Showing posts with label Ohiosphere. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ohiosphere. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Still Not Buying It

I've watched my good friend Kyle Sisk tease this poll over the last few days and while he has given us a little more information in this post than previous mentions, what data he does present only asks more questions rather than answer the old ones.

First of all, the only link in Kyle's piece is to some pollster's bio.  Like that is going to convince me of something.  Come on, Kyle, you can do better than that.

Meanwhile, over on Twitter, our good friend phoning it in from Virginia is trying to say that a poll (the same poll?  I dunno, he doesn't link to anybody or anything.  He could be pulling these numbers out of the air for all I know...) has Republicans backing DeWine 96 - 3 90 - 3 (he had to issue a correction).  Has ANY Republican, let alone an Ohio Republican EVER had numbers that looked like that in Ohio and have something not be wrong with the poll?  I can't think of one...  if this is a poll of 600 likely voters, then all the Republicans were at Beef O'Brady's in Greene County.....

Even Kevin Holtsberry has been sucked in by this crazy talk...

Where is the poll???  Public Opinion Strategies did this poll, so where is it?  somebody provide a link that gives us all the details.  I got the impression that this wasn't even a poll about this race, so what was it about?  What were the target demographics?  What was the purpose of the poll?  Who put the poll in the field?  And who paid for it?

Seriously, my fellow bloggers, we should be a little more skeptical of some of the stuff that we get from campaign sources.

One last point, one poll does not a trend make.  Even if these numbers have some basis in a reality somewhere outside of Greene County, you simply can not tout these numbers as gospel until there is a trend.  There are reasons why instead of going through the Rasmussen polls line by line, I create charts that plot trends...

UPDATE:  Here is a piece that djtablesauce left out of his tweets courtesy of the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
DeWine campaign consultant Mark Weaver pointed to  DeWine's 90-3 margin in the poll with voters who called themselves "strong Republicans" as evidence that the GOP base is happy with his candidate.
Let's hear what DeWine's numbers with "strong conservatives" is rather than "strong Republicans"...we all know where the "establishment" "strong" "Republicans" stand on the issue of Mike DeWine...
 My gut still  tells me that this is a VERY bogus poll...

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

"Prominent" Ohio Lefty Blog Took Coakley Fraud Bait

OhioDailyBlog took the bait from the Coakley campaign yesterday.

One problem with that fraud claim is that it was PRE-DATED. That's right...it DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Same old dirty tricks from the "Party of Corruption."

I'm sure we'll see a retraction or an update or something...

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

DeWine Firing and Hiring: What's Next to Go? The Barbershop Quartet?

Mike DeWine's big comeback appears to be in trouble. The Ohio blogosphere is abuzz with confirmed reports that Mike the Fink has fired his political consultant, Jon Seaton. Who is Jon Seaton? Well, he was a DC based consultant who was a former national field director for failed presidential candidate John McCain. He will be leaving the DeWine campaign at the end of the year. One wonders why this magical pairing has separated? Could Mikey not be able to afford paying Seaton's bill? Could Seaton have realized the Fink is dead in the water? Is Mike cutting costs to keep the barbershop quartet going?

Isn't it telling, however, that Mike's big consultant was DC based, and not Ohio based? I wonder if Seaton ever came to Ohio? I wonder if he ever made any trips through Ohio? Mikey sure doesn't seem to be campaigning too much. He just wants everyone to come to him and suck up some free ice cream and somehow that is supposed to make his miserable failure of a tenure in the Senate go away. He has not been asking for votes. In fact, he hasn't even asked people to be on his mailing lists. No, instead he just took his old McCain mailing lists and automatically ASSumed they would be followers of him. Same old arrogance. Same old Mike DeWine.

Stepping into the breach as Mike the Fink's chief political consultant will be the all seeing all knowing campaign sign hating Mark Weaver. I know, I know, this is amazing. This is the same guy who lifted slightly less liberal Betty Montgomery on his spindly shoulders and engineered her victory....FIFTEEN YEARS AGO. Woohoo! Way to be on the cutting edge Mikey boy! Weaver has some great people working for him, even if he is an arrogant, self serving egomaniac, though he is talented.

Look, it doesn't matter who Mike the Fink gets. He doesn't think he should campaign. He thinks he should be coronated. How much real travelling and shoe leather has he worn out? Not as much as Dave Yost.

Dave has also worked very hard at winning the hearts and minds of Ohioans. He has attended 46 Lincoln Day Dinners, visited over 60 counties and is endorsed by more than 70 percent of Ohio’s GOP county prosecutors. Dave also writes frequently on his blog, letting his views be known. Mike DeWine has mostly just talked to special interest groups and party insiders. Dave Yost has been pounding the pavement.

Let's review a little bit about Mike DeWine, shall we:
_Part of the Old Guys Club and Bob Bennett Cabal
Failed to support drilling in Alaska (ANWR). Domestic energy exploration is critical to national security and the economy.

· Failed to support 2nd Amendment rights (Endorsed by the Brady Campaign.) And named to the top 10 list of anti-gun senators by Human Events.

o Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

o Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

o Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

o Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

o Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

o Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

· Failed to support conservative judges by joining the gang of 14 who supported the Democrat filibusters. Several conservative appellate court nominees “got thrown under the bus” (Miguel Estrada, Charles Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, and Fourth Circuit Court nominee Terrence Boyle).

· Failed to support the 2004 Ohio Marriage Amendment.

· Failed to recognize that his support for the McCain–Feingold Act would lead to the creation of left-wing monsters such as Moveon.org.

· Failed to recognize that his support for Hate Crime legislation makes “wrong thinking” and real criminal acts, crimes.

· Failed to recognize that his support for a federal minimum wage hike would lead to higher unemployment.

· Failed to support repealing the federal 55 MPH speed limit.

· Failed to retain his US Senate seat.

· Failed to keep up in the fund raising race with Dave Yost. (DeWine $39,500; Yost $42,727)


(information from several sources including the Becker Report)
And let's not forget his campaign already has shown a disdain for the law:
_He failed to list his campaign treasurer on his original website when he announced for the campaign (from RightOhio)
_According to Mike DeWine’s campaign report, DeWine gladly accepted a $1000 donation from Michael R Heaphy MD, a Medicaid provider from Lima. Ohio Revised Code prohibits campaign contributions from Medicaid Providers to candidates for Attorney General:

3599.45 Candidates prohibited from accepting contributions from Medicaid providers.

(A) No candidate for the office of attorney general or county prosecutor or such a candidate’s campaign committee shall knowingly accept any contribution from a provider of services or goods under contract with the department of job and family services pursuant to the medicaid program of Title XIX of the “Social Security Act,” 49 Stat. 620 (1935), 42 U.S.C. 301, as amended, or from any person having an ownership interest in the provider.

As used in this section “candidate,” “campaign committee,” and “contribution” have the same meaning as in section 3517.01 of the Revised Code.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Effective Date: 07-01-2000





And then there is the quickness with which they respond to issues, like say the sitting attorney general DICK Cordray deciding to defend the hacks who used their government jobs and access to dig up dirt on Joe the Plumber, not to mention their web presence. For this analysis, I go to Tom Blumer at Bizzyblog:
Yost, at his web site (excerpted; read the whole thing; bold after title is mine):

Lowering the Price of Perfidy

The taxpayer-funded defense of three rogue state workers who invaded Joe the Plumber’s privacy sends the wrong message to other state workers: don’t worry, we’ll take care of you if you get caught. It’s more than just an individual wrong: it degrades our government and encourages bad behavior.

…. The attorney general has a duty to defend state workers who are sued.

…. But the law lets the attorney general off the hook when state workers go rogue. When the worker is doing stuff that’s not part of the job – say, searching for politically embarrassing material in confidential government databases – the attorney general “shall not” represent them. The same rule applies for workers who act with malice, or recklessly. No free legal defense.

“Shall not” is not my phrase – it’s what the law says.

When a state worker makes a mistake, the government should defend them. Mistakes happen — but what happened to Joe the Plumber wasn’t a mistake. It was a deliberate act, with an attempted cover-up.

…. The threat of big trouble and legal bills is a deterrent to such bad behavior, and it should be. A free, taxpayer-funded defense lowers the price of perfidy for others who would loyally do the dirty work of their political masters. That price doesn’t need to be lowered — it’s low enough already.

DeWine, at his web site:

….. ….. ….. …..

The story’s three days old. Where’s Mike?

Yeah, he commented on Cordray’s move in the DDN article:

“These people violated the privacy of an Ohio citizen and they did it, it would appear, to advance a partisan political campaign, and I think taxpayers will be shocked to find that their tax dollars are going to defend them,” said Mike DeWine of Cedarville, the former U.S. senator and Greene County prosecutor.

But so did Yost:

“It’s an outrageous use of taxpayer money to defend the invasion of a citizen’s privacy.”

Yost even does the sound-bite thing better than DeWine, who supposedly has had years of practice.

DeWine has begun the process of receiving what from all appearances will be serial spankings at county endorsement meetings; the first of what I expect will be many was administered by Butler County last week (BizzyBlog coverage and commentary is here). Yost got the county’s endorsement by a 68%-32% margin.

DeWine’s virtual non-presence on the web (a home page, a bio, and a PDF of his candidacy announcement) contrasts sharply with Yost’s frequently-updated, well-presented effort.

Yost has been following the state employee-orchestrated Joe the Plumber perfidy almost since it began and campaigning aggressively while carrying out his prosecutorial duties in Delaware County. DeWine has been virtually silent and schmoozing big-bucks people (not very successfully, as I understand it) while teaching a college course or two. I think that’s a precursive indicator of who will work harder as a sensible, principled conservative representing the interests of the Buckeye State’s citizens.


Well, Mark, good luck with salvaging the coronation gone awry.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Is Modern Esquire a Liar on Ohio HB176?

In the comments to this post about Ohio HB 176, Modern Esquire calls my good friend Mark a liar:
The bill does NOT call for the Ohio Civil Rights Commission to work with the Department of Education to create any circulum regarding sexual orientation or gender identity at all.

You are flat out lying about this bill. Quote me the language of the bill that backs these claims up, because I've read the whole thing and cannot find anything that would support such nonsense.
Well, Modern Esquire, you need to read the bill again.

The bill modifies ORC Section 4112.04 so that it says this:
Sec. 4112.04. (A) The commission shall do all of the following:

...

(9) Prepare a comprehensive educational program, in cooperation with the department of education, for the students of the primary and secondary public schools of this state and for all other residents of this state that is designed to eliminate prejudice on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, military status, familial status, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry in this state, to further good will among those groups, and to emphasize the origin of prejudice against those groups and discrimination, its their harmful effects, and its their incompatibility with American principles of equality and fair play;
Strikethroughs represent language being removed from ORC. Underlined text are additions.

Let me take out all the formatting and break this down again:
(9) Prepare a comprehensive educational program, in cooperation with the department of education, for the students of the primary and secondary public schools of this state and for all other residents of this state that is designed to eliminate prejudice in this state, and to emphasize the origin of prejudice and discrimination, their harmful effects, and its their incompatibility with American principles of equality and fair play;
Now, since you're a lawyer, you may not be aware that a "comprehensive educational program" is also known as a "curriculum" in education circles.

If you read the bill -- as you say you have -- then it is you who is "flat out lying" about what is in the bill.

And there is enough libertarian in me that I'm not real wild about government getting concerned with thought crimes...which is the slippery slope that this sort of legislation approaches anyway. I know, that's just another straw man argument or whatever...but it is a real concern.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

GUEST POST: "Responding to Modern Esquire on HB176"

By William G. Pierce

May I respond to Modernesquire? I understand he supports HB176 which he reports that “[i]t just says that schools and school boards cannot discriminate against students and employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Once again, he may be right in principle but far from the practice of burying discrimination. As before, I am going to work with the belief that Modernesquire is a business leader – and in particular the superintendent of a local school district. Along with the overriding accountability of establishing the educational philosophy which governs his school district, Modernesquire has the overall responsibility and will oversee the facilities, the budget, long term planning, and even hiring.

Many of the local suburban school districts in southwest Ohio will receive as many 100 times the number of resumes as they do teaching openings leading up to the new school year. Mason Local Schools have reported receiving as many as 800 responses to a single published position. Now I appreciate Modernesquire will not have the time to review the stack of received resumes with the exception of the final four as selected by the HR Department and the building principal, BUT I will guarantee he will be named as a defendant in any pending lawsuit generated on the premise the applicant was discriminated against.

We have all seen or read of discrimination lawsuits based on age, race, gender, weight, disability, and/or religion – all of which removes preciously scarce tax dollars out of the classroom and into the courtroom and do nothing for the children seeking to be educated. Given the fact that very few, if any, applicants are going to list his/her sexual orientation on their resume AND it would be against the law to raise the question during the interviewing process, how would Superintendent Modernesquire propose to protect the district from the potential lawsuits generated by a rejected and disgruntled applicant.

With all due respect to all of humanity, it is relatively easy to observe age, race, gender, weight, disability, and many times religion which operate within a myriad of federal guidelines to promote non-discrimination, but sexual orientation and gender identity are not observable human traits – nor should they be in the interviewing process. Furthermore, once hired they should remain as hidden human traits as the personal sexual preferences of educators should never be subject matter of the children entrusted to them for the purpose of educating them to read, write, and do arithmetic. The principle is as true for heterosexual instructors as it is for homosexual or transsexual educators – a violation by anyone should bring immediate removal from the classroom.

The scenario played out above would be equally true with any business and would require a similar diversion of critical funds for self preservation. It would be particularly devastating to a small business.

It is difficult for me to imagine anyone who would not be angry and disgruntled if they felt that they were discriminated against in the hiring process or while on the staff for any reason. It is equally difficult for me, as a former owner of a small business, to imagine Modernesquire not being angry after having put his heart and soul into the development of a business and then have to endure the burden of the court for a discrimination lawsuit over a human trait for which he had no idea existed.

I am afraid I must side with those who oppose HB176, but I do so simply because it places an unimaginable burden on an employer to avoid discrimination for a trait which should never be demonstrated during the hiring process or the career which may follow.

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

GUEST POST: "A Response to Modern Esquire"

By William G. Pierce

I must respond to a blog I read on Buckeye State which attacked the posting made by State Representative Danny Bubp on WMD wherein it stated the legislator “either is stupid (or just thinks his constituents are)”. I respond on WMD because it will obviously be read by both sides of the political spectrum.

Modernesquire states “Fir(s)t, none of those folks are talking about a government-run health care system. The health care reform proposal will not change the fact that most people will still continue to get their medical services provided by private, for-profit medical providers being paid by private, for-profit medical insurers.” To which I can dispute because the government is most certainly talking about government-run health care system wherein federal bureaucrats will establish medical reimbursement rates and procedures in similar fashion to Medicare which is indisputably a government-run health care program.

The second position is correct in principle but false in practice. The Administration has insisted that we may keep our current health insurance policy and that health care must be available to all The Administration has suggested if an employer does not provide the coverage, then a 8.5% tax will be levied on the employer based on the employees’ compensation. I ask Modernsquire to imagine himself as a business owner with ten employees with a median income of $40,000 a year. If his company currently provides private health care insurance, the business expense is in the range of $800 to $1000 per month per employee leading to a total annual business expense is $96,000 to $120,000.

Now if Modernesquire is an astute business man, and we will work with the assumption that he is, the annual expense for health care insurance will decrease to $34,000 if he drops the company’s privately based insurance and begins to pay the 8.5% tax penalty on the $400,000 payroll for not providing coverage for his employees ($283.33 per month per employee). The annual savings of $62,000 to $$86,000 can be diverted by Modernsquire to a myriad of other worthwhile and needed business purposes – including growth. Bottom line – the employee does not get to keep the medical services “provided by private, for-profit medical providers being paid by private, for-profit medical insurers.”

What is even more insidious with the Administration’s plan is that the 8.5% payroll penalty will in fact create a two tier health care system because employers will elect to continue “high salary” employees on the private insurance. If business savy Modernsquire has an employee who makes more than $140,000 a year, it will be less expensive to cover her/him under the existing plan than taking the tax penalty. Suddenly, a Nation built on the premise that all are created equal will not be equal when it comes to health care. A two tier system will certainly be created.

I must agree with Modernesquire in that the deficiencies with Medicare are greatly enhanced by the uncontrolled Congressional theft and spending of trust funds which have been replaced with worthless IOUs. It has been ongoing for decades and continues even today as the CBO reports the funds will run out earlier than previous projections. The American people should hold all of our federal legislators, of both political parties, responsible and accountable.

Finally, I take exception to Modernesquire’s final assault on Representative Bubp’s employee provided benefit of private health care insurance. He states, “As a member of the General Assembly, Bubp gets to choose from multiple health insurance providers to provide him, and his family, with private health insurance (paid for by our state tax dollars, mind you.) In other words, Bubp is advocating against the very kind of choice he as a state legislator is allowed to make for him and his family because that's what the Obama health care bill ACTUALLY DOES DO.”

I have seen no suggestion in any Congressional Bill or in the Administration’s presentations that the uninsured will receive money from the government with the sole purpose of affording them the opportunity to purchase private health care insurance. At numerous townhall meetings, Congressional representatives in the House and the Senate have been asked if they will voluntarily surrender their existing health care coverage in favor of the Obama health care plans – to date, I have not heard anyone speak in the affirmative. As a matter of fact, a bill has been submitted in the House which would require that change among our representatives in Washington, but it will fail due to a lack of co-sponsors and “air” time.

I suggest that State Representative Bubp is not stupid nor does he consider his constituents to be either. Furthermore, I ask Modernesquire to look beyond the words the Administration uses to seek the unintended consequences that will certainly befall employers across the country and in turn affect the health care insurance coverage we are told we may keep – but cannot.

Monday, May 05, 2008

Silliness From Lefties on Dann

Okay...as previously stated, I think the Ohio GOP ought to let the Ohio Dems off themselves on this whole Dann affair, but this nonsense from Jill regarding Kevin DeWine's comments is just whack!

Which just goes to show how mental the lefties in the Ohiosphere have become over this whole thing.

My advice to the lefties is to let Kevin DeWine dig his own holes too...

We can check in with the SOS office, but I'm pretty sure that the "politics as usual" mindset that has gripped Columbus is not affiliated with either party.

But the most irritating thing about the piece is that Jill excoriates DeWine while having nary a word to say on the silence of Chris Redfern. And that speaks volumes to me, man...

UPDATE 1: More silliness -- this time from Modern Esquire, who also can't manage to find a few pixels for Chris Redfern (Has ANYONE seen Chris Redfern???). Speaking from experience here, the hardest part about blogging on a scandal in your own party is avoiding the distraction of getting sidetracked to non-relevant issues. Who cares what Kevin DeWine thinks? If Ohio Democrats were smart, they'd thank Kevin DeWine for leaking their strategy and then counter it by taking aggressive action towards removing Dann. That is exactly what the Ohio GOP failed to do with Bob Taft and Bob Ney. Leave it the Ohio Dems to learn from the Ohio GOP's mistakes...

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Some Thoughts on Moll and the ACLU

Previously on WMD, I published a press release from the Jeanette Moll camp that blasted the ACLU for finding public restroom sex in the Constitution and for defending Sen. Larry Craig (R-Scumbag) having tried to engage in said activity.

Our friends on the left side of the Ohiosphere are all in a tizzy and I think we ought to take a look at what they have to say. Plunderbund, Buckeye State Blog, and Ohio Valley Politics.

A few thoughts, if you, the kind reader, will indulge me...

  • This is about two dudes in a men's room, but the liberals are up to their usual "it's gay-baiting" if homosexuality is even mentioned. This is not gay-baiting.


  • I am pretty sure that Jeanette Moll doesn't think a man and a woman, woman and a woman, man and a dog or any other combinations of the animal kingdom have a right to have sex in an airport bathroom. What is the ACLU's view on that?


  • BSB calls the release "civil liberties demagoguery." I don't even know what that means... In my view, the release is about common sense. As Jeanette says - it was a public official soliciting a public official in a public restroom. Citing Supreme Court precedents doesn't change the fact that the ACLU's position is just horrible. As we all know, the Supreme Court has NEVER been wrong before...


  • Finally, BSB creates a list of things Jeanette Moll should "denounce" as a Republican. How about a list of things the ACLU stands for - besides bathroom sex - that BSB might want to consider before coming to the aid of that group:

    1. They're anti gun. (Unlike their beloved right of bathroom sex, the Second Amendment is actually a part of the Constitution.)

    2. They advocate open borders and are pro-amnesty.

    3. The ACLU -- under the theory of separation of church and state -- is wildly anti-Christian.

    4. The ACLU has defended the PLO, Quadafi, Club Gitmo detainees, and they refused money from groups who instituted rules to ensure non-profits monies didn't go to aid the enemy.

    5. The ACLU defends child porn saying its distribution is protected by the Constitution.

    ...and lots more over at Stop the ACLU...

    The ACLU ain't exactly credible as a bastion of integrity and sound policy. Yelling "gay-baiting" is fun blog talk, but the reality here is that Jeanette Moll shares her values with the vast majority of the citizens of the 18th district and having sex in airport bathrooms ain't one of them. Let's see how that plays out in a poll...

    Over at Plunderbund, Joseph writes:
    I’m writing because I don’t think Jeanette Moll is the least bit sincere in her press release.

    She has only one purpose: scare people into voting for her by invoking two themes that always get wingnuts riled up: hatred of the big, scary ACLU and fear of icky gay people who are trying to corrupt our children.
    I think Moll sent out the release because the ACLU took a position that offended her values and as such I find it refreshing that a politician would take a risk and let her actual thoughts on a controversial subject like this be known BEFORE THE ELECTION. That's right...if you don't like Moll's position on this, and you happen to live in the 18th district, you can vote against her and support gay-baiting sex-in-bathrooms to your hearts content. I don't see this release as a method of scaring people...I see it as a method of expressing her opinion; which, the ACLU ought to still support too...

    As usual, your mileage may vary...and for the lefties in the vast WMD audience, it probably does...

    1/22/08 UPDATE: Welcome to the ACLU...please check us out...you might learn something...

    Tuesday, January 15, 2008

    Two New Ohio Blogs

    WMD regular reader Gary FINALLY joined the ranks of crazy and started up a blog: Right Runner.

    And check out OhioRedNovember too...

    UPDATE: Oh, and I suppose I ought to mention the political sensation sweeping across the great state of Ohio and beyond: Ham Sandwich for Senate 2010

    Thursday, December 06, 2007

    OH-05: Thall Shalt Not Address Illegal Immigration

    Dave pretty much has this covered over at NixGuy...I just wanted to say, "What he said..."

    Mark McNally, in the comments over there says this:
    Actually it is part of the wider rule: Any issue the helps Republicans is an issue unworthy of discussion and divisive: see abortion, marraige, illegal immigration, crime, terrorism, etc.

    Any wedge issue that benefits Democrats is seen as a good thing. Example: stem cell research, minimum wage, throwing more money at feckless teacher unions, etc.
    That is exactly right... Instead of addressing the actual issue and the problems caused by illegal immigration, our friends on the left side of the Ohiosphere and beyond are going to cry "Foul!" every time. Why? Because Mark is right...this isn't an issue that the Democrats have an answer that the American people will buy and they want to minimize the danger. The problem with that strategy is that the issue is not going to go away tht easily...