DEVELOPING : Battle Brewing to Replace Jennifer Garrison in SoS Race
Submitted by Anthony Fossaceca on Fri, 01/29/2010 - 10:47am.
Brace yourselves. The race for Secretary of State is about to messy. Sources tell OhioDaily that State Representative Jennifer Garrison appears to be reluctantly inching toward the exit door as donors and party insiders line up behind her to push their original hand-picked choice out as fast as they rushed her in.
The whole ordeal is almost enough to make you feel bad for Garrison. Almost.
Next up for the "team" is apparently yet another Franklin County candidate - Franklin County Clerk of Courts Maryellen O'Shaughnessy. Our sources confirm that the party leadership is teleconferencing today to discuss the possibility of an endorsement in this race with the intent of keeping Sharen Neuhardt of Greene County out (even though she's near $100K in financial commitments) - or at least sweeping her legs out from under.
That move, all too familiar (i.e. Dann v. Chandra), could leave the "statewide" ticket with as many as seven Franklin County candidates - Strickland*, Yvette McGee Brown, O'Shaughnessy, Boyce, Cordray, possibly Brunner, possibly Eric Brown for Supreme Court. Not really a geographically diverse squad. David Pepper (Hamilton County) and Mary Jane Trapp (Geauga County) would be the only candidates outside the state capital. Lee Fisher could make it three. (*As Governor, we're counting Ted Strickland as Franklin County)
So, with announcements of all types likely to occur early next week, should we be excited or discouraged again? It depends on what you feel about the process.
Let there be no doubt that the progressive wing of this party - the active, grassroots, boots-on-the-ground, rank-and-file, hardcore Dem - appears to be getting what it demanded when it said "no" to Jennifer Garrison. But as troubling as it was to see the party establishment rush in to place a terribly flawed candidate into this race, will progressives accept just anyone in her place? Have the rules changed for you? Do you care if there is an endorsement in this race? Do you want the party to stay out so we can examine the candidates - Neuhardt, O'Shaughnessy, or other - for ourselves?
I don't want to compare the possible anointing of Maryellen O'Shaughnessy to Marc Dann's. It's not a fair or accurate comparison. But, that endorsement battle (and the one that would have occurred in Fisher v. Brunner) left deep wounds and wasted valuable energy. With only a few months to the primary, why not just let the candidates slug it out on the ground and let the strongest one emerge? Isn't that the point of the primary process anyway? Jon Husted is going to be hard enough to beat in November. Shouldn't our nominee be tested under fire? What better place than a primary. We're letting Fisher and Brunner sort it out, why not here?
What do you think? Let us hear your comments today, then vote in our Weekend Straw Poll starting in the noon hour.
Secretary of State
I think Maryellen O'Shaughnessy would be a great choice of Ohio Secretary of State.
This is so backwards.
The party has proven over and over again that it has no qualms about various forms of meddling, and yet it left Garrison's toxic candidacy alone for four full months.
Suddenly, the second Neuhardt throws her hat in the ring and starts to raise money and gain momentum, the party swings into action and recruits someone else. The timing makes it pretty clear that the party was a-ok with DINO right winger Garrison's candidacy (and with losing), but not with Neuhardt's (and quite possibly winning).
Nothing against Maryellen O'Shaughnessy. She's swell and I think she could beat Husted. But if this was all really just about making sure D's win, they would have recruited O'Shaughnessy long ago, as soon as Marilyn Brown dropped out. Or certainly over the next few months as it became clear that, sure enough, Democratic activists - those people who are going to knock on doors on Saturday mornings in the cold and rain - were just not going to show up for Garrison.
Even worse for the long term, when the party welcomes candidates like Garrison into the fold with open arms, asking us to propel an anti-choice, anti-LGBT candidate into statewide office, it causes a lot of us to wonder whether our Democratic party really stands for anything besides sporting a team jersey that just happens to be blue. This isn't good for the other, truly Democratic candidates on the ticket and for the health of the party. And yet they let her candidacy stand. Only when Neuhardt entered the race did they step in and intervene by recruiting a candidate.
Moving forward - O'Shaughnessy is qualified, sharp, and with enough backing will be able to overcome her lack of name recognition outside Franklin County. It's just really too bad that the party is doing their usual dance that will cause her candidacy to start off on the wrong foot.
It will soon be forgotten, and the vast majority of voters aren't privy to all this inside baseball - thank goodness. But it all just serves to remind me why I donate time and money to individual candidates and not to the party. With ODP you never know if your resources are going to be used to help put a stamp of approval on bigotry or sabotage a perfectly good candidate.
Going now to vote "no" in the weekend straw poll.
Actually, that is six months, not four
Garrison declared, and Marilyn Brown got out in late July/early August.
I don't like the vibe that the party will only accede (finally!) to the unacceptability of Garrison by naming their own annointed candidate. You are right; they shouldn't have waited this long if they felt O'Shaughnessy was a better choice. Now it may be too late for her – and this could provoke some feelings that the party's macho arrogance won't let them listen to the base as they should.
What?
I don't see how getting Garrison out of the race is evidence of "the party's macho arrogance won't let them listen to the base as they should." Quite the opposite.
The very fact that Chris Redfern publicly refused to throw his support behind Garrison and announced an endorsement for "someone else" other than Garrison is proof they're listening.
And I fail to see how the criticism for O'Shaughnessy doesn't equally apply to Neuhardt, who did not make any announcement today as promised. If Neuhardt's only professed reason to run was to give the anti-Garrison folks an alternative, and now there's an alternative... If it's "too late" for O'Shaughnessy, then how is it not too late for Neuhardt?
How's your comment not a double standard?
You misread my post entirely.
Getting Garrison out of the race isn't proof of the macho arrogance of some people in the party: Ignoring concerns that were very vocally expressed for months on end and then, when those people who have been trying to talk to them and were told "So reruit someone else then" DID so, the party bosses (apparently) grab someone else and shove her into the race. THAT is maho arrogance.
I don't think Neuhardt decided to explore running simply because there was no one else with the intention of bowing out if someone else appeared. As recently as a week ago, the party was adamently refusing to onsider the posibility of someone else. I did not say it was "too late" for O'Shuaghnessy if she has genuine interest in this race and has chosen herself to explore it. I think it's clumst and insulting for the PARTY to throw a candidate at us that no one has heard of ONLY when it has become clear their chosen candidate isn't viable and another candidate has appeared. THEY have had months to do that. I have no idea what "double standard" you are refering to.
For Redfern to rush an endorsement for "someone else" is exactly the kind of ignore-the-grassroots politics he's been playing with Garrison. He strong-armed a bunch of offieholders — some of whom I know are not very enthusiastic — to publicly endorse Garrison so she could have a whole list of endorsements to boast about. No other state candidate has any. To swing wildly from that to now rushing an endorsement for O'Shaughnessy looks like both flailing and bullying — especially since it would be done without orderly process an since the party has, again, not endorsed anyone else yet.
It would be a transparent attempt to tell the grassroots it has no power and that all decisions must be made centrally at ODP headquarters.
This has nothing to do with O'Shaughnessy, whom I know almost nothing about. It would be nice if, before the party railroaded an irregular endorsement for her (assuming they do this; it's all pure speculation) if she would do what Sharen did and reach out to Democrats around the state personally.
It's also laughable to say Reffern didn;t throw his support behind Garrison. Maybe HE personally didn't stand up and say he endorsed her but the party spent six months blowing off criticisms we had of her as a candidate. NOW he wants to be a "good listener"? Uh uh. I wish the ODP folks could just be a little humble, admit they made a mistake and leave Neuhardt and O'Shaughnessy on their own to decide if they are going to enter the race.
Again...
Show me evidence that this O'Shaughnessy thing hasn't been in the works for some time. Show me SOME evidence that "[a]s recently as a week ago, the party was adamently refusing to consider the possibility of someone else." I haven't seen it.
You, this blog, billed Neuhardt's sole basis of running was to give progressives an alternative to Garrison. Now, you're claiming that's not the case?
I also disagree that NOBODY has heard of O'Shaughnessy as I recognized the name... and I don't live close to Franklin County.
Again, the ODP endorsement threat seems to be geared towards Garrison, not Neuhardt. The mere fact that ODP is scrambling to get a candidate in the race and is angling to make a power play against Garrison, the House Majority Floor Leader, is a nod to the progressive grassroots, not evidence that they're being ignored. That's just nonsense.
Regardless, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy for Neuhardt given that she has not even DECLARED that she's running and didn't make the announcement on Friday as promised.
You seem to want to pretend that it was easy to find someone to challenge the House Majority Leader after she's raised hundreds of thousands of dollars and earned countless endorsements. You also want to pretend that the comments from Redfern in Friday's Dispatch was not throwing Garrison under the bus like we've all been demanding.
While I share concern about ODP ever endorsing in ANY race, and I'm concerned that Fisher will seize this as an opportunity to make a case for an endorsement in his race, the rest of your criticism just doesn't match up to the facts on the ground. Until Neuhardt says that she's running (which she has adamently REFUSED to do), I can't blame the party doing what it can to get an anti-Garrison in the race and the party united behind that candidate instead of Garrison.
How has Sharen reached out to Democrats personally?
I haven't seen that. I've seen a Facebook page created by Anthony and a bunch of posts here. But I've seen NOTHING from her herself.
Redfern has publicly stood up and called Garrison unacceptable. Name me the last time a Democratic chairman said that about someone in the House leadership who was running in an unconstested primary in a race for the Apportionment Board. Name any time ANY party chairman has done this. It's unprecedented, and yet, you're claiming that Redfern is ignoring the progressive grassroots when Redfern's criticism is entirely based on the grassroots?
Neuhardt has had weeks to decide. She was supposed to announce on Friday. She didn't. How much more time were we supposed to wait for a candidate who's only electoral history is one congressional loss?
Uh, just for clarification...
I didn't create the Facebook page Modern. The creator of the group, who I've never met, made me an admin when I joined. Also, I'm not sure where I missed the press release from Sharen that said she'd be making an official announcement Friday. Yes, we heard there was a better than 50/50 chance she would, but we also heard that there might be a desire to not do it in the news vacuum.
And before the question is asked, I'm also not being paid by the Neuhardt campaign or anyone else affiliated with her. I just happen to think she's tremendous and think she'd be a very, very, very strong candidate. I'm a Democrat who actually wants to win (gasp!)
(But strong women are a threat, so she'll need to be put in her place.)
I'm also not getting
why Modern is so testy. Do you have an interest in O'Shaughnessy's campaign, Modern? I don't know anything about her and have nothing against her, but if this "has been in the works for a while," the party would be in a stronger position if they had at least hinted at this earlier, before people became so angry about they were constantly intensifying pressure to support her, and before Sharen spent all this time and effort contacting people and gathering pledges of financial support, believing that people were dissatisfied with Garrison and didn't have an alternative. Also, I'm hearing from all kinds of insiders that they are very "huh?" about O'Shaughnessy, so this idea that this "has been in the works for a while" seems doubtful to me.
Also, there is still no announcement from O'Shaughnessy that she is running, while Neuhardt definitely is. So other than that Neuhardt has stepped up, we really don't know anything yet.
Open Primaries Win General Elections
I think Chris Redfern knows more than you give him credit for. Open primaries win general elections. This SOS "opening" is the perfect opportunity for ODP to take a deep breath and let the process work. No endorsement in SOS or Senate will demonstrate who is really the strong candidate to win in the general. Remember, Lee won by 1234 votes in 1990, and he had a primary that year. I was his Northeast Ohio coordinator that year, and can say WITH CERTAINTY that if we had not learned from the mistakes made in the primary we would have lost in the general. Let the process work. Not to mention that both Neuhardt and O'Shaughnessey are superb candidates who will hold onto the seat! We are blessed.
I agree with you, Bill
And dumping an endorsement in our laps without proper process BEFORE ANY OTHER STATEWIDE CANDIDATE IS ENDORSED — and a candidate we are so far unfamiliar with, unlike, say, Ted Strickland or Rich Cordray — would be very divisive, and unnecessarily so. Frankly, I can't say that Shaughnessy is a "superb" candidate because I have been able to learn very little about her. I'm open to learning more. What I won't feel good about is having her dumped in our laps with a slate of endorsements and the party's backing without having given Sharen Neuhardt a proper hearing, especially since Sharen has spent the last couple of weeks doing the groundwork. She — and those she reached out to — are owed the courtesy of a hearing, and an explanation why the party might endorse Shaugnessy over her. Without that, there's going to be grumpiness among the base that could make the Dann/Chandra things look small. Nothing against Shaughnessy, who like I said, I know nothing about. But if SHE is serious about running, it would be better for HER campaign if she were not dumped on us full endorsed by the party tomorrow morning. I'd like to get to know her before this iron-clad decision is made.