Nancy Garland is standing for reelection to her seat as the 20th District's Representative. She's in her first term after being elected in 2008.
Some key votes over the past couple years can be found here, courtesy of Project Vote Smart. I find it interesting the only "Nay" vote they list is against the transition fund amendments the senate tried to tack on to a campaign finance bill.
Garland lives in New Albany, and has a son at Ohio State studying political science while participating in Air Force ROTC and a daughter who is a practicing attorney after graduating from Miami University over in Oxford. Before serving in the House of Representatives, Garland spent 7 years as the CEO of the Ohio Physical Therapy Association. She also spent several years in Washington, DC in several positions, from legislative assistant to Director of Government Affairs for the American Physical Therapy Association. Garland is also a clinical assistant professor at Ohio State.
Garland has three main issues listed on her website: Job Growth, Economic Development, and Health Care. She emphasizes partnering with businesses small and large as well as the unemployed workforce to build new jobs, attract new industry, and help keep current organizations healthy and growing. As for healthcare, it's the common line regarding the unacceptable numbers of unemployed Ohioans, and how we need to solve the problem in order to keep the state competitive nation wide.
Many groups have endorsed Garland, including the AFL-CIO, Ohio Association of Public School Employees and the Ohio Education Association, and more.
Tuesday
My Take, Ohio Senate 3rd District
The past few years, I haven't been happy with much the Ohio Legislature has been doing. When it does anything. I've watched them rant and rave about the upcoming budget deficit, form a special committee to deal with the issue...and then wait ten months to hold a pointless first meeting. I didn't like the increased restrictions (unnecessary government regulation...ironic coming from a pretty conservative body) on the adult entertainment industry. The squabbling with the governor's office over gambling. I really can't think of anything positive coming from the legislature in the past term.
Which means Kevin Bacon won't be getting my vote. He IS part of that mess. While I don't disagree with many of his stances, I really have no interest in sending him to the Senate to represent me. And even if I weren't unhappy with the Legislature's performance in this century, Bacon is a little too conservative for me.
I think one of the biggest problems with our political system is how it's evolved into a two party system. So many subsets of thought on both sides have to be painted with a wide brush, evolving into terms like "Blue Dog Democrat" and "Compassionate Conservative." It's silly, if you ask me, and clouds any real debate on issues. Lately you can't even count on party lines, because the parties themselves have become so fractious in so many ways.
But that doesn't mean I plan on voting for "3rd parties" on principle. In fact, I find that many candidates fielded by the other parties are just as out of touch--if not more so--with reality than career politicians. Political activists are necessary, and I love the passion that surrounds Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Socialist Party causes. But that doesn't mean I'd feel represented by these people.
Bill Yarbrough has some excellent positions, and one of the better approaches I've seen from a "3rd Party" candidate. I really can't argue with any of his positions (in fact, I think most of them are spot-on), and they're MUCH more thoroughly presented than either of the other two candidates. I'd feel well represented by Yarbrough, and my only hesitation is the traditional poor performance of the 3rd party candidate. I don't want to "waste" my vote anymore than anyone else.
I agree with the interpretation that members of the legislature were intended by the framers of the Constitution to be well respected, contributing members of their communities who leave for a short time to help govern and then return to their business or trade. This is partly why political activists turned legislator doesn't ring true with me, and why I am skeptical of career politicians.
The fact Mark Pfeifer owns and operates a family business in Reynoldsburg indicates to me he is aware of the struggles and complications facing the backbone of our economy first hand. When he says things like simplify regulation in order to improve ease of business, I'm confident he knows what he's talking about. I also like his lack of party affiliation (before running in the primary, anyhow), which tells me he's less likely to get caught up in partisan concerns and focus more on representing constituents.
Which means Kevin Bacon won't be getting my vote. He IS part of that mess. While I don't disagree with many of his stances, I really have no interest in sending him to the Senate to represent me. And even if I weren't unhappy with the Legislature's performance in this century, Bacon is a little too conservative for me.
I think one of the biggest problems with our political system is how it's evolved into a two party system. So many subsets of thought on both sides have to be painted with a wide brush, evolving into terms like "Blue Dog Democrat" and "Compassionate Conservative." It's silly, if you ask me, and clouds any real debate on issues. Lately you can't even count on party lines, because the parties themselves have become so fractious in so many ways.
But that doesn't mean I plan on voting for "3rd parties" on principle. In fact, I find that many candidates fielded by the other parties are just as out of touch--if not more so--with reality than career politicians. Political activists are necessary, and I love the passion that surrounds Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Socialist Party causes. But that doesn't mean I'd feel represented by these people.
Bill Yarbrough has some excellent positions, and one of the better approaches I've seen from a "3rd Party" candidate. I really can't argue with any of his positions (in fact, I think most of them are spot-on), and they're MUCH more thoroughly presented than either of the other two candidates. I'd feel well represented by Yarbrough, and my only hesitation is the traditional poor performance of the 3rd party candidate. I don't want to "waste" my vote anymore than anyone else.
I agree with the interpretation that members of the legislature were intended by the framers of the Constitution to be well respected, contributing members of their communities who leave for a short time to help govern and then return to their business or trade. This is partly why political activists turned legislator doesn't ring true with me, and why I am skeptical of career politicians.
The fact Mark Pfeifer owns and operates a family business in Reynoldsburg indicates to me he is aware of the struggles and complications facing the backbone of our economy first hand. When he says things like simplify regulation in order to improve ease of business, I'm confident he knows what he's talking about. I also like his lack of party affiliation (before running in the primary, anyhow), which tells me he's less likely to get caught up in partisan concerns and focus more on representing constituents.
The Bottom Line:
- Kevin Bacon is right out. I don't agree with his overall message, and I really don't approve of the work he's done in the House of Representatives.
- Bill Yarbrough strikes me as a solid answer to career politicians mucking things up. He also has given a lot of thought on how to help Ohio, and is able to communicate this well. But his "third party" status is still a huge drawback.
- Mark Pfeifer has already achieved success in life, and sees himself in a position to give back through public office. He lacks strong party affiliation, owns and operates a small business, and is interested in representing the people instead of himself.
- I'm torn between Yarbrough and Pfeifer, and will prolly be making this decision much closer to election day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
