JF: What are the major issues that you see within the OH Democratic Party? Help or hinder a Springer for Senate run?

JS: The major issue within the Ohio Dem. Party right now (and I include the county parties here) is the fact that we don't have much money ---and don't have a stable of viable, state-wide candidates who have the name identification and resources to make competitive runs for office. As I've travelled around the state for the past 4 months speaking at Jefferson-Jackson dinners and other events, I've sensed a fatigue with losing...a desire to nominate someone who has a reasonable chance of winning a significant race in Ohio. Although there are undoubtedly still some people who would rather I didn't run, I think its fair to say that a majority of country chairs and other Party officials would love to see me do it.

JF: What is Senator Springer's vision for Ohio and America?

JS: Stripped to its essentials, it is this: an Ohio and an America where regular, ordinary, hard-working people aren't ignored at best, and screwed at worst by their own government. I know it might sound hokey, but I am living proof that at least once upon a time, the American dream really could and did work. In one generation, I went from a family that was largely exterminated in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany to this ridiculously privileged life I live today by virtue of my getting lucky with my television show. But I also believe that many, if not most, American families today do not have the benefit of equal opportunity. I want to turn that around and help redeem the American dream...I want to be in the forefront of a populist, grass roots movement that will demand economic and tax justice, equal educational opportunities, and access to basic health care and health insurance. Too many people today don't vote because they see no point; they don't identify with either Party because they believe ---and correctly, I might add ---that they and their concerns are not on the radar screens of the power structure...that it doesn't matter if a Democrat or a Republican wins because their lives never change no matter who wins. Those are the people I want to attract to the polls. And let's face it: if everyone voted, do you really believe we'd have the economic policies we have today that favor the wealthy and the privileged? That we'd have 41 million Americans with no health insurance? That our public schools in states like Ohio would be so unevenly funded? Of course not.

JF: Where do you see yourself as a player in OH politics?

JS:I see myself as a voice for regular people who aren't represented by lobbyists and whose interests aren't being protected or served by those in power. I will fight for them ---and I would be one of the few politicians who can't be owned by the special interests. Because so many of the problems facing Ohio as a state emanate from Washington, I believe I could be most effective as a U.S. Senator. Moreover, I believe that whatever celebrity I have as the result of the show would give me a kind of national "bully pulpit" that I could use to mobilize regular, ordinary people all across America.

JS: In Ohio over the past 10 years or so, Democratic, state-wide candidates generally have gotten between 1.5 and 1.6 million votes. Even well-funded candidates like Joel Hyatt in '94 and Lee Fisher in '98 topped out at about 46 or 47% of the vote. Clearly, the only way for a Democrat to win in this state now is to entice a significant portion of the 2 to 2 ½ million eligible Ohio voters who don't identify with either party and only vote occasionally. I believe I have a connection with those voters ---and if I can attract enough of them to the polls and add them to the "regular" Democratic votes in Ohio, it can add up to a win.

JF: Can you turn your viewers into voters? Re-enfranchise/re-energize a perhaps "turned-off" group/constituency?

JS: See (my answer) above. There is no question that when these folks hear me speak, I can move them. The question we have to answer now (which we're examining through polling, focus groups, etc.) is will my message move those voters if I deliver it on television (since I obviously will not be able to speak personally to even most of the voters in Ohio). The answer to that question will largely determine if I run.

JF: What are major issues you see for OH that you can work on at a national level?

JS: the economy (especially tax justice); education (where I believe the Federal government must make a major commitment, especially in early childhood education, providing resources to allow major reductions in class size in what I refer to as our "red zone" schools, and making college more affordable) and health care.

JF: What is your view of the vouchers case in Cleveland? Help or hurt inner-city schools?

JS: Generally, I am opposed to vouchers because I think they drain resources away from public schools and put them in private schools. I understand why parents who have kids in failing inner city schools are looking for some alternatives, but I remain convinced that the answer is not in giving up on our public school system.

JF: The US Senate has been termed one of the last of the "old-boys" clubs in America (apologies to Sens Boxer, Murray, et al). It's very collegial and many of the members have been there a long, long time. Colorful is not a word that describes the men and women there, (I think that the Singing Ashcroft's probably pushed the limit). How does Jerry Springer fit into a group like that?

JS: I don't fit in with a group like that ---and I never will. I've been an outsider most of my life, and I don't want to go to Washington to be a member of "the club." I think the incestuousness of Washington is a large part of the problem ---and I want to go to Washington to shake things up. If I were in the Senate, I guarantee you that we would not have gone to war in Iraq without a vigorous debate on the Senate floor ---and I guarantee you that we would not be stuck with the tax cut bill that passed the Senate a few weeks ago. I would not have 'cut a deal" like Sen. George Voinovich did ---I would have stood up to the President and simply said "no."

And remember, if I were in the Senate, I'd be one of the few who would not be running for President (I was born in England), and one of the few who couldn't be owned, or even rented by the special interests. What could they offer me? Would they say: "hey, Jerry, vote our way and we'll give you some money for your next campaign? We'll put you on television and make you famous?" Fortunately, I've got all those things already...and I'm not looking for a job or another career. My only motivation would be to fight for regular people ---and I can promise you I would spend every day doing just that.

JS: If I had my choice, I'd pick Finance (tax laws are done there), Labor and Human Resources, and probably, Foreign Relations. But I'm also realistic enough to know that a junior Senator doesn't get all of his or her first choices. Frankly, though, I think that I could exert an influence that goes beyond committee assignments and beyond what your usual first-term Senator can wield. Because I'm well known, I think I would be extensively covered by the news media ---and I think I could mobilize regular voters all across America in support of policies that would help them. I learned long ago that nothing much gets done in politics unless 51% of the people want it to be done. And I think I could play a major role in mobilizing a majority of voters to bring pressure to bear on their elected officials.

JF: You are obviously in the brackets that Bush was/is targeting for the maximum benefits, how does it make you feel to be the recipient of such incredible "largesse"? Give me some thoughts on the Tax-cut(s).

JS: I understand the need to juice up the economy. But why in the world are they giving me a tax cut? Do they think that if I get a large check back from the government that I will suddenly to out and spend more money? Wealthy people like me can and do already buy what we need and want...that's why we're called "wealthy." Instead of giving me a tax cut, how about looking at reducing the payroll tax? 4 out of 5 Americans pay more in the payroll tax than they do in the income tax...yet nobody talks about cutting the payroll tax for regular, ordinary, working folks. I would. B ecause when you cut the payroll tax for regular people, they will spend every dime of that cut...because they have to. Specifically, i'd like to see major relief on the first $10 to $20 thousand dollars a person earns...everyone spends the first $10 to $20k they earn because that's what they live on...what they buy groceries with, what they pay the mortgage or rent with; what they make the car payment with. So they'd spend every dime ---and that would truly juice up the economy.

JF: How will the tax cuts help/hurt the economy?

JS: Apart from the fact that the deficits created by this tax cut (which will be at least $350 billion, and probably more like $550 billion or more) will crowd out private investment and likely scare Wall Street (as happened during the $250 billion annual deficit years during the late '80's), remember that the projected deficits do not even include the billions ---and perhaps hundreds of billions ---of additional dollars that the war and rebuilding of Iraq will cost. The net effect, of course, will be to allow right-wingers to claim that they must slash social spending because we simply "have no money left." So the rich will get more tax breaks, and regular people will get a reduction in the government services they count on. You know, I'm delighted that we're trying to give the people of Iraq a better life. But I believe that before we spend $70 to $200 billion to rebuild Iraq, we ought to rebuild America and states like Ohio first.

JF: How do you feel about the War in Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emption?

JS: I opposed the war in Iraq because I did not believe it was in our national security interest, and I still don't. What we did was akin to taking a baseball bat to a beehive. Our primary security threat right now is terrorism ---and by doing what we did in Iraq, we've managed to alienate a good part of the world and most of the allies whose intelligence and other help we need to combat and defeat terrorism.

Moreover, there is a very real question right now about whether the Administration hyped and perhaps even twisted intelligence information to justify going to war. Of course, the right-wingers and the apologists for the Administration tell us that it really doesn't matter whether Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or not. They say that because he was a horrible tyrant who murdered and tortured his own people, the war was justified. Well, I believe it does matter that we tell the truth. It matters because the rest of the world needs to know they can count on us telling the truth when we try to enlist their support the next time. It matters because the doctrine of pre-emption can't possibly be justified (if it can at all) unless we have good intelligence that is honestly analyzed. And if the standard for going to war is henceforth going to be mistreatment of a people by their ruler, we will never be at peace in our life times, or the life times of our children.

In short, I believe war was the wrong remedy for the problems we face. And I think the chaos now gripping Iraq is proof that we may be there a lot longer (and spend a lot more) than most Americans have bargained for.

JF: Would you have voted to go into Iraq?

JS: No.

JF: Would you vote to pull out the troops if no Allied support is forthcoming?

JS: It's pretty clear that we can't afford to pay for or police everything ourselves. But when or under what circumstances we should pull out is a question I don't think we can answer right now.

JF: Has the War in Iraq substantially interfered with the War on Terror?

JS: Yes, it has interfered, but not in a positive way. For one thing, there is little doubt that Saddam was NOT in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden, the Administration's allegations to the contrary notwithstanding. Moreover, as I said above, I believe we have probably hurt ourselves in the war on terror by alienating so many of the other countries whose help is vital. And I also believe that our war in Iraq has probably served as an excellent recruiting tool for terrorist groups like al-Qaida.

JF: Should the Democrats continue to filibuster "unacceptable" Federal Court nominees (over 100 have been approved, 2 filibustered)?

JS: Although Presidents should have some leeway in nominating jurists for Federal courts, Democrats must oppose nominees who are extremists and who would turn back the clock on such important issues as choice, privacy, and civil rights. I would have no problem filibustering extremists.

JF: What is the has been the most disappointing action of the current US senators from OH that directly affected Ohioans?

JS: Their votes for the tax cuts. Those cuts not only overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans, but also really hurt the state of Ohio, which is already facing a $5 billion deficit -and now will have an even higher deficit, thanks to the reduction in taxes on dividends. As Sen. Voinovich knows (because he used to be Governor), Ohio's revenue is directly dependent on the income taxpayers show on their Federal tax forms. Since taxpayers who have dividend income will now be reporting less income at the Federal level, they'll also show less at the state level. That will reduce Ohio income taxes ---and that will boost the state's deficit, which is already at an historic high.

JF: Your primary opponent might be Eric Fingerhut, what about him?

JS: He's a nice man and a good State Senator. If he is the Party's nominee for U.S. Senator, I will support him.

JF: How can you overcome his political presence in the state?

JS: I don't intend to attack him, if that's what you mean. Instead of attacking each other, I believe Democrats should be holding their fire for our common enemies, the Republicans. If I run, I will wage a campaign of ideas. I hope Sen. Fingerhut will, too. And let the voters decide who has the best ideas and the best chance of beating the Republicans in November of 2004.

JF: What's the message you have that he does not?

JS: I don't wish to characterize his message. If I run, I'll concentrate on presenting my message, and let voters decide who has the better one.