It is what it says it is.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

The campaign begins to emerge from the boredom, and other stuff

Well, we have some action, and it's interesting. The Sutton Camp released a statement regarding Tom Sawyer's NAFTA vote, and it was hard-hitting. This is the first attack by any campaign that has made political sense. Grace and Kucinich have attacked wildly, and focused on Cafaro. Cafaro and Sawyer haven't really attacked anyone, which is not an unwise strategy for either of them, having the lead in money and Name ID, respectively. Sutton's team is smart to attck Sawyer, as he is polling the best, but his support is somewhat weak.

From Sutton's Statement:

"Tom Sawyer's dismissal of the importance of workers and labor once again demonstrates why Ohio's workers don't trust him to protect their interests and represent them in Congress.

"His attempts to explain away his votes against workers as a simple mistake do not solve the problem and don't even begin to address the impact it had on Ohio's workers. NAFTA decimated Ohio's economy and dismantled people's lives -- thousands of workers lost their jobs, their healthcare, and other benefits. Families' dreams of sending children to college or enjoying the fruits of long years of hard work evaporated."

"Workers in Ohio don't deserve Tom Sawyer's disrespect and insulting rationalizations. The labor organizations in Ohio have fought valiantly to protect workers from discrimination and dangerous work places. They have fought for fair wages and family sustaining benefits for Ohio's working men and women. Workers are bright and capable and understand our economy is changing - they should be embraced as a partner in moving our communities forward."

"Tom Sawyer turned his back on Ohio's workers. I am the only candidate in this race who has consistently demonstrated the integrity and backbone to stand up for workers and fight for the issues that average people worry about every day. Together we can develop trade policies that will work for average people and not against them."
Smart move for Sutton, and beneficial to the field, in that once Sawyer's weak support is in play, it becomes a multi-way horse race. If Sawyer remains strong, Sutton cannot compete... by being proactive, Betty is definitely working to put herself in play again. Now, for her it's a matter of how much she has raised , and how much EMILY's list is going to throw into the race.

Judging by her list of "endorsements and support," she'll have something, although the question is, will it be enough? Everyone knows (or at least assumes) Cafaro will be up big on TV. Will Betty have enough time and money to get her name and message out, particularly through the soup of the late April political landscape? A ground campaign will be needed to take messages to voters, (UPDATE: Sutton's ground campaign has begun, sorry if this was unclear) but again, Cafaro is out with her ground campaign already... And frankly, Sawyer poses a strange, unusual problem for everyone, even if he continues to run a stealth campaign. He will have his base level support, particularly in Summit County... as will Grace in Elyria... wow, this race continues to confuse and amuse me... anything could happen. Even our less publicized candidates could play a role, depending on from where and whom they draw their votes. You know, watching this unfold, you start to get an idea why the Party Apparatus likes managed, bossed primaries.

I did notice that Sutton for Congress appeared to lose (or is that misplace?) an endorsement. Recently, an endorsement from the SEIU disappeared from the website. As well, the criteria for what constitutes "endorsement and support" seems really unclear in general. A few items have endorsement letters linked, a few have descriptions of the group, and a few have nothing... The Sutton campaign has had issues with endorsements previously (Steelworkers non-endorsement endorsement, the Brown fiasco), so I am curious as to how they determine what qualifies as "endorsement and support."

The reason I bring this up is that the concept of exclusivity in support is important. An endorsement implies exclusive support for the one candidate only. Support is more nebulous; in big-league politics, groups will often hedge their bets by writing checks to multiple campaigns competing against each other, just to make sure they're taken care of after the election is over.
The way that Sutton describes her support on the website is confusing and vague... hopefully the campaign will clear that up. UPDATE: The Sutton campaign uses receipt of a check, or written or verbal endorsement.

I know that it seems minor, but misclaiming endorsements are a classic PR nightmare. The make a campaign look very bad. I'm certainly not claiming that the support is being claimed in error... I just want to know what qualifies as support or endorsement when it's not clear, and what happened to our brothers and sisters at SEIU. Maybe splitting up endorsements and supports would be a little more clear.

Otherwise, not much else new. Thanks team Sutton for giving us some political meat to sink our teeth into... and remember campaigns, there's a race on! Grace, Sawyer, Kucinich... start acting like it! Or at least act like you know what you're doing guys.

John
Ohio 13
ohio13 at gmail dot com

3 Comments:

Blogger redhorse said...

any you folks going to make to MTB this Saturday?

7:28 PM

 
Blogger scott bakalar said...

or Friday (today) with Grace?

9:09 PM

 
Blogger Ohio 13 said...

No go for either, unfortunately... these things get scheduled at horrible times for me... besides, it's probably best for me not to go... i'd have to treat the candidates like human beings, and not characters in a serial drama if I actually, you know, met them...

8:37 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home