According to the reporting today, Democrat Party State Chairman Chris Redfern did, indeed, meet with the Dems on council prior to their vote and
"emphasized that he and the governor wanted a strong Lucas County Democratic Party in place for the 2008 presidential election."Strong - as in, in control in both numbers and appearance. So certainly, they can't have a Republican president of council when they hold a majority in that body - how could they explain that awkward situation to presidential campaigns?!?
And the paper also verifies that this is all about the appearance of unity.
“By having a working majority and opening up the lines of communication, we’ll decrease the amount of public disagreements that we have,” Mr. Ashford said.
There's that term, again...'working majority'...because now, since we're trying to give the appearance of unity, we're not going to disagree in public anymore...after all - there's too much at stake in 2008 for us to have public disagreements.
All sarcasm aside, what they're really saying is that they're still going to disagree, but because word has come down from 'on high' (or rather from south of here) we're going to look like we're all working together because our party's interests far outweigh the public's interests in this regard.
Personally, I like the public discourse. I've truly appreciated Frank Szollosi's (and his colleague's) position on the garbage tax that Carty and the Republicans supported. With this new "unity" I can't help but wonder if such policy disagreements will now be hidden behind closed doors until some deal is worked out and presented to the public. That would be very bad for Toledo, Toledoans and taxpayers - but it sure will be better for the Democrat Party, locally and statewide.
It's sad that the priorities of the political party have taken precedence, but living in Toledo, that's what we've come to expect. And the result of such misplaced priorities are all around us - declining population, loss of businesses, budget deficits - all because it's more important to do what the party wants than what the people want.
5 comments:
I think you and I both know that politics and the future of the party is almost always #1.
I can understand 100% wanting to stifle some of the petty aspects of the bickering that happens in political parties. Like families there will always be those who don't like "Uncle Oscar" or feel slighted in one way or another. I think that aspect of the bickering should not be done in public. Yet, I do firmly believe that some of the disagreements are valid ones and I am troubled by the attempt both locally and nationally to present this vision of fake unity on some key issues.
Two recent examples, the shunning of Ron Paul by some in the GOP bothers me as much as some in the Democratic community making a larger issue of one or two votes as some type of indication of party loyalty. When the political parties forget who they are truly designed to represent which is us, and focus on keeping or getting power the citizenry is not being well served.
Locally it should be even less about politics than on a national level.
Lisa - generally, we agree. But on one point, I must take exception. You said:
"When the political parties forget who they are truly designed to represent which is us, and focus on keeping or getting power the citizenry is not being well served."
And I don't think that political parties were ever designed to serve the public.
However, once elected, the individual needs to serve the citizens, regardless of party and - particularly - in spite of party affiliation.
Disagree behind closed doors, but present a unified front in public???
Just who are we talking about here?
;-)
(I've GOT to fire up the popcorn popper for this one...)
I am watching, listening, and waiting.
Post a Comment