The reaction from the Alex Arshinkoff haters has been amazing, to say the least, almost pathological, especially if you apply a simple test to their argument: take the name of the person you want out, insert the name of the person you support, and see if your argument still holds.
Apparently the editorial writers at Exchange and Main don't like playing Switch the Names. Normally I figure what they write is their business, but this morning actually had my head spinning trying to dodge all the rationalizing whizzing past my head.
This morning's diatribe over not getting their way shouldn't be surprising, especially since the writer apparently sees no conflict of interest with the local Democrat boss handing over "anonymous" material (primarily ABJ newspaper articles) to an official representative of the Democrat Secretary of State, who then delivered the material as "anonymous" even though he personally picked it up and hand-delivered it to the Statehouse. I guess FedEx didn't have service to Columbus that day.
The political gambit worked: Republican Arshinkoff was deposed, then Republican Daley was denied despite a vote by the Republicans charged with selecting him to represent their interests. THEN the Democrat party boss got the Democrat Brunner to appoint a hand-picked candidate of choice. In a nutshell that's what led to the Elephant Wars when the State stepped in.
If you play Switch the Names here's what we would have: Wayne Jones shouldn't be on the board because he's too partisan, often votes to tie decisions, and is manipulative (according to the accounts of the paper editorializing Wayne should go.) Alex calls Ken Blackwell, who not only kicks off Wayne but denies local Democrats their second choice and then installs an Arshinkoff buddy who's got a (D) at the end of their name. The target is argumentative and overbearing, so any method to make the change works, right?
Can you imagine the wailing if that were to happen with names reversed? The problem with the politics in this case is there should have been a word of caution to begin this sordid tale given the political shenanigans going on behind the scenes. Even some of AA's most vocal critics admit this who process stank from the beginning, but so long as it met their political goals did it really matter?
What is ironic in this whole case is the heavy-handed approach actually worked against the Republicans who were working the system by the rules to challenge Arshinkoff's leadership and try to force a debate on the running of the GOP party. Any cogent and well-argued points made by Carol Klinger were drowned out in the minds of Republican Central Committee members who didn't need the newspaper to tell them they were being stiffed by the enemy. One member summed it up when I spoke with him while waiting for the show to begin: he was here to vote against Wayne Jones. Talk about overplaying your hand...
Instead we're treated to high-minded arguments that it's shocking, SHOCKING, that the Board of Elections is partisan. I've included Inspector Louie's photo from Casablanca (left) to make the point a bit more graphic. The Board of Elections is designed to be partisan; it's why there are two D and two R members no matter who's in power; it's why every job at the Board has two employees, each to watch what the other is doing. For that matter, the Secretary of State is a partisan because she's elected on a partisan ballot, just like the people she's now charged with riding herd on to protect the election process.The system itself is designed to be partisan, from Columbus down to the smallest precinct. Acting as if it shouldn't be that way because you didn't get the person you want in office isn't just silly, it is intellectually dishonest. Using the elections system to get rid of a party boss, whether it be Alex or Wayne, ignores the fact both of them are where they are because the people who vote for them make it so. Democracy at the finest: if you can win, you win. Want to get rid of Alex/Wayne: put up superior challengers. Question what they do instead of looking the other way, making excuses, and rationalizing away the basics.
Now if reformers really wanted non-partisan election operations they could fashion a professional civil service structure similar to many state boards and commissions, where the executive nominates a choice subject to advise and consent of the legislative body; that choice would exercise similar judgment in appointing workers regardless of party affiliation, those workers would be given professional civil service protection and the parties (both of 'em) would stop using elections as patronage plums. No more failed candidates for Mayor or relatives of sitting office holders serving as Executive Director; no more annual stories where elections workers pony up with either time or money in support of local parties; no more phony talk of "non-partisan" management of elections. Say goodbye to thousands of jobs controlled by the politicians, including the job of the top elections officer statewide.
Think that'll happen?
There is no doubt Brunner's decision helped Arshinkoff out at the CC meeting.
ReplyDeleteDear Friend,
ReplyDeleteOhio is in trouble. I recently visited with young professionals in Cuyahoga
County and got an earful. Many of our most promising Ohioans believe there
is no future for them here and that in order to advance their careers, they
will eventually have to leave the state.
Decisions made today will determine what Ohio looks like in the year 2020. I
envision a state that is an attractive employment destination thanks to a
flourishing knowledge-based economy, a thriving cultural life, vibrant cities,
and a good quality of life where our children can grow to be healthy, safe
and strong.
The wrong decisions today can lead to a very different scenario by 2020. Our
population could drop dramatically, taking with it the best and brightest
minds and leaving a waning economy. Our cities could become hollowed out and
ghettoized. And Ohioans around the nation could increasingly view their state
as backward and irrelevant.
Reviving Ohio's economy is a bipartisan priority. For those who have a stake
in Ohio's future, it's the only priority.
That's why I believe that Ohio needs a new generation of leadership. Often
in politics, leaders promise to be visionaries who will "turn around Ohio."
All too often, those slogans and promises turn out to be empty.
Ohio's challenges are too serious to simply be managed. They require
forward thinking leadership that is in touch with our common values. Our citizens
deserve leadership that is bold enough to share a detailed vision and is
energetic enough to turn that vision into a reality.
I want you to be the first to know that I will be spending the coming months
discussing what my contribution can be toward building a Whole New Ohio with
my family, friends, and supporters. By Thanksgiving, I will decide whether
to seek to lead our state in 2010.
My time in politics has taught me three iron-clad rules:
• Start early
• Don't take anything for granted
• Get the best people involved
With that in mind, I'm reaching out to you today for help. No matter the
amount, your financial support will help me continue to fight for our values
and to build a Whole New Ohio.
Please take time today by clicking the link below and making an instant and
secure online donation to my campaign. No matter the amount you are able to
give, your support will be greatly appreciated and prudently used.
As always, individual taxpayers who contribute to my campaign will receive a
dollar-for-dollar credit on their Ohio income taxes in the amount of $50.
Joint filers receive a $100 credit. So you can actually help jump start this
effort with a contribution that won't end up costing you dime.
The 2010 election is important for our party, as well. Like Ohio itself,
our party needs a rupture from it's past. When our citizens see and hear Ted
Strickland, they don't see Ohio's future. But they aren't equating our party
with the future either. We must re-brand our party. Not by changing our
values - most Ohioans share our outlook on almost every issue.
The first rule of any party with aspirations to govern is to understand the
aspirations of the people and how they change with time. What do Ohioans
want today? They want to believe in Ohio's future again.
If we're going to be the party of the future we need candidates with the
energy, courage, hope, competence, and optimism to rally the people of this
state and to create a Whole New Ohio.
This is a crucial time. Ours is a crucial effort. Not just for the values
we share, but for the survival of this state we love. Please join me with
your support today. Together, we can do so much more that cheap sloganeering.
We can truly transform Ohio and secure it's place as a great place to live,
work, and learn for generations to come.
Kindest regards,
Senator Kevin Coughlin
Ed your credibility is going down the toilet with every glass of the Alex kool-aid that you drink. You seem to be acquiring his arrogance too.
ReplyDeleteNot only is this editiorial off base, but factually incorrect. There is no statutory rule that suggest an equal number of Republicans and Democrats at the Board. In addition, there should be no politicking at the Board. There are rules against that. All of these ideas have been pursued by Alex under the guise of a vibrant "two-party system." (Un)fortunately for Alex, there are more than two parties and he is lucky to be apart of the two top-getting voting organizations in Summit County. The Ohio Revised Code specifies the situation if a third party were to obtain a seat on the Board.
ReplyDelete