Quick question...

Obviously, Brown and his supporters worked very hard for his campaign.  The problems with the GOP you mentioned definitely helped, too.  But you cannot ignore that the GOP had its thumb on the scale IN FAVOR of Brown due to ideological puritians in the party who sat on their hands for DeWine on Election Day because they saw no material difference between having DeWine or Brown as a Senator. 

There is no mistaking that some conservatives wanted to see DeWine go, even if it meant Brown won.  Now I have to wonder how many of those conservatives had second thoughts.  Something akin to all those Nader voters in 2000.

I wasn't trying to claim any credit for Brown, Strickland, or Space winning.  Quite the opposite, actually.  While the activity of enthusiastic volunteers on the Democratic side and the lack of enthusiasm on the GOP side was certainly a factor, my point is that it was a marginal one, not a decisive one.  I mentioned my many hours of canvassing not to brag but to offer an anectodotal observation of the popular opinion amongst Ohio's swing voters ( less-ideological independents, moderates, and "weak" Republicans and Democrats).  Turnout was up for Democratic voters and down for Republicans marginally, but it was an increase in turnout coupled with a massive shift in independent voters that swung the election so decisvely towards Democrats.  Brown won by a dozen percentage points and both Strickland and Space won by more than twenty.  So, not only did Republican-leaning voters stay more loyal to DeWine than conservative activist-favorite Blackwell, but it didn't make any difference in the end result. 

"But you cannot ignore that the GOP had its thumb on the scale IN FAVOR of Brown"

You mean, I cannot ignore utter non-sense not based in reality in the least?  I suppose I cannot ignore the $5 billion earmark for ACORN or the "serious questions" about President Obama's birth certificate, either?  The national GOP, as I recall, kept pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into the senate race long after the outcome had become a foregone conclusion.  Sen. DeWine raised $15 million dollars for the 2006 election, which doesn't sound like the amount someone abandoned by the party usually raises.  modernesquire, I thought this was a liberal blog?  If it is, why are you promulgating the conventional wisdom of talk radio, FOX News, and the right-wing blogosphere?  Are you seriously buying into the "idea" (delusional right-wing talking point) that voters abandoned the GOP because they weren't conservative enough?  You do realize that conservatives who claim to have thrown recent elections to Democrats are about as credible as the "18 million strong" PUMAs, right?

"Because it's easier for Democrats than debate the merits of their beliefs."

Yes, why don't we discuss the issues like thoughtful Republicans?  Why don't we discuss the terrorist-lovin' appeaser "President" (just wait until they investigate his phony birth certificate...) B. Hussein Obama's socialist spending bill with its billions for ACORN and $30 million earmark for salt marsh mice?  I wonder how much our secret Muslin president has set aside for mosques...

Is that better, PoliticalOutcast? 

"Wow. First time I've ever been called a fascist. For peacefully expressing a political view. at that! Nice. And ironic. Plus, it sounds like you're unclear as to what 'fascism' means. Look it up, be prepared for further irony."

I'm fairly certain you were called a fascist in response to calling Sen. Brown a socialist. It sounds like you're unclear as to what 'socialism' means. Look it up, be prepared for further irony.

 If you're insistent that Sen. Brown is a 'socialist,' kindly list for me five entire industries for which he has announced support for state ownership of the means of production. I know he supports state ownership of the military, so that doesn't count. I'm only asking for five. If he's a 'socialist,' that ought to be easy, as he must advocate for state or collective ownership of the means of production for EVERY industry.

 "I am a fashion god."-former FEMA Director Mike Brown

kJk is correct.  I was trying to point out your hypocrisy, casually dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as a "socialist" but predictably objecting to being labeled a "fascist."  It is incredibly intellectually dishonest and lazy.  If everyone from George Bush and Mike DeWine to Sherrod Brown and Barack Obama are socialists, the term becomes practically meaningless and little more than an epithet hurled at anyone who believes the Somalia model of governance is inadequately interventionist.  FMP, do you use public roads and public schools and emergency services?  Isn't that an endorsement of Soviet-style collectivism?

The accusation that you are dishonest and ignorant wasn't part of any rhetorical ploy, it is just a fact.  I find your revisionist history and repetition of right-wing talking points, which range from unsubstantiated rumors and distortions to outright falsehoods, to be extremely offensive.

You're right.   Absolutely no socialism taking place.  No government taking money from citizens and picking winners.  No wealth transfers.  This is free-market capitalism we're witnessing.  I made it all up.  Right-wing talking points and falsehoods.

And you're also right, paying taxes for schools and roads is the same as bailing out failing corporations and delinquent mortgage-holders.  Just a few examples.  Offensive, I know.

fmpolitics.com - Free Market Politics

No government taking money from citizens and picking winners.  No wealth transfers.

FMP, what you're describing here is not only not socialism, if you do a little reserach you'll find that these are characteristics of every stable Western democracy in existence. And you'll also find that any democracy that lacks these characteristsics will soon become unstable (see: Indonesia).

However, I must disagree with the socialism/fascism name calling. I don't agree with FMP's characterization of socialsim, but neither to I agree with those who call FMP a "fascist." He's expressing a liberterian viewpoint, and personally I have no problem with that. I respect liberterians because I have a social libeterian streak myself. FMP is not a social or religious conservative (as far as I can tell) and therefore is not deserving of the label fascist. Just my opinion.

It's that difficult to either not reply or admit you're wrong? Are you dizzy yet? Socialism is state or collective ownership of the means of production. Providing loans to corporations or financial institutions to prevent millions of job losses and the government having to ensure every deposit in the United States is a policy choice, not ideology.

We made a decision between laissez-faire and interventionism in 1932. You lost.

Dictionary.com: Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

I think efforting to nationalize health care, guaranteeing trillions of dollars' worth of subprime loans with taxpayers' income and future income, supporting use of taxpayer dollars to purchase shares in corporations (good luck getting repayment of the Big Three-Big Labor "loan") and advocating use of the federal tax code to take cash from some citizens and give it to other citizens qualifies.  You may not.  I guess we just disagree.

"We made a decision between laissez-faire and interventionism in 1932. You lost."

I didn't lose anything.  I was born in 1980.  But you should read more history if you think Hoover was a laissez faire President.  In reality, he was anything but - tax hikes, government spending expansions, trade restrictions, etc.  The choice in 1932 was between a failed Republican interventionist and a new Democrat interventionist.  Americans voted for phony change then, too....

fmpolitics.com - Free Market Politics

Hoover may have been something of an interventionalist as you have pointed out, but the reason he failed is he beat around the bush: he never did anything to restore confidence in the financial system. As a result, bank runs continued unabated. 

Deposit insurance was passed over FDR's objections, as I recall, but it was crucial to getting the economy on track by getting people to take money out of their mattresses. 

In order to restore confidence in the financial system now, I think something akin to the Resolution Trust Corp of the 1980s would be the preferred method. The big banks are basically insolvent right now, but allowing them to go down would create an even deeper crisis of confidence. That's why I agree with this author's proposals.

With everything written above.  RTC II could have worked last fall, I suspect, had politicians done the right thing...

fmpolitics.com - Free Market Politics

Last week I jumped on and furthered what you wrote about Hoover not sitting idly, so you have a selective memory. I made a limited statement without going further into detail about what I had in mind. Hoover was indeed laissez-faire on taking direct action to help PEOPLE, rather than merely attempting to rescue corporations. He refused to do anything to help banks until his last two weeks in office, when he played chicken with FDR and refused to take action without Roosevelt providing him political cover. When FDR refused, Hoover balked and the entire banking system came within a few days of complete, potentially irrevocable collapse. The RFC and Hoover's other attempts to help corporations did not even begin until after 1930. Until 1930, he was basically laissez-faire for everyone and everything. After 1930, he merely turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to more than 100 million suffering Americans.

Since most Republicans hold Reagan next to God, either directly or underhandedly slamming the EITC as a give away facially contradicts GOP orthodoxy and the Prophet's Eleventh Commandment. Giving people motivation to work rather than sitting idle is not a bad thing. Continuing to believe that tax cuts for rich people who will not use that money to hire people is. When there is no present or definably foreseeable future demand to justify hiring more people, corporations don't hire more people. Likewise, when the overwhelming majority of consumers lack the financial flexibility necessary to permit them to consume en masse to create the requisite demand to give small business owners both confidence and a clear reason to hire rather than fire employees, that would seem to have a lot more to do with a lack of available jobs than rich people not getting a big enough tax cut.

It's awfully difficult to continue telling other countries we need their loan money so we can cut our own taxes, and expect them to continue extending those loans. Conversely, should we tell them we need their money to build infrastructure and spend on projects that will actually put people to work, so that we can develop a more efficient system of getting their exports/our imports from port to market and also rebuild a consumer base for those products, it makes it far more likely we'll get those loans.