Hagan didn’t address the caller’s complaint at all–he just ranted at the guy for not being “involved” in the process, and said he didn’t need to listen to people who just criticize without being “involved.”

Hagan then went on to define “involvement” as holding public office. If you’re not in elected office, or at least seeking one, your opinion doesn’t matter–according to Hagan at the time.

Breathtakingly arrogant? Or just stupid? You decide.

If nothing else, this med mart issue could give us the opportunity to garner the support to revamp the system.

That’s pretty much what I wrote:

Hagan’s words, maybe now more than ever, represent not only a throwback to a time and style that voters just rejected, but it’s an unacceptable paradigm for governing today and in the future, period.

So, seriously, from a grassroots perspective, what would you point to as the things that are already going on to get this change accomplished and what more do we need to be doing?

FYI:

1. I don’t think I’ve ever really written about term limits in regard to these county issues. In general – I’ve never supported them, never. I always laugh at how they started to come in while I was out of the country and when I got back, the next thing I knew was I was learning about that concept. I think for the most part they’re horrible, even though I know that some of the intent had to do with flushing people out and bringing others in.

2. I understand I think how or why you might call my observation of how few women have been in governing positions in the county “superficial” but frankly, I think it’s very much entangled in the old way of doing things. I don’t think they’re able to be separated – one has resulted or at least contributed to the other. I would agree w/it being “superficial” only to the extent that it’s the face of our county gov’t – but I think it has deeper implications about that dated paradigm.

Hagan seems to be able to be elected in the county. He has always failed when he sought higher office.

Back in 1992 when he tried for Congress, running against Mary Rose Oakar.

I ended a piece in Point of View on the race with this ditty:

Take firm grasp of your nose,
And pull the lever for Mary Rose.

Oakar took this as an endorsement, which I guess it was at least in part.

I don’t think the answer is in superficial solutions like “We need more women” or term limits, which have been found to be a total failure on the state level (It’s like suggesting schools will magically improve if we require uniforms; you feel like you’ve done something but haven’t really tackled the problem at all). It’s tempting to think you’ll get rid of the baddies, but you always tie the hands of the good folks, lose institutional memory, skills and knowledge, and create a revolving door for lobbyists. I also don’t think a different form of county government is necessarily the solution, which may be part of the reason we’ve had problems agreeing on anything. Any form of government still functions according to those who inhabit it. The most discussed “reform” has involved eliminating a ton of elective offices and consolidating power with the commissioners. Not sure how THAT solves anything if Hagan and Dimora are still in office.

The changes we need go deeper than that. We need to change how elections are financed and we need to deconsolidate the media. Otherwise the problems we have on all levels will just go on and on and on. Locally, we do need to organize to get some of these people out of office and no matter what the PD fantasizes, in Cuyahoga County, that means us Democrats (Their idea that simply sticking more Republicans in county offices isn’t a magic bullet and ain’t gonna happen). Certainly, the recent adventures in grassroots democracy have energized people and now might be the time to make it happen. I personally think it’s time for Dimora (as well as Hagan) to go, not because of any corruption (he actually hasn’t been charged with anything, and I get more than a little annoyed at the calls for peoples’ heads prior to any actual guilty findings)but because he represents a dated political paradigm that isn’t working for us.

Human beings tend to “settle in” We do it in business, marriage, religion and certainly in politics. While I am not suggesting we change spouses, sell the business, and join a different faith I am suggesting we recognize the danger, and in the case of politics, make it hard for politicians to settle in.

Where I live the Commissioners are great people. But…….it is always the same names, same people, same ideas………. Change means your son runs in your place.

Bruce

Re: Star Trek – well, there are many members of my family who ADORE Star Trek and one who resembles Janeway – I couldn’t really resist. But it also happens to be true – that’s kind of creepy!

I’m sure that’s part of it, what you mention. But still – he’s 62 – he’s not that old – I really think he takes it all for granted – and maybe we let him. How do we change that?

Nice Star Trek reference

I wonder if this is not just the way it is with career politicians. Time and power corrupt their thinking and they forget why they are where there are and WHO they represent.

Term limits……..

Bruce