Friday, September 26, 2008


Everybody seems to want to talk about the "wolves" ad by the OHRCC, that takes on John Carney and Nancy Garland for being a lawyer and a lobbyist, respectively. I haven't addressed it for a couple of reasons. First of all, if you're the sort of person who listens to reason, these grainy black and white ads just make you roll your eyes. If you're not that type, I have no idea how to talk to you (although the Dispatch does pretty well with this one).

It goes a little further, though, with this line of attack, and with this line of attack against this candidate in particular. First of all, Steve Stivers is a career lobbyist looking to further his career in politics. I know the Ohio GOP sees nothing wrong with making two diametrically opposed arguments simultaneously, but for my own dignity I feel like I have to explain why there is a difference. In a nutshell, it's this: What happens to America when the Banking Industry gets extra access to lawmakers? What happens to America when Physical Therapists get extra access to lawmakers?

Avid readers will remember that this didn't stop me from making strong comments about Nancy Garland's history as a lobbyist during the primary, so I'm not the ideal person to be expressing outrage. A couple of things have turned me around on this. First, the primary was somewhat contentious, and I got caught up in that. Second, unlike a guy like Steve Stivers who has done everything he is capable of doing to make his career as a lobbyist go away, Nancy Garland is proud of the work she did and the contributions she made to legislation like the Patient's Bill of Rights. She has made a credible argument that her experience with the legislative process will give her a head start as a legislator, and I've come to buy it.

The GOP is in serious danger of losing a majority in the Ohio House, in part because these two races are likely to go to the Dems. I'd expect more mud to get slung at both sides from third party groups before this is over (but if you've seen the DLCC's "Sneaky McGregor" mailer, you'll have to admit that the Dem's mud is funnier).

Nancy Garland worked as a lobbyist. She is also the superior choice to represent the 20th District in the Ohio House. If this is the worst that they've got (and wolves? Dancing Babies doing the Macarena wouldn't be more tired and cliched), then we're in pretty good shape.

And BTW, I'm sure I'm going to get the same comments that have shown up elsewhere, so let me say in advance: It is true that Bev Campbell almost beat McGregor in 2006. It is also true that Bev didn't come nearly as close to beating Garland in March. I voted for her both times. I won't be voting for her this fall. You could start a write-in campaign and watch her lose to both of them simultaneously in November, or simply get over it, or work on getting support for a 2010 run (the 3rd Senate District won't have a Dem incumbent). I suppose you could also just ignore me and keep working to keep the GOP in power out of simple spite, but I'd prefer you start your own blog if that's all you have to offer. Thanks.


Anonymous said...

Do you really think Garland lobbied on behalf of all of Ohio, and that it wasn't in the slightest bit self serving? Even if she did create a "Patients Rights" it does nothing for the uninsured or under insured, and does not deal with creating a sustainable health care system. Her lobbying efforts only helped those rich enough to already afford health care.

How can we trust someone to enact change when they already been a part of the system for as long as Garland has?

Bev Campbell said...

As usual Bonobo, I agree with you. And I continue to remind my supporters how vitally important it is that we gain a majority in the Ohio House.

That having been said, I respectfully think that your comment about "watching her lose to both of them simultaneously in November" was over the top, unnecessary, and maybe even divisive and counter productive - intensifying their determination not to support Garland.

I understand their difficulty in "getting over it". Process is important and they feel that the process was abused and manipulated in the primary this time. So rather than belittle them and invalidate them, let's try working with them and respecting that. They have some very valid points.

But, having said all of that, it is vital that we gain a democratic majority in the OH House, so....

I agree with you. And those close to me know that having "gotten over it" long ago we've been actively working on this year's elections and we've already started working on 2010.

Suzanne said...


You said it well. I, too, was distressed over the way
Bev was passed over by FCDP in the party endorsement process, but as you say that's over and done. I've talked with Nancy and think she is a strong candidate: sensible, experienced, smart and on the right side of issues I care about. Yes, she's a lobbyist but that means she knows how to make the sausage -- and I love your distinction between her lobbying and Stivers'. I'm going to forward this one around.

If anyone wants to meet Nancy Garland, she will be at my house for an informal reception (campaign donations encouraged but NOT required) next Friday, Oct. 3 at 6:30 p.m., 2548 Fair Ave.



open mind said...

Forgive me if I don’t take your word about which mudslinging is more effective; after all, your blog is entitled Blue Bexley. A panel of undecideds would make that decision much easier, and carry slightly more weight. I will agree, however, about the dems mud being funnier. Like, laugh out loud funny.

However, I am also detecting a major shift in your objectivity overall. In the primary you did a lot of research about Nancy Garland, and came to the conclusion that she may have donated personally to Republican candidates, including, in your words, “a 4-figure contribution to Newt Gingrich's Monday Morning PAC” ( This was a serious issue for you. Of course her campaign claimed that it was on part of the APTA lobbying firm she worked for, but after your own research you wrote this, “so I'll concede that it appears quite possible that Nancy Garland has never been a personal supporter of Republicans, she has merely been a lobbyist charged with cozying up to and trying to buy influence with Republicans.” Your post that day ( spells it out quite clearly that there are some interesting donations attached to her name in the past, and unless something has changed, you sounded less than convinced that she had not indeed made those donations.

That was really the latest regarding her past before this post. Your sudden attempt to make her lobbying appear noble while demeaning Stiver’s smacks of sell out. You completely ignored your past research, unless you learned something new that you haven’t shared. Either way, to gloss over your own criticism and beliefs for the sake of party unity is something I haven’t seen from you in the past, and frankly, didn’t expect. Chalk up another blog that sold out to toe the party line. Unfortunate. If I have misinterpreted something, please explain.

bonobo said...

Hoo-Boy. First, to Bev, I didn't mean to offend you, and I'm sorry if I made my point in a way that was unnecessarily rough. The point of that statement was merely that you're not going to win an election this November, no matter how passionate and devoted some of your supporters are. You're not on the ballot, and write-ins don't typically get a big percentage of the vote. I understand the sting lasts a long time when you strongly support a candidate who doesn't win the election, I just keep hoping that the passion will get redirected toward something positive (like 2010).

Anonymous doesn't believe that Garland was representing the interests of all Ohioans, and that any benefits of her work simply helped those who didn't really need the help. Well, duh. When I analyze data, it is not on behalf of all Ohioans. If I wanted a job where I could put my skills to use benefiting all Ohioans I might, I don't know, run for the legislature or something.

Open Mind, I don't think I actually claimed that the Dem mud was more effective, just funnier. As for the rest, you're deliberately ignoring and stretching. First of all, as you say, I backed off my contention that Garland gave the donations personally. It really does look like they were PAC donations, and I conceded that. I followed that concession up with a pretty nasty statement about being a lobbyist. I did that mainly because I was ticked off at the Garland supporter who had insulted me the day before. I regret it now. I didn't ignore that history, I explicitly brought it up in my post. And finally, I don't see how six months of positive posts about Garland fits in with the idea of a "sudden" attempt.

Like I said, some folks have been expecting me to lay into the GOP for this ad. I'm well aware of what I said, and how it relates to the current ad. Let me put it another way: The GOP should be embarrassed of this type of attack. I certainly have been.

Bev Campbell said...

Bonobo, I think you know it would take a lot more than your comment to offend me (though I appreciate your apology). Like I said, my energies have already been put to use in this election and 2010.

My concern is and was the effect on some very irritated supporters -not because of some uber-loyalty to me, but because of their belief in a system and process that was openly violated. I think Suzzanne stated it very well.

Continuing to invalidate and mock them is just going to make matters worse. I'm sure they realize that a write-in rarely wins, but can be a spoiler.

I am unequivocally communicating to any of them who read your blog: This is not the time for spoilers, and being a spoiler is NOT what I or my involvement in politics is about. We NEED a majority in the OH House. I have offered to the ODP, the Caucus and to Garland herself, to assist in any way I can.

SO, let's get busy; we have work to do - now and for 2010.