Obama and his Democratic cohort in Ohio have made some bold claims about the success of the $80 million federal bailouts of General Motors (GM) and Chrysler. President Obama told an audience in Dayton that, “If Mitt Romney had been president when the auto industry was on the verge of collapse, we might not have an American auto industry today.”  In a campaign speech in Toledo in September, Obama said that, “The American auto industry supports one in eight jobs in this state.” This number has been so widely reported that it is never questioned. In a campaign ad, Sherrod Brown claims that the bailout “helped protect 848,000 Ohio jobs” and in a recent debate, he credited the auto bailout with Ohio’s improved unemployment rate, saying, “These are real jobs and real people that’s [sic] a big part of the reason that before the auto rescue, well in early 2010, the unemployment in this state was over 10.5%, now it’s under 7%.”

Not everyone agrees with these rosy jobs reports. In a September interview with the New York Times discussing the improvement of Ohio’s unemployment numbers, Ohio Gov. John Kasich said the Democrats’ numbers are inaccurate:

“But you look at the numbers. I mean, it’s like 700 direct auto jobs. Give them the benefit of the doubt — throw in a couple thousand. But we’re almost at 100,000 new jobs. So I’m glad the auto jobs are here, but let’s not try to paint a scenario that’s not accurate.”

On October 23rd, Kasich told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News that the state had actually lost automotive jobs:

“If you want to look at the auto jobs, we’re actually down 500 auto jobs. So of the 112,000 jobs that have been created, we’re thrilled with the auto industry, that it’s here, there’s been investments, and that even though the footprint is smaller, it’s still strong. I love that. But the numbers just don’t bear out and people should understand that.”

Since the country’s most coveted swing state may be won or lost on the issue of the auto bailout, it’s important that we weigh the numbers in the campaign speeches against the published data related to the auto industry.

Democrats are Cooking the Books on Ohio Jobs Numbers

Claim #1: The Auto Industry Would Have Collapsed Without the Auto Bailout

The president claimed that “The auto industry was on the verge of collapse,” and claims in his  Ohio campaign ad that, ” “Without President Obama’s rescue of the auto industry, Ohio would have collapsed.” The fact is that only GM and Chrysler were on the verge of collapse. Ford, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, Kia, Hyundai, BMW and Mercedes Benz managed to navigate the same economic conditions GM and Chrysler were laboring under without needing bailout loans. In May of 2008 GM and Chrysler accounted for one-third of auto sales in the U.S.

Auto jobs certainly represented a large percentage of the industry and their “collapse” would have had a serious impact on the economies of auto-dependent states. But saying (or implying) that the entire auto industry was on verge of collapse, or worse, that “Ohio would have collapsed” is an enormous exaggeration. In addition to the implication that all auto manufacturers would have been affected rather than just those representing one-third of U.S. auto sales, the statement also implies that the automotive sector would have collapsed and disappeared completely. That wasn’t an option being discussed at the time. If the bailout had not occurred, Chrysler and GM would have gone through a structured bankruptcy and like other companies who find themselves overextended and heavily in debt, they would have been forced to make some painful decisions, many of them at the expense of union members and pensioners. The bailout avoided many of those difficult decisions, or rather, kicked them down the road for now.

Regardless, Chrysler and GM would not have vaporized into thin air under the traditional bankruptcy scenario. Ohio Senator Rob Portman wrote an editorial in the Cleveland Plain Dealer last week defending Mitt Romney’s structured bankruptcy plan for the auto giants: “Romney’s goal was to see these companies shed excess costs, clear out old debts and regain their competitive edge, so they could keep building cars and making payroll.” The former president of Chrysler recently said that Romney’s plan would have left the companies ”better positioned to provide the long-term job security for their employees that only true competitiveness can guarantee, and to grow, adding thousands of new high paying American jobs.” Under either scenario, GM and Chrysler would not have gone out of business, though it is fair to debate how they would have been impacted under the various bankruptcy proposals .

Fact:  The “entire auto industry” was not on verge of collapse and the entire state of Ohio would not have “collapsed” but for the federal auto bailouts as structured by President Obama. 

Claim #2: The Auto Industry Supports One in Eight Jobs in Ohio

The next claim is that the “American auto industry supports one in eight jobs in this state.” As previously stated, this statistic is cited frequently by campaigns, politicians, and the media and is never questioned. However, the numbers just don’t add up. According to a September, 2012 Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services report, “Ohio’s nonfarm wage and salary employment decreased … to 5,187,600 in August.” So we know there are around 5.2 million jobs (total) in Ohio. One in eight of these 5.2 million jobs would be 12.5%, or 650,000 jobs that the auto industry would support if the “one in eight” claim were correct. A February, 2011 report on The Ohio Motor Vehicle Industry from Jobs Ohio said, “The Ohio motor vehicle industry directly employed almost 120,000 workers – 1.8 percent of all employees in the state.” This is far below our target number (650,000), but then the report goes on to list a cluster of industries related to capital equipment, parts, materials, and facilities:

• An estimated 37,400 workers in Ohio made goods incorporated into motor vehicles, bodies, trailers and parts, or that were used in the process.  Examples of the former include windshields and windows, springs, nuts, bolts, bearings, valves, electronic parts, paints and metal coatings, adhesives, and sealing devices.  These were often made of steel, aluminum, glass, rubber, plastics or other chemical products.  Examples of the latter include capital equipment and paperboard products.

• About 4,100 more non-manufacturing goods-producing jobs – notably in construction – depended on presence of the motor vehicle industry here.  Altogether, 161,400 goods-producing jobs in Ohio – 2.4 percent of the total – were directly and indirectly related to motor vehicle production.

Jobs Ohio then adds service sector jobs that are tangentially related to the auto industry:

“An estimated 237,100 – 3.6 percent of all workers – were in service industries related to motor vehicles goods, notably including (but not limited to) transportation, warehousing, wholesale and retail trade, financing and insurance, and repair.”

The report concludes that “Combining the impact of the manufacturing and service clusters means that a total of six percent of all Ohio workers –398,500 of 6,615,100 – were directly and indirectly depended [sic] on the motor vehicle industry cluster for their livelihood.”

So at most, 398,500 jobs  (120,000 directly related) are affected by the auto industry rather than the claims of 650,000 (one in eight). The number is inflated by over 250,000.

The 2011 Jobs Ohio number for “all Ohio workers” is much higher than the 5,187,600 cited in the ODJFS report as “nonfarm wage and salary employment,” so we cannot make an exact comparison. But even if we use the lower ODJFS number of 5,187,600 total jobs in Ohio, with 398,500 of them being auto-related, the Democrats’ numbers don’t add up.  

Fact: The highest possible percentage of jobs related to the auto industry in Ohio is 7.6%, far below President Obama’s and other Democrats’ claims of one in eight jobs, which would be 12.5% of jobs in the state, or around one in thirteen.

Claim #3: The Auto Bailout Protected 800,000+ Ohio Jobs

Next is Sen. Sherrod Brown’s claim that the auto bailout “helped protect 848,000 Ohio jobs.”
The concept of protected jobs is an elusive target. There is no way to know what might have happened under a scenario than never actually occurred. Anytime a claim is made that jobs were “saved” or “protected” it’s important to view the claim with the understanding that there is no way to prove whether or not it is true. And at the time of the bailout there was no scenario being proposed that would have resulted in GM and Chrysler completely disappearing from Ohio. It’s important to also consider that GM and Chrysler only accounted for 30% of the auto market, so at most, 30% of auto-related jobs (119,550) would have been affected (see previous point).

Fact: There are at most 398,500  auto-related jobs in Ohio, so the claim of 848,000 saved jobs is wildly exaggerated on its face. Even if Sen. Brown were to include all auto-related jobs in the state, no reasonable person could conclude that all the jobs related to the non-GM/Chrysler 70% of the market would have disappeared if Chrysler and GM had not been bailed out, even under the bizarre scenario of both of those companies completely disappearing from the state.

Claim #4: The Auto Bailout is Responsible for the Drop in Ohio’s Unemployment Rate

Democrats, journalists, and political pundits have bandied about various versions of Sherrod Brown’s claim that, “a big part of the reason that before the auto rescue…the unemployment in this state was over 10.5%, now it’s under 7%.” Ohio has enjoyed a lower unemployment rate (it’s actually 7.2%) than many other parts of the country, though it is still too high, with 400,000 Ohioans still out of work. The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides historical employment data for the automotive industry, so we can at examine how the industry was affected during the period of the government bailout and the aftermath. The BLS does not calculate all the jobs that are indirectly connected to the auto industry, but their statistics give us a snapshot of the conditions in the state:

State:        Ohio
Area:         Statewide
Supersector:  Durable Goods
Industry:     Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
Data Type:    All Employees, In Thousands

State:        Ohio
Area:         Statewide
Supersector:  Durable Goods
Industry:     Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
Data Type:    All Employees, In Thousands

In January, 2008, at the height of the auto bailout crisis, when GM and Chrysler were negotiating the terms of their bankruptcy with the federal government, there were 99,800 jobs in Ohio in the motor vehicle manufacturing and parts sectors. By August of 2012, the number of jobs had decreased to 74,700, a loss of 25,100 jobs. Again, this number does not include indirect jobs related to the automotive industry, such as insurance companies, auto repair shops, retail establishments, etc. But it’s difficult to imagine a scenario where motor vehicle and parts manufacturing jobs decreased and gains were realized in other sectors of auto-related jobs. There is no reasonable way to conclude that automotive jobs (and therefore the auto bailout) are improving the state’s unemployment numbers when the state has actually lost 25,100 jobs in this sector.

Fact: Claims that the state’s unemployment numbers have improved due to gains in the automotive industry as a result of the federal auto bailout are false. 

Claim #5: Mitt Romney Would have Let the Auto Industry Go Bankrupt

This claim isn’t a result of the Democrats’ poor math skills, nevertheless, it has been an important factor in the Battle for Ohio. A centerpiece of the Obama campaign in Ohio (and other Democratic campaigns in the state and across the country) has been that Mitt Romney would have let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt. An ad running in Ohio says just that, leaving out the fact that the car companies did, in fact, file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy:

Man #1:  ”Without President Obama’s rescue of the auto industry, Ohio would have collapsed.”

 Man #2: “Mitt Romney would have just let us go under. Just let ‘em go bankrupt.”

 

Mitt Romney: “That’s exactly what I said. The headline you read which is ‘Let Detroit go Bankrupt.’”

Woman: “For him to say, ‘Let ‘em fail…’”

 

Man #2: “How you say something like that is just beyond me.”

 

Narrator: “Mitt Romney. Not one of us. “

 

This has been a grand deception in Ohio. For starters, the headline “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” in Gov. Romney’s editorial was actually chosen by New York Times editors, likely to cast Romney in a negative light. Since then, Democrats have led voters to believe that while Mitt Romney would have let the auto companies go bankrupt,  by omission they have led voters to also believe that President Obama’s auto bailout did not result in bankruptcy. This is completely false, but most voters don’t know it because Democrats don’t use the words “bankruptcy” and  ”auto bailout” in the same sentence unless they are attacking Gov. Romney. Further, they have falsely led the public to believe that Romney did not favor any government role in the restructuring of the auto companies.

Sen. Rob Portman dispelled these myths his Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial last week titled, “A Tale of Two Bankruptcies.” Portman wrote:

“The fact is that in spring 2009, President Obama actually did take General Motors and Chrysler into bankruptcy. So when the president claims that Mitt Romney wanted the carmakers to undergo bankruptcy, he’s describing his own policy…

“…To save those jobs, Romney proposed a restructuring plan — backed by a government safety net — that would have put GM and Chrysler back on their feet. He called for new management and cuts in executive pay and perks. And he proposed that the federal government provide a path forward for the carmakers by backing up loans to help them after bankruptcy filing and assuring car buyers that warranties would be honored.”

FACT: The Democrats have been deceiving voters on the issue of the auto bailout bankruptcy for months and continue to do so. They do this despite the fact that even the liberal-leaning PolitiFact has debunked it.  

Conclusion

Ohio is Ground Zero in this year’s presidential race and also has several of the country’s most contested congressional and senate races. Part of the Democrats’ strategy in the state has been to convince Ohioans that the state would have been devastated without the auto bailout, which President Obama, Sen. Brown, and nearly every Democratic congressional candidate supports and which Gov. Romney, Senate candidate Josh Mandel, and most Republican congressional candidates have opposed. Moreover, some candidates and many in the media have claimed that the state’s improved economy and plummeting unemployment rate should be attributed to the auto bailout. For the most part, Republican candidates have not argued with these assertions. Governor Kasich has been one of the lone voices in the wilderness saying that the claims and numbers are overstated.

In studying government reports on jobs in the state, the only realistic conclusion is that the Democrats are overstating and, in some cases, wildly exaggerating their claims.  Worse, many of their claims are outright deceptive. While the state would have certainly been negatively affected by a traditional bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler (without the $80 million government bailout), the imagined doomsday scenario in which the companies would have been vaporized, along with 800,000 jobs, is the stuff of magical campaign thinking. Or perhaps good old-fashioned fear-mongering. In the worst case scenario (a scenario never proposed by Gov. Romney) if both GM and Chrysler had disappeared completely and taken with them every last auto-related job corresponding to their 30% share of the market, around 120,000 jobs would have been lost. Most certainly, this would have been devastating for the state and individual families. But it is irresponsible to prognosticate that an entire industry (or an entire state) would have collapsed with the loss of these jobs. In addition, Gov. Kasich claims to have added 112,00 jobs since taking office in 2010, so the state may not have been significantly worse off in raw job numbers.

Democrats are using the auto bailout to take credit for the improved unemployment numbers in Ohio when the jobs statistics tell a completely different story. This has created a false narrative that may affect the outcome of campaigns across the state, including the outcome of the presidential election, which could have dire consequences for our country.

Words and numbers matter, and in this case, they don’t add up.

Cross-posted at Bold Colors

It only takes about three seconds on the Al Jazeera site to see that they are driving the narrative that Muslims are (and should be) angry about the anti-Islam film. Here are some of the headlines on the front page of the site:

Embassies under attack over anti-Islam video

Anti-Islam film protests Live Blog

Amateur film: What we know

In Pictures: Rage against anti-Islam film **

Anti-Islam video protest

**As I was editing this post, this headline changed from “Protest against anti-Islam film” to “Rage against anti-Islam film.”

All of the live-blog entries have the heading:  ”Anti-Islam Video Protests.”  The most recent entry begins with:

Angry Muslims around the world storm US embassies and attack slapstick film considered offensive to Prophet Muhammad.

Clearly this is meant to push the narrative about the film that very few people have actually seen and to foment more uprisings across the Muslim world.

Sadly, Al Jazeera is hanging on every apologetic word American officials are expressing against the video and cataloging them on the live blog, including this from Mitt Romney:

“Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney spoke out on Friday against the makers of an American-made film that mocks Islam, saying it was “a terrible idea” but backing US free speech rights.

“Romney said it was wrong for producers of “Innocence of Muslims”, the crude film at the center of many anti-American protests that have rocked the Middle East and North Africa, to put out a movie that would offends peoples’ faith.

“I think the whole film is a terrible idea,” Romney said in an interview on ABC that aired early Friday.

“I think him making it, promoting it, showing it, is disrespectful to people of other faiths. I don’t think that should happen. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment – the good judgment – not to offend other people’s faiths.”

Hillary Clinton continued to double (triple?) down on the “It’s the film, stupid” mantra in her speech at the arrival ceremony at Andrew’s Air Force base for the Americans slain in Libya:

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.”

Middle East expert,  Tom Doyle,  told  Janet Parshall today to expect Israel and the Jews to be targeted.  Predictably, it has already begun:

“GAZA: Palestinians on Friday protested an anti-Muslim film, with thousands gathering in the Gaza Strip and hundreds in Jerusalem where they clashed with Israeli police.

“In Gaza, thousands of people rallied at demonstrations in Gaza City and the southern town of Rafah, a day after the ruling Hamas party urged citizens to turn out for protests after Friday prayers.

“Protesters waved the flags of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad movements, and set fire to American flags, chanting “Death, death to America, death, death to Israel.”

“Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya, in a sermon during Friday prayers, repeated a call on Washington to apologize for the film, produced in the United States.

“The U.S. administration should apologize to the Arab and Islamic nation for this offensive film and bring these criminals to justice,” he said.

“Haniya said the film was the result of “a Jewish-American-Crusader alliance to ignite a war on Islam and sectarian strife, particularly in Egypt.”

And in sign that Afghanistan is reverting back to it’s former state of authoritarian leadership:

“Authorities in Afghanistan have ordered that YouTube’s website be blocked indefinitely to stop Afghans watching a US -made film that insults the Prophet Muhammad which has sparked unrest elsewhere, government sources told Reuters on Thursday.

“I welcome any decision by the government because it badly affects the minds of young Afghans,” a senior government official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

“Another government official, who also declined to be identified, confirmed the ministry had ordered all Afghan Internet providers to block YouTube’s site.

“Fears the video could provoke riots prompted at least one provider to act before the government’s orders were received.

“We have not yet been told, but we blocked YouTube … to avoid the blood of innocents spilling over. All it takes is one Mullah watching that video, and then he’ll preach about it later on, causing chaos”, said Farhad Fazi, the president of Internet provider AFSAT.

“However, YouTube may remain accessible to some Internet users until Saturday as some of Afghanistan’s major servers are based in India and the United Arab Emirates.

“An official at the Ministry of Communications said on Wednesday that an order had been issued to block the site until the film was taken down.

“YouTube was shut for several hours in Afghanistan but was then restored. Afghan Internet users were still able to view it on Thursday.”

Did you catch that?  “All it takes is one Mullah watching that video, and then he’ll preach about it later on, causing chaos.”

While Hillary Clinton and the talking heads are all blaming this on a First Amendment-protected film, the blame lies at the feet of the Mullahs and others who are calling for mob violence. That is the common thread throughout these “protests.” And Al Jazeera is doing its part to continue to foment anger and hostility toward the United States by beating this drum about the film over and over again.

If we take this posture of apology to its logical conclusion, it will not be long before our country is forced to apologize for a lot more than one obscure film. The mere existence of Christianity and Judaism  are offensive to these extremist Muslims. Exactly how far is our government willing to go to appease these tantrums? Will Christians and Jews be safe anywhere in the Middle East? It seems that President Obama and the State Department are putting out these tiny fires without looking at the huge forest fire that is threatening to ignite the entire Arab world. God, help us and protect our brothers and sisters who are in harm’s way tonight.

Jay-Z and Beyoncé will be meeting up with the President for an evening in NYC sometime soon. And today only, you can enter for a chance to join them: http://OFA.BO/QPRWVi ***

While the families of the four Americans (including two former Navy Seals)  killed in Libya this week are in mourning and trying to absorb the horrific details of  the apparently brutal murders, Obama is off jet-setting to a fund-raiser in Las Vegas and planning a glitzy meet-up with Jay-Z and Beyonce.

This is one of the most tasteless, insensitive things we’ve ever seen from this president. And we’ve seen plenty of them.

Worse, it’s another indication that he’s focused on the campaign, the whole campaign, and nothing but the campaign. Everything else is a distant second, including the major international crisis that threatens to destabilize the entire Middle East, northern Africa, and perhaps even across central Asia.

I’m afraid for Israel. I’m afraid for our troops who are under the command of this president, who is clearly in over his pay grade. I’m afraid for our country if this president gets another four years. We may not recognize what’s left of it after he’s through “fundamentally transforming” it. We thought he just meant the economy and health care. While we weren’t looking, he has made a shambles of our foreign policy and substantially weakened our longstanding policy of “peace through strength.” I hope and pray a President Romney can restore what we’ve lost.

***DISCLAIMER:  Promotion open only to U.S. citizens, or lawful permanent U.S. residents who are legal residents of 50 United States, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico

That’s so mean.

From The Hill today:

“Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) began resurrecting some of President Obama’s most famous gaffes on the campaign trail Tuesday, reminding a crowd assembled at a Pennsylvania steel plant of the president’s remark four years ago that some voters are “clinging to their guns and religion.”

“Remember this other time when he said people want to cling to their guns and religion?” Ryan said. “Hey, I’m a Catholic deer hunter, I’m happy to be clinging to my guns and religion.”

“Ryan has repeatedly cited his Catholic faith while campaigning in swing states in recent days.

“The Republican vice-presidential nominee also mentioned other famous moments from the 2008 campaign as he rallied supporters, telling them that occasionally the president’s “true” beliefs come out.

“Remember the guy ‘Joe the Plumber?’ Remember when [Obama] said he wanted to spread the wealth around?” Ryan said to cheers.”

The headline reads:

Ryan revives Obama gaffe, says he’s ‘happy to be clinging to guns, religion’

Let’s compare Obama’s statement to some things our beloved Vice Gaffaholic-in-Chief has said:

“My mother believed and my father believed that if I wanted to be president of the United States, I could be, I could be Vice President!” – GAFFE

“His mom lived in Long Island for ten years or so. God rest her soul. And- although, she’s- wait- your mom’s still- your mom’s still alive. Your dad passed. God bless her soul.”  - GAFFE

“If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there’s still a 30% chance we’re going to get it wrong.” – GAFFE

“Jill and I had the great honor of standing on that stage, looking across at one of the great justices, Justice Stewart” (mistakenly referring to Justice John Paul Stevens, who swore him in as vice president). – GAFFE

“Look, John’s last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs.” –Joe Biden.” – GAFFE

And now Obama, at a San Francisco fundraiser in 2008:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.“

Not a gaffe.  The philosophical underpinnings of a jobs plan, perhaps. A mission statement, maybe.

A personal conviction, highly likely.

But not a gaffe.

“Over the last hundred years, look what we’ve done in this country in terms of civil rights, women’s rights, Social Security and Medicare and minimum wage and worker’s compensation and prohibition on child labor and clean air and safe drinking water and auto safety, seat belts, airbags. All these things have given people the ability to live thirty years longer longer. Back a hundred years ago the average American-you were born in this country, you lived to be about forty-five on the average. Today people live thirty years longer than that. It’s because of government doing the right thing when you push government to do the right thing.”  Sherrod Brown

First, someone needs to remind Sen. Brown that close to 55 million unborn babies didn’t get that “thirty years longer’ or even thirty seconds longer,  because of the evil “women’s rights” decision made to legalize their murder in 1973.

Brown and others on the extreme left like to say that “corporations are not people.” However, when its purposes are altruistic (in their opinion), they can say the “government is people” with a straight face and it’s celebrated with the typical liberal double standard.

Dr. Michael Bauman, Professor of Theology and Culture at Hillsdale College, has been writing a series of blog posts on Theology and Bureaucracy. Sen. Brown would do well to understand that although some government programs may have contributed to extending Americans’ lifespans, “government” didn’t do that. People did that. Dr. Bauman explains that, “Institutionally mandated bureaucratic action is not the same as prudent, compassionate, enlightened, or humane action, whether we consider its origin, purpose, motive, or effect.” In addition, he says:

“The mechanics of bureaucratic rule must be obeyed.  If you are a bureaucrat, you are not permitted to reason, to create, or to feel.  You are not permitted to be authentically human.  You are permitted only do as the manual prescribes, or else be replaced by one who will. Bureaucrats are functionaries and servants, not persons.”

The truth is, real progress, ingenuity, and compassion have somehow managed to flourish despite the growing burden of the burgeoning Administrative State that Sherrod Brown thinks is the only thing standing between Americans and the Grim Reaper.  Government bureaucracy and regulations hold back progress and dehumanize the individual at every turn.

“There is a huge disconnect between Washington politicians and private sector job creators in the area of federal regulation. Every American wants clean air, clean water and a safe workplace, but the overzealous and unnecessary federal regulations created by Washington have negative effects on our economy.

“The excessive cost of compliance takes money away from more productive uses like business growth and job creation. The complexity and uncertainty of regulations and the arbitrary nature of enforcement tempers the willingness of job creators to invest. Overregulation is also a disincentive for new business startups and has a dilatory effect on the entrepreneurial spirit that helped make America an economic superpower…

“…We must act both legislatively and administratively to stop overregulation from hurting the ability of the private sector to compete and create jobs. From manufacturing to agriculture and from tech start-ups to the Mom-and-Pop diner, we must get the federal government out of the way so that private sector job creation can be unleashed.” Josh Mandel

Josh Mandel for Senate

Aside from the more obvious qualities that Ryan brings to the ticket (his social conservative credibility, his superb ability to debate, articulate, and defend conservative values, and his youthful energy), I’d like to mention a few less obvious items that might come into play in future months.

First, Paul Ryan is a graduate of Miami University in Ohio. He graduated in 1992 with a bachelor’s degree in in economics and political science. While it probably won’t make a major difference in terms of peeling off Ohio votes, having a connection to the state certainly won’t hurt in this important swing state.  Miami is a well-regarded university here, located in Oxford, Ohio, near Cincinnati. When I graduated from high school (a few years before Ryan), Miami was where the smart, preppy kids went to college – the kids who wore Izod sweaters and had goals in life. He can certainly use it to name drop and sell himself as the smartest kid in the room.

A second important fact is that Ryan is a Roman Catholic and by most accounts, one who doesn’t thumb his nose at church teachings.

Three words: Chick. Fil. A.

A couple weeks ago, Mike Huckabee (and the social media campaign that followed) tapped into something many people didn’t realize existed: a socially conservative underpinning in America, bubbling just below the surface. Until “Support Chick-Fil-A” day, a lot of people thought they were alone in their beliefs and were afraid to say (outside the confines of their churches) that they supported traditional marriage. Suddenly, they were “out” and the world didn’t come to an end. Nobody burned crosses in their front yards.

We probably will never know if Romney’s choice had anything to do with a realization that Ryan, who has voted in support of traditional marriage his entire career, could help to energize this base. I hope he has the good sense to draw a bold contrast between Obama’s radical policies and the viewpoints of the majority of Americans.  Far from being radical, Ryan’s views are representative of mainstream America. I think Ryan can effectively make the case for that and do it in a way that doesn’t come across as Santorum-y/unlikable.

In addition, as a pro-life Catholic, Ryan is in a unique position to do violence against Obama’s unconstitutional HHS birth control mandate.  For example, Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio, is one of the dozens of schools across the country suing the Obama administration over the HHS mandate.  Franciscan, a Catholic university, dropped it’s student healthcare plan earlier this year over the contraception mandate.  Ryan can eloquently answer the false claims about the fake War on Women.  He can defend the rights of Catholic and Christian schools and businesses in a calm, reasonable manner and bring along millions of Catholic votes in the process.

Here’s what Paul Ryan said in an interview with Laura Ingraham:

“The “teachable moment” here is when we elect a president who brings this progressive philosophy to government, they decide how our rights are going to be granted, given, and organized and if they clash with our First Amendment right of religious freedom or something else, then we know, who wins in that exchange. This is much, much bigger than about contraception.  This is about religious freedom, First Amendment rights, and how this progressive philosophy of fungible rights of a living breathing constitution really clashes and collides with these core rights that we built our society and country around…

“…That is precisely the point I am trying to make which is what the “teachable moment” is.  This isn’t a teachable moment just for Catholics who got duped.  This is a teachable moment for Americans who see that their constitutional rights could be next. They are being abridged in this instance so this goes beyond one church, this goes beyond one issue.This goes into the progressive thinking that is behind these kinds of laws like “ObamaCare” and their implementation. “

Ryan doesn’t just have economic expertise, but he can deliver a powerful message on behalf of social conservatives who have felt the oppressive, strong arm of government pressing down on them for the last four years.

And I can’t wait to see him force fellow-Catholic, Joe Biden, to explain himself on these issues in the vice presidential debate. I think I would even pay money and wait in line overnight for tickets to that show.

There is also the Ayn Rand factor.  Paul Ryan has made some conflicting statements on his support for Rand’s ideas. In a speech to the Atlas Society in 2005, he cited how influential Ayn Rand was in shaping his political views.  This past April, he distanced himself from Rand in an interview with National Review:

“I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand’s novels when I was young. I enjoyed them,” Ryan says. “They spurred an interest in economics, in the Chicago School and Milton Friedman,” a subject he eventually studied as an undergraduate at Miami University in Ohio. “But it’s a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist.”

“I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.”

Ryan’s description is similar to Morton Blackwell’s review on the Leadership Institute’s Read to Lead list:

“It is one of the most devastating critiques ever written of big government and the liberal media.  Rand’s moral indignation is contagious; after reading her, most readers are forever immune to the enticements of socialism.

“It must also be said, however, that the militantly atheistic Rand had an unrealistic view of human nature and little appreciation for cultural values.  Most people, however mesmerized by her they may be in their youth, outgrow Rand’s philosophy, which Burke might have described as a theoretical construct rather than an application of the accumulated wisdom of mankind.”

That said, rumors that Ryan is an Objectivist, Rand devotee, or closet libertarian persist. Twitchy has a collection of tweets perpetuating the rumors. This may actually work to his advantage if it gets some of the Ron Paul or libertarian voters to the polls on election day. The fact that he even knows who Ayn Rand is should at least give him a few bonus points. There are plenty in Congress who don’t know Ayn Rand from Ann Curry.

One last thing. When Ryan was in college, he hawked hot dogs as the driver of the famous Weinermobile. That just might help us with the all important carnivore vote. We can’t afford to take anything for granted.

The Obama campaign has taken this and run with it:

“Mitt Romney and his campaign have completely fabricated a claim that the Obama campaign is trying to restrict military voting in Ohio,” said Rob Diamond, Obama’s veterans and military family vote director. “In fact, the opposite is true: The Obama campaign filed a lawsuit to make sure every Ohioan, including military members and their families, has early voting rights over the last weekend prior to the election.”

Except that what the Democrats (and Snopes and many in the media) are spinning ignores much of the background that surrounds this issue. Please refer to my original diary for a more detailed legislative history. And a disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and have no legal experience whatsoever. I’m simply reading the plain text of the legislation and the lawsuit and calling ‘em as I see ‘em.

The short version is that in fall of 2011 the law was that Ohio allowed early, in-person casting of ballots until the Monday before Election Day. However, Ohio law allowed individual Boards of Election to make the decision about whether or not to stay open the weekend before the election (which is outside of regular business hours). Many did, but most did not. This created a patchwork of election dates and times throughout the state and from precinct to precinct.  A person could move across the street and have different voting times and dates in the next election.

When Republicans took control of the legislature in 2011 they reformed the election laws (HB 194). One aspect was to create uniformity in the early voting laws. Voting would be completed by the Friday before the election at 6 PM (or the close of business, a minor detail causing major headaches). Democrats threatened to repeal the law through a referendum and began collecting signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

During this time, the legislature passed HB 224, which explicitly gave members of the military and their families the right to vote up until election day under UOCAVA (it was actually an amendment to another bill).

Once it was clear that there would be enough signatures to get the repeal measure on the ballot, Republicans, unwilling to go through another messy ballot battle, retaliated by chucking HB 194 – they repealed it themselves (SB 295)…

Except…

Remember, HB224 would now allow the military to vote through Monday (or maybe through election day….pass the Excedrin).

What Obama for America v. Husted seeks to do is throw out the first law (HB 194) and the new law relating to the military early voting (HB224) and revert back to what we had in Ohio before the 2011 reforms:

“A preliminary and permanent order prohibiting the Defendants…from implementing or enforcing lines 863 and 864 of Sec. 3509.03 (I) in HB 224, and/or the SB 295 enactment of Ohio Revised Code § 3509.03 with the HB 224 amendments, thereby restoring in-person early voting on the three days immediately preceding  Election Day for all eligible Ohio voters;”

The fifteen military groups apparently agreed. The suit, which minces no words, says:

“…Although the relief Plaintiffs seek is an overall extension of Ohio’s early voting period, the means through which Plaintiffs are attempting to attain it—a ruling that it is arbitrary and unconstitutional to grant extra time for early voting solely to military voters and overseas citizens—is both legally inappropriate and squarely contrary to the legal interests and constitutional rights of Intervenors, their members, and the courageous men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces….

“…Members of the U.S. Armed Forces risk their lives to keep this nation safe and defend the fundamental constitutional right to vote. The Obama campaign’s and Democratic National Committee’s argument that it is arbitrary and unconstitutional to afford special consideration, flexibility, and accommodations to military voters to make it easier for them to vote in person is not only offensive, but flatly wrong as a matter of law.” [emphasis added]

Members of the military have every right to be upset about what the Obama campaign is trying to do. The Ohio legislature was right to give our men and women who serve our country a few extra days to vote. There are a myriad of reasons they may need to do so and we should make every accommodation for them to get to the polls. That the Obama campaign would sue to try to skim a few extra votes on election day at the expense of our military while denigrating the important work they do is shameful.

On paper, the lawsuit is filed in federal court as Obama for America v. Husted. If you read the content of the complaint, it should actually be called Obama v. the U.S. Troops.

Bloomberg reported on Tuesday:

“Obama for America, the U.S. president’s re-election campaign committee, sued two Ohio officials over changes to state law that limit in-person early voting for some people and not others.

“Under the law, families of armed forces members and civilians overseas can vote through the Monday before an election, while early voting for all other Ohio residents ends on the preceding Friday, a disparity Barack Obama’s campaign claims is unconstitutional.”

The actual substance of the Obama campaign’s lawsuit says that the state of Ohio cannot treat soldiers differently than the ACORN troops they round up on the streets on election day. They argue in the complaint that:

“A state may not arbitrarily impose disparate treatment on similarly situated voters…Thus, once the State of Ohio decides to provide voters with the right to vote early, it cannot arbitrarily grant that right to some voters and not to others. “

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted argues that the state is required by the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act to provide uniformed and overseas military families early, in-person access to voting booths through the day before the election.

Obama for America, along with the Ohio Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee disagrees:

“[F]or purposes of in-person early voting, both UOCAVA and non-UOCAVA voters are identically situated, i.e.,  they are qualified electors who are physically present in their home country when they desire to vote in-person at their county board of elections office prior to Election Day.”

Team Obama does not recognize that there might be extenuating circumstances or hardships relating to their military service, which is the purpose of the UOCAVA. They must be treated like every other citizen.

The background of this entire flap is election-reform legislation that the Ohio legislature passed earlier in the year and Gov. Kasich signed into law. The main goal of the law was to standardize procedures across the state, so every polling place had uniform election rules.

The most controversial part of the new law (in the eyes of the Democrats) set the cut-off date for early, in-person voting for Friday before the election.  Before this law there was a patchwork of dates and times for local boards of election across the state. Democrats were outraged.

What happened next was no surprise. Printers made boatloads of money printing petitions for the repeal effort.  They collected some 300,000 signatures in their repeal effort. Still smarting from their defeat in the union reform effort, the Republicans didn’t have the stomach for another protracted battle.

They repealed the law. In a bizarre twist, Republicans voted 54-42 to repeal a law they had passed with only Republican votes. And the Democrats voted to keep a law they were fighting to put on the ballot to repeal. They wanted a large, expensive public brawl and weren’t going to get it.

Except that Republicans didn’t repeal all of it. The Friday cut-off for early voting was inserted into another bill that Kasich quickly signed into law. The Republican majority also did some administrative housekeeping and made sure the troops were taken care of and would be allowed to vote through Monday, consistent with federal law. This cut the repeal effort off at the knees, but enraged the Democrats, leading to the lawsuit, apparently their last resort at this point.

Obama for America’s whiny suit is arguing that it’s just not fair for the troops to have special privileges.

Husted spoke to the Dispatch:

“Husted said the state is bound to follow federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voter Act, which provides uniformed and overseas military families early, in-person access to voting booths through the day before the election. He also said if the Obama lawsuit were successful, the state would lose uniformity because some county’s would have polls open through the Monday before the election and some wouldn’t.

“If they want equal protection, they should love what I’ve done in this state,” Husted said, referring to decisions he’s made such as ensuring all voters received a mailing asking them if they wanted an absentee ballot in this election.”

Ohio GOP Chairman, Bob Bennett said this is “just another circus sideshow.”

“Nobody is being disenfranchised here, as Ohio’s voters who choose to vote early can do so by mail 24 hours a day, seven days a week or at early voting polls.”

Indeed, nothing is preventing the 100,000 voters Obama says will be disenfranchised from voting the weekend before the cut-off date. In fact, they can begin voting in person a full 35 days before the election and as Bennett said, they can mail their absentee ballot anytime. There is nothing magical about those three days before the election.

But Obama is intent on scoring political points. In fact, this suit has to dig all the way back to 2004 and, guess what? It’s Bush’s fault again! Remember all those disenfranchised voters? They’re back:

“Ohio has a history of troubled elections, most notably the 2004 Presidential race. The administration of that election in Ohio earned the State widespread notoriety for its seven plus hour lines to vote, machine shortages and malfunctions, and a wide assortment of other problems that led to the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters.”

Again, (and Obama ignores this), we now have no-fault absentee voting and a month of early, in-person voting in Ohio. We also have no photo-ID law in this state, so virtually anyone, with nothing more than a utility bill they found in a dumpster, can walk in and fraudulently vote here.

Yet Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina deceptively told supporters in an email on Tuesday:

“Along with the DNC and Ohio Democratic Party, this campaign filed a lawsuit to reinstate equal early voting rights for all Ohioans — rights the Republican-controlled legislature arbitrarily stripped away this past year.”

and added:

“Every Ohioan who cares about this fight, or has fought like hell to keep voting rights intact over the last year, should know the best way to help right now is to join the organizing that’s making sure every eligible voter is ready and able to cast their ballot this fall.”

Classy.

This is certainly an act of desperation by the Obama campaign and we should expect it to be repeated in other states.

But how very sad and pathetic that they would use the troops as pawns in  their private war against the Republicans.

UPDATE:

Fifteen Military groups oppose Obama campaign Ohio lawsuit

“AMVETS, the National Guard Association of the United States, the Association of the U.S. Army and other organizations asked a judge late Wednesday to dismiss the lawsuit.

“The military groups say federal and state law recognizes that service members need extra time to cast their ballots. They say they fear the precedent that could be set if a court finds that military voters shouldn’t be treated differently than other voters.”

UPDATE #2:

Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air concluded (correctly) that the remedy Obama is seeking is to allow voting through Monday for everyone in the state:

“A couple of commenters think this will be a “logistical nightmare,” but the logistics aren’t really that scaleable.  Having the polls open for a few would be the same as having them open for many.  There may need to be  few more election judges, but those positions are voluntary anyway.”

Actually, yes, it is a logistical nightmare. As a poll worker and a presiding judge, I can testify unequivocally that this causes all kinds of problems.

First, the law would resort back to what we had before, which was a patchwork of different times and dates for the end of early voting. People didn’t know from precinct to precinct what the hours and dates were, causing confusion, especially if they moved to a different precinct.

Early voting is held at local boards of elections (BOE). When hours are extended through the weekend, the BOE’s paid staff is required to man the offices, whether or not they have the budget to do so. This in addition to the long hours they must put in the day before, day of, and day after the election.

The other problem is that historically, a lot of the people voting the weekend before the election are carted to the polls by groups like ACORN. They either don’t have proper ID or they are in the wrong precinct, forcing them to vote provisional (paper) ballots. Again, this puts an extra burden on the BOE officials. It also increases the likelihood of voter fraud.

Again, there is a 35-day window for early voting and also no-fault absentee voting. There is no reason anyone can’t find time to vote without carpet-bombing the BOE the weekend before the election.

Portman said:

“Despite repeated signs that Washington’s out-of-control spending threatens to bankrupt the country, Washington continues to be deadlocked about the budget debate. Although Congress continually fails to pass appropriations bills by the October 1^st deadline, we should not force Americans to face the threat of government shutdown hanging over their heads. Our legislation ensures the federal government continues to provide the necessary services to its citizens while protecting against the panic and pressure of last-minute budget deals, allowing Congress to make the decisions necessary to get Washington’s fiscal house back in order…

“…The End Government Shutdowns Act creates an automatic continuing resolution for any regular appropriations bill not completed by October 1. After the first 120 days, CR funding would be reduced by 1 percentage point, and would continue to be reduced by that margin every 90 days. Similar to H.R. 3583, authored by Rep. Lankford (R-OK), this bill gives Congress until January until the first automatic cuts would occur, rather than implementing them on October 1.” [emphasis added]

So instead of having another very public battle resulting from wild, runaway spending without the restraints of a functional budget, members of the Senate fled to their bunkers and opted for self-preservation. They agreed that it would be better to postpone the fight until after the election, kicking the can down the road for whoever comes out alive.

The Hill notes that “[t]he bill stands in stark contrast to the tactics of the Newt Gingrich House in the 1990s which actively sought shutdown scenarios to try to get government spending under control” but adds that “it could boost Portman’s image as a voice of reason capable of bipartisan deal-making. Portman is a contender for the GOP vice presidential nomination this year.”

Well, as long as this is good for the GOP brand and Portman’s VP prospects, this is a great piece of legislation.

The reality is that we ought to be readying crates of tea to toss into the Potomac over this.

Tony Dejak, AP

The headline on the U.S. News and World Report website read:  ”Sen. Sherrod Brown’s Wife Makes Conservative Blogger Look Silly.”  On the WaPo’s Politics blog the headline read, “Connie Schultz hopes for ‘teaching moment’ on conservative blogger’s failed gotcha,” and TPM wrote about “A Reporter’s Failed Attempt to Sandbag Connie Schultz.”

This (allegedly newsworthy) media frenzy about Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown’s wife, Connie Schultz, arose from a post Schultz made to her Facebook page on July 17th:

Setting aside the overall odd tone of the e-mail (from one of the “larger conservative blogs,” as Schultz described it), it’s worth asking why several media outlets thought this was actually newsworthy. To date, there has been no expose written and it appears that the blogger has gone on his merry way. End of story.

But the reality is that Sherrod Brown’s campaign is in trouble. 42% of Ohioans disapprove of the job he’s doing and the most recent Rasmussen poll has challenger Josh Mandel within the margin of error.  The Democrats are pouring millions into attack ads against Mandel – $1.5 million from Sen. Harry Reid’s SuperPAC alone and the DSCC has placed $6.3 million in ads for the fall. They are desperate to keep this seat and so sending the wifey out to do some stealth campaigning is a time-tested strategy for bolstering the base at a critical time. Even better if the wifey is part of the media club.

Predictably, after a few days of media spin and fun with the story on Twitter, Brown’s campaign sent out a fundraising e-mail with the subject line, “Our family scandal.” Schultz’s daughter, Caitlin, wrote, “Go, Mom. Fierce, funny, and direct is the only way to keep these conservative bloggers in their place.”

Mike Warren from the Weekly Standard tweeted, “So the Sherrod Brown campaign is fundraising from a conservative blogger hit piece that was never published.” Yes, exactly.

What’s really ”fierce” and “funny” about this story is the way Mrs. Sherrod Brown just drips with condescension and attempts to claim some journalistic moral high ground. She told the Plain Dealer that she didn’t name the conservative blogger because she didn’t want to be a bully and she wanted him to “pick better company and do better journalism.”

“I can say he was working for one of the larger conservative blogs, but that his name is not in the staff directory. Maybe he’s an intern, maybe an editor was playing a joke on him or maybe he was trying to get a reaction out of me. But I just want him to stop hanging around with those people and learn something out of this.”

Since the vernacular used by Schultz seemed odd to me, I asked Moe Lane of this blog about interns, and he said,

“I honestly don’t know what Schultz is talking about.  In my experience, a blog usually defaults to not having interns at all; typically, you either write for the site, or you don’t.  For example, the closest thing that RedState has is to the concept is ‘diarists,’ and that’s not even all that close: our diarists would rebel if we gave their posts the kind of scrutiny that interns would (rightly) expect.  And… ‘staff directories?’  That’s typically a list on the About page; most sites don’t really have anything more structured.  Most sites don’t really need anything more structured.  I understand that the woman is – ironically, rather provincially – trying to use the structural map of her former employer to describe what allegedly happened here, but if she really is trying to correct a supposed problem then she should at least take the time and educate herself on how blogging actually works.

“Finally, speaking personally… while I appreciate Connie Schultz’s attempts to educate me, I already know how to avoid involuntary retirement for professional misconduct, thanks…”

While I’m sure conservative bloggers everywhere are grateful for her benevolence toward the poor soul upon whom Connie privately publicly bestowed this wise advice, we’re not sure she’s the glowing role model portrayed in the articles. You see, what Moe is alluding to is the fact that Schultz was a columnist for the Plain Dealer until she resigned last year in the wake of a more serious “family scandal.” She was, in fact, caught conducting opposition research on Josh Mandel, her husband’s opponent, while covering a story for the Plain Dealer. While it was an opinion piece on a Tea Party rally, Schultz didn’t disclose that Mandel had spoken at the rally (as she videotaped him) and her byline didn’t mention that she is married to Sherrod Brown.  She wrote in her resignation letter:

“In recent weeks, it has become painfully clear that my independence, professionally and personally, is possible only if I’m no longer writing for the newspaper that covers my husband’s senate race on a daily basis. It’s time for me to move on.”

Of course, Schultz has been canoodling with the Plain Dealer since Brown was elected to the senate in 2007 and oddly enough, Brown has been the hometown favorite at the newspaper. Their coverage of the Brown/Mandel race has deteriorated into little more than a weekly series of wild-eyed attacks on Mandel. Politifact has been especially enthusiastic about denigrating Mandel, going as far as rating a “literally true” statement by the Mandel campaign as “half true” after some hairpin turns and contortions.

Which brings us back to the reason the Plain Dealer (and other online news outlets) thought the contents of Connie Schultz’s Facebook page was newsworthy last week. We understand how these family discounts work and see through the campaign-propaganda-disguised-as-news. It’s the reason we knuckle-dragging conservative bloggers (who never heard of Strunk and White) will write on, with or without Connie’s pats on the head.