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.

Campaign manager Jeff Longstreth is confused:

Longstreth said that he views the primary as similar to the special election earlier this month in New York’s 23rd congressional district, where a moderate Republican dropped from the race under pressure from conservatives. Since Portman has the “backing of the machine” and Ganley doesn’t, “we have to get our message out in other ways,” Longstreth said.

This is so flimsy that the Columbus Dispatch immediately corrects his misunderstanding:

However, unlike the failed GOP candidate in New York, Dede Scozzafava, Portman is firmly conservative on issues such as abortion, so it presumably wouldn’t be as easy for Ganley to drive a wedge between Portman and Ohio GOP conservatives. In any case, the Conservative Party candidate in New York’s 23rd, Doug Hoffman, wound up losing the election to Democrat Bill Owens.

So let’s see.  Portman is solidly pro-life, solid on second amendment issues, opposes Cap and Trade and the Democrats Health Care plans; has been campaign across the state on out of control spending and job killing policies; and has a record in Congress to prove it.

Yep, just like Dede Scozzafava.  Gimme a break.  This isn’t the case where the party establishment rigged a special election to select a leftist RINO.  This is a case where a conservative Republican with great experience and proven fundraising skills rallied the party because everyone knows how important keeping this seat is and how hard winning will be.

Ganley seems to think that just because Portman has experience in elected office and government management that voters should toss aside common sense and vote for a complete unknown who has never been involved in politics until a chance to buy a Senate seat came along.

Ganley wants to take a legitimate concern - that some GOP officials and candidates are too connected to the failures of the past or too liberal for their districts - and use it as a reason to reject a longtime conservative and one of the strongest candidates in the country.  And risk losing a critical senate seat in the process.

Ganley’s whole campaign is smoke and mirrors.  Consider the following:

• Where has the Ganely campaign ever laid out a plausible scenario where - assuming they won the primary - they can defeat a Democrat opponent who is well funded; has high name ID and currently serving in statewide office; and who has a great deal of campaign experience.
• Ganley keeps threatening to spend $7 million to win.  I am not an accountant but I don’t see where he has that kind of cash flow.
• And if Ganley is really able to leverage the populist revolt then why can’t he raise any money and why is he not campaign across the state building his statewide supporters?

If ideology and principals matter to you, Rob Portman is a proven conservative with not only a congressional record but also months worth of campaigning to prove it.

It electability is important, again Portman has the experience, the fundraising and the hard work to prove he is ready.

I happen to think we need a mix of both factors and Portman is best suited to win this critical race.

It is also worth noting that simply being a successful business person is not proof you are ready for the US Senate.  Selling cars may create jobs but policy making in the Senate is a lot different than selling cars.  Senators don’t really make payroll, etc. The fact that you can create jobs in your business is not an indicator that you can impact policy in the Senate.  They are different skill sets.  I know this may run against populist “citizen legislator” type sentiment but I think it is simply reality.

Think about the health care battle starting in the Senate.  Who would you rather have fighting the parliamentary battles, working wobbly colleagues and making the case for defeating the bill?  A complete novice unfamiliar with the process or the people involved?  Or a proven conservative who knows the process and has successfully maneuvered through it?

As I have said before, beware those trying to use populism - whether Tea Parties or any other issues - as a fig leaf for their ambition.

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.

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.

As I noted at the start, I believe that the goal of conservative Republicans is to recruit and support the most electable conservative candidate in each race. Depending on the district, the political situation on the ground, and the general mood of the country this can range from quite conservative to sometimes annoyingly squishy center-right. It is those borderline races that present the most challenge; how much is to gain from getting an R as opposed to seeing a solid conservative run and lose, etc.

When it comes to the Ohio Senate race, however, I don’t think this is particularly tough choice. Read this Human Events article I wrote profiling Rob Portman. I have spoken directly with Portman on numerous occasions and have heard him speak to a variety of audiences. He is a conservative.

And he is rightly focused on THE issue of this election: jobs. What people care about right now is getting the economy on track and creating jobs. President Obama and Congressional Democrats have sold the public a bill of goods promising that all of their big government spending and regulations will produce growth. With the failure of the stimulus package voters are already beginning to understand that this is a bait and switch. The GOP needs candidates who can convince these voters to vote for them in this environment.

Portman has been making that case. He opposes the health care reforms currently being offered by Democrats in Congress; he has come out against Cap and Trade as a devastating tax and job killer; he has blasted the Democrats for “spending what we don’t have on what we don’t need.” He has been all over the state talking to voters; Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

Portman has also proven himself to be a very effective fundraiser. Last quarter he raised over $3.4 million - more than both the Democratic candidates combined - and soon I expect he will announce another great quarter.

What has Ganley done? Well, as far as I can see very little. He has spoken to a couple of Tea Party events but hasn’t been actively campaigning as far as I can tell. He has finally managed to file his financial disclosure forms, however, and they reveal that his promise of spending $7 million dollars on this race seem farfetched. He simply doesn’t have the liquidity necessary to spend that kind of money.

He has not shown the ability to raise the money either. He currently has $88,000 on hand and no one expects a big number from the campaign when quarterly reports come out this week.
So what does Ganley have going for him? The only thing he has is hopes of leveraging populist and anti-establishment anger in an attempt to go from political novice to US Senator. Enter Bay Buchanan.

Here is what she had to say in a recent Human Events column:

Between the town hall meetings and the tea party rallies, millions of Americans are taking to the streets to protest a government gone berserk. They are angry and determined to take their country back. But there are snakes in the grass intent on using this movement to return to power, not the people, but the Republican establishment. If this happens we lose everything, including our country.

To succeed, the rebellion must produce candidates with fresh faces–populists who share our outrage for the arrogance of Washington, individuals who will fight for American workers and American families. We need primaries to nominate candidates that aren’t owned by party leaders, powerful special interests, nor Corporate America.

She then tries to apply this to the Senate race in Ohio:

In Ohio, Rob Portman, a former pro-amnesty congressman and Bush trade rep, announced his bid for the U.S. Senate earlier this year. Then Tom Ganley, a conservative businessman from Cleveland infuriated by the massive uncontrolled spending of Washington, decided to run. Mortal sin, declared the party, which told this self-made successful businessman to get out of the race, that “the U.S. Senate isn’t an entry level position.” The NRSC endorsed Portman and are in full campaign mode. (Do these nitwits really think one of the architects of the Bush policy that sent our jobs overseas is going to win the general election in a state with 11% unemployment?)

Buchanan has continued to hurl these inaccurate and off-base charges in emails through the Team American PAC she co-chairs with Tom Tancredo.

First off, Portman is not pro-amnesty. He hasn’t voted for amnesty and has flatly stated that he is against it. And furthermore, Portman wasn’t even in Congress when so called amnesty bills like Bush-McCain (2007) or Kennedy-McCain (2005) were introduced and debated.

Second of all, Buchanan, and her protectionist cohorts, shouldn’t buy into the leftist rhetoric about “sending jobs overseas.” US Trade increased under Portman’s leadership and this meant more growth and more jobs in Ohio and around the country. (Also worth noting: Ganley makes the most money off of selling foreign cars. How exactly does this fit in with Buchanan’s populist protectionist rhetoric?)

Lastly, why exactly should Ganley suddenly deserve conservative support? What has he done to earn our trust and confidence? Has he been active in local and state politics? Has he supported other conservative candidates and issues in the past? Is the US Senate really the best use of his resources and talents? Would he be an effective leader in the Senate? I think the clear answer to all of those questions is no.

Ganley hasn’t even shown that he has garnered popular support outside of those who work for him or are loyal patrons of his car dealerships. Buchanan simply asserts that “establishment” Republicans are the enemy and that therefore we must support Ganley; and she makes up bogus charges about Portman’s record. There is no polling data, fundraising results, or campaign experience to indicate that Ganely has a chance to win statewide in Ohio against an experienced, well-know and well-funded Democrat currently serving in statewide office.

Some have suggested that a quid pro quo is going on here. Why else would Buchanan suddenly care about a primary race in Ohio, they ask. I don’t know if there were negotiations that went into the endorsement or not (I guess if she, or her networked companies, show up on the financial reports we’ll know).

But I do know this: Buchanan is calling for the destruction of the GOP in order to rebuild in her image. This is folly. It is one thing to seek to replace scandal ridden and ineffective incumbents with fresh conservative voices in those districts where they can win (or where there is little risk in the attempt).  I support that effort.

It is quite another to throw away a crucial Senate seat in a misguided attempt to stick it to the party.

Rob Portman is a conservative. He is smart, experienced, articulate, a proven fundraiser, and focused like a laser on the issues that will turn this election. Attacking him is a distraction and a strategy for remaining the minority party into the future.

Conservative Republicans should avoid at all costs the siren song of populist anger as a substitute for strategic thinking and pragmatic choices. You don’t win by losing. You win by winning.

And Rob Portman can and will win in 2010 if we don’t get distracted from the issues that matter.

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.

Obama always pretends to be the calm rational centrist on every issue and it grates after a while.  Particularly when it is the moderates in his own party who are balking at the more leftist direction of his policies; rightly worried that voters won’t appreciate their dedication to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Zach Space pretends Obama’s speech reflected this, but I think it is more of a message - a plea - than a reality:

The president’s speech tonight reflects exactly the sort of move toward moderation I’ve been calling for – we should not undergo a ‘radical fix’ of our health care system, but we must build on what we have. As I’ve said before, we must make sure that any final bill protects rural health care in Ohio, our seniors, our businesses, and our working families. There is no question that we must address the enormous crisis that is dragging down our economy and hurting our families, but we must undertake this reform in a way that is responsible, sensible, and measured.

But the reform is not “responsible, sensible, and measured.”

They keep insisting that abortions aren’t paid for with government money in the bill and pro-life Democrats keep pointing out that is not true.  The CBO points out over and over that this monstrosity will blow up the already bloated budget and Obama pretends he can still cut spending.  The president calls people liars when the facts are against him.  On and on it goes.

Obama is going to have to decided what he wants more, government controlled health care or a Democratic majority in Congress.  Because if he, and his cheerleaders on the left, insist on pushing leftist policies then these vulnerable Democrats are going to be picked off for voting with their party and against their districts.

Obviously, I am all for beating Democrats, but not at the expense of saddling the country with a health care system that torpedoes the economy and gives the government more control over our lives.

But if Democrats insist on a “we won, you lost” mentality I have a feeling that they will find the ground shifting under their feet come 2010.

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.

I attended the Energy Summit here in Columbus sponsored by the American Energy Solutions Group in the House Republican Conference.  The field hearing was led by Congressman Pence and joined by House Minority Leader John Boehner and Ohio Reps. Austria, Latta, Tiberi, and Schmidt.  It was an interesting experience.

Pulling up to THE (all the OSU grads made sure to emphasize that word) Ohio State University campus I saw protesters with signs: “Paid for by Big Oil”, “Clean Energy Now”, etc.  I made a note to inquire about my check from Big Oil, because I have yet to receive it!

Joking aside, the summit was really free from ideology or partisan debates about global warming, etc.  The focus was on jobs.  The simple message was that an “All of the Above” strategy is needed to address American energy needs, that the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade bill ignores this fact and as a result will have a devastating effect on the American economy.

The particular focus was on how damaging this bill, as passed by the House, would be for Ohio businesses and families.  There were a wide variety of witnesses and sectors like agriculture, manufacturing, small business, municipal energy, minority business, etc. were all touched on.

And in all of these areas Ohio’s economy would be devastated by Cap and Trade.  Example: it is estimated that there are roughly 35,000 coal related jobs in Ohio.  With Cap and Trade 80% of those jobs would be destroyed by 2030.  And these are high paying jobs in areas of the state that are struggling economically.  This is a serious human impact.

A small businessman put this in perspective.  He said this was about not having to lay off friends and neighbors; about trying to find a way to give your employees 40 hours a week in a struggling economy.  Cap and Trade would mean less business as his customers pay higher prices, it would mean higher costs for his own company, and it would force him to go overseas to get raw materials and supplies.  This means fewer jobs and those tough conversations with his employees. Not to mention the economic reverberations in the community.

And as Christopher Horner, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute,  explained, all of this for a policy that will not actually reduce carbon emissions.  He noted that Europe has tried a similar strategy (in the aftermath of Kyoto) and it has failed.  They have not reduced emissions but instead have paid the price economically (they have been desperately trying to hide this fact ever since).

Horner bluntly explained that what is being proposed is really the largest tax increase in history, albeit a hidden one, and a strategy of government rationing where the federal government decides what is available and at what cost.  He also noted that as a result of Europe’s policy America has once again begun to be competitive in the steel industry with companies building plants here.  This bill threatens that and the resulting jobs that those companies produce.

Having followed the energy issue myself very little of what was discussed was news to me, but it was helpful to see the issue presented in such a straightforward and factual way.

What became clear, however, is that there is a fundamental disconnect between what voters think about energy and what is going on in Washington.  Voters care about the environment and would like to see growth in “green jobs” and renewable energy.  But they obviously don’t want to do so at the expense of their own jobs and communities.

What they don’t fully understand is that under the guise of these popular sentiments the Democrats in Congress are trying to pass a bill that will cripple the Midwestern economy - with Ohio being at the center of hat bulls-eye.

Rep. Latta explained that his district is the heaviest agricultural and manufacturing district in Ohio and 3rd in terms of districts that would be hardest hit by Cap and Trade.  The irony is that this district is involved in, and manufactures, many of the technologies that will lead to clean energy: wind, solar, bio-diesel, etc.  But higher costs make those businesses uncompetitive as well.

A Heritage Foundation study outlines the devastation this bill would cause:

Analysis of the economic impact of Waxman-Markey projects that by 2035 the bill would:

• Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.4 trillion;
• Destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
• Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
• Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent;
• Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
• Raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,241; and
• Result in an increase of $28,728 in additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation

After all of this, the question is what can we do about it?  I spoke with Rep. Latta afterwords and he suggested that what is needed is to make Americans aware of what the bill actually does and its impact on them.

He felt that when Congress convened their was a sense of urgency and a traditional honeymoon period for President Obama.  So many issues were being pushed through by the majority that it was hard to focus citizen’s attention on Cap and Trade (though the House GOP tried).  It was really only in the aftermath of the bill’s passage that businesses and voters began to understand the damage that could be done.

The bill is now in the hands of the Senate.  So it falls to knowledgeable and politically active people to get the message out.  The members of the Energy Solutions group are doing there part.  They are holding meetings (Latta has held hundreds of meetings across his district) and reaching out to people online.

Whether it is through new media or just old fashioned communicating with your friends, family, and neighbors if you care about economic growth and jobs you need to spread the word about this bill.  Politicians from dog catcher to president need to feel the heat, and understand the political ramifications of a vote to support the policies that will kill jobs and cripple our economy.

Voters need to understand that this bill won’t help the environment and won’t magically lead to a Utopian world of green jobs and renewable powered energy.  This is big government, bad science, and terrible economics.

It is not an easy time.  Jobs are scarce and there are battles on multiple fronts.  But the only way to dig ourselves out of this hole is to stop digging and start making policies that help not hurt.

Cap and Trade is a dagger aimed at the economy of the  heartland and must be stopped.

Cross posted from:

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).

Secondly, Kilroy is shamelessly pretending that government is just going to play a market-like competitive role with private insurance.  If everyone is required to have coverage and the government determines what is proper coverage and how much is reasonable to charge government is in the drivers seat.  Since government will not be structured like a private company nor have the same constraints (profit margin, liquidity, etc.) it is unlikely that it will simply incent private companies to do better.  Instead, it will lead to patients being dumped into the government system. Government can never be just another competitor.

Also, politicians who create these type of programs are unlikely to set modest goals for them and then leave them alone.  The nature of the beast always means power grabs and expansion.  Again, this leads not to government as the insurer of last resort but government actively crowding out private plans.

And when was the last time you saw a government program actually save money?  Save money how exactly?  By being more efficient or better run? Has the CBO - even while under intense political pressure - come up with these savings?

No, so it has to happen by either rationing care or setting prices.  Which undercuts the private market driven nature Kilroy is so intent on rhetorically preserving. Which is why you should be worried about a public option.

Kilroy doesn’t really think that health care reform is just about having government keep private companies honest with a small public option.  She knows full well that if Democrats can get their foot in the door with this plan then they can simply expand and strengthen the government’s role over time.  They have used this strategy in this area ever since Hillary Clinton crashed and burned with her health care monstrosity.

But Kilroy thinks her constituents are too slow to pick up on her sleight of hand on this issue.  So she puts together  conference call where her staff screens out Republicans or anyone who disagrees with her and puts on this happy face.  As if health care reform is just about controlling costs and not a threat to anyone.

Luckily voters will have a chance to prove they are not stupid in November 2010.  In the meantime, why not call Kilroy’s office and tell her you don’t appreciate her refusal to take questions from those she disagrees with (Republicans are her constituents too) and that you don’t buy her public option rhetoric.

Oh, and why not check out Steve Stivers campaign.

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.The competition aspect is likewise a bait and switch.  The public often likes this idea since they don’t trust insurance companies. But the problem is in how this type of system works out in real life.  When the government competes with business it brings a whole series of advantages that result in it crowding out businesses.

Government doesn’t have to make a profit or go out of business when they fail.  Government makes the rules and holds the leverage on enforcement.  And those that want a single payer type system have every incentive to slowly transition from “competition” to government control.  So government doesn’t so much compete with business as undermine it.

If you wanted real competition you would seek ways to get as many companies involved in the market as possible and offer as much flexibility as possible.  In this way you would have lots of plans and lots of price points.  People could then choose and those companies that were the best at offering what people wanted and delivering on those promises would win out.

And in fact, Space knows this because he applied very similar analysis to hospitals in his region:

Initially, reimbursement rates under the public plan would have been the same for providers as those currently under Medicare, he said.

“While that sounds good, it was not good for our local hospitals,” Space added. “I will tell you that between 60 to 70 percent of everyone who walks in the door is either a Medicare or Medicaid recipient, and they’re losing money on them.

“They’re making up margins on the roughly 20 percent of privately insured cases,” he said. “If that shrinks to 10 percent as folks are crowded into the public plan, small hospitals can’t make their margins and we lose some of them. That was one of the lines in the sand I couldn’t cross.”

Now why would folks be crowed into the public plan?  Why is this an issue if it is only competition?  Because Space knows that mandated policies combined with a public option means businesses are going to have incentives to stop offering coverage to their workers and instead force them on to the public plan.

So Space is playing word games.  The government isn’t just another competitor in the market.  It has an unfair advantage and distorts the market in fundamental ways.  He knows this because that distortion hurts hospitals.

And he notes that Medicare basically forces people to pay higher rates to subsidize others.  So why would he think pushing more and more people onto a Medicare type system is going to do anything but acerbate this problem?  Does he really think allowing for negotiable rates solves it?  I doubt it.

No, what Space and the Democrats are trying to do is give the government a great deal of leverage but stop short of a total takeover. They cover this moves with lots of rhetoric about keeping insurance companies honest and “it’s just competition.”  But in the end the government holds all the cards and the dynamics are going to push us toward public control. This was in fact the “lesson” of Hillary Clinton’s failure.  Move slowly toward more and more government.

It is only the arrogance of Obama that has made this current push possible. Obama thought the power of his personality and popularity alone could carry the day.   But reality is forcing the Democrats back toward an incremental strategy.

And Space is doing his part to take us down that path.  He talks like a Blue Dog but acts like a soldier for Nancy Pelosi.  Don’t buy his bait and switch.

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.

And Portman didn’t even work in the department that handles the issues sited and played no role in the cases or policies he is being accused of supporting.:

Portman works in the firm’s economic regulations department and “has nothing to do with that client work,” said Drez Jennings, a spokeswoman for the law firm. She added that he also had no role in the firm’s work in guiding funds released in the bank bailout last year.

Again, pretty basic stuff.  This isn’t policy disagreement but a smear attempt.  (Notice too how the left goes after Portman for something they support - the bailouts - simply in hopes that they might sow dissent with conservatives.)

But put that aside for a moment.  Here is my question for the lefties pushing this story: Do you really want to follow this path?

Are you saying that if you work for a firm then any and all cases handled by that firm reflect on you?  That this guilt by association should be equally applied to Democratic elected officials and candidates? Are you saying, for example, that anyone Barack Obama worked with or whose issues his firm supported are fair game? Joe Biden? Hillary Clinton?  You get the idea.

No, I am pretty sure this is in fact a giant case of hypocrisy.  Given that there are a great many law firms and companies that handle cases that cross ideological and party affiliation.  Lobbying, consulting and law firms in particular often represent a wide variety of clients and issues; some who are likely on different sides of any given issue.

No one who has experience in government and the law is going to buy the argument that what a large law firm does is reflective of everyone who works there. Heck, lawyers don’t even agree with their individual clients all the time.  This is how the legal system works.

No, what is really going on here is that Democrats are afraid the Rob Portman is exactly the type of center-right experienced and appealing politician that Ohio voters support.  They know there is no real scandal in his squeaky clean background and they can feel the political ground shifting under their feet.

So they are simply throwing whatever slime they can find at him in hopes that some of it sticks.  Portman = Bush must not have been working so now they are trying to find some other distraction.

Portman campaign manager Bob Paduchik understands this:

This attack is flat-out false, and they know it. It’s unfortunate that the Democrats are choosing to run a no-holds-barred negative campaign, manufacturing false accusations like these at a time when the many challenges we face demand a thoughtful discussion of the issues. Ohio voters are tired of politics as usual, the Democrats’ YouTube attack ads, constant barrage of negative e-mails, and fake Web site are all acts of desperation from a party that must be really afraid of Rob Portman’s candidacy.

But again, I have to ask if the left wants to declare this sort of guilt by association fair game.  Because if they do then I think there are an awful lot of Democrats with some explaining to do.

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.

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.

If you haven’t already done so be sure to check out Rob’s new web site and get involved in the campaign.

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.

A look at the facts reveals that PETA is more about money (over $34 million in revenue in 2008) than about helping animals. Through a network of “alternative product” companies and opaque partnerships with big corporations, PETA seeks to raise millions of dollars in legal kickbacks and grants by attacking its partners’ competitors on the grounds of animal cruelty, regardless of the validity of the claims.

How does this work?  One major source of revenue is PETA’s Seal of Approval.  Seems harmless, right?  Companies get to feel good and PETA has more funds to help animals.  Fine, except there is a wrinkle in this particular tactic.

Conveniently, whenever PETA attacks a company they have an alternative product to recommend.  These companies agree to contribute anywhere between 1% to 13% of the purchase price of these items back to PETA.  You can see how this might lead to trouble.  PETA has all the motivation in the world to attack the competitors of those who have signed on to this kind of agreement or to threaten those who don’t sign on with protest campaigns.

In case you think I am getting conspiratorial, here are some real life examples:

• PETA targeted MasterCard for sponsoring the Ringling Brother’s circus, which supposedly mistreated its animals. The “NastyCard” campaign encouraged MasterCard customers to cut up their cards and mail them back. At the same time this campaign was going on PETA entered into an exclusive deal with Visa to offer a PETA Platinum Credit Card, which was advertised on PETA’s website. As a benefit to PETA, 1% of purchases made with the branded card are paid to PETA as royalties.

• IAMS, a dog food brand made by Procter & Gamble, has been targeted by PETA through
  its “IamsCruelty” campaign. PETA accused IAMS of practicing inhumane animal studies rather than modern, non-invasive research procedures. This despite the fact that IAMS has been recognized for its research procedures and animal welfare advocacy and has been a pioneer for PETA-endorsed in-home research among major pet food
  companies. Coincidentally I am sure, PETA has a partnership with a “holistic” pet care clearinghouse, promoted on their websites, that gives them 8% of all purchase proceeds.
• PETA has also developed a corporate partnership program that seeks  to leverage these relationships with companies looking for a competitive advantage. PETA’s “Business Friends” program includes three levels: Silver ($500), Gold ($1000), and Platinum ($5,000 +). In exchange for these monetary contributions, PETA grants increasing levels of access to its membership (and their purchasing power) and its celebrity supporters.

You don’t have to be a hardened cynic to see that the line between fund raising and advocacy has all but been erased.  PETA attacks certain companies and signs a lucrative agreement, or negotiates a corporate sponsorship, with their competitors.  This little scheme rakes in millions.

But the truly sad thing is that PETA fails at its basic mission of protecting animals. According to the website www.PETAkillsanimals.com, an analysis of public records shows that PETA found adoptive homes for less than 1 out of every 300 animals in 2008, and the organization killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year.

So not only has PETA used questionable tactics that end up turning off potential supporters, but they have used these same tactics to extort money from competitors, and keep the marketing racket going, rather than actually helping animals.

I didn’t think it was possible for me to think less of PETA, but I was wrong.  They aren’t a well intentioned organization who occasionally get carried away because of a passionate belief in their cause.  They are a fund raising racket that uses questionable tactics to further their own needs at the expense of that cause.

It would be sad if it wasn’t so infuriating.  So the next time you are talking to an animal lover who thinks PETA helps the cause make them aware of the true business of these extortionists.

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!

Money isn’t everything, but it is a pretty clear indication that Portman is rallying the party and has gained the confidence of donors.  And as name recognition is his biggest challenge, the money will allow him to introduce himself to voters and get his message out.

But Portman is going to need every penny because you just know every leftist group under a rock is going to come out guns a blazing after the Republican candidate. They want to pick up the seat and they will use the phrase “Bush economic policies” ad infinitum.

But in 2010, as Portman notes, it is going to be about President Obama and the Democratic Congress’s failures:

“The common concern I hear from everybody is, what’s going on with this economy,” said Portman. “How could we have spent so many billions of dollars of our taxpayer money on bailouts and a on stimulus package that’s having no impact? In fact, unemployment is going up. Things are getting worse.”

The Bush label is going to lose its edge, mark my words.

*cross posted @

(via Athens Runaway)

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:

Portman was at OMB during 2006-2007.  Take a look at the above chart.  Which direction was the deficit going during those years?  That’s right, down.  In fact, Portman helped cut the deficit in half.

You don’t have to be a math major to decipher what has happened since.  And given that Democrats control both Houses of Congress and the White House it takes incredible chutzpah to attach Portman for increasing the deficit.

The rest of the ad is just Democratic boilerplate.  But the question has to be: “How long are they going to blame George W. Bush for the country’s problems?”  And do they really think that simply by connecting Portman to Bush they accomplish something?

Again, remember that the Democrats control Congress and the White House.  We have deficits so large they are hard to conceptualize.  We have nearly 11% unemployment in Ohio.  The stimulus failed and they are talking about passing another one in a vain attempt to spark something.

The Democrats are fighting the last election.  Bush isn’t on the ballot.  Accusations about tax cuts for the super rich, votes against the minimum wage and laughable charges of increasing the deficit are not going to move votes.

Sure, liberals who hate Bush and think Obama’s economic policies are the solution will find this ad attractive.  But I don’t think this ad appeals to independents and moderates who are increasingly coming to wonder if Obama’s policies are working.  And I don’t think simply connecting Portman to Bush works in this environment.

Portman doesn’t have great name recognition around the state, but when voters get to know him they like him.  Portman is clearly raising enough money that he is going to have the resources to introduce himself to voters.  And given the political environment you have to think that voters will give him a look.

This ad is not a damaging early strike.  It is just a desperate lame attempt at distracting us from the fact that the Democrats are likely locked into a bitter primary in an deteriorating environment where their poll numbers are taking a dive.

News flash for Democrats: the Bush era is over.  You are in charge now.  That is what 2010 is going to be about.  But hey, if you want to keep flailing away at Bush, go ahead …

• 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).

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.