Hot News!
• Berns’ complaint with FCC against WVXU, Maryanne Zeleznik
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Ralph Nader on Least-Worst Voting (2008)•When Personal Responsibility Becomes Abusive (2008)
•Hamilton County Black Woman Convicted for Leaving Child in Car - And the Kid Lived! (2007)
•$10,000? What is The Charter Party? (2007)
•NAACP Cincinnati Branch President says back to Court we go (2007)
•“As Ohio Goes” Joins Liberal Blogs Promoting Political Censorship (2006)
•Dr. Vic Wulsin: Ethically Challenged? Part I (2006)
•Todd Portune’s Letter to Chris Finney (2006)
•Project Censored Announces the Release of the Top 25 Most Censored Stories for 2005-06 (2006)
Contact Us
v mail: (513) 685-0678
e mail: click here
Sunday, June 28, 2009
The Cincinnati Blog misses the mark
Posted by Justin Jeffre
The Cincinnati blog’s Donald Caster has certainly become a valuable voice in the local blogosphere. He virtually saved Cincinnati’s first blog from a slow and painful death. It’s refreshing to hear from an Independent minded blogger that has a background in law. But Donald misses the mark in this latest post by exhibiting the kind of political bigotry we are increasingly seeing in the body politic.
On Channel 12’s informative show Newsmakers, Dan Hurley asked Jason a pointed question. Dan asked, “What are you in this for? Are you in this to win, are you in this to educate, what are you in this for”? And Jason said, “I think I’m probably in this to educate.”
But Caster failed to present Jason’s full response—the part where he goes onto to explain what he meant:
“I don’t have any illusion about the fact that obscure independent candidates, as a general rule of thumb, don’t win elections. I think that’s unfortunate, but the reality is that I’m not going to have a million and a half dollars for TV time, I’m not going to be saturating the city with yard signs—and unfortunately that means that I’m not going to win. However, I think that there are issues that we need to talk about—like the repeal of the marijuana ordinance, like getting rid of the primary, and I think these are things that I can help bring to the table by participating in that process.”
Caster mistakes Jason’s candidness about the chances for an Independent candidate—who has a huge disadvantage in fundraising—to win as agreeing with a few of his detractors that this is “a vanity campaign”. Jason is also at a disadvantage because he is a family man that has more obligations than the other two candidates, who happen to be single.
The early Mayoral primary is not only a burden on the taxpayer’s dime but also on our citizen’s time. The first two primaries have had very low attendance. People who don’t follow politics very closely often don’t participate because there isn’t as much media coverage. This gives an advantage to the big money candidates.
But history has shown when Independents are allowed to participate in debates and get fair coverage they do very well. For instance Jessie Ventura was barely polling at 10% until he got in the debates and won. Ross Perot got 20 million votes the year he was allowed in the debates and he was the only candidate that warned us of the negative effects of NAFTA.
The fact is that Jason is raising some very important issues that haven’t been addressed by the other candidates. And shouldn’t candidates be judged on their ideas as opposed to their ability to raise funds from a small number of rich people—many of whom live outside our city? The other candidates haven’t put anything meaningful on the table yet, especially Dr. Brad Wenstrup—who isn’t even known to the political community, much less the community at large.
Dr. Wenstrup jumped into this race after Jason with virtually no name recognition at all. He doesn’t seem to have a platform to speak of and it’s damn near July. On the other hand, Jason has been active on many issues for years. He’s spoken to our representatives at the city and county level about many issues and gone out in the community discussing them. He’s taken bold stands—whether people agree or disagree with those stands or not. He’s helped bring about more dialogs about important issues from city leaders and the public.
Jason is well known in the political community and his activism has made mainstream news more than most activists I can think of because he’s been so active and effective. But still he is treated like a second class citizen by some because he’s an Independent who is honest about the nature of our elections and the undue influence of big money upon them.
These otherwise good citizens engage in political bigotry by pretending that just because Dr. Wenstrup is a Republican-and therefore will likely raise more money-that he’s somehow more of a serious candidate than someone who has been much more active and is currently better known in our community. We do after all pretend to have non-partisan elections even though our media (including our alternative media like CityBeat and the Cincinnati Blog) really doesn’t treat Independents the same as major party candidates.
If Donald Caster is calling a well known activist’s run “a vanity campaign”, then why isn’t he calling the lesser known Republican’s run “a vanity campaign”? And why doesn’t he say that Mallory’s campaign is simply to further his political career? Is that not the truth?
Is it really wrong for citizens that are politically engaged to enter the electoral arena when their views and issues aren’t being addressed by major party candidates? And if so should we really continue pretending we live in a real democracy or republic?
While it is true that the Liberty (abolitionist) Party, the Women’s (suffragists) Nationalist Party, and the Socialist Party didn’t win and really didn’t have a chance of winning. They put abolition, women’s voting rights and the ideas behind the New Deal at the forefront of this nation’s discussion about the future of the country and these certainly weren’t “vanity campaigns”.
Caster’s characterization of the Jason’s campaign is the exact same type of political bigotry that is used at the national level against Independents like Ralph Nader. Though Nader has a better record than anyone he ever ran against and he supports majoritarian issues like single payer health care and ending the war he is marginalized as being “an egomaniac”. (The man actually stayed at his supporter’s houses when on the campaign trail—even though he didn’t really know them—and he only travels coach.)
These elitist and undemocratic attitudes are really hurting this so called “democratic republic”. We need more good citizens running, more voices and more choices. We should judge candidates based on their ideas and we should oppose or support candidates but never discourage them from exercising their right to speak and enter the electoral arena.
Donald, would it be acceptable to you if a humble teacher like Jason ran for School Board? Or would that also be “a vanity campaign” because he’s not backed by a major party and therefore less likely to win?
• Share This Article! | Listen to this article |
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
28 Jun 2009 at 07:21 pm | #
Couldn’t we also say that Donald’s blogging is just “a vanity campaign”? I suppose we could, but I think that would be unfair just like Donald’s characterization of Jason’s campaign is.
In case people haven’t noticed, many people don’t run for office because people drag your name through the mud. Isn’t that what Donald just did?
The most important part of the electoral process is to have a deep discussion about the direction of our city. We should focus on what ideas about improving our city are brought to the table instead of the horse race that will largely be decided by the political donor class.
This winner takes all mentality has made our citizens lose real representation and choices. Half of democracy is just showing up and we see too many uncontested elections around here!
28 Jun 2009 at 09:37 pm | #
Link doesn’t work.
28 Jun 2009 at 10:04 pm | #
Should be working now!
28 Jun 2009 at 11:57 pm | #
More obligations than the mayor of the City and a podiatrist who performs surgery and is in a leadership position on the board of the largest orthopedic group in the nation and a major in the army reserves?
After practicing surgery in the area for years I have a feeling his name recognition is better than Haaps.
29 Jun 2009 at 10:48 am | #
Pigs have flown. I not only agree with Justin’s conclusions (which I almost always do), but also with his reasoning and tone (which I seldom do).
Donald appears to have had his pea shooter loaded, waiting for the Dean to come into range. Although the Dean has been known to provide opportunities for such target practice, this wasn’t one of them. He did a first-rate job in the Hurley interview and there are plenty of seasoned public figures who lack Jason’s on-camera poise. To my knowledge, this was Jason’s first long TV interview, yet he didn’t miss a beat and conveyed a relaxed, in-your-livingroom connection. That’s no mean feat (and I speak from experience).
So:
Jason, bravo from me and the missus.
Justin, solid item, thank you.
Donald, you shot yourself with your nasty pellet; put down the straw before you do it again. Better yet, apologize in print for sniping at a colleague at a time when he deserved praise.
29 Jun 2009 at 08:02 pm | #
If Donald Caster is calling a well known activist’s run “a vanity campaign”, then why isn’t he calling the lesser known Republican’s run “a vanity campaign”?
good point.
29 Jun 2009 at 11:59 pm | #
because wenstrup is not lesser known.