Posted on 09/24/2005 7:30:20 AM PDT by xzins
National Review- Print Edition, October 10, 2005
Obsessive concern for tennis schedules isn’t usually regarded as one of Jimmy Carter’s virtues, but a similar attention to detail might have saved the Ohio GOP a lot of grief: On August 18, Republican governor Bob Taft pleaded no contest to four misdemeanor counts of failing to report golf outings and a variety of other gifts on his financial-disclosure forms. He became Ohio’s first sitting governor to be convicted of a criminal charge. There’s now a chance he’ll be stripped of his law license, just as Bill Clinton was following his admission of false testimony. Democrats in Columbus even began to mention that other word associated with Slick Willie — impeachment — but then realized that a scandal-plagued Taft is more useful to them than no Taft at all.
That’s because Democrats finally stand a good chance of breaking the Republicans’ lock on this swing state. Taft’s indiscretions are a key reason for the Democrats’ improved odds, but hardly the only one. More important is the Ohio GOP’s bizarre determination to refashion itself as a party of higher taxes and bigger government. Since the Republican sweep of 1994, no Democrat has held any of Ohio’s statewide offices. The GOP also dominates the legislature. Democrats have been so desperate to find candidates that they’ve even flirted with the idea of drafting talk-show buffoon Jerry Springer. Republicans, however, have used their period of uninterrupted rule to govern as anything but the fiscal conservatives most voters expect them to be. When they came to power, Ohio’s tax burden ranked 24th among the states. Today, it has risen to 7th. At the same time, spending has grown faster in Ohio than in any other state.
In next year’s race for governor, it will be difficult for Republicans to stick to the formula that has worked so well for them in recent years: slapping the label of tax-and-spend liberalism on Democrats. That will be especially true if they nominate yet another wobbly moderate for the state’s top job. “The environment out here is not very good for Republicans,” says David Hansen of the Buckeye Institute, a conservative think tank in Columbus. In next year’s primary, however, there’s a real possibility that GOP voters will chart a new course. Will their second thoughts come too late to make a difference?
THE NEW FLORIDA Ohio is the new Florida. It was the site of intense politicking before last year’s presidential election, as well as a phony voting controversy afterward. No state will have more political attention heaped upon it between now and 2008. Yet if the 2006 races go well for Democrats, Republicans could find themselves battling for Ohio in 2008 without the home-field advantage they’ve come to enjoy in recent years. A shift from red to blue in Ohio could prove deadly — it would have been enough to secure an Electoral College majority for John Kerry last November, and might provide the margin of victory next time as well.
An early sign of GOP trouble arrived on August 2, when Republican Jean Schmidt narrowly defeated Democrat Paul Hackett in a special election to replace Rep. Rob Portman, who joined the Bush administration as trade representative earlier this year. The Cincinnati-area district is solidly Republican, but Schmidt drew only 52 percent of the vote. Democrats in Washington celebrated Hackett’s losing performance as a stunning rebuke of the president and a sign of greater things to come.
But this analysis is at best only half right. Greater things may yet come for Democrats, but Schmidt’s narrow margin of victory was more about Taft than about Bush. A week before the election, one GOP-sponsored poll showed the president holding a 62 percent approval rating in the district. Hackett, a member of the Marine Reserves who saw combat in Iraq, criticized Bush but also ran ads of the president praising military veterans. If Hackett campaigned against anybody, it was Governor Taft. “We just tied everything to Taft,” says Gabrielle Williamson, communications director of Ohio’s Democratic party.
Expect to see much more of this next year. Taft may be America’s least popular governor. His approval rating took a nosedive following his reelection in 2002 and his subsequent willingness to close a budget gap by hiking taxes. By last April, only 34 percent of Ohioans gave him a thumbs-up in a University of Cincinnati poll — the lowest figure for a sitting governor in more than two decades. And this was before the ethics violations became public. Since then, Taft’s favorability rating has dropped to 15 percent, according to a recent Cleveland Plain Dealer survey. One in three people thinks he should resign — and that’s just among Republicans.
Taft’s position could erode further still. His conviction in August was part of a larger probe into the alleged mishandling of a workers’ compensation fund. The state appears to have lost millions by making a curious investment in rare coins at the behest of a Taft golf partner and fundraiser, Thomas Noe, who also happens to be a rare-coin dealer. As the investigation grinds on, new revelations may lend credibility to what every message-disciplined Democrat in Ohio is now calling the GOP’s “culture of corruption.” In all likelihood, Democrats will nominate their strongest candidate for governor in years, either Columbus mayor Michael Coleman or Rep. Ted Strickland.
Kenneth Blackwell Gary Gardiner/Zuma
These developments have dispirited no group of voters more than Ohio’s conservatives. Their frustration is exacerbated by Ohio’s two GOP senators, Mike DeWine and George Voinovich, who have voted like liberals on Arctic oil drilling (opposed by DeWine) and gun control (favored by both). Democratic congressman Tim Ryan recently said he won’t challenge DeWine next year, even though an endorsement from the National Rifle Association may have been in the offing. “Ryan’s record is perfect and DeWine’s is perfectly awful,” says one NRA source. Hackett, another possible contender against DeWine, lacks Ryan’s voting record but took pro-gun positions during the recent special election. DeWine certainly looks vulnerable: In a SurveyUSA poll taken in August, 42 percent of Ohio voters approved of his job performance and 43 percent disapproved.
Voinovich was one of only three senators to have a higher negative rating (44 percent) than DeWine. He has made his mark in the Senate by being a constant headache for the Bush administration, repeatedly fighting tax cuts and last year becoming one of only two Republican senators to vote against a free-trade pact with Australia. More recently, in an act of baffling stubbornness, he almost single-handedly prevented John Bolton from winning Senate confirmation as ambassador to the United Nations, forcing Bush to give his nominee a recess appointment.
It’s enough to make a conservative cry — and tears might very well be shed if Ohio Republicans nominate a gubernatorial candidate from their usual uninspiring mold. Two such candidates are state auditor Betty Montgomery and attorney general Jim Petro, both running hard to take over where Taft presumably will leave off. Conservatives should not feel reassured about either one. Montgomery is widely liked and has run well in several statewide contests, but she’s also an abortion-rights advocate who wins plaudits from NARAL. Petro once stood in NARAL’s good graces as well — the group backed him for election in 1998 — but he has since renounced his pro-choice loyalties. He has not experienced an across-the-board conversion to conservatism, however: Last year, he opposed a state constitutional amendment that banned gay marriage. (His opposition was shared by Taft, DeWine, and Voinovich, but not Montgomery, who tepidly supported the measure.)
Sixty-two percent of Ohioans — and nearly three in four Ohio Republicans — supported the amendment, and its presence on the ballot arguably drove up the turnout of Evangelical voters, who helped put Bush over the top in Ohio. It never would have seen the light of day but for the efforts of Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio’s secretary of state. He is the GOP’s third candidate for governor — and the only genuine conservative in the field.
WISE BEAR The 57-year-old Blackwell is a big bear of a man, standing six-foot-five and weighing about 250 pounds. “I used to have a lot less body fat,” he says. Blackwell looks like he could be a retired football player, which he sort of is: He played for Xavier University and once attended training camp with the Dallas Cowboys. Sports runs deep in his family. His grandfather was in baseball’s Negro Leagues, and his great uncle, William DeHart Hubbard, was a track-and-field star who became the first black athlete to win an Olympic gold medal in an individual event (for the long jump, in 1924).
Blackwell, who wears glasses, a mustache, and is prone to bursts of hearty laughter, took up politics in the 1970s. He was elected to the Cincinnati city council and later became mayor. Although he won office as a member of a third party in Cincinnati, Blackwell joined the GOP in the early 1980s. He served as a housing undersecretary in the first Bush administration, lost a race for Congress in 1990, and was appointed Ohio’s state treasurer in 1993. He won election to that office the next year, and was persuaded not to challenge Taft for the governorship in 1998. Instead, he ran successfully for secretary of state.
From that perch, however, he has wound up challenging Taft again and again, especially on taxes. Most noteworthy, perhaps, was his opposition to a one-penny sales-tax increase that Taft accepted two years ago. At the time, Taft insisted that it would be a “temporary” increase. In the state’s latest budget, however, half the increase was repealed and half was made permanent. Blackwell opposed both halves from the start, and even began a campaign to eliminate the hike by ballot initiative. “Too many Republicans campaign like Ronald Reagan and then govern like Dick Celeste,” says Blackwell, referring to Ohio’s last Democratic governor. “I couldn’t let them get away with the biggest tax increase in the state’s history.”
For a variety of reasons, his initiative to repeal the sales-tax hike didn’t make the ballot — but an even more ambitious proposal, a constitutional amendment to limit the growth of state government, will almost certainly go before voters next year. “This issue is going to be the centerpiece of my gubernatorial campaign,” says Blackwell. If approved, the Tax Expenditure Limitation would prevent Ohio’s government from growing faster than 3.5 percent, or the combined rate of inflation and population growth, in any single year. Blackwell is not only the idea’s prime mover, but also the only major officeholder in the state to support it. “Jim Petro is Taft-like and Betty Montgomery is Taft-lite,” says Blackwell. “Neither one of them has seen a tax cut they could support or a tax increase they could reject.”
Because of his stance on taxes and other issues, Blackwell currently leads his opponents for the GOP nomination. A Fred Steeper poll of Republican primary voters, paid for by Blackwell, showed 36 percent of those polled supporting the secretary of state, compared with 21 percent for Montgomery and 20 percent for Petro. The other candidates have seen similar numbers in their own research, but counter that Blackwell wouldn’t perform well in a general election. “He’s far too conservative for Ohio’s moderates,” says a campaign aide for one of Blackwell’s GOP rivals. There has been concern that Blackwell can’t raise enough funds, especially among business leaders who traditionally support Republicans but fought last year’s marriage amendment on the grounds that it might dissuade gays from taking jobs in the state. Although Blackwell trails both Montgomery and Petro in overall fundraising, he has raised more money than either of them so far this year.
He also promises to become a national spokesman for the conservative movement. The Chicago Tribune has called Blackwell “the anti-Obama,” in reference to Democratic senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who is sensationally popular among liberals. Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, and Phyllis Schlafly already support Blackwell. The Club for Growth, which has played a crucial role in several federal elections, may also weigh in for him. “Because Ohio is politically dysfunctional, and Ken Blackwell is such a compelling candidate, we are seriously considering making an exception to our policy of not getting involved in state races,” says Club for Growth president Pat Toomey. Some of the Club’s favorite politicians have also endorsed Blackwell, including former Democratic senator Zell Miller of Georgia and Republican governors Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina.
Blackwell is clearly the nominee the Democrats fear most. If he weren’t, the Ohio Democratic party would not recently have draped a “Stop Ken Blackwell!” banner across the top of its website. In the wake of George W. Bush’s reelection, Democrats tried to demonize Blackwell for a supposed election scandal just as other Democrats had lambasted Florida’s Katherine Harris four years earlier. But the attempt went nowhere — in part because the vote in Ohio wasn’t nearly as close as it had been in Florida, but also because Blackwell couldn’t plausibly be caricatured as an establishment yes man. Not only is he out of favor with the Taft crowd in Columbus, he also managed to irritate the Bush-Cheney campaign by refusing to certify Ralph Nader for the Ohio ballot — an act that almost certainly bolstered Kerry’s chances on Election Day. “Nader wasn’t on the ballot because he didn’t deserve to be on the ballot,” says Blackwell. “I wasn’t going to bend the rules for anybody.”
Although some liberals still cling to the fantasy that Ohio Republicans stole the election for Bush — New York University professor Mark Crispin Miller tries to make that case in his forthcoming book Fooled Again — they are concerned about Blackwell not because of what he did as secretary of state but because of what he might do if he captures the GOP nomination for governor. For one thing, he promises to fire up Ohio conservatives like no other candidate can. He also threatens the Democrats’ own base. Among black voters, Blackwell consistently outperforms other Republicans. What’s more, his presence on the GOP ticket may help explain, at least in part, why Bush did better among Ohio blacks than he did among blacks in other states last year. Blackwell probably won’t win a majority of them next year, but he could bite deeply into a bloc the Democrats must carry overwhelmingly in order to win.
If Blackwell prevails, it will be one of the GOP’s brightest accomplishments in 2006, no matter what else happens. The state party will rise from its sickbed, and the national party may begin to wonder whether it should call him Mr. Governor — or think of him, possibly, as Mr. Vice President.
Blackwell is being opposed by members of the TafWhineOVich crew....Petro & Monty.
Ohio is always a linchpin state for Republican Victory.
Conservatives with any sense will support Blackwell....the only conservative in the race.
Not limited to Ohio. Seems that's true just about everywhere.
Corruption in the Wisconsin and Illinois GOP caused those states to hopelessly fall down the RAT sinkhole.
Good read. Miller has been a harsh critic of the Taft administration and deservedly so.
There are many republicans who believe in spend, spend.
There are few who will FIGHT tooth and nail for higher taxes the way that Taft did.
And this was within weeks of his campaign that promised NO NEW TAXES.
It was the greatest display of fraud and arrogance in campaigning in the history of this state. Breathtaking in it's elitism.
Are you speaking of Fletch's pardon of criminals? Was that before they were even charged?
(Somehow that strikes me as illegal.)
Blackwell and other conservative blacks running for high visibility public office can destroy the Democratic Party - or at least put so much pressure on it that it has to abandon its current hate-America posture - by attracting a decent % of African-Americans to vote for them. Bye-bye, Liberals.
Only in an area where the Republican Party is tightly controlled by RINOs, as Ohio apparently is, Ken Blackwell would rule!!!
Too bad that conservatives haven't taken advantage of precinct building to get a strong enough base to run these RINO charlatans out of office.
At least your numbnutz politicians read opinion polls.
Taft is old money elite and could give a rat's ___. And then he acts surprised that anyone questions his credentials...after all, he is a taft.
Blackwell pulled a good percentage of black support when he was on Cincy city council.
He is really black, really conservative, really educated (PhD), really experienced, and really smart.
This guy would garner attention anyplace.
What's worse than a RINO? A RINO who's a crook. Incidentally, he's a disgrace to his forebear the late Sen. Taft who was a true conservative, a man of integrity, and a presidential candidate. Good riddance to such as he who only degrades himself and his party -- with such people who needs liberal Democrats?
Nominating Ken Blackwell for Governor would be a good choice, but it won't be enough to prevent pending defeat. Bob Taft's unpopularity is so toxic, he has an obligation to resign. Also, Mike DeWine needs to not seek reelection.
And if more serious ethics violations are proven against Taft and he refuses to step aside, Republicans should not rule out impeachment.
I enjoyed listening to Blackwell during the Prez Election process, so well spoken!
It is so exhausting for black conservatives to swim upstream! JC Watts couldn't take it anymore, hope he comes back on the scene soon! And look at the persecution Condi has to withstand. But, man, does she ROCK!
If conservatives could easily be elected in Ohio then Taft, Petro, Montgomery, DeWine, and Voinovich would not be holding office.
One of three things is required for a Conservative to win in Ohio. One way is to appear to be a RINO. The other is a great grass roots organization. The third is to have the support of a RINO's great grass roots organization.
Blackwell is nothing close to being a RINO. Super RINO Voinovich got 63 percent of the vote in 2004 compared to Bush's 51 percent and Bush is not as conservative as Blackwell.
The second way is with a great grass roots organization. Bush had that in 2004 and it barely eked him out a victory in this RINO-DINO state. The third method is to have the support of a RINOs grass roots organization. Blackwell had the RINO engine turning out the votes for him in his previous tries. He will not have it this time.
Blackwell does in fact face the organized opposition of the only effective Republican grass roots organization in Ohio. And that Grass Roots organization belongs to Betty Montgomery.
Some people wonder why in the past Betty lead Petro and Blackwell in total votes. The answer is simple.. both Petro and Blackwell were depending on Betty's grass roots organization. Even Taft and Bush utilized Betty's grass roots organizations to win. All over the state a huge majority of Bush Volunteers have signed on with Betty.
Betty already had volunteers working door to door on week ends in many key precincts in Ohio. No one else is doing that.
Blackwell is talking about polls... Isn't that what Candidate Howard Dean talked about in the fall of 2003... Didn't Dean tell us how well he was doing in the polls a year before the election? Kerry was morgaging his house to fund his camapaing in the fall of 2003. Polls a year before the general election are worthless at predicting primary results.
If you want to get the nomination for Blackwell you had best be organizing volunteers to contact likely primary voters. You will need at leat 1000 volunteers to reach 50 people a week each. That could produce about a million direct contacts for Blackwell. It would give his campaign an accurate list of who will vote for Blackwell and who will not. Then his campaign need to organize a final 72 hour blitz leading into primary election day to contact all the Blackwell supporters on the list. Finally Blackwell needs volunteers at the polls to inform volunteers which Blackwell supporters have not voted by noon on primary election day. He needs phone bank people to contact his yet to vote supporters and urge them to vote.
If Blackwell managed to get all that done, Blackwell might win. But if Blackwell depends on running a big ad budget in the the media and traveling the state to get free media coverage.. he is not going to win.
Blackwells problem is Betty has nearly all the trained volunteers that President Bush used signed up for her campaign. Local media coverage is greatly enhanced when a candidate has local volunteers with local media contacts making sure the local media does lots of quality local coverage.
So far Bbackwell and Petro have focused on raising money to buy media. That is at best 1/3 of the game.
Even with volunteers Blackwell faces an up hill battle. He has very little time left to set up a grass roots organization. And if you think Blackwell can win with out it, you need to examine what Bush's returns in Ohio would have been with out the grass roots organization.
Blackwell is an attractive candidate, but he is trying to play pickup basketball against an NBA team.
It is truly a shame that Blackwell will be making his move just as the Ohio Republican party slams into the rocks. He is feared by the Democrats and certain to get the Clarence Thomas treatment, plus the RINO's who have probably blown Ohio as a Republican state will be out to knife him in the back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.