Ohio House 9th: Rogers (D) and Boyd (D) Face Off
Last Thursday I attended a meeting of the Cleveland Heights Democratic Club, where Ohio House 9th District candidates Julian Rogers (D-Cleveland Heights) and former State Rep. Barbara Boyd (D-Cleveland Heights) addressed the gathering. Each began with a five minute opening statement, followed by 35 minutes of questions and a brief closing.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b2930/b2930061478506cb2724b29916aa1d29e27f3780" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b643c/b643c0cc1174c98d3b519eb9e2fb0fe7c222d07b" alt=""
During the Q and A period the candidates discussed the need to de-stigmatize and increase vocational training for students who don't want to go on to college, agreed that welfare reform needs fixing, declined to endorse the universal health care plan recently adopted by Massachusetts, and lamented the economic effects of urban sprawl and the plight of East Cleveland.
What really separated the candidates in my mind, however, was their response to a question by City Council member Bonnie Caplan (D-Cleveland Heights): even if we get a Democratic Governor, we won't have a Democratic legislature, so how can we make changes? Rogers responded that we need "party discipline and strong leadership, to make compelling proposals that bring the public around." He talked about how he and some others formed Blue 88 to get Democrats from all counties engaged. Boyd said that we need to "form coalitions because so much of the state is rural," and talked about her experience getting concessions from Republicans during the implementation of welfare reform (during her previous service in the General Assembly). This seemed to be the essence of Boyd's campaign pitch. She believes that by focussing on "commonalities," by touring other counties with other Representatives, and by not going into negotiations "with an attitude," that she can cajole the Republicans in control of the legislature to compromise and pass bipartisan legislation. She stresses that the legislature was more bipartisan six years ago when she was last there, and that she knows and can work with Republicans like State Sen. Lynn Wachtmann (who is term-limited and running for a House seat) and State Rep. Louis Blessing (R-Cincinnati).
As readers of this blog already know, I think that Rogers' approach is right and Boyd's is flat-out wrong. Whatever the state of affairs when Boyd last served, the Republican House leadership now rejects compromise and bipartisanship. What the Democrats need to do is to strengthen the party and to speak clearly and directly on the issues, articulating exactly what is wrong with the way the Republicans have mis-governed this state and what is right about the Democrats' alternative proposals. Only by swinging public opinion away from the Republicans' positions can the House leadership ever be compelled to do the right thing. For example, the Republican's recent move to raise the minimum wage to at least the federal level came about only because Democrats and labor forced the issue by working toward a minimum wage ballot issue.
In their concluding remarks, Boyd again emphasized her experience and leadership and "ability to work with the other side." Rogers emphasized the need for new leadership, new vision, and new ideas to take Ohio into the future.
1 Comments:
This is fascinating, Jeff, because while in CT, a lot of what I heard and read about was Gov. Jodi Rell's ability to work with the Democratic legislature there. Her approval rating is something like 81%, and has been high since she took office (of course, coming in after John Rowland, a now-convicted and in prison felon, didn't hurt, but still...).
Anyway, much of what I heard was about the successes she's had in the state because of collaborating and working with the state legislature.
Ohio is different in that we've been entrenched with a monolithic state gov't for so long now, and CT has always been a hybrid place. Also - I don't read what you've said Rogers says as saying no collaboration, he just is promoting strong leadership.
Looks like both candidates have some things to offer and it might be a tough choice, no? (I know you're going to say no. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home