Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Nov
6
Tom Suddes incorporates a number of the 57 reasons to vote against Issue 3 in his Plain Dealer column today. He’s written about voting against the slots before. No new reasons revealed, but the piece is well crafted and combines the most persuasive reasons in a single column, not even a jump.
On the other hand, the Plain Dealer editors helped stop me from equivocating after the fact re: cancelling my PD subscription: they ran a second editorial endorsement for Judge Joan Synenberg today (which I really consider to be a 3rd: here’s #1, on Sunday – prime ad day, 8/27; here’s what I consider #2, on Wednesday, 9/13- barely two weeks after that first one, even though this one doesn’t mention Synenberg by name, it’s just a dissing of her opponent), and here’s #3, published today). And went so far as to say this:
There are many races on Tuesday’s ballot and many fine candidates, including two superb and embattled Common Pleas incumbents – Judges Dick Ambrose and Jeff Hastings. But as far down the ballot as it appears, Synenberg’s race against an unqualified opponent with a fortuitous name may be the most important.
You have got to be kidding me.
And, at the end, this:
We understand Synenberg faces long odds on Tuesday. But however this election turns out, we intend to regularly remind readers about the cynical Democratic leaders who care so little about this county and the rule of law that they want this Russo on the bench.
But the best rebuke can come on Tuesday, from the voters. They can insist on quality judges. They can vote for Joan Synenberg.
You talkin’ about those cynical Democratic leaders who care so little about this county and the rule of law that you, #1, endorsed one of them to be re-elected as county commissioner and you #2 go along with them in supporting, in the most lame editorial I’ve ever read, Issue 3, a hideous malpractice-level piece of legal dreck that would bring a slots monopoly and unfunded scholarship mandate to Ohio, via the constitution?
Oh – okay – just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same people.
Look – there’s no question the name game thing is a pain in the electoral arse. After 18 years, I still can’t get used to voting for judges, period.
But Synenberg’s race as the single most important race on Tuesday?
What about the possibility of an all-Republican Ohio Supreme Court? Hasn’t this country and this state suffered enough from homogenous, one-party, imbalanced, unfair and devoid of checks and balances government long enough?
Synenberg is one out of how many Common Pleas court judges? What are the odds that she’ll even draw the cases that would be the most important, in a year that sees how many tens of thousands of cases shuffle through?
Plain Dealer editors: get a grip.
I know I’m obsessed about Issue 3. But I don’t have my name on the masthead of the only newspaper in town, circulation on Sundays in the 400K range.
And, now that I know that a quarter page ad on a Sunday runs more than $5,000, and you’ve endorsed Synenberg or ripped apart her opponent in at least five separate editorials (see the endorsment for Jimmy Dimora as well as an editorial telling him to repudiate his support for Synenberg’s opponent) since the last week of August, I feel confident in feeling that you’ve enriched her campaign to the tune of at least $15,000.
Come on.
It’s the last Sunday before an historic midterm election.
State-wide issues couldn’t be more confusing.
Loss of control and gains previously unimagined dart through our minds.
The integrity of the election process itself continues to be uncertain as optical scanning, voter idenfication issues and machine gnomes run amok.
And what does the largest Ohio newspaper of record write in it’s sole (as in, single and only) editorial for today, Sunday, November 5?
I can’t even bring myself to write it again.
What’s most frustrating for me, in writing this post? Synenberg is a good choice. Not a favorite of mine, but clearly a good choice and a Republican for whom I’ll be voting as a crossover, since I’m a registered Democrat. And, I’ve written about her without mentioning her opponent’s name once. Look – I may even be seeing Judge Synenberg in shul once in a while – I don’t know. But she’s got some mazel coming to her family that I’m aware of and I’ve had the pleasure of meeting the lucky guy.
I have no doubt that she deserves to win.
But all this hand-wringing and ink over this one race?
I don’t know, but I have to believe that when we look back, and if we were to see, to wonder, what did the PD say about that historic November 7th, what did they prognosticate just before Ohio turned blue, after being red and corrupt at the hands of Republicans for so many years, and we see that the only thing they wrote was this editorial?
I’m thinking, they deserved for me to cancel my subscription, no matter how much I think I may miss it.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 3:10 am November 6th, 2006 in Politics
Comments
2 Responses to “Tom Suddes on Issue 3 good; 3rd Synenberg free ad bad”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
Here’s my issue with Issue 3 (reason 794,112 to vote “no” on Issue 3): the scholarship fund that would be set up as a result of the increased gambling revenue would only be available to the TOP FIVE PERCENT of graduating high school seniors. Making education more affordable for every Ohio family? No – making educationa more affordable for the kids who probably are already receiving scholarship money in the first place. Furthermore, the scholarship fund is only guaranteed for 12 years… so what happens after the 12 years is up? There is no provision for that eventuality in the bill.
It is unfortunate that, in such an important election year, the biggest and most important issues are also the most confusing to voters.
Hi Lauren – thanks for reading and commenting.
Now, after a lot of reading and thinking and debating, here’s what I believe is going on with the scholarships and grants:
Para. (A) outlines the scholarships to be awarded by the Regents. Criteria are outlined in that paragraph, even though it also says that the Regents have the sole authority to establish criteria. These scholarships are the ones that the OLE people want to say will create accounts that every child will have, and that if in the constitution, will be created forever and ever for every single kid.
HOWEVER, it’s an unfunded mandate. The slots money may not cover the costs and then who pays?
There’s no provision for what happens to money put away for kids who don’t go to college. We don’t know who will be considered a resident and how do you deal with kids who move into the state, or families that move out? What happens to their accounts?
The criteria in paragraph (A) exclude homeschooled kids and kids in charter schools. The criteria would also exclude kids who attend public schools that don’t provide the programs the criteria dictate kids meet like service learning requirements.
I could go on and on but will stop there.
Now, Paragraph (B) is the graph that’s supposed to outline the tuition grants that would start with the class graduating in 2009 and would exist for only 12 graduating classes.
As you suggest, there is NO language in the constitutional amendment that would indicate that the tuition grants would exist beyond those 12 years. There’s also no mechanism that would allow the Regents to extend this provision. Legally, if it was created by the constitution, it can only be extended by the constitution – we cannot now say that, oh, the Regents can just create another set of tuition grants just like the ones in the constitution.
Or can we? And that’s the problem – why should this paragraph be in the constitution in the first place? It shouldn’t! It does NOT belong in a constitution.
As for the 5% thing, I’m with you 100%. Totally doesn’t do a thing to address unaffordability.
And that’s what voters MUST remember: if the goal is to make college more affordable for all Ohio kids wanting to go to college, Issue 3 fails MISERABLY at accomplishing that.