Industrial states turn to Democrats while GOP reigns in Ohio

By JOHN McCARTHY
Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Twelve years after the GOP reigned in five industrial, mainly Midwestern states, only Ohio is still governed by a Republican.

Democrats lead Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but have been shut out in Ohio since Richard Celeste left office in 1991. Geography, finances and political farm systems have played a role.

This year's race for Ohio governor is open for the first time since 1998. It is vying for voters' attention with state and national ethics scandals two years after the Republican stronghold returned President Bush to the White House.

Ohio stayed under a GOP administration mostly for two reasons, said Paul Beck, a political scientist at Ohio State University. While far from prosperous, the state's economy was in better shape four years ago than many industrial states, especially Michigan, and the Democratic parties in the other states are better organized than Ohio's, he said.

All five states had Republican governors in 1994. All have heavy manufacturing interests but also are highly dependent on agriculture.

The states' geography plays a factor in elections. While its Midwestern and Eastern neighbors have one or two big cities, Ohio has six of more than 100,000 people. Surrounding them are hundreds of suburbs rich in Republican votes. So are the state's 29 Appalachian counties, where voters give weight to issues such as gun rights and abortion.
In the last open race for governor, Republican Bob Taft beat Democrat Lee Fisher in all but nine of the counties. Taft won the election statewide by 5 percentage points.

Democrats have hung onto the big cities - the five largest have Democratic mayors - but that base is dwindling as suburban migration continues.

Money also had something to do with the 2002 results in governors' races. Ohio Democrat Tim Hagan raised $1.2 million, about one-tenth of the amount raised by Taft, who was easily re-elected. Taft cannot run again this year because of term limits.

Compare that with the $7.5 million that Democrat Jennifer Granholm raised on her way to being elected Michigan governor or the $42.6 million of Pennsylvania Democrat Ed Rendell.
Granholm was snubbed by Michigan's organized labor establishment in the 2002 primary, but that support was key to her victory over Republican Dick Posthumous, said William Rustem, president of the nonpartisan Public Sector Consultants, based in Lansing, Mich.
"Their numbers are diminishing, but when it comes to electing Democrats, they still have a significant role to play," Rustem said of labor.

Ohio's union establishment, meanwhile, has not had much success outside of helping deliver the state to President Clinton twice. In between was the campaign of former state Sen. Rob Burch, a union-backed Democrat who lost to Republican Gov. George Voinovich by 1.5 million votes in 1994.

Ohio also lacks the Democratic farm system that helped get the other four governors known and elected. Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle and Granholm were state attorneys general while Rendell and Illinois Gov. Rod Blajogevic, a former Chicago congressman, came from big-city bases.

No Democrat has been elected statewide in Ohio since 1990.

All four of the Democratic governors hold strong leads in polls this year matching them against Republican challengers, but the GOP tickets in those states are still evolving.
Ohio Democrats acknowledge the past blunders but believe this year they have much of what they lacked in 2002, said Brian Rothenberg, spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party. They have registered more voters and have more field leaders and better technology, and the help from outside organizations that made the 2004 presidential race close in Ohio want another shot in 2008, he said.

"We lost the presidential election in Ohio, but it put us on the political map. It's become a year-round political culture around Ohio," Rothenberg said "They know if you're going to win in 2008, you have to win in 2006."

Democrats see opportunity in the GOP's ethics troubles. Gov. Bob Taft's administration has been caught up for the past year in an investment scandal at the state's injured-worker insurance program. Losses so far have been pegged at $300 million.

In an ethics case, Taft also became the first Ohio governor to be convicted of a crime while in office. Longtime U.S. Rep. Bob Ney is being investigated in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

"There's an awful lot of good movement here toward the Democratic Party," former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee, said at a recent fundraiser for the state party. "The record of this governor and the problems of this administration are going to be a great launching pad."

After four stinging defeats for governor, most Ohio Democrats are embracing U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland in the May 2 primary. He has raised $3 million, 10 times more than his nearest competitor, state Sen. Eric Fingerhut, who entered the race in January.

The winner will face one of two veteran Republican statewide officeholders: Auditor Jim Petro or Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. Should Strickland - who picked the more liberal Fisher as his running mate - emerge as the Democratic nominee, he would give the Democrats their best chance in 20 years to win the November election, Beck said.
"He has positioned himself as more of a centrist. There are a lot of issues where he does not take a traditional Democratic position and he's balanced the ticket. He's doing a lot of the things a Democrat needs to do to run a strong race," Beck said.

What may be standing in Ohio Democrats' way is the GOP's superb organization, headed by state party Chairman Robert Bennett, who has held the job since 1988, said Melanie Blumberg, a political science professor at California (Pa.) University.

Republicans acknowledge borrowing Democrats' tactics to get out the vote. However, while Democrats rely on outside forces such as unions for help, the Republicans do it within their own ranks.

"The Republicans keep beating the Democrats at their own game," Blumberg said.

Thoughts on the State of the Union Address...

For a person who is suppose to stumble on words and not be able to deliver a speech properly I thought President Bush did an admirable job of relaying his message. Unlike Clinton, whom when ever he spoke you never knew if he was lying or trying to cover up another scandal, this president is very believable and isn't afraid to say what he is thinking. Just as in a previous State of the Union Address when he came right out and named Korea, Iraq, and Iran as the Axis of Evil, President Bush once again defined our battle against terrorism and gave certain rogue nations and terrorists a stern warning. He also said "...we will never surrender to evil" which is really what this war is all about, radical Islam and terrorism. Whether you agree with this war or not President Bush is doing the right thing. For YEARS there has been trouble in the middle east and recently is has spread to our shores. Establishing democracy in Iraq and hoping that they make the right choices is the best chance for peace in the region and ultimately the world.

He also talked about other issues but the other one that caught my attention is when he spoke about the Advanced Energy Initiative which debunks the theory from the far left that Republicans are anti-environment. So much for that theory.

In summary excellent speech one that made me feel proud to be an American!

As for the rebuttal by Tim Kaine Democrat Governor of Virginia it was ridiculous. I came away watching it shaking my head. How many times did he say "there is a better way"? What way? It is so reminiscent of John Kerry's "I have a plan". Really? What? It seems when the opposition has little substance they throw out a phrase or word that they keep repeating in hopes of it eventually getting in you psyche. I am sure that there is people who listened intently to this rebuttal and if asked what they think of the job President Bush is doing, they will reply "there is a better way". You have to guard yourself against empty rhetoric.

Lastly, old news but....

Hats off to Canada for electing a conservative government. Our Northern Neighbors have also woken up to the nonsense of the liberals.

Congratulations on the victory!

God Bless America and May the Conservative Movement Continue Onward

Submitted by: Carey Masci

Connect the Dots - Letter from Ken Mehlman

The President's most solemn duty under our Constitution is to protect the American people. In the four years since we were attacked, this President has made a commitment to take this war directly to the enemy, and to use all the tools at his disposal to keep America safe. A critical element in this strategy is the terrorist surveillance program that the President authorized shortly after September 11th.

This week, President Bush discussed this vital program in remarks at Kansas State University and the National Security Agency. The President's remarks addressed the critics and debunked the falsehoods and distortions. The terrorist surveillance program monitors al Qaeda terrorists and affiliates making phone calls into or from the United States - precisely the type of communication that preceded the 9/11 attacks. This is not "domestic spying" on ordinary Americans arranging Little League practices or pot luck dinners. It's a tool that even FDR used in fighting World War II.

With Democrats deliberately distorting the truth about these efforts to stop attacks before they occur, will you help separate fact from fiction by writing a letter to the editor, calling talk radio, or calling your elected officals about this vital program?

After September 11th, we heard so often that our government failed to connect the dots. So, the President signed the Patriot Act, which had been passed overwhelmingly by Congress. He took appropriate action to connect the dots. He reformed the government bureaucracy, enabling it to fight a different kind of war.

Now, the Patriot Act is up for renewal. How do Democrats respond? They play politics, brag about "killing" the Patriot Act (video here), and accuse the President of breaking the law and violating civil rights. These are not the actions of a party that can be trusted to safeguard our national security.

The President is committed to fighting this war and will not let our nation let its guard down. Take action now and let your fellow Americans know that you won't either.

Sincerely, Ken Mehlman
Chairman, Republican National Committee

The President's State of the Union Address

January 31, 2006

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, fellow citizens: As we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the state of our Union has never been stronger. (Applause.)

We last met in an hour of shock and suffering. In four short months, our nation has comforted the victims, begun to rebuild New York and the Pentagon, rallied a great coalition, captured, arrested, and rid the world of thousands of terrorists, destroyed Afghanistan's terrorist training camps, saved a people from starvation, and freed a country from brutal oppression. (Applause.)

Entire Speech