Winburn for Blowhard

Charles Winburn again today fills the SWNID mailbox with propaganda. And today's offers the most obvious reason yet not to vote for the Hamilton County Republican Party's Biggest Mistake. We quote from the cover of the very attractive brochure:

Elect Charlie Winburn Mayor and violent crime will go down almost immediately.

Really! To imitate the inimitable Dave Barry, I am not making this up.

Jesus warned that wars and rumors of wars would follow his ministry, but Charlie is going to lower crime merely by his kingly parousia. Impressive!

Fortunately, Winburn won't be elected. He's barely leading "other" in polls. That probably explains the tactic of this flyer, extreme even for Cincinnati's Greatest Windbag. He knows he's losing big time, so caution and good sense, if there ever were any, are gone.

SWNIDish Voter Guide for November 2009

All politics is local, especially in an odd-numbered year. As a service to our readers desperate for Seldom-Wrong guidance for Tuesday's election, we hereby instruct on how to vote SWNIDishly.

As always, we offer instruction on how to vote if one's ballot is identical to SWNID's. Those who face different choices will have to infer guidance. We regret that we can't know quite everything.

For purposes of suspense, we will begin with the lowly but important Cincinnati Public School Board, move to Cincinnati City Council, then address the Cincinnati mayoral race before concluding with this year's portentous ballot initiatives.

Cincinnati Public School Board
The seven-member school board this year elects four of its members. As usual, the choice is between denizens of the education establishment and advocates of data-driven change. School board elections tend to be name-recognition exercises, so it's vital that voters who aim for more than the status quo avoid returning incumbents whose records belie claims to innovation.

This year's election includes three incumbents: Melanie Bates, Catherine Ingram and Eileen Cooper Reed. We endorse none of these.

Bates has lurked around Cincinnati politics and Cincinnati schools for years, managing a couple of wins in local elections. Her record has always suggested someone who hears the sizzle but can't locate the steak. The ability to see past buzzwords is vital in education. Bates doesn't. Don't vote Bates.

Catherine Ingram is a long-time board member distinguished by a severe inability to act purposefully. Recent revelations that she owes back taxes are not surprising, given the chaotic persona she presents to the public. Ingram has displayed no consistent educational philosophy, no special contribution to CPS policy-making, and no progress in mastering the details of her job. Don't vote Ingram.

Eileen Cooper Reed demonstrates considerably more savvy and moxie than her incumbent counterparts, having ascended to board president in short order. What she also demonstrates is a commitment to old-school thinking about schools. As former local director of the Children's Defense Fund, she has acted just as one would expect with such a background. Though a more competent member than the other incumbents, we have little confidence in her educational philosophy. So it's a no to Reed as well.

We urge instead a strong vote for three newcomers who are committed to thoughtful innovation and fiscal responsibility. All are committed to the notion that schools are institutions consisting not just of teachers and students but also of parents. They are:

• Mary Welsh Schlueter: a mom, businessperson, and thoughtful student of public school education. With a strong background educationally and experientially, she'll raise the standard of discussion on the board.
• Christopher Ray "Chris" McDowell: a veteran, lawyer, dad and school volunteer. McDowell's experience and commitments portend strong potential as a team member to spur continued innovation.
• John Banner: lawyer and fiscal-responsibility hawk. Banner also brings an A+ resume to the board.

So why only three endorsements? We don't see a fourth who stands out. Given the lack of muscle behind McDowell's and Banner's candidacies (Banner has o web site that we can locate; McDowell is endorsed by the Republicans, which doesn't portend positively in a CPS board election), and given the likelihood that incumbents will be returned to the board, the better electoral strategy is not to empower a mediocre candidate with the fourth vote. There's a very marginally better chance that one of these candidates will be elected if SWNIDish voters do not dilute their votes by doing eenie-meenie-minie-moe for the fourth, who just might get past the post ahead of a better choice.

Cincinnati City Council
Council had seemed a happier place for a few months after the previous election. But for the last year, Mayor Mallory's reliance on a five-member majority has ended the brief period of rationality amidst a fifteen-year cycle of rancor. We therefore recommend strongly against votes for any members of Mallory's current majority, with one exception.

Incumbents who have the dreaded SWNIDish un-endorsement are Greg Harris, Laketa Cole and Roxanne Qualls. All stand on the wrong side of nearly every issue. Harris represents the cynical politics of City Hall: appointed to fill out the unfinished term of term-limited John Cranley, he was anointed by local Ds to fill the seat to gain name recognition as an "incumbent" who has never before been elected. Qualls' perennial popularity remains one of the great mysteries of local politics. A poor public speaker and advocate of nothing in particular except business as usual, she seems to coast along with a persona as the nice white lady on council. Cole, by contrast, has been a move and shaker, consistently moving and shaking in directions that don't improve the city. All are part of the mayor's majority; all get the Curse of SWNID.

Newcomers getting the un-endorsement are Laurie Quinlivan, Wendell Young, Bernadette Watson, and Anita Brockman. Quinlivan promises to be Mallory's lap dog. Young is a perennial Democrat also-ran also pledged to do the mayor's bidding uncritically. Watson is a longtime behind-the-scenes politician who doubtless owes a bundle of favors to the Democrat establishment. Brockman is one of those fanciful candidates who illustrate the limits of democracy: when anyone can run, anyone sometimes will.

Repeat-offender Charlie Winburn, inexplicably beloved by the Hamilton County Republican establishment, also gets our un-endorsement. The peripatetic, chattery, self-promoting Winburn has discredited both political conservatism with his showboating politics and the Christian gospel with his personality-driven church. If Cincinnati is to be a civilized place, Winburn needs to be as far from power as possible.

So whom do we endorse? The nod goes to the following eclectic mix:

• Chris Monzel, a principled Republican incumbent who understands deeply that to be attractive, Cincinnati needs safety and low taxes.
• Leslie Ghiz, for whom we hold our nose as a not-overtly-religious version of Winburn but who manages to speak up for a few things that make sense.
• Cecil Thomas, a loyal member of the mayor's majority who continues to strike us as a decent, thoughtful guy.
• Kevin Flynn, whose personal story (paralyzed in an accident, rehabilitated at Drake Hospital, now chairman of Drake's board) and open-minded nonpartisanship urge that he be given a try.
• Amy Murray, an opponent of bad stuff like streetcars.
• LaMarque Ward, a guy who grew up in poverty, grew out of despair with mentoring by some fine gentlemen, and now stands poised to speak truth and hope to the portion of the city that needs it most, notably promoting virtue as the solution to social problems.
• Chris Bortz, a well-connected incumbent who hasn't marched in step with the mayor's majority but speaks a language understood by people who energize economic development.
  
• Jeff Berding, who earned an un-endorsement from the Hamilton County Democrats for opposing the mayor, a badge of honor if ever there was one.

That's eight. We again recommend reserving the ninth vote for no one, not just anyone. If just five of these folks are elected, the world will be a better place.

Cincinnati Mayor
To the dismay of many but the surprise of none, we endorse incumbent mayor Mark Mallory, and not just because he's a good neighbor.

First, we insist that we disapprove of Mallory's unseemly reliance on a five-member council majority with the deliberate exclusion of the other four members. That's nasty politics that is unlikely to temper bad decision-making.

We also decry his enthusiasm for the streetcar. Maybe in the seven fat years one can spend a fifth of a billion dollars to move people a couple of miles, but not in times like these. Save the experiment for later, Mr. Mayor.

We note, however, that Cincinnati is a palpably better place than when Mallory took office. Crime statistics show obvious improvement, though a city like Cincinnati may never be a haven of peace and goodwill. Economically the city seems to be no worse than many Midwestern metropolises and is no longer the pariah it became after the riots earlier in the decade. Mallory has shown significant ability to restore confidence that the city can be governed by doing it with reasonable effectiveness.

We also note that Mallory can move with the majority if the majority moves. His main experience is as a legislator who builds coalitions. He can work just about any agenda set by the political realities of the moment.

Most importantly, however, the alternative is simply awful. Brad Westrup is a veteran, a physician, and by all reports a good citizen. But he's as bad a politician as we've seen, just about ever. An inarticulate, fidgety public speaker bathed in more flop sweat than Al Gore, he projects no discernible leadership from the podium. Still more awful are his positions. A Republican, he is nevertheless enthusiastic about casino gambling in Cincinnati. Allegedly a fiscal conservative, he says he'd use unreliable casino revenue to support operating expenses, not to provide for capital improvements, thereby perpetuating the city's budget problems. Worst of all, he's pledged not to cut police officers to balance the budget unless he gets the FOP's approval. Ceding fiscal control to a public employees' union, even if it is the one beloved by Republicans seeking local office, is as irresponsible a move as we can imagine.

We want Mallory's political skills at work with a new council majority, not Westrup's haplessness at the mercy of nine un-led egos.

Ballot Initiatives
Briefly, here's how to vote on the burgeoning list of referenda.

• Issue 1--Bonds to Fund Veteran Compensation: No. We dearly appreciate the work of our Armed Forces, but this is a political gimmick. The common defense is a federal matter, and the state budget doesn't need an additional burden of providing additional benefits.
• Issue 2--State Livestock Board: Yes. The alternative seems to be standards set by vegan activists. Protect the economic viability of agriculture in Ohio.
• Issue 3--Casinos. A thousand times No! Gambling is a tax on the inability to do math. It encourages the notion that wealth is had by luck, not productive work and thrift. It brings no economic benefit, as reflected by its exclusion in GDP calculations. Sadly, this will pass, but all will come to rue the day.
• Issues 4 through 7: Local Levies for Public Health, MRDD, Union Terminal and the Public Library. Yes for all. These are pillars of the local community supported by fair and relatively cheap taxes.
• Issue 8: Require a Referendum for a Water District. No. Rightly done a water district can improve prospects for local development. And it's dumb to clutter the charter with all these required referenda. See next Issue.
  
• Issue 9: Require a Referendum for Rail. No. We oppose the streetcar initiative for economic reasons. But this is a stupid way to deal with it. Vote for a sensible city council instead, and if this council votes wrong, vote in another in two years that will stop the mess.
• Issue 52: Cincinnati Public Schools levy. Yes. This is not an increase, y'all, but a renewal. CPS has enormous flaws but compares favorably to other urban districts. Don't vote no out of anger for the lack of vouchers or other nonpublic alternatives. Vote yes to allow the thing to function at least as well as it does at present until a better alternative is politically viable.

For more local election fun, check out the League of Women Voters and the Cincinnati Enquirer.

SWNID Issues Cincinnati Mayoral Endorsement

The much awaited SWNID endorsement in Cincinnati's mayoral primary is here.

[drum roll]

SWNID invites all its gentle readers who live in Cincinnati proper to vote in the upcoming mayoral primary for . . .

[drum roll crescendo]

State Senator Mark Mallory.

[cymbal crash, brass fanfare, confetti and balloon drop]

Why does SWNID, a conservative Republican, endorse Mallory, a Democrat and widely identified as a liberal, endorsed at his announcement of candidacy by flaccidly ineffectual and intellectually bankrupt former mayor Roxanne Qualls?

Because of those running, he's the only one who offers what the city needs right now.

I submit the following:

• The other leading candidates are all members or former members of Cincinnati City Council. That alone disqualifies them as effective politicians. Cincinnati City Council has devolved over the last 25 years from a balanced, civic-minded, moderate force for social and economic improvement to a group of spoiled children rushing to get their faces in front of the TV cameras first.
• Mallory has a record in the Ohio Legislature distinguished by productivity and thoughtful cooperation. As a member of the minority party, he has nevertheless managed to work with members of the majority party to secure passage of legislation on which both sides could agree. In this he is following the tradition set by his father, William Mallory, Sr., a state representative of, I believe, 26 years' tenure, who was noted for his bipartisanship and gentlemanly demeanor. Mr. Mallory, Sr. has recently written in the Cincinnati Enquirer with eloquence and affection about his relationship with late Republican members of the Ohio Legislature who were his friends and co-sponsors of key legislation. In the Mallory family, the apples all have fallen very close to a very fine tree.
• Though ideologically liberal, Mallory's career has been marked by sensible moderation, not ideological rancor. As it happens, the issues Cincinnati faces are not matters that fall on either side of the present spectrum of political ideology. They are more about political, social and economic strategizing for improvement in the city's living conditions, and even more about building productive relationships with other levels of government and with the private sector.
• Mallory's priorities are priorities on which conservatives can agree: sensible public safety policies, neighborhood development, expanded home ownership, and protection from predatory lending practices, a real problem right now in Cincinnati.

Mallory himself summed up the choice in an early debate. Asked why people should vote for him and not for the others, he said that voters should speak with the people with whom he works in Columbus, then with those with whom the other candidates work in Cincinnati. That's the choice in sum. He's the only Mensch, and the only one with a record of accomplishment. Note the following about his major opponents:

• Vice Mayor Alicia Reece has done nothing of significance on City Council except to promote herself. She should be commended for not supporting the boycott, but not for posturing and preening on everything else. The essence of her appeal to voters can be summed up as: I deserve to be mayor, and if you don't think so, you're not being fair to me. The best we can hope for from her is more of the same--which is to say nothing--from the mayor's office.
• Charles Winburn is simply a joke. He did nothing as a City Council member except to stand outside alleged crack houses with a megaphone, shouting at drug dealers while the cameras rolled. Out of office thanks to the blessing of term limits, he led a comical campaign against Walnut Hills High School's principal, all based on fictional allegations and all prompted by his disappointment that his daughter struggled there academically. He says we should vote for him because he is the candidate who supports conservative family values (he said so today on my voicemail). Fine. But what does he offer by way of specifics? He'll stop crime (which, by the way, is down overall, not that Winburn will mention it) by building a new prison. And where will he get the money? Private donations! Can you see it? The Carl Lindner Family Center for Penal Hope. The Patricia Corbett Jailhouse Rock. Fifth Third Bank Debt-to-Society Center. The best that Winburn would do as mayor is make America forget about Marge Schott as Cincinnati's greatest buffoon. I say that he's pimping his Christian faith, and as a person of Christian faith, I resent it. We don't need a Republican version of Al Sharpton.
• David Pepper seems thoughtful enough. He's been traveling to other cities to see what works and what doesn't, rather like Chicago's superb mayor, Richard M. Daley. But Pepper has not managed in his terms on city council to emerge as a leader in any respect. All he does is get elected with lots of votes.

Now a personal observation, not decisive about Mallory's merits, but which I hope is of interest to our gentle readers. Mark Mallory has lived for nearly four years with his parents in the house across the street from the SWNID household. Mrs. SWNID, son and daughter of SWNID and I have found him and his parents to be friendly, gracious people. My only criticism is that Mark wears inappropriate clothes to rake leaves, namely wing tipped shoes, worsted wool slacks and French-cuffed shirts, albeit tieless and with sleeves rolled up. Challenged on the principle that one should wear old clothes to do yard work, he replied to SWNID, "But these are old clothes."

SWNID also insists, in the interests of full disclosure, that he does not endorse Mallory in hopes of getting better snow removal from his street. Having made such a remark to Mr. Mallory, Sr. awhile back, the remarkable gentleman reminded me that Cincinnati is not Chicago.

So in short, Mallory is a person who will build coalitions, establish consensus, bridge differences with respect and personal kindness, and build networks of people for civic improvement. That's what we need in a mayor right now: a competent executive, a uniter, not a divider. Cincinnati has alienated itself from surrounding suburbs, Hamilton County government, and the folks in Columbus. At this point, even Belgrade probably wouldn't agree to be a sister city with us. Mark Mallory can change that.

And now a word to my friends who are active in Republican Party politics in Hamilton County. You'd better pray hard that your scenario for Winburn's victory (carry Republicans plus some of Reece's and Mallory's African-American votes in the primary, then play the same card against Pepper in November to carry most of the African-American votes plus some of Pepper's west side support) doesn't pan out. If he's elected, the party will lose all credibility as soon as he's inaugurated and opens his mouth. And Cincinnati will be back in the late-night monologues.

But back to Mallory, with the Republicans still in mind. The party wanted judge Mark Painter to run. Painter would have been a serious candidate, appealing, with an excellent record and the ability to be an excellent mayor. But he refused, saying that his long friendship with the Mallory family made it impossible for him to consider running. That's as close as you'll get to a Republican endorsing a Democrat in this county.

Unless this is. Peter Bronson, seldom-wrong-but-never-in-doubt columnist for the Cincinnati Enquirer and a rabid conservative, is himself forced to admit that Mallory looks like the best qualified candidate. Bronson can only criticize Mallory's focus on "root causes" of crime, always an anathema to conservatives because of its philosophical roots in notion of humanity's inherent goodness. I likewise object to such talk, though maybe not as enthusiastically as Bronson. But Mr. Mallory is running for mayor, not prosecutor. Since the Hamilton County Prosecutor will be a Republican for the next 1000 years, maybe a Democrat mayor who wants to supplement prosecution with prevention is OK. Unemployment, poor schools and idle time for youth may not be the cause of crime, but they don't help anybody either. Furthermore, Mallory's Public Safety Plan is all about sensible programs that will put more resources in place to fight crime head-on. The only thing that resembles a liberal "root cause" program, a la Bill Clinton's infamous midnight basketball , is a boot camp for nonviolent juvenile offenders. A boot camp is not soft on crime!

So if there's a chapter of Republicans for Mallory, I'll join.

Quick 'n' Dirty SWNIDish Voter Guide

In response to the myriads of gentle readers asking for guidance on tomorrow's off-off year election choices, we break our blogging fast to supply the handy, dandy SWNIDish Voter Guide for 2011.

First up, Cincinnati City Council

Committed to the notion that free markets are the way to general prosperity, SWNID leans Republican. But in City Council elections, we are a decidedly choosey Republican. So from the GOP slate we endorse the following:

• Amy Murray: super smart, super sensible
• Wayne Lippert: from the impressive Portman stable, a financial advisor with the sense to help the city sort out public-employee pension messes
• Catherine Smith Mills: also a veteran of the Portman staff, representing the best of GOP sensibility

And we reject the following who besmirch the legacy of Lincoln:

• Leslie Ghiz: loud, inconsistent, a publicity hog, clearly trying to establish a public persona to run for mayor but without a political philosophy from which to govern
• Charlie Winburn: on his second set of term-limited terms, Winburn still has no achievements on his record save the ability to sustain his own voice for long stretches without pausing to inhale

We fill out our slate with the following, still not voting the maximum nine so that our votes have a smidgeon more impact:

• Kevin Flynn: attorney, dad, board chair of Drake Center, courageous overcomer of devastating injuries, sensible guy who knows how to make the city better, resident of Mt. Airy, our city's most pleasant neighborhood
• Wendel Young: a work horse, not a show horse--shows up and supports good decisions and consensus
• Cecil Thomas: retired cop who loves the city and views things sensibly, though apparently he needs to clean up some of the rental property that he owns
• Chris Bortz: development-minded, pro-business, the kind who might actually bring jobs to the city, maybe a decent mayor in a couple of years

Meanwhile, we urge any and all not to vote for any or all of the following:

• Mike Allen: publicity-hungry former county prosecutor who lost his old job through extramarital activity on a county-owned desk. We don't need to enable this guy's ego that is already enormous even by the standards of politics.
• Chris Smitherman: the only person with more ego than Mike Allen in this race. Smitherman will use anything for self-promotion, and we don't say that lightly.
• Roxanne Qualls: a nice lady who's been around for a long time with a lot of weak ideas that never get stronger. If you like the last twenty years of council governance, keep voting for Qualls. Props, Rox, for telling the Prez that the only way to pay for an Infrastructre-Bank-financed rebuild of the Brent Spence was with tolls, but we need to hear two sensible ideas before you'll get the SWNIDish vote.
• Chris Seelbach: a protege of David Crowley, representing all the elements of the Democratic Party coalition that make it hard to vote for Democrats these days--organized labor, sexual orientation as protected class, etc. We can only be grateful that the Irish question has settled down to the point that he doesn't advocate his mentor's despicable position on that too, at least not publicly.

Then there's Cincinnati Public School Board. In a tremendous show of the political indifference that comes from frustration and contentment (yes, those exist together: many are frustrated with public education to the point of indifference; others see the district as well enough managed by its administration that the board is of no importance), four candidates are running for three seats. That makes this race a question of whom to vote against. And the answer is incumbent Eve Bolton, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Cincinnati Federation of Teachers. If you can read, thank someone other than Eve Bolton.

Votes go to Chris Nelms, civic-minded man of faith; Mary Welsh Schlueter, highly informed mom with a powerful educational philosophy; and Alexander Poccia Kuhns, associate of Nelms who isn't Eve Bolton.

Now to the referenda:

• Vote YES on Issue 1, to modernize the Ohio constitution regarding the state supreme court.
• It's an emphatic, if pointless, YES on Issue 2. Public-employee unions are wrong for their members, not just wrong for taxpayers. Time to trim their power to a proportion where they'd have to deliver value to their members to stay in business. This will fail, but don't let it fail by much, or nothing will change for a long time.
• We're voting NO on Issue 3. No, we haven't been away for a month learning to like ObamaCare. We just think it's kinda pointless to vote for a law that will have no constitutionality if it's passed. Well, you can make an argument that the law's success would make a strong political point that might offset labor's win on Issue 2 a little. So vote your conscience on this one. A YES on Issue 3 is OK.
• We urge a YES on Issue 32, Cincinnati Public Schools levy. While we excoriate the district for explaining the case for the levy so vaguely, the district has exercised exceptional stewardship in the last five years, attaining an exceptional record for a large-city district with less expenditure than the current norm. While we think that public-school education is still too expensive, CPS will not waste much, and their current path is leading to good outcomes for several thousand kids who need to learn. It's expensive but worth it.
• YES on Issue 37 will continue to fund indigent care in University Hospital and Cincinnati Children's Hospital, both valuable in light of Uncle Sugar's failure to liberate the healthcare system.
• Issue 38 is for renewal of the children's services levy, and who wants less of that? It's a YES for all but the most reptilian of small-government conservatives, and even SWNID has warmer blood than that.
• Issue 44 is a NO. This referendum empowers the City of Cincinnati to negotiate reduced electricity rates for its citizens. What's wrong with lower rates? Well, you can do this yourself, dear citizen. And you might get a better deal by choosing your own plan. And this bill requires citizens to opt out of the deal rather than to opt in. How'd we all do with that cable television deal in the 1980s? Happy with TimeWarner's monopoly? Glad for Dish and Direct for a little competition at long last? Don't make the same mistake twice!
• Issue 45 is also NO. It's about gas aggregation. Same as above, especially as gas prices are falling through the floor thanks to humankind's latest technological advance, fracking. Trust the city to make a deal that misses the next price drop.
• Issue 46 straightens out some filing deadlines for elections. Vote YES so we won't have to keep voting this.
• Issue 48 forbids spendthrift politicians from investing in fabulously expensive streetcars to transport bar-hopping UC students to The Banks and back safely. If you think that inefficient, expensive, inflexible, limited public transportation is economically stimulating, you don't read this blog. VOTE NO!

See you next November, if not before!

Qualls to Council Means Charter Party, Council Moribund

News that the term limited James Tarbell is stepping down from his Cincinnati City Council seat to make room for Roxanne Qualls inspires SWNID to new vistas from which to contemplate the profound sameness of Cincinnati City Council.

Qualls was a council member and mayor, under the old system where the mayor was the council member with the most popular votes, in the 1990s. Her gentle, inoffensive demeanor and blandly liberal political outlook established her popularity, rather like lowfat vanilla ice cream. But her period on council could also be described as among the least productive in the city's recent history. Those who have lived here awhile are likely to say that what ails the city in the new millennium is a consequence of what happened--or didn't happen (like reduction of taxes, improvement of city services, reorganization of schools, and redevelopment of the downtown core and neighborhoods)--in the 1990s.

What Qualls did manage was to support county efforts to build the stadiums. That move may be unpopular now, but we can't imagine the city's ongoing prosperity without the entertainment district that the riverfront has become, on both sides of the river, thanks to that capital investment.

The bigger story here is that Cincinnati City Council is being managed in a way that perpetuates the status quo. Term limits have forced established councilmembers to end their service. But now they resign a few months before their term is up, so that their party can appoint a successor who can establish some name recognition for the upcoming election and so hold the seat for the party establishment.

In this case, the party is the Charter Party, a Cincinnati local phenomenon arising from the reform movement of the 1920 that eschewed Republican bosses and their no-less-unattractive Democratic counterparts. Today the Charter Party is essentially the effete wing of the Democratic Party in Cincinnati, with little reason to exist except to provide a veneer of idealism to its pathetically few members.

That's not much to go on. So the Charterites need some powerful name recognition to maintain a seat or two. Qualls has it, so she's coming out of retirement to rejoin the Circus at Eighth and Race.

So this is what term limits has bought us. We wanted some turnover on council. What we got is a revolving door.*

But don't blame the politicians. Blame the voters who keep sending them back.

__________________
*On SWNID's doorstep last night were fliers for two other recycled council candidates: Charles Winburn and Sam Malone. The maligned Malone, whose star fell with the charge of child abuse, seems to have hitched his star to the compulsively busy and noisy Winburn. It's not a pretty picture.

Cincinnati City Council Race Taking Shape

Today's Enquirer begins the chronicle of this November's Cincinnati City Council race. For SWNID, it's already clear that (a) the Republicans lack the strength in the city to field a credible slate of candidates; (b) there's at least one Democratic incumbent who must be replaced by anyone or anything--Republican, Democrat, Charterite, Green, Reform, Libertarian, Natural Law, Mugwump or Know-Nothing.

The Republicans' weakness is on display in their announcement--earlier than usual--of their slate of endorsed candidates for council. They include the two GOP incumbents Leslie Ghiz (probably eyeing a run for mayor in '09) and Chris Monzel, and two retreads--Sam Malone, defeated and probably forever tagged after his domestic violence charge, and Charlie Winburn, about whom this blogger's jaundiced opinion has only been reinforced by daily trips past the church that he pastors with crassly undignified attention to his own person.

Down the Republican ticket are John Eby, a Price Hillite who managed a dismal 15th in '05, and two newcomers, Patrick Fischer, the president of the Cincinnati Bar Association, and Andre Harper, a former field representative for Sen. George Voinovich.

We think that Ghiz and Monzel are locks for reelection. Malone is doomed by his notoriety. Eby is not likely to do much better than in '05 unless he can make himself the symbol of West Siders' discontent. Fischer may have potential to raise a lot of cash from the legal community, which could give him the visibility to make it on a first run.

The candidate who intrigues us is Harper. We met the guy once--in September of 2004 while standing in a line for a campaign event featuring the Dark Lord Dick Cheney and his Mafia moll Lynn. Our conversation suggested that Harper is articulate, enthusiastic, energetic, personable and understands the nuances of conservative political philosophy. He struck us as possessing more than a meagre measure of charisma, the kind that can carry a politician beyond a city council election. We'll watch him closely.

The D who needs to go is, of course, the useless armchair radical David Crowley. Crowley, whose contributions to the improvement of life in the city on whose council he sits are listed in the parentheses at right (), is famous for previously having sponsored resolutions decrying the Iraq war and for having effusively welcomed to Cincinnati IRA/Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams--prior to Mr. Adams's renunciation of violence and pledge to disarm the IRA terrorist organization.

Siding with radical terrorists yet again in yet another utterly impotent symbolic move, Crowley has introduced in council yet another doomed and pointless resolution to denounce Bush's "surge."

Those of us who wonder whether Cincinnati City Council should attend to the problems of economic and social development would appreciate it if Mr. Crowley could devote his high consciousness for a few minutes to the prosaic matters closer to home.

Please, please Cincinnati: elect anyone except Crowley to council next November--even Charlie Winburn.

Why Cincinnati Will Go to Bed Early on November 6

Right-thinking citizens of Our Fair City will get a good night's sleep on election night this year. The mayoral election pits two strong candidates. But it will not be close. Mallory will crush Pepper. Here's why.

First, as noted before, Mallory tied Pepper in the primary despite Pepper's stronger name recognition and Pepper's bigger budget. Pepper was all over television; Mallory didn't buy the first TV ad. When he goes on TV, Mallory strengthens himself relative to Pepper.

Second, Mallory faced two major African-American opponents, also with excellent name recognition and one with a strong advertising campaign, and still tied Pepper, the only major white candidate. While some of Winburn's support can be expected to go to Pepper, none of Reece's will. Mallory should get all of Reece's votes and at least half of Winburn's.

Third, as he will tell you a million times between now and November 6, Mallory has never been on city council. No candidate in this set of elections has on the strength of a city council record, even though three have served on council, and the reason is obvious. Once people realize that Mallory is a clean slate at 8th and Elm, they'll know how to vote.

Fourth, and probably most important, is that word invoked in both Dubya campaigns: gravitas. On TV Mallory looks calm, competent, decisive, and disciplined, probably because he is all that. Pepper comes across as a youthful, somewhat uncertain guy who is bright enough and sincere enough but doesn't inspire confidence or loyalty. Mallory looks straight at you. Pepper looks at the ground, behind you and to your left. The ability to lead, and even more the ability to get votes, is largely tied to such perceptions. In November, voters will punch the hole next to the name of the adult.

Voters Save Cincinnati from New Orleans' Fate

Celebrate! The best candidate and the second-best candidate in the Cincinnati mayoral primary finished in second and first place respectively, separated by only a hundred or so votes (provisionals still to be counted) and way ahead of the other "major" candidates, who would have been major disasters. Mallory and Pepper will go through to the general election in November. Our city is assured to be in at least reasonably safe hands (Pepper) if not highly qualified and capable hands (Mallory). No Ray Nagins here!

Some SWNID observations about the election:

• Mallory managed a virtual first-place tie even though he had not a single TV ad. Pepper--with what I hear is about three times Mallory's money, not surprising for the P&G scion--blanketed TV with more ads than Progressive Insurance. This bodes well for Mallory in November.
• Winburn moved up about 10 points from his early poll numbers. Doubtless his intensive direct-mail and phone solicitation campaign, with its shameless use of every local (Steve Chabot) and national (Rudy Guiliani) Republican figure, got out the vote among diehard Rs (SWNID is a die-not-quite-so-hard R). The endorsement of the FOP, always ready to add 200 police to the union even if the city has no money to pay them, didn't hurt either. But in the end, there aren't enough yellow-dog Rs who vote in the city to get Charlie though. Given the lack of traction he will have at the county or state level, where there are enough Rs to elect a conservative, Winburn is finished politically.
• Reece polled nearly even with Pepper in August but came in fourth in September. Let's assume that lack of qualifications and platform trumped name recognition in the end. Gone from City Council, Reece's political future is bleak too.
• Turnout was around 20%. And that's just fine. In light of the media's miserable noncoverage of the candidates' positions, we should be happy that turnout roughly corresponded to the likely percentage of reasonably informed and motivated voters.

For more election fun, see the Enquirer's election blog.

Occupy Quinlivan's Computer!

Combine the pointless performance art of OWS with the Democrats' sweep of the Cincinnati City Council election (Winburn as the lone non-Democrat is like have ten Democratic votes on the nine-member City Council), and what do you get?

A member of the Council majority suing the city because the restriction of her use of a city computer on a city internet connection for campaign purposes is, in the view of her lawyers, a violation of her free speech rights.

We are not making this up. The councilwoman in question is Laurie Quinlivan, ardent supporter of Mayor Mallory, shrill shill for the streetcar, and former TV reporter distinguished for a certain entitled pushiness in conducting investigative reporting (that last remark is based on a troubling encounter that we once had with her as she sought to attribute to us information that we thought we were giving on background, using the incentive, "My pastor told me that you could help me").

The story is here.

Attention, Councilwoman Quinlivan and OWS denizens: the right to free speech includes reasonable restrictions on time, place and manner. Citizens have the inalienable right to say anything they think, especially anything political. They don't have the right to do it any time, anywhere, by any means. This is so settled a matter of constitutional law that one wonders that anyone in government or with an eighth-grade education operates without the assumption.

Yet we are told that a city-owned, taxpayer funded computer should be free for use in a partisan political campaign, and that a public park with reasonable restrictions on access and use should be available for constant use without restriction for aggrieved citizens to express symbolically their grievances.

But individuals shouldn't be allowed to give a lot of money to a political campaign, and groups of individuals organized to do business (i.e. corporations) shouldn't be allowed to give any.