Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Feb
13
While I was outside my house, which, incidentally, is hovering at 58 degrees because of work being done on our furnace, ODP Chairman Chris Redfern called and left a message. I returned his call and we spoke for about 15 -20 minutes.
Here’s what I want to say about the conversation:
1. Redfern said that, “invitations were extended to Eric Fingerhut for after sundown [on Saturday] and I know this because I gave permission to my staff to offer this and I heard the staffers say it…Every effort was given to Eric, if he wanted, to take the opportunity to devote [Saturday] to his religious customs, including after sundown.”
Redfern spoke for several minutes about the importance to him that Fingerhut be afforded opportunities that respected Fingerhut’s religious observances. He mentioned other examples that he felt demonstrate his efforts to fully accommodate candidates when it comes to religious and other scheduling needs. For example, I asked why the interviews couldn’t be scheduled on a weekday. He stated that the work schedules of the interviewers and interviewees wouldn’t allow for it, given the numbers and diversity of scheduling demands.
2. Although Redfern did not accuse me of it, I concluded, and re-stated to him that I sensed that perhaps he was concerned that my original letter impugns him and that that was not my intention – to impugn him. The reason I came to believe that he felt this way is because he expressed his wish that I’d called him before I’d written the letter.
As I told Redfern, it never occurred to me to call him before writing the letter (even though I called Fingerhut’s campaign manager before I wrote the letter) because, right or wrong, I would never have thought that, given my “I’m just a voter” feeling – even though I’m taking this reportage very seriously – I really thought that a letter to him was more in line with what would be appropriate from someone such as myself.
I promised to take him up on this suggestion to call should there ever be another occasion which shocks me in the same way. After all, I am not and was not into asking these questions and following up this situation for the fun of it.
And so, I’m still aflutter at this point – hours later – because of the triangulation I see happening in this situation:
Fingerhut’s campaign says that a person speaking for the ODP said that “it is impossible” for the interview to be re-scheduled in a way that would satisfy Fingerhut.
Chris Redfern says that no one from the ODP has said that and that the ODP representatives were ordered to and carried out that order to offer Fingerhut accommodations which, the ODP believed, had been adequate in the past.
I’m thrilled to get responses to my reaction to hearing about the scenario, but shouldn’t these two camps be talking to one another? Is it reasonable to think that I should have written that in my email to Redfern, and perhaps to Fingerhut’s campaign as well? I mean, that just sounds kooky to me, but things are getting kookier all the time these days. (Think Noe and 175 years, think Tim Ryan asking Hackett to run then not to run, think Cheney shooting his hunting pal.)
Shouldn’t these two camps be talking in the name of helping the Ohio Democratic voters?
And finally, why do I feel like either you are a supreme insider or you are better off staying out 100%, because knowing even a little bit leads you into situations where, not knowing all of it, you end up blundering through?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:16 pm February 13th, 2006 in Politics
Comments
18 Responses to “Chris Redfern Calls a Blogger”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
jill,
there’s a reason why you don’t call ODP when stuff like this happens, because you’re going to get spun.
Shalom Jill,
Gee, does this mean I have to withdraw my invective?
B’shalom,
Jeff
Tim – I always come out as the highest possible “intuitor” on those personality tests like Myers-Briggs.
Jeff – absolutely not. This is a he said/she said. Which side anyone believes is up to them. I don’t quite see how both sides can be right, but I know we haven’t heard the end of it yet.
Me? I’m waiting to say for sure which side I think is the most plausible.
Shalom Jill,
My take. BULL SHIT. We’re not talking about a meeting of the Parent Teachers Organization Cookie Committee here. Everybody involved in this process is a professional who can block off a weekday morning/afternoon/evening to deal with state-level business. If they can’t then this organization is more Mickey Mouse than I’ve been led to believe.
B’shalom,
Jeff
I think a dimension that’s coming uncloaked is the man on the street’s feelings about politics – what they see, what they imagine goes on, what they idealize as the way it should be.
What’s uncloaking the dimension is the blogosphere. All this chatter that can now be documented and made living, through posts and comments and links.
I think that’s a great thing. But for those who are used to operating in a world comprised primarily of whomever they pick to be included in the conversation, it’s a scary thing – what do you do with all the voices now uncloaked?
Frankly, it’s a little scary to me as well, to have my feelings and beliefs and suspicions and disappointments about the political process be revealed for anyone to see.
But, ultimately I think it has to improve the quality of our political process and structure, even if it gets worse before it gets better.
The silence on the MTB debate for Brown comes into clear focus tonight…the machine was already in motion. They knew it would end up being moot.
Hopefully Paul will turn them on their heads. That is how true legitimate power is born anyway.
to whom it may concern,
i am not generally a blogger, nor do i read the blogs. nothing personal, i just know that if i ever got started on them, i wouldn’t be able to stop! however, after hearing about the entry about chairman redfern, i feel more than compelled to respond…
i am an aide to senator fingerhut, and i took an official leave of absence from my position at the statehouse office to work for him on the governor’s race. i have been doing his schedule since july, and i pride myself on knowing all details of appointments. period.
i specifically remember learning about the ODP candidates screening because it was scheduled on a saturday, DURING THE DAY. although you’ll see that my last name is indeed italian, my mother is jewish and i was raised in the jewish faith, so i am understanding of what “observing the sabbath” means. senator fingerhut is an observant (conservative) jew, meaning he does not commit to ANY engagement after 4pm on friday through sundown on saturday. my response is automatic when receiving an invitation for a saturday, anytime before sundown. it is simple: eric cannot attend.
after receiving the ODP candidates screening invitation, i called the contact at the ODP, who i had a very nice chat with. i pointedly explained (because i was quite heated myself, seeing something like this scheduled on a saturday) that eric observes the sabbath religiously and wouldn’t be able to make the screening. i said, “is there any way you would consider moving it to another date?” i was told, EXACTLY, “no, i’m sorry, that’s IMPOSSIBLE.” and i said, “really?! IMPOSSIBLE?! you mean between the three democratic candidate’s camps you cannot find another date?” again, i was told no, the date was set. the staffer did make the offer to give me the names of the committee who would be chairing this event, suggesting that maybe eric could call each of them personally. i said that would be great, i’ll wait for the list. i received a call back from this staffer, detailing the offer that eric could “send along podcasts or other videos” that might help plead his case. i said thank you, and that i would get back to him.
i have this exchange documented…names, dates, times…
i am not one to holler discrimination at the drop of a hat, but i must say that even if they didn’t notice the fact that eric is just as much of a man of faith as minister strickand, it seems they had no intention of being flexible with our campaign.
jessica colombi
operations and logistics
fingerhut for governor
(permission to post this response approved by campaign manager, anthony fossaceca)
Jessica, thank you so very much for this.
Decloaking almost complete?
I’ve never even gotten back a form email type response from the two times I’ve emailed Chris Redfern.
I’m jealous
(now that I’m done teasing you)
I think the two sides should be talking and I think what’s happening right now as far as the party powers that be making decisions that realistically should be up to we the voters in the primaries is wrong. Very wrong. I also have very mixed feelings on a party endorsing in the primaries.
I agree 100% with you re: the party not endorsing in the primary. I said that when I met with Redfern last month, I’ve blogged it and commented on it too. I’m in despair right now, seeing realities. I’ll get out of it, but I want help figuring out what you do from this point forward. Just not sure how to be true to my gut.
I wish I could tell you something to cheer you up but I’m experiencing some major disgust on this whole primary situation as well.
I didn’t want Fingerhut to pull out either, I wasn’t convinced he was who I would have selected but I wanted a choice. Though I did note on my blog in the middle of a rant, that at least Brian Flannery hadn’t pulled out yet (at least I thought he is still in).
Sorry folks, this is what politics is. Was the schedule prepared to exclude Fingerhut? I doubt it, but it could have been – who knows. Were decision makers going to reschedule a planned event for Eric’s convenience? If he were the “front-runner” they would have. But he wasn’t so they didn’t. If the party “establishment” perceived Eric as a major player, they would have been willing to accommodate him.
Sorry, but Strickland’s got the momentum and to use an old cliche, “The train has pulled out of the station.” To go a step further, I’d suggest there are many seats left on the train, but the good ones have all been taken.
Politics is not a pretty business. To those involved directly, it is about achieving power and then keeping that power. No one should be surprised that if Eric was seen as a nuisance, he was swatted away. It isn’t personal, its business.
Frank, you know I welcome you so it’s with respect that I say this: no matter how you rationalize what happened (or didn’t happen, based on the versions proffered), no matter how logical those rationalizations, under no circumstances does it make the behaviors correct or justifiable.
Jill, I didn’t say the behavior was correct or justifiable. And maybe I am rationalizing. But this is politics. It is about winning. And if the Strickland camp, or the Democratic “establishment” sees Strickland as November’s “winner,” well this is what results.
They (whoever “they” are) wanted Eric out of the way. They dried up funding, convinced people to not run as his Lt Gov, whatever. But it worked. Eric is out and Strickland has a clear field. Strickland “won.” In six weeks (maximum) no one will even remember that Eric was running.
I appreciate that you have a conscience and maintain some sense of idealism with politics. It helps me rein in my overwhelming cynicism for the process.
This is a good and valuable line of commenting, Frank, so please take my continued rebuffing in that spirit.
If politics is all about winning, tell me why that’s not what they’ve teaching my kids in preparation for the Ohio proficiency on civics? Why wasn’t it taught to me that way?
Why do we not work to make it what it should be – what we’re taught it’s supposed to be?
See this post on BuckeyeSenateBlog – which says, it does not have to be this way.
http://www.buckeyesenateblog.com/2006/02/thirty_four.html
Jill, trust me, I am not offended in the least by any of the words passed back and forth.
At the risk of seeming patronizing, let me just say there is the “ivory tower” of academics and there is the “real world.”
We attend university and are taught Political Science 101 and we graduate with all these notions of democracy and the voice of the masses.
Then we enter the real world of government and politics and we soon learn that we can do anything we want to do as long as we have the votes. We learn that everything is constitutional until the Courts rule otherwise. And we learn that with enough resources, we can get the votes we need.
We learn to “pay our dues.” We go door to door and staff phone banks. We work GOTV. We win some and we lose some. All the while, we are (hopefully) getting our candidates elected. Our candidates win sometimes and lose sometimes. But when he or she calls on us for help once again, we are there. We’ve been there for Sherrod for 20 years. We’ve been there to work for Strickland since he first ran. We’ve been there (well, not me – but you get my meaning) for Eric when he ran against Voinovich.
We swear “Never again” am I going to drive votes for losers that can’t beat a republican. But then Jennifer Brunner runs, or Strickland, or Brown and they call on us for help because for 20 years we’ve given it, and we say “OK, count me in.”
And then we look at the new, younger Democrats who tell us that Strickland shouldn’t be governor or Brown can’t win and we say, “I’ve known these guys for 20 years and they CAN win. They have won. Maybe they won’t win this race, but they can and they’ve carried on the Democratic agenda in good years and in bad and darn it, they’ll make a good Governor or Senator.”
I’m sure Paul Hackett would have been a fine Senator and Eric would be fine as Governor. But 2006 is Ted’s year because he has earned it. And apparently 2006 will be Brown’s year to run because he has worked hard for a lot of years to earn our support for the race. Will either of them win? Who knows! But if they don’t, it won’t be for a lack of trying.
You know what bothers me right now? It is what I have read about Hackett’s reaction. He has a future in Democratic politics if he wants it. And I’ve read that he is “ending his 11 month political career.” Maybe he is just venting his disappointment over how things have worked out. Maybe he is really going to quit. But when Brown and Strickland lost elections, they ran again and they both won. How can we not respect that?
Sorry for such a rant. I probably should have put it on my own blog. But it is here, in your comments.
You’re right, maybe it doesn’t have to be this way. But for now it is. So stay involved. Get in the game and mix it up. Who knows – you may find yourself in the General Assembly one day. And if that happens, Ohio will be a better place.
Ted strickland hasn’t “earned” it. He earns it when the voters in the primary choose him as their candidate for the general election.
What makes him a better candidate than Eric Fingerhut or Bryan Flannery? because he served in the U.S. Congress give me a break. VOTERS make the choices, not party bosses. Want to know why people feel disenfranchised? We are experiencing why now.
Ted Strickland hasn’t “earned it?” Proof is in the pudding, Gloria. Ted is still standing.