On Meet the Press this morning, Rob Portman (former 2nd District Congressman from Ohio and Cincinnati Resident) was mentioned as a possible VP running mate for John McCain.
From a local angle, how much attention would that put on Cincinnati if a local person were on the national ticket? Would that be good for us, no matter what? We are looking to be a big stop on the campaign trail again, with the nation NAACP convention being a stop for the Presidential nominees. I don't look forward to those who seek to bash the city at all cost (say Chris Smitherman or Joe Deters for example) getting the opportunity to frame the discussion when ever Cincinnati is referenced.
Portman is not considered on the A list for the VP slot, but logically he has the economic background McCain lacks. From a GOP perspective, one
Would Portman, a fairly well liked former Ohio Congressman, give McCain Ohio?
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Advantage Democrat?
I've been a little post-happy the last two days. I promise, this is the last one for the weekend (unless something really interesting comes up tomorrow).
The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats' prolonged primary season will benefit John McCain. Supposedly, McCain can now begin "uniting" the Republican Party behind him and begin a national general election campaign, while Barack and Hillary are left to squabble over who the nominee will be. I've begun to wonder if the opposite is true.
As you may recall, the Florida legislature moved the date of its primary to be ahead of Super Tuesday. The Democratic National Committee had told it not to do so, and threatened to refuse to seat Florida's delegates at the convention. Well, Florida stuck to its guns (and according to the current DNC rules, Florida will have no voice in choosing the Democratic nominee). The major Democratic candidates all agreed not to campaign in Florida before its primary.
The Republicans took a more laid-back approach, though, and just stripped Florida of half of its delegates to the Republican convention. The Florida Republican party was thrilled. It believes that as a result, the Republican candidate will have a head start in Florida for the general election, since he's already campaigned and built an organization there, whereas the Democrats didn't bother. (The DNC is still weighing whether to hold caucuses in Florida and Michigan, which also jumped the gun, and seat delegates based on those results.)
Does the same hold true for the Democrats? Three states that are sure to be pivotal in November--Wisconsin, Texas, and Ohio--are going to see a whole lot of love from Clinton and Obama. We already know about the intense organization-building taking place in Cincinnati, and I can only assume the same is happeneing in Madison, Milwaukee, Houston, Dallas, and so on. So this supposed disadvantage (that the Dems will actually elect a nominee rather than simply coronate one) might work out in the Democrats' favor. Well in advance of the conventions, the Democratic nominee will have GOTV organizations in place. The still-to-be-contested primary states will have a lot of opportunity to see the eventual nominee. And John McCain will have to start from scratch.
Any thoughts?
The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats' prolonged primary season will benefit John McCain. Supposedly, McCain can now begin "uniting" the Republican Party behind him and begin a national general election campaign, while Barack and Hillary are left to squabble over who the nominee will be. I've begun to wonder if the opposite is true.
As you may recall, the Florida legislature moved the date of its primary to be ahead of Super Tuesday. The Democratic National Committee had told it not to do so, and threatened to refuse to seat Florida's delegates at the convention. Well, Florida stuck to its guns (and according to the current DNC rules, Florida will have no voice in choosing the Democratic nominee). The major Democratic candidates all agreed not to campaign in Florida before its primary.
The Republicans took a more laid-back approach, though, and just stripped Florida of half of its delegates to the Republican convention. The Florida Republican party was thrilled. It believes that as a result, the Republican candidate will have a head start in Florida for the general election, since he's already campaigned and built an organization there, whereas the Democrats didn't bother. (The DNC is still weighing whether to hold caucuses in Florida and Michigan, which also jumped the gun, and seat delegates based on those results.)
Does the same hold true for the Democrats? Three states that are sure to be pivotal in November--Wisconsin, Texas, and Ohio--are going to see a whole lot of love from Clinton and Obama. We already know about the intense organization-building taking place in Cincinnati, and I can only assume the same is happeneing in Madison, Milwaukee, Houston, Dallas, and so on. So this supposed disadvantage (that the Dems will actually elect a nominee rather than simply coronate one) might work out in the Democrats' favor. Well in advance of the conventions, the Democratic nominee will have GOTV organizations in place. The still-to-be-contested primary states will have a lot of opportunity to see the eventual nominee. And John McCain will have to start from scratch.
Any thoughts?
Cincinnati: More Progressive Than You Think?
I'm a little reluctant to post this for fear of starting a religious flame war in the comment thread. But as a born-and-raised Presbyterian (the son, in fact, of a Presbyterian pastor), I can't pass up this story.
Tuesday night, the Presbytery of Cincinnati (roughly the equivalent of a diocese, but governed democratically rather than by a bishop) voted to send an overture to the General Assembly (the Presbyterian Church's national governing body, which meets once every two years) to permit the ordination of openly gay and lesbian pastors, elders, and deacons. The Enquirer's coverage is here.
It's certainly not surprising that a presbytery is sending such an overture to the General Assembly. This is a battle that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has been fighting for years. Many believe the issue will ultimately force some sort of formal schism in the church. Some, in fact, are openly working towards such a schism. (It's not easy for a congregation to separate itself from the Presbyterian Church, though; each individual church's property is held in trust by the presbytery in which it sits, so any congregation that "left" would also leave behind its building. If there's a schism, expect lots of nasty battles in secular courts on this issue--the Methodists are already fighting them.)
Is is surprising, however, that the overture is coming from the Presbytery of Cincinnati. This is a city that hasn't always been gay-friendly (think about the now-repealed Article XII). Just a few years ago, the Presbytery of Cincinnati defrocked Steven Van Kuiken for performing same-sex wedding ceremonies. (You can read City Beat's article on the resulting aftermath at Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church, where Rev. Van Kuiken had been pastor, here.)
I really like it when Cincinnati surprises me like this.
Tuesday night, the Presbytery of Cincinnati (roughly the equivalent of a diocese, but governed democratically rather than by a bishop) voted to send an overture to the General Assembly (the Presbyterian Church's national governing body, which meets once every two years) to permit the ordination of openly gay and lesbian pastors, elders, and deacons. The Enquirer's coverage is here.
It's certainly not surprising that a presbytery is sending such an overture to the General Assembly. This is a battle that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has been fighting for years. Many believe the issue will ultimately force some sort of formal schism in the church. Some, in fact, are openly working towards such a schism. (It's not easy for a congregation to separate itself from the Presbyterian Church, though; each individual church's property is held in trust by the presbytery in which it sits, so any congregation that "left" would also leave behind its building. If there's a schism, expect lots of nasty battles in secular courts on this issue--the Methodists are already fighting them.)
Is is surprising, however, that the overture is coming from the Presbytery of Cincinnati. This is a city that hasn't always been gay-friendly (think about the now-repealed Article XII). Just a few years ago, the Presbytery of Cincinnati defrocked Steven Van Kuiken for performing same-sex wedding ceremonies. (You can read City Beat's article on the resulting aftermath at Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church, where Rev. Van Kuiken had been pastor, here.)
I really like it when Cincinnati surprises me like this.
Big Question Left Unanswered
Howard Wilkinson summarizes the Clinton and Obama events in Cincinnati yesterday. But he leaves unanswered the single most important question on the minds of Cincinnati voters:
Does Hillary Clinton like Cincinnati chili?
(In Howard's defense, he does note that the campaign staff and Clinton's press flotilla took with them a rather large to-go order. But there's no word on Senator Clinton's own preference. How can we choose our nominee if we don't know where the candidates stand on Cincinnati chili? Hopefully, Howard will do better next time one of the candidates is in town.)
Does Hillary Clinton like Cincinnati chili?
(In Howard's defense, he does note that the campaign staff and Clinton's press flotilla took with them a rather large to-go order. But there's no word on Senator Clinton's own preference. How can we choose our nominee if we don't know where the candidates stand on Cincinnati chili? Hopefully, Howard will do better next time one of the candidates is in town.)
Friday, February 15, 2008
Why I Was At Music Hall Tonight
I turned 18 in 1992. In August, in fact--after the primaries. So the first time I ever cast a ballot, it was in the George H.W. Bush-Bill Clinton presidential race. I had been excited for months by Bill Clinton. I had been enraptured by the Democratic National Convention that year. Watching (on TV) Bill Clinton walk towards and enter Madison Square Garden once enough delegates had cast votes to secure the nomination, I felt chills. When he accepted the nomination, I was spell-bound and thrilled with his speech. Here's how it ended:
I remember being a first-year college student at the University of Chicago, and gathering in a dormitory lounge with fellow students to watch the general election results come in on the TV. We all jumped up and down, slapped high-fives, and hugged each other when the networks declared Clinton the winner.
I haven't been that excited about a candidate since then. Until Barack Obama.
I was at the Obama breakfast at the Westin about a year ago. It marked the first time I'd ever given money to a political candidate. Hearing him speak (even at that event, where he didn't give a fire-and-brimstone stump speech) leaves me with goosebumps. It's clear to me that he's the new torchbearer of Bill Clinton's 1992 message of hope.
The point of this post has not been to convince you to vote for Barack Obama. (If it were, I'm a miserable failure, as this isn't the kind of argument that persuades anyone to favor a candidate.) Instead, my message is this: no matter who you're supporting--Obama, Clinton, McCain, or Huckabee--I hope you're as excited by your candidate as I am by mine.
Somewhere at this very moment, another child is born in America. Let it be our cause to give that child a happy home, a healthy family, a hopeful future. Let it be our cause to see that child reach the fullest of her God-given abilities. Let it be our cause that she grow up strong and secure, braced by her challenges, but never, never struggling alone; with family and friends and a faith that in America, no one is left out; no one is left behind. Let it be our cause that when she is able, she gives something back to her children, her community, and her country. And let it be our cause to give her a country that's coming together, and moving ahead -- a country of boundless hopes and endless dreams; a country that once again lifts up its people, and inspires the world.
Let that be our cause and our commitment and our New Covenant.
I end tonight where it all began for me: I still believe in a place called Hope.
I remember being a first-year college student at the University of Chicago, and gathering in a dormitory lounge with fellow students to watch the general election results come in on the TV. We all jumped up and down, slapped high-fives, and hugged each other when the networks declared Clinton the winner.
I haven't been that excited about a candidate since then. Until Barack Obama.
I was at the Obama breakfast at the Westin about a year ago. It marked the first time I'd ever given money to a political candidate. Hearing him speak (even at that event, where he didn't give a fire-and-brimstone stump speech) leaves me with goosebumps. It's clear to me that he's the new torchbearer of Bill Clinton's 1992 message of hope.
The point of this post has not been to convince you to vote for Barack Obama. (If it were, I'm a miserable failure, as this isn't the kind of argument that persuades anyone to favor a candidate.) Instead, my message is this: no matter who you're supporting--Obama, Clinton, McCain, or Huckabee--I hope you're as excited by your candidate as I am by mine.
On the Docket
As one of the two resident attorney-bloggers, I thought I'd highlight two stories that made news today that might be of interest. (They're completely unrelated, but I'm keeping them in one post for those of you who wish lawyers would just crawl back under the rocks from whence we came.)
First, the Warren County grand jury indicted Michel Veillette, the French Canadian accused of killing his family in Mason, on murder charges that include death specifications. If the prosecution's theory is proven correct, and Mr. Veillette killed his wife and then set fire to his house--thus killing his children--in order to cover up the crime, then his conduct could warrant the death penalty under Ohio law. (Remember, though: an indictment is not proof of a crime. Mr. Veillette remains innocent until 12 Warren County residents unanimously agree otherwise.)
Cincinnati attorney Tim McKenna was appointed to represent Michel Veillette. I'm not sure, but I believe Mr. McKenna is qualified to handle death penalty cases (the Ohio Supreme Court has fairly strict standards governing the requisite qualifications to defend a death penalty case). But I believe the death specifications mean that there will be another attorney joining him at counsel table. Based on the stakes (life and death) and the complex analysis of the physical evidence that will be required for both sides, the trial will likely be one of the most expensive Warren County has seen in some time.
Second (and on a much lighter note), say what you will about Eric Deters (and people have said just about everything about him), he's a fearless, ingenious litigator. With Hugh Campbell (of Villa Hills, KY) and a New Orleans attorney, Mr. Deters has filed suit against the New England Patriots, asserting that they cheated during the 2002 Super Bowl. The lawyers want to represent two groups of people: the defeated St. Louis Rams, who each would have earned an additional $25,000 (plus a really nifty ring) had they won; and the nearly 73,000 fans who attended the game and who each paid $400 for a ticket.
The suit raises a number of interesting questions. First, for the players: don't they need to prove that they would have won if the Patriots hadn't cheated? If they can't prove that, then they can't prove they were "damaged" by the Pats' alleged misconduct. One of the player-plaintiffs now plays in the Arena Football League; can't he argue that if he were a Super Bowl winner, his NFL career would have been longer and his earnings higher?
Second, for the fans: assuming they're entitled to refunds because they thought they were paying to see a fair contest and instead saw a less-than-fair one (which also assumes Deters and friends can prove the cheating), are they entitled only to the face value of the ticket, or can people who bought in the secondary market (or "scalpers") recover what they actually paid? How about a class of fans who watched on TV, who wish to be compensated for the four hours they devoted to watching an unfair game? What about a class of St. Louis fans who suffered emotional distress when their beloved Rams lost?
If the Deters team survives a motion to dismiss, we should put them in the Lawyers Hall of Fame.
First, the Warren County grand jury indicted Michel Veillette, the French Canadian accused of killing his family in Mason, on murder charges that include death specifications. If the prosecution's theory is proven correct, and Mr. Veillette killed his wife and then set fire to his house--thus killing his children--in order to cover up the crime, then his conduct could warrant the death penalty under Ohio law. (Remember, though: an indictment is not proof of a crime. Mr. Veillette remains innocent until 12 Warren County residents unanimously agree otherwise.)
Cincinnati attorney Tim McKenna was appointed to represent Michel Veillette. I'm not sure, but I believe Mr. McKenna is qualified to handle death penalty cases (the Ohio Supreme Court has fairly strict standards governing the requisite qualifications to defend a death penalty case). But I believe the death specifications mean that there will be another attorney joining him at counsel table. Based on the stakes (life and death) and the complex analysis of the physical evidence that will be required for both sides, the trial will likely be one of the most expensive Warren County has seen in some time.
Second (and on a much lighter note), say what you will about Eric Deters (and people have said just about everything about him), he's a fearless, ingenious litigator. With Hugh Campbell (of Villa Hills, KY) and a New Orleans attorney, Mr. Deters has filed suit against the New England Patriots, asserting that they cheated during the 2002 Super Bowl. The lawyers want to represent two groups of people: the defeated St. Louis Rams, who each would have earned an additional $25,000 (plus a really nifty ring) had they won; and the nearly 73,000 fans who attended the game and who each paid $400 for a ticket.
The suit raises a number of interesting questions. First, for the players: don't they need to prove that they would have won if the Patriots hadn't cheated? If they can't prove that, then they can't prove they were "damaged" by the Pats' alleged misconduct. One of the player-plaintiffs now plays in the Arena Football League; can't he argue that if he were a Super Bowl winner, his NFL career would have been longer and his earnings higher?
Second, for the fans: assuming they're entitled to refunds because they thought they were paying to see a fair contest and instead saw a less-than-fair one (which also assumes Deters and friends can prove the cheating), are they entitled only to the face value of the ticket, or can people who bought in the secondary market (or "scalpers") recover what they actually paid? How about a class of fans who watched on TV, who wish to be compensated for the four hours they devoted to watching an unfair game? What about a class of St. Louis fans who suffered emotional distress when their beloved Rams lost?
If the Deters team survives a motion to dismiss, we should put them in the Lawyers Hall of Fame.
Michelle Obama in Over-the-Rhine
I'm just back from Music Hall. There are two lines from Ms. Obama's speech that stayed with me all the way home.
On the success (once unexpected) of the Obama campaign:
On public education:
For any of you there, what were your thoughts on the speech and the assembled crowd?
Could anyone tell: was there a teleprompter at the back of the room? I couldn't see one from my vantage point. If not, then Ms. Obama spoke for an hour from what looked like about a half-page of notes.
Also: if anyone was at Senator Clinton's invitation-only event today, please share your experience here.
On the success (once unexpected) of the Obama campaign:
I'm proud of America, because we have exceeded our own limited expectations
of ourselves. . . Hope is making an important comeback.
On public education:
When people look at me, I don't want them to see "the next First Lady of the
United States." I want them to see what an investment in public education
looks like.
For any of you there, what were your thoughts on the speech and the assembled crowd?
Could anyone tell: was there a teleprompter at the back of the room? I couldn't see one from my vantage point. If not, then Ms. Obama spoke for an hour from what looked like about a half-page of notes.
Also: if anyone was at Senator Clinton's invitation-only event today, please share your experience here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)