This morning’s Wheeling Intelligencer editorial tells us:
Faber Serves Ohio Well
As it is written, the editorial makes little sense
“Faber” is Keith Faber, Auditor for the state of Ohio. However, the first two-thirds of the editorial is about Kathleen McGuiness, Faber's counterpart in Deleware, who was recently indicted for questionable activities surrounding the hiring of her daughter and one of her friends as temporary workers. Keith Faber's name appears only in the next-to-the last paragraph:
Ohioans have come to trust that state Auditor Keith Faber will be a tenacious steward of their money, with his office tackling problems such as the Buckeye State’s unemployment system, which Faber says uses too much state revenue to operate.
It is easy to take that kind of work for granted. But as Delaware residents seem to be learning the hard way, perhaps we should not.
Beyond the fact that both are in the same "kind of work," the editorial makes no connection between McGuiness and Faber? How do the first 132 words of the editorial have anything to do with the last 66 words? I couldn’t see any and so I used both names together in a couple of search engines. Still nothing.
What does either McGuiness or Faber have to do with West Virginia?
Nothing. This is obviously another recycled editorial from one of Ogden’s Ohio papers.
Why praise Faber?
I don’t know when this editorial was originally written but Faber, who serves on the Ohio Redistricting Commission, has recently come in for a great deal of criticism. As the Akron Beacon-Journal reported on Sunday:
In the matter of drawing the lines for Ohio’s 15 congressional districts — ideally, for 10 years — the state legislature blew its deadline, sending the job on to the Ohio Redistricting Commission.
The panel — made of five Republicans and two Democrats — didn't do much, either, and also missed its deadline.
Faber was on that panel but apparently chose to do nothing on redistricting:
LaRose, Gov. Mike DeWine and Ohio Auditor Keith Faber admitted in filings with the Ohio Supreme Court that they had no role in drafting or creating the maps.
In essence, they gave away their power to the other Republicans on the commission, Senate President Matt Huffman and House Speaker Bob Cupp.
As Thomas Suddes wrote in Sunday’s Columbus Dispatch:
No one was holding a gun on Mike DeWine or Keith Faber or Frank LaRose.
If they’d voted “no” on the Cupp-Huffman gerrymander, at least that gerrymander would have died. But they didn’t vote “no.” The governor, the auditor and the secretary voted “yes.”
Despite being on the redistricting panel, did Keith Faber pay any attention to what redistricting was trying to accomplish?
I ask because on Friday, Faber endorsed Max Miller* for Congress:
Faber then retweeted Miller:
Hmmmm. As noted above, Ohio’s number of congressional districts is set to be reduced from 16 to 15. How will Miller “make a great congressman for Ohio’s 16th Congressional District” if the state only has 15? In all fairness, it’s not as though Faber served on a redistricting committee and should know better! What? Never mind.
Okay, this editorial is irrelevant for West Virginians, makes little sense, presents little in the way of argument to support its title, and ignores points that contradict its thesis. On the other hand, it’s not that much different from what we read every day.
*When I saw Max Miller’s name, it looked familiar. After a quick search, I found this headline in the Washington Post on October 6:
More than a dozen prominent Trump allies to host fundraiser for Ohio congressional candidate facing domestic violence allegations
The article begins:
More than a dozen high-profile Republicans are co-hosting a fundraiser next week for Max Miller, an Ohio congressional candidate and former Trump White House aide who faces allegations of domestic violence.
In a Washington Post op-ed, former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham on Tuesday accused her former boyfriend of being violent toward her during their time working in the White House. She did not name him. But within hours of the piece’s publication online, Miller sued Grisham, alleging defamation. Through his lawyer, he denied the allegations.
I wonder if Keith Faber went to the fundraiser?
This editorial tells us how Ohioans "have come to trust" Keith Faber. Today's editorial, pulled from the bin of old Ohio editorials, finally catches up with what Ohio Republicans are doing with redistricting and informs us that Faber was part of a commission that "decided not to do its job." Does anyone at the Intelligencer actually read what goes into their paper? (It's a rhetorical question.)