http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/forum/2006/10/sinking-in-political-mud_116155343275607008.asp#commentsSinking in the political mud
I hope the story on the front page of Sunday's Enquirer about how low politicians are willing to go finally wakes them up to the damage they are doing to the system -- but I don't have much confidence that it will. Most candidates and their paid tacticians seem to think this garbage sells.
We've actually had some politicians tell the Editorial Board that they have "no choice" but to hit back with negative ads because that's much more popular with their supporters than simply ignoring an attack and trying to put out a positive message. They should read the pages of comments on the Enquirer's Web site that accompanies today's story. Maybe then they would see that they do have a choice.
Perhaps the scurrilous attacks by Ken Blackwell against Ted Strickland will be a tipping point. As Sunday's editorial noted, Blackwell had strong ideas in this race (pretty much the only ideas), but he abandoned his strategy and dropped talk of his ideas to grab a fistful of mud when he thought the voters weren't paying attention to the important things he had to say.
I've known Ken Blackwell as an independent-minded politician for more than 25 years, always willing to stand or fall on the strength of his positions. I'm ashamed that he has taken this cowardly approach because he feels his positions aren't going to sustain him. As the editorial stated, Blackwell has the better ideas about what a governor should do. But he is not a better person.
posted by David Wells at 5:24 PM
15 Comments:
at 6:55 PM mrscabes said...
It's just so sad to me. As voters we're not voting for the BEST candidate, we're voting for the best of the WORST! I'd love for just one politician to stand up, not have any skeletons lurking in his/her closet and tell us what they're going to DO. This whole election has just left such a bad taste in my mouth and it's making it difficult for me to be happy voting for ANY of the candidates. If it weren't for a few important issues, I'm not sure that I would feel compelled to give any of these slimy candidates my time that it takes to vote.
at 8:12 PM Anonymous said...
The recent history of Enquirer endorsements includes names like Bush (twice) and Taft (also twice), and we all know how those turned out. But I pick up my Sunday paper this morning, and true to form, the Enquirer endorses Republicans Blackwell and DeWine. And this in spite of describing Blackwell's character flaws in the editorial supporting him! But, hey, what's character matter as long as he's a Republican, right? You boys just don't get it, do you? Anyway, we can always count on the Enquirer to give us the right anti-recommendations, so we'll be voting for Strickland and Brown, of course.
at 8:16 PM JohnDWoodSr said...
I am saddened by your endorsement of Ken Blackwell for Ohio governor.You criticize Blackwell at great lengths for his "unconscionable mudslide of innuendo" against Ted Strickland, who you admit is "an honorable man who has served the state with integrity". You also say that Blackwell's smear tactics are "blots on his character" and that he "owes the State of Ohio an apology".
Nonetheless, you saw fit to endorse Blackwell because "he is not Bob Taft" and he offers strong ideas". Among the ideas cited is a scheme to lease the Ohio Turnpike to a private firm to raise four to six billions dollars for the state. A look at the revenue stream from the Turnpike should show you that this is a pipe dream. So much for "strong ideas".
On the other hand, most would agree that you can accurately judge a mans character by his actions and by the company he keeps. Most would agree that these things provide a "window" into a mans soul. Most would agree that this "window" would give one the means to determine the fitness of a man to serve as an elected official. Most would agree that a mans character, thus revealed, should carry more weight than what he says of his plans, when deciding how he will perform in office. Unfortunately, the Enquirer must not believe this to be so.
Blackwell lies- you know this. He is also tied to the pay-to-play culture rampant in state government. Well documented allegations of voter supression in the 2004 election, aimed at traditionally Democratic precincts, have been tied directly to Blackwell.He has openly allied himself with a Christian movement that advocates overturning the Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state. In short, Blackwell has shown himself to be a lying, win at all costs opportunist without a shred of integrity.
Many years ago, Maritn Luther King had a dream "of a day when a man will be judged by the content of his character". The Enquirers editorial board, although that famous speech is dutifully re-published every year, must have never bothered to read it. Your endorsement of Blackwell is a blot on YOUR integrity, and an insult to the concept of good, responsible government.
at 8:26 PM Anonymous said...
Do you actually believe there is a firewall between how Blackwell has managed his campaign and how he would manage the state?
The Enquirer would have been a lot better off endorsing neither gubernatorial candidate rather than holding your nose in order to endorse one.
The unpleasant aroma of Blackwell's despicable campaign tactics will linger long after the voters banish him to the refuse heap of other unprincipled politicians.
at 8:37 PM Anonymous said...
I don't blame the good men and women of this country avoiding public office. How can anyone blame them? Who wants to be associated with ANYONE in this bunch of whackos?
There's something to be said for the way the founding fathers had it. There were no political parties, and a gentleman (or lady today) didn't seek office; the office sought them. Washington didn't run for office, he was asked.
Then again, getting any two people in this country to agree on anything seems impossible anymore, because of party affiliation. What a shame.
at 9:28 PM Anonymous said...
In your endorsement for Blackwell you neglected to mention the posting of social security numbers on the SoS web site. And Blackwell's refusal to remove them until he was forced to. You also neglected to mention Blackwell's ridiculously partisan maneuvering to benefit GOP candidates in 2004. Most blatant was "right church, wrong pew" precinct specific provisional ballot rules that he fought until the 11th hour to implement. Helping America Vote Act aka HAVA is just that, helping not hindering. Blackwell insinuating his opponent is gay is simply the same tactic Rove used to oust Ann Richards for George W. Bush.
One party government with no checks and balances is not what the founders intended.
Gerrymadered districts that protect incumbancy is not what the founders intended.
Corporate contributions as free speech is not what the founders intended.
At least the Toledo Blade gets it:
Article published October 22, 2006
Brown for U.S. Senate
Strip away misleading rhetoric about body armor for the troops, and Ohio's race for the U.S. Senate boils down to this: The incumbent, Republican Mike DeWine, has been a loyal vote in Washington for President Bush and a host of failed and misguided foreign and domestic policies for the past six years.
Getting the country back on the right track won't be easy, but change has to start in the halls of Congress, which is why we endorse Democrat Sherrod Brown to replace Mr. DeWine in the Senate.
Mr. Brown, a seven-term House member, has the experience, intelligence, and tenacity necessary to get things done in Washington, and his positions on the major issues - tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and trade - are in most cases diametrically opposed to those of the incumbent.
Moreover, he has not succumbed to the insiderism that grips veteran officials who, like Mr. DeWine, forget they're supposed to be working for the people rather than advancing special interests.
In addition, Mr. Brown is anything but a stranger to the broader public, having served as Ohio secretary of state from 1983 to 1991 and before that eight years in the General Assembly. A Mansfield native and a graduate of Yale University, he now lives in Avon and represents the 13th congressional district, which extends from the Lorain area southeast below Cleveland into Summit County.
He also is the first truly competitive opponent to face Mr. DeWine, who easily dispatched storefront lawyer Joel Hyatt in 1994 and the overmatched Ted Celeste in 2000.
The fact that this race is a competitive one is testament to the remarkable change this year in Ohio's political landscape, dominated for the past 16 years by Mr. DeWine and his fellow Republicans. Needless to say, one-party rule has been stultifying for both the state and nation, and voters have an opportunity on Nov. 7 to change that.
On the major issues of this election, the contrast between the candidates is striking.
Mr. DeWine supported every one of Mr. Bush's tax cuts, even though they were tilted heavily in favor of the rich. Mr. Brown opposed the policy, not because tax cuts were involved but because he wanted to do more for the neglected middle class.
On Iraq, Mr. DeWine has supported the Bush Administration virtually chapter and verse. His membership on the Senate Intelligence Committee should have given him reason to doubt the President's claim of imminent danger, but even today he still clings to the political fiction that "everybody" believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
On trade, Mr. DeWine has been a champion of global agreements that have resulted in the overseas outsourcing of American workers' jobs and the decline of domestic manufacturing.
While we do not believe global forces can, or should be, entirely reversed, Mr. Brown promises to be a countervailing voice in doing all that can be done to retain jobs, particularly in the kind of small manufacturing shops that often are ignored by government policy.
Most of all, Mr. Brown would provide vital oversight and persistent questioning of Bush Administration policies that has been nonexistent under the Republican regime in Washington.
It's too bad that this campaign has devolved into an angry exchange of TV spots about funding of body armor for U.S. troops overseas. Both candidates want to protect the troops, although Mr. Brown correctly points out that Mr. DeWine supported the administration's rush to send troops into combat even though the military services lacked sufficient armor both for personnel and their Humvees.
We have little confidence that Mr. DeWine would do anything to alter these and other misguided policies of an essentially rudderless administration.
Ohio needs an experienced and thoughtful agent of change in Washington and we believe voters will get one if they elect Sherrod Brown to the U.S. Senate.
at 9:34 PM Anonymous said...
Blackwell grabbed a fistful of mud not because voters weren't listening, but because voters were rejecting him as Strickland's double digit lead in the polls indicated. From the Enquirer we have come to expect more of the same. One party rule for Ohio and the nation. How is that working out?
at 10:28 PM Anonymous said...
At least one the the Plain Dealer columnists gets it.
1 issue is enough to oust DeWine
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Dick Feagler
Plain Dealer Columnist
Im voting for Sherrod Brown for senator.
My newspaper is backing Mike DeWine. Turn the page and you'll see why.
Everything the editorial says about Mike DeWine is true. I think he's an honorable man who has served this state honorably. And he's a nice guy.
snip
But these are hideously abnormal times. The status quo stinks, and the voters know it. And the only thing we can do about it is to fire everybody.
So I'm going to cast my vote to fire the pols who hold the power. I'm going to vote to fire Mike and bring in Sherrod.
And frankly, it's going to be a one- issue vote. I'm going to vote for Sherrod because he is against this lousy war, and was from the beginning. That's enough for me.
All the polls say this election is all about the war in Iraq. And it ought to be.
A war is a big deal. It should command the full attention of all of us. It certainly should command the full attention of our Congress.
But when we got into this lethal goo, both parties were asleep at the switch. Mike DeWine certainly was. And so were a lot of Democrats.
Sherrod Brown wasn't. He was one of too few Dems who voted against this misadventure before it started.
snip
Sherrod is abrasive. He speaks his mind. He has a philosophy. He is thought by some to be left of center.
Great. Lay it all out there. If we're going to survive, we have to return to the days when congressmen stood for something besides their own pensions and lobbyist payoffs. That has been the status quo, and the status quo stinks.
I liked Sherrod when he put senior citizens on buses and ferried them to Canada to get low-priced pills. He has a way of speaking to concerns that we have.
Besides, I welcome a straight-talking smart-mouth in Congress. What are the rest of these guys doing, except getting us deeper and deeper in trouble?
And that includes Mike DeWine.
And that brings me back to the war. Because the war is the one great issue. It will sink Mike DeWine and all the play-along congressmen with him.
There is nothing you can do in Congress that is more important than to OK sending our troops off to war. Nothing.
And when the war isn't working and the bodies are coming home, if you have any moral fiber, you insist on a change. You don't sit there with your thumb out of sight and sputter things like "stay the course" and accuse people trying to save lives of wanting to "cut and run."
This Congress should be ashamed of itself. Its members aren't fighting. Their children aren't, either. Most of them are far more distant from this war than the average family in Brook Park.
It is eerie how politicians can send young people out to kill and manage to stay so immune from the killing. But they seem to.
The country finally has caught on. The war is the biggest issue for us. It took us a while, but now we understand it.
The party in power allowed this travesty to happen. I'll gamble on a change.
I'm voting for Sherrod Brown. Maybe Mike DeWine, a nice guy, was too nice. But these are not nice times.
at 11:35 PM Anonymous said...
Every election I get calls from people, "Who am I voting for this year?" they'd ask.
They know I keep up on the politics and they generally seem to trust my opinion. But it is disheartening. Many family members and friends don't bother reading the local paper much less scan over other papers in order to get a good grasp on the "real" story. News is too often about 20 minutes of their day on the evening local news and another 20 on world issues -- if that.
These attack ads fulfill too many "citizens" need for information and they are of the tone that draws the oblivious' attention. Unfortunately, titalating attacks appeal tothe majority of voters who don't bother to do their homework or fulfill their duties as citizens.
Seems like lately, we are getting out of our government exactly what we have been putting into it.
at 8:47 AM Anonymous said...
I have to agree with johnwoodsr and anonomous right after him: if Blackwell is willing to say anything to get into power, why should his "ideas" be taken seriously? And what is he willing to say to stay in power? The Enquirer blew their endorsement, because in my judgement Blackwell's campaign misjudgement raises more doubts about his ability to make good judgements in office.
You know, the vitriolic atmosphere in politics now is probably a blazing symptom of the two party system. If you are a candidate and you know you have only one opponent, you can spend time and money to attack her/him. But if you had more opponents, you may not have the money to attack everyone. So you might have to actually spend your time and money telling the voters why (gasp) you are the better candidate, not why the other guy is a worse one.
The problem is, the two main parties listen to their own members, who of course love it when their party trashes the other guy.
This mess will not change until laws and mentality change to give more weight to other parties. And that includes rules to determine who gets to participate in gubernatorial debates (pay attention League of Women Voters!)
at 11:38 AM Anonymous said...
And I'm apalled that The Enquirer endorses the bigot named Ken Blackwell. Obviously, like Bush, this man is a major homophobe and does not deserve to represent this state as our governor. Send him jobless back to Cincinnati - then maybe he will have to earn an honest living off the public dole.
at 12:23 PM Hebron27 said...
Why do Republicans generally, and the Enquirer editorial board specifically, always cut and run when it comes to morality, ethics, and intelligence?
at 1:14 PM Anonymous said...
Take a look at all the comments here, full of hate and misinformation, and you still wonder why political ads go negative? The Democrats (or at least a majority of them) running this year are running on a vile platform of "join us in hating all Republicans." This is a ridiculous way to run. Perhaps because they have no ideas. The Enquirer had no choice but to endorse Blackwell, because as they said, Strickland, like Brown and Cranley and the others, are running a campaign without a single idea. What will they do differently? We have no idea. Maybe it will the right direction, probably not. Instead of having voter remorse before 2007 gets here, confound the Dems one more time. Vote for Blackwell, Chabot and DeWine. They all deserve it and they don't deserve to be lumped in with Republicans who have let us down. Separate them and listen to what they actually have to say. All the Dems have to say is, well, nothing. Other than, we're not Republicans.
at 1:37 PM Anonymous said...
One of the Enquirer's former endorsees, Bob Taft, issued a proclamation Sunday telling us to pay attention to National Save for Retirement Week, Oct. 22-28. I assume he'd like us all to invest in rare coins.
at 3:20 PM Anonymous said...
How naive for you to state that based on a Political ad that Ken Blackwell is not the better person than Ted Strickland, even though you state Blackwell has the better ideas to run for governor. Your quote: "But he is not a better person." You in the media are agenda driven in your reporting versus fact or news reporting. What hypocrites you are.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
