Note to Jane Mitakides, Democratic candidate for 3rd District U.S. House seat:
Jane, as the challenger in this race, your central task in this campaign, it seems to me, is to make the case for change. Mike Turner has been our representative since his election in 2002. Your campaign must show that Turner’s job performance is so inadequate that he does not deserve to continue in this privileged position of responsibility and, therefore, that he should be replaced in this coming election.
Oh 3rd Congressional District – Campaign Results
The case for change is overwhelming and compelling, but with 550,000 voters in the District, it is not easy to successfully get the attention of sufficient voters to communicate any message. The message must be powerful and compelling.
Here are some quotes from your web-site:
- As a businessperson, Jane will work to bring new jobs and fight to keep those jobs in the area.
- She will work to lower the crippling costs of health insurance and care so that it is affordable for all Americans and businesses
- She has deep roots in the labor community and will always fight for the needs of hard working families in Washington. Jane will also fight to strengthen the organized labor movement,
- Jane will be a voice for keeping America’s military the best-equipped, strongest, most technologically-advanced in the world.
- She is also committed to providing more funding for education and economic opportunities to veterans when they return home from serving their country. Jane will work to protect our environment and our natural resources in Ohio.
- As our Congresswoman, Jane will make education a priority so that our most vital resource – our children – receive a quality education, allowing them to compete in an increasingly competitive global environment.
These are worthwhile statements, but together they do not communicate a compelling message of the need for change. Your web-site indicates goals you will pursue if elected to Congress, but, I imagine Turner could argue that he certainly agrees with most of your goals — with the possible exception of supporting labor unions — and, I imagine, Turner would probably argue that, in fact, he has been working for the last six years to accomplish these goals.
I saw a bumper sticker that says, “Jane = Jobs.” But isn’t Turner in favor of jobs as well? He is also in favor, no doubt, of apple pie and motherhood. In a debate, if asked about his record about jobs, Turner would certainly be able to muddy the issue. Hasn’t he helped bring jobs to Wright Patterson Air Force Base? Can’t he take credit for bringing some new businesses to the region?
If you assert that “Jane equals jobs,” the burden of explanation falls on you. If you have a plan to create jobs, it is not indicated on your web-site, and if “Jane equals jobs” is shown to be basically an empty slogan, your case for change is ruined. The point is, even for those paying attention, I don’t think it is likely that the issue of jobs will be sufficiently compelling to bring enough voters to your candidacy. And the other issues/goals you state in your web-site, I fear, have the same problem.
Turner should be fired from his job as representative for same reason that a family or business would fire their attorney or financial adviser. You must show that Turner should be removed from his job because he has failed in the job that he was suppose to do. Here is a short list: under Turner’s watch, we have descended into impending financial disaster, we have assumed crushing debt with nothing to show for it, we are much less secure, we are hated around the world, our future has been needlessly imperiled. Your message should be this: After six years on the job, the evidence is clear that Turner has miserably failed in the job that he was employed to do and, therefore, it would be a big mistake to give him another two year contract.
Because Turner has faithfully supported the initiatives of George W. Bush, the failures of the Bush administration belong to Turner as well. As a member of Congress, he has had untold opportunities to investigate, question and obstruct the many disasters imposed by Bush. He has done nothing. Turner’s total support of Bush’s incompetence, therefore, makes him totally responsible. Your message should be clear: A vote against Turner is a vote against Bush.
Your campaign message should be that Turner has made an inadequate and incompetent mess of the job he was suppose to do and, therefore, he should be replaced. In the family business analogy, in which the family consists of all voters in the 3rd Congressional District, Turner was employed to do a job, but he has badly screwed up. His affable ways and long term history in the region, however, means that many members of this 3rd District family, regardless of his screw-up, will want to keep him in the family’s employment and give him another two years contract. Your argument for change must first of all remind everyone what the job of representative is all about. If the job is all about being affable, smiling for pictures for the local media, then, Turner gets a grade of “A.”
You need to direct the conversation to a discussion of how, in fact, the merit of a representative should be judged. You need to consistently communicate a clear message of what it means to be an effective representative — and what steps you are committed to take to assure that you will be effective. You need to establish a foundation, a rationale, that will help voters in the 3rd Congressional District, who tend to vote for Turner because they like his personality, a way to honestly evaluate Turner’s job performance. You need to articulate a vision of the job of representative that Turner himself, if pressed, would agree with.
Let’s start with the fact that it is clear that our system of representative democracy is not working as it should; our system simply is not advancing ideas and measures that are in the best interest of the vast majority of citizens. This system failure is not accidental. Our representative democracy is failing us because our representatives are failing us. Our representative democracy is failing us, in part, because Turner is failing us. Our representatives are not centered on truly advancing the best interests of the general public, but rather are centered on advancing the cause of special interests. Turner is a professional politician embedded in and committed to the flaws of our current system.
In the analogy of the family attorney, the guy we hired to work for us has spent his time helping his wealthy friends. While ignoring the family business, he has secured his own interests. Meanwhile, our family business is going bankrupt. We don’t have sufficient funds to build infrastructure; we don’t have the money to adequately educate our citizens. We don’t have money to prepare for a better future for our children. But, thanks to our representative, money that could have helped solve our problems is awarded to favored corporations and to the wealthy.
Simply put, in order for our system of representative democracy to work as it should, we need representatives who define their job in terms of promoting the general good. We need representatives who define their job as advancing and promoting our historical purpose and foundational ideas as outlined in our constitution. We need representatives who are dedicated to working for freedom and justice for all. We need representatives who will work to promote laws and governmental actions that truly are “for the people.” Turner has failed to do this.
Turner certainly would agree that a representative in his actions should promote the general good and should protect and advance the ideals foundational to our country. He would agree with this general definition of what it means to be an effective representative.
Your campaign message should demonstrate, by using Turner’s record, of how Turner time and again has failed to act to meet the definition of effective representation. I’d hammer several specific issues established in his record, about which there is no ambiguity, and I’d start with the Republican tax cuts for the wealthy. I’m sure that Turner is on record as saying that he favors making the Bush tax cuts permanent. What needs to be hammered into the public’s awareness is the amount of tax giveaway that is going to the very wealthy, how thoroughly Turner supports this giveaway, and how this tax money could better be spent.
According to a report described in a newspaper article entitled “Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says,” printed in the New York Times: “Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000.”
The matter of tax fairness is a huge issue. It is an issue that generates a lot of highly motivated discussion and analysis. A progressive tax structure has been at the heart of our democracy’s tax structure for many years. The argument for the progressive system is an argument centered on an understanding of fairness. The vast majority of voters support the concept of a progressive tax system, but Bush’s tax cuts make our tax structure less progressive, more flat. Turner supports Bush in his tax cutting strategies.
Bush tax cuts have contributed to our growing debt. We don’t have nearly enough money to pay for our nation’s current bills and the aging of the baby boomers means we’ll have many more bills in the future. Bush has driven us into greater and greater debt — over $3 trillion since he took office — and his giveaway to the wealthy is partially responsible. Fiscal responsibility is a huge issue and one that an effective representative would emphasize. But Turner shows no record of protesting Bush’s incredible fiscal irresponsibility. Turner shows no record of protesting reckless congressional spending on wasteful earmarks. The tax cuts to the wealthy is part of this pattern of supporting fiscal irresponsibility.
I’m thinking that this one issue — Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy — could provide the venue by which you could crystalize your entire message. It is certainly an issue that would motivate interest and could capture the imagination of many voters who otherwise may be inclined to vote for Turner.
I see the message your campaign should communicate as three fold: 1) A compelling vision of what it means to be an “effective” Congressional Representative and 2) A plan for how, if elected, you will be “effective.” 3) A convincing analysis of why Mike Turner deserves a grade of “F” on his job performance evaluation and why, therefore, he deserves to be removed from his job as representative for the 3rd Congressional District.
Uh, Mike- have you heard her speak?
No substance there either.
You better start lining up a candidate with a spine to start running in 2009 for the 2010 seat- if it still exists since we are likely to lose 2 congressional districts.
David — I believe it is possible for Jane to win this election. Of course it won’t be easy for her to win, but, in the Democratic wave that this election should create, Democrats have a real chance to retire Turner and send Jane to Congress.
Jane’s chances of winning, I feel, depends to a great extent on whether she defines a compelling campaign message. A compelling message is easier to communicate than a weak message. And there’s lots of ways of communicating a message other than through a candidate’s personal speeches.
Jane has all he pieces needed to assemble a powerful message of the need for change, but, her web-site shows that, as yet, she has not put this message together. As a Democratic community, we need to encourage Jane and do what we can to influence her to create and implement an effective campaign.
Mike- she’s missing a spine.
You obviously haven’t heard her talk.
It’s all about how Strickland and Brown won the district- as if she’s the anointed one. Not a damn mention of policy- or ideas.
Do your homework- go listen to her.
David — Like I said, As a Democratic community, we need to encourage Jane and do what we can to influence her to create and implement an effective campaign.
This post is an attempt to encourage Jane and her campaign to focus on defining the message that Jane’s campaign should seek to communicate. The matter of message is a matter of first importance to any campaign and it seems obvious that Jane’s campaign needs to think through a message that is compelling and create a campaign strategy designed to deliver that message.
With 550,000 voters in the District to attempt to influence, a big part of most modern campaigns consists in applying proven principles of marketing. Let’s suppose that we had $10 million to market Jane between now and the election. Throwing money around wouldn’t be effective unless there is a strategy for spending the money that centers on delivering a message. I am making some suggestions in this post as to how Jane’s message should be defined. The way I see it, the message that would make Jane’s campaign effective is pretty much the same message that, if you had won the primary, would make your campaign effective or, for that matter, any other Democrat’s campaign effective.
I’d be interested in your analysis of the ideas I’ve tried to articulate in this post.
Mike-
She’d sound like a hypocrite on most of your issues since she’s part of the upperclass, no matter how much she tries to talk about her grandpappy.
Her better chance is to nail Turner on his ethics questions, and on his voting record- supporting torture, being against mental health care etc.
She won’t even meet with you- or respond on a site, do you really expect her to take your advice?
Wow — that was a quick response. I’m thinking about the next post I will write and right now I’m thinking of entitling it something like: “The Speech Jane Mitakidas Should Give.” I think it would be interesting to try to write a first draft version of a campaign speech for Jane.
I believe that Jane will hear me out.
Good luck.
It is not at all clear to me what qualities Jane M exhibited to the screening committee that garnered her the party’s endorsement. It surely isn’t based on on her work as party cadre…nor on her open participation in the monthly MCDP meetings. Nor on any public statement on any of the issues that she will face in this campaign. Fact is last time we heard from Jane was back in ’04 when her “message” failed miserably. The word entitlement comes to mind. Rather than basing a decision on policy issues money and connections appear to be decisive factors.
Now we have the dilemma of a potentially vulnerable Republican seat and a Democratic endorsed candidate whose policy positions are what can only be described as banal.
Mike, while I agree with you that the issue of tax cuts for the wealthy is a viable avenue of attack on Turner, we cannot ignore the primacy of the War in Iraq as being a central theme of any democratic candidacy, the ’06 elections made that point clear. Unfortunately the war still goes on, in part because too many elected’s, Clinton and Obama included, have failed to exercise Congress’s power over the purse.
Trillions of dollars thrown at that war and its aftereffects are a central issue in the deterioration of our economy. Because this war is not on the “books” Washington has borrowed into our great grandchildren s [and may be their’s] futures.
An argument needs to be made that connects that terrible waste of people and money to our current economic distress. I don’t know if Ms Mitakides is up to the task but an effort should still be made to influence her stance.
The issues you raise are ones that I think should be being discussed openly at Party meetings [in Warren and Clinton counties as well] Endorsed candidates should be held accountable for their policy positions, the old feet to the fire dictum. Anything less is no change at all, just more of the same.
Gary — Yes, I agree that the Iraq war must be part of Jane’s message. George Bush deserves a grade of “F” for the overall incompetence of his job performance and a big part of evaluating that performance is analyzing the disaster this war has caused — its costs, its length, etc. A big part of making the case that Bush deserves an “F” should be in showing how incredibly wrong Bush’s predictions were about the war, how incredibly stupid has been the conduct of the war.
This election, as I see it, is should be all about making the case that the party in power deserves to be rejected. Because Mike Turner has supported Bush at every opportunity, and has shown zero initiative in advancing any Congressional oversight of Bush’s actions, he shares responsibility for Bush’s incompetence. Because Turner has done nothing to obstruct or even question the worst of Bush’s actions, he also deserves an “F” on his job performance.
But the Iraq War — because of the Democrat’s complicity in initiating it, and their failure to have any legislative gumption in changing its relentless course — seems, to me, to be a much muddier issue than the issue of the Republican tax give-aways to the wealthy. The Republican tax policy is a dramatic example of a very flawed Republican philosophy — and Turner is stuck with this flawed philosophy. If Jane can communicate a message centered on the tax cut to the wealthy, she can generate a lot of motivation in the citizenry to discuss the issue and, this issue, I feel, is clear cut and compelling. I think the issue of tax give-aways to the wealthy ties into a whole view of the corruption of our government and it is an issue that could provide the engine to help define and drive Jane’s overall message. I see the Republican philosophy of changing our progressive tax system to a system that is more flat as an issue that is ripe for public discussion. The Republican philosophy of big breaks to the corporations and the wealthy simply offends ordinary people’s sense of justice. It is a philosophy that explains Republican incompetence in actually governing in such a way as to promote the general good.
The reality we are suffering through is caused by an extreme view of government, a view that, if fact, rejects a lot of traditional Republican Party values. The Republican Party deserves to lose, in part, because it has abandoned traditional Republican values and has been co-opted by a strong cadre of power hungry individuals whose first priority is their own self interest. Jane needs to project a powerful message why Turner deserves to lose his congressional seat, in such a way that voters who previously chose Turner will conclude that he, and the Republicans deserve to lose. Part of Jane’s message should be this: If the Republicans are never punished at the ballot box for their misdeeds, why should they ever change?
The Dems endorsed Jane because she ran for the seat before so has that experience, plus some name recognition. She also can self-fund, which means the Dems and their financial backers wont have to throw too much money down the drain.
Turner is pretty well unbeatable, and the reason why is that he reflects & expresses, more or less, the values of the voters in his district. If that were not the case his past elections would be closer than they are.
Jeffrey — Yes, Turner would like to present himself to voters in the District as someone who reflects and expresses the values of the voters in the District, but, his actions contradicts his public persona. And here are two facts: 1) Most voters in the 3rd Congressional District disapprove of many of the actions of George W. Bush, and, most voters in the District reject the values that many of Bush’s actions indicate. 2) Everything that George has wrought has been made possible by Mike Turner’s slavish support.
Turner has a legislative record that he is accountable for. Jane’s message should be that Turner’s record shows that he deserves to be rejected by the voters in the 3rd District because, in fact, Turner has failed miserably to accomplish the job that he was hired to do, and his legislative record shows that he is sorely out of line with the thinking and values of the vast majority of his constituents. For example, most Republican voters like to think of themselves as fiscally conservative, yet under Bush, the U.S. has acquired over $3 trillion of additional debt. Turner is responsible.
I think Jane can articulate and deliver a powerful message as to why Turner’s job performance shows that he deserves to lose his job.
^
the House election that was a referendum on Bush was in 2006. This won’t be the case in 2008.
And why would Turners support of Bush be at odds with the voters of OH 3? Combining the 2004 Presidential returns from the three countys mostly in OH3, Highland, Clinton, and Montgomery, Bush won by over 9,000 votes. Adding the parts of Warren in OH3 would push that margin higher.
This would indicate Bush has or had quite a bit of support in the district.
Jeffrey — Thanks for the statistics.
As I say above, I don’t think it will be easy for Jane to win the election, but I do think it is possible. The main point that I’m trying to communicate in this post is the fact that Jane’s chance for success, to a large degree, will be determined by how she defines her campaign message. Right now, according to the content of her web-site, Jane has a very weak message. I am urging and trying to encourage Jane that she must define a strong message that centers on Mike Turner’s record.
In 2006, Richard Chema, I feel, failed to define his campaign message in a compelling way. I disagree that the 2006 House election in the 3rd District was a referendum on Bush, because the fact is Chema failed to define his message. He failed to make the re-election of Turner a referendum on Bush.
Whether the 2008 3rd District House election can be made a referendum on Bush remains to be seen. I don’t understand the basis for your flat prediction that the 2008 election will not be a referendum on Bush. It seems that there is some evidence to think that voters in the 3rd District, who previously supported Bush, are waking up a little and, if given the opportunity, would positively respond to a campaign that advances a clear and powerful message of how badly they’ve been screwed by the Republicans.
I am with Jeffery, Turner will kill her unless he trips himself up. She cannot spend enough money to define the message and get it heard.
Mike, theoretically it is true that the people with the common interests (rural and poor interurbans) should vote for the Dem, but they will not. The Republican machine (Turner) realizes the effectiveness of the race, patriotism and abortion message is sufficiently drummed into these voters by Preachers and the 4 Horseman of the Apocalypse (Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz and Savage) is all that counts.
For Ms M to win will take a literal miracle.
Fact is she has been hibernating from the political scene for the last 4 years.
What is she doing now? How is she getting her message out? Or better yet, is there a message??? A campaign to defeat Turner needed to get started at least a year ago to gain any kind of traction.
Contrast Virginia Wolfsun and Jane and you can see the problem we have.
I am not seeing the “fire” necessary to carry this off.
I’d like to see someone parse the election #’s for the last two cycles and see where the votes fell. Warren and Clinton counties are NOT dem friendly territory and I don’t think she can overcome the Right Wing Message Machine in any kind of effective way in those areas.
This is not to dispute Turner’s vulnerability, either on the economy or the War.
BUT, getting the message out about his failures in these areas is going to be a very huge task…and will require some heavy duty cooperation between the Dems in the three counties in the district, something I’ve seen no evidence of.
You a good cheerleader MIke, unfortunately I think the team is not up to the task at hand.
I added a link in the post after the first paragraph to a summary report of the results of the last three elections in the Oh 3rd
The numbers tell the tale.
in 2006. Dick Chema, with his relatively low level campaign [stepping in late after the Studebaker debacle], did 3.75% BETTER than Ms Jane’s 2004 totals.
In 2004 Turner won Montgomery county, the Democratic stronghold in SW Ohio. Turner wupped her by about 60% vs 40% or by 41,996 votes…and Kerry WON the County.
.
Outside of Montgomery county Mitakides picked up 22,943 votes to Turners 58,786; meaning he beat her by approx 72% to 28%…staggering numbers to overcome.
Turner won th 2004 campaign by a margin of 77,844 votes, meaning Ms Jane would have to pick up at least 1/2 that #, or 38, 922 votes, just to break even with Bad Mike.
There are indeed other factors, the “get Midwest” controversy; the potential for conflict with his support for the Austin road interchange and his campaign contributors involvement with the project are just two. But, absent a vibrant campaign and a more nuanced stance on the major issues….she had better put some Nitro in the tank if she is going to overcome those odds.
And , given that she has been completely off the political map since ’04, Turner’s incumbency and his campaign’s war chest, I just don’t see it happening.
Do the words “sacrificial lamb” have a meaning here??
Gary, Your analysis of the 2004 election makes me want to know more. The Bd of Elections site shows that in 2004, there were 391,914 registered voters in the county, and that 73.39% of the registered voters actually voted that year. If we could hope for an enormous 2008 turn-out, say, 85% of registered voters, and if, in addition, a lot of unregistered could become registered, it is possible to see that, compared to the 2004 election, in the 2008 election there could be an additional 50,000 or more voters going to the polls in Montgomery County. I’ll estimate that 80% of additional voters will vote Democratic, giving Mitakidas 40,000 additional votes, while giving Turner 10,000 additional votes. Promoting a huge turn-out, I feel, is one way to close the gap between Mitakidas and Turner, but, even so, in order for Mitakidas to win there will still need to be a lot of Turner voters who will need to switch their vote.
In order to motivate voters to switch their vote Jane must define a compelling message of change. Greg, you write, about Jane, “She cannot spend enough money to define the message and get it heard.”
It will cost Jane nothing to define her message, but, I agree, getting voters to pay any attention to a message is the huge problem. It is usually seen as a marketing problem and candidates are marketed to the voting public in much the same way that detergent or soft drinks are sold — catchy phrases, memorable images and repetition, repetition, repetition. This type of marketing requires huge amounts of money. But even with tons of money to spend, defining message is a crucial first step of any successful marketing effort. A compelling message is easier to market than a weak message.
But, the Democratic Party should be able to organize and implement a successful grass roots campaign that would not require the money needed for a mass media approach. We like to think of ourselves as the party of the people, but we are not organized to give reality to that notion. You are right Gary, when you write, “A campaign to defeat Turner needed to get started at least a year ago to gain any kind of traction.” But, the opportunity we have is to initiate now a potential two year campaign — defining Turner, sharpening a compelling message on the urgency of change, establishing a grass roots structure — to be culminated in 2010. I regret not giving Chema’s 2006 effort more help.
Yes, it is a long shot for Jane to win. But it is possible for her to win, particularly in the event of an 85% turnout. We need to set the stage to make such a long shot possible — by defining message and by making the foundation of a grass roots organization. Any work we might accomplish in 2008 could bring in a winning result in 2010.
Mike-
Are you confusing voter counts between Montgomery County and OH-3?
Montgomery County is only a subset of OH-3.
Your percentage of voters is WAY off.
You keep missing the point- Jane will only have a chance to beat Mike if the House Ethics committee brings charges against him and his wife.
Other than that- she doesn’t stand a chance. No matter what Ted Strickland or Sherrod Brown did in OH-3.
She has no experience, no one knows her, she’s unproven and stands for nothing.
She proudly says shes the most conservative Democrat.
Given Turner’s ability to work the system- and have people believe that he’s able to bring home the pork and the bacon…. she can’t win.
She also doesn’t listen.
She is a sacrificial lamb. She won’t even put up a fight.
David, yes, the 391,914 number indicates all voters in Montgomery County rather than the 3rd Congressional District within Montgomery County. I need to get better data. But my point is simply that in the event of a landslide turnout — say 85% — Mitakidas would be significantly advantaged. And, it seems feasible that, if the presidential race is close, such a turn-out might actually occur.
When you write, “Jane will only have a chance to beat Mike if the House Ethics committee brings charges against him and his wife,” you are implying that Jane’s only chance to beat Turner could come from some new big negative revelation about Turner. But I disagree. There is plenty of evidence that Turner’s job performance is “F,” that he has failed to do the job he was hired to do. Jane is not lacking in material with which to craft a compelling message of the need for change in representative. I agree that Jane’s only chance to beat Turner is to craft a powerful message — but there doesn’t need to be a new scandal to craft this message. It is already a huge scandal that under Bush and Turner our national debt has risen over $3 trillion and that every day we owe more money to the Chinese. It is already a scandal that we have an administration of incompetence with no Congressional oversight. Etc. Etc. My recommendation, in part, to Jane is that she highlight the issue of tax breaks for the wealthy and make the election a referendum on this issue.
Mike-
Did you read the part about “tested”- people tend to vote for incumbents. Turner is perceived as a pro- and walks and talks the part. Teflon coated.
If you’ve heard Jane gush- you’d realize she doesn’t say anything.
Stop dreaming.
Start digging- find out what will get Turner put in prison. It’s about all that will work.
Did you just discover politics yesterday?
That is correct. Mr. Turner is backed financially and today he is hosting the Job Roundtable at Sinclair. He has column almost every Wednesday in the KO times and the DDN basically hands him a free pass.
You have two choices, work like a dog to smear Turner’s protectors or work with him to get what you want. Now if you want to be out of Iraq, then you are dreaming. If you want someone who cares about the Region, except the MIC, then forget about it. Jane is a lost cause. Promote the Dayton region, the 2nd Street Market, Community Supported Agriculture but analyzing Jane is not worth it Mike. The time with Vic was a good idea and promoting him was worth it, but Jane, come on. Turn your talents elsewhere, accept the inevitable. I am not saying to abandon her, because our Prayers could be answered, but do not spin the wheels.
David, you say, “Turner is perceived as a pro- and walks and talks the part.” He is so perceived much too positively, in part, because he was given a free pass in his 2004 and 2006 reelection campaigns. He has never been made to account for his actual job performance.
I’m not sure that I agree with your assessment of how Turner is perceived. Turner should be perceived, and I think he is perceived by many, as a professional politician who is up to his eye balls in the general corruption and money associated with Washington lobbyists and big spending corporations who ever seek to find ways to screw average people. There has been no Democrat who has yet defined Turner as he should be defined. There has been no Democrat who has crafted a compelling message of why Turner deserves to be fired from his job.
I don’t think that my effort to analyze the 3rd Congressional race can be fairly described as dreaming, if by dreaming you mean out of touch with reality. I’ve acknowledged that Jane has a slim chance — but I am suggesting a way that she could win, a way that slim chance can be put together, and maybe that does sound like dreaming. You tend to want to define the race in personal terms rather than analytical terms, emphasizing too much, I feel, Jane’s qualities. I’ll repeat what I said to you above: The way I see it, the message that would make Jane’s campaign effective is pretty much the same message that, if you had won the primary, would make your campaign effective or, for that matter, any other Democrat’s campaign effective.
If David had won, we might have a camera crew dogging Turner at the Roundtable asking about cuts in the military budget impacting the Dayton area or what he is planning on doing to curb the housing crisis or what part his support of Austin Road exacerbates that problem. Two cameras trained on his face while the questions are asked. Instead you and Jane are navel gazing.
Maybe we will get some of that Tae Kwon Do crap on tape.
Bock-
See Hunter above.
I fight like I’ve got nothing to lose. Jane fights like a girl.
Turner fights like a lawyer.
Different styles. I would have at least scratched the teflon.
Jane won’t do a thing. Even her buddies like “Teddy” and Sherrod, won’t come out and hammer Turner for her. They have to play nice in for when she loses.
Sorry- but lost cause.
Greg — Now, you’ve gone too far when you write, “analyzing Jane is not worth it.” I think it is pretty important, it’s worth it, for someone to analyze how we can get rid of our so-called representative — who has slavishly supported and empowered the many disasters of George Bush. It’s a mistake to think that this effort is all about supporting Jane. Most likely, Turner will win in 2008, but what about 2010? If Turner is never held accountable, he becomes even more embedded and the chances of ever beating him are diminished. The time of an election is a time to hold the incumbent accountable. I’m urging Mitakidas to formulate a compelling message of the logic and need for change because I feel it is her best chance to win in 2008 — but also, because I think such a message would help prepare the way for a Democrat to win in 2010.
David — You write, “Jane fights like a girl,” and, you write, “Jane won’t do a thing.” So you are on record. I just hope Jane will organize and implement the type of campaign that six months from now you will take back those words. At least I’m trying to give her some advice. I’ve never had the chance to sit down with Jane and have a discussion. I am suppose to meet with her in the next couple of weeks, so I will have a report at some point of how Jane thinks about this general discussion. I am going to e-mail her and ask that she read this post, along with the comments.
Done, by David and Greg
Plug away Mike, I need all the help I can get for a Republican Challenge to Mike in the 2010 primary. The country will be sufficiently screwed up at this point to make this a viable reality.
David Esrati (D) VS Greg Hunter (R) in 2010 – The Region, State and World cannot lose with this choice.
Mike – Thank you for helping us achieve this realistic goal.
Check the beauty of Hilliary’s response on Pastor Wright
Notice the subtlety of this response as it tries to deflect any criticism of her husband or racist people in her family. Hilliary does not fight like a girl, she fights like someone who wants to win at all costs, even if it does take down the Dumbocrats and African Americans.
This is fighting and no response from Obama. Obama needs to man up and tar and feather Hilliary for riding on the backs of Rush Limbaugh as she and her HUSBAND (SHE HAD (S) A CHOICE) played the Race Card. I would have also countered that 3 oclock message with Hilliary rolling over while she answers the phone as the Police have called and picked up her husband for exposing himself in public. Fight with meat that the people understand. The time for doe eyed stare is past. Tar and Feather baby. However, with a Government Contractor that has Security clearances on the Payroll and access to private Records, Turner will get harder to beat in the future as the Patriot Act will be used to hang Patriots.
I love the CCCP, errr the USA.
Greg, you write, “Fight with meat that the people understand….Tar and Feather baby.” Yes. Yes. Yes. Let’s all write a draft of a speech for Jane.
And, you write, David Esrati (D) VS Greg Hunter (R) in 2010 – The Region, State and World cannot lose with this choice. Mike – Thank you for helping us achieve this realistic goal.
You are very welcome.
Interesting discussion, but I wonder if this is just the four of us sitting around and BS’ing.
David, your comments about Jane M ” fighting like a girl” will probably come back to bite you in the behind someday, whether she wins or not. I like to fight [politically] too, but the idea is to RAISE the level of discourse…and blatantly sexist commentary doesn’t do that.
The points about Jane that I read as pertinent in the passages above are that:
JANE NEEDS A MESSAGE
JANE NEEDS AN 85% ELECTION TURNOUT;
JANE NEEDS A SPINE [CLAWS? TAR & FEATHERS?]
JANE NEEDS A LOT OF MONEY
JANE NEEDS A MIRACLE
Now, on to 2010.
We have to focus on defeating Mike Turner, whether it happens in ’08 or ’10 is NOT the issue.
A website devoted to his missteps and misdeeds should be the first order of business. Chronicle his votes, get people to analyze and parse them as they relate to the 3rd district, Name names, tell who the real beneficiaries are [how much was a particular vote worth the Danis, to Mead, to his financial backers who are also on the Dayton Development Coalition board, etc. Hard facts
We must also seek to raise the level of discourse within the MCDP if we are going to have any chance in ’10. That is a tremendous undertaking in an of itself.
A party without an ideological base isn’t much of a Political party, it’s just a shell of one. Plus, when we look at where the “power” currently rests it is clear that bringing real democracy to the democratic Party wil not be a simple task either.
Mike I wish you luck in your talk with Ms M, but don’t hold your breath while you wait for the grand revelation to come to her.
I reiterate a point from an earlier post…Jane has been COMPLETELY off the political map of the MCDP since ’04.
She has NO traction and the mud is very deep.
and Mike, please share with rest of us how you are able to boldface and use html on this blog…
Gary This
shoulddo it.http://www.arachnoid.com/lutusp/html_tutor.html
Gary- figure of sexist speech- but, made a point.
We’ll see how much fight she has in her on November 5.
Gary, I really like your idea about starting a web-site dedicated to educating the public concerning Mike Turner’s record. We need to think of a plan for bringing that idea to reality.
Maybe I have special powers of editing because I am a designated administrator. I will research how this prerogative can also be given to you.