The Cincinnati Enquirer may not think it’s an issue, but the Atlantic’ Marc Ambinder gets it (emphasis mine):

Portman did not reproach his surrogates at an event for joking that Portman was "an American lawyer" and Obama wasn't. His campaign later issued a statement saying the remarks were not appropriate but blasting Democrats for trying to move the focus from issues to trivial matters. One can understand why Portman would be uncomfortable rebuking folks who were saying nice things about him, but the campaign seems to want to thread the needle by denouncing the comments -- in the non-specific. Whatever the Portman campaign intends, his campaign's response leaves open the possibility that Portman doesn't necessarily find the question illegitimate.

So what happens when the special interest lobbyists come around saying nice things about him to win his vote on something? Will he stand up to them or will he stand up for Ohio? Right now the track record isn’t looking so good...

Obviously the standard disclaimer: It’s way too early to trust in polling, and internal polling should always be taken with a grain of salt.

That said, Chris Cillizza reports that a DSCC poll has some great news for Ohio Democrats.

First up the poll shows Lee Fisher with a one point lead (37-36) over Republican Robert Portman. Being the DSCC, of course Brunner wasn’t mentioned.

Second, the poll showed just 1% of voters blaming the state of the economy on Gov. Ted Strickland.

• 31% blame "politics in Washington"
• 25% blame former president George W. Bush
• 21% blame "Wall Street banks”
• 8% blame President Obama
• 1% blame Gov. Ted Strickland

Wait, who was the one that worked for a Wall Street bank? Oh ya, Kasich.

As Cillizza points out, the Senate polling is similar to what Quinnipiac polls have been showing.

Let’s just cut to the chase: Bob Latta is a damn liar.

Latta has a tweet posted linking to this page, which regurgitates some old Bart Stupak claims that the healthcare reform bill will lead to taxpayer funded abortions.

Oh, and his source for all of this? You guessed it, Fox News.

Had Latta looked for some real news, he would have found the truth. NBC fact checked Stupak’s claims a few days ago and found them to be mostly bogus. For one thing, the Hyde Amendment already prevents tax money from funding abortion.

So, why is Bob Latta lying to you?

An editorial in the Dispatch raises a very important point about Republican Steve Christopher’s claim that Jennifer Brunner lost some of his ballot petitions:

Where are the signatures?

Christopher claims that he has copies of 2,000 signatures, yet he hasn’t released them.

And to quite honest, I’ve yet to hear a Democrat say that having Christopher in the race would’ve been a bad thing. Personally, I feel quite the opposite.

UPDATE: ProgressOhio has posted the paperwork from Christopher’s filing.

A huge amount of information is coming out about John Kasich’s former employers at Lehman Brothers. A report, written by an examiner for the bank, lays out in stark detail some of the unethical practices the company used to prop up it’s image to investors.

This paragraph from Volume 3, Section 4 of the report details one of Lehman Brothers’ favorite schemes to dress up the books.

Lehman employed off‐balance sheet devices, known within Lehman as “Repo 105” and “Repo 108” transactions, to temporarily remove securities inventory from its balance sheet, usually for a period of seven to ten days, and to create a materially misleading picture of the firm’s financial condition in late 2007 and 2008. Repo 105 transactions were nearly identical to standard repurchase and resale (“repo”) transactions that Lehman (and other investment banks) used to secure short‐term financing, with a critical difference: Lehman accounted for Repo 105 transactions as “sales” as opposed to financing transactions based upon the overcollateralization or higher than normal haircut in a Repo 105 transaction. By recharacterizing the Repo 105 transaction as a “sale,” Lehman removed the inventory from its balance sheet.

In the second quarter of 2008, when Lehman was trying to reassure the public, the New York Times reports that these tactics were being used to “shed” $50 billion in debt from the books.

So far Kasich has been less than forthcoming about his time at Lehman Brothers. Wonder what he’s hiding?

Presented, once again, by Meg Whitman. This one’s even worse.

March 11, 2009

The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Republican Leader
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Leader McConnell:

Eleven months ago, I wrote you to share my expectations for the coming health reform debate.  At the time, I expressed Democrats’ intention to work in good faith with Republicans, and my desire that – while we would disagree at times – we could engage in an honest discussion grounded in facts rather than fear, and focused on producing results, not playing partisan politics.

Obviously, the opposite has happened, as many Republicans have spent the past year mischaracterizing the health reform bill and misleading the public.  Though we have tried to engage in a serious discussion, our efforts have been met by repeatedly debunked myths and outright lies.  At the same time, Republicans have resorted to extraordinary legislative maneuvers in an effort not to improve the bill, but to delay and kill it.  After watching these tactics for nearly a year, there is only one conclusion an objective observer could make:  these Republican maneuvers are rooted less in substantive policy concerns and more in a partisan desire to discredit Democrats, bolster Republicans, and protect the status quo on behalf of the insurance industry.

In fact, the attacks on the health care bill are part of a broader pattern.  As has been well documented, your caucus conspicuously shattered the record for obstruction last Congress by demanding gratuitous procedural votes on even the most non-controversial matters, and by stalling the work of the Senate despite the urgency of the serious problems facing our country.  Senate Republicans are on pace to again break their own record this Congress, illustrated by Sen. Bunning’s effort to prevent the Senate from acting to extend families’ unemployment and health benefits even after those benefits had expired.

While Republicans were distorting the facts in the health care debate and inflicting delay after needless delay, millions of Americans have continued to suffer as they struggle to afford to stay healthy, stay out of bankruptcy and stay in their homes.  Thousands of Americans lose their health care every day, and tens of thousands of the uninsured have lost their lives since this debate began.   Meanwhile, rising health costs have contributed to a rising federal budget deficit.

To address these problems, 60 Senators voted to pass historic reform that will make health insurance more affordable, make health insurance companies more accountable and reduce our deficit by roughly a trillion dollars.  The House passed a similar bill.  However, many Republicans now are demanding that we simply ignore the progress we’ve made, the extensive debate and negotiations we’ve held, the amendments we’ve added (including more than 100 from Republicans) and the votes of a supermajority in favor of a bill whose contents the American people unambiguously support.  We will not.  We will finish the job.  We will do so by revising individual elements of the bills both Houses of Congress passed last year, and we plan to use the regular budget reconciliation process that the Republican caucus has used many times.

I know that many Republicans have expressed concerns with our use of the existing Senate rules, but their argument is unjustified.  There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the use of reconciliation.  As one of the most senior Senators in your caucus, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, said in explaining the use of this very same option, “Is there something wrong with majority rules?  I don’t think so.”  Similarly, as non-partisan congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein said in this Sunday’s New York Times, our proposal is “compatible with the law, Senate rules and the framers’ intent.”

Reconciliation is designed to deal with budget-related matters, and some have expressed doubt that it could be used for comprehensive health care reform that includes many policies with no budget implications.  But the reconciliation bill now under consideration would not be the vehicle for comprehensive reform – that bill already passed outside of reconciliation with 60 votes.  Instead, reconciliation would be used to make a modest number of changes to the original legislation, all of which would be budget-related.  There is nothing inappropriate about this.  Reconciliation has been used many times for a variety of health-related matters, including the establishment of the Children’s Health Insurance Program and COBRA benefits, and many changes to Medicare and Medicaid.

As you know, the vast majority of bills developed through reconciliation were passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents – including President Bush’s massive, budget-busting tax breaks for multi-millionaires.  Given this history, one might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class.  Alternatively, perhaps Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority.  Either way, we disagree.

Keep in mind that reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process.  You will continue to have an opportunity to offer amendments and change the shape of the legislation.  In addition, at the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote.  If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug “donut hole” for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so.

Sincerely,

HARRY REID
United States Senator
Nevada

I just received an automated push poll from the conservative Family Research Council (FRC) slanted against healthcare reform.

The poll asked me if I had a favorable opinion of “Obama’s government run healthcare plan”. Upon responding yes, a quick paid for by message was played and the call was disconnected.

Tiger Woods has reportedly hired Ari Fleischer to run publicity for his return to golf.

Please insert any “Golf War” jokes you may have in the comments.

In all my years of blogging, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a piece by the MSM more blatantly partisan as this one from the Cincinnati Enquirer’s blog.

The title alone, “Portman and ‘birthers:’ Is this a real controversy?”, tries to steer readers before they even have a chance examine any facts that might be printed in the article.

And right after that readers are greeted by bright red text quoting none other than Third Base Politics, a blog with more flips and spin than Cirque Du Soleil which mainly exists as a sandbox for the Kasich campaign to test new talking points.

I fired off an email to the author, which you can find below, detailing a few more things I find very disturbing about the piece.

Mr Weiser,

While catching up on the news this morning I came across your post titled “Portman and ‘birthers:’ Is this a real controversy?” and was very disappointed in your lack of objectivity.

First off we have the matter of you citing Third Base Politics, a blog that has been disavowed by even other Republican blogs for the shear amount of spin the author engages in.

We also have the statement from the Portman campaign with one key part highlighted:

“The comments were inapproriate, but it’s unfortunate that all Democrats have to offer are cheap political attacks meant to distract people from the economic serious challenges we’re facing in Ohio. Rob Portman will continue to focus on developing solutions to help Ohioans get back to work.”

It’s odd that Portman’s staff should attack Democrats (including myself) for the very same thing we’re outraged about. These so called “birther” jokes are cheap political attacks, yet Portman’s staff only spends four words condemning them.

You also fail to point out that this is the second time in less than a month the Portman campaign has had to distance themselves from the remarks of their associates (the first being COAST).

Finally, to judge your angle on all this, I’d like to ask you directly and on the record: Do you personally believe Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States?

Thank you for your time,

--

David Potts

As the fight for healthcare reform enters it’s final stages, Rep. Charlie Wilson is highlighting the story of Desni Crock and her three-year-old daughter Bridget.

In 2008, Bridget was diagnosed with pneumonia, but later tests showed she was actually suffering from a very rare type of cancer. Luckly, the family lived just 90 minutes from a children’s hospital in West Virginia with one of the few oncologists that have successfully treated children with this cancer.

And this is when insurance stepped in.

It turned out that the hospital wasn’t part of their network, the family would be forced to pay 40% of the bills themselves. Worse, Desni had to quit her job to care for Bridget while she underwent treatment. This left Desni’s husband working nights and weekends to pay the staggering bills (over $35,000 in the first two months alone).

Wilson perhaps sums the situation up best with the line:

“I’ve met with many survivors over the years, but it’s sad that we’ve come to a point where people consider themselves survivors of insurance company abuse.

Yes, yes it is.

The good news is that Bridget and her doctors beat back the cancer through intense chemotherapy and the removal of one of her lungs.

Unfortunately even though Bridget’s cancer is in remission, Desni Crock has a new worry. At only three years old, her daughter already has a pre-existing condition. About this, Crock simply says “Financially, she’s doomed”.

But if you talk to John Boccieri or Dennis Kucinich, it doesn’t matter that she’ll have this hanging over her head for the rest of her life.

Courtesy of Meg Whitman, former Ebay CEO and Republican candidate for Governor of California.

If she’s really that pressed for time, perhaps she could learn some scheduling tips from Gov. Strickland.

H/T: The Fix

Roll Call is reporting today that Franklin County Commissioner Paula Brooks has made the "Red to Blue" list of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).  This is BIG for Brooks and bad news for GOP veteran Rep. Pat Tiberi.  It also makes Central Ohio ground zero nationally in the 2010 House races -- given the Kilroy-Stivers rematch.

Red to Blue is the list that national Dems set up for Dem challengers they believe have the best chance in a GOP district.  Getting on it is very important for fundraising help and prioritizing campaigns where Dems are not playing defense with Dem incumbents -- as they are in about a half dozen Ohio districts. 

Nationally, Brooks is one of 13 Dem challengers on Red to Blue list. Word from Brooks campaign is that she has already raised more money on her own than any other Dem challenger in the nation.  See Roll call for full Red to Blue  list and cogent comments on the list's national importance from DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland.) Van Hollen headed fundraisers  for Brooks and Kilroy in Columbus recently and boosted Brooks in the Dispatch.

Once again Robert Portman’s press secretary had to pull out the “I” word: inappropriate.

At least that’s how they’ve described the latest outrageous statements from Portman’s associates so far. This time it came in the form of “birther” jokes from former state Rep. Jim Buchy and current Rep. James Zehringer while speaking before Portman at the Darke County Lincoln Day Dinner over the weekend.

But the best part, to me at least, is the full statement from the Portman camp:

"The comments were inappropriate, but it's unfortunate that all Democrats have to offer are cheap political attacks meant to distract people from the economic serious challenges we're facing in Ohio. Rob Portman will continue to focus on developing solutions to help Ohioans get back to work.”

Um… guys? That’s exactly what we’re attacking you for! Birther jokes are cheap, political attacks. So why do you spend far more time talking about Democrats and only offer up four words on the jokes?

But hey, don’t judge the man just by the company he keeps. You also need to consider the disgraceful job he did in the Bush Administration.