Can't Get a Penny From the Block

As Anthony from Ohio Daily pointed out in his piece here, the fundraising numbers for Jennifer Brunner were again not what we'd hoped this quarter. I personally adore Jennifer Brunner for all that she stands for (and have given money to her in support of this campaign), and I want to believe the Brunner camp's right when they say "the polls are a dead heat" and they're "certain to do even better next quarter."

Then again, I wanted to believe that last quarter, too.

The political reality speaks otherwise. While it's true that Mike DeWine beat Sherrod Brown in the money race and still got his butt kicked last time out, the margin (or "Diff" for you Cavs fans) in that race was $15M to $10M, or a 3-2 ratio. That's pretty close in the grand scheme of things.

Right now, Fisher leads Brunner in fundraising at a $2M to $500,000 clip, or a 4-1 ratio. Portman has $4.3M in the bank, or what would be near a 9-1 deficit for Brunner.

Projecting the current pace ahead into the next quarter, we would see Rob Portman with around $5.5M in the bank, Lee Fisher with approximately $3M, and Jennifer Brunner with $750,000. Her deficit ratios to Fisher and Portman would be 4-1 and 7-1, respectively.

My point? At this pace, math and time are not on Brunner's side.

In the political horse race (as in real horse racing), "show" simply isn't good enough to bring home the prize. Brunner has about one more quarter left to show that she can rake with the big boys (so, until the end of 2009). If she's not within 50% of Fisher's haul by that time, it may be time to start thinking about the "good of the party" and her own political future.

While it's true that the protracted presidential primary had the effect of keeping the Dems in the news and raising both of them extra cash, this Senate primary is different. News coverage of this primary hasn't been about a party that "can't decide between two great choices," it has been "insurgent won't concede to entrenched party stalwart." That's not a good meme for our side, ladies and gentlemen. Another lackluster quarter, and Brunner's campaign will go from a grassroots driven, Obama-esque drive for a "better way" to a drag on Democratic hopes in our state for 2010.

And a word about the close polling...those of us who follow politics closely sometimes forget that the majority of the sane world does not. While it's true that Brunner and Fisher both edge Portman in polls now, and that Brunner and Fisher are in a dead heat, all of the polling we're currently seeing is before any real amounts of cash have been spent. Politicians do all of this fundraising to purchase advertising, and advertising works. While time will tell if these polling numbers hold up after the spending begins, precedent is not on former Judge Brunner's side.

Yes, Brunner's camp correctly points out that Fisher lost in two races while outspending his opponent by nearly $1M each time. The missing part of that story is that the Republicans in those races were not trailing in fundraising by even the 3-2 margin Sherrod Brown overcame in 2006. Brown's election, too, came in the Democratic wave of 2006, not during a mid-term election following a presidential win (where the party in power historically loses ground).

All of the signs are pointing to one thing, something I think many of us would rather not acknowledge: these fundraising numbers will spell Brunner's early exit without drastic improvement.

So Jennifer, as someone who deeply respects you and believes you're probably the better candidate, I implore you: kick this fundraising mechanism into gear now. Use Chris Celeste's business connections. Use Ken Blackwell like the boogeyman he is. Camp out at the State Department until Hillary promises to surrogate for you in every county in Ohio. Otherwise, your own bid for the Senate in 2010 may be effectively over before we reach the election year's first day.

Thoughts on the Ohio Budget

As the long-awaited 2010-2011 Ohio budget finally makes its way out of conference committee today, details continue to emerge on the budget's contents including further information on the impact of the reduced budget on various programs and the shape and scope of video slots gambling provisions.

It remains unlikely that the final budget will reach Gov. Strickland's desk before the current temporary budget expires on Tuesday (meaning that $14M cost associated with the delay is likely to go up a few hundred thousand dollars while the House and Senate debate and vote on the compromise bill). Still, we will have a state budget (which is good news for all Ohioans), which will look very similar in its final form to this version.

As they say, however, the devil is in the details, and this budget's horns seem to grow by the day. A look at positives and negatives (with comments):

Full disclosure: As an advocate of Legal Aid programs, I am saddened to see the state budget contains no provision to support legal services for the state's poor. I understand that cuts must come, but taking monies away from protecting Ohio's poorest citizens from exploitation to me seems the wrong place for a trim. I'll leave my commentary on the legal services count at that, and move on to general positives and negatives of the compromise bill.

Positives.

Institutes all day kindergarten. This is a cornerstone of the Governor's education proposal, and will go a long way toward addressing the state's education shortfalls. Still need to figure out a long-term solution to Ohio's unconstitutional funding model, but focusing on the front end of education (where changes have the most impact) is a start.

Eliminates proposal to lease state land for oil and gas drilling and coal extraction. It's bad for ANWR, and it's bad for Old Man's Cave.

Makes permanent earlier laws on continuation of health benefits. As this fall's election demonstrates, health care reform (and greater access across the board to affordable health care) is a huge priority for voters in Ohio and across the nation. Allowing the continuation of health benefits is, again, a good first step. As the federal health care proposal hits some rocky ground, however, it is important that the Governor and legislature look hard at how Ohio can bridge the gap on this critical policy issue. Gov. Strickland speaks often of being a leader in education and energy, and as Ohio plays home to many of the nation's premiere health care facilities and largest insurers, this blogger believes health care should be at the top of that list, as well.

Minimizes cuts to libraries. Perhaps no issue got so much press as the proposed deep cuts to library funding. Apparently, the Governor and Legislature agree that ignorance is expensive, as the cuts have been reduced to a more manageable $84M over two years. That's not ideal, but it's much better than what we were looking at.

Increases funding for mental health services. From the outset, it appeared very likely that the first cuts in a reduced state budget would come in mental health services. Perhaps noting that these kinds of cuts can have drastic impacts on the social health and well-being of the state, the conference committee voted to increase funding by $65M over the proposed framework levels. Win-win.

Negatives.

Allows Sunday liquor sales starting at 11am. I'm no prude, and I do love a good glass of Woodford Reserve or Four Roses Bourbon on occassion, but c'mon...does drinking earlier really solve any of those problems? Maybe this provision is in there to allow state legislators to pretend there isn't a fiscal crisis, at least for a little while...or, maybe it's for recovering from this hellish budget process.

Allows furloughs at public colleges and universities. I'll need to read up on this further, but if this provision is along the lines of California's recent mandatory furloughs for state employees (amounting to an average loss of up to $14,000 per person), then I'm not on board.

Cuts higher education funding. I've said it many, many times before, and I'll say it again: any comprehensive education plan must contain provisions investing in education on the front end in early childhood, and on the back end in higher education. As our economy moves further away from our manufacturing roots and into the "knowledge" economy, we'll need to encourage the pursuit of higher education wherever possible. Cuts in this area (and to programs providing Choice Grants to Ohio high schoolers choosing an Ohio college) hurt our ability to attract and retain college educated folks to the state. Those same college educated citizens have higher earning potential and pay higher taxes across the board. Long term, we should be doing everything to encourage the pursuit of higher education in Ohio, and cutting funding is no way to do that.

Doesn't address long-term revenue stream issues. The higher education piece is just one part of the puzzle. Even with the cuts provided here and revenue from gambling (more on that below), this budget does not yet show me that there is a real plan for identifying stable new revenue streams and balancing state spending responsibly based on those new revenue sources. Modern Esquire has beaten this issue to death on BSB, and his analysis of the political realities preventing a tax increase are spot-on. And yet...does anyone see a long-term solution to Ohio's budget woes that doesn't include some kind of tax increase? I recognize that a magical tax on the upper 1% of wage earners that solves Ohio's problems doesn't exist. What about passing a smaller, short-term tax on income on the top 50% (which probably includes a slice of the middle class)? What about a tax on real estate transactions (slowing home foreclosure rates), or an increase in estate taxes on large transfers at death (focused on estates worth over $1M)? There are ways to skin the tax cat that don't involve huge political risks if they're handled correctly, and sooner or later we're going to have to come up with a creative solution along these lines or deal with another protracted fight like this one that leaves many gaps in government services to Ohioans.

The gambling stuff is still there. Which brings us to the gambling issue. Gov. Strickland and his team get my respect for thinking creatively and taking a political risk on this issue with an eye toward solving a problem. Still, gambling is at its core a regressive form of taxation, and preys upon addiction (not unlike tobacco taxes, which I find equally troubling). Video terminal gambling is "victimless" in the sense that the terminals are going it at racetracks, and presumably being used by people who would already be gambling anyway. But, is this really behavior we want to encourage? Government at its best provides an atmosphere that allows citizens to excel in a safe and supportive environment, and at its worst preys on the weaknesses of those citizens to support itself. The gambling proposal is a hybrid, using exploitative means to provide what I think most of us will concede are needed services. This proposal, like so many other parts of this budget, can only be chewing gum on a radiator leak: it might work for a little while, but sooner or later it's going to explode, with disastrous results for the engines of state.

So, in a not-so-concise nutshell, that's this man's view of the budget proposal. Do your thoughts differ? What should be we considering to get to fulfill Ted's promise and turn around Ohio? As always, I welcome your ideas and thoughts.

States Rights and Gay Rights Unite

So a quick check-in from bar study land (I'll be back writing several times a week starting in August - I really miss it, especially when compared to the Rules of Statutory Intestate Succession).

The State of Mass has filed suit against the federal government claiming that the Federal DOMA Statute (Defense of Marriage Act, for those of you non-acronym-types out there) violate the state's constitutionally protected right to define and regulate marriage. This "state's rights to regulate privacy" argument has it roots is the Roe line of cases, but that's not really relevant to the current discussion. What is relevant is what I think this means to those of us who are non-moral based libertarians who are always excited about state's rights and for those out there that are supportive of gay rights as a basic human rights issue.

This challenge may be the best positioned legal argument since the housing discrimination "test" cases of the early NAACP. The state is claiming that its right are violated, not the rights of the individuals that are the typical plaintiffs in these cases (i.e. the homosexual individual claiming that they are being denied due process or claiming sexuality as a protected fundamental right akin to race or gender). This repositioning of the plaintiff repositions the argument, but most importantly, repositions the votes on the high court.

While the high court has yet to hear a case on the gay marriage question, I strongly suspect that an argument based on individual challenges to due process or marriage as a fundamental right to be decided in the typical 5-4 Kennedy driven split that will refuse to add sexuality to the laundry list of protected classes (again, I may be wrong, but that's where politics seems to point).

However, an argument based on state's rights flips the question on its head. Those who would be most opposed to the individual rights question (Scalia and Thomas in particular) are also the strongest proponents of state's rights on the current court. We may see a split dicta, but this case could easily be decided in favor of Mass by a 7-2 type decision that would have Brown type implications for our society, much to the chagrin of the 29 states that have passed constitutional amendments outlawing gay marriage and the 13 others that have statutory prohibition on the practice. There are two main provisions of the federal DOMA law (one exempts the issue from full faith and credit and the other defines marriage in the federal context) and this challenge could find the law constitutionally invalid on either or both provisions.

If the court acts how I anticipate they will, assuming of course the case gets there, it would leave the daunting federal constitutional amendment process as they only option available to those dead set on forbidding the practice as an abomination to American society. I don't think the nation will stomach writing a group out of the Constitution with that wide a stroke, but who knows. Either way, it'll make for a great issue in the 2012 Presidential Election (think Obama will take a firm position on it? For a change, I hope so...(see what I did there, recall humor)).

Ok, now back to Civil Procedure and the rights of joinder...

Blinded By the Right

Manfred Mann's not blinded by the Right. Jeb Bush, on the other hand...

This is a post for my wife. See, each month a glossy new edition of Esquire magazine shows up in our mailbox, full of insights on politics, style, literature and cuisine that she finds more than a little pretentious and annoying (despite excellent writing by the likes of Tom Chiarella, A.J. Jacobs, and Cleveland's own Scott Raab). It wouldn't be a stretch to call it the greatest source of tension in our young marriage.

Thankfully, yesterday the remarkably unremarkable Tucker Carlson's article in Esquire finally gave us something to agree on from that publication: Jeb Bush has been blinded by the Right.

How else does one explain his insistence that his brother was more popular than Obama at this point in his term? (He wasn't; at this point in his first term, Bush's approval ratings were in the high 50s to low 60s, compared to Obama's in the mid to high 60s).

His disbelief in global warming? (Choice quote: "...science has been politicized." Evolution denial, apparently, no longer qualifies as "politicization").

His "I don't know" answer to whether or not Obama is a socialist? (Good to know McCarthyism is still alive and kicking).

His insistence that the only reason the Republicans failed to retake the White House was the "sin" of not advocating the Right's position well enough to win? (Hint: The real reason's first name rhymes with "gorge," and his second name rhymes with "push." As in, the gorge your brother pushed your party into).

Yes, most of what Jeb had to say was simple boilerplate conservatism. There's one piece of that, though, that he (and the rest of the Republican party) still deeply believe, and it's one that will doom them to a permanent minority if they don't recognize it soon: the fallacy of the "center-right country."

Much typeface has been dedicated to the debate over what Sarah Palin cringe-inducingly referred to as "the Real America" actually looks like. Since the Reagan Revolution (when I was negative 4 years old), it has been taken as an order of faith on the Right that America is a fundamentally Christian, socially and economically conservative place.

The Left, though issuing mild protest, has never articulated a sufficiently succinct and cogent response. So, every few weeks we get to hear about how America is "center-right," and how the Left wins elections not because it possesses a message that connects with the electorate but because it's better at demagoguery and sleight of hand.

Oy.

I'm not a statistician, but it doesn't require an advanced degree in mathematics to see that America (which probably most accurately can be called a "center-center" country right now) is actually moving left in most every measurable way. Barack Obama won election in November with 365 electoral votes, and 53% of the popular vote. Hispanics are projected to be 25% of the American population by 2050. Obama won five of the ten fastest growing U.S. states (Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, and Delaware) and was closer than expected in three others (Arizona, Georgia, and Texas). Tucker Carlson's own question to Jeb in this interview admitted 1/3 of young voters self-identify as Socialists. According to Gallup, the GOP has lost ground in nearly every demographic group (retaining 2001 levels of support only among frequent church-goers, and losing with even conservatives and seniors).

I could go on.

The point? All the statistical and anecdotal evidence points to a trend leftward. If ever the fallacy that America is a "center-right" nation was true, it certainly isn't any more. And the more the GOP listens to the Bushes and the Limbaughs (Jeb called him a "hugely important force in the conservative movement") rather than the Joe Scarboroughs and the Andrew Sullivans, the longer their time wandering in the desert will be.

Which is good for Democrats.

So, Jeb Bush, keep lettin' that socially conservative "silicone sister (with a manager, mister)" tell you ya got what it takes. The longer you (and your party) stay blinded by the Right, the less likely we'll have to look back on a day our collective "calliope crashed to the ground."

Turner & Hooch

Rep. Turner: "Nice to meet you, little girl..."
Little Girl: "Maybe you should read Wickard v. Filburn..."

Apparently Congressman (and former Dayton Mayor) Mike Turner was hitting the sauce a bit harder than normal in celebration of our country's birthday this past weekend.

How else to explain this recent story, wherein he suggests a constitutional amendment to prevent government investment in the private sector?

Rep. Turner proposed the amendment to stop a government he feels is "creeping towards socialism" from repeating attempts to save GM, the banks, and other private institutions the Obama Administration (and the Bush Administration) deemed "too big to fail." His proposed amendment received 103 original co-sponsors.

As anyone who watched Saturday morning cartoons in the 1980s can tell you, a proposed constitutional amendment has some serious uphill climbing to do to make it into our law. (Would the same were true in Ohio...maybe then we'd stop seeing interest groups use our state's constitution like a beach ball to bat around passing issues...but, that's a topic for another post.)

What's disturbing about Turner's bill is not its likelihood of passage, but its complete blindness to how government and the private sector historically interact in America. Much of the wealth that exists in this country today is the by-product of investments made during Franklin Roosevelt's reorganization of the American banking system during the Great Depression. The thinker widely credited as the forbearer of the conservative movement in America, Alexander Hamilton, penned a Report on Public Credit while Secretary of the Treasury. That document suggested that the United States assume all state debts incurred during the Revolution, essentially making the federal government the "largest stockholder" in state governments.

This, to say nothing of the fact that taxation and public spending of any kind is de facto government investment in the private sector. The stuff of commerce--roads, bridges, even the internet--is the direct result of the investment of government dollars in our national economic best interest. There's also a little thing called the Commerce Clause which (according to the Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn) gives the Congress near carte blanche to intervene in the economy where activities have a "substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." It might just be me, but I think that the prospective failure of the banking and auto industries in this country qualifies.

Perhaps rather than attempting to amend our Constitution willy nilly, Rep. Turner and his 103 sponsors should consider reading it. Novel, but probably worth doing if, you know, you intend to govern.

The Gov's Gambling Crapshoot

They say that politics makes strange bedfellows. In Ohio, it's increasingly looking like economics makes dysfunctional marriages.

Gov. Ted Strickland (yep, that one...the Methodist minister) is standing behind a plan to place slot machines at all Ohio horse racing venues as a way to generate revenue for our increasingly crippled economy. According to the Administration, that proposal would likely generate at least $900M, and help pay for things like, say, library funding in our great state.

So, we all get to have a little fun playing the ponies and dropping quarters in the slots, and folks have access to books and jobs and roads. Everyone wins...right?

The problem here is that this is an incredibly risky political choice for a man who holds his ministerial credentials in high regard, and who has openly campaigned against the latest proposal to bring full-scale casino gambling to the Buckeye State. Already, Senate Republicans are taking advantage of the opening, creating a "task force" to examine the "viability" of Strickland's proposal. Sen. President Bill Harris (he of the wicked buzz cut) is already playing the move for political points, saying he won't approve of any gambling plan that doesn't come before Ohio's voters first.

The disconnect here isn't tough to grasp. One the one hand, we have a $3.2B hole in the state budget to plug. On the other, we have the repeated votes of Ohioans to kibosh prior gambling plans, concerns about the regressive nature of gambling as a tax revenue generator, and the Governor's own history of opposing gambling proposals.

It's a pickle.

Despite this blogger's prior lambasting of gambling proposals as precisely the wrong kind of revenue for reviving a crippled economy, we have to remember that we're living in desperate times. Whether it's fair or not, ultimately the responsibility for steering the ship of state falls on Gov. Strickland's shoulders. In this economic storm, there are hardly enough buckets to bail water fast enough, and anything and everything that will help Ohio stay afloat until we can get this thing fixed has to be considered. California is going to start issuing IOUs for its debts, and a great many other states are struggling to keep their collective heads above water. For now, the Governor's decision, though tough, is the right one. Do what you've gotta do to stay afloat, and deal with the fallout later.

For better or worse, Strickland is now inextricably married to the gambling plan. For his sake (and ours), lets just hope that in addition to this quick fix he can identify what put us in this position in the first place, and come up with an economic recovery plan that sets us on the path to long-term economic stability.

For all the crowing Bill Harris and the Senate Republicans are doing right now about gambling, rolling the dice on a long-term plan for recovery (in addition to the slot machine band-aid) might just give them more crow to eat than even they can stomach.

Ohio Politics. Daily.

That's where you'll find me...

Today begins an exciting new chapter in this blogger's experience. Starting today, yours truly will be a front page contributor to Ohio Daily Blog, one of our state's oldest, most respected, and most-read outlets of internet opinion and commentary.

I'll be posting my content there here, as well, so feel free to stop by either place and share your opinions of...my opinions.

The Empire Strikes Back: The Return of Triangulation

Has President Obama turned his back on campaign promises?

Before we get into the meat of this post, a word on the status of Buckeye Punditeers. Since its inception last summer, the premise of this blog has been hosting a spirited debate about state and national politics from both sides of the cultural divide, and allowing our readers to draw their own conclusions. Though we've had spurts of great activity, we've suffered through two major transitions already in our young history.

As such, this blog has taken a little break, and one that I don't see breaking anytime soon. As for this blogger, I'm still planning on offering insights here from time to time, but nothing near the regularity with which I formerly posted. Who knows...you might see me pop up from time to time in other places, but for now I feel I can better serve the political discourse by participating in other (potentially less "ecumenical") ways.

That said, on with the post...

Two pieces of news today shocked this blogger awake from my recent slumber. As reported by Ben Smith on Politico.com, it appears that the Obama Administration has taken two large steps backward from what has to this point been a very progressive agenda by tacitly backing DOMA and rejecting the single-payer healthcare option. For a president many on the right claimed would be a One Termer as a result of his "radical leftist agenda," these are stunning developments.

In defending DOMA in a pending federal district court case, the Administration cites to the 48 year-old precedent in Catalano v. Catalano (170 A.2d 726 if you'd like to read it yourself) reaffirming that incest is not valid marriage because it is contrary to public policy. The problem? They cite Catalano in a brief supporting a state ban on gay marriage. While Barack Obama has never portrayed himself as the great champion of the gay rights movement, he has allowed others to (seemingly) overstate his support for gay rights. As a man who swept to power on the support and overwhelming energy of young voters (58% of which support gay marriage outright), this sort of stand is beyond perplexing.

While the DOMA brief would itself make today a bad news day for the Left, Obama's AMA speech in support of health care reform took off of the table an option a great many on the Left believe is the only way to achieve true and lasting healthcare parity in this country. By taking what I can only guess is a preemptive stand to avoid the fate of Hillarycare, Obama ends an opportunity for engaging in a fundamental debate about what might be best for the health of our nation, and reduces the debate to a squabble over the extension of existing programs.

Why is it that we only seem to "leave all the options on the table" in this country in the military context, and are so unwilling to go to war over social issues at home?

Already, this renewed healthcare debate is raising the spectre of former losses, and one can't help but wonder if the presence of so many Clintonistas in the Administration is resulting in PTSD-related decision making on this crucial issue. It was, after all, the failure of the Hillarycare proposal that led a once-ambitious President Clinton to engage in what we now derisively call "triangulation."

In the early days of his Administration, Barack Obama has moved our nation forward on a number of fronts, including stem cell research, equal pay, and energy. My prayer for him, and for all of us, is that today's hiccup on DOMA and single-payer is just that. Else, we may continue to find ourselves reliving the debates of the 1990s in these eerie ways.

For a President elected on a platform of "audacious hope" and "change we can believe in," today's developments are shockingly conventional and concessionary.

BP After Hours: Tappin' the Rockies

After a 2 week hiatus, BP After Hours returns in true Big Ten fashion. Pull up your barstool, wipe the week-old Coors from the sticky counter, and dig in...

Well, bud, here we are again. It's been a while...why have I been away? Well, it's the simple matter of PILF (no, not something you'd like to "If You Seek Amy," you sick bastard). This week, I've been neck deep in a cause higher than Ohio politics. See, I'm involved in this group that gives fellowships to students to help poor folks get access to legal services...we had our annual fundraiser this Thursday, and we raised over $30,000. Yeah, in this economy, that pretty much rocks.

To celebrate, the Columbus branch of BP has taken its time enjoying what it means to attend law school at a Big Ten institution. What does that mean in March, right around St. Patty's Day? That means riding the Silver Bullet to Tap the Rockies and root on THE Ohio State Buckeyes in the Big Ten hoops tourney. Not sure you got to this shitty little bar in time, but you just missed the Bucks thrashing Michigan State 82-70 to make their way to the Big Ten tourney finals and cement a spot in the Dance.

Wait...what's that? You don't give a damn about PILFs or the Big Ten, you want to talk politics? Fine. Have it your way.

From a blogosphere perspective, there hasn't been a more interesting happening this week than the implosion of Buckeye State Blog. In a little under 3 days, the blog lost their Brunner homer and their Fisher homer. Poor David Potts...left to fend for himself, all alone in the mad, mad world of Democratic Ohio political blogging. David, if you want some help, this Brass Collar Buckeye is always free (anyone else suddenly thinking Abba?). Same goes to ModernEsquire or Nick D...the front page is always open here at Buckeye Punditeers. Come on board, fellas.

Surprisingly, for all the hub-bub at BSB over the Brunner/Fisher race, things have been pretty quite in the Ohio Senate campaign. I mean, we've seen increased commentary from Zack Space (asking for a rural policy from the Obama administration) and Tim Ryan (asking for constituent commentary with lame hip-hop), but other than that, things are quite. Too quite...

...Which, brings us to the economy. Again. This week's best? That'd be Jon Stewart ripping Jim Cramer apart on The Daily Show, and Cramer's subsequent ratings nosedive. Don't know about you, but the power Jon Stewart has over our political discourse scares me. A lot.

This week's economic worst? Toughie here, but I'm going to make a call and say that the political hot potato with the economic crisis ranks first. The Obama administration can't say often enough that the crisis was "inherited from the Bush Administration," while the Republicans are getting fond of calling this crisis the "Obama economy." As a loyal Dem, I'm going to say Obama has the better part of the argument here...still, is it really constructive to engage a party like the Republicans right now?

I mean, this is a group of folks who can't even decide where they stand on abortion and homosexuality. Just ask Michael Steele. I'm starting to feel bad for this guy...I mean, he's already lost a face-off with Rush Limbaugh, and offended the crucial "one-armed midget" demographic. If he survives until Memorial Day as RNC Chair, I'll buy you a steak dinner. (Hell, I'll buy all five people who read my blog steak dinners. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.)

It's not just the national Republican Party that's lost in the woods, either. The Ohio GOP must feel pretty queasy right now, given that their only statewide officeholder, Auditor Mary Taylor, made a giant ass of herself this week in Bellefontaine with the Logan County GOP. Her message? "Government isn't the answer; government is the problem." Ah, 1980...good times, good times. Just guessin', but she was orobably introduced to Lady by Kenny Rogers or The Captain and Tennille's Do That To Me One More Time, too. So long as this party continues living in the past, they'll never be viable again...

One more gem from that meeting, a quote from former State Rep. and current Logan County Commissioner Tony Core: "...we need to educate people about the dangers of socialism and the rights you'll lose."

Ahem.

I'll put this in simple terms, because I know the Republican Party somehow found a time warp this November: Barack Obama NOT EQUAL TO Joseph Stalin. Ted Strickland NOT EQUAL TO Karl Marx. The quicker they get that, the quicker they become relevant again. The name calling simply diminishes the party, and in a system that thrives when both parties present cogent ideological arguments, pushes the date of future Republican relevance further into the future.

What else? Boehner's man-tan is still scary...Rush Limbaugh is still a big, fat idiot...

Oh! That reminds me...Al Franken might finally (FINALLY) be seated as the new Senator from Lake Wobegon next week, as Norm Coleman's halting and sputtering quest for judicial relief from the voter's choice finally rested yesterday. Whatever the outcome, Minnesotans deserve adequate representation, and soon. Here's hoping the Supreme Court of the Land of 1,000 Lakes sees it that way, too.

What's that? You've gotta go? Something about the World Baseball Classic and USA v. Puerto Rico?

Fine. Quick, here's what to look for next week:

-Gov. Strickland's education plan is going to continue its vetting...so far, so good, though.
-The Ohio Casino plan backed by Dan Gilbert (Cavs owner) is going to get more coverage.
-The Columbus Dispatchwill publish a ridiculous right-leaning op-ed piece criticising, well, everything.

I guess until then, that's it. Go Bucks, and drive safely.

The 4th Amendment and the Bailout Plan

So here's an academic Constitutional Law question for you to chew on:

Everyone, no matter their party affiliation, has some very public love for the protections of the 4th Amendment. For those that need a refresher, here's the text:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In other words, this was the addition to the Constitution offered by the founders who were concerned that their new government would revert to the aggressive and controversial police tactics that had plagued the colonist under British rule. The main concern was illegal searches and seizures, but the amendment has created a whole line of cases dealing with these issue, probable cause, oaths by police officers, particularity of affidavits, and how all of these rules apply differently depending on if the search was at home, in a car, at the boarder, or on the street.

I tell you that so I can ask you this: How does the government's involvement in private organizations through the bailout and economic stimulus plan effect the rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government?

We've long been ok with private companies collecting information about us if we consent to the search - think about the AdSearch program used by Yahoo mail that targets all of the ads in your inbox based on keywords in your messages, that "shoppers card" you signed up for at the market to save a few bucks, the "recommender" tools on Amazon and E-Bay to direct you towards similar purchases, and so on an so forth. (As an aside, I used to work for a marketing company and it's shocking how much we knew about everyone on our mailing list).

However, we've been hesitant to allow the government to collect the same sort of information, seeing that as an unnecessary and undesirable intrusion by the government on our privacy rights. (And yes, I'm one of those wackos that doesn't see the word "privacy" in there and has a problem with including it as a fundamental right, but that's a different fight for a different day.)

So here's the rub - when the government buys interest in private companies in the name of economic stabilization (as much as 80% interest in some cases so far, with dozens more buyouts on the near horizon), how do we rectify the privacy guarantees of the 4th Amendment with the explicit government access to the banking, communication, and other records of private citizens?

This isn't something I've heard anyone mention when talking about the buyouts. No one - on either side of the aisle, as far as I can tell.

I wish I had an answer - I'd be rich if I did (because I'd be on the federal bench somewhere letting a clerk do my work and sitting poolside in FL like Justice Stevens). But I just wanted to bring it up and see what everyone else thought. Are "safeguards" good enough for our constitutional protections? How does the left rectify an absolutely terrified approach to government involvement on one hand (from abortions to religions to etc) with blatantly allowing the government direct access to all of the private records of citizens on the other hand? Or is this an indication that they've given up on privacy in favor of involvement?