Ohio Voters Call for Big Ideas
We all knew Ohio was going to matter in the 2008 presidential election. We just didn't know it would be this soon.
As the candidates and their surrogates scurried from the Mahoning Valley to the Miami Valley, we heard the echoes of 2006.
Here's what we--as participants and observers--learned then.
In 2006, Ohio voters resoundingly shouted "stop" to a government which they believe betrayed them. Voters said "no" to pharmaceutical firms writing Medicare law, the insurance industry drafting health care legislation, oil companies dictating energy policy. No more job killing trade agreements. No more special tax privileges for hedge fund managers. No more privatizing government services to line the pockets of campaign contributors.
Now in 2008, voters are asking for something more.
During my first 13 months in the US Senate, I convened more than 85 roundtables, open discussions with community leaders and activists, to learn how we all could work together. Their local problems are more often than not our national problems. Plant shutdowns sending jobs overseas. High energy prices afflicting businesses, homeowners, and renters. Woefully underfunded water and sewer and highway needs.
Voters are looking for big ideas much more than the typically cautious, incremental change at the margins that is usually offered up at campaign time.
Ohioans sense a structural shakiness to our economy. A shrinking, anxious, middle class. Frustrated Ohioans working harder for less money. The loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs with an out-of-control trade deficit. A three billion dollar-a-week war with no end in sight. And, exploding budget deficits infecting the next generation.
As Ohioans have told me, we need to increase buying power among the two-thirds of the American people who have, in too many cases, maxed out their credit cards and borrowed all that they could. Families who, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich points out, have two wage earners and work longer hours than almost anyone else in the world.
More than anything, Ohio voters want to hear big ideas. Perhaps a Manhattan project for infrastructure and alternative energy. Maybe a Marshall Plan that would build our manufacturing base and create good paying jobs. Or a tax and trade policy which rewards corporations that play by the rules and are loyal to our communities and our nation.
The candidate with big ideas will likely win on November 4th. More importantly, come January 2009, the new president will have a blue print for how to repair a fundamentally crippled economy.
-- U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (OH)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
On this day of all days, I can only assume you are joking. I grew up in Ohio and I am quite certain yesterday's election was decided by the great underbelly of Ohio blue collar workers' racism. It's quite intense. A NAFTA rumor, a couple of photos, and something about a white baby at three in the morning were all it took to make a disappointingly large number of Ohioans know who they wanted to vote against. These are not big ideas.
I agree. Senator Brown, someone needs to alert the superdelegates to the high probability that, should they elect to throw their support to Clinton -- in spite of Obama being ahead in pledged delegates, states, and popular vote -- they should each prepare to be blamed for losing the dependable African American portion of what has been, heretofore, one of the only firm pillars of our Democratic base. Perhaps forever.
Senator Brown is a joke if he is here to defend the retrogade racism that his state showed. Big ideas my foot. Ohio voters voted for a corrupt old feminst blobnde with nothing to her credit except years of scandal, racebaiting and fearmongering. Somehow you seemed like a better man when you are silent. some of us almost thought you were embarrassed for how backward your state is. Now we know how you operate. They do the racist acts, you do their PR.
According to your post, one either votes for Obama or they are racist. That rings familiar. Either you are for America attacking Iraq or you are unpatriotic. Please try to consider that there are other shades besides black and white.
Read the exit polls and you will see that a large percentage of Ohio voters stated that they cast their ballots based on the "race" of the candidate.
What I was looking for in the article was a complete endorsement of Hillary Clinton, since she did win the State decisively. I think Senator Brown has to come to the front of the line, along with Governor Strickland, and be counted. I was shocked that Hillary did not receive his endorsement after such a victory. What is Senator Brown waiting for? Now is the time to stand behind the choice of the State. Governor Strickland was not afraid to be on the front line with Hillary and I think Senator Brown should do the same. She won every demographic and she won because when the phone rings at the White House at 3:00 a.m., they want Hillary to answer the phone, not Obama. Obama headed the Sub-Committee on Afghanistan and did not call one meeting because he was too ambitious and runing for President. Is this who we want in the White House? I think Democrats decided, and I think Senator Brown should endorse, the decision of the Democrats of Ohio. That person is, Hillary Clinton.
polocomm: I guess this is how misinformed voters believe false information provided by the clintons to make their decision. Obama was NOT chair of the afghanistan subcommittee. Afghanistan is under the jurisdiction of the senate arms forces committee which is headed by Kerry. Both Kerry and Lugar (R-Indiana) who are actually part of the Afghanistan subcommittee confirmed this and debunked Hillary's claims that not a single hearing was held on Afghanistan and also said that it was very unfair of her to blame Obama for not holding Afghanistan hearings. Obama is the chair of the european relations committee that includes NATO in general, not NATO in afghanistan. Moreover, only 9 hearings have been held by this committee in the last 7 years. So it is a myth that his committee is active and has slowed down only because of Obama.
Talking of not doing one's job. Where was Clinton when the very important FISA telecom immunity vote was taken on the senate? Obama voted against the FISA rule, Hillary was too busy campaigning. Moreover, when Hillary receives the phone at 3:00 am, she will most likely send the military father/mother of those cute and small kids to die in the war in Iran since she voted for the Kyle-Lieberman ammendment. What a joke!!!!
We are still in Iraq. That was the "big idea" of the 2006 election. How's that going? What we need is a congress with balls enough to stop this clusterfuck in Iraq. Then frinish the job in Afghanistan and stop bleeding the citizens with the outrageous deficits and national debt. Big ideas don't mean diddley unless you have people with enough BRAVERY to implement them. Hell this congress can't get bills to the floor let alone pass anything. McConnell has this Senate toothless.
A Constitutional Convention should not be convened lightly, but these are not ordinary times thanks to the accumulating damage from a progression of power hungry presidents going back to Nixon. People are recognizing exactly this as a problem, and thus the volume of discussion on the desirability of "revolution". Well, a Constitutional Convention can be revolutionary, and would represent revolution in its most peaceful and effective form.
If we want every luminary in the land involved in the discussion of where to take this nation (and, indeed, the world) from here, we need only structure our Convention in that manner. With this tool, our choices are infinite.
Nor should we fear it, because this is the ultimate in government of, by, and for the people. There is only a small segment of our population that is stupid enough to be worrisome during a process that would be the most closely watched of anything in our entire lives.
There is no higher body politic than “the people”. All else in government flows from that (the consent of the governed) and are mechanisms created solely for our convenience. Now, however, there is a consensus forming that the system, itself, is not functioning correctly. Is it malfunctioning because of a fault in the system, or because of something separate from the design of the system? Those are the kinds of issues that a wide ranging Constitutional Convention can hammer out. And we need fear no proposed changes because all proposals are subject to ratification.
Once, a very long time ago, the country invested the time, energy, money, and talent to hammer out a blueprint of a social contract, and created a glorious work product. Now, however, there are real questions about whether it still can and will take us where we want, as a nation, to go. Or is the question only that the journey has become vastly more complex, and we only need to try to reach another consensus on the destination that we want to strive for?
In any event, a Constitutional Convention provides the framework within which such an important and wide ranging national discussion can be held. We know what happens when we break into groups that talk past each other. A Constitutional Convention constitutes a forum where everyone in the country would listen to every idea and viewpoint because the publicity would tell them that this is the single most important thing that has happened in our nation since the last time that we all made the effort to talk and listen to each other.
Who's handling your transportation legislation Senator?
It's hard to overlook the fact that Ohio was key to throwing the last two presidential elections to George Bush. How's your unemployment, Ohio? Are you thrilled? Here is a "big idea" for Ohio: Stop throwing the goddamned elections to the Republicans. I only hope they've figured it out.
Thanks to Joe and Jill Lunchbucket and their kitchen-table racism.
Any factory, in either Ohio or Michigan, has "seperate" tables for blacks, whites and hispanics. Take a look. I see it every day.
The elite in this country has blue-collar whites battling African-Americans battling Hispanics over the scraps of this nation and laughing all the way to a Swiss Bank.
Senator, Ohioans did not vote for big ideas. They did not even pretend that they could understand big ideas if they saw them. What they showed is good old racism. That is why 80% of those who voted for Hillary voted for the color of her skin and the hair, despite her lies, corruption and fearmongering. So don't go lying to us, whitewashing dirty old racists.
didn't the ohioans screw over the big ideas man (barak obama) last night for a more of the same big money lobbyist politician? you gotta admit that a complete change from the old nonproductive way of doing business is pretty big.or was that the old BLUE COLLAR (WHITE RACIST MINDSET) RESURFACING?
It would have been an interesting piece before the result. Perhaps ephemeral.
Big ideas, big sound byte, big money ... Essence De Clinton...
Jerry Brown '92... Imagine...
I plastered a photocopy of his five point plan from the Sun-Times all over Chicago. I think when he dropped out, I knew I'd never know democracy. He called it though, didn't he?
As a superdelegate, Sen. Brown, you have an opportunity to help decide who's going to be representing the Democratic Party in November. As an Ohio resident (who voted for you, by the way :-), I'd be most interested in knowing what your criteria will be for deciding whether Clinton or Obama will be getting your vote and when do you anticipate making a decision.
I hope Ohio was responding to the ideas you mention. But from exit polls it seemed that the "ideas" that tipped the balance were old ones---the ability of one candidate to stir racial prejudice (darkened ad), irrational fears ("3 a.m."), misrepresent facts (NAFTA), and intentionally mislead voters (fake AP news story on the radio).
That "darkened ad" also darkened HRC. If it were deliberate and your paranoia not so insistent, you would have troublie explaining that. I understand the accusation first appeared on KOS. I stopped reading there long ago when I realized the site has no standards. Comments regarding it elsewhere lead me to believe it has been unapologetic about its support for BHO. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Ohio called for big ideas all right. The big ideas of Reagan democrat, racist, xenophobic America.
Hillary/Rove 08'
To be snide: Say incremental change to a Buckeye-the Buckeye will think "Bullshit". When I younger-I spent a few years in Ohio. I grew to hate Ohio. Since hate alone wasn't going to get me out of Ohio-I learned new skills & left Ohio. I continued to learn new skill in the places where I now worked & lived. Maybe the thought of having to return to Ohio was a spur to me. The Ohio vote for HRC on 3/4/08 was due to hatred of living in excreta which has piled up when jobs went overseas. There is one thing that schools in Ohio teach very well: hatred. You must go elsewhere to learn survival skills that aren't based upon hatred. Voters threw back the excreta that years of change have dumped on Ohio. Simply repeating the mantra "change" gets you nowhere in Ohio. BHO will have to be specific about the changes he will make to the USA & tell voters exactly how & when he will make his changes. HRC must do the same thing. Voters will stay at home on the 1st Tue of Nov '08 if whomever becomes the Democrat's nominee for POTUS doesn't become specific about what the changes will be, how the changes will be made & when the changes will be implemented.
The candidates, BHO & HRC will have till late April '08 to state what voters demand of them. Pa votes then. That is going to be a vote on which candidate can abandon vague rhetoric & present detailed specifics to voters. Pa voters are hard headed & will be relentless in their demands for specifics. The voters will become more specific in stating their demands of a candidate for POTUS. The Democrats can forget about sending their candidate to the White House on 1/20/09 if they can't become most specific.
On Sunday last, I prefaced circulation of flattering piece in a London newspaper on Senator Barack Obama with a few cautionary words regards some of his economic policies like others seeking the White House come 2009. Therein, I contended that though I too seek change and a new political direction, I'm unwilling to accept positions by candidates for reasons which history demonstrates to be unfounded.
On that score, among others, I'm reminded of the excellent book - False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism by John Gray authored by an influential conservative political philosopher and a former adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In those pages one finds scathing criticisms leveled against prior prescription failures, including those by her administration, from overarching adherence to free market ideologies in addressing public policy solutions. It is such wanting and failed ideological premises which seemingly guides too many of the public policy solutions abound in the 2008 elections today and finds me questioning the validity of many of those propositions.
Moreover, the lack of rigorous policy debates on the campaign trail thus far, in addressing the many socio-econ
Let me be be quick to point out however, that I remain a fervent advocate for real change occurring in Washington, DC and its endemic status quo attitudes, and the need for change in the manner in which the nation and the world's governance and their state of affairs have been prostrated increasingly by self-serving interests over the past few decades, whilst thinking Senator Barack Obama can be a progenitor for a new paradigm. But, in order for any such success to occur, we must be focused, honest, and demand real and sustainable audacious socio-econ
Accordingly, we must earnestly depart from failed doctrines of yesteryear in order to create fair, equitable, and just future agendas with benefits accruing to all, and by extension, creating a safer globe for all. Thus, we should not stand by and permit re-minted economic myths that arouse populace political awakenings, but lack substance and genuine commitments necessary to tackle the severe challenges before us. Indeed, it may be a politically expedient option, but it shall equally cast a poor foundation on which to place future corrective actions.
Needless I say, we must remain politically savvy and vigilant knowing the critical nature and immediacy of the mission at hand, while denying avenues for future obfuscation and further denial of a dream long in coming, or thwarting its realization coming soon. That time is now --- Change We Need -- but Change For the Better it must be.
Unfortunately, where the people who have been embedded in "the machine" for long are concerned big money trumps big change any old time.
Take Hillary's health care plan. You could say that is designed to help all Americans.
Or, you could look at the likely outcome of her plan:
First, a bunch of private insurance companies get massively richer because every American has to give them some of their money.
Secondly, every single American corporation will be able to dump their existing health care plans, providing a massive boost to their bottom lines, executive bonuses, and stockholder dividends.
From that perspective, Americans will effectively be paying a tax to subsidize the profits of private health insurance companies and the rest of America's corporations.
And like with all taxes, whose disposable income will suffer the greatest impact? Why, the people with the least income to start with.
The wealthiest among us become the primary and most significant beneficiaries of Hillary's ascension to the throne, and - in something of a bizarre twist on Reagan's "trickle down" economics - everybody else benefits as something of a side effect.
I should have said:
"And like with all taxes, whose purchasing power will suffer the greatest impact? Why, the people with the least income to start with, of course."
I was in too big of a hurry to express my indignation.
Senetor Sherrod, nice article.
I have been googling you lately to find our more about your government and you. The reason being , moving to OH in a few months, and for the first time, in our adult life, we would have a Democrat as a Senetor in the State where we would live !
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
