Swing State Project

« Washington Democrats and Iraq | Main | CA-Ballot: SUSA Poll is Bad News for Arnie Opponents »

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

OH-Gov: Ted Strickland Claims Credit for Democratic Party Chaos

Posted by Bob Brigham

During the Ohio Special Election, I had the opportunity to meet Congressman Ted Strickland and he seemed like a good guy. But like too many politicians who have been in DC for too long, all he cares about is which office he gets next. Now, Representative Strickland is claiming credit for forcing the flip-flop that has added chaos to the Ohio Democratic Party. Like a typical DC politician, Strictland announced he is to blame in a DC insider publication, The Hill. Note to Strickland: it isn't all about you.

As word of this travels through Ohio, I think we can expect a backlash against yet another DC politician who thinks he is the center of the universe.

Posted at 01:27 PM in 2006 Elections - State, Ohio | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/1851

Comments

Right on Bob, now let's get people energized about Coleman!

Posted by: OH-09Dem at October 19, 2005 04:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think we're painting Ted with a rather broad brush. From my interactions with him, both in my former job in college communications and marketing and as a private citizen, Rep. Strickland has shown me that he's a genuine, caring individual. I think as outsiders, we tend to cultivate this image of the ultimate DC insider. Sure, Ted was a congressman, but he's not a faceless bureaucrat. And he cares about what happens to this state as much as anybody, which is why he's running.

Posted by: Joseph Hughes at October 19, 2005 04:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm not sure I understand this post: Ted's friends with Sherrod, Sherrod wanted to run before Hackett announced, therefore Ted's at fault? Encouraging a friend to do something he's wanted to do for years doesn't make Ted Strickland "the center of the universe". That's uncalled for, Bob.

Posted by: StraightRippin at October 19, 2005 05:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Strickland's a wanker for causing unnecessary chaos in the Party because he was focused on his own race.

If Strickland wanted to get Sherrod in the race, he should have done it when we were all trying to make it happen.

Instead, a ton of money is going to be wasted because Ted Strickland is a selfish SOB.

Posted by: Bob Brigham at October 19, 2005 05:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Bob - whoa. Hop off the angry train a second, buddy.

It was Sherrod's decision to get in the race. As far as I know, Strickland wasn't the one who pulled the trigger - and the last time he talked to Brown about it was several days before anyone thought Hackett was running for Senate.

Take off the blinders for a second and read what you're ranting about. You're contending two things, neither of which the article said, neither of which make any sense:

1.) That Strickland prompted Brown to get in the race to screw with Hackett, when they talked about it before Hackett ever declared - meaning that he's got some mega-time powers if there ever were any.

2.) That Strickland thinking Brown would be a better running mate for him was why Brown ran. You're running Brown's ad at left - click on the site and see why a guy who's been wanting to run to the Senate for years is running for Senate.

You're manufacturing a nonsense conspiracy theory because you're angry that Hackett won't get the nomination handed to him. Strickland didn't make anyone run - Brown already had two million saved up for a run to begin with. (Unless, of course, Strickland simply gave him that, too, as long as we're making things up that weren't in the article.)

You're mad because Hackett has an opponent in what he thought was an empty primary. That's understandable. But Strickland's preference for Brown doesn't equal Strickland orchestrating his entry into the race - that's simply ridiculous.

Posted by: StraightRippin at October 19, 2005 05:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Strickland said in the article that they had talked about it FOR YEARS. How is it Strickland's fault that Brown took until now to make a decision?

And I don't see him "taking credit" for anything. He is Brown's friend so of course they (The Hill) came to Ted to ask his thoughts. What would you expect the guy to do? Trash his friend because the timing of his announcement caused us to actually have more than one qualified candidate (oh no, don't give voters choices, they can't handle it...)?

And as far as Strickland being "Washington", who does the article say convinced Hackett to run? People from Washington like Schumer and Reid. Being "Washington" wasn't a bad thing when Hackett took their calls.

If you think Coleman is a better candidate, praise him and give us a reason to vote for him. But, going negative on another Dem before the Republicans even do doesn't seem like the most productive thing, especially when the charge against him basically boils down to, "He is a bad guy because he supports his friends."

Posted by: CapitolDem at October 19, 2005 05:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Having read the article, I don't see where Strickland is claiming he was the reason Congressman Brown changed his mind. All he said was that he did discussed it and encouraged Brown to change his mind. That's it.

And the rest of your article simply is untrue. Strickland is giving up a safe (and rare Ohio competitive Democratic) seat to get into a race that is not as certain after national and statewide leaders asked him to after the whole Coleman-Glenn Beck fiasco.

There are politicians that have been inside Washington, and then there are Washington insiders. Strickland is clearly the first, not the latter, and the people in his district and in this State know that.

How does asking Sherrod to run for the good of Ohio and the party demonstrate that all Strickland cares about is his own political career? Did you feel the same way when Strickland was one of the only Congressional representatives fighting for Paul Hackett both in Ohio and in D.C., even during the contested primary?

At the recent Warren County Democratic Dinner, Hackett himself credited Strickland for Hackett's victory in the eastern counties of the 2nd Congressional District that were part of Strickland's old district. Let's not forget that it was where Strickland's supporters are that Hackett actually won.

And Hackett's campaign manager sounds simply out-of-touch with his ridiculous claim that national leaders ONLY approached Hackett and never Brown.

Sorry, but we all know that isn't true and that's simply political revisionist history. Hackett's candidacy was more the result of the process of elimination, not because people wanted him first. Or did I just imagine all those blog entries on DailyKOS and elsewhere about Brown and Tim Ryan?

And if Ted were truly selfish and cared only about his own race, why would he then choose to get involved in the Senate race at all? If Ted truly only cared about his race, then he would have said nothing at all about the Hackett-Brown primary. I'm trying to understand your point, Bob, but your argument simply isn't logical. And why shouldn't the party debate these issues in a primary?

Is your anger really about the fact that Strickland may have caused a primary or is it really that Strickland, who's been involved in Ohio politics for years, chose to support someone else other than "your guy?"

I also can't help to notice that you aren't too disgusted with Sherrod Brown that you won't accept his ad revenue.

Posted by: modernesquire at October 19, 2005 05:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Wow -- I had the same reaction as Bob to the Strickland story. I'm sorry, but I smell a repeat of Hagan '00 and Fingerhut '04 if its Brown-Strickland at the top of the ticket.

And Ted does think he's the center of the universe. He has bumperstickers that just say "Ted '06." Who the hell knows who Ted is outside his district? Any, I just loved it when GW did that! (and isn't W ever so modest???)

Seriously though, I do agree that Coleman supporters have to lay out a positive argument for his election. It's a much more compelling story, so it needs to be told.

Posted by: ohiopol at October 19, 2005 09:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Can't we all just agree to blame Denny White and be done with it?

Bob Brigham: have you launched a secret attempt to try and get anyone who visits your site to never take you serious again? If you're going to play the part on in-house polemic, and not just criticize, but rip other Dems, at least do it to some people that are worthwhile. Not easygoing, genuine human beings like Ted Strickland. If you were really interested in helping Paul Hackett, you would tell him to file for OH-02 tomorrow, and tell him to go out and kick the shit out Jean Schmidt next year. This is rediculous. Ted Strickland aint the problem, Sherrod Brown aint the problem, and no, Paul Hackett isn't the problem. The problem is men like yourself, and David Woodruff, and every other nerd blogging from their parents basment in between who is absolutely convinced they were the ones who got Hackett his 48% in OH-02. You guys fuel the fire, you guys pump Hackett's ego, and you guys will be the ones who are not left standing after the primary.

Posted by: andre2006 at October 19, 2005 11:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

"And Ted does think he's the center of the universe."

Exactly how do you know this? Even if he did (which knowing the man, I can state he does not)are we actually going to sit here and argue that there are humble politicos out there? By definition a politician has to believe that he or she alone possesses the unique blend of skills to occupy a job. That requires self-confidence bordering on arrogance.

"He has bumperstickers that just say "Ted '06." Who the hell knows who Ted is outside his district?"

Well, I know who he is and so do most of the people I know here who are active in politics. Sure, Joe Smith might not but, there are 12 months to fix that problem. I am one of those people with a "Ted" sticker. You would be amazed how many people take the time to walk up and ask what it means. That gives me a chance to talk to them about why I support this man for Governor.

I don't get why supporting one candidate means we spend our time bashing another one, even one from our own party. We lose the right to complain about the negative spin machine weilded by the Right when we treat every Dem (but our guy/gal) with similar tactics. Only we Dems could spend more time blogging about why other Dems stink than why any Dem is better than the Republican monopoly we have today. With friends like these...

Posted by: CapitolDem at October 20, 2005 12:38 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Ohiopol, you had the same reaction as Bob because you're a Coleman partisan. How do I know?

You just called a politician egotistical because his bumper stickers have HIS NAME on them.

Doubly silly because "Mike" really wants you to vote for him.

Posted by: StraightRippin at October 20, 2005 06:37 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Yeah, I'm a Coleman partisan. No apologies there!

I do agree that we need to start taking about the substance behind both these candidates. That means reviewing Strickland's record -- not where he lived in gradeschool -- and being straight about what Coleman has accomplished.

More importantly, we need to get past this supposed electability idea and figure out what we really want in a Dem candidate for governor.

Posted by: ohiopol at October 20, 2005 07:05 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Okay, let's talk about substance - not about an angry misreading of an article that shows that two politicians are friends.

For instance, why was Coleman going to endorse Rod Parsley's movement?

When Coleman can get the lights in the Short North turned on, we'll talk.

Posted by: StraightRippin at October 20, 2005 09:09 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

It's nice to know that the Coleman people don't think Democrats want a gubernatorial candidate that is electible, but then again, that's what I'd say if my own campaign polls showed me trailing.

I want a gubernatorial candidate who will be fiscally conservative, has plans to improve education, access to health care, bring good paying jobs back to Ohio, and reflects my values. Strickland has that record. The fact that noone in the DLC has endorsed Coleman, a group he touts as evidence of his national prominance, shows they are unimpressed with his record.

If anyone is to blame for Coleman's record not getting out, it's Coleman and his campaign. You don't get your message out by declining invitation after invitation from county parties and unions to speak. Strickland has been visible; Coleman has been MIA.

The reason Strickland is winning the electibility debate is that he is a hard campaigner with a record of drawing strong support from Democrats, Independants, and yes, even Republicans. Coleman needs to stop talking about how "on paper" he is just as electible.

Campaigns aren't won on paper, they're won in hitting the road and working hard. Coleman hasn't show he has the stamina for a statewide race yet, and for a candidate running behind with little visibility, that's a receipe for a disaster.

Posted by: modernesquire at October 20, 2005 09:18 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Flip: Before I announced for Governor, I sought Rod Parsley's spirtual advice.

Flop: Parsley is part of the problem of those who want to use faith to divide us.

Flip: How do you want the proclaimation praising the work you're doing getting Ken Blackwell elected from the pulpit?

Flop: We never intended on issuing Parsley a proclamation.

Flip: Coleman's political director is a member of Parsley's movement.

Flop: Coleman wants nothing to do with Parsley.

Flip: Coleman awarded Parsley with a flag of the city.

Flop: Coleman won't award Parsley with a proclaimation.

All I can say is, "ugh, it looks like a bad day for the Coleman campaign."

Posted by: modernesquire at October 20, 2005 09:27 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

It is difficult to understand where you're coming from with this. Strickland helped find a terrific opponent for Mike DeWine and is a fine candidate himself. For some reason, you think Coleman and Hackett are owed support for some reason even though it seems to me that Strickland and Brown are at least as good candidates as Coleman and Hackett, probably better. It's amazing the hubris the blogosphere inspires. I, however, will wait to see what the verdict of Ohio's Democrats is in next year's primary. And I know who I'll be voting for.

Posted by: Keith McCrea at October 20, 2005 11:06 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I don't see what all the excitement here is. I too think it's natural that Strickland would have discussed running with Brown, but the decision, which I increasingly think is awful the more I analyze it, is all Brown's. I prefer to judge Strickland and Coleman on their merits and I like them both. I am equally unwilling to dismiss Coleman instantaneously based on his awkward handling of the Parsley situation. I am waiting to hear an good explanation from him. I think it's a bad sign that he fumbled in dealing with this because Parsley is going to be a HUGE issue in the campaign. He's dangerous, evil, vicious and fairly powerful (although I think the reach of the so-called "Patriot Pastors" in greatly exaggerated by the media and the pastors themselves) and needs to be addressed FIRMLY.
Also, despite someone else's claim here, Coleman has an excellent record on job creation, education and so on, and has management experience Strickland does not. Strickland also has an excellent record. And it's way too early in this particular campaign to judge the name recognition of either.

My prediction, whether Strickland or Coleman is the candidate, they will be able to pull out the win, despite DeWine being reelected over Brown by about a 54-46 margin. Brown will do considerably better than Fingerhut but in the end, all the Republicans and most of the middle-of-the-road independents will go with the devil they know rather than a guy who has just been swift-boated for the past six months as the ultimate liberal devil. I give less and less credence each day to Brown's alleged power statewide, as I've been polling more downstate friends and none has ever heard of him. Remember it's been 17 years since he won a statewide election, and the Secretary of State has never been the most recognizable figure in state politics anyway, at least not until Katherine Harris Blackwell had himself notorious.

I believe Hackett would squeak out a win over DeWine, thanks to his ability to woo those swing voters and not just progressive Democrats. But I don't think Hackett will win the primary so I'm starting to agree with those who think he should pull out and run for Oh-2 rep. At least we might pick up a house seat even if we can't unseat DeWine. Oh well. My main goal for next year is to prevent Blackwell from being governor!!!!

Oh and by the way, I DO blame Denny Brown for everything which is why the "Brown the good party soldier" argument gets no play with me. What a lame organization the Ohio Democratic Party is.

Posted by: Ansatasia P at October 20, 2005 11:08 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Note: I meant "Sherrod Brown the good party soldier." That last bit was confusing with too many people named "Brown" — another negative, although one you can't give too much weight to. People can't be blamed for having blah names. I spent most of my life wishing I had one!

Posted by: Ansatasia P at October 20, 2005 11:09 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

You know Bob, I find it interesting that a comment of mine was bounced out of SSP on a previous thread because of the opinions I expressed about you, yet you sit there from California and call Ted Strickland an SOB?

What the heck is your problem? I have been reading your posts for months now, and you go after the Liebermans and Bidens of the party for attacking other Democrats and then you do it yourself? Isn't that the definition of a hypocrite?

I have met Mayor Coleman a few times, and each time he has been cold -- in a complete campaign mode. All he did was shake my hand and smirk and basically didn't pay any attention to me. I saw him do it to a dozen people at an event and I was not impressed. On the other hand, when I met Congressman Strickland, he went out of his way to say hello to me and to spend a little bit of time talking with me. Now, I know that this isn't indicative of anything, but my opinion of Strickland went up at that time -- the same time my opinion of Coleman went down. I may not agree with everything Strickland does, but at least I know he is a human being who will do what he thinks is right. With Coleman, I am suspect because it feels like everything he does is politics.

I would appreciate if you apologized to Congressman Strickland and focused on your own darn races out there in California. We don't need you tossing flaming bags of dog poop on our candidates here in Ohio all the way from San Francisco.

Posted by: Columbus Donkey at October 20, 2005 05:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

At least Strickland is human? If that's the bar for Democrats now, we're in serious trouble.

Since when did we want to win so badly that we'll blindly support the neared Dem who *says* they are electable?

Last time I checked, Strickland was neck and neck with Coleman, even though Strickland has been campaigning non-stop. Coleman has been busy doing the job he was elected to do. Doesn't sound like Strickland is Mr. Electability based on that!

Posted by: ohiopol at October 20, 2005 06:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

We'd be in worst trouble if we went with the one described as "not human."

I think winning several elections in fourteen-county districts that are solidly Republican, leading in fundraising, free media, endorsements, and polls (including Coleman's), means that it's not Strickland who "says" he's electable. BTW, what's a neared Dem???

You're funny saying that STRICKLAND is running neck and neck with Coleman. Never seen a front-runner described that way before. Not even the Coleman campaign had the cajones to say that when they released their two-month old poll.

Nobody is buying Coleman's spin on the polls. http://democracyguy.typepad.com/democracy_guy_grassroots_/2005/10/spin_gone_wild.html

But you're right about one thing. Coleman has been busy with his almost issuing proclaimations and then issuing press releases to bloggers congratulating himself for stopping himself.

Posted by: modernesquire at October 20, 2005 11:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment