The Cranley Dodge
John Cranley, Democratic candidate for Congress, has done a spectacular job of avoiding the most pressing issue facing the United States: the war in Iraq. Review his campaign Web site, and you’ll find no mention of the war.
A press conference scheduled for today might have been the first time Cranley took a position, but he canceled the event. The reasoning was as curious as it was politically expedient.
Cranley had planned the press conference to attack U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot, the Republican incumbent, who had planned to host First Lady Laura Bush on Friday. Bush won’t be here, and Cranley canceled his press conference. Today is the funeral for Marine Cpl. Timothy Roos of Delhi Township, killed July 27 in Iraq. Both Chabot’s and Cranley’s campaigns said their events were canceled out of respect for Roos and his family.
Even if you accept Cranley’s explanation, his reasoning is skewed. What could be more respectful to Roos and other dead American invaders than to come out against the unjust war in which they died?
But with the election just three months away, Cranley still hasn’t found the right time to come out against the war. Before it even started, he participated in a pro-war rally on Fountain Square. For the three years of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, he’s stayed away from anti-war protests. Even now, when running for Congress, he hasn’t offered so much as a Cincinnati City Council resolution calling for an end to the occupation.
With the war a defining issue in 2006, the reason for Cranley’s silence can only mean one thing: He’s afraid a peace platform won’t sell in the conservative 1st Congressional District. Is this leadership? Is it a meaningful alternative to Chabot?
— Gregory Flannery