Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Brunner states the obvious; Fisher's blogger goes nuts

I'm glad that Nick D. finally admitted that he was in the tank for Fisher. Nobody, not even Nick, honestly believes that it only started AFTER he resigned BSB in disgrace after revealing that he had given editorial control over BSB to the Fisher campaign.

But Nick drives me nuts when he takes a rather benign quote from Brunner and tries to label it as unfair, below-the-belt criticism of Lee Fisher.

Here's what Brunner said:

Some Democrats, including Governor Ted Strickland, have indicated they'd prefer that Brunner stand down so that Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher can be the Democratic nominee without a contested primary.

"Take one for the team?," Brunner responded. "Even if the other guy can't win? I don't think that makes sense."

Lee Fisher has won only one statewide election in his career. And that was by only 1,200 votes. And by the time the 2010 elections roll around, it will have been twenty years since that victory.

To not point that out is political malpractice. Lee Fisher is hardly a Democratic statewide juggernaut. There's a reason that despite being tied to the hip of the most popular politician in the State (Governor Strickland) polls still show Fisher in a neck-to-neck race among Democratic primary voters where the race is clearly up for grabs. More Democratic candidates announced they were running after Fisher announced. There's a reason for that, too.

But Nick apparently never watched his own video (maybe he let the campaign film it, too.) If he had, he would remembered that it was FISHER that said the reason Brunner supported Chairman Redfern's idea of keeping ODP neutral and not issuing an endorsement was not because of opposition to strong-armed political machine boss politics, but because she couldn't possible GET the endorsement of her own political party. Nick has yet to write that "tut-tut/shame on Lee" post on that one.

It's not amazing that Nick can't see where Brunner says Fisher can't win. He's young, and wasn't involved in Ohio Democratic politics during the 1990s. Brunner was. I was. Tim Russo was. And we all know the Lee Fisher campaign script: come out of the gate looking strong, tire easily, starting making missteps and lose in a squeaker.

I'm more than willing to write-off Fisher's loss in 1994 as no Democratic could be expected to win in that political environment and the top of the ticket was a disaster. However, 1998? That was hardly a pro-Republican year. Sure, Republicans swept all the statewide offices in Ohio, but that's because of the incredibly weak bench the Democratic ticket presented. A ticket lead by Lee Fisher.

Why did Lee lose in 1998? Why did we get Bob Taft as our Governor? Nobody has explained it to me except to suggest that neither candidate really ignited the passions of the electorate.

Nick's post is ironic because while he's denouncing potshots against the Democratic candidates, he continues to engage in them.

What was the context of the question that lead Brunner to suggest Fisher can't win?:

Some Democrats, including Governor Ted Strickland, have indicated they'd prefer that Brunner stand down so that Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher can be the Democratic nominee without a contested primary.

Well, first of all, that's not true. Governor Strickland has never said, publicly at least, that he'd prefer Brunner to stand down so that Fisher would have an uncontested primary. All Governor Strickland has said is that while he admires both Fisher and Brunner, he's giving his full support to Fisher. Brunner has publicly stated, and Governor Strickland has not denied it, that Governor Strickland has never tried to dissaude her from running. After the "out-of-line" Brunner quote, Nick reprints the blog post that criticizes Brunner's candidacy for putting the Apportionment Board seat vulnerable if her replacement is not able to win election.

Nick then repeats the "pot shot" again:

Two, I think Brunner owes it to Ohio Democrats everywhere to seek the best possible candidate for SOS, no matter their gender, since her candidacy does put at risk Democratic control of the apportionment board. Obviously, Brunner would have the advantage of incumbency if she were to run for SOS in 2010, and her replacement won't have that luxury in a race against Slick Jonny Husted.

Nick thinks it's apparently inappropriate to point out Fisher's less than impressive statewide win/loss record. But it's completely appropriate to attack Brunner as being somehow "selfish" that she's running for the U.S. Senate instead of "taking one for the team" by staying put as Secretary of State in order to give the Democrats the best chance of getting control over the Apportionment Board. (Never mind that just today, Brunner announced her support for her replacement as Secretary of State, Franklin County Commissioner Marilyn Brown.)

That seems to be more of a pot shot than anything Brunner said, Nick.

And what about the "selfishness" of Lee Fisher, who resigned as the Director of the Ohio Department of Development in the middle of one of the greatest economic/unemployment crises in Ohio history, so he could run for Senator? Yeah, that's would be a pot shot, I guess.

Which is going to matter more to the average voter: that Jennifer Brunner, after doing a terrfic job of cleaning up Ohio's broken electoral system is seeking a promotion, or that Lee Fisher is willing to go AWOL during an economic crisis so he can try to improve his win/loss record?

There's a reason, Nick, that alot of folks who were involved in Democratic politics in the 1990s are rather gun-shy about Fisher's candidacy. We've seen that show before. If Lee Fisher couldn't beat Bob Taft, how's he going to beat Rob Portman?

1 comment:

Nick D said...

Modern, I was trying to get across the point that Brunner should be considering male candidates for SOS if they give us a better shot to hold the seat.

"Two, I think Brunner owes it to Ohio Democrats everywhere to seek the best possible candidate for SOS, no matter their gender"

And secondly, I didn't ask Brunner that question. That was someone at the meeting in Newark which I did not attend, I was in Cleveland at the time. The quote came from the Licking County Pro-Active citizens' blog.