Brown Crushing DeWine

This is stunning.

In an election for United States Senator from Ohio today, 10/12/2006, Brown defeats DeWine, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for WCPO-TV Cincinnati, WKYC-TV Cleveland, and WYTV-TV Youngstown.

Brown, who represents Ohio's 13th District in Congress, unseats DeWine, 54% to 40% in a vote today.

Since an identical SurveyUSA poll 9/21/06, Brown has gained 2 points and DeWine has lost 2 points.  Brown's lead has grown from 10 to 14 points.

Sherrod Brown is one of the most progressive candidates we have this cycle.  I got this email from Bob McChesney, who is a deep thinker on media reform issues, and he explains the significance of this race.

With Labor Day behind us and the final sprint for November begun, the most exciting news on the political landscape comes from Ohio, where Democrat Sherrod Brown is maintaining a steady lead over two-term Republican Senator Mike DeWine. This is an extraordinary development with tremendous and positive implications for progressives and the netroots. DeWine is swimming in money and has Karl Rove drawing up plays in the dirt for him. With help from the same firm that produced the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Ads" against John Kerry in 2OO4, DeWine and Rove have been doing everything in their power to smear Brown. Yet, the Democrat keeps moving up in the polls.

What gives? Why is Brown holding his own in a state that has broken more than a few Democratic hearts?

It's got everything to do with the fact that Sherrod Brown is precisely the sort of aggressive progressive that Democrats have needed to carry the party banner in high-profile contests. He's from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, a liberal in the very best sense of the term. This is no Bob Casey Jr. we are talking about, nor some former Reagan administration official. He is not triangulating; selling out women or gays or peace activists to win white working-class votes. Rather, he is winning over those white working-class voters with a solid economic message that takes apart the Bush administration's failed free trade policies -- which DeWine has backed with poodle-like consistency -- and promises to fight for workers, the environment and communities.

Brown has the politics of a Wellstone. He has established himself in the U.S. House over the past decade as the smartest progressive on the debilitating labor and environmental consequences of pro-corporate trade deals, not only in the United States but worldwide. He has an innate sense of fairness and a clear commitment to social justice. Sherrod has worked quietly and effectively to earn the trust of Ohioans, especially poor and working-class Ohioans, which is why DeWine's million dollar attack ad mudballs have so far rolled off the Democrat.

If Brown wins, it points the way forward for progressive electoral politics in the country, and gets us off the downward spiral of Republican vs Republican-lite thinking that dominates inside the beltway. If a progressive can defeat an incumbent Republican in Ohio, red state Ohio, with Karl Rove calling the plays, and rich people and corporations lining up to write checks for the incumbent, it hammers the last nail in the Democratic Leadership Council's coffin. A Brown win will prove that the DLC's  "move-to-the-right-or-lose" mantra not only calls for repulsive politics, it is a loser at the polls. A Brown victory will also send a message to Hillary Clinton and the other 2008 presidential candidates that they had better take issues of class and economic inequality a whole heckuva lot more seriously than they seem to at present.

I have had the privilege of getting to know Sherrod Brown personally in my work on media reform politics over the past few years. It has been an eye-opening experience. He did not know much about the issue but he was keen to learn about the topic. Sherrod and his wife, Connie Schultz, a Pultizer Prize-winning newspaper reporter, attended Free Press's First National Conference on Media Reform in Madison in November 2003. Like the other members of Congress, he spoke to the main plenary before an audience of around 2,000 people. But unlike all the other members of Congress, Sherrod stayed for the entire three-day conference, and sat with Connie incognito during sessions taking notes. John Nichols and I were the only people at these sessions who even knew who Sherrod was. It was a revelation. Here was a member of Congress who thought he had something to learn from bloggers, grassroots activists and media reformers.

Since then Sherrod has stayed on top of all the issues we care about. This year, when net neutrality became the most important media issue in some time, Sherrod faced considerable pressure to take the side of the cable and telephone monopolies and denounce net neutrality. He could have cashed in and collected hefty campaign contributions from the corporate sector, while buffing his credentials with the few unions that oppose net neutrality out of concern for preserving jobs in the unionized telecommunications sector. But Sherrod studied the issue, consulted with activists in the blogoshere and the media reform movement, and decided that he had to vote for net neutrality. He explained his position to his labor supporters, and they understood and they stood by him. Why? Because they know that, in a pinch, Sherrod will always stand by them.

Let me close with my favorite Sherrod Brown story. Back in 2000 just before the November election Sherrod Brown was sitting with a bunch of workers in a factory in Lorain, Ohio, and the workers were going around the table discussing who they planned to vote for for president and why. Several of the workers said they were planning to vote for Bush because he was against gun control and against gay rights and for school prayer. One of the workers grew exasperated and confronted one of the Bush supporters. "You are voting for Bush for all these reasons, but Sherrod is for gun control and gay rights and against school prayer and you are voting for him. What gives?" The worker responded, "Yeah, but we know Sherrod is always with us on the stuff that counts."

There you have it. Sherrod Brown is a uniter, not a divider, and he does so without watering down his principles or selling out progressive values. He is also humble and has integrity. Candidates like that don't come along very often  and they almost never have a chance to win a historic race with the eyes of the nation upon them. It is not just that the road to having the Democrats take control of the Senate goes through Ohio; it is that the road to establishing genuine mass-based progressive political majorities for the first time in decades, possibly generations, goes through Ohio. The race is that big.

Tags: Mike DeWine, Sherrod Brown (all tags)

Comments

52 Comments

Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

As my name suggests, I am from the Cleveland area. Dewine as been bombarding the television with campaign ads. The ad ratio seems 3-1 in favor of Dewine. The more Dewine puts out ads the more he falls in the polls. Everything he's tried seems to be ineffective.

by Cleveland John 2006-10-12 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

I'm from Cincinnati, and like Cleveland John, see about three times as many DeWine ads as Brown ads. I'd been wondering about this ratio on the other TV markets around Ohio -- were we in Cincy were getting 3-to-1 DeWine ads because, sad to say, Cincinnati has the biggest bloc of Republican voters in the state?

But I also understand that the RNSC is dumping has just bought millions in ads for DeWine in Ohio, so maybe this ratio is statewide...?

by OH Mark 2006-10-12 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

DeWine's ads have been saturating the Columbus area as well.  They've been terrible ads, too.  Whoever told DeWine that he should have himself sitting at his kitchen table, talking to to viewers was nuts - he looks terrible.  He talks like a robot, and him being in his flannel shirt and sitting in his kitchen just looks fake.

I'm a bit suprised by Brown's lead - like many others I'm ticked that Brown didn't take a stand against the torture and indefinite detainment bill.  In a choice between DeWine and Brown, Brown is clearly the better man, but it still baffles me that people that that would be the safe way to vote (and angers me that they didn't have enough principles to fillibuster or at least vote against it).

by NonyNony 2006-10-12 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

That came off wrong - when I say I'm suprised by Brown's lead, that's because I didn't think that DeWine would be so weak in this state, not because Brown voted for the torture bill.  I'm not sure the majority of folks in this state even know what was in that bill, let alone what it means to them.

I'm suprised because Brown is very liberal, a Cleveland liberal no less, and I never would have thought that a lib from Cleveland would have the lead in a national office.

by NonyNony 2006-10-12 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

Because he's a progressive populist. Not a liberal. It's a distinction without a difference policy-wise, but in terms of how a candidate is perceived, especially by white blue collar voters, it makes all the difference.

by adamterando 2006-10-12 05:05PM | 0 recs
by asearchforreason 2006-10-12 11:54AM | 0 recs
Holy Moly, Survey USA sez McCaskill by 9!!

Thanks for sharing, that just made my day!

And Survey USA is a first-rate polling shop.  This ain't no Zogby internet poll; this is a good number.  She's ahead, in the sense of having a lead that's outside the MOE of the difference between the two numbers.  (A generally-overlooked subtlety. :)

I didn't think McCaskill would open up any sort of lead until late on Election Night, if at all.  This is one of the few Senate races I've contributed to, because most of them seemed to be moving the right way all along.  But this one's been on the knife-edge the whole way.

Missouri used to be a classic bellweather state, but lately it's been trending red, even more than Ohio, really.  If McCaskill wins this race, it's gonna be a happy November.  To see her opening up a real, genuine, gold-plated lead just makes my day.

by RT 2006-10-12 01:47PM | 0 recs
DeWine

Wish the elections were tomorrow....

by global yokel 2006-10-12 12:11PM | 0 recs
Brown voted

for the torture bill.  

I'll be glad to see DeWine go.

But Brown -- and all the rest of those UnAmerican, treasonous scumbag totalitarians who voted for that bill -- are on my future hit list for political defeat.

by leftvet 2006-10-12 12:19PM | 0 recs
Well...

I'll give em one chance to make it up to me once they get into office.

by ignatzmouse 2006-10-12 12:49PM | 0 recs
voting for the military commissions act of 2006

yeah, that was pretty progressive! woohoo!

hate to be a single issue person, but i think that pretty much disqualifies someone from being classified as a progressive.

(still, let him crush deWhine)

by colorless green ideas 2006-10-12 12:29PM | 0 recs
Brown's vote on the torture bill

has obviously caused understandable outrage among many progressive Dems. The day this vote went down, I read numerous comments on DailyKos both ripping and defending Brown for this.

My feeling is, he did it to avoid the inevitable (and probably effective) "Sherrod Brown voted to protect terrorists who would do Americans harm..." To me there is no other explanation.

I share your extreme disappointment, those of you who thought that Sherrod Brown "let you down", but I urge you to vote for him anyway, as colorless green ideas seems willing to do.

Yes, it was a very bad vote, but we need Sherrod to win in order to do a lot of good.

by OH Mark 2006-10-12 12:41PM | 0 recs
What negative ads are being run against Sherrod...

...Brown instead (of the TV ad which may have been created had he voted against the Torture Bill.)

I'm not in Ohio; I'm in Minnesota.

by EricJaffa 2006-10-12 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Negative ads are being run against Brown

Let's see, here are a few subjects...

"Sherrod Brown let us down." This is a common tag line to many DeWine ads, usually taking Brown to task on voting against body armor for the troops, weakness on intelligence, the Patiot Act, mostly security/military things. (Interesting thing though: Brown has an attack ad against DeWine for failing to provide body armor, too.) I do seem to recall a few also touching on Brown's record of voting for tax increases, etc.

They are not very good commercials. They are on all the time, and I do try to pay attention to what they're trying to say and who approved them, but because I can't call many specifics to mind, I think that doesn't bode well for their being memorable.

by OH Mark 2006-10-12 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown's vote on the torture bill

The reverse argument can be made too - that DeWine was one of the handful of flippable Republicans in the Senate on that bill, and Brown's yea vote gave DeWine cover so he wouldn't have to face "Senator DeWine voted to leagalize torture and repeal habeus corpus, recognized as basic human right since the thirteenth century."

by fwiffo 2006-10-12 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown's vote on the torture bill

Yeah, but...has anyone actually tried that? If not, they're making the same calculation as Brown did.

by Mullibok 2006-10-12 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown's vote on the torture bill

"Senator DeWine voted to leagalize torture and repeal habeus corpus, recognized as basic human right since the thirteenth century."

Try to be objective, and tell me how many people you think that statement would persuade?

I doubt that 90% of the electorate knows what "habeus corpus" even means. And even if they did, a high percentage would think, "a suspected terrorist doesn't deserve the right of habeus corpus."

(As a corollary, why are the majority of Americans okay with illegal wiretapping? Answer: because they think it doesn't apply to them.)

by OH Mark 2006-10-12 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown's vote on the torture bill

You don't know much about politics.

by adamterando 2006-10-13 03:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

My first reaction was the same as a couple of other people here.

If he is such a progressive, how in Hell could he have voted FOR torture and AGAINST habeas corpus.

I am not sold. Yet I don't vote in Ohio so I don't have to be.

Sadly, that vote is going to come back and bite a lot of people in the ass and it won't be Brown's ass that will hurt.

Sorry, he lost me on that one. What was that quote?

"Sherrod's always with us on the stuff that counts"

Since when do torture and habeas not count?

by RevDeb 2006-10-12 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

completely agree RevDeb.

torture, indefinite detention and kangaroo courts are NOT progressive values.

... and pretending that vote didn't happen isn't either.

by selise 2006-10-12 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

Ummm... these are the same voters who were voting for Bush because he is against gun control and against gay rights.  According to the voters in question, those would probably not be the things that count.

by Tom 2006-10-12 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

It's a stupid fight and a loser issue. Millions die every year because of what global oligarchic corporations and their enabling fascist governments are doing to make a profit. This is what Brown is fighting for. There is a bigger picture here and bigger things that Brown is fighting for. It's pretty naive for people to write off soemone because of this vote that had no bearing on the passage of the bill. You know, that bill doesn't count, because it was a loser issue.

You guys, and your sole focus on civil liberties makes you as politically astue and ideologically rigid as the far right evangelicals who immediately turn on anyone who votes against their pet issue (i.e. gays and abortion). Grow up. Or, if you'd rather stay "pure" join the f*ing libertarian or green party and live in political oblivion for the rest of your life.

by adamterando 2006-10-13 03:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

Brown is pro-torture.
Therefore, Brown is a Zellocrat.

(snark... or was it?)

by HellofaSandwich 2006-10-12 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

Actually, by "definition" a Zellocrat is.....

Any Democratic politician who criticizes, scolds, or otherwise attacks ordinary Democrats (ie liberals or "progressives") in order to curry political favor with Republicans or the Right.

Recent examples of this kind of behavior have been provided by Hillary Clinton. Evan Bayh, and Barak Obama.

What's need in this case is a new definition.....

Sherrocrat: Any Democrat purported to be liberal or "progressive" who sells his country's Constitution and the people it protects down the river in the middle of the night in order to garner a few votes -- most especially when he or she doesn't even need them anyway.

by Sitkah 2006-10-12 01:45PM | 0 recs
Not so fast . ..

I am not as "progressive" as some folks around here, so you can take this with a grain of salt or call me a DLC plant but here goes.  I am not sure if Brown is elected it "points the way forward for progressive electoral politics in the country."

While Ohio is a "red state" there are a couple of factors that make this year different.  First, corruption is an issue writ large.  Even if DeWine isn't personally involved it hurts him.  Second, our economy sucks.  I mean really sucks.  When the Republicans took over state government in the early 90s the state was built for the 20th century and we have not invested at the same levels as other states to move us into the 21st century.

There are two good things about the decline of Ohio.  One, because our unemployment rate is higher and there are a number of strikes/lockouts going on, labor will be available and motivated to get out the vote.  Two, after the 2000 census is completed, Ohio might well be significantly less important to the electoral college.

P.S. to ClevelandJohn down here in Columbus the ads are much more even.  I can only asssume that the Brown folks are more comfortable with the level of support up there.  Remember, there are 7 (?) media markets in the state.

by comotion 2006-10-12 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Not so fast . ..

Yeah, but... the votes that states like Ohio are losing are generally going to states like Florida (we know how they screw up elections) and Texas.  Why is Ohio losing electoral votes a good thing?

by Tom 2006-10-12 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Not so fast . ..

I can't speak to the state of the party organizations in either FL or TX, but currently in Ohio it is not good.  Conversely, the Republicans have a very effective machine here.

If the Dems are actually able to build an infrastructure after Nov here, then it will bad that Ohio loses importance.  But as it stands, the Dems are poised to gain control in this state almost entirely because (1) the state has been run by republicans for 10+ years, (2) there has been massive corruption exposed, and (3) our economy sucks (at least compared to other states).  

I also was thinking that Ohio's loss of electoral votes would go to places like AZ, CO and CA, places where Dems might have a better chance structurally.  I do suspect that even in FL (and to a lesser degree TX) dems have a better chance than in OH.

by comotion 2006-10-12 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Not so fast . ..

Well... my take on the matter is that while some of the places that are gaining electoral votes are states that Dems have hope in in the future, there are some that look out of reach.  Davis's gubernatorial campaign in FL seems to have flopped, and so has Bell's in Texas (though that's simply because a lot of the independents Bell would need to win are going to Friedman.)  Colorado is going to be Democratic within the next ten years.  Nevada may be as well, and it's the fastest-growing state in the country.

by Tom 2006-10-12 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

I'll be mighty glad to see DeWine go down -- I remember him as a slimey enabler of lawlessness during the Iran-Contra hearings, always ready to cover for the bad guys.

Still Brown has forfeited the claim to be progressive by voting to kill habeus corpus and legalize torture. I would strongly advise anyone who doubts this to go read what was done in our name to Jose Padilla. A vote for the "military commissions" was a vote to legalize torture after the fact.

by janinsanfran 2006-10-12 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

I guess by your logic, you have forfeited all claim to be progressive because you buy products from China, and we all know that the Chinese torture. So you must support torture.

by adamterando 2006-10-13 03:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

Yeah, DeWine is hitting hard with ads up in Cuyahoga county, but Brown has a significant lead in NE Ohio.

DeWine's neg ads right now focus on intelligence votes (primarily in the 90's) and other distorted House votes.  He also has one explaining that after 14 years Sherrod has only gotten 4 bills passed, leaving out the fact he has been in the minority for 12 of those.  The torture vote would have been hammered, no doubt about it.

His vote on the bill meant absolutely nothing to the bottom line.  If he would have been the deciding vote, I have no doubt he would have cast a "no."

He gets one freebie from me, and should from everyone due to the circumstances...

by dickbaveta 2006-10-12 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

He gets one freebie from me, and should from everyone due to the circumstances...

Brown took this oath as required by the Constitution.....

I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Brown violated that oath. For a "progressive" Democrat to violate habeus corpus is like a "family value" Republican violating a page.

NO FREEBIE FOR YOU!

by Sitkah 2006-10-12 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

Thank you! Finally, someone that understands politics and the way to move a movement forward, instead of wallowing in permanent minority.

It is really frustrating listening to people that are always willing to write off someone because of one single thing that in the end has no bearing on the overall outcome.

We're trying to build a movement here people. Creating a better life for all people throughout the world. It's time to look at the big picture and quit having tunnel vision on these single issues.  

by adamterando 2006-10-13 03:25AM | 0 recs
Re: 43% D, 37% R

I don't know what the partisan breakdown is in Ohio,  so maybe some of the Ohio MyDDers can say if this poll oversampled Ds.

It's worth noting that the cross-tabs are for LVs
not the total sample, making it hard to tell if SUSA got the right partisan breakdown for the sample, but Dems were just deemed more likely to vote than the Rs.

If SUSA did get the right partisan breakdown in its
total sample, then it bodes well that Dems are bigger percent of LVs than Reps.

by phillydem 2006-10-12 12:59PM | 0 recs
Typical breakdown in Ohio is about 40 R, 35 D

That will slant somewhat in our favor this year, but no chance I'm taking it all the way across to +6 Democratic.

I've looked at polling carefully since '96 and learned long ago to trust my instincts over absurd poll numbers. When Zogby started releasing polls in '02 giving Tom Strickland a 5 and 9 point lead over Wayne Allard in Colorado, I posted on many sites that it was rubbish. I was assailed as a troll but somehow the result validated my opinion.

Brown is leading DeWine by 14. Right. And next year a giraffe will dominate the world limbo championships. My god, embrace a bit of common sense. The polling is obscenely in our favor right now. Let's hope we retain some of the bloated new Foley-produced edge, but you've got to realize most of it will naturally fade.

by Gary Kilbride 2006-10-12 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks

I figured Ohio probably was majority R, but that doesn't mean I dismiss the SUSA poll. One thing SUSA does is to put all its data out there unlike Rassmussen which hides it behind a subscription wall.

I think SUSA is generally reliable, but you have to look at the internals to judge if it's a little on the high or low side. In this case, it's probably a little high in Brown's favor, but not so bad that Brown isn't ahead by a decent margin, maybe 8-10 instead of 14.

And again, the partisan breakdown is for LVs NOT the whole sample so perhaps Dems are more enthusiastic and make up a higher percent of the LV universe than their regular partisan numbers would be.

by phillydem 2006-10-12 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks

Ohio may have been "majority R" for the past few election cycles, but historically, it has swung both ways. The old adage is, "as goes Ohio, so goes the nation."

True, no D has won a significant state seat for 12 years, but Ohio did go for Clinton in both 92 and 96. Plus, Paul Hackett came within a few percentage points of beating Jean Schmidt in the OH-02 special runoff of 05 for OH-02 (my district), which voted 64% for Bush in 04.

But 22 years ago, when I first moved here, Howard Metzenbaum and John Glenn were the senators and Dick Celeste was the governor -- all D's -- and Metzenbaum was one of the most liberal members of congress.

Voinovich's "centrism", Blackwell's voter suppression, gay marriage on the ballot, other cleverly-timed issues (and admittedly weak D candidates -- Eric Fingerhut?) have helped R's control the state these past dozen years, but I never thought (hoped) it was an irreversible trend.

P.S. Saying Ohio is majority R is like saying Pennsylvania is majority R, because of Specter and Santorum. It may be the case now, but it wasn't always that way, and shortly will not be again.

by OH Mark 2006-10-12 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks

I think you're confusing voting results and party affiliation.  The initial post was saying that they interviewed too many people who self-identify as Democrats.  Party affilition doesn't shift as quickly as voting results, hence the relatively high number of registered Dems in the south.

by asearchforreason 2006-10-12 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks

There are more registered Ds in Ohio than Rs.

by adamterando 2006-10-13 03:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical breakdown in Ohio is about 40 R, 35 D
I agree... conditionally. Brown won't win by 14 in my estimate. The state is too conservative for that.  Turnout will mean a whole lot in Ohio.
I am surprised in one sense because Dewine isn't exactly a rubberstamp on a few issues but he did piss off the evangelicals once or twice. Voinovich has a lot of support as a principled conservative and Dewine, who seems to fashion himself off Voinovich, in another year would gain points for the times (the few) he has voted against the administration's legislation.
Brown is terrific and I support him but, when it all comes down on the 7th, I think he's up by closer to 4 or 5.
by carsick 2006-10-12 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

This is big. If Brown can get the margin to 58-42 that would suggest there's a substantial swing that may pull OH-2, OH-1, and Pryce's district (that's 16?) over the finish line. Maybe one or two more.

Also if that Talent-McCaskill result holds (I think it oversamples the youth vote), a similar phenomoenon might occur in Missouri, but I don't know what the maps look like.

by niq 2006-10-12 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

Pryce's district is 15.  There was an independent poll out today showing Kilroy up 12, but I think it's a bit optimistic.

by asearchforreason 2006-10-12 01:34PM | 0 recs
Look who's mollified!

Sherrod Brown is one of the most progressive candidates we have this cycle

Except for that little torture/habeus corpus vote of his, of course.

by Sitkah 2006-10-12 01:24PM | 0 recs
Brown Crushing DeWine

If it is true that Brown voted for the torture bill because he thought it would give him a better posture for the coming election, he is wrong on two counts:  

First, it is a miscalculation to assume that DeWine could have effectively used the torture issue against him.  We can just as easily reverse that dynamic, and have Brown say, "Look DeWine voted to endorse torture, that's un-American."

Second, on a profound moral issue like torture, cynical political calculations should not be a part of the consideration.   A truly decent person would do the right thing, and damn the consequences on an issue like torture.

I hope Brown wins on Nov. 7, but he is another Democrat who we are going to watch carefully, and light a fire under his ass when necessary.  We might win the House, but we're going to have plenty of work left....

by global yokel 2006-10-12 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

Here in Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar not only voted for the torture bill, he also has campaigned for Lieberman. Yet I wouldn't worry about him. NOr would I worry unduly about Brown.

The prime necessity right now is simply to crush and destroy the Republican party and drive it out of power into the wilderness. That's the first step.

At the same time progresssives must constitute themselves into a powerful lobby, just like the Christian Coalition has done. That we haven't done so is why Democrats can ignore our wishes on key issues like the torture bill. They just don't expect any organized payback.

Notice that the Repubs are constantly betraying their base -- over and over again on issues like abortion, judges, prayer in schools, immigration, etc. Their corporate masters don't really want immigration stopped for instance because it provides cheap labor. So they talk loudly and carry a twig -- result, the fake border fence that will never be built or work.

That's what politicians do. Any party, any politician. They will at times betray the trust of their voters, especially if they think they can get away with it. Getting them to do any thing is like herding cats. They need to be whipped constantly to keep them in line. That's our job!

Now any Republican is utterly useless to us because they are fundamentally corporate whores right down the line. Democrats are often corporate whores and some who aren't will sell us out from time to time.

What bothers me most is that Americans seem to think there is something wrong about all this. We seem to imagine that "if only" we could get "honest" or "good/decent" men/women into office then we could relax and they would do the right thing; the "good king" fantasy.

This just totally mis-understands what democracy is! It's OUR job to stay on top of the politicians AFTER they are in office and beat them savagely about the head and neck when they step out of line. Which they will.

So, I lobbied Salazar and when he voted for the torture bill I sent him another blistering e-mail. I intend to keep hounding him over this issue and similar ones, and encourage my friends to do the same, so that he gets the message that some people back home are not happy with his performance.

That's our job! If he continues to screw up we will have to run somebody against him in the primary next time. We need to build a movement into a powerful grass-roots lobbying effort that Democratic congressmen will fear to cross, just like no Republican congressman would dare vote say, for federal funding for abortion services.

Because the fundies are so stupid, they have, up until now been loyal sheeple and stayed in line and voted reliably red. If you saw Bill Moyers last night you saw that that is beginning to change -- some fundies are now coming out in favor of environmentalism, for instance.

As for us, whoever we elect will fail to deliver until WE step up and change the system.

Congress can do nothing except respond to power and we are not yet powerful enough. Mobilizing to change that is our responsibility as free citizens! No point getting upset and holding our breath when we are betrayed. That's part of the deal!

by Cugel 2006-10-12 04:46PM | 0 recs
very well stated (n/t)

by OH Mark 2006-10-12 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

Their are 7 Republican Held Senate Seats that are vulnerable.
1)Missouri
2)Montana
3)Ohio
4)Pennsylvania
5)Rhode Island
6)Tennessee
7)Virginia

In Ohio,Pennsylvania,Rhode Island,and Tennessee- Their is also a Governors race occuring in those states. Democrats are strongly favored to win the Governors race in Ohio,Pennsylvania,and Tennessee. which may Brown-OH,Casey-PA,and Ford-TN. Rhode Island Governors race is a tossup. However- I give Whitehouse the edge due to the blueness of the state- especially in a strong Democratic Year.

In Montana- Tester is benifiting from Burns- personal weakness.

Virginia and Missouri- are too close to call.

In New York,Ohio,and Pennsylvania- Their is a lot of competitive US House Races and Democratic are strongly favored to win the Governors and US Senate Race.

In New York- Clinton/Spitzer coattails helps
1)NY-24(Arcuri)
2)NY-26(Davis)
In Ohio- Brown/Strickland coattails helps
3)OH-1(Chabot)
4)OH-15(Kilroy)
5)OH-18(Space)
In Pennsylvania- Casey/Rendell coattails helps
6)PA-6(Murphy)
7)PA-7(Sestak)
8)PA-8(Murphy)
9)PA-10(Carney)

Other House Races in states with Democrats are favored to win both the Governors and Senate Race
10)New Mexico-1(Madrid)
11)Minnesota-6(Wetterling)
12)Wisconsin-8(Kagen)
13)Colorado-7(Perlmutter)
14)Illinios-6(Duckworth)
15)Iowa-1(Braley)
16)Washington-8(Bruner)

plus
17)Arizona-8(Giffords)
18)Florida-16(Mahoney)
19)Texas-22(Lampson)

20)Indiana-2(Donnelly)
21)Indiana-8(Ellsworth)
22)Indiana-9(Hill)
23)Kentucky-4(Lucas)
24)North Carolina-11(Schuler)
25)Virginia-2(Kellam)

by CMBurns 2006-10-12 02:47PM | 0 recs
Don't forget

OH 02 could fall...closely. Wulsin is fine and Schmidt is insane.

by carsick 2006-10-12 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

This poll may be a bit optimistic for our cause but if you look at all the polls over the last six months, Brown's numbers have steadily grown and DeWine stays the same, never getting out of the low '40's.  Has there been a single poll with DeWine even hitting 45%? Even with 12 years in the Senate, millions of dollars in advertising and Karl Rove calling the shots, DeWine's numbers don't move.  So far anyway, there's no fire behind that campaign.  Whatever DeWine's sellin', Ohio ain't buyin'.

by OHIOJOE 2006-10-12 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

I think OhioJoe got it exactly right: Dewine seems stuck in the low 40s no matter what he does.  He's annoyed the right on some issues (like ANWR) and they've never been terribly enthusiastic about him.  Blackwell is getting buried by Strickland, who will have real coattails.  Folks may not realize it, but there has been a very strong GOTV effort in central ohio - for example, Franklin county mailed absentee ballots to all registered voters in Columbus.

I think what we're seeing is the undecided voters getting off the fence for the challenger - which is why the 50% rule is pretty solid.  In Dewine's case, he's been under 43% for a year, and heavy TV advertising hasn't helped him a bit..

by ohioastronomy 2006-10-12 04:17PM | 0 recs
Bob McChesney

I love Bob, he's known Sherrod for a long time. He also has a great radio show called "Media Matters" on my hometown npr station that runs every sunday afternoon. He's had such greats as Noam Chomsky, Thomas Frank, and Sherrod Brown on. WILL-AM. Check it out. It's pretty cool that our local npr station in central illinois took a stand and gave him this show given the conservative leanings of many in the viewing area. True, the station is in a college town, but the station reaches all over illinois and western indiana and has many conservative listeners who turn in for the afternoon agriculture show.

I hope Stoller has given it a listen.

And Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders will be the two most progressive senators since Paul Wellstone in the new senate.

by adamterando 2006-10-12 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Brown Crushing DeWine

I have to go with RevDeb, Selise and others...

You can't be progressive and vote against Habius Corpus. Sherrod Brown made a major mistake - in terms of loyalty to this country and constitution - in voting for torture and against Habieus Corpus.

I'd still vote for him, but begrudgingly - and he's not a candidate I would send money to at this point. You just can't vote against habius corpus; it could just be the most important freedom Americans have, even more so than free speech (which couldn't exist without habieus corpus).

Sherrod Brown certainly looks like he's going to win... and, over the years, he may just be able to make up for this sell-out of mass proportions. However, in the meantime, I don't think he has credibility in speaking up for the progressive movement - and anyone who compares him to Wellstone or other great progressives just won't be taken seriously by me and just about any informed progressive.

by Ryepower12 2006-10-12 09:40PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------