Buckeye State Blog - An open letter to all 2010 U.S. Senate Democratic candidates - Comments

I support ODP neutrality

Woodguy — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:58:03 -0800

For the record, we have a fair, open and unbossed system for endorsements in our county. We hold a public meeting and members of the central committee can vote. First to endorse or not and then which candidate to endorse.

No surprise but our "track record" is a lot better than ODP. For example, we did not endorse Marc Dann...

And in 2006, we did not endorse the ODP choice for Supreme Court. The candidate that they injected into the race had a great resume, BUT it was PAINFULLY obvious that he was completely disinterested in actually campaigning for the job. Well, at this juncture, it's not an appointed position.

We supported Judge Peter Sikora. And who knows... If he had been the nominee in 2006 for an OPEN slot?

Clearly, we need candidates who are competent AND who are willing to fight for the job.

Oh yeah --and actually Democrats...

History Is On Your Side. Just Ask John Glenn

William Michael Oneill — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:32:18 -0800

I believe we are on to something really big here. The ONLY thing that comes out of the Democratic Party endorsing in the primary is that it guarantees the weaker candidate(s) are never truly tested to see if they are the best candidates. A little history lesson here may go a long way. In 1974, the Ohio Democratic Party decided to bequeath a Senate seat to Howard Metzenbaum, and the process was not pretty. A vote was taken in Columbus by the party bosses, and the doors were shut. Then along came an unknown astronaut by the name of John Glenn and said he wanted to be heard. It was not to happen. He was told to go away, there was no room in the Democratic tent for heroes. In April, 1974, I was on the sidewalk with John Glenn in Dayton Ohio when he, who had flown into combat and outer space for all of us, was denied entry into the Montgomery County Democratic Party's "candidate's night". The reason? He was not the endorsed candidate. For shame. As you know, Senator Glenn went on to win that primary and the general...but the DAMAGE DONE TO THE PARTY...took years to heal. Years. Open primaries yield strong candidates. Peace. Bill O'Neill

That's the second phase of the campaign...

modernesquire — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:28:50 -0800

To repeal Chapter 9.

Petition

plunderbund — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:21:52 -0800

Readers can now sign a petition showing their support of candidates taking the pledge.

http://www.plunderbund.com/plunderbund-senate-2010-primary-pledge/

The Pledge is cool, but...

bonobo — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:35:00 -0800

Any candidate can call for an endorsement. Hell, I could file as a candidate and force an endorsement vote (and somebody must owe Lee a favor...). Once the vote is going to happen, all candidates are up for endorsement, whether they participate or not. And if only one candidate gets 60%, they won't need to promote it - The Dispatch and Plain Dealer will do that for them, not to mention rogue supporters. I don't think multiple endorsements are better than no endorsements, just more realistic. Get Redfern on the record - "If you are forced to participate in a pre-primary, will you vote to endorse each and every Democrat in good standing?"

IANAL, but "best of its ability" seems to offer lots of shelter (e.g. NOT providing expenditures to other endorsed candidates would put us in legal jeopardy, so our ability to support you is constrained by the support we give to other endorsed candidates).

BTW, that decision to not give multiple endorsements in the AG's race looks pretty stupid these days...

Just so we're on the same page, I think it's useful for ODP to have the ability to wash its hands of Bryan Flannery, Marc Dann, or whomever. The current pre-primary endorsement process is one such mechanism, but it sucks for all the reasons that you say it sucks. I'd rather strike it from the by-laws altogether if a better system can't be agreed upon.

Did you need ODP to tell you not to vote for Bryan Flannery?

modernesquire — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:26:11 -0800

Does multiple endorsements have more value than none at all? The fact is that while they considered giving multiple endorsements in 2006 in the AG's race, they ultimately didn't.

The rest of that clause is a reason why multiple endorsements don't work. "The Ohio Democratic Party shall then support such endorsed candidate to the best of its ability."

How can you support multiple candidates for the same office to the best of your ability? Who decides that? I'd be remiss as a trial lawyer to not also question whether that leads one of the candidates to challenge the expeditures spent in support of the other endorsed candidates.

Endorsements by a select group of Democrats as to who should win the nomination defeats the purpose of having primaries decide who should get the nomination. I'd understand if we're talking about a policy to support incumbents over challengers, at least. But in an open seat race, ODP shouldn't be labeling anyone the Democratic choice in the Democratic primary.

Join Chris Redfern in neutrality

Tim Russo — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:14:48 -0800

best idea to date. Make the pledge!!

"One or More"

bonobo — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:08:06 -0800

Reading the by-laws, it's interesting that they explicitly state that exec committee members can vote to endorse as many candidates as they like. It seems to me that the utility of the endorsement process is having the ability to explicitly not endorse someone (say, if Mark Dann wanted to run for Senate as a Democrat). If the pre-primary endorsement process is invoked, I would pressure committee members to endorse anyone and everyone who is at least minimally qualified (e.g. is actually a Democrat, is unlikely to be indicted during the campaign, has pulse), or to at least set a threshhold that is low enough to guarantee the endorsements of Brunner, Fisher, and Jones (e.g. has ever been endorsed by the Democratic Party in a prior election).

An open letter to all 2010 U.S. Senate Democratic candidates

modernesquire — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:23:29 -0800

The Preamble of the Ohio Democratic Party's Constitution and Bylaws of 2007 states, that our party is organized to "sustain and advance the principles of democracy" and that one of the essential tenets of our party is that "We believe that there is no substitute for fair and equal representation and strong public participation in a government chose by election."

And yet, despite that being one of the fundamental principles of the Ohio Democratic Party, Chapter 9 of that same documents says:

"In any election year in which any statewide office . . . are to appear on the ballot, the Executive Committee shall be called for a meeting before the primary election and must carefully consider in each race the endorsement of one of more persons."

Not since the Framers of a document that promised to "form a more perfect union" by counting African slaves as 3/5 a person has such a glaring contradiction of an idea and explicit process be found contained in the same document.

That is why yesterday Chris Redfern, Chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, called for a bull session with Ohio's Democratic bloggers. Chairman Redern has publicly declared that he wishes to stay neutral in the Senate Democratic Primary, but yesterday, he pointed out that if any candidate seeks the ODP's endorsement then he will have no choice under the Bylaws but to form a screening committee to consider making a recommendation to the Executive Committee to endorse one of the Democratic candidates.

Redfern said he would be "saddled" with the responsibility of launching such an endorsement process despite his belief and stated intention to remain neutral in race.

There are multiple reasons why Chairman Redfern is right that under these circumstances the Ohio Democratic Party should not endorse in this race. First, an endorsement by the Ohio Democratic Party would result in the remaining candidates being left out in the cold as if they are somehow less than "true" Democrats. Second, endorsements by ODP have a history of rendering the actual primary election as nothing more than a formality, thus leaving millions of Democrats essentially out of the process. Third, such "boss politics" machinery reeks of 1990s Ohio Republicanism and is offensive to the very sense of progressive politics that is the Democratic Party. Fourth, but most importantly, such endorsements hurt the process, the party, and even the endorsed candidate itself. You need to only look at the two last elections to see the difference.

In 2006, the Ohio Democratic Party's wise and sound judgment resulted in endorsements of Marc Dann and Barbara Sykes. Sykes ran an uninspired campaign that was hit hard by soundbytes regarding her support for higher taxes and her lack of qualifications for the job compared to her likely Republican opponent, Mary Taylor. Neither Sykes, nor the Ohio Democratic Party, had an effective response to Taylor's attack regarding taxes, or the issue of qualifications. As a result, Mary Taylor won the only statewide election in 2006 for the GOP, and kept one of the seats on the Apportionment Board in Republican hands. The pre-primary endorsement by ODP scared off a number of county auditors who did not have the baggage of supporting Bob Taft's tax increases, and would have had an effective response on the issue of qualifications for State Auditor.

A far more controversial endorsement went to Marc Dann, even though Dann already had a disciplinary record with the Ohio Supreme Court that led to his public reprimand. Dann narrowly won election only to disgrace his office to such a degree that the Ohio Democratic Party went to the extraordinary length of stripping Dann's affiliation with the party barely two years after they endorsed him as the party's preferred standard bearer.

In 2008, Obama and Hillary come courtin' in the Buckeye State. This time, the Ohio Democratic Party takes a hands-off approach. A contested and bitter primary contest that lasted months lead to a groundswell of new Democratic primary voters, enormous energy and excitement on the Democratic side. This wave of support was able to elect Democrats to the majority of the Ohio House of Representatives in districts drawn by the Republicans, and the pick up of three Congressional seats in Ohio. As for Obama, the need to contest a primary in Ohio benefited him in having an effective campaign organization already established in a key battleground state, and the entire ordeal of a contested primary sharpened his skills and made him a much more focused and prepared candidate in the general election.

Therefore, I think we should ask the U.S. Senate candidates to agree on one thing-- that Chairman Redfern's pledge of neutrality is in the best interest of the democratic process, the Democratic Party, and even the eventual Democratic nominee. LET THE PRIMARY VOTERS DECIDE, not party bosses.

I hereby respectfully ask that each and every Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2010 take the following pledge: "I will not seek, participate in, accept, or promote any endorsement by the Ohio Democratic Party. I will leave the decision in the hands of the people that our electoral system intends it to be left to: the people of the Great State of Ohio who I trust in their wisdom and judgment. And I will do whatever I can to ask that my primary opponents join me in this pledge."

I hope that my fellow bloggers will join me in this campaign to make sure that this primary fight is decided by primary voters, not party boss machine politics. We can't afford another weak candidate like Barbara Sykes, or God help us, another Marc Dann. Ohio deserves better.

On a side note, I really want to thank Chairman Redfern for bringing this to our attention. He told us yesterday that he asked the candidates to refrain from even asking for an ODP endorsement until Jan. 2010.