Hat tip to Cleveland.com columnist Ted Diadiun for going against MSM grain, supporting Issue 1

By Joe D. "Buck" Ruth

6:00am Wednesday, July 19, 2023

It's no secret that most members of the mainstream media aren't exactly in line with the conservative side of any issue. And we've called them out for their subjective journalism where firearms are concerned — like a lot.

So when a major Ohio newspaper's columnist goes against the grain and takes a side consistent with ours, that columnist is due our praise.

Such is the case with Cleveland.com columnist Ted Diadium, who on July 16 penned his support for state Issue 1 on the Aug. 8 ballot. He wrote:

I’m in favor of Issue 1, but I’ll stipulate that there are sound and reasonable arguments on both sides. Unfortunately, however, I don’t have a lot of company in that opinion — particularly from the other side. Issue 1′s appearance on the ballot has thrown its opponents into a vituperative frenzy of hysteria far beyond anything I’ve ever seen in any election, local or national.

Diadium pointed out the usual cries about Issue 1 being an ...

"anti-democratic," "morally bankrupt," "brazen power grab," a "spineless move," a "rigged deal," a "sinister attempt to hoodwink voters," a "naked attack on democracy" that is "plundering voters’ rights" through "craven calculations" and "breathtaking hypocrisy." "Sinister." A "sham." Its supporters are "power-mad," "lightweight lapdogs" who are "plundering voters’ rights" and "torching democracy in this state.”

He went on:

It wasn’t difficult to count the “pro” Issue 1 opinion columns, though: One. From me. Back in January.

As I said above, there are reasonable arguments on each side. You’ll have no trouble finding anti-Issue 1 opinions, but let me tell you why I’m for it:

A constitution is the stable and sturdy framework of a government. Built for the long term, it is a document that describes powers and processes and ensures continuity. It should be amended only rarely – and then only with a supermajority support.

He then pointed out how difficult it is to amend the U.S. Constitution, noting that the difficulty has resulted in only 27 amendments in over 200 years. He also pointed that unlike legislation, constitutional amendments are "chiseled in stone" and can't be changed, removed or restructured without another amendment.

We are glad someone in the mainstream media gets it.