OH- Sen.: Stu Rothenberg: "Don't count Brunner out yet. Republicans expect Brunner to be nominee"
Apparently publicly-declared "in the tank for Fisher" blogger Nick D is upset that I don't always comment on what D.C. Beltway pundits say about the race (when in reality, the whole point of being a blogger is to challenge conventional wisdom, not echo it.) My other reason for not doing so is that the ones in particular (Cilliza and Silver)were only discussing the fundraising reports, they did nothing to take into consideration a sense of public opinion and what's actually occurring on the ground in Ohio. There is one D.C. beltway pundit who does get his hands so dirty as to actually get a first-hand sense of the field on the ground before opinionating. It's Stuart Rothenberg. And here's what Rothenberg wrote in reaction to Fisher's campaign finance haul earlier this month (that Nick D. apparently didn't feel compelled to comment on, either.)
Unlike Fisher, she has never lost an election. In 1994 (a horrendous year for Democrats), Fisher lost his bid for re-election as the state’s attorney general, and four years later, he lost an open-seat gubernatorial race to Bob Taft (R). (Modern notes: 1996, Ohio went for Clinton only to have Fisher lose two years later. In 2008, Ohio went for Obama ...)
Surprisingly, given the lieutenant governor’s more frequent races and more extensive government service, Fisher and Brunner start off as virtually even in Quinnipiac University polling, both in the ballot test and in personal ratings. But Fisher held a substantial financial advantage at the end of the first quarter.
Brunner raised just $207,000 in the first quarter and ended March with $193,000 in the bank, while Fisher raised just over $1 million in the first three months of the year, ending March with $1 million on hand.
Still, I wouldn’t count Brunner out yet.
Ohio observers believe that Brunner has some national fundraising potential and will eventually earn the support of EMILY’s List, which is likely to help her raise considerable funds — at least enough to compete with Fisher. And those same observers believe that Brunner will be a more aggressive candidate than Fisher. In fact, most Republicans I spoke with expect her to be the Democratic nominee.
That's right. Even Republicans believe that Fisher will do what he ordinarily does: lose. And as Rothenberg points out, Brunner is going to be able to raise the monev, over time, necessary to be competitive. Nick D. was so quick to say that when I discussed the available on-line fundraising numbers that fundraising is a marathon, not a sprint. Funny how that went out the window once Fisher submitted his smoke-and-mirrors filled FEC report (which included tricks to inflate his cash-on-hand numbers like not paying the accounting firm that help you implement such accounting schemes.)
Roth is saying what I've been saying: That Fisher's fundraising advantage isn't moving the polls. That he has alot more work to do than Brunner to win given his track record, that Fisher's poll numbers are surprising given his "on paper" strengths as a candidate, and one FEC report isn't enough to crown Fisher the Democratic nominee. Fisher cannot take that much money from banks and utlities companies and then suggest that Portman is too friendly to business interests. That's why Brunner is expected to be a more aggressive candidate. She's the progressive candidate supported by progressive interests.
Even if Brunner does nothing more than continue to raise money at the rate she did in the first period, she'd raise over a million for the primary alone. That's enough to be competitive and win for her. Given his lackluster record at the Ohio Department of Development and track record statewide, Fisher's going to need a huge fundraising advantage to have even a fighting chance. In other words, he's running against the wind.
That's all I've said this week. You'd think by the reaction of Fisher's supporters that I hate Fisher (I don't. I volunteered extensively for his campaign in 1994 and 1998, praised his pick as Lt. Gov. in 2006, and think he's a decent guy), accused him of beating his children with fuzzy puppies, and pissed on his mother's grave at the funeral!
All I've said is that too much is being made of Fisher's fundraising, his poll numbers are problematic, and as a result, Brunner has a hole in which to exploit and become the nominee. Hardly "bitchy, insider gossip" stuff, sounds to me to be reasoned, analysis of the state of the race, especially when you consider that Stu Rothernberg is saying the EXACT SAME THING!
Modern, I can honestly say I have never heard of Stu Rothenberg until this post. Therefore, it wouldn't make much sense for me to comment on his view, would it?
I also don't understand your assertion that Fisher's record at Dept. of Development is "lackluster." I think winning the Site Selection Governor's Cup both years he headed the department says a lot. The Dept's report says that they created 50,000 and saved 200,000 jobs under his stewardship. Personally speaking, I wouldn't characterize that as "lackluster."
nick, if you didn't know David Leland was ODP chair in 1996, and you don't know who stu rothenberg is, you really ought not blog about politics. or at least not comment on matters you don't know about.
i mean, just wow.
Tim, I hate to make you feel old (It's been happening a lot to me lately) but in 1996 I was not yet old enough to vote, and my main concerns in life were graduating from high school and selecting a college to attend.
And, I do know that Leland was ODP chair in 1996. I just didn't know that he was maxed out for Fisher as Modern helpfully pointed out over at my place.
nick, if you're going to comment on matters you know nothing about, it's not about being old, it's about acting like a child. which you plainly are doing. either get your facts straight, or just try not to look stupid, ok? can you do that?
you can't claim youthful ignorance, comment based on that ignorance, and then pretend it's somehow mature. you lose that free pass when you grow up, which you appear to have failed to do.
i wasn't of driving, let alone voting age, when Lee started running for office, i still manage to know that he's been running for office that long. there's a thing called teh Google, try it out sometime. it's called learning.
Tim's so old I wonder how old that makes Lee.
Ten 10 reasons I say Lee is older than Tim.
10. Lee's first summer job was construction, on a ziggurat
9. His first kiss was to a girl named Ishtar
8. He graduated High School with Zaphnathpaaneah
7. Received his law degree at the Mt. Sinai
6. His Social Security Number, is in Babylonian cuneiform
5. He named 3 of the constellations Aries- Gemini- Taurus
"Ramming" "Two-faced" "Bullshit"
4. His Senior photo is a relief carving
3. First "Green" politician to advocate the use of flint vs. sticks
2. He organized the UCW - United Chariot Workers union
1. He was technical consultant on the motion picture "The Mummy"
Fisher has a report done by his staff showing how he's created 50,000 jobs and saved another 200k. Do you have anything NOT written by Fisher's payroll? I mean, I hate to point out the obvious, but Lee apparently missed a spot before resigning. You know, what with Ohio's above national average unemployment rate and all. It's pretty ballsy for him to tell those whos jobs he didn't save that he'll help them out once they give him a promotion for the bang-up job he did.
Of course, YOU wouldn't characterize it as lackluster. Your first post at your blog admitted that you're "in the tank" for Lee. A term you defined as presenting one-sided arguments in favor of your candidate.
And Stu Rotherberg is only one of the top three Congressional and Gubernatorial forecasters in the nation (the other two would be the Cook Report and Larry Sabato). He's been on CNN for ten years, a regular on the Sunday talk circuit, writes for Roll Call, has been cited on THIS site only half a dozen of times and carries more sway than Ciliiza and Nate Silver combined.
You really need to stop helping Lee because you're embarassing yourself. You tried to spin Lee's campaign finance fluff by saying all candidates start with their family members when all the donations and loans were made in the final week of the reporting period. You blamed Fisher's 1998 loss on the failure of then ODP David Leland, a maxed out donor to Fisher who was elected to ODP chair on Fisher's wishes because that's who he wanted in charge when he ran for Governor in 1998.
You whined that nobody talked about the Apportionment Board issue in Brunner's candidacy even though I and other bloggers discussed it extensively before and AFTER she announced. Your credibility just gets worse and worse every lame defense you give for Fisher.
Your candidate is so clueless, he's actually running an AD asking for suggestions as to how he can claim to be the strongest Democrat to defeat Rob Portman! When a campaign doesn't already have an answer to that question, they're in BIG trouble.
Yes Modern, I'm in the tank for Fisher, and you're in the tank for Brunner, and everyone knows it so there's no need to keep pointing it out.
In fact, given the fact that you are now back with BSB and I am not, that might lead one to speculate that Buckeye State Blog as a whole is in the tank for Brunner.
As I said over at my place, I believe Brunner has not taken appropriate heat for the very high risk gamble she has forced all Ohio Democrats into backing by not running for re-election for SOS. What's at stake? Oh, not much, just another 10 years of living under GOP drawn district lines.
What you seem to forget Nick is that I left BSB in protest to you being "in the tank" for Fisher by giving a softball interview, presenting it as objective, hiding that you gave editorial control over the interview to that campaign, save but you inability to edit a digitial video you would have agreed to their request to remove portions of that interview, apologized to the campaign for asking a question but explaining you had to do so to appear, objective, and then not being on the level with David and I about the whole thing from the beginning.
I left in disgust over your hackery, Nick. You left because BSB is more important than you looking good with ODP and Fisher. With you gone, I had no reason to stay away. When I felt it was time, I came back because I had an open invitation from David and, before you resigned as admin, even you that was given at the time I left. In case you forgot, Nick, at the time you asked me to come back to BSB, now you're claiming I did it because David wants the blog to be "in the tank for Brunner" though I cannot think of what David has wrote that would give you that impression.
I would be more than happy to let bygones be bygones, but I will not tolerate you coming here attacking this site's objectivity or David under your revisionists history wherein *I* was the one who left under a cloud.
I left BSB because I was disgusted at what a dishonest little hack you are, Nick, and I couldn't believe you'd destroy the credibility of something I had worked for years to build up just to suck up to ODP and Lee Fisher. At the time, Nick, you told David and I that you did what you did out of a misguided friendship to Lauren Goode, and that friendship made you blind to how wrong what you did was. NOW, you have admitted that it was because you've been supporting Lee the whole time. Even months later, your story continues to unravel. I cannot say I know a more dishonest blogger than you, Nick, and I'm including Tom Blumer and Matt Naugle in that assessment.
How dare you come here and attack BSB after what you did that required your resignation. Go back to your pathetic little blog nobody reads. And quit writing about how Tim and I should be "ignored" over a race that you have admitted on multiple occasions in the past few days alone, we've had to educate you on because you didn't know this or that.
We aren't colleagues, Nick, and we sure as hell aren't friends. The second Brunner announced I wrote a post letting our readers know that I support her and why so that any bias I had regarding that race was fully disclosed.
You slinked over to the Fisher campaign with promises of helping them with their "blogger" problem (i.e. BSB) by giving them a softball interview which you, save your technological ignorance, would have given them total editorial control over. You also APOLOGIZED to the campaign for asking a question, but told them you had to do to appear "credible." When the whole fraud was finally unravelled you went to your blog and finally admitted you were in the tank for Lee, but denied you were until this point. A denial that I cannot believe even you, let alone anyone else, honestly believes.
Nick, if you truly want to help Lee Fisher, stop writing about him. It's embarassing how many times Tim and I have had to correct you this week alone after you insulted us by claiming WE'RE the ones who should be "ignored".
David was the only person besides yourself who tried to defend you. And here you are constantly stabbing him (i'd say in the back but your transparent) by hurling accusations about him that are based on nothing more than your own convenient revisionist history wherein you did nothing wrong and were "honest" about the situation.
Have you no decency, sir?
Modern, you accuse me of not being able to "take the heat" but I just set off your temper for fun. I knew you'd write a legal brief length response. You need to cool off, buddy.
You said I can't take the heat, but its your temper that seems to be in need of cooling off. You're the one who came over to my blog and left a comment dripping with arrogance and contempt and then signed it "all the best." And, you're the one who commenced the name calling by refering to me as a hack.
All I said was that the fact that you're back and I'm not "might lead one to speculate" that BSB as a whole is in the tank for Brunner. That means I have no proof whatsoever, but the circumstances might get ones mind wandeirng in that direction. And believe me, I'm not the only person who has thought that or had that impression after how this all played out. You should see the e-mails I get. Or actually, no you shouldn't, since we aren't colleauges or friends, as you have stated.
front page poster cedes editorial control of interview to Lee Fisher, blows up entire blog, guts blog's credibility, and comes back to complain about Brunner bias.
clever.
1) Well-played, Schmennis. I think Lee studied abroad in Persepolis.
2) If one so much as read cnn.com political stories during any national election cycle in the past nine years, there would be no mystery as to who Stu Rothenberg is.
3) Bloggers tend to pretend they are journalists. Some actually are. Others do not try to pretend that they are objective at any point, like modernesquire and Tim Russo. Then there are those who edit content at the request of a candidate for office while deliberately not admitting that they support said candidate. I don't usually give a damn about who is and is not a hack, but that's awfully hackish.
...that Modern and Russo are not objective when it comes to this race. That makes them "in the tank", doesn't it?
And, KJK, what happened three months ago has been admitted. How much of a pennance would you like me to do? Obviously, I'm not going to stop writing about this primary because it's important to me. If you think I'm just going to go away, you're mistaken.
Finally, KJK, I try not to watch or read any of CNN's content. I tend to think they have a conservative bias.
Which of the two, Modern or Tim Russo ever "sold out" their blog for political favor?
Neither of them are what I would classify as "lap dogs" for ANY candidate.
As a matter of fact Tim has been known to "bite" the hand that feeds him (so to speak) so how could he be accused of being "in the tank" for anyone?
And being penitent isn't what anyone expects, support your candidate and be prepared to defend them from any and all criticism. Don't turn over your content because you want an appointment, a paycheck or a ****job from an elected official.
These characters on here are sharp and they will focus in on you like a laser to cut out any of your cancerous, festering, stinky, gangrene "reach around" content.
It doesn't lead one to speculate Nick when the truth is that even you asked me to come back before you had to resign. Unlike you, the door was still open for me to return. That's the difference.
You started this pissing match, kid, and if you want to throw in the towel, go ahead.
But don't ever write a post about me not knowing what I'm talking about until you have you homework done. I don't want to have to spend another week educating your ignorant ass on issue after issue.
You have no emails, Nick, because nobody reads your blog (e-mails from the Fisher campaign don't count, Nick). You're lying. And if you did, you should have the decency to tell them the truth (if you are even capable of that, which I doubt): that you asked me to come back and you and David both said I was welcome to come back if I ever wanted, and I'm back at BSB because I decided to take advantage of that open invitation to salvage this site after YOU wrecked it.
The reason I'm here and you aren't have nothing to do with the primary. It's because 1) I've been here since the beginnings of BSB, 2) I generate traffic, 3) I have credibility and you don't, and 4) even you asked me to reconsider and come back whenever I felt like it. That's why I'm back and you know it.
Nick, it's not name calling when you write on your first post, I'm in the tank for Fisher (i.e. "I'm a hack.")
The high horse doesn't suit you, Nick. And Lee Fisher is going to lose.
Then why do you care what I write there, Modern? This is the same question you asked Russo during the Clinton v. Obama primary when he insisted your opinion "didn't matter."
And, if that's the case that nobody reads my blog, you'd better write the folks that make Google Analytics and tell them their product doesn't work right, because its does show traffic at my blog.
You'd also better write Lisa Renee Ward and tell her that BlogNetNews' influence rankings are messed up, because right now Blue Ohio ranks #17 and has ranked as high as #2.
You'd also better write Technorati, because Blue Ohio has the same Technorati authority as your old blog (modern-esquire.blogspot.com) does.
And again, I ask, if I'm a hack for supporting Fisher, aren't you a hack for supporting Brunner? You also wrote a lengthy post detailing your support for her.
And I do have e-mails Modern. There's lots of Ohio Democrats not happy with Jennifer Brunner at the moment, and I'm getting story ideas. I'll be sure to let you know when I publish them.
"All the Best"
"aren't you a hack for supporting Brunner?"
Modern didn't sell-out his blog content to a political candidate.
His content comes from his brain, not the brain of campaign staff through his keyboard.
You are destroying Lee Fisher's campaign with every post.
If you hoped to get any political favor from the Lee Fisher campaign it has been LOST.
Why? BSB wants it that way, I guess
Schmennis,"sold out" would imply that I received something of value, or the promise of something of value, from the Fisher campaign.
I did not.
Go back and read my apology again. I simply allowed them to have too much control over the circumstances of the interview.
The only thing "simpl[e]" is that you committed ethical misconduct. Someone--perhaps multiple people, I don't specifically recall--invited you to announce up-front that you supported Fisher. You declined. Why? It would have saved you an awful lot of grief in the long-term. One ought to refrain from thinking about things in the short-term, unless it's a matter of physical, mental, or financial survival. I don't believe those circumstances confronted you when you implied impartiality.
I'm still undecided and don't see that changing anytime until at least early next year. But if you are the most vocal Fisher supporter I read, that's going to make the process of elimination simpler. Remember--you and everyone else--that there are several candidates, not just two.
You don't think currying favor with a Lt. Governor/Senatorial candidate who is favored by ODP while you hold a position that relies on ODP for funding isn't selling out?
God, at least when I thought you sold out three months ago, I could understand it, so if it wasn't to curry favor with Fisher's campaign, exactly why you did what you did? Because your answer now is apparently differently than what you said at the time.
Nick, we'd all love to move on from what you did three months ago, but you seem to keep bringing it up. And by the way, you did more than just give them too much control over the circumstances of the interview. You would have edited that interview to suit their wishes, if you knew how. You actually apologized, in writing, to the campaign for one of your questions but said you had to appear credible and objective.
Giving the Fisher campaign veto power over posting the interview was just the tip of the iceberg.
BNN is considered widely as a joke. Nobody knows their methodology and their rankings are highly debated. In fact, the only people who treat Bnn credible is obscure bloggers BNN rates as "influential." I find it funny that you know about BNN but have never heard of Stu Rothenberg?
Wow, Nick, your blog has as much "authority" as a blog that was closed for two years, reopened for two months, and then closed again? That's really... NOT... impressive at all. In fact, it's sad to hear you boast lke this.
And, again, no, I'm not a hack or in the tank for Brunner. Because one, I freely admitted any bias from the get-go. Second, as I apparently have to remind you for a second consecutive week, I was publicly critical of the Brunner campaign on the Apportionment Board issue and said she needed to address it before she could be taken seriously as a candidate. Since we all wrote for the same blog at the time, you really should know that. I am willing to give a critical eye to the race while putting my bias upfront so the reader knows of it at the time.
Nick, nobody believes you. You've been caught lying time and time again even when it was so bloddy apparent to everyone else that you were lying. Nobody believes you're "holding your fire" in criticizing the Brunner campaign.
Frankly, if you don't care enough about these email to write about, then why should I or anyone else? The only reason you're doing is this is to make yourself seem relevant. It's obvious that you're just goading me to help your "impressive" traffic at a site I don't recall a single blog cross-referencing except to ridicule your ignorance.
I wrote a detailed post explaining why Brunner was the more progressive candidate and based on Fisher's weaknesses as a candidate, the stronger candidate to defeat Rob Portman.
You wrote a one sentence post saying that because you were forced out of BSB you're now supporting Fisher. Apples and oranges.
I'm flattered that you want to be the Fisher equivalent of me, but you simply don't have the chops for it, Nick.
All the best.
The only reason you're doing is this is to make yourself seem relevant.
Wrong. The only reason I'm doing this is to stop your ad hominem attacks against me, Modern. I bet you'd object if you someone did the rabid wolf routine on you, too.
Here we go with the "rabid wolf" whine.
Nick, all I did was resign in protest and quietly advised you and David as to what I thought should be done in response to your revealed hackery, a hackery that would not likely have been revealed but for my resignation in protest. That's it.
You can't start a credibility war about this primary, Nick, and expect people NOT to mention what a completely unethical blogger you are. There was a time you claimed you did it out of friendship to a person in a campaign. Now, you admit what I claimed at the time, you did it because you support Fisher. The fact that three months later, you continue to unravel your story keeps it out there.
The reason the commenters here and the rest on the blogsphere came down on you was genuine shock and offense to what you did. I didn't lift a finger to get people to declare what you did was mind-blowing stupid and thus, revealed your lack of credibility as a blogger.
Yet again, we see the shifting rationales of Nick D. A few days ago, you declared it was your intention to "goad" me into anger. Today, you're whining about the wolferine. "Poor Modern is picking on me after I picked a fight with him."
This act of "woe is Nick" is tired. You want to know why people aren't willing to forget about what you did, Nick. One, YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP! And two, you've done absolutely nothing, nothing, to repair your credibility. Instead, you go to your blog and embrace your hackness proudly. You want me to lay off you? Fine, here's what you do: First, stop picking fights with people you aren't prepared to finish. Second, recognize that your credibility is in the toilet and that you're starting out in the hole, not just from scratch and reearn people's trust. Simply put, if you are tired of people calling you an unprinicipled hack, then stop being an unprincipled hack! And then maybe people like me can trust what you write again.
You complain about some "rabid wolf routine" when all that happened was you were forced to go from this blog to your own. That hardly makes you persecuted, Nick. I wish I had your problems, if that's the worst thing that ever happened to you. Quit blaming me for your problems, kid, and own them.
So, Nick, you 'set off' Modern's 'temper for fun' because you knew he would write a 'legal brief length response' reminding everyone here how you sold out BSB and the work of Ohio's political bloggers for the most minor of thanks from the Fisher campaign? Nick, your lapdog routine with the Fisher campaign in that instance reminds me of an old joke: Guy asks a woman if she'd have sex with him for $1,000,000 and the woman says, "Yeah, I'd do you for a million." So the guy says, what about $100? She smacks him and says, "$100? What kind of a woman do you think I am?" He replies, "Well, we've already established what kind of a woman you are; now, we're just haggling over price." Nick, were you the woman then, your response apparently would've been, "$100? Sure - thanks SO much for offering me more than $10." Which is why I find it fascinating that you're talking having 'taunted' Modern into this. You wanted everyone to remember how you have virtually no credibility, no independence and no integrity, but you wanted to see it in the length of a legal brief? Because if I had sold out any sense of integrity for a political handjob (you didn't even get the better options), I might not come on here and taunt people into reminding everyone of that.
As for the Brunner v Fisher debate, I'm pretty sure Jennifer has nothing to apologize or answer for in her declaration of running. She gave the party plenty of time to find a replacement - why should she be expected to take a backseat to Lee's political aspirations? He's an older guy who has lost multiple state-wide offices and despite having been in Ohio politics for decades (apparently almost as long as you've been alive, Nick) still doesn't have a wide base of support and while he has accomplishments, nothing recent of great significance; she's a young, fresh face who transformed the SOS office in a matter of 2 years from one of the greatest jokes to one of the most functioning and fair electoral offices in the country, and has a wide base of support across the state. Besides his 'seniority' and his position as LtG , and the fact he's a white man (which, as Subodh might testify, apparently carries more weight in the ODP than it does in the ORP), tell me what makes him a better candidate than her? Oh, and one of those isn't even a reason.
I actually really like Lee as a person and politician, but most voters like Lee like I like Joe Biden - as the number 2, not the number 1. No one votes for the LtGov because even though they're second in line to the 'throne', everyone assumes the Gov will control for the term. So they make sure the LtG is not a complete idiot, but he's the guy you could've voted for as #1 but never did and never would've, but you're kind of comfortable having them as a back-up in case the real candidate dies in office. If people had wanted Lee as the #1, they wou've voted for him over Bob Taft. I mean, seriously... Taft. I've had belly button lint with more intelligence and personality. But that's who Lee lost to when it came to putting him solely in a top spot.
So, it's not about who he's going to reach. This is about the fact that he's old, he's waited a while and he has more rich people donating to them (and maxing out their contributions early). It's interesting since this was the position of Hillary at the time you started supporting Barack. 'm not going to address the obvious gender issues that may explain your hypocrisy and I'll just assume it instead relates to your lack of credibility or moral compass. Wait maybe it's not moral compass issues but intellectual honesty? Hmm... oh the debate I could have w/ myself over this.
So, Nick, offer up something else if you really believe in Lee. If you're not going to offer substance to this debate, go back to your own blog and let the grown-ups have this discussion (and yes, despite the prostitution joke and the handjob comment, I've still evidenced a great capacity for this discussion than you have... sad for you, really).
you're totally allowed to speak, and you can even speak unintelligently if you want to. I'm just suggesting you (a) pick your topics better and (b) don't bait people into reminding you what you did. You said you intentionally goaded Modern into his response, and what I'm saying is that was stupid because there's nothing you can say to justify what you did and when you throw around stuff that you know is going to re-raise this issue of why you left, you're essentially asking people to remind you of why what you did was unethical and stupid and in doing so they're (1) reminding everyone else who lived it and (2) informing anyone else who didn't know about it but is now plugged in here.
And I hate to tell you this, Nick, but things like this never actually go away. Clearly what you did doesn't reach Marc Dann levels, but you gotta ask yourself: Marc's been paying for his stupidity for a year (during which time he's squandered opportunities to regain respect), do you think it's forgotten yet? While I don't actually think you need to pay any more penance, this isn't going to be forgotten unless and until you rebuild your own credibility by acting like an adult and a journalist/blogger. None of your comments in this thread are going to help you with that. You sound like a petulant child, and not even the most intelligent one of those. Your response to Modern was, "nah nah, I got you to get mad" followed by a "wait, I'm still relevant because all these other technology devices tell me so" and then we have "they didn't give me anything of value in exchange for being unethical, so it shouldn't count" and a "why is everyone still picking on me, it's not fair!" I'm not going to address anymore of these whiny comments other than to say re-read Schmennis' comment above. It doesn't matter if you received something of monetary value, it's clear from your e-mail correspondence with the Fisher campaign that you were trying to get in good. And that's understandable - everyone wants to be liked and everyone wants friends - but it's not ethical. And it's the ethical part that's the most important when you're doing something like blogging. That's what you want in the long-term: to be respected, which only comes if you're being ethical.
Nick, if you want respect after this event, you have to earn it. You don't just get it back because you said you're sorry. You get it back by doing things better than anyone else's standard. You get it back by never repeating that mistake and by not reliving it every chance you get. That's what's so crazy about this whole thing, Nick - you HAD to know what Modern would say and yet you still went to where you can't defend yourself. It was essentially a proclamation of: "hey, here's my past, I might tell you I'm sorry but I'm not ashamed of it." And that's not gonna get you the respect you want.
Growing up, my dad, who works in job that could get him on the front page of the Plain Dealer if he screws up, used to promise us that he'd never do anything that would get him on that front page for anything that wasn't honourable. He never wanted us to be ashamed of the actions he took in his job and as a result he has over 20 years of service and is one of the most respected men in his field nationally. His promise is one that my siblings and I live by with one another as well, and at least 2/3 of us also have this quote from Admiral Stockdale on our bedroom or office walls: ""Do the right thing, even if it means dying like a dog with no one you hold in esteem ever knowing you did it." They're good words to live by, and while my siblings and I inevitably make stupid - STUPID! - mistakes, they tend not to be mistakes of the ethical/legal variety (more of the, I shouldn't have told that guy my real number kind).
Go back to the basics, Nick. Go and be better than anyone could ask you to be in the way in which you conduct yourself and your blog. Don't do it to get better traffic or 'kudos' from Google Analytics - do it because that's the kind of person you should want to be. And when you come here and comment, don't raise the issues of the past, and don't try to pat yourself on the back. Just comment - comment intelligently and honestly on the issue at hand. Don't go after people who post here - don't try to make personal attacks because it's always going to result in re-discussing your past. You have to accept that - it sucks for you, but you have to undersatnd that that's how it's going to be until you have lived long enough in the right kind of way that that event becomes just an outlyer of who you are in the blogging field. If you do that, in 3 months time you won't get the same kind of responses as you got this time. You will have earned a little more respect.
And then, Nick, we'll let you eat at the big people's table and you can have all the opinions you want! (that last part was said with affectionate chiding, not a slam; just so you know the tone.)
What would be the point of Brunner taking heat for announcing very early that she would pursue an opportunity that may appear only once in her (political) lifetime? Why do some people believe she had obligated herself to eight years as SOS rather than the term she ran for and plans to complete? Besides, isn't there an even stronger candidate planning to win the SOS seat for the Dems and hold the seat on the apportionment board? And, now that there's an auditor candidate, the statewide ticket is shaping up very nicely. So, stop all the bickering and get together on supporting the ticket.
~ Public Servant ~
Let's not talk about who has the best shot of winning, but who deserves to win because of their leadership potential and their positions on the important isues. If we continue to frame the debate on who CAN win, I'm afraid we're going to be perpetually stuck with "safe," mediocre candidates. I'm much more interested on who SHOULD win.
I totally disagree because I think this candidate that deserves to win is the candidate that has the best chance to win Jennifer Brunner.
Read any of my posts re: Brunner, I have been extremely critical of her actions as SOS, but for the most part they have been positive but she is the best candidate.
Brunner is both, the best candidate, able to win and deserving of a chance BECAUSE she is a woman.
Against Lee, she would STILL be the best candidate even if she were a man.
I am not excited about politicians playing musical chairs with offices in an attempt to JUST expand the democratic agenda, but Brunner is the best candidate not Lee Fisher.
Lee will be moping floors if he steps down from Lt. Gov. running against Portman. It is a Republican seat, (for now) and people won't vote to change that when democrats are allowing the Ohio economy to tank
....Especially for someone that is an ESTABLISHED LOSER against republicans. (Lee)
Brunner is the best bet!