Perhaps some enterprising reporter will ask why if Lee Fisher considers Ohio’s closed primary system such an affront to democracy, why he never supported ending it in the State legislature, or when he was Attorney General, or when he ran for Governor, or at any other time until the ORP began a campaign to get him to attack Brunner over it?
Just sayin’ that twenty years of silence on the issue says sumthin’ about him…
Maybe he could enlighten us on one single courageous stand he’s ever taken on anything while he’s at it. Seriously, I’ve wait for any evidence that Fisher has ever taken a courageous stand on anything that could risk him anything politically…
After all, when you’re crowning legislative achievement is seat belt laws for children, it’s not surprising why Fisher has never been up for a Profile in Courage Award.
Lee’s entire political career has been about positioning himself in the politics of the moment. Crime was a major federal issue in the 1990s, so AG Lee Fisher was about crime, not populism and consumer and public protection.
His gubernatorial campaign was centered on a Health Care Patient’s Bill of Rights, the modest response to the failure of Hillary Clinton’s health care plan and egregious practices by HMOs. (Lee’s campaign website doesn’t even MENTION his gubernatorial bid, but suggests that he’s been a champion for “everyone to have health care.” Except that his gubernatorial platform was not a universal health care plan. I should know, I was working in the legislative office that helped write at the time.) Lee Fisher used to be a major proponent of gun control. He once said that he “never met a gun control bill he didn’t like.” In the 1990s, he sat on the Board of Directors for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and had Sarah Brady at his gubernatorial announcement. Now, his campaign website doesn’t even MENTION his position on gun control anymore! There there was Lee’s conversion to supporting the death penalty around the time he decided to run for statewide office and his recent conversion to change his position on gay marriage while court a skeptical GLBT primary voting bloc that cannot find any evidence of Fisher support GLBT issues in his 20-years of public service.
After months of waiting to see Brunner take a position first, hell, Lee Fisher couldn’t even attack Brunner without the blessing of some editorial writers and the Ohio Republican Party.
Fisher’s latest direct mail piece, and his attack on Brunner, is Fisher’s latest attempt to dress himself in the political fashions of the day: populism. In attacking Brunner with faux outrage that is entirely about ganging up on the politics of the moment, Fisher revealed his greatest weakness: the only thing he can be counted on is to follow the political winds… even if it means attacking a fellow Democrat.
I’m not alone in saying this. Today’s action by the Fisher campaign makes it hard for me envisioning getting united behind Fisher if he’s the nominee.
Democrats don’t willfully allow themselves to become ORP talking points material.