Print This Post Print This Post

Jan

11

Mary Taylor for Ohio GOP U.S. Senate candidate, 2010


Now that the word is coming that U.S. Senator George Voinovich (R) is likely to announce his retirement tomorrow (the Plain Dealer won’t confirm it but Politico says it’s so), I want to revisit an issue I raised when John McCain selected Sarah Palin to be his running mate in his quest to become the 44st president of this country: how is the primarily male GOP leadership going to deal with female ambition in the wake of Sarah Palin?

Two weeks later, I asked, “Will Ohio’s male GOP gatekeepers step aside for Mary Taylor?”

Some commenters said, step aside ? What’s that about? Suggesting that Taylor is free to run in primary against any and all other comers.  And that post in response to the suggestion that Taylor would run against Ohio Governor Ted Strickland (D) though I don’t see that.

I discussed just how viable I believe Taylor would be in a GOP primary in comments at this post a few weeks ago.

But the real clincher that my suspicions about how’s it gonna be with the Ohio GOP leadership vis a vis Taylor’s strength as a candidate, versus some of the other bandied about names, comes from a column PD editorial page director Brent Larkin:

If Voinovich steps aside, three Republicans to watch would be, in order, former Bush administration official (reading those words probably makes him cringe) Rob Portman, former House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich and State Auditor Mary Taylor.

Portman has a world-class political r sum and has been taking Voinovich’s pulse from afar for several years. Kasich is now making gubernatorial noises. But he’d begin a race against Ted Strickland a prohibitive underdog and might find the prospect of an open Senate seat more appealing. Taylor is one of the state GOP’s few stars of the future and might even be more electable than the far more experienced Portman or Kasich. But Republican leadership would exert enormous pressure on her to seek re-election as auditor instead.

Of course, if the Ohio Republican leadership was smart, they’d do exactly the opposite.  Women are fired up to have someone who looks like them get elected. And Mary Taylor is a very attractive GOP candidate for a lot of objective reasons, not the least of which is how well she’s performed her job and the lack of drama around that.

What kind of leadership is the Ohio GOP going to show for 2010? How they handle Mary Taylor’s existence, appeal and success will be a big tipoff.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:52 pm January 11th, 2009 in Congress, Elections, Gender, Government, Ohio, Politics, Primary, Republicans, Retirement, Ted Strickland, Women, leadership 

Comments

9 Responses to “Mary Taylor for Ohio GOP U.S. Senate candidate, 2010”

  1. 1 Matt on January 11th, 2009 6:57 pm

    The GOP isn’t about doing what’s right for women for the sake of doing things for women. Guess what? Neither is the Democratic Party. The parties are about WINNING and preserving political power. If there is pressure placed on Taylor it is because the Auditor’s position has a say in re-apportionment and NOT because she is a woman.

    While we’re on the subject. Dare I scan your archives for a pixel on the subject of Ohio Dems NOT finding a woman to replace Cordray at Treasurer?

  2. 2 Jill Miller Zimon on January 11th, 2009 7:06 pm

    Go for it Matt, re: the scan – it will only reinforce how much you miss the point of this post.

  3. 3 redhorse on January 11th, 2009 9:57 pm

    I’m not entirely sure I follow the argument. IN order to test your question re: female ambition, you quote Larkin.

    He may or may not have good intel, but the point Matt made is more salient: the parties exist to gain and maintain power, and in 2010, Taylor’s most valuable role is that of re-apportionment board member.

    I can’t imagine the state GOP wants to fight for an open Senate seat and an open Auditor’s seat while trying to knock of Ted, Jennifer, Kevin, and Rich.

    Probably a better tell in all this is what they’d promise her to keep her in the Auditor’s seat for another term. If the path to the 2014 gubernatorial nomination suddenly clears for her…well, then you’ll know.

  4. 4 Jill Miller Zimon on January 11th, 2009 9:59 pm

    “Probably a better tell in all this is what they’d promise her to keep her in the Auditor’s seat for another term. If the path to the 2014 gubernatorial nomination suddenly clears for her…well, then you’ll know.”

    I’ll buy that. I would, however, like to know what Ms. Taylor wants – we don’t seem to be saying anything about that – only what others want for her vis a vis a party plan. You know how I feel about such approaches, personally, but if that’s Taylor’s thing, so be it.

  5. 5 John Kroll on January 11th, 2009 11:22 pm

    Just to let you know, Stephen Koff has his story on Voinovich’s decision up now. And we’ve got an online poll asking folks who’ll be the 2010 nominees. (Yes, Mary Taylor’s on our list.)

  6. 6 Pelikan on January 11th, 2009 11:30 pm

    I think Mary Taylor’s problem is two fold:
    1. She is up against the ‘old boys’and one of them is John Kasich – better nationwide, national party contacts for raising the money it will take to run and win
    2. She may be a capable state office holder, but that office is State Auditor, sort of irrelevant to most, although it shouldn’t be. If Taylor is such a rising star, why isn’t she promoting whatever it is she’s been doing for the past few years? Very rarely do I see anything about her in the papers.

  7. 7 Jill Miller Zimon on January 11th, 2009 11:34 pm

    John – thanks very much – the comment went to moderation because of the links – no biggie – sorry for the delay.

  8. 8 Jill Miller Zimon on January 11th, 2009 11:37 pm

    Pelikan – we agree on your #1 re: the old boys. I agree about Kasich re: raising money but I really think Taylor could be a stealthy good fundraiser too – seriously. I think about how people went gaga over Palin and Taylor has way more smarts and savvy, far more in tune with what Ohioans are like – and she won a statewide office, something neither Portman or Kasich did, right?

    I do think the apportionment board thing is relevant in the equation, but why not make room for Husted there or something?

    I don’t know – we’ll have to see what she wants etc., how it all fits in.

    I’m only saying that it sure looks like Mary Taylor has an awful lot going for her – what if we grafted it onto any good ole boy – then what would we be saying? My point is only that we OUGHT to be hearing the same level of enthusiasm, that’s all.

  9. 9 Pelikan on January 12th, 2009 4:29 pm

    Ahhh – now we agree, on the level of enthusiasm. Wouldn’t it be nice if the “objective” media showed that same level of enthusiasm. My points are probably more to viability … Peace.

Leave a Reply




"));