Parade, tree lighting at Greene
Ribbon cut for bike path
2-car crash injures child
Home > Blogs > Ohio politics > Archives > 2008 > November > 16 > Entry
Kevin DeWine mends fences with “values voters” in GOP
Kevin DeWine, deputy chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, has been mending fences with “values voters” in the GOP who took issue with reports of DeWine’s post-election analysis of why Republicans got their clocks cleaned on Nov. 4.
At a Nov. 6 news conference DeWine (pictured), also a state representative from Fairborn, said the GOP needed to focus more on economic issues that were key in the election.
In a letter addressed to Republican leaders on Friday, Nov. 14, DeWine stressed his commitment to values issues but also said the party must pay attention to economic issues to succeed. He urged Republicans to stay united, using a passage from the Gospel of Matthew:
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” - Matthew 12:25
Here’s DeWine’s letter:
November 14, 2008
Dear Republican Leader,
“I hope you’ll accept my sincere apology for the emails or phone calls you might have received about my post-election comments regarding the future of our party.
“Unfortunately, some people would rather shoot first and ask questions later. The people criticizing me publicly and spreading this misinformation never bothered to call for any verification or context of my remarks, so allow me to clarify before this debate gets out of hand.
“Two days after the election, I met with members of the media to discuss the results and some of the lessons learned. When asked why I thought we lost, I cited a number of factors, including the political environment, the fundraising disparity, the media bias and, of course, the economy.
“In reference to the economy, I told the press we simply lost our credibility on the fiscal conservatism that attracted millions of Americans to the Republican Party under the leadership of Ronald Reagan. When the overwhelming majority of voters in exit polls said the economy was the deciding issue in this presidential race and a clear majority of voters gave Democrats total control of Washington to fix the problem, it’s hard to argue that our message is working.
“We lost almost every demographic group in this election. According to exit polls, Barack Obama won women voters by 13 points; young voters by 34 points; African-American voters by 91 points; Latino voters by 34 points; first-time voters by 37 points; and voters making less than $100,000 a year by 12 points. Those are astounding numbers, and every group cited the economy as their central concern.
“We have serious work to do as a party if we plan to win back a majority of voters on the pocketbook issues impacting Ohio families. I told the reporters last week that we need a balanced agenda focused on restoring our conservative principles to every aspect of government - from the economy and health care to energy and immigration. Perhaps I could have stated my argument more effectively, but I did not say, as some have ridiculously claimed, that we should yield the fight on values or purge our platform of life and family issues.
“I spent eight years in the General Assembly advancing pro-family legislation such as the Defense of Marriage Act and at least six major pro-life reform bills. The executive director of Ohio Right to Life recently credited my “perfect voting record on abortion issues.” Since I became deputy chairman of this party, I’ve met with dozens of pro-family leaders to discuss candidate recruitment, outreach and volunteer support.
“”Every candidate I’ve talked with about a possible statewide bid in 2010 has a solid record on pro-life and pro-family issues. And several respected social conservative leaders contacted me this week to convey appreciation and support of my view that we cannot build a lasting majority on single issues alone.
“Our recently adopted national party platform contains nine chapters, one of which is titled “Values.” My concern is that our party has failed to lead on the other eight. Unfortunately, my inbox is full of angry, hateful emails from people who did not hear this argument in context, and I’ve been called everything from a coward to a Democrat as a result. It’s not hard sometimes to see why many people don’t feel welcome in the Republican Party.
“I appreciate those of you who expressed your support for learning the lessons of this election and returning our party to its core values. Ten days ago, Democrats took total control of our federal government. That will not change if we are content to only fight ourselves.”
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” - Matthew 12:25
Sincerely,
Kevin DeWine
Deputy Chairman
Permalink | Comments (27) | Post your comment |
Comments
By Joe Schmoe
November 23, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
Kevin Dewine is no fiscal conservative. He voted twice for former Gov. Taft’s tax increases. Also, his pal, Jon Husted voted for those as well. Husted also lives in Columbus but apparently votes in Dayton. With all of Dewine’s moaning about voter fraud, you’d think he’d investigate Husted.By mwm
November 19, 2008 4:49 AM | Link to this
TRS, no facts or verifiable information support your theory of “bad intel”. There were no WMD’s in Iraq and Bush used 9-11 as a catalyst to start the war. Even as we all knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and did not possess WMD’s. Your continued support of the failed Bush administration shows your complicity in attempts to justify a war based upon lies. Using fear as a motivator, Bush and his people played up the fear and pulled a modern day gulf of tonkin on the public. Until verifiable physical evidence of a component, assembly or full weapon system can be verified to exist prior to the war in Iraq, the war in Iraq will go down in history as a war based upon the lies, deceptions and propaganda of Bush and the neocons. And, 4000+ of our military members died because of Bush’s lies. Let alone the 10s of thousands maimed for life; because of Bush’s lies. Hopefully, his God will forgive him. It apparently is not the same God others worship.By TRS
November 18, 2008 9:15 PM | Link to this
Alice - I appreciate your comments regarding the world religious studies class. The God of the universe can certainly handle a little friendly competition. Information is a good thing for how can anyone advocate or defend a position without all the information. Perhaps they should also make a debate class mandatory as well. Learning to make points without pointing would be a good thing for the next generation to learn. Being a child of the 60s I have spent a lifetime watching people yell at each other. From the Vietnam protests, through the 80s nuclear freeze movements and then most recently the Iraq war its been an “in your face” nation. The generation leading us now was from that time. Senator Obama is from a different time. I may not agree with his policies but I do see in him as having an ability to build some bridges and I hope he can.By TRS
November 18, 2008 7:50 PM | Link to this
MWM - your perspective that he knew their were no WMDs all along and was lying so he could set up a sattelite state strikes me like the conspiracy theorists who believe 9/11 was an inside job (ie, Rosie O’Donnell) and the many Kennedy assasination theories we have heard over the course of years. If that were the case, why did he make an agreement prior to him leaving office to depart Iraq? Of course the President sought to make the case to the American public, but not for the reasons you stated. The evidence points to the fact that he sincerely believed Saddam had WMDs and he that we could not take the chance of him passing them into the hands of the terrorists who had just harmed us so greatly. N facts have surfaced which supports your theory. The fact that the President sought to convince the nation only proves that, rightly or wrongly, he believed Saddam to be a threat, something had to be done about it and if a nation is to go to war, it must have the support of the American people. Simply because he made the case for what he believed does not prove some sinister motive existed such as you suggest.By mwm
November 18, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
TRS, the lies deceptions and propagana perpetrated by Bush and his minion are part of history. (written and video) You cannot deny the fact that all the press conferences, all the talking point and Powells UN appearance were used in order to sway public opinion into going to war. There were no WMD’s in Iraq prior to the war. You continue to call it “bad intel” when in reality, Bush knew exactly what he was doing. His goal was to create a satellite state controlled by the US in the middle east. (the woolfowitz doctrine, PNAC garbage) You choose to protect Bush and the neocons. Fine. You are wrong. Bush used the WMD issue just as Johnson used the Gulf of Tonkin. Both were lies. As far as “values”. It is the Republicans that charged ahead with the help of the evagelical base to create a link between being republican and having values or morals. You set yourselves up. So what if the evangelicals are anti abortion and anti gay. They only represent a fraction of the voting public. And, they, the evangelicals are now divided. The older part still cling to the dual issues. The younger are looking at all the issues. Times have changed and the “social conservative agenda is no more”By Alice
November 18, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
PS… although I don’t get on every day, I am so glad to have the boards back without all the “copy and paste crazies” and extremists now that the election is over. It’s good to read the regulars again…By Alice
November 18, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
To add to the religion discussion, I am much closer to Jim’s position personally. There are scientists and religious leaders who don’t believe this has to be an either/or argument - it is possible that some type of both evolution and creationism can exist. Regarding school, I support a separation of church and state. That being said, I don’t think anything should be taught in Science class that doesn’t have scientific evidence to back it up. I am a Christian because I have faith in God, not because someone showed me evidence that he existed. However, I have always advocated a course on world religions, including Christianity but not exclusive to, being taught in high school. The problems might be with how local educators might influence such a course, but if done right - I think we need to be educated on what different religions mean to different people and what different religious texts include. As a Christian raising two children in the Christian faith, I am not afraid of information. To the contrary, I think it would make anyone a better and stronger Christian/Muslim/Jew/Catholic (and more importantly a better citizen of the world) to understand what different cultures and religions stand for so that we’re not just getting second-hand information.By Jim
November 18, 2008 12:41 PM | Link to this
Edit: “the Biblical narrative that Creationism wants us to believe, just CAN’T be supported scientifically, IMO.By Alice
November 18, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
Democrats this and Republicans that… blah…blah…blah… Just because the candidate I supported won, I won’t fall victim to the same self-righteousness that many Republicans touted when Bush won. It is thought that every party that loses a presidential election is on the verge of going extinct and they need to do “soul searching” to figure out why they lost. Back in ‘04, when the Republicans were bragging about the “values” of American voters and how the dems needed to reflect on what they stood for, I wanted to tell them to kiss my a**. I know what values I stood for in ‘04 and I know what values I stand for in ‘08, and I would expect that any Republican with any integrity would say the same about themselves. I agree that the Repubs are not in a good place right now, and you can blame it on whatever scapegoat you like from the media to Palin to the economy, but the fact is they will win again. And so will the dems. And it will go back and forth like that for some time. In the short-term, the repubs have nothing to worry about and the progressives in Ohio better not allow the election of Obama to distract them from the work that needs to be done. Obama didn’t win because the nation is now suddenly leaning to the left, he won because he had a perfect storm of the right circumstances: a near-perfect campaign, a bad economy, and some blemishes on the GOP. In the long-term, however, I do think the successful strategies employed by the GOP of elections past, in ‘00 and ‘04, have and will contribute to the GOP decline. The face of the country has been changing for some time, and low voter turnouts have allowed the GOP to ignore that fact. Even today, there is a story on the Ohio GOP trying to get a bill passed that shortens the registration time before the new officials take office. You can argue whatever motivation you want behind that move, but one likely effect is less voters and less voters is better for the Ohio GOP. They spend more effort in trying to make it harder to vote than they do reaching out to voters outside of their base, the voters that are more likely to benefit from registration drives. It was enough to reach out to white southern evangelicals twenty years ago but not now. Is the GOP dying or dead? No, but they really need to reach out to young people, women and minorities if they want to grow. If the conservative groups, like the CCV, really want long-term success, they should spend less time trying to legislate people’s lives and more time trying to convince people why they should support the cause they are trying to progress. Why not go into some of the inner cities, reach out to poor minorities and advocate pro-life principles? It wouldn’t be easy, and I don’t agree with them, but it would be better for the advancement of their causes than what they’ve been doing.By Jim
November 18, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this
TRS, Radiocarbon dating has proven that the Earth is older than 6,000 years. (Go down to Caesar’s Creek and look for some trilobites) There are other techniques, such as the Blue/Red light shifts, a type of Doppler Effect, that Hubble used to discover that the the Universe is expanding. I don’t doubt the existence of God, but the Biblical narrative that Creationism wants us to believe, just can be supported scientifically, IMO.By TRS
November 18, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this
MWM - using your logic then I guess no one can speak out. We have Democrats who have claimed they would bring ethics and integrity to government; yet, you have Barney Frank having an affair with a man who works at Fannie Mae while he is charged with the oversight of the same organization while serving on the congressional banking committee. You have Chris Dodd, Chair of the Senate Finance Committee charged with the oversight of Fannie Mae, who not only received 25K in campaign contributions from Countrywide, but received a VIP mortgage, the terms of which he will not reveal. Sen Dorgan also received a similiar deal. You have a President elect who was part of a sweetheart deal to purchase his residence with the help of a now convicted felon; thus, I guess ALL Democrats must be condemned for the actions of these few. It appears their glass house is shattered as well. Pro life people felt strongly about their position. For some reason you find fault that it was advanced because it was a values issue. Social justice is a big issue with you; however, since it is a values issue I would expect you never to advance it again as you seem to be against such things. By the way, your position that there had to be “hands on, eyes on” any WMD doesn’t make sense. Its like asking Bin Ladin when and where your next attack will be. Saddam was purposely creating the illusion that he had the weapons while at the same time trying to hide them. He had done it so well the the Intelligence agencies of the world believed him. Unfortunately they were wrong. Your use of the word “lie” is convenient only to your scenario. The two components of a lie are that the statement be known to be untrue and meant to deceive. The President and many other believed the intel was truth and what was stated was not meant to deceive but convince others of the same thing - to make the case. This is an old argument we’ve had many times and I would be OK if we obht just gave it a rest; but, much as Saddam peretrated a myth, so do you and every so often I feel compelled to respond.By TRS
November 18, 2008 12:47 AM | Link to this
Actually I think the number is more like 6000 years. Many question the dating techniques claiming the earth is millions of years old. Those that believe in intelligent design do not see the time issue as that important whereas those that believe the evolutionary theory have to have time on their side. Even then, random selection just doesn’t make sense. Its like saying someone could take all the parts of a car, lift them into the air and drop them and somewhere along the line, the pieces would fall into an assembled car. Darwin claimed “the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on the earth must be enormous” because they evolved incrementally and there should be thousands of fossils to prove that; yet, David Raup, director of Field Musuem of Natural History, home to one of the largest fossil collections in the world, said “we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossiel species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time”. None of this begins to address the microbiology side of the Darwin’s theory which I believe really shoots holes in random selection, a key to his theory. Interesting discussion - one I think should be held in classrooms rather than presenting evolution as fact.By Jim
November 17, 2008 6:37 PM | Link to this
TRS, Evolution is supported by fossil evidence. The fossil tree, along with a recent fossil discovery that tied it all together, were the main pieces of evidence in the Dover case. The case against evolution, IMO, rests with the law of Entropy. I’ve never been able to reconcile those two theories in my own mind. I don’t believe, however, that the Earth is only 4000 years old. That, IMO, is brainwashing. It’s the literal interpretation that bothers me the most. I agree with you that there are wing nuts on both sides, and while I disagree with your point of view, I appreciate the manner in which you argue. No matter where we stand, we need to keep things civil.By mwm
November 17, 2008 6:17 PM | Link to this
Since the republicans attempted to demand obedience to their ideology, and they failed by the evils within their own organization, then they are subject to ridicule for their stands. They chose the anti-abortion,anti-gay,pro evangelical stand and yet, have deviants within their fold. A president that lied in order to go to war in Iraq. A VP with his “go f yourself” statements, the sexual deviants within the republican party, the outing of a CIA agent,torture of foreign national, rendering, Abughrabi, and other high crimes Then, the repuplicans label anyone opposed to their behavior as unamerican or unchristian. Your glass house is shattered and, the republican party has lost many groups because of their incompetence and the crimes they have committed over the last eight years. That is why the republican party became the party of no values. At least, no positive values.By TRS
November 17, 2008 5:43 PM | Link to this
Jim - I guess my perspective is that the brainwashing is occurring by the evolutionists and has for years. It is stated as fact by some; yet, only a theory. It is not supported by fossil evidence. The more we know about micro biology it the evolution theory does not stand up either. You and I would never agree and thats the point. Teach them both and let the student decide. Right now, the scientific and educational community is making that choice for them. Sadly, in any passionate debate you always have some nutcases who make threats - it occurs on both sides of the fence. You had a liberal talk radio host in San Francisco that said Joe the Plumber should be dead - gay rights folks knocking a cross out the hands of an old lady and stomping on it. Both sides need to tone and down and keep it civil and even then you’ll have some loons out there. None of it is right. I don’t quite understand your last comment. Is it your opinion that a faith in God is brainwashing?By Jim
November 17, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
TRS, The school board in Dover wanted to purchase the text books, “Of Pandas and Peolpe”, instead of the science books that the teachers recommended. Throwing your teachers under the bus is a problem right off the rip. After months of expert testimony the judge ruled in favor of the citizens who filed the original complaint against the school board. Of course, they received death threats, and other types of hate messages throughout the entire process. There’s plenty of evidence that suggests the theory of evolution to be scientifically credible, while creationism can’t be verified. I don’t doubt the existence of God, but science class must be about the verifiable. What’s especially troubling are those who want a literal interpretation of the Bible: that the earth is 4000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. And to top it off, we should let the children draw their own conclusions. Really? There’s already too much brainwashing going on in this country, we don’t need more in our public schools. This is why we have the separation of Church and State.By TRS
November 17, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this
Jim - if your talking about the Intelligent Design court case vs Evolution in Dover, I believe it takes more faith to believe in evolution thoery vs intelligent design. Scientists used to allow their reserach to lead them where it will go. Now they exclude any possibility of higher intelligence, ie God, because they want to deny His very existence or believe it unscientific. As we have learned more about the human cell among other things, the random selection concept of Darwin just doesn’t hold water; however, much of the scientific community is so committed to denying any intelligence beyond human; in essence, their god is science. What is the harm of placing two theories side by side and allowing the student to draw the conclusion. In essence, it is the educational and scientific community “stuffing their theory down someone’s throat”. MWM - values cannot be advanced without the expectation that some will fall short. That is mankind’s nature. That does not mean you should not advance or defend them. The falacy of the argument is the assumption that there is a neutral position. If you are not advocating Christian values, then you are advocating secular values. If you are advocating not speaking out about values, then you are advocating no values. I can think of no Republican that held themselves up as perfect and then fell. You seem to be saying its OK for Democrats to fall because they don’t advocate any values. A very strange argument.By Jim
November 17, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this
TRS, Having values doesn’t make someone anti-intellectual, you’re correct. However, trying to jam through an agenda (like what happened in Dover, PA.) that runs counter to scientific data, does. The other thing that gets under my skin is how nasty and uncompromising these “values” voters become. Even DeWine is getting nasty Emails and hate messages from the very people who are suppose to practice all of these “Values”. They’re a bunch of hypocritical zealots IMO, and DeWine shouldn’t be apologizing to any of them.By Voted for Santa Claus
November 17, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
Well, worry no more people! Worry no more about family values…gay rights… education….illnesses… corrupted political figures…Santa Obama Claus has the answers to everything. He is going to FIX everything. Why we probably won’t even have to vote ever again, because he’ll probably solve that, too.By IndependentOne
November 17, 2008 8:33 AM | Link to this
Herein lies the problem of what happens when you try to make everybody happy. DeWine used to get a few things done. Now he is only concerned with “the party” and it shows. I have followed his “work” on school funding and its amazing to hear him talk about how much the Republicans have put into “school funding” while in power - like double what was done before! Only what he is counting as funding is the tobacco money which has been handed out without regard to need (read that where there are kids who NEED room to go to school) and instead handed out in order of poverty of the district. So what we have said is in the areas where people are moving away and the need for room is less than ever, we will build new, beautiful buildings. Riverside and Dayton are some good examples. These new buildings are no where near full. Cross into Greene county and the kids are like sardines but residents have to go it alone without any help from the state. Is this “added money for education?” Looks like buildings to me. Kevin, Jim is right - you have turned into someone who is interested only is saving “your party.” What ever happened to community service? This isn’t it. When is this guy up for reelection????By Mary
November 17, 2008 7:48 AM | Link to this
These comments typify why I could not vote for either party, but a mix of independent, republican and democrat - even though I agree with some of the comments. We are a nation of idiots. I should read the new book “Just how stupid are we?” about the American voter. One problem I see is both parties try to game a bunch of special interest groups for votes, and then they get tangled up in their own underwear. Maybe parties and leaders need to stand on their own principles and ideas of what will work for our country. I am afraid both parties are leading us over the cliff, and the votes were not so much for democrats, but against republicans.By mwm
November 17, 2008 5:23 AM | Link to this
TRS, it was the republican party that claimed some sort of moral authority and claimed to be the party with “values”. So, none of us need to hear anything about “those without sin” Just remember, you republicans chose to look down upon everyone that did not agree with your “moral agenda” Well, you are the ones with the shattered glass houses. But, for the “party of values” that also seem to hate gays and abortion, you folks seem to have a number of people with sexual identity problems, drug problems and problems with underage people. Let alone, getting improper gratuities and other illegal activity. The “do as I say, not as I do” republican party is dead.By TRS
November 17, 2008 12:42 AM | Link to this
Opps, almost forgot since you mentioned a disgraced preacher, the infamous Rev Wright owned up to an affair as well. “Let he who without sin cast the first stone”.By TRS
November 17, 2008 12:39 AM | Link to this
Just because someone has values doesn’t make them anti intellectual. Actually it makes them a bit smarter because they are aware that the center of the universe doesn’t revolve around them. By the way MWM, we have Democrat Barney Frank having an affair with a high ranking official at Fannie Mae, Democrat William Jefferson about to go on trial for having 90K of illicit funds in his refrig, Rangel under a cloud of ethics - there’s plenty of dirt to go around.By Real GOP
November 16, 2008 7:56 PM | Link to this
Here is a math equation: Any DeWine plus the Ohio GOP equals a RINO. The people want the old guard out, including the long overdue Bob Bennett.By mwm
November 16, 2008 7:21 PM | Link to this
Would that be “value people” like Ted Haggard, the gay prostitute/crystal meth preacher. Or perhaps, Senator Larry Craig, looking for gay sex in an airport. Perhaps it’s Congressman Foley with lewd text messages to kids. Perhaps a certain senator from Alaska with the gifts from certain contractors. Or a president that uses lies to start the war in Iraq. Or, a VP with his “go f yourself language. Or, the outing of a CIA agent. Seems to me that the republicans have to gain some values before they can even talk about values voters.By Jim
November 16, 2008 7:09 PM | Link to this
I love how the people who are suppose to have all these core”religious values”, are often the first ones to spew angry hate messages. Now we have Kevin DeWine apologizing to these hypocritical zealots because he told it like it is. If the Republicans continue to cater to these anti-intellectual wing-nuts who want to impose their will on the rest of us, they will continue to lose.