PART III - A SCPR CRITIQUE OF THE JEFFERSON ACTION RENACCI/SUTTON CITIZENS FORUM

Jefferson Action (a 501c4 non-profit civic education organization) provided citizens of the 16th congressional district a splendid public service in selecting the district to be a focal point of a citizen inquiry into candidates Jim Renacci's (R - Wadsworth) and Betty Sutton's (D - Copley) view on various economic issues at play in their match up against one another to see which of the two will remain in Congress.

Renacci and Sutton (both currently in Congress [Renacci - the 16th], [Sutton - the 13th]) were forced to run against one another because U.S. Constitution required decennial redistricting required a reallocation of congressional seats across America with population losing states [Ohio was one of them, losing two seats due to population loss] ceding seats to states gaining population.

The Jefferson Action process (a seven day one spread out over three months:  July, September & October) involved:

• In July,  getting a 24 member randomly chosen 16th District citizen group (which actually ended up being 23 number) and identifying the boilerplate issues, to wit:
• Weak Economic growth,
• Unemployment, and
• the Federal Deficit and Debt
• In September, preparing the citizens group to acquire a depth of information about the issues with which to frame specific questions of each Renacci and Sutton bounded by the generalized issues of weak economic growth, unemployment and the federal deficit and debt,
• In October, (the SCPR was present and videotaped both candidate interviews) meeting each of the candidates face-to-face (The Report being one of the media present), but separate from each other, for about 75 minutes of a back and forth on pre-framed question with spontaneous follow up.

While The Report applauds the project having been put together and implemented, it is important to the integrity of the process that Jefferson Action, the citizen-participants and the candidates performance be reviewed and critiqued.

Such is the focus of this blog.

Prior blogs have honed in:

• on the organization of the project with an SCPR evaluation on whether or not Jefferson Action put together a "sustainable" model for other civic involvement organizations to follow (LINK),
• on the preparation of the citizens group in terms of whether or not the members were adequately prepared to frame meaningful questions, both prepared and spontaneous follow up, to pose to the question and designed to compel the candidates to be responsive to the questions asked (LINK to a prior blog which dealt somewhat with the preparation phase.  

As previously stated, this blog is an analysis of how effectively Jefferson Action, the citizen group members, and the candidates themselves responded to the challenge.

A wealth of materials covering the entire seven days is available at Jefferson Action's website (LINK).

In hindsight, looking at what appears to be a consistently "skewed" citizen evaluation in Renacci's favor, the SCPR believes that the "random" selection process was not thoroughly thought out and resulted in a group composition predisposed to the congressman's viewpoint.

In reviewing the citizen-group's "votes" on the candidates' responses to the questions presented to them on weak economic growth, unemployment and the federal debt, the SCPR's take is that the result was not as much as thoughtful analysis of the candidate responses as Jefferson Action would undoubtedly preferred, but appears to have been laced with underlying political preference.

Moreover, it appears (again, in hindsight, seeing the groups' findings - LINK) that the stronger personalities within the group were Republican "right-of-center" types (one person, in particular, stood out) who prevailed in terms of getting their views accepted by the more neutral members of the group.

A solution?

Jefferson Action should have put more effort in ensuring that the group participants were eight solid Republicans, eight solid Democrats, and eight solid independents. 

It is very easy to check historical voting records in primaries.  Determining who has voted consistently and which political party ballot they have taken or that they have taken no party ballot at all is a walk in the park.

Also, pre-selection interviews from a pool of potential selectees should resulted in the ferreting out of overpowering personalities.

It was obvious to The Report that one personality in particular was driving the engine of JA selected group and possibly was a key factor in slanting the vote of the group as a whole towards Renacci.

The SCPR's take on the Renacci/Sutton answers was that the quality of  their answers was pretty much of a draw. 

It seems to yours truly that the citizen-participant follow ups were not strong/persistent enough to have any hope of driving the candidates off their talking points.

And consequently seasoned political observers would be hard pressed to say that one candidate was more effectively responsive that the other.

Here is an example.

One of Renacci's bromides at the forum, which is a well-known universal talking point among many Republican candidates, is the insistence that lower taxes produce jobs.

Well, there is another point-of-view.

Democrats (and, of course Congresswoman Sutton) rightly or wrongly, are fond of saying "we have tried that and where did it lead us?"

Democrats in Congress (including Sutton) and President Obama favor massive infrastructure investment a la President Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal."

But the follow up questions, failed:

• to draw out distinct clarity on the differences between the candidates,  and
• to press for evidence that one answer was more right for the country than the other.

The citizens could easily have asked Renacci to provide data that the tax cut approach has worked.

And anticipating what clearly was going to be a main tenet of what Sutton was going to say, why wouldn't "inquiring minds" want to ask him what part a "spending for infrastructure" might play in job recovery and economic recovery.

Sutton should have been asked for economic studies that are evidence that the tax cut scenario does not pan out.

And Sutton should have been pressed on her infrastructure argument.  For beginners: what was good for the 1930s and 1940s might will work in 2012, no?  The candidates should have been pressed to provide evidence for his/her point-of-view.

To be fair to the citizens, the SCPR believes the structure of the separate interviews was inadequate to the task at hand and greatly hampered the type of vetting of the candidates that might have been more enlightening as to which view offered solutions to what ails the country on the economic front.

A more beneficial format would have been for it to have been a townhall-esque setting like the one that Romney and Obama will be having Tuesday night.

Jefferson Action's 16th congressional district citizens forum project was a noble enterprise.

But it could have been so much more!

(VIDEOS) PART II - JEFFERSON ACTION CITIZEN GROUP PREPARES IN SEPTEMBER TO MEET & QUESTION CANDIDATES RENACCI & SUTTON IN OCTOBER

Readers of this blog should have read Part I (LINK) prior to reading this blog.

PART II - JEFFERSON ACTION PREPARING ITS CITIZEN GROUP FOR OCTOBER 7, 2012 Q&A WITH CONGRESSPERSONS RENACCI & SUTTON

It all begin back in July of this year.

A non-profit civic organization named Jefferson Action (JA) brought together an effort to enable and empower voters in the 16th congressional district to know the candidates better.

This is how JA describes beginnings of its project:

On July 27-29, the first Citizens Election Forum met to discuss the economic problems facing Ohio’s District 16 and identify the most important economic issues for the Renacci and Sutton campaigns to focus on. Twenty-four citizens randomly selected from the district worked hard over the course of three days to identify three economic issues they want the Renacci and Sutton [LINK] campaigns to address. In the end the group agreed that weak economic growth, unemployment and the federal budget/deficit are the economic issues the candidates should address.

The SCPR believes that a major impediment to everyday citizens interacting in a critical/analytical way with their elected representatives is their unprepardness.

We all know the feeling.

Unprepared for anything equals insecurity.

Oh yes, if the citizen has a particular problem they can and often do scream and yell at their elected public official.  But to do so is to risk coming off as a "hot-head" not to be taken seriously and thereby plays right into the hands of an experience-advantaged politico who has no answer.

A citizen/politician match up in terms of prior preparation is in fact a mismatch.

If nothing else, the official will have honed up on his/her talking points and likely thereby to make onlookers see the citizen as being a politically ignorant person.

Accordingly, it was very empowering for Jefferson Action to have gone out an gotten nine experts (the September 20 -23 sessions) in economics and politics to meet with its 24 randomly selected across the 16th congressional district citizen-participants.

To repeat, the framework for the Q&A with Renacci and Sutton was centered on three broad issues of the candidates' respective campaigns.

• Weak Economic growth,
• Unemployment, and
• The Federal Deficit and Debt

For you and I, carefully chosen experts are seemingly not in the cards.

Accordingly, the Jefferson Action model (as put together as its 5th project) is  not a realistic one for ordinary citizens in that respect.

However, there may be a viable alternative.

In this day and age of a vibrant Internet, one can become, if so disposed, self-educated on the issues in any campaign.  But there is no doubt about it, it takes a lot of time and effort to do so.

A threshold consideration is therefore:  whether or not it is realistic to expect folks busy with their work-a-day worlds will have the time and resources to take advantage of the Internet (and other) resources?

The SCPR thinks not unless a ready-made resource is put together that is easily accessible.

Perhaps Jefferson Action could lead the way in the following ways:

• for starters, being a rallying organization for the creation of citizen groups in competitive congressional districts across America which meet at centrally located public libraries and thereby able to have Internet access,
• to make available web-accessible "simple to use" organizational materials,
• to make its staff available via various mediums as consultants and resource persons for citizen groups to avail themselves of,
• assisting citizen groups formed to obtain commitments from congresspersons running in the chosen districts to participate in a format like that employed by JA in the Renacci/Sutton exercise,
• in developing an web page which everydays access to ask questions of a panel of experts assembled by JA,
• to provide document templates which provide content and timeline structures which lead the citizen groups from the preparation process through developing vetted and highly relevant issue Q&As, and
• helping the citizens to evaluate the Q&A responses and provide a web-based depository for anyone to access as an aid to deciding in who to vote for in the chosen districts.

Jefferson Action has made a tremendous contribution towards facilitating a reasoned public dialogue in the conduct of political campaigns in its five projects.

However, unless the organization creates a follow-up, sustainable and continuing effort, it could be remembered for doing a good public work that has life only as a fading memory of those who participated in and witnessed parts of it.

Here are a series of videos published by Jefferson Action showing actual preparation stage sessions of its 16th congressional district citizen group.

PART I (VIDEOS) MATCH UP: (SORT OF) 16TH DISTRICT CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES RENACCI AND SUTTON AT JEFFERSON ACTION ON SATURDAY. DID EITHER WIN IN THE MINDS OF 24 16TH DISTRICT CITIZENS? ALSO, FROM THE SCPR PERSPECTIVE?

INTRODUCTION

This Stark County Political Report blog is "Part 1" of a multi-part presentation of a Jefferson Action (JA) "of, by and for the people"  Renacci/Sutton project that The Report will be spreading out over the next week.

(Note:  The Report will be publishing additional blogs on other Stark County political topics during the run on the JA event series)

For a grand total of seven days over a number of weekends (culminating on this Sunday - October 7th - Jefferson Action (LINK) has brought together a group of 24 citizens of Ohio's 16th Congressional District (with the 130th Congress which takes office in January, 2013) to become informed about the campaigns of Republican Jim Renacci (Wadsworth) and Democrat Betty Sutton (Copley) and at the end to evaluate their candidacies.

Both Renacci and Sutton are congressional incumbents.  Renacci has represented the 16th congressional district for the past two years.  Sutton has represented the 13th congressional district for the past six years.

They were thrown together because of U.S. constitutionally required (post-every-10 year-census) redistricting.  Ohio lost population and correspondingly two congressional seats from 18 to 16.

The race is too close to call for political prognosticators.

And it is drawing the infusion of millions of dollars of outside-of-the-16th District political actions committees.

While it is unlikely that Republican control of Congress is at stake, it could happen but a more likely and realistic scenario is whether or not Democrats can narrow the Republican margin of control.

WHO IS JEFFERSON ACTION AND WHY IS THIS MINNESOTA NON-PROFIT INVOLVED IN OHIO?

First, take a couple of minutes to view this YouTube video produced by Jefferson Action in order to get an overview of what the organization is about.



Next, one should ask:  why is Jefferson Action involved in projects of citizen education (the Renacci/Sutton project is the fifth such project) in pursuit of its mission?  JA describes it mission as being:

a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to returning democracy to the people. Our mission is making the informed voice of everyday citizens heard — and making sure elected officials and politicians address the issues.

Politicians spend too much time on attack ads and too little time listening to the people. Special interests have hijacked the debate and steered it into the gutter.

Jefferson Action offers a solution. Our Citizens Election Forums are a remarkable tool with a track record of satisfying the voting public’s hunger for action and accountability.

Beyond the obvious and sincere civic aspirations of JA, the SCPR believes that the the 16th District was chosen because of:

• the tightness of the race, 
• the fact that two incumbents are running against each other, 
• Renacci's loose association to right wing Tea Party movement and Sutton's "left-of-political-center" stance, and
• the respective Renacci and Sutton articulation/communication skills

played large into JA selection of Ohio and the 16th to focus on.

A MODEL FOR ALL CITIZENS TO FOLLOW CLOSELY

The SCPR invites the readers of The Report to digest much of the information that was presented by Jefferson Action in the form of providing a framework (via Jefferson Action personnel, college professors and others) so that the citizen-participants were equipped and empowered to question both Renacci and Sutton, to mull over the answers, discuss among themselves the answers and to endeavor to come up with some sort of an evaluation of the candidates and their campaigns.

Of course, the SCPR will present (through the courtesy of Jefferson Action in the sense of making the Renacci/Sutton material available on its website which can LINKed to direct) the candidates in their presentations and a summary of the citizen-evaluations and The Report will offer an assessment of the candidates (parsing the video of their respective JA presentations), their campaigns and the citizen-evaluators assessments.

Due to the exhaustive work done by JA and the citizen-participants, as indicated above the SCPR will be spreading blogs out over seven days.

Stark County does have a direct stake in the outcome of the 16th District congressional race.

But whether or not you as a reader of the SCPR live in the 16th, following closely along with the JA project will equip you to cast a more informed vote in your own congressional race; be it the 7th (Democrat Healy-Abrams v. Republican Gibbs) or the 13th (Democrat Tim Ryan v. Republican Marisha Agana).

Moveover, following the JA Renacci/Sutton model will certainly put you in a position to critically evaluate your candidates and better able to make more persuasive arguments to your friends, neighbors, family and community members as to why they should support the candidate that you have become convinced is the best candidate.

WHERE TO START?

For starters, readers of this blog owe to themselves to take the time out to watch the Q&A between the citizens and the candidates.

Just as the citizen-participants invested considerable time in informing themselves, 

Here is the Jefferson Action YouTube video of Congressman Renacci (the old 16th):

(Note:  The SCPR took a video of the event and in breaking down the film by candidate point-by-point will be using said video)



And here is the Jefferson Action YouTube video of Congresswoman Sutton (the old 13th)



In Part II tomorrow, the SCPR begins an assessment of the candidates, their campaigns and the JA citizen-participant evaluation of the candidates and their campaigns.

RENACCI SHOWS WHY SO MANY AMERICANS DISDAIN CONGRESS?

On Friday, the SCPR received an e-mail from 16th District Congressman Jim Renacci (Republican - Wadsworth) which, on the face of it, seemed to be a description of laudable bipartisan legislation he was undertaking.

Renacci is engaged in the political fight of his life to retain the 16th District congressional seat (reconstituted due to decennial redistricting as required by the U.S. Constitution) because the redistricting process threw Democratic Congresswoman Betty Sutton (now representing the 13th) into the 16th.

(NOTE:  The SCPR has sought a reaction to the Renacci claim to be on the side of those struggling to redeem their credit standing, but has not received a response as of the publication of this blog)

In his email, Renacci said (in part):

... Representative Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota, and I brought some significant national attention to the credit reporting bill we introduced last week ... .

Renacci directed readers of the email to a Wall Street Journal Op-ed authored by himself and Ellison.

Hmm?

He goes on to say:

The substance of the bill is actually quite simple. It would allow utility and telecom companies to report on-time payments from customers to the three credit rating agencies. Right now, utility companies are only allowed to report when people are late with their payments. The way I see it, if a utility company can ding your credit, shouldn’t they also have the ability to help you rebuild it? 

Double down on the "hmm?

Jim Renacci (who reportedly has a $37 million fortune) concerned about the plight of a number of the 47% down and outers who Mitt Romney has written off?  Interesting, no?

Go on Congressman!

This additional reporting can help those without access to other forms of credit – so-called “credit invisibles” – build their scores. It can also help those who may have made a mistake or two in the past recover from the damage done.

Triple down on the "hmm?"

But, of course, the SCPR does not "take at face value" what anyone says, no matter who they are.

So why is this seemingly good deed suspect to the SCPR?

Well, here is the list:

• It is a little late in coming.  
• Renacci became congressman on January 1, 2011 and so how is it that he waits until September 12, 2012 some 57 days before he is up for re-election in an extremely tight race (which a number of pundit figure he is behind in before he becomes the prime sponsor of H.R. 6363?
• Those needing credit repair didn't suddenly materialize about two months before the election, did they?
• Despite the congressmen's claim that HR 6363 will help the down-and-out rebuild their credit scores, there are those who believe that Renacci's bill will actually hurt the "credit-impaired."  One such organization is the National Consumer Law Center.  The Center objected as follows in a letter to Renacci (dated September 12th; LINK to the NCLC letter) that:
• in Ohio, for instance, 21% of utility customers have a history of paying late,
• a resulting low credit score "can put a target on consumer's backs for predatory lenders such as fee-harvester credit cards, who rely on pre-screened lists of consumers with bad credit."
• would be employers might back off from hiring those with a history of late pay on utility bills,
• insurance companies might well use the reports to charge these folks higher insurance rates,
• There is only a 3% chance that the Renacci bill will become law which makes it pretty clear that he has introduced the bill to make it appear he is consumer friendly knowing full well that it is remote at best that the bill will ever pass even if one wants to by his spin that it help the down-and-out as against an organization (the NCLC) that just might know a little more about how to help the down-and-out than Renacci does.

Below is some information from GovTrack.us which shows how little chance Renacci's initiative has of ever making it into law.

By the way GovTrack.us describes itself thusly:

GovTrack.us is a tool by Civic Impulse, LLC to help the public research and follow legislation in the United States Congress and the state legislatures. Our goal is to promote and innovate government transparency, civic engagement, and civic education through novel uses of technology.  (LINK to analysis of time track of Renacci's legislation)

So as far as the SCPR is concerned it is pretty evident that Congressman Renacci has come up with this piece of legislation in order to fool the people into thinking he has become a friend of a number of the 47% who are not supportive of his political party.

It is efforts like Rencci's that when discovered for what they are (a cynical use of legislative processes for individual political advantage and manipulation) that contributes to the 17% approval rate that the American public has towards congressmen/women.

Take a look at the polling picture Congressman Renacci is helping to paint!

RENACCI & SUTTON: AN "UNUSUAL & SORT OF" DEBATE?

What's this?

The people get to decide what questions get asked of the candidates?

And to evaluate the answers for public dissemination?

Indeed!

Several days ago the campaigns of Republican Jim Renacci and Democrat Betty Sutton agreed to participate in a debate sponsored by Jefferson Action on October 6th, 2012 at the Radisson Hotel Akron/Fairlawn sometime in the morning.  The exact hour the debate will begin has yet to be set.

Renacci, who is the sitting 16th district congressman, and Sutton, who is the sitting 13th district congresswoman, were thrown into this race against each other because Ohio lost two seats (from 18 down to 16) due to a loss of population in the 2010 census.

As far as the SCPR is concerned, this is a debate to see more than most debates because the questions will be framed by 24 random 16 congressional district constituents (the new district).

According to a press release issued by Jefferson Action (re:  Reclaim November, Ohio!) on August 10th:

The forum (Ohio Citizens Election Forum) will gather 24 randomly selected residents for an intensive, seven-day (the six day immediately preceding the debate and, of course, October 6th itself) exercise in learning and discussion focused on economic issues.

The subject matter of the unusual and  sort of  debate will be:  weak economic growth, unemployment and the federal budget deficit and debt.

The Report describes the debate as being unusual and sort of  because Renacci and Sutton will each appear separately for an hour of questioning by the citizen panel.  Panel members will then report back to the public on their impressions:

(in the words of the release) on how well each candidate addressed the issues, and whether they’re campaigning on the issues — or basing their campaigns on attacks and negative soundbites.

Space will be made available to both the public and the media.  However, the forum will not be available on "live" media.

The Stark County Political Report applauds Jefferson Action for generating the idea of a discussion of economic issues by Renacci and Sutton and also that the questions will come from everyday citizens.

The Jefferson Action group says of itself:

Jefferson Action is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to returning democracy to the people. Our mission is making the informed voice of everyday citizens heard — and making sure elected officials and politicians address the issues. Our Reclaim November, Ohio! project aims at making the voice of the people heard by candidates in Ohio’s hotly contested 16^th Congressional District.

Based in St. Paul, Minn., Jefferson Action uses the Citizens Election Forum process to bring together randomly selected citizens to consider important issues. The citizens are educated by experts representing a wide range of viewpoints. The group then recommends a course of action.  Jefferson Action lets the public know if the politicians are addressing the important issues – or simply attacking one another.

While there may be other debates between Renacci and Sutton to take in, as far as The Report is concerned, this is one for those Stark Countians who are part of the 16th to see!

WISH UPON A STAR: WISH RENACCI WAS MORE LIKE RETIRING CONGRESSMAN STEVE LATOURETTE

 

Do they match up?

Not really.

According to Open Congress, a non-profit, non-partisan civic organization, this is how they stack up against one another.

When Renacci ran against the-then Congressman John Boccieri in 2010 in the 16th Congressional District (which then included all of Stark County), he made a big deal out of the fact that Boccieri voted with Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party 95% of the time.

And the Stark County Political Report agrees 95% is way too high of a percentage for party line voting.

But now we learn that nearly two years into his first term that Renacci has voted with John Boehner and the Republican Party 93% of the time.

What a disappointment, no?

And, we should add, what a hypocrite!

Recently,  LaTourette (first elected in 1994) announced that he was not running for reelection to the 113th Congress which begins in January of 2013.  He represents the 14th congressional district.

Reason why?

According to LaTourette (Retiring Rep. Steve LaTourette: You have to ‘hand over your wallet and your voting card’ to extremes, The Washington Post, July 31, 2012, Rsoalind Helderman):

“I have reached the conclusion that the atmosphere today and the reality that exists in the House of Representatives no longer encourages the finding of common ground,” ...

...  [to rise in party ranks, politicians must now hand over] “your wallet and your voting card” [to party extremes] ... .

Because of his inclination to try to find common ground with Democrats in Congress and because he did not raise enough money for the Republican Party cause, LaTourette likely was not going to be named chair of the Labor-HHS subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee according to Roll Call (a Washington-based political publication).

Coupled with other frustrations, the prospect of highly partisan politics playing large in his committee assignment and chairmanship as a senior ranking Republican was likely "the straw that broke the camel's back" in terms of LaTourette running for reelection.

But none of the "selling out to my political party" apparently bothers Jim Renacci.

He is right in line with a trend that has been manifest since the early 1990s.

 

When LaTourette entered Congress, it was much more likely that a congressman would seek to work across the aisle to do the people's business and he fit right in.

In 2012, "finding common ground" is viewed as being politically naive and is the perfect environment for Renacci who obviously believes that the Republican Party is the reservoir of all that is good for America.

Apparently, his opponent Democrat Betty Sutton (currently 13th District congresswoman forced to run against Renacci because of decentenial redistricting) is cut out of the same cloth as Renacci.  Her Democratic Party loyalty factor is 94%.

Undoubtedly, they deserve each other. 

But the election of either one will mean that tens of thousands of 16th District constituents will go unrepresented because the congress person of the opposite political party was elected.

Shame on both of them for putting partisanship over the common public good!

And we all should lament to the political demise of the likes of Steve LaTourette.

RENACCI GIVEBACK A SIGN OF TROUBLE IN HIS CAMPAIGN TO RETAIN THE 16TH DISTRICT SEAT?

It is looking more and more to the SCPR that Republican Jim Renacci might be panicking a bit about the prospects of his maintaining a seat in the United States Congress.

With a poll (done by Normington, Petts & Associates) coming out in early July showing fellow-incumbent and Democrat Betty Sutton (redistricting is forcing them to run against one another) in the lead 41% to 38%, one could understand a little bit of concern.

But The Report's take on Renacci's campaign mode is that he must know something that the rest of us don't?  Well, what could that be?  How about an "internal" poll showing an even greater spread in favor of Sutton?

Those of us familiar with political campaigns know that the general public never sees the light of day on internal polls except if one happens to show a candidate way ahead.  Even then the campaigns do not talk numbers.  The candidate and staff merely takes on a smugness about themselves that betrays what they are not revealing to the public.

But there are other signs that Renacci figures himself to be in trouble and is scrambling to turn things around.

Let's focus on some of the other signs.

First and foremost is the flap about his having received about $100,250 in campaign contributions from employees of Suarez Industries Incorporated.  In a story broken by the Toledo Blade on August 19, 2011 (Canton firm's workers making unusual donations), writer Tony Cook made the following points:

• "All together, 17 employees from Canton-based Suarez Corporation have contributed to one or both candidates, according to federal campaign filings. Sixteen of those employees (and six of their spouses) have given $5,000, the maximum amount allowed under federal election law."
• [A company spokesperson] 'said the company did not reimburse employees or provide money for the contributions, though she later emphasized that she couldn't "speak on the behalf of anyone, other than our brand and products.' Federal campaign finance law prohibits a corporation from providing bonuses or salary increases to employees to reimburse them for political contributions."

Initially, Renacci just blew off Democratic leadership expressed suspicions that he - Renacci - may have been the person who came up with the idea for Suarez employees (who did not have much if any track record of contributing to political campaigns in the past) to make individual contributions.

The FBI picked up on the contributions and embarked on an investigation of whether or not they were improperly (by the standards of campaign finance law) made.

Congresswoman Sutton demanded that Renacci return the questioned contributions when the FBI investigation became public knowledge this past May.

Renacci refused saying through a campaign spokesperson that he would "wait and see" how the FBI investigation turned out.

His approach was quite different from that than fellow Republican and Ohio secretary of state Josh Mandel who is running to unseat Democrat Sherrod Brown from the U.S. Senate.

As soon as the FBI action became known, Mandel immediately took measures to return about $105,000 in political donations he had received from Suarez employees in the same fashion as Renacci.

Okay.  Sounds like a reasonable difference of approach, no?

If Renacci had stayed the course, yes.  But he didn't.  In an abrupt reversal, last Friday Renacci announced the was returning the $100,250 to the Suarez employees contributors.

His reason?

To take the matter off the table as a campaign controversy so that he and Sutton could get on with discussing the substantive issues of the campaign.

Hmm?  Does he really think Betty Sutton is not going the harp and harp and harp some more about the Suarez thing?

Pretty politically naive, if he does, no?

A second sign that a sense of urgency may be setting in with Renacci has to do his whining about being stalked by videographers.  It appears that he is indeed being tracked by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and by American Bridge which is thought by some to be Democratic congressional candidates' "unofficial" opposition research arm.

What Renacci fails to say is that "opposition research" is Politics 101 and undoubtedly he and national Republican organizations are undoubtedly tracking Congresswoman Sutton.

It appears to The Report that Renacci is whining because he fears that the Democrat researchers may come up with material that could be a difference maker in this close, close race.

The question that yours truly has is why Renacci in being so sensitive to be tracked and monitored?  Does he know that there are politically explosive skeletons to be discovered?

The Report doubts that such is the case because certainly the Boccieri campaign would have discovered them (if they existed) in Renacci's successful campaign to unseat Boccieri in 2010.

So the answer is likely that Renacci didn't figure on running behind with only about 100 days left before the election and he is coming just a little bit unglued.

A third sign that a campaign rush may be setting in with Renacci has to do with his challenge to Sutton to come out and debate him on the merits/demerits of he Affordable Care Act (referred to by Republicans as being Obamacare) on the heels of the United States Supreme Court ruling the core of the act constitutional.

The SCPR, for one, thinks that Sutton should take him up on the challenge.

She may find that there are many (perhaps, even a majority) in the 16th who do not want to see the act repealed as Renacci has committed himself to.  National polls show that a majority of Americans do not want the law repealed.  But it is close.  The worse that The Report thinks Sutton would do is to have a standoff on the issue.  And a face off could be a real educational experience for the voters of the 16th.

No doubt Renacci thinks otherwise and feels that if he can bait Sutton, then he is well on his way to pulling ahead of her and thereby resolve his concern that his congressional seat may be slipping away from him..  He appears to desperately looking for a head turner issue and he thinks this is it.

What's the saying?  Be careful what you wish for!

So the foregoing are signs (there are others) that the SCPR thinks demonstrates Congressman Jim Renacci might be losing it just a tad on maintaining campaign composure.

If his unease accelerates, he is likely to do some really dumb things and then "Katy bar the door," real political trouble is just around the corner in terms of him doing himself in.

It is well understood by most of us that human beings do not function well under stress.

Could a panicky Jim Renacci turn a very close race into a sold win for Betty Sutton notwithstanding Renacci's large lead in fundraising?

16TH DISTRICT CONGRESSIONAL RACE: WHY WOULDN'T BETTY SUTTON WANT TO DEBATE JIM RENACCI? WHAT IS SHE AFRAID OF? POLL SHOWS SHE LEADS RENACCI BY 3%.

 UPDATED:  10:15 AM

Right after the United States Supreme Court upheld most of the Affordable Care Act (ACA - referred to by Republican politicians as being Obamacare), 16th District Congressman Jim Renacci (Republican - Wadsworth) issued a challenge to 13th District Congresswoman Betty Sutton (Democrat - Copley) to agree to a debate in Strongsville to a debate of the merits of the legislation.

The two, though both are incumbent congresspersons, are running against each other for the right to continue in Congress as the 16th district representative.  That's because Ohio lost two seats due to a loss of population as established by the 2010 decentenial census as required by the U.S. Constitution.

The 16th District includes Jackson Township, Lawrence Township, parts of Lake Township, North Canton and dips down into Canton's 5th Ward (represented in Canton City Council by Democrat Kevin Fisher) to include The Timken Company headquarters (a rich source of campaign contributions for Congressman Renacci).

Sutton's response:  The Supreme Court has made its decision, it is time to move on to other issues.

Could Sutton be making a huge political mistake in not taking Renacci on in a debate?

The SCPR thinks she might be.  But undoubtedly if she is, she has her "politically motivated" reasons.

Could it be that she has not schooled herself in the deficiencies of the current in place broken system of health care insurance and the fixes thereto in order to stand toe-to-toe with Renacci as he spills out the spin provided him by the National Republican Party?

The SCPR believes that in spin against spin the Republicans win the battle to control the minds and hearts of ordinary Americans.  The polls all show this.

The Democrats have developed there own spin which is "tit-for-tat" and they do not go where they ought to in order in terms of truly understanding the health care insurance problem to be able to square up against the Republicans.

Renacci must sense this about Sutton intuitively and therefore with a great deal of bravado puts her on the defensive.

Touche for him in a political gamesmanship perspective.  But Americans are not served well by this kind of political posturing on both sides.

The SCPR's take own the "true" feeling about the Affordable Care Act is more mixed than its bad, bad, bad or great, great, great.

There are features like coverage of children until they are 26 under a parents policy and the ban on disqualifying applicants for insurance on the basis of preexisting condition that are not going away even if the Republicans are able to repeal Obamacare.

The Republicans will include in any repeal effort savings clauses for those two provisions at a very minimum.  However, in the spin game that politicians always play, they would nonetheless claim total repeal.

It appears to The Report and other political observers across the nation that the more American learn of the ACA free of the political spin, the more they find to like about it.

Who knows?  Over time it could come to:  why did we oppose this law in the first place?

Renacci showed how utterly dishonest he is with himself and of course with his constituents in putting out this blurb in a recent release, to wit:

Out of the 248 responses to last week’s survey asking if the health care law should be repealed despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, 78% believe it should be repealed, 21% believe it should not and 1% were not sure.

The congressman knows full well that national polls exist that show the American public to be much more balanced than his self-serving poll numbers indicate. 

And, of course, who put out the poll he now quotes?  How about the "Re-elect Renacci Your Congressman Campaign Committee?

Who might self-select to bolster a pre-announced Congressman Renacci advocacy of repeal?  Of course, those who have long shared the congressman's position.  The more surprising point is that 21% would buck the Renacci-led tide and vote no notwithstanding the futility of thereby influencing the congressman.

Whether one supports Renacci or not in his overall qualities as a representative, all should be disappointed that the man resorts to what the SCPR thinks is a dishonest manipulation of his constituents to make it look like he is in the mainstream of his constituents take on the Affordable Care Act.

Shame on Congressman Renacci!  To try and palm his self-serving poll off on the reading public is a direct insult to and contemptuous of the intelligence of the public.

Sutton can go a long ways in forcing Renacci off his talking points by educating herself (and co-incidentally the 16th District's voting public) not with Democratic National Committee talking points, but with actual studied knowledge of the problems and their fixes.

She could call him on his bluff on his proposed debate!

For great deal of insight without getting too technical for them (for political minds glaze over quickly), is to an interview between the National Public Radio and Uwe Reinhardt.  (LINK)

And if Sutton is particularly industrious and curious about getting to the heart of the matter, she might even engage him in a probing conversation.

But will she?

Not likely.  It is easier for her to run and hide with the lame "we have other issues to discuss."

Yours truly being a constituent of the 16th thinks that Renacci's idea is terrific.  It is sad that Sutton only thinks of it in terms of not being worth the effort of airing the issue out because she sees a political benefit to taking her Supreme Court victory and leaving it at that.

But that's what we citizens come to expect of our politicians:  Republican or Democrat.

The official position of Republicans is to "repeal and replace Obamacare."

There is no doubt that Republicans will repeal the ACA if they capture the Senate, maintain control of the House of Representatives and Mitt Romney is elected president of the United States.

In a bit of political grandstanding, the Republican controlled House has scheduled a vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  The U.S. Senate is controlled by Democrats and therefore will not be on the Senate's agenda.  So the matter is just what the SCPR has termed it to be in the first sentence of this paragraph:  political grandstanding.

Exactly what most Americans like to see out of their politicians, no?

According to a report from the United States Census Bureau on the basis of the 2010 census, 49.9 million Americans have no health insurance. (LINK)

So is there any doubt that if Republicans were to successfully repeal the ACA that they have to come up with some alternative?

The Report believes that most Americans think so.  Right now, it is not a question of whether or it is desirable for your friends, neighbors and relatives and, indeed, everyone to have basic medical coverage; it is a question of putting together the "best plan" in terms of getting the most bang for the federal bucks spent on health care coverage.

This is where the SCPR thinks Renacci and the Republicans could be vulnerable in a debate were Sutton to reverse course and take him on.

Instructive on the Republican plan on the "replacement" aspect of "repeal and replace," is an exchange that took place between Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) in a recent interview with FoxNews' Chris Wallace as shared by Ezra Klein (of the Washington Post) as a substitute host on the Madow Show. (LINK)

Wallace to McConnell:  "In your replacement, how would you provide universal coverage?"

All McConnell was willing to do with Wallace was to say that the Republican plan is a step-by-step-by-step plan.  No specifics.

"Step-by-step-by-step, or whatever, there is a Republican plan.  It is contained in a amendment to HB 3962 offered by in the House in 2009.

According to this plan, the Republicsns would:

• enact tort reform in order to cut down on the malpractice suits against medical providers and thereby lowering costs on the provision of medical service which would presumably make health insurance cheaper,
• allow insurers to sell across state lines and thereby give the uninsured more insurer choices and presumably lower prices because of more competition,
• improve high risk pools so that the uninsured are able (though afflicted with a "pre-existing medical condition) would have improved opportunities to obtain insurance which outside of Obamacare would not be available.
• provide grants to states so that they can research and develop  better "Medicaid" coverage alternatives.

The next question becomes, compared to what Obama's plan:  how many uninsureds would the Republican plan bring into a universal coverage mode?

Well, look at this chart published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO):

If the CBO can be believed, the Republican plan brings in about 3 million of the uninsured by 2019 whereas Obama's plan brings in about 30 million.

Hmm?

So under the ACA, between the individual mandate that Americans who can afford to pay for insurance but choose not to (apparently, about 20 million) in fact purchase it or be "taxed?" or "penalized?" (choose your favorite way of describing the required payment) and the 30 million "unaffordables" who will be brought in via Medicaid, one arrives at a universal coverage status.

On the other hand, under the Republican plan, if implemented, 3 million of the 50 million uninsured would be covered leaving 47 million uncovered.

Hmm?

How is that a universal coverage plan?

Obviously, it is not.  But the lack of a thoroughgoing plan is consistent with a political party that is becoming to be known as "the party of NO" so that it can ride the difficulties of the party in power to political victory.

The party of NO?  Heh.  Quite a different political party that yours truly was a member of for some 35 years.

Some political observers believe that the reality is that national Republicans are foot dragging at the very best (e.g. McConnell's "step-by-step-by-step), or, in a pessimistic take, on what these observers say is an opposition to universal coverage as a matter of political party philosophy.  However, not wanting to appear to be casting some 47 million Americans to the winds on heath care, put forward a plan to make it seem they are moving in a universal care direction.  As the graphic above shows, 3 million more covered within 7 years is hardly a convincing case.

So, once again, why isn't Sutton interested in putting Renacci on the spot in a public debate that would undoubtedly be prominently and generously covered by media (perhaps even national media)?

Her "let's move on to other issues" stance makes no sense to the SCPR.

Does she really think that Renacci is going to let her off that easy?

So she is going to let him hammer away at her with rhetorical flourishes in campaign ads and carefully structured and safe town hall meetings (which will be covered by the media) about Obamacare being, according to Republican Party talking points directives, "a job killing bill" and the like?

Well, if she is, it could be the end of a promising opportunity to stay in Congress.

Currently, according to a Cleveland Plain Dealer piece (Poll shows Rep. Betty Sutton with slight lead over Rep. Jim Renacci, July 3, 2012, Sabrina Eaton LINK), she is in the lead in this race, to wit:

The poll conducted by pollsters Normington, Petts & Associates  shows Sutton ahead of Renacci by a 41 to 38 percent margin. Libertarian Jeff Blevins had 4 percent in the telephone survey of 400 likely general election voters. The poll conducted between June 26 and 28 had a 4.9 percent margin of error.

The SCPR thinks that Sutton owes it the constituents of the "new" 16th Congressional District to debate Renacci on the healthcare insurance issue for the public benefit.

She might be surprised, she may herself benefit by looking Renacci's debate challenge square in the eyes a saying:  "Okay pal, if that's what you want that is what you will get and I will be prepared."

Could it be that her reluctance to debate the issue is that she does not have debating skills which she thinks matches up well against Renacci?

While The Report has not seen her debate, yours truly has seen Renacci and he is nothing special!

Of course, there are other issues.  There should be a series of debates.  But one should be devoted to the viability of the Affordable Care Act.

What are you afraid of Betty?

RENACCI/SUTTON SQUARE OFF: AN UP OR DOWN VOTE ON WHETHER "OBAMACARE" WILL REMAIN "THE LAW OF THE LAND?"

UPDATE:  (03:30)  A "new" Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows 56% of Americans do not want the implementation of the Affordable Care Act blocked.

 (LINK)

ORIGINAL BLOG (Updated)

In March, 2010 the-then 16th District Congressman John Boccieri flip-flopped (having voted against an ealier version of the bill) and announced that he would be voting for the final version of the bill.                                                                                                              That change likely was a primary cause for Bocceri's loss to former Wadworth mayor and Republican Jim Renacci in November, 2010.  Boccieri was not the only Ohio congressperson to go down to defeat in large measure due to Obamacare.  Four other Democrats took it on the political chin.

However, Democratic Congresswoman Betty Sutton (13th District) survived though supporting Obamacare from the get-go.

Now that the United States Supreme Court decided last Thursday that Obamacare does pass constitutional muster, the only way opponents of the bill can get rid of it is to repeal it in a new Congress.

And that is exactly was Renacci is committed to doing.

Renacci faces another fight of his political life as he must square off against 13th District Congresswoman Sutton because the decentenial national census show that an Ohio loss of population mandated that Ohio lose two congressional seats.

Redistricting done by Renacci's Republican pals in the Ohio General Assembly placed Renacci (Wadworth) and Sutton (Copley) in the same district - the 16th under the new congressional map for Ohio.

Anyway you cut it, Obamacare was going to be a big issue between the two in this year's face off as to which of them in going to remain in Congress.

However, with the Supreme Court validating the Affordable Care Act (ACA - aka Obamacare) the battle lines are drawn in a different way.

It could be that when voters are voting on a Renacci/Sutton race the are also voting by the congressional proxy on the issue of whether or not Obamacare gets repealed.

On the issue there is an old fashioned square off between Renacci and Sutton.  Rencci will vote for repeal whereas Sutton will vote to retain the Obamacare.

So the 16th Congressional District could be a barometer of where the country goes on whether or not Obamacare will stick.

Right now a number of  polls indicate a majority of voters (nationwide) are unfavorable towards the ACA.  However, there is a new Kaiser Foundation poll that indicates that 56% are not in favor of blocking implementation of its provisions (LINK).

Accordingly, it appears that Congresswoman Sutton has the burden of convincing 16th District voters that there are reasons why Obamacare is good for them and they therefore ought to vote for her.

Officially, she says that Americans needed to move beyond belaboring the merits/demerits of the law to other issues.

At this time it appears that Renacci is likely to win this race.  But there are still four months to go until the election.

Moreover, it is not just the congressional races which play into the ultimate fate of the ACA, the United States States Senate races loom large including that of Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown versus Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel.  The Senate election out comes are probably more crucial because a change in political party control is much more likely in the Senate.

And, of course, there is the presidential race.  If Barack Obama gets reelected then you can forget Obamacare getting repealed no matter what happens in the House and Senate  because there is no way Republicans can achieve a veto proof override which surely Obama would do if the Republicans can actually pass a repeal.

Stay tuned!

CONGRESSMAN JIM "I CANNOT TELL A FALSEHOOD" RENACCI? AT LEAST "AFTER THE FACT" AND, APPLYING DIFFERENT STANDARDS TO HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS COMPARED TO HIMSELF.

Recently, The Cleveland Plain Dealer in its PolitiFactOhio series (LINK) did a piece on a tiff between the Congressman Jim Renacci (R - Wadsworth - the 16th) and Congresswoman Betty Sutton (D - Copley - the 13th) on the matter of whether or not Renacci has it correct as to whether or not Betty Sutton was investigated by the FBI for contributions made to her campaign in 2008.

Because of congressional redistricting mandated by the U.S. Constitution every ten years if a given district gains or loses seats in Congress due to a population gain/loss within the 50 state configuration, Renacci and Sutton have been thrown into a race against each other in the newly configured 16th congressional district which means that one of them will be an ex-congressperson come January 1, 2013.

So one can only imagine the ferocious political fight that is unfolding between the two.

For now the political swirl is focus on two public figure factors:  Suarez Corporation Industries (Suarez) and its tycoon principal Ben Suarez and New York Congressman Charlie Rangel (Rangel).

When he ran against Democratic Congressman John Boccieri (D - Alliance) in 2008, Renacci leveled charges against Boccieri (whom he defeated), to wit:

As if John Boccieri’s voting record isn’t troubling enough, the fact that his campaign coffers have been fueled by the fruits of Washington’s culture of corruption raises further questions about his judgement and his ethics.

Boccieri had received campaign contributions from fellow Democratic congressman Charles Rangel (New York), the legality of which has never been questioned.

Here it is four years later and lo and behold Renacci's own campaign faces questions about the legality of campaign contributions made to it.

Recently, the FBI announced it was investigating campaign finance contributions made by employees of Suarez to the campaigns of Republican and U.S. Senate candidate Josh Mandel (his opponent is incumbent Democrat Sherrod Brown) and to Renacci's campaign.

Why?

Apparently there is a suspicion that Suarez may have asked key employees to make individual contributions to the candidates (to be reimbursed to them by the company) in order to get around campaign finance contribution limits in place at the time the contributions were made.

For the record, Suarez has denied that such was the case.

Notwithstanding Suarez's denial, Mandel's campaign almost immediately returned the donations it received.

However, Renacci's campaign is standing fast with its Suarez employee contributions pending the outcome of the investigation.

And it is reviving the tactic it used against Boccieri against current opponent Betty Sutton.  Actually, worse than against Boccieri.

Here is the Renacci statement about Sutton.

"My opponent, in 2008, had contributions investigated by the federal government."

Which Plain Dealer/PoliticFact says is a false statement.

And, which the Renacci campaign now says was a "misspeak" by the congressman.

Okay, make a false statement and then claim it was a misstatement.

The misstatement according to a Renaci spokesman:   the investigation was about donations should have named Rangel; not Sutton.

Hard to believe that one could make a mistake on something so basic.

And when the House of Representatives Ethics Committee made findings on Rangel, Sutton returned $7,000 though there was no legal taint to the money.  And she asked Rangel to resign from the House.

Media reports indicate that Renacci is holding about $100,000 pending the outcome of the FBI investigation of the Suarez situation which does involve a question about the legality of contributions.

Hmm?

Let's see. 

Rennaci claimed that Boccieri should immediately donations from Rangel the legality of which was never under question.

Renaci claims that Sutton should have immediately returned $7,000 in donations from Rangel the legality of which was never under question.

Renaci refuses to return some $100,000 in donations received in the Suarez situation the legality of which appears to be under investigation seemingly unless or until there is an adverse finding though the Mandel campaign has returned $105,000 in such donations.

So Renaci is not only wrong about Sutton having been under investigation.

He is also wrong in the comparison:  Boccieri and Sutton received donations the legality of which have not been questioned versus donations to Renacci and Mandel, the legality which are being questioned.

Clearly an apples to oranges comparison Renaci is making, no?

Renacci had to understand the difference but that didn't seem to keep him from trying to sew confusion starting with a falsehood, only to be corrected but in a fashion in which he is obviously comparing apples to oranges.

And this is only June 25, 2012.

It appears that this man is very much worried about his chances of being returned to Congress.

WHICH STARK COUNTY CONGRESSPERSON IS SPENDING LESS/MORE ON HIS/HER STAFF? RENACCI STAFFER HAS GOTTEN 188% IN INCREASES SINCE STARTING WITH REGULA IN 2001.

UPDATED AND REPUBLISHED 04/06/2012

LINK to underlying USA Today article.

ORIGINAL BLOG

According to state Rep. Christina Hagan (Republican - Marlboro) and Stark GOP Chair Jeff Matthews it is a good thing, due to the decentennially required by the U.S. Constitution redistricting and the Ohio Republican Party gerrymandering the districts to the GOP's advantage, that Stark County is split up into three districts.

Accordingly, the SCPR tracks the spending habits not just on the 16th Congressional District (currently held by Jim Renacci - R/Wadsworth) which used to encompass all of Stark County but also Congressmen Bob Gibbs (currently R -18th; to be the 6th) and Tim Ryan (currently D -17th; to be the 13th).

Because Ohio loses two congressional seats due to population loss, Congressman Renacci has to battle current Democratic 13th District Congresswoman Betty Sutton for the right to remain in Congress.

So as asked in the title to this blog, who is the most frugal congress person vying for office in the 2012 congressional election for Stark County?

The winner is:  16th District Congressman Jim Renacci.

As can be seen from extracts from LegiStorm, he bests his November opponent by over $150,000.

And as can be seen by the graphics on Congressmen Gibbs and Ryan below, he best Gibbs by about $25,000 and Ryan by some $357,000.

Congratulations Congressman Renacci.

However, readers of The Report are reminded that this measure of frugality with taxpayer money is a relative phenomenon.

Note, that if Renacci had stayed at his 01/01/2011 - 03/31/2011 pay standard he could have saved taxpayers an additional $100,000.

But he chose to grant staff raises totaling 4.5%, 15.6% and 9.5% in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters and thereby blemished his record of frugality.

Does anyone think that his car dealership is handing out 29.6% per annum in raises?

He still does better that the others who are likely to represent Stark County (except, maybe Sutton) come January 1, 2013, but the key point for everyday Stark Countians is that nearly 30% in staff raises is not happening at their places of employment.

By this standard, even Renacci looks he like does not have much of problem spending "other people's money."

Think he might "hold the line" next year, if elected?

Another note that the SCPR cannot pass up.

One of Renacci's staffers is Stark GOP Chairman and Stark Board of Elections Director Jeff Matthews' wife Heidi.

Heidi started out as staff assistant to now retired Congressman Ralph Regula in 2000.

In her first full year (2011) she earned $27,833.34.

By 2009, she was earning just a few dollars shy of $100,000.

Well, Congressman Regula retired.

But with Renacci's defeat of Democrat John Boccieri in November, 2010, she was back on the job with the Republican Renacci.

The Report is told that husband Jeff (remember, Stark County GOP chair) took the initiative with other 16th District GOP chairmen (losing only the Ashland County chairman -  the home of Renacci Republican primary opponent Matt Miller) to enhance Renacci's chance of getting the GOP nomination.

Again, credit is due Renacci.

He did not bring Matthews in at $100,000.

He cut her and cut her good to a mere $80,208.33.  About a 20% cut from her last Regula year.

And he even cut her rather large quarterly raises enjoyed under Congressman Regula.

Ms. Matthews only got about 20% in raises from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

Compared to the Regula years, quite a come down.

Not counting her year at $100,000 under Regula, Matthews has received as measured her current Renacci salary 188% over a ten year period.

18.8% per year over ten years!

Interesting, no?

For comparision purposes, here are the salaries meted out by Congressmen Gibbs and Ryan for 2011.

Your tax dollars at work!

PoliFact.com SAYS NRCC (WHICH INCLUDES 16TH DISTRICT CONGRESSMAN JIM RENACCI) MAKES "MOSTLY FALSE" STATEMENT ABOUT RENACCI 2012 OPPONENT BETTY SUTTON. RENACCI MUST BE WORRIED ABOUT KEEPING HIS SEAT? EARLY POLL SHOWS "DEAD HEAT!"

Today the SCPR adds a widget in the blog sidebar from PoliFact.com.

According to Wikipedia:

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which its reporters and editors "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups...." They publish original statements and their evaluations on the PolitiFact.com website, and assign each a "Truth-O-Meter" rating. The ratings range from "True" for completely accurate statements to "Pants on Fire" (from the taunt "Liar, liar, pants on fire") for outright lies.

Stark Countians who will continue to be a part of the 16th congressional district should keep abreast on who is telling the truth and who is not in the square off between incumbent Congresspersons Jim Renacci and Betty Sutton.

At the conclusion of this blog, the SCPR shares a PoliFact report showing that the  National Republican Congressional Caucus ("NRCC" - which, of course, Congressman Renacci is a part of) has started the campaign with a "mostly false" political allegation against Sutton.

FIRST, WHY ARE RENACCI AND SUTTON RUNNING AGAINST ONE ANOTHER?

Sutton was forced into the race against Renacci because her seat was eliminated in terms of being moved from where she lives (Copley in Summit County).

Sutton could have run again in the 13th because the U.S. Constitution does not require a congressperson to live in the district they run in.  But as a practical matter it is unlikely that the "new" 13th (population centered in Mahoning, Trumbull and Portage Counties and Youngstown) is going to elect a Summit County resident congressperson.

 

WHY THE POLITICAL MUD IS FLYING ALREADY?

A recent poll shows Renacci and Sutton pretty much in a "dead heat"  with, perhaps, a little bit of an edge to Sutton.

This development was unexpected by the Republicans.   The Ohio Legislature is  required (as are all 50 state legislatures) by the U.S. Constitution to redraw congressional districts every ten years to adjust for populations shifts.  

Ohio lost population in the 2010 census and therefore is losing two congressional seats.  The Ohio Legislature is controlled by the Republicans and accordingly they have Ohio's lines to favor Republican candidates (a process call "gerrymandering").

So the Renacci/Sutton poll has to be a big concern to the likes of Republican U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner and Ohio Republican Party Chairman Kevin DeWine to say nothing of Stark GOP Chairman Jeff Matthews whose wife Heidi has a high paying job on the Renacci congressional office staff.

REMEDY?

Start defining Betty Sutton in a false way.

THE ALLEGATION!

The only truth to the allegation was that Sutton along with 12 Republicans voted against a Republican bill called the Middle Class Tax Relief & Job Creation Act because it contained - along with a prohibition of welfare recipients accessing their banked welfare funds from ATMs possibly located at "casinos, strip clubs and liquor stores" - provisions such as:

• requiring an accelerated review of the Keystone XL oil pipeline (from Canada to Texas),
• restrictions on unemployment compensation benefits,
• TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) reform,
• a federal worker pay freeze (including congresspersons),
• defunding of certain aspects of the Affordable Health Care Act, and
• the imposition of restrictions on the EPA.

In a separate bill, Sutton voted in a unanimous floor vote to ban welfare recipients accessing their banked welfare funds from ATMs possibly located at "casinos, strip clubs and liquor stores."

As far the SCPR is concerned, Renacci's participation in the slam on Sutton by virtue of his being a member of the NRCC and not having disassociated himself since its publication on December 13th suggests that he is engaging in political sleaze and ought to be held accountable by Stark County voters living - in the main - in Jackson, Lake and Lawrence Township.

In a close election, Stark Countians can be a difference maker.

To be fair, Stark Countians should be on the lookout for Sutton appearances (as the SCPR will be and be reporting and commenting upon - yours truly lives in the 16th) on PoliFact.com to determine whether or not she stoops to the disappointingly low level that Renacci has.