I just wrote an extended response to an article posted by David Esrati, When Mike Turner and David Kucinich Agree, We Live In Extraordinary Times.

David. I enjoyed reading your post and I heartily agree with its conclusion:

“Wouldn’t it be great if we as voters, could just check each incumbent and each challengers site- to find out how they would vote, or why they voted the way they did- straight from the horses mouth? Neither Jane Mitakides or Mike Turner have had anything resembling an original idea on their respective sites about this critical issue.

“Of course, if I was still a candidate for OH-3, you’d all know exactly how I felt- and why. You’d also have the chance to discuss, debate and influence my position, because- believe it or not, it’s called the House of Representatives for a long forgotten reason.”

I just checked Turner’s web-site,  thinking maybe it would feature the press release he gave to DDN about his “No” vote on the $700 Billion bail out legislation, but nothing. Yesterday I called both Turner’s Dayton office and his Washington office and left my name and e-mail address and requested that the congressman send me a copy of any press release he would prepare for the news media. Nothing.

I’ve urged Turner’s challenger, Democrat Jane Mitakides, to make better use of the internet. Last week I interviewed Jane and wrote: “Effectively Using the Internet Is Key to Jane Mitakides Defeating Congressman Mike Turner”

How someone runs her or his campaign is a strong indication of how he or she will conduct themselves in office, if elected. As a person with a strong history of web experience, you made a convincing point in your campaign when you promised to effectively use the internet to communicate with and to be accessible to voters.

I need to comment also about your reaction to the Dayton Daily News article about Turner’s recent “No.” You quote the Dayton Daily News:

“Turner, meanwhile, said he voted against the bill because it fails to hold accountable those who got the financial system into trouble in the first place and because it does not prohibit the bad lending that led to this crisis. He said there were no guarantees that the bailout would work, and no plan for what to do if it didn’t succeed.  ‘Our entire financial system has been imperiled by the greed of the people that run some of these companies,’ he said. ‘The same people could continue to offer these same loans that caused all this trouble; this bill will not prevent it.'”

You are a long time critic of Turner, who sought the Democratic Party’s nomination to run against him, and I am surprised, in response to the DDN article, you wrote, “Turner scored major points in my book for taking this stand.”

To me, this “No” vote was not a “stand” at all.    It seems much more likely that it was simply a calculated political move. People are usually true to their established character and behavior.

I wrote, in my article, “Jane, made the point that because of the mess created by a Republican president and a Republican congress, and because Mike Turner has been overwhelmingly supportive of Republican policies, that Turner deserves to lose. Yes. But Jane needs to make the case.”

The reason Jane needs to make the case, to lay the facts out in stark terms, is because, amazingly, some voters, who have lost all confidence in George Bush and his policies, don’t connect the dots that it was Republicans, like congressman Mike Turner, who made the actions of George Bush possible.

Why did Turner vote 90% of the time, or so, to support the Republican agenda? I don’t believe he was making a “stand” in these votes.  I don’t believe that his votes were motivated by sound principles and careful reasoning. I don’t think his votes were motivated by his commitment to advancing the public good, or that he even used his best judgment. The motivation for Turner’s wholehearted support of the Republican agenda, it seems to me, was purely political. It doesn’t strike me that Turner sees himself as servant of the people. With Mike Turner, it seems, it’s all about securing and advancing the interests of Mike Turner.

The trouble is, the bill has come due.  Reality has smacked the Republican agenda and the Republican philosophy in the face. The trouble is, it’s time to pay up. Under Bush and Turner the national deficit has increased by over $3 Trillion. Staggering in its implications. We’ve engaged in a very expensive war and at the same time we’ve cut taxes. We’ve grown the size of government and and the waste in government at an alarming rate. We’ve allowed lobbyists to write our laws. And Turner didn’t make a peep.

This was politics. This was cronyism. This was gorging at the trough. This was all about winning and wielding power. Shouldn’t Turner have voted “No” to all this nonsense years ago when a “stand” from a real Republican Ohio conservative might have made a difference? The attitude and the actions of this wild Bush era were never “conservative” — in any twisted meaning of the term. Of course Turner in this conservative 3rd District, would like to run from this miserable anti-conservative record. And now, in the matter of this proposed Wall Street bail out,  is Turner’s big chance to resound with all of the conservatives in the 3rd District who are mad as hell at this proposed legislation. It’s Turner’s opportunity, now that the chickens are roosting, to make a conservative “stand” and vote “No.”  And hope that his conservative constituents will not notice the votes of his previous six years.

Turner’s “No” vote, in my judgment, is despicable — because, as I see it, his vote is purely political.

Why did it happen?  The House of Representatives rejected the strong pleas of both Republican and Democratic leadership and voted “No” on emergency legislation described as crucial to the nation’s well being. Why?

We call the U.S. House the “People’s House.” The design of the Constitution created many more members of the House, compared to the Senate, and required direct election of members of the House at short intervals, every  two years.

The House is the legislative branch that is suppose to be closest to the people.  But gerrymandering has defeated the Constitution’s design, and now 90% of members of the House are in Districts considered “safe.”  These “safe” Districts are both Republican and Democratic and members of these Districts usually can count on easily winning by margins of 65% or better.  Members of these  gerrymandered Districts seldom have serious competition from the opposing party and, therefore, tend to cater to the “base,” the most partisan element of their party.  They are much more ideological in their thinking and much more partisan in their actions, than if they were required to answer to a more evenly balanced electorate.

The bail out legislation offended both the Right and the Left.  Conservative constituencies demanded their representatives vote “No,” echoing talk radio, Lou Dobbs, etc.  Liberal constituencies also demanded a “No” vote, saying that more help be given to “Main Street,” rather than so much help to “Wall Street.”

The 95 Democrats voting “No,” I’m sure, were mostly considered “Liberals,” while the 133 Republicans voting “No,” were mostly “Conservatives.”  In Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich voted “No,” and Republican Mike Turner also voted “No.”  Kucinich will defend his “No” vote based on Liberal principles, and Turner will defend his “No” based on his Conservative principles.  And in their gerrymandered districts, probably neither Representative in the “People’s House” will need to really account for their vote in any in-depth way.

Kucinich and Turner found agreement to vote “No” by putting ideology above practicality.  And in the wake of their vote, over $1.2 Trillion of wealth of stock market value vaporized.

The “People’s House,” should be all about making hard choices for the people’s good.  The fact that Kucinich and Turner agreed in voting “No” is disturbing.  Their unanimity demonstrates the triumph of ideology and partisanship over sound reasoning.  It demonstrates the bankrupt state of our democracy.