It looks like US Senate Candidate Rob Portman will be forced to waste money fighting an ad war with primary opponent Tom Ganley.  The Cleveland car dealer seems intent on spending millions of his own money despite little likelihood of winning.  He has made his first ad buy as part of that strategy:

Republican Senate candidate Tom Ganley, the car dealer from Cleveland who has said he will put up millions of dollars in his own money on the race, is on the air statewide with an ad that aims to highlight his ability to create jobs, according to his campaign.

Ganley is trying to buy his way into a competitive primary.  Unlike Portman who is well on his way to visiting all 88 counties in Ohio, and has been tirelessly campaigning, Ganley is simply vowing to spend millions on advertising.  The only winners in this battle are going to be TV stations and ad consultants.

Ganley has a mistaken view of the recent race in NY-23 and is going to waste a lot of time, effort and money as a result. For why, see below.

Read More →

I have been known to get into a few friendly arguments about the best political strategy for advancing conservatism.  Heck, I have even been called a squish since I don’t believe you ever win by losing elections.  I have long believed in a pragmatic approach to elections that often involves supporting moderates; center-right beats left has always been my motto.

The difficulty comes in accessing who is electable and what the risks are in losing.  And this is quite often where the heated debates come into play.  When it comes to the election in NY-23, however, I am happy to say this is not really a tough choice.

As evidence today, I offer quotes from two of my favorite writers; but writers with, I would argue, very different styles and perspectives.

First, Jonah Goldberg:

William F. Buckley’s policy was always that he was for the most conservative candidate electable. This has always struck me as the most pithy and most sensible statement on these kinds of questions. Protest votes on ideal candidates are ultimately ill-advised and self-indulgent. Though it can be hard to accept the truth of it (take it from a Andre Marrou in ‘92 man). I agree entirely that the GOP needs more moderates. It needs more everybody. But in NY 23, Hoffman can win. That means he’s not a protest vote, he’s a vote for the most conservative candidate electable.

Vote for Doug Hoffman.

Next, Richard Brookhiser:

The contest in NY 23 is what the New York Conservative party was made for. The state’s cross-endorsement policy means that the Conservatives (and its left-of-center mirror images) generally function as pressure groups, supporting major party candidates they like or undermining those they don’t. But sometimes the major party picks a candidate so egregious that the minor party must and can go all out. So it was with James Buckley vs. Charles Goodell in 1970, and with Al D’Amato vs. Jacob Javits in 1980 (early Conservative support helped D’Amato win the GOP primary, leaving Javits to run only on the Liberal line). So it is in NY 23 now.

Vote for Doug Hoffman.

These two writers, and bestselling authors, echo my own thoughts.  There are situations where challenging the party or blanket attacks on “the establishment” may be counter productive or unwise.  And there are often cases where it is difficult to see clearly what is the best blend of principal and pragmatism.

But this is not one of those cases.  I will be rooting for Hoffman.  And if you live in the district and can vote for him, I urge you to do so.  If you have the ability to help out the campaign, I encourage you to do so.

I have long argued that conservatives need to be strategic in their thinking when it comes to elections. While I will fully admit that balancing “the most electable” with “the most conservative” is rarely easy it is still a critical decision to make. “Throw all the bums out” is not a wise strategy for regaining the majority or implementing conservative policy.

This has recently been driven home to me as various groups, personalities, and candidates seek to use the Tea Parties, and other populist sentiments, to push their own agenda; an agenda that I think hurts both the GOP and efforts at conservative governance.

One example in particular stands out: Bay Buchanan, Tom Ganley and the attacks on Rob Portman. Portman and Ganley are competing for the Republican nomination for the Ohio US Senate seat open with the retirement of George Voinovich.

Portman is a former Congressman, US Trade Representative, and OMB Director. Ganley is highly successful auto dealer in the Cleveland area. To put it bluntly, the only reason Ganley is a part of this equation is the assertion, or threat depending on your perspective, that he is willing to spend $7 million dollars; most of it his own money.

Now there are problems with this scenario (more on that below), but recently Bay Buchanan has entered the fray in an attempt to make this an ideological battle. We would do well to ignore her advice and be suspicious about her motives.

Rather long rant argument follows below.

Read More →

I know what you are thinking.  Of course Obama’s speech didn’t convince those right-wing crazy’s who disrupt townhalls and yell things during presidential speeches; they’re close-minded yahoos.

But it seems the president’s strident insistence that action be taken has failed to convince the very people he needs to win over: Blue Dogs or Democrats in districts worried about getting re-elected.

John Boccieri, for example:

U.S. Rep. John Boccieri, D-Alliance, praised President Barack Obama’s speech on health care Wednesday night, calling him “clearly a good communicator,” but saying, “I don’t believe the president has shifted any of my opinions.”

“I still have concerns about some of the ideas that’ll be on the table. Concerns about how this will affect some of the small businesses in my district,” he said. “The question is will the House create a bill that looks like what the president said tonight.”

Boccieri said he has not yet decided if he would support the establishment of a public option, or a government-run health insurer to compete with private health insurance companies.

Wait.  So everyone who is holding up instant sweeping health care “reform” isn’t a deceptive, paid lackey of the powerful insurance lobby?  You mean people might have real concerns about the impact on small businesses and the economy?  You mean people aren’t just playing politics while people suffer?

Hmm, maybe the president should have acknowledged that in his rhetoric and demeanor last night instead of acting as if only selfish partisan interests are preventing his plan from being passed.

Read More →

You don’t have to be an economist to understand the economic situation.  Unemployment has hit double digits in many states and is growing (in Ohio: 340,000 jobs lost since Ted Strickland and Lee Fisher took office) and everyone is paying the price.    The stimulus has accomplished nothing (Again, in Ohio, in the neighborhood of 100,000 jobs lost since its passage) and yet the Democrats in Congress are intent on making a bad situation worse by passing legislation that would cripple American businesses and devastate families.

The focus lately has been on health care, and for good reason, but energy is an issue that should not be lost in the debate about the economy.  Because Cap and Trade (H.R. 2454, the Waxman- Markey bill) is a dagger aimed at the heart of our economy.

More below.

Read More →

I didn’t see it but apparently a YouTube video on “Why We Need Government-Run Universal Socialized Health Insurance” was all the rage last week.  As is so typical of these arguments it was full of non sequiturs and strawmen.  There are far too many to be able to debunk them all (one that is not discussed it the difference between health insurance and health care), but Lee Doren took a crack at it in this video response.  Worth watching and passing on to your friends who think they are so clever by making these type of arguments.

Cross posted from:

The Dispatch offers this short report on Mary Jo Kilroy’s health care tele-townhall:

U.S. Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy last night insisted that congressional Democrats are not considering “socialized medicine’” in their efforts to approve a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health-care system.

In a town-hall meeting she conducted last night by telephone, Kilroy said any reform of the health system will result in private insurance companies still covering two-thirds of Americans. “We want to be sure at the end of the day we will be lowering the costs of health care,” she said. “Nothing to be afraid of there.”

But Kilroy, D-Columbus, asserted that any reform plan should include a federal insurance program that would compete with private insurers, saying that “a public option in competition with private insurance can reduce costs for all of us.”

“If you have insurance right now, you shouldn’t worry about a public option,” she said.

If you believe that then I have some ocean front property in Kilroy’s district I would like to sell you.

First of all, no matter how much they squawk, the Democrats do want to socialize health care. On a basic level they want to use government to spread the costs over a larger group to save money (at least in theory).  The healthy and wealthy pay more so the sick and poor pay less (or nothing).  This could be good or bad (most everyone is in favor of a basic safety net) depending on the scope and the mechanism (I prefer direct payments for those at the very bottom and a larger role for private charity but that is another post).  The problem comes when socialize means more than helping the less fortunate and means a takeover of a huge chunk of the economy.  But regardless the left should quite pretending they don’t want to socialize the process.

And more specifically, government mandates on who is covered and how combined with a dominant government option leads inexorably to a socialized system (which was the point from the start).

Read More →

Zach Space talks a good game.  He knows how to say what he thinks voters want to hear.  The problem is that his votes don’t line up and his rhetoric is slippery.

A perfect example is health care reform legislation.  Here is Space on why he supports the Democrat proposals:

And the Ohio Democrat now supports the health care reform bill passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. But he said he could change his mind if key components fought for by him and fellow “blue dog” Democrats - fiscally-conservative members of the party - are later stripped from the legislation.

There are multiple bills in Congress pertaining to health care, and these will ultimately be combined into one measure for members to decide, he noted. Among the ideas being discussed is the creation of a government-run public insurance plan that would compete with private insurers.

“There are some that want socialized medicine,” he said. “I’m not one of them. That’s a mistake. Then there are some who want us to do nothing.

“This public plan is not socialized medicine. It is an attempt to keep insurance companies honest and to provide honest competition,” he said.

This is a giant bait and switch on multiple levels. First, the idea that Republicans - “some people” - want to do nothing is a red herring.  There are all sorts of GOP proposals to make health care and health insurance better.

But this is the typically deceptive language Democrats use.  We want to help while the GOP wants to do nothing (It is also the mindset that doing something - no matter how damaging - is always better than doing nothing).

It also appears to be moderate by pretending the choice is between direct socialized medicine (Canada, etc.) and doing nothing when it is a choice about which direction to go: more government control and involvement or a consumer/patient driven system.

Read More →

Democrats and their lefty blog supporters have been trying to pin whatever negative association they can find on Rob Portman.  The primary one being that he worked for George W. Bush (in one giggle inducing stunt they called him the “architect” of the Bush economy which was news to Portman and Bush I am sure).

They must be getting tired of that particular tune because now they are branching out in ever greater desperation [$ sub req].  They are now combing through the cases of the law firm Squire Sanders, & Dempsey and associating anything that might be seen as negative with Portman.

The firm is involved in a trade dispute?  Blame Portman.  Connected with the government bailout? Blame Portman.

Now this is pretty much deceptive campaign tactics 101.  Anyone familiar with the workings of a large law firm knows that mere employment does not mean approval of every case handled or client represented.

Read More →

Update: Added YouTube instead.

Funny and frightening Hannity clip about how President Obama plans to cut a tiny sliver of government spending. Bonus John Kasich appearance. I think the quip about the government some people want to run health care just discovered paper has two sides should make you laugh and then cry.

This afternoon I took a trip to downtown Circleville, Ohio to catch a stop on Rob Portman’s just launched RV Tour.  Rob spoke to grassroots leaders from the area and stressed the importance of this race; and Ohio in general in 2010.

He stressed how important it was to avoid giving President Obama and Democrats in Congress another rubber stamp for their liberal agenda.  He noted that on a host of issues (health care, energy, taxes, the deficit, etc.) the Democrats are pushing liberal policies out of line with the common sense conservatism and values of Ohio.

He noted that the stimulus was rushed through and yet is having little to no positive impact on Ohio despite the Democrats grandiose promises.  He noted that on issues like Cap and Trade and Health Care the Democrat proposals are simply going to raise taxes and kill job growth in Ohio.

I was lucky enough to have a chance to talk with Rob briefly on the RV.  In the video clip below he stressed these same issues and highlighted why this race is so important.

Read More →

If like me when you think PETA you think of a organization that has a seemingly worthwhile cause, the ethical treatment of animals, but whose tactics are so extreme that they actually harm that cause.  You think over-the-top or short sighted.  But you probably don’t think of them as money grubbing extortionists who also happen to fail at the most basic level.

Well, sadly, you should.

It seems that what PETA does best is not help animals but shakedown companies for money by attacking their competitors while at the same time failing to save animals from being put down.

Details below.

Read More →

When the media uses the word “trounces” in the headline in reference to your fundraising lead over your opponents that is a good thing:

Republican Rob Portman raised $1.7 million for his U.S. Senate campaign during the second quarter of 2009 — more money than both his Democratic rivals combined.

“I’m very pleased with it,” Portman said at Washington, D.C. press conference. “We had a great response from all corners of the state.”

Portman, a former Cincinnati-area congressman who held two Cabinet posts under President George W. Bush, ended the quarter with $4.3 million in the bank. About $1.4 million of that was left over from the war chest he accumulated in the House of Representatives. He’s raised $3.4 million during the election cycle.

Ohio Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, one of two Democrats seeking the Senate seat to be vacated by George Voinovich’s retirement, raised more than $900,000 in the quarter, bringing his fund-raising total to $1.9 million. Fisher has about $1.48 million left in the bank.

His competition in the Democratic primary, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, raised $228,000 in the second quarter, slightly more than the first quarter total of $207,000.

So Portman raised more money this quarter than Fisher has on hand and more money that Fisher and Brunner (whose money woes are continuing) combined.  Ouch!

Read More →

Awesome video illustration on the federal budget deficit and the shrieks about Bush and the shrugs over Obama. Who says math can’t be fun?

*cross posted @

Has anyone combined righteous indignation and humiliation -and a fat dollop of hypocrisy - quite like Ohio Governor Ted Strickland?  You be the judge:

(via Athens Runaway)

When I am in need of some comic relief I often head over to the left side of the Ohio blogosphere to see what the liberals are up to.  What I am finding these days is that the denial is thick on the ground.  As polls tumble, editorial boards across the state pummel the governor, and as the national media mocks him the lefty blogs angrily attack the all powerful Ohio Senate led by Bill Harris.

And they are not going to just sit around and take it either.  No, they are taking up arms against their oppressor!  Well, they have launched a Twitter campaign anyway …

But what I find interesting is their sudden loss of confidence in the process of democracy; in the will of the people.  Convinced that the GOP led Senate is - gasp! - playing politics with the budget what do they suggest?  Why getting rid of the Senate of course (and moves are apparently afoot as we speak) .

When Senate President Bill Harris introduced a proposal to break the budget impasse that matched the strong public opinion on the matter they accused him of “hiding behind a poll.”

I find all of this comical.  So it is leadership for Governor Strickland to go back on his word, and against the clear opinions of the voters, but it is political cowardice for Senator Harris to offer a solution that keeps his word and is favored by voters by an overwhelming margin? Ah, lefty logic.

Here is a tip for liberal Democrats.  If you want to change the Senate try running some decent candidates and stop choosing far left grandstanding talk first think second types as minority leaders.

Here is another tip.  Voters are never going to blame Bill Harris for the budget problems; most probably don’t even know who he is.  Nope, they are going to blame the man at the top.  That is how it works - ask Bob Taft - so I would start figuring out a way for Ted Strickland to salvage some dignity and political capital instead of posting on unicameral legislatures and tweeting Kevin DeWine.

Why am I taking the time to show an attack ad by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee?  Because I think it is far from damaging and I think it highlights a number of things.

First of all, the Ds must be worried about Portman because why else would they offer an attack ad this early? They know Portman is raising serious money and that his numbers are improving.  So why not take swipe at him and try and slow his momentum.

Second, how lame is this ad? Put aside the debate about trade - and the claim that Portman sent jobs overseas - are they actually accusing Portman of increasing the debt?!?  Do we have a chart?  Chart after the fold:

Read More →

Ohio Right to Life released a new poll which they describe as the Ohio Cultural Index.  The index’s significant findings include:

• 72% of Ohioans’ surveyed strongly believe in God;
• 60% oppose abortion;
• 54% believe abortion has a negative effect on women who have them;
• 70% oppose use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion;
• 45% believe entertainment today negatively impacts families;
• 51% believe government policies are harming traditional family values;
• 54% believe schools undermine values taught at home; and
• 54% believe families do a worse job of developing character than a generation ago.

Some pretty interesting results:

The score indicates Ohioans are generally center-right in their social outlook, and hold an overall positive view of the state’s culture. However, on seven of the 10 questions, Ohioans have a more negative than positive perception. “Ohioans’ belief in God, their belief that tax dollars should not be used to pay for abortions, and their belief that abortions have a negative effect on the women who have them pushed the index above the ‘break-even’ mark of 50,” said Fritz Wenzel, president of Wenzel Strategies and a former pollster with Zogby International.

You can dig into the findings here (PDF).

Stivers announced his intentions on Twitter (@Steve_Stivers) this morning: “I’m Running for Congress in 2010!”

The Dispatch has the details and some quotes:

Republican Steve Stivers today will announce his candidacy for the 15th Congressional District of Ohio, setting up a 2010 rematch against Democratic Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy, who narrowly beat him last year.

Stivers, 44, plans to kick off his campaign this morning from the steps of the Union County Courthouse in Marysville. He hopes to unseat Kilroy in a district ranked among the most competitive in the nation.

“It was a pretty close race last year, and I expect it will be a hard-fought and close race next year,” Stivers said yesterday.

Kilroy defeated Stivers by 2,312 votes out of more than 304,000 cast in the district, which includes all of Union and Madison counties and parts of Columbus and the western suburbs of Franklin County.

Stivers notes that a lot has changed already in the political climate:

Incumbency has made Kilroy more vulnerable, Stivers said, because she has compiled a voting record that is too liberal for a district known to be moderate.

Stivers and his wife, Karen, are expecting a daughter in September, and he decided to run, in part, because he fears “out-of-control federal spending” is mortgaging the future for young people.

“The day she is born in September, she’ll owe $35,000 as her part of the national debt,” Stivers said. “There’s a ton of wild spending going on, and we’ve got to figure out how to rein it in.”

This was expected to a certain degree, but good to have it confirmed.  The GOP has to be happy about this one.  Let’s hope conservatives and others opposed to Kilroy don’t cut off their nose to spite their face this time around.

I had a chance to catch up with Rob Portman at Red White and Boom tonight after he had walked in the parade.  He was gracious enough to agree to give me an update and talk about his campaign for the US Senate so far.