WILL THE REAL JOHN BOCCIERI STAND UP? A WARRIOR OR A MAN WHO PLAYS IT SAFE AND WANTS GUARANTEES?

It appears that Congressman John Boccieri is taking a page out of the book of his good friend William J. Healy, II.  When he is dealing with tough issues, he does not put himself out there with the public or tough minded journalists to take "hardball" questions.  Rather he cozies up with the softball players who staff The Repository's editorial board.

The word is out there so much so among Stark County politicians/officeholders that The Rep editors can be had that they "volunteer" to appear before the Stark County's only countywide newspaper's editors.

So now Boccieri wants "guarantees,"  if he is to face the public on his health care vote, to wit: 

[if] “they can guarantee we can get 3,000 people in a room who are going to interact and not be intimidated by the loudest voice in the room. ... I’m not afraid to meet with folks face to face, but I just want to make sure I’m having a dialogue and discussion with my constituents.” (See Boccieri discusses health care vote, The Repository, Robert Wang, April 09, 2010)

 The SCPR does not buy Boccieri's protest that he is willing to take hard questions.  When he first started out with "Congressman on Your Corner,"  The Report was impressed.  He did appear to be willing to put himself "in the line of fire" as he has done many, many times in flying a C-130 in and out of Baghdad Airport as an Air Force Reserve pilot.

But then his political handlers got a hold of him and he no longer appears willing to take on the political tough stuff.  The SCPR believes that his political caution took over when The Report showed how he feigned (via video from an Alliance "Congressman on Your Corner" event) being against Cap and Trade, while The Report is convinced he favored it "secretly" all along.  For the record, the SCPR liked his stance on Cap and Trade.  Just not his "sleight of hand" political manner.  Boccieri should not be gaming the voters as he appears to The Report to be doing.

Ditto for health care.

This time he actually voted to "kill the bill" (the Stupak amendment) months ago.  But then on March 19th he voted for the bill without guess what?  Yes, the Stupak amendment.  He only got the assurance of an Obama executive order.  Something significantly less than Supak.

Again, for the record, the SCPR likes where he ended up in voting yes for the bill.  Just not his "sleight of hand" political manner.  The Report repeats, "Boccier should not be gaming the voters as he appears to The Report to be doing.

So in interviewing with the the softball players who staff The Rep's editorial board, he plays it safe.

Boccieri is clearly a courageous person as amply demonstrated in his military service.  You might even call him a warrior.

But as a politician, he appears more and more that he is showing precious little of his military-esque grit.

If he would, his chances for re-election would be greatly enhanced. 

Boccieri's contradictory way of being could be his political undoing. 

Will John Boccieri ever learn to play to his strength as a person in every aspect of life - including politics?

WHY DO VOTERS "FLIP-FLOP?" EXPLAINING STARK'S 9 TO 1 SWITCH TO REPUBLICANS

Voters are known to criticize officeholders/candidates who flip-flop.

But how about voters flip-flopping between being a Democrat, then a Republican and then, perhaps an independent?

Flip-flopping, whether it is officeholder/candidate-based or voter-based is indicative of fundamental self interest.

The question is this.  Is it good or bad to be a flip-flopper?

For officeholders/candidates it is bad.

Let's take Arlen Specter, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania.  Understanding that he was going to have a hard time being reelected this November because he likely was not going to be able to get through the GOP primary due to a challenge from the right wing of the Party, he switched to being a Democrat.

Many Pennsylvania and national Republicans said "good riddance, he was a Republican In Name Only (RINO).  Democrats, on the other hand were mixed on the switch.  President Obama welcomed him with open arms.  But some Pennsylvania Democrats didn't quite see it Obama's way and have - ironically - mounted a primary challenge to Specter on the Democratic side.  Obviously, these folks don't think switching at the candidate level is a "cool" thing to do.

From a voter standpoint, the SCPR believes it is perfectly acceptable.

For the voter is perceived as trying to align himself/herself with the political party he/she most reflects his/her interests and, of course, the interest of nation, state or locality.

You hear it all the time.  Question.  Who do you vote for?  Republicans or Democrats?  Answer:  "I vote for the 'best' candidate!

So what to make of reports in state and local media (See Lots of local Dems switch to GOP, Tim Botos, The Rep 04/08/2010) about significant shifts from Democrat to Republican this election cycle?

The SCPR's answer:  very little.

First of all, the only heated Stark County primaries are on the Republican side.  There is the congressional race (the 16th) which pits political newbie Jim Rennaci against "third time is the charm?" Matt Miller.  There is also a primary between James N. Walters (Jackson trustee) and Dean Windham (a Stark County builder) for the right to be the Republican to take on Democrat Tom Bernabei for the county commissioner seat for the remaining two years of the Tom Harmon seat.

The Report doubts this is much of a factor (the desire to vote in the Republican primary), but it is part of the reason for the switch.

Second, despite the Botos headline, it is not "lots" of Democrats switching to Republican in the context of the total Stark County voter base.  So the consequence on voter patterns will be negligible.

Third, switchers are voters who will, in the assessment of the SCPR, vote - in November's general election - not a straight party-line vote, but rather the "best" candidate.

So the story makes for a good headline, but is not indicative of a major political shift in Ohio or in Stark County.

In Stark County, Democrats will continue to dominate local elective office.  Perez will win the auditor's race, Bosley is likely (but, this race will be very, very close) the 50th Ohio House seat while Democrat Steve Slesnick will win the in the 52nd House District over Republican Travis Secrest.

There is a bright spot for Republicans in Stark.  Former Canton mayor Janet Creighton is running against former Jackson trustee Steve Meeks (now serving as a politically appointed commissioner by the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee).  The SCPR projects Creighton to win this race.  But it will be a relatively close race (something in the 55 to 45 range to 51 to 49).

Why does the SCPR think Creighton will win this race?  Because she will run particularly strong in Jackson and Lake Townships which are dominated by Republicans and because she will hold her own in the Democratic strongholds of Canton and Massillon.

Also, helping Creighton and other Republicans running in Stark, although not enough for the "others;" is the growing perception in Stark that it is not in the interest of voters to have one-party-rule in countywide offices.

Of course, "musical chair" and the SCPR believes, ineffective Republican candidates Oelslager (29th Ohio Senate and Kirk Schuring (51st Ohio House) will win easily.  Reason?  The Dems failed to come up with challengers who match up well with Oelslager and Schuring.

So the Botos story is "much ado about nothing."

Most Stark County voters (irrelevant of the registration numbers) are not wed to either the Dems or Republicans, they will flip-flop, flip-flop and flip-flop some more, if necessary, to get to whom they perceive to be best for their interests, and by extrapolation, the community-wide interest.

That is the baseline line political dynamic in Stark County.

LOUISVILLE FLOODING PROBLEM COULD LEAD TO A BROADER EFFORT TO SOLVE AN EASTERN STARK COUNTY FLOOODING PROBLEM?

Stark County Commissioner Todd Bosley called a meeting (April 6, 2010) of area officials, but which also included two mitigation specialists from the Ohio Emergency Management Agency, to brainstorm solutions to aid two Stark County women who suffered flood loses to their businesses located in Louisville.

It remains to be seen whether or not a solution will be forthcoming for the two women and, if there is one, it seems that it could be a long time before it materializes.

Towards the end of the meeting, Louisville officials (Mayor Pat Fallot,City Manager Tom Ault and Councilwoman Cheryle Casar (a relative of recently retired Canton City Councilman Don Casar) revealed that Louisville is very much interested combining with Nimishillen Township (Trustee Allen Gress was present) and county officials and others (presumably state and federal officials) to find a long term solution to chronic flooding in eastern Stark County.

A first step would be to do a study a la the Zimber Ditch study done a number of years ago.

Louisville citizen Kevin Ellis has been working on a solution to the Nimishillen flooding problem for at least ten years.  It appears he is making headway on his quest.

The SCPR attended the meeting and has prepared a video which shows the Louisville officials making their plea and also a statement by an employee (Gary Connor) of the Stark County engineer's office supporting the Louisville entreaty.

The SCPR supports this initiative on intergovernmental cooperation.  Stark County commissioners are supportive.  However, a drive towards a flooding problem solution is tempered by a money shortage.

If a study is to be done and a solution recommended by the study is to be implemented it will take intergovernmental officials working creatively together to find the necessary funding.

Here is the video of relevant portions of Tuesday's meeting.

PERRY TOWNSHIP: A NEW FRONT IN THE WAR BETWEEN GONZALEZ & PETERSON OVER 9-1-1 CENTRALIZED DISPATCH?

The SCPR believes that "the big elephant in the room" in the "disagreement" going on in Perry Township between Trustee Craig Chessler on the one hand and Trustees Anna Capaldi and Lee Laubacher on the other is in reality a proxy political fight on behalf of the "behind the curtains" real contenders Randy Gonzalez and Rich Peterson.  (See Perry Township dispatch contract still in limbo, The Repository, April 07, 2010, Benjamin Duer).


It appears to The Report that Chessler (a member of the Stark County Council on Governments - SCOG) is a close political ally of SCOG Governance Committee chair Randy Gonzalez (who is also chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party) and of Perry Fiscal Officer Joe Schlegel and is in reality taking the lead in another manifestation of Gonzalez's long term fight with Nimishillen Fire Chief Rich Peterson over the configuration of 9-1-1 centralized dispatch.


The apparent issue is a 71% increase claimed by Schlegel to have been made by Peterson on Perry last year for dispatch services.  Really?


For the time being, the SCPR is not buying Chessler's and Schlegel's contention that this is a money fight.


The SCPR believes that this fight is a spillover from Gonzalez versus Peterson and that Stark Countians will not hear the end of it until centralized 9-1-1 dispatch has become a reality and CenCom has been absorbed into the centralized unit.


As a sidenote, the SCPR has learned from Stark Emergency Management Agency head Tim Warstler that 9-1-1 project manager Joe Concatto is on the verge of receiving a quote from AT&T on its projected role on the 9-1-1 configuration.


Meanwhile, expect the Peterson/Gonzalez fight to continue to be waged on one front or another over the next 18 months or so.


Nimishillen Fire Chief Rich Peterson and his sponsors - the Nimishillen Township trustees - are not going away quietly on this fight.  They have too much invested in time, effort and township financial resources to just capitulate to the SCOG Governance Committee.

A NEW TYPE OF "RINO?" Renacci In Name Only?

The Stark County Political Report is told that it may "appear" that 16th District Republican congressional candidate Jim Renacci has the Stark County vote wrapped up, buy that such is not the case.

The reality, a source is telling The Report, is that Stark County Republican chairman Jeff Matthews and his minions at party headquarters are putting the political squeeze on Stark Republicans to demonstrate their allegiance to Matthews' choice (Jim Renacci) by supporting his events and making contributions to his campaign.

Fair enough.  That's just politics, no?

But, the source goes on, the truth of the matter is that many of these folks, when it comes to the secrecy of the voting booth, will mark an "X" by the name Matt Miller.

Hmm?

So the message seems to be that Jim Renacci is in for a big surprise come the early morning hours of May 5, 2010.

Wow!  Really?

The SCPR's take on Matthews et al is that they think Miller is too conservative and rigid in appearance and demeanor to defeat Democrat John Boccieri.  Stark Republicans were humiliated when Boccieri steamrolled Stark Republican and Ohio senator Kirk Schuring in Stark alone by about 15 percentage points.

Schuring's problem was that he ran at the wrong time.  2008 was a Democratic year - just plain and simple.

2010 is a different kind of year.  The SCPR believes that if Schuring were the candidate this year, he would have the best chance of any 16th district Republican to defeat Boccieri.  But he's not and the GOP is left with Renacci, Miller, Smith and Schiffer.

Renacci is a sophisticated businessman who has big money and Madison Avenue marketing techniques, and RNCCC backing (in a presumptive sense) in his bag of political tricks to take out Boccieri.

And there are signs that Renacci, in his own mind, has already won the Republican primary and is already focusing on Democrat Boccieri.

Just last week, yours truly's wife (a registered Democrat and an elected member of the Stark County Educational Service Center), received a mailing from Renacci asking for her support.  Moreover, Renacci is said to be billing himself as running against John Boccieri.out in the campaign hustings.

But Miller supporters believe that Renacci is engaging in an exercise of fooling himself.  They think that while 16th district Republicans are being told that the only way for Republicans to take back the "Regula seat" is to support a candidate who matches John Boccieri in "spit and polish," and that this message  "appears" to be taking; the truth of the matter is that the "hearts" of the "apparent" Renacci supporters are with Miller and thus the big surprise come May 5th.

Hence, there you have it folks.

A new manifestation of the acronym R.I.N. O.

Many Stark County Renacci supporters are "Renaccis In Name Only!"

Interesting, no?

SCPR CALLS 29TH OHIO SENATE RACE FOR OELSLAGER - TOO BAD FOR STARK COUNTY?

Even though they have not gotten through their respective primaries (both running unopposed), the SCPR is ready to call the 29th Ohio Senate (the 29th encompasses all but extreme eastern Stark County) race for "musical chair" candidate Scott Oelslager.

Oelslager does not deserve to be re-elected to public office, but he will be.  He will handily defeat Democrat Richard D. Reinbold, Jr. in November.

How is it that the SCPR says that Republican Oelslager does not deserve to be re-elected?

First, he has achieved very little being a state legislator despite being in office for a quarter of a century.  The worst part is that for a good part of the 25 or so years Oelslager was part of a majority (i.e. the Republicans controlled the Ohio General Assembly)  and for a space of time a supermajority.

Second, though he likes to point out his connection to public education (his parents were educators), he has not been an - despite enjoying senior legislator status - effective force for the fixing of the inadequate funding of public education in Ohio.  He merely repeats the Republican legislative caucus talking points that they (the Republicans as majority) did put more absolute money into pre K -12, which is true.  More true is the reality that the funding and structure of Ohio public education remains broken a la the DeRolfe line of cases.

Third, Oelslager and Kirk Schuring, who currently holds the 29th (he is term limited out this election cycle and is running for the 51st - which Oelslager currently holds) have broken the trust of Stark Countians on the issue of term limits.

Both supported term limits when the Republicans were in a minority as a vehicle to majority status.  Now that they are in office, they play this game of switching back and forth between the 29th Senate and the 51st House as an "in effect" defeat of the will of the voters of Ohio.

Fourth, he does not brook criticism very well. Several years ago, when yours truly criticized his failure as a legislator he blew off yours truly in a face-to-face encounter and he persistently fails to answer the Report's emails on legislative questions.

The foregoing are some of the reasons why Oelslager should not be re-elected.

However, the Ohio Democratic Senate Caucus, in picking Dick Reinbold (a retired Stark County Common Pleas Court judge) came up with one the most colorless and uninspiring candidates the Caucus could possibly have found in all of Stark County.

If Reinbold is indicative of the Caucus's picks, then the Democrats have very little chance to make inroads on the 21 to 12 majority currently held by the Republicans.

The SCPR thinks Stark County could do better than Oelslager, but is clear that Dick Reinbold would not be better.  He has no legislative experience whatsoever and therefore would merely be a foot soldier for the likes of Capri Cafaro, the Democratic leader in the Senate.

If Oelslager does have anything to recommend himself, it is, that on occasion, he does cross the aisle and vote with the Democrats.  Moreover, a number of Democrats (e.g. Healy and Slesnick) have told The Report that he graciously extends a hand of bipartisanship in helping newly elected legislators "to learn the ropes" of being a legislator)

In the end, this race is a "no-brainer" for the SCPR and The Report hereby declares this race as a "lost cause" for the Democrats and candidate Richard D. Reinbold, Jr!

SCPR GETS COMMISSIONER ANSWERS TO CITIZEN REVIEW COMMITTEE CRAIG CONLEY'S LETTER. THE REPOSITORY IGNORES THE LETTER!

Back on March 10, 2010 Craig T. Conley (a local attorney who was the lead person in the Vote No Increased Taxes Committee) wrote a letter (see full text in accompanying video below) to the Stark County Commissioners asking certain questions of the commissioners.

Conley faxed a copy of the letter to The Repository and sent it by snail-mail to the SCPR.  Who took up the cause of his letter?  The Repository or the SCPR?

Of course, The Report.

At commissioners meeting last Wednesday, The Report asked commissioners to respond to the Conley letter.  The video below, contains the commissioners' responses (Bosley did not make one on camera, but only inquired as to whether or not Conley serves on the Citizen Review Committee).

Off camera, Bosley confirmed what appeared to be his on-camera contribution a la Ferguson:  "let the Citizen Review Committee deal with it."

Not only did The Repository not do anything with Conley's letter, even though The Report's question was asked during the meeting, The Rep failed to publish anything on the letter in its coverage of the meeting.

The SCPR notices that The Repository as a matter of course seems to give Repository readers the short-shrift on what actually transpires at the weekly commissioner meeting.  For instance, Kevin Ellis of Louisville who made a important plea to commissioners to do something about a long standing flooding problem in Louisville/Nimishillen Township was totally ignored by The Rep in its publication of contents of the meeting.

Now don't you suppose Louisville/Nimishillen Township residents would be interested in the Ellis presentation?

If they are, it appears that they will have to come to the SCPR to get their information.  Moreover, it is becoming apparent that Stark Countians who want more thorough coverage of coverage of the weekly meeting will have to get it from the SCPR.

Here is the video on the Ferguson an Meeks responses to the Conley letter.