The Blade's non-endorsement for Toledo mayor

Yesterday, the local daily paper, The Toledo Blade, decided to 'sit out' the race for Toledo mayor by not endorsing either candidate.

First, let me say that this is one of the single best things that could happen in Toledo politics. For too long, politicians have asked 'how high' when the paper has said 'jump' and not always has it been the in the best interests of Toledo. Just look at all the politicians who jumped on board the Blade's position regarding the United Way, or their advocacy of a socialist bill of rights. Even when it comes to taxes, or smoking bans or a myriad of other issues, once the editorial is published, many of our elected officials suddenly make up their minds. And all because they want to remain on the good side of the paper for endorsements.

I've been the recipient of Blade endorsements, so I know the expectations as well as the consequences when you fail to 'play along.'

So for the next mayor to not have the specter of the publisher and editorial board claiming credit for a win - and expecting subservience as a result - means that whomever wins this race won't have to worry as much about upsetting those people.

Granted, taking into consideration all aspects of a decision, including what the local media will say about it, is just good strategy, but only in planning potential responses to opposing positions - not as guidance for what needs to be done.

When I first entered politics I was told that a Blade endorsement could count for roughly 10,000 votes. But the joke was that you just never knew if the votes were FOR you because of the Blade endorsement or AGAINST you as people did opposite of what the paper recommended. However, the end result was somewhere around the 10,000 in agreement with the publisher's recommendation.

But that was in the early to mid 1990s. Today, a Blade endorsement might result in a couple thousand votes from some who are still undecided. And while every vote is valuable, the influence of an endorsement is not what it once was.

As for the actual endorsement, let's start with the final paragraph of the editorial:

"And so we reluctantly defer to the electorate, hoping that they will turn out in large numbers to make their wishes known on Tuesday."

First, don't they always hope for large turnout and for voters to make their wishes known? Isn't that the way it's supposed to be?

And they 'reluctantly defer to the electorate'???? Perhaps they don't realize it, but they always have to defer to the electorate because we're the only ones who get to vote. The Blade doesn't get a vote, though its employees do. And the publisher, John Robinson Block, lives in Pittsburgh and doesn't get a vote.

So why are they reluctant? Are they admitting their lack of influence? Are they under some strange perception that voters actually do what they tell them without thinking independently?

And no matter how many people turn out to actually vote, those who do will make their wishes known. Why is this a bad thing, as implied by this last sentence?

But there's more to this non-endorsement than meets the eye.

I have no idea whether or not Mike Bell or Keith Wilkowski sat down with Block to discuss their candidacy. I know that in the news pages, Wilkowski has certainly received more favorable treatment - from headlines to choice of words used to describe his ideas and positions. Wilkowski's ideas are closer to the positions of the publisher and those taken on the editorial pages, especially when it comes to the role of government, green jobs, etc...

But Block, it is rumored, is not particularly fond of Wilkowski and that may play a big role in the decision. If Wilkowski is as organized as some seem to think, based upon what he learned with President Barack Obama's campaign and get-out-the-vote (GOTV) effort on election day last year, he may not need the endorsement.

Rumor also has it that Mark Luetke, owner the firm Bell's campaign hired, has long been on the outs with the publisher. As a result, he may not have pushed Bell to solidify Block's support.

So with neither candidate actively - aggressively - seeking the endorsement, could the non-support be a direct reaction? Sort of a 'If you don't want my support, fine! You won't get it' type of position?

That's what some are speculating.

Another interesting aspect is that, as far as I can tell, The Blade did not commission any polls on the race. I don't remember the last time the paper failed to do a poll in a high profile election in Toledo. This is probably due to lack of funds for a comprehensive one, but it appears they didn't even do a flash poll, even for internal reference.

I spoke with someone familiar with the paper's endorsement process and the general opinion was that the non-endorsement is dramatic - and sad. The perspective (paraphrased):

This signals the end of the political influence of The Blade forever. With its circulation so low now, this really was the last chance for it to throw its weight around. Choosing not to do so is sort of like the punch-drunk fighter who is too weak to fight back but too proud to simply fall to the mat. They just stand there and take punch after punch until there is nothing left. Then they will land with a huge thud.

Does Block understand and/or share this perspective? Probably not, for if he believed his influence was waning, he'd probably push harder for what he wants.

Will this prove to be The Blade's last hurrah when it comes to their political influence? If so, will they regret 'taking a pass' on the mayoral endorsement?

Only time will tell. But there may come a day when we look back and say this non-endorsement was the beginning of the end.

No on Issues 1 and 3

For many of the same reasons as I oppose Issue 2, I am also against Issues 1 and 3.

Here is the Ohio Issues Report from the Ohio Ballot Board that provides the ballot language for the measures, the actual text of the proposals as well as pros and cons of each one.

Issue 1 would "authorize the state to issue bonds to provide compensation to veterans of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts."

Under the provision:

* The state would issue up to two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) of bonds to provide compensation to veterans of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq conflicts, and to pay for the administration of the Compensation Bond Retirement Fund and the Compensation Fund.

* The Ohio Department of Veterans Services would provide compensation to persons who have served in active duty in the United States armed forces at any time during the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq conflicts and who were Ohio residents at the start of active duty services and are currently Ohio residents.

So the state of Ohio is going to borrow money to pay out to a certain class of citizen based upon their employment in the U.S. armed forces. This is not for individuals who actually fought in the named conflicts, but for all veterans.

There are many who will say that this is 'the least we can do' for our veterans. But I have a sneaking suspicion that our veterans would not want the state - or its taxpayers and their fellow citizens - to go into debt just to give them cash for their service.

And that's what this measure will do. The state is going to borrow $200 million dollars to pay out to a particular class of Ohio citizens. There is nothing that says where the payments for this loan are going to come from - or whether or not tax incentives or credits on the Ohio Income Tax forms might be a better way of 'compensating' the valiant individuals.

Plus, the maximum amount is only $1,000 per vet. Do we really think $1,000 is going to be 'enough' to express our true gratitude for their service? If $1,000 is a good amount, why not $5,000, or $10,000 or even $25,000? Or is the $1,000 at a total cost of $200 million just what they think voters will approve?

And exactly how much of that $200 million is going to be dedicated to paying for the 'administration' of the bonds and the disbursements? Issue 1 would create another expansion of government, including an expansion of the costs of government.

Additionally, we're still involved in these conflicts, so we really have no idea what the final costs would actually be. Between the unknown number of veterans and the unknown costs of administration, there is no guarantee the final bill will be 'just' $200 million.

It is true that we can never do enough for our veterans, but that is a personal choice and a personal obligation - not a state deciding to borrow money and then tax everyone for the repayments. Besides, do you really think the politicians will be telling our veterans to thank the Ohio people for the 'gift'? Or will they be going around touting what 'they' did to help???

The very noble goal of providing a 'thank you' should be not be done by putting a financially-strapped state into further debt, or by expanding the cost of state government, or by taxing individuals just so politicians can have a point to add to their campaign literature.

If Ohioans really want to help our veterans, volunteer for them. Offer to help a military family clean out their gutters or do other home maintenance and repairs. Offer to drive a vet to the doctor's appointment, take them out to lunch, give them a grocery gift card, visit them when they're in the hospital.

If you want to show your appreciation for their service, YOU do it - personally - in a way that brings honor to you and them.

Vote NO on Issue 1 and take it upon yourself to provide your own 'thank you' for the sacrifices our U.S. armed services have made for our safety.

***

Issue 3 would amend the state Constitution to allow for one casino each in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo but would distribute the taxes on the casinos to all Ohio counties.

Many people have taken a position on this measure based upon the economic development aspects, the potential revenue to the various jurisdictions or because of the very subject of gambling.

My opposition has nothing to do with the subject matter. I believe that if you want to gamble, the state shouldn't be able to dictate to you about that choice. And while I believe that gambling can be bad - in fact, very, very bad - for some people, it can also be a form of entertainment for those who do it responsibly. Of course, that requires individuals to be responsible - or to suffer the suffer the consequences if they are not.

When it comes to tax revenue and/or economic development, pick your side and you'll find plenty of studies, reports, evaluations, etc...that will reinforce your opinion.

My opposition is to the amending of the state Constitution to carve out a business option for a particular type of business in only a few of the cities in the state.

If there was an amendment to establish plants that make whiskey in certain towns in Ohio with income from taxes distributed throughout the state, would you believe this was a proper use of the Constitution? Probably not...

What if the industry was a Halloween costume maker?

The point is that the 'industry' or specific business is not relevant. What is relevant is maintaining the Constitution as a document that applies to all equally - not one that can be piece-mealed to carve out benefits or exceptions for some.

So regardless of your support or opposition to 'gambling,' I urge you to reject the Constitutional amendment process proposed and vote NO on Issue 3.


*** If you'd like to know what positions other bloggers and media have taken on these issues, be sure to check out the 2009 Ohio Issues page on Ballotpedia.

Suprise! Blade endorses Obama

Well, it's not really a big surprise, considering ... but it is a front-page editorial of their endorsement for the March 4th primary.

What is surprising is their reasoning for the endorsement - not because it's different from perspectives the editorial board has taken in the past, but because so many of the reasons for their support have absolutely nothing to do with being the President.

They reference Sen. Barack Obama's statements to them during a meeting earlier this week: "'We have to have a government that works for ordinary people."

What is an "ordinary" American? You? Me? Bill Gates? An unemployed single mother? How would you define 'ordinary' when it comes to the American people? And I thought the whole point of our form of government was that it works for ALL and not just for some? Is Sen. Obama saying that government should NOT work for un-ordinary people?

This makes no sense to me, but it seems to be something that resonates with The Blade editorial board...

After bashing the current administration and touting Obama's 'international' upbringing, they offer this:

"Those who say that he is inexperienced in international affairs overlook that he sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The last two Democratic presidents, Mr. Clinton and Jimmy Carter, didn't have a day's service in Congress, much less foreign policy, before they took office, and it certainly hurt them."

Sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee does not give you foreign relations experience. I believe that being in foreign service would provide such - or being, perhaps, a businessman with an international company or client list. But perhaps that's just me.

And since the President of the United States is an administrative position - the Executive Branch of government - I don't see any relevance whatsoever to 'service in Congress' or other such legislative body. Former Presidents Clinton and Carter were governors with similar administration/executive branch positions. They had experience in appointing a cabinet, preparing budgets, overseeing the administrative functions of a state, and being the individual responsible for the final decisions - certainly much more relative to the position of President than being a member of a body of collective voters with no direct responsibility for the functions of a government.

"Additionally, Mr. Obama, a younger and more physically vigorous man, will be in a far better position to push Americans into solving one of the biggest problems we face: that of an unhealthy, morbidly obese generation of young people, a health crisis that is costing the nation billions. We applaud the fact that, urged by his talented wife, Michelle, he has quit smoking. That alone should be an inspiration to millions."

First, he's 'a younger and more physically vigorous man' than...Hillary Clinton??? Obviously he's a man - but the comparison is incomplete, so who knows what they mean.

And I guess I didn't realize that the role of the President was to "push" Americans into "solving" the problem of 'morbidly obese generation of young people'. In a nation of individual liberty and responsibility, don't Americans have the ability to make such decisions about their weight on their own without the government telling them how to behave or what to eat?

As for his decision to quit smoking - good for him. But I'd rather be inspired by a President who had a plan for reducing the costs of government - even if it was a plan with which I disagreed.

The editorial then excoriates Sen. Clinton, including how she and her husband "in effect looted the White House of expensive china, furniture, and other items when they left in January, 2001." Funny, I didn't find any criticism of this by The Blade at the time.

"And, if that weren't enough, they set up a gift registry to furnish their new home in New York." This issue was covered in a column by one of the reporters who worked in the Washington bureau, but I could find no editorial condemning such action.

(sidebar: I used the archives of the paper available at the Toledo-Lucas County Public Library. If anyone is aware of articles/editorials I may have missed, please let me know and I'll made the proper corrections.)

"We need this election to mark, at last, the end of the Vietnam period." To be quite honest, as someone past the age of 40, I thought we left the 'Vietnam period' quite some time ago, so I'm not sure what point they're trying to make. Maybe I'd have to be a Democrat to understand this?

They conclude with this:

"Barack Obama would be, figuratively if not literally, the first president of the 21st Century, much as John F. Kennedy was the first president born in the 20th century — each necessary to his time, and each able to see the world with a fresh, clear view."

Obama may, indeed, have a fresh, clear view, but I don't think his speeches or his positions detail the substance of such a perspective very well. His policy initiatives, so far, seem to differ only in details from what we've heard from other Democrat candidates. And the editorial really doesn't identify what, specifically, about his perspective is so fresh or clear.

There's been a lot of discussion about the personal appeal of Sen. Obama - he has it, definitely, often moving supporters to fainting and/or tears. As I well know, there are many people who will vote for a candidate because they like the person, even when they may not know - or even disagree with - the candidate's positions.

I can't help but think the paper's editorial board has been swept up with all the others in 'Obama adulation' for if they have more substantive reasons for supporting his candidacy in the primary, they certainly didn't list them.

Personally, I'm less interested in the 'person' than I am the 'positions.' I want to know where a candidate stands on such vital issues as the appointment of judges, the appropriate role of government, the ability to command the Armed Forces, the priorities in the federal budget, the national debt, the funding gaps in Social Security and Medicare, the interpretation of the Constitution, etc...

Those are the issues that will determine my primary vote - not whether or not a candidate has an "inspiring life story" or a "fresh and optimistic world view."

Fellow SOBer, Interested-Participant, has an opinion about this editorial, too!