candidacy (though this doesn't mean he'll necessarily drop out).
Of course, all this overshadows the fact that Cain is not well versed on important policy matters and is completely ill-equipped to be president. Besides his 9-9-9 plan, which is nothing more than a scheme cooked up on a cocktail napkin, Cain, like Sarah Palin before him, shows little interest in or ability to grasp the important policy challenges facing the country, particularly foreign policy. These allegations in their totality will also disqualify him from consideration as a VP running-mate or for a spot in a future GOP president's cabinet.
Permalink to Politico Arena comment
Thursday, November 17, 2011
President Obama and Lazy Americans: There is No There There
Politico Arena Topic: Will Obama's 'lazy' comments haunt him?
Well, the comments would be devastating if at all true; however, they were completely taken out of context. Even the Politico article splices up the President’s actual comments. Here is what he said verbatim in response to a question about impediments to investment in the United States:
“I think it’s important to remember that the United States is still the largest recipient of foreign investment in the world. And there are a lot of things that make foreign investors see the U.S. as a great opportunity: our stability, our openness, our innovative free market culture. But we’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We've kind of taken for granted—well, people will want to come here, and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America. And so one of things that my administration has done is set up something called SelectUSA that organizes all the Government agencies to work with State and local governments where they're seeking assistance from us, to go out there and make it easier for foreign investors to build a plant in the United States and put outstanding U.S. workers back to work in the United States of America. And we think that we can do much better than we're doing right now. Because of our federalist system, sometimes a foreign investor comes in and they've got to navigate not only Federal rules, but they've also got to navigate State and local governments that may have their own sets of interests. Being able to create if not a one-stop shop, then at least no more than a couple of stops for people to be able to come into the United States and make investments, that's something that we want to encourage.”
So, there is no there, there. He’s not calling America or Americans lazy. He is not questioning the character of the American people. He is calling out the American government for not being proactive enough in attracting foreign investment and explaining that the rules and regulations of the American federalist system sometimes create disincentives for foreign business and industry to set up shop in the U.S. Of course the opposition party will try to distort his words for political gain. That’s just part of the game. But an honest reading of his remarks reveals there is absolutely no controversy except in the minds of the consultants and presidential wannabes of the GOP.
Permalink to Politico Arena comment
Well, the comments would be devastating if at all true; however, they were completely taken out of context. Even the Politico article splices up the President’s actual comments. Here is what he said verbatim in response to a question about impediments to investment in the United States:
“I think it’s important to remember that the United States is still the largest recipient of foreign investment in the world. And there are a lot of things that make foreign investors see the U.S. as a great opportunity: our stability, our openness, our innovative free market culture. But we’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We've kind of taken for granted—well, people will want to come here, and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America. And so one of things that my administration has done is set up something called SelectUSA that organizes all the Government agencies to work with State and local governments where they're seeking assistance from us, to go out there and make it easier for foreign investors to build a plant in the United States and put outstanding U.S. workers back to work in the United States of America. And we think that we can do much better than we're doing right now. Because of our federalist system, sometimes a foreign investor comes in and they've got to navigate not only Federal rules, but they've also got to navigate State and local governments that may have their own sets of interests. Being able to create if not a one-stop shop, then at least no more than a couple of stops for people to be able to come into the United States and make investments, that's something that we want to encourage.”
So, there is no there, there. He’s not calling America or Americans lazy. He is not questioning the character of the American people. He is calling out the American government for not being proactive enough in attracting foreign investment and explaining that the rules and regulations of the American federalist system sometimes create disincentives for foreign business and industry to set up shop in the U.S. Of course the opposition party will try to distort his words for political gain. That’s just part of the game. But an honest reading of his remarks reveals there is absolutely no controversy except in the minds of the consultants and presidential wannabes of the GOP.
Permalink to Politico Arena comment
Friday, October 28, 2011
Skipping a Presidential Rite of Passage
Politico Arena Topic: Perry's Debate Skipping a Bad Move?
Dictionary.com defines “coward” as “a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.” These are not exactly the qualities one looks for in a president and Rick Perry’s opponents will label him a coward should he skip future GOP primary debates. And with good reason. Debates matter. They are an important showcase for a candidate’s intellect (or lack thereof), their knowledge of important policy issues, their ability to think under pressure, and their temperament. Few people, if pressed to answer honestly, look forward to debating on a large public stage. The pressure is immense and the stakes couldn’t be higher—one flub can sink a campaign. But it is a rite of passage every presidential candidate must go through.
As someone who has spent the last several election cycles organizing debates for statewide office and Congress, I can attest first hand that campaigns and candidates frequently refuse to debate, or at least are very, very reluctant. This was especially a problem in the 2010 election cycle when internal polling showed that many of these candidates had large leads and were coasting to reelection. But the key is that the candidates knew they were ahead in the polls and did not need to debate to win. Rick Perry does not enjoy that luxury. Though expected to be the frontrunner if he got into the race, Perry is anything but and his lackluster debate performance has been one of the reasons for this. However, skipping debates is not the answer to Perry turning around his campaign—improving his performance in the debates and demonstrating to America and the punditocracy that he has the qualities we look for in a president. Just having “governor” on your resume is not proof that you are qualified (just ask Sarah Palin)—you have to earn the public’s and media’s respect and trust that you could handle the job. Cutting and running from the debate stage simply destroys that credibility.
Permalink to Politico Arena comment
Dictionary.com defines “coward” as “a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.” These are not exactly the qualities one looks for in a president and Rick Perry’s opponents will label him a coward should he skip future GOP primary debates. And with good reason. Debates matter. They are an important showcase for a candidate’s intellect (or lack thereof), their knowledge of important policy issues, their ability to think under pressure, and their temperament. Few people, if pressed to answer honestly, look forward to debating on a large public stage. The pressure is immense and the stakes couldn’t be higher—one flub can sink a campaign. But it is a rite of passage every presidential candidate must go through.
As someone who has spent the last several election cycles organizing debates for statewide office and Congress, I can attest first hand that campaigns and candidates frequently refuse to debate, or at least are very, very reluctant. This was especially a problem in the 2010 election cycle when internal polling showed that many of these candidates had large leads and were coasting to reelection. But the key is that the candidates knew they were ahead in the polls and did not need to debate to win. Rick Perry does not enjoy that luxury. Though expected to be the frontrunner if he got into the race, Perry is anything but and his lackluster debate performance has been one of the reasons for this. However, skipping debates is not the answer to Perry turning around his campaign—improving his performance in the debates and demonstrating to America and the punditocracy that he has the qualities we look for in a president. Just having “governor” on your resume is not proof that you are qualified (just ask Sarah Palin)—you have to earn the public’s and media’s respect and trust that you could handle the job. Cutting and running from the debate stage simply destroys that credibility.
Permalink to Politico Arena comment
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Marco Rubio and the Klieg Lights
Politico Arena Topic: Is Marco Rubio Still VP Material?
Sen. Marco Rubio will be a top contender for a VP slot. He is a Republican young gun who is a darling of the tea party. He is a first-generation American whose parents came from Cuba and Republicans are desperate to make inroads in the Hispanic community - the second largest and fastest growing ethnic group in the United States. Florida is a must-win battleground state and Rubio would give the GOP ticket an edge there. And if Mitt Romney is the nominee, Rubio would add some conservative credibility that Romney lacks.
The big question is: would this freshman senator be ready for the bright lights and hyper-scrutiny of a presidential campaign? After all, he is only 40 and hasn’t spent even a year in the U.S. Senate. The last time a presidential nominee picked a young, inexperienced, firebrand for the number two slot (Palin), it didn’t go so well as a candidate’s shortcomings are quickly exposed during the harsh glare of the klieg lights of the national stage. Rubio’s embellishment of the story of his parents journey from Cuba indicate that he may not be ready for prime time. Thus, the selection of Rubio as a running mate could be stroke of genius or utter disaster.
Permalink to Politico Arena comment
Sen. Marco Rubio will be a top contender for a VP slot. He is a Republican young gun who is a darling of the tea party. He is a first-generation American whose parents came from Cuba and Republicans are desperate to make inroads in the Hispanic community - the second largest and fastest growing ethnic group in the United States. Florida is a must-win battleground state and Rubio would give the GOP ticket an edge there. And if Mitt Romney is the nominee, Rubio would add some conservative credibility that Romney lacks.
The big question is: would this freshman senator be ready for the bright lights and hyper-scrutiny of a presidential campaign? After all, he is only 40 and hasn’t spent even a year in the U.S. Senate. The last time a presidential nominee picked a young, inexperienced, firebrand for the number two slot (Palin), it didn’t go so well as a candidate’s shortcomings are quickly exposed during the harsh glare of the klieg lights of the national stage. Rubio’s embellishment of the story of his parents journey from Cuba indicate that he may not be ready for prime time. Thus, the selection of Rubio as a running mate could be stroke of genius or utter disaster.
Permalink to Politico Arena comment
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Building a Sleazier Ohio
What the "Building a Better Ohio" group did to Ohio great-grandmother Marlene Quinn is one of the most blatant, under-handed, dirty tricks I have witnessed in recent politics.
From Cincinnati.com: "[Marlene Quinn's] appearance in a television ad suggesting she supports a cause she doesn't continued to swirl in the hard-fought campaign over Senate Bill 5. Meanwhile, more than two dozen television stations serving the Ohio market, including two in Cincinnati, pulled the controversial ad produced for Building A Better Ohio, the Republican- and business-dominated group that supports SB 5. Quinn opposes SB 5 and agreed to be part of an ad produced by We Are Ohio, a Democratic- and union-dominated group fighting enforcement of the legislation. In it, she thanks Cincinnati firefighters for saving the lives of her great-granddaughter, Zoey, and son, Jan, in a November fire. Building A Better Ohio took sections of Quinn's audio and video from the We Are Ohio ad and used them in their own, leaving the impression that Quinn supports SB 5."
View both ads below:
I am no legal expert but it seems to me that legal action could and should be taken in this case. It is politics at its worst. It does beg the question: are the arguments in favor of SB5 that tenuous that forces supporting the law can only resort to this type of underhanded tactic? My hope is that the controversy goes viral and this type of sleazy tactic backfires.
Disclaimer: I am a union member of AAUP. Regardless, had We Are Ohio used this type of tactic I would have decried it as well.
From Cincinnati.com: "[Marlene Quinn's] appearance in a television ad suggesting she supports a cause she doesn't continued to swirl in the hard-fought campaign over Senate Bill 5. Meanwhile, more than two dozen television stations serving the Ohio market, including two in Cincinnati, pulled the controversial ad produced for Building A Better Ohio, the Republican- and business-dominated group that supports SB 5. Quinn opposes SB 5 and agreed to be part of an ad produced by We Are Ohio, a Democratic- and union-dominated group fighting enforcement of the legislation. In it, she thanks Cincinnati firefighters for saving the lives of her great-granddaughter, Zoey, and son, Jan, in a November fire. Building A Better Ohio took sections of Quinn's audio and video from the We Are Ohio ad and used them in their own, leaving the impression that Quinn supports SB 5."
View both ads below:
I am no legal expert but it seems to me that legal action could and should be taken in this case. It is politics at its worst. It does beg the question: are the arguments in favor of SB5 that tenuous that forces supporting the law can only resort to this type of underhanded tactic? My hope is that the controversy goes viral and this type of sleazy tactic backfires.
Disclaimer: I am a union member of AAUP. Regardless, had We Are Ohio used this type of tactic I would have decried it as well.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Taxation, the Ultrarich, and Shared Sacrifice
Politico Arena Topic: Is the Surtax Suicide for Dems?
Taxing the rich is anything but a suicidal proposition. Polls are consistent in showing that Americans want shared sacrifice. One need only look at the compensation packages of America’s Fortune 500 CEOs (you know - the job creators that aren’t creating jobs) during this time of economic hardship and high unemployment to see that something is out of whack. As the gap between rich and poor widens and as the middle class struggles to stay middle class, moves to increase taxes on the very wealthy in this country is smart politics.
Taxing the rich is anything but a suicidal proposition. Polls are consistent in showing that Americans want shared sacrifice. One need only look at the compensation packages of America’s Fortune 500 CEOs (you know - the job creators that aren’t creating jobs) during this time of economic hardship and high unemployment to see that something is out of whack. As the gap between rich and poor widens and as the middle class struggles to stay middle class, moves to increase taxes on the very wealthy in this country is smart politics.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Playing the Mormon Card
Politico Arena Topic: Will Mormon Attacks Help Mitt?
Mitt Romney’s Mormon religion shouldn’t be an issue but it is and will continue to be. Many religious conservatives do view Mormonism as less than a religion and will never accept Romney as their party’s nominee. Romney will be challenged especially in any number of Southern primaries.
For the Religious Right, it’s not an issue he can overcome simply with a speech. Absent a full-scale conversion, Romney will be forced to write off many of these voters and hope he can dominate in primary states where religion is a less important variable.
Permalink to Politico Arena comment
Mitt Romney’s Mormon religion shouldn’t be an issue but it is and will continue to be. Many religious conservatives do view Mormonism as less than a religion and will never accept Romney as their party’s nominee. Romney will be challenged especially in any number of Southern primaries.
For the Religious Right, it’s not an issue he can overcome simply with a speech. Absent a full-scale conversion, Romney will be forced to write off many of these voters and hope he can dominate in primary states where religion is a less important variable.
Permalink to Politico Arena comment
Friday, September 23, 2011
Ohio's Abominable New Congressional Map
Republicans did not invent gerrymandering and Democrats certainly engage in it as well (see Illinois 2011); however, Ohio's new congressional map is an abomination. For a state that is roughly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats and which went to Obama in the 2008 presidential election, the overly gerrymandered districts are an embarrassment. Because Ohio has not grown as quickly as other states, Republican lawmakers who control the Ohio Statehouse did face the difficult task of eliminating two U.S. congressional districts. But not one of the 16 redrawn districts could be called a true toss-up, swing district; they all lean--and most lean hard--toward the GOP. 12 of the 16 districts are red Republican districts leaving only 4 as blue Democratic districts (see comparison of the current and future maps below).
Apportionment and redistricting are processes which occur every 10 years and essentially determine party fortunes for that decade before an election ever takes place. The result is a Congress packed with ideologues more worried about a future primary challenge than attempting to bargain and compromise in the middle for the good of the country. Gerrymandering is one of the primary reasons the American political system suffers from excessive gridlock and a poisonous political environment. It is time for Ohio and all states to move away from party-driven redistricting and embrace independent electoral commissions to draw the lines.
Ohio's new map sailed through the Ohio legislature and is awaiting Governor Kasich's signature. Because an appropriation's measure was attached to the legislation, the map is not subject to a potential statewide referendum. Expect the Ohio Democratic Party to challenge it in the courts, though overturning it is a long shot.

CURRENT MAP ABOVE, NEW MAP BELOW
Apportionment and redistricting are processes which occur every 10 years and essentially determine party fortunes for that decade before an election ever takes place. The result is a Congress packed with ideologues more worried about a future primary challenge than attempting to bargain and compromise in the middle for the good of the country. Gerrymandering is one of the primary reasons the American political system suffers from excessive gridlock and a poisonous political environment. It is time for Ohio and all states to move away from party-driven redistricting and embrace independent electoral commissions to draw the lines.
Ohio's new map sailed through the Ohio legislature and is awaiting Governor Kasich's signature. Because an appropriation's measure was attached to the legislation, the map is not subject to a potential statewide referendum. Expect the Ohio Democratic Party to challenge it in the courts, though overturning it is a long shot.
CURRENT MAP ABOVE, NEW MAP BELOW
Monday, September 19, 2011
Obama's Smart Buffett Move
Politico Arena Topic: Will Obama's "Buffett Tax" Fly with Voters?
The deficit plan is a smart move politically, especially heading into a general election year. President Obama needs to shore up a base that has been eroding since the midterm elections and that is still reeling from the GOP-favoring debt ceiling deal agreed to last month. The plan forces Republicans into a box of either supporting deficit reduction with shared sacrifice or siding with the very wealthiest interests in the country.
Raising taxes on the wealthy—especially millionaires—is popular among a significant majority of Americans and most citizens would embrace the Buffett rule. It has little chance of getting through the Congress but the plan is more of a campaign document anyway.
Permalink to Politico Arena comment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)