The state of Ohio is sympathetic to ARP positions, in particular, our concern over such trade agreements as NAFTA and GATT.  Moreover it has voted for third-party/independent presidential candidates in percentages higher than the national average.  It also has one of the highest registration rates in the nation for independents and third parties, -- 71% of the state's electorate have chosen to so categorize themselves.

    Senior Republican Senator Mike DeWine is in political trouble.  Ohio went for Clinton in 96 and DeWine's vote for impeachment is said to have noticeably damaged him.  He will be one of the Dems' top targets in 2000.  Moreover, he is wrong on virtually all our issues, even though he is putatively a moderate conservative:  he fought Al Simpson tooth and nail on every aspect of immigration policy, he supported NAFTA, he opposes campaign finance reform, and received only a 24% rating of fiscal responsibility from the Taxpayers for Common Sense in 1998.

    At this point, as a result of the withdrawal of 9th District Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur and Democratic Representative Ted Strickland from the Senate sweepstakes, there are no figures in this state who show both sympathy with our issues positions and a likelihood of being a Senate candidate.  Kaptur's decision is very unfortunate, from our point of view.  Her record on issues of concern to ARP, particularly trade but also political reform, demonstrate clearly that she has fought the good fight, as far as we are concerned.  Her fiscal record is also above the House average.  In addition, as one of the reformer stars who made a big splash at that 1995 United We Stand America event in the summer of 95, she enjoys high credibility among third-party/independent reformers around the nation.

    I know of no one else in this state who fits our profile and who would make sense as an ARP candidate.  I recommend, therefore, that our first choice should be to draft Kaptur if we get the opportunity.  DeWine only received 53 percent in his last race and that was in 1994 BEFORE DeWine's controversial vote to convict Clinton in the impeachment trial.  Considering how close this race is expected to be in 2000, I feel ARP would be derelict in its duty if it did not emphasize this race heavily.  If Kaptur cannot be persuaded to accept a draft, then I suppose we will have to run a flag-planting race, though that is a distant second choice in my mind.

    Junior Republican Senator George Voinovich has a national persona that is largely undefined.  He is frequently referred to as a moderate but where our issues are concerned, fiscal policy, political reform, and trade, Voinovich has yet to take real stands.  He won by strong margins, despite the fact that this state is normally considered a swing state, and appears very powerful politically at the moment.  Moreover, the success that third-party/independent presidential candidates have enjoyed in this state has not so far been reflected in down-ticket races unfortunately.  Furthermore, at this point I have not located an obvious personality in this state who would appear to be a credible opponent on ARP's behalf in 2004.  For now, it would appear we will be forced to run a flag-planting campaign here with a candidate who is merely respectable, with the goal being to prevent either Republicrat senatorial candidate from receiving a majority of the votes cast.
 

    The current incumbent, Republican Michael Oxley, is a washout from ARP's point of view.  He opposes campaign finance reform, and the Taxpayers for Common Sense rated him at the abysmally low level of 12% in 1998.  This district has given totals to third-party/independent presidential candidates higher than the national average, and this district may be sympathetic to centrist reform principles.  Oxley, unfortunately, is very powerful here, but the upside for us is that the Democratic Party is very weak here.  Perhaps there is room either for an independent/third-party/ARP challenge here or, alternately, for there to be a takeover of the Democratic party by centrist reformers.  Either way, we need to run a flag-planting campaign here, the goal being to win 14% of the vote, assuming Oxley's 64% support in 98 holds constant through 00.
 

    Incumbent Republican Congressman Paul Gillmor is noted most frequently for his activism on the issue of congressional reform.  He fought hard to get funding frozen for congressional committees.  In addition, he is a member of the Tuesday Group, a group of GOP House moderates who, most notably, managed to get the Shays-Meehan-McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill passed in the House last year, though it died a quick ignominious death later in the Senate at the hands of filibusterer Mitch McConnell.  Shays-Meehan was supported by Gillmor.  Moreover this district has a large contingent of voters supportive of third-party/independent presidential candidates.  In 96 they gave third-party/independent presidential candidates a total of 14%, and in 92 they gave Perot a hefty 25% of their votes.  In my opinion, Gillmor shows signs through his voting record that he is very sensitive to the concerns of the centrist reform constituency here.  We should take advantage of that, and become a pillar of his organizational support.  I therefore recommend that we endorse Gillmor and do what we can to show him our strength and make him grateful to us.
 

    I spent hours on this one, and my final recommendation does not come easy, which means I am open to persuasion otherwise.  Incumbent Democratic Ted Strickland was an opponent of NAFTA, he supports the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill, and enjoys a 59% fiscal responsibility rating from the Taxpayers for Common Sense.  On the other hand, he is not a member of the Blue Dog Democrats, he has overall a very liberal voting record, and there are several high-profile fiscal votes where he was on the wrong side, such as this year's vote on the Blue Dog budget, the highway pork bill and the final fiscal year 99 omnibus budget, with its billions of dollars in "emergency" spending that implicitly broke the budget caps which had been agreed to barely 18 months previously.

    On the other hand, his long-time nemesis and opponent in 96, Frank Cremeans, from whom Strickland grabbed this seat, is an arch-conservative.  All of which means that in 98 the politics in this district was shaped like an Illinois/Minnesota-type donut, -- a lot of energy on the left and the right and a big hole in the middle.  Into this breach stepped GOP Lt. Governor Nancy Hollister.  She is a pro-choice Republican.  Her Republican opponent in the 98 primary, Cremeans again, got Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition to manage his campaign, and there was corresponding rhetoric from the Cremeans camp about how Hollister and Strickland were both "liberals."

    Now, at first glance, the above situation looks precisely similar to dramas that have played out across the nation in the GOP in recent years.  There was a similar GOP battle in California, where moderate Brooks Firestone was defeated by Christian conservative Tom Bordonaro, in a campaign notable for the amount of right-wing independent expenditures lavished on Bordonaro's behalf.  Firestone lost the primary, and Bordonaro then went on to lose decisively to Lois Capps.

    So, you say, "if only Firestone had won we would have had another California centrist in the House keeping Democrat Ellen Tauscher and Republican Tom Campbell company, right?"    I can also hear my ARP friends say "Well, Hollister should be our candidate then, no?"  Well, maybe.  But look at what happened here in 98.  Moderate Hollister WON her Ohio primary against Cremeans and then went on to be defeated by Strickland, 57% to 43%.

    My point is that just because Hollister is a centrist in our image whom I would normally recommend we endorse doesn't mean she would cut it for us now.  After all, she has damaged her image.  She now looks like a loser.  And there is no other viable centrist figure in the District that I can see to challenge Strickland.

    All of which means that, as I see it, we are reduced to either running a flag-planting campaign here or endorsing Strickland.  On balance, I believe we are better off endorsing Strickland.  Other than 98, which was, after all, a fluky good year for the Dems, this seat has always seen close races.  In 96, Strickland beat Cremeans by 51%-49%.  And in 94, when Cremeans won, he beat Strickland by, you guessed it, also 51%-49%.  In other words, the political balance in this district is tighter than a drum and our support for Strickland could make him or break him in 2000.  It if makes him, we could have a friend for life here.

    And now that Strickland has decided not to go for the Senate there is no doubt in my mind that Hollister is no longer viable.  Against an incumbent, I would guess she would do no better than she did last year.
 

    Incumbent Republican John Boehner was, until the 98 elections, a powerful member of the GOP House leadership, and his positions by and large are anathema to those which the ARP advocates.  But the egg the fans of the elephant laid in last year's elections not only cost Newt Gingrich the Speakership but this former Ohio State Representative his place at the GOP leadership table.  Nevertheless the Democratic party is extremely weak in this district and it is likely that Boehner will be re-elected in 2000 and unlikely that the ARP will be able to find someone to give Boehner a real run for his money.

    However this district is one of those which have been very friendly to third-party/independent presidential candidates and we owe it to ourselves to at least show the flag here.  Furthermore, as in the Fourth Congressional District, the Democrats are pitifully weak here.  There is a vacuum here waiting to be filled.  For that reason we should show the flag here, either as Democrats (who I believe are vulnerable to a primary/caucus takeover) or through a candidate of our own.  Our goal should be to win 21% of the votes cast.
 

    Incumbent Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur is already a hero to the centrist reform movement in this country.  In 1995 she gave a speech on trade at a United We Stand America event in Texas which is fondly remembered to this day.  What is not so well known about her positions is that she is also a strong activist on behalf of political reform.  Take a look at this paragraph from Michael Barone's Almanac of American Politics:

She has long proposed laws to prohibit top government officials from representing foreign corporations for five years and foreign governments forever after they leave office; she also would ban campaign contributions by foreign individuals or corporations, and hopes that the controversy over illegal foreign contributions to the Clinton campaign and the DNC would improve her bill's chances. She also favors a constitutional amendment to allow campaign spending limits.

 
    The bottom line is that we need Kaptur to stay in office somewhere, whether in the House or the Senate.  If Kaptur chooses to move to higher office, and we choose to support her endeavours, then I recommend we at least plant the flag in this district, with a respectable unknown candidate.  I suggest that our goal be to win at least 10% of the vote.

    On the other hand, if she chooses to stay in the House, we should endorse and support her vigorously.  While she continues to win by big margins and therefore does not need our support, her sympathetic stance where our issues are concerned makes her a high-profile, high-visibility symbol of our beliefs.  This means that even though she may not owe her re-election in 2000 to our efforts, we might end up owing her for so clearly articulating our philosophy.  If for no other reason, she deserves our enthusiastic endorsement and support.

TENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    The previous incumbent, Republican Martin Hoke, opposed NAFTA, supported term limits and a ban on PAC contributions, and enjoyed ratings in the eighties and nineties on fiscal responsibility from the Concord Coalition, a centrist group dedicated to balancing the budget, paying off the debt, and reforming entitlements.  His record made sense in a district who gave votes to third-party/independent presidential candidates in percentages higher than the national average in 92 and 96.  Unfortunately, Hoke was defeated in 1996 by Dennis Kucinich, an ultraliberal Democrat, whose only claim to fame from our point of view was that he also opposed NAFTA.  Kucinich basically got in on the basis of Medagoguery, -- a classic Mediscare campaign conducted by the independent expenditures of organized labor.  And Kucinich's victory was a squeaker, 49% vs. 46% with a 5% showing by the Natural Law candidate, Robert B. Iverson.  Under the circumstances, a rematch seemed inevitable between Hoke and Kucinich in 98.  Yet, for whatever reason, Hoke chose not to go for one.  Instead, in 98 Kucinich rode to a crushing 67% victory over another GOP challenger.  Does this mean that Kucinich is now invincible?  Is Hoke dead?  Who knows?  The bottom line is that I recommend we touch base with Hoke and find out his current status.  My first choice for ARP would be to persuade Hoke to get back in the ring and try to get his seat back from Kucinich.

THIRTEENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    This district gave a whopping 27% of its vote to Perot in 92 and an almost as impressive 14% to him in 96, both figures representing a level of support well in excess of the national average.  One factor driving that support appears to be a high level of skepticism where trade agreements are concerned.

    The incumbent, Democrat Sherrod Brown, fits in nicely with that thinking, having been a strong opponent of NAFTA.  But there are other aspects sympathetic to ARP in his legislative makeup as well.  He supported the balanced budget amendment and the line item veto.  And, of course, as most Democratic congresspeople did, he voted for the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill.  In addition, he has a strong record on fiscal responsibility and was one of only six Representatives awarded Taxpayer Hero status by the centrist Taxpayers for Common Sense as a result of his extraordinary 82% rating in 1998.  His only flaw, from our point of view, was his uncharacteristic opposition to this year's Blue Dog budget.  But in every other way, Congressman Brown deserves our unqualified endorsement and support.  The fact that in 94 he almost lost this seat in a 49%-46% squeaker illustrates dramatically the volatile swing nature of this district.  If 00 finds Brown facing a similarly effective challenge our support could well make the difference for this former Ohio Secretary of State.  In every way it is worth our while to get involved in this district and try to be the determining factor in the race's outcome.  This is a Trojan Horse waiting to happen, I believe.
 

FOURTEENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    There is a basic similarity between this district and the last district discussed, -- the 13th.  As in the 13th, the presidential voting in 92 and 96 showed levels of support for third-party/independent presidential candidates well in excess of the national average.  As in the 13th, the current incumbent is Tom Sawyer, a Democrat who has shown excellent instincts where fiscal questions are concerned.  He received a 56% on those issues in 98, well in excess of the House average for that year, which was 40%.  As recently as 1996 he received a whopping 94% on the same issues from the Concord Coalition.

    In addition this Representative's style is strongly bipartisan.  For example, with moderate Republican Mike Castle and Blue Dog Democrat John Tanner he helped craft the welfare reform package that was ultimately to become law.  And, of course, he was one of those hardy centrist Democrats who voted for the Blue Dog budget this year.

    In my opinion, this is the sort of public servant we need to encourage and support.  I recommend we support his re-election in 00.  And, again as in the 13th District, the voters in this district are closely balanced in terms of partisan allegiance.  Sawyer won re-election by only 52% in 94 and 54% in 96.  In the somewhat more Democratic year of 98 he enjoyed a more easy 63% victory, but in a more typical year he usually must run hard.  I'm sure he would be grateful and appreciative of any help we could give him.
 

SIXTEENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

     This district gave support to third-party/independent presidential candidates in excess of the national average.  It is a very centrist district.

    The current incumbent, Republican Ralph Regula, fits that profile very nicely.  As a result, he has been returned to office recently by overwhelming margins, averaging totals in the mid to high sixties.  He is an environmentalist; he supports higher grazing fees for cattle ranchers, making him a nice fit with our position in favor of protection of the Yellowstone buffalo; he has legislation which he has been pushing hard to renogotiate NAFTA, which he opposed.  And, of course, he supported the Shays-Meehan campaign reform bill.  In addition, while TCS does not give him high fiscal ratings, the Concord Coalition consistently has rated him in the high fifties to low sixties.

    In my opinion, Regula passes the ARP criteria and deserves our support and endorsement.
 

    SEVENTEENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    This district gave third-party/independent presidential candidates percentages higher than the national average.  It is also home to one of Ross Perot's favorite congressmen, Democrat James Traficant.  There is one legitimate reason for this; his implacable, unswerving opposition to any and all trade agreements, NAFTA, GATT, you name it.  Traficant carries with that philosophy, however, an across-the-board isolationism and protectionism.  There are other major peculiarities in his positions, from ARP's point of view.  He opposes the Shays-Meehan-McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill, an opposition he shares with his devoted fan, Ross Perot.  And, most uncongenial of all, he not only rated a paltry 27% average from both years of the 105th Congress of 97-98 but had the dubious distinction of receiving a total of exactly zero from the Concord Coalition for both 1995 and 1996.

    Now this Representative is not about to be defeated.  He has won his last two races by overwhelming margins.  But I feel it appropriate that centrist reformers like the ARP make it clear that this loudmouth demagogue is not the kind of face or the kind of political philosophy of which we approve.  In addition, the Republican party is very weak in this district, and did not even bother to oppose Traficant in 96.  There is a vacuum here and I suggest we try and fill it with a flag-planting campaign.  Our goal should be to surpass the last Republican candidate's 32% showing.  Not only would that make some news but it would help us clearly separate and distinguish ourselves from Perot and that billionaire's favorite Congressman.
 

EIGHTEENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    This district has given totals to third-party/independent presidential candidates total percentages in excess of the national average.  And its incumbent Representative, Republican Robert Ney, strives to maintain a centrist image in keeping with that political fact of life here.  But Ney opposes campaign finance reform, supported the ultra-right's attempt to put regulatory shackles on the Environmental Protection Agency (an attempt which bit the dust as a result of moderate GOP opposition) as well as attempts to cut the EPA's budget by one third and an attempt to gut EPA's policy-making capability, has accepted frequent honoraria from lobbyists, opposes and voted against the assault weapons ban, and received only a 26% rating from the Taxpayers for Common Sense.  While some of the positions he has espoused over the years which I have listed above do not pertain to matters on which ARP has taken a position, they do indicate clearly that his centrist posture is a ruse.  He is, in fact, a fake.

    So what do we do about it?  The candidates Democrats have run in recent years are basically knee-jerk labor union mouthpieces and are not of much use to ARP.  However, Ney has rarely strayed outside the fifties in his victory margins, and now that he has also been branded as an impeachment supporter his position here is probably doubly insecure.  I therefore recommend a flag-planting campaign.  We should strive to receive a minimum of 10% of the total votes cast; that should be more than enough for us to deprive either Republicrat candidate of a majority of the vote.  Considering the philosophical stance of the two parties in this district, it probably does not matter which Republicrat ultimately wins.  What matters is that whoever eventually emerges the victor here should feel the tap on the shoulder.
 

NINETEENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    This district also has given stronger support to third-party/independent presidential candidates than that they received nationwide.  The current incumbent, Republican Steve LaTourette, has a moderate reputation, and supported the Shays-Meehan campaign fianance reform bill.  But neither the Concord Coalition nor the Taxpayers for Common Sense give him high marks for fiscal restraint.  He voted against the seven-year balanced budget proposal that used responsible CBO figures, for example.  He appears to be a maverick, but not a maverick in our image.  Democrats, on the other hand, have run no one but classic liberals here for years.

    The district is very closely balanced, however, between Democrats and Republicans.  It is, moreover, sympathetic to the message of fiscal responsibility if the totals for Perot are any indication.  I suggest a flag-planting campaign that emphasizes the issues of budget-balancing, debt reduction, and entitlement reform, since both parties here are AWOL on the subject.  Our goal should be to receive 16% of the vote, which should be more than sufficient to hold both Republicrats below 50%, especially when one considers that in a tight swing district like this LaTourette's pro-impeachment vote will probably hurt him.