Buckeye Senate '06

This year's Senate race between Mike DeWine and Sherrod Brown was a lot like the Mark Foley scandal – engrossing and exciting to follow, but mostly just appalling.

No, Brown and DeWine didn't have any "macaca" moments (neither possesses a George Allen-esque ability to continually shoot himself in the foot). It was the lack of meaningful (or, at times, even coherent) discourse and the nastiness of the political climate that were most disturbing.

Without a paradigm shift in the nature of political argumentation, voters will continue to make relatively uninformed decisions. Unfortunately, the system seems to be entrenched. I suppose I shouldn't be all that surprised at the way the race played out, though. Our nation is at war (who could forget?); that war is going poorly; the president is sucking wind; at least one Republican Congressman is a pederast (allegedly); and George Bush doesn't care about black people (ask Kanye West). So from the start, DeWine had that going for him.

Then he really must have angered the geopolitical gods because he ended up getting stuck in one of the worst states for a Republican this election cycle. From Bob Ney's dubious honor of being named "Representative No. 1" in Jack Abramoff's guilty plea to Bob Taft to rare coins, it sucks to be Republican in the buckeye state.

Was DeWine directly involved in any corruption/ethics scandals? It would appear not. Is it his fault Mark Foley preys on pages? No. Did he pay the price anyway? Yes.

It seems that now more than ever, politics is not just local. This election was a referendum, and that is exactly what gave the Democrats an advantage. They were in a newfound (and welcome) position of being on the attack. Rather than constantly parrying the blows of the Republican Party ("You're soft on terror;" "You kill babies;" "You look French"), the Democrats seemed to smell blood and move in for the kill. Sherrod Brown's shrill verbal assaults were case in point.

When the candidates appeared on "Meet the Press" to debate, Tim Russert asked Brown what he would do about Iraq now that we are over there. Sadly, Russert then allowed him to spew forth for at least 60 seconds, lambasting DeWine without answering the question. Brown's answer showed the problem that appears to be a national one – the Republicans have done a poor job operating the Iraq war, but what viable solution do the Democrats offer? It's easy to criticize, but it's difficult to do anything about it.

I still believe Brown will manage the Iraq war better than DeWine, but his responses did not reassure me. Instead, he reverted to offering statistical and anecdotal criticisms of a war that few reasonable people think is going well. By not offering a concrete plan (even though formulating an acceptable one in reality may be next to impossible), Brown reinforced DeWine's position that Brown doesn't understand the war on terror and that he would just mess it up.

Indeed, the staple of much of the campaign discourse seemed to be not answering the question, which really shouldn't be that surprising to me (despite my crazy notion that open, meaningful discussion should be the foundation of democracy).

What exactly would Brown do about Iraq? How many Senate Intelligence Committee meetings did DeWine actually go to? Is DeWine really a rubber stamp for failed Bush administration policies? Is Brown really tall, or is DeWine really short (or both)?

Many important questions, as so often happens in politics, went unanswered, and we are all losers for it.

- Chris Hamby

My bets are on Brown to win 74.2 percent of the vote. A little optimistic am I?

My bet's on Sherrod Brown winning with 49.8 percent of the vote. How wrong am I?

- Chris

Here are my predictions for the Ohio race:

Brown: 48.9% DeWine: 43.6%

What do you think?

~Christiane Humbek

I was perusing both candidate’s website this morning when I saw a headline on Sherrod Brown’s website that read “Chris Matthews Calls DeWine’s Campaign “Embarrassing.” As I was watching it, I started to think that this broadcast swings both ways in terms of Brown’s image.

First of all, it was free endorsement for Brown. The questions Matthews were asking Mike DeWine, made DeWine look incompetent. At one point Matthews asks:

“Isn’t it kind of embarrassing that having been a good senator from Ohio and respected without a mark on you to have to go back and dig up this scum? Don’t you feel embarrassed you’re doing this, senator?”

If you could excise Matthews’ comments, questions and tone from the interview and listen to DeWine’s answers, you saw that it was also a plug for DeWine. He had an opportunity to promote his most recent ad as well as show his ability to stay calm and smiling under scrutiny. His patience was apparent and only slight agitation surfaced in response to Matthews’ questions.

So, viewers either listened to Mattthews or hone in on the bigger picture DeWine was trying to focus on which was: It doesn’t matter if Brown has been re-elected many times, what has he done each time?

Click here to watch the entire interview, "Down to the Wire for DeWine," between Matthews and DeWine that aired on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" on Nov. 3, 2006.

Throughout this entire election, both Brown and DeWine have produced campaign ads that attack each other. As Election Day approaches, the candidates’ ways have not changed.

In his most recent ad, DeWine lays claim that Brown did not fire a mailroom employee of his after she sold drugs to Vicki Almay, then an undercover office with the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Identification. Instead, an article, It was True Then and it is True Now, on DeWine’s web site says, Brown promoted her:

“The Columbus Dispatch reported on July 8, 1990 that ‘An employee who sold drugs to an undercover agent in 1985 was promoted by Secretary of State Sherrod Brown and remains on the state's payroll. The employee escaped felony drug prosecution and disciplinary action despite evidence she sold a 1/4-ounce bag of marijuana to the agent in the Statehouse parking garage Aug. 9, 1985.’"

Sure, the drug issue is important, but what I want to know is: Who is Vicki Almay? Was that really her on DeWine’s ad? I went to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Identification web site and tried to search for her name. No results.

I went to a few web sites that allow you to search the white pages of phonebooks. I found no entries at one site and a few at another. I invite you to search on your own.

Better yet, do you know who Vicki Almay is? Does she exist or is she representative of another Nayirah story?

I don’t deny that one of Brown’s employees probably did attempt to sell drugs to and undercover officer. Drug deals happen all the time. I do question the identification of the officer. I can’t take for granted what the Cleveland Plain Dealer said when they talked of Almay and quoted her in 1990, because people also quoted Nayirah.

The newest campaign ad for Republican Mike DeWine features Vicki Almay.

Click here to see the ad.

An environmental group has alleged that Mike DeWine has more energy- and oil-company stock holdings than any other senator – $1.47 million – and that his votes reflect this, according to The Columbus Dispatch.

But do personal monetary interests always translate into legislating? Do campaign contributions always translate into votes? If legislators do generally vote in the interest of those who have supported their campaigns (a big "if," I must note), then how can we expect DeWine or Sherrod Brown to vote in office? Let's look at some interesting contributions received this year by the candidates (though this list is far from all-inclusive). In parentheses are the areas of policy that could be influenced and/or general comments:

Mike DeWine

$4,000 from BWX Technologies, a company that describes itself as the "premier manager of complex, high-consequence nuclear and national security operations" (national security)

$1,000 from DTE Energy, major national energy company (energy resources)

$2,000 from ExxonMobil (energy)

$5,000 from Friends of Israel (Middle East policy)

$2,000 from Halliburton (Foreign policy/war/Iraq reconstruction – Dick Cheney would be proud.)

$2,000 from the Institute of Makers of Explosives PAC eWine likes explosives?)

$5,000 from the National Association of Health Underwriters PAC (better known as HUPAC), a group that donates to Congressional candidates who "support private-sector health insurance," which, they say, is needed in response to "heavy regulation" of the health industry (health care – no socialized medicine, hippies)

$5,000 from U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC- wants democracy in Cuba (foreign policy with Cuba – Is Castro still alive? He's got to be closing in on 100.)

$5,009 from National Right to Life and $522 from Ohio Right to Life (abortion – No surprise here)

$6,000 from Wal-Mart (labor – Unions are evil, and don't even think about raising the minimum wage.)

$2,500 from Walt Disney (Mickey's a Republican?)

Sherrod Brown

$4,000 from Action Committee For Rural Electrification National Rural Electric Coop. Association (energy)

$10,000 from AFL-CIO (labor – One of the many unions that gave to Brown, no Wal-Mart here)

$4,000 from Human Rights Campaign, a large, national organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered rights (gay marriage/gay rights)

$5,000 from NARAL Pro-Choice America and $4,000 from Planned Parenthood (abortion – again, no surprise here)

$7,500 from National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare PAC (health care/social security – let's see the "invisible hand" pay for my retirement)

$5,000 NEA Fund for Children and Public Education (education)

$2,000 from Sierra Club, an environmental organization (environment – tree huggers, unite!)

It is interesting to note that the National Republican Senatorial Committee spent $639,524 against Brown and the Republican National Committee spent $1,829,698 against him. It's also interesting that Mike DeWine gave $1,000 each to Conrad Burns, Lincoln Chafee and Rick Santorum in their successful 2000 campaigns. All three are now facing serious threats of being unseated by Democratic challengers this year. Could DeWine join them?

- Chris Hamby

Why is polling important? What can we learn from polls? Christiane Humbek interviewed Carolyn Funk on Oct. 25th about this. Funk is a senior project director at the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in Washington, D.C. She is currently working on a new series of surveys that tracks Americans behaviors and attitudes across a number of realms.

C. Humbek: Do you think political polling today is still valuable, when most of the times it’s in the margin of error anyways?

C. Funk: Just because a survey is an estimate, it doesn’t mean it has no value. What people tend to do is to overinterpret results, particularly when they are concerned with the spread between two candidates or parties. The actual error involved should be a margin of error on the spread, not the point estimate.

C.H.: Why are polls important?

Polls give us objective information about what the public as a whole thinks about any given topic. One thing that we know happens in our minds is that often, when we don’t know what other people think and we don’t have other information, we tend to believe all other people agree with us. That’s a basic psychological process.

The reason why George Gallup, who founded the Gallup Polls, was so keen on the roll of polls in a democracy was basically because of this. If you want a democracy to reflect public opinion, you need a good measure of what public opinion is.

C.H.: Do you think polls are accurate enough?

Yes, I think that we have good methods right now. They are not perfect, but they are reasonable estimates of public opinion at any given time. And used wisely I think they are extremely valuable.

C.H.: You said they are not perfect. If you imagine the perfect poll, what would that look like?

I don’t think there is a single perfect poll. … One of the reasons why polls are important is what we are asking about. They are the only tool we have to get at the things that are going on inside people’s heads. These are attitudes. It’s internal; you can’t observe it. The only way to find out is to ask. But even if you have a census, you are still asking about things that are difficult to measure.

C.H.: What is the impact of polls on public opinion?

We are distinguishing between the effective polls on turnout versus the effective polls on opinion itself, in this case on vote choice.

On turnout, I would say that if you knew it was a close election and if you took out all the polls you probably would still know it’s a close election. The polls themselves are just a messenger on whether it’s a close election or not. I don’t think they are the big driver of impact on turnout.

Diana Mutz’s research shows that there could be some people who are affected by what’s called the “bandwagon effect.” If they see that a lot of people are voting for one person, maybe they want to jump on the bandwagon and also support that person. This is an idea that has been around for a long time, although there is not that much evidence for it in terms of being a large effect.

The reason simply is that people are different: There are people who follow very closely, and their opinion is not likely to be persuaded by what other people are thinking. There are people who do not follow at all, and they are probably not going to vote at all, so they won’t be persuaded because they don’t really care. And then there are people in the middle who are perhaps the most likely to be affected by that. So there might be a small portion of people who are affected.

C.H.: What do people have to look at while reading a political poll result?

For pre-election polls, there are a couple of special issues. We want to estimate the vote on election day, not everyone’s opinion. Everyone has a different strategy on how they identify likely voters. You want to pay attention on how they report on that. …

The best thing a consumer can do is to look at the averages across the number of polls. And they should take into account that each poll is an estimate, and also the dates of the poll. In an election, things chance rapidly as you are seeing in Ohio. So the timing of the poll is very important as it being a measure of where public opinion is at that moment.

~Christiane Humbek

As the Ohio Senate race approaches crunch time, one debate remains between Mike DeWine and Sherrod Brown. With some polls showing Brown with a double-digit lead, DeWine entered Thursday's debate – the third of four scheduled debates between the candidates – apparently needing to make up ground.

Republican leaders had told DeWine days before the debate to sharpen his attacks on Brown or lose funding, according to The Columbus Dispatch. And indeed in the debate, held in Toledo, DeWine referenced a 1990 "scandal" involving Brown and continued to reference Brown's failure to pay unemployment taxes in 1992, the subject of a recent anti-Brown ad.

Brown, however, fired back. "This is an act of a desperate candidate who is way behind in the polls," he said. "It was a $1,700 mistake, and we paid it as soon as we heard about it. Mike DeWine has no spine."

With the Toledo debate over and the Cleveland debate – the fourth and final one – coming up on Friday, let's look at some recurring themes and interesting moments from the debates:

Experience/Effectiveness: DeWine portrayed Brown as incapable of working with Republican legislators, while Brown portrayed DeWine as a rubber stamp for failed Bush administration policies.

"Mike DeWine has been the senior senator in Ohio for years. … He talks about getting things done," Brown said during the Toledo debate. "Two hundred thousand manufacturing jobs lost, 100,000 more people without health care. When are you going to do something, really do something, not talk a good game, but do something about insuring Ohioans?"

Religion: Though many conservative churches in Ohio nudge their congregations toward voting Republican, Brown tried to show in Toledo that he, too, can appeal to "values voters," saying:

"My Christian values and Christian upbringing informs the way I look at my job as a United States Congressman and will the way I look at my job as a United States Senator. I think so much of what Congress has done violates my belief in social and economic justice. … Just for me personally, my Christian faith and values tell me that government should be on the side of regular people, government should help the poor, government should do the right thing."

DeWine's intelligence committee attendance: At the Dayton debate, Stephen Koff, Washington Bureau Chief for The Plain Dealer, brought up the accusation that DeWine attended only about half of the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings and asked, "I understand that the chairman and vice chairman of the committee could consider releasing your attendance record if you'd ask. That would settle the matter. Why don't you ask?"

DeWine paused and said with an uncomfortable grin: "Well, you've never asked me that before, Steve. I've discussed this many times, and you didn't ask me that. … The point is that my work on the intelligence committee is not only going to the hearings that are public, it's going to private meetings, which are very important."

Brown seized the opportunity to attack, saying: "The point is that Mike DeWine missed half of the hearings in the intelligence committee and that even when he was there, he never asked the tough questions about weapons of mass destruction. One hundred and thirty of us in the House knew enough to question those issues of weapons of mass destruction and voted against this war in Iraq. He never demanded of the president the answers. He's never really held people accountable in the intelligence community and in the administration."

Time for change vs. Stay the course: Brown portrays this as a fundamental difference between himself and DeWine – DeWine wants to maintain the failed status quo when it's time for change. This plays directly to the great voter dissatisfaction and is an effective tool for Democrats in races across the country.

- Chris Hamby

On October 14, the League of Conservation Voters, who considers themselves to be an "independent political voice for the environment" chose to endorse Senate candidate Sherrod Brown for the state of Ohio . Diana Naidoo talked with the League’s national branch secretary, Kristin Lee, about the League and their decision to endorse Brown.

Sherrod Brown was listed as having a 93 percent lifetime rating. Can you describe what the lifetime rating means?

Basically, it is a record of how each candidate has voted in terms of being pro-environment since they have been in office. We publish a scorecard of candidates on how they do on certain environmental issues.

What does the decision to endorse a candidate mean?

It means we are putting our support behind them. We think that they would be a strong voice in Congress for the environment and moving this country towards a clean energy future.

I read that the league is a PAC, is that correct?

Well, we have lots of different branches of the league. We are a 50123 and 50124 and we also do have a PAC. (Information can be found on website)

What issues would you say the LCV is most concerned with, specifically in this race and as we move into the future?

Something we really think will play in races across the country is the issue of energy and moving towards a clean energy future. Candidates all across the country are talking about it. It has huge environmental implications in terms of emission in terms of clean energy in terms of moving this country towards investing in renewable and energy resources such as wind and solar. We are seeing that voters, aside from Iraq which is one of their number one issues is clean energy and moving towards to energy efficiency, are asking what their positions are which is why the candidates are talking about it.

How has endorsing a candidate in the past helped with the LCV causes?

We’ve had a very successful run in terms of our endorsements. We have a couple of different programs. We have the Environmental Champions program, which is a group of people that we have endorsed for their re-election who are currently in Congress who have just been outstanding when it comes to the environment and clean energy. So we endorse these environmental champions and provide them with our endorsement and sometimes support. We also have a program called the Dirty Dozen program which is kind of like the opposite of the Environmental Champions. They are the worst of the worst on the environment. We target them because we really want to help encourage environmentally friendly candidates and candidates who have a vision for moving this country to a clean energy future. By putting these candidates on the Dozen list we’ve helped defeat 28 of the 49 anti-environmental candidates we’ve targeted. Considering that the re-election rate of members of Congress is well over 95 percent, that’s a pretty good record in light of that.

I know that Brown is a Democrat that you have endorsed. What influence does party affiliation have on deciding which candidates the League should endorse?

LCV is unique in that we are an independent organization. We consider ourselves to be the independent political voice for the environment. We don’t consider party affiliation. What we look for is whether or not the candidate is good on clean energy and the environment? Do they have a plan for helping to move this country towards a clean energy future? Do they support preserving and conserving America’s most beautiful and wild places? Party affiliation isn’t something we consider. On our website you can see all of our endorsements and we’ve endorsed numerous Republicans such as Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island. There’s quite a few. Our main qualification is are they good on the environment? Are they good on clean energy?

What are some issues that the League wishes the candidates would address on their platforms?

Well, right now we are seeing clean energy and renewable energy future is the issue being discussed most among the candidates. Obviously we want the candidates to be talking about the environment. I think that in this race it is playing because Sherrod Brown has a very strong environmental record and it is obviously an issue that is very important to him.

What effect do you think Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” has had on the LCV and the candidates themselves?

That is an interesting question. I think that environmental community and the country has a whole are coming to recognize that global warming is probably the most important and threatening challenge that we’ll face in our lifetime. I think it has helped to raise the issue quite a bit and it something that I think has helped to get candidates to talk about the issue of global warming more than they have before.

Can you reflect a little on DeWine’s record and why the LCV didn’t endorse Brown?

I think when you compare the voting records of the two in terms of the environment and that’s what the League of Conservation looks for, which candidate will be the best on clean energy and the environment, Brown’s voting record is extremely strong and outstanding. Mike DeWine’s voting record has improved but in the last session of voting he supported both votes for off-shore drilling whereas Brown opposed. We were looking for candidates that were the strongest on the issue and Brown is clearly the strongest.

With what’s going on with lobbying and corruption, what’s the opinion of LCV with the lobbying scandals?

I think that’s probably a better question for a different organization because we focus solely on the environment and energy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

DeWine's score from the 2006 LCV National Scorecard:

Brown's score (as House Representative) from the 2006 LCV National Scorecard:

The New York Times reported Sunday that national Republicans had concluded that Mike DeWine's seat is as good as gone and subsequently begun diverting funds to other races. Republican leaders quickly denied this and even fired off a TV ad attacking Sherrod Brown for allegedly not paying unemployment taxes from a 1992 campaign.

What are we supposed to make of all this? Well, first of all, that the Times' interpretation of the Republicans' apparent strategy is too simplistic, said David Stebenne, a history professor at The Ohio State University who teaches a modern American politics class and has closely followed this year's Senate race.

"I don't think the Republicans have given up on Ohio," Stebenne said. "I think the issue is how you interpret what the national party is doing. It does seem that they're not going to give DeWine any more money for commercials. Whether that constitutes abandonment is an interpretive issue."

In Stebenne's view, there are three major possibilities:

1. DeWine is losing, so the Republicans have indeed written him off as the Times reported.

2. Republicans realize DeWine has plenty of his own money, so they are spending theirs on candidates elsewhere whose war chests aren't as full.

3. DeWine asked the party to step back, recognizing the possible detrimental effect of being associated with scandal-plagued national Republicans.

A combination of factors – particularly of No. 2 and No. 3 – is also possible, he said.

Is it possible that national Republicans realized they were actually hurting DeWine by embracing him and subsequently decided to back off?

Probably not, Stebenne said. "I think it would depend on what DeWine told them," he said. "If he sat down with them and said, 'Look, I've got loads of money to pay for my own commercials and it's the national connection that's hurting me, why not focus the dollars on other races?'"

The Republican ad attacking Brown likely was not timed as a response to the Times article, Stebenne said, because it would be difficult to have such a rapid media response, particularly when ad time is bought well in advance.

As for the article itself, the Times cited officials within the Republican Party and it would seem that the party is of course going to deny such a disclosure publicly, so is there any reason to believe the article was false?

No, Stebenne said, it's a case of overplaying the interpretation of facts.

"Strictly speaking, the Times story was not false," he said. "It reflects good journalism in the sense that they found out this decision, which I'm sure the Republican National Committee did not want discovered. … But they could have run a more speculative piece."

Stebenne dismissed the idea that the article reflected any sort of liberal bias by the Times.

"The question is, is there a pattern in their campaign coverage?" he said. "It's a very fine newspaper; it's the newspaper of record. I think it reflects more the competitive nature of the news business. It's a much bigger story if they're writing him off. So there's a tendency on the part of reporters at this stage of the campaign to write as big a story as they can."

- Chris Hamby

An Ohio Poll released today has Brown still leading DeWine in the 2006 Ohio Senate Race. With a 52-45 percentage Democrat advantage, Brown leads DeWine by 7 points.

On September 20, the Ohio Poll labeled Brown as leading DeWine by a 51-47 percentage lead.

Similiarly, a Quinnipiac poll announced that Brown holds a lead over DeWine. Poll results find Brown with a 53-41 percent lead over Dewine, a twelve point lead. Seven percent of voters remain undecided.

Quinnipac also released a poll on September 20 where Brown was up 45-44 percent. At that time, 11 percent of voters were unsure.

So, what has changed in those last 27 days to allow Brown at least a 7 point lead? Among the possible changes are the following:

1. Since the 9/20 polls, both Brown and DeWine have released 5 more campaign ads.

2. Both candidates have debated against each other twice..

3. Gas prices have dropped.

4. Representative Mark Foley resigned after allegations that he sent explicit e-mails to former pages.

5. Sherrod Brown was the candidate endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters, a PAC.

Will this be a case of the tortoise vs. the hare? If so, who is which? Is Brown the hare, finally gaining momentum to race ahead of DeWine in what seems as an evident win? Will DeWine soon reveal his tortoise like qualities and leave the hare wondering what happened? Or, is this the second half of the race where Brown, as the tortoise, is finally taking over? Just as the hare seems able to beat the tortoise, so to is the inumbent in respect to the challenger. With three weeks left until Election day, is DeWine, as the hare, going to be beaten?

John C. Green is director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, and he works with the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Chris Hamby spoke with him recently about religion's role in politics and the bearing religion might have on this year's Ohio Senate race.

Hamby: The Columbus Dispatch did a poll that found people divided on these issues – candidates talking publicly about their religious beliefs, public officials’ closeness to religious leaders, clergy members talking politics from the pulpit. What do you think about those issues?

Green: Well, those are all controversial issues. People perceive that when a particular activity supports their side, they tend to like it, and when they perceive that it doesn't, they tend to dislike it. It's not 100 percent by any means, but Democrats tend to be more critical of that type of expression in politics.

Now, if you were to go back 30 years ago to the anti-war movement or a little bit earlier to the civil rights movement, the numbers would have been largely the opposite. The Democrats would have thought that religious people involved in politics was a good idea, and Republicans were very skeptical. In those days, a lot of the religious activism was on the liberal side. So some of this is just where it is perceived that religion matters politically.

H: It seems as if we always hear about abortion and gay marriage as religious issues. What about poverty, health care and a minimum wage increase? Are those religiously connected issues too? And if so, why aren't they emphasized in that context as much as abortion and gay marriage?

G: All of those issues can be advanced from the point of view of religious values. If you take the New Testament and look through it, you might conclude that Christianity supports aid to the poor and you might also conclude that Christianity supports traditional marriage. But in recent times, religious conservatives have really made much out of the link between religious values and abortion and marriage and really argued that very strongly.

During the same time period, people who supported welfare programs or protecting the environment or other such issues have tended not to emphasize the religious roots of those policies. And it's kind of interesting to think about why they haven't. But the net result was that, if you looked before 2004 in the typical newspaper or listened to the typical broadcast of the news, you would get the sense that religious people were mobilized around those sexual issues and that it was largely secular people who were mobilized around these other domestic issues.

Now, I think that's been changing since 2004. The 2004 election was something of a wake-up call to religious moderates and liberals, and they began to argue that their perspective needed to be heard. So since 2004, you've heard a lot more people talk about poverty and the environment and these types of issues in terms of religious values. But there was a period there of about 20 years when those arguments were rare.

H: Is it right for people to discuss these issues in a religious context, or are religion and politics issues that should stay separate?

G: I don't know how in a democracy where you have a lot of freedom and, in the United States, the First Amendment, I don't know how you can keep people from talking about the things that matter to them most. There are people who argue that the involvement of religious values in politics is an unfortunate thing, unfortunate for basically two reasons.

One- because when religion comes into politics, it often leads people to think in cosmic terms and also in terms of basic principles upon which there can be no compromise. And so the argument is that when religion is interjected into political argument, it can make politics more polarized and less subject to compromise. Another argument is that to argue for a policy from a religious point of view assumes certain beliefs. And in a country that's very diverse in religious terms, like the United States, not everybody shares the same beliefs about God, the afterlife, morality and so forth. And so, the argument goes, to use religious arguments in politics is to essentially use a private argument that not everybody can participate in because not everybody shares those basic beliefs.

I think those two argument are valid arguments and that they reveal that religion can have a real downside that comes into politics. And we all know from history and from other countries around the world that these types of problems can lead to violence. So there is really a downside to having religion in politics. But there is also an upside. Religious people, whatever their perspective, tend to talk more about principles rather than just self-interest. A politics in the absence of all religion would be much more about self-interest than about the common good or notions of the appropriate standards of behavior. Some of the most important changes in American history, things like the civil rights movement, could not have happened without religious arguments being applied in politics.

So I guess where I would come down is, it's inevitable in a country like ours that religion will come into politics. It is sometimes quite unfortunate and creates real problems. On the other hand, it sometimes is extremely beneficial. So religion is like a lot of things in politics; it can be both good and bad. You just kind of have to hope that the good outweighs the bad.

H: Do you think a lot of people vote based on looking at a candidate and saying, "Well that person basically shares my belief system religiously, so I'm going to vote for them," and is that a rational way to decide whom to vote for?

G: Well, some people really do apply their religious values to politics in a very sophisticated way. A lot of people really don't. They either look at the religious affiliation of the candidate, or they get some sort of sense of, "Is that candidate like me?" Oftentimes, many people think if a candidate talks about their faith, then somehow that reveals them to be a moral candidate. And they certainly want moral people in government, so they vote on that basis. So a lot of the application of religion is politics is pretty unsophisticated.

To be fair, though, I have to point out that most people's political decisions are not very sophisticated. What a lot of voters do is they tend to look for shortcuts, ways that they can make decision between the candidates that doesn't require a lot of extra effort. There are lots of these features of candidates; religion is just one. I don’t think that that's a particularly rational way to make decisions, but a lot of people really do use those sorts of shortcuts.

H: The argument often goes that America was founded as Christian nation on Christian ideals. Is that the case?

G: There's a lot of selective reading of history by religious people, but also by non-religious people. There are those who want to argue that the United States was in some sense founded as a Christian nation, and there are those who want to argue that the United States was entirely a secular nation.

In my perspective, both of those positions are largely incorrect. There's no question that the American Constitution is a secular Constitution. The founders, well aware of the trouble religion had caused in Europe, wanted to maintain a separation between the federal government and religious institutions. On the other hand, many of the founders were quite religious people. They didn't have any problem with religious groups bringing their faith into politics. In fact, many of them wrote very cogently how they saw the basis of the political order as being rooted in religious beliefs.

If you look at the founders, it's a much more complicated picture, where Christianity certainly played an important role but was by no means dominant. So, if you look at it from that point of view, what we see today is the political arguments of this time – exactly what the relationship should be between politics and religion – we see that being projected back on the past with people such as those on the Christian Right wanting to see their position in the minds of the founders and their opponents – people like the ACLU and Americans United For the Separation of Church and State – likewise wanting to see their views in the minds of the founders.

H: Christian Conservatives overwhelmingly back Republicans, but, especially in Ohio, Republicans are beset by numerous corruption and ethics scandals. So don't lofty statements of moral authority sound a bit out of place in this context?

G: Oh yes, they do. Many religious people in Ohio who have been voting Republican are very upset by these corruption situations. Many of them may end up voting Democratic this time.

H: Well, what if they were faced with a conflict – say there is a corrupt candidate but they're staunchly pro-life and the only other choice is a candidate who is pro-choice. Do you think they would actually cross over?

G: Some of them might. Some of them might just stay home when faced with that really tough choice, with, in some sense, both candidates being unacceptable.

H: Which would benefit the Democrats, right?

G: That's right. In fact, some of the conservative Christian groups in Ohio are making that very argument – that staying home is essentially a vote for the Democrats. And that argument might work. Some people might say, "Well, I'm pretty unhappy with the Republicans, but at the end of the day, I have to vote for them because they're better on issues like abortion."

Of course, that argument could backfire, and people could say, "Well shoot, if staying home is a vote for the Democrats and I really ought to go vote, maybe I should just vote Democratic this year." But you're onto something. There is disquiet in these religious communities. So it may be difficult for the Republicans this year in Ohio to get the same level of support from conservative Christians and other Christians that they've had in the past.

H: How do you see this playing out in terms of an overall effect on the DeWine-Brown race?

G: The polls seem to show that the race is extremely close, so this could have a really big effect. If a lot of conservative Christians stay home, then that could make it much easier for Sherrod Brown to win the election. By the same token, Sherrod Brown is in a position where he may get some religious voters because of the war in Iraq. He may not do especially well with evangelicals, but he may do much better with Catholics and mainline Protestants, two large and important groups.

- Chris Hamby

Kellie Copeland is the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. They lobby to protect reproductive rights, primarily by creating a grassroots organization that enables pro-choice citizens to help advocate for reproductive rights.

Christiane Humbek: What are the steps that you take to lobby pro-choice?

Kellie Copeland: We as a state affiliate, covering the full range of pro-choice options, are most involved with the state government. If legislation is introduced that we think is not pro-choice, we would lobby against that by meeting with legislators.

We also have our members meet with their legislators. We encourage them to write letters to the editors, call their legislators, and then of course - at election time - advocate for candidates that are Pro Choice. Because in the end, all the lobbying in the world does not help if the people are not receptive to your message.

C.H.: What is your view of the activists on the other side of the debate?

K.C.: What I think is increasingly alarming is to see so many people – and it’s not everyone but many more than there used to be - on the other side of the debate who really equate birth control with abortion. They are widening what they are opposed to.

C.H.: Do you think that is because of a shift in society?

K.C.: No, I don’t think it’s the vast majority. The Guttmacher Institute provides numbers on that. Something like eight or nine out of 10 American women have used birth control in their lives. So not all of a sudden all Americans are against birth control. It’s simply that people on the other side of this debate hold some pretty extreme positions or are becoming more vocal.

C.H.: Don’t you maybe think that they simply have more money for lobbying? Does that create an unfair advantage?

K.C.: They do have more money, that’s clear, and that is to be expected. When you are lobbying to outlaw something you are working towards a specific goal. Whereas the vast majority of Ohioans and Americans are pro-choice, they view the issue largely as being the settled law of the land.

Abortion has been legal for 30 years in this country. Most people are perplexed about why we are arguing about it. It’s natural that they are not necessarily as mobilized as the other side of the debate that is clearly working towards a goal. It is more difficult to lobby for keeping status quo.

But with the increasing attacks on reproductive rights, pro-choice activists are getting more and more concerned. For example, the situation in South Dakota is something that could happen in Ohio. There is a bill pending here that would outlaw all abortions without exceptions, not even to protect the life of the women. And it would make it a felony to transport a woman to another state for an abortion, even if you would do it unknowingly.

C.H.: How do you assess the chances of this bill to pass?

K.C.: I think we’ve got them on the ropes. Even though the majority of the state legislators have said they would support that kind of legislation in informal questionnaires, I still don’t think they have the votes for that particular bill.

If there were some exceptions in it, we would be in serious jeopardy of it being passed. 2/3 of the legislators consider themselves to be pro-life, so it’s going to be very difficult to keep that ban from being activated, which they may do this fall after the election.

C.H.: Do you think the outcome of this election might change that?

K.C.: It definitely will. A lot of people don’t realize how important control of the Senate is. If, for example, an abortion ban is passed in Ohio, eventually it would work its way through the courts to the Supreme Court. And the Senate has a lot to say about who sits on the Supreme Court. Of course the President nominates whoever he wants, but the Senate has to confirm. And it would be very important for pro-choice activists to get control of the Senate back.

President Bush is going to be there a couple of more years, and the Supreme Court is very tenuous right now on reproductive rights. The Senate race in Ohio has national implications. It is not only important for us in Ohio, but for people across the country.

Mike Shelton is the Assistant Director of Government Relations for the Ohio Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, an organization focusing on protecting the range of species by preserving the environment they live in.

Christiane Humbek: M. Shelton, would you consider yourself a lobbyist?

Mike Shelton: I am a registered lobbyist, but our organization only spends very little of our budget on lobbying. Most of it is in land protection, management and conducting the science to determine what land needs to be protected and how those lands should be managed.

C.H.: What do you think are the main environmental issues Ohio is facing?

M.S.: It’s certainly a broad range. In term of habitat issues, “urban sprawl” is a large. That translates by further and further developed urban areas, away from the urban core. That’s a phenomenon that really fragments landscape, so it becomes more and more difficult for habitat to survive in those areas.

Also, the Great Lakes and the issue of their restoration are big. Ohio has a long coastline that provides a big economic boost, both in terms of fishing and ecotourism to the communities. Protection of those resources is important to Ohio.

Then the loss of wetlands. We are second in the nation after California with the amount we have lost. We have lost about 90 percent of our original wetlands. That affects water quality and certainly species. Other organizations focus on air quality, what certainly is an issue in Ohio as well.

C.H.: Environment does not seem to be a big issue in this Senate race. Why do you think that is?

M.S.: I would agree with you; it’s not in the Top 5 or not even Top 10. I haven’t really heard it talked about much within the Senate campaigns. I think one of the reasons for that is the fact that Ohio is so hurt economically, that it really comes down to jobs. For the past decade or so, the state has had issues regarding funding its school systems.

Also, Ohioans are very sensitive to corruption issues we have seen the past years both on federal and on state level. Unfortunately for the environment’s sake, these are the top issues, along with the Iraq war.

C.H.: Would you like to hear more about environmental issues?

M.S.: For sure, it would be great. We would like to see the candidates tripping over themselves to say how environmentally friendly they are and whatnot. It hasn’t really happened.

Both Senator DeWine and Congressman Brown do have good environmental records on a number of issues. That might be another reason why we are not hearing more about it. Both of them are generally pretty good on it. There might not be enough room for painting the other person as different.

C.H.: If you could ask the winner of this campaign one favor, what would that favor be?

M.S.: Well, I would guess that it would be two things. One, on behalf of our organization it would be that whoever wins would be able to bring back federal dollars that our state sends to Washington for more land conservation in the state. That includes things like purchasing land by our national forest and some other national parks.

The other thing I guess would be more broadly beyond our organizational goals and therefore something that the broader environmental community would support: Ensuring that the federal government plays a key role in Great Lakes restorations. That means simply providing dollars, similar to the Everglades effort in Florida.

C.H.: And, finally, who do you think will win?

M.S.: It’s a nail-biter. In all the public polling I have seen so far, it’s all in margin of error. I could not even offer a guess at this point. I’m sure it’ll be a late night in Ohio.

~Christiane Humbek

David Stebenne is a history professor at The Ohio State University. He teaches a class on modern American politics, and he has written about numerous political topics, including the rise and fall of moderate conservatism and the role of the media in political races. Chris Hamby recently spoke with him about the Mike DeWine-Sherrod Brown race. Stebenne began by explaining his interest in this particular race.

Stebenne: This race is interesting to me because I've been working on what's a moderate conservative, and the dominant political philosophy in Ohio is that, and moderation in general. So the question is, for a lot of swing voters, has the DeWine record been moderate enough? And it's complicated; it's not just his voting record. … There's the question of his own voting record and then the question of does his presence there – no matter how moderate he is – make the Senate more extremely conservative than Ohioans would like?

In some ways, he's a moderate. But in some ways, he's supported the administration fairly closely, especially on foreign policy. One could make the argument that that record is not so moderate.

Brown has a similar problem, but in the opposite direction. He's considered one of the more liberal Congressmen from Ohio within the Democratic contingent, so the question is, is he too liberal for the middle-of-the-road Ohio voter?

Hamby: How are voters going to decide on this issue of moderation? Is there something that could push them one way or the other?

S: Assuming there are no unforeseen events … then I think the outcome will be driven by whose supporters turn out in greater numbers. The Democrats in Ohio are angrier … and the Republicans are more disgusted. So the concern among DeWine supporters is that Republicans won't vote at all. If turnout is depressed and Democrats turn out in higher-than-normal numbers because they're so furious, then that could tip the balance in favor of Brown, and that's a question in a lot of races around the country.

H: What issues are likely to decide the election, particularly for these moderate swing voters?

S: Highly educated people can keep eight or nine different issues in their head at the same time; for more ordinary folk, there are usually a couple of issues that are most salient. Usually, one is foreign, and one is domestic. … One is the war (in Iraq). On the domestic side, the issue that most concerns ordinary Ohioans is the loss of good paying jobs because Ohio, like Michigan, has seen a torrent of job loss – and these are good jobs, factory jobs – over the past five years.

H: You've written about the relationship between the media and political races. What has been your take on the media coverage of this race?

S: Well, there has been tons of it. Ohio is a very competitive state, so we are inundated with advertising and information. … The public is showing signs of information overload; they're tuning out. The polls are suggesting that most people have already made up their minds.

H: Was there anything that surprised you during the Meet the Press debate?

S: Not really. They both know how close it is, and they both know how important the war issue is in determining the outcome. Swing voters in Ohio are unhappy with what's been done – the tactics, the strategy and so on – but they don't just want to give up because that would mean that the lives lost there would be in some sense wasted. So they're looking to see which candidate most closely follows their own thinking – critical of the administration, yet not simply going to give up.

The question about DeWine is, is he independent enough of President Bush? And with Sherrod Brown, the question is, is he tough enough on national defense? Will he just give up and unwittingly make the problem worse down the road?

H: Which candidate made the stronger case – DeWine that he is independent from Bush or Brown that he's tough enough?

S: I can't tell. It will be interesting to see after the polling this week if there is any movement. They both make good arguments and bad arguments. … They kept it fairly civil while strongly disagreeing.

H: How does Mike DeWine fit in with the moderate conservatism you've written about?

S: The polls suggest that people think the president, particularly on foreign policy, has strayed too far from the center. Mike DeWine has tried to position himself as a Theodore Roosevelt/Dwight D. Eisenhower kind of moderate conservative…

H: But you think it remains to be seen whether that's the case?

S: Well, there's a disconnect in two ways. One- sometimes his voting record has been more conservative than that. The other is that he votes for a Senate leadership that is more conservative. His defense is, "Well, I'm doing the best I can. I'm just one of many Republican senators." The question is, is the net effect of having him there helping more extreme conservatives or more moderate conservatives? Swing voters differ about that.

Desire to send the president and the vice president a message – especially about the war, but also about the economy – is pretty strong among swing voters. And the message they might send is to get rid of Mike DeWine.

H: To wrap up, I thought we could play a word association game if that's alright with you. I'll say a word or a phrase, and you say the word or phrase that pops into your head.

S: Sure.

H: Mike DeWine

S: Bland

H: Iraq

S: A mess

H: Social security

S: Expanding

H: Sherrod Brown

S: A bit shrill

H: Bob Ney

S: Corrupt

H: FDR

S: Still relevant

H: Mark Foley

S: Appalling

H: The New York Times

S: Sometimes makes mistakes

H: Jack Abramoff

S: I don't know what to say about him. I'll take a pass on that one.

H: Jackass 2 the movie

S: Haven't seen it.

H: You don't want to?

S: I don't see many movies anymore. I didn't see the other one either. I don't really have an informed opinion on it.

H: Midterm elections this year

S: A kind of referendum

- Chris Hamby

It seemed as if those words graced every other utterance by Mike DeWine and Sherrod Brown during their debate on Meet the Press (video here, transcript here, scroll down a little on both). Actually, by my tally DeWine told Brown, "You're unbelievable," just three times, and Brown scolded DeWine, "You know better than that," only six times.

Nonetheless, these boisterous exchanges left a lasting impression, as did the never-ending repetition of talking points by both candidates. Maybe some viewers left better informed about the candidates and their stances on the important issues. All I can say is that I'm not one of those viewers.

Host Tim Russert began with a series of questions about the war in Iraq (no surprise there). What was surprising to me was DeWine's "thinking" on Iraq. It amounted to a puppet-like reiteration of the Bush administration line, complete with the same diction. (Who's the puppet master? Hint: rhymes with "snarl cove.")

"We cannot leave Iraq with the job undone, and we cannot set an artificial timetable," DeWine said. "It would bring disaster, just to set a date that we will be out. It will embolden the insurgents; it will tell them when we will be gone."

The senator certainly didn't do a good job putting some distance between himself and President Bush, as experts believe he would like to. Brown, of course, seized on this in the midst of his own tired comments.

When Russert tried to move the debate beyond, "Should we be in Iraq?" and to "What do we do now that we're there?" Brown launched into an indictment of Republican mishandling of the war and faulty intelligence. Surprisingly, Russert didn't cut him off, letting him wander off topic for more than 60 seconds. Russert pointed out that Brown hadn't really responded to the question, but it likely didn't matter to Brown. He had made the point he wanted to make (though he would make it many more times as the debate wore on):

"People who sit on the Intelligence Committees, like Mike DeWine, simply haven’t done their jobs," Brown said. "They’ve not demanded accountability. … Mike DeWine and the administration is just saying 'status quo, just stay the course.' They’re not advocating any real change."

It seemed as if there were specific words Brown had to include in any answer on a particular topic. For example, in virtually every Iraq response he referenced a lack of "accountability" and railed against the inadequacy of the "status quo." On anything relating to the economy, he told us all numerous times how dedicated he was to serving the "middle class."

DeWine's attacks came primarily in the form of questioning Brown's toughness on terror and ability to work with Republicans in the Senate and portraying him as an extremist even within the Democratic (particularly because of his opposition to the Patriot Act).

The tendency of both candidates to continually hammer away at one or two points using exactly the same language became tiresome fairly quickly.

Who do I think won? I don't know, Tim Russert, maybe.

- Chris Hamby

A quick tangent- Good thing Mark Foley was a member of the House, huh? If you have been following up on the Foley scandal you would know that over the last 11 years Foley and his PAC (political action committee) have contributed $745,000 to Republicans. Six of the 119 contributions made were to Ohio representatives. Who might you ask is the number two beneficiary of Foley’s money? With a contribution of $6,000, Bob Ney was the top Ohio recipient.

Now back to the Senate. If you can recall, political scientist and professor Andrew Lucker mentioned the disparity between DeWine and Brown regarding campaign finance. Talk about understatement of the year. A quick visit to the Center for Responsive Politics website offered a great breakdown of each candidate’s finances.

Sherrod Brown- D- Total Raised: $3,714,992 Total Spent: $2,097,150 Cash on Hand: $3,720,677 (last report: 6.30.06)

Mike DeWine- R- Total Raised: $10,599,864 Total Spent: $4,653,002 Cash on Hand: $6,635,440 (last report: 6.30.06)

At first glimpse of the pie charts provided, one would see the contribution break down is almost identical, with most of the money for each candidate coming from individuals. ( DeWine: 70 percent, Brown: 71 percent ). Closer scrutiny shows this though to be a huge misnomer.

As of a report on June 30, 2006, DeWine managed to raise $10,599,864 whereas Brown raised about 35 percent of that with $3,714, 992.

As far as spending is concerned, DeWine has only spent $4,653,002 of the money, or about 44 percent. Brown has spent $2, 097, 150 of the money, or 56 percent.

Quality of Disclosure-CRP- www.opensecrets.org

Since Federal law mandates that contributions of more than $200 be itemized and donor information be provided, the web site also provides quality of disclosure information. Both candidates are nearly even in terms of percentages of full disclosure and incomplete disclosure (does not explicitly state donor occupation). Eight percent of Brown’s contributions came from non-disclosed contributors versus two percent for DeWine. At the same time, DeWine procured 6 percent more of his finances from fully disclosed contributors versus 91 percent for Brown.

Although it makes sense that DeWine, as the incumbent, has more money in the bank, it will be interesting to see what happens when money and image combine with less than 5 weeks left until voters cast their ballots. How will the remainder of the money be spent? Will we see more ads? Last minute road trips? Remember, as of September 24, 2006 in a Columbus-Dispatch poll, Brown had a 47-42 percent lead over DeWine.

--Diana Naidoo

Watch the full Brown-DeWine debate on Meet the Press' Web site. Scroll about halfway down the page.

Analysis to come....

Sherrod Brown and Mike DeWine are scheduled to debate live on Meet the Press, moderated by Tim Russert, on Sunday morning at 9 eastern.

Check out MSNBC's promo article, and be sure to check out Meet the Press' homepage with its less-than-flattering photos of a confused-looking Mike DeWine and a disheveled Sherrod Brown.

Set those VCRs....

John Mueller is Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies and Professor of Political Science at The Ohio State University. He is an expert in the areas of national security, terrorism and the war in Iraq, and he has written numerous articles and books on these and other subjects. Check out his vita here.

Chris Hamby spoke with him recently about terrorism, national security, Iraq and those issues' bearing on the Sherrod Brown-Mike DeWine race.

Hamby: How big of an issue do you think the Iraq war is going to be in the Brown-DeWine race?

Mueller: It's certainly going to be a big issue in terms of motivating Democrats. That's nationwide; that's not just Ohio. Certainly all the polls indicate that Iraq is an extremely important issue. A lot of people say, "Well, Democrats won't do any better than Republicans." But if you want to vote against the war, you vote for the Democrats and hope that they might be able to do something.

H: A recent poll showed that support for President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq has dropped to 36 percent in the Columbus area and just 32 percent think the war has been worth the costs. Is this representative of all of Ohio, do you think?

M: Columbus is certainly comparatively blue compared to the red of the countryside. Those numbers nationally are a little low, but that's not surprising because Columbus is a pretty liberal place. But it doesn't matter where you look at it; it's not a good issue from Bush's standpoint.

H: Is it dangerous for Mike DeWine to get too close to President Bush and his policies, especially on national security and Iraq, right now?

M: I think so. At least that's the way they're acting. That happens anytime with an unpopular president. He has this problem of trying to keep the Republican vote, of course, but getting too close to Bush is a problem.

H: On Wednesday, Sherrod Brown voted for a bill backed by President Bush that would create military tribunals to try suspected terrorists, breaking with most other Democrats. DeWine has essentially accused him of being "soft on terror" and has portrayed this vote as political opportunism of sorts. Is that the case? Are the Democrats trying to look tough on terror now?

M: Yes, very much so. That's not new. They've always tried to be tough because they feel that's a weak spot, and in fact it is, the polls suggest. They're trying to shore up their resources in that area, so they're playing that game.

H: By doing this, do they risk alienating some of their base?

M: Potentially, yes. That's the game you're always playing. Each party is a grab bag of lots of different people. One may be more liberal and one may be more conservative overall, but you've got people who are sloshing all over the place. So you've got to be careful.

H: Is it enough for Brown to criticize the Iraq war, or, to benefit from it, does he have to offer a viable solution?

M: It'd be nice to have a solution. I don't have one. In general, I think the Democrats will benefit even without a solution. With Vietnam, Nixon benefited because he said he had a plan, a "secret plan," to do something about Vietnam, but he didn't tell anyone what it was. That's not exactly a policy. So I suspect the Democrats don't have to do a whole lot to benefit from this because for people who oppose the war, that's their only choice.

H: How can Democrats avoid the dreaded "cut-and-run" label?

M: They can't. If you want to get out, you want to get out. They're sort of stuck with, well, if you want to get out, that's means you're going to leave. And what you have to do is say, "Well, cutting and running is better than continuing to send people over there to die for a mistake."

- Chris Hamby

Have you ever heard a mother, or any adult tell a child, “If you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything?” Well, either as we get older we forget what we learned as children or that saying just doesn’t apply to politicians. A prime example of the banter and mudslinging can be seen in campaign ads on television. This behavior has been happening in elections and other states, and the Ohio Senate race is no exception.

Out of the 6 ads posted on his website, DeWine attacks Brown in 4 of those. He talks about what he has done or plans on doing in all of his ads but the amount of time allotted to his own views varies. Interestingly, the ad that shows footage of the World Trade Center (with the wrong tower ablaze), isn’t on the website. It is the only ad so far that is entirely about Brown. Perhaps, the comparisons between him and Brown are an attempt at atonement for distorting the WTC towers.

All six of the ads found on Brown’s website criticizes DeWine at some point in the commercial, usually at the beginning. Similarly, Brown mentions his views on issues in 5 of the 6 issues. The oldest ad posted is entirely about DeWine and distortion and mentions nothing about Brown, other than posting the website at the end. There isn’t even sound in the ad.

Obviously each candidate will be different from his/her opinion. Brown and DeWine have different views because they represent different parties.

What exactly is the purpose of these campaign ads anyway? I wonder how many times a Republican citizen watches a commercial, where the Democratic candidate speaks negatively of his opponent, and decides that he or she is going to now vote Democrat? And vice versa?

I suppose the better question to ask is: Who are these campaign ads really directed to? I have to assume that anyone that follows politics knows what the issues are and knows which candidates they are going to vote for therefore the ads won’t affect them much.

If these ads are for citizens that do not follow politics and aren’t sure what their political affiliation is, why focus on the negative? Most citizens aren’t asking why shouldn’t I vote for you. They want to know what each candidate has to offer!

Why not focus on what is being done and will be done? That is what they will be elected to do! Saying what the other guy did doesn’t mean what you are doing is better.

Click here to see DeWine's ads.

Click here to see Brown's ads.

President Bush’s visit to Cincinnati on Sunday was desperately needed: DeWine lacks popularity; recent polls show him up to 10 points behind challenger Sherrod Brown. And since the incumbent has not really fraternized with his party’s leader so far, he might even be dependent on the president’s backup.

And after all, Bush raised a million dollars that day for the DeWine campaign. And who would say no to a million dollars? DeWine cannot claim to lack money though. His total receipts add up to $ 7,772,534, compared with the $ 3,417,992 Brown could mobilize so far. But having extra cash is never a bad idea. In the end, as we all know, every U.S. race is also a money race.

But back to Bush. What did the country’s No. 1 do that day? He visited Meyer Tool, a Cincinnati-based company performing airflow measurements. It seems as if this was supposed to show how much he cares about local economy, new jobs and tax cuts. There was clearly nothing more the president had to say that day, as we find out when we read his speech click here).

But do you know what people from Ohio care about at the end of the day? Apparently it's the price of gas. And that was very low on Sunday. How bad can the economy be?

~Christiane Humbek

In the Senate campaign horse race, Sherrod Brown appears to have a slight edge over Mike DeWine, according to four major polls released recently.

The most recent, conducted by The Columbus Dispatch, was released Sept. 24, and it found Brown leading DeWine 47 percent to 42 percent, with 11 percent undecided. It also provided in-depth statistics on how voters were leaning based on age, gender, race, religion and income.

The full results can be found here; I'll hit the highlights:

• DeWine did better with voters ages 18-24, leading Brown 49 percent to 34 percent, but Brown did better with voters 25-34, leading DeWine 50 percent to 39 percent. Other age categories were more or less equally divided.

• Male voters were evenly split, but female voters tended to favor Brown (48 percent to 38 percent).

• White voters were evenly split (45 percent Brown, 44 percent DeWine), but black voters overwhelmingly supported Brown (79 percent to 16 percent).

• Jewish voters and voters who listed "none" for religion were strong Brown supporters. Catholics favored Brown 48 percent to 41 percent, but Protestants favored DeWine by about the same margin.

• Generally speaking, higher income tended to relate to greater support for DeWine, and lower income tended to relate to greater support for Brown.

• Of voters who listed no party affiliation, 46 percent supported Brown, and 32 percent supported DeWine. Another 21 percent said they were undecided.

Three other recent polls have shown a small lead for Brown.

• An Ohio Poll by the University of Cincinnati showed Brown with a 51 percent to 47 percent lead.

• A Quinnipiac University poll found a 45 percent to 44 percent lead for Brown.

• A Gallup poll found a 46 percent to 40 percent Brown lead.

Check out a comparison of these polls here.

Another Columbus Dispatch poll, released Sept. 10, shows that voters in the Columbus area are increasingly fed up with the war in Iraq and President Bush's handling of it – issues that will no doubt affect the Brown-DeWine race significantly. Check out the results from this poll here.

- Chris Hamby

In trying to find my favorite blogs that cover the Ohio Senate election, I have to tell you there are a lot of blogs out there about Ohio politics but not a lot about the senatorial candidates. Yet, here’s this blog that you are reading right now and it is completely and utterly dedicated to: THE OHIO SENATE 2006 ELECTION. No more having to enter searches for entries about DeWine and Brown. We are all about that! Now without further ado, I give you: Diana’s Top 5 Blog Sites (given the options).

My top five choices were based on: Graphics/design, ease of navigation, senatorial content/commentary and the ability to keep my attention

1. Buckeye State Blog- This blog contained pictures, charts, graphs and poll information. For the most part, it was easy to navigate. The hardest part about finding information about the senatorial candidates was entering the right information on the search engine. I liked that this site had many recent posts, and lots of links to original articles and sources of controversy. There was considerably more information about the senate race than other sites. I paid attention to this site longer than I did to other. I really liked that this website links of Ohio blogs (not just political blogs) which was extremely helpful.

2. Ohio 2006 Elections- This site had an awesome layout. The format was clean and there wasn’t a lot text glaring at me the minute the page loaded. The website seems to be updated frequently. I had no problem navigating the website, especially since there were linked articles. It’s hard finding an abundance of information on this website pertaining explicitly to DeWine and Brown and that may have been the biggest downfall for this website.

3. As Ohio Goes- This site seems to contain a lot of Brown and/or DeWine news (again compared to other web sites). I really like that this site has a recent comments section with quotes by the commenter before the title of the post.

4. Right Angle Blog- This is a partisan blog but the thing I really liked about this website is that allows anti-DeWine sentiments. In fact, the first two comments when the page loaded was against DeWine! It actually made me look at the web site twice to make sure I understood that the Right Angle was pro-Republican. Needless to say, this website definitely caught my attention for a bit longer. The commentary on this blog was very colorful and spicy. There were two bloggers discussing healthcare and tax problems while referring to arthritis that one of the bloggers had. At first it seemed like insults and low blows, but there was a definite political undertone.

5. Wonkette- It’s “politics for people with a dirty mind.” This web site was awesome. Not only was it easy to navigate, it had numerous pictures, links, video ads, lots of attention keeping material. Not only was this website amusing but it actually contained good information! Furthermore, it contained the most information about Brown or DeWine! Even if you don’t take it seriously (and you should), I suggest going to this web site for a few laughs, grins or smirks.

There you have it folks, my favorites. What do you think? Do you agree? Have I enticed you to check these sites out? Or maybe you have realized just how convenient it is to come to this website because it is dedicated solely to DeWine and Brown and senatorial issues? Where do you get your information from? -Diana Naidoo

When it comes to blogs, you have lots of options. But not all blogs are created equal. Here are some that I've found useful for their coverage of the Ohio Senate race (though most cover other areas, too):

1. Cincinnati.com's Politics Extra

This blog is operated by political reporters and editors from the Cincinnati Enquirer, and you can see them pictured in statuesque poses at the blog's main page. The intriguing aspect of this blog is that it has the feel of being run by insiders. The content is largely made up of interesting tidbits that probably wouldn’t run in the newspaper. A forum for reporters to gossip holds a certain appeal, and you might get some inside information here.

The blog does seem particularly preoccupied with the Ohio governor's race right now, but there is also coverage of all the major races in the state. There is some lighter information as well, such as a story about Mike DeWine collecting ice cream he won in a bet with Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on the Ohio State-Texas football game. There is even a photo of DeWine, Hutchison and the ice cream. For the most part, the reporters seem to stick to the same standards they would for publication in the paper. It reads basically like an unbiased newspaper.

For a good laugh, also check out the http://cincynewsache.blogspot.com NewsAche blog, which frequently posts comments on Politics Extra. The subheading of the blog tells the whole story – "NewsAche is the feeling you get when you read the Cincinnati Enquirer, the worst newspaper in the United States."

2. Daytonpolitics.com

This is another blog that does a fairly even-handed job. (You would expect as much because their subheading is "Right, left and center.") The design is not particularly sexy, but the information is easily accessible with useful categorical links. Much of the content is a reproduction of other media's, but some of the blog’s writing has endearing flair. For example, one entry says, "Voters may be seeing DeWine as part and parcel of a GOP establishment they're ready to pink-slip."

3. CQ Politics

This is an extremely useful blog for those following all the major national races and even for those who want to track the profound national implications the Ohio race has. There is coverage of just Ohio, but the blog truly is national in scope. Daily "Battleground Dispatches" give readers a sentence or two on each of the hot races around the nation (Ohio is one of the top ones).

A map indicates how each state is leaning, and it is updated constantly to reflect the latest campaign developments. And for fun, there are new political trivia questions posted regularly that tie in current races with history.

4. Election Central

This blog has good information, but it may reflect a left-leaning bias. One of its best features is an up-to-date chart of all the major polls in the major races across the country. The bloggers' political leanings seem to come through in the selection of topics covered. Almost all of the stories were about Republican gaffes, GOP attack-ad spending, jokes at Republicans' expenses or Democratic successes.

Their advertisers also reflected this general viewpoint. The top ad promotes Static, a book critical of the Bush administration. The second ad is for Tammy Duckworth, a Democratic Congressional candidate who lost her legs in Iraq. Though Election Central may reflect certain assumptions, it is not fiercely partisan.

5. State of the Union

This blog, however, is about as intensely partisan as it gets. Its value lies with the insight it gives into Republican strategy. Most of the blog's content is made up of attacks on Sherrod Brown, particularly on his "tax-and-spend liberal" past. It endeavors to make Brown look ridiculous by comparing the views of "Old Sherrod" and "New Sherrod," branding him with the flip-flopper label with which John Kerry is no doubt familiar.

The blog also tells us all (finally!) what Democrats really mean by certain phrases. For example, "Exit strategy: Lose at any cost," and "Swift-boating: Media name for ads that tell the truth about Democrats." Nonetheless, you may find some interesting information or insight into the mindset of the DeWine campaign by sifting through this blog’s mass of vitriol.

- Chris Hamby

The way we inform ourselves about what happens in the political world has surely been enriched by the budding popularity of blogs. And the best thing is that everybody can participate. The bad news? Everybody does.

How do you decide which one is worth reading and which ones will be relegated to a shadowy existence soon? Easy – ask another blogger.

For the Ohio’s Senate Race, my favourite one – and I’m not ashamed to give credit - is certainly As Ohio Goes . What’s so special about it? It actually takes the idea of blogging a step further: A community blog, providing a space for everyone to discuss, comment and also post entries. Of course you won’t get ready-to-print, high-quality journalism here. But that is not the point. It gives you a brief idea of what Ohio citizens think, what they care about and what they read, what issues they want to discuss and how they feel about them. And, in the end, to be able to talk about the outcome of elections, you need to know the people who actually vote.

If you like being distracted from politics sometimes, and also want to have fun reading, visit the Buckeye State Blog. It is non-partisan and updated frequently, and it covers not only politics, but whatever comes the staff’s way. A live discussion and a vast forum offer possibilities to participate.

And the partisan blogs? A low-traffic, but nevertheless very good source of information concerning Democratic campaigning in Ohio is the Ohio 2006 Blog. It has frequent updates, an accurate link section, audio files, survey of polls and a clean, unobtrusive design. Someone is really doing a good job here.

Who is this someone? We do not know who the ominous author YellowDogSammy is, but at least we can contact him. Not a lot of people do, because he almost never gets comments. He claims to be a Democrat, but at least he offers a forum for both sides: He mentioned Sherrod brown only 47 times, compared to 125 namings of DeWine.

For the right wing, Paul A. Miller for the Newshound is to be watched closely. The blog belongs to NorthWestOhio.net, a local online magazine. The good thing: it claims not only to report on Ohio politics and elections, but also how it’s covered.

The Right Angle Blog also offers some insights. The blog’s posted mission statement says: “The right has shown that not only can we win the debate, but we also know how to win elections. Right Angle Blog’s purpose is to expand that effort online.” A clear statement – you know what to expect from here.

- Christiane Humbek

Andrew Lucker is a professor of political science at Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio. His research interests are: American government, state politics and government, the presidency, dynamics of the party system and the history of political science as a discipline. He is an active participant in following politics and has been following the senatorial races from the beginning. In a phone interview with Diana Naidoo, Andrew Lucker voiced his opinion on the following:

Q: What do you think is the most interesting aspect of the Ohio Senate Election thus far?

AL. I think the most interesting aspect is that this race is competitive at all. DeWine is a 2nd year incumbent senior senator. In a normal election year, I would expect DeWine to be re-elected. However there are a number of factors that make the race competitive.

1. Ohio Republicans have been plagued with financial scandals.

2. The economy is a big issue in the state.

3. Education, specifically higher education

4. The challenger is currently a congressman and before that he was secretary of state so he has lots of name recognition. In Ohio, there are five or six media markets so it’s expensive to buy airtime. It helps to have name recognition. It immediately gives an advantage as the challenger.

5. Republican problems naturally are playing in as well.

6. Also, Ohioans blame the Ohio economy on the National Republican Party. There is also a lot of resentment about high gas prices.

Q: How has Ohio media treated the race so far?

AL. Both candidates have done a lot of advertising so far. Three state papers are covering the race really well. They actually have reporters covering the story rather than wire reports. Cleveland’s The Plain Dealer,the Columbus Dispatch, and the Dayton Daily News are trying a joint effort to force the senatorial candidates as well as the gubernatorial candidate to address the same issues such as job creation, higher education, and public school reform.

Q: What do you think of the campaign ads released by the candidates?

AL: In DeWine’s first ad- they had the wrong tower on fire and were trying to portray Brown as being weak on National Security. Even though it is still a competitive race, DeWine still has substantial advantage in campaign financing. DeWine has twice as much resources than Brown. DeWine has been getting a lot of money from the National Republican Party because they realize that this state is one of the more competitive races. I don’t think the political ads have given either candidate an advantage. Neither one of them have come up with advertising or issues that will make a difference in the competition. They are trying to find anything to use against each other. The thing about this race is there hasn’t been a huge controversial issue.

Q: Since the economy is an issue, how will Brown’s stance on free trade help him? Or hurt him?

AL: It has some resonance with the middle class and its voters but they would be inclined to have that opinion. I don’t personally think that will be an issue. The issue is more people want to know what these political candidates will propose to do to create more jobs. It also depends on the region. People feel differently based on where they live and are going to have different feelings. There is still a strong anti-incumbent feeling.

Q: How active/attentive will the residents of Ohio be?

AL: Midterm turnout will be down compared to a presidential election. A lot of money was put into Ohio in 2004 compared to this election Compared to that, this election seems kind of modest. I wouldn’t say it applies to just Ohio, rest of country. Most people are out enjoying their summer, they get into the election after Labor Day. I think turnout will be down compared to 2004. It will be a little better because there are a lot of issues to motivate people.

Q: Do you think the Democrats will win the Senate?

AL: They have a shot, but it’s a long shot. The odds are much better in the House.

Herbert Asher is a political scientist at The Ohio State University. He is regarded as one of the leading experts on Ohio politics. Christiane Humbek did a phone interview with him on Sept. 18, 2006.

C.Humbek: M. Asher, according to you, what are the key issues in the Ohio Senate race?

H.Asher: I see a combination of two issues in the middle of the discussion. On the one hand you have terrorism, national security and the war in Iraq. The Republicans will surely use this to attack the Democrats on not being tough enough. And on the other hand we have the Ohio economics that will be in focus. The Democrats are going to blame the GOP to have hurt the middle class within the last years. These are the two big issues. Furthermore, surely health care and corruption will be discussed. And subissues will be the taxes, pensions.

C.H.: What do you think is special about the Ohio Senate race?

H.A.: The state of Ohio has faced some great challenges during the past years, maybe greater ones than other states. As a state that highly depends on manufacturing jobs, there has been an economic transition taking place here. The candidates will have to react on that.

C.H.: You mentioned national security as one the key issues in this race, and that the Democrats will be thought to be not “tough” enough. According to you, did Sherrod Brown gain more credibility in security issues because of the speech he held last Sunday?

H.A.: Yes, that is just what I mean. Brown said that the Republican concept in Iraq failed. That is how he is going to attack on this.

C.H.: How do you assess the ads being published this summer by both contestants on this issue? [Those with the Images of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001]

H.A.: It was just foolish for the DeWine campaign to release such an ad at this early point of the campaign. I can only assess this as a bad mistake that has just been followed by negative publicity. The ad was an embarrassment for the whole campaign.

C.H.: The media discusses the new implications of Internet publicity. Do you think – especially regarding the TV ads – new Internet portals such as Myspace and YouTube will have an impact on campaigning?

H.A.: Surely with these new sites you will be able to gather some new viewers and some more of publicity for the candidates, but I would not evaluate it too highly. Maybe a few more people are reached.

More interesting is the type of ad we are having here in Ohio: Both candidates are always directly facing the camera. They make direct pitches. Not all races have that.

C.H.: Since we are doing this interview for a political blog, I would like to ask you, how do you thing blogging is going to affect the race?

H.A.: With the upcoming of blogs, people that are already politically motivated have found an outlet for their thoughts. That’s why we have so many partisan blogs. Basically it’s a new way to communicate. Interesting is that blogs can shape the coverage of traditional media; they influence the mainstream media.

C.H.: Media reported on Friday, Sept. 15, how Rep. Bob Ney agreed to plead guilty to federal charges of conspiracy and making false statements. Do you think this case is going to affect the Brown/DeWine race?

H.A.: In Ohio, corruption is surely going to be more of an issue than in other states. With Bob Ney pleading guilty, it makes a total of two cases of corruption within the GOP in Ohio. The Democrats are surely going to pick up on that issue.

- Christiane Humbek

Richard Gunther is a political science professor at The Ohio State University. He specializes in comparative politics and has become an activist for the Democratic Party in Central Ohio in recent years. His curriculum vita can be found here. Chris Hamby recently spoke with him about the Ohio Senate race.

Gunther began by describing his involvement with the Democrats in Ohio through a group called the Coalition of Democratic and Progressive Organizations of Central Ohio. Disorganization and poor leadership hurt the Ohio Democratic Party in the 2004 presidential election, Gunther said. Last December, Chris Redfern took over as head of the party, Gunther said, and he has worked with the coalition to coordinate the efforts of grassroots organizations.

Hamby: Will these changes in the party pay off in the elections this year?

Gunther: I think so because off-year elections are really a story of turnout. They tend to have relatively low levels of electoral participation, and if your supporters stay at home during the non-sexy, non-presidential election, then the other guys win .... We also are in a very, very favorable news environment. I don’t know if you’ve been following the incredible collapse of the Ohio Republican Party .... Institutionalized corruption of the Ohio Republican Party has really blown up …. What we find, at least with state-level politics, is there is real revulsion against the excesses of the Republican administration. With voter dissatisfaction at a very high level, there's really only one target for that, and that seems to be focused on all Republicans, not just those running for state office.

H: Is corruption and voter dissatisfaction going to be the issue in this election?

G: It's not going to be the issue because they're running for federal office, but it is an undercurrent in Ohio that I think will probably have a negative impact for all Republican officeholders …. Certainly this is an area the Democrats in Ohio would like to emphasize popular dissatisfaction with the incumbents and focus it on some of these issues of corruption and the arrogance of power.

H: Is Bob Ney's involvement with Jack Abramoff going to have a detrimental effect on Mike DeWine, and, if so, is that really fair?

G: I think it's just guilt by association – I think just sort of general dissatisfaction with incumbents. I think, quite frankly, that DeWine is a relatively respectable individual .... DeWine is not one who has staunchly and consistently supported the Bush administration, and that cuts both ways. On the one hand, it may pick up independent votes and those Democrats who would be prone to support an incumbent Republican. But, by the same token, it has turned off the hard right-wing base of the electoral machine of the Republican Party in Ohio.

H: Where do you think Sherrod Brown has the advantage?

G: Opposition to the war in Iraq is a big one. The war in Iraq is most unpopular among a majority of Ohioans, as it is among a majority of Americans, and Brown has taken a pretty staunch anti-war stance. DeWine only recently has shifted away from staunch support for the Bush administration on Iraq, and I think that if Sherrod Brown can pin DeWine down to his positive votes in support of the Bush administration on this issue, that is going to be something where you clearly can say, "This is DeWine’s fault, and he deserves to be held accountable."

H: Where does DeWine have the advantage?

G: DeWine has the advantage in that he is the incumbent, and in addition he has an enormous amount of money. I think the Republican National Committee and the Republican Senatorial Committee will be investing huge amounts into this election campaign because this is one of the five seats that are most vulnerable …. DeWine is clearly in the crosshairs of the Democrats.

H: The Republican National Committee has poured quite a bit of money into this race so far. What are the Democrats doing to counter this, and do they have the resources?

G: They will never match DeWine dollar for dollar; there's no doubt about that. But I think most of the literature on campaign contributions indicates that if you have a credible enough advertising campaign then you don’t have to match them dollar for dollar. For example, John Kerry outspent President Bush fairly significantly in Ohio in the last campaign.

H: Do you think Brown will be able to unseat DeWine?

G: I was very surprised by the early polls – that Brown led …. Another aspect is that you tend to find that undecideds break against the incumbent on election day. What we don't know is how much the massive advertising blitz of the Republican National Committee will substantially change the balance of power between the two candidates. We don't know whether the Republican machine, which is a really impressive political machine on the ground, will be able to mobilize its troops. We don't know the extent to which a revitalized Democratic Party will be able to counter that.

H: Do the Democrats take back the House, the Senate, neither or both?

G: I think the Democrats will take back the House, and my gut feeling is that it may be 50-50 as to whether they take the Senate. I can see