Democrats Who Do Not Act Like Sissies

Gay writer and sex columnist Dan Savage recorded a now-classic This American Life piece for their show about “Sissies” a few years ago. His hook was gay personal ads seeking “straight-acting” men. His take was an effeminate man having the courage to act as he is damn the social reprobation is less of a sissy that at least some “straight acting” gays.

As it is with gay personal ads, so it is with politics. If the Democratic party had written a personal ad up through 2004, it would have read something like:

Curious party (NS) seeks straight-looking, straight-acting gay man/woman for discrete, politically advantageous encounters.

Democrats liked the idea of getting votes and volunteer help from the gay community. But did they have to act so gay and everything? Because it might make people uncomfortable.

Which is why I am enthused about the LGBT Presidential Primary forum co-sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and Logo TV. The forum will happen August 8 and has now been extended to ninety minutes and will focus on issues important to the LGBT community. So far Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich and Obama have RSVP'd.

As important as it might be to discuss specific issues, the forum sends the overarching message that the Democratic Party will not be bullied by the far right into marginalizing our gay brothers and sisters. After years of trying to play both sides -- tell the gays we care but we'd really appreciate it if we did have to say it too loudly -- Democrats can be proud of the courage of these candidates. They know the far right will try to pillory them for attending the forum. They know that they won't be in complete agreement with the audience.

And they know that the thorniest issue of the '04 campaign -- that of gay marriage -- will be Topic A. Most of the candidates are not four-square in favor of calling it marriage, which should make for some interesting posturing. Especially since Kucinich isn't exactly shy about taking the absolutist position and beating his opponents over the head with it. (For those of you keeping score at home, my own view is that gays should be allowed to marry but I am willing to get there incrementally.)

As for the guest list, Biden and Richardson are currently missing. Interestingly, both are arguably the most Manly Mannish candidates. Which is all well and good, but it's no excuse for acting like a sissy.

Ed. Budget Recap

Where Have We Been?

The dust has pretty much settled regarding the budget. Governor Strickland did indeed veto the Special Ed Scholarships provision, a number of other education provisions and 38 line items in all. Reaction over the weekend from Jill, BSB and DailyKos, and a heads up pre-veto post from Len.

I’m still sifting through One item that didn’t get much attention regards the conflicts between traditional schools and charters. With some frequency schools have disputes about where a particular student is enrolled. One question is what to do about the money while that dispute is being resolved. Legislators tried to impose a new rule whereby the charter school, would get the money pending resolution of the dispute. The Governor vetoed that change, so the local school district does not have to forward the money to the charter until it is established that a student is actually enrolled there.

This budget process generally saw a school privatization movement that is increasingly aggressive and increasingly adept at generating grassroots interest. Traditional school advocates, on the other hand, continue to rely to heavily on “stakeholder” groups. Legislative committees heard from families speaking in favor of EdChoice, parochial schools fairly demanding to be paid by the state to educate special ed students and parents arguing against the governor’s proposed new restrictions on charter schools.

Now frankly, most of what happened in the General Assembly was wired. Enough of the majority is dedicated to the incremental erosion of the public school system that testimony was only intermittently relevant. Nonetheless, if the stakeholder groups want to continue having a stake to hold, they need to take their case to the people better than they have been doing.

As for the Governor, this has to be seen as a strong political victory for the Strickland Administration. The tactic from the start appeared to be to offer a budget modest in both spending and ambition to give the Governor some political breathing space. This was my impression and was consistent with the background I got.

The tactic worked. At the ODP Dinner, Strickland declared that he proposed a budget that kept spending to the lowest level in years and offered a huge tax cut and the General Assembly was so taken aback they had no choice but to pass it unanimously.

The only drama was whether the Governor would break the peace by using his line-item veto. In retrospect, we needn’t have worried. After all, the GA didn’t exactly pass the budget exactly as proposed. They took out restrictions on vouchers and charters and weren’t open to negotiating real reform to improve accountability. They added a new voucher proposal that was so bad it died in Committee in the last General Assembly. (Don’t listen to Husted singing laments for disabled kids – if he thought it was a good idea it would have past last year when they had a Governor who would sign it.)

Finally, bloggers did well. I was particularly pleased to see so many folks pick up on the special ed voucher provision after breaking it here. It was a case of overlapping interests for me – my organization was lobbying against it and I personally thought it was a bad idea. Anyway, thanks to Jill, Dave, the Plunderkids, BSB and anyone else I might have missed for playing ball on it.

Where We Going?

The budget was a two-year spending plan only. The Governor wisely did not tackle the thorny problem of education funding reform all at once. The DeRolph Court held that the funding formula is unconstitutional in part because it relies excessively on local property taxes. A funding fix will necessarily require some sort of tax swap – more state revenue and cuts in local property taxes. The budget took the first steps, but a full reform package would have been foolishly complex for the first budget of the new administration.

Nonetheless, the indications are that the Governor’s office remains committed to reforming the system. Word is that he is planning to meet with the ed groups. Meanwhile, with Schuring running for Congress, he will no doubt trot out his reform proposal again and get some interest from Republicans who want to give him credibility for his run.

The other side will no doubt keep working as well. This was at least the second time they tried special ed vouchers and, as I said, they generated some real grassroots issue. They will try again if only to embarrass Strickland into another easy-to-frame veto. Or they might try to package some targeted vouchers into an overall reform package, making it harder to oppose, and possibly even a good idea.

Whatever happens, this will not be summer vacation for education policy.

Hillary Set to Go Negative

The Leftysphere is buzzing about revelations that Hillary Clinton's pollster is testing negative messages against primary opponents in Iowa. Daily Left put me on to the story as it appeared on Talking Points Memo. Among other things, the negative messages tested include flogging Edwards' $400 haircut.

Political consultant and newly minted Ohioan Craig Schecter weighs in with a body slam on Mark Penn, the Clinton consultant behind the attack strategy. Craig has worked with Penn and doesn't like him -- at least that seems to be what he is trying to convey by comparing Penn to anal leakage. He also refers to a Nation story about Hillary's advisers, including Penn. Here's a taste of that:

It's difficult to tell where Penn's corporate life ends and his political one begins. Most Democratic consultants do some business work--it's the easiest way to pay the bills. Yet nobody wears as many hats--and advises as many corporations--as Penn. "Penn and Schoen have displayed a thirst for corporate work, often in conflict with the policy agendas of their political clients, that has long set the bar among Democratic pollsters," wrote Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal on his blog recently. Furthermore, few Democratic consultants so consistently and publicly advocate an ideology that perfectly complements their corporate clients. Every election cycle Penn discovers a new group of swing voters--"soccer moms," "wired workers," "office park dads"--who happen to be the key to the election and believe the same thing: "Outdated appeals to class grievances and attacks upon corporate perfidy only alienate new constituencies and ring increasingly hollow," Penn has written. Through his longtime association with the Democratic Leadership Council, Penn has been pushing pro-corporate centrism for years. Many of the same companies that underwrite the DLC, such as Eli Lilly, AT&T, Texaco and Microsoft, also happen to be clients of Penn's.

And by the way, thanks to OhioDave for putting us all on to Craig.

This story speaks for itself, and Democrats should demand that Hillary answer for it. One interesting sidebar is how the internet makes life difficult for consultants working on the seemier side. The network of blogs pretty much guarantees that message polling will get a public airing, and that amoral mercenaries like Penn will be outed. How widespread the information gets disseminated will depend on MSM pickups and how effective opposing candidates are at using it.

Certainly any time Hillary uses one of these attacks, Edwards or Obama can sneer "You are only saying that because your big business consultant tells you to," or some variation. It doesn't end the attack, but certainly takes the edge off. In a week in which the Supreme Court appears on a glide path toward overruling any and all campaign funding regulations, it's good to know that at least some counterweights to the big money exist.

Sherrod Brown Is Sorry

Got an email from Adam Green, MoveOn's "Civic Communications Director." Apparently progressive activists and bloggers are quite excited about Sen. Sherrod Brown's mea culpa about voting for the "torture bill" when he was a Representative running for the Senate last legislative session.

The vote caused lots of hand-wringing in the lefty sphere last year. I was offline working for Tom Sawyer at the time and in fact, the kerfuffle confirmed the wisdom of my decision to refrain from blogging while I was working there.

My take on the controversy was somewhat contrarian, you will be shocked to here. I was confident that Brown would have voted against the bill had his vote mattered. As it was, he was in a position where his vote would have been a protest vote on a flawed bill that nonetheless carried some important national security provisions. The bill was written so that anyone who voted against it would be attacked as soft on terrorists. In other words, the Republicans were playing partisan games with security again, to the surprise of no one who mattered.

I was pleased that then-Rep. Brown refused to fall into the trap. The vote on the bill was wired and he did not give DeWine ammunition just for the warm fuzzy feeling of a protest vote. On balance the world is better with Senator Brown than Senator DeWine.

Plus it was worth whatever damage his vote might have done to higher principles to see the stumbling response of the DeWine campaign. DeWine's handlers clearly expected Brown to vote against the bill and had the attacks ready to roll. The campaign's reaction to Brown's "yes" was like a big guy throwing his shoulder against a door, not knowing it was unlatched. DeWine lurched into the room and tried to assume an "I meant to do that" posture.

At the time all this was going on, I was in contact with the Brown campaign seeking help in a couple of areas. Brown had already allowed Tom to share the stage at a campaign rally his campaign had organized and we were looking for a little more here and there. If I had been blogging, either I would have refrained from commenting on the biggest campaign story of the week, or I would have made the case above.

Either way, I would have put myself in the uncomfortable position of having an opinion that cut against the prevailing current and was friendly to the candidate that my candidate was seeking campaign help from. Maybe no one would have found out about the entreaties to the Brown campaign, but regardless, it was a lesson in conflicts of interest -- real and perceived -- that political bloggers face when we move beyond blogging.

Back to the leftysphere's reaction to the Brown apology, Adam Green sent the following links. Apologies for font chaos and long, unembedded links -- I'm doing this on the fly:

Transcript - Sherrod Brown on The Young Turks

http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2007/6/18/203319/396

Politico.com: Brown Cops to 'Bad' Vote

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0607/Brown_Cops_to_Bad_Vote.html

Huffington Post: Sherrod Brown Now Opposes the "Torture Bill"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/sherrod-brown-now-opposes_b_52775.html

Daily Kos: Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) Admits Military Commissions Act Vote Was Mistake

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/sen-sherrod-brown-doh_b_52767.html

Agonist: Sherrod Brown Admits He Was Wrong to Vote For Torture
http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20070618/sherrod_brown_admits_he_was_wrong_to_vote_for_torture

BobGeiger.com: Straight Answer Of The Day At TBA
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/06/straight-answer-of-day-at-tba.html

DownWithTyranny: Sherrod Brown Comes Clean and Promises to Make Amends for His Vote For Torture Bill
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/06/sherrod-brown-comes-clean-and-promises.html

Arkansas FRC Affiliate Putting Gay Adoption on Ballot

The New York Blade carries the AP story. The ballot issue will look like an adoption ban defeated in the Arkansas legislature last year after the state Supreme Court struck down the legislative ban. h/t FiPL.

Because they are responding to a state Supreme Court case, the ballot issue is a constitutional amendment preventing either gays or unmarried couples from either adopting or serving as foster parents.

The Arkansas group is a "State Policy Organization" of the Conservative Christian political group The Family Research Council. If all that sounds familiar, Phil Burress's Citizen's for Community Values in Ohio -- they of the proposed stripper law -- is similarly affiliated with FRC.

The way these things go, Arkansas's proposed ban will probably also look like the bill that went nowhere in the Ohio leg running up to the election last year. It's conceivable we could see this in Ohio next year in Ohio in time for the Presidential election. If it goes down in Arkansas, probably not.

But it's that much more likely if Burress is feeling it. For instance if someone tries to take to the voters the issue of whether patrons should be allowed to touch strippers and Burress is able to hand them their heads. Just in case you wondered why I was so irate.

Boccieri Round-Up

State Sen. John Boccieri faces a number of challenges in his quest to unseat Jurassic-era Representative Ralph Regula. Among them is being heard over the din of the Presidential race. Starting early is part of his strategy to overcome that hurdle and so far, it seems to be working. As BSB noticed, the NYT ran the CQ Politics post I found last night. In addiiton, ABJ and the Stark Co papers, the Canton Rep and the Massillon Independent.

Blogwise, YellowDog has his post up including audio and video. Canton area blogger Kevin Fisher at The Daily Left was also there and has video up. I hadn't run across Kevin's blog before. I'll be keeping an eye on it.

Kos himself on The Daily Kos also wrote up a post with many Kossaks joining the party. They are familiar with the seat because of Jeff Seeman's famously net-savvy insurgent campaign. Having worked internet communications in a blog-friendly campaign I can tell you the Kos mention gets the hit counter (and the ActBlue account) humming.

And Boccieri will continue to get press thanks to incumbent Regula playing Hamlet. Every story about whether it will be him or Schuring or possibly a Republican primary will remind people that the Dems are running Boccieri, period.

Boccieri Kick-off by Pho and CQPolitics

That was fast. The kick-off rally for State Sen. John Boccieri's campaign for the 16th Congressional district ended at around 4:00. CQ Politics has their article up now, at 8:15.

The CQ piece notes Strickland's appearance and the Senator's admonition that the troops should be brought home "safely, honorably and soon."

A few other observations from the day. In addition to Stickland, State Treasurer Richard Cordray and Stark County Dem Chair Johnnie Maier helped introduce him. In addition to them, state legislators Capri Cafaro, Steve Dyer and Mark Okey were there. And many of the usual Stark County suspects: Clerk of Courts Phil Giavasis, Canton Law Director Joe Martuccio, North Canton Chief of Staff Earle Wise and staff reps from the Stark County Prosecutor's office also attended.

All of which is to say, yes this is the hot race of the moment.

Back to the CQP article. They are cautiously bullish on Boccieri's chances:

The district in which the two seek to run is located in northeast Ohio and includes the city of Canton. Though the region has a long Republican tradition, it is not quite an overwhelming GOP stronghold these days. District voters favored President Bush in 2004, but his 54 percent to 46 percent edge over Democrat John Kerry was fairly modest.

So how did Boccieri do? His kick-off speech was OK, but just OK. It included a few problematic word choices and the Hoover backdrop was a less-than-perfect fit for his fair trade/economic populist message.

I got to listen in on press availability time and he was stronger there. A reporter asked if trade was the reason for the Hoover closing and he laid out a reasonable case that trade policies are indirectly responsible.

Working the room afterward Boccieri hit stride. As someone who has trouble working the room at his own birthday party, I'm always amazed to watch someone do it well and Boccieri is a pro. If Regula stays in the race, Boccieri will run him from one end of the district to the other and will make friends at every stop.

I'm having digital camera issues. If I got decent shots I'll post them. If not, not. Also, keep an eye on Ohio Daily as YDS was there.

GIRFOF News Part II: The Polls

As I teased last week, a Scott Stephens story over the weekend regarding a poll by Baldwin Wallace showing strong support for the amendment. As you may guess from the story, I got wind of it when Stephens called the Exec. Director of the agency I contract with last week. You may have caught the AP pickup running in today's ABJ. Stephen's piece is the most detailed explication.

Detailed being a relative term. Trying to limn the significance of the result from the news reports is more than a little frustrating. First off, the actual number I heard is 63 percent in favor. Stephens only say “More than two-thirds.” Meanwhile, the poll itself is available no where online. The B-W Public Interest Research Center as yet has no online presence. It apparently is new, but now much work does it take to host a pdf on the College website? And as of now, there is nothing on GIRFOF Central.

Without the poll, it’s hard to evaluate the results. Issue polling is considerably more tricky than candidate polling. The first question to ask is whether the poll summarized the amendment and asked the respondent for an opinion or whether it just referenced the Getting it Right amendment.

Probably it was the former. According to Stephens only about 20% of respondents said they had no opinion. A KnowledgeWorks poll released at the end of May found that a whopping 46% of respondents had neither read nor heard anything about the amendment proposal. If the pollsters just asked for opinion about the amendment it’s unlikely they would get 20% “Don’t Know.”

It’s also possible that B-W just filtered out the people who hadn’t heard of the issue. That being the case, the sample gets much smaller – probably around 400. And by the way, we have no MOE or confidence interval either.

Assuming the 63% figure is solid, it doesn’t leave GIRFOF proponents much room to fall. Recall that the minimum wage issue polled in the high seventies before the launch of the No campaign. And that’s an issue that people understood before the yes campaign, and that is fairly easy to get a brain around. The proposal itself was considerably less complicated than GIRFOF.

With all that, support for the minimum wage dropped around 20% during the No campaign. GIRFOF supporters will need a hell of a Yes campaign to hang on to enough of that 63% to win.

GIRFOF News Part 1: The Signature Collections

Team GIRFOF made the papers last week with a public disagreement about whether the proposal is likely to make the ballot this year. The signature campaign has racked up about 100,000 signatures so far. That’s actually not bad for an all-volunteer effort, but it’s about a quarter of what they need and since the conventional wisdom says you want to overshoot by fifty percent, they have a long way to go.

As a result, some leaders are saying the issue may not hit the ballot until next year. Others say they are still OK for this year. What hasn’t been discussed publicly is how much they are willing to put into paid signature gathering, and how much they will have left for the campaign.

If they are to have a prayer to pass this thing, GIRFOF proponents absolutely must get it on the ballot this year. Otherwise, they will be competing for earned media with a once-in-a-century Presidential campaign and a knock-down, drag out fight over control of a closely divided Congress. They will be buying time during the most expensive campaigns in the history of the planet.

Meanwhile, the opposition will have a year to slowly make the case against the amendment through word of mouth, op-eds and existing social networks. Think that doesn’t matter? Ask Ken Blackwell.

Stark Raving Ambiguity UPDATED

Questions about next year's Congressional race in the 16th District are turning into a soap opera. Last night Admin at BSB found a Google hit for a Canton Rep. story entitled "Regula Running After All." The link is dead. Admin is working to track it down.

Meanwhile, the morning papers clarify how murky the picture is. Schuring says he is setting himself up to run if Regula decides to retire. From the Rep:

Running for the office is "something I would consider if Congressman Regula does decide not to run," Oelslager said. "I am patiently waiting to see what he wants to do. He's done a great job, and I respect the work he's done."

Schuring said he told Regula of his plans to form a committee.

"The congressman knows we're doing this and gave his permission," Schuring said. "I am running in concert with his making a decision. If he decides to run, I would take whatever political apparatus I have and fold it into his."

And just in case you a blogger trying to read the tea leaves:

Schuring said there is no hidden message suggesting Regula should retire.

Still not convinced? Here's Schuring in the ABJ:

Regula, who turns 83 later this year, is undecided about running for re-election, according to Schuring.

Schuring has registered with the Federal Election Commission to establish a congressional exploratory committee for the 16th Congressional District, which includes Stark, Wayne and portions of Ashland and Medina counties.

"It is important that there be a candidate and an organization in place to run for the seat in the event the congressman decides to retire," Schuring said in a prepared statement.

It's just about being ready. Nothing against Ralph. Really. OK, Mr. Skeptic, check out the Massillon Independent:

“I’m a big supporter of Congressman Regula,” Schuring said. “The purpose of this committee is to do the exploratory work to prepare for a potential campaign if – and it is a big if – the congressman decides not to run.”

Schuring said he has been in communication with Regula and the congressman has not made up his mind yet about 2008.

“The 2008 election is a presidential year,” Schuring explained. “The primary has been moved up from May to March. That means the filing deadline is less than six months away. That is why it is important to form this committee now – to build a strong grass roots network of support.

“It is important that a candidate and an organization be in place in the event the congressman decides to retire.”

It's up to Ralph, OK. They love Ralph. They want Ralph. They just need to be ready in case. Really.

Meanwhile, Schuring is preparing for a bruising primary if Ralph does retire. A likely opponent is Schuring's friend and GA colleage Scott Oelslager. Again from the Rep:

Like Schuring, state Rep. Scott Oelslager, R-North Canton, has long had an interest in the congressional seat Regula occupies, but Thursday he said he had "really no reaction" to Schuring's announcement.

Running for the office is "something I would consider if Congressman Regula does decide not to run," Oelslager said. "I am patiently waiting to see what he wants to do. He's done a great job, and I respect the work he's done."

* * *

If Regula doesn't run, Schuring expects a primary battle costing more than $1 million.

"The simple fact is congressional races are not cheap," he said. "I have a team of individuals who are respected and well-connected. We have a good message and will run on all eight cylinders.

"I'm about to embark in turbulent waters. Elections these days are a blood sport. It's a shame. There was a time when elections were conducted on principles and policy. Now it's about politics and personalities."

Meanwhile, Team Boccieri is feeling it. I emailed for comment last night and got referral to the Google image, plus a couple great lines:

John is not in this to represent the special interests of the wealthy and powerful, who are trying to strongarm the GOP into running the candidate of their choosing. John is committed to representing the PEOPLE of this area, whether working, disabled or retired; young or old, students to senior citizens. We're going to wage an effective, aggressive campaign --no matter who runs on the other side.

* * *

[I]t is fair to say that a certain C-130 pilot is already shaking things up, eh?

This is going to be a sweet race.

UPDATES. First off, I omitted the link to the BSB post. Apologies to Admin. Second, a new post on BSB explains the rogue headline.

Stark Raving Ambiguity

Last night Admin at BSB found a Google hit for a Canton Rep. story entitled "Regula Running After All." The link is dead. Admin is working to track it down.

Meanwhile, the morning papers clarify how murky the picture is. Schuring says he is setting himself up to run if Regula decides to retire. From the Rep:

Running for the office is "something I would consider if Congressman Regula does decide not to run," Oelslager said. "I am patiently waiting to see what he wants to do. He's done a great job, and I respect the work he's done."

Schuring said he told Regula of his plans to form a committee.

"The congressman knows we're doing this and gave his permission," Schuring said. "I am running in concert with his making a decision. If he decides to run, I would take whatever political apparatus I have and fold it into his."

And just in case you a blogger trying to read the tea leaves:

Schuring said there is no hidden message suggesting Regula should retire.

Still not convinced? Here's Schuring in the ABJ:

Regula, who turns 83 later this year, is undecided about running for re-election, according to Schuring.

Schuring has registered with the Federal Election Commission to establish a congressional exploratory committee for the 16th Congressional District, which includes Stark, Wayne and portions of Ashland and Medina counties.

"It is important that there be a candidate and an organization in place to run for the seat in the event the congressman decides to retire," Schuring said in a prepared statement.

It's just about being ready. Nothing against Ralph. Really. OK, Mr. Skeptic, check out the Massilon Independent:

“I’m a big supporter of Congressman Regula,” Schuring said. “The purpose of this committee is to do the exploratory work to prepare for a potential campaign if – and it is a big if – the congressman decides not to run.”

Schuring said he has been in communication with Regula and the congressman has not made up his mind yet about 2008.

“The 2008 election is a presidential year,” Schuring explained. “The primary has been moved up from May to March. That means the filing deadline is less than six months away. That is why it is important to form this committee now – to build a strong grass roots network of support.

“It is important that a candidate and an organization be in place in the event the congressman decides to retire.”

It's up to Ralph, OK. They love Ralph. They want Ralph. They just need to be ready in case. Really.

Meanwhile, Schuring is preparing for a bruising primary if Ralph does retire. A likely opponent is Schuring's friend and GA colleage Scott Oelslager. Again from the Rep:

Like Schuring, state Rep. Scott Oelslager, R-North Canton, has long had an interest in the congressional seat Regula occupies, but Thursday he said he had "really no reaction" to Schuring's announcement.

Running for the office is "something I would consider if Congressman Regula does decide not to run," Oelslager said. "I am patiently waiting to see what he wants to do. He's done a great job, and I respect the work he's done."

* * *

If Regula doesn't run, Schuring expects a primary battle costing more than $1 million.

"The simple fact is congressional races are not cheap," he said. "I have a team of individuals who are respected and well-connected. We have a good message and will run on all eight cylinders.

"I'm about to embark in turbulent waters. Elections these days are a blood sport. It's a shame. There was a time when elections were conducted on principles and policy. Now it's about politics and personalities."

John Boccieri Taking on Ralph UPDATED

By all appearances, the hottest Dem Congressional challenge in 2008 will be State Sen. John Boccieri's run at ancient Congressman Ralph Regula in the Sixteenth. Now Sen. Boccieri has a new website -- JohnforCongress.com with a picture of John and currently popular Gov. Ted Strickland on the front page.

The website rollout is part of Boccieri's campaign kick-off. The "formal" start of the campaign is next week at the closing Hoover plant. From the ebag:

What: Campaign Kick-Off Event for John Boccieri for Congress

Who: Senator Boccieri will be joined by Governor Ted Strickland,
Attorney General Marc Dann, State Treasurer Richard Cordray and other leaders from the Ohio Democratic
Party, along with representatives of veterans' groups and Ohio's
labor movement.

When: 3:00 PM Monday June 11, 2007

Where: Bitzer Park at the intersection of E, Maple and Main Street
across from the Hoover Plant at 101 E. Maple in North Canton, OH 44720

In case of inclement weather, we will meet across the street at:

IBEW Local Union 1985
111 South Main Street, North Canton OH 44720

For more about Sen. Boccieri, check out Yellow Dog Sammy's interview.

The rollout has been covered on other blogs, so let's talk about why this is the hot race. Regula has been in office forever, but support for him is more based on inertia than any strong feelings of attachment. He has a solid base among the Timken Republicans in Stark County, but beyond that, he's like the chair belonging to a beloved, deceased grandmother that doesn't fit with the rest of the decor. Making a change just seems wrong somehow, but there will come a time people decide it's time. If 2008 is again a Democratic year, an appealing candidate able to run a muscular campaign will have a real chance at taking the seat.

Add to that the fact that Regula is, let's be blunt about this, old. He's an eighty-two year old man running in a four county district. Boccieri is less than forty and a serviceman. He will be able to out-hustle Regula and take down the districts outside the Congressman's Stark County base.

Then there is the district. While I don't have access to polling data, or even the index in the Almanac of American Politics, I can read a map. In all likelihood, the Fighting Sixteenth is still a Republican leaning district, but after the 2000 redistricting, it is less so and is more independent-minded. Here is a map of the Ohio districts in 2000 with the Sixteenth shaded in red:


And here, from Boccieri's site, is a map of the current district:


Prior to redistricting the district included all of Ashland County, plus Holmes and part of Knox. These are all conservative Republican Counties where the Dem clubs can hold meetings in tool sheds.

Redistricting took half of Ashland and all of Holmes away and gave Regula most of Medina County. This part of Medina Co. as it happens, is where your humble blogger was raised. Even then, much of the population was more suburban, and therefore more pragmatically, economically and moderately Republican than the rural downstate counties. The cities, Wadsworth and Medina have grown as bedroom communities for Summit County and Cleveland respectively. Much of 2002 insurgent candidate Jeff Seeman's surprise showing came from his strong performance in the Medina County precincts.

Even without the more Democratic northern third, Medina County is home to thousands of voters Boccieri will appeal to. And they are well aware that their Congressman is used to representing Canton and doesn't quite get them. Put that with the fact that the bulk of voters in the district are in Stark County which is the ultimate swing county and this district holds the promise for a pick up.

UPDATE: Paul in comments reminds me to attribute the pre-2000 map. It's from this BGSU paper on how Ohio lost a member of Congress. I filled in the 16th District with MS Paint.

ODP Dinner: Reading Tea Leaves

Part of the fun in going to these things is picking up the clues about what’s going on in the backrooms. I’m a little new at this, so I pick up the clues that are handprint-on-glass obvious. With that in mind, here’s what we can guess at based on Saturday night.

Dems Are Seriously Going After Regula.

The first person to take the stage to start the festivities was State Sen. John Boccieri, the man recruited by the DCCC to take on ancient Congressman Ralph Regula in the 16th District. I’ve heard from the Boccieri campaign already, so this wasn’t news, but an additional quantum of information indicating that this is a high priority race for Dems in 2008.

Boccieri is a veteran and Air Force reservist. He took the stage to introduce Herman Zerber, Monroe Co. Dem party chair who will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Boccieri notes that Zerber is a WWII vet and that “from a foxhole in Europe this great American cast his very first vote for FDR.” The Senator used the opportunity to run out some observations about patriotism and service.

The Annual Dinner can serve as a coming out party for key candidates. Picking Boccieri to hit the stage first was clearly an attempt to plant him in the minds of the media and the party faithful.

Barbara Sykes and the ODP Are Good

After the election, there were mumblings that the Sykes camp wasn’t happy with the party. And some of us observed that the party had reason to be unhappy with her as she gaffed badly in the debate and phoned it in for much of the campaign.

Nonetheless, it was all good on stage. Party Chair Chris Redfern presented her with the Gertrude Donahey Award – basically Democratic Woman of the Year. He ran through her bio then noted that “campaign for State Auditor last year was just out of reach. . . she made that [campaign] bus a better place for all of us.” When the band played “My Girl” and Redfern and Sykes embraced, the affection seemed genuine. After she left the stage Redfern added, “If you’ve ever been in Canton Ohio when Barbara shouts “Show me some love,” it’s a life-altering experience.”

ODP Hearts Hillary

It’s no secret that Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, so her “Hillary is Ohio” chant was no surprise. But all through the night, presenters were dropping pro-Hillary lines that went beyond just giving respect to the keynote speaker.

The biggest hints came from the biggest Dems. Unlike the other award winners, Sen. Sherrod Brown and Goveror Strickland gave speeches after winning their awards for co-Dem of the Year. Both went out of their way to underscore support for Sen. Clinton. Sen. Brown – not a typical Hillary supporter – noted that her office is across the hall from his and praised her intelligence and her mentoring of the freshman class in the Senate.

Strickland’s praise for Hillary was the most jarring for its frankness – he noted that Sen. Clinton and former President Clinton raises over half a million dollars for his campaign.

The primary will be decided by the time the train rolls into Ohio. But support from key Democrats in Ohio means a lot in terms of practicalities like impressing funders and securing Midwestern consultants. It also helps build the aura of inevitability Clinton is trying to secure going into the actual primaries.

WH 08:Gov. Richardson Goes All In

My basic take on the primary is that my heart wants Richardson because of his head, but my head says Obama because of his heart.

Gov. Bill Richardson is the best-qualified candidate to run for President in my lifetime. I suppose Bush 1 came close, which may be one reason why the resume argument isn’t gaining traction.

Richardson scores a ten in each of the gross categories important for a Presidential candidate: administrative, legislative and foreign policy. For another caveat, a more conservative observer might add business experience as an additional qualification and Richardson is pretty much a career government guy. Nonetheless, he has a record of experience and accomplishment in each area that is so overwhelming it’s just silly.

He’s the guy that I would choose to lead the country if it were up to me. And yet, he slogs in the single digit swamp, along with Biden, Dodd and the two protest candidates. Where I go next is informed by the conviction that Sen. Hillary Clinton simply cannot win the general election. Dems need to elect someone who is Nothillary, so I look to the leading Nothillary candidates. Of the two, Obama seems most appealing and therefore most electable.

So back to Richardson. Going into the first debate Gov. Richardson was down to his last two chances. Practically speaking, there is room in the media for one second-tier candidate to bust out a breakout performance at an early debate. That candidate was Mr. Yes, Joe Biden. His one-word response to the question about his gaffe-proneness was widely viewed as the best moment in the debate, got him onto Meet the Press and reminded everyone that he was running. Richardson’s performance was noteworthy only as a disappointment.

So now Richardson is left with the short stack and he’s pushing it all in. He has a series of ads running in Iowa that bang on the resume argument. The ads are brilliant. They not only highlight his extensive experience, they satirize somewhat the warped political calculus that is keeping him out of the top tier. Here they are back-to-back.

My guess from all this is that Richardson is down to the end of his stack literally as well as metaphorically. If the ads move polls in Iowa, he can go to funders and make the case that he’s electable if he has the resources. If he stays stuck in the mud, he spends down the chest, bows out and competes with Biden for Secretary of State if a Dem wins in '08.

Kucinich is Tele-Fundraising

The Kucinich campaign has been calling me all week. I’ve come home to find Kucinich for President on my caller ID. I find this odd. I can’t think of anyone or anything I have given to that would make Team Koosh think I’m a good ask.

Today we connected. OK, earlier I answered a call from them but the boiler room switch didn’t work and they dropped to call. Today I got to talk to someone. A nice young man gave me a rap along the lines of:

• Kucinich is the only candidate who voted against the war resolution and has voted against funding the war.

• He also wants to do other thinks like fix health care.

There were other specifics that I don’t remember, but none of the really goofy stuff like ending war in our time or creating a Department of Peace to oversea domestic violence prosecutions. Not even impeaching Dick Cheney made the final script.

I told the kid up front that I wasn’t contributing, but asked a couple questions. Primarily, I wanted to know what call list I showed up on. This hasn’t come up before, but I’ve given money to all of the top 5 candidates – Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden. Mostly it was nominal amounts to get contributor emails. So its more than a little ironic that one of the few guys I haven’t given money to actually calls.

It’s also interesting that he’s doing this. I don’t know the economics, but it would be pretty amazing to find out that boiler room fundraising for a campaign like this would be cost effective, especially since none of the candidates that I have given money to have done it yet. What’s more, this was a call from number registered a Kucinich for President. It could be a duck blind, but it suggests an in-house operation rather than a contract with a telemarketing firm. If anyone out there with actual knowledge can shed light on mechanics of all this, please share.

As I was talking to this guy he said the main thing they are doing is using the calls to get Kucinich’s message out there since he doesn’t get covered by the mainstream media. Really? Does team Kucinich honestly think the reason no one is buying is that we don’t know what he’s selling? Because everyone I know in his hard left, peace at a all costs base knows Kucinich. When I saw Cindy Sheehan a year ago she said she always gets a standing O when she mentions his name. And the right has spared no expense letting the world know who he is and trying to affix him as a millstone around the neck of the party.

To be sure, there are candidates who are having trouble getting their message out. I know what Richardson stands for only because I’m on his blogger list, but few others do. Chris Dodd is having trouble getting his message out – this I know because his message is a mystery to me. Mike Gravel is having trouble getting his message out – it’s only been recently we learned that his name is pronounced differently that the stuff in the driveway.

But Kucinich having trouble getting the message out? Is that what his team is telling themselves? Or just the underlings?

Lone Star State of Confusion

Akron Beacon Journal columnist Bob Dyer is an embarassment to what's left of the paper. But even Dyer, blind pig that he is, couldn't miss this acorn. It seems that Issue 17 supporters are indeed calling people, using a firm whose callers are misprounouncing the name of the city -- AY-Kron.

And who is responsible for this screw-up?

Mind you, we can't lay this one at the feet of the city administration. The campaign is being run by a privately funded group. That group is paying a Cleveland firm, Burgess & Burgess Strategists, to deal with this kind of thing.

Burgess contracted with a telemarketing firm -- in Texas.

Burgess' Katherine Manning admitted that the Texans at the Tyson Organization weren't fully tuned in to the local lingo.

"We had a slight problem with that," she said.

Manning said the decision to use out-of-state callers was based on cost. "It's a firm we've used several times, and they generally do give us a pretty good price."

To absolutely no one's surprise.

Thoughts on Akron Issue 17

A week from tomorrow is Election Day. Here in Akron, pretty much the only thing on anyone’s radar screen is the city income tax hike proposed in Issue 17. The ABJ runs another preview story today.

A friend and reader asked today if I planned to write about the issue. Frankly yes, then other stuff took over. And really what I wanted to do was use the issue as a hook to rant about how state and federal budget cuts are putting cities between the rock of raising taxes so businesses and the middle class leave town and the hard place about cutting services so everything falls apart and businesses and the middle class leave town. Hmm. If I really need to go into more depth than that, it will be later.

In the meantime, we have a tax issue to contemplate. Frankly, I wish I could vote for half of it. I’m inclined to believe that Akron needs the money for basic services. This isn’t based on extensive research, so much as a look back at where we’ve been. Akron was the only major city that was not in the fiscal weeds during the last recession. In other words, the administration kept its house sufficiently in order during the relative boom that it didn’t bottom out when the bust hit. It did so despite cuts in Federal money to cities and creepingly slow growth in the Local Government Funds – Ohio’s program of state aid to municipalities.

Because Akron is pretty frugal with the taxpayer’s money, the administration should be given some credibility when it says we need the money. I’ve been asked whether the police are truly understaffed. First off, Akron certainly isn’t overflowing with police. We are experiencing a bit of a spike in violent crime (as is most of the rest of the nation.) While the Sudafed laws are having an effect, the proliferation of meth in the city is a real drain on resources. Also, recent events demonstrate the need for better community-police relations. Programs to encourage community relations are always the last to get funded.

Finally, it’s unlikely the Mayor would ask for more police if he didn’t think we really need them. The Mayor and the Police Department do not have a friendly relationship. Some tension between the two entitities is probably healthy in a democracy, though at times it goes beyond healthy. But the point is, Mayor Plusquellec doesn’t carry the water for the police. He’s not asking for more as a favor to the FOP. He doesn’t much like the FOP.

So, the city services half of the Issue I would vote for gladly. I’m less happy with the economic development half. I’m deeply tired of corporations bankrolling free-marketeer Republican politicians, then walking into Democratic cities with their hands out. I’m tired of my tax money going to businesses. Again, this is probably fodder for another post, or maybe part of the rant about the current screw-the-cities vogue. But to keep it simple, I’m not happy that part of the money will be going to business development.

Finally, let’s note the obvious strategy of the campaign. For being the only real issue on the ballot, this campaign has been practically non-existent. I’ve gotten three mailers. Period. No robo-calls, no door hangers, no canvass, no requests to put up a yard sign. In fact, the only signs out are on city property. The website is pretty good, but simply part of the city website.

All of which suggests that the strategy is to target any communications that remind people that there is an election tomorrow to those who will vote for it. I’m guessing the administration will have a boiler room somewhere aggressively calling likely voters and steering clear of everyone else.

We’ll see next week if it works.

Hillary Keynoting ODP Dinner

I’m sure some blogger somewhere noted that Hillary would be the keynote speaker at the ODP dinner before today, but somehow I missed it. Whoever got this up first, apologies. I learned when the PD reported it today.

At this point it looks unlikely that I will be able to make this one. I have a family commitment so commanding that I can’t even ask directly about getting out of it. Which is a pity. Seeing Hillary give the keynote would be a fascinating study in contrasts after the pandemonium roused by Barack Obama’s speech last year.

Unlike many bloggers, I do not hate, or even intensely dislike Hillary. In fact, I quite liked Hillary the First Lady. Early on in Clinton’s Presidency, Mrs. Clinton had a tendency to be direct to the point of blunt. It pissed a lot of people off, but I loved it. Partly I loved it because she pissed off people who needed it, but mostly I loved it because I can relate. Don’t believe me? Go back and read a few archived posts.

I liked that Hillary. Hillary the politician, all smoothed over and consulted upon I like less. Depite that, I’m not against Hillary because I’m against her. I just don’t think she could possibly win a general election. A full explication of that is for another post.

I’m open to any evidence to the contrary, which is why I’d like to see her live. It seems just listening to buzz, that Hillary’s support is broad and thin. I know people who support her, but I know no one who is energized by her candidacy the way people are by Obama or Edwards or even the dreaded Koosh. She is a fairly flat, uninspiring speaker who generates commensurately tepid response.

Hopefully, someone with a blog will make it there and can take the temperature of the room. I don’t see a blogswarm for a comp table this year, though.

De Vellis Speaks

OK, confession time. I've been talking to former Sherrod Brown staffer and Vote Different mashup ad creator Phil De Vellis. When I read the piece on HuffPo, I sent an email off to the address he sent me when he left for DC. (Like I said, I always got along with Phil, even though I didn't agree with everything that happened in the campaign.) Phil verified to me that he had. We've had a couple of conversations since.

Phil wanted to lay low for awhile after the story broke and he posted his essay on HuffPo, so everything was off the record. As such, I steered clear of the controversy here because I was uncomfortable

Well, Phil is talking now. We spoke on the phone and he let me know about a couple of vids on YouTube.

First off, if you haven't seen it before, Olberman on the unmasking of Phil was pretty funny. I ran across it while looking for the other stuff:



Interview with Politics.tv.



Interview with YouTube



In both Phil explains the outlines of how he put the mashup together and why he did it. The new revelation I found most interesting was how he was found out. Ariana Huffington dispatched her people to make a list of people who could put together a video like it and called them. When she got to Phil, he owned up.

HuffPo Says Phil DeVellis Created the "1984" Anti-Hillary YouTube Spot [UPDATED]

UPDATE: It's official! Phil de Vellis is LonelyConsultant15, er, ParkRidge47. Read my original post, revised to include the YouTube embed (apparently Blogger has issues when I try to do this with Firefox), then more updates.

First off, if you haven't seen the spot here it is:

MCDAC blog I believe is the first to spot the post on Huffington Post averring that Sherrod Brown internet coordinator Phil deVellis created the spot. Apparently, tracking down the real identityof ParkRidge47, (the creator's YouTube username) has been something of an obsession for online politicos.

Interestingly, MCDAC doesn't name the guy, only says it's Brown's internet coordinator. Funny how much more it means when you were actively blogging the race at the time. It will be interesting to see the Ohio 'sphere's reaction should this hold. I always liked Phil and cringed for him when he caught flak.

UPDATES: David at Left of Ohio noticed the statement on Blue State Digital's website that Phil had been terminated. His work on the 1984 video violated their policy against outside political work.

TechPresident has a little more on how Huffinton outed Phil

Phil has a post up on Huffington explaining what he did and why. Here's the meat of it:

The campaigns had no idea who made it--not the Obama campaign, not the Clinton campaign, nor any other campaign. I made the ad on a Sunday afternoon in my apartment using my personal equipment (a Mac and some software), uploaded it to YouTube, and sent links around to blogs.

The specific point of the ad was that Obama represents a new kind of politics, and that Senator Clinton's "conversation" is disingenuous. And the underlying point was that the old political machine no longer holds all the power.

Reaction from BSB has been swift and snarky.

Finally, of all the commentaries on the spot itself, my favorite is from John Dickerson at Slate. It's done as a voiceover to the spot itself.