The Dayton Daily News endorsement of Dayton’s representative in Congress, Mike Turner, makes no sense.  The newspaper reasoning is spectacularly goofy and well summarized in its endorsement headline:  “Turner’s Focus Earns Him a 4th Term.”

Focus?  Our national debt is a monster that threatens to devour us all, the economic foundations of our economy are crumbling before our very eyes.  Because of the incompetence, the criminal neglect, the greed, the corruption of Congress, we have all become poorer and less secure.   It seems the whole country will be bankrupt.  It seems incredible that DDN would praise Congressman Turner’s “focus.”

If our democracy is to have any credibility, we need to blame the mess we are in on those who are responsible.  John McCain wants to emphasize that it was all because of the greed on Wall Street.  Greed is like electricity, it needs to be controlled and channeled into useful productivity.  Our government deserves a lot of blame for the mess we are in, in fact, it is safe to say that our crisis is man made, and government is to blame.  Morons, corrupt morons:  Let’s cut taxes, particularly for the wealthy, AND let’s fight two expensive wars at the same time; let’s increase government spending by over 40%; let’s let the greed of big corporations, wealthy interests, have unprecedented privilege to change financial markets into casinos, and, let’s let them walk away with astounding amounts of cash.  Let’s add $4 Trillion to our national debt. And, by all means, let’s get while the getting is good.

Our local congressman, Mike Turner, in his six years, fully supported this attitude and gave Bush and the Republican leadership whatever they wanted.  His “focus,” evidently, was in being a successful politician, in playing the game.  And he was successful. His full cooperation with the Republican power establishment meant that he could have his turn at the trough and could grab his share of goodies to bring back home.  Nothing in his record would suggest that his focus was to think independently and to stand for common sense, or the common good.  His focus was on doing what he thought was in Mike Turner’s best interest.  (Including his two NO votes on the Wall Street Bail Out:  Mike Turner’s “No” Vote Was Attempt To Boost His “Conservative” Credentials.)

It is amazing that the DDN says that Turner should be praised and rewarded when it is clear that it was Turner’s flawed thinking and his very flawed actions, that helped propel us toward the crisis we now face. On balance, in evaluating Turner, there should be much more weight given to the fact that Turner helped empower Republican excesses over the last six years than to the fact that he helped bring millions of federal dollars into the District.  The DDN analysis seems very flawed.

The fundamental fact, our wake-up call, is that our democracy is in trouble.  Our government has no accountability.  Over 90% of US congressional districts, like Turner’s, are considered “safe,” regardless of how outrageously our government insults and degrades us all.  The DDN does a public disservice when it ignores this fundamental fact.  The crux of  DDN’s endorsement of Turner:  “Turner kept a sharp eye on matters of local interest, and he has made a difference.”  Wow.  The DDN’s definition of “local interest” is mighty narrow.  It seems to forget that there is an enormous local interest in economic stability.  Turner’s votes caused the national debt to explode; Turner’s utter loyalty to Republican mismanagement and Republican deregulation imperiled us all.  These are matters of enormous “local interest.”  How can the DDN be so obtuse?

Turner was derelict in his duty.  The fact is, Turner did what most politicians sent to Washington do.  He played along, he got in line, he kept his mouth shut.  Turner, and every political worm he identifies with, is the problem.  And, if our democracy has any reality, in this election, an aroused and awakened electorate will vote Turner out.

The DDN does a great disservice.  Innocent children, I’m afraid, may look to the DDN for wisdom and be led astray.  Jane Mitakides is an intelligent, caring, and accessible person and those qualifications, alone, are more than sufficient to make her a superior choice.  But in this election, if our democracy works as it should, Mitakides should get a lot of votes simply because she is an alternative.  She is the Not Turner Candidate.  Mitakides should be elected.  Her election would be a shock to some Republicans, but, in the long run, her election would actually benefit the local Republican Party.  It would give local Republicans an opportunity to find a more deserving candidate and to return to values long abandoned by the radical Republicans now in charge.

Our democracy is failing.  If the DDN wanted to elevate the political discussion to a level that is worthy of our democracy, it would take the position that, in these unusual times, a protest vote against the Washington establishment, against politics as usual, is crucial.  We, in the Third District, asked Turner to represent us, to represent the common good, but, he let us down.  Turner is a bum.  If the DDN had any spine, its endorsement headline would have said, “Mike Turner Is A Bum, For Our Democracy’s Sake, Throw The Bum Out.”

Related Articles:

Think Progress: Chickenhawk Congressman Smears Military Expert» (Includes Video)

Dayton Daily News Should Do In-Depth Reporting About Congressman Mike Turner

For Congressman Mike Turner, “Pork Has Been a Family Affair” — Mother Jones

Did Congressman Turner Mis-Use The Franking Privilege? DDN Asked to Investigate

Effectively Using the Internet Is Key to Jane Mitakides Defeating Congressman Mike Turner

Last night I attended The Dayton Daily News / WMUB Election Forum held at the Cox Media Center.  The topic of the forum was jobs and the economy, and featured a four person panel responding to questions.  The panel had two participants who generally are considered conservatives:  retired Ohio Governor Bob Taft,  and Miami University economic professor, Thomas E. Hall.  And it had two participants who, I’m sure, generally are considered liberals: Richard Stock and Jon Honeck.

The panelists (L-R):Jon Honeck, senior researcher for Policy Matters Ohio, a nonprofit policy research organization; Bob Taft, former governor and now a distinguished research associate at UD; Thomas E. Hall, economics professor, Miami University; Richard Stock, director of the Business Research Group, University of Dayton. Moderator: Gary Scott, News Director at NPR at eighty-eight-five, WMUB. William Hershey (foreground) DDN reporter and Caleb Stevens, Dayton Business Managing Editor, also asked questions.

Dr. Hall’s viewpoint became clear in his sparring with fellow economist, Dr. Stock, the director of the Business Research Group, University of Dayton.  Hall advanced the position that the sub prime mortgage disaster flowed from a congressional push to provide housing for low income people.  He cited a 1999 New York Times article to back up his claim, and seemed to wave it in the air, and said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack were pushed into buying subprime mortgages sold by other companies.  This, of course, is the Republican theme, ala Shawn Hannity, Newt Gingrich, etc.  Stock rebuked Hall’s point of view and pointed out that it was a lack of overall regulation that was the source of the problem.  Stock, it seems, pretty much agrees with the substance of my article:  Fannie And Freddie Not Responsible For Housing Bust; Affordable Housing Goals Not At Fault

Dr. Stock and Dr. Hall had opposing views on a lot of topics.  After the forum, I had an opportunity to talk with Dr. Stock, and told him that in my evaluation, the forum failed to live up to its potential — it failed to elevate or challenge the understanding of the listeners.  Much of the discussion seemed a rehash of familiar topics, and the differences in point of views of the panelists were not usefully examined, in a way that might give insight to or increase understanding of the panel’s listeners.  It hardly seems worth the effort to get the participation of highly qualified panelists, with differing viewpoints, if, somehow the process doesn’t explore in depth those differences, doesn’t enlighten.  The defining aim of an election forum should be to educate and the processes employed by the forum should be designed to facilitate education.

If the program would have consisted of any one of the four highly qualified panelists, simply leading a one person seminar, the overall educative value of the 90 minutes, it seems to me, would have been greatly increased.  The four panelist, as organized, in my judgment, simply failed to educate.

Members of the audience were given a chance to ask questions.  The questions were not submitted to the moderator in advance.  I volunteered to ask a question, but was not chosen.  One questioner expressed outrage at “trickle down” strategies; another complained that as owner of a small business, she’d be doing a lot better in Texas.   And, predictably, as could be expected at a public gathering where tax is the topic, some anti-tax zealot took the opportunity to monopolize everyone’s time by advocating and explaining the “Fair Tax” –Neil Bortz and Mike Huckabee’s loopy idea — and asking the panel to respond.  (This person started out, “I hate to pay taxes.”)

The 90 minute program ended, it seems to me, without impacting anyone’s level of understanding very much.  The expertise inherent in the panel members, Republicans and Democrats, was very underused.  I particularly would like to have heard a lot more from Jon Honeck of Policy Matters Ohio.  Honeck is an expert on the state budget and it seems such a forum, coming only three weeks before we elect a new State Assembly, should have centered on State Assembly Tax matters.  I posted an article today written by one of Honeck’s colleagues, Twelve Tax Loopholes Ohio Should Close To Generate $270 Million Additional Revenue Each Year

The forum, it seems to me, would have been more valuable if the topic would have been less diffuse, more focused, and, questions from the audience better screened.  Fewer questions should be asked at such forums:  a moderator should choose from submitted questions, and most questions should be published prior to the meeting.  Panel participants should be encouraged to bring to the meeting visual aids, charts, power point, videos, etc., sufficient to add to the succinctness and depth of their presentation.

The Election Forum has two more meetings:

• October 21st: Ohio Attorney General Candidates and State Ballot Issues
• October 28th: Foreign Policy, War in Iraq and National Security