In an attempt to curtail President Obama’s television ad war, the Romney campaign released an ad Wednesday attacking President Obama’s auto bailout plan, claiming that it caused car dealerships to close their doors.

The ad comes at a time when the national polls are at a statistical tie. In Ohio however, the latest CBS poll has President Obama leading Romney by 6 points.

The 30-second ad, titled “Dream,” depicts auto dealership owner Al Zarzour of Lyndhurst, Ohio, in a vacant auto lot. Mr. Zarzou, an auto dealer since 1972, was forced to close his dealership in 2009 when General Motors would not extend his credit line. The ad claims that under Obama’s leadership, General Motors dealerships throughout Ohio were forced to close their doors due to the failed bailout.

Although it remains unclear from the ad how the bailout caused the dealership to close, it is clear that it was a risky move by the Romney campaign to release it. This is because the bailout has proven to be popular in Ohio, a state that Romney must win, and in which the second largest number of auto workers in the country resides.

On a local level, in May Toledo native Brian Slagle was featured in an Obama ad in which he thanked the administration for saving his job and the auto industry. “Obama stuck his neck out for us. … He wasn’t going to let it just die, and I’m driving in this morning because of that, because of him,” Slagle states.

The Chrysler Group, owners of the locally operated Jeep plant, extended its streak of U.S. sales gains to 28 straight months in July. The group’s net revenue of $16.8 billion for the second quarter of 2012 represents a 23 percent increase over the second quarter in 2011. The $85 billion dollar bailout is believed to be the driving force behind the success of Chrysler’s and General Motors’ increases in sales numbers.

The Obama campaign was quick to address the ad. While the president was visiting Mansfield attacking Romney’s tax plan, Obama for America spokesman Frank Benenati called the ad a “new low.” “While the president was busy saving the U.S. auto industry — which has 1 in 8 Ohio jobs tied to it — Mitt Romney was busy arguing that we should turn our backs on an iconic industry and the workers in Ohio,” Benanati wrote in a statement.

Although a bit extravagant, Benanati certainly does have a point that Romney’s plan to save the auto industry would have been less intervening. Romney does not support an all-out bankruptcy like many on the left assert, but instead advocated for a structured bankruptcy. Under Romney’s plan, the auto companies would first have to file for bankruptcy, and then be awarded government-guaranteed financing and new car warranties. The government loan and warranties would have cost taxpayers much less than $85 billion, but its effect on the total number of jobs saved was predicted to have been less as well. Additionally, there is skepticism that the approach would work due to the chaos of lending institutions at the time.

The real dispute lies with the degree to which the federal government should be involved in the bailout. While both Romney and Obama agree that government action needed to be taken, Obama advocated for more intervention than Romney. According to the Center for Automotive Research, under Romney’s plan, 365,000 jobs would have been lost. Had the Bush and Obama administrations not have interned the way they did, 1.8 million jobs would have disappeared. Romney’s ad essentially chastises Obama for a measure that GM had been trying to do for years: cut its dealerships to boost profitability.

A product of a post-World War II world, GM dealerships became saturated in big cities and inner suburbs. Cities began to decline in population and buyers began to play one dealer off another to get discounts, both resulting in lost money for the dealers. As the population began to move to the suburbs, so did competitors like Toyota. There were fewer dealerships, making it so that Toyota had more money to contribute to advertising and move into modern buildings. GM’s intention was to close the old dealerships to focus on making the remaining ones profitable, while being under government-mandated restructuring guidelines the whole time. One would assume such a move would be understood by someone like Romney, who spent much of life restructuring struggling businesses at Bain Capital.

Tags: Al Zarzour, auto bailout, Barack Obama, Ben Osburn, Brian Slagle, campaign ads, Mitt Romney

This entry was posted on Friday, August 3rd, 2012 at 2:00 pm and is filed under Decision 2012, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

With less than four months to go until Election Day, presumptive G.O.P. presidential candidate Mitt Romney spoke at the Bowling Green Community Center on Wednesday. It was the former Massachusetts governor’s second stop in the area that day, coming straight to Bowling Green from a $50,000-a-person fundraiser at the Toledo Club. An estimated 12,000 people joined the governor, so many that some were directed to an overflow room to hear him.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich introduced Romney, but not before endorsing him. After talking about Ohio’s newly discovered budget surplus, Kasich focused on Romney’s success at the 2002 Winter Olympics, an event in which he sat as the CEO. He also spoke about Romney’s ability to balance the Massachusetts’s state budget and touted his job creation ability. “We need people that know business creates jobs; this is our guy.”

When Romney took the stage, he was quick to use Ohio as a protocol for what needs to happen in D.C. “My optimism comes from states like these, that balance their budgets and create business-friendly environments. … These are the principles that we need in D.C.” He then focused on small business job creation and the failings of the Obama administration in relation to them. The former governor took the opportunity to lambaste policies like “Obamacare” and the Dodd-Frank Act and their negative effects for small businesses. He also spoke about the proposed increase in small business taxes from 35 percent to 40 percent, a reference to the looming Bush tax cuts set to expire on Jan. 1. Romney also took the opportunity to comment on President Obama’s remark about business creators. At a campaign stop last week, Obama had said that people who own businesses did not build them. To that point, Romney asked every business owner in attendance to stand and join him in protest of the remark.

In recent weeks, Romney has been pressured by Democrats and even select Republicans to release his tax returns from before 2010. Although the issue was never brought up, he did lay out a five-point plan for jump-starting the economy: tapping into domestic energy resources, increasing free trade, balancing the national budget, increasing students’ learning ability by decreasing the power of teachers’ unions, and reducing corporate tax rates.

The event ended with Romney taking some questions from the crowd. When asked if he would chose a tea party candidate to be his vice president, Romney stated that although he has not decided yet, his choice was no doubt going to be a conservative. When asked whether he could guarantee that Social Security would be available for the retired, Romney affirmed. Although he did not give a specific plan, Romney stated that for people older than the retirement age, Social Security and Medicare would be available. However he did note that both programs would need to be reformed to be sustainable for future generations. Finally, when asked about job training, Romney said that, to reform the programs he would give states more power to implement them, as well as food stamps and Medicaid.

Tags: Ben Osburn, Decision 2012, John Kasich, Mitt Romney, Opinion

This entry was posted on Friday, July 20th, 2012 at 1:08 am and is filed under Decision 2012, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The Syrian Uprising has not only proven to be a civil war, but an ongoing international conflict, one in which little rectitude has been shown. As part of the broader Arab Spring, the uprising started back in March 2011, when protestors flooded the Syrian streets calling for the resignation of Bashar al-Assad and the end of the Ba’ath Party’s rule. The violence has escalated ever since. Participation from the international community, namely the U.N., has convoluted the consensus process.

The insurgents, known as the Free Syrian Army, have been the driving force behind Assad’s fall. Former Syrian Air Force colonel Riad-al Assad leads the group. Assad, as well as the majority of the organization’s members, defected from the Syrian Armed Forces. The group is largely unorganized and has no political goals other than to throw Bashar from power. Though claiming not to be sectarian, the group has formed alliances with other segments of the population. One of them is the Alawis, a Syrian government opposition group who follows Shia Islam. They label members of the Syrian Army who pursue civilian attacks as being enemy combatants.

Bashar has been subject to international and domestic criticism for the past decade. He has been a vocal critic of the United States’ defense of Israel and been accused of providing aid to militant foes of that country. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bashar had been accused by former U.S. General George Casey of financing the Iraqi insurgents. The bulk of the criticism from the Syrian people has been due to Bashar’s denial of basic human rights. The government impedes Syrian right to privacy by blocking the use of social networking sites and recording all comments left in Internet chat rooms. International travel is also banned for dissidents of the regime. A 2010 report released by The Human Rights Watch organization stated Bashar’s administration routinely murders, tortures and imprisons political opponents who speak against the regime, a process done with intentional secrecy.

Violence in the region has consistently risen. According the United Nations, nearly 10,000 people have died in the conflict, including children. Hundreds of civilians from human rights, political activist, and even media groups have been arrested during the uprising, many of which are accused of spying on behalf of opposition groups. The uprising had caused many to leave their homes and seek refuge in countries like Jordan and Turkey. An estimated 120,000 Syrians are in the process of moving.

Western nations as well as the Arab League have been condemning the use of violence against the protesters since the uprising’s start. Nations including Britain, Spain and Canada have cut ties to Bashar’s government, mostly in the form of economic aid. The Arab League and the United Nations have been the most successful in creating peace plans, though their implementation has been quelled. Working with the Arab League, the United Nations has been slow to impose sanctions against Syria due to lack of international consensus. China, and Russia have provided roadblocks to the process.

Both China and Russia vetoed U.N. measures that would have called for an Assad resignation and sanctions until the occurrence. The veto represents a continued stance taken by both nations in opposing Syrian intervention, be it military or a regime change. However, this declaration conflicts with reports that Russia, a long time Syrian ally, has been involved militarily in the conflict. Russian news reports released in previous months have stated that the country has both armed Syrian government supporters and has sent military ships to assist the Syrian army.

Conversely, both nations do support the U.N. created Peace Plan. The peace plan, spearheaded by Ghanaian diplomat Kofi Annan, was at one point considered the most viable plan to end the violence. The six-point plan called for a cease-fire and negotiations led by Annan to address both parties’ concerns. The plan, although initially agreed to by Bashar, deteriorated due to lack of the regime’s commitment. A new peace plan has been proposed by Annan to the United Nations.

Iran provides another obstacle for peace in Syria. The nation, another Syrian ally, has been indirectly involved in the conflict as well. Both the United States and the United Nations have accused the Iranians of funneling weapons to the Syrian army as well as intelligence. The involvement of Iran puts America and its U.N. allies in a conundrum. Iran is already under intense pressure from the international community because of its nuclear weapons program. Should the U.N. decide to seek further action against Iran because of this, it could escalate the Syrian conflict.

One thing that is for certain is that American or international military intervention does not appear to be in the future. A 60-nation meeting of the group Friends of Syria will discuss ways to, as Secretary of State Hilary Clinton calls it, “allow the transition to a democratic Syria to begin.” Those ways include further economic sanctions, but no use of military force. The United States sends humanitarian aid to the Syrian opposition. While some members of Congress have called for a more aggressive stance, including arms funneling and bombings, critics say the cost would too great and would lead to a lack of clarity as to how long the U.S. would be engaged in the conflict.

Tags: Arab Spring, Bashar al-Assad, Ben Osburn, Free Syrian Army, Opinion, Riad-al Assad, Syria

This entry was posted on Saturday, June 9th, 2012 at 3:12 am and is filed under Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

On the Tuesday after Easter, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum suspended his bid to be the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee. The decision came at time when polls in Pennsylvania, a state he personally felt he needed to win to go on, are tightening between him and Mitt Romney. Factoring also in his decision was the hospitalization of his 3-year-old daughter, Bella. Bella was hospitalized for the second time during the campaign over the holiday weekend. She was born with Trisomy 18, a potentially fatal chromosomal disorder. An aide close to Santorum spoke of the importance of the incident in Santorum’s decision, “When you have enough time with your adrenaline down, you start to think about what’s really important. … Sitting in the hospital for the second time during this campaign really put that into perspective for Santorum.”

Also factoring into the decision was delegate math, campaign resources and an over-crowded candidate field. Currently in the delegate standings, Mitt Romney is in first by a large margin, with 659, well above the half way point of the 1144 needed to win. Before resigning, Santorum stood at 275. For Santorum to even start to compete with Romney, the upcoming primary states would all need to be winner take all, which they are not. For example, while Santorum holds a small lead in Pennsylvania, Romney could very well gain more delegates than him in the contest due to proportionality. The same is true for Texas, which consists of 154 delegates given proportionally. Simply put, Santorum does not have enough time to get the delegates needed.

Santorum also does not have enough money to go on, nor does he have the manpower. Although the campaign has come a long way since the days of traveling around Iowa via pickup truck, the Romney machine is too powerful. According to the last disclosure reports, in February the campaign had raised just over $15.5 million, a risible amount compared to Romney’s $75 million. However, the campaign has stated that it will continue to raise money, as it currently is in debt. Should it raise enough to get out, what it does with the money is up to the campaign. Romney certainly will gain more monetary traction as a result of Santorum dropping out. Former investment banker Foster Friess, who gave copious amounts of money to Santorum, has stated that he now supports Romney and will “help in whatever way he can.”

Additionally, in order for Santorum to stay competitive, he would have needed Gingrich to step out the race. By doing so, Santorum would have been able to lock up the conservative, “anti-Romney,” vote. However with Gingrich still around, and Romney gaining the endorsements of key conservatives like Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio, the task is now virtually impossible.

Santorum’s campaign by all means had the makings of a Cinderella story. When he announced in June that he was going to run, hardly anyone gave him the time of day. As “big tier” candidates like Rick Perry entered into the race, Santorum quickly faded into the background. The campaign continued its roller coaster ride up to Iowa, where Newt Gingrich was riding high in the polls, due to his success in the debates.

The game quickly changed in Iowa. Having the little resources it had, the Santorum campaign spent the most time of all the candidates in Iowa and “lost” to Romney by 8 votes. Come to find later he actually won the race, but it mattered little as he began to energize the conservative base, spiking his fundraising totals in the process. As his rivals began to drop like flies, Santorum was able to lock in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri all in one night, a high point in his campaign and one that had pundits thinking the race could go on until June. However, as Romney began to perform well in the competitive swing states, Santorum began to falter in the delegate count. The campaign “gaffs” started to come into play as well. Controversial statements about contraception funding and African-American access to welfare made it easy to peg Santorum as being anti-women and anti-minorities. Despite the increasing odds, Santorum decided to stay in the race in late March, citing erroneous delegate math calculations and promising victories in future primaries.

It is very likely that while social conservative are not quickly rushing to Romney, they will begin to support him, as many Tea Party activists are doing. Although Santorum has said that a Romney endorsement is not inevitable, it will likely come as Romney gets closer to the magic number. I do not see Santorum leaving the political scene anytime soon. Although at times unorthodox, Santorum has an unmatchable ability to rally social conservatives and will most likely form a political action committee in the near future.

Tags: Ben Osburn, Decision 2012, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum

This entry was posted on Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 10:10 am and is filed under Decision 2012, Election 2012, Government, Opinion, Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

With Mitt Romney’s decisive victory in Illinois, many are now poised to believe that the former Massachusetts governor will lock in the GOP nomination. Romney won the state with an overwhelming 47 percent of the vote to Santorum’s 35 percent. Texas Rep. Ron Paul finished with 9 percent of the vote and Newt Gingrich finished with 8 percent. Romney will walk away with at least 41 of the 54 delegates at stake, bringing him to a total 562. Sen. Santorum will receive at least 10, bringing him to 249. With that number, Romney is almost at the half waypoint of the needed 1,144 to accept the nomination at the Republican National Convention this year in Tampa.

As predicted, Romney did well in the Chicagoland area and other urban counties in Illinois. The Chicagoland area consists of the majority of primary voters and almost two-thirds of the state’s congressional districts. In Cook County, where Chicago is located, Romney received a whopping 57 percent of the vote. In matching Kane County, home of Aurora, he received 49 percent. He also scored well in Sangamon County, home of the Illinois capital of Springfield. Romney’s performance in these areas could be attributed to the fact that they are more affluent and also that they tend to vote toward the more moderate side of the G.O.P. Not surprisingly, Romney also outspent Santorum in the state as well.

Continuing with trends seen throughout the campaign, Romney did extremely well with the 37 percent of people who said that beating President Obama was their top priority, receiving three quarters of their vote. Romney has been neck and neck with Santorum lately in the “who can beat Obama,” battle, so those numbers did more than put the campaign’s mind at ease. Romney also did well again with those who stated the economy was the most important issue. On a surprising note, Romney even won with Tea Partiers and Catholics, which may provide a “game changer” for the race.

The campaign continues to tout Romney’s business experience. The campaign has also hammered the Obama administration’s energy policy lately, saying that it’s anti-oil stance is causing gas prices to increase. The president continues to tout his “all of the above” energy strategy and has surprisingly directed his cabinet agencies to prioritize the construction of the southern part of the Keystone Pipeline.

Sen. Santorum did well in Illinois’ rural areas but failed to perform as well as needed to stay competitive. The campaign failed to get on the ballot in four of congressional districts, throwing away another chance to gain delegates. Santorum also came under fire for saying that unemployment did not matter to him and for saying that Puerto Ricans should be required to speak English if they want to become a state. Santorum was not in Illinois the night of the primary, deciding to go Pennsylvania instead. During his concession speech, he downplayed Romney’s managerial experience, saying, “We don’t need a manager, we need someone who’s going to pull government up by the roots and do something to liberate the private sector in America.”

The Romney campaign points out that his eventual path to the nomination is a matter of math. They point to the campaign calendar and remind everyone that time the time for Santorum to catch up is shrinking. This is true. Aside from upcoming Louisiana, Santorum will have a difficult time winning another contest like Maryland. With Illinois in the bag, Wisconsin could very well provide Romney with another win in the heartland. Combine this with the endorsement that ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush gave him last Wednesday and in a few months voters could look back and say Illinois locked in the nomination for Mitt Romney.

Tags: Ben Osburn, Decision 2012, Illinois primary, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul

This entry was posted on Friday, March 23rd, 2012 at 10:00 am and is filed under Decision 2012, Election 2012, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The issue of high gasoline prices has become a political hot potato, one that each presidential candidate, as well as President Barack Obama, has weighed in on.

As of March 14, the average gasoline price was $3.81 a gallon, the highest it’s ever been at this time of year. Politicians always make it a point to say that the United States is dependent on oil from the war-torn Middle East and to some extent this is true. But according to 2011 estimates from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, by far the most oil comes from Canada, at about 2,800 barrels a day. Following in a distant second is Saudi Arabia, then Mexico.

Canada is of particular importance because it is there where the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would start.

The pipeline, temporarily nixed by the Obama administration, would start in the oil sands of Calgary, Alberta, and transport crude oil to refineries in Texas. The pipeline has brought controversy, due to the alleged harmful effects of the oil on the environment. The pipeline would route over the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska, sparking concerns over whether it would dirty drinking water for 2 million people. The Obama administration largely rejected the pipeline because of a “rushed deadline” passed by Congress. It encouraged TransCanada, the company building it, to reapply for a permit that does not include going over the aquifer or the Nebraska Sand Hills.

Amidst slipping approval ratings and an energy secretary, Steven Chu, who recently repealed comments about boosting the price of gas to European levels, the Obama administration has been quick to tout its achievements in domestic energy production. It cites the improvements in domestic oil production, which it claims is at the highest level since 2003. The administration touts the success of the “cash for clunkers” program and points to increases in auto fuel economy as a means of weaning the country away from oil consumption. It also cites increases in natural gas production, the likes of which haven’t been seen in 30 years, and a surge in green energy production.

Obama defended his “all of  the above,” energy strategy and said there is no quick fix to rising gas prices.

Not surprisingly, the GOP candidates have been quick to lambaste the president’s energy policy. All the candidates approve of building Keystone now. Former Gov. Mitt Romney has taken an interesting approach, saying that the country “deserves” the Canadian oil.

Rick Santorum has stated that the building of the pipeline is “absolutely essential,” and that it would provide a safe way for jobs to be created and oil to be transported. Newt Gingrich approves of the pipeline as well, and posits that the Obama administration has continuously rejected measures that would decrease gasoline prices.

Gingrich arguably has the boldest energy plan. His campaign claims that if elected, he would drive gasoline prices to below $2.50 a gallon. His plan to do this not only involves approving Keystone, but reopening areas on the Gulf of Mexico for energy exploration, and ending the ban on oil shale development in the American West. However, in response to this, Obama labeled $2 gas aspirations a “political move.”

In addition to supporting Keystone and drilling for domestic oil and natural gas with the rest of the candidates, the Santorum campaign has taken a tough stance against government energy subsidies. If elected, Santorum said he would eliminate all government energy subsidies and tax credits. This would include money for renewable energy sources like wind and solar energy, as well as tax credits for hybrid vehicles. Doing so would free up the marketplace for other forms of domestic energy production. Santorum believes that it is not the government’s role to force green technology into the marketplace.

The Romney campaign has put particular emphasis on nuclear energy production. If elected, Romney says he would expand Nuclear Regulatory Commission capabilities to allow for more nuclear reactors to be developed. While not taking as harsh of a stance as Santorum against alternative energy, Romney would reduce its operational funding and shift the money to fund more apolitical measures, like basic alternative energy research.

Ben Osburn is a graduate student in political science at the University of Toledo.

Tags: Barack Obama, Ben Osburn, gasoline prices, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 15th, 2012 at 10:30 pm and is filed under Election 2012, Opinion, Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

On March 6, voters in 10 states went to the polls to cast their ballots. The day is called Super Tuesday because it is the day where the greatest number of states hold their elections and the most delegates are up for grabs. Yet compared to others, this Super Tuesday wasn’t so super. A relatively low number of states held their elections on Super Tuesday this year and after looking at the results, Republicans still look undecided as to who they want their presidential nominee to be.

The 10 states that held their primaries were Oklahoma, North Dakota, Tennessee, Alaska, Vermont, Massachusetts, Idaho Virginia, Georgia and our native Ohio. More than 400 delegates were up for grabs. Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota all use caucuses while the other states use primaries. Delegate allocation of the contests was convoluted. All competing states use proportionate delegation, aside from Virginia and Idaho, which use winner-take-all formats. Some states, like Ohio, will use a winner-take-all system only if a candidate gets more than 50 percent of the popular vote.

Make no mistake — after Super Tuesday’s results, one can make the argument that former Gov. Mitt Romney is going to be the eventual nominee; he won six of the 10 contests on Super Tuesday (Vermont, Massachusetts, Idaho, Ohio, Alaska and Virginia). He was awarded at least 210 of the delegates, bringing him to 415 and counting. His closest competition, former Sen. Rick Santorum, lags behind with 176. Romney has the best ground game, the most money and, quite frankly, the most experience, at least business wise, of all the candidates. Not only has he won the most states of any candidate, he has won states in every region of the country. On Super Tuesday he beat Santorum, 1.4 million to Santorum’s 819,000. Romney won here in Ohio, albeit by only 12,000. Ohio Republicans have correctly chosen the eventual Republican presidential nominee every four years since 1976.

Yet for Romney, the path to the nomination has been more difficult than anticipated. Let’s look at Ohio. The polls closed at 7:30 p.m. and the results did not come until around 1 a.m. What was the reason for this? It’s because, as usual, the state was too close to call. Going into the contest, the polls showed the candidates in a dead heat and as the results started to pour in, it was easy to see why. For most of the night, Santorum held a small percentage lead over Romney. His key areas were the rural parts of Ohio, like Wood, Defiance and Ottawa counties. Oddly enough, Santorum even won Lucas County, but only by 1 percent. The results from urban counties were what won the election for Romney. Cuyahoga and Franklin counties, which contain Cleveland and Columbus respectively, both went for Romney. The most important county of the night was Hamilton. Home to Cincinnati, Hamilton County has historically been a predictor of which candidate gets the win. It overwhelmingly went for Romney, who beat Santorum there by 20 points.

So why was it such a close race? One answer lies in Romney’s faults, more so than Santorum’s strengths. The demographic groups Romney lost in Ohio represent his weaknesses countrywide. For example, Romney has not fared well with young voters. This was true in Ohio as well, as Santorum won every age group younger than 65. Romney also has not fared well with voters who make under $100,000 a year, and this fact held true in Ohio.  Finally, Romney has not done well with evangelicals, a strong coalition of the GOP. In Ohio, 47 percent of evangelicals voted for Santorum, to Romney’s 30 percent. Combined with his decline of favorability with independents, these statewide statistics show what Romney needs to work on nationally.

Santorum’s lack of staff and ground game led to his demise in Ohio. In three of the congressional districts, he had no delegates tied to him, allowing Romney to win them even though Santorum earned them. Santorum will need more resources if he is to truly compete. He did not have a bad night though, and some may say he did better than expected. Given his plight in Ohio, he was still able to get 19 delegates and almost won the popular vote. His wins in Oklahoma and North Dakota were not momentous in terms of the delegate count, but certainly provided a boost to his campaign. Tennessee was the biggest win of the night for him, in terms of delegates and consensus. He won every region in the state. Santorum is favored to win the upcoming Kansas and Alabama primaries.

It was thought Ron Paul might have a chance to win North Dakota, but Santorum blocked him and Paul remains winless so far.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich won Georgia, his home state. Despite only winning one state on Super Tuesday, Gingrich won the state with the most delegates. Calls from  fellow conservatives and the Santorum campaign to drop out have not fazed him, as he intends to wait to see how well he does in his native South.

Ben Osburn is a graduate student in political science at the University of Toledo. Email him at letters@toledo freepress.com.

Tags: Ben Osburn, Decision 2012, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Super Tuesday

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 8th, 2012 at 2:07 pm and is filed under Decision 2012.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Amidst several weeks of slipping in the national polls, the Mitt Romney campaign rested easy on the night of Feb. 28 with needed wins in the Arizona and Michigan primaries. According to the latest statistics, Romney narrowly beat Santorum 41 to 38 percent. He was able to pull off Arizona, a less contested state, with 47 percent to Santorum’s 27.

Michigan is the Romney family’s home. Romney’s father, George Romney, was the 43rd governor of Michigan and once chaired the now defunct American Motors Corporation. Romney’s mother, Lenore, also dabbled in politics, running unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 1970. George moved the family to Detroit in the late 1930s to focus on his automobile career. They became involved in the Detroit Stake of the Church of Latter-day Saints. It was in Detroit that Lenore gave birth to Mitt, the youngest of the couple’s four children.  Mitt attended school in Bloomfield Hills and there met his wife, Ann.

Early in the year, pundits would have never guessed that the fight for Michigan would be this close. However, previous wins in Colorado and Minnesota gave former Sen. Rick Santorum the momentum needed to compete with Romney in his backyard. Additionally, Santorum’s strong stance on manufacturing growth may have been the deciding factor for many Michigan Republicans. In the words of Romney, “We didn’t win by a lot, but we won by enough and that’s all that counts.”  To which Santorum responded, “We knew it was going to be Romney’s big night. The question was how big. And it wasn’t very big.”

What remains to be seen is how the results will affect both candidates in terms of delegate allocation. Arizona, a winner-take-all state, will allocate its 29 delegates to Romney. However, Michigan, which had its delegate count cut almost in half because it made its primary date too early for Republican National Committee standards, has a unique way of allocating delegates. The state divides its 30 delegates by the now 14 Michigan congressional districts. Each district receives two delegates and the remaining delegates are distributed according to the popular vote.

As of Feb. 29, it appears that Santorum and Romney have tied, with each candidate given 13 delegates from the state. Michigan’s 13th congressional district is still being disputed. This means that even though Romney won the popular vote, he could walk away with fewer delegates than Santorum, or more likely tie with him at 15 elegates each.

The Romney campaign chastised Santorum for engaging in what it called “mischief making” during the primary. Michigan is an open primary state, meaning that any voter can vote in the either party’s primaries.

Knowing this, the Santorum campaign sent automated telephone calls to registered Democrats, telling them to support him. Members of the liberal media called on Democrats to do the same, insinuating Santorum is less likely to beat President Barack Obama than Romney is. While Democrats only counted for nine percent of the vote, CNN polls show that more than 50 percent of them voted for Santorum.

Both candidates had previously stated that they opposed the auto bailouts, but it did little to help either candidate, as Michigan Republicans were spilt on the issue. Romney won big with the majority of voters who said that the economy was the most important issue, something that he has been touting the entire campaign, but it’s a topic on which Santorum has been silent lately. Michigan’s unemployment rate is at 9.3 percent, a percent above the national average.

However, of the voters who felt that strong moral character was the most important issue, Santorum won with almost 60 percent. One reason for this might be because of social issues. Santorum’s focus on the family and views against abortion resonate well with social conservatives.

Santorum especially holds strong views against same-sex marriage and government-funded contraception. Santorum did well amongst very conservative voters, a field where Romney has consistently faltered in, and must do better to win states like Tennessee and Oklahoma on March 6.

A question on the mind of Ohioans is how well both candidates will do in the March 6 primary. Both candidates made recent stops in the area. Romney held a rally at American Posts on Feb. 29. American Posts is the only remaining American manufacturer of steel U-posts for the garden and lawn industry. It was there that Romney took the opportunity to speak about American manufacturing’s biggest competitor: China. If elected, Romney would apply tariffs to Chinese products as a means of addressing what he calls their “currency manipulator,” problem.

He also spoke of bringing entitlement programs back to the state level as a means of cutting the budget deficit.

Santorum spoke at the Holiday Inn French Quarter in Perrysburg on Feb. 28. There he stressed increasing domestic energy production and stopping the proposed decrease in defense spending.

A University of Cincinnati poll shows that Santorum has a double-digit lead against Romney in Ohio, 37 to 26 percent.

Contrasting previous elections, it is unlikely that after Super Tuesday a clear front-runner will be decided. Not only will there be fewer states voting this year, but there are few favored candidates in the states that are. Romney is expected to win Massachusetts and Virginia, but a Gingrich win in his native Georgia would slow Romney’s nomination bid.

Likewise, any state Gingrich can win, Santorum has a shot at winning, if not a better one.

There is also the continued impact Ron Paul has on each state’s race.

If there is one thing that is certain in all of this, it is that this year’s GOP nomination process will resemble that of the Democrats in 2008 — be prepared to wait until June.

Ben Osburn is a graduate student in political science at the University of Toledo. Email him at letters@toledo freepress.com.

Tags: Ben Osburn, Decision 2012, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 1st, 2012 at 1:57 pm and is filed under Decision 2012, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

To win a political campaign, arguably the most essential resource a candidate must have is money. Time, staff and volunteer support are also key, but none of these would be possible without campaign cash. Money provides the essentials candidates need to win, such as voter communication tools like television ads, or travel. Bluntly put, the more money a candidate has, the more likely he or she is to win. Given the recent changes in campaign finance laws, money will be circulating around the presidential race more than ever.

In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case that would change federal elections forever. Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (FEC) was a lawsuit involving a dispute as to whether the nonprofit Citizens United could air a campaign ad referring to then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The ad was to air within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries, in violation of the McCain-Feingold Act. The Supreme Court not only struck down that provision, but went on to rule that corporations and unions were permitted to give money to produce “electioneering communication,” material. A similar case, Speechnow.org v. FEC, ruled that money coming from these entities could be unlimited. However, they still are not permitted to give directly to a candidate’s campaign.

What does this mean for candidates? The most recognizable result of both court cases are Super PAC. These political action committees raise money on behalf of candidates and often produce media ads in direct support of them or in opposition to their competition. They are required to list their donors to the FEC, but are not required to list whether or not they explicitly support a candidate. All major party candidates in the 2012 election are connected to Super PAC.

President Barack Obama, although initially against the Citizens United ruling, has recently said that he will allow Super PAC to raise money on his behalf. Although back-tracking on its word, the administration has no other choice but to accept the money in order to compete.  Obama’s campaign is facing nearly $500 million worth of contributions aimed at defeating him. Obama’s chief Super PAC is called Priorities USA Action, a progressive organization committed to his re-election. By the end of the 2011 calendar year, the organization raised nearly $4.5 million. Thus far, the Obama campaign has raised approximately $125 million, with its biggest donor group being the retired. Obama has raised the most money out of all the major party candidates.

The Mitt Romney campaign has raised $56 million, according to end of 2011 numbers. While this may be little in comparison to Obama, Romney has excelled at raising money from Super PAC. Albeit a checkered past, Romney’s PAC, Restore Our Future, has raised just more than $30 million. The PAC’s goals are to bring down the national debt, stop reckless spending and spur job creation. Romney’s biggest donor group is the securities and investment sector, shortly followed by the retired. More than 90 percent of Romney’s donations have come from large individual contributions.

The Newt Gingrich campaign has not raised anything substantial compared to Romney and Obama. At year’s end, the campaign had raised just more than $12 million. The retired, again, have been the most hospitable contributors to his campaign. Winning Our Future, Gingrich’s Super PAC, spawned from a prior pro-Gingrich PAC called American Solutions for Winning the Future. The new PAC was created by Becky Burkett, who chaired the former PAC. Winning Our Future had some difficulty raising funds initially, but recently received a $10 million boost from casino owner Sheldon Adelson and his wife. Adelson has supported Gingrich in the past and favors his pro-Israeli stance. Gingrich will need the money to compete with Santorum and Romney going into Super Tuesday. Santorum’s caucus wins in Minnesota and Colorado have provided a groundswell of support for him in terms of fundraising.

Although at the end of 2011 his campaign had only raised just more than $2 million, that number is rising. He raised $250,000 the night of his victories. Rick Santorum’s PAC, the Red White and Blue Fund, was founded by Nick Ryan, a political consultant who was involved in previous PAC activity during the 2010 midterms. The PAC supports Santorum because he is anti-abortion and committed to reducing government spending. While the PAC has raised far less than both Romney and Gingrich — around $700,000 — people like Foster Friess are out to change that. Friess is a millionaire investment banker who gives to Christian and conservative causes. He has donated to Santorum’s senate campaign in the past and this cycle has provided almost half of the PAC’s operating funds. Friess and other supporters will need to keep giving so Santorum can remain close to Romney in the polls.

Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul has around $25 million in his campaign chest. The money has come from a mix of large and small individual contributions. Paul has received the largest amount of donations from veterans, perhaps due to his isolationist approach to foreign policy. Paul’s Super PAC activity has been limited and almost all donations from it have been on behalf of individuals. His biggest PAC, Endorse Liberty, has raised just over $1 million. The campaign will need to appeal to more Super PAC donors if it is to go any further in the primaries.

Ben Osburn is a graduate student in political science at the University of Toledo. Email him at letters@toledo freepress.com.

Tags: Ben Osburn, Decision 2012, GOP, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 16th, 2012 at 12:54 pm and is filed under Decision 2012, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Rick Santorum has come from very little to become a major contender in the 2012 Republican presidential primary race. On Feb. 7, Santorum won the caucus states of Minnesota and Colorado, and a largely symbolic primary in Missouri. Of the eight primary contests so far, Santorum has won four.

Minnesota and Colorado hold nonbinding caucuses, which means the delegates chosen by the voters are not legally bound to vote for the candidate they represent. Both states release delegates proportionally, meaning delegates are allocated by the percentage of votes a candidate gets.

In Colorado, a state Mitt Romney won in 2008, Santorum won with 40 percent of the vote. This gave him 17 of the state’s 33 delegates, while Romney ended with 13. Not only was this a surprise to the party, it was a major setback for Romney. Minnesota will not release many of its delegates until March, which means that Santorum will likely get many more, if not all, than the six he won from the state that night. He received 45 percent of the votes in Minnesota.

The victories provide a breath of fresh air for Santorum. After a disappointing performance in Nevada, Santorum was out to prove he could perform well in caucus states. Santorum’s campaign-long message of being the only true conservative on the ballot resonated well with the small caucus electorates. However, make no mistake; the Romney campaign wanted to win Minnesota, a state he won in 2008 on a platform very similar to Santorum’s. Advisers to the Romney campaign now downplay the importance of the state, but Romney spent campaign cash on “robo-calls,” blasting Santorum’s record and had plans to stop there after his win in  Nevada. Those plans were scrapped after it become clear that Santorum would win.

Santorum’s Colorado win means more than his win in Minnesota. Colorado is a swing state in the general election and his win gives him an advantage over Newt Gingrich as being the “anti-Romney” candidate. Gingrich has only won South Carolina, and has shown that his campaign is more regional as he concentrates on Southern states that typically vote Republican.  With his solid performance in Midwestern states, Santorum can credibly say he is a true anti-Romney candidate, and has the potential to perform well nationally.

This year’s Missouri contest has been a mess. Initially, the state GOP wanted to hold its primary before March 6, in violation of Republican National Committee preferences.

When the Missouri legislature tried to change the date to March, the legislation got vetoed. Other legislative efforts to change the date stalled and with the original primary date quickly approaching, the legislature decided to keep the February date and use a caucus on March 17. Thus, the voting in Missouri was symbolic and no delegates were awarded to Santorum. However, the win did provide momentum for Santorum, especially regarding fundraising. That night, the campaign raised $250,000 through the Internet. Although still nothing in comparison to Romney’s money, Santorum’s win provided a cash boost. Santorum received 55 percent of the vote in Missouri.

Although it is difficult to decipher how Santorum won, as no exit polling is available for these contests, much of it has to do with Santorum’s campaign strategy. He spent much more time in Colorado than Romney did. Santorum’s campaign events are more personal than Romney’s, which may be seen as a sign of likability. A typical Santorum campaign event comes in the form of a town hall, where voters are encouraged to participate. Romney’s campaign events appear to be more grandiose and it seems as if he talks to the voters, as opposed to talking with them. Additionally, Romney’s stances on issues are often hard to define. For example, Romney’s plan for jobs and growth can be found on his campaign website, and is 160 pages long. Santorum’s economic plan comes in the form of 32 easy-to-read bullet points. There was also a large concentration of evangelical voters in Colorado, which favored Santorum.

The Ron Paul campaign will look for momentum in Maine, where he is predicted to win. Beyond that and next month’s Washington caucus, his campaign may be in jeopardy.

Ben Osburn is a graduate student in political science at the University of Toledo.

Tags: Ben Osburn, Decision 2012, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 1:51 pm and is filed under Decision 2012, Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.