Politics Extra: Portman to the rescue

Friday, October 13, 2006

Portman to the rescue

With her nemesis, Rep. John Murtha, in Cincinnati Saturday campaigning for her opponent, Jean Schmidt went looking for some help and found it in the form of her predecessor, Rob Portman.

Before Murtha arrives mid-day for a Victoria Wulsin rally and fundraiser, Portman - now the White House budget chief, will rally the Schmidt troops at a morning rally at Schmidt's Kenwood campaign headquarters.

19 Comments:

at 9:31 AM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

looks like the GOP is writing Chabot off. Where are the heavy hitters? The Associated Partisans arent trying to breathe life into it but are still hoping Pryce wins.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061014/NEWS01/610140405/1092

at 9:45 AM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

Schmidt is obviously worried. With the election being in November rather than August, and the greater scrutiny, the Clermont County republican party won't be able to pull a "moist ballots" delay tactic to avoid reporting until after the much more blue precincts in Hamilton report.

Wonder how many stickers were on the Clermont County optiscan ballots fro0m the Schmidt Hackett race in 2005.

at 9:49 AM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

Dear Rob Portman,

I want to apologize to you for not sending the letter in which I plan to express my desire to be part of your (not yet formed) commission which will be responsible for presenting a plan to save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. I am a Democrat who has ideas which will help to save these programs for future generations without raising taxes.

Just to prove to you that this is not a political message, but a sincere genuine concern for the future viability of these programs, I will wait until after the election to deliver my letter to you.

I think it's about time that Democrats and Republicans start to work together to solve America's problems. There is no other way to save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. If these programs fail, EVERYBODY will share in the ultimate economic and social cost to our nation. There will be no winners.

You are a very lucky man to be the person who is charged with responsibility of leading the solution to the most challenging economic issue of our times. I hope that you do not waste the gift that you have been given.

I look forward to talking with you and hopefully having the opportunity to volunteer my time, energy and abilities to help solve this incredible economic challenge. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue; This is an American issue.

Thank you.

at 10:50 AM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

Of course he supports Schmidt.

at 12:13 PM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

Portman should be in Washington dealing with the record deficit, NOT politicking in Ohio. "Cut and Run" Republicans: Cut taxes and Run up the debt.

at 1:34 PM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

It's interesting to wonder if the man who received 70% the last midterm year will remind people that he supports Jean. Will people realize that a vote for Jean means votes that would be cast the almost exact way that Portman would, or will they go for a lady that will vote completely oppositte of Mr. Portman.

at 8:36 PM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

Portman is cutting and running from D.C. before they ask him how long he knew about foley fondling our nations children !

It's time to clean house and throw the rubbish out the port hole !

HAD ENOUGH, VOTE DEMOCRAT 2006 !

at 3:09 PM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

Cut and Run,
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about except for what Sherrod Brown and Howard Dean have told you to think. If you don't start thinking for yourself, you will remain a puppet for partisan rhetoric.

Look at the economy. Since August '03, more jobs have been created than all other major industrialized countries combined. The DOW is at never before seen heights. At current levels the budget deficit is below the 40-year average. This year's revenues are estimated at $2.407 trillion. Finally we have a $72 billion surplus in exports from the service sector.

All democrats need to face the facts.

The Bush tax cuts have revitalized what was a staggering national economy. 6.6 million new jobs have been created since the '03 tax cuts. (So much for blaming free trade and outsourcing, Sherrod! Get a new lie to pass off.) The economy is at an all-time high because of Bush's pro-growth policies.

at 3:32 PM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

We may really need Portman to come to the rescue in 2008 if Mean Jean Schmidt manages to lose next month. Portman would win this district back in a cakewalk.

at 6:51 PM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

Speaking of shrill puppets, is there a bigger sock puppet out there than I-71 Commuter, aka Chris Finney? He is a right wing shill who repeats whatever talking points the GOP feeds him.

The sad fact is that wages have been stagnate for 5 years now. The only people to benefit from Bush's deficit driving tax cuts are those in the upper 2% of income earners. Plus, this is the first and only time in American history that the government has cut taxes 'in a time of war'.

Wage stagnation and the sharp increase in housing costs over the past decade have delayed workers ages 20 to 35 from buying their first homes. Wage stagnation, long the bane of blue-collar workers, is now hitting people with bachelor's degrees for the first time in 30 years. Earnings for workers with four-year degrees fell 5.2 percent between 2000 and 2004 when adjusted for inflation, according to White House economists. Not since the 1970s have workers with bachelor's degrees seen a prolonged slump in wages. These workers did well during the last period of growth, with average wages rising 12 percent from 1995 to 2000, according to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute.

Census data show median household income fell 3.8 percent or $1,700, from 1999 to 2005, according to the Economic Policy Institute. And this drop occurred during a period when average productivity rose three percent per year.

Moreover, the reality is worse because prices of commodities that make us middle class are rising much faster than inflation generally: housing, college education, health care, and also child care. These very rapid price increases are offset by falling costs of consumer electronics, basic food, and clothing, creating misleadingly low inflation measures.

It's great that shirts are cheaper than a decade ago, and that we all have cell phones. But that doesn't exactly substitute for a house, an affordable college education, or health care. And speaking of the healthcare crisis, it has only worsened over the past 5 years.

Add to all of this the most disastrous foreign policy in American history, a war based on lies, this administration's mishandling of North Korea and Afghanistan, rampant republican corruption, an administration that is attempting to gut the constitution and we can all see a government that is completely out of control.

It's time to clean up this incompetent government and send the Republicans packing.

at 8:11 PM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

Does somebody think that the Democrats are going to win the 2nd District this year?

at 8:12 PM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

The GOP hasn't written off the 1st. They just believe that they are going to win the 1st district.

at 1:36 PM, October 16, 2006

Anonymous said...

Hey I-75,
You’re as bad as Jean Schmidt. Your entire post was plagiarized off of the NY Times, September 4, 2006 article by STEVEN GREENHOUSE and the American Prospect Online Edition article by Robert Kuttner on 04.03.06. And you talk about me being a mouthpiece for the party.

Seriously, you need to actually understand these figures to put a cogent argument together. Anyone can copy and paste from a NY Times editorial. Take your blog-entry to your college economics teacher and he will tell you why you're wrong; because I'm not going to explain it to you over a blog.

Finally, I-75 get it through your head that I'm not Chris Finney. Finney's a hell of an attorney and a good guy, but I'm not Chris Finney. Sorry.

Hope you learned something I-75. Next Lesson: Why losing to Bob Taft twice makes democRats undeserving to win the gubernatorial election.

All the best,
I-71 Commuter

at 7:10 PM, October 16, 2006

Anonymous said...

I-75 commuter is like the husband caught cheating who says "who you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?

Since you mentioned the DOW...

Bush economy nothing to broadcast
By Brett Arends
Boston Herald Business Columnist

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

The neocon talk-show hosts were so angry last week they could barely speak.

The “mainstream media” and “the drive-by media” and “the liberal media,” they said, were deliberately ignoring the president’s great record on the stock market, on gasoline prices and on jobs.

Why don’t the media talk about the Dow, they demanded.

OK. Let’s.

The Dow Jones Industrials Average closed last week at 11,867. That’s a gain of 1,279 points since George Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001.

That’s an annualized gain of 2 percent.

Under Bill Clinton, it was 15.9 percent.

Bush’s dad: 9.8 percent.

Ronald Reagan: 11.3 percent.

These figures are public record.

The index also did better under Presidents Ford, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge. Much better.

Since World War I, the only presidents with a worse Dow Jones Industrials record than the incumbent were Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.

Hoover, Nixon, Carter, Bush? Hmmmm.

I’m saying nothing.

Let’s talk about gasoline prices.

Yes, they’re down 73 cents a gallon from the peak in August. Average today: $2.26. But in January 2001, they were $1.46. So they’re still up 55 percent.

Jobs?

Since January 2001, the jobless rate has risen from 4.2 percent to 4.6 percent.

Over that period, non-farm payrolls have added an average of 46,200 jobs a month. That’s good, right?

Clinton: 237,000 a month.

Reagan: 168,000.

Carter: 215,000. Carter!

Bush’s dad presided over a recession so bad it cost him his job. His record must be worse, right?

His average: 54,000 a month. That’s 17 percent higher than junior’s.

Hey, don’t blame me. They asked.

And that was the Herald, not the Globe.

at 8:37 PM, October 16, 2006

Anonymous said...

I-71 won't explain why stagnate wages mean the economy is great because he can't. The guy is an empty suit filled with lies. Just like the GOP.

Oh and Chris, you shouldn't brag about your I-71 posts here to your friends; loose lips sink ships.

at 8:17 AM, October 17, 2006

Anonymous said...

Oh no he didn't...

i-71 brought up the deficit?

At current levels the budget deficit is below the 40-year average.

Does that skip over the Clinton years?

Bragging about the deficit. Not the Bush admin. strong suit. Trust me.

at 3:36 PM, October 17, 2006

Anonymous said...

Bush's tax cuts have produced a boom in federal revenues that are reducing the budget deficit significantly ahead of predictions.
Why? Because when Americans keep more of their own income, we can grow it one holy helluva lot faster in the private sector than the publicly-employed bureaucrats can.

In addition, I get so bloody sick and tired of Democrats wailing that the tax cuts benefit "the rich" only. The wealthiest Americans pay the overwhelmingly largest portion of the federal tax bill, and so they get commensurate reductions in any tax cut legislation. But my son and my son-in-law, both of whom are young, solidly middle middle-class professionals (systems analyst and teacher) with young families making between $52,000 and $65,000/year got HEFTY tax refunds, to the extent that my son's income tax refund totally paid him back PLUS SOME for all the withholding he paid in 2005. So don't give me this partisan BS that the tax cuts are for the "rich." Anyone with half a brain knows that's crap. I know it from personal experience, and you can't tell me otherwise. Unfortunately, most hard-working Americans are too busy with jobs, family, church or synagogue, schooling, sports, etc. to look closely at the Democrat claims pertaining to "The Rich." And that's why we get fools like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and Frank Leahy sent to DC year after year.

at 10:32 PM, October 17, 2006

Anonymous said...

Why? Because when Americans keep more of their own income, we can grow it one holy helluva lot faster in the private sector than the publicly-employed bureaucrats can.

Talking points. Show me the data. You can't. The tax cuts are not paying for themselves.

You neglect to mention that this administration is tapping Social Security revenue to help cover the deficit through off-budget borrowing. Without that there would have been an added $550 billion to the deficit last fiscal year, money that will have to be repaid. So much for the lockbox.

They are looting our treasury and your grandchildren will have to pay for it, yet you cheer them on.

Why don't we get into spending next?

at 11:48 AM, October 18, 2006

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 10:32pm, 10/17, you are slick, like most Democrat apologists. You can't deny the fact that revenues are streaming into the federal coffers at a much higher level than even the Administration predicted. Americans are paying MORE in taxes than before the tax cuts. Why? Because we're making more money. Why? Because we have more of our own money to invest and to spend. Laffer was exactly right. If you are so steeped in leftist BS that you can't or won't understand the simple logic behind tax cuts, then so be it. Dismissing facts as "talking points" is lame.

The central government has been tapping Social Security monies for routine budget expenses off-budget since the SS reforms promulgated in 1983 when Willis Gradison was on the House SS Committee trying to prepare the SS system for the demographic bulge known as the "Baby Boomers." As soon as the additional funds began pouring into the SS account, the Democrat-controlled Congress began using them to pay for "entitlements," as they existed then, including foreign aid giveaways, welfare payments and multitudinous pork projects tacked onto otherwise innocuous bills. I confronted then Congressman Gradison about that very thing at one of his town meetings in Georgetown, Ohio, in 1984. He said it was a deplorable situation, that he was trying to get back on the SS Committee so he could remedy it and that he was grateful to me for bringing it up. Shortly thereafter, he left Congress. I've always thought he discovered what a herculean task he faced. That task has NOT been addressed by subsequent administrations or Congresses. It MUST be and soon. But to lay that brewing fiscal disaster at the feet of the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress alone is totally misleading. And I think you are smart enough to know that that is what you are doing.

Previous Posts

Friday, October 13, 2006

Portman to the rescue

19 Comments: