What's the big deal? I don't see how this is an interesting story except for Ross's whacked thinking. Looks like policial hack Paula Ross is trying to invent a story that doesn't exist.
So this "story" is in the July 27 edition of the Toledo City Paper, eh? Better late than never, I guess. The TCP won't ever have to worry about being labeled a paper covering current events. And it's not even their story. It's a reprint from another paper with nonsense contributed by Ross. Try to keep up, TCP.
First of all, the media and politicians have maintained an incestuous relationship for years.
I stumbled upon Weasel Watch a while back and made mention of it here on July 1. What's interesting in the City Beat/City Paper article is the fact that nowhere is the name Jack "Mr. Hate" Wilson mentioned. Wilson maintains the Weasel Watch webpage or at least he's the main person to contact if you have additional info. So consider the source. Would Wilson ever be accused of being a stand-up guy?
From that City Beat/City Paper story:
"But was Wenzel promoting his future client's candidacy while still working as a reporter for The Blade?"
Oh please, like the op-ed pages and other columnists don't promote candidates? Come on. What in the hell are the paper's political endorsements all about? I never understood why newspapers endorsed candidates. This TCP article looks like a nothing story.
On July 9, intrepid mentioned on this site that Wenzel was working for Schmidt. So I did some simple Google searches and found more info about Wenzel and Schmidt that was reported in newspapers and blogs back in June.
Again, what's the big deal here? Like this crap from Ross:
"The Blade doesn’t mention who the program’s instructors were, but according to a July 6 press release from the Ohio Republican Party, that list includes former Blade political reporter Fritz Wenzel."
So what? Fritz announced back in April he was going to be a political consultant. Fritz quit the Blade in May. Someone let Paula Ross know that it's July, and that on the calendar, July comes after May. As far as I know, it's legal in this country for a person to leave one job and find work in another field.
Look at Ross's mentally disturbing and desparate grasps for anything:
"The Blade investigation of Coingate and of the alleged money laundering by Tom Noe on behalf of the Bush campaign is a big deal. Why was the Blade’s political reporter conspicuously absent from those stories, which were well under way before his departure from the paper?"
"Add to these questions the fact that Wenzel’s twentysomething son Phillip is employed by the Ohio Republican Party and the situation gets odder and odder."
"Are we about to receive a new installment of Noe scandal stories, featuring Fritz Wenzel? I know a lot of Democrats who would line up at midnight for that."
What? It's impossible to understand Ross's irrational thinking here. The left side of Ross's brain, logic, must be burned out. In my opinion, Ross's last two sentences sum up the mentally deficient thinking of some Democrats in Ohio: Anyone who is a Republican must be connected to Noe.
See, people like Ross have no solutions to help Ohioans. People like Ross just sit back and wait for the next scandal, and if it doesn't come up, people like Ross just invent one.
Without definitive proof, only disconnected events assembled by bizarre analysis, I can't believe the TCP printed Ross's accusations that imply Fritz was connected with the Noe scandal. Ross's words: "Noe scandal featuring Fritz Wenzel." Are Ross's statements libel? Can Ross and the TCP be sued for character defamation?
posted by jr at 12:02 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 29, 2005 #
I thought it was an interesting article, I read it last night and almost posted it here but got tied up into playing with css stylesheets till I could no longer see - lol
I think jr, her question about why Fritz wasn't involved in the Noe story is an interesting one. He was one of the leading political writers.
Was it because it was well known he was a Republican supporter they didn't involve him in it? That might be the case.
I wasn't impressed with the whole weasel watch thing, I personally thought it was a bit unprofessional to have linked to a lucas county democratic site. As a stand alone that's one thing, but then again look what happened to the whole Mental Block site,
I can understand the questions as to why a brand new company with no proven track record would be selected to work with the Schmidt campaign. Unless there was a relationship prior to that it does seem a bit strange. If the article is accurate there was a very short time period from the time he left the Blade and then began working for Schmidt.
However, Reporters do have private lives, so if he had a friendship with some of them, given we already know he was a Republican, it's interesting reading but I don't if any "rules" were broken.
posted by psyche777 at 12:21 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 29, 2005 #
I think here's a lot more to the story that was not covered in either piece, and I have a hunch that someone will be breaking it soon.
Not me. This story is definitely a "tread lightly, fear the lawyers" piece. I did some work on this a while ago, and the lawyers of a certain daily paper were on it before anything ever saw the light of day. Good luck to anyone who dares to touch this story; they will need it.
Rumors have been flying around Toledo about this individual for months, and they go a lot deeper than merely a conflict of interest.
I will not rumor-monger here, but suffice to say that there is an awful lot of smoke for there to be no fire.
There is more on this story in freelancer Bill Frogameni's Salon article on Jean Scmidt's campaign:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/26/hackett_schmidt/index.html
posted by historymike at 12:35 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 29, 2005 #
Again, a friendly reminder:
Be careful what you post on this topic, folks, for two reasons:
1. The above individual has a reputation like everyone else, and deserves the benefit of the doubt if this and related stories stay in the rumor stage.
2. You do not want to mess with certain powerful local communications conglomerates unless you are ready for a massive battle. They have deep pockets and lawyers just a-twitchin' to pile on you like a school of hungry piranhas in a crowded swimming hole.
posted by historymike at 01:08 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 29, 2005 #
Okay, so I got curious, because I often get curious and I searched
This was interesting:
http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050709/NEWS01/507090373
Three Cincinnati-area GOP lawmakers were treated last fall to dinner at Nicola's Ristorante in Over-the-Rhine and then luxury seats at the Bengals Monday Night Football game - but they failed to report the gifts.
The $300 seats to the nationally televised game were provided by a California biotech company, Chiron Corp., which was lobbying legislators to create a cystic fibrosis task force.
One month after the outing, legislators passed a bill that did just that.
According to Schmidt's campaign aides, the congressional candidate from Loveland didn't know the luxury seats that she and her daughter sat in during the win over the Denver Broncos were worth more than $75, the limit at which she must report them on financial-disclosure statements. So Schmidt didn't disclose the fact on her final statement filed in April.
"Jean specifically asked if this was a reportable gift,'' said Fritz Wenzel, a Schmidt campaign spokesman. "We immediately corrected it by paying the full price of the tickets.'' The campaign provided a check showing Schmidt repaid Colby $644 for two tickets and a meal; she sent the check in the last few weeks after Colby told her he should have reported the outing.
This proves she needed Fritz earlier, else she might have known luxury seats to an NFL game and dinner was worth more than $75.00
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 03:46 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 29, 2005 #
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/index.jsp>Editor and Publisher is beginning to cover this (you need to be a subscriber to get the whole article, but here is the opening blurb):
Shoptalk: More Dread in Ohio
The Blade of Toledo, Ohio, is on top of the news- paper world, thanks to its "Coingate" reports (see p. 34). But while the paper is rightly thumping its chest with each new revelation, it's also coming under some scrutiny — not for what it has printed, but for what it may not have. Rumors swirl around a veteran Blade scribe, former political reporter Fritz Wenzel. Nothing at all is proven, but it's worth recalling the dangers — even if it's just in public perception — of jumping from political campaigning to political reporting and back again.
posted by historymike at 06:48 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 29, 2005 #
Crap - I screwed up the href - can you fix this, jr?
posted by historymike at 06:49 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 29, 2005 #
After having some conversations with Blade reporters, the reason the political writer (Wenzel) didn't cover the Noe story was because two other reporters were assigned to it. It would not have been appropriate for him to jump into it, when the other two reporters had been doing all the work (read-pulitzer thinking here).
As for Wenzel's work on Schmidt's campaign, he's done this kind of work before he went into reporting, so it's not a stretch for him to leave reporting and return to his first vocation. Lot's of people do that, they just don't make the news when they do.
I did not read Ross's column - I refuse to. She rarely has anything of value to say and just uses her column to promote her warped sense of Democrat Party principles (why do you think there are two democratic parties in Toledo????).
Please note - I understand that she's not a reporter, but a columnist, free to express her opinion and not tied to fair, balanced and objective standards. That does not mean, however, that she isn't subject to libel laws.
However, I believe that there are a lot of people who would love to take down Wenzel for the way he's handled stories, articles and reporting in the past. These people are usually those who got caught doing something they shouldn't have - or who have attributed his reporting of facts for their loses at the ballot box...kind of goes back to jr's comments: "See, people like Ross have no solutions to help Ohioans. People like Ross just sit back and wait for the next scandal, and if it doesn't come up, people like Ross just invent one."
Even now - they're trying to get rid of someone they perceive as a threat, rather than offering solutions to the problems we face right here at home.
I think they're afraid Wenzel's going to sign on to some local races yet this year (after the Aug. 2 special election for Schmidt) or next...and they're worried that if he can pull off a win for Schmidt (coming from 4th place to first in that special primary) on Aug. 2nd, he'll be even more dangerous to their marginal candidates....
posted by intrepid at 08:40 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 30, 2005 #
The only reason why Schmidt won was DeWine spent all that money attacking the other "top" candidate so Schmidt snuck in from fourth place because people were obviously sick of the negativity parade.
She was basically handed a gift thanks to the DeWine bunch. What will happen now? Anybody's guess. Cept it should be a reminder for those here in Toledo, that spending the most money doesn't necessarily guarantee a win if you keep going low.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 10:18 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 30, 2005 #
Actually, psyche777, I followed the race and I disagree with your assessment of why Schmidt won - and why DeWine lost.
Anyone who actually took the time to evaluate the positions of the voters in that district would know that they are more conservative and value-oriented in their decision-making than in most other areas of the state. DeWine, son of the Senator Mike DeWine, sufferend tremendously because of the backlash over his father's decisions and because of leaving his pregnant wife for his new girlfriend. These kinds of things just don't sit well with those voters.
Schmidt, on the other hand, had built a strong base with the right-to-life groups...great networking, connections and grass-roots supporters.
Doing this type of analysis is Wenzel's specialty...I've heard he's acurately picked (not publicly, though) the winners in almost all the Lucas County elections since he got here. So it's no wonder that he signed on to this race and was instrumental in taking advantage of the knowledge of the voter interests.
But I do agree with you on your last point..."that spending the most money doesn't necessarily guarantee a win if you keep going low."
Question - When does pointing out an opponents record cross the line into "negative campaigning?" I always thought that personal attacks were negative campaigning - but anything related to record - even when it's a negative record - didn't qualify as "stooping low."
posted by intrepid at 07:25 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 31, 2005 #
I think all records are fair game. Votes are public information. Personal information is a lot touchier. If a candidate's behavior opposes his/her words I also want to know that. Spouting family values and then leaving a pregnant wife for a girlfriend would be good information. Actions always speak louder than words.
Someone's gay brother or drug-addicted sister or imprisoned child...I don't think so. Those are usually out of one's control. I believe that is negative campaigning.
posted by thinkingwoman at 08:12 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 31, 2005 #
From what I read intrepid, Schmidt was not expected to win, she was in fourth place. Also from what I read DeWine spent a lot of money attacking the other top candidate not Schmidt. Then add to that the whole issue of problems DeWine had imagewise with some who took issue with his father's actions.
There was alot of surprise that she won. So from my limited following of this, that is the impression I had and the one that sticks with me.
As I understood it she was clearly in fourth place in several polls.
From the Enquirer:
His father's connections paid off - the DeWine campaign raised nearly $1 million. In the last week of the campaign, nearly all of it was spent on TV advertisements attacking McEwen.
posted by psyche777 at 12:39 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 31, 2005 #
July 22 Blade article:
"Tom Noe stole millions of dollars from the state and used a “Ponzi” scheme to fabricate profits within the state’s $50 million rare-coin investment, Ohio’s attorney general said."
Tom Noe will or should face criminal charges, and he will or should go to jail.
July 27 TCP Paula Ross crud:
"Are we about to receive a new installment of Noe scandal stories, featuring Fritz Wenzel?"
Looks to me that Ross is insinuating that Wenzel is a criminal, and her only proof that Wenzel is a criminal is the fact that Fritz didn't write about Tom Noe. You think that kind of solid evidence would hold up court?
If Ross has proof that Wenzel is a criminal, she better bring it out. I don't see how this kind of crap opinion gets past the TCP's editors. Ross is hoping that Wenzel is a criminal. Maybe Ross is simply upset over past Wenzel articles that may have criticized Ross or her cronies.
If Wenzel is not a criminal, then I hope the TCP and Ross get their asses sued off. The Toledo City Piss is now the official local leader in irresponsible, checkout-counter, tabloid trash, yellow journalism. It's not even worth free.
Now, if you want to discuss conflicts of interest, what about the Blade? I've heard that local developers have had to go to Pittsburgh to meet with John Robinson Block? Is that true? If so, why? Is it also true that local politicians are sometimes summoned to the Steel City? If so, why? Who is running Toledo?
How about this simple example from last summer where the Blade admitted involvement?
"A Phoenix developer and East Toledo officials met with Mayor Jack Ford yesterday and pitched a plan to build an 8,100-seat east-side arena. "Entertainment builds the rest of the demand," Mr. Monroe said yesterday during a meeting with The Blade editorial board that included Mr. Dutton and Mr. Ujvagi."
So the proposal was pitched in two different meetings. One with the Mayor, and the other with the Blade editorial board. What about the board at Jeep or Dana or the Art Museum? What happens if you turn down a meeting request from the Blade? Do you get hammered in the paper?
If the TCP wants to be the "alternative" paper, print some stories about these special meetings with the Blade in Toledo and Pittsburgh. What is this, Hazard County with Boss Hog in another city? Do local politicians in other cities hold private meetings with their city's newspaper people?
Excerpt from a Toledo Business Journal article from a few years ago:
"There has been a highly significant amount of management time and agency funds expended by the Port as a result of the Blade attacks. The Blade is solely responsible for this waste of precious community resources. The damage continuing to be done to the limited economic development resources in our area is causing long-term harm to our community."
posted by jr at 11:45 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 31, 2005 #
I agree with jr and intrepid about the incestuous relationship that the Blade has with many government officials.
Block Communications wields an incredible amount of power in this region. The unwritten story that begs for greater coverage is the ability of JRB and cronies to control local politicians.
A Blade endorsement is not an electoral guarantee, nor is the lack of one a curse, but it is a hell of a lot easier to get things done with the JRB imprimatur on it.
In close races, you need the Blade to make the difference, and that endorsement comes with an occasionally Faustian pricetag.
posted by historymike at 01:43 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 01, 2005 #
The Blade management doesn't seem to understand it is not admired in this community. (See separate post about raising Sunday price.) While I think they did the right thing insisting Tom Noe was investigated I didn't believe it for the longest time because it was The Blade. Had anyone else run the story I probably would have given it much more consideration early on.
I know Blade endorsements are important to candidates. I hope the advent of more news outlets, websites, blogs, etc. reliance on the importance of those endorsements will weaken. It only takes 100 organized people to change a community and they don't all have to subscribe to The Blade.
Smart candidates will make sure their views are represented in other media besides the Blade and last minute TV commercials.
posted by thinkingwoman at 02:27 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 01, 2005 #
I look at the Blade the way I do other newspapers, all of them have their own editorial bias. Even outside of the US, is it a problem that in this area we only have the one daily paper? Yes, however it doesn't appear anyone can run a competing paper on a daily basis to counter their influence.
If you only get your news from the Blade, chances are you are not a very informed person, the same can be said for relying on any one source. I do think the power of the political endorsement of newspapers is fading though as more people turn to the internet for alternate news sources.
posted by psyche777 at 06:29 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 01, 2005 #
Back to Fritz:
I see that he has pulled his blog.
Unfortunately for Fritz, I know several people who archived the postings, and there is talk around town of setting up a mirror site to keep the information alive.
Is Fritz just trying to keep the media quiet, or is he hiding something that was in his blogged material?
posted by historymike at 09:10 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 01, 2005 #
I wish I would have archived more than what I did, it was unexpected and while I didn't agree with him on all issues? I appreicated the resource information he provided.
posted by psyche777 at 09:48 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 01, 2005 #
psyche - You're absolutely right about Schmidt not being expected to win...most the "analysts" who took a look at the race, in my opinion, didn't really do a good analysis and got surprised by her win. But the trick in any political race is knowing how to take advantage of the various opportunities your opponents put in front of you. That's where Wenzel's expertise came into play.
As for politicians and The Blade...pretty much everyone knows that if you're getting ready to do something major, you have to make a visit to the editorial board. Sometimes it's just the local editors...sometimes JRB would be present. This is just good planning. Say you're thinking about a levy on the ballot...you'd probably make the rounds - chamber of commerce, news outlets (including Blade), key groups - to determine level of support before going forward.
However, there was a great article in the Toledo Business Journal back in 2003 about the publisher's pressure on the County Commissioners to appoint Carty to the Port Authority Board. While I think Carty's been a good member of the Port Board, I remember hearing about the daily and nightly phone calls telling them what to do...
posted by intrepid at 06:25 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
"I see that he has pulled his blog."
That was done at least two weeks ago. In Google's cache is a copy of Fritz's new splash screen about his business, and it's dated July 16. Sometime in the first half of July, he changed his homepage. Fritz quit blogging back in late May.
You can still access some or most of Fritz's blog entries by going to Google and typing the following in the search text field
site:heartlandpolitics.com the
No space after the 'site:'
You can replace the word 'the' with whatever word you want to search his site on.
Fritz's site is not in the Wayback Machine at archive.org. You can use WM to view how sites used to look years ago. You can sometimes even see sites that don't exist today, like another one I used to manage called ToledoArts.com.
posted by jr at 09:11 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
An e-mailer sent me the link to this Aug 1 story at Editor & Publisher.
"Wenzel, a one-time reporter at The Oregonian in Portland, left that paper in the late 1980s to serve several stints in Oregon GOP campaigns -- both paid and unpaid -- before he joined the Blade in 1995. Blade Publisher John R. Block says he liked the fact that Wenzel had worked in the campaign world when he brought him aboard to cover politics in northwest Ohio."
"One of the key contacts Wenzel made along the way in Ohio was the man now at the center of the state’s “Coingate” scandal, Tom Noe."
Yeah, how many contacts do you think a political writer would make over 10 years? More from the story:
"While nothing improper has been proven ..."
"Wenzel's career change also renewed rumors, so far unsubstantiated ..."
"Wenzel, in a statement to E&P, said he "promptly informed Blade editors" in the spring of 2004 after hearing that Noe might have been involved in campaign irregularities, but that he could never prove anything because "no source ever produced any evidence." Dave Murray, the Blade's special projects editor, told me the paper had a reporter check out the rumors, and found that Wenzel knew nothing. Editor Ron Royhab said he did not know "what Fritz may or may not have known," but did not believe he would purposely withhold information."
"Block, the Blade's publisher and editor-in-chief, acknowledges that Wenzel might have known about the investigation, but not Noe's involvement, and in any case, it was a grand jury with no leaks. He contends Wenzel's failure to follow it might have been more laziness than bias. "For whatever reason, Fritz did not call this to our attention," Block told me. "But anyone who says he did it for politics, it's a cheap shot. I don't believe with an agenda in mind he sat on the story. He might have been lazy with the story. But I'm sure any reporter on a beat makes a mistake with a story." The publisher went on to defend Wenzel, saying that he had a lot to juggle. Wenzel was based in Toledo, and the Coingate story eventually emerged out of Columbus."
" "He had to get everything -- the municipal, county, and state and national [stories]," Block said. "It is a rumor beat, and a lot of what passes on the political beat is gossip. They hear a lot of stuff." The publisher agreed, however, that if either the contribution or Coingate scandal had been reported before Election Day, it "might have" cost Bush the election, but added, "I don't believe we were in a position to bring it out before Election Day." (The Blade endorsed John Kerry for president.)"
"Other editors at the paper contend that rumors about Noe's alleged link to illegal campaign contributions were swirling for years, but nailing them down was not possible. "Did he hear things?" Assistant Managing Editor LuAnn Sharp asked, referring to Wenzel. "Yes, but we all heard things. Many reporters had heard about those rumors." "
And finally, this from JRB:
"There was always a concern that Fritz was a Republican."
I wonder if the same concern exists for a reporter that's a Democrat?
posted by jr at 09:46 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
JR, this is way off topic, but I think I quite possibly, at this very moment, love you. :)
Some time ago, I had a website set up on a domain that my hosting company essentially hijacked from me, so I had to relocate to a new domain. In the process of backing up and restoring, a bunch of files were corrupted and I lost a LOT of files that were important for mostly sentimental reasons. Thanks to you posting the archive.org link, I was able to go back and retrieve it all. You have totally made my day!
We now return you to your original topic...
posted by valbee at 10:03 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
An AP writer said the special election for the US House in Ohio's 2nd District is a "bellwether for next year's midterm elections."
It's Hacket (D) vs Schmidt (R). Monitor results here. District two is strong Republican country.
"The winner will replace Republican Rob Portman, who stepped down this year after being named U.S. trade representative by President Bush. Portman held the seat for 12 years, consistently winning with more than 70 percent of the vote. Bush picked up 64 percent of the vote last year in the district."
A Democrat winning there is about as likely as a Republican winning in District 9. Or is it? Okay, it's only early returns, but as of 9:01 p.m.:
175 precincts of 753 reporting
PAUL HACKETT 13,512 51%
JEAN SCHMIDT 12,802 49%
"Hackett, a lawyer and Marine reservist who recently completed a seven-month tour in Iraq, has drawn national attention to the race with his flame-throwing assaults on President Bush."
"Schmidt consistently supported Bush on the war, and says she shares the "moral values" of the district with her opposition to abortion and to gay marriage."
posted by jr at 08:04 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
305 precincts of 753 reporting
PAUL HACKETT 23,957 51%
JEAN SCHMIDT 22,846 49%
One side is worried, the other is giddy.
posted by jr at 08:26 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
Things change fast. I think returns from Schmidt's home county, Clermont, started rolling in.
As of 9:31:
580 precincts of 753 reporting
JEAN SCHMIDT 45,134 52%
PAUL HACKETT 42,342 48%
posted by jr at 08:32 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
Really close now. As of 9:49 p.m.
662 precincts of 753 reporting
JEAN SCHMIDT 49,681 50%
PAUL HACKETT 48,811 50%
Think of the cries of voter fraud and for a recount if it ends up within a couple of points.
posted by jr at 08:53 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
Since the remaining 91 precincts are all from Clermont County, the feeling is that the race is over and Schmidt won.
posted by jr at 08:59 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
Recount talk has already begun.
"Just got a call from Tim--91 precints left. Hackett down 700 votes. Only Clermont left. This is within the automatic recount margin. Gather everything you can about election irregularities."
Oh no, not the 'disenfranchised' word.
posted by jr at 09:24 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
thanks jr for keeping us up to date.
posted by lloyd at 09:35 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
Daily Kos is monitoring this election, sometimes. The site doesn't respond all the time. Too much traffic? The Kos site has started five open threads on OH-02. Hundreds of comments in each. The political junkies on the web are glued to this "little" congressional election. Amazing. For political nerds, Ohio is a pretty good place to be.
posted by jr at 09:39 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
A few recent updates at Swing State Project from someone at Hackett HQ:
UPDATE (Bob) 9:44 Things are turning against Hackett in the numbers, but nobody here seems to care.
UPDATE (Bob) 10:03 Great night to be Howard Dean -- the 50 state strategy is gold: fight in every district, in every state, in every state and things move. People are chanting, LET'S GO PAUL
UPDATE (Bob) 10:35 I'm hearing the "F" word from a whole lot of people. Lots of rumors of potential fraud, lots of sketchy stuff....
Didn't take long to get that voter fraud claim out there. The seemingly long delay in getting the final counts from Clermont County is fueling conspiracy theories.
posted by jr at 09:45 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
It's the humidity. From a comment at MyDD.com:
"It was reported on the news at 10 that Clermont was slow becuase of the extreme humidity causing the ballots to stick. That report was from a Republican at the Schmidt camp."
Clermont hasn't updated their site since 9:30 p.m.
posted by jr at 09:52 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
I guess it was over a few minutes ago.
Schmidt 59,132 (51.74%)
Hackett 55,151 (48.26%)
posted by jr at 09:59 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
Here are the final results:
US HOUSE Ohio 2nd Dist
753 precincts of 753 reporting
JEAN SCHMIDT 57,974 52%
PAUL HACKETT 54,401 48%
Comment at Swing State Project:
"Guys, don't let the hardline conservatives get you down. Tonight is really a victory for Democrats; as others have said, this should have been a landslide for Republicans, which is obviously not the case. Schmidt is damaged goods, quite like DeLay (and to conservatives such as SI, like Frist). This is a bad omen for Republicans in 2006. Democrats are sharpening their strategy, and the Democratic party is becoming alive again. For the past five years, Democrats have been like deer caught in headlights, and now it's the Republicans' turn."
Yes, this margin of loss for Hackett is much smaller than expected, and will no doubt be spun as a huge victory for Democrats. In that AP story, political observers didn't think Hackett would win this election. Democrats just wanted the race to be close. They got that. Now they got hope in Ohio for 2006 and 2008.
"While a Hackett victory still seemed unlikely, political observers said a strong showing by the Democrat would send a powerful message to Republicans gearing up for 2006."
posted by jr at 10:16 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
UNOFFICIAL RESULTS
08-02-05 10:54:01 PM SPECIAL ELECTION
HAMILTON COUNTY, OH
AUGUST 2, 2005
Total Pct
PRC CNT - TOTAL -776- 776 100.00%
Registered Voters - TOTAL 470858
Registered Voters - 2ND CONG DIST 456161
Ballots Cast - TOTAL 119814 25.45%
Ballots Cast - 2ND CONG DIST 114296 25.06%
PRC CNT - 2ND CONG -753- 753 100.00%
PRC CNT - ADAMS CO. -35- 35 100.00%
PRC CNT - BROWN CO. -35- 35 100.00%
PRC CNT - CLERMONT CO. -191- 191 100.00%
PRC CNT - HAMILTON CO. -342- 342 100.00%
PRC CNT - PIKE CO. -24- 24 100.00%
PRC CNT - SCIOTO CO. -70- 70 100.00%
PRC CNT - WARREN CO. -79- 79 100.00%
**************************************************** ***********************************************
** 2ND CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES ** ***********************************************
Total Pct Total Pct
REP TO CONGRESS - 2ND DIST
JAMES J. CONDIT, JR. (WRITE-IN) 10 0.01%
JAMES E. CONSTABLE, JR. (WRITE-IN) 3 0.00%
DEM - PAUL HACKETT 55151 48.25%
REP - JEAN SCHMIDT 59132 51.74%
Voter turnout was expected to be less than 20%, but in fact it was 25%. Still sounds weak but for an August election, a 25% turnout is probably damn good.
posted by jr at 10:24 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
A couple of comments at RedState.org:
1. - "If ever there was a perfect storm it was here and yet [Hackett] didn't win. When is it going to get better? The Ohio GOP has had a rough year but I fail to see how this carries forward. How many open seats with bitter primaries, divided loyalties, and a veteran acting like a moderate as an opponent are they going to get? Personality and passion matter, the GOP didn't have it in this one, but they will in 2006 I bet."
2. - "It'd be nice to have an election go completely smoothly for once, but the borderline psychotic displays we get from dKos and the outer environs of Moonbatia every time a voting machine hiccups are better for the Republican Party than anything campaign cash could buy."
3. - "We do have to remember that anything can happen in special elections. I think there were four major strikes against Schmidt.
1. Special Election with turnout lower than usual.
2. An A-Team opponent from the dems with a veteran from a war currently going on
3. Bob Taft and his crew
4. Schmidt's tax votes.
5. A tough grueling primary with 3 other major candidates in Brinkman, DeWine, and McEwen.
I think partisanship, and maybe NRA/Right to Life saved her."
Looks like five items listed not four, but who said a Republican could count?
And final words from Bob at Swing State Project:
"UPDATE (Bob) 10:46 I'm hearing all kinds of totally sketchy shit -- I need everyone who reads this to start researching, googling, posting....more to come.
UPDATE (Bob) 10:50
CULTURE
OF
CORRUPTION
UPDATE (Bob) 10:56 Damn, if we can do this well here we're going to open up a can of whoop ass in 2006. The backlash is brewing, fight everywhere, everyday. Be proud to be a Democrat. And fight every single day. Good job Paul, you showed the Democratic Party the way!"
I wonder how many Republicans voted for Hackett? Since it was only a four-point victory for Schmidt, wouldn't that mean some Republicans voted for Hackett? The Dems might want to be careful of their fiery rhetoric toward Republicans, otherwise they might offend the ones that crossed over for Hackett.
posted by jr at 10:44 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
The orgasmic gush at Daily Kos:
"New Ohio Democratic superstar Paul Hackett went into the lion's den of pure Red Southern Ohio and scared the pants off of the GOP losing by less than 4 points in the face of a NRCC promise to "bury him." No spin - the GOP is on the run."
"Congratulations to Southern Ohio Democrats, the Lefty blogs, especially Swing State Project, and Dems everywhere. We have delivered a lesson - Fighting Dems will win the day. On to 2006, when we take back the Congress."
How about that. Aug 2 was a victory for both parties. Although, speaking from a sports perspective, winning ugly is always better than losing pretty.
posted by jr at 11:00 P.M. EST on Tue Aug 02, 2005 #
"Mr. Hackett's campaign message was that President Bush has mishandled the Iraq war, but in the final days of the campaign, he focused on Ms. Schmidt's ties to Gov. Bob Taft and the state's expanding rare-coin scandal."
That will be the Democrats' strategy going forward. It has been written by Blade reporters and spoken by Democrat politicians over and over and over that the "scandal" provides a big opening for Democrats in 2006. This Schmidt-Hackett election was a little test to see how this strategy worked. How it worked last night depends upon your viewpoint. The Republican still won but not by the typical huge margin.
This next point was something I wondered about last night when the numbers were close:
"Ms. Schmidt, the first woman elected from southern Ohio's 2nd District."
Being a woman, was that a strike against Schmidt and a reason the election was so close? Maybe a lot of hicks in them dar hills couldn't accept the idea of voting for a woman.
posted by jr at 08:03 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 03, 2005 #
The link to the story referenced above.
More from it:
"Mr. Hackett won mostly rural Adams, Brown, Scioto, and Pike counties."
Hackett is pro-gun. The name Hackett, similar to Crockett as in Davey Crockett. Hackett stomping through the woods, carrying a shotgun, dressed in hunting camo, wearing a furry hat made from a racoon pelt, and chewing on a wad of tobacco. Was that the Hackett image painted in these rural counties? Being pro-gun had to help.
posted by jr at 08:17 A.M. EST on Wed Aug 03, 2005 #
Aug 4 Blade article about the election:
"If Tuesday's narrow GOP victory in a heavily Republican congressional district near Cincinnati is a sign of things to come, Democrats say they have ample reason to be optimistic about their political fortunes in Ohio."
See, the hope. Now, what about some new ideas and solutions to go along with this hope?
"The special election marked the first major face-off between the parties at the ballot box since the scandal that has gripped Ohio's Republican Party and involved several GOP leaders, including Gov. Bob Taft."
What about some real critical analysis? The article doesn't address the facts that Schmidt was not a strong Republican candidate. She shocked everyone by winning the primary earlier in the summer. She's a woman, which seems to be a strike against you in that part of Ohio. It was an August election with 25% voter turnout. She went up against an Iraq war veteran who is pro-gun. In 2006, how many elections in Ohio will have these conditions?
posted by jr at 11:01 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 04, 2005 #
Good points, jr! But you know how parties like to spin things...the Dems will say it's an indication of weakness for the GOP and the GOP will say it proves that their ideas are still better than the Dems...nothing new here.
But the point about Schmidt being a woman is, I think, the most important factor for her low numbers - more so than the low turnout in an August election. I'll be interested to see how her numbers compare to Portman's when she runs for re-election next year.
posted by intrepid at 11:43 A.M. EST on Thu Aug 04, 2005 #
From the Beltway Blogroll:
"Democratic bloggers celebrated Hackett's loss as a big-time win for their party. That's because Portman repeatedly won the heavily GOP district with 70 percent of the vote through seven elections, and President Bush won it with more than 60 percent in 2000 and 2004. Those same bloggers praised themselves and their readers for making the race competitive when, by the numbers, it should have been an easy GOP win."
"The bloggers started talking up the race a few weeks ago and helped Hackett's campaign raise nearly a half-million dollars through the ActBlue fundraising site alone. Blogger Bob Brigham of Swing State Project even trekked to the district in the final days of the campaign to help get out the vote."
More over-the-top analysis and wishful thinking from Michael Barone of U.S.News & World Report:
"His near-victory, Democrats plausibly argue, shows the unpopularity of the war. Hackett ran 12 points ahead of John Kerry's 2004 percentage. If every Democratic candidate in 2006 runs that far ahead of Kerry, Democrats will win a large majority in the House."
Good grief.
Now something from Barone that makes sense:
"Special elections usually run againstdiscontented with their party's leadership for any reason can vote for a Democratic candidate serene in the knowledge that Republicans will still have a majority in the House. Shrewd opposition party candidates will try to aggregate discontented voters and will sometimes win. That seems to be what Paul Hackett did in the 2nd District."
Some voters will protest their political party by not voting for anyone.
"But it is bad news for Republicans nonetheless. The reason is that in the present state of polarization of politics, turnout is the key to winning elections. Turnout in 2004 was up 16 percent over 2000—a historic rise. John Kerry got 16 percent more votes than Al Gore, but George W. Bush got 23 percent more votes in 2004 than he did in 2000. That's why the Republican percentage for president rose from 48 to 51 and the Democratic percentage dropped slightly."
"The results in the Ohio 2nd go the other way. According to the latest results I have before me, 112,375 people voted in the special election. That's just 34 percent of the 331,104 who voted in the district in 2004. Republican Jean Schmidt's vote total was only 27 percent of Bush's. Democrat Paul Hackett's vote total was 46 percent of Kerry's. Democrats did a better job of turning out their vote."
"Republicans, who demonstrated such prowess at turning out their voters in November 2004, did not do nearly as well in motivating their base. Turnout will be much higher in November 2006. But this result will give heart to the www.dailykos.com Democrats who argue that all they need to do is to turn out Bush-haters. And it should give pause to Republicans and raise the question as to whether the Republican base—much larger in this district than the Democratic base—will turn out in record numbers in November 2006 as it did in November 2004."
All "they" need to do is turn out the Bush-haters. Wow, what a strategy. Such a grand vision for helping America.
posted by jr at 11:57 A.M. EST on Fri Aug 05, 2005 #
I received a Dear-John e-mail from Paul Hackett via the DFA mailing list. The e-mail's subject is: "A Victory for Democracy." I guess Paul never played sports. The message:
----
Dear John
Yesterday, one of the reddest regions in America turned a whole lot bluer.
I ran in a special election to serve in the United States House of Representatives from the 2nd District of Ohio. I am a Marine recently returned from Iraq, a husband, a father, an attorney, and a Democrat.
When I won the Democratic primary for this contest, few people believed we had a shot at victory. But DFA put its faith in me -- and went to work organizing on the ground and online. Your support helped build the greatest Democratic get-out-the-vote effort this district has ever known.
While we didn't pull out a victory yesterday -- we came incredibly close. We got 48 percent of the vote. And in those results rests hope for the future.
It had been 15 years since a Democratic candidate for Congress received more than 30 percent of the vote in Ohio's 2nd District and decades since a Democrat held the seat. Your support helped me improve Democratic performance by nearly 20 percent. This is a victory for democracy. And if we can do this in Ohio -- we can do it anywhere.
Join me, and help DFA elect Democrats in Ohio and across the country:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/bat
We have the power to win back Congress. Yesterday proved it. And DFA is on the front lines of the fight -- determined, hopeful and fearless.
I believe we can change this country. I believe we can win in every state -- and I know that you do too. Please join me today:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/bat
Thank you,
Paul Hackett
----
You're welcome, although I have no idea what support I gave.
posted by jr at 06:58 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 05, 2005 #
And, yet another politician is born.
Oh joy...
posted by Hooda_Thunkit at 08:13 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 05, 2005 #
Bold off..
posted by Hooda_Thunkit at 08:56 P.M. EST on Fri Aug 05, 2005 #
The August 1 issue of In These Times contains an interesting analysis of how the new Democrat governor of Montana won election last November in a mostly Republican state.
"Last November 2, something funny was happening in Montana. The state that went for Bush by 20 percent handed a solid victory to a new Democratic governor, 49-year-old rancher Brian Schweitzer."
"Since then, Democrats across the country have turned to Montana for answers and hope. Some critics denigrate Schweitzer’s victory, claiming that a red-state Democrat must simply be a Republican lite. But that analysis falls flat: Schweitzer is a strong proponent of choice, as well as an advocate for the environment and for middle-class Montanans."
"A decade ago, the Montana Democratic Party began a period of rebuilding. The Republican Party held the governor’s office and controlled both chambers of the legislature by overwhelming majorities. The Democrats committed themselves to the basics. They engaged in a strategic planning process that defined clear, attainable goals. They focused on recruiting candidates who would work hard and win. And they trained candidates and volunteers in the organizing model of grassroots advocacy groups. Democrats soon started making gains in legislative races."
"When a reporter from an independent weekly newspaper visited his ranch to write a profile, Schweitzer took him shooting."
Mmmm, another pro-gun guy, eh? Maybe that's the ticket. Maybe the right to own a gun is a more important issue than abortion rights.
Didn't Bill Clinton say that one main reason why Gore lost in 2000 was because Gore spent too much time talking about gun control? Remember Kerry's phony hunting trip in northeast Ohio? Kerry tried to pawn himself off as pro-hunting and/or pro-gun, but people saw right through that stunt. Hackett and this Montana governor are obviously real pro-gun advocates.
More from this article:
"the Democrats decided to make sure that their Montana candidates did not fall prey to national Democratic stereotypes. They sought out key constituencies by starting agriculture, small business and sportsman roundtables."
Like Ted Nugent said, the real environmentalists are the people who hunt, trap, and fish.
"[Schweitzer] drove across the state, meeting people in rural areas and asking what they needed from government. Those discussions resulted in an agenda that included healthcare reform, economic development and a new approach to higher education with an increased emphasis on community colleges and technical schools."
Rural areas. Well it's Montana, so it's mostly rural. But in the last two presidential elections, the urban centers went to Gore and Kerry, and the rural areas went to Bush. Hackett mostly won the rural areas.
"Ultimately, Schweitzer’s real choice for lieutenant governor made waves. When he tapped State Senator John Bohlinger, a Republican."
Well, now. A pro-gun Democrat chooses a Republican for lt gov.
"Ultimately, the hard work paid off. Schweitzer was elected as the first Democratic governor in 16 years. His approval rating is slowly marching upward, approaching 60 percent."
"Observers sometimes summarize the lessons learned as follows: Work hard for 10 years building a party; start the campaign early; find an outstanding, hard-working, telegenic, charismatic candidate; fundraise like mad; craft a great message; hammer the message; and pray."
"Schweitzer didn’t write off the rural areas of Montana that have recently become Republican strongholds. He campaigned statewide, winning two counties typically lost by Democrats and narrowing the margin in dozens of others."
Since Democrats own the urban centers, why waste time campaigning in the cities? Hackett is pro-abortion rights while Schmidt is anti-abortion rights, yet Hackett did well in the rural areas. Maybe someone should look into what's more important in the rural areas: abortion rights or gun rights. I'm guessing the latter.
If a Democrat is not big fan of guns, fine. Don't let anyone know that. Don't pretend to be a hunter. That's worse. Don't ram anti-hunting and anti-gun rhetoric down our throats. First of all, my definition of "gun control" is taking a gun safety class to learn how to handle a gun properly. So instead of "gun control" laws, I'll say anti-gun rights.
So maybe Hackett is the prototype Democrat candidate, but how many other Dems are like Hackett?
My Democrat campaign strategy for Ohio in 2006: Stay out of the cities, and hit the rural areas hard, packing a firearm.
posted by jr at 12:39 A.M. EST on Tue Aug 09, 2005 #
A message board posting back in June to "Springer on the Radio."
"Some liberals have guns. There, I said it. In fact, let's do it this way. Hi, I'm Jene Galvin, and I own a gun. You see, stereotypes don't really work. Some conservatives spend a lifetime serving the poor. And some liberals blast fire out of the end of a barrel on Sunday at the skeet range."
"In fact, Marine Corps Major Paul Hackett, a candidate for Congress in next Tuesday's special election in Ohio's 2nd District owns a pile of guns. He holds an Ohio concealed carry permit. He shoots regularly at a range. He's opposed to the war in Iraq, yet he just returned from a 7-month tour that included running convoys through free-fire zones. He rides a Harley. And he's a Democrat, as much as Dennis Kucinich or Harry Reid."
posted by jr at 12:00 P.M. EST on Mon Aug 15, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
