lmao - great minds think alike...
Jr, if you feel it would be appropriate please move or delete my thread and I'll post it as a comment instead.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 11:05 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 03, 2005 #
That was odd...same subject, within five minutes of each other.
Yes, Dave Schulz is dead-on with his critique. His candidacy has more going for it than most this year. I hope that voters will take a good look at Schulz.
posted by historymike at 11:28 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 03, 2005 #
Well at least we started out with different articles.
lol
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 11:56 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 03, 2005 #
Now if only The Blade would bring up some of Bob McCloskey’s other shady actions, such as his extortion attempt.
posted by mike2004 at 12:13 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 03, 2005 #
Interesting conundrum. I'd like to see Bob off council. The Blade doesn't like Bob's campaign tactics either. I have disliked some of the Blade's past reporting. Bob was the top vote-getter in the September primary with a 22% voter turnout. The citizens who showed up at the polls have spoken. Maybe they're thumbing their noses at the Blade and whoever attacks Bob.
Now I don't know who to root for.
Nothing written or said between now and the November election will get Bob off the ballot. The negative press coverage could only hurt Bob's vote total a little, possibly knocking him out of the top spot, but he'll easilly be one of the top six who make it to council. If he's not the top vote-getter in November, that would hurt his chances for campaiging to be council president.
A couple of items from that Blade op-ed:
"Where are the Republican lawyers in town? Where is the distress over Mr. McCloskey's transparent ploy?"
I'd ask, where are the Democrat lawyers? Since Bob was the top-vote getter in September, obviously some people didn't do enough to get the word out about McCloskey's transparent ploy. But why is this the fault of Republican lawyers? Toledo City Council is comprised of many more Democrats than Republicans. Based upon the math, it seems to me that Bob is more likely taking a council seat away from a new Democrat rather than a Republican.
Let's go to the scoreboard.
Here are the top 12 council candidates from the primary who will be on the November ballot. The top six in November will be on council.
* Bob McCloskey ... 20083 ... 11.43%
* Phil Copeland ... 18454 ... 10.5%
* Betty Shultz ... 17580 ... 10%
* Frank Szollosi ... 16279 ... 9.26%
* George Sarantou ... 15351 ... 8.74%
Mark Sobczak ... 13225 ... 7.53%
Karen Shanahan ... 12660 ... 7.2%
* Karyn M. Hancock ... 12597 ... 7.17%
Bob Vasquez ... 12283 ... 6.99%
Dave Schulz ... 9943 ... 5.66%
Terry Shankland ... 6531 ... 3.72%
Ernie Berry ... 5373 .. 3.06%
* = currently on council
If Bob was out of the mix and assuming the November vote is similar to September's, Republican Dave Schulz is still out of it. Incumbants George Sarantou and Betty Shultz appear safe. So why would Republican lawyers waste time with Bob?
But look at the other Democrats who would have a shot at the sixth spot if Bob was not running:
Karen Shanahan
Karyn M. Hancock
Bob Vasquez
All three are endorsed by Jack Ford's PAC LucasCountyDemocrats.org. They don't endorse McCloskey. So where's the distress from A-team Democrat lawyers? This makes a lot more sense than hearing from Republican lawyers who gain nothing by having Bob off the ballot.
By the way, what Democrat team is Bob McCloskey on? Is he a lone bulldog? Maybe that's why people like him. He's not on any "team."
One more thing from that Blade op-ed that baffles me:
"Mr. McCloskey's little zig-zag around the city charter puts at risk the community's good will and ours ..."
Who is this "ours?" Who or what wrote this op-ed? If you say the "community's good will," wouldn't the "ours" also be a part of the commmunity, which means the word "ours" wouldn't need to have been written? Why the separation between the community and "ours?" Sounds ominous.
posted by jr at 04:48 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 03, 2005 #
Looks like McCloskey should be counted as a "B"-teamer, since he was endorsed last week by the B Team-dominated central committee.
They also endorsed Mark Sobczak (no surprise, he is in tight with the B-Teamers) and Terry Shankland.
Yes, Terry Shankland, formerly the ice cream shop owner, gadfly-turned-caterer, and perennial mayoral and council candidate. Why the hell are the B-Teamers endorsing Shankland?
Note: The Democrats officially decided to endorse only 3 at-large council candidates, despite 6 openings and 8 Democrats running. So, they pick the ethically challenged (McCloskey), union conflicted (Sobczak), and forever novelty (Shankland) candidates.
Yes, what a great lineup the Dems have endorsed (officially).
The local Democratic Party is in complete disarray, and needs to get its collective arses together.
posted by historymike at 05:15 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 03, 2005 #
I find it ironic that McCloskey commented on Dave's supposed lack of ability to be a city councilperson given the Shankland endorsement.
posted by psyche777 at 06:45 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 03, 2005 #
I have some questions. If Bob gets elected for the at large seat, I assume someone will be appointed from this district to fill the rest of his term.. Who will that be? If he doesn't get the at large seat, then he still fulfills the rest of his term. Is this right?
posted by SherryET at 08:49 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 03, 2005 #
I'd say you were right, if he loses then he would still have the remaining time period. If he wins he's going to have to step down from his district seat.
posted by psyche777 at 09:38 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 03, 2005 #
lloyd thinks its improper for mcclosky to put up billboards with public money asking citizens to call their councilman (him) when he isn't even their councilman.
posted by lloyd at 09:50 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 03, 2005 #
lisa agrees with lloyd.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 10:06 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 03, 2005 #
Last I read, he said the owner of the billboards "donated" the space because he wasn't able to rent it out. Has there been anything new on that?
posted by valbee at 10:13 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 03, 2005 #
My information tells me that the billboards are indeed donated space, and that the owner of the billboards says that if a paying customer requests the space that Bob's signs will come down without hesitation.
If you look at it another way - a company looking at billboard space might find all the controversy around Bob's use of them as being a good marketing strategy. If you are already used to looking up at one of them, and then one day Bob's is gone and there is a Ford dealer's sign there, you have just done exactly what the marketingi gurus want you to do.
posted by DoknowDocare at 09:02 P.M. EST on Wed Oct 05, 2005 #
If it's donated space, then McCloskey has to claim it on either his campaign finance report (as an in-kind donation to his campaign) or as a gift on his ethics report to the state (if it's not a campaign item and it's not paid for, then it's a gift worth more than $75).
Remember Taft? Not reporting gifts is a misdemeanor....
posted by intrepid at 06:15 A.M. EST on Thu Oct 06, 2005 #
Folks, there is a lot more here than meets the eye, if there is even an inkling of truth to the rumors circulating.
For starters, a month on a local billboard is worth somewhere between $700 and $1500 apiece, depending on location (plus production costs). We are not talking small change.
Secondly, billboard owners do not make money by giving away ad space. If you have a billboard that is sitting empty even one week, you are losing hundreds of dollars. Do not for one second buy into the "oh-I-just-had-an-empty-billboard-and-I-let-my-friend-use-it" BS.
If the space is empty, then you hustle and sell it. How many radio ads, Blade ads, or TV ads are "free"? Answer: none that I know of. There are trade-offs (merchandise for ad space), public service for non-profits (which are duly claimed by the operator as tax write-offs), and special deals ("hey - got a spot that is not selling - want it for $500 a month?"), but no free ads.
Period.
Someone needs to do this investigation. Ain't gonna to be me (much as I would relish exposing this likely corruption), as I am up to my eyeteeth in other stuff right now.
Why is McCloskey getting free space? What is the quid-pro-quo? Zoning help? Or something more sinister?
The Blade started the work on this story. Who's going to finish it? Them? WSPD? A blogger? One of our TV stations (ahem)?
posted by historymike at 11:41 A.M. EST on Thu Oct 06, 2005 #
Also, there is a cost for the papers that glued onto the billboard...wonder who paid for those???
posted by intrepid at 12:33 P.M. EST on Thu Oct 06, 2005 #
Also, there is a cost for the papers that get glued onto the billboard...wonder who paid for those???
posted by intrepid at 12:33 P.M. EST on Thu Oct 06, 2005 #
Oh, the sun'll come out
Tomorrow
So ya gotta hang on
'Til tomorrow
Come what may
Tomorrow!
Tomorrow!
I love ya Tomorrow!
It's only a day...away!
Gosh, for some reason I just keep thinking of that Annie song. One never knows what tomorrow will bring.
(historymike hopes his bold statement does not go unnoticed, as he thinks something is a-brewing in ole T-Town on this story...)
posted by historymike at 01:07 P.M. EST on Thu Oct 06, 2005 #
Maybe we won't have to wait until tomorrow to learn more about the Toledo Troglodyte's possible quid pro quo deal for the billboards.
WSPD is working hard today.
posted by historymike at 03:36 P.M. EST on Thu Oct 06, 2005 #
Last month, I thought McCloskey said he would claim the billboard donation on some kind of form.
I wish WSPD used a real content management system so their news stories would stay around for more than a couple of days. Permalinks, archives, and search, the three essential food groups for publishing on-line.
posted by jr at 05:44 P.M. EST on Thu Oct 06, 2005 #
Today's Blade article has McCloskey saying he'll report the "gift" of the billboards on his ethics form - which gets filed in April of 2006 for the 2005 calendar year.
GREAT!
Also, he voted with the billboard owners on the issue of moratoriums and took a campaign donation from this particular billboard owner...where's the great expose??? (how do you make an accent mark?)
posted by intrepid at 07:29 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 07, 2005 #
I thought it was going to be bigger...sigh.
Got a few tips that something was afoot on this story, but the Blade piece seemed kind of watered-down. I hope they are still working on it.
Awful lot of smoke for no fire.
As far as é is concerned, you have two choices: cut-and-paste from another document or browser, or set it up on your keyboard (historymike does some academic writing with foreign words, so he has a lot of the most common non-English letters, such as é ñ ó ç á , linked to the function keys)
There may be a way to get these from IE using the View/Encoding function, but I've never used this.
posted by historymike at 08:41 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 07, 2005 #
thanks, historymike!
as for the story...I just don't get the blade sometimes - okay: most times.
This is the same issue as with Taft - getting a gift and all the issues surrounding how an elected official reports such a gift.
In the Taft issue, the articles were aggressive and the editorials followed. In the McCloskey issue, they appear to just be strictly reporting the questions raised by a candidate - Dave Schultz. Personally, I like the straight reporting better, but this is what causes readers to think they're hypocritical - not following the same process with similar stories.
This is clearly questionable in terms of whether or not the billboards are a gift or an in-kind donation to his campaign. Only a complaint with the Elections Commission will be able to settle the matter - which is what Dave Schultz hopes for since he filed the complaint.
Either way they rule on this, I think it's wrong - unless McCloskey got an advisory opinion ahead of time, which I doubt.
I guess I'd rather have a candidate that was clear and up front versus someone who pushes the letter of the law in terms of ambiguities and questionable activity. If this is what he does with his campaign - what does he do as a councilman?
posted by intrepid at 10:14 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 07, 2005 #
As a technical note, you might try the ALT-codes for your Windows keyboard. While you're typing away in the ToledoTalk entry box, hold down one of the ALT keys, and keep it held down while you tap a 3-digit code on the keypad (note : NumLock on, please).
These 3-digit codes correspond to your ASCII characters (defined as 000 to 255), and the ones in the range of 128-255 hold some special accented ones, like:
ALT-161: í
ALT-162: ó
ALT-163: ú
ALT-164: ñ
ALT-165: Ñ
ALT-166: ª
ALT-167: º (as in "Brr! It's 45ºF out there!")
Etc. The ALT-code for properly accenting the word exposé is ALT-130. Put THAT on your résumé!
Sure, it's nerdy, but it's quick and works on any Windows keyboard you're on at the moment (provided you remember).
posted by GuestZero at 12:21 A.M. EST on Sat Oct 08, 2005 #
More on McCloskey on my blog today.
posted by historymike at 01:19 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 08, 2005 #
Thanks, GZ - but you know that when I really need to know this, I'll have forgotten it by then.
résumé - cool - it works!
posted by intrepid at 10:37 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 10, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
