Judging by most media polls, Ohio voters will, in a few weeks, vote for a certain gubernatorial candidate based on 1) their anger at the ruling party and 2) the sometimes overbearing comments of the ruling party’s candidate. In Warren County, signs have been prevalent bearing slogans like “had enough?” and “vote for change.” Similar bumper stickers and signs are also common elsewhere in the state.

But what exactly will Ohio voters get when they vote for change? Given that the current governor is not running and will leave office after this term, change is inevitable. That change will either come in the form of the same party with a very different governing style or from the other party with a governing style much like the current governor’s.

The current governor spent too much, raised taxes, regulated business, and ignored corruption. Aside from ignoring corruption, how will the other party’s candidate differ? He will most likely not, making an appropriate response to the “had enough?” slogan go something like this: Had enough? Well, vote for change and get more—more spending, more regulation, and more taxes.

As poorly as the ruling party has governed, they have, ironically, governed just like the now out-of-power party governed before, and how that party will almost certainly govern again when they regain power.

Thus, when voters go to the polls in Ohio and poke the computer screens for “change,” they will get nothing of the sort. Instead, they will get more of the same. In spite of any disdain some voters may hold for the candidate of the ruling party, he opposed the current governor more than just about anyone. And only he has a different governing style, which is something almost everyone can agree Ohio needs in order to turn the economy back in the right direction.

Odd: Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher stated her support for missile defense earlier this week. Frankly, her comments are laughable as the Democrats spent the best part of the 1980s ridiculing SDI as "star wars,;" the 1990s slashing funding for the program; and the first part of the George W. Bush administration criticizing funding increases. Still, perhaps North Korea's nuclear test (or whatever it was) may persuade missile defense critics anyway.

Sod: Several states will be carrying ballot initiatives (Wisconsin, for example) for declarations stating, "bring the troops home now." Leaving now, or fairly soon for that matter, would amount to quitting, which the terrorists would view as a victory--hence, our defeat. Quitting would also vindicate the terrorists' tactics, as will these pointless ballot measures that will only encourage terror groups to redouble their efforts with the objective of eroding public support for the war.

Odd: An International Herald Tribune article earlier in the week detailed new European doubts about Muslim integration. Europe, like many enclaves in the United States, has been engulfed in political correctness for some time now, and it has affected immigration policies. Western progressives have long sought to accommodate immigrants so that their cultures are not eradicated. Noble as that goal may be, in the process Western cultures have been eroding rapidly. Any effort to defend Western culture (such as our Christian heritage), or to oppose multiculturalism, is often demonized as racism or xenophobia. It is odd that now, perhaps "mugged by reality," even European elites are rethinking the "multiculti" way.

Sod: The Dayton Daily News ran an editorial endorsing incumbent Karl Keith for Montgomery County Auditor over his Republican opponent, the young and emerging Seth Morgan. The editorial board is accused (by a spokesman of the Morgan campaign) of distorting Mr. Morgan's positions and pandering to Mr. Keith. Such is normal for the paper, which is why it has declined in recent years. The editors claimed Morgan is being "partisan" merely for criticizing Keith. Well, it's election season: who isn't a partisan? The editors also brushed over Karl Keith's alleged cronyism (he hired a non-accounting-qualified sister of state senator Tom Roberts for her "psychology," Keith said). Sadly, I expect nothing less from Dayton's only major newspaper, which is why this entry cannot fall under the "odd" category. Perhaps it is time for competition, but until then young, up-and-coming conservatives like Seth Morgan will have to work a little harder to get their messages out to the voting public.

Odd: Former Cincinnati Red Sean Casey is finally on a winner--the Detroit Tigers. The once (and still) beloved Red was traded to the lowly Pittsburgh Pirates in the off-season, a move that saddened Casey and his fans; however, "the mayor of Cincinnati" was dealt to Detroit, thus turning his season around. As happy as this author was for the mayor, he was injured in the American League Championship Series. Still, it is odd that a man gets traded from the team and city he had loved to the last place team where he broke bones in his back, all before getting a ticket to the playoffs.

Sod: John McCain was a guest on the Laura Ingraham Show this week. As he was introduced, he stated how much he enjoyed Laura's bumper music, particularly the last song. He thought the Eagles were a good group, he said; however, the bumper tune in question was a Steve Miller Band, not an Eagles, song. McCain's error made for a good laugh.

The Times out of London published an article online for Sunday in which the Iraq Study Group is said to be strongly considering the division of Iraq into three largely autonomous regions. Senator Joe Biden has also made such a suggestion in the past, but in no way is this a new idea--analysts have discussed it for most of the war's duration.

The study group is painting the idea as a middle ground proposal somewhere between "cutting and running" and "staying the course." I imagine that the idea will gain sizeable public support if widely discussed. Still, one must look at the possible scenarios and results of dividing Iraq into three.

Last night I made a quick list of pros and cons, which is by no means exhaustive, but should still provoke serious thought about the idea. My initial list seems to marginally stack the deck in opposition to division.

Below is how division might affect the situation on the ground.

Pro

• Dividing Iraq into three semi- or fully-autonomous regions (which would create Sunni, Shi’ite, and Kurdish regions) may alleviate a significant portion of the existing sectarian violence.
• The Kurdish region—by far the most advanced—will be allowed to prosper and move on without having to wait for some sort of consensus.
• Existing parliamentary conflicts might ease as fewer issues might be contested at the national level, although the fate of parliament would be, in my estimate, the most difficult to predict.
• A more natural order, predating the British Mandate, would prevail.
• US Forces will be able to more-precisely focus her firepower and resources in the more testy autonomous region—the Sunni region.
• Shi’ite-dominated Iraqi Army battalions would, presumably, no longer operate in Sunni areas, which is often offensive to the Sunnis.

Con
 
• Iranian influence in the south would likely increase in the absence of coalition forces and Sunni and Kurd pressure in parliament.
• The likelihood that a new sanctuary would develop for al Qaeda in Sunni regions increases.
• The question of Baghdad remains: Can we split it along Sunni-Shi’a lines (along the Tigris River)? Will sectarian strife remain in the capital city?
• Division would eliminate (or reduce) the moderating factor of cooperative democracy. For example, radical Shi’ite groups would be allowed to grow more radical absent Kurd and Sunni pressure otherwise. Likewise, the Kurdish and Shi’ite “check” on Sunni power brokers would be removed/reduced.
• Sunni areas would be angered by their probable exclusion from sharing the nation’s oil wealth.
• More government entities (that the US would have to mentor) would exist, thus dividing our diplomatic assets or requiring a larger commitment.
• Depending on the nature of the regions—say, if Sunni-dominated Army units were no longer allowed to operate outside of their own region—coalition forces may have to operate in unstable areas without Iraqi Army help (i.e. Shi’ite-dominated Army units in Anbar Province).
• There is no guarantee that radicals in one region won’t cross the border into the next region and continue sectarian violence. Likewise, there may be thousands of miles of new boundary to defend.
• The question must be asked: Will the terrorists view this new course of action as a sign of American weakness, and thus their victory?

This idea comes with its own set of pros and cons, obviously. I have typically opposed the idea on the narrow grounds that the Shi’a-Kurd check on radical Sunni power brokers would be eliminated. In my opinion, this might allow Anbar Province—a dry desert region with rolling hills and population concentrations along the Euphrates River—to become a mini Afghanistan, especially given its geography. Still, division will probably become a prominent alternative idea in American politics, meaning that we will have to discuss its merits at length.

It is a religious war--at least it is to them: the radical Islamists. That's the bottom line.

During a recent speech, as documented in Hillsdale College's Imprimis, historian Bernard Lewis made the most succinct description of the current war on terror of anyone yet.

It simply goes like so:

Ever since the inception of Islam, there has always been a small sect that has sought expansion and domination. After World War I, the Ottoman Empire was dissolved, thus concluding the last great Muslim empire. Those ranging from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the Wahhabis/Sauds in Saudi Arabia to the Ayatollah in Iran to bin Laden's al Qaeda still seek such expansion.

More important is their view of the world in which they live and operate. It is a world defined by the struggle between Islam and Christianity (between jihads and crusades). Even during the Cold War, bin Laden and his ilk viewed the world in two parts: Muslim and Christian. Even the godless Communist Soviet Union was considered part of Christendom, at least in the radical Islamist view.

At the conclusion of the Cold War--which Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, the Pope, Solidarity, and (ironically) the mujahideen in Afghanistan helped end--this view persisted. Still, one of the main "Christian" powers remained: the United States (the other was the Soviet Union, ironically still). Thus, "the base" (al Qaeda) and others took up arms as they continued the jihad against the crusaders.

Unfortunately, "Christendom" did not truly notice that a religious war was underway until 9/11--and many still do not. Nonetheless, al Qaeda and Co. fight a religious war against a largely complacent West.

And that is the war, regardless of whether we accept it or not. They will continue to fight, even if we opt otherwise.

Below are my (entirely) random thoughts on this evening's gubernatorial debate between Ken Blackwell and Ted Strickland. 

Strickland opened by saying that his "plan" will focus on the "strengths" of Ohio, help industries grow, ensure that we have qualified people. He said he will focus on economic growth, education, and health care. These are specific, he said, but they are not. They are not policy ideals.

He also said that Blackwell was part of the Taft administration. On the contrary, Blackwell was elected, and thus, not appointed, as in the federal executive branch.

Ken Blackwell has specifics: reduce tax burden; reduce red tape.

Strickland has "an energy plan," which includes government spending on ethanol. Again, more government spending = more government taxation.

When asked what in his plan would lure business to Ohio, Strickland said that Blackwell's ideas are "nutty" and, in fact, would be increases. Then he said that the recent reforms were sufficient and that they have "reduced" the tax burdens on Ohioans. There are "no gimmicks" in his plan, except for the statement that Ohio's tax burden has been reduced.

Blackwell stays on message: cut taxes, reduce regulations.

Strickland took exception to Blackwell's insinuation that things are good in Ohio. Well, I don't recall Ken Blackwell EVER saying such a thing, but rest assured, he has "a plan."

When asked about budget cuts that would be needed while supply-side tax cuts work their magic, Blackwell reiterated the budget reforms he influenced and his insistence in reducing the rate of spending growth.

The legislature, according to Strickland, "saved" Blackwell from himself and his own "Draconian" measures. Somehow, I don't see allowing people to keep more of their own money as "Draconian," which implies that the psychologist doesn't understand the term's definition.

"We aren't educating" our children, according to Strickland, even though more people than ever go to college and graduate.

Blackwell said our graduates chase jobs and opportunity, which Ohio does not currently have. He also said that Strickland's district has the highest unemployment rate in Ohio; however, if you ask people in Pennsylvania, according to Strickland, they like him (isn't he running for Governor of Ohio?).

Blackwell continues his support for the progression toward a flat tax, which would also take the poorest OFF of the tax rolls. (Yes, I am critical of more Strickland, which I will explain later). In response, Strickland uttered the Marxist tax-cuts-for-the-rich mantra again. He doesn't realize that successful, rich people are LEAVING Ohio in part bake of tax burden and in part because of the lax business environment. "Education, health care, and economic security" is his slogan, minus specific policy proposals, of course.

Blackwell's response was classic: Strickland likes to "soak the rich," while Blackwell wants to "use them" to help the rest of the state.

There would be things a Strickland administration would do immediately, he said, but before specifying, he spoke of a high school teacher and how he represents change. The nature of the change remains unclear.

According to Blackwell, Strickland is "no Roy Rogers." I found the comment humorous but useless.

Strickland knew Roy Rogers AND Ronald Reagan. Well! Let us boast of our acquaintances instead of our policy ideas.

Blackwell was challenged on his lack of specificity when asked about areas of the budget he would cut. His answer: reduce the overall rate of growth, not just pick on an area here and there.

Strickland feels that Blackwell's tax cuts will prevent us from investing in the future, which only reinforces his tax-hike, spend-hike, government-control way of thinking.

According to Blackwell, Strickland wears an empty suit. Such a slight might be accurate but does not help the Republican.

Ohio can help small businesses in terms of health care, Strickland says. He has a plan (of course). It is...to make coverage affordable. Which means... ...then he admits he wants to subsidize people: spending hike = tax hike = economic decline. Recall fiscal policy which dictates that government increases taxes in times of economic growth. While the rest of the nation grows, Ohio and a few other states lag. This is not such a time.

Blackwell's response is ambiguous, though based on known market-based ideas.

Strickland likes some of Blackwell's ideas (?). While Strickland wants to ensure that all Ohioans will have health insurance, but he criticizes Blackwell's plan because it will supposedly "force" everyone to buy insurance (i.e. to be insured). I don't get it.

The TEL amendment is a "radical idea"--i.e. balancing the state budget. Also, Strickland has been writing down the names Blackwell has called him and he is apparently out of paper. At least he wasn't writing down what he said about Ken Blackwell.

A majority of US states have provisions similar to the TEL amendment. Some radical idea, eh?

I can't write anymore. Needless to say, I typically don't write in this manner because I feel it borders on the immature. And also needless to say, Ted Strickland has precious few, if any, concrete ideas. All of his overtures imply increased spending and increased taxation, and increased regulation. These are the problems of Ohio's economy. Ted Strickland's ideas, few that they are, more closely mirror those of the moderate Republican Bob Taft, and these are the policies that have stunted economic growth in Ohio. Ken Blackwell, on the contrary, has opposed Taft and Co. for years now, and his economic policies have worked elsewhere in the country. And they should be tried again.

Please excuse any grammatical errors.