Open to debate
The Blade
Editorial
August 3, 2015
The Ohio Democratic Party should embrace, not ignore, the opportunity Mr. Sittenfeld’s campaign provides
OHIO is likely to have a seriously contested Democratic primary for U.S. Senate next year, despite the efforts of state party leaders and their endorsed candidate, former Gov. Ted Strickland, to ignore or obstruct the credible campaign of Cincinnati City Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld. Rather than working to squelch this competition, the party should embrace the opportunities it offers the candidates and voters.
These opportunities should include a series of debates between Mr. Strickland and Mr. Sittenfeld, which would enable voters to take the measure of both candidates (The Blade would be pleased to sponsor such a debate in Toledo). With just two candidates — in contrast to the 10 Republican presidential hopefuls who will crowd a debate stage in Cleveland this week — such debates could enable the Democrats to have an enlightening dialogue, instead of merely reciting parallel talking points.
Yet Mr. Strickland’s campaign is focusing almost exclusively on articulating the differences between him and first-term Republican incumbent Sen. Rob Portman, who is seeking re-election next year. Certainly Mr. Strickland is the heavy favorite in the March, 2016, Democratic primary, especially given his pre-emptive endorsement last April by the party organization. The party refused to allow Mr. Sittenfeld to address its state dinner in June.
Mr. Strickland and his supporters might not want to take too much for granted as they go after Senator Portman. The state Democratic Party similarly cleared the decks last year for then-Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald to challenge Gov. John Kasich. Mr. FitzGerald endured one of the worst defeats in modern Ohio political history, dragging the rest of his party’s ticket down with him. Tougher primary competition might have made him a better prepared candidate.
Mr. Strickland will be a far better-funded, more experienced, and more accomplished candidate than Mr. FitzGerald was. Still, he will turn 74 next week, and has not won an election since 2006; Mr. Kasich defeated him in 2010. Democratic voters may want their party to give them a meaningful primary choice.
Given the battering the Democratic Party has taken in recent statewide elections, the party’s new leadership team talks sensibly about building a bench of young, talented politicians across Ohio whom they can prepare for higher office. Mr. Sittenfeld surely fits that description: Despite his relative youth — he’s 30 — he has amassed a substantive record on the Cincinnati council, and is an effective vote-getter.
Yet state Democratic Chairman David Pepper last month appeared to call Mr. Sittenfeld’s Senate campaign “a case study of moving too quickly” and “a missed opportunity to make a difference in a community that needs it.” That sort of wait-your-turn counsel appears at odds with the priorities Mr. Pepper has set for his party.
It also caused former state party chairman James Ruvolo of Ottawa Hills, who supports Mr. Sittenfeld, to accuse Mr. Pepper of “a transparent attempt to drive him out” of the Senate race. Mr. Pepper told The Blade’s editorial page that his remarks had been misinterpreted, and insisted he has neither criticized Mr. Sittenfeld nor sought his withdrawal from the campaign.
This sort of dissension suggests the potential value of candidate debates. Let Mr. Strickland and Mr. Sittenfeld compare and contrast their positions on trade agreements, Lake Erie cleanup, Social Security reform, gun control, responses to drug addiction, foreign policy, and any number of other issues. Such information could only benefit Ohio voters, Democrats and others.
It’s too early for anyone to make an endorsement in next year’s Senate primary. But now that the Ohio Democratic Party has done so, party leaders need to demonstrate their commitment to open, fair competition and choice. One-on-one debates between Mr. Strickland and Mr. Sittenfeld would do that.