« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »
October 31, 2006
Michael J. Fox for Sherrod Brown
Here's footage from Michael J. Fox's visit to Colubus on behalf of Sherrod Brown:
to read more go here: http://sherrodbrown.com/pages/michael_j_fox
Posted by ear14 at 05:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 29, 2006
Brown's Latest Ad
Heads up! If you watch closely in Sherrod Brown's latest Ad, you'll notice three Case students, showing how Sherrod actually does take us seriously.
Enjoy!
Read about the ad here
Posted by ear14 at 11:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Waning DeWine editorial by Brent Larkin
Here's a pretty good editorial from the Plain Dealer, regarding Mike DeWine's campaign against Sherrod Brown.
The highlight, for me, of this editorial is the following:
Memo to Mike: Sure it's frustrating to run against a candidate who will say virtually anything that might benefit him politically. But members of your party have been doing the same thing for years. Plus, it's pathetic for a sitting U.S. senator to allege that in the 1980s, an employee of Sherrod Brown may have eaten a banana laced with marijuana. If you're going down, go down with some class. Don't go down the Ken Blackwell way.
read the entire editorial at the Plain Dealer
Posted by ear14 at 11:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 18, 2006
Voting in Ohio
Hey guys,
I really hope this isn't a sign of things to come, but it certainly
scares me. Check it out:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/18/85915/109
-Stephen Hill
Posted by ear14 at 02:49 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 08, 2006
Plain Dealer endorses Ted Strickland
The Plain Dealer is starting to announce their endorsements for the November Election. To read the full endorsement read it at the Plain Dealer. It is accurately critical of Strickland, but has scathing criticisms of Blackwell. Here are some highlights from the article:
Blackwell reeks of recklessness. His long record in public office suggests that he would freely engage in the exploration of potentially destructive ideas, even as he uses the governorship to make political mischief and sow social division on a grander scale than ever.
We believe Strickland has a better chance to accomplish good things for Ohio because he and his running mate, Lee Fisher, understand the state's needs better than their Republican opponents. Fisher is an urban Democrat from Greater Cleveland who has long championed the needs of cities and knows the challenges of job creation. Strickland, a product of Appalachia, has lived the struggles of rural Ohio and grasps the troubles of the poor.
The question before Ohioans is, which candidate for governor is best equipped to carry the state forward without dropping it. The only answer, then, is Ted Strickland.
The other two latest endorsements by the Plain Dealer are for issues 4 and 5, both which focus on making Ohio Smoke Free, one would be a constitutional amendment, the other would not be - and therefore be more flexible.
Read about the differenes here
Posted by ear14 at 07:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 01, 2006
Campaign Contributions and State Courts
The New York Times has an extesive article regarding the role of campaign contributions from defendants in cases they were going to overhear.
read the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/us/01judges.html
The article is critical of Terrence O'Donnell (R) who is running for reelection against William O'Neill (D) who's capaign slogan is "No Money from Nobody"
I think my favorite quote from the article is this:
“I never felt so much like a hooker down by the bus station in any race I’ve ever been in as I did in a judicial race,” said Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, a Republican member of the Ohio Supreme Court.
To be fair, most justices from any party generally accepts money from PACs that are allied with groups interested in specific cases. It is interesting to see that O'Donnell rules in favor of contributors 91% of the time, unlike the 70% average of other justices. However, the question, as always, is are the PACs contirbuting to try and sway a judicial vote, or are they contributing to justices who are already favorable to their position?
What do you think?
Posted by ear14 at 06:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack