A handful of people have written to ask for a more detailed explanation of our Editorial Board’s recent endorsement of independent Dennis Kucinich for the 7th Congressional district, over incumbent Republican Max Miller and Democratic challenger Matthew Diemer.
As often happens with endorsements, readers interpret them as resounding approval of the candidates who get our nod, similar to celebrity or big name political endorsements trumpeted by campaigns. Our goal, though, is simply to identify whom we think is best of the candidates on the ballot.
Endorsements are among our biggest challenges every year, in that they require big investments of time and organization. Elizabeth Sullivan, our director of opinion content, has the thankless duty of handling the organization, working with campaigns to schedule interviews and harassing candidates to fill out our questionnaires. The time investment comes from board members who participate in the interview sessions.
Every year, the board members hold their noses to endorse inferior candidates because the alternatives are worse. We try to make clear in the endorsements that we are not happy with the candidates. On rare occasions – including once this year – we don’t endorse anyone. Perhaps we should do that more often.
In the Kucinich race, the vote was close. Ultimately, the board rejected Miller because he is an acolyte to Donald Trump. The last thing we need in Washington are people who pledge their fealty to Trump instead of the people they serve. It’s a non-starter for us. Trump is a lying, low-integrity candidate bent on wrecking this country, and any candidate who is afraid to call him out for his transgressions should not represent us.
We wanted to like Diemer, but he came unprepared. Most people who run for Congress have spent some time in public service, on city, county or state governments, gaining legislative experience and much-needed knowledge about government workings. Diemer has done none of that, so we expected he would come to the interview having studied every issue that might arise. When political neophyte Justin Bibb ran for Cleveland mayor, he was the best prepared candidate in the room. You couldn’t ask him a question about a topic that he had not studied and spoken with experts about. He was ready.
Diemer was not. He had platitudes aplenty, but he simply did not understand the issues he might face in Congress. Or if he did, he was unable to articulate them.
Kucinich came prepared. He also has a lifetime of public service, including Cleveland City Council and mayor, member of the Ohio Legislature and, for eight terms, in U.S. Congress. Kucinich also has a history of working across the aisle, something sorely needed in Washington these days.
Does he have some odd ideas? Of course. For a while, he was working with wacko Robert Kennedy Jr’s campaign for president.
In the end, though, Kucinich stood out as the best of the three, which is why we endorsed him.
Our endorsement disappointed some in our newsroom because Kucinich has a pending lawsuit against us. We consider it groundless and are fighting it, rejecting any talk about mediation or settlement. Kucinich makes false statements about some members of our staff in his filings.
We can’t allow our personal animus over a lawsuit to affect an endorsement, however. What kind of journalists would we be if we did?
I should point out that some tried to discredit our endorsement of Kucinich by quoting our mayoral endorsement from three years ago, when we strongly urged people not to vote for Kucinich. Trying make an apples-to-apples comparison of the two endorsements is simple-minded, reflecting immature political thinking.
In the mayor’s race, Kucinich came to our endorsement interview unprepared, and four decades had passed since he had served in the position – for just two years. The board felt Kucinich was in no way prepared to be at the helm again.
Contrast that with his record in Congress, where he served for 16 years, leaving just over a decade ago. His experience is much more recent and lengthy than his time as mayor, He would enter Congress ready to serve.
Diemer is working to be the new blood he says we need in politics, and we would love to see a new generation of idealistic political leaders. But they have to do the work before they can lead. Kucinich has done the work. Diemer has not.
Separately, after I wrote about Issue 1 on the November ballot a few weeks ago – the move to end gerrymandering in Ohio – several people asked for reassurance that a yes vote was the right one. That’s understandable, considering this is the third Issue 1 Ohioans have voted on in the last 16 months, and last year Ohioans voted no on 1 and then yes on 1. Indeed, voting yes on Issue 1 this time around is the single most important step voters can take in November to begin restoring some sanity to the Statehouse. It is an absolute good. It will remove elected officials with serious conflicts of interest from using redistricting to fortify their power and leave regular people in charge of the mapmaking.
