"So Lousy" (i.e. Szollosi) is a shameless opportunist, a slimy politician, and an anti-smoking Fascist besides.
He also backs Ford 100% ... 110% in some cases.
Who the hell finds these qualities desirable?
His unqualified backing of Ford ALONE demonstrates that responsible citizens should shun him.
His (mis-)management of his own blog is a stereotypical elitist effort that he obviously brings to the council table. If there's anyone who will invoke secrecy or remove citizens from public debates, it will be HIM.
Just say NO to Szollosi. Note also that he's eyeballing a state office anyway, so I say pop the b*stard back into the mass of citizens so he can pursue his slimy-politician dreams on his own time and own dime.
posted by GuestZero at 11:38 P.M. EST on Thu Oct 27, 2005 #
I disagree, Frank is one of the two I would vote for because he does actually do the job he was elected for. He may be eyeing future advancement politically but he does serve Toledo. He is loyal to Jack Ford, at times at an extreme, however that does demonstrate he is not the totally political animal else he would not go as far as he has in support of Jack Ford. While that may very well cause him problems in the future if he were truly only about himself he would not be so quick to put himself out there.
I've had disagreements with him, one recently made me re-evaluate how I felt about him as far as my support. However? I have no qualms in stating how I feel. Frank has a proven record of meeting the needs of his constiuents and putting alot more time in on this "part time" job than most of them do. I believe he can and will continue to contribute to the city. Will he indeed try to move on? Probably, but no matter if it is his desire to perform well at the job at hand or because he wants to be able to move forward? Toledo is better because of it in the end. If you want to say NO to someone? There are quite a few others who really do not deserve to be re-elected. While I've been told repeatedly that no new faces will make it to City Council? I still hope those of you that can vote will want new people. Given the choices of those currently in office? My list of who are my ideals still stands. There are not six new names to chose from, I picked four that are new. I hope they all make it but realize if history repeats perhaps one will. If that is the case I hope that one is Dave Schulz....
My two cents again.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 12:33 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
psyche777, in your top 6 list, I voted for two of them in the primary, and I will vote for them again in November. EB is the other. I only voted for three Council candidates in September. I couldn't find three more worthy of the time it took to pencil in an oval.
In the mayoral primary, I wrote in my friend's name. Thinking back now on the September election, it was a good thing the polling location was only a few blocks from the house, otherwise it wouldn't have been worth going. Obviously, the November election is a bit more interesting. Still, I predict a voter turnout of only 41%.
posted by jr at 12:55 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
As usual, I side with GZ. So-Lousy is one of the BIGGEST slimeball ELITISTS we've got on CC at this time. (Plus he's the third ugliest to ever sit on council).
posted by Foolkiller at 05:19 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
psyche - what votes/initiatives/positions has Frank taken that you believe demonstrate a "proven track record of meeting the needs of his constituents?"
As for his time on the job, I'm a bit jaded because all he does is political consulting for political candidates...I'm not aware of a full-time job he's had NOT connected with politics. Did I miss something?
I also like Ernie Berry and will be supporting him as I believe he'll do a very good job and will be a new perspective on council.
posted by intrepid at 07:43 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
Intrepid, I've seen how he does respond to requests for action and actually follows up on them. I also believe he will continue to focus on technology. I've never discussed with him what he does outside of his counsel positions except to know he has been very active as a volunteer for some issues. His bio on the "other" democratic site lists the campaigns he's consulted on. His interest as an activist on issues is important because this demonstrates he doesn't only get involved when paid to do so.
I feel his energy and focus on the future makes him one of the incumbents I would support versus the others. After reading today's blade article?
It appears the only one who stands a chance if this poll holds true is Dave Schulz...
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051031/NEWS09/510310368
posted by psyche777 at 09:57 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 31, 2005 #
More on the latest antics of Toledo's Sultan of Sleaze (aka Bob McCloskey) on my blog.
posted by historymike at 09:24 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 31, 2005 #
Nice job, historymike. I heard McCloskey's slam against homosexuals Monday morning, but I forgot to mention it here.
Dave Schulz sent Bob Frantz and probably other media outlets a press release, criticizing McCloskey on the billboard and "re-elect" issues. While Dave talked on-air with Frantz, McCloskey called in, but he wouldn't go on the air with Dave.
So after Dave hung up, Frantz talked with McCloskey. historymike's blog mentions what was discussed, including this:
"Interestingly, McCloskey took opponent Dave Schulz to task for being gay, and called a Schulz campaign ad "deceptive" because it featured Dave with Susan Meeks and her infant daughter. This accusation was especially odd considering that the photo is accompanied with text that clearly notes the presence of Meeks. Maybe the barely-literate McCloskey was duped, but anyone with the ability to read at a 4th-grade level should have been able to understand that the ad notes the moment when Meeks witnessed Schulz signing his pledge on term limits."
"McCloskey's anti-gay rant is puzzling; was he simply taking a cheap shot at his opponent for political points, or does this represent some latent homophobia in Bob?"
McCloskey said he saw Dave's ad that showed Dave with an adult woman and a little girl. On the radio, McCloskey said something like the ad appeard to him to depict a wholesome family. Then McCloskey said he found out later that Dave was gay, and that means, according to McCloskey, Dave's ad is deceptive.
I was stunned and dumbfounded when I heard McCloskey say that. But then after I realized it was McCloskey, I was no longer surprised. I couldn't make any logical connection with what McCloskey said about Dave being gay and appearing in a campaign ad. I inferred that McCloskey believes homosexuals cannot be a part of a wholesome family.
When I heard Bob "The Fraud" speaking on Frantz's show Monday morning, nothing McCloskey said upset me because it was just standard political BS, until McCloskey made that crack about Dave being gay. And I don't think Bob Frantz responded to McCloskey's homosexual attack. I can't remember. Maybe Frantz missed it. It was blatant. As if being a gay guy and having a picture taken with a woman is a problem in McCloskey's world.
Of all the people complaining about someone else being deceptive, McCloskey has no room to talk.
I wonder if WSPD has the interview on tape? If so, maybe Bob Frantz will play it again or make it available on his website. Maybe I misheard McCloskey and I'm "reading too much" into it as I am prone to do. To me, it was bad, and McCloskey should be challenged on what he said.
posted by jr at 10:42 P.M. EST on Mon Oct 31, 2005 #
Who on Toledo City Council voted FOR the First Energy plan? Is the Council voting record public info?
posted by jr at 05:00 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 02, 2005 #
Blade endorsements for Toledo City Council:
"We suggest, with all due respect, that two of them should not even be in the race. Democratic Councilman Bob McCloskey. Councilman Betty Shultz, once a Democrat and now an unendorsed Republican."
Well, that much I agree with the Blade on.
The Blade said:
"We cannot in good conscience suggest to the citizens of Toledo that Mr. McCloskey and Ms. Shultz’s end-run around the city charter doesn’t matter, or that the latter’s testimony before the federal grand jury in the Tom Noe case is somehow unimportant."
The city charter? It's already being violated by Toledo government, so who cares about that? Tom Noe, good grief.
From the poll over the weekend:
"Incumbent at-large Councilmen Betty Shultz and Phil Copeland topped the results of the Blade/WTVG-TV, Channel 13, poll conducted by Zogby International. The council leaders were closely followed by Bob McCloskey."
The Blade wants:
"We recommend these six candidates for at-large seats: incumbents Frank Szollosi, Phil Copeland, and George Sarantou, and challengers Mark Sobczak, Karen Shanahan, and Bob Vasquez."
The ones bolded are part of LucasCountyDemocrats.org.
posted by jr at 05:18 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 02, 2005 #
I guess the good news is they didn't endorse McCloskey, Shultz or McConnell-Hancock...However I would have picked Dave Schulz over Phil Copeland, but? Other than that? I agree with the rest of what was stated.
posted by psyche777 at 05:30 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 02, 2005 #
WSPD didn't have it on tape last I checked, Bob Frantz said he was going to have Dave on the show, I listened today but did not hear him on so maybe tomorrow.
I agree with you that it was very low to attempt to use anyone's sexual preference in the first place let alone make the ethics claim when it's clear who Dave was pictured with.
posted by psyche777 at 05:32 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 02, 2005 #
4 of those voting for First Energy along with Ford: Wilma Brown, Phil Copeland, Louis Escobar, Karen McConnell-Hancock, didn't get the other two names....
posted by intrepid at 11:35 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 03, 2005 #
I think Ludeman voted FOR First Energy.
McCloskey didn't.
posted by jr at 01:29 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 03, 2005 #
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Jim Ruvolo (political consultant to Jack Ford) a paid lobbyist for First Energy? Maybe he was before but not now. I'm not sure.
I looked over here and found information in the section entitled Public Information, Agents and Employer Lists. I found the information on page 78 of the "LISTED BY AGENT" pdf pages and on page 33 of "LISTED BY EMPLOYER" pdf pages.
posted by RolandHansen at 07:22 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 03, 2005 #
I had heard that as well Roland, but that is a food find as far as documentation.
posted by psyche777 at 11:14 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 03, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
