In 1994, Newt Gingrich got Republican candidates to agree to support a “Contract With America” — promising that, if elected, they would to take action on specific legislation. This Contract nationalized the election and is credited with the Republican’s big success that election — gaining 54 House and 9 U.S. Senate seats — flipping both chambers.

Democrats seeking election in Republican leaning districts cannot win by expecting Republican voters to embrace a Democratic Party agenda. I’d like to suggest that Democratic candidates in this region — seeking election to the Ohio House and Ohio Senate in Republican leaning districts — agree on a “Contract With Voters.” Rather than establishing legislative goals, this “Contract With Voters” would establish standards of representation. It would tell how, when elected, the candidate will be accountable to voters and how the candidate will engage and empower voters. This might include a plan for town halls, a plan for a “Citizen Forum,” a plan for engaging citizens, especially youth, in understanding the issues, the work and the challenges of the Assembly.

What is our biggest problem?

In 1994, Gingrich with the “Contract With America” convinced a lot of voters that the biggest problems in America were deficit spending, crime, lack of term limits, etc. In the contract, the Republicans offered specific legislation to deal with these problems.

Here in 2020, we have a lot of big problems, but I’m thinking there is a growing consensus that our biggest problem is the on-going destruction of our democracy. Not all Republican leaning voters would agree with this assessment, but I think many would agree. A key section of Republican leaning voters, I believe, would respond to an authentic leader who was honestly working to bring citizens together and to empower citizens — regardless of party affiliation.

Authentic leadership, I believe, is “servant leadership” — the term used by Mark Fogel, Democratic candidate for Senate District 06. But without a contract to spell out what this term means in practice, to promise “servant leadership” amounts to just more political speech.

Fogel made an excellent TEDx talk, The Culture of a Fighter Squadron, in 2018. In this talk he explains how leadership works in this exclusive fighter group. Successful leadership in this setting is committed to accountability, transparency, and empowerment. This leadership is focused on the group working together to safely and effectively achieve its missions.

So, what is the mission of an elected member of the Assembly?

Democrats should define the mission. The mission of a member of the Assembly is not to get reasonable gun laws; it’s not to help citizens get health care. The mission, as defined by the “Contract With Voters,” I’m thinking, should be to make our system of democracy work as it should. The Contract, then, would spell out how the elected member of the Assembly will act to empower citizens to be co-servants, co-leaders in saving our democracy. When our democracy works as it should, we will have reasonable gun laws, we will have a health care system that helps every citizen.

This “Contract With Voters,” then, would show a specific plan for transparency, accountability, citizen empowerment and citizen engagement.  Creating such a Contract — establishing standards for representation — and promoting this Contract as a contrast with the typical Republican behavior of members in the Assembly, I believe might make a difference in the election.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich got Republican candidates to agree to support a “Contract With America” — promising that, if elected, they would to take action on specific legislation. This Contract nationalized the election and is credited with the Republican’s big success that election — gaining 54 House and 9 U.S. Senate seats — flipping both chambers.

I’d like to suggest that Democratic candidates in this region — seeking election to the Ohio House and Ohio Senate in Republican leaning districts — agree on a “Contract With Voters.”

Flipping an established Republican district — even if the Republican candidate is an idiot — will not be easy. For example, Democrats have a great hope that our excellent candidate, Mark Fogel, can beat the extremist and crazy right-winger, Niraj Antani, and win District 06. But here is District 06’s history:

• In 2016 Republican Peggy Lehner won the district with 68.1% of the vote.
• In 2012, Lehner won with 62.4%.
• In 2008, Republican John Husted won the district with 61.5%.
• In 2004, Republican Jeff Jacobsen won with 64.5%.

In order for Fogel to win, a lot of citizens who have habitually voted Republican will need to change their votes. Similarly, in order for our excellent Democratic candidate, Desiree Tims, to be elected to the U.S. Congress (OH-10), a lot of habitual Mike Turner voters will need to change their votes.

I’m thinking that To Help Flip Strong Republican Districts, Democratic Candidates Should Offer A Contract With Voters that addresses their biggest concern — the biggest problem of our time.

What is our biggest problem?

In 1994, Gingrich with the “Contract With America” convinced a lot of voters that the biggest problems in America were deficit spending, crime, lack of term limits, etc. In the contract, the Republicans offered specific legislation to deal with these problems.

Here in 2020, we have a lot of big problems, but I’m thinking our biggest problem that we must solve is the on-going destruction of our democracy. Not all Republican leaning voters would agree with this assessment, but I think many would agree and to flip their votes would make a big difference. We are at a crucial point in our nation and many Republican leaning voters agree that the division, hatred and polarization within the citizenry is a huge problem and that, without intervention, our democracy soon will be toast. “A house divided cannot stand.”

A key section of Republican leaning voters, I believe, would respond to an authentic leader who was honestly working to bring citizens together and to empower citizens — regardless of party affiliation.

Authentic leadership, I believe, is “servant leadership” — the term used by Mark Fogel. But without a contract to spell out what this term means in practice, to promise “servant leadership” amounts to just more political speech.

Fogel made an excellent TEDx talk, The Culture of a Fighter Squadron, in 2018. In this talk he explains how leadership works in this exclusive fighter group. Successful leadership in this setting is committed to accountability, transparency, and empowerment. This leadership is focused on the group working together to safely and effectively achieve its missions.

Leaders are all about accomplishing a mission. Businesses use the structure of “servant leadership” to accomplish the mission of making the business successful — encouraging and empowering members to work successfully together.

What is the mission of a member of the Ohio Assembly?

Democrats in Republican leaning districts will have trouble getting Republicans to agree that the mission should be to advance a Democratic Party agenda. The mission, as defined by the “Contract With Voters,” I’m thinking, should be to make our system of democracy work as it should. The Contract, then, would spell out how the elected member of the Assembly will act to empower citizens to be co-servants, co-leaders  in saving our democracy. Democrats can be confident that the agenda they want to advance aligns with a majority view — the point is to make our democracy was work as it should, and then this agenda will be enacted.

This “Contract With Voters,” then, would show a specific plan for transparency, accountability, citizen empowerment and citizen engagement. It would show a plan for using the office as a means of engaging youth and all interested citizens in practical civics education. I like the idea of this Contract promising to empower interested citizens in a “Leadership Community.” This was developed by Albert Griggs, candidate for Senate District 06 in the Democratic Primary:

“We Are All In This Together” — Let’s Use This Insight To Transform Politics And To Build Dynamic Civic Communities

District Six has 240,000 voters. My goal is to engage at least one percent of these citizens as voting members in a “District Six Leadership Community.” The goal is for this group to fairly represent the diversity of the district and for members of this group to be committed to leadership — committed to understanding each other and to understanding issues. I want to work with a group who has a real hunger to understand and to participate in politics.
This Leadership Community will study and debate the work of the Assembly and will partner with me — empowering me to be an effective, responsive, transparent, and creative member of the Ohio Senate. This Leadership Community will be committed to developing consensus within the group. It will write proposed legislation and will engage and inform the public. The goal is for young people to become active, creative members and leaders in this civic community and for this experience to prepare these young people for eventual election to public office.

Members of the Leadership Community will team together in their local jurisdictions to engage and inform citizens and to build community. These teams will network together on district wide projects. One big project — to engage citizens of all persuasions — will be to develop civics education opportunities for youth. I’d love to see district-wide projects dealing with the U.S. Constitution (Constitution Day, September 17) and the Gettysburg Address (November 19).

There is a hunger within every person for community. Democrats need to champion a politics of unity, a politics of community building, and dare the Republicans to do the same. “We are all in this together” is a wonderful notion. We need to make it real. I am offering leadership and vision to empower civic communities that will bring citizens together into active and meaningful citizenship. This is the vision and the plan that can flip this gerrymandered Republican district. I am asking for your vote in this Democratic Primary.

Someone named “Emily” responding to my post — Susan Solle Has The Experience And Maturity We Need In A Montgomery County Common Pleas Judge — She Has My Vote — saying the K. George Kordalis would make a better judge than Susan Solle.  I responded asking for more information and I said that at age 33, Mr. Kordalis just seems much too young to aspire to be elected judge.

Emily — thanks for responding.

To make this post, I read everything I could concerning Susan Solle and K. George Kordalis. I wanted to give a fair report, so I just repeated the information in the candidate’s own words as shown in their web-sites — Solle and Kordalis — and Vote411 Voter Guide.

The Vote411 Voter Guide, asks the question: “List your judicial experience (courts and years)” and this is Mr. Kordalis’ reply: “Currently I have not had experience as a judicial officer. Nonetheless, I know that I possess the experience, work-ethic, and temperament that is needed to be Common Pleas Judge.”

In this statement, Mr. Kordalis is claiming that his work-ethic, and temperament are what makes him prepared to be a judge. That, to me, seems quite a stretch. Mr. Kordalis appears to be a nice young man and I wish him well but, at age 33, my conclusion is that Kordalis Lacks The Age, Background And Experience Needed To Serve As Common Pleas Judge.

I agree with you, that, “years in practice do not always equal relevant experience.” Of course not. But you should agree with me that insufficient years of practice produces insufficient experience. And for a judge, I think experience is essential. Growth in any profession comes through experience and, all things being equal, an attorney with eighteen years of successful experience (Solle) is much more likely to be ready for judgeship than an attorney with eight years (Kordalis).

An attorney, at age 33, who aspires to be a judge would need to be a super star. Mr. Kordalis just doesn’t have the credentials to make such a claim and he doesn’t try. His website shows him as just another young and ambitious attorney starting out. He evidently didn’t even graduate with honors from U.D. Law School — his website says nothing about his academic work. Susan Solle, on the other hand, writes that she “graduated high school from Kettering Fairmont, 1986; BA from Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, GA, Magna Cum Laude, 1994; JD from University of Dayton School of Law, Cum Laude, 1999.”

It’s OK to not graduate with honors. And I imagine you could find a lot of attorneys and judges with great careers who didn’t have stellar academic accomplishments. But, without such a background, I’ve got to think that seeking election to a judgeship at age 33 shows amazing over-confidence and such a decision it is evidence of bad judgement, or cynicism for the process — or both. Maybe he listened to some bad advice.

I first met Susan Solle at a South of Dayton Democratic Club Meeting and I was very impressed that she is very genuine. I have complete confidence she will make a very good judge. I have her sign in my front yard.

Since you’ve not identified yourself with your last name, I guess you could be a 350 pound man sitting on your bed just writing stuff. But please respond.

Finally, please clear up a mystery. You claim that Mr. Kordalis “has invaluable, hands on experience in the very Court he will be presiding in.” But, here is the mystery: This claim of invaluable experience — “in the very Court he will be presiding in” — is no-where to be found on Mr. Kordalis’ web-site. It is no-where to be found on Vote411 Voter Guide. In fact, again, in answer to the question, “List your judicial experience (courts and years),” Susan Solle give a detailed answer telling of her experience, but Mr. Kordalis writes: “Currently I have not had experience as a judicial officer. Nonetheless, I know that I possess the experience, work-ethic, and temperament that is needed to be Common Pleas Judge.”

Why would Mr. Kordalis fail to mention the experience that you claim?