The Enquirer’s Absurd Endorsement of John Cranley

Of all the flubbed editorial endorsements I’ve seen this year in Ohio, the Cincinnati Enquirer’s endorsement of John Cranley over Steve Chabot is the most bubbleheaded of all. Heck, even the Cincinnati Post figured out that Chabot is the better candidate by miles.

The Enquirer makes two fundamental errors. The first is that it attempts to absolve current City Council member Cranley of any role or responsibility for the steady and accelerating deterioration of the city’s safety situation:

Chabot is anything but corrupt, yet his commercial essentially blames the 2001 Cincinnati riot on Cranley and implies that the post-riot collaborative agreement led to the rising number of homicides in the city. In truth, the collaborative was unanimously approved by City Council and praised by then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Someone needs to buy the Enquirer a serious clue here (this graph was from the January 1, 2006 edition of the Enquirer, and the reference to “yesterday” is to December 31, 2005):

As of October 18 of this year, there have been 70 murders in the city, which is on pace for roughly 85 for the full year — this in a city whose population has been declining at a rate of over 4,000 per year.

John Cranley joined City Council as an unelected member in late 2000. The Cincinnati riots occurred in April 2001. The “unanimously (wrongfully) approved” Collaborative Agreement occurred in early 2002, After the riots, the transformation of large parts of Cincinnati into urban jungles ensued. There is very little dispute that there was a significant and unfortunately understandable letup in police effort that occurred after the April 2001 riots (understandable because of all of the second-guessing by the “Rev.” Damon Lynch and other criminal coddlers). The Collaborative Agreement did not address the letup, but instead has extended it indefinitely. You see the disastrous results above. Using John Ashcroft as a human shield for John Cranley a full 5 years later is really lame. What has John Cranley done to stem the tide? What tangible thing has he done to even indicate that he cares?

There are only two city council members who have served continuously from the riots until today. One is Jim Tarbell, who isn’t running for Congress. The other is John Cranley, who, inexplicably, must think that the above, along with that precipitous decline in population, has earned him a promotion. Why?

The other grievous error the Enquirer makes is concluding that the Chabot era has run its course, and is getting tired:

Chabot has served with honor, but his effectiveness seems to have peaked. It is time for him to come home.

Yeah, Steve Chabot has peaked all right. Last time I checked, peaking was a good thing. The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) gave Chabot an “A” in 2005; his 70% rating was the highest in Ohio’s congressional delegation. The Club for Growth gave him a lights-out 98% grade, smoking the rest of the Ohio congressional delegation; the runner-up’s grade was 74%.

Silly me — I thought that the time when you peak is the time you’re most ready for the contest. I want the people serving me to be at their peak; don’t you? Too many congressmen, including many of those still remaining from Chabot’s incoming class of 1994, have gone from fiscal hero to fiscal zero in about 8-10 years of service. Chabot has held remarkably firm. Thinking back on local reps, Rob Portman certainly didn’t; Bill Gradison didn’t; Bob McEwen didn’t; Don Clancy (as I recall) didn’t (another notable exception: John Boehner HAS held firm). It wouldn’t be too hard to continue in that vein at a national level (Bob Ney, Tom Delay, etc., etc.).

Removing Steve Chabot now would be like sending Michael Jordan to the showers early after he’s made five three-pointers in a row, or sitting down a hot hitter in baseball after the third inning. Totally, utterly, ridiculous. Then to replace someone with a hot hand like Chabot with someone from the party whose Ohio delegation’s best NTU score was (get this) 23% (that would happen to be Dennis Kucinich) is a surrender to pork-barrel spending and fiscal profligacy that is totally uncalled for.

The Post, of all newspapers, got it right:

Voters in Ohio’s 1st Congressional District are being told that Washington has changed Steve Chabot.

It’s a familiar line of attack against any well-established incumbent. But applied to Chabot it doesn’t wash. He’s still the same down-to-earth, what-you-see-is-what-you-get West Sider who has been representing the district since 1994.

If Washington has changed Chabot, it’s been for the better. He’s matured in the job, and in so doing has become more valuable to Greater Cincinnati.

….. In this race, however, we see no compelling reason to suggest a change. Chabot has ably represented the 1st District, and we endorse him for re-election.

_________________________________

UPDATE: Some background –

• Nov. 28, 2005 — Voting with Our Feet: Leaving Cincinnati (and Other Ohio Cities)
• March 25, 2006 — Why Isn’t This Population Decline Getting More Attention?
• From my AM-Coffee Post, July 27, 2006 (fourth item at link) — part of my comment on a Cincinnati murder in a supposedly “safe” area:
  

  The site of the shootout can’t by any reasonable stretch be considered a depressed or poverty-stricken area. I’ve probably gassed up at that station a dozen times over 30 years, none in the past five. But never again. The fact is that there are very few places in the city that can be considered safe any more, and if nothing is done to turn that around, the flight will accelerate.