Those damn conjecturing bloggers...
Last week, Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern held a telephone con"fern"ce with Ohio bloggers to discuss the U.S. Senate primary. Part of the news is that starting in the summer (why not immediately, we don't know) Redfern promises to hold monthly conference calls with us so we can get information straight to the horse's mouth. Apparently, the "Fern" is sick of these damn speculating blogs that conjecture things like... Chris Redfern being in the tank for Lee Fisher and planning on putting his thumb on the scale as much as possible for Fisher over Brunner.
So, let us play a little fun game. Who's conjecturing on ODP and the U.S. Senate race: is it bloggers or MSM?
On ODP's claim of neutrality?
"So now instead of Brunner on cruise control, Ohio Democratic Party Chief Chris Redfern and the rest of his gang have their hands full trying to keep the spring 2010 rumble of Jennifer vs. Lee from ever actually taking place. "
On Lee Fisher's transparent rush of his candidacy despite publicly claiming in the media that he intended on announcing last Tuesday all along?
Brunner beating Fisher to the punch in an early afternoon announcement, forcing him to scurry back from a speech for a hastily thrown-together early evening news conference.
On ODP's plan to continue putting a "squeeze" on Brunner to actively try to hinder her campaign:
That's why when the party puts a squeeze-a-rama on Brunner in the coming months, which you can bet they will, it's far from certain that she'll pack up and head back to the secretary of state's race.
If her fund raising isn't cut off at the pass - and that's what Fisher and his minions will be working overtime to do - Brunner actually has a puncher's chance against Landslide Lee, and she knows it. It'll take more than the party regulars being mad at Jennifer Brunner to get her out of this race.
On ODP allowing Fisher to practically run his campaign from ODP's offices:
By week's end, Lauren Goode, Fisher's former chief of staff and now director for the Ohio Democratic Party, was issuing news releases noting that Fisher was picking up local party endorsements in places like Columbiana County.
The apparatus is apparently at Fisher's service, but it might not be enough for the lieutenant governor to win the Democratic primary.
ANSWER. (Incidentially, this one is untrue in that Goode left the Lt. Governor's office for a very brief tenure as ODP Communications Director. But she already left that position for the Fisher campaign. She was ODP's Communication Director so briefly, I doubt she was there long enough to get the business cards printed.)
On a conspiracy theory to get Brunner out of the race by getting her appointed to a federal judgeship (would Senator Lee Fisher vote to confirm her?):
[K]nowing how much Fisher wants the Senate seat, he and Strickland eventually could dangle a federal bench appointment to persuade Brunner, an ex-judge, to leave the Senate race.
Damn conjecturing bloggers! Still, I'm glad to see at least one Old Media instance in which someone pointed out what a complete farce the Great Lee Fisher Panic of 2009 was and to have someone acknowledge it existed.
They'll outdo us blogs and bloggers every time! Don't ya just hate it when that happens? ;)
Very nice job, Modern.
Let me ask you a few questions:
Obama is on the record saying that he would serve out his term in the senate and not seek the presidency - should he have stayed? (the tape was just played this weekend on Meet the Press)
If Ted Strickland had been asked by Obama to be his VP on the ticket - or the director of HHS or anything else in the Obama admin, should Strickland have left?
Rich Cordray - was doing an outstanding job as treasurer. Should Ohioans have tried to influence Strickland and the ODP to support a new, different face into the AG role through appointment, rather than give a strong, excellent public servant that advantage or path?
And how about Lee Fisher himself - he is doing a good job as Lt Gov and Director of Development, no? Strickland will have to find TWO replacements, right?
Basically, ultimately, this "should stay there" thing - it's a red herring:
I am in the same camp as you regarding how I feel about both candidates and how well I feel Brunner does in the SOS job. But the fact is, she is running for US Senate and this argument about how she "should stay there" needs to be stripped from our discussions, especially given the fact that she is a strong female candidate and can improve the abysmal proportion of women to men in the US Senate (only 17 out of 100 senators are women).
In career paths - and public service through elected office is a career, no matter whether we get used to using that as a battering ram ("no career politicians!") or an accolade ("has been serving the public all his or her life in elected office" read: experience - think: Joe Biden or Rich Cordray for that matter who has held a number of different roles, and did them all well) - we must expect and allow that individuals will make choices for themselves. This is why we want a deep bench, why we want party involvement or recruitment or development of people who do want to spend their career in elected office or in the public service, and we want it to start early.
The military works hard to sell itself - maybe the time has come for PSAs about the value, the meaning and the reward of elected office? Unless of course, you know - that's a farce. ;) In which case, we should be working at overhauling it - but that's a whole nother thread.
Anyway - the "should stay there" is pretty much over and done with for me and frankly, given the difficulty Obama is going to have over the next four years turning this country around, we need to send our very very best Dems to the Congress.
That's the ballgame. "She should stay there" is valid because where she's at is more valuable than where she wants to go.
Just because federal government is higher on a structural chart than state government doesn't mean the state job she's leaving isn't the most powerful job in Ohio politics for the next term.
It's all about redistricting.
Your comments indicate two presumptions:
1) We cannot nominate and elect another SoS
2) Even though he last won a statewide race in his own right in 1990 (by a ridiculously close recount), Lee Fisher will win the Senate race if nominated
Like the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, nothing is certain
1) It will be harder and cost more to elect another SoS.
2) Lee Fisher leads all other prospective candidates in early polling by the Columbus Dispatch.
These are not presumptions.
2) is based upon presumptions:
1) the polling means anything (i.e. anyone is paying attention, polling will hold up, etc.)
2) Fisher is not merely leading because he's better-known and a Democrat
3) Hillary Clinton won the presidency
As a 2010 Secretary of State, Brunner would play the key role in improving Democrats' electoral chances in a decade of 99 House and 33 Senate races, plus 18 congressional races.
As a 2010 U.S. Senator, she would play no role in securing the party's control of state government.
That difference is valid and should be considered in weighing candidates.
Your flipping the same coin doesn't prove what you're trying to show.
What you want to compare - if it could be compared and I don't think it can be - is the importance of what you call "securing the party's control of state government" (which frankly sounds kind of scary to me put that way, to be honest) to making federal law that would impact Ohio.
I see no way to compare those two things. They just aren't comparable, to me.