*

*
Today at the Forum
Opinions from members of the Enquirer Editorial Board


David Wells,
Editorial Page Editor


Ray Cooklis,
Assistant Editorial Editor


Krista Ramsey,
Editorial Writer


Dennis Hetzel, General Manager,
Kentucky Enquirer/NKY.Com


Jim Borgman,
Editorial Cartoonist



Powered by Blogger

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Congressional endorsements

The Enquirer's endorsements in the congressional races went up on the Web this afternoon and will be in Sunday morning's paper. We've endorsed John Cranley, Jean Schmidt, Geoff Davis, Mike Turner and John Boehner. I get a lot of questions after we make endorsements -- often of the "Are you out of your mind!!?" variety.

That's OK, opinions are what the editorial business is all about and we expect that yours often will clash with ours. We had a lot of comment after we came out for Ken Blackwell over Ted Strickland in the Ohio governor's race last week. Some asked if we were schizophrenic because the endorsement spent a good deal of space excoriating Blackwell for his conscienceless implication that Strickland somehow supports child molesters -- and then said we supported Blackwell over Strickland anyway.

I expect we will get a lot of questions about our picks in the congressional races as well -- with people wondering why we support a Republican incumbent in one race, but urge the Republican incumbent be dumped in the neighboring district.

I can only say that each race is taken separately. We judge the candidates against each other only in the races they are running, not in comparison to the candidates running next door. In the end, the endorsements represent the view of the newspaper as an institution, not the opinion of any single member of the editorial board.


28 Comments:

at 7:26 PM, October 28, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me be the first to comment. I assume because the Enquirer endorse Republicans for all the other Congressional districts, you felt obligated to endorse one Democrat, John Cranley over Steve Chabot.

There is one thing you overlooked about Steve Chabot. Steve represents a highly conservative district and he votes the wishes of the people he represents. He was voted into office with those conservative values in 1994 and he, much to his credit maintains those values.

 
at 9:32 PM, October 28, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will John Cranley be the same crime fighter he demonstrated with his support of rioters during the Cincinnati Riots?
Also, Simon Leis better start building his war chest for payoffs Cranley approves as compensation to criminals who are injured while fleeing Hamilton County Officers’ apprehension. The relatives of injured fleeing criminals will require compensation too, for their grief. This Cranley is sensitive to criminals' plight.

 
at 10:12 PM, October 28, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I continue to disagree with the Blackwell, Schmidt and Schneider endorsements. When the candidates are about equal, there should be no endorsement. Instead of the Schneider endorsement, I would have shown more information about candidate Adams, to let the voters decide. In some cases, I wish the voter had the option to choose "none of the above." We deserve better. With all of the negative campaigning, it appears in some cases that neither candidate is qualilfied to hold public office.

 
at 11:16 PM, October 28, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Cranley is a trust fund elitist masquerading as a Democratic populist. Promoting an ineffective leader of a failing city to the United States Congress in no way advances the interests of our district. "Boy blunder" Cranley couldn't handle Kabaka : how will he deal with Osama ??

Looks like the Gannett-itized editorial board (gee thanks, Dave !)figures Dems need this district so that Pelosi can become Speaker of the House !

By the way, how many editorial board members of the Enquirer actually live in the 1st district ??

 
at 12:52 AM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Congratulations, David.

By endorsing Ms. Schmidt, you have completed the task of marginalizing the Enquirer as one of the community's political voices worth listening to.

If Ms. Schmidt ever had a creative idea or original thought of her own, it would die of loneliness.

Perhaps you and your gang should return to counseling us on how to conquer obesity, raise our kids and control our road rage.

That might be taken more seriously than the humorous editorials you call "endorsements."

 
at 6:38 AM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enquirer and Pork

The Enquirer editorial board is apparently suffering from a momentary case of editorial schizophrenia. In your endorsement of Northern Kentucky Congressman Geoff Davis you write that he “brings home much-needed federal dollars to Northern Kentucky” as one of the reasons he should be re-elected.”

In your endoresement of Butler County Congressman John Boehner you write that his “oposition to earmarking pork projects into spending bills” is a good reason to re-elect him.

I’d hate to do your shopping for you. I’d never know whether I should “bring home the bacon or leave it at the store so somebody else could take it home.

Those of us who live in Butler County would like to get some of those “much-needed federal dollars” for job creating projects in our community as well.

 
at 8:35 AM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Cranley? Are you kidding? Even democrats think he's a crazy freak. And, after his rant on the whole "Paris Hilton" thing last week, endorsing him is laughable.

 
at 9:02 AM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your endorsements are a sham. You endorsed Jean Schmidt then spent the entire endorsement talking about her gaffs. Then you praised Wulsin as a doctor, sharp, bright, etc. The worst thing you could find to say about Wulsin was that she's inexperienced. Your endorsements for democrats have been in those races where they are either assured of winning or on the line / even. The republicans you've endorsed are all those who will likely lose or who are so far back in the polls they can never catch up (i.e. Blackwell.) On the front page of the Enquirer this AM you show a flattering picture of Stricklin's wife and a very unflattering picture of Rosa Blackwell (not that there IS a flattering way to present her but you could have done a bit better than the picture you ran.) Then right next to all of that was the timely article about Schmidt considering filling Adams or Brown County with nuclear waste. Who do you guys think you're kidding with your far left handed politicing? The way you've positioned your endorsements you think you'll make your democratic friends happy that you've endorsed their buddies and you think you're getting brownie points with your republican customers; but after the vote you'll likely come back and praise those who "beat" your endorsements. Everyone's not fooled by your skuldugery and over the next few years you're likely to lose your republican customers. Can you exist after losing 50% of your business?

 
at 9:13 AM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Surely you are joking endorsing that Ohio "congresswoman" Jean Schmidt. She was first elected because no one knew what a dim light she was, and her district reflexly votes republican. It is endorsements like this one that is causing the continued deaths in Iraq in the name of "terrorism". Their action in Iraq has made the terror problem worse around the world. Every time a vote is given to a truly inept person like this one, more of our kids die. Cut and run indeed! Why doesn't she go to Iraq to "defend freedom" or send a family member over.
We need to get rid of these politicians who will send other's kids to die while protecting their own and making huge financial gains off of the "war effort". (Halliburton).

 
at 10:28 AM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey man, there's nothing wrong with endorsing your garden variety GOP, so-called conservatives such as Blackwell and Chabot. But get wise to yourselves! - Jean Schimdt?
I was guessing only the Weekly World News would endorse her! ( http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/)
If she wins and goes prancing around the hallowed halls of congress in that polyesther flag dress again - I'm moving straight to freakin' Canada! Why, the woman belongs in a Scold's Bridle!

 
at 11:14 AM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Mr. Chabot has served this community well - but, it really is time for a change. We can not ignore our sons and daughters dying in a war, we now know, to be unfounded. We have lost our checks and balances, and independent, thoughtful debate onthe issue. GWB's "political capital" was misspent and Congress allowed it to happen.

The Schmidt endorsement sucked. I think voters inthat district deserve a "fresh start" in their representation - Schmidt's "experience" is nothing anyone should want to build on.

 
at 1:07 PM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Enquirer's almost completely partisan endorsements (especially Jean Schmidt and Ken Blackwell) do much to damage any remaining sense of political objectivity this paper may have had.

I especially like the juxtaposition of the Schmidt endorsement with the article about her supporting a study to dump nuclear waste in her district. Very ironic. Might as well, I guess Jean figures. She's dumped every other kind of waste on her district.

 
at 1:10 PM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fortunately, the Enquirer's endorsements carry as much influence as the Polictical Polls that Democrats fund, post "McCain-Feingold world"; and the Alphabet networks love to report as fair and unbias.

 
at 1:23 PM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

If prior experience is a must for elected office, perhaps we could have been spared the ethically challenged exterminator Tom Delay (Abramhoff).

Seriously. This is the same editorial board that observed that one party control seems to be not exactly optimal for governance.

The GOP majority congress has failed it's most basic responsibility of oversight. Not only have tax dollars been wasted but people have died. (Iraq & Katrina)

From Trudi Rubin a columnist the Enquirer sometimes features:

U.S. blunders in reconstructing Iraq are staggering

By Trudy Rubin
Inquirer Columnist

I often recall a meeting in October 2003 in Baghdad with an Iraqi engineer who had a master's from Ball State University and loved America. He wanted to talk to me about corruption in reconstruction projects in Iraq.

Hamid spoke with anger at seeing U.S. officials on the bases pay cash to fly-by-night Iraqi agents to cart away new vehicles and spare parts - along with generators - that had been left behind by Saddam's army. The Iraqis then sold the valuable equipment in Syria and Jordan and paid kickbacks to the U.S. officials. "You are helping criminals," he complained, "and wasting your money and ours."

I never had the opportunity to investigate Hamid's accusations. He was murdered by Sunni insurgents for working with Americans. Now the sad tale of corruption and wasted billions in America's Iraq reconstruction program has been laid bare in a spate of new books, and by the U.S. inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

Bob Woodward's State of Denial details the incredible lack of planning for the postwar, in which the Pentagon team tasked with running Iraqi reconstruction met together for the first time only a few weeks before the invasion.

To understand what these Pentagon civilians wrought, read Rajiv Chandrasekaran's Imperial Life in the Emerald City about the Bush team's decision to send "the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest" to rebuild Iraq.

Chandrasekaran, former Baghdad bureau chief of the Washington Post, describes how Republican connections were the ticket to a job in Baghdad's Green Zone in 2003-2004, in the occupation era of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). There were some competent folks inside the Green Zone, but they played second fiddle to political appointees.

More typical was James K. Haveman Jr., a 60-year-old Republican social worker and Christian antiabortion activist, who was picked to head the Health Ministry over a physician with degrees in public health and experience in third-world disaster relief.

Haveman treated Baghdad as if it were an extension of his home state of Michigan: He pushed for more maternity hospitals instead of refurbishing Baghdad's ill-equipped emergency rooms. He pressed for an anti-smoking campaign - and tried to limit the number of drugs distributed to hospitals, ensuring that essential medicines stayed out of stock. He was in over his head.

To get the full flavor of the mismanagement of the postwar, however, you need to go to http://www.sigir.mil, and read the reports of the special inspector general in Iraq (SIGIR), Stuart W. Bowen Jr.

Hats off to Congress for creating this office to check, ex post facto, on the more than $18 billion spent for reconstruction. Too bad no one kept tabs sooner. Bowen's reports tell of huge cost overruns by American contractors - notably the Halliburton subsidiary known as KBR (formerly Kellogg Brown and Root). Despite repeated criticism, KBR has been paid most of its money by the Army.

Bowen also reports that a huge number of projects awarded to large U.S. firms remain unfinished. A children's hospital project in Basra, backed by Laura Bush, was supposed to be completed by Bechtel in 2005, but will cost up to $169 million and may never be finished. Thirteen of 14 projects undertaken by the Parsons Corp. engineering firm were found shoddy. A $75 million Parsons project for the largest police academy in Iraq was so bungled it may have to be demolished.

SIGIR's deputy inspector general, Ginger Cruz, told me that the police academy's plumbing was so grim that urine and feces dripped onto students, and on the SIGIR inspector who visited the building.

"We're leaving behind a trail of failure," Cruz says. "The power and oil situation isn't better than when we came." The problem, she says, goes beyond the security issues that have dogged the reconstruction effort.

The biggest lesson is that we should have avoided handing massive projects to big U.S. firms and focused instead on helping Iraqis to get their own systems up and running. "Instead," she says, "a few individuals in the CPA said, 'Let's go for the big solutions' and decided to build huge generators which run on natural gas in a country which doesn't have natural gas." And so on.

Instead of consulting Iraqis - as local U.S. military commanders often did - the CPA politicos "went for big super-dooper systems. We didn't listen," Cruz says - not to Iraqis, nor to experts from international organizations.

"Now after three years we are going back to square one," she adds, with the money almost gone. Has anyone in the White House learned any lessons from this reconstruction debacle? Has Donald Rumsfeld?

And will anyone ever be held accountable - say, on Nov. 7 - for the mess?



I would argue no race is local when a well oiled political machine such as Karl Rove's GOP is actually pulling the strings.

The evidence suggests that DiIulio was right:


"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."


Given competence, or ideology, I vote for competence and reality based decision making everytime.

Schmidt, Chabot and Dewine are part of the problem.

 
at 2:05 PM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the very first poster, saying one is a conservative and blindly supporting everything that is extreme does not qualify candidates as being in synch with a conservative district.

To the last poster, if voters would have used their intellect in listening and deciding for themselves, we wouldn't be in the disasterous mess we are today. I would just encourage every reader to learn of the candidates true 'intelletual' ability to think and make decisions on behalf of the thousands of people they represent as some of these hollow endoresements cleary have not done.

 
at 3:51 PM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

One good thing can be said about Mean Jean: She will definitely make Ohio glow.

 
at 4:26 PM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Enquirer's endorsements are very disappointing and quite frankly give this editorial staff no credibility. Please explain how you can endorse Schmidt who is an embarassment to this community and has outright lied on three occasions, how you can endorse Boehner who you state "shows a lack of leadership", and how can you endorse Blackwell who is as dirty as they come. Just put a header on your newspaper saying we endorse Republicans no matter how corrupt they are.

 
at 5:40 PM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

It shouldn't matter whether Cranley and Pepper live off of their relatives's successes. We should vote on these two for their known performances as City of Cincinnati Councilmen. Enough said.

 
at 8:42 PM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

For another opinion of the Enquirer's ridiculous endorsement of John Cranley go to,

www.bizzyblog.com

 
at 9:00 PM, October 29, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of the two Democrats that the Enquirer chose to endorse for higher office amazingly come from the highly ineffective Cincinnati City Council. During the time that David Pepper and John Cranley have been on city council, people have left the city in droves, businesses have left and crime is running rampant. Very little new development is being done.

Pepper even has the audicity to blame the county in one his commercial for all the new businesses opening in Northern Kentucky look in the mirror. It was city council who fell down on the job. There was a national magazine that Cincinnati was one of the hardest places to do business because of all the red tape.

Cranley is equally at fault because as chair of the Finance Committee he had the authority to set priorities on spending and find a way to encourage new development. His priority to increase police officers, while noble has done little to stem the tide of crime in the city.

His support of the Collabrative Agreement has basically put the police in Cincinnati on the defensive instead of being proactive to eliminate crime.

As residents of Hamilton County we should think very hard before we vote for anyone on the current city council running for higher office.

 
at 10:01 PM, October 29, 2006 Blogger JohnDWoodSr said...

On 8/20/06, the Enquirer editorial discussed the decision of a federal judge to grant a permanent injunction against George Bush's warrantless wiretap program,run in direct violation of the law that established the rules of the FISA court. The Enquirer agreed with the decision, calling it "a necessary rebuke to an Executive branch that considers itself above the law", and commented that that the program violated the Constitutional "separation of powers" between the Legislative and Executive branches.
A few days before, John Boehner flatly stated in an interview that as soon as they got back in session, Congress would move quickly to legalize warrantless wiretapping, giving Bush authority to continue an activity he had already illegally and unconstitutionally already begun.
The result was The Military Commissions Act of 2006, enacted by an unassailable Republican majority. The most egregious part of the Act gives Bush the power to suspend Habeus Corpus at his whim, without being answerable to anyone.
So much for separation of powers. The Republicans abdicated their responsibility to protect our freedoms by essentially destroying Habeus, which is one of the basic underpinnings of our democracy, one that keeps (or kept) us from becoming a dictatorship.
John Boehner said they'd do it, and they did.
In the face of this alone, I cannot understand the Enquirer endorsements, for Boehner or ANY Republican who voted for this travesty.
The Enquirer should see, as do so many of us, that the problem is not how the Republicans represent their districts, but that collectively they constitute a majority that gives them control of all legislation, and that they have shown they are all too willing to pass legislation attacking our Constitutional protections.
So, my questions to the editoral board are these: 1)Why, exactly, does this not seem to matter to you? 2)How can you endorse any member of the political party who would do this to the American people? 3)Don't you have any regard for our Constitution? 4) Have you no shame?

 
at 12:50 AM, October 30, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is obvious that the Editorial board at the Enquirer is compromised by the threats of its advertisers not to endorse certain candidates, which is why the newspaper will never endorse a third party candidate. Think about it, are all the third party candidates who run in races automatically the worse person to be considered for the job? how is it no big newspapers (save the Detroit Free Press endorsing a libertarian candidate this year) endorse anyone outside the two party system? Furthermore, with your organization sponsoring candidate debates which lock out dissenting third party views, how are the voters ever supposed to hear about a third option? There is a libertarian running in the fourth district of Kentucky. I would like the orignal author of this post to comment on how it is exactly that his name never even makes it into the newspaper? Doesn't the media have the courage to do something bold for a change? What a bunch of sell-outs! But on the plus side, Chiquita, Provident Bank, and UDF will all continue to advertise in your newspaper, won't they . . . .?

 
at 8:21 AM, October 30, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll take Wulsin's inexperience over Schmidt's "experience" any day.

Blackwell? Schmidt?

What the heck were you thinking?

 
at 9:27 AM, October 30, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Borgman is the only one within The Cincinnati Enquirer who offers common sense editorializing of both the left and the right. Perhaps the "serious" persons of the editorial board should reexamine their lens, write endorsements that reflect a viable reality, not the status quo, and leave the laughs to Mr. Borgman.

 
at 8:09 AM, October 31, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

A conservative rural paper in Vermont gets the stakes.

Drive Them Out
Editorial: Randolph Herald

What is a free and democratic people to do when their leaders prod them into an unprovoked and unnecessary war, spilling the blood of their sons and daughters in a desolate land in pursuit of vain and foolish ends?

What is such a people to do when they hear their treasured democratic heritage mocked throughout the world and savaged at home by a government that knows neither truth nor honor?

There remains but one recourse for a people burdened with such leaders, and that is to rise in wrath and drive them out.

Drive them out of their marbled offices. Drive them from the reins of power. Drive them out.

Exactly that is the task before the American people in the election of 2006-to exact retribution, simply by casting their ballots to replace Republicans with Democrats in the halls and councils of Washington. Have no doubt about it: This is an historic choice, a choice whether an all-Republican government-House, Senate and Presidency--will be permitted to continue to run roughshod over the nation's well-being and good name, or whether it will be called to account.

At this writing, replacing the Republican majority in the House of Representatives appears likely; a change in the Senate leadership appears possible. Changing both must be the goal.

That's why, here in Vermont, the two national races-one for Senate and one for the House-must be decided, this time, on the matter of party affiliation. It hardly matters, this year, that Martha Rainville is a likeable, intelligent, strong-minded, competent new alternative-which she is. Or that Rich Tarrant is a man of proven ability who has doggedly overcome his own inexperience and some bad advice to evolve into an independent-minded candidate with many of the most interesting ideas in the campaign.

What matters, unfortunately for Rainville and Tarrant, is that if elected to Congress, both will vote for Republican speakers and majority leaders and party whips and in so doing they will vote to keep the leadership of the national government in Republican hands. In 2006, this is an unacceptable alternative.

We need not ask candidates Peter Welch and Bernie Sanders precisely what plans they have to end the carnage that President Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and the rest have wrought. We need only ask that when in Congress the battle lines are drawn, Rep. Welch and Sen. Sanders will be on our side, on America's side, and not on the side of those whose reckless policies have placed our youths in mortal peril, ransacked our treasury, defamed our precious reputation, and eroded our security.

Vermont will do the right thing when it elects Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch to Congress on Tuesday, Nov. 7.

 
at 8:57 AM, October 31, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have another problem with the Enquirer's endorsement of Schmidt. At one place you explain that Wulsin's inexperience was the major factor in choosing to endorse Schmidt. Yet later you state that the 2nd District would not be ill served by either candidate. If Wulsin's election would not ill serve us, then apparently lack of previous experience isn't an issue after all. Do you guys actually proofread this stuff before it goes to the printing press?

Whatever happened to the "citizen legislators", who went for a term or two and then went back to their real jobs? Perhaps we need a licensing process for professional politicians, just as we have for professional attorneys, doctors, engineers, architects, nurses and others.

 
at 10:13 AM, October 31, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please read the Posts endorsement for Govenor.(Strickland) Did you all agree on Blackwell and Schmidt ?? Scary. My husband now refuses to buy the Enquirer on Sundays, too.

 
at 4:48 PM, October 31, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Schmidt will be good for geiger counter manufacturing.

 
Post a Comment*

* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.

By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site. << Home


Blogs
Jim Borgman
Today at the Forum
Paul Daugherty
Politics Extra
N. Ky. Politics
Pop culture review
Cincytainment
Who's News
Television
Roller Derby Diva
Art
CinStages Buzz....
The Foodie Report
cincyMOMS
Classical music
John Fay's Reds Insider
Bengals
High school sports
NCAA
UC Sports
CiN Weekly staff
Soundcheck