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

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Porkopolis

3 Comments on “The Cranley Dodge”

  1. Sylvia Smith Says:

    I’m sure that Cranley said a few words at an anti-war demonstration on Fountain Square that I attended in 2003 or 2004.

  2. Kevin's boy toy Says:

    sylvia, he did? what did he say?

  3. Scot Voss Says:

    At the outset, I acknowledge and understand Mr. Flannery’s blog concerns John Cranley’s dodging a stance on the Iraq War. However, he piqued my anger with the following paragraph: “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?”

    Cpl. Timothy Roos is more than a local hero to me; he is my beloved cousin. Tim would not in anyway agree that the war in Iraq is unjust. He believed–by the experience of being there–that the mission in Iraq is a good and just one. Mr. Flannery may hold to his opinion, but don’t he dare try to tie Cpl. Timothy Roos’ name to his opinion. To do as Flannery says–come out against the war as a sign of respect to Tim–would have been unequivocally disrespectful to my cousin’s memory and my family. The death of a Marine is not a political event. Mr. Flannery needs to come to terms with the fact that not all Americans agree with his logic; especially, the vast majority of my family who knew and loved Tim.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: