Article published October 26, 2009
Old political opponents display skills in casino debate
AS I sat between Andy Douglas and Jerry Chabler last Thursday evening, moderating a debate on public television about Issue 3, the casino gambling issue on the Nov. 3 ballot, I couldn't help but feel a bit of nostalgia. I've known them both for decades and have always enjoyed their company. I remember covering Mr. Douglas when he was a young Toledo city councilman and I was a young Blade reporter.
All three of us have aged a bit.
And here they were on Thursday night, two old political warriors - I use the term with no disrespect - going toe to toe with passion. These are two men with a history together. Mr. Douglas, the long-ago Republican councilman and now a retired Ohio Supreme Court justice. Mr. Chabler, the veteran Democratic fund-raiser and a man whose counsel has helped his party retain political dominance in Lucas County over the years.
Both brought a briefcase full of arguments with them to our live debate at WBGU-TV in Bowling Green - and spread them out on the desk in front of them. But the liveliest moments came when Andy Douglas and Jerry Chabler remembered their history and tempers bubbled forth.
For most of the show, I was more referee than moderator.
Indeed, as Blade staff writer Mark Zaborney noted in his coverage of the event, the two even disagreed about whether they were interrupting each other. Trust me, they were.The thing about veteran political opponents is that they often disagree with smiles on their faces. They may be cursing under their breath, but on the surface they're praising their "good and worthy friend" while administering a dose of politely worded admonishment.
The conventional wisdom regarding Mr. Douglas is that you probably don't want to engage him in a debate. He's always been comfortable in front of a microphone. His sharp legal mind, his encyclopedic memory, his engaging personality, and his articulate delivery have served him well. One on one, he's almost impossible to dislike, although some who've crossed him might beg to differ.
Mr. Chabler, a personable and pleasant man himself, acknowledges - and says friends advised him - that it's not an easy assignment arguing his case across from Mr. Douglas. Certainly many an attorney who stood before the Ohio Supreme Court can attest to that.
But I thought Mr. Chabler held his own against Mr. Douglas. Both scored points. Both got angry, with at least a trace of the obligatory smile, of course.
One of the more intriguing and contentious moments came during a discussion of the word "shall." Mr. Douglas pointed out that Issue 3 says that developers "shall" build their casinos. Not "may," but "shall." Mr. Chabler quoted ballot language of his own and insisted that Issue 3 only "authorizes" the casinos but does not mandate them.
Penn National, a prominent player in the gaming industry and the planned developer of the Toledo casino, insists it intends to go ahead with the project if Issue 3 passes, but Mr. Chabler believes otherwise. He made the point that Issue 6 on the 2008 ballot failed because it provided for only one casino - in southwestern Ohio - with nothing for other regions of the state.
He thinks Toledo is included this time just to buy votes in this section of Ohio and that Penn National has no intention of building a casino that would compete with its other Toledo property, Raceway Park.
The pair also disagreed on the relevance of the fact that Mr. Douglas and his Columbus law firm are earning a substantial fee for handling the pro-casino campaign. Mr. Douglas said he draws a salary whether Issue 3 wins or loses. Mr. Chabler countered that the proposal amounts to the "2009 Welfare and Stimulus Program for Attorneys and Former Lobbyists, like my friend Andy Douglas." Even Andy had to smile at that one.
Many other exchanges marked their head-to-head appearance on public television. The numbers that by now should sound familiar were all there. The 34,000 estimated new jobs statewide, roughly 19,000 of them in construction. The minimum $250 million investment by developers at each site. The millions of dollars proponents say will flow to all 88 counties and all school districts.
For his part, Mr. Chabler had to acknowledge that he has always been linked to organized labor and that his opposition to Issue 3 may not sit well with the construction trades. Gosh, do you think?
When it was all over and the dust had settled, I regretted that we didn't have another hour of air time. So much to consider, so much to interrupt.
My colleague Marilou Johanek outlined on Friday why she feels Issue 3 is a bad bet for Ohio, and The Blade's editorial position is much the same. But you're going to need to make up your own mind.
For me, I was intrigued by the byplay between two old political opponents whose flair for smiling through the vitriol is as sharp as ever.
Chabler-Douglas didn't rise to the level of Lincoln-Douglas, but it was still lots of fun. As the participants departed the studios of WBGU, Mr. Douglas playfully shouted out to Mr. Chabler, "Vote yes on Issue 3."
I'm sure he was grinning.
Thomas Walton is retired Editor and Vice President of The Blade. His column appears every other Monday.
Contact him at:
twalton@theblade.com
Permanent Link
|
|
 |
|
Search
advertisement
