Bush has edge in final NY Times poll even though it shows he has done a bad job overall

Today is the last day of the long 2004 Election season. Living in a “battleground” state has been interesting and tiring. Each of the Presidential candidates kept coming around about once a week for months. Each seems that neither want to let the other have the last visit as if that will matter.

I really feel that most who plan on voting have decided and are ready to draw the curtain in their booth.

I really doubt that a winner will be declared on Tuesday evening. We will have an idea who has the advantage but after the crap we went through in 2000, there will be probably a few weeks as each party tries to manage the problem votes toward their candidate through the court system.

The New York Times published their final poll Monday. If you read the detailed results (available as a PDF file on their website) it is strange. Of likely voters on November 2nd, a slim majority would vote for George Bush. (49 % for Bush and 46% for Kerry). Yet when reading the other questions Bush gets bad marks on handling the war in Iraq, the economy, job creation, and most feel the country is on the wrong track. Yet Bush would get their vote. Why? Because of the campaign against terrorism. Bush actually got good marks on that and people feel he would continue to do a good job although in another question people said the administration mucked things up and didn’t plan the Iraq invasion it well enough. Most thought that was a major part of the campaign against terrorism.

The only bad mark Kerry got was that people felt he said what people wanted to hear rather than what he truly believes. Other than that the respondents had good feelings about Kerry but they won’t vote for him.

The demographics of the sample was they were mostly white, republican, between 45 and 64, and had some college.

I’m not an expert but even though the sample would vote for Bush over Kerry because of one issue, I think the results show Kerry has the advantage. If voters balance their fears with the reason they are voting in the first place, Kerry could come out on top. You vote to pass judgement on how the current occupant of the White House is doing his/her job overall.

The poll results show that the sample would fail Bush on that overall evaluation. And THAT is how we should vote on November 2nd.

Desparate Bush looks for support in Findlay

President George Bush is a desperate man. Sen. John Kerry is nipping at his heels as the race for the White House steams to a conclusion. His ads have gone very negative. Republicans believe that name calling is a valid campaign tactic.

So what does one do to buck up a campaign in trouble? You hold a rally in a Republican strong hold like Findlay.

Bush landed Wednesday afternoon at the Findlay Municipal Airport in a smaller version of Air Force One and went to the rally held at the Hancock County Fairgrounds.

Surrounded by a partisan crowd of 15,000, shipped in for the photo op, Bush took off his jacket and spoke to the crowd.

It really doesn’t matter what he said because it was just a stump speech to those who plan to vote for him any way.

The site of the rally was at the South Grandstand, used during the county fair for truck pulls, the demolition derby, and musical groups like Phil Dirt and Dozers. There is also a track that use to be used for harness racing. The track was regraded, the light polls taken down (don’t really know why) and extra bleachers brought in on flatbed trailers. Those were the seats for the “crowd” seen behind Bush in the videos and photos.

Introducing the President was Democrat turn coat Sen. Zell Miller. That was an odd choice because the Democratic Party is a non-factor in Hancock County. George wasted Miller’s appearance.

According to the local paper The Courier:

There did not appear to be any John Kerry supporters in the crowd at the rally, and according to one report, they were refused admittance.

Because the rally was held on private property — at the Hancock County Fairgrounds — the Republican Party could legally deny admittance to anyone with Kerry signs or shirts.

That has been the common agenda of the Bush Campaign. Holding campaign rallies and only allowing loyal party members to attend. That way Bush can’t be challenged with signs or protests from those against him.

And except for the staging, the county taxpayers picked up the bill.

Originally posted on the blog “Hancock County Politics Unfiltered”

The Cucumber Incident

item used in The Cucumber Incident

I saw a good documentary on July 26th, on the Sundance Channel. It is called “The Cucumber Incident” and tells the story behind a true event that involved 3 women from Delaware, Ohio and one of the women’s estranged husband who was born and raised in McComb (about 10 miles west of Findlay). It happened in July 1997.

It seems that the husband, Randy, who had been convicted of child molestation of his young step daughter, was accused of further abuse of the girl shortly after getting out of prison. The main accusation was that he had french kissed the child.

Continue reading “The Cucumber Incident”

Meet the Candidates…. YAWN

The Hancock Republican Party held a “Meet the Candidates” event during their First Friday Luncheon Club on February 6th.

The guests were the nine candidates running for the two open slots on the Hancock County Commissioners. As the headline read in the Findlay Courier, “Candidate views similar”.

Read the Courier article

It really isn’t important to name the candidates here since they were so interchangeable. But that’s what happens when a party dominates the local scene. Instead of new ideas and wanting to get enthusiastic, you get BLAH.

The participants were given two minutes to introduce themselves and then one minute to answer a series of questions posed from the audience.

Some the questions were:

If they would meet new Findlay Mayor Tony Iriti’s pledge to nurture cooperation between the city and the county, and how they would do it.

If they would put the quarter-percent sales tax increase, used to fund the county’s criminal justice system, back on the ballot if necessary or if they would simply impose it.

How they would attract well-paying jobs to the county.

But like true modern politicians none of them really answered the questions.

One candidate, during the intro part of the event, even told people to read his bio in a pamphlet his campaign had printed up.

On the question about how they would attract well-paying jobs to the county, no one mentioned a specific plan. They only mentioned working closely with the Chamber of Commerce.

“Well, duh….” comes to mind.

On the issue of the recent sales tax hike to fund the sheriff’s office, some said they would wait and see if it needs to be renewed while a couple pledged to put it on the ballot if needed.

Left unanswered, like how to bring more jobs to the county (which by the way the county really doesn’t need what with consistently having one of the lowest unemployment rates in the state), the participants also didn’t answer questions not asked, like how would they improve the county. What would they do about the lack of affordable housing? How would they protect farmland from the annexation fever of the city of Findlay? What are their feelings about the recent efforts to zone various township land? What are their views on the need for strong environmental regulations?

The meet and greet reminded me of interviewing 16 year olds for a fast food job and each one saying they are “people person”. Each are just as qualified but none stand out from the crowd.

YAWN….

Originally posted on the blog “Hancock County Politics Unfiltered”

Oh where oh where are the candidates?

It is the time of year for prospective candidates to indicate their intentions in running for elective office. They must submit their names for the ballot at least 100 days before the March primary.

Lori Miller, director of the Hancock County Board of Elections lamented the lack of candidates in the 12/19 edition of The Courier.

“The same people have been on and I don’t know why people don’t run against them,” Miller said. “You would think with all of interest in the commissioners’ race that someone might file for some of the other seats.”

As of December 19, the only contested county races were for 2 spots on the County Commissioners. All the other elective offices up for a vote in 2004 had just incumbents running.

Miller’s question was answered in another story in the same edition.

“It’s very difficult to get Democrats to run for office in Hancock County,” said Mary Jane Roberts, interim chairwoman of the Hancock County Democratic Party. “They don’t feel they have a chance to win.

“We are trying to encourage more Democrats to get involved so we can have more support,” she said.

There you have it. People won’t run if they think they won’t win. But it is also true that you can’t win if you don’t run.

What the issue is, is the power of the incumbent and machine politics. There is a machine at the heart of Hancock county politics and the Republicans run it. They hold all the offices and with that they decide who runs and who can win.

Hancock county is a hard place for a new person to break into the politics. Mike Oxley wouldn’t have become the power he has become in the 4th District if he hadn’t been appointed to the House seat in 1981 upon the death of Tennyson Guyer. Oxley barely won the run-off election against the Democratic candidate who was better connected. The fact that Oxley was the incumbent made up for his lack of experience.

The reason the same people run for the same office year after year isn’t only about the lack of an opponent. It also speaks to how nothing changes in Hancock county. It wouldn’t matter which party was dominate as long as the status quo was maintained and in Hancock county it has.

What that means is the party affiliation has had no bearing on the success, or rather lack of problems, of the county.

John Sausser has been on the Findlay city council for years and served as Mayor in the 1970’s. He use to be a Democrat but now claims to be an independent. He had success as a Democrat because he worked hard to get elected and had views on the issues.

If a person has a choice of candidates and they each had views on maintaining the status quo then of course the incumbent is going to win for the simple fact that people won’t change their elected officials unless they have to. In Frankin county, the clerk of courts, a Republican, was caught stealing money. The voters voted in a Democrat to the job.

The problem with incumbents with no opposition is that it disenfranchises the voter. Why vote if Joe Smoe is going to win anyway?

The lack of participation leads to more races with no challengers which leads to less participation. It is in fact a threat to Democracy because we move the power of the offices into the hands of the Party rather than the voter. We go back to the days of the political machines, where it was who you knew and not what you would do that decided if you got elected to office.

Sad indeed.

Originally posted on the blog “Hancock County Politics Unfiltered”